Osborne says electing Corbyn will set Labour back a generation - Politics live
George Osborne, the chancellor, has said that the election of Corbyn will set Labour back a generation. In an interview with the New Statesman, he said:
I can’t help noticing that, for most of my childhood and early adult
life, a succession of Labour Party leaders reformed the constitution of
the Labour
Party. Neil Kinnock did, John Smith did, Tony Blair did, to make sure
that it was more rooted in what the British people wanted. And it does
seem, as an external observer, that a generation’s work has been
unravelled in the space of 12 months.
He said the election of Liz Kendall would have caused the Tories “the
greatest problems”. But he said the election of Corbyn would be bad for
the country.
The whole of the Labour Party moves leftwards, abandoning the centre
and, I think, therefore abandoning the working people of this country
... I don’t think that’s particularly good for the country that you have
an opposition heading off to the wilderness ...
There’s no doubt ideas like abandoning Britain’s nuclear deterrent at
a time when, frankly, more and more countries are trying to acquire
nuclear weapons, or some of the things that have been said about
terrorist organisations like Hamas, are deeply unpalatable. I don’t
think they represent the views of the British people. But we don’t
regard what is being said in the Labour leadership contest as a joke. We
take it deadly seriously. I regard these things as a real risk to
Britain’s security were they ever to have the chance to be put into
practice.
In a wide-ranging interview, he also said that he was not thinking at
the moment about the possibility of leading the Conservative party.
I’m just mentally able to say, ‘I’m not addressing that now. I’m not thinking about that now.’
And he said the problem for the Liberal Democrats was that they were “all things to all people”
In the end, the Liberal Democrats’ “all things to all people”
approach caught up with them and then they were no things to no people.
That potpourri of centre-right liberals, Iraq war rebels, Celtic fringe Methodists [and] local populists turned out not to be very coherent.
Andy Burnham has made a last-minute appeal to people to vote in the Labour leadership contest.
Voting closes tomorrow at midday and, in a message, he said: “Our
latest data shows that it’s neck and neck between Jeremy Corbyn and me.
Your vote could be crucial.” His team claim that, of the 5,750 people
they contacted yesterday who had not yet voted, 61% said they favoured
Burnham and 31% Yvette Cooper.
Corbyn has also issued a statement ahead of a final rally he is holding in Islington tomorrow. He said:
Labour lost the election because they had no clear alternative to the
Tories’ unnecessary, self-serving austerity plans. I’ve outlined
policies which would provide decent jobs, homes, and schools, nurture
high-tech, socially productive industries and foster a fairer, more
inclusive Britain. In packed rallies from Aberdeen to Essex, these ideas
have received an amazing welcome, showing that people are thirsting for
a proper alternative to the current savage cuts.
Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, has told MPs that bombing Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq but not in Syria is “incoherent”. In evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee he also said “military logic” supported extending air strikes.
We would see authority to attack Isil [Isis] targets more widely in
Syria as being a part of the campaign against Isil, which at the moment
is confined to Iraq. We would see it as driven by a military logic which
says you look at the enemy holistically, you look at his supply lines,
you look at his support bases, you look at his command and control nodes
and those are the things you want to attack. The logic of extending our
mandate to cover Isil targets in Syria would be very clearly a logic in support of the mandate we have in Iraq for the collective defence of that country.”
In the east of Syria, in the Isil strongholds in Raqqah, the ability
to attack from the air would in our judgement enhance the utility of the
military mission. In the end the objective is to defeat Isil and that
means we have to get to the controlling brain.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Hammond says there are people who say you cannot trust Iran, that
Iran will always cheat. He suspects the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin
Netanyahu, will say this tomorrow when they meet.
Hammond says that is why the international deal with Iran includes strict tests to ensure that Iran meets its commitments.
Some countries in the region says the west should use the sanctions
imposed on Iran to force Iran to abandon some of its other damaging
activities. But the sanctions were imposed in relation to its nuclear
programme. Once those concerns have been addressed, as they will be
through the deal, the sanctions should be lifted.
Hammond says this appoach will strengthen the hand of moderates in Iran.
Hammond says that he expects Britain’s future relationship with Iran
will be difficult. But it is better to have a difficult relationship
than no relationship, he says.
