Author: Paddy Ashdown

Citizen’s Britain

EXTRACT FROM “CITIZEN’S BRITAIN -A RADICAL AGENDA FOR THE 1990s”

By Paddy Ashdown – Pages 14 – 22

(Here are) two pictures of how Britain could develop, each dependent on the decisions we take. They are not intended as an exercise in futurology; their purpose is to highlight some fo the major policy dilemmas we will face in the remaining years of this century.

*********

1999 In Citadel Britain

“The danger of the past is that men became slaves. The danger of the future is that men may become robots.” – Erich Fromm

The Citadel

The classical facades and glittering glass skyscrapers of our capital, and our major cities, provide the offices of our financial empires -banks, insurance companies, pension funds, the headquarters of international enterprises. They also house our government departments, which guard the state. These form the tightly linked power centre of society, monopolising communications, information and control, giving high priority to security, both internal and external. The highest levels of finance, government and the security apparatus have used their access to advanced technology as the means of increasing their power at the expense of wider society, fusing their systems in recognition of their common concerns. This citadel of power is characterised by suspicion and secrecy, thinly veiled in public relations disinformation and evasive ministerial statements. Ministers and decision makers themselves are cut off from the grubby public. Official cars and a cordon sanitaire of functionaries stand between them and the slashed seats on the underground, the graffiti and faeces in the underpass and the pavement strewn with hamburger boxes. For them, through the tinted (and discreetly reinforced glass) of the 1999 equivalent of the Daimler Sovereign, the world looks different. Nationalistic in its stance towards the world, Citadel Britain nevertheless adopts opportunistic policies within the global economy, seeking only the highest short term gains from international investment and trade.

Screwdriver Industry

Although the economy still produces rich profits for some, Britain’s industrial base has continued to shrink. Those industries which thrive on high technology, creative innovation and adaptive skill have declined. Because education and training have been neglected, Britain has not been able to keep pace with competition from America, Western Europe, Japan or the newly industrialised countries (NIC). More and more products with high capital input, high skills and high added value are being imported. British industry is characterised by assembly plants, where workers with few skills and little training do a screwdriver job for overseas companies or local firms. In our low productivity economy, workers’ standards of living and skills lag behind those of other countries, as does the quality of their products. Britain competes for investment with the newly industrialising countries of the Third World. It tries to attract new plants from overseas companies looking for weak planning controls, weak trade unions and workers willing to undertake long hours for low pay. British industry is distinguishable from the rest of Europe by poor training, low skills, low investment, poor working conditions, continuing high overtime and an archaic management style.

Rent a Mop Services

As the gap between rich and poor has widened, the rich can afford to pay for more personal services. Overall unemployment has fallen, but there are pockets where labour shortages persist. Low pay is very common, especially in the service industries. More households have nannies,nurses, maids, cooks, cleaners and gardeners. The leisure industries, in particular, employ casual labour on a large scale. Few of the people in these categories get paid enough to meet their basic needs, but they are able to claim means-tested benefits to bring them above the poverty line.

Just as public services have been privatised, so the largest sector of employment has become private services. The scope for productivity increases in this sector is so low that firms can compete and be profitable only by employing short term part time casual labour. Most of those in this casual sector do not have pension rights, sick pay, holiday pay or redundancy protection. Typically, these workers are married women or young people living with their parents, since wages are insufficient and too unreliable for the ‘main earner’ in a household.

Private Life

Citadel Britain boasts of family life as its centrepiece, and claims as its foundation the self-reliant, self-responsible household each in its own ‘castle’. But behind the security-locked front doors all is not so rosy. Ordinary families experience a good deal of stress during their working lives and increasing anxiety and fear as old age advances. Unable to afford insurance against the hazards of disability, and lacking the support of public services, the growing elderly population increasingly depends on the next generation for help and support. The burden falls unfairly on women expected to give unpaid assistance, or take their parents in, while still trying to sustain the part-time earnings on which household income depends.

The strain on mental and physical health is considerable, and the social costs are high. Women feel themselves increasingly subordinate, excluded and exploited; their paid and unpaid labour is required, yet they are not getting their share of power or income in Citadel Britain.

Meanwhile, whilst the majority of opera, concerts, art galleries and theatre can only survive with the patronage of business for the benefit of the few, the vast majority in Citadel Britain are wholly in the grip of the ‘Jumbo culture’. There is little reading and almost no access to conventional culture for the ordinary person. All of these are replaced by the surrogate of soap operas, in which there is an almost ritualised national preoccupation.

Public Perils

Every city has its deprived areas, where the poor and dispossessed live. Despite the apparent general prosperity, a significant minority have been left out. Black people in particular (survey after survey shows that they have lower paid jobs and poorer housing) are disproportionatly numerous among the poor who depend on state benefits and state services for their living. Although there are skill shortages in many areas, unemployment in these districts remains high because whole households are unable to afford to work.

High travelling and child care costs combine with low pay and means tested benefit withdrawal, to make it impossible for such people to improve their situation. Many of them feel that their only alternative is fiddling, hustling and crime.

As a result state officials maintain a brooding and coercive presence in these areas. Employment officials try to enforce low paid work under threat of benefit withdrawal; taskmasters supervise ‘workfare’ schemes for cleaning streets and public buildings; offenders are engaged in ‘punishment in the community’, doing similar tasks, monitored through electronic tags. All residents carry identity cards; relations with officials are tense and volatile; community relations are hostile; curfews for the young are in force; while the police are seen as protecting some, they are regarded as persecuting others. Coercion and control are part of the experience of daily life.

All over the country, the public environment has become shabby, down at heel and dangerous. Public transport is so unreliable, comfortless and risky that it is used only by the poor, while roads are congested and private motorists live with endless delay and frustration. The vulnerable avoid using all public amenities and increasingly stay behind locked doors at night. Some of the young and robust find expression for their frustration and surplus energy in loutish, drunken and violent outbursts. The environment is polluted, crime rates are high; the quality of public resources, public health and public behaviour continue to sink.

Politics

The government of Citadel Britain is built on its outdated political system. The concentration of power in Whitehall is very convenient and whichever political party is in power uses it to maintain its grip on authority. For many years Parliament has been used to acting as a servant of the executive, ensuring that the government of the day gets its way. The power of the state to control the release of information and to crack down on dissent is greatly aided by the absence of a Statute of Rights and an enfeebled official opposition which, willing to wait its turn for power, always plays its politics by the conventional rule book. Meanwhile, more and more citizens are disillusioned with the political choices available to them and turn out has fallen consistently at elections to the point where Parliament has decided to make voting compulsory. Nevertheless, the standing of Parliament continues to fall in the public esteem.

Regionally, too, Britain has become a nation of citadels. Many within the citadel walls, especially in the south and east, enjoy security and prosperity. Many more are outside, banging at the gates to get in.

