Have-a-go Hereos
Jack Straw’s comments about the need for the law to be made clearer so that those willing to do so feel safe to intervene in the face of crime are welcome. This is not least the case because his government has successfully oppossed several Tory attempts to do the same thing over the last ten years.
Straw wants to protect those people who intervene to prevent crime or to catch those who have carried it out. Good. Some might even say, about time. Crime, particular at the low levels of public disorder, are vastly worse than they need to be because too often those involved are not challenged by the people around them. Anything that can be done to address that should be perceived as a good thing.
It also reminded me of this great little piece by the BBC’s Jeremy Vine, who witnessed a couple of doses of anti-social behaviour on the tube and why is ashamed to not have acted as he would have hoped he would.
It seems to me that Brown’s government is currently doing an excellent job of taking the wind out of Tory sails in many areas, such as this. The Cameron team seems to be being outfoxed on a regular basis by the Brown machine; watching them grab the headlines and then meekly protesting “but but but, please sir, that was my idea first…”
Is anybody else worried about the apparent inability of the Tory machine to compete effectively in owning, managing and promoting the party’s agenda, policies and message?
Comment by Tony O'Connor — 28 September, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Actually, I have some sympathy with the Conservative leadership on this. You can’t do anything in opposition other than talk about your ideas as there is nothing under your control. So coming up with ideas and watching the best being taken up by others is inevitable. The only way to over come this is to have very bad policies or very unpopular ones. Fortunately, what the Tories are largely talking about at the moment are neither.
It should also be made clear that this is better than the party having no policies at all, which was the criticism of just a few months ago. Now we have some that are worth “borrowing”.
This is probably inevitable, too, but remains sad all the same.
Comment by Timothy Barnes — 28 September, 2007 @ 10:02 am
What a disappointingly passive view of opposition you have! The party’s role is apparently reduced to coming up with stellar policies and shrugging “oh well, it was always going to happen” when the government touts them as their own…
Perhaps a little less navel-gazing and a greater attempt at practicing what is preached would distinguish the Tories more? Surely this is behind our leader’s avid cycling and recycling - “live the message”. Should we not do similarly in this type of area? Champion, publicly support and advise “have a go heros” who fall foul of the law for their actions…
We need to do a better job of demonstrating that there is little but wind and spin behind the grand statements of Brown, Straw et al. Acting with substance is surely a better option than the passive shrug approach that you appear to advocate…
Comment by Tony O'Connor — 28 September, 2007 @ 10:15 am
I do not think it is a passive view at all. Indeed, the passive view would be the one that the party was previously charged with: not producing any policies at all.
The positive role of opposition is to make proposals on fresh policies and to critique those of the government, preferably without a rabid “Say No to All!” approach and, instead, with a more constructive one. This inevitably leads to sharing of ideas and this should lead to better governance of the country as a whole. The suggestions you make are just such a way of contributing positively. Championing those failed by the policies in place is a direct example.
My comments were no “passive shrug”. On the contrary, my method is precisely the one you are advocating. If you moved from a position of wanting to start a fight to one of the very positive engagement about which you write, we should be able to agree on that.
Comment by Timothy Barnes — 28 September, 2007 @ 10:24 am
The law in this area generally works very well as it is. It is more that public awareness of the law needs to be improved. Whilst it would be good for society if more people did feel able to say something about anti-social behaviour, is it really fear of the law that stops people intervening in situations as opposed to a regard for their personal safety?
As an aside, the Private Members Bills on householder protection were a populist nonsense designed to chase headlines and play on misinformation about the existing law.
Comment by Victoria Roberts — 28 September, 2007 @ 5:35 pm