The article by Charles Moore is an important one and well worth
reading. This is recognised by Richard North in his commentary
below. I differ from Mr North in that I think his cynicism and
defeatism make the task of putting things right infinitely more
difficult.
He rightly identifies how we got in this mess but then goes on to
wash his hands of it and indeed to sneer at those who try in their
way to protest so that we may take the long road back to proper
standards. (I have deleted one sentence of 31 words only of such
sneering and self-promotion)
What is the point in being so destructive when the only result is to
advance the cataclysm he sees as inevitable?
I for one will continue to take any allies that are walking the same
road as me if it has any chance of helping my country.
xxxxxxxxxxxx cs
=========
TELEGRAPH 6.12.08
Damian Green arrest was caused by Labour's abuse of Parliament
By Charles Moore
Through the smoke of battle surrounding the police raid on Damian
Green's parliamentary offices, hold on to one simple point. This
would never have happened before 1997.
Until the era of New Labour, the conventions were understood. The
police, without being constitutional experts, knew instinctively not
to bring handcuffs into political matters.
The Civil Service, though rightly furious about leaks, was cautious
when it came to investigating elected politicians. The Government
itself, getting wind of trouble, deployed the ancient concept of the
"quiet word" to discourage too much zeal by the constabulary.
And if, nevertheless, the police had come to the Commons authorities
with their proposal to raid, the Speaker would have seen at once that
such a request touched on the vital rights of Parliament. He would
have wanted to know the precise nature of the accusation (on Privy
Council terms), and would almost certainly have prevented the raid.
advertisement
Why is it different now? There are several reasons.
1. Terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, the threat of terror attacks
has been very real. New laws have been required to deal with it, but
terrorism has become a too convenient excuse for any form of
intrusion that the authorities desire - ID cards, council
surveillance of rubbish bins, helicopters etc.
In her redesigned role, more limited than that of her predecessors,
the Serjeant-at-Arms, Jill Pay, spends most of her time dealing with
matters of security, and therefore hobnobbing with the police and
MI5. She probably knows them much better than she knows MPs. She was
too ready to believe the "anti-terrorist" police when they came to
her about Mr Green, invoking national security.
2. Inverted snobbery. New Labour dislikes the "Men in Tights", the
public schoolboys/ex-top brass who have traditionally been the
officers of Parliament. Its modernising agenda was supposed to blow
away the cobwebs of class.
In 2000, the Speaker, Michael Martin, was pushed into the post by the
government whips, against the long-standing convention that the
parties take it in turn, so he was never really endorsed, as the
Speaker needs to be, by the free will of the whole House.
Once appointed, Mr Martin cast aside the traditional wig, breeches,
and therefore tights. In the process, he also cast aside a body of
knowledge about how Parliament works. Thinking himself patronised by
people he regarded as "snobs", Mr Martin got rid of the Men in
Tights, and appointed Mrs Pay as Serjeant-at-Arms.
When the police came to Mrs Pay about Mr Green, she gave in to them
without seeming to understand what was at stake. And although Mr
Speaker had himself appointed her in the name of egalitarianism, he
did not ask her the right questions about the raid and did not stand
up for her when it all went wrong.
The important surviving Man in Tights in the Palace of Westminster is
Black Rod, Lt-Gen. Sir Michael Willcocks, who is in charge of matters
in the House of Lords. It was Black Rod, you may remember, who had
the guts to uphold the constitution and prevent Tony Blair from
muscling in on the Queen Mother's funeral. If the Met had come to his
House, rather than to Mrs Pay's, you can be sure that the rights of
Parliament would have been asserted.
3. The politicisation of the police. Since the Macpherson report on
the death of Stephen Lawrence, when they were told that they were
institutionally racist, the police have known that they can only gain
promotion by being politically correct and ingratiating themselves
with their political masters. The disastrous career of Sir Ian Blair
is a case study - a weird mixture of trying to be the agent of social
change (sucking up to Muslim extremists) on the one hand, and of
using heavy-handed powers (the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes)
on the other.
