SLINGERBLOG

House of Lords reform: Rule by the people, for the people (using Citizen Senators) - my article in new 'One Nation, One World' pamphlet

2013-05-07T14:24:00.003+01:00

The following is my article in the recently published pamphlet, 'One Nation, One World', published by 'revolutionise_it'.

House of Lords reform: Rule by the people, for the people

It also appeared on the Speaker's Chair website (see below).

House of Lords reform: Rule by the people, for the people

LABOUR

parliament

house of lords

uk politics

democracy

politics

Debate Rating: MEDIUM

Reforming the House of Lords

The public regard politicians with a curious mix of indifference and contempt exacerbated by recent scandals. Reform of the House of Lords is an opportunity to find an antidote to this toxic brew. Failure to reform this key institution will leave the field open to those in the media and elsewhere who seek with malice to undermine trust in politicians and the political process. The previous front-running reform plan – a fully-elected House of Lords – is not the panacea claimed by many. It may satisfy the urge for reform, but will lead to contradictions, cronyism and constitutional crisis.

Rather than shroud ever more 'place people' in ermine, we require a new system that places more 'ordinary people' in Parliament. Radical reform is required, through which half of the Upper Chamber would comprise Citizen Senators, selected by lot, as with jury selection. The remaining 50 per cent would be Expert Senators. Such a system would overcome the weaknesses of the current Lords while engendering a new era of direct public engagement with the nation's democratic life.

Given that our legislature is primarily concerned with making law, a legal analogy is appropriate. Imagine the House of Lords to be a criminal standing before a court concerned not with punishing but reforming and redeeming. The jury has been made aware of the lengthy charge sheet, all of which derives from the over-riding crime - that the Lords are not democratically elected. From this original sin flow related misdemeanors: that it has no genuine legitimacy or mandate; is unrepresentative of and remote from broader society (particularly women, lower socio-economic groups, non-established religions and minorities); is largely a bastion of political patronage; has many members drawn from the class of former elected politicians, party cronies and donors; and is so old-fashioned and anachronistic as to alienate and baffle vast numbers of voters who might otherwise be more engaged with the democratic process. In the light of such crimes, there can be only one verdict: guilty.

This being a court concerned with restorative justice, the judge must now consider a sentence. While deliberating, they consider some mitigating circumstances, including the fact that the defendant didn't willfully conspire to commit these offences. Despite the periodic attempts of concerned relatives (the Commons) to help, most witnesses told the court that the Lords had always acted like this, and no matter what they said, wouldn't change. Character witnesses attested that the Lords carried out the role of scrutinising and improving often faulty Commons legislation impeccably, due largely to the many expert members who were the best in their fields. Under cross-examination, even prosecution witnesses conceded that a lack of a democratic mandate had the welcome side-effect of ensuring that the elected Commons enjoyed a clearly delineated constitutional supremacy over the Upper Chamber.

But these can only mitigate rather than overcome the negatives when sentencing. Given the charge sheet and the immediate threat which the unreformed Lords poses to democratic life, immediate release or a suspended sentence is out of the question. What alternative sentences are open to the court? The chief contender, proposed by most reformers at the time, including the Liberal Democrats and Labour, was a fully-elected House of Lords. But this would create a chamber with its own mandate and legitimacy, leading inexorably to a reformed Lords challenging the dominance of the Commons. The supposed improvement of electing the Lords by proportional representation using a party list system would actually entrench rather than eliminate the worst aspects of political patronage and cronyism.

'Electing the Lords by proportional representation using a party list system would actually entrench the worst aspects of political cronyism'

Rule of the people, by the people

These problems stem from a misguided over-reliance on the belief that a system which selects politicians through free elections is, necessarily, the best. This received wisdom obscures different conceptions of democracy, one of which is relevant in this case. With its genesis in ancient Greece, democracy literally means ‘the power of the people’. The rallying cry coined by Abraham Lincoln - “rule of the people, by the people, for the people” – elevates the broad idea to a challenging belief and call to action. But public outrage about MPs’ and peers’ expenses has come to fuel the belief that politicians are more interested in ruling for themselves, than “for the people.” Political parties understandably seek to prove this to be false. It is Lincoln’s second phrase, “rule by the people”, which offers us the best chance of diverting public outrage into improving our political system. To put it bluntly, we should inject ‘the people’ directly into Parliament, in the form of Citizen Senators, selected at random as with jury selection.

'The rallying cry coined by Abraham Lincoln - “rule of the people, by the people, for the people” – elevates the broad idea to a challenging belief and call to action'

There has been some limited interest in the role of citizens’ juries in our democratic life, with Patricia Hewitt , Guy Lodge of the IPPR, and Matthew Taylor of the RSA, having explored their use in improving policy-formulation and public engagement. Anthony Barnett and Peter Carty wrote the book ‘The Athenian Option: Radical Reform For The House Of Lords’. Even David Cameron’s erstwhile politics tutor at Oxford, Vernon Bogdanor, haschampioned the election of councillors by lot (although he defends the House of Lords as currently configured).

Citizen Senators have excellent antecedents, as explained by Daniel Lightman, when corresponding with the author in the letters page of The Times in 2009: “In Ancient Athens, the day-to-day business of government was entrusted to the Council of Five Hundred, which was chosen annually out of the whole citizen body by lot. The only qualifications were that one had to be aged over 30 and of good standing. The Athenians were not alone in recognising the value of using the lot to select a representative group of citizens. The Talmud records that Moses used lots to choose the 70 elders of the Children of Israel and the 22,000 designated first-born. “The ancients knew,” observed the renowned classical scholar Jowett, “that election by lot was the most democratic of all modes of appointment.”

Citizen Senators

How would our system of Citizen Senators operate? The renamed Senate would be composed half of Citizen Senators, and half of Expert Senators, drawn from across the broad panoply of British life (more about this later). Citizen Senators would be selected at random as are prospective jurors at present. They would serve for one year and be paid compensation for lost earnings. Initially, they would have the right to decline, in order to avoid having to attempt to force people to serve who are wholly opposed to this. However, over time, as the reforms bedded in and citizens saw ‘ordinary’ people excelling in service, the system would become compulsory, with a mechanism for people to be excused on certain grounds (as with juries). All Citizen Senators would receive specialised training in Parliamentary procedure and politics, perhaps given by the Institute for Government or similar.

This system would share the great strength of the jury ‘selection’ process of being truly representative of ordinary people. It would also apply those other fundamental responsibilities placed on jurors: to act in the public interest and deliberate only on the evidence before them.This sense of ‘civic duty’ could be extended to a requirement for Citizen Senators to vote on grounds of conscience alone. Clearly many would have strong party-political opinions, which would influence their judgment, but they would be required to renounce party membership for their term of service, and would be sworn to act as described above. Operating beyond the clutches of the party managers, their presence in Parliament would require the Government to convince Citizen Senators through argument rather than force majeure.

A House of Lords composed entirely of Citizen Senators would not provide the highly-desirable capabilities of expert peers currently sitting in the Lords. Therefore, a committee should be established containing MPs from each House of Commons party, as well as Citizen Senators, to consider competitive applications from the various professional bodies and stakeholder groups, and agree on a list of recommended Expert Senators. This committee would also monitor their performance. Final decisions on the appointment of Expert Senators would be made by a vote of Citizen Senators.

Such a radical change to our legislature is not without risk and clearly poses significant practical and procedural difficulties, but these could be overcome by a country committed to genuine democratic renewal. The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages and, as shown, this system would rectify the central weaknesses of the present structures and bring huge benefits, literally transforming political life. The new system would, over time ensure equal representation on geographic, ethic, religious, gender and sexuality criteria. It would enhance the sense of active citizenship, so memorably captured by President Kennedy with the words: “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country”. It would force traditionally-elected MPs and the Government to seek the approval of a bloc of ‘real’ people.

