Yesterday Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon David Miliband urged his party to ‘Stop feeling sorry for itself” and change in a letter to the Guardian newspaper. This came within hours of the Leader of the House, the Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP’s denial of starting a leadership bid and several Labour MP publically calling for a change of leadership.
Miliband started his letter reflecting on the aftermath of Labour’s third successive defeat at the 1959 election and a pamphlet produced shortly after entitled “Must Labour lose?”. According to Mr Miliband “Today, the temptation is similar fatalism”. He accepts that the odds are stacked against a Labour victory at the next general election, and suggests that the party can turn things around to beat the electoral odds and win a 4th term, by offering real change.
“New Labour won three elections by offering real change – not just in policy but in the way we do politics. We must do so again.”
In his letter to the Guardian, David Miliband addresses the problems the government is now facing and calls for change. ‘Change’ is a keyword in Mr Miliband’s letter just as it is Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. However, David Miliband MP is not running for office and insists his letter was written to unite his party rather than for personal gain. Despite his claims there is still much speculation around the intentions of Mr Miliband’s letter. Is this Miliband’s own personal vision for Labour’s future and the start of his leadership bid?
David Miliband viewed as a potential forerunner to succeed Gordon Brown if he resigns, urged Labour to be more humble about their failings but more compelling about their achievements. He mentioned a series of Labour’s shortcomings, things he believes the government should have done in hindsight – such as reforming the NHS sooner and making more efficient plans on winning peace in Iraq. However, could this be interpreted as his own personal manifesto? Is he agenda setting for his own Premiership?
Regardless of his agenda, I believe Mr Miliband has raised some very good points. The Foreign Secretary concludes his letter, “So let’s stop feeling sorry for ourselves, enjoy a break and then find the confidence to make our case afresh”. We’ll have to wait until the autumn to see if his advice is taken on board.
By Danielle Thomas
Thursday 31 July 2008
Collapse of Doha – too many differences?
Yesterday in Geneva, the Doha Round of trade talks came to an abrupt halt and collapsed after being launched seven years ago. After what has been described to have been nine days of very tough and tense negotiations, an agreement was just not able to be reached.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) called these trade negotiations the ‘Doha’ Round back in 2001, because they were launched in Doha, Qatar. The main objective of these talks was to liberalise global trade in order to make importing and exporting simpler and less expensive, especially for developing countries. A lot of enthusiasm and hope was placed on these multilateral trade talks and the potential of globalization, with the elimination of trade barriers and tariffs seen as something that could benefit both rich and poor. But the breakdown down of talks yesterday was partly due to the inability of developed and developing countries to reach a compromise on opening up their domestic markets to more competition.
The negotiations have taken place between the 35 country members of the WTO, with meetings taking the place around the world, with what seems to be a recurring theme – the pushing back of deadlines. The original deadline was actually set for January 2005. The Doha trade talks have actually collapsed three times over the last seven years, so perhaps the failure of the latest talks in Geneva yesterday comes as no surprise.
Analysts are saying that this time round, negotiations broke down essentially because India, China and the US failed to agree over measures to protect poor farmers. Although there is some blaming that is occurring at the moment, with China pointing the finger at the US and the EU for unwilling to eliminate the large subsidies they pay their farmers, a lot of Ministers are very disappointed by the outcome, and are united in their willingness not to give up yet. For example, India’s envoy to the talks, Ujal Singh Bhatia, said “bottom line is we can’t give up.”