In the life of the modern senior policemen, no one bulks larger than
Sir David Normington, permanent secretary at the Home Office, the man
responsible for calling the police in to the leak investigations. Sir
David chairs the body that will select candidates to replace Sir Ian
as head of the Met. Like those knights trying to please Henry II by
killing Thomas à Becket, ambitious senior officers rushed after Mr
Green at Sir David's behest, apparently without reflecting that we
live in parliamentary democracy. I almost find myself agreeing with
the old IRA jibe that the "British state" is run by "securocrats".
And once the police lost their historic distance from politics, they
went in up to their necks. Most of the anti-Labour press was
delighted when the cash-for-honours affair led the police to
interview the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, under caution. It seemed to
betoken police independence. Actually, it was just the flipside of
what had gone wrong - a doomed attempt to interfere in political
matters that would never stand up in a court of law and was therefore
pointless. It degraded all involved.
4. The weakening of Parliament. Governments always want to bypass
Parliament, but before 1997, the conventions were upheld, more or
less, by both parties. The power of Parliament to hold the executive
to account relies on control of the timetable.
Under reforms posing as "family-friendly", the Commons gave up the
power to spin out debates through the night, to make sure that Bills
would fall if uncompleted at the end of a session and to debate
constitutional matters without a "guillotine". The Government can
now, therefore, get what it wants almost every time. No wonder, when
you glance at the television screen, that you see the green benches
empty.
In this situation, the Speaker may not have ultimate power, but he
can have moral influence. If, for example, Mr Martin had complained
when the Government leaked its own pre-Budget tax changes before
telling Parliament, he could have embarrassed it into backing off.
But he didn't, and doesn't. Even in the Green case, he has already
accepted a government motion for Monday which will delay the inquiry
until the police have done their work, though this goes against what
he called for himself in his statement to the House on Wednesday.
Mr Martin does what so many MPs have done in the face of the draining
of powers to Europe, Whitehall, the courts and the media. He has
settled for bigger offices, more pay, larger expenses and a massive
pension - preferring a mess of pottage for himself to the birthright
that is ours.
It has been saddening in this rumpus to see how little the general
public seem to mind the mistreatment of Parliament - saddening, but
understandable. We believe less and less that it belongs to us: we
are right.
When New Labour won in 1997, I don't think it wanted to undermine
parliamentary democracy, but it harboured a destructive hatred for
the institutions, conventions and traditions of this country. Now we
see the bitter and oppressive results.
In his famous poem about Oliver Cromwell, Andrew Marvell saw how
Cromwell's ambition would "ruin the great work of time". Such ruin is
taking place before our eyes
=========================
EUREFERENDUM 6.12.08
Mind over matter
Charles Moore is rampant in The Daily Telegraph today, giving vent to
his tribalism as he gives "New Labour" a good kicking. But buried in
his diatribe are some sobering words. Of the Speaker, and of
parliament as a whole, he writes:
Mr Martin does what so many MPs have done in the face of the draining
of powers to Europe, Whitehall, the courts and the media. He has
settled for bigger offices, more pay, larger expenses and a massive
pension - preferring a mess of pottage for himself to the birthright
that is ours.
It has been saddening in this rumpus to see how little the general
public seem to mind the mistreatment of Parliament - saddening, but
understandable. We believe less and less that it belongs to us: we
are right.
I am actually mildly surprised that the great Charles Moore has so
correctly divined the wider sentiment but he is absolutely right when
he notes "how little the general public seem to mind the mistreatment
of Parliament."
(- - - - - -) Far from universal outrage over the presumed breach of
parliamentary privilege, what I discerned was amusement, observing
that most ordinary people rather enjoyed the prospect of an MP's pad
being turned over by the Old Bill.
Interestingly, Moore refers not to the "privileges" of MPs and
parliament, but to "rights" and it is undoubtedly because MPs as a
collective are so heedless of our rights that we care so little for
theirs.