'The new system would ensure equal representation on geographic, ethic, religious, gender and sexuality criteria'

The system proposed would revolutionise the way we practise politics. It would place the Mother of Parliaments at the vanguard of modern democracies, admired not for its longevity and pomp, but its willingness to ensure that ‘the people’ are placed at the heart of the democratic system, rather than seen as an adjunct to an increasingly sophisticated game of focus group poker. Justice is well served through citizens being appointed at random to sit on juries. Why not have faith that democracy itself could be served just as effectively by incorporating the great principles and strengths of the jury system into parliamentary structures. It is time for Parliament to make space for rule by the people by welcoming Citizen Senators into its midst.

About this post...

This article is part of a series of policy positions being published on Speaker's Chair from 'One Nation, One World', the first pamphlet from revolutionise.it, which is being hosted exclusively on Speaker's Chair over the next two weeks. Please join in the debate below, or submit your own views on this important topic by writing your own article in response by clicking here.

Posted 02/05/13 by John SlingerWrite a reply

My Times letter - Our moral duty towards Afghan interpreters

2013-05-02T12:18:00.000+01:00

Our moral duty towards Afghan interpreters

Sir,

Not only is it an important matter of principle to honour such sacrifice, but it is also common sense for the UK to welcome highly intelligent, brave and loyal foreigners such as these to our shores. It is deeply embarrassing for Britons, but more importantly, hugely dangerous for the interpreters, that our Government appears to take a different view.
John Slinger

Rugby, Warks

Webpage here (£).

My LabourList article: Labour is beginning to pass the "Pub Test" once again

2013-05-02T09:36:00.000+01:00

Published online here.

Labour is beginning to pass the “Pub Test” once again

MAY 2, 2013 12:39 PM

Author: John Slinger

In Tony Blair’s apocryphal tale, he recounts how it dawned on him that the 1992 election was lost only whilst canvassing a former Labour voter who was polishing his Ford Sierra and asking what Labour would do for people like him. This story became the mythical 'Mondeo man' popularised by Blair at the 1996 Labour Party Conference. It’s clear that the party is starting to do what’s necessary to prevent Ed Miliband having a ‘Mondeo man moment’. Our messages, manner and modus operandi are starting to pass the pub/gym/cafe/cab/staffroom/sports field canteen/supermarket/church/mosque/temple/synagogue test (Pub Test for short). In a nutshell, the Test asks us to frame everything we do and say in a way which convinces people in the above settings that Labour is worthy of their support.

The Pub Test can only be passed by addressing both message and manner. Our manner must be outward, not inward-looking; welcoming of good, new ideas irrespective of their source; and we must value listening as much as speaking. We must focus relentlessly on the concerns of the majority of ordinary voters, not of sectional interests. We must remember that ultimately, how the public perceives us is far more important than our own self-image. In the past, we’ve held ‘Big Conversations’, we’ve ‘reached out’, yet all too often voters experience an echo chamber of incomprehensible, irrelevant and intimidating rhetoric, conducted in a language of ‘isms’, far removed from their everyday concerns. Thanks to the fantastic efforts of the Policy Review led by Jon Cruddas, the National Policy Forum led by Angela Eagle, the Your Britain web portal, individual Shadow Ministers, Parliamentarians and perhaps most importantly, ordinary members, this is changing.

In terms of substance, the Pub Test doesn’t mean pandering to the Daily Mail’s agenda, or tacking to the right, or left, but it does mean speaking about issues of greatest concern to voters in a way they understand. Voters are more receptive to us than they have been for ten years, so now is the time to achieve ‘cut through’ and ensure that our credibility rises on these key issues. The signs are very encouraging. Ed Miliband has already achieved more than many leaders of the Opposition, by shifting the terms of the debate and setting the agenda in many important areas. Under his leadership, the party is starting to put meat on the bone and the signs are that those at the top understand the demands of the Pub Test.

On the economy – perhaps the number one issue talked about by ordinary voters, we are meeting the Test. This week, Ed announced six economic Bills on the economy, each containing the substance and delivered in the style necessary to spark voters’ interest. Simple titles with huge impact were used: a ‘Jobs Bill’ to establish the Compulsory Jobs Guarantee; a ‘Consumers Bill’ to tackle rip-off energy bills and train fares. A ‘Banking Bill for once not focused on discredited elements of the City, but on creating regional banks of genuine relevance to the current and future SMEs which will employ most of our population. This is the fuel our activists need to win the next General Election.

Labour is also showing the confidence to speak about sensitive policy areas that some elements of the Party regard as off-limits, yet ordinary voters regard as central to their political views. Whilst significant parts of the Government’s welfare reform strategy is flawed and is harming the vulnerable, and of course we would do things better and ensure greater fairness, but we mustn’t allow ourselves to appear to be the pressure group at Westminster for benefit recipients. Equally, when we conduct a partial mea culpa over the mistakes we made in Government on immigration, we must not allow ourselves to be painted as the party which opposes the Government’s overall goal of substantially reducing net migration (which is a policy outcome supported by the vast majority of the population). In both these cases, the Party is moving in the right direction, with Ed’s recent speeches on immigration and Liam Byrne’s skilful navigation of the welfare reform storms.

Another reason for optimism is the superb overarching theme of One Nation, a message befitting our times and entirely consistent with the Pub Test, showing as it does that Labour speaks for the national interest, not for special interest groups. Yet like all straplines, this one will only be truly effective if the messages and policies sitting beneath, support and bolster, rather than undermine this powerful central theme. Thankfully, we are already starting to see some excellent policies come out of the One Nation agenda – on requiring public sector workers to speak English, on new technical education in our schools to meet our skills gaps, on limiting bank bonuses, to name but a few. There will no doubt be more in coming months.

How will we know that a nebulous test such as this has been passed? It is hard to measure, there are no clear criteria, and the proof will only come in May 2015. Yet most Labour activists will have experienced their own equivalents of Blair’s ‘white van man moment’ in past years. We can feel instinctively when our party’s messages are inspiring a broad enough range of voters to win. Passing the Test should result in more and more people asking for membership forms because they see the Party as relevant to their lives again. When there’s a new policy announcement, the whole Party needs to give more weight to the views of ‘average voters’ rather than those of the leading lights of the left-wing commentariat.

Each Party member has a responsibility to make sure that the Test applies to content and delivery; to our policies and the way we practise politics. This will help us win the support of the coalition of people whose votes are essential for outright victory in 2015. It is in throwaway conversations in pubs/clubs/staff rooms, cabs etc that the next General will be won, not on Question Time, Twitter, or indeed on the blog in which you are reading this article. The Pub Test is not a dirty phrase, it can help us plot our route to victory.

John Slinger is a Labour Party member and is a candidate in the County Council elections. He is Chair of Pragmatic Radicalism.

Local paper the Rugby Observer publishes my letter about Tory Rugby Borough Councillor's surreal response to my proposal to tackle dog poo/litter

2013-04-25T11:37:00.003+01:00

Viewable online here.

Dear Sir,

In your article ('Calls for a dog poo team to take action', 18/04/13) you quote Tory Borough Councillor Mark Williams dismissing my proposal to tackle littering and dog-fouling by employing more wardens with enforcement powers (on short-term contracts), on the grounds that “if we were to succeed in deterring people from allowing their animals to foul, there would be no fines issued and no income to pay for the policy."

This surreal response is tantamount to saying: "if this policy were to succeed, we would deem it a failure." This is yet more evidence that the Conservatives who run our Council are not only lacking in logic but are also defeatist when it comes to taking action to improve the quality of life enjoyed by the majority of law-abiding residents.

Yours faithfully,

John Slinger
Vice-Chair, Rugby Labour Party

Local paper, Rugby Observer, publishes article about my campaign urging Rugby Borough Council to be more robust against littering and dog-fouling

2013-04-18T13:44:00.006+01:00

The article in the Rugby Observer, can be read here.

My recent letter in the Rugby Advertiser newspaper, also on dog-fouling and litter, can be read here.

Previous letters to local newspapers can be read here.

Text of article:

The Rugby Observer, Thursday April 18 2013

CALLS FOR A DOG POO TEAM TO TAKE ACTION

By Dan Santy

ONE man fed up with the scourge of dog fouling has proposed the borough council creates a new team to tackle the problem.

