The banality of evil ....

What’s the point of studying history? Well, for a start, there are some really great stories – giving substance to the claim that truth is stranger than fiction. But surely the main reason we study history is to guide our futures. What worked well in the past that is worth repeating? What didn’t go so well that we should avoid? All neatly summed up in Santayana’s pithy dictum “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.”

One of the great fallacies in history, and one that denies us the opportunity to learn, is that the greatest atrocities were acts committed by the ‘wicked’ or ‘mad’ man – the idea that he did what he did because he was ‘evil’. And no more needs to be said in explanation.

Most obviously this is often repeated when we look at the Nazis and the actions not only of their leaders, those who were responsible for designing the polices (lebensraum and the final solution, among others) that led directly to the deaths of millions, but of those ‘ordinary’ Germans who implemented with enthusiasm a plan that would inevitably lead to those deaths, the attempted eradication of entire races. It may be argued that many Germans were shocked to discover, when war ended and they were presented with the terrible truth, what their leaders had done in their names. Well, it’s a moot point. But the policies could not have been enacted without the complicity of many of their fellow citizens.

And it is here that we often get lazy and we opt for the simple answer: Hitler was plain ‘mad’ and/or ‘evil’. As were his immediate entourage. And his high command. And his troops. And the many civilian functionaries who worked within the military-industrial complex that was the final solution …

While there is obvious illogicality to ascribing simultaneous madness/evil to an entire population, or substantial parts thereof, we are also thereby betraying the whole reason we study history. To learn the lessons so that the mistakes of the past should not be repeated. When we ascribe atrocities to the actions of a mad man, we are abrogating any responsibility to learn the truth. It is all too easy – and does nothing to further our understanding. Perhaps it made contemporary Germans feel better – that was not us, that was the action of a madman and his crazed gang. Perhaps it makes us later generations feel better – that could not be us, for we could never be led down that path by those who are palpably unfit to rule.

The great German political thinker Hannah Arendt spoke of the ‘banality of evil’ when she covered the trial of Adolph Eichmann – a man not responsible for devising the final solution but an integral part of its implementation. She observed him first-hand and concluded that he was an ordinary, rather bland, bureaucrat – ‘neither perverted nor sadistic’ but ‘terrifyingly normal’. He was, she noted, disengaged from the reality of his acts – a man who was shallow and clueless, someone in search of a purpose and direction – and finding that he could prove his worth by carrying out the commands of his superiors without demur and with ruthless efficiency.

Arendt was much criticised for her description – as it appeared to some to ‘normalise’ the atrocities and deny their evil. It was doing no such thing. Instead she was highlighting the important truth of this period of history, that ordinary people could be moved to do evil acts, especially if those acts became routine and served what they had become used to regarding as a greater good (Goebbels ‘If you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it).

It is an important lesion of history – that context is all, and that ordinary people are capable of extraordinary acts – sometimes for the good and sometimes with the most terrible outcomes.

Only electoral reform can save our politics ...

As we move into the second decade of the 21^st century, it is barely conceivable that the UK persists with an electoral system that has long since ceased to be fit for purpose. Alone among the major developed nations on the globe, we operate a winner-takes-all model that has consistently failed to deliver good government and has led to the dangerous disengagement of the voting public (which, ironically, has made change even less likely, leading to greater disengagement etc etc …).

The arguments about the unfairness of first past the post (FPTP) are well rehearsed.

An electoral system is meant to represent the intentions of the voting public and to deliver a legislature and executive that reflects the diverse opinions that one expects to find in an advance liberal democracy. FPTP clearly does not do this. It is possible – and is indeed commonplace – for a party to achieve a minority of the popular vote but a majority of the seats. Referencing the majority thereby obtained, the winning party is able to claim a mandate where one has not been delivered by the public vote.

What if a proportional system allows smaller parties whose views we may find repellent a seat at the table? Surely that is what representative democracy demands and a mature liberal democracy should be able to cope with those minority dissenting voices, rather than hiding behind a distorting electoral system that allows those parties to claim the moral high ground.