So what does this mean for multilateralism? In an interview with the BBC yesterday, Peter Mandelson, the EU trade Commissioner, dismissed the claim that some are now making that multilateralism is dead. What seems clear is that these difficult global economic conditions we are living under, with petrol and food prices soaring, are making it increasingly challenging for countries to agree on matters of trade. There is still a possibility that talks may resume at later date, but whether or not more time is what these negotiations need to succeed, seems unlikely.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) called these trade negotiations the ‘Doha’ Round back in 2001, because they were launched in Doha, Qatar. The main objective of these talks was to liberalise global trade in order to make importing and exporting simpler and less expensive, especially for developing countries. A lot of enthusiasm and hope was placed on these multilateral trade talks and the potential of globalization, with the elimination of trade barriers and tariffs seen as something that could benefit both rich and poor. But the breakdown down of talks yesterday was partly due to the inability of developed and developing countries to reach a compromise on opening up their domestic markets to more competition.
The negotiations have taken place between the 35 country members of the WTO, with meetings taking the place around the world, with what seems to be a recurring theme – the pushing back of deadlines. The original deadline was actually set for January 2005. The Doha trade talks have actually collapsed three times over the last seven years, so perhaps the failure of the latest talks in Geneva yesterday comes as no surprise.
Analysts are saying that this time round, negotiations broke down essentially because India, China and the US failed to agree over measures to protect poor farmers. Although there is some blaming that is occurring at the moment, with China pointing the finger at the US and the EU for unwilling to eliminate the large subsidies they pay their farmers, a lot of Ministers are very disappointed by the outcome, and are united in their willingness not to give up yet. For example, India’s envoy to the talks, Ujal Singh Bhatia, said “bottom line is we can’t give up.”
So what does this mean for multilateralism? In an interview with the BBC yesterday, Peter Mandelson, the EU trade Commissioner, dismissed the claim that some are now making that multilateralism is dead. What seems clear is that these difficult global economic conditions we are living under, with petrol and food prices soaring, are making it increasingly challenging for countries to agree on matters of trade. There is still a possibility that talks may resume at later date, but whether or not more time is what these negotiations need to succeed, seems unlikely.
Thursday 24 July 2008
E-petitions: giving people a voice
Just a day before MPs got ready to enjoy their long summer break, with Parliament now in recess until 6 October, an interesting new announcement came out of the Commons. On Tuesday, 22 July, the Government called on the House to adopt an e-petition system that would allow the public to petition MPs through the internet. Parliamentarians will have to make a decision about this when they return in the fall.
The Rt Hon Harriet Harman, Leader of the House, made the announcement that the Government was behind the recommendations put forward by the Commons Procedure Committee, to create an e-petitions website and office. Hopeful of widening the scope of debate in Parliament, Harman has introduced other initiatives in her efforts to get Parliament more connected and engaged with the public. Last year, she introduced weekly topical debates in the Commons and would like to see this idea continued.
The Prime Minister’s Office already has an e-petitions system in place. Since it was launched back in 2006, more than 29,000 e-petitions have been received at Downing Street, resulting in over 5.8 million signatures. Last February, one million drivers signed a petition against road-charging, becoming the most popular petition on the Downing Street’s website. Despite the fact that the former Transport Secretary, Douglas Alexander, said that he would listen to motorists concern, he said that road-charging was inevitable. This of course raises some doubts about what impact e-petitions actually have.
However, being the optimist that I am, I think that giving people the opportunity to voice their opinion in this way is a great idea and one that would strengthen people’s confidence in our democratic system. Improving public access and engagement with Parliament is certainly a worthy pursuit when people often feel far removed and disengaged from Governmental procedures and processes. I hope that MPs will return from their summer holidays refreshed and reinvigorated, but most importantly, ready to support this new plan.
The Rt Hon Harriet Harman, Leader of the House, made the announcement that the Government was behind the recommendations put forward by the Commons Procedure Committee, to create an e-petitions website and office. Hopeful of widening the scope of debate in Parliament, Harman has introduced other initiatives in her efforts to get Parliament more connected and engaged with the public. Last year, she introduced weekly topical debates in the Commons and would like to see this idea continued.
