£ 3.00Issue 331 February 2009

In this issue

� Eyewitness in Gaza - Chris Davies & Jonathan Fryer

� How long before another 'Baby P'? - Lynne Featherstone

� Why Manchester's congestion charge was lost - Bill le Breton

Issue 331 February 2009

SUBSCRIBE!Liberator magazine is published seven/eight timesper year.

Subscribe for only £23 (£28 overseas) per year.

You can subscribe or renew online using PayPal atour website: www.liberator.org.uk

Or send a cheque (UK banks only), payable to"Liberator Publications", together with your nameand full postal address, to:

Liberator PublicationsFlat 124 Alexandra GroveLondon N4 2LFEngland

THE LIBERATOR COLLECTIVERalph Bancroft, Jonathan Calder, Richard Clein,Howard Cohen, Gareth Epps, Catherine Furlong,Peter Johnson, Wendy Kyrle-Pope,Tim McNally, Stewart Rayment, Kiron Reid,Harriet Sherlock, Mark Smulian,Simon Titley, William Tranby,Alex Wilcock, Claire Wiggins, Nick Winch

Liberator is printed byLithosphere 90 Queensland Road N7 7AS

LIBERATOR� was founded in 1970 and is produced by a

voluntary editorial collective

� acts as a forum for debate among radicalliberals in all parties and none

� welcomes written contributions on relevanttopics, up to 1800 words.

We reserve the right to shorten, alter or omit anymaterial.

DATA PROTECTIONLiberator is registered under the Data ProtectionAct and subscribes to the data protection principlestherein.

YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS BY EMAILWe accept your Liberator contributions by email tocollective@liberator.org.uk

Please read our copy deadlines and style guidelineson the liberator website. Photos and adverts asJPG only.

INTERNETEmail: collective@liberator.org.ukWebsite: http://www.liberator.org.uk

CONTENTSCommentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

� Radical Bulletin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4..6

PEACE FROM GAZA’S WRECK? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Israel’s real friends must admit that the Middle East conflict cannot havea military solution, says Jonathan Fryer

EYEWITNESS IN GAZA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8..9Chris Davies was one of the very few observers to gain access to theGaza Strip during the recent Israeli assault. This is his eyewitness account,written immediately after his visit on Sunday 11 January

HOW LONG UNTIL MORE BABY Ps? . . . . . . . 10..11The blunders around Haringey Council’s handling of the ‘Baby P’ case arenot new, and there will be similar cases while the lessons go unlearned,says Lynne Featherstone

HOW TO LOSE A GOOD CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . 12..13The overwhelming referendum defeat of Greater Manchester’s proposedcongestion charge has raised doubts about whether it will ever be possibleto win public support for environmental taxes. A better conducted campaigncould have done the trick, says Bill le Breton

GET A LIFE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14..15A cynical culture of ‘cool’ is corroding society and replacing one formof conformity with another, warns Simon Titley

IS AN F.E. PLACE WORTH F. ALL? . . . . . . . . . 16..17After two years on the Liberal Democrat Federal Executive, Richard Cleinwonders what the party’s top administration body is for, and why no-oneever tells its members anything

STRAIT JACKET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18The defeat of Taiwan’s previous liberal government has put its democracyunder pressure from China’s sympathisers, say Olly Wells and Fang-yi Ho

LETTERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19..20

REVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20..23

Lord Bonkers’ Diary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Cover illustration & Gaza photos - Stewart Rayment

3

FIRST SHOOTS OF SPRING?Nick Clegg is to be congratulated on his criticism ofthe Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip. While leaders ofthe other parties were indulging in the usual hand-wringing platitudes in an effort to appear ‘even-handed’, Clegg spelt out a clear moral stand.

In an article in the Guardian (7 January), he argued that“Israel’s approach is self-defeating: the overwhelminguse of force, the unacceptable loss of civilian lives, isradicalising moderate opinion among Palestinians andthroughout the Arab world. Anger in the West Bank willmake it virtually impossible for Mahmoud Abbas, thePalestinian Authority president, to continue to talk toIsraeli ministers.”

Clegg also called for a halt to British and EU armsexports to Israel. His no-nonsense approach was echoedby both Ming Campbell and Ed Davey in parliamentarydebates. None of them seemed the least bit deterred byany threats from the pro-Israel lobby.

A few days later, in an interview in the FinancialTimes (20 January), Clegg had the courage to say whatfew other leading politicians will admit, when he arguedthat Britain must prepare to ditch the pound and join theeuro, to salvage the public finances and prevent the“permanent decline” of the City.

In the same interview, Clegg attacked leading figuresin the City and the “shameful elevation of greed andcorporate overreach”, with chief executives hypnotised bythe “vain belief that size matters”. Clegg added, “It makesyou livid, it beggars belief that the one industry that issupposed to count your money in and out cannot say howmuch money it has lost.”

Until now, Clegg has tended to make bland, media-massaged statements full of clichés about ‘strugglingfamilies’. The advice of the conservative PR men in thebunker clearly predominated and there seemed to be anoverriding fear of causing offence to the Daily Mail.

Clegg is rumoured to have spent his Christmas holidayagonising over the concocting of a new set of ‘coremessages’. Our advice is not to bother. He has moreimpact when he trusts his liberal instincts. His recentstatements on Gaza, the euro and the City are morallyright, clear and distinctive. The party needs morestatements like this and less of the PR twaddle.

BLUES UNDER THE BEDHow much longer will the Liberal Democrats continueto tolerate acts of subversion within their party?

There have been intense efforts in recent years toconvert the Liberal Democrats from a social liberal partyinto a classical liberal or even libertarian party. The latestexample is Mark Littlewood’s fringe group, LiberalVision. But the plotting began at the beginning of the

decade when some new converts from the Tories joinedMark Oaten and others to move the party to the right.

The first manifestation of this trend was the launch byOaten in 2001 of the Peel Group, whose stated aim was toattract defectors from the Tories by making the LiberalDemocrats more like the Tories.

Defectors from other parties are always welcomeprovided they are attracted by the values and policies ofthe Liberal Democrats. What is not acceptable is to dowhat Littlewood and his allies have done: defect from theTories, find the Liberal Democrats uncongenial and so setabout trying to turn the party into something else.

At the root of this problem is the fact that classicalliberals in Britain do not have a party of their own. In thelate nineteenth century, liberalism underwent a schismbecause of fundamentally different ideas of whatconstitutes ‘freedom’. Classical liberals believe only innegative freedoms and the primacy of property rights.Social liberals believe also in positive freedoms, thatindividuals cannot be free without positive rights such aseducation and health-care. These two philosophies cannotco-exist in one party because the differences – inparticular over whether social justice is a legitimatepolitical goal – have such profound implications forpolicy.

The Orange Book travestied political history byclaiming the party had somehow been ‘stolen’ fromclassical liberals and that they wanted it back. This was abogus narrative and the authors knew it.

The Liberal Democrats belong firmly to the socialliberal camp. This is unambiguous in the preamble to theparty’s constitution, which includes the aim, “no-oneshall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”.

The derisory 6% vote for Liberal Vision’s ChandilaFernando in the party’s recent presidential electionsuggests that classical liberalism has little appeal. Nowonder Liberal Vision seeks to abolish party membershipand all internal democracy. But while these right wingersare unlikely to succeed in their objectives, they arecapable of causing a great deal of instability in the party.

So here’s a challenge to the people in and aroundLiberal Vision. Have the honesty and the guts to proposea constitutional amendment to the party conference,which calls for the deletion from the preamble of thewords “and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty,ignorance or conformity”. That’s what this argument isbasically about, so let’s just cut to the chase.

Then when the debating and voting are done, acceptyour defeat and clear off.

4

DECKCHAIRS, TITANICThe Liberal Democrat shadow cabinet reshuffle, asecret to which only a planeload of the general publicand the readership of the Sunday Mirror werepreviously privy (RB, Liberator 330) was sufficientlylimited to make people wonder what the fuss wasabout.

Its main motivation appears to have been to findSimon Hughes something to do on ceasing to be partypresident, and the main side effect of the musical chairsinvolved has been to shunt Jenny Willott off to thenon-job of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

If Nick Clegg has any specific role in mind for herthere, this was not revealed among the reshuffleannouncements. Buried in these though was the news thatJohn Sharkey, Clegg’s old mate from the HansardSociety, would be deputy chair of the general electioncampaign.

Sharkey comes from the advertising industry, and hisundisputed skills there should surely be deployed infinding ways in which to communicate the party’spolitical messages, not in deciding on the messagesthemselves.

There is some unease in senior ranks of the partyamong those who think that Sharkey is responsible fordissuading Clegg from saying much that is eitherinteresting or memorable for fear of offending somesection or other of the electorate, with the result that theparty also fails to inspire any of them.

The reshuffle announcements also included theformation of something called the ‘economic recoverygroup’. This comprises 15 parliamentarians, all in rolesthat they were carrying out anyway, and its purposeremains obscure.

Whatever the aim is, the group has hardly drawn onfresh thinking. It omits (with three exceptions) the talentavailable in the Lords, and ignores entirely both LibDems in local government, who are already deliveringpractical action to support their local economies, andparty members who have relevant professional expertise.Maybe it was just done to grab a headline.

EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITYThe Bones Commission’s recommendations may havebeen diluted somewhat by a combination of theEnglish party executive putting its foot down andCowley Street inertia, but the proposal to createtechnology, capability and finance boards has goneahead.

These were to be chaired respectively by the formerMP Richard Allan, party donor Marcus Evans and partytreasurer Tim Clement-Jones.

Protests that the posts should be advertised weregreeted with derision and claims that “we need to get onwith it”.

This was too much even for the normally cravenFederal Executive, when confronted with the idea that noboard would have a female chair and that an unexplainedprocess had been used to pick the three chairs.

Objections from the FE led to Hornsey MP LynneFeatherstone replacing Allan, but left wide open thequestion of who will be on these boards. Nothingprevents the three chairs from simply filling the boardplaces with their mates.

Featherstone has at least set out how she intends to dothe job and operate her board in an inclusive manner. Theother two boards will respectively control the ‘leadershipacademy’ for front-rank candidates and the party’smoney. But who will be on them, and why?

TRUMP CARDSThe extraordinary disputes within the LiberalDemocrats in Aberdeenshire have not been stilled bythe Scottish Government’s decision to allow developerDonald Trump to build his golf resort.

In November, Debra Storr, a party member of 25years’ standing, was expelled from the council group forthe crime of, er, proposing a motion agreed by a groupmeeting. She submitted an appeal to the Scottish party,which was pending as Liberator went to press, but hassaid that whatever its outcome she will not rejoin thegroup while leader Anne Robertson remains in office.

Aberdeenshire is a Lib Dem and Tory jointadministration. It has been in turmoil since the castingvote of infrastructure services committee chair, Lib Demcouncillor Martin Ford, saw Trump’s project deniedplanning permission in November 2007. The council thenthrashed around for ways to overturn this, and thegovernment later intervened to grant permission.

Ford insisted that he merely applied establish councilplanning policies, but was for his pains attacked by otherLib Dems including Robertson, who support the project.

He was later removed from his committeechairmanship in a vote in which most Lib Demcouncillors abstained when their colleague was underattack from other parties (Liberator 326 and 328).

Another Lib Dem councillor, Paul Johnston, lastsummer publicly questioned the planning gain secured bythe council from Trump and found himself accused byRobertson and others of a serious breach of thecouncillors’ code of conduct.

He referred himself to the Standards Commission (theequivalent of the Standards Board for England), whichsubsequently cleared him.

At an October council meeting, opposition partiesprepared to attack Johnston, and Storr moved a motion

that noted that no action was needed as the commission wasat that point still investigating the matter.

Storr was expelled from the Lib Dem group for breakingstanding orders, even though the group had a few dayspreviously agreed a similar position to the one she tabled.She argues that her line was reasonable in thecircumstances and in line with party principles, and hasnow asked the Scottish party executive to investigateAberdeenshire.

Matters did not improve at the January council meeting,at which Ford proposed a motion to append a note to theminutes of the 2 October meeting to record that Johnstonhad been exonerated.

Robertson proposed no action, on the grounds that thiswould be too difficult to do, despite officers tellingcouncillors when asked that it was possible to make suchamendments on the council website, in libraries and otherlocations where minutes were regularly sent out.

Robertson’s amendment was taken before Ford’s motion.Most Lib Dems and Tories voted with her and theopposition SNP and independents abstained.