FPTP leads to distorted geographical representation, since party support is commonly correlated with geography. So, for example, and putting the matter at its most simplistic, Labour voters in rural areas and Conservative voters in urban areas are likely to feel unrepresented in parliament.

Indeed, an extension of this is the fact that in the UK it is estimated that at least half the seats in each election are safe seats – ie they are seats that never change hands. This may well lead to the parties that hold such seats becoming complacent – whether or not they continue to hold the seat has very little to do with how well they have represented their constituents.

And it means too that voters in those seats who do not support the ‘ruling party’ come to believe that theirs is a wasted vote. They will never get the chance to influence which party forms the next government (most elections are decided in just a handful of seats – and parties’ electoral efforts are very much focussed on those few areas). Again, in terms of public engagement with the political process, the effect has been hugely negative.

With electoral outcomes concentrated in so few areas, and depending on so few voters, it has made the manipulation of that outcome far too easy for those with the intent and resources to do so.

But the most important reason why FPTP is so damaging to our politics is that is massively distorts the make-up of our political parties and leads to a profoundly dishonest relationship between the major political parties and the electorate they are meant to represent. Let me explain.

Each time we enter a general election in the UK, it is an almost absolute certainty that only one of two parties is going to form the next government. Under FPTP with its inbuilt biases and winner-take-all nature, that is as near to a guarantee as is possible. Every 100 years or so, there is some realignment in our politics that leads to one of the Big Two being replaced. So, unless you are one of the Big Two, then you start off as an also-ran – with no hope of forming the next government.

So, it pays dividends to be a part of one of the Big Two – and a lot of dedication to stand aside and support one of the “smaller” parties. If you are not in the Big Two, then you are not going to be in government – however good your ideas, however hard you work, however dedicated your campaign teams. It just isn’t going to happen. You need to join one of the major parties.

And what this has led to is our two main parties becoming unnatural coalitions – of diverse and contrary interest groups that have no business belonging to the same party. How did Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Blair end up in the same party? Kenneth Clarke and Mark Francois? They are marriages of convenience – though the convenience is entirely that of the ruling parties and not the people they are meant to represent. Come together and you have a chance of taking power, and if you take power, you have a chance to make the changes that you believe are important. But that means sharing your bed with some very strange bedfellows.

A lot of the time, this may be workable. You will agree with your colleagues on some issues, and not on others. At times you may have to hold your nose, but in general it is a price you believe is worth paying. But in any case you have to present a united front to the electorate where one very often does not exist - particularly when it comes to the issues that most profoundly affect the country.

This was brought into sharp relief during the Brexit debate. On issues of such profound importance, it would be natural to assume that parties formed by a coherent political philosophy would be able to unite behind a common position. But both Labour and Conservatives were divided right down the middle – a not unexpected outcome given that parties exist in their current form only to win elections, not united by common values. The two-party system allows for no “Big Ideas” –such a diverse range of politicians cannot possibly unite behind a single unifying idea. And so we have uninspired and uninspiring government. Government for government’s sake.

The fact that the Big Two are unnatural coalitions leads to a profoundly dishonest relationship with the electorate. You have only the choice to vote Labour or Conservative. You are not give the option in your constituency of voting for a Corbyn-flavoured Labour rather than the Blair-flavoured option, or for a One Nation Tory rather than the ERG wing of the party. You can vote Labour or Conservative if you wish to affect the outcome of the election – but you have very little idea with what you will end up, even if your party wins the election. Manifestos are becoming increasingly irrelevant and, post-election, everything is up for grabs. Most of those who voted Tory because they believed in Theresa May (ok, a bad example …) had no say in her replacement a year later with a politician of a very different hue, who was selected by his party members.

We are often told that FTTP delivers us stable government – and frees us of the dreaded coalitions that our continental neighbours have had to endure.  And yet in the last five years (with its three elections), and indeed for much longer, we have been landed with profoundly divided governments that have been unable to govern. And voters have been forced to choose between a dishonest coalitions of one of the Big Two rather than to vote as their conscience allows.

