Question Time takes advantage of senile old man

I’ve missed almost all of the current series of Question Time, so tonight I was determined to watch it. For now, you can too, as tonight’s programme should be available online, but the BBC have previously proved bad at maintaining their archive.

Julia Goldsworthy (only third place? Your readers are mad, Stephen!) was pretty good, but hamstrung by being sat next to a bumptious buffoon (see below). Francis Maude was incredibly dull. Boris Berezovsky was interesting during the first half of the programme, which was devoted to Russia. And Melanie Philips was the token Daily Mail journalist, there to stir the pot on the far right (“I’m afraid I am one of that strange breed of people who are actually not persuaded of the man-made global warming theory at all.”)

To stir the pot on the far left, however, was Tony Benn, and he stood out from the crowd as singly the most bone-headed panellist that David Dimbleby could possibly have found. In just one hour, he managed to accuse Britain of locking up Nelson Mandela, suggested that Britain should not seek to extradite Andrei Lugovoi over the murder of Alexander Litvinenko lest it upset the Russians, and suggested that the Russians might fear the fairness of British justice because of Guantanamo Bay (which is, as some of my more sharp-eyed readers may have noticed, on a different continent from either of the protagonists in this case).

His most ignorant and facile point, however, was in opposition to carbon trading. He argued that the issue of greenhouse gasses was one of rationing, and that carbon trading was the equivalent of selling the single loaf of bread in a lifeboat to the highest bidder (“so that the rich gobble it up”). He catagorically opposed “marketing of ration books” and insisted that we share the right to emit carbon. This is both economically-illiterate and dangerous, but it is typical of a man who believes that governments are best placed to distribute both rights and wealth from on high.

In fact, carbon trading is the only means of ensuring that the right to emit a limited amount of carbon is distributed most efficiently. Most efficiently does not mean equally, of course; Benn may on the face of it be an egalitarian, but human progress depends on the efficient use of carbon, not its equal distribution. If we were each given our ration of carbon-emissions and banned from trading them – as was the equivalent during the 1940s and 1950s when the War coaliton and then the Labour government rationed food and banned its trade – those desparate to emit carbon would be restricted from doing so, while others with no particular need would be endowed with a largely useless permit.

A much fairer system, and one that would generate far more wealth for everybody, would see the government selling the credits, so that those that valued them most could secure them. We would all benefit from the money raised, which could be spent on establishing carbon sinks, buidling alternative energy infrastructure, or researching other solutions to global warming (or, for that matter, spent on health, education, or handed out to citizens as a form of dividend).

Anyway, it is likely to be primary polluters who need credits, rather than end-users. As long as the manufacturers of electricity and petrol and aviation fuel have to buy credits, our carbon emissions will be priced into our electricity bills, the cost of driving and the price of our holidays. This is a far fairer and more efficient means of distributing the right to emit carbon than government rationing. Bear in mind that rationing stretched well into the 1950s because governments, once endowed with the power, were reluctant to let it go. If you’re really worried about the poor, the solution is to enrich them and let them buy carbon-intensive goods alongside the rich.

Still, it should not be a surprise that Benn is confused, as he is clearly becoming senile. Only that can explain his daftest comment: that he is a libetarian. Tony Benn, the author of the “longest suicide note in history”, which would have arrogated more power to government than Britain had seen since the Stewarts, claimed to be a libertarian. The man’s clearly gone mad!

Labour deputy leadership promises of renewal founder in politics as usual

A day late, I have just watched the Newsnight special on the Labour Party’s deputy leadership contest. What a depressing experience!

Every single one of them stressed their desire to “Restore trust in politics” (Benn) and “renew the party” (Blears). Yet by-and-large they all committed the same sins that make politicians so contemptible.

