OU blog

Personal Blogs

Leon Spence

There's always someone crazier for whom leaving the ECHR isn't the answer

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Leon Spence, Tuesday, 15 Oct 2024, 09:19

As a Conservative party member, Association Chairman and member of the National Conservative Convention I've always believed there is nothing more important than the rule of law. If, as an increasingly global society, we don't have a set of rules to abide by, then what do we become?

It's for that reason I warmly welcome the words of Labour's new attorney-general, Lord Hermer KC who has called on the new government to take "immediate steps to restore the UK's reputation by abiding by international conventions, courts and championing international institutions."

There has been a tendency amongst some in Britain in recent years to distance ourselves away from the supranational bodies that for the most part sprang out of the global wars of the first half of the twentieth century, because we don't like some of the decisions they arrive at. "We want our sovereignty." "We want to take back control from these shady, non accountable organisations."

For some that step away from international cooperation came with Brexit, for others the mad conspiracy theories about both our path into and out of the pandemic. But the truth is that each step away from international working and towards national insularity will never be enough for the subscribers of isolationism.

With the Conservative leadership election underway we hear - from one of the candidates at least - that the answer to 'stopping the small boats' is leaving the European Convention on Human Rights.

Of course it won't be. Instead we will take another step away from the international norm - and internationally agreed human rights - to being at risk of becoming a petty outlier.

And when leaving the ECHR doesn't happen, what then?

There will always be someone a little more extreme, and with an audience of similarly desperate like-minded folk, to say this time its the Commonwealth, the IMF, NATO, or maybe the United Nations.  

For the most part, for the better part of a century, supranational bodies have been drivers of peace, security and economic growth around the world.

With cooperation comes a degree of giving up ones sovereignty, it's the price that we pay for the benefits we receive.

And, no matter what a Tory leadership contender says to you, we will never have sovereignty unless we leave every one of those supranational bodies because there will always be decisions we don't like, and leaving will always be the answer given to those out of step with the complexities of reality.

We've seen the difficulties that leaving just one of those bodies has brought, why would we think leaving more would make things better?

Instead it will leave Britain alone and isolated, away from international partnership. 

Thank heavens, at least when it comes to the Government's law officers we appear to have a grown up in charge.

Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Leon Spence

Passing the Sunday lunch test

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Leon Spence, Monday, 7 Oct 2024, 09:12

With the final parliamentary rounds of the Conservative leadership election getting under way this week it was interesting to listen to Beth Rigby's Electoral Dysfunction podcast reflecting on last week's Tory party conference.

Former Labour MP Harriet Harman suggested that this interminably long recruitment process had become something of a beauty contest and that it was important that the remaining candidates go away to think about what it is they stand for.

Of course, Ms Harman is right, ideology is important for any candidate. Where do they stand on the economy? On immigration? Where are they on the political spectrum?

But ideology isn't the beginning and end.

How you look and how you communicate is just as important when it comes to being entrusted by the public with political power. You may have the best set of principles in the world (or to counter that, truely hateful ones) but you will never gain office if you do not communicate them in a way that resonates with a sizeable portion of the electorate.

Take this year's general election as an example. Few people would understand the intricacies of Sir Keir Starmer's personal ideology but in the years that preceded him entering office - and the short campaign itself - he communicated an approach of dignity and service (albeit, arguably, that approach may have crumbled fairly quickly).

There is much that can be said in another post about governments losing power, rather than oppositions winning it, but broadly in July enough of the electorate saw Sir Keir as a decent, competent pair of hands.

It can be argued that this year's Labour manifesto was the thinnest in history in terms of policy platform, it wasn't an epic ideological tome - what you may expect from a party that has been out of power for a decade and a half - but rather a document that in four or five years time cannot be held by Labour's opponents as some sort of 'sausage to fortune' scenario. (See what I did there?)

The Times last week reported on comments made by Baroness Morgan of Cotes that the next Labour leader must appeal to people from "Cheltenham High Street to Loughborough Market". She said when it comes to finding the best leadership candidate she has a "Sunday lunch test... If the new leader turned up in your house for Sunday lunch could you ask them to open a bottle of wine and serve the guest and chat to people?"

I've always followed a similar rule when voting for leadership candidates- and yes, I do have a vote in the Conservative contest. Would I be happy to have a pint at the pub with them?

Invariably most successful Prime Ministers have always passed those tests whether it was Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair or David Cameron. Your backgrounds may differ but you wouldn't be stuck for conversation - it's the chat not the alcohol that is important, you see? 

Even those most divisive of politicians Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson or Dennis Skinner pass the test. You may disagree with them, but they have a depth more than just ideology.

So my advice for the next Conservative leader (or any politician) is yes, understand your ideology but remember it counts for nothing if your potential voters cannot empathise with you.

In the real world of politics what you look like and what you sound like are ust as important as your views on Adam Smith.


Permalink
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 23794