Q: If the EU takes in 160,000 refugees, will they all be able to come to the UK?
Hammond says, if they get citizen rights, they will be able to come to the UK.
There is concern about movement of migrants from the EU into the UK.
Britain is one of the richer countries in the EU. But that does not mean everyone from poorer countries comes here.
But there could be an impact on the UK at the margins.
An official giving evidence with Hammond says on average it takes 10 years to get German citizenship.
Adam Holloway, a Conservative, is asking the
questions now. He says some years ago he spent some time undercover at
the Sangatte camp outside Syria. His impression was that almost all the
people there were economic migrants. He does not blame them for wanting
to come, he stresses. Q: Of the migrants coming to Europe, how many are economic migrants?
Hammond says almost all those coming from Syria are genuine refugees.
But other people are coming to Europe to obtain a better world. We can
empathise with that, he says.
Hammond criticises BBC’s North Korea World Service plan
Q: The BBC now pays for the BBC World Service. Yet Lord Hall, the
director general, is talking about expanding it, to include a service
for North Korea. Have you discussed going back to the situation where
you funded the BBC World Service.
No, says Hammond. Given the need to cut funding, he is not looking for new funding commitments to take on. Q: Should the BBC be broadcasting into North Korea?
Hammond says the BBC is a very strong brand around the world. It has a
reputation for impartiality. In an ideal world, it would be nice to
broadcast to other countries.
But, given the fact that there are funding shortages, he is not sure
this should be priority, particularly because other people are
broadcasting into North Korea, including from South Korea.
Hammond says he is talking to the British Council about cutting its
funding. It might end up receiving more money from the government, but
more of that money specifically allocated for aid.
Crispin Blunt says they will now move on to discussing the Foreign Office budget.
Labour’s Mike Gapes goes next. Q: What are the latest figures for the cuts you face?
Hammond says the government inherited an unsustainable deficit. That
was undermining Britain’s standing and security. The Foreign Office, and
other non-protected departments, have been asked to model cuts of 25%
and 40%. But that does not mean that cuts of that amount will be
imposed. Q: Our Foreign Office budget is smaller than France’s. And it
only one tenth the size of America’s. How can you introduce these cuts
without harming our diplomatic network.
Hammond says efficiency matters. We operate a similarly-sized
diplomatic network to France, and we should be proud we do it more
cheaply, he says.
Further efficiencies are possible, he says.
But the Foreign Office will also look at cutting certain activities.
The diplomatic network is the “crown jewel”, he says. And it is important to maintain a policy-making function in London.
Hammond says the government thinks being able to attack Isis around Raqqa would make a difference in the fight against it. Q: Will you commit to bringing a proposal to parliament?
Hammond says he cannot give that commitment now. But if the
government thinks it is a good idea, it will ask parliament for
permission.
Hammond says the government is clear that it needs parliamentary
authority to extend air strikes against Isis to Syria. But it will only
bring the matter to parliament when it thinks it can win a vote on this.
Hammond says the solution depends on the “sponsors” of the key
players in Syria pushing for a solution. Russia and Iran could do this.
They could make a phone call to Damascus and change the outcome.
Hammond says Russia and Iran could help bring civil war to an end just by withdrawing support from Assad.
Labour’s Mark Hendrick goes next.
He says the experts who spoke to the committee yesterday said both
sides in the Syrian civil war were hoping for victory. They both thought
it was achievable.
Hammond says there may be elements that think victory is possible.
But he does not think that applies to Assad’s regime. Their ambitions
now seem to be limited to holding certain territory.
Daniel Kawczynski, a Conservative, goes next. He
says he was disappointed to hear Hammond says that Assad could remain in
power during a transition.
Hammond says there is not a proposal for this. But if Russia and Iran were to suggest it, the government would look at it.
He says there will either be a political solution or a military solution to the crisis.
Q: It has been said there will be independent monitoring of drone strikes.
Who said that, Hammond asks. Q: A Tory MP in the Commons.
Hammond says there is a rigorous process for authorising drone
strikes. After that, there are strict rules of engagement. And then the
outcome is monitored. Q: That’s not independent.
Hammond says he does not know what comment Clwyd is referring to.