**********

1999 In Citzens’ Britain

“Some people see things that are and ask themselves ‘Why?’. I dream things that never have been and ask myself ‘Why not?’ ” -Aeschylus

Democratic Society

In Citizens’ Britain, it is the people’s homes in all their rich if untidy diversity, which have become the real centres of power. Information technology has not been used to concentrate power but to disperse it. Government has taken active steps to give all citizens access to new communications systems, giving people more control over their own lives and over the organisations which influence them. Decision makers, both in government and out of it have recognised that the best structure for managing and governing is one which does not concentrate power but disperses it, and enables a teamwork rather than ‘top-down’ approach. Workers have more knowledge and power in their workplace. Many own their own jobs and are self employed. Every person owns an economic stake in the nation’s economy, through a universal share ownership programme, the Citizens’ Trust. Similarly, all citizens have a share in the ownership of the privatised utility industries which serve their needs. Citizens participate more fully in government. Emphasis is on openness and rights of access, on sharing information, not guarding it; on discussion not secrecy. A reformed legal system gives each citizen on equal access to justice, with a Statute of Rights to protect freedoms. Internationally, Britain, an active participant in an increasingly integrated Europe, is seen as a promoter of constructive co-operation. We enjoy good relations with Eastern Europe, many of whose nations have taken affiliated status with the EEC. We are also leaders in international moves to solve global problems such as environmental destruction, disease and famine.

Adaptive Industry

British industry is adapting to new conditions through the benefits of political commitment to education and training. Taking its lead from Europe, Britain has invested in a crash programme to improve standards, especially in higher and adult education. Many people retrain or ‘up-skill’ twice or more in their working lives. Education has moved away from early specialisation to establishing a broad base on which specialist skills can be built. Distance learning, especially through the use of information technology, has become far more widespread, particularly in higher and adult education. There is a thriving high technology sector of industry. A skilled workforce earns high wages through producing good quality products.

The labour process is much more varied and flexible in Citizens’ Britain. In many enterprises, a relatively small core of permanent headquarters staff manage the work of employees who are dispersed, some working on a self-employed basis from their own homes and some in small decentralised units. This is not simply to save costs; it also gives workers greater autonomy and a better quality of life. Men and women are more able to share unpaid household work and child care, and both work part-time when there are major caring duties to share. People place a higher premium on adequate pay with adequate leisure than on high pay for long hours. Quality of life has become just as important as large wage packets. Indeed emphasis has shifted from overall levels of pay to a greater concern with net levels of disposable income. With more frequent retraining, the idea of sabbatical periods away from full time employment has become more accepted.

Income Security and Employment

As part time work increases, and a variety of employment contracts develops, the rights and protection of those workers becomes a matter of concern. Employers and trade unions value these ‘irregular’ as well as regular workers, and seek to advance their interests. The government adopts an income maintenance system which encourages part time work and flexibility – a Basic Income, which gives security to each individual. Although this seems controversial at first, (because it guarantees a tax-free income to each citizen irrespective of work or marital status) it is soon recognised as encouraging enterprise, self-employment and a rational use of technology and human energies. It also provides an income for periods of training and advanced education. The Basic Income gives unskilled workers far better opportunities and incentives in the labour market than a means-tested benefits system. Every citizen also receives an annual, if at first limited, dividend from the shares held in a Citizens’ Unit Trust and in the privatised utility industries. They understand that clean water and unpolluted air are essential to their own health and that of their children. Meanwhile, conditions of work, security of employment and pay bargaining are increasingly seen to be protected better through employee rights and profit sharing than through trades union rights and government legislation. Most workers in Britain have a share in the ownership of the firms in which they work.

A Healthy and Caring Society

In Citizens’ Britain people are concerned about quality of life, and not just about quantity of material possessions. They want to live a healthy and fulfilled life, to take an interest in what they consume and in self care. They use information technology to monitor their own health, and expect professionals and experts to act as advisors and consultants, rather than taking all decisions for them.

As people live longer, the proportion of elderly and disabled citizens rises. Neither the traditional ‘solution’ of institutional care nor the alternative of unpaid family care is acceptable. People with disabilities (of whatever age) are not willing to be ‘put away’ in hospitals, nor to be cut off from contact with their community. And married women, whose skills are in demand for paid employment, want choices which extend beyond low-paid menial work in institutions or accepting the assumption that they will be full time unpaid carers in the family home. So new approaches to care, which respect the autonomy and aspirations of people with disabilities, which support the carers, and which allow women the same opportunities for participation in society as men, are encouraged by state policy.

Community and Citizenship

In Citizens’ Britain, people increasingly recognise the importance of an active life as members of a community, and the value of shared resources. They prize their association with others in voluntary organisations, clubs and groups, and their membership of cultural and religious communities. They value good relations between races and faiths. Central and local government promote co-operation between citizens, providing communal facilities for a good quality of life. Environmental protection is a high priority, locally, nationally and in the international community.

Citizens have learnt to place a greater value on shared public amenities, allowing a better balance between private and public, owned and shared, quantity and quality. Public transport and public services are properly resourced, being recognised as a part of the common wealth and essential elements in a good society. It is recognised that the question ‘Who owns?’, which dominated the debate about public services and utility industries in the 1980s, is less relevant than the question ‘How is the citizen served?’. A single powerful watchdog body acts as guardian of the consumer interest where monopolies (state or private) or near monopolies operate in the public sector. Elsewhere consumer power, buttressed by rights to information, guarantees of quality and access to redress, dominates in the market place.

The need to protect and improve the environment is recognised as being central to all the decisions taken in Britain and millions of people spend part of their spare time helping to preserve our natural and cultural heritage.

Published by Fourth Estate Ltd – London 1989

China and Hong Kong 1 December 2017

Hong Kong and the new China

29 November

Peace in the Pacific, and the world, depends on two questions. How will the United States cope with decline? And how will China fulfil her potential as a super-power.

We live in a period of shifting power structures. These are turbulent and conflict-ridden times. The United States remains the most powerful nation on earth, but the context in which she holds that power has changed fundamentally. We live now in a multi polar-world, with China’s powerful position as a mercantile super-power already established. The question is how will China behave?

Until recently, the signs had been hopeful. China had seemed keen to be a good world citizen. She has engaged constructively in multilateral institutions – look at the WTO; look at her support for UN sanctions on North Korea; look at her engagement with international forces to tackle Somali pirates around the Horn of Africa; look at her involvement with UN peace keeping to which she has committed more troops than the United States and Europe combined.

Domestically too, until a few years ago, the China seemed to be moving steadily away from the old dictatorial structures of Communisml. The economic liberalisation of China’s markets have been awe-inspiring. Many of us had taken comfort in what we saw as the inevitable fact that economic reform must, over time, lead to political liberalisation too.

