New Committee

The Peterhouse Politics Society is very pleased to announce its new committee for 2008-9:

President: Andrew Noakes
Vice-President: Jeremy Poon
Treasurer: Mingjuan Tan
Secretary: Hannah Mayer
Publicity Officer: Jan-Jonathan Bock

Over the next few weeks and months, the new committee will be writing to new speakers for the coming year. If you have any suggestions, don't hesitate to get in touch (publicity@peterhousepolitics.co.uk).

Standards, Not Structures

When New Labour came to power in 1997, they had a handy slogan for their educational policies: ‘standards, not structures’. It was more important, they argued, to focus on raising standards inside schools rather than muck about with the overall structure of the education system itself: convenient, too, because it avoided having to make any troublesome decisions over grammar schools. As policies go it had the unusual honour of being publically disavowed rather than quietly dropped, and the government soon set about upon a noble quest to make the already rather contorted structure of the nation’s schools that little bit more unfathomable by the year. The rest, as they say, is history.

Well, I thought I’d attempt to rescue the phrase from oblivion, because it occurred to me that whilst it was a wretched failure for education it does happen to perfectly describe how we should look at another contemporary debate surrounding the upbringing of children: the role of the family.

What makes a good parent? There’s clearly no perfect answer, and the truth is that a good parent is one who manages to improvise with both luck and skill. But I’m fairly confident that most people would agree that a good parent is one who loves, who disciplines, who teaches, guides and provides support when things go wrong. A good parent strikes the right balance between taking care of a child and letting them go, establishes trust, respect and – one would hope – a lifelong bond.

All pretty uncontroversial stuff. What still appears to be more controversial with some people is the fact that the precise structure of the family in which this happens matters about as much as the layout of the family’s garden shed. Sure, a heterosexual mother and father might be the most commonly occurring pattern, but does that make a single parent, gay couple or foster family any worse for being rarer? Of course not. The standard of parenting is the one and only important thing, and – humans being as they are – that’s something which will always vary across all types of families.

This is why it was such good news that MPs successfully defeated an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill this week which would have retained the discriminatory ‘need for a father’ wording used to restrict the use of IVF by single women and lesbian couples. It’s another legal step – as with civil partnerships – which quite clearly manoeuvres the law firmly out of arbitrating which family structures are preferred over others: an arena in which it quite simply does not belong.

There were, unexpectedly, some pretty odd arguments against the move. Some claimed that it was aimed at eliminating the role of fathers altogether, which is about as silly as saying that the government should legislate against only children to preserve the role of siblings. If there is a father, than that father will have a role; if there is no father in anything other than a strictly biological sense – as is the case with a lesbian couple – then there is no role for a father. It’s as simple as that. Others insisted that the clause simply ensured that a lesbian couple would consider the need to have some sort of male role model. Whilst I would agree that male role models are generally a good thing to have, it is frankly bizarre to expect such a thing to be enshrined in legislation: why not legislate that any single mother has to provide male role models, too? Who would enforce this, the Office for Male Role Models? Let’s just go the whole hog and have an Office for Good Parenting complete with twice-yearly inspections and the ability to levy fines against any parent found ignorant of the procedures of the naughty step. It is genuinely insulting to potential lesbian parents to single them out for legal lessons on how to bring up their children, as if this is something which wouldn’t be considered before embarking on the not exactly trivial procedure of IVF.

But a few voices distinguished themselves in the desperation of searching for a respectable concern. Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was insistent that fathers filled the valuable role of showing their daughters that it was possible to have a loving relationship with men which didn’t involve sex. Presumably having two lesbian mothers wasn’t considered a similar indication that sex with men wasn’t an insurmountable fact of life. This was nothing, mind you, compared to Iris Robinson of the DUP, who opined on the horror of a child “going into the parents' bedroom and finding two women making love or two men making love”.

It takes a pretty blinkered form of homophobia to forget that the standard of ‘not having sex in front of your child’ is one which really should be common to all parents, regardless of family structure.

Vote Hillary, get a Kennedy

There has been many a curious twist to the 2008 presidential primary season thus far, but just recently I discovered what I am convinced to be the most paradoxical of them all. For anyone who has spoken in any depth with a Hillary supporter, you will know that posing the simple question – ‘why Hillary?’ will probably elicit one of two, or possibly even both, of the following responses:

She is an experienced candidate

It is about time America had a female president

There are others, but these are the main two that I have heard – both, in my view, equally poor qualifications for any public office. Experience is not irrelevant, but it can only take an individual so far. You’ve got to have the ‘vision thing’. And, in truth, no experience can prepare you for a position of such high leadership. Some of the greatest leaders this world has ever seen have come from a position relative inexperience. Thomas Jefferson was just thirty-three years old when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Having a woman in the White House would be a huge plus for the cause of gender equality, but it is not a reason in itself why she would be good at the job, just as Obama’s race has nothing to do with his competence.