King Edward Road resident John Slinger wants to see part-time jobs given to people who would be tasked with patrolling the streets and fining those who fail to pick up after their pets.

It comes in response to what he calls the ‘laughable’ number of fines issued by Rugby Borough Council for dog fouling over the past year - thought to be less than 20.

Currently the council relies heavily on people reporting irresponsible dog owners to them but admits not enough people do this for it to have a strong impact.

A council spokesman said the problem is dog owners have to be caught in the act to be fined, meaning there would need to be a huge number of people patrolling in order to achieve any sort of significant rise.

But Mr Slinger said the council needed to send a message and could try hiring people on a short-term basis to show it is serious about clamping down on what he calls anti-social behaviour.

“At present, dog foulers are clearly not deterred at all by the so-called enforcement of these laws. Yet if I were to walk into the town centre and personally go to the toilet on a pavement, I would rightly be arrested, possibly sectioned and almost definitely imprisoned,” he said.

“All too often, residents of our central Rugby street are greeted with piles of dog mess on the footpaths. Not only is this visually disgusting, but it poses a health hazard.

“I know the council has a dog policy and employs wardens, and I am sure they work hard. However, the approach seems to be too reactive and insufficiently proactive.

“It is important the onus is not placed primarily on law abiding residents to tackle this problem, but that enforcement powers already in existence are deployed against those irresponsible members of the community whose anti-social behaviour infringes on our enjoyment of this great town.”

But Rugby Borough Council environment spokesman Coun Mark Williams dismissed Mr Slinger’s idea. He said: “It is quite obvious that Mr Slinger’s expensive policy of recruiting an army of dog wardens would never work as we wouldn’t be able to cover the whole of the borough, and offences often take place after dark or early in the morning.

“If we were to succeed in deterring people from allowing their animals to foul, there would be no fines issued and no income to pay for the policy. We will not be that reckless.

“What does work is responsible dog ownership, and good intelligence from members of the public. Residents can let us have information by filling in the form at www.rugby.gov.uk/dogfouling.”

Pet owners caught letting their dogs foul without clearing up after them can be fined on the spot.

Penalties range from small amounts to as much as £1,000 if cases go to court.

Letter in local Rugby Advertiser newspaper: Loutish litterers and foul dog-foulers

2013-04-08T11:00:00.002+01:00

Published in the Rugby Advertiser newspaper (Warwickshire) on 28 March 2013.

Dear Sir,

DOG FOULING: WE SHOULDN'T TOLERATE THIS BEHAVIOUR

This morning I was greeted by two huge piles of dog mess on my central Rugby street. Not only is this visually disgusting, but it poses a health hazard to the many children nearby (we are near a primary school). I tweeted the image to Rugby Borough Council and asked whether they have a plan and how many people they have fined for this offence this year. The Council's initial response, on Twitter, was to ask me to tell them who is responsible so that they can then take action.

Not only is this 'after the horse has bolted', but it is 'after the dog has fouled'! I responded that I have no idea who is responsible as I don't spend my entire day and night watching the street outside my house, nor do I deploy CCTV. I know that the Council has a dog policy, employs Dog Wardens and Community Safety Wardens, and I am sure that they work hard. However, the Council's approach seems to be too reactive and insufficiently proactive.

Anyone walking around central Rugby's residential areas knows that dog poo and litter blights our streets. It is important that the onus is not placed primarily on law-abiding residents to tackle this problem, but that enforcement powers already in existence are deployed against those irresponsible members of the community whose anti-social behaviour infringes on our enjoyment of this great town. Even at this time of austerity, surely young school-leavers, graduates and unemployed people could be employed as council officers with the power to issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for dog-fouling and littering? Given the extent of the problem, they would be self-financing. By issuing hundreds or even thousands of FPNs, word would soon spread that Rugby's community doesn't tolerate such anti-social behaviour.

Yours sincerely,

John Slinger
Vice-Chair, Rugby Labour Party

Visit to Iraqi Kurdistan for 25th anniversary of Kurdish genocide shows me 'Never Again' must become 'Always Prevent'

2013-03-21T10:24:00.001Z

First published at

Published by

‘Never again’ to ‘always prevent’

The recent Halabja commemoration proves that the ‘three Rs’ of remembrance, recognition and retelling are not enough. ‘Never again’ must become ‘always prevent’.

‘From Denial To Recognition. From Destruction To Construction. From Tears To Hope’ – proclaimed the posters at Saturday’s ceremony commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship’s barbaric use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in Halabja, Iraqi Kurdistan.

The memorial event, on the outskirts of that tragic but unbowed town, was held in a vast marquee filled with more than 5,000 mainly Kurds but also delegations from around the world. Among them many children, bedecked in beautiful traditional costumes, their mothers holding them close, their fathers proudly wearing their Peshmerga fighter uniforms. It was impossible not to contemplate that on March 16, 1988, a similar number of souls had been obliterated at this place, dying in excruciating agony from the cocktail of mustard and nerve gas that Saddam rained down on them, having first dropped conventional bombs to blow out the windows and leave no refuge. 5,000 lives erased in the blink of an eye, as if they were an infestation of vermin, not human beings. And this only a tiny part of a wider genocide: over 4,000 Kurdish villages bulldozed; men, women and children herded into concentration camps before being shot in the desert; 182,000 murdered in 1987 and 1988 alone.

Waiting to enter the memorial event at Halabja

In the face of such cruelty, it is no wonder that the conference on the 25th anniversary of the genocide against the Kurds in Iraq, held last Thursday in Erbil, the booming capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government, heard of the need for remembrance, for recognition of these crimes as genocide and for the retelling of this tragic story to future generations – the ‘three Rs’ of a conventional approach to genocide. Turkish photographer, Ramazan Öztürk, who captured the iconic images, said his experiences on that day had made him feel ‘ashamed to be a human’ and that ‘it was not just Halabja that died but the conscience of humanity’. Academics spoke of labyrinthine legal obstacles to prosecuting perpetrators. Kurdish ministers thanked the parliaments of countries which have recognised these crimes as genocide (the British House of Commons did this in an historic debate on February 28). Children of victims danced and sang, bringing both the tragedy of their loss and the hope they represent into stark relief.

The countryside en route to Halabja

But something big was missing. A gaping hole at the heart of the debate reflecting the moral vacuum at the heart of the world’s conscience. Those at the conference hoped that the ‘three Rs’ of remembrance, recognition and retelling will be enough to prevent another genocide against them. The clarion call went up: ‘it must never happen again.’ Yet despite the Genocide Convention, the Nuremburg Trials, the documentation, the education, the International Criminal Court, the victims’ testimonies, the evidence, even the heart-wrenching tragedy of Anne Frank’s diaries, decent people and governments of the world, the kind who would solemnly nod their head in agreement with ‘never again’, have not actually taken action to give power to these heart-felt words. Cambodia, Bosnia, Iraqi Kurdistan, Rwanda and Darfur show that the three Rs are necessary but not sufficient to prevent future genocides.

Wreath-laying ceremony

While many of the world’s governments want to prevent genocide, they almost never act to achieve this aim. This despite most being signatories to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide which is explicitly designed to compel them to do just that. Remember that in 2004, the then secretary of state Colin Powell described the Darfur events as genocide, yet still the US chose not to act. If governments, like our own, continue to refuse to define these crimes as genocide, we might surmise that this is because they want to avoid fueling any belief on the part of the Kurds or any other persecuted people, that they will actually come to their aid in the future. This moral weakness is a by-product of an international system predicated on nation states’ right to sovereignty. In our world, sovereignty trumps morality, time and time again.

Students Union office in Halabja

Governments have chained up their good intentions within the prison of international legal jurisprudence. No oppressed people can take comfort from a system which guarantees in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that ‘everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person’, yet is governed by a Security Council which prefers inaction in the face of genocide, which preferences the rights and interests of dictators and so-called ‘great powers’ over the self-evident human rights of ordinary people. Iraqi Kurdistan is littered with what results when when tyrants are emboldened: mass graves and empty buildings such as the ‘Red House’, a torture complex in Sulaimaniya in which some victims were drowned in a pit of excrement.

