The Martin Bell interview

@alexsmith1982 and I went up to visit Martin Bell on Monday. His thoughts on Iraq, Tony Blair, Esther Rantzen, David Cameron, Hazel Blears (definitely worth a read of that) and on his successor in the Tatton seat, George Osborne.

The Martin Bell interview on LabourList.

Housing- an issue of supply not allocation

The housing issue we face is one of supply not allocation. But there is a perception that migrants are favoured in the allocation of scarce social and council housing. Not true, says the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. And the Housing Minister, John Healey MP agrees.

If the issue is supply and not allocation then why all this local people first stuff? Surely that just plays into the perception that migrants are favoured in some way and is politically and socially highly dangerous. Just a thought.

The rise of political gobbledygook

There were some good elements in David Miliband's speech last night. Most particularly, he articulated the need for Labour to marry radical liberalism and social democracy, he emphasised the importance of the party articulating a strongly pro-European line in its next manifesto, and there was an interesting discussion of the reforms that the Greek Socialists have undertaken: broadening membership, open primaries, and action to promote a better balance of gender representation.

However, some of it is utter gobbledygook. Let's leave aside the peculiar assertion that the digital switch-over is a radical policy fusing the best of social democracy and radical liberalism (explain please?) No, let's look at one passage which for the life of me I cannot comprehend. Like a fiendishly difficult modernist text, I recognise all the words can't see behind them to the true meaning. Can you help me out?

"Or local government in England, where funding has been raised and some powers devolved, including the creation of a general power of economic and social well being which the Tories now say is their panacea, but the shift in the balance of power from Whitehall to Town Hall has not yet happened, and the convening power of local government over the whole range of local services not been achieved."

What is he talking about? Is there an annotated or York notes version of the speech anywhere?

Tories risk economic calamity

Two pieces caught my eye over the weekend. Both deal with the gnarled topic of government borrowing and debt. I covered this issue a few weeks ago when discussing the project initiated by President Sarkozy to re-think debt chaired by Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz. Some debt is good as it raises the productive potential of the economy.

Of course politicians are engaged in a semi-bogus debate about cutting public expenditure. The issue is not who is tougher. It is when the necessary fiscal stiffening should be initiated.Economically, we are most definitely not out of the woods yet. Both the supply of capital and the demand for capital appear to be declining. If the investment is not undertaken then that harms growth, employment, etc. What can fill the gap? Well, it's public expenditure or nothing. The latter is terrifying and that is why I find the Tories' line on debt and fiscal rectitude so concerning. They may be in government in a year. Watch the double dip recession- or worse- become a real possibility.

By focusing the debate on the level of debt, they have made short-term political capital but they are creating a irresponsible dialogue. The major issues facing the economy currently are the continuing risk of financial collapse and the associated decline in demand. Richard Koo, through his experience of the Japanese economy which has sustained a series of shocks over a decade and a half, cautions us not to become too cautious when it comes to debt. I would be encouraged if all front line politicians read his book as a matter of urgency. Will Hutton picked up his arguments in his Observer column yesterday (I will say it again, Hutton has become a must-read commentator once more.)

The debate that has been going on about debt and cutting spending simply ignores thefundamentals- the British economy is facing serious structural weakness and we still don't know how that is going to pan out. Debate about what the spending and capital expenditure will be in 2013 are, frankly, irrelevant. All we can say is that when the economy shows signs of sustained recovery and growth, the stimulus can be withdrawn and we can return to normal times again. We do not know when that will be. If we try to return to orthodox economics too early then we could face calamity. That is the more powerful argument against the Tories' approach to the economy.

They are facing exactly these challenges in the USA. Krugman, Stiglitz (yes, him again), Nicholas Nassim Taleb appear to have vindicated. Vice President Joe Biden in a characteristic display of honesty admitted that the administration may have underestimated the scale of the economic malaise. In terms of the urgency of the stimulus and the required magnitude it may have undershot. The aforementioned economists and commentators argued this at the time. They won't be coy in coming forward with a brutal 'I told you so.'

Congressional Republicans are quickly assuming an attack formation. But their assertion that the economy will self-correct is taken from the playbook of depressions past. They seem to want to play the Herbert Hoover card with a Panglossian flourish.

Thank goodness for the world economy that they are not in control of either the executive or legislative branches. Nor will they be until at least November 2010. The risk that their political bed-fellows in UK will come into office earlier is greater. What the Tories may do to public services seems to be a relatively blunt political attack. What they may do to the economy is far more scary and potent.

The problem with this is that it requires a degree of honesty about the risks facing the economy even if we start to see more convincing green shoots. Labour's strategy seems to be to demonstrate that it turned the economy round. And the right moves have been played. However, why de-prioritise the economy when it remains the most important issue facing us for the foreseeable future? Instead, the better way to force the Tories onto the defensive- rightly- is to say that weaknesses persist, risk abounds, and the last thing we need is to drag the economy back into the mire through naivety and ideology. A head-strong ideologue is the last thing Britain needs and David Cameron has that air.