If these were our hopes they have now come up against a jolting reality.

Judging from the iconography of the recent People’s Congress it is difficult not to conclude that what we were looking at was less the emergence of a new China, as the return of the old. A Red Emperor, a cult of personality, the leader’s “thought” constitutionally enshrined, centralised power, suppression of dissent. These were all – perhaps – necessary for Mao Zedong, who had to build a unified state from ashes and a nation which was respected abroad after a century of humiliation. But the respect in which China is held is not in question today, nor is her unity and strength. To return to the ways of Mao sits uncomfortably with China’s ambition to be a modern state.

I do not believe that the Chinese people yearn for freedom and human rights any less than anyone else.  A state whose economy pioneers the future, but whose politics has reverted to the past, is a state founded on an irresolvable contradiction. I know of no instance in history where the sustainable greatness of a nation has been built on a market that is free and a public voice which is suppressed. It is just not in human nature to be content for long with glorious freedom in one aspect of your life and permanent voicelessness in the other. It is profoundly worrying to note the recent spate of examples of harsh repression – the abduction and disappearance of dissidents, the jailing of bloggers and activists, the use of so-called “black jails” outside the judicial system where torture is rampant, the repression of religious minorities, the crackdown on lawyers, the arrest of foreign NGO workers for expressing unwelcome views.

Maybe I had read the signals wrong. Foreigners, even those who have studied China for a long time, can easily do that. The proof of the pudding will come in the eating, and the first slices of that pudding will be eaten. It is in Hong Kong, perhaps more than anywhere else, where we will come to know the true nature of “Xi Jinping Thought”.

Over the past five years, the freedoms guaranteed to the people of Hong Kong in its mini-constitution, the Basic Law, the autonomy promised under “one country, two systems” and the way of life, which the United Kingdom has an obligation to monitor under the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, have been increasingly eroded.

The heart of that Basic Law is the rule of law itself, and while the Hong Kong judiciary is still largely intact and independent, it is under real pressure from Beijing. The abduction of Hong Kong booksellers into the mainland simply for having published books critical of China’s leaders, undermines confidence both in the rule of law and in free speech. The right to protest within defined limits is part of that law. The right to due process by a judicial system independent of political interference is part of it too. The right to be free from the hazard of double jeopardy if you break the law is widely regarded as a fundamental principle of justice worldwide.

Of course those who break the law should be judged, though whether it was wise for the full might of a super-power to come down on three young enthusiastic student demonstrators, one of whom a directly elected legislator, is a different matter. But even the judged have rights that must be protected.

A year before the handover of Hong Kong, Prime Minister John Major promised Hong Kong that “if there were any suggestion of a breach of the Joint Declaration, we would have a duty to pursue every legal and other avenue available to us.” In words which would have reminded every Hong Konger of President John F Kennedy’s pledge that he would stand by Berlin, the British Prime Minister promised that Hong Kong “will never have to walk alone”. This is not a promise that can be lightly broken. As the last Governor Chris Patten has said, if Britain fails to live up to its responsibilities, legal and moral, it risks selling its honour.

The new mood places new responsibilities on the Hong Kong government, too. If things continue to regress further, then Hong Kong’s government has an even greater duty to defend Hong Kong’s autonomy and values.

What happens next in Hong Kong will be judged by a watching world, for it will tell us whether the rise of Xi Jinping leads to a new more modern China, or back to an old more repressive one.

China Speech 28 November 2017

China Speech

Foreign Correspondents Club, Hong Kong

28 November 2017

Peace in the Pacific Region, and very probably the wider world, will depend on two questions.

How will the United States cope with decline?

And how will China fulfil her potential as a super power.

Not long after I returned from Bosnia in 2006, in the middle of the era of small wars, I was asked if great wars were now a thing of the past. I replied no; unhappily the habit of war, large and small, seems inextricably locked into the human gene. But I did not believe that, once we were passed the fossil fuel era, the most likely place for a great conflagration would be the Middle East. If we wanted to see where future great wars might occur, we should look to those regions where mercantilism was leading to an increase in nationalist sentiment and imperialist attitudes, as it did in Europe in the nineteenth century. The only region in the world, I concluded, which matched this description, was the Pacific basin. Nothing I have seen in the intervening decade alters this judgement.

We live in one of those periods of history where the structures of power in the world shift. These are almost always turbulent times and all too often, conflict ridden ones too. How new powers rise and old powers fall, is one of the prime determinants of peace in times like this. The Pacific basin is about to be the cockpit in which this drama is about to be played out

The United States is the most powerful nation on earth and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. But the context in which she holds that power is completely different from what it was. Over the last hundred years or so – the American century – we have lived in a mono-polar world dominated by the American Colossus. This is no longer true. We live now in a multi polar-world – by the way very similar to Nineteenth century Europe where balance among the five powers – the so called Concert of Europe – meant peace and imbalance meant war.

We have seen this before. The end of the European empires after the Second World war led to great instability and much conflict, not least in this region. Britain, by and large, accepted her decline and, mostly, dealt with it in a measured and civilised fashion. We will come onto what that means for Hong Kong in a moment. France, by contrast lashed about soaking first Indo China and then North Africa in blood. The Belgians were even worse in the Belgian Congo.

How the United States copes with her relative decline from the world’s only super power, to primus inter pares in a multi-polar world, is one of the great questions which will decide what happens in this region in the next decade. President Obama seemed to understand this. President Trump, it seems does not. His policies of isolationism, protectionism and confrontation towards China are foolish and dangerous. It is foolish because he is abandoning American leadership of the multilateral space and that will not strengthen America as he suggests, but hasten her decline. Its is dangerous because US isolationism will weaken multilateral instruments which are the only means of resolving conflicts and tackling global problems, such as climate change.

China’s position as a mercantile super-power is already established. It was inevitable that she should now seek to consolidate her trading strength by becoming a political and military super power, too. This is a perfectly natural ambition. It’s the way super powers behave – indeed it’s the way they have to behave to protect their position. This therefore, should not, in and of itself, be a matter of alarm or criticism.

It is natural too – and good – that China should seek to fill the vacuum of leadership in regional and global multilateral institutions left by President Trumps’ retreat from this space. It is far better for us all to have an engaged China, than an isolated one.

The last great strategic opportunity faced by the West was the fall of the Soviet Union. We should then have reached out to engage Russia, to draw her in, to help her re-build and reform. Instead we foolishly treated Moscow with triumphalism and humiliation, orchestrated largely by Washington. The result was inevitable and he’s called Vladimir Vladimirovic Putin.

We are now faced with a second equivalent opportunity. Can we reach out to build constructive relationships with a rising China?

On the face of it, the signs have been hopeful.