The Prime Minister’s Office already has an e-petitions system in place. Since it was launched back in 2006, more than 29,000 e-petitions have been received at Downing Street, resulting in over 5.8 million signatures. Last February, one million drivers signed a petition against road-charging, becoming the most popular petition on the Downing Street’s website. Despite the fact that the former Transport Secretary, Douglas Alexander, said that he would listen to motorists concern, he said that road-charging was inevitable. This of course raises some doubts about what impact e-petitions actually have.
However, being the optimist that I am, I think that giving people the opportunity to voice their opinion in this way is a great idea and one that would strengthen people’s confidence in our democratic system. Improving public access and engagement with Parliament is certainly a worthy pursuit when people often feel far removed and disengaged from Governmental procedures and processes. I hope that MPs will return from their summer holidays refreshed and reinvigorated, but most importantly, ready to support this new plan.
Friday 18 July 2008
Looking beyond the cost of the Games
Yesterday I went to Parliament and attended the Commons cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee hearing. It was an oral evidence session on the Department’s Annual Report 2008 and responsibilities of the Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP. In front of the Committee’s panel members, including Janet Anderson MP, Alan Keen MP and Chairman John Whittingdale MP, Mr. Burnham had to account for his Department’s actions and achievements.
It was an interesting session overall that covered a wide range of issues. Mr. Burnham answered questions about tourism, ticket touting, the music industry and gambling. And not surprisingly, one of the main issues raised was the London 2012 Olympics. When asked what he thought about the negative press surrounding the British Games, Mr. Burnham answered, ‘Some people are unduly and unnecessarily whingeing about the whole thing’. To be fair, he was not implying that the Government should not be exempt from scrutiny, but rather felt there had been too much energy focused on a single issue: the price tag of the Games.
The Secretary of State talked about the sense of excitement he hopes will be instilled in the country when the Olympic flame is passed onto London Mayor Boris Johnson at the closing ceremony of the Beijing Games. He explained how hosting the Olympics was a tremendous and unique opportunity to breathe new energy into promoting sport, culture and tourism in the UK.
Of course the cost of the Games needs to be controlled and well-managed. But it is shame that so much negativity has already been shed on London 2012. Just now, I did a quick Google news search for ‘London 2012’ and the majority of articles that came up were not very inspiring to say the least. Hosting the Olympics is an opportunity that doesn’t come along every day, and I hope as Mr. Burnham said that the ‘country can become united around sport’. This world-class event can change the way young people view sport and physical activity in general. Now that would be a legacy to be proud of!
It was an interesting session overall that covered a wide range of issues. Mr. Burnham answered questions about tourism, ticket touting, the music industry and gambling. And not surprisingly, one of the main issues raised was the London 2012 Olympics. When asked what he thought about the negative press surrounding the British Games, Mr. Burnham answered, ‘Some people are unduly and unnecessarily whingeing about the whole thing’. To be fair, he was not implying that the Government should not be exempt from scrutiny, but rather felt there had been too much energy focused on a single issue: the price tag of the Games.
The Secretary of State talked about the sense of excitement he hopes will be instilled in the country when the Olympic flame is passed onto London Mayor Boris Johnson at the closing ceremony of the Beijing Games. He explained how hosting the Olympics was a tremendous and unique opportunity to breathe new energy into promoting sport, culture and tourism in the UK.
Of course the cost of the Games needs to be controlled and well-managed. But it is shame that so much negativity has already been shed on London 2012. Just now, I did a quick Google news search for ‘London 2012’ and the majority of articles that came up were not very inspiring to say the least. Hosting the Olympics is an opportunity that doesn’t come along every day, and I hope as Mr. Burnham said that the ‘country can become united around sport’. This world-class event can change the way young people view sport and physical activity in general. Now that would be a legacy to be proud of!
