Archbishop

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I see that huge numbers of jobs in the BBC are again to be cut. I know it is a bit of a cliche but I seriously wonder whether there will be very much of anything at all left soon. Living in this country now feels like being on a sink estate where all the yobs are constantly smashing everything to pieces.

I like your analogy, Lat.
Though I think of Gove and Cameron as bullying toffs rather than yobs.
(And Clegg as their victim.)

[french frank]

I don't see anything about forests here.

But they were still free to propose the legislation on the sell-off. Although I joined a campaigning group to petition against the the proposed legislation, I think it held sufficient safeguards (for the present) to preserve the forests as wildlife and public recreational areas. But the public has become very suspicious of any government trying to sell off what they consider to be 'their' land, and whatever safeguards were written in, it still seemed like a dangerous step.

As far as the Archbishop is concerned (I speak as an agnostic), I think he has every right to speak out against policies which he considers will harm the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. The Christian religion is every bit as much about protecting such people where it can as about matters spiritual, of faith and belief. This is his area of interest, even if others see this as 'meddling with politics'. It's not - it's showing Christian leadership. (It's just that questions of mandate and 'what people have voted for/against' are irrelevant.)

[aeolium]

What, exactly, is the evidence that a majority of the voters voted against the Tory NHS reforms? (Nobody knew what they were going to be - how could they have voted against them?)

People are angry about the effects of the policies that are being brought in - and have a right to be so. But that isn't the same as claiming the government 'has no mandate'. Governments don't - and never have - need(ed) a specific mandate for every nasty policy they bring in.

I think that's the wrong question. What is the evidence that anyone voted for any major NHS reform? As Richard Ingrams points out in his Indie column today, Cameron explicitly ruled out any major reorganisations of the NHS, while knowing that just such a reorganisation (described by the BMA as the biggest since the NHS was set up) was in fact being planned. That's just straightforward deception. He knew that if such a plan had been part of the Conservative manifesto it would have been made a major target by Labour and the Libdems, and would very probably have resulted in an even worse electoral outcome.

The mandate is relevant. Here is wiki: "New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said to not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies." And for good reason - it devalues democracy and increases the cynicism and contempt with which electors view politicians who do just that and indeed the whole electoral process.

[Pabmusic]

...I think he has every right to speak out against policies which he considers will harm the poorest and most vulnerable members of society...

Hi, everyone. An interesting discussion. I'd just like to point out that the Church of England is the Established church (unlike the rest) and therefore has a genuine role within the constitution. It has (rather limited) powers to make laws itself that are part of the law of the land, and 26 bishops still sit as part of the legislature (the Lords Spiritual) voting on general legislation. It's not surprising that the senior priest makes public comments sometimes about non-religious subjects, and it's difficult for any politician to argue that he is meddling in politics by doing so. I suppose he would say that he is constitutionally required to speak out on matters of collective conscience.

[vinteuil]

As far as the Archbishop is concerned (I speak as an agnostic), I think he has every right to speak out against policies which he considers will harm the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. The Christian religion is every bit as much about protecting such people where it can as about matters spiritual, of faith and belief. This is his area of interest, even if others see this as 'meddling with politics'. It's not - it's showing Christian leadership. (It's just that questions of mandate and 'what people have voted for/against' are irrelevant.)

Exactly - it surely is central to the rôle of an Archbishop that he 'speak truth to power' as the Quakers put it. Of course we can have detailed discussions as to whether what he says in this particular case is 'truth' - but here I think he is absolutely doing his job.

The older I get the more I think that the Constantinian settlement bringing the Church inside the Establishment was a Bad Idea. Christianity seems to me much better at doing what it should do when it is a voice against the status quo...

[french frank]

Here is wiki: "New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said to not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies." And for good reason - it devalues democracy and increases the cynicism and contempt with which electors view politicians who do just that and indeed the whole electoral process.

And here is Wikipedia on 'Representative democracy' of which the UK and Germany are the only two examples offered: "The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives not necessarily always according to their wishes [my bold], but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances."

[pilamenon]

I agree that the government's NHS reforms lack a mandate. Their careful election line was "safe in our hands" at a time when Lansley's radical shake-up was, if not properly thought out, at least clearly in the pipeline.

