If we have to have Lords reform can we at least try to break the party stranglehold on politics?

****

So the Lords Reform bandwagon is off and rolling as the Liberal Democrats return to their obsession with putting changes to our constitution ahead of less important things like sorting out the public finances, getting a balanced set of rules for the financial sector and improving those core services to the public – schools, hospitals, social care.

And the Liberal Democrats want what it says in the Coalition agreement:

...a 300-member hybrid house, of which 80% are elected. A further 20% would be appointed, and reserve space would be included for some Church of England bishops. Under the proposals, members would also serve single non-renewable terms of 15 years. Former MPs would be allowed to stand for election to the Upper House, but members of the Upper House would not be immediately allowed to become MPs.

This, we’re told by its advocates, is a ‘radical’ solution – quite why defeats me. We replace a wholly (more-or-less) appointed body with one where people are elected for a very long time by a partisan, party-driven system. Instead of a house filled with independent-minded folk bringing expertise from a host of different backgrounds, we get another load of politicians. With all the flaws that go with this – closed party selections, central campaigns, funding problems and a disconnection with the electorate.

If we want to change (and, as a conservative, I tend to subscribe to the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” school of politics), let’s make a bigger change than just handing control of the Lords over to political party hacks. 

We could use a lottery to create an electoral college (or even to choose the members of the Lords).

We could get local councils to nominate members – perhaps proportionally across regions or sub-regions.

We could have elections without campaigning or party labels.

And we could relocate the House of Lords to Bradford.

These are radical changes. Simply electing the Lords – regardless of the system used but especially if it’s on some regional party list system – isn’t radical but is a retrograde step that gives power to dying political parties in preference to a real extension of democracy.

....

The law is an ass. And lawyers serve that donkey.

****

My professions – such as they are – are accessible. That is you do not require a particular piece of paper in order to be a politician, a marketer, a fundraiser or a regenerator. There are folk with a range of qualifications, experience and approach doing all these professions – and doing them well.

The problem with all this is that people try to make their professions exclusive – there’s a Chartered Institute of Marketing, there’s an Institute of Fundraising and I’m pretty sure there’s an Institute of Economic Development. All these institutes wish to secure – in the manner of the medieval trades guilds – control over who does these jobs. Not because it is only possible for people holding the institutes’ paper to do these jobs – that is demonstrably not the case – but because the use of these barriers restrains supply and thereby artificially raises the price (we get paid more money).

These tyros look wistfully at the old professions – and especially at the law. The legal professions have control of a system that ossifies the inefficiency of the ancient courts, that talks in a language different from that or ordinary people, takes on a position of such elite magnificence that us mere civilians must nod in wonder at its genius.

But there’s a problem. The law is an ass. And lawyers serve that donkey not the public.

The question is whether the law’s stupidity is a function of those who make the laws – the politicians – or a result of the profession’s distance from normal life? And while we rightly focus on the daftness of some laws, we do not ask about how the law’s concepts corrupt real meaning and act to drive perverse and sub-optimal outcomes.

Let me explain with reference to two ‘terms’ often heard in reference to court decisions – “reasonable” and “ordinary”.

We think we understand what these words mean. To most of us, “reasonable” means governed by common sense – we do not need firm or strong boundaries to that and can be flexible or fuzzy about it. But we know reasonable when we see it! But hang on – lawyers don’t mean common sense they mean something else entirely:

The word “reasonable” in law means fair, proper or moderate having regard for the circumstances. It is most frequently used as a word fixing a standard of assessment. Use of the word imports an objective test to the noun with which it is used.

So this isn’t the exercise of judgment but the application of a test. And, in applying that test, it is possible to make the reasonable unreasonable (and vice versa). The law becomes that donkey again.

And so to “ordinary” – used in the recent ‘twitter joke’ appeal. As the judge put it:

As for the tweet at the centre of the case, she called it "menacing in its content and obviously so. It could not be more clear. Any ordinary person reading this would see it in that way and be alarmed."

It is very clear that the lawyer has a very different – perhaps more precise – definition of “ordinary”. The ‘ordinary person’ is a lawyer’s convenience – untested and unevidenced – allowing them to lay claim to understanding. The judge’s statement has to be untrue since she could not possibly know – so a convenient fiction is constructed to avoid the need to test the truth of that ‘ordinary person’s’ response.

