Come on Lib Dems: what would Birgitte Nyborg do?

I'm often amazed at reviews of episodes of political dramas such as The West Wing, Borgen, The Wire, Battlestar Galactica and Game of Thrones. Reviewing such episodes without discussing the choices faced by the protagonists is like reviewing Rocky without mentioning boxing. There may be more going on than just the obvious subject matter, but you really ought to pay some attention to what's in front of your nose.

Being fiction, all the available choices would typically have dreadful consequences. But the dramatic resolution would hinge on some wily fellow coming up with a brilliant choice that no-one had thought of. A lot of the fun is in trying (usually failing) to work out what that choice might be.

Sometimes, of course, there is no brilliant choice, and we watch sadly as pragmatic protagonists cope badly with trying to minimise the damage of the least worst compromise, when it might have been more satisfying to go down in a blaze of fiery defiance.

I occasionally wonder whether we are all getting better at political analysis because of the skills we are honing in fictional scenarios.

And then I read the newspapers.

But what I find interesting about problems like the Jeremy Hunt vote, is that we often seem to prefer to present our real life political choices as a little bit more black-and-white than the fiction. It's as if we'd like politics to be a series of Doctor Who-style moral choices in which if we'd only stick to our principles, be nice to odd-looking creatures, trust the Doctor's got some trick with a sonic screwdriver up his sleeve, and be jolly brave, it'll all be alright in the end.

I don't know.

I couldn't live by the morality of the dastardly folk in The West Wing, Borgen, The Wire, Battlestar Galactica and Game of Thrones. Nor, for that matter, those in Doctor Who. But, at the same time, it doesn't end very well either for
*** !!!! SPOILERS FOR ALL THE ABOVE SERIES !!!! ***
these honourable folk.
*** SPOILERS END ***

On the Hunt issue in particular, I've no idea what Lib Dems should do. (I told you I was bad at guessing the dénouements to political dramas!)

[I'd probably propose an amendment deleting Labour's wording and replace it with something essentially identical that sounds emollient ("... recommend the Secretary of State is given a chance to clear his name by enabling an independent review of the facts by Sir Alex Allan..." or some such) but still achieves the right result, while saving face for the Conservatives ("Following sensible advice from the Deputy Prime Minister, I have decided to support this amendment, in the interests of ensuring that the Secretary of State is treated fairly.") But I doubt such a move would work because I think Cameron is implicated more than we know.]

However I note that it costs Lib Dem bloggers little to take the moral high ground (1, 2, 3), whereas Nick Clegg and the other ministers have the responsibility of living with the realistic consequences of such a stance.

Now Clegg's political nous is far from reliable, in my view; but I hear no-one putting a case for "We must back Cameron on this one, to ensure our more important policies get through".

And that worries me a bit. It shouldn't be beyond the pale to consider such positions.

It's a pragmatic approach, sure. And that can fail badly, as we saw in the case of tuition fees. But sometimes flexibility can help advance the greater good, as I think is illustrated by
*** !!!! SPOILERS FOR ALL THE ABOVE SERIES !!!! ***
these wily folk.
*** SPOILERS END ***

This continuing disconnect - between a smart but idealistic rank-and-file on the one hand, and a pragmatic but fitful leadership on the other - cannot end well.

Update 13 June 3:30pm

I still haven't seen anyone in the Lib Dem blogosphere arguing to vote with the Tories on this one. However, Stephen Tall has put forward the argument that an abstention makes sense because "We should conserve our energies and furrowed brows for issues that matter to folk beyond SW1".

And Stephen also noted sweetly on Twitter:

Fwiw I think abstention meets @LonWon's Birgitte Nyborg criterion, "a brilliant choice that no-one had thought of" :) bit.ly/L6pBlO
— Stephen Tall (@stephentall) June 13, 2012

Meanwhile, backbench MP Adrian Sanders - not a rank-and-file member of course, but far from a slavish follower of edicts from the leadership - has made a similar argument to Stephen's.

