"The time for an administrative approach is over." Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

To save British democracy, Ed Miliband has to realise he must rebuild it from scratch

The co-founder of openDemocracy argues that "this is a constitutional moment" - on the 800th birthday of Magna Carta, there is appetite across the political spectrum for a new consitution and democratic settlement. Labour's leader should not be afraid of offering one.

Dear Ed,

I have written to you privately, and now I am doing so publically, about how we govern ourselves.

You are the only man who can promise and bring about the change our democracy needs and you are risking this opportunity for greatness by being far too calculating and prudent. You need to stand up and say:

Let's face it - we are all sick of this mess. This is not about a lot of small issues that can be fixed independently of each other. We have one big problem concerning our constitution. The word 'constitution' can mean many things: a body of principles and practices for the governance of a state, for example; or a person's physical state, vitality and health. This is about our health as a country. Lords Reform, the place of Scotland, English Votes for the English, membership of the European Union, the Human Rights Act, securing our liberty and privacy, defending freedom of speech are all about one thing... and I, and my party, plan to use this election to win this argument.”

Given the abuse directed at you, I should say I think you are capable of such boldness. You are the most consequential British opposition leader since Attlee insisted that Chamberlain step down in 1940. For some reason the media fail to point this out.

When you became leader you defined the key issue as being the "squeezed middle" - meaning the millions in work who are seeing their real incomes decline. I vividly recall John Humphries on the Today programme snorting his derision at a phrase he regarded as meaningless. Now it is understood as a matter of fact. You challenged the most powerful figure in British politics of the last 30 years, Rupert Murdoch, and his baleful authority collapsed. To the astonishment of the political class, you later faced down the Prime Minister and refused to allow our going to war in Syria. Normally, opposing belligerence is fatal for the opposition; instead President Obama followed your lead. As well as defining the economic terrain, toppling the mighty and shaping foreign policy, you have kept Labour relatively united. Tory Central Office would be eager for TV debates if you were as pathetic as they claim. The Farage bubble can be burst by publicity, but if voters see your ability to think and strength of purpose for themselves this might expose Cameron’s insincerity to devastating effect.

You have expressed the will to renew British democracy. You can be sure that the public is not shivering at the prospect of change. We want a modern country and the British are wise and practical people. You are telling us you want to replace the House of Lords. You argue that we must confront the English question. You say these should be linked to a Constitutional Convention. You want to keep the UK in the EU. These policies do not add up to a story that makes sense. Bullet points are for think tanks: a manifesto needs a project (a good word that was sadly abused). To win an election you need to set out a national direction stronger than "becoming fairer".

I recall at first hand how Blair, Brown and Clegg talked about democracy and it proved a massive turnoff. All made Lords reform a talismanic element in their attempts to project themselves as radical. In the end they added to voters’ alienation and contempt as they saw through their manoeuvres.

Will you too end up repeating Gordon Brown’s efforts, where an exceptional grasp of the issues was undone by a disastrous inclination to play safe and try and "lead" change from behind?

My direct involvement goes back to John Smith’s leadership, when he asked me to help launch his far-reaching constitutional agenda, as set out in his Charter 88 lecture in 1993. In direct response to a question from the audience, he explained he wanted a new constitutional settlement because:

Your criticism of Parliament is apt: Parliament is weak in this country… we do have an elective dictatorship. I've come to realise that. I used to myself believe in the sort of mysteries of the British Constitution. My experience… has caused me to change my mind quite fundamentally."

Tony Blair was Smith’s Shadow Home Secretary. He inherited and then pushed through most parts of John Smith’s reforms while rejecting the overall "new settlement" Smith advocated. This conveniently left Blair himself with even more unchecked executive power than Thatcher. When in 1999 I wrote and warned him that his approach was disintegrative, his Chief-of-Staff, Jonathan Powell, called back, and summed up my argument saying "after us the deluge". He then asked me to meet then-Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine, who agreed that the "the genie is out the bottle".

Today, we are now entering the deluge. North of the border the genie takes the form of the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon; to the south it is Ukip and Nigel Farage followed by the Greens who are surging out of the bottle.

