"Because the stakes are so low.."

Although the attribution is contested, the aphorism "Academic politics is the most bitter and vicious form of politics, because the stakes are so low" is nowadays usually credited to Wallace Sayre, a political scientist at Columbia in the mid sixties.

British politics is increasingly shrill, and as we enter the long run into the general election in 2010, it is already clear that we can expect the battle between Mr. Brown and Mr. Cameron to be one of the dirtiest campaigns on record. Yet in fact, although the struggle may be noisy, in the end it may ultimately change very little. The problem is now not so much the party of government, but the system of government that offers up such limited political choices. The current government has governed by ignoring the will of Parliament and the Conservatives, with their cosmetic commitment to local devolution will inflict further damage on Parliamentary authority. Of course, many will say that the expenses scandal means that Parliament has brought this upon itself.

Yet the fact is that we face a crisis of the constitution. The fundamental basis of our democracy is under attack. The increasing lack of accountability of government to anyone except itself is creating unresponsive and occasionally despotic decision making. The lack of privacy of citizens in the face of state snooping is already undermining the fundamental ideas of our constitution. Our intrusive libel system is undermining the right to free speech. The public sector expenses dwarf those of Parliament, and they remain unchallenged.

The immediate response to the expenses scandal has been to ask MPs to wear a hair shirt, and for a while this is certainly appropriate. However the fact is it is absurd to pay MPs less than an executive at a medium sized council. With many people at the state owned broadcaster, the BBC, being paid more than the Prime Minister, we are at least entitled to question whether these priorities are morally right, never mind whether they are a good use of taxpayers and license payers money. The loose expenses regime was an attempt to compensate MPs when it proved politically inconvenient to pay them the salaries of comparable civil servants. Yet the Office expenses, as opposed to the living expenses, while they may seem lavish in monetary terms are barely enough to deal employ enough staff to run a constituency office on top of a secretary at Westminster. A few intern style researchers is hardly lavish when compared to the resources available to most other democratic Parliamentarians. Of course this suits the government of the day very well, because greater resources available to MPs would allow them to impose greater oversight over the administration.

And that is what is needed. The Labour government has rammed through expensive and ill thought out legislation at a truly hectic rate- guillotining and curtailing discussion as it thought fit. The government has passed more criminal justice legislation in twelve years than was thought necessary throughout the twentieth century- and much of this legislation requires repeated amendment to get it to work. Parliamentarians- under resourced and whipped in by the parties- have an ever decreasing input into the legislation that under our constitution they are supposed to author and to scrutinise.

The evidence is growing that Mr. Cameron's instincts are to be equally contemptuous of the House of Commons- to the great detriment of our democracy. Changing the party of government will not restore the democratic power of the legislature, but increase the unelected patronage of Quangos and lobbyists- of which of course Mr. Cameron was once one himself.

The election will be shrill, but unless the power of the House of Commons can be restored, it will indeed be a battle of low stakes, for membership of Parliament will continue to be a matter of opprobrium, while it ill only be being a member of the government that will be a matter of power- and as Peter Mandelson repeatedly proves, you don't have to be elected to have that.

Rights and Freedoms

The continued determination of the British state to hold on to the DNA of innocent people in the face of huge opposition reflects the tenacity of a certain mindset. This same mindset insists that the intrusive and expensive positive vetting of anyone who comes into the slightest contact with children is the only way to protect kids from potential abusers. The fact that it patently does no such thing and effectively brands everyone as a criminal unless they can prove they are not, thus breaking the fundamental rule of justice: innocent until proven guilty, is answered with a shrug. Even so fundamental a rule should surely be ignored because "the kids" must be protected at all costs.

This is the way to total subservience to the state. Instead of society being based on a fundamental contract amongst free citizens, there are now large new areas of law which demand complete obedience. Whether the insulting anti-paedophile laws or the draconian anti terrorism laws, the last few years have seen a huge extension of state power. This power has not only come at the expense of the rights of individuals, but also at a huge financial cost too. The costs of administering the mechanisms of legal intrusion and economic dependency have turned Britain from one of the cheapest countries to administer into one of the most expensive- and this fiscal drag is undermining our economic competitiveness dramatically.

