Dubya's place in history? He's not bovvered

Still-here President Bush speaking to ABC News.

I'll be frank with you. I don't spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history. I guess I don't worry about long-term history, either, since I'm not going to be around to read it -- (laughter) -- but, look, in this job you just do what you can.

Hat-tip: Andrew Sullivan.

Coalition? Why not merger?

Sunder's thoughts on possible future Labour-Lib Dem coalitions prompts me to offer some not entirely tongue-in-cheek thoughts about another, long-term possibility: merger.

Of course, there are party tribalists in both parties who oppose this and they will make sure that it probably never happens. But as someone who has spent time in both parties, without any substantive change of views, I think its worth at least setting out the case for why a merger might, in the long-run, make a kind of sense.

Basically, it is hard to see what the big philosophical difference between Labour and the Lib Dems is. State socialism - a planned economy based on direct state control of economic activity - is, thankfully, no longer a Labour aspiration. Like the Liberals of old, Labour wishes to advance egalitarian objectives within the framework of a regulated market economy. Indeed, in some areas, such as 'asset-based welfare', Labour now does a much better job of advancing radical liberal economic ideas than the Lib Dems do.

On the other hand, notwithstanding the recent efforts of Clegg and co. to reposition the Lib Dems to the right on tax policy, the Lib Dems remain essentially a party of the centre-left on the economy. In short, both parties share a progressive vision on the economy which includes markets, an active state, and efforts to spread and democratise property ownership.

One might argue that there is a difference on civil liberties, and I think there is a difference in party cultures here (one which entirely favours the Lib Dems). But this difference can be overstated: the Labour government's often draconion stance on civil liberties is one that worries many Labour party members as much as it does Lib Dem members.

And, to the extent that there are differences in culture between the two parties, it is possible that merger could draw constructively on these differences. The greater Lib Dem sensitivity to civil liberties might infuse the merged party. At the same time, Labour's political culture could help infuse a merged party with a greater sensitivity to issues of class than the Lib Dems sometimes show.

So: why not merger?

Jackie Ashley gets it wrong

The usually insightful Jackie Ashley seems to me to get things completely wrong in her article in today's Guardian in which she takes Jacqui Smith to task for failing to stop the police interrogating Damian Green MP. Here is what Jackie Ashley says:

'[Jacqui Smith's] highest title is not, actually, home secretary. She is first a member of parliament. Her first duty is to the parliamentary democracy that sustains us all, and that means protecting the rights of elected members to do their democratic job.'

OK, so far, so good. But now consider the conclusion that Jackie Ashley goes on to draw:

'Smith should have found out what was being contemplated by the police and then intervened to stop it. Far from being 'Stalinist', that would have been the proportionate, liberal and sensible thing.'

Er, excuse me? If the police think there is evidence that an MP has broken the law, the Home Secretary should intervene to stop the police from investigating? What Jackie Ashley is suggesting is that one member of the political elite use her power to protect another member of the political elite from the equal application of the laws. This may not be 'Stalinist', but its hardly 'liberal'.

The fundamental problem is not that the police were heavy-handed, or that Jacqui Smith failed to stop them acting, but that the laws the police sought to apply are bad, undemocratic laws. The solution is not to stop the police enforcing the law, to the best of their judgment. The solution is to make better laws - laws that enable Parliamentarians to hold the government to account without wading into murky legal waters.

LibDem reshuffle leaks from on high

Nick Clegg is going to have a difficult time with several Parliamentary colleagues after thinking out loud about his next reshuffle with fellow MP and chief of staff Danny Alexander on a plane to Scotland within earshot of the Sunday Mirror.

Apart from the personal comments, his strong preference for David Laws over Steve Webb also reflects a desire to tilt the balance of party policy rightwards,

But more damaging still may be the LibDem leader's comment that he finds a Tory defeat unimaginable.

He even revealed he would consider a coalition but, while he didn’t say which party he’d side with, he added he would only consider it if Tory David Cameron loses the next election.

