Home page If only politicians were always like this Clare Short - cse study Resigning the whip What is clearly wrong with the current Labour party in power is its dangerous self-serving collectivism bent on continuance of power at the expense of the majority and freedom of speech. This collective is especially intolerant to any individual voicing anything at odds with its collectivist value set including a blind adulation of a dominant but completely incompetent leader. This is all managed through a collective imposition of censorship which is based on intimidation of anyone who may wish to criticise by making use of bullies who act with the authority of the collective, such as Jacqui Smith, the Labour whip. This situation is a good example of why the political party whips should be outlawed. The shameless intimidation exercised by the process of the whip should be a felony along with intimidation, blackmail and the knowing suppression of everyone's right to free speech. More damagingly the whips actually encourage MPs to follow lines which do not comply with the wishes of their constituents; this undermines the process of free representation and participatory democracy, it is a vulgar act of placing party over country. Better times ... Clare Short as Secretary of State for International Development United Kingdom The issue over which the collective has reacted is Clare Short's opinion concerning the current state of governance of the United Kingdom. In her letter of resignation to the Labour whip Clare Short stated: " It is my view that our political system is in trouble and that the exaggerated majorities in the House of Commons have led to an abject parliament and a concentration of power in Number 10 that has produced arrogant, error prone government. Given that the next election might well produce a hung parliament, I want to be free to argue that this creates a valuable opportunity to reform our voting system so that the House of Commons more accurately reflects public opinion and we have a parliament more able to hold the Government to account and to ensure that policy is well considered." There is nothing in this statement which is not supportive of the overall interests of the people of the United Kingdom. But, of course, this is not the interest of the Labour party. The Labour party has no interest in rational rule but rather can only understand absolute power. Lord Falconer, has stated that Clare Short's statement on the advantage of a hung parliament is tantamount to stating that having some Labour MPs lose their seats is a preferable state of affairs and therefore is not in the interest of the Labour Party. Lord Falconer, who is himself unelected, frankly admits in this statement that he is not interested in elections establishing the will of the people but rather they should be a mechanism for the Labour Party to secure a massive majority with less than 22% of the electorate's support. He wants a Labour Party which has less that 1% of the electorate as members to dictate to the majority. In terms of the interests of the people of Britain, Clare Short is right and Lord Falconer is wrong. This is a clear illustration of the conflict of interests which exist between British political parties in their inward looking jealous pursuit for power and the basic interests of the people of Britain in having a more open and uncensored representation. MPs should, first and foremost represent their constituents and be free to express their heartfelt views. But, in spite of her rational argument, Clare Short will be openly marginalised by the Labour Party as the collective's sycophants queue up to criticise her all as a pathetic move to, perhaps, have her banished from the collective. Who is honest and who is not? In spite of the valiant efforts of the Labour collective to try and paint Clare Short as being unreliable, the record shows that she has been consistently honest in her views. On the other hand she has been consistently misled by promises of undertakings by, for example, Tony Blair, only to find that these were given in bad faith. Clare Short expresses her positions openly so she is a person whom colleagues should not mislead since such bad faith, when exposed will reflect on them and not Clare Short. But such are the collectivist manipulations that her discovering that she had been mislead with intent only made it appear that she was making untimely and even inconsistent decisions. No one can make timely and correct decisions when they are being mislead by people they trust. But this aspect is glossed over by the party machine and indeed the media. But this is unfair since she has been consistent and honest in the views she has expressed. What Clare Short has sustained is an open channel to the public and she had stopped the Labour Party machine, a dangerous collective, from censoring her. The track record of the conscience of the politician Clare Short, when the State Secretary for the Department for International Development expressed her misgivings on the West's approach to Iraq. She told BBC News she would resign from the government if Britain went to war against Iraq without United Nations backing. In her words she would not be able to "stay and defend the indefensible". In justifying her position she said "If there is not UN authority for military action or the reconstruction of the country, I will not uphold a breach of international law or this undermining of the UN," and that "I will resign from the government." The real problem spelt out There was some intensive media flack following the airing of this interview very much of the mould of Clare Short being held up as