Politicians are at their happiest when they are claiming to speak or act in the name of the people. This is no different for those elected members that inhabit Holyrood.
In recent times this has been notably prominent in the case of the early release of the Lockerbie bomber, the Scottish Government's justification for this being the supposed Scottish tradition of compassion.
In saying this there is an obvious and implicit assertion that the Scottish people as a whole will support the decision. However opinion polls conducted since the release have tended to be against; now the BBC has published such a survey which indicates only a third of Scottish people actually support the move.
This article is not simply about Kenny MacAskill's decision, although clearly that's the point which will take centre stage. Rather it's about considering why politicians feel the need to hide behind the apparent security of public opinion over the genuine merits of their argument.
This may sound strange, surely an elected politician's first and indeed only loyalty should be to the needs and wishes of those people that put them there? After all that's the reason politicians are called elected representatives.
However surely politics isn't actually as simple as this? The plethora of decisions and issues which face politicians on a day-to-day basis mean that such a simple analysis isn't really possible, and in any case the public view can often be inconsistent and reactive.
So for instance we have social workers denigrated for interfering in people's lives then attacked when a Baby P or Brandon Muir case occurs. We have people complaining about taxation levels then bemoaning the lack of public spending on a given issue, and so on.
There is something to be said for politicians making their arguments based on what they believe the right course of action should be, and allowing the public to make a judgement based on these contentions. For politicians to simply say that what is being proposed is the correct course of action because it's 'what the public want' isn't massively helpful or enlightening.
We rightly have a political system where ultimately the public decides what happens in society. If people aren't happy they can choose to change the people that make the decisions.
However in order for this system to work effectively then we need a variety of voices arguing for the best approach, not a series of people competing to say that their idea must be correct because it's allegedely backed by the people.
The Lockerbie case encapsulates this perfectly. The release decision was apparently made based on the values of the Scottish people. The only flaw in this is that no-one appears to have told the Scottish people that these are their views, if opinion polls are anything to go by.
So it goes for all aspects of political debate. The reality is that there is no such entity (in a political sense) as the Scottish people; instead there are a range of people who have varying views on numerous different subjects.
In some instances they may reach a consensus of sorts, but even then it's likely to be universal. And at that point it becomes entirely redundant to base our political decision making process on the claims of 'what the people want'.
Instead surely it's better to make arguments which justify any action or decision based on the reality of the situation. And then the people - whoever they are - can make their judgement, not have others claim to do it for them.
29 Aug 2009
22 Aug 2009
How do we view Lockerbie now?
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the entire Lockerbie story that has played out this week is considering how we as a nation view the attack twenty years on. It's certainly worth contrasting the reaction to the release of the man convicted of killing 270 people with more recent tragedies, such as Baby P or Brandon Muir.
In these cases (even although one took place in England) there was palpable and understandable anger shown towards the people that could commit such crimes, both through the media and public-at-large.
In that regard the Lockerbie case, and subsequent reaction to it, shows some notable peculiarities. Although this has clearly been the story of the week and indeed year from a Scottish political perspective, it still does not seem to have attracted the level of interest you might have expected.
The media reaction has been mixed, ranging from The Sun condemning the release to The Herald arguing that it was the just thing to do, especially in light of concerns about the reliability of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's conviction.
Still, for a country which can rightly get so exercised about those that could torture one child to death, surely we should have a stronger reaction to and interest in the murders of 270 people which effectively took place in Scottish territory?
Any response could be framed between two different perspectives. Either we accept the court's findings and respond to a mass murderer being shown compassion and allowed to return home or we support the decision based on the premise that we don't think al-Megrahi is guilty. But there doesn't seem to be a huge public response to this either way.
Perhaps Lockerbie belongs in another age, with twenty years being even more distant that it might initially appear. Surely in a post-September 11 media-driven world a Lockerbie taking place in Scotland today would be completely unforgettable at any point?
Or instead perhaps the fact that Scotland was only accidentally involved - the bomb obviously could have gone off elsewhere - means that people's passions are less inflamed by the tragic events? There are no obvious answers to this.