Only one response will work in these circumstances. Britain has to be offered a reform movement that measures up to the multiple nature of the issues with a coherent approach. You need to encourage the release of energy, link reforms together, and trust the public’s judgment.

It is called democracy. Everyone who "knows how things are done", even your shadow cabinet colleagues, will warn against it. But the time for an administrative approach to change is over.

I’ll focus on the Lords, your proposed "Constitutional Convention", Ukip and Europe.

Imagine a well-briefed media interviewer (unlikely, I agree, but not impossible). It is the last week before the election. He or she presses you as to how your proposed Constitutional Convention might replace the Lords and renew democracy in Britain. You want to give a clear, inspiring answer, demonstrating your grasp of the issue and arousing a belief in change. But because the Lords and Commons are a single political ecology any proposal such as yours to replace the Lords will alter the role and proceedings of the other half of Parliament, namely the House of Commons itself.  With what authority will your Convention be able to reshape the Commons? If your answer is that the Commons will finally decide, then as Clegg found, the result will be bollocks. Nobody can believe a political process that terminates in the miasma of Commons procedure is going to deliver democracy. On this potentially attractive issue you will lose, not gain, credibility.

Writing in the Observer, you explained the rise of Ukip in terms of social and economic factors. But it is also mobilising around the call to save our democracy from the unelected bureaucracy of Brussels. This has some credibility and must be addressed as such, not evaded. How can you demand that the British people be given the power to decide the way half of parliament works but cannot have a say about whether the EU should also be a legislative authority? How democratic is that? To reply by saying "I feel your pain as a marginalized working class community in peripheral zones, especially along the coast" is no answer at all. To then put yourself forward as a true democrat because you want voters to replace the unelected Lords when you won’t allow them a say on the unelected bureaucrats will be perceived as an insulting smokescreen, an attempt to divert attention from the more important issue.

What you need to do is combine your approach into a single, sweeping call for reform.

This should have two parts. Announce that if elected in May 2015 your first action will be to pass a European and Constitutional Reform Act. Explain that when Cameron proposed an in-out referendum in 2017 after achieving reforms of the EU, this was a cynical contrivance. When he left the Tory benches for Ukip, Douglas Carswell blew Cameron’s cover and reported how Cameron’s team will fix the referendum and whole thing is "smoke and mirrors". The Tory referendum is proposed in bad faith and will be conducted in bad faith. There is no future for Britain in any such an exercise, either way the outcome will be toxic. You are proud you opposed it.

But something new has happened, as Farage, Carswell and Ukip receive significant support that rightly earns their party a place in the leaders’ debates. They may be wrong about Europe but they are sincere. Ukip's call for a referendum is made in good faith. At least a third of voters genuinely want the real thing. This is why it generates such support. The necessary, democratic response must be "see you in the voting booth".

The European and Constitutional Reform Act will commit Britain to holding an in-out referendum on Europe in September 2015. The Act will have two parts. First, a referendum on the simple principle of membership of the EU carried out on a national basis. The votes of each four parts of the UK to be counted separately, with none being obliged to either leave or stay in the EU against their wishes by the decision of the others. Polls say only in England is there a chance of majority for leaving. Such a nation-based referendum will face the English, therefore, with a democratic reality. The cozy Ukip view is that they will resuscitate "Great Britain" when the grip of Brussels is prised from our throat. It isn’t go to happen. A UK referendum that respects all the nations of the Union will confront the English with the fact that if they want to retain the UK this can only happen within the EU.

Just as important in terms of confronting our malaise is that, if you think Britain should be in the EU, you must have the courage of your convictions and let us decide. Anything else looks cowardly. Your concern about uncertainty is dealt with by holding it straight away.

The second part of the European and Constitutional Reform Act will legislate that if voters agree to remain in the EU then a Constitutional Convention will immediately be convened to consider all aspects of the British constitution and how it should be codified. Please excuse detail here - my aim is illustrative, to make tangible the essential argument, not insist on any particular number.