Hammond says coalition action in Iraq “stopped [Isis’s] advance dead”
Labour’s Ann Clwyd goes next. Q: How successful has the military intervention in Iraq been?
Hammond says it stopped Isis’s advance in Iraq dead. Fifteen or 16
months ago the Isis surge looked unstoppable. It looked as if Baghdad
was under threat. But that has stopped. And Isis has been forced to stop
advancing like a conventional army. Instead they have been forced to
act like a guerilla army, he says.
Hammond says coalition action in Iraq “stopped [Isis’s] advance dead”.
Hammond says “military logic” supports extending air strikes against Isis to Syria
Q: What are the legal constraints about acting in Syria if we do
not have permission to act there, and if there is no immediate threat of
the kind outlined by David Cameron on Monday?
Hammond says the legal basis is based on the need to help protect Iraq.
Britain’s legal approach is different from the Americans’, he says. Q: Why should parliament authorise a widening of the conflict to Syria when the overall strategy has not been worked out?
Hammond says he does not accept the strategy has not been worked out.
He says a military logic supports widening air attacks to Isis in
Syria. It makes sense to attack command posts and communication chains.
This would support the mandate the government has for the protection of
Iraq.
Hammond says “military logic” supports extending air strikes against Isis to Syria.
Q: Would al-Nusra winning in Syria be just as bad as Isis winning?
Hammond says both would be unacceptable. Asked to say which was worse, he says he would find it hard to say.
Hammond says Britain does not have the option of working with Assad, even if it wanted to. That would be an international crime.
Blunt says that is not what he is suggesting. He is just saying it
might be a mistake to insist on Assad going. Doing that stops Turkey,
Saudi Arabia and Iran getting involved in a solution.
Hammond says it is a matter of timing. Britain is not saying Assad
and his cronies have to go on day one. If there were a transition,
taking some months, for Assad leaving, then Britain could discuss that.
But Britain is not prepared to accept the idea of Assad being given
the chance to stage elections about his future. Someone guilty of crimes
should not be allowed to run for office. He cannot be part of the
future.
Hammond says Assad would have to go, but a transition leading to his departure could take “months”.
Q: Iran and Russia will not accept the removal of President Assad. So isn’t our policy making things harder?
How, asks Hammond. Q: Because we are saying Assad has to go.
Hammond says that if Britain suggested it was protecting Assad, that would act as a recruiting sergeant for Isis.
Crispin Blunt, the Conservative MP who chairs the committee, is asking the questions. Q: Yesterday we heard evidence from experts who said that there
would be no solution to this until the regional powers got involved.
Hammond says the three main regional powers have conflicting agendas.
Having Turkey, Iran and Russia pursing separate agendas - and in the
case of Turkey, shifting agendas - makes it difficult, he says.
Q: Can Isis be defeated without a resolution of the Syrian civil war?
Yes, it is possible, says Hammond. Q: How could that happen?
Hammond says perhaps there could be British air strikes against Isis
in Syria. Isis will only be defeated in Iraq when a ground force and
pursue and destroy them. You can imagine a situation where that goes
into Syria. But that is not necessary an ideal solution, he says.
Hammond says Isis could be defeated without a resolution to Syrian civil war
Hammond says bombing Isis in Iraq but not in Syria is 'incoherent'
Hammond says it is “incoherent” to conduct air strikes against Islamic State
(Isis - or Isil as Hammond calls it) in Iraq but not in Syria, where
their supply lines reach. He is repeating a point he made when he gave
evidence to the committee before the summer recess.
Hammond says bombing Isis in Iraq but not in Syria is “incoherent”
Philip Hammond questioned by foreign affairs committee
Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, is giving
evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee. The hearing has just
started. You can watch it here.
Cameron has said the intelligence and security committee
(ISC) can investigate the RAF drone attack that killed two British
jihadis in Syria, but that he won’t let it oversee ongoing operations. Speaking at PMQs, in response to a call for an investigation from Angus Robertson, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, Cameron said he would be “very happy” to discuss this with the ISC’s new chair. But he added:
The only proviso I would put on is that the intelligence and security
committee cannot be responsible for overseeing current operations. The
responsibility for current operations must lie with the government and
the government has to come to the House of Commons to explain that. I am not going to contract out our counter-terrorism policy to someone else. I take responsibility for it.