The most important of ours, of course, is the right to have a
legislature which makes our laws and is accountable for them, rather
than outsourcing them to Brussels and the legions of anonymous
officials in Whitehall and elsewhere.
Taking Moore's piece in the round though, I would not disagree with
his condemnation of New Labour. But what I dislike about Tory
tribalism is the easy fiction that history begins in 1997. It is this
that allows all the ills of our society to be laid at Labour's door.
The processes by which the authority of parliament has been eroded,
however, started long before Labour took office, not least in 1972
when we joined the EEC - under a Conservative administration. Another
giant step in its decline was the ratification of the Maastricht
treaty, where John Major rammed through the amendments to the ECA in
the teeth of opposition from his own party, a trauma from which the
Conservatives have still to recover.
But another gigantic step was Thatcher's ill-conceived reforms of the
civil service with introduction of "Next Step" agencies in 1988, and
in particular the creation of "sefras". These, above all else, broke
the link between parliamentary accountability and huge tranches of
public administration.
That, combined with the increasing resort to Statutory Instruments -
which saw its biggest leap forwards in the Major era as a handy
mechanism for introducing EU law without the inconvenience and
embarrassment of a parliamentary debate - and the scene was set for
New Labour, which has continued rather than started the process of
decline.
The other neglected issue is the nature of our parliamentary system
which is, at its very heart, adversarial. The system relies not only
on good government but good opposition. The one goes with the other
to make a whole.
It is here that we as a nation have been so badly let down. Not only
have we had to suffer a uniquely bad government but we have been thus
saddled at a time when the opposition has also been weak and ill-
directed. The failures we see, therefore, are not simply those of the
government but of the system as a whole, the lack of robust and
effective opposition being a significant contributory factor.
Whether or not the situation is recoverable, I do not know - I rather
suspect it has gone too far down the road to destruction. Certainly,
it is going to take a lot more than a debate on Monday. What will
make the difference will be when MPs start to realise that they are
in parliament not to defend their rights but ours.
Frankly, I do not see this happening and until it does, there will be
very little general sympathy for MPs, even if the Old Bill turns over
the whole damn lot of them. It is rather a variation on the theme of
"mind over matter". We don't mind, because they don't matter. And
they don't matter to us, because we don't matter to them.
---------------------------------
Posted by Richard North
TELEGRAPH 6.12.08
Damian Green arrest was caused by Labour's abuse of Parliament
By Charles Moore
Through the smoke of battle surrounding the police raid on Damian
Green's parliamentary offices, hold on to one simple point. This
would never have happened before 1997.
Until the era of New Labour, the conventions were understood. The
police, without being constitutional experts, knew instinctively not
to bring handcuffs into political matters.
The Civil Service, though rightly furious about leaks, was cautious
when it came to investigating elected politicians. The Government
itself, getting wind of trouble, deployed the ancient concept of the
"quiet word" to discourage too much zeal by the constabulary.
And if, nevertheless, the police had come to the Commons authorities
with their proposal to raid, the Speaker would have seen at once that
such a request touched on the vital rights of Parliament. He would
have wanted to know the precise nature of the accusation (on Privy
Council terms), and would almost certainly have prevented the raid.
advertisement
Why is it different now? There are several reasons.
1. Terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, the threat of terror attacks
has been very real. New laws have been required to deal with it, but
terrorism has become a too convenient excuse for any form of
intrusion that the authorities desire - ID cards, council
surveillance of rubbish bins, helicopters etc.
In her redesigned role, more limited than that of her predecessors,
the Serjeant-at-Arms, Jill Pay, spends most of her time dealing with
matters of security, and therefore hobnobbing with the police and
MI5. She probably knows them much better than she knows MPs. She was
too ready to believe the "anti-terrorist" police when they came to
her about Mr Green, invoking national security.
2. Inverted snobbery. New Labour dislikes the "Men in Tights", the
public schoolboys/ex-top brass who have traditionally been the
officers of Parliament. Its modernising agenda was supposed to blow
away the cobwebs of class.
