Kiron Reid

Why we need a British Bill of Rights.

I recently wrote to the Commission on a Bill of Rights in favour of creating a UK Bill of Rights. (11 November 2011). That paper (4 1/2 pages) is in the articles section of the website.

I am a sceptic about human rights language in this country. I find the language often misused, both by critics and by those wanting to get something out of it. The European Court of Justice judgment saying that Britain cannot deport asylum seekers to Greece (21 December) will not help as it simply leaves a political problem. At the same time many advocates use 'human rights' as the magic bullet argument to say that x that they believe in (development or an economic benefit for example) should be provided, which simply means they politically support it. Often I do too but I don't think the rights language helps. It would be nice if the tabloids ever reported the people (public servants, campaigners, volunteers) actually using human rights on the ground in a way that helps both the people doing their jobs and people being cared for, or dependent on public services. I only see those stories reported in the Guardian or the Independent.

I think Police and Crime Commissioners will have a lot less power than opponents suggest, and be a much smaller change than supporters argue. For both of these reasons the creation of these people who will supervise policing will have a lot lesser impact than both sides suggest. Opponents (Labour, some Lib Dems and Tories, many local councillors) and supporters (Tories) have greatly exaggerated. I have put my views in two posts on articles on the Lib Dem Voice website, here:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-why-do-liberals-and-greens-and-conservatives-fund-the-labour-party-25871.html

I didn't know about this and thanks to the website Liberal Democrat Voice for publishing my article on the topic.

I suspect that the vast majority of Liberal Democrats and ordinary people have absolutely no idea that their shopping and banking at the Co-operative funds the Co-operative Party and therefore Labour MPs. It is outrageous that big companies, plcs, have to get a vote approved at their AGM to make 'political donations' - and all stress that they do not fund political parties but fund political briefing work - but the 'ethical' Co-operative Group funds a political party - many reactionary right wing illiberal Labour MPs.

James Graham's article and the response from Simon McGrath about the failure of the AV campaign have been illuminating. I did actually wonder how a campaign with such experienced campaigners in it as James and others I know could be such poor quality and such an embarrassing failure. I was a very reluctant late convert to the AV cause. I had been impressed by the intellectual content of the Lib Dem conference launch with Art Malik and by the initial enthusiasm of the political and non-party activists. Grassroots activist stunts in Westminster, London, Manchester, Bristol all set the calls for reform off to a flying start. I was astounded that I couldn't even download a useable printable poster from the website (not a useable window bill, fine as A3 if low impact), nor did attempts to use clickable buttons for Facebook work. (I agree with Simon that celebrities on Twitter do not win elections but if one click would have helped a little I was happy to click). On a more fundamental level in terms of message, and the principle of the campaign I was both astounded and horrified that the No campaign explained the AV system more effectively in its literature than the Yes campaign did. The No campaign presumably did this quite deliberately as they thought it would put people off but it was still astounding they actually explained the system better than the team in favour of it. The worst failing showed either a lack of understanding of arguments for a fairer system or a complete lack of practical understanding about how voting systems work. Every explanation of STV that the ERS and used to produce included a simple and convincing explanation that any member of a trade union, a student union or of a charity like Amnesty or Liberty used a 1,2,3 voting system. Millions of voters use or have used the equivalent of AV. I couldn't understand why this core message was ignored. I disagree with Simon in that celebrity endorsements could help a lot, Billy Bragg is a leading reformer of our era, Eddie Izard and Dan Snow appealing for the comedy and thinking tv audience, but the failure to use mock elections that James mentions is beyond belief. It would have got media and young people and their families involved and has always helped the lesser known liberal cause in schools and among students. I learnt most about AV from the debate in the letters page of the Times, and was convinced by the pro-historian response to the Antis. It is a shame that all members of the public didn't get this level of informed debate.

I have written frequently about the denial culture over the recession - ordinary people and those on the left and many left liberals denying that anyone other than bankers played a part in the great crash. The rhetoric of the campaigners against cuts is riven with such unreality, and undermines the arguments of the Trades Unions, the 'voluntary' sector and others, even if one disagrees with the reckless pace of the Coalition Government's cuts. I see the lack of personal responsibility in the get rich quick claims industry culture all around me. I believe many people rushed into greedily borrowing without thought for their means or ability or intention to repay. My friend John Wallace while disagreeing with my attack on the financial policies of the Labour Government made this comment with which we both agreed: "It is the general public who are to blame for the reliance on credit in this country. ... Ultimately it is greed and impatience that has led to where we are now." I found a 1932 quote saying the same from John Buchan.

On tolerance, diversity and respect (2) - David Cameron, multiculturalism and immigration.

(Transcripts both courtesy of the New Statesman www.newstatesman.com at end).

David Cameron's Speech on radicalisation and Islamic extremism in Munich, 5 February 2011, was heralded or condemned as the UK Conservative Prime Minister attacking the failure of multiculturalism. The speech was, as I suspected, much more reasonable than it was presented. Much of it I agreed with - the Prime Minister is right (as were Labour politicians) to condemn intolerance and bigotry and extremism in the name of religion or some claim of 'culture'. He is right to condemn

On tolerance, diversity and respect (1) - the sad decline of Pakistan.

Nationalism is not born but made. Religious intolerance is not born but made. Racism is not born but made. As a nationalist in my youth I know that this is not innate and neither inherently good or bad, just as religious affiliation and extremism of any kind are not a natural part of character, conscience or being. Those who pedal fanaticism and creed or ideology based on hatred must answer to history for debasing the virtues of a rational human being.