At the 'Red House' in Sulaimaniya

Today’s genocide victims deserve our respect and assistance in their demands for the three Rs and the world must continue to develop legal mechanisms and norms, in a noble attempt create the conditions when the international community will prevent genocide, such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework. Yet as Syria shows, R2P has no real force. To prevent there being any future victims of genocides as yet unleashed, there must be a commitment to take whatever action is necessary and practically possible, including military intervention. We keep remembering that humans are capable of untold evil. We keep declaring that we must not let this happen again. The most important thing to remember is that remembering is not enough and does not in itself prevent genocide. We must promise the Kurds that we will protect them from any future aggression. Individual countries must work with their allies to take action to stop genocide in its tracks whenever it occurs. It is worthy, but clearly not enough to establish tribunals after a genocide which prosecutes a tiny number of people. ‘Never again’ must become ‘always prevent’.

Image from inside the museum at Halabja

Some rare, grainy footage was shown at the conference of men, women and children herded into concentration camps before being ‘disappeared’ in the desert. The Kurds in this video were indistinguishable from the Bosnian Muslims in films of the Screbrenica massacre, or the European Jews at Auschwitz. These people could be any people, anywhere, at any time. They will not be the last ghostly images on such films unless we take action. If you don’t agree, take a trip to the safe, democratic and prosperous region of Iraqi Kurdistan. Talk to the living victims and then reassess whether you could sleep at night having chosen to walk on by. The ghosts of genocide won’t let you.

————————————————————————————————————————

John Slinger is a strategic communications consultant, Labour Party member, chair of Pragmatic Radicalism, and a fellow of the Humanitarian Intervention Institute. John visited Iraqi Kurdistan in March as part if a British delegation to a conference and ceremonies commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Kurdish genocide in Iraq. Whilst working for Ann Clwyd MP he accompanied her to Baghdad in 2005 and 2006 on visits in her capacity as the prime minister’s special envoy to Iraq on human rights. He tweets @JohnSlinger and blogs at http://slingerblog.blogspot.com

————————————————————————————————————————————————

Coverage in local press of my Spiderman run in Bath Half raising money for Carers Support Service

2013-03-05T10:33:00.002Z

Published in the Coventry/Warwickshire Telegraph on Monday 4 March here.

I was raising money for Warwickshire charity, Carers Support Service, which runs Warwickshire Young Carers Project (including supporting Rugby Young Carers). You can still donate here. Many thanks indeed!

Appearance on BBC challenging myths about Saddam Hussein's Iraq & reminding people of 25th anniversary of Kurdish genocide

2013-03-02T11:30:00.000Z

I appeared on the BBC's World Have Your Say programme on 'Does Intervention Work' on Monday 25 February video clip. It was broadcast on BBC World News on Friday 1 March.

It was also broadcast on World Service Radio on Monday (this is the full-length version of the debate). I mention the Saddam Hussein regime's genocide against Iraq's Kurds and the 25th anniversary of the chemical weapons attack on Halabja and argue against the views expressed on the night that Saddam staying in power would not have been such a bad thing.

You may be interested to know that the House of Commons held an historic debate on the 25th anniversary of the Kurdish genocide on Thursday 28 February.

Please sign the No 10 e-petition urging the UK Government to officially recognise the horrific crimes by Saddam and his regime against the Kurds in Iraq as genocide.

THE GREAT POWER OF HUMAN RIGHTS IS NEEDED TO MAKE INTERVENTION WORK - Reflections on two BBC debates on intervention

2013-02-26T15:57:00.001Z

On Monday 25 February I participated in the BBC's World Have Your Say debate on 'Does Intervention Work?' which was aired on BBC World Service Radio at 6.00pm-7.00pm and is to be broadcast on TV on Friday.

I was also invited to be in the audience for a debate on Newsnight chaired by Kirsty Wark, which I goes out today (Tuesday 26th February). The following are some reflections about what I heard during the two debates. What I said on World Have Your Say can be heard here [at 7 minutes 30 seconds].

The most important eight words in so-called 'international law' are in Article 3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims that all human beings are guaranteed 'the right to life, liberty and security of person.' Yet during two BBC audience debates that I participated in recently about whether intervention works in light of the 10th anniversary of Iraq, these eight words were not mentioned and there was only a cursory reference to human rights. The world has to decide whether, and if so, how it wishes to make these eight words a reality. To take out of context lyrics of the band Extreme, we need 'more than words'. In recent years the world has chosen to dodge its responsibility to protect, to delay taking effective action, until far too many innocent deaths have occurred.

There were impassioned contributions about the stresses and strains placed on the British political system by the decision to intervene in Iraq, about how in 2003 the political class apparently ignored the views of a million protesters on British streets. It is rather depressing that those brave politicians and activists who campaigned against Saddam in the 1980s, such as my former boss Ann Clwyd MP, numbered only in the tens or hundreds, yet so many thousands marched against efforts taken to remove from power a vicious, fascistic dictator who had used WMDs against the Kurds and the Iranians and butchered hundreds of thousands of his own people. In the 1930s people joined the International Brigades to fight Franco's fascism. Yet in the noughties and beyond, when a tweet can reach millions in the blink of an eye, when the suffering of hundreds of thousands reaches our eyes daily thanks to brave professional and citizen journalism, most people, albeit with the noblest of intentions, assume a position that allows the abuse to continue.

We in Britain and elsewhere express views from the fortunate perspective of a society which is secure, and in which our rights are protected. Too many have forgotten that our enjoyment of human rights, of liberty, is not accidental. It was hard and long fought for and has had to be defended in armed conflict. It would be good if the conviction and moral passion felt by all of good conscience, whether or not they agree with humanitarian intervention, could be better channelled into a common endeavour to implement and defend the Universal Declaration, so that human rights trumped those of dictators, or of 'Great Powers', not vice versa as at present in Syria.

Questions of intervention should be determined instead by the Great Power of Human Rights. The international community cannot hide behind legalistic obstacles, or descriptions of conflict as 'civil war' (that convenient justification for inaction deployed over Bosnia in the 1990s and latterly regarding Syria). Perhaps a lack of attention to the victims' human rights reflects a post-Iraq cynicism about intervention and a system of international legal jurisprudence which so often obfuscates, or worse obstructs action to bolster human rights, whether economic, aid-based, or in the very last resort, military. Whatever the reason, no-one can hide from these dilemmas. A stance of morally righteous isolationism, with its policy position of 'active inaction', has its own blood-soaked consequences.

History repeats itself, even history as terrible as genocide, as Bosnia, Rwanda or Darfur show. Talk to the Kurds in Iraq, against whom Saddam waged a genocide killing over 200,000, including using chemical weapons in the late 1980s in places like Halabja. It is in the mass graves, in the continuing chemical weapons-induced tears of the Kurds, and countless others around the world, where the real debate about whether intervention works is to be found. In 1991, the No Fly Zones in the North prevented Saddam from finishing off his genocide against the Kurds and protected the Shia in the South. Opponents of outside intervention, talk of a utopia in which oppressed people rise up to remove the shackles of dictatorship solely through their own bravery, without 'imperialist' external intervention. The Kurds and the Shia of Iraq were valiantly trying just this after the Gulf War, yet tragically were failing. It was only the Western-policed No Fly Zone that stopped Saddam from crushing them. In short, an intervention that worked, as the prosperity and greater freedoms of Iraqi Kurdistan can attest to.

There is cause for optimism and it was heartening that the straw poll carried out by Kirsty Wark at the end of the Newsnight debate (aired tonight) was that the clear majority of the audience felt that Britain still had a role to play through intervention [I'll check the exact phrasing when the programme airs]. But it is not Western hopes that matter, it is those of down-trodden, repressed, abused people the world over that we should have in mind as we carry out our academic debates. Their interests, not ours, should determine how the world responds to future cases where intervention may be called for. Invasion is fraught with danger, as Iraq showed, yet evasion of our responsibility to protect poses greater risks not just to the victims, but to wider humanity.

