£ 2.50Issue 288 June 2003

In this issue� Can we beat the BNP - Joan Greene

� Lib Dems in a Foreign Field - Simon Titley

� A solution for asylum? - Ellie Clarke

� Zero Growth, Zero Pensions? - WilliamTranby

Blair reveals Weapon Sites

2

Issue 288 June 2003

Subscribe!Subscribe!Only £20 per yearSend a cheque payable toLiberator PublicationsFlat 124 Alexandra GroveLondon N4 2LF

THE LIBERATORCOLLECTIVERalph Bancroft, Jonathan Calder,Howard Cohen, Gareth Epps,Gina Ford, Catherine Furlong,Sally Hannon, Peter Johnson,Tim McNally,Stewart Rayment.Kiron Reid, Asher Richards,Ian Ridley, Harriet Smith,Mark Smulian, Harriet Steele,Simon Titley, William Tranby,Alex Wilcock, Nick Winch

Liberator is printed byLithosphere90 Queensland Road, N7 7AS

LIBERATOR

• was founded in 1970 and is producedby a voluntary editorial collective

• acts as a forum for debate amongradical liberals in all parties and none

• welcomes written contributions onrelevant topics, up to 1500 words.

We reserve the right to shorten, alter oromit any material.

DATA PROTECTIONLiberator is registered under the DataProtection Act (1984) and subscribes tothe data protection principles therein.

YOUR CONTRIBUTIONSON DISK OR EMAILWe accept your Liberator contributionson PC floppy disk or by email tocollective@liberator.org.uk over the

Internet. We prefer Email or MS-DOS

format floppy disks.

Please send your file in Microsoft Word,WordPerfect, or ASCII text format.

INTERNETEmail: collective@liberator.org.uk

Website: http://www.liberator.org.uk

CONTENTS

Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

�Radical Bulletin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4..5

FIGHTING BACK IN BURNLEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6..7

Joan Greene explains why the BNP can only be fought by

going back to the foundations of community politics

LIB DEMS IN A FOREIGN FIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8..10

The Liberal Democrats’ new foreign policy failed its first

serious test during the Iraq war and needs a complete

rethink, argues Simon Titley

MY GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The student politicians of 25 years ago are now in power,

but have they made anything better, asks Paul Nettleton

TRAVELLING IN HOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12..13

A new report on migration from the Demos think tank says

Europe should be more capable and confident about handling

the challenges presented by growing mobility. Ellie Clarke

wonders if it charts a way of getting there

ASYLUM MYTHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14..15

Siamak Goudarzi says that the public would be sympathetic

towards asylum seekers without the barrage of negative media

coverage

WHEN WE HAVE ENOUGH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16..17

William Tranby reconsiders the arguments for a zero

growth economy and the impact this might have on the

pensions for the next generation

GLADSTONE’S 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Iain Sharpe looks at a new collection of essays to

ark the centenary of the death of Gladstone

CITIZEN KANE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

A Trotskyist’s success in Scotland leads Bernard Salmon to

wonder whether the Liberal Democrats are diverse enough

Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21..23

Lord Bonkers’ Diary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3

WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS?For nearly 10 years it has been a constant of Britishpolitics that there is no exaggeration, distortion orinvention so brazen that Tony Blair will not utter itwith, as the occasion demands, a straight face or asmarmy grin.

From the routine massaging of statistics through thebroken promises on electoral reform to the vilificationof councils for Labour’s incompetence on educationspending, this is a government whose instinct is to bendthe facts for the sake of a good headline.

Most serious of all is the unfolding exposure, asLiberator went to press, of Blair’s deceit over the Iraqwar.

The ‘dodgy’ dossier was rapidly exposed as a mixtureof plagiarism, speculation and fabrication. It nowappears that last September’s claim that SaddamHussein could target weapons of mass destruction onthe UK within 45 minutes came from the same NewLabour tradition of finding a grain of truth and thenmanipulating it into a bogus edifice to serve its ownpurposes.

This is not, as some would no doubt hope, ancienthistory. Thousands of Iraqis were killed, and someBritish soldiers killed or exposed to heavens knowswhat long term radiation hazards, to satisfy Blair’s folly.

Remember, the claim was not that Saddam happenedto have a few weapons of mass destruction, but hadbuilt up such a formidable arsenal that war in Marchwas inescapable and Hans Blix’s inspection teams couldbe allowed no more time. This was the sole legaljustification for a war unsanctioned by the UN.

No weapons of mass destruction were unleashed byIraq during the war, and none have been found since.Even the Bush administration has suggested that itknew this and used the issue as an excuse for a war itwas determined to fight.

Remember Blair’s other pledges. One was that theUN would have the key role in rebuilding Iraq. This hasturned out to be such a lie that Clare Short was finallyforced into a fight with her conscience that the latterwon.

He also pledged that Iraqi oil would be put into atrust for the country’s reconstruction. So far, theproceeds available have been earmarked for trouseringby firms linked to the American Republicans.

The UK was dragged into a war of highly dubiouslegality to disarm a regime of weapons that now appearnot to exist. Meanwhile the UN has been discredited,and NATO split and the EU weakened.

Iraqis are thankful that Saddam has gone but areunlikely to be pleased that only anarchy has replaced

him as Bush and Blair neglected to think through theconsequences of their actions.

The possibility that Labour deceived the country intofighting an unlawful war is about the most serious therecould be.

But with this government’s record, one has to assumeguilt in the absence of proof of innocence.

FIGHTING BACKThe first volume of Paddy Ashdown’s diaries now

seems to describe a vanished world, but one passagerepays study.

He recounts Robin Cook saying: “A number of us onthe moderate left of the party are becoming increasinglyconcerned that we are abandoning the underclass andour historic mission to work for the poor.”

Ashdown warned that were Labour to do that, theexcluded would turn to the extreme right.

Both Ashdown and Cook have been proved right tothe extent that the BNP has 13 councillors, which is 13too many but to put it in perspective is less than eitherthe Liberal Party or the Greens.

Since Labour has abandoned the underclass, and hardright-wing voters see the Tories as ineffective, it wasperhaps to be expected that the far right would profit.

In 1978 Margaret Thatcher’s ‘swamping’ speechdrained the electoral poison from the National Frontinto the more politically effective and socially acceptableTories, where it was diluted and after which the NFvanished.

That outlet is unlikely to be there this time, so the taskof tackling the BNP where it exists falls to the LiberalDemocrats. Unpalatable as it may be, while all hardenedracists may vote BNP, not all BNP voters are hardenedracists. Those that vote BNP because they loathe ethnicminorities are and should be beyond the LiberalDemocrats’ reach.

But there are those that vote BNP as an unfocussedprotest, as a ‘plague on all your houses’ or because ‘itstime for a change’. Do these reasons for casting a votesound familiar?

This does not mean the Liberal Democrats shouldchase racist votes. It does mean recognising the despairin blighted urban areas and making it clear that thecauses of this spring not from the presence of ethnicminorities, but from neglect by mainstream politicianswho have taken their inhabitants for granted andignored their needs.

Liberal Democrats who have started the fight backagainst the BNP in northern cities are to be warmlycommended, and it is important that what they havelearned is made available to activists elsewhere who facethis new threat.

4

�SOUND OF SILENCEAs sunny May turns to flaming June, gentle breezeswaft across the fields, birds twitter in hedgerows, thedrowsy quiet of summer starts to cover the land, andnowhere more so than in the Liberal Democrats.

It is unusual to say the least for Liberator to ask sixMPs “what’s going on at the moment” and receiveeither the reply “nothing”, or else “nothing, in fact solittle even Kennedy’s worried about it”.

The party’s strategy appears to have become to letsleeping dogs lie. Behind this seems to be the logicthat the local government election results were good,the poll ratings are consistently respectable for amid-term, so why say or do anything that might annoyanyone when everything appears to be goingsatisfactorily?

Coast through the fag end of this parliamentaryterm, shut down for August, hold a conference wherenothing much is likely to frighten the horses and hopethat the public’s benign attitude towards the party andlack of trust or affection for its rivals somehow carriesthrough to the general election.

Oh, and if a Labour or Tory MP obliges and slipsfrom this mortal coil in a promising seat, so much thebetter.

This strategy, if it can be called such, can be claimedto work to the extent that the local elections weregood and the poll ratings are satisfactory, but there islittle to keep the party in the public eye and even lessto actively attract support.

The problem with this is that it depends on theGovernment continuing to fail and lose trust and onthe Tories continuing to be useless and irrelevant. Ifeither were to mend their ways, the Liberal Democratswould be in some difficulty.

Take as an example tuition fees. This ought to be aLiberal Democrat issue if ever there was one, with theparty having campaigned against them and actuallysecured their removal in Scotland.

Yet the Tories were able to take it over with barely amurmur of protest from the Liberal Democrats, eventhough the Tory scheme involves a drastic cut instudent numbers.

Or take ‘entitlement cards’ – Labour’s latest move inits project of turning the UK into a police state. Thewhole assault on civil liberty in progress from thegovernment ought to be an open goal for the LiberalDemocrats to put themselves on the side of thepublic’s liberty.

The idea of everyone being fingerprinted andphotographed, put on giant database and charged £25for the privilege ought to an easy one with which to

stir public outrage, even among the ‘if you’ve donewrong you’ve nothing to fear’ brigade.

Yet the Liberal Democrats made little impact onthis, certainly less than did Norman Baker’s crusadecampaign against four-wheel drive vehicles.

The problem is not just the ancient complaint aboutbias in the media or ineffectiveness on the part of theparty’s media operations – it is that the LiberalDemocrats have failed to be identified with anyparticular approach to issues and failed to tell any sortof story to the public about the sort of society theywish to create.

That is what has to be done by any party seekingpositive support. At the moment, as so often at midterms, the party is doing quite well out of negativefeelings towards the other two parties and seems tosee no reason to do anything in particular. This mightwork long term, but it probably won’t.

This shows in the party’s on/off stance on the Iraqwar. This may have been electorally astute in the shortterm – speak for the anti-war movement, then shut thewhole thing down by backing ‘our boys’ in the run-upto the local elections, then reawaken the issue withthe row about weapons of mass destruction – but itwas hardly a model of consistency. Nor did it seem tobe driven by a coherent view of Britain’s place in theworld, even though the party did manage to end upfor most of time with both its heart and head inroughly the right place.

One small sign that things are starting to move wasthe flurry of press comment in late May that CharlesKennedy had ordered shadow cabinet members tocome up with more concise and appealing ways ofexplaining party policy.

In particular, he was said to be concerned about thedecentralisation policy that is to be the cornerstone ofpublic services provision, as agreed at Brighton lastSeptember amid a surprising degree of consensus.

Since the media is rarely preoccupied with theclarity of the Liberal Democrats’ detailed policy, itseems safe to assume that this story was planted fromwithin the party rather than written on anycorrespondent’s own initiative.

Often, a good way to judge from where a story hasemanated is to look at who is quoted in it (except ofcourse in RB). Step forward Vincent Cable and DavidLaws, the same dynamic duo quoted in stories lastyear which claimed that health spokesman Evan Harrissupported a ‘Stalinist’ approach to the NHS (Liberator280).

When the public services policy paper was beingdrawn up, these two were among supporters of amore market-based approach to health provision,

something Harris gleefully told a Brighton fringemeeting had been seen off: “There were heateddiscussions in the working group. The people who feltwe should be more gung-ho about patient choice,rather than equity, may be less than happy with theoutcome."

It would be entirely to the good if what is beinglaunched is merely an attempt to set out complexpolicies in clear terms.

But The Times’ version of the story quoted from aspeech in favour of greater economic liberalism and useof the private sector in public services that Laws hadgiven to an obscure fringe meeting eight months earlier– a document hardly likely to be instantly at hand in anynewsroom. There must be suspicions that ‘simplifying’in fact means ‘trying to rewrite’.