It's true that the balance of Lib Dem comments on LDV and Twitter seem to be strongly in favour of voting for Labour's motion, but I think these reasoned articles by Stephen and Adrian may well cause some to allow the value of this point of view on future issues.

The last word though is from Peter Doyle: "Good question! What would Birgitte Nyborg do? I imagine she'd 'invite' Jeremy Hunt to become Interior Minister for Greenland...."

Just in it for the craic: A special #FF

A couple of months ago I celebrated reaching 100 posts on this blog. Today I reached 10,000 tweets.

I'm not going to attempt a "Best of" list for those tweets as I did with the blog posts: it's rather harder to trawl through 10,000 tweets than 100 posts! And the richly context-dependent nature of tweets means I couldn't begin to write some kind of similar narrative of my use of Twitter over the last 3 years.

I had been very sceptical about the value of Twitter when I signed up in April 2009. I would say though that the experience has been both positive and negative:

Positives

1. Encountering many fascinating and engaging people. I'm following about 260 at the moment.
2. A great way to find out about interesting articles.
3. Often very very funny.
4. Opportunities for engaging in short chats about topical issues, sometimes with the key players too. Great for exploring problems and ideas.
5. A good way to let potential readers know about this blog (I seem to get a lot of my readers via Twitter).
6. An outlet for thoughts and questions that I probably couldn't muster the energy to try to craft into a decent-sized blog post.

Negatives

1. I probably get a little too side-tracked from things I should be doing!
2. Scratching a sudden intellectual itch via a tweet makes it much less likely that that itch will grow into the urge to write an article for the blog; and blog posts are less ephemeral than tweets.

Some people think that ranting bigots, dullards and spammers are a big problem on Twitter. I haven't found that. I don't have to follow anyone I don't want to, and I can block them if they don't want to go away.

Guido Fawkes: My Part in his Downfall

One of the most hilarious things I've discovered recently about Twitter is that somehow (I've no idea how) I've managed to offend the infamous political blogger Guido Fawkes to the extent that he blocked me at some point in the last three years.

I don't think I've ever followed Guido on Twitter, and I stopped reading his blog years ago, because I think his vituperative and cynical attitude to politicians diminishes the quality and capacity of our political discourse. For the same reason I think it's also unlikely I've written many tweets in which his name appears.

But clearly for a nobody like me to have impinged on the mighty Guido's radar, my contempt for him must have leaked out in an idle tweet. Guido, taking a break from dishing out bile, and eagerly surfing (bless) for delicious morsels of adulation, must have read my tweet and been so tearfully upset that he turned his back on me forever, blocking his dainty ears against someone who briefly failed to ignore him. Poor delicate flower.

Or a minion accidentally leant on the keyboard.

A special #FollowFriday

As noted earlier, one of the things I love about Twitter is discovering people one might otherwise never have encountered.

And the people I follow are an eclectic bunch: Lots of LibDems; true, but also some wonderful Green, Labour, Conservative and non-aligned folk. Lots of interesting Exonians; but loads more from all over England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and further afield. Lots of thinkers; plenty of flâneurs; and most just in it for the craic.

I hate doing the #FF thing, and usually regret it straight away, finding it horrible to appear to single out some over others. But if you're looking for interesting folk to follow, here are a few ideas.

Image: Tig Cóilí I (CC BY-NC 2.0) by Gavin Clarke.

Hunt and BSkyB: What is Labour up to? And what is Cameron hiding?

How to tell a Minister is damaged

Respected political journalist Martin Bright has some tough words about Jeremy Hunt's appearance in front of the Leveson Inquiry.

"Has there ever been such a woeful performance at a public inquiry...?"

"There has rarely been a frontline politician as vain and primping as the Culture Secretary..."

"... smug, grinning complacency..."

"... Hunt has become an icon for the loathsome arrogance that could spell the end of [this] government."

"... Our democracy is diminished by his presence."

Even the headline "What a cowardly Hunt" calls to mind James Naughtie's unfortunate spoonerism when talking about "jeremy Hunt, the Culture secretary".