My letter in local paper challenging Rugby's Tory MP Mark Pawsey to explain vote against Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

2013-02-14T10:34:00.001Z

Published in the Rugby Obvserver. Read online here.

Sir,

I was disappointed that Rugby MP Mark Pawsey voted against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. He was good enough to respond to me on Twitter when I asked him why he had done so. He replied that he took the same stance as 22 Labour MPs and that Labour MP Rob Flello's speech during the debate in the House of Commons summed up his thoughts. Despite being a Labour activist, I also disagree with those 22 Labour MPs. I hope Mr Pawsey will give a fuller explanation of his vote on this important moral issue in due course.

It is rare for me to do this, but I must concede that the Prime Minister is to be commended on having fought for this progressive measure, which will, at long last, afford dignity and equal rights to gay people regarding marriage. It is unfortunate that Mr Pawsey wasn't able to support his leader, the Leader of the Labour Party, other politicians and the majority of the British public.

Yours faithfully,

John Slinger

Rugby

The Independent publishes my letter on the need for more conventional forces, not Trident

2013-01-29T12:26:00.002Z

Read online at The Independent here.

We need troops, not Trident

In a week when the Government announced 5,300 further cuts to the Army, Danny Alexander is to be commended for pointing out to his Tory colleagues that their demands for a new continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent are "not financially realistic".

But the committal of £1.35bn last year towards replacing the Trident system suggests that the military-industrial establishment are creating a fait accompli, despite Nick Clegg reiterating in October that "the final decision on Trident replacement will not be taken until 2016".

Given the Prime Minister's talk of a "generational struggle" against al-Qa'ida in North Africa, any money available for defence ought to be spent on conventional forces.

To oppose replacement of Trident is not to be weak on defence. Stronger UK armed forces depend not on unusable Trident, but on more boots, planes and ships to enable us to counter threats such as those we've witnessed in Mali and Algeria, and thereby maintain Britain's place at the diplomatic "top table".

John Slinger
Rugby

Moving words from staff in Jessops shop window shows despair of many British workers in ConDem Britain

2013-01-15T09:59:00.003Z

The words scrawled by staff in a Jessops shop window are profound and moving [Courtesy of a photo by Lanza Martineta in a Daily Mail article - see here]:

"At what stage will the Government and the banks be answerable for the devastating effect they are having on the economy and more importantly, people's lives, with their radical decisions? What's happening to our high streets? Five unemployed and loyal staff seeking work. Can you help?"

The answer to their first question is: 'at the ballot box in May 2015'.

French & now British military intervention in Mali exposes double standards & practical/moral weakness at heart of Western and global response to Syria

2013-01-13T13:12:00.000Z

My thoughts on news that Cameron has deployed the RAF to Mali:

*****

We read over the weekend that David Cameron has agreed to deploy RAF aircraft to Mali (see report here). this action, in support of an escalating French intervention, illuminates the tragic and short-sighted double standards at the heart of western and global diplomacy, in which un security council members move rapidly to launch military action, without express un security council authorisation, against Islamist rebels in Mali, yet maintain a limp and morally-flawed position of 'active inaction' on Syria, despite 60,000 deaths.

It seems the ghosts of empire and the 'war on terror' weighs heavier on the moral conscience of the west and international community than the pleas for assistance by the countless thousands in Syria who face annihilation by a brutal dictator.

It is time for Britain and France to show the kind of leadership they displayed in helping Libya.

The Financial Times publishes my letter in light of $1tn coin idea - referencing Lincoln quote on controlling money in interests of the people

2013-01-11T10:08:00.003Z

Read online at the Financial Times here (£)

From Mr John Slinger.

Sir, Amid talk of the US Treasury minting a $1tn coin in a bid to mitigate problems relating to the US debt ceiling, readers may find it useful to ponder the words of a truly radical US politician, Abraham Lincoln:

“The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. By adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”

Given that our present masters are currently creating lots of new money (through quantitative easing) but handing it exclusively to the banks, perhaps now is the time to look to the past for some inspiration about how governments can better control money supply in the interests of the people.

John Slinger, Rugby, Warwickshire, UK

NB - My father, David Slinger, pointed first highlighted to me President Lincoln's interesting quotes on money.

The Times publishes my letter responding to Hugo Rifkind's column. My fear - Government is using child benefit as thin end of anti welfare state wedge

2013-01-09T18:57:00.001Z

The Times

[Read online at The Times here (£)]

Government must not use child benefit as a way of breaking the last vestiges of fondness for the welfare state

Sir,

Hugo Rifkind’s argument (“Don’t tax me just to give me my money back”, Opinion, Jan 8) against better-off people receiving universal benefits is well-made, but its chief flaw is that its logic also applies to any service provided by the State (except, perhaps, the Armed Forces and security forces). Services such as the NHS or schools are a form of “universal benefit” and while it is compelling to argue that scarce resources ought be targeted only at those who genuinely need them, the eventual consequence might be to make private insurance and education the norm rather than the exception, with State provision becoming little more than a safety net for the poor.

Many on the Right would deny such an intent (note Cameron’s desperation to be seen as a defender of the NHS). However, we must guard against the possibility of a hidden agenda in government to use issues such as child benefit as way of breaking the last vestiges of fondness for the welfare state among the middle classes, thereby eroding state provision of vital services for the bulk of the population. Such an outcome would be a dystopia and would see a government of two parties which failed to win an outright majority, eradicating more than a century of progress towards a more civilised society made by governments that won the genuine support of the people.

John Slinger
Rugby, Warks

Mid-Term Review: The Coalition moves from SICK to SLICK in the branding colour stakes

2013-01-07T13:50:00.000Z

The Coalition has adapted its colour scheme in light of changed circumstances.

Back in May 2010, the ConDems needed a colour for their brand. All good PR men know that a brand needs a colour - something that represents the product or service, something that conjures up just the right feeling in the mind of the beholder (or voter). Think Santa red for Coke; think racing green for Marks & Spencer.

Back when the glorious early summer sunlight shone on the non-victory of Messrs Cameron and Clegg, they opted for the perfect colour - an amalgam of Tory blue and Lib Dem yellow. The result was a colour that can only be described as SICK. Think sick for the Coalition.

It's possible that an external design consultant was employed on an inflated fee to work their magic on those early Coalition documents, but I rather think some low-paid flunky in the Cabinet Office opened up PhotoShop and mixed together this:

with this:

Which as any design consultant could tell you, results in this awful colour:

Such a disgusting, vomit-like colour, was then deployed on key Coalition Government documents such as the 'Programme for Government':

But now today, as the Government launches its Mid-Term Review, the powers that be have decided to move from SICK to SLICK, by adopting the colour purple for its key document.

Purple is, of course, a colour to some extent appropriated by the good people at Progress, for their Purple Book.*

Quite what all these colour-related capers mean is anyone's guess. On the one hand purple might mean a move in the direction of True Blue. On the other hand, it might represent a move from the right to the centre. Alternatively (and more likely) it could mean absolutely nothing.

What does remain the case is that the mixing of these two political brands will continue to be severely nauseating for many people, not least those who are being so adversely affected by their their incompetence and the damaging decisions they are taking.

----

* NB: For the record, I'm a Progress member and think they're a superb organisation. The opposite pertains regarding my relationship with the ConDems!

My twitter-witter political predictions for 2013...

2013-01-01T15:27:00.000Z

In the spirit of twitter-witter (as my daughters call it) here are some sub-intellectual political predictions for 2013 - Happy New Government!