Propositional representation would engage voters once again. Instead of elections being decided by a handful of voters in a handful of seats, every vote would matter. Voters would be able to vote for parties that had been honest with them about what they stood for, safe in the knowledge that they no longer had to obfuscate and form unnatural alliances with those whose values they did not share. And politicians would be forced to engage in a different kind of politics, with the nation’s wishes being truly represented in the national parliament.

Politics would become honest once again and elections would reflect the national mood. What’s not to like?

Lessons to be learned ....

I hope the polls are wrong and that a majority Tory government is not delivered this Thursday. But if it is, the opposition have some difficult lessons to learn from what has been another woeful campaign:

1)      The election was unnecessary – at least in its timing. Johnson knew he could not secure 50% required for his Brexit deal in HOC or in a new referendum. He calculated however that he could achieve a majority (and claim a Brexit mandate) at a GE with no more than 35% support. Under Fixed Term Act the opposition did not have to agree to an election. They were suckered by the chance of power – but could have achieved far more (in terms of Brexit) in keeping parliament in session.

2)      This should have been an eminently winnable election for Labour. The Tories have been in power for nine years, and even if they had been the most benign of governments, the electorate gets bored after such a period and wants change. This is one of the most unpopular governments on record – and yet still it is likely to win a majority.

3)      The influence of Farage and Brexit party has been greatly exaggerated. Johnson correctly calculated that any pact with the party would be toxic. The only way to nullify their impact (an expected 15+% poll) and to win outright without relying on them was to move to the right and occupy their ground. He has succeeded in doing so – and thereby mopped up a critical 10-15% that would have voted for the BP.

4)      The influence of the LibDems has been greatly exaggerated too. It was a disastrous decision to stand on a Revoke platform. Leavers were guaranteed not to support it (they would not have done in any case), but the position alienated a significant number of Remainers who found the move profoundly anti-democratic and without moral justification. Most importantly, it meant LDs could not be a safe haven for Tory Remainers who could never vote Labour. They will at best stay at home and, at worse, vote tribally for Johnson (to keep Corbyn out). Swinson has proved a massive disappointment as leader – lacklustre and unable to throw off her coalition baggage.

5)      While Labour has produced a truly radical and transformative manifesto, they completely underestimated the extent to which this election would be decided on a single issue. Tories have had one very simple message (Get Brexit Done): easy to understand even if it has no factual basis. Labour has tried to face all ways on Brexit and has ended up alienating its traditional (Leave supporting) base and failing to offer a home to those who would normally not vote Labour but do not want to vote for Johnson. Its apparent prevarication for three years has led some voters to lose faith that they can be trusted. Their election position – negotiate a new deal but then not campaign to support it in a referendum – was an easy target for the Tories.

6)      Having vanquished the Brexit Party, the Tories have presented a united front with a very clear message, which they’ve hammered home at every opportunity. The refusal of Labour to withdraw from any seat, despite other opposition parties withdrawing in their favour elsewhere, ensured that the opposition could not present a united front nor a clear message. Both Labour and LDs have appeared more interested in stealing ground from eachother than from the Tories. The LD's antipathy to the SNP (their opposition to an indy ref is again profoundly anti-democratic) has helped sour the opposition. It’s more than likely that parties supporting a new referendum will receive a larger vote share than those supporting Brexit with no further vote. But their failure to work together may well ensure a Tory majority and the hardest of Brexits.

7)      If the polls are right and the Tories win a majority, then we should expect both Corbyn and Swinson to stand down (Swinson may not even make it as far as the HOC). Both parties have a chance to become more inclusive. There is an opportunity for realignment. But too late for the UK. The union will break up – N Ireland and Scotland will break away – and the rump will be left floundering outside the EU. It will take a generation or more for the UK to recover.

My country right or wrong

Watching St George’s flag bedecked England football fans singing the national anthem as they fought with French police and Russian hooligans, the aphorism “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” never seemed more apt. Three weeks earlier I visited the same shops and bars now being laid waste, and was met with courtesy and kindness. I wonder what reception I would receive now …

Why is it that accident of birth should lead some to believe absolutely – so much so that it was worth fighting for – that our country is superior to all others? It’s undoubtedly true that in many spheres – technological innovation is one – we punch superbly far above our weight. Yet, despite our ability to create wealth, poverty is rife and inequality causes division – a cause for shame.