Now it's true that I recently used the term "Cnuts" to refer to the climate change deniers trying to make it illegal for the sea to rise in North Carolina. But I was legitimately invoking the well-known but possibly apocryphal story about the 11th century king of Denmark, England and Norway commanding the tide to halt.

Nevertheless, aside from Bright's personal loathing for the Minister, the post makes a single specific allegation:

"It is now beyond question that Jeremy Hunt was batting for the Murdochs."

Having listened carefully to the questioning of Hunt at this week's hearing, I don't think this is "beyond question" at all.

It's clear that Hunt wanted the News Corp bid for BSkyB to succeed: Hunt's views on this were well-known before he was given his "quasi-judicial role" in the matter.

But whether Hunt was biased in his decision-making, and whether News Corp received information from Hunt's office that it shouldn't have done, are not proven on the basis of the evidence we have heard so far.

Nor, for that matter, is it proven that Hunt was culpable in the appointment or management of his Special Adviser, or that Hunt misled Parliament.

Yet Labour continue to make all these claims. Why is that?

In one view, Labour has mishandled the attack on Hunt. The smart thing to do would have been not to angrily assert these claims and demand Hunt's resignation, but to keep asking the questions: Was Hunt biased? What information did News Corp receive? How was Adam Smith managed? etc. This keeps the pressure on the Government, aligns Labour with the news media's agenda in finding out the truth, and highlights that Leveson doesn't have the remit to answer these kinds of questions.

Instead, angry assertion and demands for resignation reach high pressure quickly, but then have nowhere to go in the absence of new allegations. You can only get so angry on such an issue. Repeatedly calling for resignation has diminishing impact. Dissipation of pressure is inevitable.

However, there's an alternative view of Labour's strategy here: It's that actually Labour want Hunt to remain in office for as long as possible, wounded and continuing to damage the Government day-by-day by embodying Labour's charge that the Government is out-of-touch, lying and corruptly favouring its friends in big business. On this account, Labour's style of attack is a clever way to drag out the drama.

What's more, with Cameron defending a position of not referring Hunt to Sir Alex Allan, the government's independent adviser on the ministerial code, it's now almost inevitable that Labour will table a motion in the Commons that Hunt should be referred. And this will put the Liberal Democrats in a quandary about how to vote. For such a motion could only pass with Liberal Democrat support.

And of course every fibre of a Liberal Democrat's sinew is likely to be screaming that a referral is the proper course of action: due process, independent, fair, transparent, holding politicians to the highest standards, and so on. There is no doubt LibDems would be supporting such a motion if they were in opposition.

But it's not at all clear that LibDem Ministers can vote for such a Labour motion without causing a crisis for collective responsibility within the Coalition. Moreover, Cameron can quite rightly point to how he kept Vince Cable within the Cabinet for the sake of the Coalition, when Cameron had the grounds and motivation to sack him over the BSkyB bid. Now, Cameron would say, Clegg needs to repay the favour and show loyalty to the Coalition. And even if LibDem Ministers vote against, Conservatives would see LibDem backbenchers voting for Labour's motion as a clear demonstration of breach of faith, and the knives would be out.

So if you wondered why Hunt so preoccupies Labour when they could be focusing on the cuts to public services, that's your answer. Hunt's continuing presence in the Cabinet helps Labour's narrative about an "out-of-touch Government" and about LibDems "sacrificing their principles to prop up the Tories".

In that case, what's stopping Cameron referring Hunt to the independent adviser on the ministerial code? After all, from the outside, that looks to be the easiest option for Cameron. OK, so initially Cameron said he wanted to wait until Hunt gave evidence at Leveson, and when that happened he said no; therefore referring Hunt now would look like weakness. But that's easily got round by Hunt asking Cameron to refer him anyway, in the interests of clearing the air: the request coming from Hunt allows Cameron to act without losing face.

But why say no at all? What's the problem?