The Commons will later agree a motion establishing the ISC for this
parliament. But it has not been established yet who will chair it.
According to Huffington Post’s Paul Waugh, Dominic Grieve, Sir Alan
Duncan and Keith Simpson are all potential candidates.
I think the British approach will be very clear, which is this must
be a comprehensive approach. If all the focus is on redistributing
quotas of refugees around Europe, that won’t solve the problem, and it
actually sends a message that it is a good idea to get on a boat and
make that perilous journey.
Of course Europe has to reach its own answers for those countries
that are part of Schengen. Britain, which has its own borders and the
ability to make our own sovereign decisions about this, our approach is
to say yes, we are a humanitarian nation with a moral conscience. We
will take 20,000 Syrians but we want a comprehensive approach that puts
money into the camps that meets our aid commitments, that solves the
problems in Syria, that has a return path to Africa that sees a new
government in Libya.
During his speech Juncker at one point responded to a Ukip MEPs who
was heckling him, saying his comments were “worthless”. Nigel Farage,
the Ukip leader, later said Juncker’s remark was aimed at the Scottish
Ukip MEP David Coburn.
Cameron has said that the UK could take more than 4,000 Syrian refugees this year. He has committed to taking 20,000 by 2020, and when Harriet Harman, Labour’s acting leader, asked him at PMQs if that meant no more than 4,000 a year, he replied:
We have to use our head and our heart. We have committed to taking
20,000 people, I want us to get on with that. There is no limit to the
amount of people that could come in the first year, let’s get on with
it.
But let’s recognise we have to go to the camps, we have to find the
people, we have to make sure they can be housed, we have to find schools
for their children, we have to work with local councils and local
voluntary bodies to make sure when these people come they get a warm
welcome from Britain.
He also said that councils, and possibly some charities, are being
invited to a ministerial meeting on Friday that will consider where
refugees could be housed. Responding to Harman, Cameron also denied
claims that under government policy child refugees could be forced to
leave when they turn 18. That was not true, he said. They would be
granted leave to remain.
Jean-Claude Juncker, the European commission president, has
said that the EU principle of freedom of movement for workers “cannot be
touched” during negotiations over Britain’s membership. In his speech to the European parliament he said:
I’m in favour of the TTIP [transatlantic trade and investment
partnership] treaty. But I am not in favour of giving up European
standards, European principles. As in the case of Britain, the freedom
of movement of workers cannot be touched. The same applies to the
transatlantic partnership agreement. We have our basic values. We have
our principles and these principles cannot be given up during these
negotiations with the United States.
Cameron has urged Northern Ireland’s leaders not to give up on the peace process. Speaking in the Commons, he said:
I would appeal to members in the DUP, the UUP, the SDLP, the Sinn
Fein members, as someone who sat on those benches and watched as the
peace process was put together, it was one of the most inspiring things
I’ve seen as a human being and a politician - the appeal I would make to
all of you is please have that spirit in mind, it was an amazing thing
you did when you formed that administration.
Cameron has told MPs that media reports saying Department
for Work and Pensions figures showed that thousands of disability
benefit claimants died weeks after being found fit for work were wrong.He cited this blog from Full Fact as proof.
PMQs verdict: Perhaps it was because it was Harriet
Harman’s last PMQs, and she was being high-minded. Perhaps it was the
topic, the refugee crisis. Perhaps it was because until Labour gets a
proper leader party politics have been partly in abeyance. Perhaps it
was because everyone calmed down a bit over the summer. Or perhaps it
was because having to spend 30 minutes beforehand being unctuous about
the Queen injected some politeness into the proceedings. Whatever, as I
said earlier, the Cameron/Harman exchanges were sensible and
enlightening (up to a point), and a rare reminder that PMQs doesn’t have to be a nasty shouting match.
There weren’t really any winners or losers, but Harman probed
Cameron’s stance on the refugee crisis effectively and Cameron was
forced to clarify his stance on various points. I will post details in a
separate summary shortly, although perhaps his most interesting reply
came later when he said he would not let the intelligence and security
committee question him about ongoing operations involving RAF drones
targeting Jihadis.