There is indeed a need to communicate policy in asimpler ways, since an inevitable effect of havingdetailed policy papers written by self-selecting experts isthat hardly anyone else can understand the results evenif they are inclined to plough through them.

But communicating a clearer message ought to bedifferent from changing the message itself, though somemight think it a step forward if the Liberal Democratswere communicating any message beyond a generalamiability.

MOTHS TO THE FLAMEThe number of MPs standing down at the next generalelection continues to grow, as does speculation abouttheir likely successors.

Top of the list is Richmond, where Jenny Tonge’sannouncement of her retirement was followed withinhours by a statement from former London mayoralcandidate and local resident Susan Kramer of herinterest in the seat.

Down at Eastleigh, David Chidgey is also retiring andthere the smart money has been on MEP Chris Huhne,who although he is seeking re-election to the Europeanparliament could of course step aside if elected makingway for whoever is next on the list.

Richard Allan’s surprise announcement of hisretirement, at the age of 37, clears Sheffield Hallam for anew candidate. Here, the name of Nick Clegg, theretiring East Midlands MEP has been mentioned.

Clegg wrote a piece in the Guardian last winter abouthow he had come to realise that it was only possible tomake an impact on British politics from Westminster.

If that piece had been headed ‘gizza seat’ its intentcould not have been much clearer. Clegg has beentalked of, not entirely fancifully, as a future leader, butthere is the small matter of getting into parliament first.

Down in North Cornwall a battle royal is in progressbetween Judith Jolley, a former agent backed by retiringMP Paul Tyler, and the former MEP Robin Teverson.

Lastly, for now, is West Devon and Torridge, whereJohn Burnett is standing down.

STARTING EARLYHighly placed sources in the party claim that associatesof Lembit Opik have been discreetly sounding peopleout to support a leadership at some indeterminate date.

This is stoutly denied, but the MP for Montgomerydoes appear to be taking Charles Kennedy as hisexample, some might think.

Opik has started doing the round of Have I Got NewsFor You and other televisual appearances, and isunderstood to be thinking of running for presidentwhen Navnit Dholakia’s term ends next year.

Kennedy established himself as ‘chat show Charlie’,and then was president in 1990/94.

At this stage the only other semi-declared presidentialcandidate is Joan Walmsley.

Opik, if indeed he does stand, will no doubt conducta campaign of irreproachable pleasantness.

In March, he startled the Welsh party by announcingthat the Liberal Democrats would indulge in nonegative campaigning for the Welsh assembly elections.

This proved awkward in south Wales, where the partydoes well from laying into the Labour Taffia. Each salvowas, until they grew bored with it, greeted by journalistsasking if this was a breach of ‘Lembit’s Charter’.

AN ISSUE TO TACKLEParliament’s notorious naughty words web filter musthave had a nervous breakdown, as a further debate onthe sexual offences bill in the Lords was e-mailed farand wide. It is reassuring to know that the upper housecontains legislators who could, had they lived 800 yearsago, have debated with eloquence how many angelscould sit on a pinhead. For the full effect, see theparliament website. For a sample, here is what BaronessNoakes rather unfortunately described as “a probingamendment”. It read: “Page 32, line 1, leave out‘genitals’ and insert ‘penis’.”

She asked: “Will the minister say precisely whatconstitutes ‘genitals’ for the purposes of the Bill?According to my dictionary, ‘genitals’ means thereproductive organs of men—especially the externalorgans. That is straightforward, which is why theamendment would replace ‘genitals’ with ‘penis’. Iinvite the Minister to say what parts of the female bodythe Government intend to treat as being within Clause70.”

She went on: “I hope that the noble and learned Lordwill specifically refer to female breasts. Whenresearching the matter at home I found that themammary glands, or breasts in common parlance, wereclassified as reproductive organs—and they are clearlyexternal.”

Minister Baroness Blatch replied that women couldand did expose themselves, referring to, “a case in myarea recently of a woman who deliberately exposedherself in a large picture window overlooking a boys’playing field.”

A learned discussion then followed about whether, ifthe amendment were accepted, a flasher could exposeother parts of his genitalia but not his penis. Thebaroness then rather unfortunately referred to cases offlashing as “the tip of the iceberg”.

THE QUEUE QUESTIONParty members who were left queuing all morning halfway round a conference centre at Torbay because of thecollapse of the registration desk (Liberator 287) are stillwaiting for answers as to what happened, who causedit, and what will be done to put things right. A ratheranodyne report went to the federal executive, and asLiberator went to press the conference committee hadstill to consider the matter. Surely a number of thingsrelating to this incident must be put right for Brighton?

5

FIGHTING BACK

IN BURNLEYJoan Greene explains why the BNP can only be fought bygoing back to the foundations of community politics

It is an unpleasant experience to be represented by aBritish National Party councillor. It is also corrosivewhen you look round your friends and neighbours andcolleagues and wonder which of them went along withthe BNP appeal – and why. It is profoundly worryingwhen you hear, bit by bit, about the prejudices whichled them to vote that way.

Why did it happen? There is a tendency to say, withTrevor Phillips, the new Chair of the Commission forRacial Equality speaking to the BBC on election night,that it is not really about racism; it is more a reactionagainst a badly-run local council with a long record ofincompetence. There has, of course, been a long historyof incompetence, which has been the despair of theregional Labour Party for many years. There is also anunusual pattern of political history going back at leastfor 50 years.

Nevertheless, Trevor was wrong. The essentialunderlying reason for the BNP’s vote is racism. One ofthe reasons why the BNP did well in the outlyingvillages around Burnley was the summary sentence: “It’sthe way to keep the Pakis out of Worsthorne…..orCliviger…….or Briercliffe”. That’s not a phrase whichthe BNP would use with its new emphasis onrespectability. It was the most important single reasonwhy local people chose the BNP and, of course, therewas no repudiation by the BNP of such views.

The BNP vote certainly did not come as a result oftheir competent political campaigning. Their electionaddress was weak and traditional; they had very littleovert campaign. Overwhelmingly, it was a vote againstexisting parties and the failure of conventional Burnleypolitics to address real concerns widely held amongstlocal people.

Part of that problem was the failure to explain thereasons for apparent large-scale investment inpredominantly Pakistani areas of the town and failuresto deliver comparable results in other areas. Thereasons for that investment were, in the main, centralGovernment criteria which concentrated on areas ofpoverty, unemployment and housing need. Unlikeother towns and cities, Burnley has failed to involvelocal people in assessments and local strategic planning.In Robert Puttnam’s phrase, there has been a failure todevelop “social capital” or, in an earlier phrase, aworking “civic culture”.

A more contentious argument is about thecomparative degree of separation among Pakistanicommunities which have operated within and inrelation to indigenous politics, but have not become a

seamless and natural part of political and socialcommunities.

Lord Ouseley’s report on Bradford, prepared beforeand published after the 2001 riots spelt out theproblem. The reports on Burnley and Oldham after2001 made similar points. In these towns, Pakistanis,many of whom have felt rejected by local people, havebeen led by people who have used their apparent blockvotes to influence the political system without whollybecoming part of it. In my experience, this is more truein these three towns than in neighbouring areas.

Recent political events have not helped. The briefsuccess of an Independent party, mainly derived frompeople who left Labour after a regional party inquiryinto house-lettings, began the process of losingtraditional working-class support for a Labour Partywhich had taken the town for granted.

In the longer term, Labour has had weak localleadership and has been represented by weak LabourMPs. Following the Second World War, Burnley was oneof the Pennine towns which saw Liberal-Tory pacts, inthis case lasting through to the late 1960s. Neither Partybuilt structures to give them local strength and reliedon their traditional votes: nor did the Labour Party everlearn the lessons of competent local campaigning.Unlike the neighbouring borough of Pendle, which hasseen intensive three-party campaigns for most of thetime since 1972, Burnley has had very little culture ofeffective political debate and conflict. It has beenrelatively easy for the BNP to portray itself as thealternative to the whole failed and rotten system.

There are, of course, other reasons which go a longway beyond Burnley. These are the causes of the highBNP vote in other areas, particularly on both sides ofthe Pennines. The growing disillusion with politicsapparent throughout most of the democratic world ispart of the background. Many of the BNP’s voters reallythought that “things would only get better” after 1997and have not seen an easy, overnight transformationinto better services for little more tax. In East Lancashireand West Yorkshire, disillusion is heightened by thepresence of an easily identifiable scapegoat community.

The apparent acceptance by many, not least theHome Secretary, of the core Daily Mail argument about“asylum-seekers” is a further factor in giving credence tothe worst worries of people who feel that their homes,their jobs and their communities are threatened.

Even more widely, political parties have not engagedwith the real feelings among ordinary people aboutimmigration and separate communities.

6

In fact, the easy answer, which is to talk simplisticallyabout “racism” as unacceptable, has beencounter-productive, because it has created frustrationand anger among people who feel that they areprevented by that label from talking about issues whichworry them. As any employer knows, rumour,misinformation and a willingness to believe the worstare the natural results of a failure to talk aboutproblems.

What is to be done? The answer to the BNP will becrafted at a number of levels. In Burnley and othertowns where the BNP has grown, the first answer is a“back to basics” approach to local campaigning. In oneof the classic phrases of community politics, it isnecessary to “start from where people are”.

It’s also a matter of telling people the facts about thework which councillors are doing and about the choiceswhich a local authority faces, particularly given theever-increasing constraints of central government,which make it more and more difficult for localgovernment to demonstrate its role and power. TheBNP should be shown up at every opportunity asincompetent, ineffective, opportunist and irrelevant tothe real issues of the Council.

One of the other early phrases of community politicswas that “votes are the result of our work; not thepurpose”. The techniques of vote-winning are just that:technical approaches which only have value if they arefounded in a coherent set of political principles andviews which drive and motivate political action.Campaigners against the BNP need to rediscover theirpassion not just against the BNP but also for the ideasand ideals of liberalism which are themselves foundedin everyday experience and a practical commitment toencourage and involve that which is best in people andcommunities. We have to fight the battle on the BNP’sground: we will lose if we avoid or fail to engage withtheir beliefs and arguments including the ones whichpeople ascribe to them but which they do not admit. Wemust stand firmly and passionately for our ownprinciples.

It will also require the democratic parties to bewilling to prove that democratic politics can hear andrespond to people’s worries and needs. That mayinvolve occasional agreements – in the Briercliffe wardof Burnley, there is little doubt that the absence of ano-hope Labour candidate would have enabled thesitting Liberal Democrat, Peter McCann, to hold on tothe seat. More importantly, it means that the democraticparties have to show what they have to offer and howtheir politics can make a difference. Nationally andlocally, Conservatives and too often Liberal Democratsaim to gain votes by undermining the governing party.There is a danger that undermining in a way which istoo simplistic adds to the disillusion with all ofdemocratic politics.

The BNP has to be shown up for what it is. This is notjust about easy and perhaps counter-productive chargesof racism. Nor is it about giving credence to thecertainly counter-productive antics of the Anti-NaziLeague. When I write about “the democratic parties”, Imean just that: parties which have checks and balances,political debate and differences of opinion. In the BNP,the leader, once elected, has power over everything:policy, party, etc. In German, that is the “Fuhrerprinzip”– the leader principle”.

It also means that we should draw attention to someof the more unusual policies of the BNP: one of myfavourites is the importance of encouraging Britishwomen to have more children; another is an economicpolicy that would destroy every job in East Lancashirewhich is dependent on aerospace, now the largestsingle group of jobs.

It will mean tackling the BNP head-on in the areawhich is most important for its votes: race, refugees,migration and British residents with brown skins. As afirst stage, it will involve democratic parties in talkingthrough and understanding the application of their ownprinciples. Some continental liberal parties have shownthe way: in Holland, Sweden and Denmark, liberalparties have set out clear and liberal policies. Mostrecently, the Swedish party set out a clear and popularmanifesto which argued for an increase in immigrationwith much clearer and more effective policies for theintegration of existing and future minority communities.Issues about separation and minimum expectations willbe part of that debate. If democratic parties are deterredfrom that debate by easy but unfounded slurs of racism,the BNP will gain.