China has seemed keen to be a good world citizen. She has engaged constructively in multilateral institutions – look at the WTO as an example; look at her support for the UN Security Council resolution on sanctions for North Korea; look at her engagement with international forces to tackle the scourge of the Somali pirates around the Horn of Africa; look at her participation in international disaster relief – for instance in north east Pakistan; look at her involvement with UN peace keeping to which she has committed more troops under multi-national command than the United States and Europe combined. Yes, they are mostly in Africa where she has good reasons to want to keep the peace. But there is nothing new in that. Western nations too only send troops to keep the peace, where it is in their interests to do so.

Almost all the signs we have seen over the last two decades seem to indicate that China sees it as in her mercantilist interest to have a more rule based world order – and that is something we in the West should agree with too. It looks as though there could be much which is constructive to work on here.

Domestically too, the movement in China seemed to be in a hopeful direction. The Deng Hsiao Ping initiated process of economic liberalisation has been awe inspiring to watch. Many of us have taken comfort in what we saw as the inevitable fact that economic liberalisation must over time, lead to political liberalisation too. Anyone who understands China and Chinese history understands why this could not be too hasty; understands why Beijing is nervous about loosening the bonds too quickly. But the direction of travel seemed clear. After modernising her economy China would, over time modernise her political and governmental structures in favour of greater democracy – albeit democracy with a Chinese face, rather than a western one.

It was comfortable for those who observe and have an affection for China to believe that in a world almost overwhelmed by conflict, fracture and repression, China would continue steadily moving in the opposite direction; steadily using her power for stability against turbulence and for partnership, rather than raw power and going it alone. We even imagined that, in her ascent to greatness China might chose a trajectory different from that followed by previous super-powers; using her strength to lead internationally rather than succumbing to imperialist temptation.

I do not think China’s true long term interest lies in responding to Donald Trump’s invitation to a dog fight, albeit one which appears to have been postponed after Mr Trump’s effusive glad handing with Chairman XI. China’s interest lies, rather in continuing to build her reputation as a good world citizen and in creating alliances – leading them if you like – in favour of the kind of rule based world which would benefit  both her and us.

Does this sound naive? A little I confess. Yet it remains probably the only hope for avoiding what will otherwise I fear be an inevitable long term progress towards some kind of Pacific confrontation between a declining old power and a rising new one.

Naïve or not, if these were our hopes they have now come up against a jolting reality.

Judging from the iconography of the recent People’s Congress it is difficult not to conclude that what we were looking at was less the emergence of a new China, as the return of the old. A Red Emperor, centralised power, suppression of dissent. These were all – perhaps – necessary for Mao Tse Tung, who had to build a unified state from ashes and a nation which was respected abroad after a century of humiliation.

But the respect in which China is held abroad is not in question today. Nor is her unity and strength. To return to the ways of Mao sits uncomfortably with China’s ambition to be a modern state and can only serve to diminish her reputation abroad.

As for unity, well I know of no instance in history where the sustainable greatness of a nation has been built on a market that is free and a public voice which is suppressed. It is just not in human nature, whether Chinese or otherwise, to be content for long with glorious freedom in one aspect of your life and permanent voicelessness in the other. It is sad – more it is worrying – to note the recent rise in the curtailment of freedoms in the name of national security; the arrest of foreign NGO workers for expressing unwelcome views, the rising number of detentions of human rights activists, including even lawyers.

All this sits very strangely with promises to develop “advanced, extensive, multi-level… institutionalised … consultative democracy” and enhance China’s “soft power”, in the 3,000 word amendment incorporating Xi Jin Ping’s “socialism with Chinese characteristics”, which was unanimously passed at the recent Congress

I do not believe that the Chinese people yearn for individual freedom and human rights any less than anyone else.

A state whose economy pioneers the future, but whose politics has reverted to the past, is a state founded on an irresolvable contradiction.

Maybe I have read the signals wrong. Foreigners, even those who have studied China for a long time, can easily do that. The proof of the pudding will come in the eating, as we say in English.

And the first slices of that pudding will be eaten – maybe have already been eaten – here in Hong Kong.

It is here, perhaps more than anywhere else, where we will come to know the true nature of Hsi Jin Ping’s vision of “Socialism with a Chinese face”.

At this stage I must do a little mea culpa.

When Beijing says there is a degree of hypocrisy beneath British calls for more democracy in Hong Kong, they are right. Our hundred and more years of rule of Hong Kong as a colony was not notable for its democratic reforms. Learning Chinese here between 1967 and 1970 – a time of considerable public disturbance and bomb attacks, as some will remember – I did not find it easy to defend the British Administration here, let alone be proud of it. Of course we know now that Chou en Lai threatened to re-possess the Colony by force if Britain introduced universal suffrage. Is it unworthy to think that this Beijing “prohibition” on full democracy was not very inconvenient to a British administration which didn’t have much enthusiasm for such things anyway? It would have been possible, even within the constraints set by Chou, for the British to at least to set a direction of travel for Hong Kong by taking small steps towards democracy, even if they couldn’t take big ones. Is it fanciful to suggest that if they had done this, the democratic culture in Hong Kong would have had time to develop into something deeper, more embedded and more mature?

British rule in Hong Kong was economically successful. But politically it was shameful. Chris Patten tried to ensure that the last page of the history book covering British rule in Hong Kong would be different, so that the legacy we left would be truer to our values, than the record of our administration of the colony. Is there hypocrisy in that? yes – some. But to do the right thing in the end, is better than not to do it at all. As Rousseau said “Hypocrasie est le hommage que la vice rend a la virtue” – hypocrisy is the service that vice gives to virtue.

Whatever the motives however, the fact is that the Patten democratic reforms were locked into the Anglo-Chinese International Treaty which enables and protects the Basic Law.

And the heart of that Basic law, is the rule of law itself.

The Hong Kong judiciary is still intact and still independent. But it is coming under pressure. Justice must not only be done, it must also, to gain confidence among the people, to be seen to be done.

The abduction of Hong Kong booksellers into the mainland, simply for having published books critical of China’s leaders, undermines confidence both in the rule of law and in the principle of free speech.

The right to protest within defined limits is part of that law. The right to due process by a judicial system independent of political interference is part of it too. The right to be free from the hazard of double jeopardy if you choose to break the law is widely regarded as a fundamental principle of justice world-wide.

Of course it is the case that those who break the law should be judged. Though whether it was wise for the full might and majesty of a global super-power to come down on three young enthusiastic student demonstrators, one of whom a directly elected legislator who may have overstepped the limit, is a different matter.

But even the judged have rights and these must be protected too.

The effective, just, wise and legal administration of Hong Kong is not an easy matter for Beijing to deal with. One country two systems is far easier to have as a slogan, than it is to put into practice. We should appreciate that.

Nevertheless this is what Beijing has, formally – and by international treaty – put its hand to.