“I would think about it,” he admitted. “But only if the Tories lose. And I can’t imagine that.”

Coalition?

Steve Richards in The Independent argues that a hung Parliament has become more likely and suggests that the cross-party tectonic plates of British politics have shifted in the economic crisis:

"The emergency debate in the Commons highlighted a significant divide. Labour and the Liberal Democrats agree on the need for substantial government intervention at a time of national crisis. They disagree on what form the fiscal stimulus should take, with the Lib Dems favouring tax cuts for the low paid and bringing forward more capital investment. But both parties accept the principle that intervention is vital. This is also a view shared by a few Conservative MPs, the genuine modernisers. There are even one or two Tories who tell me they support the principle, at least, of tax rises for high earners – a view now backed to varying degrees by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

Cameron's position on Europe was always going to make it difficult for the Lib Dems to support a minority Conservative administration. The Tory leadership's response to the crisis blocks off the route almost entirely. When I put it to an influential Lib Dem that politically the Tory leadership was on a high again, and receiving rave reviews in parts of the media, he observed: "Cameron should be worried. The wrong people are cheering."

There are some echoes with wartime situations in the current crisis. No one knows how long it will last or how grave it will become. It could easily overwhelm the Government and propel Cameron into No 10 with a landslide. But if there is the equivalent to a war time coalition it is suddenly more likely that it will be a partnership between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Whether it would last for very long is a different question".

All very interesting. But I would judge that a coalition is very unlikely. In any hung parliament scenario, by far the most likely outcome is that Labour would leave office. The theory that the LibDems may have become uncoalitionable on left or right is strengthened by their choices after recent PR elections in Wales and Scotland. Cooperation is much easier from a position of strength rather than weakness, but the 1997 opportunity was missed.

So the economic crisis does not yet outweigh several, potentially formidable barriers on both sides to progressive cooperation. There is a mutual mistrust between MPs and activists in different parties; the failure to consummate the Blair-Ashdown project leaves the LibDems suspicious of being led up the garden path again, and there are important substantive policy differences on major issues, most notably civil liberties and electoral reform.

For all of those difficulties, serious voices on both sides do believe that there should at least be greater dialogue between the parties.

Unthinkable?

Afghan hopes for change

I would like to offer, however, the expectations of the war generation and of all ordinary Afghan people who are neither part of the failed ruling government, nor are they terrorists or Taliban, and I do hope that these unheard voices have a space to be heard.

writes Orzala Ashraf Nemat in an open letter to President-elect Barack Obama.

Women in Afghanistan, despite some claims to the contrary, are not liberated. Nor can an outside force liberate them. They are under-represented in the leadership and political decision-making processes; and moreover, the debates and discussions about negotiating with extremist groups such as Taliban and Hezb-e Islami are indeed endangering the status of women by limiting their access to education, jobs and political participation.

---

Conor Foley, who has circulated the letter, writes more about it on Liberal Conspiracy.

The low attention span of so many western commentators means that they want ‘instant’ solutions to every problem. Either we can ‘beat the Taliban on the battlefield’, as Nick Cohen predicted a year ago, or we must welcome them into the government, as Johan Hari now favours.

Why are these the only two options?

...

Orzala’s argument – which you can read for yourselves – is that while the Taliban cannot be beaten militarily, they can be isolated politically. She stresses the importance of supporting local, Afghan-led, peace initiatives and improving the social and economic conditions of ordinary Afghans. Strengthening the justice system, while recognising that 90 per cent of all cases get solved through customary law, improving access to education and supporting initiatives that raise the status of women are not distractions from the ‘real problem’ of tackling the Taliban, rather the re-emergence of the Taliban is a symptom of a wider failure of the intervention to improve the lives of ordinary Afghans.

LabourHome appeal

Alex Hilton of LabourHome is appealing for help with legal costs to defend a defamation action against an article on the website.