Scientific Government

John Stuart Mill postulated that a democracy requires both the voices of conservatism and liberalism, supporting both what is and what might be, in order to fulfil its mandate.

'It is almost a commonplace that a party of order or stability and a party of progress or reform are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life, until the one or the other shall have so enlarged its mental grasp as to be a party equally of order and of progress, knowing and distinguishing what is fit to be preserved from what ought to be swept away. Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other; but it is in great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity.'

At present this debate is playing out in several ways; there is the debate between the central authority furthered during Labour's years in office (Ringen, 2010) and the devolution of the state's institutions to facilitate people in doing things for themselves (Huhne, 2007); and there is the debate as to the role of taxation and public bodies in providing or supporting services (BBC, 2012). But important debates like these are often born from and swallowed up by ideology.

The facts about them are often distorted. Other facts are simply discarded. And facts are often used like a 'drunkard clings to lampposts - not for illumination, but for support' (Prodi, 2006).

An important part of this problem is the sectarian nature of the political process. The political divide and the systems that reinforce it - whether habitual party allegiance, the gerrymandering of constituency boundaries or the competition over concentrated power - all of these factors make reasoned debate and evidence based policy extremely difficult.

It is a problem that needs desperately to be overcome as, at worst, the obscuring of truth or the outright manufacturing of mistruth, is dangerous.

Dr Ben Goldacre (2012) has argued that the absence of an evidential basis for policy 'is a disaster'. As part of the solution to this problem, Goldacre and others wrote a Cabinet Office paper explaining the how and why of policy testing. It is a positive step to try and establish the scientific method at the heart of government, where reason can play a substantial part in developing policy.

But there is far more to be done. There are still great inconsistencies to be found in the UK's democratic institutions - unelected lords and bishops with the power to propose and amend law (Clegg, 2012); an electoral system based not on representation but on competition for office; systemic and institutional corruption that stretches beyond parliament, into complicated exploitation and dodging of the tax system (Leigh, Frayman & Ball, 2012); and, an administrative nightmare created by a complex and multi-tiered system of local government, that overlaps constituency, police and health authorities, leaving jurisdictions lacking transparency and oversight.

Each of these matters needs to be tackled, and reason, the scientific approach, offers the best route. It can serve as a guide to developing better institutions and also serve at the centre of them. Accomplishing this requires debate, testing, evidence and co-operation - where the arguments for the old and the new, for what is and what might be, as John Stuart Mill hoped, both play a part in the rigorous testing of ideas. What it does not require are two groups playing by their own versions of the truth, to prevent change or advance it, as part of an ideological adherence.

==========
References:
==========
+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

+ Vernon Bogdanor's 'Multi-party politics and the Constitution'; Cambridge University Press, 1983.

+ Stein Ringen's 'The Economic Consequences of Mr Brown'; on RSA Animate; 14 September 2009.

+ Duncan Brack, Richard Grayson & David Howarth's (ed.) 'Reinventing the State - Social Liberalism for the 21st Century'; Politico's, 2007.

+ BBC's 'Anti-austerity marches take place'; 20 October 2012.

+ Romano Prodi quoting George Bernard Shaw, 3 April 2006; quoted in 'Prodi v Berlusconi: Italy's ugliest election?'; on spiked-online.com; 11 April 2006. Report in Italian at 'Premier nervoso in difesa'; on repubblica.it; 4 April 2006.

+ Ben Goldacre's 'Here’s our Cabinet Office paper on randomised trials of government policies. Read it.'; on badscience.net; 20 June 2012.

+ 'Nick Clegg: Lords reform plans to be abandoned'; on the BBC; 6 August 2012.

+ David Leigh, Harold Frayman & James Ball's 'Offshore secrets revealed: the shadowy side of a booming industry'; in The Guardian; 25 November 2012.

Vision and Vigilance: The Part That Leaders Play

In the past week the UK went to the polls (sort of) to elect the latest newly-established public officials, onto whom local powers are to be devolved. The elected police commissioners, along with elected mayors, can be seen part of a persistent narrative. That narrative centres on the perception that leaders play a dominant role in their relationship with 'followers'.

Why is this limited notion of leaders as nothing more than dictatorial administrators so persistent?

Why - even as huge groups of people act concertedly through organisations like Occupy that build support networks offering mutual aid (Wilkins, 2012) - are we still seeking to create more positions, carrying more centralised power?

These questions need to be considered - especially when there are discussions centring on who should be tasked with leading Europe through its present crisis. Due to its strong economic position much of the expectation has fallen on upon Germany. Despite this, there is a reluctance amongst Germans to carry an extra share of the weight (Connolly & Traynor, 2012). That reluctance seems to suggest a profound loss of faith in the responsibilities cast upon the country due to its dominant role.