Asked to give a “yes or no answer” to four policy questions, only Alan Johnson was prepared to say what he believed without either hedging or explaining. When pushed about replacing Trident, new nuclear power, ending the charitable status of independent schools and an amnesty for illegal immigrants, their answers were:

Cruddas: No Yes Yes (failed to answer)
Hain: Yes Yes No No
Johnson: Yes Yes No Yes
Harman: (failed to answer) Yes No Yes
Blears: Yes Yes No No
Benn: Yes Yes No No

When asked who they would vote for if they were not themselves standing, all five of the front bench candidates refused to answer, insisting that they were “in it to win it” (Blears). Only John Cruddas was honest enough to answer – perhaps because he was asked first and did not know that the others were so spineless; he said he would vote for Harriet Harman “because of her gender activism” (he might as well have said because she was a woman).

In fact, the straightest answer came when asked if they would have voted for the Iraq war (they all did) if they knew then what they know now. Both Cruddas and Harman said they would not and added that Labour ought to apologise for its mistake; Hain said he could not wriggle off the hook with the benefit of hindsight (which I thought was an honourable answer); while Johnson and Hilary Benn said they were glad Saddam was gone. Blears still fudged; she wanted to look forward, not back (having clearly not moved on since 2005*).

On one issue they all agreed, however. None supported caps on the size of donations to political parties (though most supported caps on spending) and the Trades Unions ought to be exempted from any ban on large donations. Some things, it seems, have not changed in the Labour Party.

--

*Interestingly, I tried to link to Britain: forward not back, Labour's 2005 election manifesto, but it has mysteriously disappeared!

The fine Labour tradition of cynical populism

I cannot possibly match the pith of the eloquent Cicero, who wrote his own short word about Hazel Blears. But words must be written.

Hazel Blears, the Labour Party Chair, has attended a protest in Salford to object to Government policy that will close the maternity ward in her local area. Defending her actions, Ms. Blears said “As a constituency MP, I am representing the strong feelings of my constituents. The people of Salford and Eccles come first.”

Actually, they don’t. Ms. Blears has clearly forgotten (if she ever knew) Edmund Burkes famous dictum that constituents do not elect a Member for Bristol (or Salford) but a Member of Parliament. Though Ms. Blears represents her constituents at Westminster, her duty is to make decisions in the national interest based on their needs and beliefs, not to bring home barrel loads of pork.

Of course, were Ms. Blears a humble back bencher she could be forgiven for defending local interests against national policy. But she is not. Ms. Blears is a Cabinet Minister (without portfolio – that is to say a politically-appointed drain on the public fisc) and as such shares responsibility for the very policy to which she is now objecting. Perhaps she has also forgotten (if she ever knew) the concept of Cabinet Collective Responsibility. While she may argue her point vociferously in camera across the Cabinet table, in public she must either support the policy or resign.

Of course, the Labour Party – which has never had much respect for political conventions or the constitution of government – has been here before. In 1975, Harold Wilson suspended collective responsibility during the referendum on whether to remain within the Common Market.

More recently, in another example of cynical populism, Hilary Benn (whose redoubtable father had been one of the chief protagonists in the 1975 debate) joined the Make Poverty History and environmental campaigners that marched to Gleneagles. In fact, neither Mr. Benn nor his Cabinet colleagues had any intention of implementing the policies demanded by this (largely anti-capitalist and anti-globalisation) crowd. But in classic New Labour fashion, they wanted some of the celebrity and the veneer of rebellion that attached to this youthful and spontaneous movement, so they despatched one of their more youthful-looking and more spontaneous Ministers to rub shoulders with the moral glitterati.

This cynical populism is a disgrace. It insults both the intelligence of the voters and the passion of the protesters. More importantly, it undermines the much-needed and serious policy debate that is required. The National Health Service needs reform, and global poverty and environmental degradation need addressing. The solution to these challenges will be found in the complex and difficult world of politics, where tough choices must be made for long-term objectives. This requires Government to identify the best approach, to shape a policy and to implement it. As with all changes of policy, there will be some losers, but hopefully there will be more winners and overall we will live in a better place. If that is not the result of the policy, it should not be implemented; if it is, it should be pushed with enthusiasm by the whole of Government.

If Ms. Blears, Mr. Benn or any other member of the Government feels uncomfortable with its programme, they should resign from the Government. But few now have the honour or conviction of Geoffrey Howe or Robin Cook.