New Scottish party leader Tavish Scott is understood tobe exasperated with the whole thing, but it may needsomeone from outside Aberdeenshire to get a grip on it.

SLIGHTLY FOXEDAny hopes that Nick Clegg might have been promptedby the economic crisis to end his dalliance with theparty’s hard right were dashed in December when it wasannounced that Chris Fox had been appointed to the postof director of policy and communications.

The party’s senior communications post had been vacantsince the departure of Jonny Oates last September. Indeed,Fox’s appointment was described as the culmination of a“six month search” (Oates resigned in June), a delay that issomewhat odd given that the party’s membership is notexactly short of people working in public relations.

Fox’s professional skills are not in any doubt. Hisideological sympathies are more questionable.

Fox was chair of the advisory board of Liberal Future,the right-wing ginger group founded in 2001 by MarkOaten but disbanded in 2005 after its leading members fellout with Oaten (RB, Liberator 306 and 309). Most ofLiberal Future’s luminaries appear to have wound up inMark Littlewood’s latest venture, Liberal Vision (RB,Liberator 329).

An indication of just how right wing Liberal Future wasis this quote from the organisation’s website, which implieda desire to return to the nineteenth century CombinationLaws:

“Liberalism is not collectivism. Collectivism is a groupof people acting towards a common goal. Interest groupsare a form of collectivism, whether they be Trade Unions,the CBI and even environmental groups.”

Fox was also a member of the advisory board of anothernow-defunct right-wing wheeze, the Liberal DemocratBusiness Forum (RB, Liberator 296 and 299). This bodywas set up to harvest donations from wealthy businessfigures in exchange for influence over policy, but waseventually disbanded after it lost money (RB, Liberator322).

Fox has also been long-time chair of Liberal Democratsin Public Relations and Public Affairs, ostensibly anorganisation intended to mobilise party members who work

in PR, but exposed some time ago as a right-wing front(RB, Liberator 300).

Many Lib Dems will want to know whether Fox isprepared to abandon such dubious activities now that heholds such a sensitive and influential post on the party’sstaff.

And even assuming Fox maintains the necessaryself-discipline, the symbolism of this appointment stillsuggests poor judgement by Clegg and chief executiveChris Rennard.

ANYTHING ON THE TELLY?Channel S, a Bengali-language satellite televisionstation, was fined £40,000 by regulator Ofcom inDecember for broadcasting advertisements last April insupport of Lib Dem London mayoral candidate BrianPaddick and Jalal Rajonuddin, the party’s candidate forthe London Assembly City and East London seat.

Jalal was a Labour councillor during and after theperiod of Lib Dem control in Tower Hamlets from1986-94 and his sudden appearance in the Lib Dems in2004 surprised some party members who remembered hisearlier career.

Ofcom found that Channel S had breached the TVadvertising code by transmitting these advertisements on44 occasions. As it acidly noted, this was “sufficientlyserious to attract a sanction, including a financial penalty”for breaching regulations on party political advertising ontelevision.

Fines were levied against Channel S World, Channel SPlus and Channel S Global, and they were also required tobroadcast a statement of Ofcom’s findings.

Intriguingly, its report said Channel S “alleged that arepresentative of the Liberal Democratic Party hadapproached them directly and this representative had saidthat the advertisement had been approved”.

It added: “Ofcom has no evidence whether this is thecase. The licensees also stated that it was broadcast onother channels. The licensees said that, as a result,although compliance procedures had been in place theywere undermined by what the Liberal Democratic Partyrepresentative had told them.”

An Ofcom probe though found “no evidence that thismaterial was transmitted on other licensed services”.

Part of Channel S’s defence was that it claimed to havereceived no payment from the Liberal Democrats, andconsidered the transmissions a community service. Thechannels ceased transmission of the advertisement whenthey became aware of Ofcom’s concerns.

So who paid for the advertisement? Indeed, what‘Liberal Democratic representative’ asked Channel S totransmit it and by whom did they suggest it had been‘approved’?

The rules that forbid paid political advertisements ontelevision are of considerable benefit to the LiberalDemocrats, since they create a level playing field in amedium that would otherwise be dominated bybetter-funded parties, as happens in America.

Given this, and their presumed knowledge of theregulations, would anyone from Cowley Street havesanctioned such an advertisement, let alone financed it?

It seems unlikely that the Paddick campaign wouldhave been involved – not least as he was running on aplatform of upholding the law given his former role in thepolice.

5

Even if he had been prepared to commit such a breach,why create an advertisement that referred only to such ahopeless seat as City and East London where, apart fromTower Hamlets, the Lib Dems barely exist?

It was beyond Ofcom’s remit to track down the culprit,but the party should do so, and act accordingly if theyprove to hold any office or position, or to have been incitedby anyone who does.

DON’T SAY THAT WORDOne MEP smilingly told Liberator that the Lib Demcampaign at next summer’s European Parliamentelections “will at least mention Europe”, something thatought to be about as surprising as a local governmentcampaign mentioning the council concerned.

The reason for his pleasure was that this represents astep forward from the political cowardice that was thehallmark on the 2004 campaign, when the party was soscared of offending eurosceptics that it fought on prettywell every issue except Europe, and was duly rewardedwith fourth place behind UKIP.

UKIP might be mad and bad but at least it campaignedfor what it believed in, unlike the Lib Dems who treatedtheir pro-European stance as something shameful to behidden if possible.

It is true that opinion polls show a majority of votershostile to the European Union to varying extents, but theyalso show about one-third are pro-European, and no otherparty seeks to reach them.

Will Cowley Street’s campaigns department lift its eyesout of the local drains and pavements long enough to run acampaign that exploits the party’s distinct position onEurope rather than treats it as an embarrassment?

European campaign vice-chair Willie Rennie madesome welcome comments when he announced in Januarythat he would focus the campaign on “a real and significantthreat to the prosperity and safety of the UK frominternational isolation as presented by the Conservatives”.

He added, in a piece on Liberal Democrat Voice (8January): “I don’t want to spend the whole of next Mayrebutting Tory attacks on the European Union. We need totake the campaign to the isolationists. And the isolationistshave got a lot to answer for whether it’s internationalcrime, tackling climate change or dealing with theeconomic crisis. We need to spell out in bold terms thatisolation could result in more criminals on the streets,further damage to the planet and more job losses.”

Soon after came Nick Clegg’s Financial Timesinterview (20 January) in which he reopened the possibilityof the UK joining the euro, only four months after he andChris Huhne tried to prevent the party even mentioningthis subject. How times change.

RIGHT HAND MANWe tried and so did others. RB (Liberator 330) warnedLembit Öpik that, after his humiliating defeat in thecontest for party president, a period of hard andlow-profile graft was needed to rebuild his politicalcredibility.

Instead he has chosen to become a political columnistfor tit-and-bum rag the Daily Sport.

Its readers will presumably be able to benefit fromÖpik’s political insights if they can free up their righthands long enough to hold the relevant page open.

Curiously, Öpik is not the first Lib Dem luminary tocontribute to this organ. When launched as the SundaySport in 1986, it had some faint pretensions to being aserious publication. A page in the first issue carried ‘KGBspies work the honeygold love trap’, an advertisement forthe Sex Maniacs’ Diary, and an erudite article on politicaltopics from David Steel.

A GENERAL ELECTIONWITHIN 15 MONTHS?It seems smaller local parties are finding it hard to copewith a well-intentioned change to the Lib Dem candidateselection rules, under which selection committees mustinclude a suitable balance of non-executive members,and be representative of ethnic, gender and geographicaldiversity.

Fine for seats with large memberships to draw on, but abit awkward if you are Ilford North, a small local partyfrom which Liberator has received complaints that it hasbeen kept waiting months to select because the party willnot approve its selection committee.

Members were alarmed to hear from returning officerDarren Briddock that another constituency has been stalledin its candidate selection for 18 months because it cannotfind a female member willing to serve.

They were also alarmed to discover that, while theapproved list is quite extensive, many people on it wish tofight only their local seat, or don’t want to fight anywhereand treat approved PPC status as an end in itself andsomething to burnish their CV.

Were they asked during the approval process: “Do youactually want to fight a seat or are you just doing this topass the time?”

HISTORY REWRITTENReaders of the New Statesman may have been surprisedto see a piece by Peter Hain in which he described howGeorge Orwell’s Homage To Catalonia contributed tohis becoming politically aware.

Referring to his family’s activism in South Africa, Hainnoted “my belief in socialism really crystallised severalyears later – around 1968-69”.

That would be about the same that he joined the YoungLiberals, of which he became chairman in 1971 andpresident in 1975, before joining Labour in 1977.

TOP TWADDLEA Liberal Democrat joint administration has received anaward but it is not one it may wish to brag about.

In the Financial Times (5 January), columnist LucyKellaway handed out awards to “the world’s top purveyorsof business twaddle for outstanding achievement duringthe past 12 months.”

The new category of ‘Treating Your Employees LikeAnimals’ was awarded to Brent Council for treating itspeople like pets. It told staff to turn off computers at night,arguing that it “can save dramatic amounts of energy andmay earn you a chocolate treat”.

6

PEACE FROMGAZA’S WRECK?Israel’s real friends must admit that the Middle East conflictcannot have a military solution, says Jonathan Fryer

As Israeli forces withdrew from Gaza, a traumatisedlocal population mourned its dead. More than 1,200Palestinians were killed and many more disabled, anunconscionable number of them children. Countlesslivelihoods were destroyed. The psychological effectsamong both young and old will take years to gauge.

The physical destruction produced by the Israelionslaught bears graphic testimony to the disproportionalityof the operation. Of course Israel has a right to defenditself, and Hamas was both wicked and foolish to sanctionrocket barrages against indiscriminate civilian targets inIsrael. But the mercilessness of the invasion has guaranteednot only a new generation of Palestinian hatred, but outrageacross much of the world.

The Israeli Defence Force is claiming victory, but onwhat grounds? Hamas has not been vanquished, even ifsome senior figures have been killed. If anything, its statushas been enhanced, rather as Hezbollah gained credibility inLebanon for being seen to stand up to the Israelis during the2006 invasion of Lebanon. The shaky Middle East peaceprocess has been set back disastrously and Turkish-ledefforts at reconciliation between Israel and Syria have beenundermined.

The United Nations estimates that the reconstruction ofGaza will cost billions of dollars. But where will all thatmoney come from? King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia haspledged $1bn, and some emergency funding might be foundin various UN budgets to tackle needs such as food,medicine and temporary shelter. The European Union willdoubtless be approached for assistance, just as in the past ithas helped finance many infrastructure projects on the WestBank (sometimes later to see them blown up by Israelitanks and aircraft).

A strong case exists to seek war reparations from Israel,which may also find itself being charged with war crimes.The United Nations is incandescent about attacks on UNschools, in particular, and even the normally reticent RedCross has spoken out against the use of warfareinappropriate in highly populated areas.

The timing of the Israeli operation was doubly cynical.Firstly, it was clearly aimed at influencing the outcome ofthe Israeli general election, with both Kadima and Labourwishing to portray themselves as being as hawkish asLikud. Secondly, there was an obvious strategy to pullforces out before Barack Obama’s inauguration inWashington, thereby neutralising the possibility ofuncharacteristic condemnation by the incoming USadministration. President Obama is thus presented with adilemma about what exactly he should do. I am tempted tosuggest that he should divert some of the funds usually

channelled as aid to Israel to Gaza instead, but I can’thonestly see that happening.

So where does that leave Britain and the EU? As sooften in foreign affairs, the EU has shown itselflamentably disunited. Unfortunate serendipity meant thatthe six-month rotating EU presidency is currently in thehands of the Czechs, who virtually gave the Israeli assaulttheir benediction. But few EU leaders came out of the pastfew weeks smelling of roses. As for Gordon Brown, asNick Clegg so aptly said, he sat on his hands and talkedlike an accountant.

In contrast, Clegg was forthright in his criticism of thebrutality of the Israeli action, while also rightly blamingHamas for its role in the humanitarian catastrophe. Onceagain, as with Iraq, the Liberal Democrats are the onlymainstream political party in Britain to have seized themoral high ground.

Of course, in this instance there will be some fierceopposition to the leadership’s position from those LiberalDemocrat Friends of Israel who believe that the operationwas regrettable but necessary. This should not deter Cleggfrom holding his line and from moving on to broaden hisfocus from Gaza’s tragedy to the situation in the WestBank. The occupation of Palestinian territories for morethan 40 years, the expansion of illegal settlements, theconstruction of the Security Wall, the demolition ofhouses, the uprooting of Palestinian olive trees and thedaily impoverishment and humiliation of the Palestinianpopulation cannot legitimately be tolerated, let alonecondoned.