There is some sense behind that attitude - founded in the problem that a lot is expected of a leader and yet there is only so much that a leader can do. As Stephanie Flanders (2012) points out at the BBC:

'...the notion of a pivot state goes beyond sheer power, or economic heft - the pivot state isn't necessarily or even usually the biggest country. Rather, it's the fulcrum that helps to tip history one direction, or another.'

Regardless the truth, the dominant perception in Germany seems to have become that it is expected to do the majority of the work necessary to carry everyone through. What leaders need, what Germany wants, are partners - others to work alongside from an even footing for a common goal. It was precisely that kind of relationship that made the post-unification bailouts to eastern cities, such as Leipzig, a success (Dowling, 2012).

It is the kind of relationship that makes micro-financing projects such as Kiva so successful. Micro-financing agrees with the findings of many studies; people are capable and driven. They don't need dictators, they need facilitators. The success of projects like Leipzig or Kiva, and further more the existence of willing contributors as shown by movements like Occupy, should be the stone that casts down the negative perceptions that generate the kind of reluctance being felt in Germany at present. These projects show us that people are only in want of an opportunity to flourish and helping them to do so is an investment that pays off in the long run.

And to that end, people do not need greater control exerted over them. They need leaders to facilitate. They need leaders to offer oversight. These are the kind of non-executive roles through which elected officials could really make a contribution. Vision and vigilance; to guard against misdeeds and to illuminate positive outlets for our energies.

==========
References:
==========
+ Brett Wilkins' 'Where FEMA fails, Occupy Sandy delivers storm relief'; in digitaljournal.com; 12 November 2012.

+ Kate Connolly & Ian Traynor's 'Germany's savers feel resentment and guilt over pressure to end euro crisis'; in The Guardian; 16 September 2012.

+ Siobhan Dowling's 'A leap worth taking: how Leipzig was saved from economic decline'; in The Guardian; 16 September 2012.

+ Stephanie Flanders' 'Who will dictate Europe's future?'; on the BBC; 16 November 2012.

Concerns about the Police and Crime Commissioners

The UK's police and crime commissioners voted in today are the replacement for the police authorities, singular locally elected leaders to replace the previously less transparent bodies - as committed to in the Coalition Agreement.

While they offer an increase in democratic control, these elections also expose key public services to partisan politics. The Liberal Democrats, though junior partners in the government, have none the less expressed some concerns and even some opposition to the commissioners (Tall, 2012).

On the opposition benches, Labour have also expressed concern. Their worries centre on partisan elected police commissioners opening the police to privatisation (Wintour, 2012) - and as such are standing their candidates with a commitment to transparency in all of their commissioners' meetings to prevent secret deals.

The Conservative Minister for Policing, Mr Damien Green, has been attempting to reassure voters that the elected position would serve to end the cosy relationships at the top of police forces (Travis & Perkins, 2012). There was also a promise of an oath of impartiality for elected commissioners to prevent partisanship.

An oath is simply not a good enough fall-back. There are real concerns that have not been addressed in making Police Commissioners elected - concerns that are not improved by establishing a singular elected party-partisan figurehead. With turnouts at the polls expected to be low and concerns remaining unaddressed, it might have been better for police commissioners to go back to the drawing board.

But election day has arrived. It remains to be seen if the expected poor turnout forces a rethink.

==========
References:
==========
+ Stephen Tall's '76% of Lib Dems reject elected police commissioners - but 73% want there to be Lib Dem candidates'; on libdemvoice.org; 8 November 2012.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Yvette Cooper: Labour police chiefs won't cut secret deals on privatisation'; in The Guardian; 9 November 2012.

+ Alan Travis & Anne Perkins' 'Police commissioner elections will end cosy relations with officials - minister'; in The Guardian; 12 November 2012.

One Nation: Blue Labour is driving Miliband onto Romney's path

At this year's Labour Party conference Mr Ed Miliband finally began laying the foundations for future policy. The 'One Nation' Labour he presented has however been the cause of some concern. The worries arise from suggestions that One Nation Labour is just a rehash of the 'Blue Labour' ideas that came under fire last year (Seymour, 2012).

The defenders of Blue Labour promoted the movement as a response to the 'managerial, arrogant and ultimately doomed' micro-management approach of New Labour (Glasman, 2011). As the alternative to the perceived 'culture of complaint, and an expectation of state beneficence' the group offered 'stronger institutions', 'tradition' and 'solidarity'. The 'Blue Labour thinker' Jonathan Rutherford warned against embracing liberal individual choice, encouraging instead the sentiments of the 'more conservative culture... which values identity and belonging in the local and the familiar', that he felt holds sway in much of the country (Wintour, 2011).