Above all, that process will involve a much clearer,firmer and more committed explanation of our basicprinciples. Apart from race, the other big issue fromwhich the far right is set to make capital is Europe andthe UK’s future involvement in the European Union.

In both cases, the political establishment has playedaround with the ideas while failing to confront directlythe fears and worries of an atavistic electorate. Imaginethe effect of a lost referendum on an EU constitutionwith the extreme “no” campaign led by a strident BNP.There has been a failure of political leadership acrossBritish politics as parties and leaders have been seducedby the easy blandishments of US-style issue-basedcampaigning.

Back in Burnley, it is clear that parties will need help.It needs a strong, continuing campaign through thelocal newspapers, using local radio and above all,through the letter box, in the pubs, on the streetcorners and on the doorsteps. Above all, it will require arefusal to duck difficult issues and a willingness toengage with the substance of the BNP’s appeal. Thechallenge is to stop the BNP in its tracks next June andto begin to build a civic and participatory culture whichworks and involves people in their daily lives. It will notbe easy.

7

LIB DEMS IN A

FOREIGN FIELDThe Liberal Democrats’ new foreign policy failed its firstserious test during the Iraq war and needs a completerethink, argues Simon Titley

Liberal Democrat foreign policy is a mess. This muchcan be discerned from Charles Kennedy’s performancebefore and during the recent Iraq war. Before the war,Kennedy won plaudits both inside and outside the partyfor taking a clear stand against the war. Once hostilitiesbegan, he lapsed into vague waffle about the need tosupport our boys. Party policy crumbled when put tothe test.

Kennedy’s inability to sustain a credible linethroughout the crisis is a symptom of a deeper malaise.The world has changed and the Liberal Democrats areunsure what to do about it. The party wants a betterworld but cannot decide how bad human rights abusesmust become before intervention is justified.

This Liberal Democrat dilemma was skewered bylong-standing Liberal Richard Moore. Writing in theSpectator (22 March 2003), he explained why he couldnot defend the Liberal Democrat party line on the Iraqwar. He contrasted the party’s support for theintervention in Kosovo (where there was no explicit UNresolution authorising force) with its opposition tointervening in Iraq.

Moore was writing without the benefit of hindsight.You may not agree with him, but he quoted aninteresting passage from the Liberal Democrat policydocument ‘It’s About Freedom’, approved at theSeptember 2002 party conference:

“It has been clearly if not always effectivelyrecognised that states cannot engage in genocidewithout incurring intervention by the internationalcommunity. It is increasingly recognised that grosshuman-rights abuses within a country can justify at leastpolitical and economic sanctions, and in somecircumstances military action. The internationalcommunity is also beginning to develop, with difficulty,the concept of a ‘failed state’ in which civil order andpolitical structures have broken down, and anarchy isdestroying the freedom of millions to the extent thatexternal intervention has to be considered. Freedom, toliberals, is the birthright of individuals, not of states,dictators or warlords.”

Comparing this official party policy with subsequentstatements by the party leader, we can vaguely make outsome sort of position. The Liberal Democrats believethere are some circumstances in which intervention inanother state are justified, but Iraq isn’t one of them. Itisn’t precisely clear, however, where any objective lineof principle has been drawn.

Similar confusion extends to the other parties,because few of the protagonists either for or against theIraq war were expressing a cogent position but wereinstead indulging in gut reactions or politicalopportunism. The split inside the Labour Party has beenwell documented. The Conservative position hasreceived less scrutiny. Also in the Spectator (29 March2003) was an article by right-wing commentator PeterHitchens, in which he portrayed the Iraq war as a“left-wing conflict” and urged Conservatives to havenothing to do with it. “The idea that naked force cancreate human freedom is itself a left-wing idea.”

Thinking about it, he has a point. The quagmires ofthe First World War and the Vietnam War both startedout as high-minded attempts by liberals to defendfreedom.

This illustrates the fundamental problem with LiberalDemocrat policy. Liberals have got into the habit ofgrandstanding on foreign affairs issues instead ofrelating policy more directly to people’s interests. Theparty frames its economic, social and educationalpolicies with the welfare of the British people in mind.Why can’t it do the same with foreign policy?

It is not as if such pragmatic considerationscontradict any fundamental Liberal principles. Forexample, the party is quite able to frame its educationpolicies in terms of the welfare of pupils and students,while rooting these policies in its values. It ought to bepossible to do the same with foreign policy. Thedefining of principles and values ought not to be anabstract exercise, but should be motivated by a desire toimprove people’s quality of life.

Elections are won and lost on the battleground of themiddle class’s perceptions of its economic welfare.There is perhaps nothing more damaging to people’seconomic welfare than to have an enemy missile crashthrough their trendy patio decking. Given that fewBritish people under the age of 65 have any realexperience of war, this is nowadays a difficult conceptto get across on the doorstep.

The basis of foreign policy formulation shouldremain long-held values about freedom and dignity. Butwhen it comes to the detail, it is not just about puttingthese principles into practice, but creating a saleableproposition to which people can relate.

This is not easy. Globalisation has made theconstruction of a public interest case more difficult. Iam old enough to remember when politicians could stillemploy well-worn metaphors about “being in the same

8

boat”. Economic interdependence has dissolvednational boundaries and social fragmentation hasradically altered people’s perceptions of commoninterests.

Prevention of war, defence from attack, promotion oftrade and cultural exchange, are all things that can beshown to improve our quality of life. And these areshared interests. But there is no point trying to argue acommunitarian case to an electorate that is increasinglyatomised, individualised and consumer-oriented.

The party should support the principle ofinternational organisations, laws and treaties, as apractical means of resolving disputes and promotingcommon interests. But it must now argue this case interms of how it benefits the individual, becausetouchy-feely political ecumenicalism will no longerwash with an atomised electorate.

The big choice the world now faces is whether topersist with the existing network of international polity,imperfect though it is, or allow the USA to sweep itaside and establish a Pax Americana.

Actually, the choice is America’s, since no othercountry has any choice. No other country besides theUSA has the military power to go it alone, and it is in noother country’s interests to allow the USA to do so. It isnot even a sensible option for the USA. While its militarypower enables it to project its force anywhere in theworld, the USA lacks the ‘soft power’ capabilities torebuild failed states, as the ineptitude of the post-waroccupation of Iraq rapidly demonstrated. Reliance onoverwhelming military force is also ultimatelyself-defeating, since it tends to promote the hostility itwas originally intended to defeat.

The challenge for the rest of the world is thereforehow to cajole the USA into participating in internationalframeworks. It is this question that divides Europe. Blairand Aznar see the solution in uncritical alliance, whileChirac and Schröder believe the answer lies in buildingthe EU into a countervailing force.

Where do the Liberal Democrats stand? My guess isthat most would opt for the Chirac option. But this viewtends to be coloured by a personal distaste for the Bushadministration. Such views would not have been held soforcefully if Al Gore were in the White House. Thequestion is whether the USA and Europe are set onirrevocably divergent paths or whether this is a just aphase we’re going through.

While the USA and Europe share some broadobjectives in terms of security and democratic culture,they have come increasingly into conflict on a variety ofissues that pre-date, and are unrelated to, the Iraq war.Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, there has been a stringof major trade disputes. There have been seriousattempts by the US to sabotage European self-reliance,such as opposition to the Galileo satellite positioningsystem, and attempts to undermine Airbus. The US alsouses its ‘Eschelon’ satellite surveillance system to stealEuropean industrial secrets for the benefit of Americancorporations. These US policies harm Europeaneconomies, businesses and people’s welfare. Why doour politicians not say so, instead of presenting theseissues in abstract terms?

The big issue that will divide Europe and America isthe dollar versus the euro. 70% of the world’sinternational trade is denominated in US dollars,forcing all the world’s governments and majorcompanies to keep significant holdings in dollars. Each

dollar they own is effectively a loan of one dollar to theUS government. It is this massive internationalinterest-free loan to the US that enables America to runup a national debt of nearly four trillion dollars andsustain record levels of consumer debt.

But what if, as seems likely, increasing amounts ofinternational trade are denominated in euros? Americaonce supported the EU as a way of making Europe nolonger dependent on the USA. Now, there is littlewonder that America’s conservatives are increasinglyhostile to the European project.

Will relationships with America continue todeteriorate? The answer lies in demographics.Conservatism now dominates the American politicalscene and ‘liberal’ is accepted as a dirty word, but someargue this will change. Richard Florida, in his recentbook ‘The Rise of the Creative Class’, showed how thoseAmerican cities that offer a tolerant environment forethnic minorities and gays (and thus a more attractiveplace to live for creative types) have more successfuleconomies than conservative intolerant cities. A more‘liberal’ culture will therefore predominate because it ismore successful economically.

Set against this argument are the increasinglydifferent age profiles of Europe and America. InWestern Europe, the birth rate is in freefall and thepopulation is becoming older. Advertising agencyYoung & Rubicam points out that most people’s tastesare fixed by the time they are 35, therefore they aremore resistant to change and impervious to marketingfor new brands and products. The USA is projected tohave a growing and younger population. Imagine aworld in which aggressive American corporations arefrustrated, because they cannot sell their innovatoryproducts in Europe, because our ageing population ismore difficult to influence. America will have a problemwith ‘Old Europe’, but not the way Donald Rumsfeldmeant it. The current American campaign to forceEuropeans to eat GMOs may be just a taste of things tocome.

Whichever scenario turns out to be true, there ismuch that should be done to build links with liberals inthe USA and provide fraternal support. LiberalInternational has no significant American participationand there are not even any significant informalrelationships between British Liberal Democrats andpotential allies in the USA. These bridges must be built,whatever else happens.

We imagine America is difficult to influence, yet it is asociety where the public sphere is often weak and a fewdollars would make a lot of difference. For example,few things would benefit our interests more than to pilemoney into BBC America, the fledgling outpost inAmerican cable TV and public radio.

The Liberal Democrats are an internationalist partybut support for the principle of internationalorganisations and law does not mean they must acceptthese uncritically. Reform is needed. For example, theUN cannot hold to the sanctity of the ‘internal affairs’ ofeach state when as many as fifty of the world’s 200states are ‘failed’.

Nor is there any excuse for an uncritical attitude tothe EU. You can believe the EU is a good thing, yet stillrecognise that it is centralised and bureaucratic. Recentill-informed debate on the EU constitution was anopportunity for Liberals to say something distinctive,

9

about how this was a chance to devolve manycompetencies, in line with Liberal belief in devolution.

The failure to sustain popular enthusiasm withinBritain for the European Union cannot be blamedentirely on the right-wing press. The quality of politicaldiscourse has been elitist and divorced from everydayconcerns. There has simply not been a sustained,down-to-earth promotion of the concrete benefitsbrought to Britain by the EU, in terms of regional aid,infrastructure and jobs.

Liberal ideals and electoral pragmatism are notnecessarily polar opposites. Those who imagine they arebetray a remarkable lack of political self-confidence.When it comes to deciding foreign policy, an idealisticcase and enlightened self-interested can coincide. Thosewho support democracy and prosperity help ourinterests and are our friends. Those who undermine usor harm their own people are our enemies.

Put more personally, if the actions of a foreigngovernment affect your local constituency by causingjob losses, business closures, pollution or floods ofrefugees, then you’re looking at not just an enemy butan illiberal government.

A principled position can be pragmatic. The LiberalDemocrats could do worse than adopt these basicprecepts:

• Start with an assessment of real threats to our welfareand real opportunities to promote our welfare. You’dbe amazed how often confronting the first andexploiting the second are in line with Liberalprinciples.

• Club together with other countries so far as we haveshared interests, particularly when we cannot achievegoals by ourselves.