One country two systems is the slogan under which Beijing may want to draw others back to the fold. Honouring scrupulously the Anglo-Chinese deal in both letter and spirit will enhance that possibility. Any perceived failure to do so, will weaken it

Britain, too laid its hand to that treaty. And with some fanfare.

At the time, Prime Minster John Major undertook that “If there were any suggestion of a breach of the Joint Declaration, we would have a duty to pursue every legal and other avenue available to us.” In words which would have reminded every Hong Konger of the famous declaration of President Kennedy that he would always stand by the endangered city of Berlin the British Prime Minister promised that Hong Kong  “will never have to walk alone”. This is not a promise that can be lightly broken because it proves inconvenient to a British Government obsessed with finding trade deals because it wishes to be outside Europe. As Chris Patten has said, Britain risks selling its honour here.

The new mood places new responsibilities on the SAR government, too. If things are to move in a more regressive direction on the mainland then SAR government has an even greater duty to show that it will stand up and defend Hong Kong’s special status and its core values; that it will be an effective voice-piece for your genuine concerns, for example over the co-location of the high-speed rail link.

What happens next here in Hong Kong will be judged by a watching world.

For it will tell us whether the rise and rise of Xi Jin Ping is taking us forwards to a new more modern China, or back to an old one.

2596

Middle East Monitor Conference – Sunni/Shia 18 November 2017

Middle East Monitor

“Crisis in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia’s Attempts at Realignment”

183 Euston Road, Bloomsbury, NW1 2BE

18 November – 1015

Key Note speech by Paddy Ashdown

In foreign affairs, having a flawed model for viewing the world is nearly always the prelude to having flawed policies which end in failure.

The West cannot shake itself from the view that we still rule the world as we have done these last 400 years – since days of the Ottoman Empire. So we think everything that happens in the world is about us, the things that are important in the world are only important because they affect us and that anywhere there is a problem in the world, we can solve it.

There used to be an Arabic saying: “If a dog barks in the Middle East, British intelligence is behind it”. This is how it was and this is how, replacing British with American of course, we in the West think it still is.

But it isn’t. There were many, many casualties in the wars of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. One of them was the myth of Western omnipotence and the utility of having a West centric view of all that happens in the world.

For four years now – perhaps a bit longer – many of us have been warning that the greatest threat to world peace coming out of the Middle East, was not jihadist terrorism, but the danger of a wider Sunni-Shia religious conflict, similar the Wars of Religion which engulfed Europe in the 17th century. And that the terrorist insurgencies in Iraq, Syria, Mali, Yemen, Lebanon and the wider world of Islam should not been seen as individual conflicts, but as part of and preludes to, this larger confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The radicalisation of the “Sunni Umma” promoted, assisted and funded by Saud Arabian and Gulf elements, if not specifically by their Governments, is not any longer targeted on us in the West as we liked to believe. Its real target is, no longer the Great Satan in Washington, but the Great Heretic in Tehran. Attacks on Washington, London and Madrid are merely a proxy to help win support for that wider conflict.

I know it is hurtful to Western pride to think that these attacks on our cities were mere collateral damage. It is difficult for us to accept that we are not the main event here, only the hors d’oeuvre. But that is how it is.

Of course this is not to diminish the threat to us here in London – or to suggest that we should not have been taking this seriously. Terrorism in the name of radical Islam is a real and present threat. Collateral casualties, are no less casualties. As the innocents of Yemen, Iraq and Syria know so miserably well. The casualties of the bomb outrages in Western cities and the dead from the indiscriminate bombing of crowded suburbs in Sanaa are victims of the same event – the struggle between Sunni and Shia which now stands on the edge of open conflict.

A word about the role of religion in these kind conflicts. Of course I do not in any way doubt the sincerity of those who feel deeply – even violently – about the differences between the two great branches of Islam. I have personal experience of those kind of hates in Northern Ireland and in Bosnia. These sentiments may be odious, but amongst most ordinary people they are sincerely felt. My quarrel lies less with the misguided individuals who feel driven to be the actors in these tragedies, than with those behind them who use religion to drive the conflict. The reality is that in almost all great so-called religious conflicts, what lies behind the shouting of the clerics is a contest between the power of nations.

It was surely obvious to any sharp eyed observer with any knowledge of the Middle East that the moment that matters in the region ceased to be determined in the capitals of the great western powers, a contest for who was up and who was down would ensue.

And that contest was likely to be between Riyadh and Tehran – and the vehicle, motivator and driver for that contest would be religion; just as it was in Europe in the 17th century, just as it has been in so many conflicts that I have been involved in – from Far East, to Northern Ireland, to Bosnia.

This particular contest of power has been a long time coming. It has been building up strength, followers and causes through the proxy wars in Iraq and Syria, the proxy insurgencies in Mali, Libya and Yemen and the proxy terrorist outrages in major Western capitals. Left unchecked, as it has been, there was always going to be a moment when this would turn from something behind the scenes and below the surface, to something open and right in front of us.

The sudden seriousness with which Washington has woken up to what has happened recently in Lebanon, having been completely asleep to what was happening in Yemen, seems to indicate that that moment is very near.

So why should this bother us in Britain? Haven’t we got enough on our plate fighting our own war with the EU? Is this not just another far away country of which we know little, to adapt Chamberlain’s infamous phrase.

No it is not – it is definitely not.

A regional proxy conflict between Riyadh and Tehran, fired up by religious contention, is already sowing little wars around the region. If this finally breaks out into something which directly engages the two contesting capitals then I think we would see a threat to the wider peace of at least the same magnitude as the tensions surrounding North Korea, especially if, as seems almost certain, Israel becomes involved.

Mao Tse Tung famously called the two great World Wars of the last century “The European Civil Wars”.

It is not an inaccurate or inappropriate description.

For it reminds us that, in our deeply interconnected world, regional conflicts can have global consequences.

Three years ago I suggested that the right way to view the conflicts in Syria and Iraq were through the Sunni/Shia prism.

That the wars in Syria and Iraq could neither be solved nor ended by high explosive alone.

That what we needed was a Dayton style International Treaty safeguarding existing borders.

That this should involve regional players across the Sunni/Shai divide and be underpinned by Russia, the US and Europe acting as guarantor powers.

That Russia had too much interest in the area because of Sunni radicalism in their own Islamic republics, not to join a wider coalition to destroy ISIL

That if this did not happen, they would, inevitably and unilaterally, join Tehran and suppress with bombs what they did not have the opportunity to contain with diplomacy.

That what would follow would be a deepening of local conflicts and a heightening of Riyadh/ Tehran tensions

That the West would get dragged in to support one side – and Russia would get dragged in to support the other.

And that this would in the end fire-up a regional conflict in the Middle East which would have global consequences

It gives me no pleasure to say that this is exactly what has now happened.

We are very close now to a Sunni/Shia conflict with great power involvement on opposite sides.

If that does not strike a shiver down your back-bone, then you have not spent enough time studying history.

