Working Together
The Prime Minister enjoys talking about how important it is for everyone to “work together” to tackle the recession.
On the face of it, it sounds like a good idea. What better way to deal with an economic crisis than to set aside political differences and use the efforts of not just the government benches, but the entire House to “solve” the economic crisis?
The problem is that this not a good way of working. We have a system designed to foster disagreement and division because it is precisely that disagreement and division that brings about effective solutions. Scrutiny, criticism, disagreement and debate are essential to solving problems,. In an economic situation as uncertain and unprecedented as this, debate is more essential than usual. It is the only way to avoid bad decisions. All possible solutions should be thought out, and brutally ripped to pieces by Parliament if we are to deal with the crisis effectively. When playing with such vast sums of other people’s money, the government cannot afford to simply experiment without serious consideration from all sides.
Much though we profess to dislike the adversarial nature of much of modern politics, the truth is that we actually rather prefer it to the alternative. One of the major reasons people don’t vote for political parties is the accusation that “you’re all the same”. People like to be presented with a choice, and if they don’t feel they have one, then they won’t bother to vote.
I am not for one moment trying to excuse much of the partisan and tribal behaviour in modern politics. In many instances it besmirches the reputation of Parliament and has done much to weaken it as an institution. Robust and effective debate is possible without resorting to mindless sniping at each other based on the colour of a rosette. Indeed, partisan “yah-boo” politics probably helps to stifle debate by automatically converting a different opinion into the words of Mephistopheles. It does have its place, but it has gone too far recently.
No better contemporary example could be found in Barack Obama’s appointments. Here we have seen the man elected in part thanks to a backlash against mindless partisanery, a “team of rivals” designed with the very clear intent of promoting disagreement. It is a style of government with a long history, employed by (to give a few examples) Lincoln, Thatcher, Asquith and Roosevelt to great effect. Disagreement is the breeding ground of good government.
But when a Gordon Brown says that we all have to “work together”, he should remember that Parliamentarians are meant to do so by disagreement. Working together means listening to those who disagree with you, not getting them to toe the line you want.
Sphere: Related ContentFabian Society: “We Support Boris Johnson”
I’m afraid this is one of those times where the headline is misleading. Still, it got your attention and maybe a laugh.
The remark was at an event entitled “Is Britain Broken?” between the Bow Group and the Young Fabians. A certain Fabian speaker on the panel made the remark, referring to BoJo’s reference to the idea of a broken society as “piffle”, something he suitably blustered his way out of at this year’s Party Conference.
Unfortunately this was not a particularly enjoyable debate. It quickly descended into partisan recrimination and “yah boo sucks” party politics. This was a shame as some rather good views and opinions got drowned out in a divisive shouting contest about who could paint the most dystopian picture against who could sound the most optimistic. It left you wondering what the point of these joint political events
This was probably due to the choice of title. It led to an argument really over what you emphasise in politics, with the Labour side going off on extended rants about the Conservative Party.
Still, I got to make a light-hearted jab at Hazel Blears over her comments about blogging, sinister and corrosive nihilist that I so evidently am.
At least the drinks afterwards had some decent discussion.
UPDATE: I’ve just been doing some digging regarding one of the speakers. Dr. Stella Creasy, Labour PPC for Walthamstow and (obviously) speaking on the Fabian side was the worst culprit in the partisan attack stakes. Rather than debate the question, she launched into two and a half minutes of Tory-bashing while sneering at anything that anyone else raised that challenged her ideas, as if we were all nuts. Given her rather impressive academic CV, one cannot but think that this was a wasted opportunity. We could have had a really interesting debate on the issues at hand, which she obviously has some knowledge of. It’s not like she couldn’t have even got some side-swipes in while making her point. But instead she opted to go for nothing but blue-bashing. What a waste.
Sphere: Related ContentThe Abortion Debate Does Not Exist
This is the constitutionally correct move. It is a convention that the front bench should not introduce legislation on what we traditionally constitute as matters of conscience, and this has served the nation well. It should never be the prerogative of a government to introduce legislation on matters of conscience that could find any justification for the employment of the whip.
It is also the correct move for another reason: it reflects reality. The reality is that the “debate” in public life over abortion has failed to exist for some time. The last round of debate on the Bill was a noble exception to this, but in public discourse we effectively see two camps completely unable, some might say unwilling, to understand the views of the other. Each shouts its own language parallel to, rather than cognisant of, the other. They are the “two nations” of our times.
Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planet.
Nowhere is this more evident than the names of the camps: “Pro-life” and “Oro-choice”. Two entirely separate axes that work to smear the opponent. Pro-lifers are not anti-choice: they believe that the unborn child is a living thing and therefore there is no valid choice to make. It is also unfair to suggest that they are all basing their ideas on the Book of Jeremiah: the Church of Rome argues that when there is uncertainty (as there is), the benefit of the doubt ought to lie with the potentiality of life. Likewise the pro-choice camp are not anti-life, but believe that life does not begin at conception. It all ultimately centres around the fundamental question of where life begins, and a failure to address this basic first principle where people disagree renders any subsequent discussion meaningless.
Then there are those who try to work through a frighteningly complex moral issue and disagree with articles of faith of both sides. Those who may not accept that life begins at conception, but believe that abortion has undermined traditional values, or those who believe that abortion is little more than infanticide, but nonetheless support legalised abortion as more compassionate than further deaths through the backstreet clinics. Those who . They do not feel comfortable with either side, and get villified for dissenting on some of the basic articles of faith of the two camps. Theirs is a sorry lot, neither pro-life nor pro-choice, their heresies lead to villification by both sides.
As it stands however, the “debate” often feels more like two rival camps preaching to their own side and doing little more than villifying the other. It is not debate, it is enmity.
As a means of testing this principle I put out a statement on my facebook page today declaring myself to be “pro-life with some exceptions”. This is, naturally, an illogical statement: you are either pro-life or you are not. It immediately aroused the anger of many a person who would consider themselves to be “pro-choice”. With one notable exception who noticed this inherent contradiction, people launched for the jugular. It did not matter that in the subsequent discussion I had expressed support for legalised abortion, declared that a foetus is not the same as a human being, or rejected the idea that life begins at conception. It took a significant amount of time for any calm discussion to emerge having raised the red rag of the “pro-life” label. An immediate characterisation of opinion emerged that was at complete odds with any sort of case I wished to make.
In some senses this is inevitable: there will always be those who believe that life begins at conception and will be unshakeable in that belief. This is where majoritarianism proves essential: on a question of an irreconcilable clash of conscience, the opinion of the majority, within some constraints, will have to prevail. Far from being the tyranny of the majority, it is an ethical consensus. As the science changes, abortion will have to be revisited by Parliaments for ever more, and rightly so. There are those on both sides who are open to persuasion. Reactionary characterisation and a refusal to engage in a sensible and intelligent manner to what remain legitimate concerns does neither cause any good.
The problem with the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” labels are that they immediately raise straw men to the other side. They are representative of the worst of political language in that, far from providing an illuminating descriptive label, they are pejorative expressions that serve to restrict debate. Pro-lifers are not against the autonomy of women, nor do pro-choice campaigners support infanticide. Both are moral movements. The discourse however does not acknowledge these basic realities. We ought to do away with them in the name of mature discussion. It is soundbite politics at its worst.
Sphere: Related ContentFinal Presidential Debate
From: Mike Rouse.
Government Debates Davis
Sky News organised a debate between David Davis and Tony McNulty over the central issues of the Haltemprice and Howden by-election. This may be the closest we get to an actual debate with the government over the issue, so I’ve reproduced it here.
Sphere: Related Content
