From Wikipedia :

"Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (May 3, 1469 June 21, 1527) was an Italian diplomat, political philosopher, musician, poet, and playwright. He is a figure of the Italian Renaissance and a central figure of its political component, most widely known for his treatises on realist political theory."

Gordon Brown is none of those things, nor is he ever likely to be. Only Brown's most loyal retainers would suggest his name will become a byword for anything in 500 years. Or even remembered in 100, for that matter.

Today the term "Machiavellian" is an insult to most. It implies someone who manipulates and schemes, someone who is very intelligent, highly skilled and utterly ruthless.

Is this a fair description of Gordon Brown? There is no doubt the he schemes and manipulates. Then again, so do all politicians. It is part of the job description. In fact, it is part of the job description for "human being."

True, Brown has left the UK in little doubt of his intelligence. Throughout his campaign to replace Tony Blair, his retainers continually reminded us of his superior intelligence. This is probably where the Machiavellian accusations come from. It is par for the course for any politician who claims intelligence to be characterized as Machiavellian.

Where Brown fails to live up to the Machiavellian label is on the "highly skilled and completely ruthless" front.

Tony Blair easily outmaneuvered Brown for the leadership of the Labor party 10 years ago. Blair and Brown reputedly made a deal, where Blair would step aside after a period in office, in return for Brown's support. However, Blair welshed on the deal, leaving Brown kick his heals as Chancellor of the Exchequer for a decade. You would guess that Niccolo would have had Blair's guts for garters for that literally. Brown did have a half-hearted attempt at a palace coup, but backed out at the last minute.

Since taking over as Prime Minister, Brown has been equally unimpressive, in particular the 'Election that Never Was' a reminder of the 'Coup that Never Was'.

One suspects that Brown imagines himself Machiavellian, but in reality he not skilled and ruthless enough, or maybe just not decisive enough. He has consistently failed to stick the knife in and twist when the opportunity arises. The nickname the opposition have given him is 'Bottler Brown' Would anyone have dared describe Niccolo thus?

First published on Helium

Technorati tags : Gordon Brown , Machiavelli , New Labour

Twice in the twentieth century, competition between France and Germany had been major factors in turning Europe into a charnel house. The war in Europe 1939 - 1945 produced death and destruction on a scale never before seen. As many as 60 million dead and just about every major European city damaged.

The first step on the road of European Union was taken in 1950, just five years after the end of WWII, with the creation of The European Coal and Steel Community. The objective as stated by the then French foreign minister, Robert Schuman, was to make, "any war between France and Germany...not only unthinkable but materially impossible." At the time the coal and steel industries were the basis for military power.

In the last 50 years The European Coal and Steel Community of six member states has evolved into The European Union of 27 member states. This deepening and widening of the EU has seen the creation of a single market for goods, services and jobs; a single currency; a European legal system; a directly elected European Parliament and a European defense identity.

By some estimates, the economic integration brought about by the EU has seen economic growth within the Union 0.5 percent per annum higher than it would have been without the existence of the EU. Considering that the EU generates 31 percent of the world's nominal GDP (US$16.6 trillion) in 2007, this is a considerable achievement.

The Treaty of Lisbon, currently being ratified by the member states and due to come into force 1 Jan 2009, will give the EU a permanent president and a foreign minister. Previously EU foreign policy has been characterized by its simplicity. The main leverage that the EU had was to accept or reject a county's application to join. Any country wishing to join must meet the Copenhagen criteria. These require a stable democracy, which respects human rights and the rule of law; a functioning market economy capable of competition within the EU and the acceptance of the obligations of membership.

As there are many benefits to EU membership, especially for poorer countries, this lever has been used to good effect in post cold war Europe to cement democracy and peace in former communist states. Many of which are now members of the EU.

There is no doubt that the EU is far from perfect, its democratic deficit and the apparent remoteness of its bureaucracy being obvious points. But overall, European Union has served the people of Europe well, helping to produce a peaceful, stable and prosperous Europe, quite unlike its previous history.