Some may argue that “My country right or wrong” for long served us well. Without pride in the flag and unquestioning obedience, would tens of thousands of our young men have gone the fields of Flanders a century ago, certain of the terrible fate that awaited them? Their courage was not alcohol or drug-fuelled but based on an unflinching sense of duty.

Had they stripped away the layers of patriotism, those men might have seen they were instead being asked to fight for less noble causes, less worth dying for – resources, trade, space. These have lead to a thousand of years of conflict on mainland Europe.

Yet the last 70 years have seen uninterrupted peace in Western Europe. The fates of nation-states are so intricately entwined, cooperation, learning, sharing, trading has replaced sending thousands to slaughter.

Let’s celebrate what is best about England but acknowledge the value of working closely with our European neighbours and vote to remain in the EU on 23 June.

The Case for Bremain

In the debate around EU and sovereignty, it is one of the great ironies that those who were arguing during the Scottish independence referendum debate that Scotland could retain its sovereignty even if it remained part of the United (Kingdom) are the same people now arguing that the UK cannot retain its sovereignty if it remains part of the (European) Union. They also argued that Scotland could not possibly survive economically on its own – yet believe that a UK outside the EU is perfectly viable. What is certain is that a UK vote to withdraw from Europe will see the end of the UK: Scotland’s desire to remain part of the EU far outweighs its wish to remain in the UK.

The Brexiters’ loss of sovereignty argument is similarly incoherent. Those who argue that we have ‘given away’ our sovereignty to the EU in the same breath argue that in one bound we can be free – all it takes is the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, and the UK is no longer ruled by the Eurocrats. Well, you can’t have it both ways – either sovereignty has been given away or it has not. In fact, the UK Parliament has been and always will be sovereign. All that has happened is that the Parliament we elect has chosen, for the time being, for certain purposes, and for our greater good, to ‘share’ sovereignty with another body – also elected by us and staffed by our own bureaucrats. At any moment – today or tomorrow – Parliament could repeal the 1972 Act and sovereignty would once again rest solely in the UK Parliament. In no sense is this the total and irredeemable surrender of power some would have you believe.

I remain very firmly of the belief that we should remain within the EU, albeit an EU that has been reformed, and which prioritise local self-reliance rather than unsustainable economics of free trade and growth. I support Bremain for the following reasons:

• Jobs 3.5 million British jobs are directly linked to British membership of the EU’s single market – 1 in 10 British jobs.
• Exports & investment The EU buys over 50% of UK exports (54% of goods, 40% of services). Over 300,000 British companies and 74% of British exporters operate in other EU markets. American and Asian EU firms build factories in Britain because it is in the single market.
• Trade The EU negotiates trade agreements with the rest of the world. Outside the EU Britain would have to renegotiate trade deals alone. While the EU is the world’s largest market, a UK outside the EU would not be a high priority for other counties to negotiate a trade deal.
• Consumer clout British families enjoy lower mobile phone roaming charges, lower credit card fees, cheaper flights and proper compensation when flights are delayed or cancelled. These sorts of benefits could not be achieved by Britain alone.
• Power to curb the multinationals The EU has taken on multinational giants like Microsoft, Samsung and Toshiba for unfair competition. The UK would not be able to do this alone.
• Freedom to work and study abroad – and easy travel 1.4 million British people live abroad in the EU. More than 14,500 UK students took part in the European Union’s Erasmus student exchange scheme in 2012-13. Driving licences issued in the UK are valid throughout the EU.
• Clean environment Through commonly agreed EU standards, national governments have achieved improvements to the quality of air, rivers and beaches. Good for Britain and good for Britons holidaying or living abroad!
• Peace and democracy The EU has helped secure peace among previously warring western European nations. It helped to consolidate democracy in Spain, Portugal, Greece and former Soviet bloc countries and helped preserve peace in the Balkans since the end of the Balkans War. With the UN it now plays a leading role in conflict prevention, peacekeeping and democracy building.
• Equal pay and non-discrimination Equal pay for men and women is enshrined in EU law, as are bans on discrimination by age, race or sexual orientation. This benefits Britain and British people who live in other EU countries.
• Influence in the world As 28 democracies, and as the world’s biggest market, we are strong when we work together. Britain is represented in many international organisations in joint EU delegations – giving Britain more influence than it would have alone. The EU has played a major role in climate, world trade and development. If we were not part of the EU we would have no influence over its laws but if we wanted to continue to trade with the EU we would have to implement its rules. Norway withdrew from the EU 40 years ago, but still enacts three-quarters of its legislation, with no say over the content of those laws.
• Cutting red tape Common rules for the common market make it unnecessary to have 28 sets of national regulations.
• Fighting crime The European Arrest Warrant replaced long extradition procedures and enables the UK to extradite criminals wanted in other EU countries, and bring to justice criminals wanted in the UK who are hiding in other EU countries. Eurojust helps UK authorities work with other EU countries’ to tackle international organised crime such as drug smuggling, people trafficking and money laundering.
• Research funding The UK is the second largest beneficiary of EU research funds, and the British Government expects future EU research funding to constitute a vital source of income for our world-leading universities and companies.