The Scottish Government's position has been a hybrid of points made earlier. On the one hand they have argued that al-Megrahi remains guilty of the crime but that they are attempting to show Scottish compassion in releasing him for his remaining time on earth, before he is 'judged by a higher power', to use Kenny MacAskill's language.
It's at this point that my sympathy for the enormous decision which faced Mr MacAskill somewhat evaporates. In the first place it seems fanciful to talk of exclusively Scottish values such as compassion, which are surely evident in every country in the world.
However beyond that, it appears to be an act of 'compassion' too far. If the concern is that Mr al-Megrahi is in fact innocent then it is actually vital we continue to investigate to find out, firstly, why he was wrongly convicted and, secondly, who actually carried out this atrocity.
If however the belief is that the Scottish justice system remains strong and without flaw, then it has to be asked whether the 'compassion' shown is genuinely just. In many if not most cases it is probably appropriate to release prisoners that are close to death to allow them to spend time with their families.
However Lockerbie is not most cases; it is in fact the single biggest crime ever committed in Scottish territory. We must then question whether or not it is apt to release the only person convicted of this outrage.
Consider this another way. If the people that tortured Baby P or Brandon Muir were tomorrow diagnosed with terminal cancer would we make the same 'compassionate' decision to release them? Or if Iain Brady or Ian Huntley were in the same position, would they be released by the Scottish Government?
The prospect of such an act is surely non-existent; the public and media fury which would follow would prevent any such decision from ever being taken. Which takes us back to the initial question; why does an event such as Lockerbie apparently not arouse the same passions that other tragedies do?
In these cases (even although one took place in England) there was palpable and understandable anger shown towards the people that could commit such crimes, both through the media and public-at-large.
In that regard the Lockerbie case, and subsequent reaction to it, shows some notable peculiarities. Although this has clearly been the story of the week and indeed year from a Scottish political perspective, it still does not seem to have attracted the level of interest you might have expected.
The media reaction has been mixed, ranging from The Sun condemning the release to The Herald arguing that it was the just thing to do, especially in light of concerns about the reliability of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's conviction.
Still, for a country which can rightly get so exercised about those that could torture one child to death, surely we should have a stronger reaction to and interest in the murders of 270 people which effectively took place in Scottish territory?
Any response could be framed between two different perspectives. Either we accept the court's findings and respond to a mass murderer being shown compassion and allowed to return home or we support the decision based on the premise that we don't think al-Megrahi is guilty. But there doesn't seem to be a huge public response to this either way.
Perhaps Lockerbie belongs in another age, with twenty years being even more distant that it might initially appear. Surely in a post-September 11 media-driven world a Lockerbie taking place in Scotland today would be completely unforgettable at any point?
Or instead perhaps the fact that Scotland was only accidentally involved - the bomb obviously could have gone off elsewhere - means that people's passions are less inflamed by the tragic events? There are no obvious answers to this.
The Scottish Government's position has been a hybrid of points made earlier. On the one hand they have argued that al-Megrahi remains guilty of the crime but that they are attempting to show Scottish compassion in releasing him for his remaining time on earth, before he is 'judged by a higher power', to use Kenny MacAskill's language.
It's at this point that my sympathy for the enormous decision which faced Mr MacAskill somewhat evaporates. In the first place it seems fanciful to talk of exclusively Scottish values such as compassion, which are surely evident in every country in the world.
However beyond that, it appears to be an act of 'compassion' too far. If the concern is that Mr al-Megrahi is in fact innocent then it is actually vital we continue to investigate to find out, firstly, why he was wrongly convicted and, secondly, who actually carried out this atrocity.
If however the belief is that the Scottish justice system remains strong and without flaw, then it has to be asked whether the 'compassion' shown is genuinely just. In many if not most cases it is probably appropriate to release prisoners that are close to death to allow them to spend time with their families.
However Lockerbie is not most cases; it is in fact the single biggest crime ever committed in Scottish territory. We must then question whether or not it is apt to release the only person convicted of this outrage.