See the rest of the dabate on Helium

Technorati tags : European Union

In our liberal societies we normally only curtail individual liberty if there is a good reason to do so. Therefore, this question becomes "Is there good reason to ban smoking from public places?" To answer this, the debate on passive smoking needs to be visited.

Passive smoking is the act of breathing in second-hand smoke.

Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases. These include tar, nicotine, benzene, carbon monoxide, ammonia, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide. It has been estimated that tobacco smoke contains as many as 60 substances which cause - or are suspected of causing - cancer.

The Environmental Protection Agency in the USA has classified environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) as a class A carcinogen - ranking it alongside asbestos and arsenic.

According to Cancer Research UK, passive smokers are 20 to 30 percent more likely to develop lung cancer than people not exposed to smoke, with several hundred deaths occurring as a direct result in the UK each year.

Children whose parents smoke in the home are more likely to be admitted to hospital for bronchitis and pneumonia in the first year of life. One study found that in households where both parents smoke, young children have a 72% increased risk of respiratory illnesses. It is estimated that more than 17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital in the UK every year because of the effects of passive smoking.

The tobacco industry denies the link between ETS and ill health. Pro-tobacco advocates often claim there is no hard evidence linking the two.

However, Jean King, director of tobacco control at Cancer Research UK in an interview with the BBC in 2006 said, "There is an international consensus among doctors, nurses and medical research experts that second hand smoke kills innocent people. Only people who work for or receive money from the tobacco industry deny this link."

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the British Medical Association holds similar views. She said the tobacco industry's refusal to accept the dangers associated with passive smoking would result in "the sabotage of the health of people exposed to passive smoking all over the world."

The tobacco industry's track record on health issues relating to their products is highly dubious.

There is overwhelming evidence that passive smoking damages health. Experts contend that the dangers of passive smoking are well documents and cite existing evidence from more than 50 studies.

Have smokers the right to endanger other people with their reckless behavior? The answer to that is clearly no. Smoking should not be allowed in public places.

Technorati tags : Civil Liberties, Smoking

This week saw Jack Straw unveil  the government's plans to finish the reformation of the House of Lords.  As the UK is one of the few places in the western world where the value of having a democratically elected legislator is questioned, it is worth visiting the arguments, for novelty value if nothing else.

David Steel’s contribution to the debate was particularly disappointing.  Lord Steel is a former leader of the Liberal party and a founder of the Liberal Democrats.  I am surprised to see him putting his name to this piffle.

It is unreal having to argue the benefits of democracy.  But here we go:
He say
I say

...the great strength of the Lords is that it contains not just a bunch of experienced retired MPs but a whole raft of individuals with specialist knowledge and experience ... none of whom would be likely to be available to stand for election.

However you cut it, you’re still an unelected elite who exercise power without accountability, because “you know best”.

The premise here is the British electorate cannot be trusted to choose who should sit in the Lords.  I am not sure why you feel us Brits are particularly dysfunctional, nearly every modern democracy have elected upper houses.
 
In addition, appointments to the Lords have been judiciously used to correct imbalances of gender and race in the Commons.

This is clearly not the case.  Allow people to elect there own representatives.  It really is that simple.
 
"Ah, but," say the enthusiasts for an elected chamber, "we could retain an appointed element, whether 20% or 50%." 

Not me, I say dump the lot.

I can think of nothing more destructive of the present harmonious atmosphere in the Lords.
 
Oh dear, elected politicians argue do they?  I wonder why no one thought of that reason for not invading Iraq? 

Elected members would be justifiably incensed if the votes of appointed members happened to determine any issue before the house.
 
Are they not likely to be “justifiably incensed” about being excluded then?  Out of site, out of mind I guess.

Commons members should ponder what will happen when we have Lords members interfering in their constituency affairs on the grounds that they too have a mandate.

Yeah think what this could mean to your own personal empires when you come to vote!