• Judge the USA by its behaviour, rather than knee-jerksupport or opposition. Is it supporting us orundermining us? React accordingly.

• Accept that intervening in foreign countries is ajudgement call. It’s a matter of weighing up thepotential benefits, disadvantages and possibleconsequences. It doesn’t necessarily mean war.

• Oppose the cultural relativism that says it is OK forother countries to carry out human rights abuses,because it’s “their culture”.

• Accept that providing clean water and sanitationthroughout the third world is a more cost-effectiveoption than confronting the hostile outcomes ofpoverty and resentment.

• Promote cultural exchange and understanding, inparticular through learning foreign languages.

• Invest heavily in promotion of British culture,through media such as the BBC World Service, BBCAmerica and the British Council.

• Relate each of the above points to a vigorous domesticpolitical case for defending and promoting ourinterests.

• Adopt a more self-confident tone. Be proud andassertive. Don’t apologise for being pro-European.

A new foreign policy would retain at its heart enduringliberal values. But it would promote ourinternationalism in terms with which the voters canrelate. And it should be rigorous enough to withstandthe next international crisis. Gesture politics is finewhen the only decision you have to make is whether toparticipate in a demonstration. It’s an inadequateresponse by a supposedly mature party to a real crisis.

10

Liberal Democrats Youth and Students will be celebrating

100 Years of Young LiberalsThe ball will take place at the Under Globe at Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre on

Saturday, 12 July 2003, 7.30pm - 11.00pm

Tickets are available for £25 including a light buffet and entertainment from the LDYS Office

LDYS 4 Cowley Street London SW1P 3NB 020 7227 1387ldysadmin@libdems.org.uk

We welcome all those who have been involved in the youth organisation ofthe party since 1903! This includes all current members.

MY GENERTAIONThe student politicians of 25 years ago are now in power, buthave they made anything better, asks Paul Nettleton

Twenty-five years on it seems right this month to driveup north from London to celebrate a homecoming atLeicester University and bring memories of my studentdays flooding back.

Hold on a minute, though. I’m reminded daily ofthose late 1970s days when everything seemed possibleif only you could wear a badge to demand it. For I havereached the point where people I was a student withare, give or take a year or two, running the country andare therefore in my face (and yours) every day on TV orin the newspapers.

So has my generation made things better? No, Ithought not. And if not, why not?

Well, it’s hardly surprising given that our governmentis in the hands of the generation of Broad Left hackswho made such a success of running the National Unionof Students that its travel company went bust and itsinsurance company had to be sold off.

The dearth of imagination that typified their defenceof students’ living standards is now reflected in theirown attacks on today’s generation of Mac-jobbedunfortunates - saddled as they are with even morecrippling debt than we managed ever to run up in theunion bar.

In these days of Friends Reunited let’s also rememberour foes of that time: stand up Charles Clarke and JackStraw to name but two. Stand up too, those somewhatyounger Blairite babes who sallied straight from highereducation into the Palace of Varieties, with theoccasional brief dalliance in scribbling for thebroadsheets or in the voluntary sector, but checked intheir independence of thought at the Westminster gates.

Do they have no memory of the sacrifices their, andmy, parents made to fork out their contribution (thevery first top up loans) to enable us to survive on thegrant? Do they not understand the irresponsibility ofsaddling each succeeding generation with increasingdebt at the outset of their working lives?

Is it no wonder we’re all up to our eyeballs in extraborrowing in the low wage, high tax, high price, UKFinancial Services plc economy that valuesastrophysicists when they work in the City but not whenthey eke out a living in our universities?

Government ministers are not alone in theirhypocrisy. Just look at the groupies.

There’s Sue Slipman, the Tankie turned SocialDemocrat turned wealthy lobbyist for Camelot. DavidAaronovitch, Tankie turned BBC political editor turnedBlair-groupie with a picture byline. Or take TrevorPhillips, yet another socialist hack who sends his kids topublic schools.

No surprise given the state of state education inLondon. If the Tories had managed a four-day week forschools these people would have had a field day in

opposition: why is the present opposition letting themget away with it in office?

What choice for the ethnic minorities Phillipssupposedly champions in his job at the Commission forRacial Equality? Well, they too are voting with their feetfor independent schools, or faith schools, or playing theadmission and selection systems for all they’re worth,just like Tony’s cronies. The only “bog standard”comprehensives are the ones most other kids attend.

Does the lack of a direct hit on New Labour for itsabject failure in education (as in so much of thedomestic agenda, please don’t get me started on theHome Office) arise because liberals or LiberalDemocrats feel uncertain at defending so-calledprivilege in education?

Well, who can suppress their smile at the memory of“sociology degrees: please take one” graffiti next to thepaper rolls in the Social Science faculty toilets?

Sad fact though is that the expansion of “higher”education has arguably been at the expense of thosequalities and disciplines that made it just that. You getwhat you pay for, of course, and as ever we’ve tried todo it on the cheap. That doesn’t excuse makingstudents take the jobs no-one - except asylum seekers -wants in order to pay their way.

We’re putting our young people on a treadmill atschool and they don’t get off until it’s time to grab thatgap year or, worse, until they fall off with mentalbreakdowns.

Blair spoke of education, education, education. Inour schools the creed is test, test, test. What’s missing isteach, teach, teach or nurture, nurture, nurture as staffarrive and depart from our classrooms according to thevalidity of their return ticket to the Antipodes.

Homecoming beckons, and with it the chance to lookup old friends and hear about their families. Oh and tocatch up on latest developments in Leicester - especiallyat the mini-lecture on the costs and benefits of auniversity education today.

Paul Nettleton has a third class BA, works for a nationalnewspaper and has children at state and (much to his ownsurprise) independent secondary schools

11

TRAVELLING

IN HOPEA new report on migration from the Demos think tank saysEurope should be more capable and confident abouthandling the challenges presented by growing mobility. EllieClarke wonders if it charts a way of getting there

Among the diverse opinions on the state of asylumpolicy, one thing is absolutely clear – no one is happywith the way the system is working at the moment. Eventhose of us who would go to the barricades to defendthe right of asylum are deeply critical and unhappyabout the way the situation is works in practice.

However, I suspect the feature that alarms everybody– whether they read the Guardian or the Sun - is thesense that the situation is out of control.

Nothing the government has said or pledged to try tomanage the situation has any resonance with the public– they can see the reasons for flight on their TV andknow how easy it is to travel and arrive in the UK.Despite the best efforts of several campaigningorganisations, the case for anything other than the mostbadly damaged asylum seekers to live here has not beenmade, nor has the case that migration providesopportunities for the host nation.

Successive legislation has done nothing to make thesituation better in any way – measures taken to removethe alleged ‘pull factors’ to the UK have helped verylittle – except to make life tougher and more difficult forvulnerable asylum seekers. The recent election of someBNP councillors is indicative of some elements of thepublic mood.

The debate and the whole asylum system has gothopelessly muddled in the government’s and public’seyes around access to jobs and opportunities andprotection from persecution.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive –refugees want to build new lives for themselves andneed access to jobs and education to do so – but theiraccess to the UK is on the grounds of persecution underthe 1951 Convention agreement. Opportunities tocome to the UK for work or to ‘have a better life’ areextremely limited with the exception of certaincategories of skilled workers. Hence the misuse of theasylum system.

So where do we start to untangle this mess and take alonger term view than the next election? Attempts tomanage the system more effectively have failed.Victimising asylum seekers or more long-term draconianmeasures such as detention on arrival are thegovernment’s solution to convincing the public thingsare under control.

A public debate would be helpful, but how to havethis on a sensible playing field feels like a hideously

difficult issue without being accused of racism. Thereneeds to be some way forwards from here that doeshave a broad range of public consent otherwise theopportunity for rightwing parties to offer their brand of‘solution’ becomes immense.

Demos, an independent thinktank, has offered adocument for discussion which may offer a wayforwards. ‘People Flow: Managing migration in a NewEuropean Commonwealth’ argues that migration is acatalyst that presents challenges across a much widerrange of public issues, and requires new forms ofsocietal innovation – including, the renewal of nationaldemocracies, the radical reform of welfare systems andthe founding of a new European Commonwealth.

The basic Demos premise is that Europe can copewith high levels of migration without closing its doors.Their analysis of the current situation is logically solid -immigration is an increasingly visible and explosiveissue and a rallying point for increasingly complexglobal and security issues. It is directly connected in thepublic mind with other issues of wealth, work, welfare,security and identity and therefore a focus for deepcurrents of hope and fear.

Governments have to show that they have the issue ofmigration and asylum under control. However, controlis expensive, whether that control is an effective barrierat the port or the effective screening of potentialapplicants. If legal entry is too difficult, then illegal orclandestine entry possibly by criminal gangs throughpeople smuggling is the inevitable outcome and with itabuse of the asylum system.

Demos argues that the way migration flows arehandled needs to change radically in the nextgeneration. The dilemma is that it is more necessary butless feasible than ever before. There is growing concernabout the sustainability of European prosperity andwealth coupled – after September 11 - with the fear ofviolence spilling into Europe from other parts of theworld.

The report is in two parts – a new way of managingmigration and the societal changes that will need to bemade to see that work effectively.

Demos is proposing a system of International TransitCentres to manage migration, which would act as a‘voluntary catchement’ mechanism for forced andunregistered migrants who are heading towardsEurope.

12

They argue that migrants would be attracted to usethe ITCs by the offer of help and support in makingchoices about their future. They would not necessarilyhelp with travel to Europe but also encourage them toconsider a return to their country.

This idea is clearly similar to the Home Officeproposal to have transit centres in zones outside ECcountries, but the Demos proposal goes further byoffering positive incentives to register into one of fourcategories – visitor, worker, sponsored resident orrefugee - and opt into the system, therefore cuttingdown the illegality of people smuggling and thepotential for rootless drifting and suffering if aspirationsof asylum or work are not met. The incentive to claimrefugee status as a way of gaining access rather than forprotection is massively reduced therefore maintainingthe integrity of the asylum process.

Demos argues that the migrant’s support should bepaid for through loans or payment in kind, thereforeremoving the expectation of universal welfare supportin Europe. This would formalise the remittance systemwhere families pool resources in the hope of receivingmoney from overseas which funds their economicdevelopment.

However, while this is a considerably more managedand humane system, it cannot and will not be foolproofand we should not expect it to be. There will always bea trade in getting people through barriers. As Demosrightly point out, control of borders is pretty illusoryand not an effective security strategy. The criminals andterrorists whom we should most fear are the leastdeterred by passports and borders.

The second half of the document, called ‘A NewEuropean Commonwealth: beyond the fortress’introduces a number of ideas about founding a newEuropean commonwealth and replacement of thewelfare state with a system that supports peoplewithout offering ‘cradle to the grave’ security.

Funding and settlement ideas are also discussed for‘non self-reliant newcomers’ and school managementpolicies for focussing on practical efforts to respond todiversity.

This section is interesting and well considered,although probably the more controversial part of thedocument. It is difficult to see how existing poorcommunities will welcome newcomers when theirperception is that the system already does not work forthem.

Demos makes the point that the differences in theavailability of welfare benefits to migrants and existingresidents can greatly reduce the emotional acceptanceof newcomers when perceived as unfair. Suchperceptions are a significant barrier to the successfulintegration of immigrants into European societies.However, despite Demos’ emphasis on migrants beingor becoming self reliant, its proposals still requirefunding to travel with diversity, potentially, with littleguarantee of regeneration for the whole community.

Demos says “many Europeans implicitly resist suchchange because it threatens aspects of life that we holddear. Migration touches the shifting sands on which ouridentities are grounded. The steady arrival of newpeople with unfamiliar habits and alien faiths in ourcities and on our streets provides the most dramaticfocus for our anxieties about the ways in which theworld is changing. This alienation is probably the singlemost sensitive factor preventing politicians from

adopting a pragmatic, innovative approach to migration.To do so in the current atmosphere of internationalcrisis, division and insecurity may seem impossible”.