What Price Charity?

Last week, Worcester witnessed an increasingly rare spectacle: the public taking to the streets to highlight an issue of great concern. Nearly 200 of us took part in the StandUp4Care rally (https://www.facebook.com/Standupforcare/). With the county council’s budget cut by over £50m in the last two years, social care has been hit hard. Cuts to the public health budget announced recently will further significantly reduce services and support for people suffering domestic abuse, homelessness and drug or alcohol addiction. Osborne’s Autumn statement will exacerbate an already grim picture; the response of local MPs is one of compliant complacency.

Those who marched were made up of ordinary people from all backgrounds united by a desire to say that our most vulnerable can take no more. But while it was gratifying that so many were determined to take part, what really struck those of us organising the rally was just how difficult it has become to engage the charitable sector.

Charities in this country have a fantastic tradition not only of helping those most in need, but in drawing the attention of our political “masters” to their plight. One thinks of past hard-hitting campaigns from the likes of Barnardo’s and Shelter. But now charities have become cowed, frightened of appearing to be critical of government.

As government “rolls back the state”, requiring the voluntary sector to take on services that used to be undertaken by paid professionals (but with much reduced funding), charities compete with eachother for government contracts. Ever more reliant on such funding, they are no longer prepared even to nibble, let alone bite, the hand that now feeds it.

What a neat trick the government has pulled off: service provision on the cheap and a voluntary sector that no longer feels able to speak out for those who need their advocacy most.

Never have the words of Peter Finch in Network been so relevant: “I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore.”

StandUp4Care

If the treatment of our most vulnerable is an indication of how civilised a society we are, then I fear we are returning to the Stone Age. A report produced by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services warns that tens of thousands will face reduced help with basic tasks such as washing, dressing and eating as more than £1bn is cut from social care services for older and disabled people in England over the next year. Tragically, despite rising demand driven by an ageing population, fewer people will qualify for state-funded care while those who continue to receive a service may have to accept lower levels of support and a worse quality of life. The quality and reliability of local services will also suffer as a consequence of turmoil in the private care sector caused partly by an ongoing council freeze on fees, undermining attempts to maintain a “caring, compassionate and trained workforce”.

Funding to Worcestershire County Council has been cut by over £50m in the last two years. As the largest council budget, social care – personal care and social support services to children or adults in need or at risk, or adults with needs arising from illness, disability, old age or poverty – has been hit hard. 

To those of us fortunate enough not to have personal experience of mental ill health, a learning or physical disability, or simply getting older and more frail these are just meaningless numbers. For adults, children and young people dependent on the support of social care and health services these cuts mean the difference between merely surviving and having a reasonable quality of life. 

That is why I have joined the campaign, Stand Up 4 Care, to highlight the need for these care and support services to be protected. Please join us. (#StandUp4Care, Twitter and Facebook)