It seems to me that Cameron has so far refused to refer Hunt for one of three reasons:

1. Cameron believes Hunt is innocent of the charges. Cameron is loyal to those who are loyal to him. And if Labour get their way on this, the media will taste blood, and Cameron's authority will be damaged.

2. Hunt is a useful lightening rod, protecting Cameron from criticism because of his close relations with Coulson and Brooks.

3. There is some unknown fact, yet to come out, that somehow implicates Cameron in improper behaviour in relation to the bid, but that would likely come out of an inquiry into breaches of the ministerial code over the bid.

In relation to (1), I think the chances of Cameron's authority being diminished more by the act of a referral than by the continuing rejection of an inquiry are small. And I'm sure Cameron must know this, and has a well-honed sense of self-preservation that would overcome the feelings of hurt pride or unfairness that a referral would engender.

(2) is not strong either. The facts about Cameron's connections with Coulson and Brooks are already known. Heat on Hunt does not change those facts.

But (3) is interesting.

I'm reminded of Cameron's body language at a particular moment in the debate following Hunt's statement to the House of Commons on 25 April. The video is here, starting at 13:12:50, Hansard HC Deb, 25 April 2012, c965.

David Rutley, the Conservative MP for Macclesfield asks:

"Will my right honourable Friend confirm to the House that the process he describes was authorised and approved not just by the Cabinet Secretary but by the Permanent Secretary at the DCMS?"

I doubt it was intentional, but this is actually a trickier question than it seems. At this point in the debate, Hunt has not said that the Cabinet Secretary has "authorised and approved" the process.

Hunt has earlier said:

"... when I was appointed to be responsible for the bid, my views about the bid, some of which had been made public, were explicitly reported to the Cabinet Secretary, who decided that it was appropriate for me to take responsibility for it in a quasi-judicial role..."

He has also said that the role of Hunt's Special Adviser was agreed by the Permanent Secretary, but (at this stage in the debate) nothing beyond that.

Hunt replies to Rutley:

"I can confirm that the permanent secretary was closely involved in this very important decision at every stage of the process. In particular, he gave me strong advice about how to ensure that the process was handled objectively and fairly and was seen to be handled objectively and fairly."

It's slightly odd that Hunt doesn't confirm at this point that the Permanent Secretary authorised and approved the process, because later on in the debate Hunt goes on to say that "we set up a process that was approved by the Permanent Secretary". But maybe that's not significant. Hunt appears to be choosing his words particularly carefully in this answer, but stumbles over the word "involved". Is he searching for a strong way to express the importance of the role of the Permanent Secretary in influencing the design and conduct of the process, and decides that "closely involved" is more emphatic than "authorised and approved"? It isn't to backbenchers, judging by the way they return to this point in later questioning. I suspect that in Hunt's eyes, it's not just that the Permanent Secretary approved of arrangements that Hunt made, it's that the Permanent Secretary helped make those arrangements.

However Hunt very noticeably doesn't confirm in his answer that the Cabinet Secretary authorised and approved the process. That's not particularly surprising: the matter of Hunt's suitability for the role is clearly a matter for the Cabinet Secretary, everything else to do with the process would typically be a matter for the Permanent Secretary.

But Cameron's body language during this answer is unusual. First he stares up into the distance, as if thinking back to something.

Then he stares up intently to where Rutley is sitting.

His eyes move back to staring into the distance. And then he sticks out his chin, strokes it and scratches it.

And finally, he puts his chin down and protects his throat, as if threatened.

And then he lowers his chin even more.

The camera does not show him displaying such behaviour at any other moment during the debate.

I might be wrong, but if I had to guess about the nature of "some unknown fact, yet to come out, that somehow implicates Cameron", I'd suggest it has something to do with the Cabinet Secretary.

For me, the key questions remaining after Hunt's testimony are:

1. Why was a Special Advisor the point of contact between DCMS and News Corp?
2. Was any information passed inappropriately to News Corp?
3. Did Hunt mislead the House of Commons over his contacts?