A lesson I learnt in both Northern Ireland and Bosnia is that even though it is necessary to constantly press for peace, peace cannot be achieved until the warring parties are willing and the right external conditions are in place. The right context – maybe the only context for a sustainable peace in Yemen, Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East, is some kind of accommodation between Riyadh and Tehran.

I do not know whether, this late in the game, this is any longer possible.

I do not know, whether having been so deeply invested on the ground for so long, President Putin would see it any longer in his interest to play a constructive role in the process.

I do not know whether President Trump, whose seems incapable of resisting any opportunity for a dog-fight, has the strategic vision to see that this kind of diplomatic engagement is in Washington’s interest.

I do not know whether Brussels, now so internally obsessed with its own problems, is able to expend energy and political will on anything else.

But I am pretty certain that, absent this kind of vision and engagement, what has been these last two decades an extremely turbulent Middle East, could, if the Sunni Shia contest continues, quickly become something even more dangerous – something which Mao Tse Tong would have recognised very well – a regional conflict which would threaten the wider peace.

There is much about the piles of tinder scattered around the Middle East today which remind me of the Balkans in 1914.

So what should the policies of the western nations be to the impending danger?

If it is the case that the greatest danger to world peace coming out of the Middle East at present is not jihadist terrorism, but an open regional war between the imperial ambitions of Saud Arabia and Iran, then the right policy for the western nations is scrupulously not to take sides.

We should have good and normal relations with countries across the divide and treat them exactly the same.

If they sponsor terrorism we should strongly oppose their policies by all means possible, rather than turn a blind eye for short term convenience.

If they are engaged in proxy conflicts we should not throw fuel onto the fire by supporting one side against, above all with weapons.

If they commit war crimes we should condemn this even handedly.

We should strive by every means possible to encourage dialogue and agreement and take care to take no steps which will deepen the divide between both sides.

We should above all avoid any step which propels events further down the track we are already far advanced on, where the West supports one side – the Sunnis – encouraging Russia to take up arms in support of the other – the Shias. This is the outcome of greatest danger and we are very, very close to it.

So now we come to Britain and Saudi Arabia, especially in the context of the rolling tragedy of Yemen.

From a moral point of view Britain’s support of Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen is as foolish as it is reprehensible.

It is very clear that war crimes have been committed in the conflict in Yemen, both in relation to indiscriminate attacks on civilians and by using aid and starvation as a weapon of war. Britain’s silence on these matters is thunderous and shaming.

The fact that we are supplying arms to Saudi Arabia is even more so.

The Government tells us that no weapons supplied by Britain have been used in this war. As someone who knows a little about the temptations and confusions of war, I simply do not believe this.

The Government should announce an immediate suspension of arms sales to Riyadh until their blockade of aid supplies is lifted and their indiscriminate bombing of civilians is ended.

I know enough of these kind of conflicts to understand that crimes are likely to be being committed by both sides in these kind of dirty wars. I am sure that it is true, for instance the Houthi rebels in Yemen, are also guilty of using aid and hunger as a weapon of war.

But the difference is that we do not support them, whereas Riyadh is an ally and one to whom we supply weapons of war.

I am not so naïve as not to understand the other factors involved here. Trade at a time when, thanks to the folly of Brexit we have a desperate urgency to grow our foreign trade quickly. Assistance in the struggle against terror, which far too often causes us to turn a convenient blind eye to human rights abuses in those countries which are our allies. Maintaining a balance in the Middle east broadly favourable to the west. The threat of the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region.

I doubt whether bending our principles in favour of short-term advantage on all of these fronts will deliver anything of use to us in the long term.

But even if it were to do so, such hopeful outcomes, if and when they arrive would have long ago been blotted out by the horrors of a widening religious war into which the great powers of our day allow themselves to be dragged in support of one side or another.

That is the danger that now confronts us and it is time that the world’s statesmen and women alerted themselves to it.

2140

The Sunni-Shia danger toward peace

Yemen

Article by Paddy Ashdown

Independent Friday 17 November

Based on a speech to be delivered for Middle East Monitor Conference 1015 18 November

They used to say in the Middle East: “If a dog barks in the Middle East, British intelligence is behind it”. Replace the word “British” with “American”, and we think that’s still true.

But it isn’t. There were many casualties in the wars of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. One of them was the myth of Western omnipotence.

The greatest threat to world peace coming out of the Middle East now, is not, as we think, terrorism, but the danger of a wider Sunni-Shia religious conflict into which the great powers are dragged.

The radicalisation of Sunni Islam, funded from Saud Arabian and the Gulf is not any longer targeted on us in the West. Its real target is not the Great Satan in Washington, but the Great Heretic in Tehran.

The terrorist attacks on our cities are not the real war, but collateral damage in a wider conflict.

This is not to diminish the threat to us here in London – or to suggest that we should not have been taking this seriously. The collateral dead, are no less dead- as the innocents of Yemen, Iraq and Syria know so miserably well.

The casualties of the bomb outrages in Western cities and the maimed and injured from the indiscriminate bombing of crowded Sanaa suburbs are victims of the same war – the struggle between Sunni and Shia which now stands on the edge of open conflict.

This is not really about religion, any more than the wars of religion of the 17th century, or the conflict in Northern Ireland, or the bloodshed in Bosnia were. In almost all great so-called religious conflicts, what lies behind the shouting of the clerics is a contest between the power of nations.

This one is, in reality, a contest for dominance in the Middle East between Riyadh and Tehran.

And its been a long time coming. It has been building up strength, followers and causes through the proxy wars in Iraq and Syria, the proxy insurgencies in Mali, Libya and Yemen and the proxy terrorist outrages in major Western capitals.

So why should this bother Britain? Haven’t we got enough on our plate fighting our own war with the EU? Is this not just another far away country of which we know little, to adapt Chamberlain’s infamous phrase?

No, it is definitely not.

A regional conflict between Riyadh and Tehran, fired up by religious contention and supported by Russia on one side and the West of the other poses a threat to world peace at least as great as North Korea, especially if, as seems almost certain, Israel becomes involved.

Mao Tse Tung famously called the two great World Wars of the last century “The European Civil Wars”.

It is not an inaccurate description. For it reminds us that regional conflicts can have global consequences.

If that does not strike a shiver down your back-bone, then you have not spent enough time studying history.

There is much about the piles of tinder scattered around the Middle East today which remind me of the Balkans in 1914.

So what should the policy of the western nations be to the impending danger?

The answer is simple. Don’t take sides.

We should have good relations with countries across the divide and treat them exactly the same.

If they sponsor terrorism we should ruthlessly expose them, rather than turning a blind eye for short term convenience.

If they engage in proxy conflicts we should not throw fuel onto the fire by supporting one side against the other, above all with weapons.

If they commit war crimes we should condemn them even handedly.