True Friends of Israel, I believe, must acknowledge thatthere can never be a military solution to theIsrael/Palestine conflict. Violence only begets violenceand hatred. The only way forward, as the rebuilding ofGaza takes place, is for both Israel and Hamas to swallowtheir pride and to talk.

We are well past the eleventh hour for a peacefultransition to a two-state solution, in which a viablePalestine can live side-by-side with a secure Israel. Andthat outcome will never happen unless there is good faithand compromise on both sides, an end to the occupation,Israeli withdrawal to 1967 boundaries, and a permanentcessation of Palestinian rocket attacks and suicide bombs.

Jonathan Fryer is a prospective European Parliament

candidate for London and chair of Liberal International

British Group

7

EYEWITNESSIN GAZAChris Davies was one of the very few observers to gain accessto the Gaza Strip during the recent Israeli assault. This is hiseyewitness account, written immediately after his visit onSunday 11 January

We travelled up from Cairo through the Sinai in a coachwith an Egyptian police escort. Assembling our team ofeight MEPs took a long time at the airport and, whatwith confusion about where to stay, we didn’t put ourheads down till past 3am. More confusion in themorning delayed us getting to the Rafah crossing till justbefore noon. It didn’t seem to matter; UNRWA hadalready called to tell us that the Israeli Defence Ministrywas not prepared to let their vehicles meet us. A seriesof telephone calls had produced conflicting stories butthe result was the same: “No way are you getting in!”This fact-finding trip was going to prove nothing morethan a gesture.

I’ve been to the Rafah crossing before but last timeapproached it from within Gaza. It’s a modern bordercontrol complex, a smaller version of the Channel Tunnelvehicle entrance, all paid for with EU money. There arepassport control offices, a cafeteria, even a duty free shop –but it’s a fiction, they are all empty and covered in dust.The Israeli siege of Gaza has kept the flow of goods andpeople to Egypt to a minimum.

Escorted by the mayor of the Egyptian town of Rafah,we climbed onto a rooftop platform to look across at GazaCity. All was quiet; “bombing is at night,” we were told.Returning to the ground, we talked to Egyptian ambulancedrivers, waiting to take the injured coming out of Gaza.They were all lined up with nothing to do, it seemed. Wechatted to various journalists, all of them frustrated at notbeing able to cross into the Gaza Strip.

Then a flurry. “Get into the minibus, GET IN, GET IN!”For unknown reasons, a window of opportunity hadopened. It was 2.20pm and the ‘ceasefire’ lasted till 4pm.We passed through the gate to be met by UNWRA’sdirector of operations John Ging and three bulletproof(really heavy doors) UN Range Rovers. We transferred anddrove into the Palestinian town of Rafah (yes, there are twoRafahs), passing a few bombed buildings on the way,probably ones that had cloaked entrance/exit routes totunnels across the border. In so doing, we may havebecome the first ‘observers’ to cross since the assaultbegan 16 days ago.

It’s a funny thing about a bombed building but I alwaysfind that, even though they may have been destroyed by adevastating explosion just yesterday, they look as thoughthe incident took place a year or two ago. And maybe, their

appearance suggests, it wasn’t a bombing at all but ademolition job by a firm that went into liquidation justafter the work commenced. So long as it is not your ownbuilding, it somehow diminishes the impact.

The journey was short, just a mile or so. There were lotsof people on the streets taking advantage of the ceasefire –“The streets are deserted except during these periods,”explained our UN security guide – but very few vehiclesexcept the occasional cart pulled by a donkey. We turnedinto the compound of a UN distribution centre. There wastime only to look at the devastation of a former policestation opposite, and exchange a few words both about thedamage to the UN buildings and the distribution operationwith John Ging. I asked him about the Israeli defence forcivilian casualties being that Hamas uses human shields tocover its operations. His response was dismissive and,when you looked around at the context of a war in themidst of a living community, you could see why.

Suddenly there was a huge bang; the ground shook andso did my stomach. An Israeli blast during the ceasefire. Itmay have been 600 or 700 metres away but it felt bloodyclose! What must this be like for people who really areclose? Allegedly, we learnt later, it was a response toHamas rocket attacks.

Back in the vehicles, we drive a short distance throughback streets to a primary school being used as a shelter.“The UN has 71 ‘shelters’ across Gaza and we have 30,000people in them whose homes have been bombed or are atrisk,” said John. “Some of them, just like this, have beenhit nonetheless as you will know.” It seemed to me thatmost of the residents were children, and they were hugelyenthusiastic to see us. (At least our presence changed theroutine a bit).

Another Israeli blast, and again the ground and mystomach shook. Smoke rose between buildings a fewhundred metres away. The kids weren’t fazed; “Too faroff” I imagine they were thinking.

Pushing through their numbers, shaking lots of handsand smiling hard, (some of our team shed tears as soon asthey had privacy), we met in a side room to hear about thedistribution arrangements (“We need more than just foodand medicines; it’s all the essentials of family life, likebedding for displaced families, and nappies”).

It was 3.15pm. “We need you to go NOW,” said JohnGing. “I am so pleased you have been here to see this foryourselves. Just take back the message that the people here

8

need protection.The violence hasgot to stop. The UNhas got to back upits words about aceasefire with somereal action andpressure.”

We walked outof the building intothe throng ofexcited kids,mostly 7-11 yearolds. I was struckby how many made‘V for Victory’gestures with theirfingers. Do theIsraelis reallybelieve thatbombing urbancommunities andterrorising theirpopulations isgoing to bring themsecurity? Whatabout the nextgeneration thateven now starts to merge with the existing one?

The streets were still busy but very few people hadanything in their hands. Not much to buy, I suppose. I askedthe UN driver about casualties at the hospitals. “We’reapproaching 900 dead and more than 3,000 injured,” hesaid. “From what we hear, it is mainly ordinary people.Amongst the numbers, there do not seem to be that manyyoung fit men of fighting age that would fit the ‘combatant’category.”

We get back to the crossing and leave the UN vehicles.Back in the Rafah compound, it’s interview time, and wewatch also as a succession of Israeli F16s cross the skydropping white flares of some kind. Donkeys pulling cartsin the streets and twenty-first century killing machines inthe air.

Then the explosions start. One of them close enough sothat journalists and we start to move quickly away. Twentyor thirty minutes later, the crossing complex starts to getreally busy. Ambulance after ambulance arrives from Gaza,and their occupants are transferred to Egyptian ambulances.

Our coach sets off in the direction of Cairo just beforesunset. Ambulances race past on the road south.

REFLECTIONSTWO DAYS LATERBack in the peace and safety of my Strasbourg office,questions come to my mind.

How did we get into Gaza, given that the Israelis hadmade it clear that they would not let us in? Who knows, butI imagine it was all down to the UNRWA people. In effect,we were smuggled into Rafah to take the briefest of looks atwhat was going on, with the risk being taken that theIsraelis would not stop a UN convoy. We also had greatassistance from the Egyptian authorities, again for unknownreasons but, given the peace treaty between Israel andEgypt, it must say something.

Why did I not emphasise how desperate journalists areto get in too? Israeli aggression would have long sincebeen forced to a halt if journalists were reporting whatthey saw each day. I did not mention in my account thatevery journalist standing around at the Rafah crossingcompound tried to get into our UN minibus when it wasrealised it might cross the line. They had to be shouted atand pushed out before we could proceed.

Why did I not make the point that the Palestinians inGaza are trapped? Israeli civilians facing Hamas rocketscan flee if need be, but the Palestinians are like fish in atank with no means of escape. There is a wall around theGaza Strip and Palestinians will be killed by the IsraeliDefence Force should they try to cross it. (And don’timagine they can get out by boat either).

And with the benefit of hindsight, why did we not thinkthrough how we might better have communicated ourthoughts? All eight MEPs have given accounts to theirnational media, but we did not have the equipment with usto give them pictures. And instead of travelling back toEurope, why did we not go to Israel, hold a pressconference in Jerusalem, and challenge the Israeli versionof events? It would have had so much more impact.

E-mails have poured in thanking me for the account andcongratulating my ‘bravery’. But I am not in the leastbrave. The brave ones are the UN people. I look at thepictures on the news of Gaza being blasted and blasted,and I think of the fear I felt when explosions took placehundreds of metres away. The Palestinians in Gaza are nomore brave than me, but for them there is no escape.

Chris Davies is Liberal Democrat MEP for the North

West of England

9

HOW LONG UNTILMORE BABY Ps?The blunders around Haringey Council’s handling of the‘Baby P’ case are not new, and there will be similar caseswhile the lessons go unlearned, says Lynne Featherstone

I remember sitting in Haringey Council chamber someyears ago. Victoria Climbie’s parents were in the galleryand Labour members were beating their breasts andpromising that never again would a child die the wayVictoria had. In her case, there were somewherebetween 12 and 17 occasions when – if any of theindividuals from any of the authorities who saw Victoriahad done what they should have done – she might havebeen saved.

Labour promised fulsomely that lessons would belearned. And that’s about as far as they went. They wentinto denial mode, saying: “Don’t blame us, no-one seniorshould carry the can.”

Council leader George Meehan (yes, the same one asthis time) did not resign, and nor did Gina Adamou (thenLabour executive member for social services) and nor didMary Richardson – the then director of social services.Only a social worker right at the bottom of the food chainwas disciplined. Everyone else more senior got off scotfree.

That was despite the myriad failures of organisation andmanagement that the Laming inquiry unearthed. And that’swhy, this time, after the death of Baby P despite nearly 80visits, I was so determined to see those responsible atsenior levels take that responsibility – rather than dodge itand lay all the blame on the most junior staff they couldfind.

Indeed, as Laming himself said in his Climbie report:“Those in senior positions in such organisations carry, onbehalf of society, responsibility for the quality, efficiencyand effectiveness of local services. If ever such a tragedyhappens again, I hope those in leadership posts willexamine their responsibilities more widely. Theseproposals are designed to ensure that those who manageservices for children and families are held personallyaccountable for the effectiveness of these services, and forthe arrangements their organisations put in place to ensurethat all children are offered the best protection possible.”

RESPONSIBILITY DUCKEDDespite Laming’s pleas, once again, Haringey Council andHaringey Labour tried to duck personally responsibility –until, to his credit, children, schools and families secretaryEd Balls intervened to ensure that responsibility this time,as enshrined in the Children’s Act 2004, really meantsomething. His actions over ordering an urgent review andthen acting on its conclusions were welcome.

Where I depart from him, however, is in my continuedbelief that we need a public inquiry, in order to get at someof the wider issues.

Goodness me, Haringey had whistleblowers – withspecific, credible concerns – coming out of its ears. Butuntil the media tsunami and central governmentintervention, neither the council scrutiny process nor thelocal media got any sort of grip on the problems – nor wasthe council responsive to those, like me, who raisedconcerns direct with senior staff and the councillors incharge.

It was only when it became a national issue – withnational media and national politicians – that localaccountability and scrutiny followed.

So how do we reconcile that with a belief in theefficiency and democracy of having services deliveredlocally, for local people and accountable to local people?The way council scrutiny processes work, the way mediascrutiny of councils works, the information and resourcesavailable to opposition councillors – all these are the sortsof issues we need to look in to.

There is also the broader cultural question of ourmanagerial society’s habit of inspections, tick boxes andgold stars. Ofsted has quite a lot to answer for – failing tospot the problems in Haringey when it gave it a clean billof health. But while it was Ofsted this time, last timeinspections failed too. A different body back then, but thesame story – inspectors giving Haringey a clean bill ofhealth before the tragic death of a child led to therevelations of how wrong they’d been.

So often it is a matter of get the paper trail right, jumpthrough the inspectors’ hoops, get a gold star, get the praiseof your peers and get more central government funding.It’s a culture almost designed to fail – because paper trailsdon’t equal quality services, and because with thoseincentives at stake, of course we get people bending therules and shuffling the papers to hide away failures. Theselargely paper-based inspections have a role, but I believewe place far too much reliance on them.

Part of the alternative is giving the voice of theprofessional more weight. Whistleblowers need to belistened to properly – they are not always right, but theyprovide a vital safety net. Yet far too many – even of thoseI’ve spoken to – are so wrapped up in legal constraints theycan barely say anything. How can we hear what they haveto tell us and know that real action or investigation willfollow without the organisation turning on those who raisesuch concerns?