One final thing. To do what needs to be done the tennis loving Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King may well have to be taken on. He is continually parroting the Tory line on debt. Nobody wants high levels of debt and we must display to international markets that there is a grip on public expenditure and that borrowing is a crucial component of returning the economy to growth. However, if the economy rocks and jerks any more then debt may be a lesser of two evils. That was certainly the Japanese experience (as Tim Geithner the US Treasury Secretary knows only too well.) Why are we incapable of even peering back at recent history?

More on our failing criminal justice system

OK, following my piece yesterday on the final report of the Commission on English Prisons Today, I have a piece up on Liberal Conspiracy. Our criminal justice system is in crisis- Cherie Booth QC says so. Join the debate.

Our criminal justice system is in crisis.

And I haven't even begun on the decision not to free Michael Shields yesterday. If you read my post from last week you will see what my thoughts are on that.

We're prison junkies. We need rehab.

Prison is not working. 84,000 are now in prison. We spent £22.7 billion on criminal justice in England and Wales last year. Those we punish are largely the poor and disadvantaged, those with mental health needs and drug or alcohol addictions. Inequality and social breakdown are conducive to criminal behaviour as international evidence shows in country after country. And we bring to sword of justice down most heavily on those who suffer in this unequal society of ours. Our criminal justice system is unethical and it is ineffective.

It is madness. A crucial report published today by the Commission on English Prisons Today, presided over by Cherie booth QC and chaired by criminologist, Professor David Wilson, is unequivocal. Our system of penal justice is in crisis- it neither serves to create safe communities nor rehabilitate offenders in any meaningful way- and yet we are locked in path dependency. We'll lock more people up, for longer, and we'll be caught in the same cycle of failure.

The report is entitled Do Better, Do Less. Two things instantly leap out beyond the quite obvious case that we've set ourselves on a course of inevitable failure when it comes to criminal justice. Firstly, the report makes a powerful appeal to our sense of national ethics. We are people who value restraint, moderation, pragmatism, and humanity. Yet, our penal reform policies first under Michael Howard under the last Tory government and then accelerated under this government, have followed a different course- one of excess, vengefulness, and punishment rather than rehabilitation.

So we have fallen short ethically and we have strayed from our national characteristics. Just as torture offends the core values of the United States and fails to make it safer; penal excess is the same thing in the UK context.

Beyond ethics there is the question of effectiveness. Like so many areas of public policy we have been focusing on process- and ever more bureaucratic and centralised systems of management-rather than outcomes. If we come up with a different approach- one that asks what makes our communities safer?- then we come up with different answers. The Commission potently argues that we should localise criminal justice, encourage shifts of resource from prison to 'justice reinvestment', i.e. policies that prevent criminality on a community basis rather than simply punish it, close prisons, and deploy restorative justice more widely.

We will reduce offending, reoffending, make communities safer and increase confidence in the criminal justice system and the perception of community safety as a result. Oh, and rather than spending more and more on the costs of failure we will be investing in success. In the parsimonious fiscal times we are entering that will be critical. This is the meaning of penal restraint.

Is this all pie in the sky? Something that sounds good but doesn't work in practice? Well, it's worked in New York. Yes, you read that correctly, New York. They have reduced their prison population and closed prisons. In Canada they have reduced their prison population by 11% since 1997. In Finland they achieved the same thing after the war. In Scotland, they have just moved in the direction of the report's recommendations by introducing local Criminal Justice Authorities. In British history too we had two major periods of decarceration- 1908-1938 and the 1980s. Yes, the Thatcher government was marked by penal restraint. Amazing. Where there is political will, there is a way.

At the press launch of the report this morning, both the Minister for Prisons, Maria Eagle MP, and her Shadow, Edward Garnier QC MP, were in attendance. Hopefully, they were listening attentively. This can be done. It is a matter of speaking up to people rather than remaining slaves of opinion polls. We must begin to explain why we must reform our penal system- because it is right, because it works- and that will require both political consensus and leadership. Yes, people have to be brought along with the changes. It is up to politicians to lead; it is up to politicians to act. It is time we got over our addiction to penal excess. As Amy Winehouse didn't say: "you need to go to rehab. yes, yes, yes." 

Iraq War- honesty is overdue

I found it tough to write this article on LabourList about the Iraq War and historical honesty. Tony Blair is a politician I have an enormous amount of respect for but I just can't bring myself to accept his arguments in favour of the Iraq War as articulated on the @katiecouric show last week. Rather we must heed the warnings of Reinhold Niebuhr and exercise restraint. All great powers veer towards hubris. Acknowledging this is the first step to realising where we have the power to change things for the better and where we do not. An honest reappraisal of the Iraq War- through the open Public Inquiry- is the best means of advancing that process.