Happy Birthday NHS
You may have heard that it was the 60th Anniversary of the NHS on July 5th. This event has set the think tanks into overdrive. For example, the Fabian Society, a leading Labour think tank, has suggested turning this day into another public holiday to celebrate Britishness. Now I have to say that sounds like a great idea to me, see here for more detail
Another think tank, Reform, polled 201 GPs on their thoughts about NHS funding and regulation (see here for full report). The poll showed that there is little enthusiasm among GPs for the US style of health care, where patients choose whether or not to have health insurance. However, the majority of GPs polled thought that patients should be allowed to pay for additional treatment, without needing to pay for all their treatment.
GPs appear to be disillusioned with the profession. 60% of GPs said that their overall level of satisfaction working in the NHS was either low or very low, and more than 70% said that their satisfaction level had decreased since qualification. Only 5% of GPs think that the current structure of regulation helps them in making decisions in the best interests of patients.
So, as always with the NHS, even at the age of 60, there is still clearly more that needs to be done. But we will wait eagerly to see what happens following Lord Darzi’s review.
Another think tank, Reform, polled 201 GPs on their thoughts about NHS funding and regulation (see here for full report). The poll showed that there is little enthusiasm among GPs for the US style of health care, where patients choose whether or not to have health insurance. However, the majority of GPs polled thought that patients should be allowed to pay for additional treatment, without needing to pay for all their treatment.
GPs appear to be disillusioned with the profession. 60% of GPs said that their overall level of satisfaction working in the NHS was either low or very low, and more than 70% said that their satisfaction level had decreased since qualification. Only 5% of GPs think that the current structure of regulation helps them in making decisions in the best interests of patients.
So, as always with the NHS, even at the age of 60, there is still clearly more that needs to be done. But we will wait eagerly to see what happens following Lord Darzi’s review.
Friday 11 July 2008
David Davis - Principles or political planning?
I for one am struggling to see the point of David Davis recent resignation and re-election circus. Surely there are other ways to take a stand? But lets have a look at the facts first, and maybe we can then see what is going on in his head! (see here for more details)
Davis resigned last month after Government proposals for detaining terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge were approved by the Commons, and announced he would seek re-election on the issue of civil liberties. On the evening of the 10th July, the former Shadow Home Secretary was returned to Parliament as MP for Haltemprice and Howden with a majority of 15,355. Davis says that expanding the DNA database will be his next battle.
Turnout in the by election was down to just over 34 per cent in yesterday's poll, compared to 70.2 per cent in the 2005 general election, allowing some of Mr Davis's opponents to claim that his resignation and re-election was farsical. Neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats stood in the by election.
According to one estimate, the by-election process has cost taxpayers more than £200,000. Davis has dismissed criticism over the cost of this forced by-election, saying that he has taken a stand on principle. Davis himself admits his decision to resign has very likely cost his place in cabinet and any place in future cabinet as a result, but still considers the move worthwhile.
So what is the actual reason behind all this? To my mind there are two possibilities. Either it is really a matter of principle, and he views potential political suicide as a reasonable price to pay to bring the matter to the public’s attention. Or it may all be a very sly political move, staking his claim for future political changes. Only time will tell.
Davis resigned last month after Government proposals for detaining terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge were approved by the Commons, and announced he would seek re-election on the issue of civil liberties. On the evening of the 10th July, the former Shadow Home Secretary was returned to Parliament as MP for Haltemprice and Howden with a majority of 15,355. Davis says that expanding the DNA database will be his next battle.
Turnout in the by election was down to just over 34 per cent in yesterday's poll, compared to 70.2 per cent in the 2005 general election, allowing some of Mr Davis's opponents to claim that his resignation and re-election was farsical. Neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats stood in the by election.
According to one estimate, the by-election process has cost taxpayers more than £200,000. Davis has dismissed criticism over the cost of this forced by-election, saying that he has taken a stand on principle. Davis himself admits his decision to resign has very likely cost his place in cabinet and any place in future cabinet as a result, but still considers the move worthwhile.
