tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/alan-johnson-11390/articlesAlan Johnson – The Conversation2016-05-09T11:13:22Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/586102016-05-09T11:13:22Z2016-05-09T11:13:22ZFact Check: does Britain get its way at the European top table?<blockquote>
<p>The UK has never been on the winning side when we have challenged the commission in a vote in the council.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Chris Grayling, leader of the House of Commons and Vote Leave campaigner, <a href="http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/the_renegotiation_has_failed_to_return_powers_to_parliament">in a speech</a> on March 10.</strong> </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Chris Grayling says that our country is never on the winning side whenever there’s a vote at the Council of Ministers when the facts show that we get our way on the vast majority of occasions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Alan Johnson, former home secretary and leader of Labour In for Britain, the Labour party’s remain campaign, <a href="http://press.labour.org.uk/post/143435466264/alan-johnson-speech-to-the-usdaw-annual-delegate">in a speech</a> to the USDAW Annual Delegate Conference, Blackpool on April 26.</strong> </p>
<p>The UK is currently the country <a href="http://www.votewatch.eu/blog/special-report-would-brexit-matter-the-uks-voting-record-in-the-council-and-the-european-parliament/">which most often</a> votes “no” in the EU’s Council of Ministers. But it is wrong to suggest that the UK doesn’t generally “win” in the EU Council; recorded opposition in the council is very rare in the first place, and in most cases governments are able to find compromise solutions. This means that all governments – including the UK – are able to support the vast majority of legislation that comes through the council.</p>
<p>If we look at the numbers in more detail, as the graph below shows, we see that since 1999, when legislative records became available to the public for the first time in an accessible format, the UK has voted “no” to legislation on 57 occasions. It has voted “yes” to 2,474 acts and abstained from voting 70 times. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/O4bec/5/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>This translates into the UK voting “no” on only 2% of legislation – a minority. This can hardly be seen as a case of a country being consistently “outvoted” in the council, as Grayling seems to suggest and as the leave campaign <a href="http://conservativesforbritain.org/2016/01/12/lord-lawson-outlines-the-case-for-leaving-the-eu/">has argued</a> on a number of occasions. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, when we compare the UK votes to other countries in the EU Council, it is clear from the figure that there is a much greater inclination by the UK to voice opposition. The last few years in particular have seen an increase in the number of times the UK votes no or abstains in votes. Examples of policies where the UK has voted no include the <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12774-2003-INIT/en/pdf">regulation of genetically modified products</a>, in agriculture more broadly, and in legislation within justice and home affairs. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/RVWEQ/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>Conversely, countries such as France are much less likely to record disagreement in the public votes, although they do often voice concern in the <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/register/en/content/out/?RESULTSET=1&DOC_SUBJECT=PV%20CONS&i=MING&ROWSPP=25&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=ARCHIVEDATE%20DESC&typ=SET&NRROWS=500&DOC_YEAR=2016">council’s public minutes</a> of their meetings (so-called “formal policy statements” which can be submitted at the time of the vote).</p>
<p><a href="http://cps.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/11/0010414015621077.abstract">Recent research</a> has shown that this variation between countries in the council is down to a number of factors. Most notably it corresponds with a country’s political attitudes towards the EU, its economic standing in Europe, and the kind of scrutiny system in place in its national parliaments. Northern countries with liberal market economies which contribute to the EU budget and who have EU-sceptic publics are more likely to vote no in the EU Council. </p>
<p>This indicates that voting in the EU Council can be used to send political signals by countries that dare to “assert” themselves in public. If this wasn’t the case, we could expect opposition by countries who are less powerful in Europe, and whom may be harder affected by the kind of legislation adopted by the EU.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>We can conclude that the UK is clearly an assertive actor in the EU arena, and that UK government ministers have sometimes been outvoted when negotiating EU laws in the EU Council. Nevertheless, in terms of the total volume of legislation passed, the proportion of times the UK government has been on the “losing side” is tiny.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><em>Nicole Scicluna, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of Birmingham</em></p>