1/10 @Ed_Miliband's ratings will be higher, in 12 months: he'll be regarded by more voters as more of a PM-in-waiting. He'll set agenda more

2/10 @uklabour's Policy Review under @JonCruddasMP will prove that from bottom to top of Party, Labour has relevant, exciting, bold ideas

3/10 The ideological/political contradictions in the Coalition will become more evident. Expect chaos/mistrust/sniping #JoysOfCoalition

4/10 @david_cameron will become (to coin his word) "frustrated"@ not being able to throw red meat on Europe/crime/tax #JoysOfCoalition pt 2

5/10 Newly-elected Labour MPs such as @andysawfordMP will make a huge impact, showing new generation can help Lab become more electable

6/10 #CoalitionFailures will continue esp on planning/big infrastructure as NIMBY county Tories across the land slap down Boles-the-Brave

7/10 #CoalitionFailures will continue w/ young people suffering for profligacy of elders-more music/sport/community schemes will be chopped

8/10 duplicity of Establishment's covert plan to replace Trident will continue. Expect yet more £billions on a project not yet signed-off

9/10 Lab will put more teeth on economic policy bone,setting out more activist position re growth & levelling w/public on scale of challenge

10/10 BBC mega-platforms #bbcaq @bbcquestiontime will continue 2 b tired formats dependent on rent-a-rant& pantomime not moderate characters

****

..And an extra two predictions (yawn) for good measure...

11/10(!)...& one more for the road: More Lab MPs will make an impression on the national consciousness a la @stellacreasy's top campaigning

final 2013 prediction - 12/10(!) the 'international community' will continue to show tragic weakness on Syria,failing to uphold human rights

My Downing St e-petition: Cap all public sector pay at maximum of rate of an MP (£65k)

2012-12-20T10:16:00.000Z

Please sign it using this link and publicise if you agree (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/40534). Thank you.

Text of e-petition:

Cap all publicly-funded salaries at MPs' pay (£65,738), in order to pay key workers more, reduce cuts to key services and pay off the deficit

Responsible department: Her Majesty's Treasury

Many key public sector employees, at the lower pay scales, are underpaid. Many at higher pay scales are overpaid.

In order to increase the pay of people doing the most vital, socially-useful frontline jobs, on which we all rely (such as teachers, police officers, members of the armed forces, ambulance staff, general NHS workers, care assistants, environmental health officers, fire officers, social workers, etc) the following should occur:

- NO PERSON WHOSE PAY IS FUNDED BY THE PUBLIC PURSE (INCLUDING THE BBC) SHOULD BE PAID MORE THAN THE SALARY OF AN MP (£65,738).

- The savings should be used to pay key workers more, reduce cuts to key services and pay off the deficit.

Assad's use of WMDs would also shame the West & the world

2012-12-06T09:20:00.003Z

I sent this letter sent to The Times, which has not been published.

Also see this NBC report claiming that Syrian forces may be preparing chemical weapons for use.

------

Sir,

Your report (£) about Assad's regime preparing to use chemical weapons and the comments of President Obama that were this to occur there would be "consequences" exposes a depressing truth not just about this brutal regime, but about the weakness of the Western and international response.

By saying that "the use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable", Obama reluctantly confirms to Assad (and all would-be dictators the world over) that the use of other forms of lethal force such as heavy artillery, war planes, tanks, ground troops and even the use of murderous gangs of regime militia, is acceptable. Of course the US and her allies condemn such violence, but they are resolutely failing to act to prevent it. Tacit acceptance has the same practical effect on the ground as wholehearted support: the violence continues.

People of good conscience, who believe in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees "the right to life, liberty and security of person", must urge their leaders to take action against dictators when they egregiously trample on these rights, whatever mechanism of violence is deployed. Chemical weapons are merely a more efficient and terrifying means of pursuing the course of action that Assad has embarked upon, emboldened as he is by the world's indifference.

Kind regards,

John Slinger
Chair, Pragmatic Radicalism

The Times publishes my letter: 'Osborne’s idea undermines hard-won rights'

2012-10-11T09:53:00.000+01:00

Available online here (£).

Osborne’s idea undermines hard-won rights

Sir, By offering private sector employees tax-free shares in return for the surrender of basic employment rights the Chancellor is replacing what some feel is the “something for nothing” culture with a “money for your rights” alternative.

How long before the Government’s covenant with citizens is warped further by the offer of free social care in old age in exchange for the loss of free GP consultations, or a state pension cash bonus on retirement in exchange for working until 75, or free healthcare for children in return for a private insurance system for their parents?

A world in which people are bribed into forgoing long-fought-for rights and protections in exchange for financial benefits would be a Kafkaesque dystopia. That it is being considered by the Conservatives shows that their attempts at detoxification were little more than a cynical marketing campaign.

John Slinger
Chair, Pragmatic Radicalism, Rugby

Left Foot Forward publishes my article about Pragmatic Radicalism's Top of the Policies events past and future

2012-10-11T09:24:00.006+01:00

View online here.

Top of the Policies: Promoting participation, curing cynicism and antidoting apathy

John Slinger is the chair of Pragmatic Radicalism and vice-chair of Rugby Labour; he is a strategic communications consultant

Don’t believe everything you read in the papers. Heralding the conference season, a Times leader (£) entitled “The Party Is Over” proclaimed:

“In many fringe meetings, the parliamentary affairs departments of different pressure groups talk to each other, making up both speakers and spoken to, because there are hardly any party members there.”

After Labour conference, The Guardian’s John Harrisbemoaned that while politicians:

“…fret about what’s happening to our democracy, the parties’ response is to spend millions on annual events that symbolise everything that has gone wrong.”

Such reporting is becoming an annual journalistic ritual (read Martin Kettle last year, and yours truly’s riposte), akin to the August stories about a state school pupil failing to get to Oxbridge or the decline in A-level standards.

Given their proximity to power and those who seek it, our finest political journalists focus on the Three Bigs: beasts, picture and narrative.

In the process they often miss the experiments bubbling away back of the lab and the new ideas of ‘not the usual suspects’ - although to be fair to John Harris, he did concede:

“The unexpected, if it occurs, occurs on the fringe. Here are the flashes of passion.”

This is indeed true, as anyone who attended our fringe in Manchester would have seen.

In place of a panel of the great and good, there were 20 self-selecting speakers pitching new policy ideas. Where panellists normally speak for 10 minutes, here there were 90-second pitches. Instead of lengthy, multiple questions, there were two minutes of fast-paced Q&A per presentation involving most of the audience. Where lengthy concluding remarks would be, there was a vote, leading to a top policy.

Bottom-up, not top-down. Inclusive not exclusive. The quality of the idea counted more than the status of the speaker.

One hundred ordinary members packed in, debated, laughed, heckled (respectfully), drank and ate whilst being occasionally verbally-whipped by chair Michael White’s acerbic wit. In short, an anti-fringe event, yet it had a serious output – the wisdom of this particular crowd chose Labour PPC for Lincoln Lucy Rigby’s idea for boosting voting by young people, beating Peter Kellner into second place with his ‘bribe the electorate’ policy of giving vouchers to those who vote at elections, and a policy from Alex Burrows’s plan to rewrite the transport textbook.

Added to the two fringes, we’ve held six themed TOTP events throughout 2012, usually chaired by the relevant shadow minister, including Jim Murphy MP, Sadiq Khan MP, Maria Eagle MP and Jack Dromey MP. We relish the opportunity to get out of SW1, and held one event in Birmingham, are off to Kendle in the Lake District in November and have more planned around the country.

We’ve captured all 160 ideas from the year’s events in our latest pamphlet, “Top Policies: Labour Policy as Democracy”, which features articles by the winners and an introduction by the co-ordinator of Labour’s policy review, Jon Cruddas MP.

You can pick up a copy at our next TOTP event, next Wednesday, October 17th, at the Barley Mow pub in Westminster. The theme is industrial policy, and the meeting is chaired by the shadow minister for competitiveness and enterprise Iain Wright MP - better still, we’d be delighted if you’d suggest an idea on industrial policy to pitch on the night.

Top of the Policies events are a platform for policy debate that is innovative, exciting and relevant to a party that wants to govern again. The vibrancy of the ideas and the fraternal and open-minded, intellectually curious attitude of our audiences tells me Labour has what it takes to reach out to voters in new ways and involve them in the policy-making process. Doing this with gusto must be an essential plank of the strategy for winning the next election.