The NHS as an issue was badly handled by Labour at the election. Clearly they lost on economic mismanagement (exaggerated, but with some truth to it), the unpopularity of their leader and because the electorate wanted a change. But they would have done better (or less badly) in my view if they had made more of their achievements in health and, to a lesser degree, education. The improvement in the quality of treatment, and reduction in waiting times, were remarkably impressive under Labour, and I am still at a loss to know why they didn't trumpet this more.

I am glad the archbishop spoke out, and have always respected him. What Labour achieved is in danger of being lost or at least eroded, and I have little faith in the junior Miliband or Balls retrieving the situation for Labour.

[aeolium]

And here is Wikipedia on 'Representative democracy' of which the UK and Germany are the only two examples offered: "The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives not necessarily always according to their wishes [my bold], but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances."

That summary does not mention a key quality of the UK representative democracy, which is that - at least in respect of their principal areas of policy - the parties campaigning in an election are expected to publicise their intentions in a manifesto which is then used as a basis for people to decide how to vote. The House of Lords for instance makes a distinction between legislation which has been brought in with a mandate (i.e. by a party commanding a majority of the House of Commons and which had publicised its intention to bring in such legislation) and that which has been brought in without one - the latter is more likely to meet with sustained opposition and/or amendment in the Lords.

As for exercising 'swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances', how does that apply to the position of the Conservatives, whose leader explicitly ruled out major NHS reorganisation while it was being planned, or the Libdems, whose leader pledged to oppose a rise in tuition fees but performed a complete volte-face when there was a prospect of sharing power?

[french frank]

That summary does not mention a key quality of the UK representative democracy, which is that - at least in respect of their principal areas of policy - the parties campaigning in an election are expected to publicise their intentions in a manifesto which is then used as a basis for people to decide how to vote.

Why should it mention it? Like it or not, people vote for an individual in their own constituency and the resulting parliament - which itself bears scant resemblance to the popular vote because of the inappropriate electoral system - is then empowered to do what it sees fit. Why on earth should you regard the party that wins the most seats under FPTP as having a 'mandate' to do anything when it doesn't have a majority of the voters supporting it? Why suddenly this indignation against the coalition when the Labour Party which had even less of a 'mandate' broke its manifesto promises even when it had a parliamentary majority to carry them through?

As for exercising 'swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances', how does that apply to the position of the Conservatives, whose leader explicitly ruled out major NHS reorganisation while it was being planned, or the Libdems, whose leader pledged to oppose a rise in tuition fees but performed a complete volte-face when there was a prospect of sharing power?

Arguably a party that is re-elected might find it hard to justify immediate 'changing circumstances'. A party entering government and gaining information unavailable to them before the election could do so. On tuition fees, the situation clearly represented 'changing circumstances' for the LibDems since they were part of intense negotiations to formulate a new policy. People really won't take on board the fact that the LibDems were a minority party against tuition fee increases, while the two major parties intended to raise fees - which is why they wouldn't sign the NUS pledge. And two thirds of the electorate (once again, 'in their wisdom') voted Tory or Labour - they didn't vote for the LibDems who therefore had no sort of 'mandate' (if you will) to prevent a rise in fees. Even an idiot can see when he's outnumbered by three to one he ain't gonna get his way

[french frank]

What is the evidence that anyone voted for any major NHS reform? As Richard Ingrams points out in his Indie column today, Cameron explicitly ruled out any major reorganisations of the NHS, while knowing that just such a reorganisation (described by the BMA as the biggest since the NHS was set up) was in fact being planned. That's just straightforward deception.

I'm looking at the Conservative manifesto, 2010:

""We have a reform plan to make the changes the NHS needs. We will decentralise power, so that patients have a real choice. " (p 45)

"We will strengthen the power of GPs as patients’ expert guides through the health system by:

• giving them the power to hold patients’ budgets and commission care on their behalf" (p 46)

"Where possible we want to devolve control over health budgets to the lowest possible level, so people have more control over their health" (p 48)

This isn't a defence of the NHS reforms - merely suggesting that reform was part of the Tory manifesto.