10

BANNED FROMSPEAKING OUTThe public is not served by the state banning those criticalof its administration from speaking out. There were and aremany injunctions stopping people telling what they know.The very nature of an injunction or a gagging order meansthere is almost no accountability for the creation andmaintenance of this culture of dishing out legal restraints.The courts judge requests for injunctions on far too narrowgrounds – in particular because injunctions are heard one byone, but overall a culture of injunctions year after yearbrings problems beyond just the individual case. And thewhistleblower? They don’t have anywhere secure andindependent to turn.

There are some areas of public life where the decision toinvoke particular legal powers is only a matter of last resort,has to be taken at a senior level and comes with a degree ofaccountability. Injunctions and gagging orders though seemtoo much like convenient confetti, scattered about to avoidpolitical or administrative embarrassment. Likewise, theweaknesses of many serious case reviews – a vital tool tolearn the lessons when things go wrong – is perpetuated bytheir secrecy.

Next, and I tread cautiously here, I believe we have to atleast ask whether merging education and children’s serviceshas worked. Was it the right policy, and was it enacted inthe right way?

With Laming now investigating how his ownrecommendations were implemented, we are not getting atthe more fundamental question: were they the rightrecommendations in the first place?

I don’t claim to know. Laming is knowledgeable andskilled – but none of us is infallible. Nor – as we know onlytoo well – is Ofsted. To be fair, Ofsted staff areoverwhelmingly from an education background – yet theyare appraising non-education services. Should we be sosurprised when their work goes wrong?

Understandably, most attention has been focused on theperformance of Haringey’s children’s services. However,the NHS should have some serious questions to answer.

The shocking news that the doctor who examined Baby Ptwo days before he died failed to recognise a broken backand broken ribs resulted in his suspension. Yet they onlyexamined Baby P four months after it was decided that aninspection was needed and a key part of keeping Baby Psafe. Four months. In an NHS surrounded with waitingtimes targets, how did that happen?

How too did we end up with a team providing specialistchildren’s health services where two out of the four doctorshave resigned since 2006, a third is off sick and the fourthhas been on ‘special leave’ for over a year? What is goingon at the heart of such an apparently troubled health team –and who is taking responsibility for investigating andsorting out? So far – no-one much. Great Ormond Streethospital has only recently started to make concerned noises– and yet it was warned about the risks to children in thehealth team long ago – and took no notice.

This health team was outsourced by Haringey PrimaryCare Trust to Great Ormond Street. But look at what‘outsourcing’ meant to the trust when I went to it overcomplaints of bullying and general unhappiness withmanagement – and which might be putting children at risk.

The response was simply “not us guv, we’ve outsourcedit”. And when I went back not that long ago to again raise

the issue of Baby P, the first thing said to me was, thankgoodness we’re screened from the worst of the fall outfrom Baby P as Great Ormond Street is in the front lineinstead of us. Only when I got angry did the Trust agree itwas responsible, and that outsourcing services to othersdoesn’t mean it can just wash its hands of it all. Too late inthe day though – and how many other trusts are similarlydodging responsibility, but without the tragedy of a BabyP to make them open their eyes?

It all still leaves unanswered why one doctor waswarned off raising concerns over the failure to pass onproper information by being told, “it would leave a badpaper trail”. This and many other examples lead back to amalfunctioning department with poor management andfailure to take responsibility – but without steps beingtaken so far to sort it out.

And the Government’s hands aren’t clean on the healthside. Top slicing £400,000 from the child protectionbudget at their behest meant axing a key doctor postamongst other reductions. But if you write to healthsecretary Alan Johnson, he will simply write back andsays ‘child protection’ is a matter for the Department ofChildren, Families and Schools. Round and round we go –where we stop, nobody knows.

I have been inundated with information fromprofessionals in all the appropriate fields – and from thosewho used to work at Haringey or who still work there andwho tell me things that really need to be told to a properindependent inquiry.

Many have had concerns or ideas for years – but hadnowhere to go, no-one who would listen. To benefit fullyfrom this wisdom, experience and evidence, we need thatpublic inquiry.

In among what I’ve learnt through this process has beena huge number of practical, detailed steps to deal withproblems such as the minutes of safeguarding boards notfully recording concerns and disagreements over theirconclusions, and such as the relatively low maximumsentence for the offences which were used for prosecutingfollowing Baby P’s death.

My freedom of information request to Haringey askingfor sight of a memo/email that allegedly instructs staff inchildren’s services not to take children into care forbudgetary reasons has been refused, as it would be toocostly. So we have the situation where I have had twoseparate sources telling me of this communication – butno-one is willing to look through the records to see. Apublic inquiry could summon information and uncovermuch, much more.

Three hideous, dreadful adults were responsible for thedeath of Baby P. Hideous, dreadful people have children –and that isn’t going to change. Our child protectionservices stand between those children and that evil. Threebabies are dying a week where that protection fails. Wecan’t banish evil and have perfection every day, but weshould do what we can to bring that number down. Zeromay not be obtainable, but three a week is far too high.

Lynne Featherstone is Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey

and Wood Green

11

HOW TO LOSEA GOOD CASEThe overwhelming referendum defeat of GreaterManchester’s proposed congestion charge has raised doubtsabout whether it will ever be possible to win public supportfor environmental taxes. A better conducted campaign couldhave done the trick, says Bill le Breton

Was the crushing 4:1 defeat for a £3bn TransportInnovation Fund (TIF) bid across Greater Manchester inDecember a nail in the coffin for such programmes andreferenda?

Could it dissuade politicians from committing to thetype of public works and infrastructure projects needed toreverse economic decline locally and nationally today?

More than one million citizens voted during thetwo-week postal ballot in December. That was 53% of theelectorate in the ten boroughs of the city region. Theyvoted 812,815 (79%) ‘no’ and 218,860 (21%) ‘yes’.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive(PTE) figures had suggested no more than 10% of thepopulation would pay the peak time only charge – £2 toenter an outer ring defined by the M60, a further £1 toenter the inner city ring and £1 for each ring later in theday for vehicles leaving the city.

This means 600,000 people who would not have had topay the charge voted ‘no’ to a package of transportimprovements which should have benefited them greatly.

Politicians across the city region were divided over themerits and demerits of the scheme, including LiberalDemocrats. This is not an article that will seek to examinethe pros and cons of congestion charging in general or thescheme that was put to the people of Greater Manchester.It will look at the campaigning lessons for public serviceproviders that were highlighted.

Perhaps it does not need stating in Liberator, but the firstlesson in campaigning is that people vote with their heartsmore often than with their heads. That is to say, it isemotional messages rather than facts that win the day.

It was easy to anticipate a well resourced andstraightforward ‘no’ campaign. Those who drive on theorbital M60 round Manchester can see plainly theimportant and large businesses that are located just to thecity-side of the motorway. Choosing a boundary for thecharging zone that therefore took in such economic hubs asthe Trafford Centre and the Trafford Park Industrial Sitewas asking for trouble.

The ‘no’ campaign, although probably funded by verylarge businesses, was fronted by ordinary business peoplefrom medium to small concerns. In marked contrast, theofficial campaign went for the high profile show businessapproach, which annoys the public who think that their

money is being used to pay for ‘propaganda’, in an effortto make decisions ‘for’ them. Later, a Coronation Streetstarring TV advertisement, which had to be pulled verypublicly, reinforced the view that ‘politicians’ were tryingto force the issue.

By treating the matter as a technical transport issue andnot from the outset as something that would have to carrycommunity support, those responsible for devising thescheme failed to ensure the disaffected sector of businesswas kept to a minimum and failed to inspire publicsupport. The choice of boundaries for the zones wassystematic rather than pragmatic. The ‘voice’ of thecampaign was corporate rather than personal.

The PTE’s own information campaign lacked politicalexperience and awareness and only late in the day realisedit was a ‘local’ election. When it did so, it was alreadydisqualified legally from being ‘persuasive’.

ALL POLITICS IS LOCALA sign on every door at PTE headquarters reciting TipO’Neill’s sage advice, “All politics is local” would havebeen a smart starter. Voters want to know, “What do weget out of it? How does it benefit our family, our health,our community, our school, our GP clinic, our hospital, thebuses and trains we use, our jobs, our town, this city, myfuture?”

Nor was there a ‘near term campaign’, that concentratedon raising awareness of the full effects of continuing trafficexpansion. In local elections, the time taken for messagesto reach and be taken on board by an electorate is longerthan for national campaigns, and ‘near-term’ campaigningactivity needs to be even more sustained and to begin evenearlier.

When it eventually turned to look outwards, the PTEchose to major on the effect of the charge on congestion –in effect the business case. It was a one-club approach – anapproach that allowed opponents to set the agenda.

Predictably, therefore, the issue became ‘the charge’ andnot what the charge was meant to resolve. In fact the onlyproblem that the scheme argued that it could solve was theproblem of delay. No effort was made to find orcommunicate the effects it would have on that largemajority of citizens who do not benefit from cars or drive

12

them at peak hours but whose communities and lives areaffected by traffic.

The PTE and its communications consultants did nothave, let alone use, evidence of the effect of theintroduction of the charge on emotive issues like thenumbers of accidents near schools in the rush hours, theincidence of asthma around arterial routes and the effect ofcommunity fragmentation caused by busy roads throughneighbourhoods.

There was no effort to enlist the train guards and busdrivers to communicate the benefits of extra services totheir passengers. There were no efforts to find out andcommunicate the effects of the present and expectedcongestion on numbers of accidents, health and socialexclusion; not to mention green concerns. That did notappear important.

One enthusiastic promoter of electric vehicles asked whythere would be no discount or waiver for electric vehicles.He and others were told that the charge was designed toreduce congestion, not to improve environmentalconditions!

One chief executive of a primary care trust was activelycampaigning against ‘the charge’ because she thought itwould have an adverse effect on her staff – never mind theeffect that the benefits of the scheme might have on theprimary health of its most important stakeholders – itscitizens.

A seemingly hastily convened and anodyne ‘yes’campaign further added to the mistrust felt by theelectorate, who thought they saw vast quantities of publicmoney (even when it was privately raised) being used topatronise them. Because effective campaigners feel issuespersonally and believe in the changes they campaign for,there is an aspect of campaigning that cannot be taught andthat cannot be applied systematically to a preordainedformula. They instinctively appeal to our emotions becausethey are communicating their own genuine emotion.

But the ‘yes’ campaign used the classic and wrongheaded approach of holding focus groups, identifyingmessages and holding to a set but wrong communicationsstrategy, come what may. It was campaigning by numbers.It was self-delusional. It was futile. It was wrong.

The use of polls and focus groups enable us to followopinion. To jump on the back of the public. To take a freeride. To compromise. A true campaigner leads. If that leadstrikes a chord and if it inspires, movement takes place andchange results.

So, can support be built for public action that ischaracterised by opponents as requiring private cost bewon, and if so, how?

Here’s a checklist for success for a future campaign insupport of a transport initiative such as a TIF bid, but I hopeit is also a general checklist for those seeking support forpublic initiatives.

Transport authorities must engage in a continuingcampaign to raise awareness of the existing costs ofcongestion; financial, social, environmental and personal;being paid by every citizen. “YOU are already paying acongestion charge.”

Well before any ‘test of public opinion’ this near-termcampaign must be intensified.

Messages and campaigns must appeal at an emotionallevel and be delivered locally with benefits defined on astreet-by-street, community-by-community basis.

Any campaigning activity has to engender anatmosphere of local people coming together and usingtheir own skills and resources to fight these issues and towin this campaign. The slicker and more ‘professional’the look and feel of the campaign, the more alienating itwill be.

Local opinion formers must be identified, and at theearliest, and must be involved in the construction of theprogramme as well as any campaign. This is especially soof key stakeholders, often operating at an authority-widelevel.

Public service staff must be mobilised, especially thosein daily contact with the public.

Other potential local activists must be identified,recruited and engaged. There is a huge role for theso-called ‘backbencher’ whose potential has been soexcluded by recent changes in local governance.

There needs to be something to campaign against aswell as for. In this case, the social, environmental andpersonal costs of congestion and overcrowding.

Each media outlet needs to have demonstrated to it itsown business case for the programme. How would theprogramme safeguard and build advertising revenue andcirculation?