None of this is meant to be an interpretation of that case since, as I am not a lawyer, I cannot understand the decision. What I am observing is the manner in which the law and lawyers create a language that excludes that ‘reasonable man’ and ‘ordinary person’. Such people are merely chimera – constructs that allow the judge to impose his or her view on the world through a claimed ‘reasonableness’ or ‘ordinariness’. They are not you and me - real 'ordinary men and women'.

In its essence, the process of trial is simple. The situation is described, arguments are made on both sides and somebody (or bodies) arrives at a judgment on the basis of what is heard. To conduct such a process does not require great study except that lawyers – aided and abetted by politicians – have created a great body, a different language and an excluding process. Which allows said lawyers to maintain and protect their privileges.

The legal professions are the last of the medieval guilds still wielding power and control. They are self-regulated and exclusive. Access to the law is expensive – unavailable to all but the very rich, the very poor and, of course, the Government.

Any reform of the law has to start with reforming the professions and opening up the judiciary. So long as the professions act as guilds – controlling entry, managing the work and administering internal justice – we will continue to get these perverse outcomes of legal processes.

…but the law will still be an ass. And lawyers will still serve that donkey.

.....

Guns, choppers and computers - how modern policing is failing us. And a suggestion or two for improvement.

There is getting to be an increasing amount of dissatisfaction with the police. There’s the usual stuff – failing to respond to emergency calls, never being anywhere useful when anyone wants them and being more concerned with paperwork and political correctness than with the real concerns of the public. This has been around for years and complaints of this kind are usually accompanied by comments such as “the ordinary copper does his best, it’s the system, you know”. Or – and this one comes from policemen quite often – “I joined to police to catch criminals and that’s what I want to do.”

However, there’s a new theme emerging – and not just from intemperate bloggers – which suggests that the police’s problem is as much about the ordinary copper as it is about the systems and processes imposed on them by a controlling and directing government. Yet, when you meet ordinary coppers they seem pretty straightforward men and women – a little officious at times but, hey, when was an official not officious!

So where are the problems? I’ve a few suggestions, all of which are about operational policing not about political direction or accountability.

Get rid of the great barracks-like divisional headquarters that make the police seem like some occupying army. Huge blocks of building with small windows just oozing with ill-judged power and domination. Get back to local stations even police houses in villages – with today’s technology there’s no need for big central bureaucracies. People would respond far better – would see the police as a community service rather than an occupying force – if there was easy local access to an open an approachable building.

Stop dressing like a paramilitary army all bulging with buzzing and bleeping technology. Remember that, in the place you’re patrolling in a stab-proof jacket, hi-viz vest and other protections, ordinary folk like me are wandering about oblivious in our t-shirts and jeans.

Place less reliance on technology and more on good judgment. I know, I know – intelligence-led policing requires loads of very fancy technology. And you’ve got to have whizzo computers, special radio systems (which are so good all the parish councils round Cullingworth were asked to sponsor a copper’s mobile phone) and, of course, helicopters and souped up fast cars. Think again – your job is prevention first which means getting out and about, knowing the local community and being on the ground to respond.

Be around more and more prepared to give somebody the time. We all remember that old saw - “if you want to know the time ask a policeman”. It was true and reflected the police as trusted, competent and, above all, approachable. As my neighbour discovered recently, polite requests for or offers of information are often unwelcome – my neighbour was asked whether she’d been drinking.

Place a lower priority on acting as muscle for other enforcement agencies. The priority is preventing crime not serving the political agenda of local authorities, the RSPCA or the taxman. And, if these agencies require help, they should pay for it – that would make them a whole lot less gung-ho.

Think more about allowing people to do the things they want to do rather than thinking of reasons to stop them. Assume good intentions in the photographer, the pedlar, the busker and the drunk rather than presuming that they either are or intend to be trouble.

These suggestions – with perhaps the exception of the first one – could be enacted tomorrow. They don’t require changes to the law, they don’t need additional funds and they don’t require more folk or more admin. Somehow I doubt they will happen.