being disloyal. With her subsequent failure to resign, she attracted still further flack. But the public, at the time did not know what was going on within government. At the time of her initial interview, her accompanying statements which justified her position, reflect the reasoning of a person with multiple loyalties and all of them good. She said, "People like me are being told, 'Yes, all this is under consideration (obtaining UN support) and then the spin the next day is, 'We are ready for war'." She stated that it was time to state her real her intentions. She said she felt the need to say what she thought Britain should do with its influence because our failure to use our influence properly is so dangerous for the world. She felt we were undermining the UN and that allowing the world to be so bitterly divided - the division in Europe, the sense of anger and injustice in the Middle East - was very, very dangerous; it was a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. She also added that she considered the whole atmosphere of the current situation was deeply reckless - reckless for the world, reckless for the undermining of the UN in this disorderly world, reckless with our government, reckless with his own future, position and place in history (the 'he' being referred to being the Prime Minister, Tony Blair). On all counts Clare Short has proven to be absolutely correct. Greater loyalties If this was nothing else, it was an expression of deep concern about the downside risks of the strategies being adopted and of a justifiable frustration at how the image of the country was being savaged. Any Secretary of State for International Development has a strong sense of what our country is doing for the betterment of mankind. It is therefore only natural that Clare Short needed to speak her mind. Secretaries of State for Development have, and must have, loyalties which need to be sustained in, yes, the reckless world of spin. These are substantive loyalties to the millions of people, worldwide, who turn to Britain's aid efforts as, sometimes, the last resource between their current plight and death. Such people should not be subjected to doubts as to the ultimate motivation of Britain's aid efforts. The same goes for the closely associated family of UN agencies who also need to see some consistency on the part of the individuals, such as Clare Short, with whom they deal on a regular basis. Enough was happening at that time for many to begin to have serious doubts as to the United Kingdom's independence and commitment to just about anything. The weight of these particular issues, it would seem, became the reason why Clare Short did not in the end resign. She has stated that she had received subsequent assurances from the Tony Blair that there would be a serious aid effort for the suffering people of Iraq. Blair, it would seem, signalled that there would be chaos if she left then and some new minister tried to come up to speed in this complex area. So, even her failure to act the way she said she would, was not disaster since Blair had passed on assurances and new information to her. This also, paradoxically, reflects a level of public responsibility which was able to overcome and temper her initial private frustrations. Clare Short, by the nature of her post, very much concerned with foreign affairs, had to be more sensitive than most of the importance of these related issues, but it would seem that Tony Blair, and indeed Jack Straw, were and remain beyond caring. This was reflected directly in the degree to which the government spin machine spewed out a sort of incoherent savage belligerence as a backdrop to Tony Blair's intoning and reassurance that he is going through the UN. Clare Short was correct to point out that this hot cold technique is unsettling and indeed reckless. Was that being disloyal to Tony Blair? No, as it turns out it was the best and most responsible public advice being offered to the government by any Cabinet member at the time. The substantive disloyalty comes not from Clare Short but from a reckless media management by a British government giving little weight to the interests of the people of Britain, and as a result, as Clare Short had feared, has become a disaster and which now actively undermines British interests worldwide. And what about Clare? It has always been interesting to see the references in the media to the fact that many consider Clare Short to be a loose cannon, constantly undermining her own leaders and therefore as being untrustworthy. Very much to the contrary she is a normal person who deserves admiration. But then where would the government be if it were not for individuals who in fact remain consistent in their loyalties to certain principles, while weaker souls, and the sycophantic press, chase the "next big thing." No, we should reflect on the importance of having had someone in the Cabinet who was man enough to stick to principles and who was not afraid to express them for the sake of the country. At the end of the day, there is no good time to "go public" on such issues, that is just cynical. Timing will always be "wrong" in the eyes of others. If Tony Blair expected Clare Short to remain quiet over his disloyalty then he really had already lost his grip. No, sooner or later, Clare Short has always made her position clear. There have been no instances when the image of Britain was ever weakened by any stand taken by Clare Short and, indeed, if anything, it has been strengthened since she has demonstrated that, at least in Britain, there are politicians with principles and the courage to express them regardless of the consequences.