Local and identifiable people must be featured incampaign material. The use of soap stars has to beavoided. Even if they volunteer, they are seen as hiredhands. Local schools and colleges needed to be involvednow in projects, providing educational material andsupport to ensure full understanding of the issues aroundcongestion. A cogent business case must be identified anddelivered. Use social networks including new media socialnetworks.

Finally, the governance culture has to be addressed. Inthat culture, officers and senior civil servants seethemselves as the holders of appropriate experience andthe givers of best advice. Members play out a role too,reacting to that advice as a representative of theircommunity – a role that is very different from theircampaigning role in their community. Those roles are notappropriate especially to winning these kinds ofcampaigns, which can only be won using politicalcampaigning skills. It is the politicians who have theexperience and the expertise. Neither officers, norconsultants who have never had to face the electoratethemselves, should be left to lead.

If the great challenge to public policy makers is to finda way to win support for improved services andinfrastructure expenditure (and a Keynsian inspirednational recovery plan is an urgent case in point), thelesson from Manchester is that this will only come whenthe demand for action comes from the people upwards, notfrom the politicians downwards. In times of fear anduncertainty, the role of the Liberal Democrat working bothin their community and council, or parliament, is toinform, to organise, to persuade, to reassure and to inspire.The task is to build that grassroots movement committedto action.

Bill le Breton worked as a consultant with Oldham and

Rochdale Councils to increase turnout in the referendum.

He has worked on consultation and communications for

the Merseyside local transport plan, and is a former chair

of ALDC

13

GET A LIFEA cynical culture of ‘cool’ is corroding society and replacingone form of conformity with another, warns Simon Titley

It is 9 December 2005. That London icon, theRoutemaster bus, is making its final journey in normalpassenger service. And as the final bus returns to thedepot, a TV crew from the BBC’s London regional newsis on hand to record the historic event.

How did BBC London report this event? There wereseveral news angles it could have chosen. How wouldtourists feel about being deprived of a popular cliché? Diddisabled people welcome the disappearance of a vehiclewith poor access? Were regular passengers pleased to getnew buses or disappointed to lose an old friend?

BBC London instead chose an angle that told us littleabout the event but a lot about contemporary prejudices.That crowd of enthusiasts greeting the last bus outside thedepot – well, it’s not normal, is it? Cut to the studio, wherea smug metrosexual presenter is interviewing apsychologist. His first question is to ask what mentalproblem someone must suffer from to find busesinteresting.

The presenter gets short shrift. The psychologistexplains that there is nothing wrong with bus enthusiasts orany other sort of enthusiast for that matter. In fact, studiesshow that people with hobbies are mentally healthier thanthose without. This obviously isn’t the answer thepresenter expects so, instead of moving on, he maintainshis condescending smirk and asks more or less the samequestion again. The answer is still not the one in the script.By the end of the interview, you get the impression thatthis particular expert is not one that BBC London will beinviting back.

MIDDLE CLASS COOLNot sympathetic? Still think enthusiasms are a bit of alaugh, do you? Try this one for size.

You are at a dinner party. You’ve done the usual topics:house prices, finding a school place for the children andwhere you’re going on holiday. The conversation turns tothe difficulties of commuting. Guests relate their littlestories and then someone asks which train you catch eachmorning.

You’re about to say “the 8.13” but you pause in horror.Like most other commuters, you know exactly when yourhabitual train departs. You have it down to a fine art:precisely when to leave the house for the station; preciselywhere to stand on the platform to maximise your chance offinding a seat while minimising the walk at the other end.

But you can’t say “8.13”. It’s too exact. Everyone elsewill think you’re anal. So you make a special effort tosound vague. “Oh, sort of, you know, about quarter pasteight-ish”, you say, praying that you have not committedthe ultimate faux pas of sounding precise orknowledgeable.

Welcome to the world of British middle class ‘cool’. Aworld where it is no longer permissible to have hobbies orintellectual pursuits. A world where enthusiasm orerudition earns contempt. A world where, if you commitany of these social sins, you will immediately be slappeddown with one of these stock sneers: ‘sad’, ‘trainspotter’,‘anorak’, ‘anal’ or ‘get a life’.

The phenomenon of ‘cool’ has been examinedthoroughly in a pioneering book, Cool Rules: Anatomy ofan Attitude by Dick Pountain and David Robins. Cool isessentially about narcissism and ironic detachment. Itsmodern origins can be traced to American black culture ofthe 1940s, when young black men adopted a defiantposture as a means of defence. It was then picked up byrebellious white icons of the 50s such as James Dean.During the 60s, ‘cool’ began to be exploited by advertisersas a means of selling consumer goods and in the 70s itmoved from the counter-culture into the mainstream. Butwhile ‘cool’ people today affect an air of rebellion, inreality they are conforming to commercially-driven norms.

RETARDED ADOLESCENCE‘Cool’ is not just a fashion but an attitude, a retardedadolescence that is having a thoroughly corrosive effect onour culture and society. Since ‘cool’ is about cynicismrather than doing anything positive, it follows that mostenthusiasms and intellectual pursuits must be stigmatisedas ‘uncool’.

To illustrate this cultural change, let us return to thetopic of transport. Why have railway enthusiasm in generaland trainspotting in particular gone out of fashion? Untilthe late 70s, it was considered perfectly normal to beinterested in railways. Indeed, in the post-war era, youngboys were expected to be interested in trains and largenumbers of people pursued this hobby with no risk ofshame. Nowadays, this harmless pastime is commonlyregarded as only one step removed from being placed onthe register of sex offenders.

Liberals believe that no-one should be enslaved byconformity so any assault on diversity should be resisted.What ought to worry Liberals is not just the casualintolerance towards hobbies but also their pathologising asa form of mental disorder. Travel writer Bill Bryson, in apiece on the narrow gauge railways of North Wales inNotes from a Small Island, wrote: “I had recently read anewspaper article in which it was reported that a speaker atthe British Psychological Society had describedtrainspotting as a form of autism called Asperger’ssyndrome.”

Or consider a particularly nasty opinion piece written bycolumnist Cristina Odone in the Observer (10 November2002), in the wake of a big media story about the arrest ofsome British plane spotters in Greece. She attackedhobbies such as plane spotting and stamp collecting as a

14

uniquely British phenomenon (which they are not) andconcluded:

“This kind of social autism, regarded as dysfunctional inmost societies, is positively encouraged in Britain. Everyother nation suspects the solitary citizen as an oddball whocould at any moment turn into a sniper, a pervert or an axemurderer; the British instead prize them as individuals witha strong sense of self.” Odone did not seem to realise thatBritish culture had already moved a long way towards theintolerance she craves.

Or consider Lib Dem MP Norman Baker. On 5 Januarythis year, he revealed that the Prevention of Terrorism Act2000 has been used to stop 62,584 people at railwaystations and that another 87,000 travellers have beenquestioned under ‘stop and search’ legislation. But headded: “The anti-terror laws allow officers to stop peoplefor taking photographs and I know this has led to innocenttrainspotters being stopped. This is an abuse ofanti-terrorism powers and a worrying sign that we aresliding towards a police state. Trainspotting may be anactivity of limited, and indeed questionable, appeal, but it isnot a criminal offence and it is not a terrorist threat.”

Why did Baker feel it necessary to qualify his remarkswith the word ‘questionable’? Baker is not above hobbieshimself, since he has a passion for collecting rare vinylrecords. The harassment of trainspotters is not aboutterrorism but the enforcement of conformity and, with hisoffhand remark, Baker risks colluding with this intolerance.

Meanwhile, we are subjected to hysterical media reportsof an ‘epidemic’ of autism. It is more likely that it is thediagnosis rather than the incidence of autism that hasincreased, partly because there is greater understanding ofautistic spectrum disorders. But another significant reasonis that boys whose hobbies would once have beenconsidered healthy and normal are now considered mentallydisordered.

DEEP INTOLERANCEAlthough ‘cool’ may affect a fierce individualism, itexpresses a deep intolerance of anyone different and simplyrepresents a change in our idea of what it means to be‘normal’. Until the 1970s, normality meant being white andmale, but equality for women and ethnic minorities hasmade ‘normality’ more female and black. Linguist MaryBucholtz observes that the terms ‘nerd’ and ‘geek’ cameinto common parlance only as ‘cool’ went mainstream, andthat these terms refer to a hyper-whiteness. In other words,nerds are essentially white males who unfashionably refuseto appropriate black youth culture. But black people are notthe beneficiaries of this trend.

‘Cool’ may have originated as a way for black men toearn respect but it has become a means for anxious andinsecure white people to accommodate to sexual and ethnicliberation. It enables white men to avoid opprobrium byadopting the insouciance of rebellious blacks and theandrogynous fashions of gay men. It enables white womento turn the tables on men by undermining what they see asarchetypal male behaviour – not the male violence andsexism that deserve opprobrium, but the harmless malebehaviour of being interested in things, having hobbies andpreferring the rational to the emotional. We kid ourselvesthat we live in a more tolerant age when all we have done isexchange one type of conformity for another.

Does any of this really matter? Attacking trainspottersmay seem harmless enough, until you realise the

consequences. Once upon a time, small boys whocollected train numbers matured into adult railwayenthusiasts who ran various museums and preserved steamrailways, contributing much to our local heritage andtourism, and giving pleasure to many people. It’s not justtrains. All over Britain, volunteer enthusiasts can be foundrestoring and running old windmills, canals and factories.But not for long. They are failing to enlist a newgeneration of volunteers, because potential young recruitsare deterred for fear of being mocked by their peers.

The effects go far beyond preserving our industrialheritage. The overriding need to look ‘cool’ is nowrecognised as the main reason why boys areunderperforming in the state school system. Boys areunder huge peer group pressure not to study or be seen asa swot. And now, we are faced with a rash of knifeincidents in schools because, apparently, it’s ‘cool’ tocarry a knife.

MOST DAMAGING EFFECTBut when behaviour once confined to teenagers becomesan everyday routine for adults, the most damaging effectof ‘cool’ is on democratic politics. Pountain and Robinspoint out that “politics, almost by definition, can never becool. To get anywhere in politics you need to carepassionately about something, whether it is a cause ormerely the achievement of personal power, and you needto sacrifice present pleasures to the long and tediousprocess of campaigning and party organization.”

Pountain and Robins caution against politicians tryingto harness cool. They applaud political desires “to restoreour disintegrating sense of community (by shoring up thetraditional family and eliminating drug abuse), to halt therise of crime and to improve the performance of oureducation system,” but warn that “Cool stands for almostexactly the opposite values: it is intrinsically anti-family,pro-drug, anti-authority and admires criminality... What’smore, ironic detachment is a poor adhesive for any societyas well as being extremely difficult to harness to anycollective endeavour.”

I’ll leave the final word on the cool ‘get a life’ crowd tothe inestimable Stephen Fry. On the TV comedyprogramme ‘QI’, Jo Brand wearily demanded of Frywhether there was any practical use for the informationbeing discussed. Fry lost his cool (in more ways than one):“It’s extraordinary. It’s always the children who say, ‘Sir,sir, what’s the point of geometry?’ or ‘what’s the point ofLatin?’ who end up having no job, being alcoholic, andthey don’t notice that the ones who actually findknowledge for its own sake and pleasure in informationand in history and in the world and nature around us areactually getting on and doing things with their fuckinglives.”

It is Quite Interesting that Fry’s outburst was neverbroadcast. It is available only as an outtake on YouTube.Not cool, you see.

Simon Titley is a member of the Liberator Collective

15

IS AN F.E. PLACEWORTH F. ALL?After two years on the Liberal Democrat Federal Executive,Richard Clein wonders what the party’s top administrationbody is for, and why no-one ever tells its members anything

Perhaps Federal Executive isn’t for ‘someone like me’.When in 2006 I decided to stand for it, I actually didn’texpect to win. Despite having a relatively high profilewithin the party, which I suspect is largely due to thefact that I co-compere Glee Club, it seemed a committeethat was far too important for ‘someone like me’ to beelected to.

It is, and I suspect always has been, dominated by the‘great and the good’, who are by and large based in theGreater London area, which makes the House of Commonsat 5.30pm on a Monday night the ideal venue for thebi-monthly meetings. Of course, for those who do travelfrom further afield, it is also an opportunity to spend theday in the Palace of Westminster and be wined and dined –a huge thrill for ‘someone like me’.

However, it’s not somethingmy hectic schedule allowed. Myjourney consisted of a 420 mileround trip arriving for the start ofthe meeting and having to leavebefore the end to catch the lasttrain home – and paying £10 permeeting for the pleasure, a rule Itried to get abolished in an effortto improve the diversity of thecommittee.