And in this last sentence lies the fundamental truth ofthis document. In a document stuffed with ideas, the‘realistic how’ is missing. There are some interestingideas around settlement and using funding to supportintegration. But there seems to be an almostunbridgeable – and unexamined – chasm between howwe get from where we are to where we want to be.

I’m not going to be critical of a document full of bluesky thinking for not having instant solutions, but theredoes need to be some discussion and thought about thenear future and some practical attempts to respond todiversity and deprivation. They suggest usinginstitutions to change public perceptions of themigration debate and European identity, again usefuland on their timescale of a generation or two, probablymore manageable than it seems at first reading.

Changing public perceptions is notoriously difficult -how we overcome people’s sense of loss of identity orfear of loss of economic stability is a huge issue that isnot addressed satisfactorily. Demos may be working onthe assumption that the younger generations value thediversity that migration will bring in a way that oldergenerations do not. This may be right, but I would alsobe concerned that the massive failure in alleviatingdeprivation and poverty in many parts of the UK couldseriously undermine that assumption.

By any economic indicators we are a wealthy country,but the levels of deprivation in some parts of the UKmean that some local communities do struggle toaccept that concept.

There must also be an implicit assumption whenreading this that the UK has introducedidentity/entitlement cards. It is difficult to see how anysuch reform of the welfare system can be managedwithout them. How far this undermines many of theideas of this document for Liberals and how far its‘enabling’ aspirations go towards mediating that naturalLiberal hostility towards an identity/entitlement card isan issue that we need to think about and balanceeffectively.

This document will also alarm the Euroscepticsacross all political parties. There are huge explicit andimplicit assumptions about the increased role of Europeand harmonisation of systems. No doubt Liberals willwelcome some of these, in particular the developmentof regions.

There is no doubt that managing the migrationprocess effectively should be political imperative. AEurope where potential migrants have the dignity of asystem that treats their aspirations with respect anddoes not leave them destitute whether they needprotection or want access is the least a moderndemocracy should offer.

This first part of the document is very useful andoffers a real alternative to the – at best shambolic, atworst cruel – system we have today. The second needssome serious discussion that aspires to public debate.

People Flow: Managing migration in a New EuropeanCommonweal th is publ ished by Demos andopenDemocracy.

13

ASYLUM

MYTHSSiamak Goudarzi says that the public would be sympathetictowards asylum seekers without the barrage of negativemedia coverage

Public opinion in a liberal democratic society isapparently fundamental. It is the public who can electand re-elect the governments. They pay taxes andexpect services and protection in return, and the moretax they pay the better services they demand from theirrepresentatives.

States try hard to allay public anxiety by addressingtheir concerns to gain their trust. Regarding asylum, thepublic play the extra role as the host society for asylumseekers. In a ‘coiled spring’ society that promotesmulticulturalism and diversity, efforts need to be madenot only to grease the integration machine but also toprevent racial tensions.

Public reaction to refugees and asylum seekerscoming to this country depends largely on what theysee and hear from the government and the media.

Asylum seeking understandably seems to be sensitivefor the public as it is seen as something that could limittheir resources or threaten their safety in particular withregard to welfare, accommodation, employment andhealth.

The host community may not like their taxes to bespent on the welfare of those who abuse their nationalwelfare system by benefit shopping. Its members maybe concerned about shortages of employment if otherstake their jobs. They may not want their healthtreatments delayed because of the need to serve othersand finally they may not feel safe living close to thosewhom they do not know.

These are the issues which the public are concernedabout despite the fact that some might believe them tobe commonly circulating myths.

There are other elements of asylum that the publicdo not care about that much, not because they are notimportant but possibly because they cannot directly doanything about them.

These are either aspects that do not affect their lifedirectly, or they feel they are out of the range of theirexpertise, or more importantly they feel that thegovernment is fulfilling its responsibilities.

Among these are international and regionalobligations towards asylum seekers, the impact ofasylum on national security, the positive contribution ofasylum seekers and immigrants to the economy,attracting skilled and non-skilled people for the labourmarket through the asylum process, making thedecision on who is eligible for asylum, border control,rights and obligations of asylum seekers, deportation of

asylum seekers, detention centres, and finallyintegration of asylum seekers into the society.

The direction from which different groups look intothe debate is constantly affected by factors likeawareness, backgrounds, current domestic andinternational events, economy, and media coverage.

The public get most of its messages about asylumfrom the media plus what they observe here and therein the country - massive accommodation centres,detention centres, benefits paid to some asylum seekersand more importantly the huge amount of money spentto run the asylum system.

These together are shaping part of the picture. Therest of the picture is not as clear, either because it is notshown to the public in the same way by the media orthe public itself is not as concerned.

The public may not be so interested in thegovernment’s international and regional obligationstowards asylum as they are in their resources.

They may not appreciate the positive contribution ofasylum seekers and immigrants to the economy, as theyare concerned about the massive accommodationcentres.

Also they may not be that concerned about theprocess of making the decision about who is eligible forasylum, the issues of border control, rights andobligations of asylum seekers, deportation, detention,and the integration of asylum seekers in the society asthey are about the few asylum seekers involved incrime.

The responsibility of considering the whole picture,defining the most important aspects of asylum at anytime and dealing with it accordingly, falls on theshoulders of the government.

It has also to fulfil its responsibility to update thepublic with the latest developments on asylum policyand to address its priorities; but the media seems not tobe interested in this matter.

This could account for the gap in awareness of somethe facts that matter critically for the government.

In this respect, some people believe that there needsto be a better link between academic theory and policysolutions, especially on such an emotive political issue,where macro decisions are common. There is also aneed for a public debate to prevent the populist use ofimmigration issues by politicians.

Findings demonstrate that academic scholarship canbe enlightening and research can draw a better pictureof asylum for the public.

14

For instance, research has shown that refugees havemade a great contribution to the UK in the last 450years, despite often negative government and popularhostility.

As Sarah Spencer, of the Human Rights Programme atthe Institute of Public Policy Research, has said: “Thelesson of history is that immigrants and refugees canbring significant benefits, economic and cultural. Whilepublic debate on this issue is yet again dominated byproposed legislation to impose even tighter restrictions,it is a lesson that appears to have been lost.”

Government figures revealed a record number ofasylum seekers and their families, 110,700 came toBritain last year 20 per cent more than 12 months ago,costing the government £3.5bn, while according to aHome Office study, migrants -including asylum seekers -actually contributed £2.5bn in taxes in 1999/00.

Regarding foreign workers as an economic asset, aHome Office study shows that people born outside theUK (including refugees and asylum seekers) aresignificant contributors to the economy. It is estimatedthat they pay 10 per cent more into the Treasury thanthey take out: around £2.6bn in 2000. Research has alsorepeatedly shown that a high proportion of refugees inthe UK are highly qualified, successful individuals,exceeding the standards of the general Britishpopulation.

Research by MORI on public attitudes towards asylumseekers and refugees, has concluded that the public’sattitudes are, in many aspects, positive. The Britishpublic would be more likely to be positive than negativetowards asylum seekers in their community, with asmall percentage being willing to get actively involvedin campaigning for their rights.

Others have shown from their studies that this is notthe case if you ask asylum seekers.

They indicated in the Refugee Council’s 1997research ‘Credit to the Nation’, when interviewed aboutthe negative climate for them in Britain, that they feltthat public ignorance, rather than lack of sympathy, wasthe main barrier to a better perception of refugees.

A Sudanese woman said: “The word refugee is alabel. As soon as you say the word, you put a badpicture in someone’s mind. There is confusion aboutwho is genuine and who isn’t. People think you comehere just to claim benefits but they don’t see we hadbetter lives at home. We had jobs, status, qualificationswhich aren’t recognized here.”

Instead of asking why people come to the UK, andwhy they do not go to neighbouring countries, weshould ask why they had to leave their countries, theirfamilies and their homes.

Refugees are still people with choices, even if thesechoices are often limited.

On the other hand, the public’s perception of howthe media treats asylum seekers is more negative. Thephrase most associated with media reporting of asylumissues is ‘illegal immigrant’.

This is a phrase that in January 2002 the AdvertisingStandards Authority found to be racist, offensive andmisleading, as asylum seekers are not in the UK illegally.Reports in the media of refugees ‘flooding’ into the UK,and Britain being an ‘asylum haven’, may havecontributed to the public’s over-estimation of Britain’srole in receiving refugees (and perhaps contributed tothe increase in the proportion of people saying thatrefugees seek asylum for economic reasons).

Further MORI research suggests that: “In line withthe more positive than negative reception towardsrefugees, the public would themselves want to betreated fairly if they were seeking asylum in anothercountry.”

Finally the study relates the attitudes to awarenessand education by arguing that, compared with thepopulation as a whole, 15-18 year olds do display morenegative attitudes towards asylum seekers and refugeesin several respects.

However, it may be that they are simply less wellinformed on issues surrounding asylum in the UK, andthe study also shows that it often the less well educatedgroups who are more negative.

15

WHEN WE

HAVE ENOUGHWilliam Tranby reconsiders the arguments for a zero growtheconomy and the impact this might have on the pensions forthe next generation

My memory is not that good these days, but I recallwatching the TV coverage of a Liberal Party Assemblyduring the 1970s to witness an intriguing economicsdebate where the two protagonists were Eric Aveburyand John Pardoe.

The different views being expressed were, on the onehand, the orthodox belief that continuing modestgrowth in the economy was both achievable anddesirable, and on the other, the fleetingly fashionableargument that Liberals should embrace a zero growtheconomy.

John Pardoe won the argument for orthodoxy on theday, and the rest as they say is history. In many ways theviews being expressed by the zero growth supporterspredicted the development of green politics well beforethe Greens emerged from the Ecology Party, and indeedbefore the Ecology Party emerged from the People’sParty.

Perhaps is now time for Liberals to consider again theidea of a zero-growth economy. As I recall it, (andforgive my memory if I got the wrong end of the stick inmy youth), Eric Avebury was arguing the case for theGovernment not to actively seek any growth in theeconomy. The goal of economic activity should be tosustain only what we had already, or to replace it whenit wore out. The objective was for a replacementeconomy, rather than one fed on increasingconsumption.

It presupposed that in order to deal with the moreglaring inequalities of wealth, such as the inadequatehousing, education and health care suffered by poorcommunities, the state would need to intervene andtackle relative poverty in a genuinely redistributablemanner. But it was argued that the Government shouldnot be pursuing policies which stimulated growth forgrowth’s sake. Encouraging unfettered capitalism wasregarded as a danger to the common wealth of thecommunity.

Thirty years on and we see around us the results ofthe Thatcher revolution followed by New Labour¹scourtship of big business. The overt and vulgarconsumption of the aspiring middle classes of the1980’s might now be toned down a bit, and Blair andBrown might finally be trying to tackle the issues ofrelative poverty (although the administrations inScotland and Wales, with plenty of prompting from theLiberal Democrats, are doing much better on thatscore), but the presumptions behind economic thinking

remain the same: to target for modest and sustainedgrowth over the longer term.

What are the down sides to this presumption?Firstly, we are finding it increasingly difficult to target

for growth while pretending it has no effect on theenvironment. Pollution levels in some forms are beingtackled, but the targets for CO2 emissions are onlyabout future levels falling back to where they were a fewyears before (when they were already wrecking theplanet), not about actual reductions that would make adifference. Real reductions require real cuts inconsumption, because for some types of economicactivity renewables might not be available.

Secondly, the presumption about growth in oureconomic thinking also has a bizarre effect on ourpsychological outlook too. Whenever we are told by theeconomists that we are in a recession, a depression, orindeed, a slump, it is because the measured outputs ofeconomic activity in one, two, or three economicquarters have fallen behind what they were before. Thisleads to doom and gloom, even though the actualmeasured outputs are significantly higher than whatthey were during an economic boom ten years earlier.Given that the population of the country has only risengently over a decade, how come one set of outputstatistics are called a boom and another, higher, set arecalled a recession?