In 2000, the Speaker, Michael Martin, was pushed into the post by the
government whips, against the long-standing convention that the
parties take it in turn, so he was never really endorsed, as the
Speaker needs to be, by the free will of the whole House.
Once appointed, Mr Martin cast aside the traditional wig, breeches,
and therefore tights. In the process, he also cast aside a body of
knowledge about how Parliament works. Thinking himself patronised by
people he regarded as "snobs", Mr Martin got rid of the Men in
Tights, and appointed Mrs Pay as Serjeant-at-Arms.
When the police came to Mrs Pay about Mr Green, she gave in to them
without seeming to understand what was at stake. And although Mr
Speaker had himself appointed her in the name of egalitarianism, he
did not ask her the right questions about the raid and did not stand
up for her when it all went wrong.
The important surviving Man in Tights in the Palace of Westminster is
Black Rod, Lt-Gen. Sir Michael Willcocks, who is in charge of matters
in the House of Lords. It was Black Rod, you may remember, who had
the guts to uphold the constitution and prevent Tony Blair from
muscling in on the Queen Mother's funeral. If the Met had come to his
House, rather than to Mrs Pay's, you can be sure that the rights of
Parliament would have been asserted.
3. The politicisation of the police. Since the Macpherson report on
the death of Stephen Lawrence, when they were told that they were
institutionally racist, the police have known that they can only gain
promotion by being politically correct and ingratiating themselves
with their political masters. The disastrous career of Sir Ian Blair
is a case study - a weird mixture of trying to be the agent of social
change (sucking up to Muslim extremists) on the one hand, and of
using heavy-handed powers (the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes)
on the other.
In the life of the modern senior policemen, no one bulks larger than
Sir David Normington, permanent secretary at the Home Office, the man
responsible for calling the police in to the leak investigations. Sir
David chairs the body that will select candidates to replace Sir Ian
as head of the Met. Like those knights trying to please Henry II by
killing Thomas à Becket, ambitious senior officers rushed after Mr
Green at Sir David's behest, apparently without reflecting that we
live in parliamentary democracy. I almost find myself agreeing with
the old IRA jibe that the "British state" is run by "securocrats".
And once the police lost their historic distance from politics, they
went in up to their necks. Most of the anti-Labour press was
delighted when the cash-for-honours affair led the police to
interview the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, under caution. It seemed to
betoken police independence. Actually, it was just the flipside of
what had gone wrong - a doomed attempt to interfere in political
matters that would never stand up in a court of law and was therefore
pointless. It degraded all involved.
4. The weakening of Parliament. Governments always want to bypass
Parliament, but before 1997, the conventions were upheld, more or
less, by both parties. The power of Parliament to hold the executive
to account relies on control of the timetable.
Under reforms posing as "family-friendly", the Commons gave up the
power to spin out debates through the night, to make sure that Bills
would fall if uncompleted at the end of a session and to debate
constitutional matters without a "guillotine". The Government can
now, therefore, get what it wants almost every time. No wonder, when
you glance at the television screen, that you see the green benches
empty.
In this situation, the Speaker may not have ultimate power, but he
can have moral influence. If, for example, Mr Martin had complained
when the Government leaked its own pre-Budget tax changes before
telling Parliament, he could have embarrassed it into backing off.
But he didn't, and doesn't. Even in the Green case, he has already
accepted a government motion for Monday which will delay the inquiry
until the police have done their work, though this goes against what
he called for himself in his statement to the House on Wednesday.
Mr Martin does what so many MPs have done in the face of the draining
of powers to Europe, Whitehall, the courts and the media. He has
settled for bigger offices, more pay, larger expenses and a massive
pension - preferring a mess of pottage for himself to the birthright
that is ours.
It has been saddening in this rumpus to see how little the general
public seem to mind the mistreatment of Parliament - saddening, but
understandable. We believe less and less that it belongs to us: we
are right.