Under its surface though, is conservatism - the domineering power of establishments, institutions and authorities - as a way to assert control. It is the championing of an effective means of gaining power over rational discourse and debate. But it goes further than just electioneering. Blue Labour is a concept that plays with the politics of identity to achieve its ends, adopting traditions and subjectivities to manage a group identity. But doing so spells danger - this isn't the language of multi-cultural tolerance, but of corporatist regimentation.

The Blue Labour direction proved controversial when policies began to be put forward, with particular criticism given to its views on immigration - rhetoric of 'white working class' and 'immigrants' drawing dangerously close to the far-right (Rooksby, 2011). Amongst the suggestions were the Labour Party embracing the EDL, limiting immigration to just a few skilled migrants and renegotiating the UK out of the free movement of labour (Painter, 2011).

Such identity-based ideologies are narrow and divisive - but worse, by preying upon these frustrations to rally support rather than offering solutions, more problems are created that make real long-term solutions more difficult to achieve. Not least amongst these, is that by limiting the free movement of workers, their power in the face of capital is further reduced.

However, Labour Party leader Mr Ed Miliband backed it when it was called Blue Labour and is now pushing it as One Nation, 'where patriotism, loyalty, dedication to the common cause courses through the veins'. Why would the Labour Party leader turn to such desperate and demonstrably dangerous options? Here is an excerpt from Mr Miliband's speech from the 2010 party conference:

"Every day out of power, ... another day when we cannot change our country for the better."

It is the same motivation that drove Governor Mitt Romney to pander to the most conservative elements of the Republican Party. All of this rhetoric serves as a means of putting together a voting base; seeking a majority on the back of what are perceived to be sufficiently large 'categories' of people. There is no idealism to it. No activism. Just a ferocious determination to win - by whatever means are effective or sufficient. And didn't that just work out well for the GOP?

Is it time for the GOP to start over?

Is it time for the Republican Party, the GOP, to clean house and start over?

If there is anything that the election of 2012 has taught us, it's that certain core Republican policies hold a great deal of bipartisan popular appeal. Low taxes, balanced budgets, limited government - all things that some Republicans have tried to argue need more attention (Frum, 2011). But these Republican values have found themselves buried by rising conservative extremism (Daily Kos, 2012).

This election could very easily have resulted in a Republican White House (Scheiber, 2012). However, policies and views pushed to pander to extreme parts of the party coincided with sudden drops in polling support for the Republican candidate - creating the unflattering perception of wealth favouritism and aggressive conservatism against women's rights.

First, Governor Romney's dismissal of a large portion of Americans as 47% that don't contribute (Gross, 2012) coincided with a poll slump that gave him an uphill battle right up until the election.

And, second, the GOP candidate faced a massive turnout of women who were galvanised to vote for President Obama (Telegraph, 2012) - as a result of derogatory, dangerous and conservative comments and attitudes towards the rights of women expressed by Republican congressmen (see below, Republican Party Attacks on Women).

That slump in support and that rallying of the opposition crippled a campaign that could have been otherwise successful. Not only was religion-based social conservatism rejected in the Presidential election, along with wealth-friendly conservative economics, but the Republican Presidential Primaries also rejected the far-right Tea Party position. The only salve for the Republicans has been the retention (with a slightly reduced grip) of the House of Representatives.

There is a lot of room in American politics for a moderate party of limited government. But it cannot ignore minorities and the poor, and it must recognise as in demand both cost-effective accessible healthcare and steadfast support from government in hard times. The argument cannot be for the ditching of welfare in favour of limited government, but rather for how to offer welfare with limited government.

The path to a modernised moderate Republican Party begins with the GOP moving to open up the America's two party system. Acting to remove the restrictions that prevent the Libertarian Party from involvement in the national presidential debates, and stop them getting onto presidential ballots, offers a route to a more moderate party at the same time as enhancing the democratic process for voters.

That enhanced democratic competition decreases the value of extremism, helping to counter the extremist elements within the GOP. Those elements - with deeply aggressive conservative stances on social issues - cost the Republicans the White House, where a moderate party of limited government would have enjoyed wide popular support. The failure to modernise and cast off the narrow hostile conservative extremism of this campaign (Boyarksky, 2012) will likely mean the GOP is dead in the water as a national party.

==========
References:
==========
+ David Frum's 'When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?'; in New York Magazine; 20 November 2011.