Consider this another way. If the people that tortured Baby P or Brandon Muir were tomorrow diagnosed with terminal cancer would we make the same 'compassionate' decision to release them? Or if Iain Brady or Ian Huntley were in the same position, would they be released by the Scottish Government?
The prospect of such an act is surely non-existent; the public and media fury which would follow would prevent any such decision from ever being taken. Which takes us back to the initial question; why does an event such as Lockerbie apparently not arouse the same passions that other tragedies do?
13 Aug 2009
Tomorrow's World politics?
The big complaint which always surrounds the TV programme 'Tomorrow's World' is that if what it promised had came true we would all now be living on the moon and flying about in our rocket cars.
As the debate about the role of so-called primaries in UK elections grows it's worth considering if the Tomorrow's World trick of assuming things automatically will be better in the future is really correct.
Primary elections are a US system which allow all voters - not just local party members - to select a particular party's candidate for an election. The Tories recently - and with notable success - trialled this in the Totnes constituency. In showing how this idea is gathering speed Labour MP and fellow blogger Tom Harris has suggested that eventually party leaders (and thus prime ministers) could be chosen in this manner too.
However as there is always a difference between the immediate impact a new innovation has and its likely long-term impact it's worth considering what the real long-term impact may be.
The Totnes ballot involved 25% of the total local electorate. For a 'non-election' that's an impressive turnout and one which obviously supports the idea of extending the use of primaries. However it's also worth remembering that this was the first time and received notable national and local coverage.
Without wishing to immediately pour cold water over the idea it's important to consider whether or not such turnout would genuinely be sustained if it was actually commonplace. It's surely likely that - one commonplace - such elections would receive little or no publicity and as such turnout would notably decline.
For an example of this we should return to the country from which this system is derived, the USA. Logically turnout in the US should be notably higher than in this country, given the widespread use of primaries. However a quick glance at these figures show that US electoral involvement is similar to our own; even in the much heralded Obama election it only reached 56.8%.
We should also ask what the long-term impact of such a system might be on the way we currently structure and organise politics in this country. Local MPs (or at least candidates) are usually drawn from within a small pool of local and active party members. They are the people that organise local events, whether campaigns, leafleting or such like.
Whilst in some ways this reduces the pool of available talent it does also act as a form of filter in identifying people that will be prepared to do some of the less glamorous political activities if elected. For all the talk of expenses and the grandeur of Westminster or even Holyrood, much of a politician's life is fairly mundane.
Whilst it would be great to get captains of industry, highly skilled medical people and other non-political high achievers into office this has to be done in such a way as they understand what the public expects from local representatives. And this often means going to half empty school meetings on a wet Tuesday night or other similar activities.
It is worth asking why if someone is so interested in politics as to stand for election that they haven't already got involved with the party at a local level. In some ways there is a danger that primaries could further disenfranchise the public as people with no experience of the realities of political life in this country are put forward as their local representatives.
By removing the role and influence of local parties it's likely that many of the things the public say they want from politicians in the UK (whether or not they actually get it) such as local contact, campaigns, leafleting, etc would surely end as people saw less and less need to be part of a political party.
Indeed if we were to fully ape the US political system we would actually have to give more money to MPs to run their local offices and give them a local presence, something which would surely be anathema to the public. Although you could argue that in following the US system we would also have much less MPs in the first place, which could balance this out.
Of course none of this is to say that the current system is perfect or that using primaries is guaranteed to be wrong. It's clear that there is a deficit between the public and political classes in this country and that many of the things politicians do here (again, attending public meetings for instance) is something which the vast majority of the public don't do.
In this regard it may be that we would be comfortable with some more akin to the US system by electing people whose sole job it is to win money and influence for the local area (so-called 'pork barrel politics'), rather than supposedly being an active part of the local community.
The gains and benefits of primaries in notably increasing political participation and turnout may eventually come true and in that regard it's an idea worth pursuing. However we should perhaps learn lessons from other areas and be a bit more realistic about when - or if - this will actually be.
Not unless we really are on the verge of holidays to the moon. Or at least jet packs to get everywhere.