When New Labour won in 1997, I don't think it wanted to undermine
parliamentary democracy, but it harboured a destructive hatred for
the institutions, conventions and traditions of this country. Now we
see the bitter and oppressive results.
In his famous poem about Oliver Cromwell, Andrew Marvell saw how
Cromwell's ambition would "ruin the great work of time". Such ruin is
taking place before our eyes
=========================
EUREFERENDUM 6.12.08
Mind over matter
Charles Moore is rampant in The Daily Telegraph today, giving vent to
his tribalism as he gives "New Labour" a good kicking. But buried in
his diatribe are some sobering words. Of the Speaker, and of
parliament as a whole, he writes:
Mr Martin does what so many MPs have done in the face of the draining
of powers to Europe, Whitehall, the courts and the media. He has
settled for bigger offices, more pay, larger expenses and a massive
pension - preferring a mess of pottage for himself to the birthright
that is ours.
It has been saddening in this rumpus to see how little the general
public seem to mind the mistreatment of Parliament - saddening, but
understandable. We believe less and less that it belongs to us: we
are right.
I am actually mildly surprised that the great Charles Moore has so
correctly divined the wider sentiment but he is absolutely right when
he notes "how little the general public seem to mind the mistreatment
of Parliament."
(- - - - - -) Far from universal outrage over the presumed breach of
parliamentary privilege, what I discerned was amusement, observing
that most ordinary people rather enjoyed the prospect of an MP's pad
being turned over by the Old Bill.
Interestingly, Moore refers not to the "privileges" of MPs and
parliament, but to "rights" and it is undoubtedly because MPs as a
collective are so heedless of our rights that we care so little for
theirs.
The most important of ours, of course, is the right to have a
legislature which makes our laws and is accountable for them, rather
than outsourcing them to Brussels and the legions of anonymous
officials in Whitehall and elsewhere.
Taking Moore's piece in the round though, I would not disagree with
his condemnation of New Labour. But what I dislike about Tory
tribalism is the easy fiction that history begins in 1997. It is this
that allows all the ills of our society to be laid at Labour's door.
The processes by which the authority of parliament has been eroded,
however, started long before Labour took office, not least in 1972
when we joined the EEC - under a Conservative administration. Another
giant step in its decline was the ratification of the Maastricht
treaty, where John Major rammed through the amendments to the ECA in
the teeth of opposition from his own party, a trauma from which the
Conservatives have still to recover.
But another gigantic step was Thatcher's ill-conceived reforms of the
civil service with introduction of "Next Step" agencies in 1988, and
in particular the creation of "sefras". These, above all else, broke
the link between parliamentary accountability and huge tranches of
public administration.
That, combined with the increasing resort to Statutory Instruments -
which saw its biggest leap forwards in the Major era as a handy
mechanism for introducing EU law without the inconvenience and
embarrassment of a parliamentary debate - and the scene was set for
New Labour, which has continued rather than started the process of
decline.
The other neglected issue is the nature of our parliamentary system
which is, at its very heart, adversarial. The system relies not only
on good government but good opposition. The one goes with the other
to make a whole.
It is here that we as a nation have been so badly let down. Not only
have we had to suffer a uniquely bad government but we have been thus
saddled at a time when the opposition has also been weak and ill-
directed. The failures we see, therefore, are not simply those of the
government but of the system as a whole, the lack of robust and
effective opposition being a significant contributory factor.
Whether or not the situation is recoverable, I do not know - I rather
suspect it has gone too far down the road to destruction. Certainly,
it is going to take a lot more than a debate on Monday. What will
make the difference will be when MPs start to realise that they are
in parliament not to defend their rights but ours.
Frankly, I do not see this happening and until it does, there will be
very little general sympathy for MPs, even if the Old Bill turns over
the whole damn lot of them. It is rather a variation on the theme of
"mind over matter". We don't mind, because they don't matter. And
they don't matter to us, because we don't matter to them.
---------------------------------
Posted by Richard North
Posts