We should strive constantly to encourage dialogue between them.

We should avoid any step in which we in the West supports one side – the Sunnis – and Russia supports the other – the Shias. This is the greatest danger and we are very, very close to it.

Which brings us to Britain, Saudi Arabia and the Yemen.

Britain’s support of Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen is as foolish as it is reprehensible.

The indiscriminate Saudi bombing of civilians and the use of starvation as a weapon of war are illegal under international law. Britain’s silence on these war crimes is thunderous and shaming.

The fact that we are supplying arms to Saudi Arabia is even more so.

The Government tells us that no British weapons are being used. I know a little about the temptations and confusions of war and I simply do not believe this.

The Government should announce an immediate suspension of arms sales to Riyadh until their blockade of aid supplies is lifted and their indiscriminate bombing of civilians is ended.

I understand that crimes are committed by both sides in these dirty wars. The Houthi rebels in Yemen are doubtless also using aid and hunger as weapons of war.

But they are not an ally to whom we supply weapons and for whose actions we therefore bear responsibility. Riyadh is.

I know other things are involved here; trade, the struggle against terror, maintaining Western influence, nuclear proliferation.

I doubt whether bending our principles in favour of short-term advantage on these fronts will deliver anything of use to us in the long term. It never has before.

But such hopeful outcomes, if and when they arrive would have long ago been blotted out by the horrors of a widening religious war into which the great powers have been dragged.

That is the danger that now confronts us.

917

Happy Birthday Royal Marines – not.

Article Daily Telegraph

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/26/worst-possible-time-cut-maritime-forces-keep-britain-safe/

26 October 2017

The government would do well to remember the words of Nelson’s colleague Admiral, the Earl of St Vincent, who said of the Royal Marines: “If ever the hour of real danger should come to England, they will be found the country’s sheet anchor”. It comes to something when a senior US military figure, Lieutenant-General Jerry Harris, seems to understand better than our own Government why cutting the Royal Marines would be dangerous for our defence and that of the Western alliance.

This is the most perilous and unstable time I have known in my adult life. No-one can predict the future. We will need troops who can move fast, be flexible and adapt to any environment. The Royal Marines have done that for our country for more than 350 years, and still do it regularly, day in day out and to world class standards.

It is ironic indeed that this seems to be better understood abroad than it is at home. Senior US military figures have repeated unequivocally their message to the UK about cuts to the Royal Marines budget, describing them as dangerous.

The Ministry of Defence is considering a cut of 1,000 Royal Marines and the loss of two amphibious assault ships, which the American high command has warned would change the relationship between the UK Marine Corps and our Royal Marines.

If these reductions go ahead, they will undermine our position as a serious military force. Col Dan Sullivan, who works at the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory in Virgina, says that a cut to the 6,640 strong Royal Marines would be a “real blow”. He makes the point that the Royal Marines are particularly vital because a major military power needs the capability to “project power ashore at some point.”

As Major-General Julian Thompson, himself an ex-Marine said, cuts will send a message to those who threaten us and our way of life, that the UK is just “not interested” any more.

As I have reminded the government before, the Royal Marines provide an essential pool of manpower from which our our Special Forces are drawn. Cut them and you will cut our Special Forces too. They have fought in more theatres and won more battles than any other British unit. To dismiss this legacy, and along with it a unique military capability, is to weaken our national defences and diminish our standing with our Allies.

We have a Twitter-happy president who might well turn out to be trigger-happy, too, and a prime minister all too keen to ally herself with him. We have a Foreign Secretary who remarked recently that a military option for relations with North Korea “must remain on the table”. This is hardly the time to  diminish one of our most unique and defining military capabilities.

We all know why this is being done. The Royal Navy cannot find enough sailors to man its ships. Many believed that the decision to spend so much of our defence resources on two aircraft carriers we may never need in the future was one of the worst procurement decisions of our time. Now we have them, these ships of course must be manned. But to make the Royal Marines pay the price for this is to compound an error with a folly – a dangerous one at that, with the military strategists having to work out how they can possibly make the £20bn to £30bn cuts to the defence budgets over the next decade which the Chancellor is demanding.

Today we celebrate the 353rd birthday of Her Majesty’s Corps of Royal Marines. A week ago we commemorated the 212th anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar. Have we so forgotten our history that we now consider weakening the maritime capability that has kept this country safe – that has been its sheet anchor in stormy times? The good Admiral Earl St Vincent would be spinning in his grave.

An Essay to my Party Part I

An Essay to my Party on the eve of Conference

Part I

I am getting old. Like most old men I have a tendency to be grumpy and claim that things aren’t as good as they were in the old days. Please bear this in mind when you read this.

I was trained as a Commando officer so I don’t know any other means of tackling a challenge than fix bayonets and charge. I don’t really do subtlety. Please remember that, too when you read on.

I am an enthusiast, and have a tendency to paint in large shapes and bright colours. What follows is Gaugin, not Canaletto. Please make allowance.

When you read this please finally note that I have been a committed and passionate Liberal since a canvasser knocked on my door forty-five year ago and explained what we stood for. That day, I put on Liberalism like an old coat waiting for me in the cupboard and I have worn it ever since with pride – come what may.

In all those long years I have never glanced to right, left or centre for a better political home for my beliefs than our Party – and that remains the case still. So please understand, if the words which follow offend, they are written with love.

So, now you have been warned, here goes.

There are good things – really good things – to celebrate as we gear up for Bournemouth. We have a multi talented Leader who deserves our whole-hearted support. We have 12 MPs in place of 9 before the last election. We still retain thousands of new members and we are winning local Council by-elections at a good rate.

But – didn’t you just know a ‘but’ was coming? – nevertheless, the biggest danger for our Party at the seaside next week lies in glossing over the existential challenges which now face us. Unless we are prepared to be realistic about where we are, return to being radical about what we propose, recreate ourselves as an insurgent force and re-kindle our lost habit of intellectual ferment, things could get even worse for us.

Consider this. We are the Party who, more than any other, represents the progressive centre in our country (I prefer centre left, but I am not in the business of dividing here). That space has never been more empty, voiceless, vacant and uncontested than it was in the last election. And yet far from filling that gap and mobilising those in it, our vote went down to an even lower base. Not in my life time have their been conditions more favourable for a Lib Dem advance in a General Election. But we went backwards.

Now, with Labour and the Tories spinning way to the extremes, Britain is polarised as never before and the vast sea of people who share our beliefs, find themselves voiceless and silent.

Not all of them, sadly, are Liberal Democrats or want to be. Many belong to other Parties and many, many more do not belong to any party – or wish to, with party politics as they are.

Politics in Britain is unsustainable in its present state. The moderate, majority voice of our country, which usually determines elections, cannot be left so unrepresented. If we cannot, or will not be the gathering point for these, the new left out millions, then who will and what are we for?