My speech at the Kurdistan Regional Government fringe event at Labour Party Conference 2012 on Responsibility to Protect

2012-10-03T09:11:00.003+01:00

An abridged version of the speech below has been published by Progressonline here.

I delivered the speech below at a fringe meeting in the Midland Hotel, during the Labour Party Conference, organised by the Kurdistan Regional Government UK Representation.

The Panel
Details of the event and the panel are here. The other panellists were Labour MPs Dave Anderson, Secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Kurdistan Region in Iraq (unable to attend on the day), and Mike Gapes, a Member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Robert Lowe from the LSE Middle East Centre also joined the panel. The meeting will was chaired by Gary Kent, Director of Labour Friends of Iraq.

The Topic:

Responsibility to Protect: Kurdish lessons for Syria and the Middle East.

---

I'm going to start this speech off in an unusual way – by quoting a song about the very antithesis of what is going on in Syria - LOVE.

If any of you are old enough....!

The band Extreme's biggest hit – ‘MORE THAN WORDS’.

Some lines from the song:

"More than words is all you have to do to make it real"
"More than words to show you feel"
"More than words is all I ever needed you to show"

I want to talk about words and why they are never enough.

Words are important in regulating human relations.
What we say to each other is important.
The words we use when writing law are important.

But to misquote the Bible...'justice cannot live by words alone'.

I believe in words. Not only am I an old romantic but I also believe the most important words in history are those in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, unequivocally:

'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.'

Powerful words....

But just as in personal relations, when we say I LOVE YOU - it is as nothing unless the words carry weight, unless we actually mean it and CRUCIALLY unless we back up the sentiment with action not just once, but always...not just now - but in the future.

In international relations - for the words of international law to mean anything, those to whom they apply - ordinary people and governments, must know that they will be backed up.

...MORE THAN WORDS.

What is happening in Syria now shows:

- the futility of words
- the cover offered by legalistic words to ineffectual international organisations/countries
- the meaninglessness of words in international law.

What of the words we use in international law?
…norms, laws, conventions, treaties, the Universal Declaration, United Nations Security Council Resolutions?

Take the case of Saddam. He flouted many UNSC Resolutions over many years. He breached the cease-fire treaty from the first Gulf War...

In Bosnia, the UNSC passed numerous resolutions, all of which were defied until we acted (and after between 100-200,000 had perished).

In Rwanda...DRC...?

There is a pattern. An evil regime or dictator, which has NO democratic legitimacy, first flouts and then tramples on international law, on the Universal Declaration and even the Resolutions of the UNSC. The response of the UN, the West, the regional bodies such as the Arab League is usually little more than WORDS.

Yet...these stains on the conscience of mankind moved even the UN to seek to improve the way the world deals with such human-made disasters.

The international community - shamed by the Rwanda and Bosnia debacles, began developing a doctrine of the Responsibility To Protect via the United Nations’ International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) - formally integrated into the UN’s framework in 2005.

The use of force is restricted by four precautionary principles: right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable prospect, in addition to notions of just cause and right authority.

And yet despite R2P, action is patchy to say the least.

...there are plenty high meaning words...but they are not enough...

Before the R2P came the Universal Declaration...and in the same year, 1948, the Genocide Convention - the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, of 1948.

Again shows the futility of words, given that the unprecedented description in 2004 by General Colin Powell of the then ongoing events in Darfur as "genocide" resulted in, as we all know - NO ACTION.

Many presumed that Article 1 of the Convention, through which states undertake to "prevent and punish genocide" - would compel the US and her allies to act.

Yet this wasn't so. Even when they did describe genocide, no action followed, because the Convention is vague on the obligations of states.

People assume there is a nobility in debating words, in JAW JAW as opposed to WAR WAR.

There is not.

Murdering dictators have no morality. They subscribe only to Stalin's doctrine 'HOW MANY DIVISIONS DOES THE POPE HAVE?'

Some say – “more JAW JAW less WAR WAR”.

I say “LESS JAW JAW, more ACTION ACTION”.

We must give moral validity to the words we as great powers, we as a member of the UNSC, we as the international community, or each of us as individuals use.

The civilians of Syria do not want our pity, our expressions of outrage any more than the Kurds in Iraq would have appreciated mere sympathy as the WMDs rained down on them. What they appreciated was not WORDS but ACTION.

So what are the Kurdish lessons for Syria?

They are bleak. They are not the lessons of Kurdistan. They are also the lessons of other genocides. They are that:

- international law is virtually worthless, even when it outlaws genocide and obligates states to prevent and punish it
- that a genocide even of 1 million people can result in no outside intervention
- that the red lines of a superpower are over the possibility of WMD use, not genocide.

And yet the conscience of mankind can be shamed into effective action. In an ad hoc manner unfitting of universal ideals such as the right to life.

Here the Kurdish example is a good one and gives us limited hope...

John Major is to be complemented on his brave decision to enforce NO FLY ZONES in the South and North of Iraq in 1991. At a stroke, words began to have practical and moral meaning. The RAF jets did not drop UNSC resolutions, they dropped bombs, and Saddam finally was made to listen.

Yet in recent years, in Darfur, genocide went unpunished, un-prevented.

And while we sit here, debate with our friends in the secure bubble of this conference, indeed this country, children in Syria re having their throats cut, mothers are crying, Russian-made heavy weapons, helicopters and warplanes are attacking civilian areas. This is 2012 not 1942.

We in Labour must remember that to be of the left is to believe in the dignity of human beings, in their rights.

We must not hide behind a naïve belief that any western intervention is an imperialist plot.

Some on the left are so wedded to this misconception with the tragic result that they end up giving succour to evil fascist tyrants. In days of old, socialists formed brigades to fight fascism in Spain. Now, some devote more energy to arresting Tony Blair than they do to stopping the Slayer of Syria or than they did against the Butcher of Baghdad before him.

As someone who stood in the garden of a Kurdish minister in the Red Zone in Baghdad as mortars and machine gun fire thundered nearby amid the calls to prayer, I recall the woman Iraqi MP saying to me - if they, the terrorists, win - we are all finished - you, me and your own people. She did not mean only our physical safety in Baghdad. She was making the wider point - that the engineers of evil, pose a threat to us all.

So can it be said that if we allow women, children and yes, freedom-fighters to be snuffed out in Syria, we can remain safe in fortress Britain?

When human rights are worth so little in Syria can it be said with confidence that our own human rights are truly safe?

At a time when there are worrying echoes from the 1930s emerging in Europe - when extremist parties stalk the streets in Athens, when people talk of the collapse of the post-war settlement in Europe, is it wise to teach dictators that for we powerful nations, and for international law - words remain only words?

So recognising the genocide vs Kurds is what I'll call a 'retrospective start'. But that is all.

Condemning Assad is not even the start - it is a joke, unless you are prepared to back up those words.

The Kurds are now asking for some words from the UK Government - and are campaigning for this via an e-petition. But while it is important to right the wrong of international silence on whether this was genocide - it of course was - the true power of this petition will be if it adds yet more weight to the demand that such crimes cannot happen and will be prevented and punished. It is not recognising a past genocide for its own sake. The act of recognition must go hand-in-hand with the firm belief that we will act to prevent such things happening again.

The e-petition must itself therefore be MORE THAN WORDS.

Human rights do and must trump the rights of so-called Great Powers to veto action to protect their own interests.

The responsibility to protect should be enforced.

The results of humankind's collective failure to make its words carry weight has been suffered in the past by the Kurds and is being suffered by the civilians of Syria.

The e-petition must help ensure that such crimes do not happen again.

This requires that we put action where our words are.

More than words!

THANK YOU.

My speech at the Kurdistan Regional Government fringe event at Labour Party Conference 2012 on Responsibility to Protect

2012-10-03T09:11:00.001+01:00

The following is the text of a speech I gave at the Kurdistan Regional Government UK Representation's fringe event at Labour Party Conference, October 2012, on the theme: 'Kurdish lessons for Syria and the Middle East'.