Part of the difference is of course the rise inproductivity of the workforce, in that the higher outputmeasures achieved in a so called recession can stillmean rising levels of unemployment and thepsychological ³depression² that this entails.

The effect of a national policy based on thepresumption of sustained economic growth, is thatwhen this is temporarily not achieved, companies shedeven more staff to maintain their profits on the back ofmore modest sales, and the Government does what itcan to prompt spending and therefore the growthrequired to get people back into work.

But ultimately demands are made on people. Ascompanies shed workers those that remain are expectedto increase their workloads. As the economy moves outof recession the workers who were kept in employmentthroughout the downturn are then expected tomaintain that higher level of efficiency to contribute toincreasing company profitability.

16

The effect of this is the increasing degree of burn outfor workers in all walks of life. While some are happy tocompensate their more stressful lives by the increasingconsumption their wage packets can deliver, others areforced to turn to medical help or continue to leaddysfunctional lives.

Some people make life style choices to get out of therat race altogether, and others more modestly choose towork less and consume less. This trend is still notenough to make a significant difference to theorthodoxy of moderate and sustained economic growth.So Gordon Brown can sleep easy for the present.

But what if it became fashionable for ‘less to be thenew more’? What if significant numbers of our citizensmade lifestyle choices to pursue goals other thansteadily increasing consumption year on year?

With many people deciding not to have children, theneed to work harder to provide for the growing familydisappears. With many more people living alone andwith single households predicted to become the normwithin the decade, some types of consumption mightactually drop. The prospect of a replacement economymight become realistic. It might also be the case that ifthe country actively pursues its environmental targetsfor reducing pollution in different forms, this will onlyincrease the trend of the economy to show a downwardturn when measured in a traditional way.

The impact of EU directives to put a limit on workinghours, and the need for employers to seriously considerrequests from workers to go part time and considertheir work-life balance, are all going to contribute to achange in our working culture. Our friends in Europealready enjoy shorter working weeks than we do. And tofollow suit is surely going to be more attractive thanfollowing the work and consumption culture of theAmericans?

Gordon Brown of course is proud of the fact that theUK economy demonstrates better growth figures thanin the rest of Europe, and will use this as a further blockto the country joining the Euro. But a further advantagefrom joining the Euro and from adopting theiremployment practices is that we can start to enjoy amore civilised approach to work and consider quality oflife issues rather than pursue the frenzy of achievinggrowth targets which can only make us more unhealthy.

However, even if we do achieve the benefits of aslower growth or replacement economy as I havedescribed; and with it a better chance for theenvironment, and the possibility of better mental health

for our citizens; there is still a massive problem forLiberals to consider in such a scenario.

Even if we had less, or at least steady, consumption inthe economy, there will still be a hope that medicalimprovements will continue to lengthen our lives, and acontinuing and universal belief that all our citizensdeserve a long and fulfilled retirement.

For the economy to support a growing number ofretired people with a decent standard of living, theremaining adults in work will need to work harder toachieve higher outputs, based on higher consumption.Otherwise there would be lower profits produced bycompanies for shareholders, and consequentially slowergrowth in share values on which pension schemes relyto sustain the lifestyles of those in retirement.

If those in work say “we have enough”, and ifGovernments like ours in Britain actively pursueenvironmental policies which flatten consumptionlevels, it might be a sorry tale for those relying on agrowth economy to maintain their pensionentitlements.

This ultimately is the nettle to be grasped. If we aimto achieve a healthier work-life balance and aim toreduce the impact of economic activity on ourenvironment, we will have to find a different way tofund the pensions for the next generation.

The Government is already thinking about forcingpeople to save for their own retirement to minimise theburden on the future taxpayer of maintaining an everincreasing elderly population. Isn’t it about time thatsomeone came clean and said personal taxes will haveto rise too, to fund the gap?

17

GLADSTONE’S 100Iain Sharpe looks at a new collection of essays to mark thecentenary of the death of Gladstone

This volume of essays has its origins in the papersdelivered at the Gladstone Centenary Conference atChester College in 1998. The emphasis of the collectionis mainly on the latter part of Gladstone’s career from1868.

The collection is book-ended by an introduction fromone of the editors, tracing Gladstone’s treatment at thehands of historians in the century since his death and avery useful bibliographical essay from the other.

In my view the best essays in the collection are thoseby Jonathan Parry on Gladstone’s first administration;David Brooks on his fourth; D. George Boyce onGladstone’s attitude towards the Irish Unionists; andEugenio Biagini on Gladstone and Empire.

The strength of Parry’s chapter is in its insight intothe divisions within Gladstone’s cabinet, showing theseto be more interesting and complex than just Whigsagainst Radicals.

Parry sees the themes of the administration asfourfold: improving legislation, such as education andlicensing reform; democratic reform; Ireland andeconomy. The first two provoked divisions in theLiberal Party about the desirability of extending stateactivity and democracy. Irish policy ran aground onopposition in Ireland and Britain alike to the IrishUniversity Bill. This led Gladstone to focus on the drivefor economy, culminating in his bouncing the party intoan unsuccessful attempt to win re-election on a promiseof abolishing income tax.

The author stresses the importance of theFranco-Prussian war in undermining the drive to cutmilitary spending and increasing suspicion thatextending state activity in Britain might lead tocontinental-style autocracy. He concludes by arguingthat the experience of his first administration led toGladstone focusing, by the time of his return to powerin 1880, not on specific legislative proposals but on ageneral set of personal values, with which people couldidentify.

David Brooks offers a partial rehabilitation ofGladstone’s fourth and final ministry, pointing out theachievement of passing a Home Rule Bill through theHouse of Commons, with a small and heterogeneousmajority, which included not just the Liberals but alsothe Irish party divided between Parnellites andanti-Parnellites. He also dwells at length on the 1894Local Government Act, which was the one key legislativesuccess of the administration, creating a network ofparish councils.

At the same time, Brooks points out the problemscaused by Gladstone’s aloof and high-handedleadership style and how much the administration lostas a result of the death in 1891 of Lord Granville,described here as a sort of Willie Whitelaw figure of thefirst three Gladstone administrations.

D. George Boyce offers valuable insight intoGladstone’s relationship with the Unionists of Ireland.Some historians have seen Gladstone as failing tounderstand or take seriously Unionist concerns,regarding this as a blind spot in his dealing with Ireland.

Boyce challenges this view and outlines Gladstone’svision of an Ireland where the Protestant aristocracyonce again played a leading role in the country’s affairsunder a home rule parliament. He believed thatIreland’s problems came from the abdication ofresponsibility by the natural, aristocratic, leaders ofIreland, following the 1801 Act of Union and that HomeRule would restore them to a rightful position ‘in thefront rank of the nation’.

Although this does not really absolve Gladstone ofbeing impervious to the concerns of unionists of Ulster,it heavily qualifies the view that Gladstone was blind tothe position of Irish Unionists.

Eugenio Biagini, writing on the imperial policies ofGladstone’s second administration, stresses Gladstone’sintellectual debt to Burke, not just in advocatingcolonial self-government, but also in stressing the needfor order and respect for property. In doing so, heprovides an interesting explanation of the 1882 invasionof Egypt, often seen as a departure from Gladstone’sprofessed principles. In Biagini’s analysis, Gladstone’sview of the situation in Egypt can be likened to Burke’sattitude to revolutionary France.

The apparent breakdown in law and order and thefailure of the nationalist government in Egypt to showfiscal responsibility meant that British rule wasnecessary until such time as the Egyptians could bedeemed fit to govern themselves: just as Burke hadbelieved that counter-revolution was necessary inFrance in the 1790s. These are by no means the onlyhighlights of the book. Eric Evans and Anthony Howedemonstrate Gladstone’s debts to Peel and Cobdenrespectively, while Chris Wrigley gives an interestinginsight into the use made of Gladstone’s reputation byLiberal leaders. He shows how Asquithians contrastedthe Grand Old Man’s high-mindedness with LloydGeorge’s trickery to bolster their claim to be the truekeepers of the Liberal faith after the split of 1916.

Overall, however, this is an excellent volume, whichis to be commended to all who are interested inGladstone and in late nineteenth-century Liberalism. Farfrom being a mere celebration of the nineteenthcentury’s pre-eminent British statesmen, it offers muchin the way of new insight and challenges to establishedwisdom.

Gladstone Centenary Essay. Edited by David Bebbingtonand Roger Swift. Liverpool University Press £15.95(paperback)

18

CITIZEN KANEA Trotskyist’s success in Scotland leads Bernard Salmon towonder whether the Liberal Democrats are diverse enough

It’s probably escaped most people’s attention south ofthe border, but there’s a new star in the north.

In the few short weeks she’s been a member of theScottish Parliament, Rosie Kane has made more impactthan many of her colleagues did during the whole of thelast Parliament.

She became an instant media star merely byscribbling ‘My oath is to the people’ on her hand duringher swearing-in as an MSP, in protest at the requirementto swear allegiance to the Queen.

Just as importantly, she attended the ceremonywearing - of all things - a pair of jeans and a fairlylow-cut top. Many male parliamentarians and the largelymale Holyrood press corps were unsure whether toogle, be shocked or just ignore it.

Unfortunately from a liberal point of view, CitizenKane, as she’s been dubbed by the media, is a memberof the Scottish Socialist Party. The substance of herpolitics consists largely of the sort of gesture politicsshown at the swearing in ceremony. Like the rest of herparty, she inhabits a Trotskyite fantasy land.

But what sets Rosie apart is that she looks andsounds like an ordinary human being, not a politician.Dammit, she is an ordinary human being. At the time ofthe Scottish election, her home telephone wasapparently only accepting incoming calls, because shehadn’t paid the bill. She claims to have read only fivebooks in her entire life. She used to be intensely shy,almost agoraphobic, and initially found it hard to speakin public.

She first got involved in politics as a result of gettinginvolved in motorway protests in Glasgow, beforehelping found the SSP. But although she’s come a longway since then, she is still recognisably that rarecreature in politics, an ordinary person.

The question which arises from this is whether theLiberal Democrats need to think about the way we lookand sound. Do we all too often just seem like justanother bunch of politicians, a species which manypeople seem to regard as having arrived from anotherplanet?

In fairness, we are sometimes good at putting acrossour case clearly and directly, in a way which people caneasily understand. A good example was our oppositionto the war in Iraq, although the effect was somewhatundermined by our more muted message when thefighting actually started, which seemed to confuse quitea lot of people.

However, I think it is fair to say that the LiberalDemocrats are overwhelmingly dominated by peoplewho are white, male, graduates and professionals.

For instance, of the 64 people listed as PPCs on theparty’s website at the start of June - an absurdly lownumber at this stage of a Parliament, but never mindthat - no less than 48 were graduates, with the

remaining 16 either being non-graduates or withinsufficient information provided to determine thequestion. Of the 48 graduates, no less than 12 werefrom Oxbridge.

Only 20 of the PPCs are women, just one is a memberof a visible ethnic minority and just one can reasonablybe described as not coming from a professionalbackground, although there was again insufficientinformation on some to be able to judge.

I also looked at the make-up of the 17 people electedas Lib Dem MSPs by 1 May. Of these, 13 were graduates(three Oxbridge), just two were women and none werefrom ethnic minorities. Five could be described ascoming from a non-professional background, althougha few of these are best seen as having had a mixture ofprofessional and non-professional occupations.