It is not just a matter of the moral benefits of freedom, the costs of the creation of the suspicious, and snooping society so beloved of Labour apparatchiks are well beyond our financial capacities too.

Castrating Parliament

In the 19th century MPs were not paid at all, but Parliament was at the centre of national life.

Over time as the Parliament of landowners and lawyers also began to include simple employees, a small stipend was granted- and it remained small. Even now, back bench MPs only earn £64,766 a year. Meanwhile, even with allowances, they usually have to fund two places to live and two offices- in London and in their constituencies. They have to employ staff in both places too. By contrast all of the senior civil service grades earn a lot more than this, and of course do not have to fund their own office costs.

As the journalists of the Daily Telegraph relish the power that their scoop on MPs expenses has brought them they should reflect that most of them too are better paid than MPs are. Now the Kelly report proposes to cut back MPs compensation still further. For example, it is suggested that Parliament will only pay for a rented one bedroom flat in London. This, together with the ban on employing spouses, will severely damage the family life of MPs. Personally I think that the price of being an MP- in terms of the isolation that living away from ones family- creates enough problems as it is: marriage break downs and alcoholism are just two of the known consequences of such isolation. As MPs return to their single flats after the House rises at 10 PM, it would be hard for them to consider that they were being treated in any way except shabbily.

In my view by trampling on the prestige of Parliament and treating MPs in this way, we are in grave danger of getting at best a distorted representative body, at worst one that is positively dysfunctional. MPs should be paid properly- well above the civil servants (after all even a GP can be earning more than twice what an MP does)- and they should not be expected to destroy their families to serve their constituencies.

It is healthy to be sceptical about or political leaders, it is extremely dangerous to treat them with such contempt- and very hypocritical of the journalists who are doing the kicking to avoid mentioning the absurd compensation packages that media personalities in their own world can command.

The Treaty of Lisbon ratified

"Gentlemen, you are trying to negotiate something you will never be able to negotiate. If negotiated, it will not be ratified. and if ratified, it will not work"

Thus spoke the British civil servant, Russell Bretherton, who had been sent to represent Britain at the Messina conference in 1955. The other six countries represented at that conference: Belgium, France, (West) Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands had sent their foreign ministers. The UK sent this relatively minor civil servant who essentially boycotted the discussions. It was the beginning of a continuously fraught relationship between Britain and the rest of the European Union.

In the same way that the UK tried to ignore the reality of the early moves for European co-operation, so it has tried to ignore the reality of the treaty of Lisbon. At the signing ceremony, 26 European leaders celebrated with a formal signing ceremony followed by a formal dinner. One- Gordon Brown- arrived deliberately late and did not want to be photographed with the other leaders. In the face of the substantial reorganisation of the European Union that the treaty will now require neither Labour, nor -especially- the Conservatives have had the slightest positive thing to say. Indeed the majority of Conservatives profoundly oppose the very basis of the treaty. David Cameron demanded a referendum and publicly urged President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic to veto the treaty, irrespective of the Czech constitution, which was frankly outrageous.

Now the treaty has come into force and the -pretty unedifying- jockeying for position in the new set up will begin. Nevertheless, the time has come for the United Kingdom to grow up about our relations with the rest of the EU. This organisation, for all its faults, is being developed to allow the relatively smaller states of Europe to work together to avoid being pressured by the larger global states such as China, India, the United States, Russia, and increasingly even Brazil. It makes sense strategically and economically for relatively small powers- of which the UK is clearly one- to work closely with our neighbours and major economic partners to promote our common interests. Of course the great diversity of European societies especially with so many languages, ensures that there is a clear limit to the level of integration that can be achieved.

Nevertheless the benefits have been palpable and significant.

All of the European Union members have recognised that membership of the organisation has benefited their own national interests significantly. Britain, pretty much alone, continues to regard membership as a challenge to its national interest and even a threat to its identity. We lost an Empire and then found that the denominations of our money- L.s.d- our measurements system- Imperial and even the idea of the Pound Sterling itself, were hindrances to our economy. We have still not yet found a role and have become passive in the face of own decline.

