OK, maybe it is a sign of encroaching Coalition think but... (The symptoms are similar to those members of the Labour party who'd defend everything the last Labour government do, and now accuse LibDems of betraying "progressive" politics.)
Various places ran stories like this one about Dominic Raab. The claim is that he is refusing to take emails from constituents.
The tone is outraged, and they provide his email address as a link to encourage you to share your outrage with him. You are meant to think "how dare he hide from his constituents".
I think I would have ignored the story if it wasn't for childish inclusion of email address in these posts.
The first problem is... it is up to him and his constituents. They elected him and get to kick him out. That is the system. So noting the hypocricy of me commenting on this having observed it is nothing to do with me, we move on.
Secondly it isn't true that you can't contact him. I checked his website, and he provides a way to email him. Albeit an irritating one. There is also a contact email address for his consituency party which I am sure would be bounced to his office. From reading his blog I see the form was added in response to the furore. However this does show he is willing to be contacted.
Third 38 Degrees are just plain rude. They Work For You gave an example of how to do this politely. An MP asked not to get faxes or emails via the site, and they honoured this. People who tried to went to a page that told them the MP had asked for this and gave his postal address. I think the MP in question was wrong to do this, but it was up to his constituents.
Next, reading the quote on LFF Mr Raab didn't say no email from constituents, just no prepackaged email from a pressure group. Another way of saying this is that they twisted the facts. They said his publishing his address was enough to let them off the hook. I disagree, and observe that this is the claim of Spammers throughout the world. The address is not being used for the purpose it was published. But that doesn't matter in the world of twitter: as what has been tweeted world over is the headline.
Fifth the parliamentary email address is for parliamentary business. He needs to be able to see what is urgent in that inbox. I guess Parliamentary IT or Mr Raab are not up to filtering! If the pressure groups are stopping him doing his work, and the nuisance of the fake indignation of bloggers and tweeters.
However, Mr Raab was (at best) naive to do this. It is bad politics, and he should have seen it coming. He assumed that a pressure group wouldn't want to raise publicity for their causes. How does someone as intelligent as Mr Raab clearly is not spot the problem in that.
To be honest the best approach is to publish a casework email address that goes to his office or to filter the email to parliament to send it to the office. (The office can then send replies.) It'd be hard to object to an email saying "please send these to my office address" if that was the approach taken. This is a problem with a trivial technological solution that doesn't have political implications. There should be IT support for new MPs to fix these problems.
If you want a thought through response from an MP send a personal letter/email. Otherwise they will bounce you a standard reply from their party. I am sure the fake indignation brigade will rise to this, but if you put in no effort why should they? A candidate I spoke to in a no-hope seat told me that his email inbox bulged and he could spend all his time responding. In a winable seat it must be even worse.
Showing posts with label Tories. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tories. Show all posts
Monday, August 16, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Hurd and Young: Choose Your Weapons
At the Hay Festival this year one event that I went to was Douglas Hurd and Edward Young talking about their book Choose Your Weapons: The British Foreign Secretary 200 Years of Argument, Success and Failure. It was a brilliant discussion, with Hurd showing a level of knowledge and understanding of foreign affairs that was impressive, and also making his arguments with great clarity and thought.
One nice moment was when the panel were asked if they felt that the Iraq war was still damaging the United Kingdom in Eurovision. Edward Young replied that he felt we lost this year because the song wasn't very good to general murmurs of approval.
More poignant was Hurd's response when the New Labour "ethical foreign policy" (or "foreign policy with an ethical dimension") was raised in the discussion. This is also included in the book. The authors make the point that "it is sometimes the duty of a Foreign Secretary to deal courteously with villains" (p312) and observe that meeting and talking is not "an act of surrender but of good sense" (p369). It should be noted that the UK engaged with people that could be described as villains throughout the Labour government. I do remember feeling that change was needed in 1997, but looking back I can't see a great improvement that Cook claimed he could make. Hurd was quite clear at Hay that he felt the Conservative foreign policy had an ethical dimension, but that this is not a simple matter.
I found the book very interesting. Hurd and Young's style is very readable. It could be said to be dry, but there is enough human interest to make up for this.