So I have come up with a much better reason to vote for Hillary:

Vote Hillary, get a Kennedy.

This one is much better than the first two. The first thing to note is that Robert F. Kennedy jr, Robert F. Kennedy’s son, has endorsed Hillary for the presidency. For those of you that don’t know, Kennedy is a very strong and influential political figure in America, particularly in environmental advocacy. The second thing to note is that Hillary is currently a US senator. To be precise, she is a senator for New York, re-elected for a six year term in 2006. If you are, by chance, well versed in the history of New York’s representation in the US Senate, you will know that this was also Robert F. Kennedy’s seat from 1964 to his assassination in 1968. In short, Kennedy jr wants it back in the family. As he has said himself, ‘if Hillary left the Senate, I might run for that seat’. Any decent political commentator in America will tell you that this is in fact almost certain.

For me, Hillary would be a disastrous choice for the presidency. She sold her soul long ago to corporate lobbyists and other special interests. She is funded to the hilt by insurance companies and the like. Her campaign has been the worst kind of cynical. And even Ann Coulter likes her. But there would at least be one consolation to a Clinton victory: the US Senate would open its doors to a genuine idealist of the highest calibre. Despite his rather tactical endorsement, Kennedy is the genuine deal. He is passionate about standing up for the disillusioned and disenfranchised, he cares deeply about the environment, and opposes corporate interests more than any public figure I know, including Obama.

I once was told by a Labour Party member that I should support Tony Blair because ‘no one else stands a chance of getting in’. And I suspect voting for Hillary to get a Kennedy would represent an equally twisted logic. But it would undoubtedly be a consolation in the event that Obama loses, and for me the most curious discovery of this race so far.

World Poverty - Revive the peasantry!

Food prices are rising. People in Europe and America keep complaining about an inflation in prices for bread and milk and other groceries of up to 3.6% (in the Euro zone) and urge their politicians to do something about it. However, the wider implications of this global trend remain largely unrecognised; and Westerners themselves often fail to see that it is they who accelerate the price growth.

The global trend of urbanisation is manifest in the Western hemisphere. In 2007, for the first time in the history of mankind, more than half of the population worldwide lived in cities. In the 1950s it was less than one third – the greater part inhabited villages, hamlets and small towns in the country. In 2050, according to UN statistics, 70% of the global population will be living in an urban environment. Food, many seem to forget, does not grow on Tesco shelves. It has to be produced; and that happens in the country.

Western culture and its implied superiority of the urban over the rural has certainly precipitated, if not started, a global trend to leave farms, and flock to booming cities. However, unlike the West, which has both advanced rural technology and the possibility of importing cheap products from poor, primarily agricultural countries – developing countries –often have to face the fact that they possess neither. Thus, a growing urban population faces a declining overall supply of food. Who wants to be a peasant in China?

Self-subsistence and agriculture have become rather unpopular concepts, not just for Americans and Europeans. The benefits cities offer – such as health-care, well-paid jobs, public infrastructure, schools, access to information technology – are certainly attracting the young, but also elders who cannot anymore rely on their kin to support them when they are unable to work due to age or illness. It is clear that the specific Western way of life which demands 24/7 availability of coke, burgers and information is closely bound to city life. As many countries try to copy this, as well as food patterns (sales of dairy and meat products in Asia, for example, are on the rise, despite the fact that they are not traditional Asian food but imply Western culture), the global community is faced with a shortage in supply. For most of us reading this blog the result is merely a surge in prices of food in the supermarket; for many others in developing countries it spells the end to supply at all. They starve and die.

Many European countries, as well as the US, have for long time claimed superiority for the way in which they organise their lives. Now, as the rest of the world makes not just an effort, but often succeeds in living a similar way of life, we look bemused at the implications the almost total abandonment of peasantry has. Furthermore, every single litre of bio-fuel bereaves the world of crops that could be used as food. It is a noble aim to reduce global warming by relying on maize instead of petrol; but one must not forget the appalling thought of driving an environmentally friendly car at the expense of lives in Africa.

The West has to change its attitude towards agriculture. Peasants are not just dumb farmers without culture and manners; they guarantee city life and the way in which most of us nowadays live. We have to value their work and make sure that people in the country do not suffer from illness due to absence of GPs and technologies which facilitate their lives. Also, this about turn has to be communicated to developing countries. China must not focus on development in Shenzen and Shanghai: the backbone of their success is the peasantry – at present shrinking and starving. As long as this new attitude is absent and no growing peasantry anywhere in the world succeeds in tying close bonds with the centres of science and culture in the cities, without a permanent underdog treatment by city dwellers, burning bio fuels is not an alternative to fossil ones. How can it relieve our environmental conscience if we know that the sunflower smell stemming from the engine somehow causes starvation in other parts of the world? Environmentally friendly - of course! But not at the expense of food shortages.