Despite what many peoplewithin the party think, I am not acouncillor in Liverpool. Even arecent reply to a letter from NickClegg was addressed ‘CllrRichard Clein’ and the table planat a fundraising dinner inSouthport the same – despite thefact it is the neighbouringconstituency to Sefton Centralwhere I am the PPC! The fact is Ihave never, apart from mystudent days which are now onlya blurred haze, been a member ofa ‘political’ committee – whichmay explain why I felt quiteintimidated and was thereforerelatively quiet on FE.

Another reason why I was quieter than people may haveexpected is that I didn’t want to get the backs up of thepeople who effectively decided in which seats moneyshould be allocated for campaigning.

As a PPC in a new seat, I naively thought that it mighthelp my case. For the record, the local party has to date notreceived a penny from the party despite on paper, at least,it looking like a Tory/Lib Dem marginal. I was also awarehow previous members of the committee had been treatedfor ‘speaking out’.

POWERLESSBut perhaps the real reason is that I realised from quiteearly on that it was a huge waste of time as the members ofFE are powerless. In fact, it could take months for thecommittee to reach a decision on a simple suggestion thatthe party should introduce a new presidential award, whichtook around five months before becoming reality.

However it is the farcical events of the 15 October 2007,when Ming Campbell resigned as party leader, which

perhaps best sum up how highlyregarded the FE is seen by theparty hierarchy – that samehierarchy which has finally comeout of the shadows following theBones Commission. The COG –or Chief Officers Group – hasbeen in existence for some timebut only in recent months has itcome to the fore. I remember atone of my first meetings havingto ask an FE member of longstanding what the initials stoodfor and who was a member.

From the very start of the 15October meeting, many of uspresent started receiving textsfrom friends in the media aboutwhat was about to happen justaround the corner in SW1. Buthere we were, the ruling body ofthe party, chaired by thepresident with the chief executivealso present, carrying on asthough nothing of any particularimportance was about to happen.

It even got to the stage wherethe president, Simon Hughes,

announced he was going off to do a television interview –when in fact he was about to stage an impromptu pressconference on the steps of Cowley Street. I, and many ofmy colleagues, were angry because we knew exactly what

16

“When NickClegg mentioned

that every memberwould be getting a

copy of Make ItHappen, even he

seemed astoundedthat no one on the

FE seemed toknow anything

about it”

was happening and demanded to know why such animportant announcement was being kept from us. Theexplanation basically boiled down to the fact that the FEcouldn’t be trusted, but we were still going to be told beforethe media. It just so happened that time was now – whichwas approximately one minute before the officialannouncement! It was hugely tempting to go and tellMichael Crick, who after the meeting was hanging aroundSt Stephen’s Entrance, about how we’d been spurned, butof course I had a train to catch.

NOT TRUSTWORTHYIt was again a question of trust when discussing (or not) theBones Commission report. Members of the FE were notdeemed trustworthy enough to be given copies of the finalreport – despite being told we had to make a decision ‘inprinciple’ to support its findings because of timescales as toits implementation.

I believe much of the report is positive, particularly if weare to achieve the leader’s ambitions. However, I don’tthink the ‘all or nothing campaign strategy’, which I raisedconcerns about at my last FE meeting, is the right way toproceed. The reality is that we need to ensure across a hugeswathe of seats, particularly in the north, that we are thechallengers come the general election after next.

And again when Nick Clegg, as part of his ‘slot’ at thestart of meetings, mentioned that every member would begetting a copy of a new policy document Make It Happen,even he seemed astounded that no one on the FE seemed toknow anything about it.

I am at least satisfied that the FE has now become moreof a committee concerned with scrutiny, as opposed to onethat was in danger of becoming bogged down inmicromanagement. I am also proud to have played mypart in ensuring a new focus was adopted.

Don’t get me wrong. I feel that, during my two yeartenure, I was able to achieve some things – fromestablishing a secure forum for FE members to discussforthcoming agenda items to introducing a new awardrecognising the contribution off Belinda Eyre Brook to theparty.

And, despite my criticisms, I was hugely disappointednot to have been re-elected. I hope at least my occasionaloutbursts about our campaigning techniques or plea formore resource in ‘moving forward’ seats put across theviews of ‘someone like me’ and made the great and thegood think about whether what the party is doing will leadto electoral success.

I actually got more first preferences than last time,which made me think that perhaps we should move tosupporting FPTP, but of course I have never, and don’tintend now, to start backing something purely for personalgain.

Richard Clein is Liberal Democrat PPC for Sefton Central

and a member of the Liberator Collective

17

Get the bigger and beter 2008 edition of

The Liberator SongbookOur bumper 19th edition with more

songs than ever!Only £3.50 plus 50p postage(make cheques payable to

“Liberator Publications”) fromLiberator, Flat 1, 24 Alexandra Grove,

London N4 2LF

Or order online at www.liberator.org.uk

STRAIT JACKETThe defeat of Taiwan’s previous liberal government has put itsdemocracy under pressure from China’s sympathisers, sayOlly Wells and Fang-yi Ho

Since the election of a Kuomintang (KMT) governmentin the spring of 2008, Taiwan has started an ever-worsening decline in freedom, seemingly linked toaspirations of the government for closer relations withChina. This decline is leading Taiwan towards asituation reminiscent of a previous era when the divisionbetween the organs of state and the ruling KMT blurred,especially with respect to the police and judiciary.

Following the election of President Ma Ying Jeou, theRepublic of China, as he likes to refer to Taiwan, has madeefforts at reconciliation with mainland China. HoweverMa, who prefers to be known as Mr Ma in deference toChina, has taken actions that have led to many concernsabout his respect for Taiwanese sovereignty and hisTaiwanese citizenship over his family connections tomainland China.

Various protests took place during the visit of ChenYun-lin, the chairman of the Association for RelationsAcross the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) from mainland Chinain November.

Many were injured as protesters holding Taiwan’snational flags were asked to leave the public premises andhad their flags confiscated by the police. A record shop incentral Taipei was forced to stop playing traditional songsabout Taiwan, as part of a government drive to makemainland officials feel comfortable, far exceeding thepowers of the state.

The freedom of expression and assembly of Taiwanesecitizens were heavily restricted during his visit. ManyTaiwanese commented that these events reminded them ofthe ‘white terror’ and martial law period before 1987. Themedia generally labelled the protesters as supporters of theformer government of the liberal Democratic ProgressiveParty (DPP), though non-party political individuals orgroups of bloggers organised the protests.

People were outraged by the disproportionate treatmentthey suffered while they were not in breach of any law.Following the incident, hundreds of students started dailyprotests and asked Ma and premier Liu to apologise to thepublic for the social unrest caused by excessive use ofpolice power.

The police have, after a great deal of delay, made anapology to the injured protesters but Ma still insisted thathe will not apologise. He has also failed to ensure thepolice work within their powers in future while protectingforeign visitors.

Following the unlawful removal of protesters wavingTaiwanese flags, a large group of students formed a campoutside the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall.

The group, known as the Taiwanese Wild StrawberryMovement, feel that these police powers have not only

been applied unlawfully, but also indiscriminately. Thestudents also raised concerns that the price being paid forcloser ties with China is too high

“Does increasing cross-Strait exchange require Taiwanto lower its standards of freedom and democracy, in orderto achieve the same level of repressive authoritarian rulethat China has,” they asked. Questions have been raisedabout the future of freedoms Taiwanese citizens have takenfor granted since democratisation in 1996.

The ‘White Terror’ between 1947 and 1987 saw theKMT impose martial law and brutally crush all oppositionafter its arrival on the island from the mainland. The periodwas littered with violent clashes and secret disappearancesof opposition figures, and many officials of the DPP wereimprisoned for exercising freedom of speech during thisperiod.

Former DPP president Chen, who along with a numberof other Taiwanese city mayors and party officials are nowaccused of corruption charges, has been in and out ofdetention and on hunger strike against a variety of charges,some of which appear fabricated and others related to theactions of his family members.

The KMT government has detained the former presidentfor up to three months without trial, a practice commonlyused in cases of political corruption in Taiwan. He deniesall charges, but the extent of the accusations has made itdifficult for some DPP supporters to remain loyal to a partythat following its defeat has struggled to rebuild even in itssouthern heartland.

Ma has continued to shift politically towards China bypublicly rejecting the possibility of a visit from the DalaiLama. Following his meeting with the ARATS chairman,Taiwan has established direct air, commercial shipping andpostal links with the mainland, all of which eluded theprevious government.

Freedom House has referred to 2009 as a critical yearfor human rights in Taiwan. If the decline in standards ofhuman rights in democracy continues, it would be moreaccurate to look back and see that 2008 was a critical yearfor Taiwan and that 2009 may be the year that it becameclear that the speed of the decline was out of control.

Now is the time that friends of Taiwan must stand by itscitizens and press for international support for Taiwan andTaiwanese democracy.

Olly Wells is a member of the Liberal International British

Group executive. Fang-yi Ho is the former human rights

officer of Liberal International

18

19

That is a respect for eachother’s way of doing things.Respect was seen as much morethan mere toleration. It meantthat the other person’s faith wasvalued because it gave differentinsights. Worshipping togetherdidn’t mean compromising yourown beliefs but recognising thatwe are all struggling in differentways, to discover the truth.

Since the 1960s, the churchesare much more at peace witheach other. They co-operate onsuch things as the Christian Aidcollection. In most towns theyworship together periodically.The clergy meet regularly andhave pulpit swaps. Significantly,the different denominationsretain their own individuality.

We forget how far we havecome. When my then Baptistminister moved to another townin 1968, our neighbouringRoman Catholic church gave hima presentation Bible – at the timethis was regarded as a verysignificant step forward.

The experience of multi-culturalism in our churches isthat you do have to work at it.You do have to meet and listento each other. Respect for andvalue of each other’s cultures isvital. Finding practical things onwhich to co-operate and succeedtogether is a great catalyst. Thesame applies between faiths andcultures. Integration has failed.Multi-culturalism works.

Rob WhewayCoventry

POPULISTNONSENSE

Dear Liberator,David Howarth says of

eliminating tuition fees(Liberator 329) that “It reducesstudent debt, and thus addresses

poverty, promotes education, and thuscombats ignorance, and reduces thepressure on students to take conventionalcareer-related courses and subsequentlybecome office fodder, and so it tends toundermine conformity”.

Promising to abolish mortgage debt forgraduates would achieve two of those: itwould reduce the debts that students face,addressing poverty, and reduce thepressure to do a conventional job.

If only the state would pay off mymortgage, I could bum around India for ayear, rather than having to go into myoffice. Indeed, knowing that graduates gota free mortgage would surely persuadepeople to start a degree. Bingo! Thesearguments are silly, but no sillier thanDavid’s.

Whether eliminating student debts is inline with our principles depends onwhether it is the best way to combatignorance. Here the evidence is prettyclear: kids who get good ‘A’-levels go touniversity pretty much irrespective ofsocial background.

Ah! David says, but maybe the reasonpoor kids don’t do so well at school isbecause they know they won’t go touniversity because they are scared of debt.But poor kids always did worse at school,even before student fees, and they fallbehind in primary school.

The idea that, in between pretending tobe princesses and power rangers, mydaughter’s six-year-old friends arethinking about their willingness to getinto debt aged 18, and as a result payingattention or not in class, is ludicrous.

We need to get elected, and sometimespopular, populist nonsense is needed toget elected. Abolishing tuition fees maybe such a policy, but let’s not kidourselves that it is in any way in line withour principles.

Dr Tim LeunigLondon School of Economics

MULTI-CULTURALISMWORKS

Dear Liberator,Conservatives, following Labour

government ministers, are abandoningmulti-culturalism and advocatingintegration, yet our own Christianchurches are multi-cultural notintegrated. So why should there be adifferent standard for other faiths andcultures?

Only 50 years ago, Christiandenominations hardly talked to eachother. In extreme cases such asLiverpool and Glasgow, there wasProtestant/Catholic violence and the‘troubles’ of Northern Ireland had yetto re-emerge. In some Liverpoolwards, Protestant candidates stood, inthe absence of Conservatives, todefeat Roman Catholic Labourcandidates. Previous to that we havehad centuries of extreme violencebetween Protestants and Catholics.