<p>As this fact check demonstrates, it is inaccurate to claim that Britain is never on the “winning” side in votes in the EU Council. On the contrary, all EU member states are on the winning side most of the time, since it is EU Council practice to seek consensus. Nevertheless, it is also true that Britain is in the “losing” minority more often than any other member state.</p>
<p>More broadly, it is too simplistic to reduce the issue of a particular country “getting its way”, or not, to EU Council votes. The ordinary legislative procedure (used for almost all common market matters) requires legislation proposed by the commission to be approved by a qualified majority of states in the council, as well as a simple majority in the European Parliament. Extensive consultations take place before legislation is tabled, so influencing the initial proposal is arguably more important than the final vote.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58610/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sara Hagemann receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. The views expressed here do not represent those of the research councils. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole Scicluna does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Chris Grayling and Alan Johnson disagree on whether the UK is on the winning side at the EU Council. Two academics assess who is right.Sara Hagemann, Assistant Professor, European Institute , London School of Economics and Political ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/341682014-11-13T06:14:27Z2014-11-13T06:14:27ZClueless Labour plotters need to learn the rules of opposition<p>If we’ve learned anything from Labour backbenchers over the past four-and-a-half years it’s that being in opposition can seriously damage your cognitive abilities. At least, that appears to be the only plausible explanation for the behaviour they’ve displayed in the past ten days.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that the leadership-challenge-that-never-was has seriously undermined the authority of Ed Miliband but it also has raised questions about the credibility of the party as a whole. It is now being whispered around Westminster that Labour is so unprepared for government, it can’t even plot a leadership coup.</p>
<p>This one was so badly planned that the plotters involved didn’t even have a candidate to replace the existing leader. They were piling all their hopes on <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/10/alan-johnson-labour-leadership-ed-miliband-loyalt">Alan Johnson</a> – a man who has repeatedly said he is not interested in frontline politics and even less in a post that requires the unpleasant weekly exercise of <a href="http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Leadership-challenge-ruled-Hull-West-Hessle-MP/story-23118055-detail/story.html">Prime Minister’s Questions</a>. Worse than this, the plotters didn’t seem to have a coherent electoral strategy either.</p>
<p>To be fair, the anonymous plotters come from two different groupings of the right of the party, which made it difficult for them to reach a consensus on any plan beyond getting rid of Miliband. Among them were a gaggle of small-c conservatives who want Labour to propose tough policies on immigration and a referendum on EU membership. The others were the über-Blairites, who support immigration and Europe but who would like Miliband to ditch what they perceive to be anti-business policies on the minimum wage, energy companies, taxes on banker bonuses and their mansions.</p>
<h2>Living in the past</h2>
<p>This episode proves that many MPs on Labour’s right have not yet digested the fact that David Miliband is not their leader. Leaving aside hypothetical considerations over who would make a better party leader (and it is not clear that David Miliband possesses the important personable qualities that his brother seems to lack), it seems these backbenchers have only just woken up to the fact that the British political landscape has dramatically changed since 1997. And they still haven’t understood what those changes mean.</p>
<p>They do not seem to understand why Labour was so heavily defeated in 2010 (and why the Labour Party lost five million supporters between 1997 and 2010). For one thing, New Labour’s <a href="http://benaldin.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/trangulation-raison-detre-of-new-labour.html">triangulation strategy</a>, which saw it adopting distinctly right-wing policies, was admired by the City of London, industry and most of the Westminster media but actually served to alienate many voters.</p>
<p>And more importantly, the global financial crisis also showed that Labour needed to rethink its embrace of neoliberalism. Third way economics facilitated the credit crunch of 2007, the financial crisis of 2008 and the debt crisis of 2009. As the former chair of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan said after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/steve-coll/the-whole-intellectual-edifice">whole intellectual edifice that had sustained the turbo-capitalism of the 1990s had collapsed</a>. Some serious rebuilding is still urgently required. But many of the plotters seem oblivious. It’s business as usual for them.</p>