Cameron’s tribute to Harman was generous, and her final question, a
mini peroration about the need for Britain “not to be narrow, fearful of
the outside world”, was uplifting. Cameron deftly countered it by
saying he agreed with every word.
This is what Cameron said about Harman.
I’m sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to your 28
years of front bench service as it potentially comes to an end this
week. You have served with distinction in both opposition and
government. Twice you have stepped into the breach as your party’s
acting leader, never an easy job, but you have carried it out with total
assurance.
You have always been a robust adversary across these despatch boxes
and a fierce champion for a range of issues, most notably women’s rights
where you have often led the way in changing attitudes in our country
for the better. Although we haven’t always seen eye to eye, you have
served your constituents, your party and this House with distinction
from the front bench and I wish you well as you continue to serve this
House and the country from the backbenches.
The DUP’s Nigel Dodds says the situation in Northern Ireland is grave, but has escalated to new heights with the arrest of the chair of Sinn Fein in relation to the recent paramilitary killing. Does Cameron agree that only those committed to democratic means can be in government?
Cameron says he cannot comment on the police operations. But there is
no justification for paramilitary structures, in Northern Ireland or
elsewhere.
But he would appeal to Northern Ireland MPs, including Sinn Fein
ones, he would say that watching the peace process was one of the most
inspiring things he had seen. Politicians put aside their differences.
Forming the assembly was a noble thing. He urges Norther
Bernard Jenkin, a Conservative, says in 2013 some
MPs argued that the conflicts in Syria were nothing to do with us. Isn’t
it now clear that the failure in Syria has been the main cause of the
refugee crisis? Will Cameron publish a white paper on his anti Islamic
State strategy?
Cameron says Assad and Isil (Isis) are to blame for what has
happened. Not acting amounts to a decision, which has consequences. He
says he will consider the case for a white paper.
Labour’s Nic Dakin asks Cameron to hold a steel summit to consider the problems facing the steel industry.
Cameron says he has discussed this with Dakin, and will do so again.
The government will do everything it can to support this vital industry.
Labour’s Teresa Pearce asks Cameron if he will back her private member’s bill to make first aid teaching compulsory in schools.
Cameron says he will look at this issue.
Peter Heaton-Jones, a Conservative, asks about funding for the north Devon link road.
Cameron says, when he visited Heaton-Jones’ constituency during the
election, he was struck by how vital that road is. Some £3m has been set
aside to fund the business case for improvements.
Eilidh Whiteford, the SNP, asks about potential job losses at a fish processing factory in her constituency. Jobs could be relocated to Grimsby.
Cameron says he is aware of the issue. He wants the economy to be one that carries on creating jobs.
Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, asks Cameron to accept the link between arms sales and the refugee crisis.
Cameron says Britain has some of the strictest rules in the world for
selling arms. People are leaving Syria because Assad is butchering his
own people, and because Islamic State is running large parts of the
country. Those are the problems, he says.
Deborah Abrahams, the Labour MP, says disabled
people who are sanctioned are four times as likely as other people to
die. And Iain Duncan Smith has made offensive remarks this week about
the disabled. When will he be sanctioned?
Cameron says the data about the people who died after being found fit
for work was only published because he promised that. And a fact check
exercise has confirmed that papers that claimed that thousands of people
were dying after being sanctioned were wrong.
Cameron says he would be happy to consider the intelligence and
security committee looking into the decision to authorise the drone
strike that killed Rehyaad Khan.
But he says he won’t let the committee take responsibility for ongoing operations. He takes responsibility for those, he says.
Snap PMQs Verdict: When did you last hear a PMQs
ding-dong that sounded like intelligent grown-ups talking about policy
choices sensibly? That was an exchange to bring hope to those who think
PMQs doesn’t always have to be disheartening. More later ...
Harman says we need to stop people drowning too. The EU must have a
robust plan. Cameron said he would consider the case for a special
summit of EU leaders. Will he call for one?
Cameron says he will keep this under review. He has discussed this
with President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel. He is worried that having
quotas will encourage people to come to Europe. Europe has to reach its
own answers, he says. We need a comprehensive approach. Britain will do
just that.
Harman says this was not about Schengen. This was about us working
together. The refugee crisis presents a daunting crisis. The
responsibilities we share reach across borders. To be British is not to
be narrow and inward-looking, but to reach out and engage. The
government should rise to the challenge of our time.