A Convention will draw together 400 people made up of 100 MPs, 100 elected leaders from the cities and counties of the UK, and 200 regular citizens selected by lot with representative proportions from all parts of the UK. Each group will be 50/50 men and women. The Convention will convene in January 2016 and have two years to formulate a new constitutional settlement. It will be funded to ensure extensive public participation in all aspects of its considerations. Its members will swear an oath to put aside their personal interests and seek the best outcome for Britain as a whole. They will be in charge of their own agenda. Their mandate will be to set out the constitution of British democracy and to put this into a set of proposals to the British people in the form of a referendum. The European and Constitutional Reform Act of 2015 will bind both Houses of Parliament to accept the results of this referendum. Thus the Houses can debate the proceedings of the Convention, they can openly seek to influence the Convention and a significant number of MPs will be part of it, but they will be bound in advance to accept the outcome even if it abolishes or changes them profoundly.

There are two key points I am trying to illustrate. First, any proposal with respect to democracy needs to be absolutely clear about the process. Namely: how it will begin, how it will work, how it will conclude. Only then will people believe that there will be a result they can influence. A vague proposal to "call" a Convention with no clear outcome is absolutely hopeless.

Of course politicians do not like constitutions, because they are bound by them; or conventions, because they cannot control them. This is just why such an approach will be popular.

We can be confident a Convention empowered to decide what should go to a referendum will not propose to retain the House of Lords! Confine yourself to the Lords, however, and you will be lost. The trap we are in is that there is no way of replacing the upper half of Parliament without formulating the constitution as a whole. The only question is who does this, and how they do it.

Of course such a Convention will have the capacity to consider everything. This will be its attraction. And the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta is stirring up widespread interest in a new version that holds the arbitrary power of corporate barons to account, protects liberty, ensures access to justice and defends the commons of our shared environment. This is a constitutional moment.

The second key point is that a European referendum and a new British Constitution need to go together, as they should have done in 1975. Technically this is because the EU is building its constitution - it cannot but threaten a smaller multi-national entity like Britain that enjoys no codified constitution. To remain happily within the EU, the UK needs to articulate its own democracy, with a constitutional court able to defend it in the way that the German court protects German democracy.

A more popular way of putting this is that we must ensure that staying in Europe makes us more democratic, not less. Farage’s most notable phrase is that we must "take our country back". In his case, back to an unrealisable better yesterday. But he taps into a genuinely felt loss of who we are. The answer: we have to find ourselves in the future, not in the past.

Put the two together - membership of Europe and a democratic constitution - and a referendum becomes a positive, winnable call for change not a defensive manoeuvre. Fail to do this and UKIP supporters, including one-time Labour ones, will reluctantly vote Tory in the vain hope this will give them a say.

Dear Ed, you have picked up the democratic banner. It has great power and can reshape the battlefield. But it is a strategic banner, not a tactical one. And if you try to wave it around tactically, confining its reach and limiting its direction, you will be routed.

In this long letter I have

  • asserted the need for a clear story
  • signaled my experience of these issues as someone who changed the agenda
  • described the quicksand of a partial advocacy of democratic reform
  • advocated an approach that trusts the public on the EU
  • linking this to a new constitutional settlement for Britain in Europe
  • and combating the Farage story of ‘taking our country back’ by ‘taking it forward’
  • Oh yes, and I began by showing that you have the capacity to achieve this

Labour needs a non-Labour perspective at this moment to gain the initiative.

With good wishes and best of luck,

Anthony

Anthony Barnett is co-founder of openDemocracy.

Getty
Show Hide image

Why is it called Storm Doris? The psychological impact of naming a storm

“Homes being destroyed and lives being lost shouldn’t be named after any person.”

“Oh, piss off Doris,” cried the nation in unison this morning. No, it wasn't that everyone's local cantankerous old lady had thwacked our ankles with her stick. This is a different, more aggressive Doris. Less Werther’s, more extreme weathers. Less bridge club, more bridge collapse.

This is Storm Doris.

A storm that has brought snow, rain, and furious winds up to 94mph to parts of the UK. There are severe weather warnings of wind, snow and ice across the entire country.

But the real question here is: why is it called that? And what impact does the new Met Office policy of naming storms have on us?

Why do we name storms?

Storm Doris is the latest protagonist in the Met Office’s decision to name storms, a pilot scheme introduced in winter 2015/16 now in its second year.

The scheme was introduced to draw attention to severe weather conditions in Britain, and raise awareness of how to prepare for them.