<h2>It’s not all about you</h2>
<p>As well as lacking self-awareness in this respect, Labour backbenchers have failed to face up to the realities of alive-and-kicking multi-party politics. A centre-left party like theirs has to deal with multiple and contradictory electoral challenges. And these challenges are far more difficult for Labour than for the Conservatives. They have to respond to the UKIP insurgency on one side, the rise of the Greens on the other, not to mention the Scottish National Party. They have to work out what to do about disillusioned Liberal Democrat voters at the same time, as well as keeping up with the high volatility of floating voters. </p>
<p>Developing an electoral strategy that addresses all these challenges without electoral costs is impossible. Targeting UKIP sympathisers with tough policies on immigration, as some of Miliband’s critics have suggested, risks alienating centre-left and soft-left voters. Labour needs their support but they might instead vote for the Greens or the SNP. Ditching the modest rise of the minimum wage, the freeze on energy prices or the tax on banker bonuses on the other hand might deprive the party of the few policies that are actually popular with voters.</p>
<p>If any Labour backbencher has doubts about how serious these challenges are, he or she should take a look at what is going in Europe, where other social democratic parties are in disarray. In France, the Socialist Party is being squeezed between Marine Le Pen’s National Front and the Left Front. In Germany, the SPD is challenged by the Greens and the Left Party. In Spain, the Socialists have had to concede their position as the main opposition party to the recently created radical left party <a href="https://theconversation.com/meet-podemos-the-party-revolutionising-spanish-politics-33802">Podemos</a> and may have to wait several years until Spanish voters will give them another chance. In Greece, PASOK is being pulverised by the radical left movement, <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-you-ready-for-a-new-kind-of-left-wing-politics-33511">Syriza</a>.</p>
<p>Allowing for some national variations, the state of social democracy across Europe is rather dismal. If Labour MPs want to avoid the fate of their European counterparts they should save their doubts about Miliband for Sunday confession and wait until after May 7 to plot about leaders in public.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34168/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
If we’ve learned anything from Labour backbenchers over the past four-and-a-half years it’s that being in opposition can seriously damage your cognitive abilities. At least, that appears to be the only…Eunice Goes, Associate Professor of Communications, Richmond American International UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/288262014-07-08T14:59:08Z2014-07-08T14:59:08ZPolitics is a game best played by the young and the restless<p>So, Alan Johnson is too old, at 64, to contemplate a run at the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-ed-miliband-is-not-the-person-to-lead-labour-into-an-election-is-alan-johnson-28828">leadership of the Labour Party</a> even if the top job: the prime ministership may be there for the taking just ten months away.</p>
<p>Prime ministers (and presidents) appear to be getting younger and younger. It used to be that achieving the prime ministership was the pinnacle of any political career – the product of a lifetime of service to both party and public after which, former prime ministers, all passion spent, would shuffle off into the House of Lords and spend their golden years giving speeches few will hear. </p>
<p>It’s all different now; gone is a lifetime of service and a gradual rise through the party ranks before becoming party leader. When Alan Johnson told reporters he was too old to become party leader many scratched their heads and wondered when youth, rather than experience and knowledge, had become a necessary qualification for leadership. </p>
<p>But there is no doubt that it has. This became apparent under Tony Blair, who had only a spell as shadow home secretary on his CV when he became Labour leader in 1994. In fact, because of the longevity of the Thatcher and Major governments, Blair had never held a ministerial portfolio of any kind when he was elevated to prime minister in 1997.</p>
<p>Blair was only 43 when he became prime minister (ten years later he was still only 53, which meant he had to find something else to do after Downing Street – but that’s another story). David Cameron was younger still than Blair, if only by a few months, moving into Downing Street at 43 years and 215 days. He’s now a fully seasoned 47, like his deputy Nick Clegg. George Osborne – who was still in his 30s when he took on the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, is 43. Ed Miliband is 44.