An abridged version of the speech appeared as an article at Progress (online), Huffington Post UK, and the KRG website.

*****

I will start this speech off in an unusual way- quoting a song about the very antithesis of what is going on in Syria - LOVE.

If any of you are old enough....!

The band Extreme's biggest hit - MORE THAN WORDS.

Some lines from the song:

"More than words is all you have to do to make it real"
"More than words to show you feel"
"More than words is all I ever needed you to show"

I want to talk about words and why they are never enough.

Words are important in regulating human relations.
What we say to each other is important
The words we use when writing law are important.

But to misquote the Bible...'justice cannot live by words alone'

I believe in words. Not only am I an old romantic but I also believe the most important words in history are those in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, unequivocally:

'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.'

Powerful words....

But just as in personal relations, when we say I LOVE YOU - it is as nothing unless the words carry weight, unless we actually mean it and CRUCIALLY unless we back up the sentiment with action not just once, but always...not just now - but in the future.

In International relations - for the words of international law to mean anything, those to whom they apply - ordinary people and governments, must know that they will be backed up.

...MORE THAN WORDS

What is happening in Syria now shows

the futility of words
the cover offered by legalistic words to ineffectual international organs./countries
the meaninglessness of words in international law

What of the words we use in international law?
norms, laws, conventions, treaties, the Universal Declaration, UNSC Resolutions?

Take the case of Saddam. He flouted X UNSC Resolutions over X years. He breached the cease-fire treaty from the first Gulf War, which required him to: XXXXXXXXX

In Bosnia, the UNSC passed numerous resolutions, all of which were defied until....

In Rwanda...DRC...?

There is a pattern. An evil regime or dictator, which has NO democratic legitimacy, first flouts and then tramples on international law, on the Universal Declaration and even the Resolutions of the UNSC. The response of the UN, the West, the regional bodies such as the Arab League is usually little more than WORDS.

Yet...these stains on the conscience of mankind moved even the UN to seek to improve the way the world deals with such human-made disasters.

The international community - shamed by the Rwanda and Bosnia debacles, began developing a doctrine of the Responsibility To Protect via the United Nations’ International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) - formally integrated into the UN’s framework in 2005.

"The use of force is regulated by four precautionary principles: right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable prospect in combination with just cause and right authority."

And yet despite R2P, action is patchy to say the least.

...there are plenty high meaning words...but they are not enough...

Before the R2P came the Univ Declaration...and the...

The Genocide Convention - Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, of 1948.

Again shows the futility of words, given that the unprecedented description in 2004 by Gen Colin Powell of the then ongoing events in Darfur as "genocide" resulted in, as we all know - NO ACTION.

Many presumed that Article 1 of the Convention, through which states undertake to "prevent and punish genocide" - would compel the US and her allies to act.

Yet this wasn't so. Even when they did describe genocide, no action followed, because the Convention is vague on the obligations of states, stating in Article 8 merely that

People assume there is a nobility in debating words, in JAW JAW as opposed to WAR WAR. There is not. Murdering dictators have no morality. They subscribe only to Stalin's doctrine 'HOW MANY DIVISIONS DOES THE POPE HAVE.'

Some say- more JAW JAW less WAR WAR.

I say LESS JAW JAW, more ACTION ACTION.

We must give moral validity to the words we as great powers, we as a member of the UNSC, we as the international community, or each of us as individuals use.

The civilians of Syria do not want our pity, our expressions of outrage any more than the Kurds in Iraq would have appreciated mere sympathy as the WMDs rained down on them. What they appreciated was not WORDS but ACTION.

So what are the Kurdish lessons for Syria?

They are bleak. They are not the lessons of Kurdistan. They are also the lessons of other genocides. They are that:

- international law is virtually worthless, even when it outlaws genocide and obligates sttes to prevent and punish it
- that a genocide even of 1 million people can result in no outside intervention
- that the red lines of a superpower are over the possibility of WMD use, not genocide.

And yet the conscience of mankind can be shamed into effective action. In an ad hoc manner unfitting of universal ideals such as the right to life.

Here the Kurdish example is a good one and gives us limited hope...

John Major is to be complemented on his brave decision to enforce NO FLY ZONES in the South and North of Iraq in 1991. At a stroke, words began to have practical and moral meaning. The RAF jets did not drop UNSC resolutions, they dropped bombs, and Saddam finally was made to listen.

Again in Darfur - in Sudan. What amounts to a genocide went unpunished. Indeed this is, for me, the case which epitomises my view on the futility of words. The then Sec of State Colin Powell even declared before the Senate For Rels Committee in XX that a genocide had occurred, yet still NO ACTION followed despite the US being signatories to the UN...

And while we sit hear, debate with our friends in the secure bubble of this conference, indeed this country, children in Syria re having theiR throats cut, mothers are crying, Russian heavy weapons, helicopters and warplanes are attacking civilian areas. This is 2012 not 1942.

We in Labour must remember that to be of the left is to believe in the dignity of human beings, in their rights.

We must not hide behind a naïve belief that any western intervention is an imperialist plot.
Some on the left are so wedded to the this misconception with the tragic result that they end up giving succour to evil fascist tyrants. In days of old socialists formed brigades to fight fascism in Spain. Now some devote more energy to arresting Tony Blair than they do to stopping the Slayer of Syria or than they did against the Butcher of Baghdad before him.

As someone who stood in the garden of a Kurdish minister in the Red Zone in Baghdad as mortars and machine gun fire thundered nearby amid the calls to prayer, I recall the woman Iraqi MP saying to me - if they, the terrorists, win - we are all finished - you, me and your own people. She did not mean only our physical safety in Baghdad. She was making the wider point - that the engineers of evil, the harbingers of human rights and human lives, pose a threat to us all.

So can it be said that if we allow women, children and yes, freedom-fighters to be snuffed out in Syria, we can remain safe in fortress Britain?

When human rights are worth so little in Syria can it be said with confidence that our own human rights are truly safe?

At a time when there are worrying echoes from the 1930s emerging in Europe - when extremist parties stalk the streets in Athens, when people talk of the collapse of the post-war settlement in Europe, is it wise to teach dictators that for we powerful nations, and for international law - words remain only words.

So recognising the genocide vs Kurds is what I'll call a 'retrospective start'. But that is all.

Condemning Assad is not even the start - it is a joke unless you are prepared to back up those words.

The Kurds are now asking for some words from the UK Government. But while it is important to right the wrong of international silence on whether this was genocide - it of course was - the true power of this petition will be if it adds yet more weight to the demand that such crimes cannot happen and will be prevented and punished. It is not recognising a past genocide for its own sake. The act of recognition must go hand-in-hand with the firm belief that we will act to prevent such things happening again.

The e-petition must itself therefore be MORE THAN WORDS.

Human rights do and must trump the rights of so-called Great Powers to veto action to protect their own interests.

The responsibility to protect should be enforced.

The results of human kind's collective failure to make its words carry weight has been suffered in the past by the Kurds and is being suffered by the civilians of Syria.

The e-petition must help ensure that such crimes do not happen again.

This requires that we put action where our words are.

More than words!

THANK YOU.

The Times publishes my letter on tax avoidance off-shore

2012-09-21T09:00:00.000+01:00

Online at The Times here (£)

The article to which I was responding is here (£)

Sir, The contrast between those who squirrel away their earnings in tax havens such as Monaco and those who earn ordinary incomes and pay their tax without a fuss is revealing. On the one hand are the majority who do not object to contributing their fair share to fund the services on which we all depend and which help to create a civilised society. If they feel taxes are too high, they seek to change them through the levers available in a democracy.

The other group consists of people who wish to remain to all intents and purposes “British” because of the huge advantages this brings them and their businesses, yet reject the quid pro quo which is that they pay such taxes as the law decrees are owed by a British resident. The former group are, in effect, subsidising the greed and lack of commitment to this country of the latter. That the Establishment maintains such a baneful state of affairs in perpetuity would suggest that it is too close to the latter group.

John Slinger
Rugby, Warks