Cameron says he agrees with every word of that. Britain is meeting
its defence spending target and its aid target. No other country in the
world does that. He says he is proud of that. We must do all we can as
the moral humanitarian nation we are. President Assad has to go. And
Islamic State (he calls it Isil) will have to go. That will require hard
force, he says.
Harman says UNHCR do not tell countries not to take children who are unaccompanied.
Will Cameron update MPs on the search and rescue operation in the Mediterranean?
Cameron says the navy has rescued 6,700 children. But we have to be
honest. For economic migrants, taking the western Mediterranean route,
you need to break the link between coming to the UK and staying.
Harman asks about the children already in Europe, who are far from
home. Surely we can play our part? She urges Cameron to consider taking
some. After a month Cameron should come back to the Commons and say how
many refugees will be admitted.
She asks Cameron to assure MPs that child refugees coming to the UK won’t be liable for deportation when they turn 18.
Cameron says he can give that assurance. When they turn 18, children
will be able to apply for leave to stay. But they can return home if
they want.
He says ministers will regularly be updating MPs on the progress of the refugee reception programme.
He says UNHCR advise caution on relocating children in Europe.
Harriet Harman says we have seen the largest
movement of people across Europe since the second world war. Cameron
said Britain would accept 20,000 by 2020. But that seems a lifetime
away. How many will be allowed in this year?
Cameron starts by saying Harman has served with distinction for 28
years. She has led the way in campaign for women’s rights, and she has
served her party and the Commons with distinction, he says.
On the refugee crisis, he says there there is no limit on the numbers
that can come this year. He wants us to get on with it. But we have to
find the schools and homes for them.
Harman thanks Cameron for his words. It has been an honour to play her part leading Labour, she says.
But we need a commitment about how many refugees will be taken this
year. Will Cameron consult with councils and charities and put a number
on how many can come in a month’s time?
She says we have got to deal with the reality. Thousands have arrived
in Europe. Save the Children suggests 3,000 children now in southern
Europe should be admitted.
Cameron says there is a meeting on Friday. Representatives from the LGA and from charities too are being invited.
On taking refugees from southern Europe, he says a bigger reality is
that 11m Syrians have been pushed out of their homes. We want to
encourage them to stay in refugee camps so that one day they can return
home.
On taking children, he says he is listening to the experts. Some warn
of the dangers of taking children further from their parents. Children
in Europe are already safe, he says.
Julian Knight, a Conservative, asks David Cameron to congratulate an academy in his constituency.
Cameron says the free schools movement is bringing what we need in
this country - more outstanding school places. A quarter are
outstanding, he says.
Cameron criticises Tristram Hunt, the shadow education secretary, for calling them schools for yummie mummies.
PMQs will be starting in about 10 minutes.
This will be Harriet Harman’s last as acting Labour leader. As I said earlier, David Cameron is likely to pay some sort of tribute. This is what he said about her on her last last PMQs as acting Labour leader, in 2010.
Let me take this opportunity to say something about the right hon.
and learned lady, as I think this will be the last time that we face
each other across the dispatch box. She is the third Labour leader with
whom I have had to do battle-she is by far the most popular-and she has
used these opportunities to push issues that she cares about deeply such
as the one she raises today. She has been a thorough credit as the
stand-in leader of the Labour party and I thank her for what she has
done.
David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, has
written one of the best articles I’ve read on Corbynmania (to use the
handy, but rather inelegant and empty phrase). It’s in today’s
international edition, and it’s mostly about American politics, but it
is worth quoting at length because it helps to explain the Corbyn
phenomenon very well.
In a column headed “The anti-party men”,
Brooks lists Jeremy Corbyn alongside Donald Trump, Ben Carson and
Bernie Sanders (three US presidential candidates) as examples. And he
explains what they have in common.
These four anti-party men have little experience in the profession of
governing. They have no plausible path toward winning 50.1 percent of
the vote in any national election. They have no prospect of forming a
majority coalition that can enact their policies.
These sudden stars are not really about governing. They are tools for
their supporters’ self-expression. They allow supporters to make a
statement, demand respect or express anger or resentment. Sarah Palin
was a pioneer in seeing politics not as a path to governance but as an
expression of her followers’ id.