Yet there is a role waiting for our country. It was after all Winston Churchill himself who first mooted the idea of a United States of Europe. Britain has been in the forefront of a far more fundamental integration: the integration of European defence forces both within and beyond NATO- and is recognised as a leader in this sphere because of this. By failing to lead Europe in other fields and be clinging to an increasingly one sided unilateral alliance with the United States, our country has forfited the respect of our allies, even including the US.

Lisbon, with all its faults, is ratified. This should not be seen as a threat to the United Kingdom, but now an opportunity. In the same way that British leadership, in the shape of the Cockfield plan, created the single market, so we should now take the opportunity to shape the European Union in a way that emphasises the value of free and open markets- including the financial markets.

The history of the British relationship with the EU is a litany of misunderstanding and failures by the British to recognise the values but also the agenda of our fellow members. The time has come for the British to reappraise their whole relationship with the EU: and to "reset" it as the current jargon has it.

If that requires a referendum to confirm our membership, then so be it. I am confident that people like Dan Hannan, whose world view so resembles that of Russell Bretherton, can be taken on and defeated.

David Cameron faces a challenge

Oh dear! the deselection of Liz Truss by Norfolk Conservatives is something of a challenge for the so-called modernisers around David Cameron. To most people these days, the deselection of someone because they had an extra-marital affair several years ago looks pretty absurd. These days the majority of the population are understanding about the pressures that can cause marriages to fail, and know that the idea of blaming someone is often wide of the mark.

Nevertheless it is only to be expected that Conservatives would be more concerned about the issue of marriage and morality. Social Conservatives pay a great deal of attention to institutions, and are naturally conservative about maintaining them. There is indeed a real cost to society from the failure of such institutions, but while Conservatives try to defend the institutions themselves, a Liberal will focus of the role of individual rights and responsibilities, rather than an imposed sense of -often hypocritical- social morality.

Given that Ms. Truss's affair was extremely public, and details could be found in a single google search, one can only assume that there may be another agenda amongst the local Conservatives. Mr. Cameron, by forcing candidates on local parties is breaking an old tradition amongst both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats- the local party is the final arbiter in the selection of a candidate. Personally I think that David Cameron, by forcing all women short lists on an unwilling party, is sending a message that a candidate's gender is more important that their character- which is why the Liberal Democrats don't make their candidate selections based on gender preference, but gender balance in the selection process. In any event, in virtually any other job, an employer that expresses such a gender preference, irrespective of merit, is breaking the law.

It seems to me that the deselection of Ms. Truss underlines the huge gap that has opened up between the "Notting Hill Set" and the rest of the Conservative Party. The leadership is already making the bedrock of the Conservatives nervous with his talk of social liberalism: the majority of the Conservative Party remains socially, well, conservative. Frankly Cameron's views on imposing all women short lists, apart from being a challenge to the independence of local parties, also puts him well to the left, not only his own party, but a significant swathe of Liberal Democrats and even some Socialists.

With growing suspicions about his views on the EU, Mr. Cameron may face a series of rebellions from his local parties. Given the scale of the job that is need for the Conservatives to get a working majority, there is real danger that such rebellions could undermine party unity and leave the Tories short of their majority.

David Cameron will only have himself to blame his he continues to tread on the toes of his own party. Liz Truss may be simply the first casualty of the growing discontent at the Conservtative grass roots against the self-styled "heir to Blair".

Tony Blair: a warning for Europe

In the just over two years since Tony Blair stepped down from the office of British Prime Minister, the state of his reputation in the country has not improved. Reviled in office as the man who committed the UK to a war that was not endorsed by the United Nations, his activities since strike the majority in our country as little better than sordid money grubbing.

As Prime Minister, Tony Blair had an unerring sense for the political, that is to say how things appeared rather than how they actually were. The obsession with appearances created a dangerous disconnect between what his government said and what it actually did. In the end the whole theatre of "spin" and presentation made the British people jaded and increasingly cynical about politics. In short "spin" became, in the eyes of the electorate, just another word for lie.

Although Mr. Blair now speaks a great deal about his religious faith, in office he did nothing to alter the constitutional bans that still officially exist against Roman Catholics. Indeed, it seems quite clear that Tony Blair broke these constitutional bans himself by occasionally taking Catholic communion. It may seem perhaps a small point, but it shows a man unwilling to make moral choices and content to break or bend rules when the moral choice would have been to change those rules. Given the importance that Roman Catholics place on Communion it is hard to forgive a man who built his government on lies and who now preaches loudly about faith.