[MrGongGong]

Why should it mention it? Like it or not, people vote for an individual in their own constituency

not wanting to resurrect an old argument
but
people vote for parties
the idea that politicians somehow "represent" the people of a given area is a nostalgic fantasy in all but a few notable (and honourable ) cases
what's the point in having a manifesto if you simply rip it up given a sniff of power ?
it would be like the archbishop saying in a sermon "glad you all came now we are really here to celebrate the great satan and all his works !"

[aeolium]

Why on earth should you regard the party that wins the most seats under FPTP as having a 'mandate' to do anything when it doesn't have a majority of the voters supporting it?

If a party wins a majority of all the seats in the parliament - not the 'most seats' (which was what the Conservatives won in 2010) - then arguably it has some kind of mandate, though not as great a mandate as a party which wins both a majority of the seats and has a majority of the vote. And why should I not be indignant about the coalition just because the Labour party has previously broken its manifesto promises - in that respect Labour was just as bad?

People really won't take on board the fact that the LibDems were a minority party against tuition fee increases, while the two major parties intended to raise fees - which is why they wouldn't sign the NUS pledge.

Damn right they won't take it on board. If it was the case that both the major parties were in favour of tuition fees then the Libdems could perfectly well have stuck to their principles by opposing the rise which would have been voted through by the other parties anyway. If you don't have electoral support for a policy, it does not prevent you from sticking to that policy - it just should not give you the right to implement it.

Surely if there is any point in coalitions, and in electoral systems that produce coalitions, it is that they should result in policies which as far as possible command some kind of consensus. That does not seem to be happening with this coalition.

[Anna]

Exactly - it surely is central to the rôle of an Archbishop that he 'speak truth to power' as the Quakers put it. Of course we can have detailed discussions as to whether what he says in this particular case is 'truth' - but here I think he is absolutely doing his job.

The older I get the more I think that the Constantinian settlement bringing the Church inside the Establishment was a Bad Idea. Christianity seems to me much better at doing what it should do when it is a voice against the status quo...

Totally agree. And, I for one, would like to see more militant Clergy. Why should they be expected to remain silent just because of protocol or whatever. Bring on more of "Who will rid me of this turbulent Priest", let the Arch Bish be a thorn in the side of this Government and prick their consciences. Certainly the LibDems have rolled over and given up the ghost it seems.

[StephenO]

The older I get the more I think that the Constantinian settlement bringing the Church inside the Establishment was a Bad Idea. Christianity seems to me much better at doing what it should do when it is a voice against the status quo...

Jesus Christ certainly had few qualms about upsetting the Establishment.

Perhaps Nick Clegg could step down in favour of the Archbishop.

[french frank]

If a party wins a majority of all the seats in the parliament - not the 'most seats' (which was what the Conservatives won in 2010) - then arguably it has some kind of mandate, though not as great a mandate as a party which wins both a majority of the seats and has a majority of the vote.

And when did any government last have a majority of the vote? Seats are based on arbitrary boundaries forming constituencies which don't have an equal number of voters and with the seat possibly being won by a candidate who has gained less than 30% of the vote, under a voting system fit only for a two-party system. If this ends up giving any party a 'mandate' in anything other than a technical sense, I can't see it.

You can say that that's the rules as they are, and the rules as they are also don't require a party to have a mandate of any sort for their legislation. Like it or not, that's the constitutional situation.

Changing circumstances and tuition fees: when the candidates signed the NUS petition, they did it blind, have no knowledge that the two major parties would boycott it;

there was a Labour government, led by Gordon Brown;

it was pre-Browne;

after the election Labour were out and the Tories were the largest party;

the LibDem policy on tuition fees was an even more distant dream;

it was post-Browne;

the LibDems in coalition were able to influence an alternative policy (which was then considered good enough for only a minority to vote against it).

Do these not represent 'changed circumstances'?

If it was the case that both the major parties were in favour of tuition fees then the Libdems could perfectly well have stuck to their principles by opposing the rise which would have been voted through by the other parties anyway. If you don't have electoral support for a policy, it does not prevent you from sticking to that policy - it just should not give you the right to implement it.

What version of the Tory policy do you think the other parties would have 'voted through', post Browne - a better one than the coalition deal or a worse one?

Surely if there is any point in coalitions, and in electoral systems that produce coalitions, it is that they should result in policies which as far as possible command some kind of consensus. That does not seem to be happening with this coalition.

Two parties, two manifestos, differing policies on major areas of legislation: what is consensus other than compromise?