I would strongly suggest that you don't drop this book on the foot of your wife (or anyone else you care about). I think I've been forgiven, but the book hasn't.
The centrepiece of the book is a comparison between (Conservative) constructive diplomacy and (Liberal) interventionism and adventure. Or to put it another way between Castlereagh's attempt to create a system of treaties after the Napoleonic war and Canning's wish to intervene. Hurd looks at appeasement as sometimes positive.
The initial discussion at Hay set up Hurd as the defender of quiet diplomacy, and Young as the advocate of loud interventionism. In fact reading the book, although it is clear that Hurd has a preference for joint working and avoiding conflict, and a suspicion of intervention and threat of intervention, it is clear that both authors see the need for both strands of foreign policy. The epilogue which looks at recent developments and events makes this clear.
On a small scale I learnt the origins of the word Jingo (p145), and came across the original meaning of filibuster (p195; odd this I hadn't ever heard it in the freebooter sense until about a week ago, and then I heard it several times). At a more significant level I found the discussion of the role of the British, and in particular Canning as then foreign secretary, in the origins of the Monroe Doctrine very interesting. The fact that the US could only issue this due to the power of the British is neatly compared to later situations where the British needed US support.
The chapters usually set up a contrast between two people, usually rivals for the position of foreign secretary. This is usually seen as a variation on the two strands outlined above, sometimes more convincingly than others. The problem with this is that, as the authors make clear, it often isn't that simple. Lord Aberdeen seems to be destroyed by the failure of his quiet policy leading to the Crimean war, whilst louder interventionists might have their bluffs called.
Another theme that is looked at quietly, and perhaps could have been made louder, is the role of the cabinet and the Prime Minister. Derby used the cabinet to block Disraeli over intervention in disputes between Russia and Turkey. Eden resigned in 1938 when he couldn't persuade the cabinet to block the PM's (Chamberlain) personal diplomacy with Italy. The unspoken message is that the Cabinet should be powerful enough to check the PM, and that the PM should give the Foreign Secretary space to run foreign policy is clear. The latter belief would appear to come from, or be strengthened by, Hurd's time under Thatcher, the latter from experiences under Blair. We can but hope that coalition might have the effect of reinvigorating cabinet.
This book has made me consider what should be included in foreign policy, and there are several points raised by it that I shall return to in other posts. A good read. Can anyone suggest any other books about British foreign policy to compare and contrast with?
One nice moment was when the panel were asked if they felt that the Iraq war was still damaging the United Kingdom in Eurovision. Edward Young replied that he felt we lost this year because the song wasn't very good to general murmurs of approval.
More poignant was Hurd's response when the New Labour "ethical foreign policy" (or "foreign policy with an ethical dimension") was raised in the discussion. This is also included in the book. The authors make the point that "it is sometimes the duty of a Foreign Secretary to deal courteously with villains" (p312) and observe that meeting and talking is not "an act of surrender but of good sense" (p369). It should be noted that the UK engaged with people that could be described as villains throughout the Labour government. I do remember feeling that change was needed in 1997, but looking back I can't see a great improvement that Cook claimed he could make. Hurd was quite clear at Hay that he felt the Conservative foreign policy had an ethical dimension, but that this is not a simple matter.
I found the book very interesting. Hurd and Young's style is very readable. It could be said to be dry, but there is enough human interest to make up for this.
I would strongly suggest that you don't drop this book on the foot of your wife (or anyone else you care about). I think I've been forgiven, but the book hasn't.
The centrepiece of the book is a comparison between (Conservative) constructive diplomacy and (Liberal) interventionism and adventure. Or to put it another way between Castlereagh's attempt to create a system of treaties after the Napoleonic war and Canning's wish to intervene. Hurd looks at appeasement as sometimes positive.
The initial discussion at Hay set up Hurd as the defender of quiet diplomacy, and Young as the advocate of loud interventionism. In fact reading the book, although it is clear that Hurd has a preference for joint working and avoiding conflict, and a suspicion of intervention and threat of intervention, it is clear that both authors see the need for both strands of foreign policy. The epilogue which looks at recent developments and events makes this clear.