The Christian unity movement, as awidely held ideal, is as recent as the1960s. Until then, the differentChristian denominations (Anglican,Methodist, Baptist, Roman Catholic,etc.) each spoke as if each were theonly true faith. They tried to getconverts from each other. I have apress cutting from 1961, when for thefirst time, the Free Churches ofCoventry joined the Anglicans in aprocession of Christian witness – anhistoric moment. However, a BaptistUnion booklet from 1967 Baptists andUnity clearly is concerned aboutlosing the Baptist identity.

The ‘summer of love’ was not justan isolated pop event but reflected awider belief in the 1960s that weshould move towards a more peacefulco-operative society and the churcheswere an important part of thatmovement.

After centuries of antagonism, thechurches started to meet together, theytentatively started worshippingtogether.

Early on, the talk was of one unitedchurch with the differentdenominations integrated into it.

It soon became apparent thatworshippers valued their own specificbeliefs and methods of worship.While they welcomed the dialogueand worshipping together, they wouldnot relinquish their own faith andpractices – or cultures. Somulti-culturalism not integrationbecame the way to unity.

20

UnlockingDemocracy: 20 Yearsof Charter88 editedby Peter Faceyand othersPolitico’s 2008 £14.99Charter 88 was formed at the hightide of Thatcherism to gather a widecoalition to press the thenunfashionable cause of constitutionalreform.

Two decades on, thiscommemorative collection showsthat, while some of the reformssought have been won, otherchallenges to liberty and democracyhave arisen, and it will help to armopponents of authoritarianism withthe arguments they need.

It also shows, in particular in somepoliticians’ contributions, howconstitutional reform can descend intoa series of wheezes rather than beinga coherent project.

Contributors reflect on successessuch as devolution in Wales andScotland, the almost-eviction ofhereditary peers, and the freedom ofinformation and human rights acts.

They also explain how the originalCharter 88 came apart financially andorganisationally in the early part ofthis decade as a result of itsunravelling relationship with theLabour party, and morphed intoUnlock Democracy.

As deputy director AlexandraRunswick puts it, Labour’s attitude toconstitutional reform was “half-hearted and chaotic” and whenCharter 88 began to point this out, italienated Labour members and donorsin its ranks. Its campaign againstLabour backsliding in the 2001election, which depicted Tony Blairwith Pinocchio’s nose, was a keystage in this estrangement.

Nothing changes. Gordon Brown’scontribution – in fact a foreword to a

re-publication of a 1992 lecture –includes the introduction of ID cardsand pre-charge detention in a sectionthat begins by discussing why “wemust continue to safeguard andextend the liberties of our citizens”.You couldn’t make it up.

More interesting among the partypolitical contributions are those fromNick Clegg, Simon Hughes and ajoint one from David Cameron andthe Tory MP Nick Herbert.

They take it as read that Britishpolitics is in a mess. “Not in livingmemory have confidence inpoliticians, trust in the system andfaith in the government’s capacity tochange things been as low as today”(Clegg). “Public faith in politiciansand our political institutions isdraining away” (Cameron andHerbert).

Hughes takes a similar view and sodo some other contributors. None ofthem though, with the partialexception of the concluding chapterfrom Unlock Democracy directorPeter Facey, seem to consider that thismight be because for 15 years therehas been little politics with which thepublic could engage.

In 1992, the last time an electionwas genuinely competitive betweenparties with alternative views of whatshould be done, the turnout was anentirely respectable 77.72%.

The results of the next threeelections were foregone conclusions,even if the extent of Labour’s 1997win was not. Even worse, they werefought over little.

Labour committed itself to stick toTory spending plans in office andaccepted the ‘private good, publicbad’ ethos of the Major government,Paddy Ashdown then tied the LibDems to Labour, and this three-wayconsensus lingers.

Is it any wonder that turnouts andpublic engagement fall when electionoutcomes are predictable and they arefought between parties that have

THEM’S THE RULES

Dear Liberator,I was saddened to read (Liberator

330) that the Liberal Democrats havelost over a quarter of their membersin the past 10 years. I also was anactivist 10 years ago, but have notbeen inspired by the disjointed“don’t offend anyone” policies thatour front bench expects people tocampaign on.

It was said by Michael Moore inBowling for Columbine that theAmerican media deliberately madeits people fearful, so that thegovernment and ‘HomelandSecurity’ could have more funding,(and the media could sell morepapers) so they brainwashedAmericans into ignorant conformityto support this.

I can see this happening in the UKand EU today. Just because two menonce tried to put explosives into abottle of pop, now no-one can takesufficient toiletries on a plane, or buybottles of drinks when abroad andbring them home – and peoplesupport this.

In Boots, with a streaming cold, Iwas told I could not buy two packetsof anti-cold tablets, only one,because it would appear that one in amillion people may use (two boxes!)of tablets to make crystal methsdrugs. If I really wanted to makedrugs, would I not ask 20 people toeach buy one packet of pills? Theshop assistants sounded like robotsas they reeled off the rules. And theythink it is good for them to becomean arm of the police. I think it is souldestroying for them.

If we really want to raise ourmembership and our profile, let usstart campaigns to pass laws whichhelp people to use their intelligenceto accept that every day is a risk.

That people should not say “ohmy operation was cancelled againtoday, but mustn’t grumble” – thatmore people should complain andcampaign to stop the complacency,the mindless obedience toindiscriminate rules, which is turningour nation into the Cybermen of DrWho. If we do not offend someone,then we stand for nothing.

Hilary LeighterLondon

21

minor differences of emphasis overtax and spending, and propose nothingthat would either frighten or inspireanyone much?

The assumption that the problemlies in the mechanisms of politics,rather than in the ability of politiciansto offer ideas, leads Clegg, Hughes,Cameron and Herbert to offer a set ofinterchangeable gimmicks amongtheir solutions.

See if you can guess which belongsto which. “All voters should be givenindependently produced informationabout candidates.” “If a petition ispresented to parliament signed by aset number of voters, say 100,000,there would be a formal debate on thetopic.” “A two-thirds majority [ofMPs] should be able to vote ministersout of office.”

The answers are Hughes, Cameronand Herbert, and Clegg, but theycould be in any order. This is the sortof thinking that lumbered us withuncontrolled postal voting as a curefor low turnouts.

Surely the problem is whatpoliticians offer, or fail to, rather thanthe channels and processes throughwhich they make that offer?

Elsewhere the book includeschapters on many issues that affect theloss of liberty in Britain, such aselectoral reform, deaths in custody,the lack of legal aid, privacy anddiversity from writers who includeGeoffrey Bindman, Louise Christian,Helena Kennedy and Trevor Phillips.

Charter 88’s financial woes ledeventually to its merger with the NewPolitics Network under the UnlockDemocracy name. The NPN was oncethe Democratic Left, the legalsuccessor the Communist Party ofGreat Britain.

As the political writer FrancisBeckett has shown in his book EnemyWithin, the CPGB was propped upwith subsidies from Moscow and itsdissolution, while ostensibly a disputebetween Eurocommunists andStalinists, involved an unseemlysquabble over the ownership of assetsthis ‘gold’ had bought, which theformer won.

Thus resources that originated withthe Soviet politburo are now beingused to advance the causes ofdemocracy, civil liberty and humanrights in Britain. Would Stalin haveseen the funny side?

Mark Smulian

10 Years of the Euro –New Perspectivesfor Britainedited by GrahamBishop, WillemBuiter, BrendanDonnelly and WillHuttonPublished byJohn Stevens 2009The names of the publisher andeditors indicate that this book is nottrying to talk us out of approachingthe euro.

Produced in the last few weeks,when the issue of the euro as a reservecurrency that might have saved theUK from the depth of its recessionwas beginning to be whispered in thecorridors of power, the book is atimely series of 31 essays fromdistinguished writers who appreciatethe importance of the EU to thiscountry.

In addition to the above andmembers of the former Pro-EuropeanConservatives – and Conservativessuch as Dirk Hazell who jumped shiplater, it includes luminaries such asPeter Sutherland, Stephen Wall andWolfgang Munchau.

The articles are of varying length.Confusingly, the authors’contributions are not ordered bysubject matter but are in alphabeticalorder by author, with no title shown inthe table of contents.

The methodologies of the authorsvary, from political essays onThinking Again, Silence of the Lambs(Brendan Donnelly’s attack on Tories,pro-European Labour and, indeed, theLiberal Democrats for not speakingout), to pieces with a wealth of graphsfrom Graham Bishop and WillemBuiter and Nicolas Stevenson. Theeditors have at least managed toensure that each deals with a differentaspect. We are treated, therefore, tohistory lessons – Gordon Brown’sfamous five principles, drawn up byhimself and Ed Balls in a taxi “on theback of a fag packet” in order tostymie the pro- Euro Tony Blair, andwhose current relevance is deemed bythe authors to have passed theirsell-by date.

The danger to our economy ofhaving a currency which has somehistorical pretensions to reserve

currency status but which is in truthextremely vulnerable to foreignspeculators, is well argued. NickCrosby argues that Cameron andHague are playing a game that is bothfoolish and destructive of UKinterests. There is far too muchmythology around about the successof the Brown economic years incomparison with the continent. Withthe chickens coming home to roost,ironically the conclusion to enter theeuro or not is TINA – There Is NoAlternative.

The book is available atwww.e4u.org.uk

Robert Woodthorpe Browne

There’s A RiotGoing Onby Peter DoggettCanongate2007 £25.00Listening again on a winter’s night inLondon 40 years later, it’s hard to takeseriously America’s 1960s musicaldeclarations of universal love,revolution and getting high.

But there was a time when rockmusicians thought, genuinely in somecases, that they could change theworld, that they and the counter-culture for which they spoke had thepower to effect political change andthat revolution was around the corner.

This now seems an eccentricconceit, but it was treated seriously byboth supporters and opponents of ‘therevolution’ between 1965 and 1972,and the American state responded todissent with a savagery that stillstartles. It is no exaggeration to saythat generational conflict was afoot; atleast there was no youth politicalapathy back then.

Doggett’s vast book, a work ofconsiderable research, shows theconfluence of two Americanphenomena – the rise of blackmilitancy and growing opposition tothe Vietnam war, in particular to theuse of conscripts – giving rise to bothspecific grievances and moregenerally to discontent with the‘system’.

Rock and soul music provide thesoundtrack. As indignation grew, somusicians – some from conviction,some from opportunism – nailed theircolours to the revolutionary mast.

The problem was that no-one knewwhat this revolution was – some

22

wanted race equality, others an end tothe war, some changes to the druglaws, others sexual freedom, somewere just exhibitionists, othersconventional Marxists, yet moresought a vague ‘liberation’.

As Doggett shows, few had a clearidea of the objectives of a‘revolution’, let alone how to achievethem, and this incoherence anddisunity doomed their efforts.

Black militants and white radicalssometimes collaborated, at other timesdistrusted each other, leftist groupssplit into factions as they always willand tactical disputes stifled manyinitiatives.

The relationship between musicand politics was never easy,particularly as those musicians fromwhom a lead was most keenly soughtwere the least willing to give it.

Bob Dylan was seen as the politicalvoice of his generation but after 1965refused to take that role, not leastbecause of his harassment by a lunaticwho founded the Dylan LiberationFront with a view to ‘saving Dylanfrom Dylan’ so that he might becomepolitically conscious again.

The Beatles and The RollingStones, insofar as they expressedpolitical views, voiced scepticismabout the radical groups and what theymight lead to as, respectively,Revolution and Street Fighting Manshow.

These two bands’ high statusamong ‘revolutionaries’ is slightlystrange given that they were British,and Britain was the one placeimportant in popular culture in whichalmost nothing happened to disturbanyone. Harold Wilson kept thecountry out of Vietnam, showingmore courage under Americanpressure than Tony Blair did 35 yearslater.

The revolutionary fervour androck’s relationship with it dissipatedroughly around the time that theliberal Democrat George McGovernwas slaughtered by Richard Nixon inthe 1972 presidential election, whenthose who sought radical change gaveup to hopelessness.

What remained were a handful offringe groups. One, the WeatherUnderground, even produced a sort ofrevolutionary version of the Liberatorsongbook.

A few samples quoted includeMaria, from West Side Story, adaptedas “I’ve just met a Marxist-Leninist

named Kim Il-Sung, and suddenly hisline seems so correct and so fine.”

White Christmas found itselfrewritten as “I’m dreaming of a massmovement, that has the highestconsciousness.”