So what is the actual reason behind all this? To my mind there are two possibilities. Either it is really a matter of principle, and he views potential political suicide as a reasonable price to pay to bring the matter to the public’s attention. Or it may all be a very sly political move, staking his claim for future political changes. Only time will tell.
Thursday 10 July 2008
Off-target?
Environmentalists see the G8 Summit’s pledge to fight climate change by cutting carbon emissions by at least 50% by 2050 as ‘meaningless’ without any targets. Without any numerical or medium term targets for 2020, environmental campaigners see this declaration as lacking concrete and serious commitment on behalf of the Group of Eight leaders. Greenpeace described the meeting as a “real diversion from real action on climate change”.
The G8 nations - The United States, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia – ended their three day summit yesterday, in the Japanese resort of Lake Toya, Japan. Besides the usual protests that normally arise at meetings that bring together the richest nations of the world, several problems arose along the way.
First, despite the fact that the Japanese Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda, hoped that this year’s Summit main agenda and focus would be an environmental one, two pressing global issues were difficult to ignore. The worrying rising price of fuel and rising cost of food have become key issues on all countries’ agendas.
The other main challenge of the Summit was reaching a consensus on what each country should be doing to help minimize the effect of climate change. Whose responsibility is it - everyone’s or just developed countries? The Americans want to see carbon emission reductions from developing countries such as China and India first, before signing up for any drastic cuts. While the Europeans, on the other hand, believe that developed nations need to be the first to commit to signing specific reduction targets.
It is clear then that the outcome the G8 Summit in Japan differs depending on who you are speaking with. The White House’s statement yesterday which applauded this year’s Summit for having achieved a major step forward for the environment is a far cry from environmental groups’ reaction. The biggest divide remains between developed and developing countries, who are still struggling to agree on a uniform target and objective date. Developing countries took part in a meeting of 16 major economies held on the fringes of the G8’s three-day summit in Hokkaido, which revealed that not all countries are ready to sign on to the 2050 goal, including China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa.
I believe that developed countries need to set a precedent and lead the way in environmental action as they have the resources and technology at their disposal. The Kyoto Protocol will start to expire in 2012, and I hope that the momentum with be there in December 2009 when a new climate change accord is set to be written in Copenhagen, Denmark. Leadership is desperately needed and I think that the G8 should demonstrate how climate change can be tackled.
The G8 nations - The United States, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia – ended their three day summit yesterday, in the Japanese resort of Lake Toya, Japan. Besides the usual protests that normally arise at meetings that bring together the richest nations of the world, several problems arose along the way.
First, despite the fact that the Japanese Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda, hoped that this year’s Summit main agenda and focus would be an environmental one, two pressing global issues were difficult to ignore. The worrying rising price of fuel and rising cost of food have become key issues on all countries’ agendas.
The other main challenge of the Summit was reaching a consensus on what each country should be doing to help minimize the effect of climate change. Whose responsibility is it - everyone’s or just developed countries? The Americans want to see carbon emission reductions from developing countries such as China and India first, before signing up for any drastic cuts. While the Europeans, on the other hand, believe that developed nations need to be the first to commit to signing specific reduction targets.
It is clear then that the outcome the G8 Summit in Japan differs depending on who you are speaking with. The White House’s statement yesterday which applauded this year’s Summit for having achieved a major step forward for the environment is a far cry from environmental groups’ reaction. The biggest divide remains between developed and developing countries, who are still struggling to agree on a uniform target and objective date. Developing countries took part in a meeting of 16 major economies held on the fringes of the G8’s three-day summit in Hokkaido, which revealed that not all countries are ready to sign on to the 2050 goal, including China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa.
I believe that developed countries need to set a precedent and lead the way in environmental action as they have the resources and technology at their disposal. The Kyoto Protocol will start to expire in 2012, and I hope that the momentum with be there in December 2009 when a new climate change accord is set to be written in Copenhagen, Denmark. Leadership is desperately needed and I think that the G8 should demonstrate how climate change can be tackled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)