I urge the West to resuscitate the peasantry and showcase this new way of life to the rest of the world, along with cities and their benefits. The country could live without cities for a long time; I cannot see, however, how cities can exist without the agricultural backbone. Furthermore, the West has to facilitate these efforts by providing the latest technology and knowledge. We must not hold back our achievements and wait for the highest bidder. There is more at stake than just a good price – and finally we are experiencing this at the tills. Therefore, bring back the peasantry and establish genuine harmony between town and country! Advantages of modernity must be available to everyone; as well as the several burdens have to be shared equally. Let's hope it's not yet too late to reverse the exodus from farms and fields. It would be to everybody's detriment; and everywhere...

Defining the British Character

It strikes me as remarkable that the Labour government under Gordon Brown has suddenly become obsessed with Britishness. What is even more surprising, Brown is hell-bent on enforcing the characteristics that he deems to be intrinsic parts of our national character onto everyone. Such a scheme is flawed because it is impossible to define the British character in such a way that we would want to stand up and shout it from the rooftops, let alone successfully impose it upon other people. What people fail to realise is that this scheme is designed primarily to deflect attention away from the primary concerns of the British people – loss of national sovereignty – and to try and defeat the home-grown terrorism that has been created thanks to the lack of border controls and because of the worst excesses of cultural relativism.

The real reason that Labour is suddenly interested in Britishness is not some latent expression of patriotism, but because of the peculiar nature of our nationalism. Britain does not have a national anthem that we sing with heart and voice. Nor do we have a flag that can be seen in shop windows or hanging from the mast of every public building (until recently, at least). Indeed, apart from the isolated instances when we do express national pride (the Proms springs to mind) we tend to find such expressions vulgar rather than comforting. Indeed, even a brief look at our national character reveals little to proclaim: social awkwardness (solved by rigorous structure where it cannot be solved with alcohol) and moderation that is better defined as self-deprecation. Our dictum (if, indeed, we do have a dictum which we hold with mild indifference) has to be ‘mustn’t grumble’. Our lot is bad, but we deal with it. Talk about making things better is ludicrous because as soon as you try and make things better, they just seem to get worse (just look at all the hopes we had in 1997).

Rather, our pride rests in our institutions: Parliament and the law courts. This is a real problem when a government is trying to limit the powers of such institutions by removing them to Europe. This is one reason there is so much Euro-scepticism: the things that are central to our undefined conception of Britishness is being eroded by Brussels. Labour is trying to con us into exchanging Parliament for some jingoistic tune or colourful cloth like other nations.

Indeed, the fact that the government now thinks it necessary to teach citizenship highlights Labour policy failure. There was a time when immigrants knew that if they became a citizen, they had to accept the values of ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’. These are Western values, not British. Britishness has never been imposed on other people. It cannot be imposed. Indeed, teaching people to be British would probably contravene some human rights law concerning torture. I mean, how can it be taught? It must be lived. Most immigrant families, who interacted within British society, by the second generation, had not only become citizens, but fully naturalised citizens. This is not the case today because through the policy of complete cultural relativism new citizens do not necessarily have to believe in our fundamental Western ideals. No wonder then that there are, increasingly, ghettos independent of the rest of British society. No wonder we have a problem with home-grown terrorism. No wonder there are calls for the implementation of Sharia Law.

We must ensure that Britishness is not debased to a collection of buzz words and ceremonies. It is so much more than that. When you queue up for your morning tea no matter what hurry you may be in, you are engaging in a ritual that is quintessentially British. Such lessons can only be learnt through interaction, not with a chalk board. And as soon as we define it, it is lost. On the other hand, of course, for all my vulgar passion, I mustn’t grumble.

Shared Spaces

There was a certain irony in the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s poorly thought out invitation to implement portions of Islamic law in Britain provoked such a united display of condemnation. In a country which is supposedly so conspicuously lacking a shared culture, we saw secular liberals, conservative pundits, briefly united political parties and the general public of every faith and none joining together to make the simple cry: one law for all. We might all differ wildly on what that law should be, but on that – at least – we all seem to be in agreement, the Archbishop notwithstanding.