They should talk to Scottish MPs and constituency MSPs who have been irritated by the activities of some of those elected to the Scottish parliament on party regional lists.  It is not a happy precedent.

And the happiness of MPs should be of paramount importance when considering the constitutional settlement of the UK.
 
In any case, where is the public enthusiasm for more elections?
 
Whose fault is that?  The answer to public cynicism is more accountability not less.

We have trouble enough persuading people to turn out for the many that exist at present.

Patronising twerp...

The House of Lords exists for two valuable functions: it scrutinises legislation (other than finance bills) and it holds debates of quality born of its expert composition, sometimes on topics for which the Commons has no time.

Oh yeah, the 'Quality of Debate' argument.  Basically  “We can’t have just any one in the Lords as they will reduce the quality of our debate.”  Sounds like elitist snobbery to me.  An argument for a completely elected upper chamber as far as I am concerned.

It no longer obstructs government legislation; it merely has the useful power to ask the Commons to think again. An elected chamber will not be satisfied with that - it will, in time, seek to flex its democratic muscle.

If the respective roles of the houses were codified this would not be a problem.

I believe we should concentrate on what would improve the Lords, not destroy it.

This is an obvious logical fallacy – false choice – if this is an example of the quality of debate I keep hearing about, then it’s no great loss.

First, we should create a statutory appointments commission to choose the independent crossbench peers, and to approve those proposed by party leaders - thus avoiding any future cash-for-peerages scandal.

Never forget: “Power corrupts...”  Sure elected upper chambers have problems, but in a democratic system, the electorate can punish any shortcomings.  In a self-appointed, self-regulating system, they cannot.  This is one of the reasons for the success of liberal democracies.

Second, end the ludicrous byelections for hereditary peers and thereby transform the existing 92 hereditaries into life peers.  The hereditary principle will thus be extinguished.
 
It must be embarrassing for you that the only democratic element is the election of hereditary peers.  Honestly, you could not make this stuff up.

Finally, introduce a retirement incentive, encouraging those over, say, 75 to leave and make way for fresh appointments.
 
There are some 740 peers, half of whom are not regular attenders, and our average age is far too high at 68.

So much for being representative.

Changes to the composition of the House of Lords must protect its crucial function in British democracy.
 
Which being a fully elected house would not interfere with.

Overall, these are pernicious arguments.  Nowhere have I seen a convincing argument against a fully elected House of Lords.

Technorati tags : House of Lords, Lord Steel, Political Reform

There is a TV ad campaign in the UK to deter Brits from committing benefit fraud.  Characters rationalise their criminal behaviour with statements such as: “So what if I’m working?  It’s not benefit fraud if I only do it now and again, is it?  Anyway, everyone is doing it.”  

The advert ends with the perps in an interview room, trying desperately to defend themselves: “If...but...”

We should make a similar advert to persuade politicians that corruption is wrong. 

 Picture this, a man in the back of a limo; zoom in to the man’s knowing smile: “So what if I exchange the odd peerage for cash?  It’s not corruption if I promise to pay the money back at some point, is it?  Anyway, it’s been going on for years”

Scene 2: A woman behind a desk in a large office, she looks up from her brief, removes her glasses and glares across the desk: “So what if British companies pass the odd backhander occasionally?  It’s not corruption if there are jobs at stake, is it?  Anyway, everyone is doing it.”

The final scene would be the police hauling them away in a dawn raid: “If...but...”

Acceptance of corruption is growing in the UK and the government for once is showing real leadership (nudge nudge, wink wink).  Their ‘defence’ appears to be: “It’s unfair to criticize us, we are no more corrupt then anyone else.”  This annoys me enormously.  I for one am not corrupt, neither I suspect are many of you.

Tolerance of petty corruption eats away the moral fibre of society.  Non-trivial corruption becomes acceptable.  The opposition should do their job.  They should fight this rising tide of sleaze.  

No ifs, no buts, the government should be held to account.

Technorati tags : Corruption, Sleeze, UK