More importantly, Brooks tries to explain what lies behind the rise
of politicians like this. He puts it down to “expressive individualism”.
First, political parties, like institutions across society, are
accorded less respect than in decades past. But we’re also seeing the
political effects of a broader culture shift, the rise of what
sociologists call expressive individualism.
There has always been a tension between self and society. Americans
have always wanted to remain true to individual consciousness, but they
also knew they were citizens, members of a joint national project, tied
to one another by bonds as deep as the bonds of marriage and community.
As much as they might differ, there was some responsibility to
maintain coalitions with people unlike themselves. That meant
maintaining conversations and relationships, tolerating difference,
living with dialectics and working with opposites. The Democratic Party
was once an illogical coalition between Northeastern progressives and
Southern evangelicals. The G.O.P. was an alliance between business and
the farm belt.
But in the ethos of expressive individualism, individual authenticity
is the supreme value. Compromise and coalition-building is regarded as a
dirty and tainted activity. People congregate in segregated cultural
and ideological bubbles and convince themselves that the purest example
of their type could actually win.
His point about parties being alliances applies exactly to the Labour
party too. It has always been a coalition of socialists and social
democrats, championing the concerns (which sometimes clash) of the
industrial working classes and the progressive middle classes.
Brooks argues that these anti-party cults are dangerous.
These cults never last because there is no institutional
infrastructure. But along the way the civic institutions that actually
could mobilize broad coalitions — the parties — get dismissed and
gutted. Without these broad coalition parties, the country is
ungovernable and cynicism ratchets up even further.
Mostly it is a critical column, but Brooks does conclude by
suggesting that an anti-party figure could be a good national leader.
I wonder what would happen if a sensible Donald Trump appeared — a
former cabinet secretary or somebody who could express the disgust for
the political system many people feel, but who instead of adding to the
cycle of cynicism, channeled it into citizenship, into the notion that
we are still one people, compelled by love of country to live with one
another, and charged with the responsibility to make the compromises,
build the coalitions, practice messy politics and sustain the
institutions that throughout history have made national greatness
possible.
Chilcot says more work needed before he can give timetable for Iraq inquiry report publication
Here is the key extract from Sir John Chilcot’s letter to the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, Crispin Blunt.
In my statement [in August] I said that the inquiry expected to
receive the last Maxwell response shortly. I am pleased to confirm that
it has now done so.
There is, inevitably, further work for my colleagues and I to do to
evaluate those submissions, which are detailed and substantial, in order
to establish with confidence the time needed to complete the inquiry’s
remaining work. As soon as I am able to I shall write to the prime
minister with a timetable for publication of the inquiry’s report.
Chilcot says Iraq inquiry has now received all its 'Maxwellisation' responses
The Chilcot report has got one step closer to publication. Sir John
Chilcot has told the Commons foreign affairs committee that his inquiry
has now received its final Maxwell responses (the replies from witnesses
facing criticism given a right to reply to the draft report under the
Maxwellisation process).
I will post more from the letter in a moment.
Former DPP says government must say more to justify killing of Reyaad Khan
On the Today programme this morning Lord Macdonald,
the former director of public prosecutions and a Lib Dem peer, called
for more scrutiny of the decision that was taken to authorise the RAF
drone strike that killed two British Islamic State terrorists in Syria.
Macdonald said “bland reassurances” were not enough, and that Jeremy
Wright, the attorney general, should appear before parliament to “to
explain that he has seen the evidence and that he is satisfied that it
carried the appropriate degree of evidence”.
Macdonald also suggested that the threat posed to the UK by Reyaad
Khan may not have been imminent enough to pass the imminence test
required under article 51 of the UN charter that allows a strike of this
kind on the grounds of national self-defence. He said:
The precondition is imminence. Without imminence you have the danger
of slipping into the sort of programme that the Americans are
conducting, which effectively is a form of state-sponsored
extra-judicial execution which does nothing on the ground to win hearts
and minds, is ineffective and I think is degrading of the rule of law
and the processes of law at home. It is certainly nothing to do with
self defence.