The question has to be asked whether we mainlyserve the interests of white, male, graduate,professionals; whether we couch our message in a waywhich mainly appeals to such people; and whether as aresult the appeal of liberal values and policies is limitedfor people who don’t fit that kind of profile. That couldbe one possible explanation as to why liberals havemade so few breakthroughs at a parliamentary level ininner-city and industrial areas. If it is the case that thislack of diversity is holding the party back, then what canbe done about it? First of all, the problem needs to bedebated and understood. While there may be some whoclaim that all this does not matter and that what mattersis a person’s commitment to liberal values or otherwise,I think they are wrong. We may be ignoring a wholehorde of people who could be very effectivespokespeople for liberal values and policies byappearing to be the political wing of the chatteringclasses. Secondly, there needs to be a commitment at alllevels of the party to tackle the problem, from localparties through to the Federal Executive.

Duties should be put on local parties to havesomeone in place with responsibility for increasing thediversity of our members, and especially our candidates.And the Federal Executive should adopt a monitoringrole to ensure that this is happening.

Thirdly, and crucially, funding programmes must beput in place to ensure that the work necessary actuallyhappens. I also think it would be reasonable forcampaign funding to be denied to local parties whichcannot show they are taking active steps to increase thediversity of their candidates.

There are some local parties which already do thiskind of work, as well as a few Lib Dem parliamentarianswho do seem to have the gift of communicating withpeople easily, in a non-patronising way. But if the partydecides to take the issue really seriously, it can certainlyreap real dividends. Before too long, we’ll have a fewCitizen Kanes of our own.

19

20

BLAIR BUSHEDDear Liberator,

Hurrah for the LiberatorCollective, who alone as far as myexperience goes, have grasped theimplications of the Iraqi war(Liberator 287).

In Liberal fashion I have tried tounderstand why some people, evenLiberal democrats, have been infavour of the war. I have beenunable to detect either principle orlogic in their stance.

It does not help them that thewhole war was based on deceptionand lies.

The avoidance of UNopinion-testing, the ‘embedding’ ofmedia correspondents so that thepropaganda may be more easilydistorted, the misuse and abuse ofterms like ‘coalition’, ‘France’ andthe dossier of evidence, and nowthe behaviour of US leaders in theaftermath, are duplicitous.

Bremner, Bird and Fortune haveshown this up more clearly thananyone.

I have completely failed tounderstand how support can haveswitched from anti- to pro- once theway got underway. I suppose that, ifI see the school bully about tosmash the face of a smaller kid, Ishould point out that he would bedoing wrong. If he ignores me andgoes ahead, should I thencongratulate him on a thorough jobdone within three weeks and withminimum collateral damage?

How does something morallywrong become right through forcemajeure?

Yes, the Saddam Hussein regimewas evil and needed to be deposed.This now an ex-post factojustification. And it was weapons ofmass destruction and the threat toother nations, coupled with theinvention of connections betweenthe regime and Al-Qaida.

But if regime change is to bedecided by people outwith theregime’s subjects it should be aninternational decision, not left tothe vengeful whim of the nation thathas the most weapons of massdestruction.

Most of the media have gonealong with this. Well, if you areBritish and a Liberal Democrat, yourealise that a lot of ‘news’ is whatthe media choose to feature andhow vested interests present it, likethe trap of ‘Kennedy will not

support our troops’, into which weas a party fell.

Why Tony Blair has been suckedinto this vortex is hard tounderstand. Is he really expectingus to believe that the world will be asafer place now that decisions aboutgood or bad regimes, anddeclarations of war, are taken by acoterie of bellicose, oil-fired,self-righteous thugs?

Ironic is it not that one of theterm of abuse levelled at the Frenchand Germans, is ‘old Europe’.

In reality it is the Americans thatare espousing an old outlook: bruteforce on anyone whom you dislike.Attempts were made during thetwentieth century to move to morecivilised ways of sorting things out.

The UN is the agency for this task,yet the twenty-first century hasbegun with an American reversion,backed by Britain, to the law of thejungle.

My opinion remains that the mostdangerous man in the world is notSaddam Hussein, or even Osamabin Laden, but George W Bush.

Alan BaileyPortsmouth

BACK INTO EUROPEDear Liberator,

In Radical Bulletin (Liberator287) you say of any possibleimprovement in relations betweenthe Liberals and Liberal democrats,“the Liberal Party’s anti-EU stancemight be a problem, but since it wasonly adopted on a 26-24 vote at itsassembly it is hardly the settled viewof its members”.

Indeed, that stance wasconsiderably changed at the 2002assembly by a motion which, whileacknowledging long termaspirations for a ‘Commonwealth ofEurope’ took as its starting point,“whilst being fully aware of theshortcomings and failings of theEuropean Union as presentlyconstituted, assembly nevertheless

believes that the EU still representsthe best available vehicle for Europecooperation and stability”.

An amendment urging the partyto campaign for UK withdrawal fromthe EU was emphatically rejected.

At the same assembly relationsbetween Liberals and LiberalDemocrats improved considerablywhen Birmingham Liberal Democratcouncil group leader JohnHemming was an extremely wellreceived guest speaker.

Mike OborskiPresident, Liberal Party

NOT IN OFFICEDear Liberator,

Many thanks for your hosting thefringe meeting at Torbay whicharose from meetings betweenmembers of the Liberal and LiberalDemocrat parties (Liberator 287). Itis always good for liberals to havediscussions with each other and nopoint in disagreeing just for the sakeof it.

The discussions are also better ifthey are about issues rather than on“characters” who may be found inall political parties. Those indiscussion share the concern thatthe case for liberalism is not beingmade.

In true liberal style may I raisetwo points of order. 1) I am thetreasurer not chair of the LiberalParty. 2) The informal talks arebetween individuals in each partyrather than office-holders from eachparty.

Rob WhewayTreasurer, Liberal Party

21

Within These Walls -Memoirs of a DeathHouse Chaplainby Rev Carroll PickettVision PaperbacksIt has been a long time since I read abook that had tears flowing downmy face just about every time Ipicked it up. I would like this simpleshort book to be required readingfor any person interested in thedeath penalty or indeed simply thepenal system.

Within These Walls consists of thememoirs of the Rev Carroll Pickett,who was the chaplain at HuntsvillePrison, Texas for over 20 years.

During his term there, the deathpenalty was re-introduced in 1982and so the task of being acompanion to those spending theirlast day on this earth fell to him. Inall, he attended the state-sponsoredmurder of almost 100 convictedmurderers.

The book is a simple calmrecounting of his experiences withthese men, some cruel andunrepentant, others reformed andremorseful for the crimes that theyhad committed and the terribletragedies that they had inflicted onthe loved ones of those whom theyhad murdered.

There are also the stories of thosewhom he was convinced wereinnocent and those who due tomental illness should never havebeen on death row. He kept his ownpersonal opinion that the deathpenalty was wrong secret during hisentire ministry at the prison, feelingthat if it were known, it wouldnegatively affect his ability to be acompassionate source of supportand human comfort to these men ontheir dying day.

It was when the rate of executionpicked up, so that he had to officiateat two executions in the one day andhe could not avoid feeling that hehad become part of an assembly lineof death, that he finally tendered hisresignation.

Then and only then did he startexpressing publicly his deeply heldview that what was taking place waswrong. It made no sense to him thatthe state was trying to convey to thepublic that killing was wrong bybecoming a killer itself.

But this is a valuable book, notonly for its gentle recounting ofthese terrible last hours but also forthe passing references in the stories

to the other aspects of day-to-dayprison life. Rape, murder, suicideand brutal violence were commonoccurrences within those walls. Asthe stories emerging from Britishprisons demonstrate, we know thatwe too have a huge challenge toensure that the civilised standardsthat we expect in a democracy areexperienced by those whosefreedom we take away.

Prison reform is a core liberalissue and I regret that no LiberalDemocrat parliamentarian has yetbeen able to establish a highnational profile as an advocate onthe issue.

David Blunkett has not given anyindication that he is willing to faceup to his responsibilities on thisissue as he seeks to increaseincarceration yet further.Unfortunately liberalism seems tobe a dirty word for him, just as it isfor the Republican right thatsupports the death penalty in theUnited States.

Since Texasre-introduced the deathpenalty for murder, manyother states havefollowed suit. It isenlightening to note thatin the 12 that haveresisted its return capitaloffences have reduced bynearly 20 per cent, butnone of those whichrestored the deathpenalty have seen such adecrease, indeed theopposite has happenedin most of them.

It was when I read this,that I came to thedreadful realisation that itwas the same awfulflawed philosophy thathad been applied tocapital murder in Texas,that was now beingapplied to internationalterrorism by a former

governor of Texas, George W Bush,a man who had personallyauthorised many of the executionsthat Carroll Pickett witnessed.

You do not stamp out murder bykilling those convicted of murder. Itsimply does not work and has neverworked. But more importantly youdo not stamp out terrorism byinvading countries and killingthousands of enemy soldiers.

It did not work in NorthernIreland, so why should it work inrelation to Islamic terrorists? Theworld’s nightmare is that it issomeone who has completely failedto understand the barbarism andfutility of the death penalty and whois now in charge of the mostpowerful military force ever seen onthis planet, leads on our responseto September 11. The question iscan liberalism and we as liberals riseto the challenge that this crisis nowfaces us with?

Donnachadh McCarthy

22

Growing OldDisgracefullyby Alan LakeyFirefly 2002 £20At last, the definitive story of thePretty Things, the band that is theparallel universe of British rockmusic.

They were there in 1964 as alouder, hairier more threateningversion of the Rolling Stones, andhad a handful of middling hitsingles. In 1967 they created SFSorrow, the first psychedelic rockopera, preceding the Who’s Tommyby several months. Their greatestcommercial success came with theirblandest music in the mid-1970s. By1980 they were already a retroattraction.

Remarkably, they are still here.Their occasional forays on stagenowadays feature the intact 1966line-up, memorably described inthis book as looking like a bunch ofold lags out on parole for agangland funeral.

They won respect but never mademuch money. In an age of bandsmanufactured on television ‘talent’shows, there is something oddlytouching about a bunch of men allnearing 60 and still searching foranother hit record.

Mark Smulian

The Madness ofGeorge DubyaArts Theatre, LondonThey say satire is dead on theLondon stage. That’s not quite truesince some of the most pointedsatire going can be seen any night ofthe week in comedy clubs. But withmore than a third of west endtheatres given over totourist-pleasing musicals, satire hasbeen driven into the back streets.

This play is satire done as highfarce, and is obviously updated asevents unfold. It is essentially aremake of Dr Strangelove for ourtimes, with a subplot about atransvestite bomber crew.

A Bush figure, clad in pyjamasand clutching a cuddly toy, spendsmuch of the play comatose whilearound him a deranged generalorders a nuclear strike on Iraq froma base in Yorkshire.

The Blair character, summonedaway from the more pressingpurchase of two flats in Bristol to

deal with the crisis, is played as anoily, cringing lightweight, out of hisdepth and at the end of his tether.Salvation arrives in the shape of asuicide bomber posing as adomestic cleaner, who forces thetwo leaders to put the world torights as the price of revealing thesecret code to recall the bombers.

Amid the humour the play getsover the serious points about theIraq with perhaps too light a touchuntil the ‘Iraqi ambassador’ issummoned to see Blair at the end.

This character’s enraged tiradeagainst western interference in Iraqover the past 100 years sets out thecase that Saddam Hussein did notjust appear from nowhere, but wasthe product of a country neverallowed to develop its own bodypolitic. There is an uncomfortablemoment when the ambassador triesto justify the invasion of Kuwait,which may be a realisticrepresentation of what an Iraqiambassador would say, but must, orought, to have detracted from theaudience’s sympathy.

The Madness of George Dubyamanages to be both very funny andvery serious, even if the eventsdepicted are not very believable.

Perhaps the least credible is whenthe Blair character sends Britishtroops to seize the American basewhose commanders have gone mad.I can’t imagine the real Blaircommitting such an act oflese-majeste.