Compare this with previous incumbents of Downing Street. Winston Churchill was 80 when he left office, Margaret Thatcher was 54 when she began her 11-year stint in the top job. Harold Wilson was a relatively youthful 60 when he stepped aside in 1976, but whispers suggested he was already beginning to experience the symptoms of the Alzheimer’s disease which would so cruelly blight him for the rest of his life.</p>
<h2>Keep young and beautiful</h2>
<p>In a society preoccupied with the young, the beautiful and the thin rather than the experienced, the intelligent, the skilled, is it any wonder that our politicians are becoming both younger and less experienced? Gone are the days when home secretary, foreign secretary or chancellor (and sometimes all three – step forward Jim Callaghan) routinely appeared on a prime minister’s CV.</p>
<p>Does this mean our politicians are less capable than the elder statesman (and women) of old? Certainly they enter the job with less experience, but perhaps that is a good thing. With less experience comes less entrenchment within the Whitehall machinery so often blamed for staid thinking and a lack of imagination. </p>
<p>But how much training can actually be done to be prime minister? Is there a direct link between age and success? Perhaps the best comparison to Alan Johnson would be Callaghan, a man of strong working-class credentials and the only man to have served in all four of the major offices of state. He was 64 when he succeeded Harold Wilson in 1976 and his three years in power paved the way for a landslide Conservative Party election victory three years later in 1979 after the infamous Winter of Discontent. </p>
<p>It was a catastrophic period for Labour which left the party in the wilderness for 18 years. Was he too old to cope? Even so experienced a politician was utterly blindsided by events and left almost powerless in the face of disaster.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53285/original/wrb39nvx-1404811217.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53285/original/wrb39nvx-1404811217.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53285/original/wrb39nvx-1404811217.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=745&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53285/original/wrb39nvx-1404811217.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=745&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53285/original/wrb39nvx-1404811217.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=745&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53285/original/wrb39nvx-1404811217.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=936&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53285/original/wrb39nvx-1404811217.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=936&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53285/original/wrb39nvx-1404811217.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=936&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">William Pitt: younger than everyone else.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pitt_the_Younger#mediaviewer/File:William_Pitt_the_Younger_2.jpg">Gainsborough Dupont</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On the other hand, William Pitt the Younger, who was 24 when he took office in 1783, survived nearly 20 years in two ministries (despite being defeated in a no-confidence vote two months into his ministry, which he simply refused to acknowledge). Another youthful PM was Robert Jenkinson, Lord Liverpool, who took up the prime ministership in 1812 aged 42. His ministry lasted 15 years during which time he negotiated the Napoleonic Wars, the Corn Laws and the Peterloo massacre.</p>
<p>Times have changed. Just as John F Kennedy won power in 1959 partly by making his opponent Richard Nixon look out of touch, today’s political leaders have to be slicker than their predecessors, in terms of their appearance and their media presence. Winston Churchill may have been a masterful public speaker, but he didn’t have to cope with a regular grilling by John Humphreys or Jeremy Paxman. Clement Attlee, who took over from Churchill in 1945, is often named as the best 20th-century prime minister, but he was a terrible communicator – and was dubbed, by Churchill, as a “<a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill">sheep in sheep’s clothing</a>”. How would he have fared in an era of 24-hour news and two-minute soundbites? </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53288/original/dzxqckr9-1404812840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53288/original/dzxqckr9-1404812840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=944&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53288/original/dzxqckr9-1404812840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=944&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53288/original/dzxqckr9-1404812840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=944&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53288/original/dzxqckr9-1404812840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1186&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53288/original/dzxqckr9-1404812840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1186&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53288/original/dzxqckr9-1404812840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1186&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Old and New Labour: Michael Foot with Tony Blair.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://images.pressassociation.com/meta/2.1768503.html">Chris Young/PA Archive/</a>, <a class="license" href="http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en">FAL</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Michael Foot, another politician whose intellect garnered almost universal respect, was brought low by his walking stick and donkey jacket at the Cenotaph, which made him look old and out of touch. </p>
<p>So is Alan Johnson right when he tells us that at 64, he is too old to for the top job? Would the judicious application of some hair dye and a good tailor increase his chances? Should he name-check current pop groups like <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/sep/24/uk.arts">Gordon Brown did with the Arctic Monkeys</a>? </p>
<p>These questions are almost certainly moot, as Johnson himself has ruled out standing as Labour leader, despite the very many of his supporters who <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681943/New-Red-Ed-crisis-MPs-urge-Alan-Johnson-stand-stalking-horse-party-leadership.html">believe he still has it in him to lead his party</a> and those who fear that he, like Denis Healey before him, may turn out to be the best leader the party never had. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28826/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Victoria Honeyman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>So, Alan Johnson is too old, at 64, to contemplate a run at the leadership of the Labour Party even if the top job: the prime ministership may be there for the taking just ten months away. Prime ministers…Victoria Honeyman, Lecturer in British Politics, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.