These are not primarily matters for Leveson, and in my view an inquiry is needed. If Cameron refuses to refer Hunt to the independent advisor on the ministerial code, the DCMS Select Committee should initiate its own inquiry. And call the Cabinet Secretary to give evidence.

Acknowledgements

• "Feeding Time" [CC BY-NC 2.0] by Flickr user PictureWendy.

Not a bad month for blogging

Disney's Cheshire Cat isn't quite
as sinister as Lewis Carroll's

I think May 2012 has probably been this blog's most successful month in terms of visitors.

I certainly haven't noticed getting over 3000 pageviews in a month before. (The total is 3042 as I write)

Exeter

About a third of those pageviews were for the results of the Exeter local elections (941), making this the most read post on the blog.

Related posts include:

• "Exeter Elections, May 2012 - the basics": actually posted in April but receiving 64 views this month, making 212 altogether (9th most read post on the blog).
• "Exeter Elections, May 2012 - the issues": again posted in April but receiving 112 views this month, making 226 altogether (7th most read post on the blog).
• "Some Exeter Lib Dem candidates" (63)
• "Brief thoughts on Exeter's local election" (94)
• "Exeter Elections, May 2012 - Post hoc analysis" (78)

Craig Oliver and Norman Smith

There has been much media comment this week about the accidentally-recorded row between Downing Street's Communications Director (Craig Oliver) and the BBC's Chief Political Correspondent (Norman Smith).

Most of the comments have focused on the body language, the subtext, the strategy and the parallels of Craig Oliver's complaint. But not the actual complaint.

My post "It's not BBC bias: It's an unbalanced view of 'balance'" was able to draw on a transcript I'd made of a dodgy report made by Smith 18 months ago when the Cabinet minister whose position was under threat because of the News Corp bid for BSkyB was Vince Cable rather than Jeremy Hunt.

I had thought the post was a fairly unique focus on the substance of the row rather than the froth, and a bit of form on Norman Smith. But it received just 53 pageviews. Meanwhile my post from December 2010 "BBC journalist gets Cable the wrong way round" got an extra 79 views this month, making 186 views altogether.

I'm clearly no journalist then!

Liberal Democrats

Two of my LibDem posts attracted some interest:

"The LibDem local election campaign was not LibDem, local or a campaign" (96 pageviews) was certainly negative, but I make no apologies. The signs do not look good that the national party has learned from the mistakes of the 2010 General Election campaign or the 2011 AV referendum.

"What do Liberal Democrats want?" (224) was my attempt to provide a positive way forward in terms of political narrative. LibDem blogger Andrew Emmerson said some very nice things about this post, and brought it to the attention of the party's President, which undoubtedly led to such high readership. It's the 8th most read post on the blog. Sadly no placing in the Lib Dem Golden Dozen!

Incidentally, I don't want to give the impression that LibDem campaign staff have an easy task: in another post I drew attention to the huge communications challenges (61) facing the LibDems at the next General Election.

Other politics

I had a first go at mapping out the Political Narrative Battlegrounds for 2015 (80) for the Conservatives, Labour and LibDems. I have a lousy reputation for crystal ball gazing, so it'll be useful to look at this post again in a year or two.

Continuing the development of my "Evil Liberal Masterplan" (perhaps "Localism-Plus" is a more saleable name!), I explained "How to get growth" by fostering more local decision-making about big developments and public services. I genuinely think this is an original contribution to the debate, even if perhaps unlikely to happen. But sadly this post got just 39 pageviews, despite my increasingly desperate attempts to plug it on Twitter. Just a bad title I suppose.

So I was convinced the title of the tongue-in-cheek "Why Scottish independence will lead to a new Dark Ages" would have outraged Scots beating a path to my door. But again, just 40 pageviews. Oh well...

Acknowledgements

• "Cheshire Cat in Disneyana" [CC BY-ND 2.0] by Loren Javier.
• "Why Vote Liberal Democrat?" [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0] by Helen Duffett.
• "BBC balance" and "Local government gears" [CC BY-SA 3.0] by LonWon.

