The Lib Dems deserve a long spell out of harm's way. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Lib Dems are guilty of aiding and abetting the Tories; they deserve a long sentence

We can't forget how many policies the Lib Dems have happily supported that are against the grain of everything we thought they believed in.

What I heard from the recent Liberal Democrat conference has left me not just disappointed, but angry. I can see why, given their poor ratings in the polls, they are keen to trumpet what they see as the "successes" of the coalition as their doing. They plead "not guilty" to aiding and abetting the Tories. And they are desperate to dump the blame solely on the Tories for the policies with which they don't want to be associated.

But we can't forget how many of this government's policies the Lib Dems have happily supported that are so absolutely against the grain of everything I thought their party believed in. On many occasions, things could have been so different - on many of these policies we could and should have worked together, and we'd have blocked their passage or ameliorated the worst excesses.

Let's take my own area of justice. Lib Dem votes have delivered cuts to legal aid, curtailment of judicial review, extension of secret courts, probation privatisation and the introduction of employment tribunal fees - a pretty illiberal list by any stretch of the imagination. On each of these, it was left to Labour to expose the true impact of these policies, and bring forward amendments and proposals which would have tempered the worst excesses.

The problem the Liberal Democrats have got themselves into is what I'd call the "having your cake and eating it" approach to government. They've tried to make out they are both in government and not in government at the same time. The worst thing about this approach is the disrespect it shows to the public.

This is what makes me angry. Under Nick Clegg's leadership the Lib Dems treat the voters as if they are mugs. Week after week in the House of Commons I've seen one or two Lib Dem MPs speak against illiberal policies and troop through the "no" lobby with us while the other 50 odd Lib Dem MPs slavishly support the government. This is faux opposition from a party that's actually in government and it's just not good enough. At a time when the public's confidence in our elected representatives could not be lower, rather than take steps to fix this, the Lib Dems are entrenching this disillusionment further.

Unlike the Liberal Democrats, I've been very clear on a number of the policies Labour opposes. Take their reckless probation privatisation as an example, and the handing over of £6billion of taxpayers' money to the usual suspects like Capita, A4E and Sodexo. We oppose the gamble this government is taking with public safety.

What's more, this fits a pattern of more and more of our money being handed over to private companies, who are rarely held accountable for their actions as they are beyond the scope of freedom of information. Labour wouldn't do things this way - if we are in government next May we will extend the legislation so that private companies running public services are subject to the same disinfecting transparency as the public sector. I'd rather not waste words on Chris Grayling's ridiculous ban on sending books to prisoners, delivered with Lib Dem support - except to say we'd reverse it.

And Labour has also shown a distinct way forward with its strong commitment to the Human Rights Act and our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. I've made clear our determination to drive down re-offending through reforming prisons. Work I commissioned will report shortly on ways we can diversify our judiciary, and on the country's first ever victims' law. As a possible future Justice Secretary, I give my assurances I will show much greater respect to the rule of law than the current incumbent.

We've always known the Tories were the nasty party. But I hope the public don't believe the Lib Dem rhetoric of having to make hard choices to allow our country to recover. How about asking the families attending my weekly advice surgery who have the bailiffs knocking at the door as a result of the cruel bedroom tax about hard choices? I'd love to hear Nick Clegg and Simon Hughes answer the question of where I should direct the constituents that come to see me needing legal advice but without funds to pay a lawyer, those who've been victims of sexual harassment to those whose benefit entitlement has been miscalculated as a result of ATOS. Under the last Labour government there were five Law Centres and Citizens Advice Bureaux locally I could send them to. Under this government there are none.

So no - I won't be happy with the situation I'll inherit in 2015 on access to justice, left the privilege of the rich by Lib Dem actions. But I'll turn the justice system upside down to deliver up the resources we need to repair the Lib Dems damage. The Lib Dems are guilty as charged of aiding and abetting the Tories. And they deserve a long spell out of harm's way as a punishment. It will be left to Labour will be left to pick up the pieces.

Sadiq Khan is Labour MP for Tooting and shadow justice secretary

Sadiq Khan is MP for Tooting, shadow justice secretary and shadow minister for London.
GETTY
Show Hide image

Erdogan’s purge was too big and too organised to be a mere reaction to the failed coup

There is a specific word for the melancholy of Istanbul. The city is suffering a mighty bout of something like hüzün at the moment. 

Even at the worst of times Istanbul is a beautiful city, and the Bosphorus is a remarkable stretch of sea. Turks get very irritated if you call it a river. They are right. The Bosphorus has a life and energy that a river could never equal. Spend five minutes watching the Bosphorus and you can understand why Orhan Pamuk, Turkey’s Nobel laureate for literature, became fixated by it as he grew up, tracking the movements of the ocean-going vessels, the warships and the freighters as they steamed between Asia and Europe.