Mark Smulian

Paradise and Power:America and Europe inthe New World Orderby Robert KaganAtlantic Books London2003In January 1998 Bill Clintonreceived a letter from therecently-formed Project for the NewAmerican Century. It claimed thepolicy of containing Iraq was notworking and should be replaced bythe removal of Saddam Husseinfrom power. Just over five yearslater that recommendation has nowbecome fact. And if we don’t like it,we’d better get used to it, as a newbook tells us.

Among the letter’s signatorieswere the future Defense SecretaryDonald Rumsfeld and his deputy,Paul Wolfowitz. Alongside them was

Robert Kagan, a former StateDepartment official, whose newbook, Paradise and Power, has shothim to prominence with hisexplanation and analysis ofAmerican power.

Kagan offers a timely insight intothe intellectual thinking of theneo-conservatives running the BushAdministration’s foreign policy. Heargues the United States has notchanged direction in its foreignpolicy since 11 September; rather, itis pursuing a course of a rift that hasopened up between itself andEurope since the end of the ColdWar and which occurred underClinton, although less perceptiblyso.

American and Europeanperspectives differ as a result of thepositions they are in; whereas bothAmerica and Europe are botheconomically strong, Europe lacksthe military power that the US has.In other words the US is capable ofusing a variety of different tools inits foreign policy toolbox, resortingto military force if it has to, whileEurope relies on the art ofdiplomacy and negotiation.

But this doesn’t mean European‘soft power’ will win out overAmerican military might. Indeed,Kagan argues there are few limits onAmerican power. During the 1990sEuropean military spending grewfrom $150b to $180b; America,meanwhile, was spending $280band is expected to rise to $400b.Economic trends suggest theAmerican economy may grow fromroughly the same size as Europe’stoday to almost double by 2050.

Furthermore, Europeandiplomacy and negotiation won’twork beyond the ‘liberal West’,asserts Kagan. North Korea, Iran,Syria and Cuba cannot be tackled inthe same way. Instead a degree ofdouble standard is required, withEuropean preferences used amongthose countries that make up theWest, but alternative methods usedoutside.

With the current state of affairsset to continue, Kagan offers littlealternative to the prospect of thebeginning of a long-term Americanhegemony. Europeans may try toincrease their military capability byincreasing their defence budgets orcreating an EU defence force, butthey will remain marginal players atbest. Yet for Kagan there is a silverlining for Europe: America, far frombeing a sinister behemoth, offers the

23

prospect of a benevolent powerwhose national interestsinclude a liberal Europe. ForKagan this is best reflected inthe fact that both sides share aset of common liberal valueswhich can be traced back to theEnlightenment.

And yet despite Kagan’sassurances, from a Europeanviewpoint his conclusionsremain strangely unsettling. Ifthe future if the image of anAmerica running rampant andconstrained by no-one, whatprospect does this offer thewider world? It is hard toimagine a vision other than onein which regimes in ‘roguestates’ are toppled one by oneby Washington and replacedwith others more favourable toAmerican interests. All this maybe very well if you followKagan’s logic. But by focusingon what America and Europewant, he fails to tackle whatshould be done when people inthose countries refuse to acceptAmerican-imposed governments.

Just as Iraq offered a clearcleavage between America andEurope over the application ofpower, it would appear divisions areopening up between Washington onone hand and the aims andaspirations of the Iraqi populace onthe other. While Kagan argues thefuture of the international relationsis an increasingly dominant Americathat can do what it likes, this is anissue neo-conservatives such asKagan and others in the BushAdministration might like toconsider before they plan their nextbig adventure.

Guy Burton

Human ThereforePoliticalby Rob WhewayThe Liberal Institute2002 £3.50With concern about voter apathy inthe UK rightly at all-time highs, it’swelcome to see a second LiberalInstitute publication puttingforward, from first principles,possibilities for re-engaging interestand activity in local politics. It’s alsoimpressive that it was issued, andagain distributed via Liberator, soquickly after the first, his “PoliticalAccess Broadcasting: Engaging the

Electorate”, which I reviewed inLiberator 282.

At the heart of this pamphlet isthe thesis that people are naturally,and very largely unselfishly,agreement-makers who co-operateto work out solutions. (It will beinteresting to see the success orotherwise of this on various localgovernment coalitions formed since1 May 2003, including for examplethe one on Derby City Council.)Also included are arguments aroundthe largely Thatcherite evolution ofthe citizen-as-consumer, which, hestates, “did not empower citizens,but centralised power in the handsof the few, because it encouragedpeople to criticise providers ofservices rather than question thebasis on which [local] governmentwas being run”. (I would havefound some attempt at definitions of“new right” and indeed “new left”helpful at this point.)

On the way, we visit Pericles’ viewof the citizen as being one whocares for and takes forward publicaffairs, with useful if fleetingcritiques of Milton Friedman, LeonBrittan, academics writing on localgovernment, management gurus,and the limitations of any “market”model of politics.

All the arguments are cogentlyexplored, and it is hard to disagreewith his thesis that people need tobe treated as citizens (people who“have the right to take part in thedecision making processes or forum

of (their) community” rather thanas consumers of public services)in order fully to be them.

The pamphlet is wellpresented, with a higher standardof proofreading than itspredecessor - though lapses docreep in, notably the misspellingof “Foreword” on the inside frontpage. A strength of the writing isthat points are illustrated bypractical, readily recognisableeveryday examples: familysupplies, sports clubs, agreementsby children in the playground onthe rules of the game, socialoccasions run by voluntarygroups, to name just a few.

This material deserves a wideaudience just like its sisterpamphlet; I intend to send a copyto my New Labour MP - and, ofcourse, Mr Nannygoat Blair.

Kate Smith

Available from 024 7671 4784or rob@wheway.demon.co.uk

Front Page, covers ofthe 20th Centurytext by StéphaneDuperray & RaphaëlVidalingWeidenfeld & Nicolson2003 £20.00

Is what it says, though perhapsthe ‘long twentieth century’appropriate to the changes ingraphic print technology. TheFrench authors give us a Gallic twist,making the titles covered moreinternational than perhaps anEnglish or American author wouldhave chosen, commencing with the1930s Minotaure, a surrealistmagazine from France.

As we pass into a new century, Inote that old Fascist magazines areincluded for their aesthetic ratherthan to denigrate them, thoughbeing quite clear about theirpolitical failings. In the last half ofthe 20th century, too many werestill mesmerised by our Communistally of the war, neglecting that theywere (and are where still in power)every bit as bad. Fraternité was aFrench communist magazine.

Sadly no Liberator covers areincluded; perhaps more of thecollective should study this book.

Stewart Rayment

24

MondayDid you read those reports about the cullof hedgehogs in the Outer Hebrides? Itseems that our spiked friends are in thehabit of tucking in to the eggs of rareseabirds, with the result that there ishardly a wheway to be found from oneend of North Uist to the other. I went upto Lochmaddy for some sport, but foundmyself feeling sorry for the little chapsand, in a moment of weakness, offeredthem asylum at the Hall. They arrived theother day (pace the Daily Mail, therewere no Albabians in pantomimehedgehog costumes amongst them), andI have to admit that I am finding them Rather Hard Work. It isnot that they are infested with fleas: so are a number of LiberalDemocrat activists of my acquaintance. No, what troubles me isthat they are intensely religious and expect me and join them insinging psalms in Gaelic at the drop of a hat. And as to theirviews on keeping the sabbath: I shall merely say that they makeNanny sound like a libertine. Meadowcroft, however, will nothear a word against them. Not only do they eat slugs, they havejoined the Wee Free Liberal who meet in his potting shed. I canhere them singing there as I write.

TuesdayEarly morning at Market Haborough station: I arrive on theBonkers Hall branch and wait for the London train. A figure inan anorak catches my eye: as a goods train clanks north, heexcitedly writes in a notebook before unwrapping a packet ofsandwiches and treating himself to a cup of coffee from histhermos. Just as I am considering engaging him in discussionabout the finer points of A4 Pacifics and dropping a few hintsabout how welcome a cup of coffee would be, a helicopterappears overhead. Suddenly the fellow is seized from all sidesby armed policemen and frog-marched off the platform. “It’sGuantanomo Bay for you, sunshine,” sneers a constable. Suchan intrusion upon our civil liberties is not be be borne, and Ispend the journey to Town drafting a letter to The Times. Myonly consolation is that the poor fellow dropped his thermos inthe mêlée.

WednesdayI read in the Manchester Guardian that Norman Baker wants toban parents from taking their children to school in landroversand such like vehicles. I have an instinctive sympathy with him:one sees so much oil wasted when there are many other ways ofgenerating energy (wave power, Malachy Dromgoogle’s roof, anorphan on a treadmill...). So I telephone Baker to learn moreabout his idea. “Each district council,” he enthuses, “willappoint a travel-to-school commissioner to inspect all vehicles.He or she will consider their environmental sustainability andage appropriateness, and award a certificate to any that pass.” Ican see that it might make work for graduates from some of ournewer universities, but I cannot see it going down well with thevoters. If I were Baker, I would concentrate my campaigning onTibet and the reopening of the Lewes to Uckfield railway line –both subjects upon which he is acknowledged as aninternational authority.

ThursdayAll Liberals will wish bon voyage to the European mission toMars, if only because it reminds us of the glory days of the Bird

of Liberty and the intrepid DavidChidgey. Informed sources in Brusselstell me that the idea behind the latestrocket ship is to see, once and for all,whether there is life on the red planet. Ifthere is, the astronauts, euronauts,blignauts or whatever they callthemselves will persuade the little greenmen to implement the EuropeanUnderwear Directive and, in return, weshall subsidise their agriculture andensure that any cucumbers they grow areof suitable shape. Incidentally, what doyou make of this new constitution up towhich we are all supposed to sign? (Goodgrammar, what?) Bill Newton-Dunn (best

known as the hero of one of Betjeman’s best-loved poems)assures me that the notion of our sending a tribute of twentyyouths and maidens to Strasburg every year was agreed to byMrs Thatcher when she agreed to the Single European Act, butthat hardly strikes me as a consolation.

FridayDavid Rendel rows me out to one of the islands on RutlandWater. Having watched Lembit Öpik’s young lady in the jungle, Iam considering making a programme here for RutlandTelevision. The idea is that you maroon a lot of people andmake them eat beetles, wrestle hippopotami and so forth. Onething I have noticed is that slow bowlers are particulaly popularwith the public; hence my own series will be called I’m an Off

Spinner, Get me Out of Here (If Your Lordship Will Accept a

Cheque). Already John Emburey, Vic Marks and Pat Pocock haveagreed to appear, amd I have no doubt that it will prove a hugesuccess.

SaturdayMy old friend George Galloway is in the Algarve writing a book.Funnily enough, the other day I met an MP from the Algarvewho was writing a book in Glasgow. Whilst in Scotland Iattended the opening of their Parliament to see little Steel in thechair for the last time. All went well until one of the Socialistsinsisted on singing some verses by the immortal Rabbi Burns. Iwould not have minded, but when I took the oath back in ‘06and had the idea of jollying up the proceedings byaccompanying myself on the banjolele, everyone complained.Not for the first time, I found myself ahead of public opinion.

SundayI have long been in the habit of inviting the President of theUnited States to dinner at the Hall at this time of year. One doeshave to keep the Democrat incumbents away from thechambermaids, but there is often good conversation as acompensation. The current fellow arrives and I give him theusual tour of the old demesne. All goes well until I show himthe palm trees in one of my glasshouses. The fellow gives ashriek of joy, shins up the trunk and proceeds to pelt theassembled company with bananas, and no amount of pleadingwill bring him down in time for dinner. Later I have to faceMeadowcroft in his potting shed. “Yon monkey’s befangled mytropicals,” he complains bitterly to the hedgehogs.

Lord Bonkers, who was Liberal MP for Rutland South-West1906-10, opened his diary to Jonathan Calder.

Lord

Bonkers’

Diary

www.bonkers.hall.btinternet.co.uk