It's not BBC bias: It's an unbalanced view of "balance"

The Government's Director of Communications, Craig Oliver, has been complaining about biased reporting by the BBC's Norman Smith. The report was about the Culture Secretary's precarious position in relation to the News Corp bid for BSkyB. Craig Oliver's complaint has remarkable similarities with objections I made 18 months ago about how Norman Smith reported the Business Secretary's position in relation to the same bid.

In the previous incident, the transcript of Norman Smith's report for BBC Radio 4's PM programme shows that Smith effectively gave his own personal opinion that Vince Cable should resign. He asserted that Cable's position as Business Secretary was "fatally compromised".

Making such an assertion is not Smith's job, I argued. He's not a columnist. He's not a politician. He's not a player.

Smith could have said that The Opposition was calling for Cable's resignation. He could have said that a key question under discussion was whether Cable's position as Business Secretary was fatally compromised. He could have said that his Government sources were sceptical that Cable could survive. But Smith didn't do that. He asserted that Cable's position as Business Secretary was in fact fatally compromised. This exceeds Smith's role.

Smith saw himself as providing balance by saying "there would be huge reluctance to see [Cable] go". This does not provide balance, because it does not offer an alternative view to Smith's assertion that Cable's position as Business Secretary was fatally compromised.

“Balance” would have been to quote those saying that Cable hadn't compromised his position, or that Cable's words were private and taken out of context, or that Cable needed to recuse himself from the decision. Now Smith might not agree with these views, but Smith's view isn't important.

Smith portrays the balance as between Cable being fatally compromised and it being politically damaging for Cable to go. But actually the balance is between Cable being fatally compromised, AND NOT.

In the same report Smith also asserted that a Government press conference was a “charade”. Again, this was The Opposition's view. It wasn't the Government's view, and it wasn't Smith's role to declare that it was (even if it was).

Smith's understanding of the notion of "balance" is wrong.

In the most recent case, raised by Craig Oliver, Smith asserts that the "Prime Minister having his name in the same headline as the Murdochs is a problem". Just as in the Cable case above, Smith accepts The Opposition's argument and dismisses the Government's argument.

And again, Smith might or might not be right. That's not the point. The point is that a BBC correspondent has a duty to report the facts and provide insightful analysis, rather than to take one side or another. Smith seems to view "balance" as a requirement on him, as a BBC correspondent, to weigh up fairly who is right. I.e. in this instance: is the Prime Minister damaged by his association with the Murdochs? But such judgements are not Smith's job. His job is to present the arguments and counter-arguments as fairly as possible.

Now I'm no cheerleader for government directors of communication, nor of the Prime Minister, let alone Jeremy Hunt or Rupert Murdoch. And I'm certainly not one of the "The BBC is full of biased Guardianistas" brigade. I have good friends in the BBC, and I've had very few good things to say about Cameron or Hunt or Murdoch. But it seems to me that Norman Smith has a mistaken view of impartiality.

In the video Oliver gives another example of Smith picking a side. Smith asserts that Jeremy Hunt's memo to the Prime Minister in favour of the News Corp bid for BSkyB (a memo sent before Hunt took up a quasi-judicial role in the matter), constituted "making representations". The implication is that Hunt lied to Parliament.

This might be right. There are plenty of respectable commentators saying just that. And the Opposition is saying that. But there is an alternative view, expressed very clearly by the Government, that Hunt's memo was to the Prime Minister, not to the person making the decision at the time (Vince Cable), and that this memo was deemed by senior civil servants as constituting no bar to Hunt taking over responsibility for the decision.

Once again, Smith sees "balance" as weighing up whether the Government is right or the Opposition is right. And he comes down in favour of the Opposition. Smith thinks it's balance if he makes an (honest) attempt at a personal judgement about who's right, without bias or prejudice. But that's not balance. "Balance" in this instance would be explaining the Government view, explaining the Opposition view, indicating some of the unanswered questions, and giving an insight into what key players are saying about the relevant merits of these views.