It is, I think, impossible to haveanything but contempt for those whofollowed Kim Il-Sung, or who wavedthe Little Red Book of an odiousmass-murderer like Mao Tse-Tung.

But there was a lot of real angerand passion in this era, which Doggettexplains and analyses well, and it didlead to some lasting changes, notablyto racial attitudes and the earlystirrings of feminism. Some, at least,of the music was pretty good too.

Lastly, I have a question. Doggettsays the decision to storm the fencesof the 1970 Isle of Wight rock festivaland turn it into a free event was takenby an improbable-sounding alliance ofFrench anarchists, the White Panthers,the Hell’s Angels and the YoungLiberals.

Do any of Liberator’s older readersrecall whether this is true?

Mark Smulian

Burning to Readby James SimpsonHarvard UP 2007£18.95A year or two ago, I decided to readthe New Testament; having filledmyself with all sorts of othermythologies and contemplating theQu’ran, it seemed an appropriatestarting point. In any case, it is centralto any understanding of westernpolitical thought.

Perversely, I chose to readTyndall’s translation in the originalsixteenth century English, on the basisthat it might be ‘purer’ than anyofficial translation. I was brought upon the King James version, knew thebasic story well and was pleasantlysurprised at how much of it we’d gotthrough at school. The Gospels andthe Acts at least were familiar.

The Letters on the other hand wereanother matter; I started to struggle,with only the promise of Revelation tokeep me going. The commonplaceview that there was nothing wrongwith primitive Christianity before itfell into the hands of Paul andConstantine was underlined by thisexperience.

Along comes Simpson’s Burning toRead. Subtitled EnglishFundamentalism and its ReformationOpponents, Simpson argues that theEnglish liberal tradition’s claim ofancestry from the ProtestantReformation is faulted. Approachingthis from a political philosophicalangle, what was the problem?Politically, Luther was known to be aconservative – a label easier to applythat ‘Liberal’ before the nineteenthcentury.

The Peasants’ War (1524-25) isreferred to in Simpson’s book as oneof the causes of concern for ThomasMore and his ilk against a vernacularBible and the spread of reading. It isnot widely known here, but wasprobably more brutal than ourpeasants’ revolts. It is probably mostwidely understood as an argument forhistorical materialism followingEngels’s work, itself an argument formajor revision. Critically, Luther didnot back Müntzer, still less theAnabaptist movement. But rulingclasses elsewhere saw more simplycause and effect between the two.

Simpson argues a fundamentalismamongst the early translators of theBible which does not square with aLiberal progeny; More’s Humanismmight be better suited to this.Personally I’ve never got on withMore. I’ve not read the worksSimpson refers to and was notimpressed by Utopia, though itfeatures in many a supposed politicalgenealogy (more often socialist thanLiberal). I know More by his deeds,and he wasn’t a saint (as Simpsonmakes quite clear).

However, the simple answer is thatLiberalism is the bastard child of bothof these strains of thought.Renaissance humanism doubtlesslytracks a clearer path, but was in itsday only accessible to the few. Thetranslation of the Bible was critical tothe spread of reading and, as critics ofthe act said, set fools a-wandering.The tit-for-tat question ‘were theProtestant persecutions worse than theRoman Catholic ones’ is of little note,but since the winners write history, itis certain that the Marian persecutionsmade an indelible imprint on theEnglish psyche at least up to mygeneration, while those underElizabeth – a bit like Guantánamo -were in the wrong place at the wrongtime, even if they weren’t executedfor what they were arraigned for.

23

So I finish Simpson’s bookbetter informed than I had beenbefore, but not particularly movedby his argument. The book is heavygoing in places, even if you arebroadly familiar with thearguments and the times; theintroduction and first chapter willinform the lay reader.

Stewart Rayment

The Uniting ofNations: An Essay onGlobal Governanceby John McClintockPeter Lang 2008£18.70This is an intriguing work, writtenby a European Commission officialwith considerable experience ofworking in developing countries.

The basic thesis is that theUnited Nations and mostinternational bodies such as WorldBank, IMF, G7/8, NATO, etc., havefailed to live up to the tasks they werecreated to undertake. Peace has notbroken out all over the world; there isfar too much poverty; the abuse ofhuman rights is commonplace; climatechange is ineffectually tackled; andthere are failed states about which theinternational community is incapableof taking action and which can presentdangers to all.

McClintock analyses theseproblems at length and concludes thatthe United Nations, while undertakingvaluable work, lacks the teeth toimpose the will. This is especially truebecause of the ability of a singlepower on the Security Council toblock a measure even if it has thebacking of a huge majority in theGeneral Assembly.

The author rightly analyses that theonly successful sharing of sovereigntyto date is the European Union, andseeks to learn whether this examplecould be extended to a world stage.

He concludes that to open the EU’sdoors to membership by anydemocracy in the world is not feasibleor desirable. Rather, there should be anew world body with a voluntarymembership. The EU should be onesuch member. Other regionalgroupings would be invited to join asa unit. Individual countries would beeligible, but if more than one countryin a geographical region wished to

join, they would have to form thenucleus of a regional grouping thatother democracies could later join.

McClintock favours an incrementalapproach to the work of the ‘GlobalUnion of Democracies’, with its initialtasks being limited to the eradicationof poverty and tackling globalwarming. As with the EU, additionalresponsibilities could be added bymutual agreement. This would benecessary as the intention is a realtransfer of sovereignty to allowexecutive action.

It is recognised that countries suchas Russia, China and the United Stateswill not be members at the outset,being far too jealous of their absolutesovereignty. It is envisaged that theywould enter at a later stage, if theproject were successful.

An interesting attempt to solvesome very real problems, and thismust be worth a debate among theparty’s internationalists.

The book can be ordered fromwww.peterlang.com

Robert Woodthorpe Browne

Down the Deep Lanesby Peter Beacham,photographs byJames RaviliousBardwell 2008 £19.95A celebration of Devon and countrylife (first published in 2000). As

Candida Lycett-Green writes inher preface, “not the stuff ofordinary guide books”.Glorious photographs to whetyour appetite in a county that isbound to be one of the chiefbattlegrounds with the Toriesat the next general election.Grockles might usefully studyBeacham’s text before settingoff on a day’s canvassing.

I particularly enjoyedBeacham’s eulogy tocorrugated iron, a muchmaligned material, not leastbecause it was beloved of theSocialist Republic of London(Ken Livingstone’s GLC) as itrushed to demolish as manyhomes as it could beforeMaggie Thatcher could abolishit. Vast swathes of Londonwere tinned up, but asBeacham reminds us, the samematerial has preserved many anold building which might have

decayed completely in the ravagesfaced by agriculture over the lastcentury (many inspired bygovernments, red or blue, who caredlittle for that industry).

By people who truly love theircounty for people who truly love theircounty (native or otherwise) and forpeople who love beautiful books.

Stewart Rayment

Fairy Teatime Tales:Fairy Bergamot’s NewHouseby Amber McCarroll,illus Pamela HardenThe Book Guild2007 £6.99No, not a Young Liberal Conferenceof the mid 70s, Amber McCarroll isventuring on a series of some 40stories of her faery friends. This is thefirst. Underlying the stories is anenvironmental message as the authorinteracts with her faery and animalfriends. I am puzzled to find FairyBergamot in England. It isn’t a nativeplant and I’d have thought the faywould stay near the plants they areresponsible for. However, this isn’t amatter I’ll dwell on.

Stewart Rayment.

Lord Bonkers’ XIWhen frost rimes the trees outside myLibrary window, I cheer myself bythinking of summers past and summersyet to come. Over the seasons manynotable cricketers have turned out for me,and I shall devote a few pages of my diaryto choosing the finest Lord Bonkers’ XIof all. Modesty dictates that I should notinclude myself, of course, but in reality Ishould be captaining the team, batting atnumber four and turning my googlies.Let me tarry no longer: here is myselection...

Len HuttonThe inadequacy of his report into the circumstances surroundingthe death of David Kelly (it was forensically dissected by my oldfriend Norman Baker in his recent masterpiece) should not blindus to Hutton’s excellence as an opening bat. I recall a matchagainst the Independent Labour Party at Worksop when, aided bya fighting 15 from Ray Alan and Lord Charles, he saw us homeon a ‘sticky dog’. Seeing him stride to the wicket gave one muchthe same feeling of security that one feels nowadays when Vince“High Voltage” Cable gets up to speak in the House.

C. B. FrySometime Liberal candidate for Brighton, Banbury and Oxford,“C. B.” was a brilliant scholar and an accomplished performer inevery variety of outdoor sport. He captained England at cricketand we lost not a single test match whilst he was at the helm. Heplayed rugger for Blackheath and the Barbarians, and associationfootball for England against Ireland in 1901, as well as playingfor Southampton in the F. A. Cup Final. He also set a world longjump record that stood for 21 years. Fry was once offered thethrone of Albania, and had he succeeded in convincing vonRibbentrop that the Germans should take up cricket then thehistory of the twentieth century would have been differentindeed. In short, Fry was the second most remarkableEnglishman of his generation.

David SteelWith his grey hair, glasses and catchphrase “Don’t panic, MrGreig,” Steel raised our nation’s morale during its darkest hour –I refer, of course, to our humiliation at the hands of theAustralian fast bowlers Lillee and Thomson. Steel’s obdurateforward defensive prod became a symbol of national resistance:we had lost our steam trains, seen our currency defiled, but wewere not going to let them get another wicket before lunch.I shall pass over Steel’s subsequent leadership of the LiberalParty. Though I was one of the first to spot his potential as abatsman, it never occurred to me to invite him to captain theteam.

Violent Bonham-CarterSomething of a rough diamond, Violent was always an innovatorin batting technique. One hears much nowadays of ‘pinchhitting’ and of Kevin Pietersen’s ‘reverse sweep’, but how manyof today’s young people know that both were invented by mysecond selection? If a short leg fielder came too close or theumpire looked poised to give her out lbw to one that hadstraightened a bit, then they were likely to find themselves on thebusiness end of one of these novel approaches. As Violentherself would have put it, she made the cricket pitch ‘her manor’and anyone who tried to take her wicket was ‘out of order’ and‘needed a slap’.

Mike BrearleyQuite where to bat him was always apuzzle – he once came in at number tenwith two of the three Beverley Sisters atnine and eleven – but there was nodoubting that he was Terribly Clever andquite the best captain England have had.These days he works as a psychotherapistand is well versed in the theories ofClement Freud.

L. T. HobhouseI thought of Graeme Pollock, EvertonWeekes and John Farquhar Munro, butultimately there was only one choice to

complete my middle order.

Paul KeetchA good wicketkeeper is the heart of any cricket team and I amalways on the lookout for a good prospect. When he was firstelected for Hereford I asked some people I knew there: “CanKeetch catch?” When I was answered in the affirmative, I knew Ihad my man.

Nancy SeearEvery side needs a seamer who is prepared to bowl into the windor take a spell when the ball is not swinging or the opposition ison top. Nancy was never afraid of hard yakka.

Simon HughesThere are many clergymen who have achieved eminence atcricket; one thinks of David Sheppard, Andrew Wingfield Digbyand Archbishop Makarios. Funnily enough, the Revd Hughes isnot one of them. When I appointed him to the living at StAsquith’s upon the assumption that he was the bright eyed,bushy tailed Middlesex opening bowler who had performed wellfor me on many occasions. He turned out to be quite anotherchap. I have never held this against the Revd, but it is the otherfellow who makes my XI.

Phil WillisWith his fuzzy hair and 100mph balls, Philip Dylan Willis was afearsome sight for any batsman and later became MP forHarrogate and Liberal Democrat education spokesman. After aparticularly destructive performance, I once suggested that Ishould fetch him a cup of tea whilst he put his feet up on thepavilion balcony and watched our batsmen knock off theirmeagre target. It was typical of the man that he should declinemy offer on the grounds that this would constitute a “two-tierservice”.

DobbinThough his chief contribution was made pulling the heavy roller,Dobbin was always happy to turn out if we were a man short andonce played out the final over to secure a draw against MebyonKernow at St Austell.

So there you have it: Lord Bonkers’ finest XI. Let us not,however, forget the contribution that many make from beyondthe boundary rope. I think, in particular, of Meadowcroft’ssterling work as groundsman, of Miss Fearn’s delicious teas andof the Well-Behaved Orphans who swarm up and down theladders all day to work the scoreboard. With their help, and thatof our trusty scorer Mr Bernie Madoff, I have no doubt that thisteam would be hard indeed to beat.

LordBonkers’

Diary