How do we name storms?

The Name our Storms initiative invites the public to suggest names for storms. You can do this by tweeting the @metoffice using the #nameourstorms hashtag and your suggestion, through its Facebook page, or by emailing them.

These names are collated along with suggestions from Met Éireann and compiled into a list. These are whittled down into 21 names, according to which were most suggested – in alphabetical order and alternating between male and female names. This is done according to the US National Hurricane Naming convention, which excludes the letters Q, U, X, Y and Z because there are thought to be too few common names beginning with these letters.

They have to be human names, which is why suggestions in this list revealed by Wired – including Apocalypse, Gnasher, Megatron, In A Teacup (or Ena Tee Cup) – were rejected. The Met Office received 10,000 submissions for the 2016/17 season. According to a spokesperson, a lot of people submit their own names.

Only storms that could have a “medium” or “high” wind impact in the UK and Ireland are named. If there are more than 21 storms in a year, then the naming system starts from Alpha and goes through the Greek alphabet.

The names for this year are: Angus (19-20 Nov ’16), Barbara (23-24 Dec 2016), Conor (25-26 Dec 2016), Doris (now), Ewan, Fleur, Gabriel, Holly, Ivor, Jacqui, Kamil, Louise, Malcolm, Natalie, Oisín, Penelope, Robert, Susan, Thomas, Valerie and Wilbert.

Why does this violent storm have the name of an elderly lady?

Doris is an incongruous name for this storm, so why was it chosen? A Met Office spokesperson says they were just at that stage in their list of names, and there’s no link between the nature of the storm and its name.

But do people send cosy names for violent weather conditions on purpose? “There’s all sorts in there,” a spokesperson tells me. “People don’t try and use cosy names as such.”

What psychological impact does naming storms have on us?

We know that giving names to objects and animals immediately gives us a human connection with them. That’s why we name things we feel close to: a pet owner names their cat, a sailor names their boat, a bore names their car. We even name our virtual assistants –from Microsoft’s Clippy to Amazon’s Alexa.

This gives us a connection beyond practicality with the thing we’ve named.

Remember the response of Walter Palmer, the guy who killed Cecil the Lion? “If I had known this lion had a name and was important to the country or a study, obviously I wouldn’t have taken it,” he said. “Nobody in our hunting party knew before or after the name of this lion.”

So how does giving a storm a name change our attitude towards it?

Evidence suggests that we take it more seriously – or at least pay closer attention. A YouGov survey following the first seven named storms in the Met Office’s scheme shows that 55 per cent of the people polled took measures to prepare for wild weather after hearing that the oncoming storm had been named.

“There was an immediate acceptance of the storm names through all media,” said Gerald Fleming, Head of Forecasting at Met Éireann, the Irish metereological service. “The severe weather messages were more clearly communicated.”

But personalising a storm can backfire. A controversial US study in 2014 by PNAC (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) claimed that hurricanes with female names lead to higher death tolls – the more “feminine” the name, like Belle or Cindy, the higher the death toll. This is not because female names are attached to more severe storms; it is reportedly because people take fewer steps to prepare for storms with names they perceive to be unintimidating or weak.

“In judging the intensity of a storm, people appear to be applying their beliefs about how men and women behave,” Sharon Shavitt, a co-author of the study, told the FT at the time. “This makes a female-named hurricane . . . seem gentler and less violent.”

Names have social connotations, and affect our subconscious. Naming a storm can raise awareness of it, but it can also affect our behaviour towards it.

What’s it like sharing a name with a deadly storm?

We should also spare a thought for the impact sharing a name with a notorious weather event can have on a person. Katrina Nicholson, a nurse who lives in Glasgow, says it was “horrible” when the 2005 hurricane – one of the fifth deadliest ever in the US – was given her name.

“It was horrible having something so destructive associated with my name. Homes being destroyed and lives being lost shouldn’t be named after any person,” she tells me over email. “I actually remember at the time meeting an American tourist on a boat trip in Skye and when he heard my name he immediately linked it to the storm – although he quickly felt guilty and then said it was a lovely name! I think to this day there will be many Americans who hate my name because of it.”

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.