Twice before in our recent history, others have moved onto our ground– once with the SDP and once in the early days of New Labour. Both times we reached out to these new forces and prospered as result. These days we look hostile to this possibility. We will be at very grave danger indeed if this should happen again in the near future and we stand aloof.

Our reluctance on this front does not just threaten our future. It also contributes to the disfigurement of our national politics. If we are to fulfil our historic role at a moment when liberalism is more at threat than ever in my life, then we have to be less tribal, more inclusive and more willing to engage others than we have sometimes seemed in recent years.

What does this mean?

I do not oppose local electoral deals where they make sense. But I do not think they are the answer. These so-called “progressive Alliances” are almost always anti-Tory and always end up denying voter choice. Political partnerships work best when they are for something better, rather than against something worse.

Any attempt to create a new framework for our politics should begin with widening the space in which we can make common cause with people who share our values, rather than harping on about the things that separate us.  We should not find it impossible to work with individuals in other parties and none (including, yes even Tories) who share some cardinal principles we jointly believe in – say, creating a green economy, tackling the gap between rich and poor, working to reform our political system, rejecting isolationism and sustaining a market system which serves the individual not the economically powerful.

If this strategy is to work for us, it must be confidently led from the top, not just mildly tolerated at the top.

Here’s a proposition.

Why could Lib Dems not lead in launching a series of studies which brings in those of other Parties and none to make proposals on some of the big issues of our time, as Norman Lamb has done so brilliantly on Health. Issues such as creating a green but successful market based economy; sorting out the fabulous mess of our broken constitution; spreading wealth in the age of robotics and artificial intelligence; adopting a foreign and defence policy more appropriate to our fractured, unravelling world– I am sure you can think of others. This worked well for us in the past; the Cook/Maclennan Commission paved the way to the great surge of devolution of the late 1990s; the Lib Dem sponsored Dahrendorf Commission on Wealth Creation and Social Cohesion in 1995 gave us great credibility and a host of new ideas.

The Chinese philosopher Sun Tze said “Strategy without tactics is the longest way to victory. But tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat”. Winning by-elections and distributing Focuses are a tactic, not a strategy. Our strategy should be to do whatever we can, whenever we can and wherever we can to work with all those individuals in other parties and none, who share our values and want to join us on the great enterprise of re-shaping and renewing our broken politics.

Consider next, this.

When I joined our Party we had been, for the best part of a hundred years, a radical and insurgent party and remained so right up to the moment when being insurgent became popular – when we became the Government. Now people see us, not as a force for change but as a part of the establishment. Whether we could have been insurgents in Government is a question for history. The question for now is; there is a hunger for change out there, why don’t we any longer look or sound like the people to bring it?

There may be many reasons for that. But the biggest one is that we are doing very little new thinking and producing very few new ideas.

The party I joined all those years ago our Party was a ferment of debate and new thinking – that was one of the reasons, inspired by Jo Grimond, that I joined. Some of our ideas were mad, others were silly and a few were mildly embarrassing. But many, many of the things we pioneered, like green politics (with the Greens), devolution, fair voting, internationalism, gender equality (with Labour), gay rights (without them), sensible drug laws (without me at the time, I am ashamed to say) are now common place and unquestioned in today’s political life. So here is a question. Can you name one big, dangerous idea we Lib Dems have produced since 2015? Vince’s speech of last week began the process of thinking big again. We should pick up his lead and start coming up with our own new, dangerous ideas – and debating them at Conference.

Tomorrow I will suggest four dangerous ideas for starters.

Leonardo Baldwin July 2017

Harriett Baldwin MP

Minister for Defence Procurement

Ministry of Defence,

Whitehall,

London,

SW1A 2HB

 

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

 

 

 

Thank you for finding time to meet with me yesterday to discuss the situation in Yeovil, following the GKN redundancies.

 

I was glad to hear of your work abroad to sell the AW159 Wildcat helicopter and to know that you believe this aircraft has wide market appeal in other countries.

 

But I am sure you will agree with me that it is vital that the benefit of the work and skill enhancement of these sales, if they are achieved, should benefit, not just Leonardo, but the Yeovil site and its workforce. You know my concerns on this matter, which I repeated to you in detail during our meeting. It seems to me that there is nothing in the Government’s Strategic Partnership Agreement with Leonardo which would in itself prevent Leonardo from effectively siphoning off technology assets and skills from Yeovil to Italy, while transferring Italian costs to the Yeovil site. I am, I should stress, NOT saying this is happening – only that the terms of the agreement as it stands means that it could happen – with very grave consequences for the Yeovil site as a whole. I accept, of course that any such “siphoning” strategy would be contrary to the spirit of the Strategic Agreement. But unhappily it is not, it appears, contrary to its letter. I asked you for an undertaking that the Government would keep a close oversight on the conduct of the Strategic Partnership in order to ensure that the Yeovil site is not disadvantaged. I hope you will be able to provide this in your response to this letter.

 

I also pressed you, as I have in my letters to the Secretary of State, for a clear undertaking that the forthcoming Government Green Paper on the national industrial strategy, due to appear you said before the end of the year, would include a clear statement that the Government regards Britain’s stand-alone ability to design, manufacture and assemble helicopters as an essential part of our national aero-space industrial base which should be preserved. I was, I confess, surprised to learn that, even at this late stage you were unable to provide this assurance, on the grounds that the Green Paper is being drafted by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. But surely it cannot be the case that, as Minister for Defence Procurement whose decisions have a profound impact on the country’s aero-space industry, that you have not had – and do not intend to seek – input into the Green Paper? I hope you will be able to re-assure me on this matter. If it were to be the case that there was no such statement in the Green Paper, then people would be bound to conclude that this Government, unlike its predecessors, was not fully committed to maintaining the full range of skills, integrated assembly and technology, which only the Yeovil can provide for the nation.

 

Finally, there is the matter of the GKN tooling for the AW 159 Wildcat work currently being carried out in Yeovil. This tooling is, as you know, essential for the production of the AW159. I pointed out to you the fact that the MoD owns this tooling gives the Government very substantial leverage over what happens next. It is open to the MoD, as owners of this tooling, to insist that it will not be shipped abroad, but maintained on the Yeovil site. This will, of course ensure that much the work involved will stay in Yeovil, rather than being allowed to leach away elsewhere, along with the technology and skills involved, We both agreed that the Government’s intention is to ensure that the Leonardo relationship should enable “the Yeovil group to continue to be a centre for the design and development of the AW159 and other aircraft”. I cannot see how this commitment could be fulfilled if the Government fails to use its ownership of the 159 tooling to ensure that the lost GKN work stays on the Yeovil site, instead of being shipped abroad, along with the jobs involved. I hope that you will be able to give me this undertaking in the near future.

 

Thank you again for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paddy Ashdown