+ Daily Kos' 'Charlotte Observer: Extremism will be what costs Romney this election'; 4 November 2012.

+ Noam Scheiber's 'Romney Had a Chance to Beat Obama, and He Blew It'; in The New Republic; 7 November 2012.

+ Daniel Gross' 'Romney's "47 Percent" Comments Were  Bad Economic and Bad Politics'; on thedailybeast.com; 18 September 2012.

+ The Telegraph's 'US election: Here come the girls as women make historic gains'; 7 November 2012.

Republican Party Attacks on Women, a selection:
+ NY Times' 'The Campaign Against Women'; 19 May 2012.
+ NY Times' 'Republicans vs Women'; 29 July 2012.
+ Kia Makareshi's 'Mila Kunis Blasts Republicans' "Attack on Women" and "Offensive" Stance on Religion'; on the Huffington Post; 9 October 2012.

+ Bill Boyakrsky's 'How Could the Republicans Have Been So Stupid?'; on truthdig.com; 7 November 2012.

Between Chaos and Control

Misinformation is dangerous. As well as the obvious problem of acting on bad intelligence there is also the time and effort that is redirected to the dispelling of myths, panic and lies - time and effort that could be better applied.

As Hurricane Sandy made landfall in the United States - after causing large amounts of damage and taking at least 20 lives across the Caribbean from Jamaica to the Dominican Republic (Fox, 2012) - a Twitter user @ComfortablySmug, that has apparently turned out to be one Shashank Tripathi, spread rumours of power cuts being enacted across New York that were picked up by national news coverage (Kaczynski, 2012).

These kinds of mistruths are subject to some scrutiny in Max Brooks' fiction World War Z, where the lack of comprehension in the face of fear led to the Great Panic - where superstition and unbridled rumours caused as many or more deaths than the undead blight itself.

However, Voloshinov highlighted the dangers of allowing just the opposite: too much institutional control of truth (Voloshinov, 1973). Language, as the medium for debating evidence and there-in fact, is a dangerous thing to leave to the control of any central institution. Through such control comes the possibility of tyranny - even over ideas and the ability to offer critique.

The previews to Hideo Kojima's upcoming addition to the Metal Gear series, Ground Zeroes, seems likely to delve into some of these issues (Dawkins, 2012). It appears likely to tackle the ideological divide revealed in Guns of the Patriots to have been the driving force behind the events of the series. This divide - between Major Zero and Big Boss - was caused by the separate interpretations of their admired mentor's will; it billowed into full-blown ideological war between control and chaos.

There has to be a safe haven between the dangers foreseen by both Orwell and Huxley - the opposing dangers of the institutionalised control of truth, and the contextless, unverifiable, rumours and speculation. John Stuart Mill described this middle ground as requiring the active participation of both sides, both conservatism and liberalism, in order to see the whole picture (Mill, 1859):

'It is almost a commonplace that a party of order or stability and a party of progress or reform are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life, until the one or the other shall have so enlarged its mental grasp as to be a party equally of order and of progress, knowing and distinguishing what is fit to be preserved from what ought to be swept away. Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other; but it is in great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity.'

Yet checking sources, checking evidence and considering the logical likelihoods with a critical eye - all while being wary of personal subjectivities and dogmatisms - offer us a guard against mistruth. The fact that @ComfortablySmug's rumours made it onto national news coverage is a testament to the difficulty of the task; and a reminder that we sometimes fail (Beaujon, 2012). Those failures cannot be passed off onto social networks like Twitter, which aided in the carrying out of at least as much good as bad when Sandy made landfall (Pearce, 2012).

As always, our best safeguard remains personal vigilance.

==========
References:
==========
+ Everton Fox's 'Hurricane Sandy hits the Caribbean'; on Al Jazeera; 29 October 2012.

+ Andrew Kaczynski's 'How One Well-Connected Pseudonymous Twitter Spread Fake News About Hurricane Sandy'; on BuzzFeed Politics; 30 October 2012.

+ Max Brooks' 'World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War'; Duckworth, 2007.

+ Valentin Voloshinov's 'Marxism and the Philosophy of Language'; Harvard University Press, 1973.

+ Daniel Dawkins' 'Exposed: The secrets of Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes'; on CVG UK; 30 August 2012.

+ George Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'; Secker & Warburg; 1949.

+ Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World'; Chatto & Windus;1932.

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

+ Andrew Beaujon's 'Whose fault is it that "Comfortably Smug" lies about Hurricane Sandy spread'; on Poynter.org; 1 November 2012.

+ Matt Pearce's 'Twitter in the time of Sandy: A few lies, and then redemption'; in the LA Times; 5 November 2012.