Part a:
The more we excuse ourselves from our common obligations, escaping into separate identities and a self-serving culture of blame and excuses to rid ourselves of the inconvenient needs to others, the more we weaken all kinds of subtle common goods on which we all rely.
Part b:
People have been using their wealth and loosened social, economic and moral constraints to rid themselves of the potential “inconveniences of others” in all walks of life.
- From Social Capital, by David Halpern.
The British have a habit of going into their big changes as if under anaesthetic.
—Lord Richard Wilson, former Cabinet Secretary
When making this quote, which I discovered whilst reading Peter Hennessey’s latest brilliant offering, The Secret State, Lord Wilson had in mind two major policy decisions of the last 40 years: Britain’s accession to the European Community in 1973 and devolution plus human rights legislation in the 1990s.
To this, I think we can potentially add a third “big change under anaesthetic” if the British public votes for a change in the voting system to the Alternative Vote.
This post isn’t the place to discuss the merits or otherwise of AV. But it is the place to register the fact that there hasn’t been very much debate at all about the referendum, and that we’re a matter of weeks away from a vote that would have a considerable effect in the short, medium and long terms on the conduct and effects of politics in this oldest of parliamentary democracies.
My apologies for not blogging much over the last few weeks. The most ridiculous combination of events has conspired to prevent much else other than work. There are no signs that this will change soon, but fortunately my esteemed and brilliant fellow blogger Phil is keeping us going.
In the meantime, how about this quote from a Lib Dem Minister, when asked what he would do about taking messages he was getting from party members to his Tory counterpart (who happens to Andrew Lansley):
We cannot operate by negotiation, but I will take the messages back.
I know we’ve not historically had many coalition governments is the country, but isn’t that exactly what coalition government is?
I’m not sure why, but this quote from General McClellan – a sort of antihero in the American Civil War – stood out for me when I read it a few days ago:
It has always been my opinion that the true course in conducting military operations, is to make no movement until the preparations are as complete as circumstances permit, & never to fight a battle without some definite object worth the probable loss.
To know enough about many things is vital. It is how we stay broad in our vision while building intellectual capital and deepening the conversation[.]. But it also means being painfully aware that behind the level of insight we need to have there is so much more we would love to be able to understand and explore.
— Matthew Taylor, writing on his continually excellent blog
Sometimes politicians talk as if government and society were in a zero sum game: more government necessarily means less society, and less government means more society.
— Geoff Mulgan (writing about the Big Society here)
How we deal with these things will affect our economy, our society – indeed our whole way of life. The decisions we make will effect every single person in our country. And the effects of those decisions will stay with us for years, perhaps decades to come.
(It is at this point in time that I’d like to point out it’s David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg making these decisions that will stay with us for years, perhaps decades to come. Good luck to us, eh?)
If you wanted to talk to the Lib Dems about electoral reform they were absolutely open to the conversation.
If you wanted to talk to them about public service reform. If you wanted to talk to them about the hard issues on the economy. If you wanted to talk to them about the difficult questions that government is actually about.
They weren’t up for it. That was the problem.
Electoral reform doesn’t change the nature of the decisions: on the economy, on public services, on welfare, on anything.
Before I tell you who said that, just consider first whether you agree with it.
Now, it was this chap speaking on Newsnight on Tuesday.
[O]n the economy, they seem to be buffeted this way and that, depending less on where they think the country should be, than on where they think public opinion might be.
— Tony Blair, speaking on the Tories during a speech he gave in Sedgefield this week.
Marbury picked this particular line up, and he’s right to emphasize the key distinction between responding to public opinion and shaping it.
[O]f course, I had to take this decision as Prime Minister and it was a huge responsibility then, and there is not a single day that passes by that I don’t reflect and think about that responsibility, and so I should. But I genuinely believe that if we had left Saddam in power, even with what we know now, we would still have had to have dealt with him, possibly in circumstances where the threat was worse and possibly in circumstances where it was hard to mobilise any support for dealing with that threat.
I think we live in a completely new security environment today. I thought that then, I think that now. It is why I have said this to you a number of times today I take a very hard, tough line on Iran today, and many of the same arguments apply.
In the end it was divisive, and I’m sorry about that and I tried my level best to bring people back together again, but if I’m asked whether I believe we are safer, more secure, that Iraq is better, our own security is better with Saddam and his two sons out of power and out of office than in office, I indeed believe that we are, and I think in time to come, if Iraq becomes, as I hope and believe that it will, the country that its people want to see, then we can look back, and particularly our armed forces can look back, with an immense sense of pride and achievement in what they did.
[Do I have regrets?] Responsibility but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein. I think that he was a monster, I believe he threatened, not just the region but the world, and in the circumstances that we faced then, but I think even if you look back now, it was better to deal with this threat, to deal with it, to remove him from office, and I do genuinely believe that the world is safer as a result.
— Tony Blair, giving evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry
