Germany’s foreign policy16th July 2010
In response to Hans Kundnani (June, 2010), I’d like to point out that Germany has always had a distinct post-war foreign policy. The Hallstein doctrine of trying to isolate and delegitimise the East German state was replaced by Willy Brandt's outreach to Moscow, an initiative which reached its nadir when the SPD-FDP government came close to endorsing the suppression of the Polish Solidarity union by the communist regime in December 1981.
In the early 1990s, Germany's unilateral recognition of Croatia precipitated the decade-long Balkan crisis, though the massacres at Srebrenica—while EU governments stood on the sidelines—changed public opinion in favour of allowing German soldiers to serve overseas.
The secret deal in November 2002, by which Germany supported France's demand that there be no reform of EU agro-subsidies and Paris agreed to endorse Germany's neutralist-pacifist stance split Europe in half ahead of the Iraq intervention. But again, it showed a distinct German foreign policy stance.
Germany is unlikely to boost military spending in the near future, because if Berlin spent as much of its GDP on defence as Britain and France, the German military profile would alarm its neighbours. German foreign policy therefore is condemned (or freed) to be based on soft power and to be rooted in multilateralism rather than go-it-alone nationalism. Germany needs partners more than is realised.
Germany's Russlandpolitik is dictated by its need for markets as much as dependency on Russian gas. The rejection of nuclear power leaves Germany obliged to have a positive relationship with Russia, but no more so than the west's dependency on oil means closing eyes to unsavoury regimes and abuses of human rights in oil exporting nations.
And the notion that Germany should stop exporting makes little sense. Europe is not a grouping of zero sum national economies in which each nation must have equilibrium in trade balances. German workers and unions have made sacrifices to modernise the German economy and on the whole Germans pay taxes—apart from the usual dentists with Luxembourg bank accounts. The Bild Zeitung does go in for lurid headlines and distorted reporting, but a nation that produces the Sun and Daily Mail is in no position to lecture others on press excesses.
Recently John le Carré wrote movingly about his life-long love affair with German and Germany. I can think of no other European nation that over the last half century has added so much value—economic, social, cultural and diplomatic—to world affairs.
The present German coalition is not happy, but which government is in today's Europe? At some stage—and perhaps sooner than we think—there will be a new surge of EU integration with Germany at its heart. It remains a shame that British opinion and policy-formers know so little of modern Germany. The sight of the new foreign secretary having to wear headphones to understand the platitudes of the deputy prime minister on their recent trip to Berlin exemplified British disconnect from Germany.
Denis MacShane MP House of Commons, SW1
The meaning of marriage10th August 2010
Shiv Malik’s argument (August 2010) that “stability can be provided by single parents or cohabiting couples too” is sloppy and illogical. Whilst it is self-evidently true that there are single parents and co-habiting couples who provide stability, as it is that there are married couples who provide instability, the vast majority of research supports the view that marriage is by far the best means for providing stability.
Malik also repeats Ed Balls's meaningless statement that he wants "to support all families, whatever shape or size they come in." I really doubt this. Does Balls really intend to legalise polygamy? He must to identify what he means by “family” for his statement to have any meaning. Until then it should be treated as the newspeak that it is.
(Rev) David A. Robertson
Spend less on prison
11th August 2010
Ian Blair (July) provided a timely insight into the changing face of crime. The new government’s stated intentions to radically reform the response to crime and punishment provides a golden opportunity to create a system which is, in his words, “intelligent and evidence-based.” For both financial and political reasons, such an opportunity should not be squandered.
No one is under any illusion that new policy will not be fiscally driven. But where prison is concerned, less spending could also deliver a much more effective public service.
As Blair rightly points out, the nature of crime has changed. The most persistent problem we face on our streets today is the type of low level crime often associated with anti-social or drink and drug-fuelled behaviour. By changing our justice system in line with this shift we could do more to reduce crime as well as produce significant cost savings.
According to research carried out on behalf of Make Justice Work, diverting just one offender from custody to residential drug treatment saves society about £200,000. Had all the drug-using offenders given short sentences in 2007 been given residential drug treatment instead, nearly £1bn could have been saved in reduced costs of crime and punishment.
It is not news that over the last 15 years, far from being based on evidence, we have had a criminal justice system based on media-fuelled public fear of crime and political fear of appearing “soft” on crime. Previous governments have preferred to plough money into building more prison places rather than invest resources in making the alternatives robust and consistently delivered throughout the country. If the coalition wants to reduce the costs of crime without compromising our safety, they will need to rethink this failed prison-only approach. Now is the time to change that trajectory.
That is why we have launched a four-part national inquiry, led by Ian Blair and others, to properly examine the question of community versus custody and showcase the many examples around the country of alternatives that are reducing recidivism at a fraction of the cost of prison.
One scheme we have examined so far, piloted by Manchester Probation, takes on 18-24 year olds who would either be sent to prison for the first time or who have been in and out on short custodial sentences a number of times already—exactly the type of offender for whom prison is more often than not an expensive waste of time. The pilot works because it places heavy emphasis on tackling core problems such as lack of education, training or housing; it prioritises comprehensive family work to involve those nearest and dearest in the rehabilitation process; there has been a lot of work done to ensure a close relationship with the local police, and mechanisms are in place to respond quickly and effectively to any potential breaches or wayward behaviour. At a cost of approximately £5,000 per offender, this scheme and others like it are an intelligent way to reduce costs while increasing effectiveness.
As it pushes ahead with a programme of unprecedented spending cuts, the government cannot afford to ignore the facts as previous governments have done. If instead it seizes the opportunity to cut prison numbers, invest in the alternatives, and transform our failing criminal justice system, the coalition will prove itself truly radical.
Roma Hooper Director, Make Justice Work
Doing the sums on AV
11th August 2010
Peter Kellner's analysis on the effects that AV will have on the results of Westminster election (August 2010) is sound as far as it goes—but it does not go far enough. What Kellner signally neglects—as have virtually all commentators and all polls on AV during the last couple of months—is the way that AV will change first-preference voting habits.
That is to say: Kellner makes the rash assumption that those who voted Lib Dem at the recent election actually do have Lib Dem as their first preference, that those who voted Labour the same, and so on. In fact, this assumption is false. It is falsified by the existence of tactical voting, under FPTP.
The big question about the effect of AV on election results is how the abolition of tactical voting and of "wasted vote" arguments (an abolition that AV very largely effects) and the drastic reduction in safe seats that it will simultaneously bring about will affect the first-preference votes of the LibDems and of smaller Parties. In some seats (notably, Labour-Conservative marginals), the LibDems are at present perceived not to have a chance; their first-preferences will go up under AV, in those seats. But this is unlikely to help them much at all in the short term—because, in such seats, they are in most cases far enough behind that they will still be eliminated before either the Conservatives or Labour. In many seats (including obviously most of the seats they actually hold), the LibDems currently benefit a great deal from tactical voting: in these seats, their first preferences will slump, under AV. It may well be that in some cases those first preferences (which will turn into 2nd or 3rd preferences, under AV) will slump so much that the LibDems will be eliminated before the 2 'main' Parties - or indeed before smaller Parties, whose first preferences will in many cases leap up, with tactical voting and 'wasted vote' arguments eliminated.
This is an additional reason, beyond those canvassed by Kellner, for believing that the LibDems may, ironically, suffer in 2015 from AV, rather than benefiting from it.
In the longer term, a great advantage of AV is that it enables smaller parties (which the LibDems may well be again, after the next General Election) that are not thoroughly disliked by a majority (Kellner is correct that AV will likely punish the BNP more than FPTP does) to build up their votes. This is how the Green vote has grown in Australia, for instance, to the point where the Greens have won seats in the Upper House (elected by PR) through being able to build up their first-preference votes (through AV) in the Lower House.
Thus AV, unlike FPTP, makes it comparatively easy for democracies to outgrow ossified Party structures - such as arguably we have in Britain, today.
Green Party Councillor Rupert Read Norwich
Let's hear it for helicopters
31st July 2010
In July's roundtable discussion, General Sir David Richards commented that he would love to see a prosperous British defence sector. He will be pleased to hear that there is one. The aerospace, defence and security industries are among the most high-value, high-tech sectors of the British economy, worth billions of pounds and employing hundreds of thousands of people across the country. The products developed and delivered by these sectors support our armed forces, help to keep our country safe, allow its citizens to travel and trade freely and lead the fight against climate change.
Some 305,000 workers are employed in this sector, which generated export sales last year of over £7bn, close to the 20 per cent of the global market that the industry has set as a medium term target. Furthermore, the industry inspires, trains and employs a great number of young people, at a time when unemployment in the under-25 age group is at disturbing levels.
Here in Yeovil, we directly employ some 4,000 highly skilled workers, but the supply chain and associated tail encompass at least 20,000 more. Last year, AgustaWestland (AW) invested no less than €230m in research and development, not only on new helicopter design but also on enhancements to current fleets. We also have an excellent and thriving apprentice scheme, numbering nearly 200, which last year, along with our other Finmeccanica partners, achieved an outstanding rating from Ofsted, the only apprentice scheme in the country to do so on its first assessment.
Defence and the other high technology sectors provide the most promising basis for a recovery in our manufacturing base, surely essential if we are to recover the British economy without plunging the nation into further recession, with all the consequences to employment and social cohesion. Buying off-the-shelf, or at the tail end of a production line (as Lewis Page suggests), may save money in the short-term; but it carries massive risks of disparate fleets, dependence on others for support and upgrades, with absolutely no guarantee of the contractor being there when needed most, in conflict situations. Its impact on the British manufacturing base, on jobs and on people's lives is self-evident.
Defence companies neither need nor wish to be “propped up,” as one could infer from General Richards' comments. Rather, we trust that both the government and those in the acquisition process will continue to take appropriate account of the wider societal and security values, as well as the purely financial ones, of a thriving British defence sector. Let us hope that the strategic defence review, and the subsequent revised defence strategy, accommodate these expectations. If they do not, our society, economy and defence will suffer long term damage.
Christopher Coville Chairman, Westland Helicopters Ltd
Kaletsky 2
15th September 2010
Anatole Kaletsky's assertion that the United States higher education system is private is highly misleading. While most of our prestigious institutions are private, non-profit entities, the ones that serve the largest number of students are state-supported public universities and colleges. And, some of these, such as the University of California at Berkeley, are quite prestigious themselves.
As for his suggestion that we means-test entitlement programs like Medicare (government-paid health care for those over age 65) and Social Security (government-run pension program for those over age 62), he's more than welcome to come here and suggest that to our politicians - even our most zealous deficit hawks. They would smile, nod, ask him for his money and his vote, and then quietly tear up his policy proposals after he's shown the door.
Instead of pitting the young against the old or the sick against the healthy, a better solution for fiscal responsibility is ensuring that our tax systems are highly progressive and that our governments don't waste money on senseless wars and corporate welfare.
John Meola Avon Lake, Ohio
In response to Hans Kundnani (June, 2010), I’d like to point out that Germany has always had a distinct post-war foreign policy. The Hallstein doctrine of trying to isolate and delegitimise the East German state was replaced by Willy Brandt's outreach to Moscow, an initiative which reached its nadir when the SPD-FDP government came close to endorsing the suppression of the Polish Solidarity union by the communist regime in December 1981.
In the early 1990s, Germany's unilateral recognition of Croatia precipitated the decade-long Balkan crisis, though the massacres at Srebrenica—while EU governments stood on the sidelines—changed public opinion in favour of allowing German soldiers to serve overseas.
The secret deal in November 2002, by which Germany supported France's demand that there be no reform of EU agro-subsidies and Paris agreed to endorse Germany's neutralist-pacifist stance split Europe in half ahead of the Iraq intervention. But again, it showed a distinct German foreign policy stance.
Germany is unlikely to boost military spending in the near future, because if Berlin spent as much of its GDP on defence as Britain and France, the German military profile would alarm its neighbours. German foreign policy therefore is condemned (or freed) to be based on soft power and to be rooted in multilateralism rather than go-it-alone nationalism. Germany needs partners more than is realised.
Germany's Russlandpolitik is dictated by its need for markets as much as dependency on Russian gas. The rejection of nuclear power leaves Germany obliged to have a positive relationship with Russia, but no more so than the west's dependency on oil means closing eyes to unsavoury regimes and abuses of human rights in oil exporting nations.
And the notion that Germany should stop exporting makes little sense. Europe is not a grouping of zero sum national economies in which each nation must have equilibrium in trade balances. German workers and unions have made sacrifices to modernise the German economy and on the whole Germans pay taxes—apart from the usual dentists with Luxembourg bank accounts. The Bild Zeitung does go in for lurid headlines and distorted reporting, but a nation that produces the Sun and Daily Mail is in no position to lecture others on press excesses.
Recently John le Carré wrote movingly about his life-long love affair with German and Germany. I can think of no other European nation that over the last half century has added so much value—economic, social, cultural and diplomatic—to world affairs.
The present German coalition is not happy, but which government is in today's Europe? At some stage—and perhaps sooner than we think—there will be a new surge of EU integration with Germany at its heart. It remains a shame that British opinion and policy-formers know so little of modern Germany. The sight of the new foreign secretary having to wear headphones to understand the platitudes of the deputy prime minister on their recent trip to Berlin exemplified British disconnect from Germany.
Denis MacShane MP House of Commons, SW1
The meaning of marriage10th August 2010
Shiv Malik’s argument (August 2010) that “stability can be provided by single parents or cohabiting couples too” is sloppy and illogical. Whilst it is self-evidently true that there are single parents and co-habiting couples who provide stability, as it is that there are married couples who provide instability, the vast majority of research supports the view that marriage is by far the best means for providing stability.
Malik also repeats Ed Balls's meaningless statement that he wants "to support all families, whatever shape or size they come in." I really doubt this. Does Balls really intend to legalise polygamy? He must to identify what he means by “family” for his statement to have any meaning. Until then it should be treated as the newspeak that it is.
(Rev) David A. Robertson
Spend less on prison
11th August 2010
Ian Blair (July) provided a timely insight into the changing face of crime. The new government’s stated intentions to radically reform the response to crime and punishment provides a golden opportunity to create a system which is, in his words, “intelligent and evidence-based.” For both financial and political reasons, such an opportunity should not be squandered.
No one is under any illusion that new policy will not be fiscally driven. But where prison is concerned, less spending could also deliver a much more effective public service.
As Blair rightly points out, the nature of crime has changed. The most persistent problem we face on our streets today is the type of low level crime often associated with anti-social or drink and drug-fuelled behaviour. By changing our justice system in line with this shift we could do more to reduce crime as well as produce significant cost savings.
According to research carried out on behalf of Make Justice Work, diverting just one offender from custody to residential drug treatment saves society about £200,000. Had all the drug-using offenders given short sentences in 2007 been given residential drug treatment instead, nearly £1bn could have been saved in reduced costs of crime and punishment.
It is not news that over the last 15 years, far from being based on evidence, we have had a criminal justice system based on media-fuelled public fear of crime and political fear of appearing “soft” on crime. Previous governments have preferred to plough money into building more prison places rather than invest resources in making the alternatives robust and consistently delivered throughout the country. If the coalition wants to reduce the costs of crime without compromising our safety, they will need to rethink this failed prison-only approach. Now is the time to change that trajectory.
That is why we have launched a four-part national inquiry, led by Ian Blair and others, to properly examine the question of community versus custody and showcase the many examples around the country of alternatives that are reducing recidivism at a fraction of the cost of prison.
One scheme we have examined so far, piloted by Manchester Probation, takes on 18-24 year olds who would either be sent to prison for the first time or who have been in and out on short custodial sentences a number of times already—exactly the type of offender for whom prison is more often than not an expensive waste of time. The pilot works because it places heavy emphasis on tackling core problems such as lack of education, training or housing; it prioritises comprehensive family work to involve those nearest and dearest in the rehabilitation process; there has been a lot of work done to ensure a close relationship with the local police, and mechanisms are in place to respond quickly and effectively to any potential breaches or wayward behaviour. At a cost of approximately £5,000 per offender, this scheme and others like it are an intelligent way to reduce costs while increasing effectiveness.
As it pushes ahead with a programme of unprecedented spending cuts, the government cannot afford to ignore the facts as previous governments have done. If instead it seizes the opportunity to cut prison numbers, invest in the alternatives, and transform our failing criminal justice system, the coalition will prove itself truly radical.
Roma Hooper Director, Make Justice Work
Doing the sums on AV
11th August 2010
Peter Kellner's analysis on the effects that AV will have on the results of Westminster election (August 2010) is sound as far as it goes—but it does not go far enough. What Kellner signally neglects—as have virtually all commentators and all polls on AV during the last couple of months—is the way that AV will change first-preference voting habits.
That is to say: Kellner makes the rash assumption that those who voted Lib Dem at the recent election actually do have Lib Dem as their first preference, that those who voted Labour the same, and so on. In fact, this assumption is false. It is falsified by the existence of tactical voting, under FPTP.
The big question about the effect of AV on election results is how the abolition of tactical voting and of "wasted vote" arguments (an abolition that AV very largely effects) and the drastic reduction in safe seats that it will simultaneously bring about will affect the first-preference votes of the LibDems and of smaller Parties. In some seats (notably, Labour-Conservative marginals), the LibDems are at present perceived not to have a chance; their first-preferences will go up under AV, in those seats. But this is unlikely to help them much at all in the short term—because, in such seats, they are in most cases far enough behind that they will still be eliminated before either the Conservatives or Labour. In many seats (including obviously most of the seats they actually hold), the LibDems currently benefit a great deal from tactical voting: in these seats, their first preferences will slump, under AV. It may well be that in some cases those first preferences (which will turn into 2nd or 3rd preferences, under AV) will slump so much that the LibDems will be eliminated before the 2 'main' Parties - or indeed before smaller Parties, whose first preferences will in many cases leap up, with tactical voting and 'wasted vote' arguments eliminated.
This is an additional reason, beyond those canvassed by Kellner, for believing that the LibDems may, ironically, suffer in 2015 from AV, rather than benefiting from it.
In the longer term, a great advantage of AV is that it enables smaller parties (which the LibDems may well be again, after the next General Election) that are not thoroughly disliked by a majority (Kellner is correct that AV will likely punish the BNP more than FPTP does) to build up their votes. This is how the Green vote has grown in Australia, for instance, to the point where the Greens have won seats in the Upper House (elected by PR) through being able to build up their first-preference votes (through AV) in the Lower House.
Thus AV, unlike FPTP, makes it comparatively easy for democracies to outgrow ossified Party structures - such as arguably we have in Britain, today.
Green Party Councillor Rupert Read Norwich
Let's hear it for helicopters
31st July 2010
In July's roundtable discussion, General Sir David Richards commented that he would love to see a prosperous British defence sector. He will be pleased to hear that there is one. The aerospace, defence and security industries are among the most high-value, high-tech sectors of the British economy, worth billions of pounds and employing hundreds of thousands of people across the country. The products developed and delivered by these sectors support our armed forces, help to keep our country safe, allow its citizens to travel and trade freely and lead the fight against climate change.
Some 305,000 workers are employed in this sector, which generated export sales last year of over £7bn, close to the 20 per cent of the global market that the industry has set as a medium term target. Furthermore, the industry inspires, trains and employs a great number of young people, at a time when unemployment in the under-25 age group is at disturbing levels.
Here in Yeovil, we directly employ some 4,000 highly skilled workers, but the supply chain and associated tail encompass at least 20,000 more. Last year, AgustaWestland (AW) invested no less than €230m in research and development, not only on new helicopter design but also on enhancements to current fleets. We also have an excellent and thriving apprentice scheme, numbering nearly 200, which last year, along with our other Finmeccanica partners, achieved an outstanding rating from Ofsted, the only apprentice scheme in the country to do so on its first assessment.
Defence and the other high technology sectors provide the most promising basis for a recovery in our manufacturing base, surely essential if we are to recover the British economy without plunging the nation into further recession, with all the consequences to employment and social cohesion. Buying off-the-shelf, or at the tail end of a production line (as Lewis Page suggests), may save money in the short-term; but it carries massive risks of disparate fleets, dependence on others for support and upgrades, with absolutely no guarantee of the contractor being there when needed most, in conflict situations. Its impact on the British manufacturing base, on jobs and on people's lives is self-evident.
Defence companies neither need nor wish to be “propped up,” as one could infer from General Richards' comments. Rather, we trust that both the government and those in the acquisition process will continue to take appropriate account of the wider societal and security values, as well as the purely financial ones, of a thriving British defence sector. Let us hope that the strategic defence review, and the subsequent revised defence strategy, accommodate these expectations. If they do not, our society, economy and defence will suffer long term damage.
Christopher Coville Chairman, Westland Helicopters Ltd
Kaletsky 2
15th September 2010
Anatole Kaletsky's assertion that the United States higher education system is private is highly misleading. While most of our prestigious institutions are private, non-profit entities, the ones that serve the largest number of students are state-supported public universities and colleges. And, some of these, such as the University of California at Berkeley, are quite prestigious themselves.
As for his suggestion that we means-test entitlement programs like Medicare (government-paid health care for those over age 65) and Social Security (government-run pension program for those over age 62), he's more than welcome to come here and suggest that to our politicians - even our most zealous deficit hawks. They would smile, nod, ask him for his money and his vote, and then quietly tear up his policy proposals after he's shown the door.
Instead of pitting the young against the old or the sick against the healthy, a better solution for fiscal responsibility is ensuring that our tax systems are highly progressive and that our governments don't waste money on senseless wars and corporate welfare.
John Meola Avon Lake, Ohio