The pernicious impact of Blairism on British politics can be seen in the way that David Milliband was being talked up as potential first holder of the office of President of the European Council- a transparent attempt by Gordon Brown to get a rival out of the way.

Now, we are told, it is Tony Blair who wishes to reenter the world of high level politics by becoming the first so-called "President of Europe". The ironic thing is that other EU countries think that by offering Mr. Blair the job, they are paying some kind of respect to the United Kingdom. In fact Mr. Blair remains deeply unpopular in Britain- and even after the two disastrous years of Gordon Brown, the British have still not forgiven a man rightly regarded as one of the most unscrupulous, false and damaging Prime Ministers in British history. In fact, the appointment of Mr. Blair to the office of President would be extremely damaging to the standing of the European Union in Britain - a standing which is hardly very high as it is.

There are plenty of people who think that, far from rewarding this man with the bevy of sinecures that he has managed to procure on the back of having been Prime Minister, the international community should instead charge Tony Blair as a criminal. Choosing Tony Blair as EU President would certainly infuriate most people in the UK and severely damage the relationship of the country with the EU. It would be a dangerously wrong decision.

Meanwhile the British government has now announced that it has pledged to support Mr. Blair's bid for office. Given Gordon Brown's unerring nose for failure, I think we can assume that the chances of Tony Blair actually getting the job are now pretty damaged- as they should be.

Bank Bonuses: Why Osborne makes it worse

Even though the latest bank bonus payments have been greeted with predictable outrage in the usual quarters, in this case the "usual suspects" have a point. The concern about the financial industry for some time has been that the owners of bank capital have had their returns hijacked by bank staff. Certainly even before the crisis, the return on capital of banks over the past decade- mostly in single figures after bonuses- looked pretty anaemic. By contrast the payments to staff at banks have been substantially higher than investor returns. In the end, as we now know, the return on capital over the past two years has been so negative as to wipe out the balance sheets of several financial institutions. This has required the injection of billions from the taxpayers of the United States, United Kingdom and several other countries.

Several banks are now either owned by the state or rely on the state for their survival through a variety of measures- including the extremely expensive rescue of AIG. This, however, has not stopped the payment of this injected capital still going to staff rather than to rebuild bank balance sheets. When the bonus pool is larger than the value of state support, as it is in several instances, then effectively the shareholders -i.e. the state- are being robbed by the management and staff that they employ.

Neither, by the way, is the delayed payment of bonuses in shares a solution- it simply takes away a cash cost and replaces it with a dilution of the share capital- and the effect on shareholders can often be worse than if they paid out in cash. Thus George Osborne's demand that bonuses above £2000 should be paid in shares is not much of a solution.

By paying out bonuses on such a scale to employees who are only able to do business because of government capital, the management of these banks are flying in the face of the very capitalism that they purport to defend. If they choose to make such payouts as a private company, that is a matter for the shareholders- who are obviously happy to be ripped off. As the trustees of the state, it is extraordinary that government representatives did not reject the idea that the bonus pools should not be funded from profit, but from capital. It is creating the ultimate moral hazard in the financial system.

That is a significant cause of the original crisis: and has fed irresponsibility across the board. Osborne- as is becoming usual with his policy pronouncements- is taking aim at the wrong target. Instead of demanding that the total bonus pool be paid out of a fixed percentage of profits made, he has accepted that it should be paid out of capital- albeit in shares rather than cash. By setting the individual limit at £2000, he is only allowing the lowest clerks to get cash, but in any event it is more expensive to administer share payments rather than cash payments. Osborne's idea does nothing to address the fundamental problem that staff are generally being favoured at the expense of shareholders. Indeed by increasing costs and not reducing the overall pool to reflect profits, he ensures that the taxpayer gets an even worse deal.

As Mr. Osborne makes a speech in the City this morning, he may reflect that he is not particularly respected amongst the financial community. He is likely to continue to fail to assert his authority with this further badly thought out and even counter productive initiative.