Now is Smith's view of balance shared by his editors? Does it represent the official policy of the BBC? Because if it is, then we have a serious matter on our hands. It would mean that BBC News is redefining its view of impartiality.

Why Scottish independence will lead to a new Dark Ages

The argument that Scottish independence will lead to a new Dark Ages depends on four propositions:

1. Scottish independence means that Britain's nuclear deterrent will need to be relocated to Devonport.

The UK's current nuclear weapon capabilities depend on four Vanguard-class submarines based at Faslane in Argyll and Bute, and on the ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads stored nearby at Coulport.

Local political opposition to locating the nuclear deterrent in Wales or Northern Ireland means that a base will have to be found in England.

Devonport, in Plymouth, is the largest naval base in Western Europe and is the sole nuclear repair and refuelling facility for the Royal Navy. Even then, extensive work will need to be carried out to make Devonport suitable as a base for the submarines.



2. Devon achieving nuclear capability will lead inexorably to Cornwall developing its own independent nuclear deterrent.

It is inconceivable that Cornwall would sit idly by, while Devon flexed its nuclear muscles, itching to blow Truro to kingdom come. That Cornwall is oppressed by English rule is bad enough, but for Devon to possess weapons of mass destruction would be seen in Cornwall as a deadly threat to the peace and stability of the region, if not the world.

A devastating nuclear attack by Devon on Brittany, Cornwall's strategic celtic ally, could be over within less than 40 seconds.

The realm that produced notables such as Captain William Bligh, Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, Rick Stein and Rory McGrath would not hesitate to summon up its brightest and best to create the weaponry necessary to deter the Devonshire aggressors.


3. Then all hell breaks loose.

If the Cornish get nuclear weapons, we're all done for. That Pasty Tax is out, for a start. Bitter rivalries over the order of jam and cream on scones will then turn into an all-out South West civil war. Meanwhile, aggressive exports of clotted cream and Cornish fudge will quickly clog the arteries and rot the teeth of the decadent English middle classes.

With Cornish military power in the ascendant, radioactive piskies will multiply and infest the whole mainland. Roaming bands of tin miners will terrorise the land, so stern and taciturn they reduce the gruffest Yorkshiremen and hardest Geordies to girlish simpering. Wreckers, pirates and zombie-like surf dudes will cause devastation along the coasts of the British Isles. Jamaica Inn morality will rule.


4. The Greater Cornish Empire rises.

A resurgent Mebyon Kernow seizes power, claiming that only they can return order. They are sustained by vicious elderly watercolour artists brandishing brushes and a distracted air, and wearing black shirts (well, black with a white cross in the middle, and more like smocks than shirts really).

They are led by a newly awoken man called Arthur Pendragon, who promises to unite the celtic diaspora and drive the perfidious Saxons into the sea. He ruthlessly deploys massed ranks of harpists, bagpipers, and richly timbred choirs to great military success across the British Isles.

From then on, it's a few simple steps to the abolition of paper in favour of celtic stone; the replacement of the internet and telephones with signal fires; the reworking of medicine and dentistry in line with an all-encompassing philosophy of "It's just a scratch. Just leave it."; the rejection of roads as "Roman rubbish"; the eradication of weird foreign foods such as potatoes, tomatoes and rice; and feudalism.

So be careful what you wish for, Scots. You cry, Gibson-like, for freedom now. But you may end up annexed by a Greater Cornish Empire. "Onen hag oll" (One and All) will ring out from Land's End to John o' Groats.

Think carefully before you vote "Yes" to Scottish independence.

How to get growth

National governments are rightly focused on reducing the deficits that are causing massive threats to their economies. But the resulting austerity leaves little scope for schemes to stimulate economic growth. And growth would increase tax revenues, thus helping to eliminate the deficits and reduce debts. So what's to be done?

Socialists believe that more can be spent on stimulating growth, while maintaining spending on public services, by taxing the rich more. Deficit hawks believe less should be spent on public services and on growth schemes, while increasing taxes across the board. Neo-classical liberals also believe in spending less, but that reducing taxes can stimulate growth.