As the debate about the role of so-called primaries in UK elections grows it's worth considering if the Tomorrow's World trick of assuming things automatically will be better in the future is really correct.
Primary elections are a US system which allow all voters - not just local party members - to select a particular party's candidate for an election. The Tories recently - and with notable success - trialled this in the Totnes constituency. In showing how this idea is gathering speed Labour MP and fellow blogger Tom Harris has suggested that eventually party leaders (and thus prime ministers) could be chosen in this manner too.
However as there is always a difference between the immediate impact a new innovation has and its likely long-term impact it's worth considering what the real long-term impact may be.
The Totnes ballot involved 25% of the total local electorate. For a 'non-election' that's an impressive turnout and one which obviously supports the idea of extending the use of primaries. However it's also worth remembering that this was the first time and received notable national and local coverage.
Without wishing to immediately pour cold water over the idea it's important to consider whether or not such turnout would genuinely be sustained if it was actually commonplace. It's surely likely that - one commonplace - such elections would receive little or no publicity and as such turnout would notably decline.
For an example of this we should return to the country from which this system is derived, the USA. Logically turnout in the US should be notably higher than in this country, given the widespread use of primaries. However a quick glance at these figures show that US electoral involvement is similar to our own; even in the much heralded Obama election it only reached 56.8%.
We should also ask what the long-term impact of such a system might be on the way we currently structure and organise politics in this country. Local MPs (or at least candidates) are usually drawn from within a small pool of local and active party members. They are the people that organise local events, whether campaigns, leafleting or such like.
Whilst in some ways this reduces the pool of available talent it does also act as a form of filter in identifying people that will be prepared to do some of the less glamorous political activities if elected. For all the talk of expenses and the grandeur of Westminster or even Holyrood, much of a politician's life is fairly mundane.
Whilst it would be great to get captains of industry, highly skilled medical people and other non-political high achievers into office this has to be done in such a way as they understand what the public expects from local representatives. And this often means going to half empty school meetings on a wet Tuesday night or other similar activities.
It is worth asking why if someone is so interested in politics as to stand for election that they haven't already got involved with the party at a local level. In some ways there is a danger that primaries could further disenfranchise the public as people with no experience of the realities of political life in this country are put forward as their local representatives.
By removing the role and influence of local parties it's likely that many of the things the public say they want from politicians in the UK (whether or not they actually get it) such as local contact, campaigns, leafleting, etc would surely end as people saw less and less need to be part of a political party.
Indeed if we were to fully ape the US political system we would actually have to give more money to MPs to run their local offices and give them a local presence, something which would surely be anathema to the public. Although you could argue that in following the US system we would also have much less MPs in the first place, which could balance this out.
Of course none of this is to say that the current system is perfect or that using primaries is guaranteed to be wrong. It's clear that there is a deficit between the public and political classes in this country and that many of the things politicians do here (again, attending public meetings for instance) is something which the vast majority of the public don't do.
In this regard it may be that we would be comfortable with some more akin to the US system by electing people whose sole job it is to win money and influence for the local area (so-called 'pork barrel politics'), rather than supposedly being an active part of the local community.
The gains and benefits of primaries in notably increasing political participation and turnout may eventually come true and in that regard it's an idea worth pursuing. However we should perhaps learn lessons from other areas and be a bit more realistic about when - or if - this will actually be.
Not unless we really are on the verge of holidays to the moon. Or at least jet packs to get everywhere.
12 Aug 2009
Blogging very, very light
To say the least blogging on this site has been light over the past couple of months. Non-existent would be a better description, in fact.
Some of my enthusiasm for this dissipated recently but we'll see over the next few weeks if that changes. The aim is to have two or three posts over the next couple of weeks, and then see if an attraction is again ignited.
My regular reader(s) will no doubt be delighted...
Some of my enthusiasm for this dissipated recently but we'll see over the next few weeks if that changes. The aim is to have two or three posts over the next couple of weeks, and then see if an attraction is again ignited.
My regular reader(s) will no doubt be delighted...