I went to an Ottoman palace on the Asian side of the Bosphorus, waiting to interview the former prime minister Ahmet Davu­toglu. He was pushed out of office two months ago by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan when he appeared to be too wedded to the clauses in the Turkish constitution which say that the prime minister is the head of government and the president is a ceremonial head of state. Erdogan was happy with that when he was prime minister. But now he’s president, he wants to change the constitution. If Erdogan can win the vote in parliament he will, in effect, be rubber-stamping the reality he has created since he became president. In the days since the attempted coup, no one has had any doubt about who is the power in the land.

 

City of melancholy

The view from the Ottoman palace was magnificent. Beneath a luscious, pine-shaded garden an oil tanker plied its way towards the Black Sea. Small ferries dodged across the sea lanes. It was not, I hasten to add, Davutoglu’s private residence. It had just been borrowed, for the backdrop. But it reminded a Turkish friend of something she had heard once from the AKP, Erdogan’s ruling party: that they would not rest until they were living in the apartments with balconies and gardens overlooking the Bosphorus that had always been the preserve of the secular elite they wanted to replace.

Pamuk also writes about hüzün, the melancholy that afflicts the citizens of Istanbul. It comes, he says, from the city’s history and its decline, the foghorns on the Bosphorus, from tumbledown walls that have been ruins since the fall of the Byzantine empire, unemployed men in tea houses, covered women waiting for buses that never come, pelting rain and dark evenings: the city’s whole fabric and all the lives within it. “My starting point,” Pamuk wrote, “was the emotion that a child might feel while looking through a steamy window.”

Istanbul is suffering a mighty bout of something like hüzün at the moment. In Pamuk’s work the citizens of Istanbul take a perverse pride in hüzün. No one in Istanbul, or elsewhere in Turkey, can draw comfort from what is happening now. Erdogan’s opponents wonder what kind of future they can have in his Turkey. I think I sensed it, too, in the triumphalist crowds of Erdogan supporters that have been gathering day after day since the coup was defeated.

 

Down with the generals

Erdogan’s opponents are not downcast because the coup failed; a big reason why it did was that it had no public support. Turks know way too much about the authoritarian ways of military rule to want it back. The melancholy is because Erdogan is using the coup to entrench himself even more deeply in power. The purge looks too far-reaching, too organised and too big to have been a quick reaction to the attempt on his power. Instead it seems to be a plan that was waiting to be used.

Turkey is a deeply unhappy country. It is hard to imagine now, but when the Arab uprisings happened in 2011 it seemed to be a model for the Middle East. It had elections and an economy that worked and grew. When I asked Davutoglu around that time whether there would be a new Ottoman sphere of influence for the 21st century, he smiled modestly, denied any such ambition and went on to explain that the 2011 uprisings were the true succession to the Ottoman empire. A century of European, and then American, domination was ending. It had been a false start in Middle Eastern history. Now it was back on track. The people of the region were deciding their futures, and perhaps Turkey would have a role, almost like a big brother.

Turkey’s position – straddling east and west, facing Europe and Asia – is the key to its history and its future. It could be, should be, a rock of stability in a desperately un­stable part of the world. But it isn’t, and that is a problem for all of us.

 

Contagion of war

The coup did not come out of a clear sky. Turkey was in deep crisis before the attempt was made. Part of the problem has come from Erdogan’s divisive policies. He has led the AKP to successive election victories since it first won in 2002. But the policies of his governments have not been inclusive. As long as his supporters are happy, the president seems unconcerned about the resentment and opposition he is generating on the other side of politics.

Perhaps that was inevitable. His mission, as a political Islamist, was to change the country, to end the power of secular elites, including the army, which had been dominant since Mustafa Kemal Atatürk created modern Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman empire. And there is also the influence of chaos and war in the Middle East. Turkey has borders with Iraq and Syria, and is deeply involved in their wars. The borders do not stop the contagion of violence. Hundreds of people have died in the past year in bomb attacks in Turkish cities, some carried out by the jihadists of so-called Islamic State, and some sent by Kurdish separatists working under the PKK.

It is a horrible mix. Erdogan might be able to deal with it better if he had used the attempted coup to try to unite Turkey. All the parliamentary parties condemned it. But instead, he has turned the power of the state against his opponents. More rough times lie ahead.

Jeremy Bowen is the BBC’s Middle East editor. He tweets @bowenbbc

This article first appeared in the 28 July 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Summer Double Issue