Reach a little wider and the consensus falls apart. Newspapers make great hay out of the evils of ‘political correctness’, which apparently has been waging unceasing war on such things as heterosexuality, the English language and Christmas. I can’t say I’d noticed a conspicuous shortage, but there you are. Outside the pages of tabloids there is some more serious questioning of multiculturalism, although I have to say I still think it’s a conversation largely between journalists and politicians. Nevertheless, issues surrounding how far we accommodate different cultures and\or whether we have – or need – a national common identity are real enough, even if the answers so far have been limited to bizarrely silly plans for a few more flags, ceremonies and mottos.

I believe in multiculturalism, and it doesn’t particularly concern me whether people identity with abstract notions of what it means to be British. As far as I’m concerned, you can listen to whatever music you want, support whatever football team you want and even speak whatever language you want as long as you don’t interfere with other people’s rights to do the same. Nevertheless, I do think that an important part of the answer for more cohesive communities lies in a very simple idea: shared spaces. This isn’t a tired debate on the merits of public versus private ownership, for almost everyone agrees that in-between our private houses, private workplaces and private leisure facilities there will always exist a little communal space which we all have to use.

Without wanting to bore anyone about the London mayoral elections (full disclaimer: I’ve campaigned for Ken Livingstone) the example of London’s transport system is a strong one. London is the only major city in the world to have achieved a notable shift from private to public transport in recent years, and I believe that this is important for more than purely the environmental benefits. Take the buses. There will always be a core of people who have no choice but to travel by bus, but if buses become a genuinely shared space – the poor and dispossessed travelling alongside the rich and comfortable – then there will be both the money and the political pressure to improve services for everyone. It’s not a hopeless fantasy: people from every different walk of life already use the Tube to get to work.

It’s the same for state education and healthcare. A number of people have claimed to me that by going private they’re actually doing the state a favour: that’s one fewer hospital bed or school place for the state to find, they argue. But this ignores the value of maintaining shared public spaces. First, because those who can afford to go privately are often the ones who will be most vocal in demanding and effecting change in the public sector. And secondly, because shared spaces are also a shared national culture which isn’t imposed on top of communities but develops organically from their equal participation. Rather than wasting time on the abstract – the flags, the pledges – we should encourage a country which forms its own identity from real things, like children learning together in shared schools.

You can’t force people to use shared spaces, and you shouldn’t have to. No-one should take the bus or use the NHS with a haughty sense of martyrdom: they should be high quality services which are attractive in their own right. And the danger of abandonment always looms large with shared spaces: think of a housing block, neglected and unloved after the initial political optimism in building it has long faded away. But there will always be people left behind after others have escaped – and there will always be people on the bus. If we invest in these services and design them to be used by everyone, then I believe we will gain not just improved public spaces but an improved public spirit too.

Welcome!

The Peterhouse Politics Society is pleased to welcome you back for Easter Term 2008. As you may have noticed, our new website and political blog are now online. The website can be found at http://www.peterhousepolitics.co.uk/. This blog, meanwhile, will be regularly updated with news and will act as a forum for debate, with contributions from across the political spectrum. Contributors this term will include Sir Christopher Meyer, former Ambassador to the United States, a 2008 candidate for CUSU Academic Affairs Officer, as well as myself and our very own Jan Bock. If you are interested in contributing, do get in touch.


We have two confirmed talks this term before our Annual Dinner:

1) Dr Sean Gabb - “How the fight for liberty can be won.”

Date/Time: Tuesday 29th April, 8:45pm
Location: The Parlour, Peterhouse

Dr Sean Gabb is an English libertarian. He is the director of the Libertarian Alliance, a British free market and civil liberties think-tank. Sean is noted for supporting the legalisation of drugs while opposing multiculturalism and mass immigration.


2) Master of Peterhouse, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn

Date/Time: Saturday 17th May, 8:45pm
Location: The Parlour, Peterhouse

Lord Wilson of Tillyorn is a former British administrator, diplomat, and Sinologist. He was the second to last Commander-in-Chief and 27th Governor of Hong Kong, from 1987 to 1992. We are particularly proud to host the Master for what will certainly be one of the most interesting talks we have had this year and, due to the Master’s retirement at the end of June 2008, this talk will be one of his final engagements at Peterhouse.


Politics Society Annual Dinner

The Society will be holding its Annual Dinner on Thursday 19th June. Pre-dinner drinks will take place in the Fellows’ Garden at 7pm, before moving into the Combination Room for dinner at 7:30pm. The ticket price will be approximately £40 (TBC) and the event is Black Tie. This is traditionally a highlight in the Society’s calendar, and we expect this year’s dinner to be no exception. The Guest of Honour is Lord McNally, Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords. To reserve a ticket, or for more information, please e-mail Craig Brooks-Rooney at chairman@peterhousepolitics.co.uk

We hope to see you soon!

Best wishes,

Andrew