I don't know that any of these views are right. I'm not an economist, and the arguments on all sides fail to convince. But who knows?

However, in the UK I think there's something that might help, whatever your economic view: empowering local engines for growth.

Different parts of the country should be able to take advantage of their own particular local strengths to encourage growth. This requires central government loosening its fevered grip just a little on taxation and expenditure, and letting strong councils take advantage of local conditions.

I want to draw attention to two important aspects of this form of localism: (i) local decision-making about big developments; and (ii) local decision-making about public services.

Local decision-making about big developments

Developments can get stalled at an early stage by emotionally charged battles between enthusiastic proponents of stimulus schemes (house-building, wind farms, engineering projects, and the like) and wary residents fighting damage to their neighbourhoods.

Both sides think the system is weighted against them. The reality is that if local people rather than ministers are the ultimate arbiter of proposals, proposals will have to be designed to unarguably benefit local communities rather than to align with well-meaning but amorphous national policies.

This is not simply a case of transferring decision-making from ministers to councillors. Councillors do need to play an important role in this: referring back proposals that clearly contribute insufficiently; ensuring stakeholders are involved in the discussions; commissioning research comparing alternative options; and proposing conditions such as a local tax, an inspection regime, modified plans or new community facilities. But local electronic plebiscites make the final decision.

Good developments are more likely to succeed quickly under this form of localism, because developers will need to design proposals that make it easy for locals to judge that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. And bad developments will no longer be able to rely on multiple appeals, inattentive councillors, vague planning policies and ministers with nothing to lose in the locality.

At the same time, developers will not be faced with the knee-jerk local opposition that comes from justified scepticism and sense of powerlessness about the planning system. Constructive engagement is more likely.

Local decision-making about public services

A second way in which local engines for growth can be enabled is through liberalising public services.

Rather than the State controlling public services centrally, like some totalitarian regime, councils would be free to pursue their own preferred ways of delivering particular services, whether that's in-house, through contracts with companies, or in conjunction with other organisations or councils. At the same time, power to vary taxes enables those with different ideas about what works to put those ideas to the test.

Those councils that want to stop the cuts get to stop the cuts, but they will need to borrow the money or raise taxes. Those councils that want a balanced budget will be able to cut spending and increase taxes. Those councils that want to reduce taxes get to do that. But more importantly, councils are free to decide on the priorities for schools, hospitals, police, post offices and so on that make sense for local people, taking account of local needs and opportunities.

Through this encouragement of innovation, the country does not put all its eggs in one basket, but is able to pilot different ways of stimulating growth and dealing with debt, within broad but sensible constraints set by central government.

What works in one part of the country does not automatically work elsewhere, but by evaluating the factors affecting success in every part of the country, the Government will see good ideas being taken up across the country, and bad ideas being quietly dropped with no loss of face to central government.

More autonomy allows ideas to be put to the test. Of course it's true that councils might choose to go for the monorail rather than more frequent buses; they might choose to build the casino rather than the theatre; the nuclear power station rather than the wind farm. But councils must be allowed to make mistakes, so long as there is complete transparency and accountability to local voters.

Why won't this happen?

This "localism-plus" means that good developments are more likely to succeed quickly, and that public services can innovate under democratic local control rather than stagnate under monolithic central control. These are strong engines for growth.

I've outlined the key objections to this proposal. But the main reason this kind of thing is unlikely to happen is not because of potential costs, uncertainties or fragmentation; nor even (at a philosophical level) fears of privatisation or of localism. It is that battle-lines are already being drawn for the next election, and that for all but a few liberal-minded politicians, the dream of enforcing one's own prescription for success across the whole country overrides all other considerations.

Acknowledgements

• "N30" [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0] by Flickr user churchofpunk.
• "Piggy bank" [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0] by Flickr user Teresa Gibbison.
• Photo of Sir Stuart Rose [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0] by the CBI.
• "Local government gears" by LonWon. [CC BY-SA 3.0]