The trouble is that the government is talking like events like VE Day
are under threat even though this drone strike took place several weeks
after VE Day, which passed off without incident. I don’t think that
would pass any test of imminence in law.
Of course you would be entitled to take steps to prevent that imminent threat, but it has to be imminent ...
These are vicious, barbarian folk, but you can’t just punish them ...
The idea [of] the United Nations charter is that we all set out what
the rules with regard to international law are and, by abiding with
them, we set the standard for the world. Once you start playing fast and
loose with that, you’re in serious trouble and that’s what the problem
is here about having hit lists.
Jesse Norman says he never intended to make allegations about Paula Radcliffe
As Owen Gibson reports in the Guardian today,
Paula Radcliffe has firmly denied cheating “in any form whatsoever at
any time” in her career after it was suggested in a Commons select
committee hearing yesterday that she had taken performance-enhancing
drugs. The suggestion came from Jesse Norman, the
Conservative MP recently elected as chair of the culture committee.
Towards the end of a three-hour hearing, Norman appeared to suggest that
a British winner of the London Marathon was “potentially” implicated.
Jesse Norman Photograph: Graeme Robertson for the Guardian
This morning Norman told the Today programme that his remarks were
misinterpreted and that he had not intended to single out Radcliffe or
make allegations about her.
What’s happened is we’ve had a three-hour hearing very seriously
going through all of these allegations – and I’ve no doubt that Paula
Radcliffe and others who believe in the importance of eradicating doping
from sports will be massively supportive of the hearings. We went
through a whole bunch of countries of which things have been said,
serious allegations made – Russia, Kenya – and it’s absolutely right to
raise the question of whether or not British athletes may have been
involved in some way.
And what is interesting also is that, of course, in a three hour
hearing what’s happened is that the press pack – and it is a pack, it’s a
herd of ungulates – have basically taken this single snippet and run
off to Paula Radcliffe and attempted to bounce her into some kind of
statement and I think that’s very unfortunate. And anyone who wants a
proper understanding of it should look at the hearing, listen to it, go
back to the transcript.
I had to look up “ungulate”. It means a hoofed mammal, like cow.
(The culture committee oversees policy relating to press regulation.
His surprise at the way his question was interpreted suggests he may be a
tad naive in the ways of the press, and calling us cows won’t improve
relations, although I suppose we’ve been called a lot worse.)
Norman also told Today he was a big fan of Radcliffe’s.
I certainly massively admire Paul Radcliffe. I grew up on tales of
her extraordinary exploits in the 90s and early 2000s and nothing could
be further from the intention of the committee than to have named any
athlete.
The House of Commons is a place where the exchanges are mostly harsh
and critical, and so it should make a welcome relief today to hear
tributes to a woman who has been a feature of national life almost
forever, someone who is often mocked but who has won over the public
through longevity, perseverance and sheer decency, and who now stands as
one of the great public figures of our time.
But that’s enough about Harriet. We’ve got to get through the tributes to the Queen first.
It is relatively quiet at Westminster this morning, but there are a
lot of committee hearings today. This afternoon I will probably be
focusing on Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, giving evidence to the foreign affairs committee.
Here is the agenda for the day. 8am: Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European
commission, gives a speech to the European parliament unveiling an EU
refugee quota plan. My colleague Matthew Weaver is covering this in detail on his refugee crisis live blog. 10am: Nicky Morgan, the education secretary, gives evidence to the Commons education committee. 11.30am: David Cameron leads tributes to the Queen in the Commons to mark her becoming the longest-serving monarch. 12pm: Cameron faces Harriet Harman at PMQs. It will be
Harman’s last as acting Labour leader, which is why Cameron is likely to
pay her some sort of tribute. 1pm: Theresa May, the home secretary, gives a speech on policing. 2.15pm: John Whittingdale, the culture secretary, gives evidence to the Commons culture committee. 2.30pm: Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, gives evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee. 2.30pm: Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, gives a speech on “the new health agenda”. 2.45pm: Chris Grayling, the leader of the Commons, and
Angela Eagle and Pete Wishart, his Labour and SNP shadows, give evidence
to the Commons procedure committee on English votes for English laws.
As usual, I will also be covering breaking political news as it
happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis
from the web. I will post a summary at lunchtime and another in the
afternoon.
No comments:
Post a Comment