On a small scale I learnt the origins of the word Jingo (p145), and came across the original meaning of filibuster (p195; odd this I hadn't ever heard it in the freebooter sense until about a week ago, and then I heard it several times). At a more significant level I found the discussion of the role of the British, and in particular Canning as then foreign secretary, in the origins of the Monroe Doctrine very interesting. The fact that the US could only issue this due to the power of the British is neatly compared to later situations where the British needed US support.
The chapters usually set up a contrast between two people, usually rivals for the position of foreign secretary. This is usually seen as a variation on the two strands outlined above, sometimes more convincingly than others. The problem with this is that, as the authors make clear, it often isn't that simple. Lord Aberdeen seems to be destroyed by the failure of his quiet policy leading to the Crimean war, whilst louder interventionists might have their bluffs called.
Another theme that is looked at quietly, and perhaps could have been made louder, is the role of the cabinet and the Prime Minister. Derby used the cabinet to block Disraeli over intervention in disputes between Russia and Turkey. Eden resigned in 1938 when he couldn't persuade the cabinet to block the PM's (Chamberlain) personal diplomacy with Italy. The unspoken message is that the Cabinet should be powerful enough to check the PM, and that the PM should give the Foreign Secretary space to run foreign policy is clear. The latter belief would appear to come from, or be strengthened by, Hurd's time under Thatcher, the latter from experiences under Blair. We can but hope that coalition might have the effect of reinvigorating cabinet.
This book has made me consider what should be included in foreign policy, and there are several points raised by it that I shall return to in other posts. A good read. Can anyone suggest any other books about British foreign policy to compare and contrast with?
Thursday, June 24, 2010
So much for Localism
The Local Government minister Eric Pickles has said how much he likes localism.
In just 7 weeks he has intervened in local government decisions on...
In just 7 weeks he has intervened in local government decisions on...
- planning
- rubbish collection and recycling
- procurement
- flying flags
- food hygiene
- building at bank holidays
- council tax
Of course thats just edited highlights. Some of these I agree with the pronouncements from central government, others I disagree with. That isn't the point: if you believe in localism then stop interfering in local government issues.
One announcement was entertaining: the news that the Audit Commission were told to stop telling people to change their bin collection arrangements. This was presented as Pickles stepping in to defend weekly collections of rubbish. It was no such thing, it was an empty vacuous piece of spin.
Those Councils (like South Cambs and Cambridge City locally) that have alternate weekly collections know that Pickles is talking rubbish (sorry). It works. There isn't a problem with flies or smells for most of us who can cope with keeping the bin lid shut. It reduces the amount of rubbish to landfill by providing the spare men/trucks to do other collections and making a few people think about their behaviour when they run out of bin space.
I do hope Andrew Stunell, who is supposed to be the Local Government Minister, can get a grip on his boss.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Budget Blues*
The rhetoric has been getting more and more over the top.
I suspect this means that the budget today will be less extravagant than people fear.
I do hope that the coalition doesn't whack VAT up across the board. I fear however it will.
My only budget prediction is Labour hypocrisy. Remember they promised in the budget last year, that if re-elected, they'd perform £44bn of public sector cuts. However suddenly sticking to Labour's plans is cruel and regressive and nasty and...
This is not going to be a fun day to be a Liberal Democrat.
* and, to be fair, yellows too.
I suspect this means that the budget today will be less extravagant than people fear.
I do hope that the coalition doesn't whack VAT up across the board. I fear however it will.
My only budget prediction is Labour hypocrisy. Remember they promised in the budget last year, that if re-elected, they'd perform £44bn of public sector cuts. However suddenly sticking to Labour's plans is cruel and regressive and nasty and...
This is not going to be a fun day to be a Liberal Democrat.
* and, to be fair, yellows too.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
DC and families
It is an old joke but a favourite from the era of Cecil and Alan Clarke that the Tories are so keen on family values they want to have as many as they can.
So the Tory attempt to mobilise their base has begun with tax breaks for married couples with children. This worries me as a liberal as the state interfering in the bedroom: most certainly not the business of the government.