The article is below:

The Iraq inquiry- historical honesty is overdue and necessary

The curse of Barack Obama

Barack Obama has a history of seeing his political opponents bite the dust following revelations about their personal lives. It happened to his opponent in the 2004 Senate race- Jack Ryan- whose ex-wife revealed some unsavory facts about their sex life. The well-financed and surging campaign of Blair Hull for the Democratic nomination had already been seen off by allegations of domestic abuse.

Now South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanfod- seen as a possible Republican runner in 2012- has been ejected from the running as his affair comes into the open. Chris Matthews speculates whether there is a Tutankhamun effect of the 2012 nomination for Republicans. Personally, I think it's the curse of Barack Obama. How did it work in 2008 presidential election? It made John McCain select Sarah Palin as running-mate. Beware.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Time to free Michael Shields

Michael Savage has an excellent piece in The Independent on the dilemma facing Jack Straw regarding the decision about whether or not to free Michael Shields, the Liverpool fan wrongly convicted of killing a Bulgarian bar-tender with a paving slab in 2005. Most Liverpool fans still dream of that night on May 25th 2005 when Liverpool overturned a 3-0 deficit to lift the Champions League trophy for the fifth time. For Michael Shields, who maintains that he was in bed at the time of the attack, it was the beginning of a four year nightmare.

The dilemma for Jack Straw, as dissected by Savage, is whether to free Shields and risk others not being extradited to Britain as we may be seen as a soft option or to keep him incarcerated until he has served the remainder of his 10 year prison sentence. The High Court already ruled that the Lord Chancellor does indeed have the power to issue a pardon in December of last year. So it's in Mr Straw's hands.

I just don't see how the wider impact of the decision can justify keeping an innocent man in prison. It is simply wrong. The fact that significant new evidence has come to light- including eye witness statements and Shields has taken a lie detector test also- provides the cover to make the decision. He would not be disrespecting the Bulgarian legal system by overturning its decision. Goodness me, our legal system gets it wrong also- just ask Colin Stagg or Barry Bulsara. Any diplomatic fall-out could be managed. Even if it could not, it is still no reason not to acquit Michael Shields.

This one is a simple case of doing the right thing. Michael Shields will be acquitted if there is any justice in the decision.

The ego has landed......

Here is my LabourList column on.......John Bercow and democratic reform. It begins with the sentence, 'I like John Bercow.' There, it's out there.

The ego has landed- can he change politics?

Revolution in rural England

Last night, I gave a talk on Barack Obama at the truly excellent Lowdham Book Festival. During the ensuing discussion, we inevitably turned to British politics. While I wouldn't want to make assumptions about the political make-up of the around 100 strong audience who were locals in the main, it seems a fair estimate to assume that a good chunk were natural Conservatives. In the County Council elections a few weeks ago the Conservatives took Farnsfield and Lowdham 3333 to Labour's 879.

First thing to say is that the enthusiasm in rural Nottinghamshire for Barack Obama's story and the politics that he represents is just as great as anywhere else I have spoken in the UK. That didn't surprise me.

What truly surprised me was that the notion of political change wasn't something that the audience thought should be reserved for the other side of the Atlantic. They are demanding change here too. And it is not just a change of Government that they were interested in. It was a change in the whole way of doing politics. The general consensus seemed to be that an intolerable chasm had opened up between people and their representatives. They want more say- including the introduction of primaries- and they've had enough.

Parliament has to realise quickly that there now is not only a consensus for major political change but there is a demand for it as well. The election of the new speaker has done absolutely nothing to change that. Sorry guys and girls- if MPs think for a moment that this can simply be brushed under the carpet they have another thing coming. It is strange when you have a Labour writer and activist in a natural Tory stronghold and they enthusiastically agree with one other. Interesting times.......

Post script: Thank you to the BTBS- the book trade charity- for sponsoring the event.

Hague the ill-informed

William Hague in a characteristic act of out of touch delusion has accused those who question the on-the-record views of the parties in the Tories' new Conservative and Reformist Group in the European Parliament as 'ill-informed and out of date.'

I particularly enjoyed his assertion that while the Polish Law and Justice Party had banned gay marches, many parties in Poland held 'conservative' views on the issue. So is homophobia a 'conservative' position?Interesting. There are other homophobic politicians in Poland, so that's alright then? The absence of logic is astounding.

You can see what both the Polish Law and Justice Party and the Czech Civic Democrats have said about Barack Obama, homosexuality and climate change in my last post.

It is quite clear that it is not the views of the Tories' critics who are ill-informed and out of date. It is the views of the Tories' new European political bed-fellows. That the Tories are willing to tolerate it demonstrates just how much they have failed to reform even after a dozen years of opposition.