Marriage is designed to protect people in the risks of long term commitment needed to raise families. It isn't a moral issue, the history of English marriage shows this. Early modern (16th/17th century) marriage amongst the majority of the population was considered to gave taken place when a couple started cohabiting, but the legal marriage was delayed until pregnancy. Not a million miles from today. The Victorians tried to change all this, but not very successfully outside the upper classes.
The evidence that children do better in stable homes is clear: but that doesn't mean they do better in volatile households. Also the evidence on cohabiting couples isn't much different from married.
This clearly is not about child welfare. It also won't make anyone tie the knot. It might help people at an expensive time when money might cause a split, but this is true of cohabiting couples who face the same strains and whose kids would also benefit. If it was about children it'd therefore be an announcement of child tax relief or credits. It is about promoting one way of life above others to pander the base.
This could be the less nasty edge of Toxic Conservatism reasserting itself.
PS I imagine everyone and his cousin has now seen the childish opportunity to create your own spoof DC poster and the collection of silliest at the my DC spoof site. If not have a look.
So the Tory attempt to mobilise their base has begun with tax breaks for married couples with children. This worries me as a liberal as the state interfering in the bedroom: most certainly not the business of the government.
Marriage is designed to protect people in the risks of long term commitment needed to raise families. It isn't a moral issue, the history of English marriage shows this. Early modern (16th/17th century) marriage amongst the majority of the population was considered to gave taken place when a couple started cohabiting, but the legal marriage was delayed until pregnancy. Not a million miles from today. The Victorians tried to change all this, but not very successfully outside the upper classes.
The evidence that children do better in stable homes is clear: but that doesn't mean they do better in volatile households. Also the evidence on cohabiting couples isn't much different from married.
This clearly is not about child welfare. It also won't make anyone tie the knot. It might help people at an expensive time when money might cause a split, but this is true of cohabiting couples who face the same strains and whose kids would also benefit. If it was about children it'd therefore be an announcement of child tax relief or credits. It is about promoting one way of life above others to pander the base.
This could be the less nasty edge of Toxic Conservatism reasserting itself.
PS I imagine everyone and his cousin has now seen the childish opportunity to create your own spoof DC poster and the collection of silliest at the my DC spoof site. If not have a look.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
So the Lisbon treaty has been ratified. It is now the political landscape in Europe.
Already William Hague had said the Tory referendum pledge has gone (BBC interview). Circumstances have moved on since Cameron's "cast iron" pledge.
It is probably blindingly obvious that the Tory fringes will be foaming. This unfortunately is probably good for Cameron provided he keeps his nerve: he can appear statesmanlike against the extremes of his party.
The downside is that the new landscape makes allies in Europe even more vital. The Tories in opposition have alienated their natural allies in Germany, France, Italy, ...
I can't see this being a boon to UKIP: Cameron's quick u-turn whilst the issue is fresh will prevent traction. The issue needs to stay in the headlines for over a week for that to happen. Expect several press releases on domestic policy this week.
The joker in the pack is now that of the Westminster parties only the most pro-European is offering a referendum: if the LibDems stick to the in-out vote pledge we could pick up some votes. There is also the chance of discomforting the Tories, helping keep the story alive. Basically proving my early claim wrong.
If we campaign on it, we can win on it.
So I'm watching our front bench. What next?
Already William Hague had said the Tory referendum pledge has gone (BBC interview). Circumstances have moved on since Cameron's "cast iron" pledge.
It is probably blindingly obvious that the Tory fringes will be foaming. This unfortunately is probably good for Cameron provided he keeps his nerve: he can appear statesmanlike against the extremes of his party.
The downside is that the new landscape makes allies in Europe even more vital. The Tories in opposition have alienated their natural allies in Germany, France, Italy, ...
I can't see this being a boon to UKIP: Cameron's quick u-turn whilst the issue is fresh will prevent traction. The issue needs to stay in the headlines for over a week for that to happen. Expect several press releases on domestic policy this week.
The joker in the pack is now that of the Westminster parties only the most pro-European is offering a referendum: if the LibDems stick to the in-out vote pledge we could pick up some votes. There is also the chance of discomforting the Tories, helping keep the story alive. Basically proving my early claim wrong.
If we campaign on it, we can win on it.
So I'm watching our front bench. What next?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)