The History of Candidate Selection 1950-1966

The History of Member of Parliament Candidate Selection in the Labour Party and Conservative Party 1950-1966
A look at today’s selection procedure for the three main parties would seem incomplete without delving into the historical machinery of selection. Michael Rush in The Selection of Parliamentary Candidates. Michael Rush (1969) Thomas Nelson and Sons: London. Looked at both main parties at the time through a comparative case study and made some observations worth bearing in mind today concerning the decision making processes and some statistical analysis.
Rush was writing at a time when ‘for the aspiring politician, the would be Member of Parliament, there is little doubt that the most promising vehicle of his ambition must be either the Conservative party of its labour rival’ (Page 3) Today of course we have a third party, the Liberal Democrats, who also provide this vehicle’ but also it implies that these two (and now three) parties would therefore have longer short and long lists to select their candidates from. This has implications for our project as we are dealing with the most ‘promising vehicle’s and should therefore anticipate the largest draw to prospective Members of Parliament.
The Conservative Party
The Machinery of Selection
For the general election in 1970 for Conservatives ‘the selection of candidates was the responsibility of Constituency Associations’ but interfering by party central HQ was not unknown such as Salisbury by election in 1965. Rush quantifies this by observing that ‘unlike the labour party, the conservative party did not possess a formal constitution… the absence of a formal constitution renders it difficult to define the relative positions of a national and local organisations’ In this climate it would be hard to discern at which level of analysis the decision making was made. Rush thinks it a good idea therefore to describe the ‘spheres of influence’ for both local and national party administration. (Page 13-14)
The spheres of influence of these two elements of Conservative candidate selection has implications for us as when we look at who gets selected and why. The uncodified procedural bureaucracy of the party may make thinks difficult is discovering the answer.
The Conservative party founded the Maxwell Fyfe Committee in 1935 to oversee the selection of candidates by holding a database of approved persons. Although this committee acknowledged that local associations had the right to select someone not on their list, it did impose recommendations that included financial arrangements being in order and character being acceptable before adoption. Details of marital status, religion and past and present occupations as well as name address etc.. needed to be sent to party HQ for consideration and no reason was needed for refusing to accept a prospective candidate. Acceptable candidates were then forwarded on to local affiliations. Where non approved candidates also presented themselves although in Richmond in 1958 only 4 out of 135 did this. (page 45)
Locally, ‘the major decisions in the selection of a Conservative parliamentary candidates are taken by a much smaller number of people representing a tiny proportion of the local membership.’ (page 35) Firstly, a selection council comprised of young conservatives, local affiliates and was chaired by the local party chairman. It numbered from 27 in South Worcestershire to just 7 in Crayford in 1965.
The selection council by a method of application scrutiny and interview, narrowed down a long list to a short list that will be presented to the second stage, the executive council. East Worcestershire’s 23 person selection council for instance cut the initial 85 applicants (an average number of applicants for a Conservative constituency at the time and unsurprising given Rush’s ‘vehicle’ hypothesis) interviewed 12 and shortlisted 4. (page 40) Shortlists of one were not uncommon.
It was at this stage that the executive council chairman can have a profound effect on the remaining selection candidates. Candidates wives were invited and asked to sit in on the interview for the executive council to assess her as well as her husband. The wife however do not address the council leaving us to wonder what she was being assessed (page 52) After interview selection is decided by simple majority.
These spheres of influence are confusing and seemed to serve only to keep closer, arbitrary ties between the association and HQ.
Factors in Selection
Rush’s research found that the 16 years between 1950 and 1966 there was a marked difference between the selection of candidates in seats they could win and those they could not. For unwinnable seats more under 40’s were selected, less public school alumni and more with local connection. Rush surmises that this was because in winnable seats selection councils and executive councils were selecting a MP not a candidate but Rush fails to mention that these choices such as non public schooling may have been to entice voters from the other side of the electoral dichotomy and appeal to Labour voters. (page 60)
In the same 16 years only 99 women were selected as candidate from the 1,850 selections that took place. That’s 5% and includes seats Conservative associations knew they would not win. This does not however translate to the proportions of women doing the selecting. In the South Worcester council seat mentioned earlier 12 out of the 27 were non male 44% and this was not uncommon over the country. (page 62) The vice chairman at the time however did say only 10% of applicants to the Maxwell Fyfe Committee were women leaving us to wonder not why were women not being selected by local associations but why were they not applying in the first place.
The Labour Party
The Machinery of Selection
As set out in the Labour Constitution Clause III, local parties must follow what is set out by the party conference to the minutiae of detail (page 131) The Labour National executive committee (NEC) had considerable influence over the selection of candidates at every stage. This meant the party would not contest elections it could not win and save party resources.
It had the power of veto over selections but on the whole Rush observes that Labour NEC has rarely abused its power.
Locally, a management committee runs the local party or CLP. This is populated by delegates from the women’s section, youth sections, and ex members with voting powers. As above, the NEC must approve the committees make up before it can proceed. Average CLP membership is around 1,250, much less than trade union membership per constituency.
Labour candidates were harder to find that there opponents. Advertisements had to be taken out in newspapers and left leaning journals. The interviewing procedure occurs much sooner than in Conservative candidate selection procedures. The issue here identified by Rush is the difference that prospective candidates were not forwarded from party HQ to the constituencies. Candidates are therefore sourced locally and only then have to be approved by the NEC not the other way round.
NEC approved candidates are then shortlisted to 3 or 4 as with Conservative party shortlist to appear before a selection conference.
The Factors in Selection
Labour candidates can be selected thanks to sponsorship from trade unions. In fact at the time of writing between 1950 and 1966 again, 1 in 3 Labour MPS were sponsored. (page 165) Unions put forward their candidate alongside not instead of CLP candidates for NEC final approval. NEC take into consideration the Unions previous and anticipated relationship with the Labour Party. Trade union candidate selection is not as heavy supervised as CLP selection procedures. (page 178)
However unlike Conservative selections both winnable and unwinnable seats have similar candidate types nominated. CLP candidates are similarly educated, have similar previous occupations etc.. whether in winnable seats or not this holds true for trade union candidates but not at the same levels. Where around 12% of CLP candidates were from business background whether in winnable seats or not only 25 of trade union candidates were. (page 181)
Rush’s Conclusions
Conservatives: Selection mainly remit of local associations, there are no codified rules to selection but most follow very similar routes to selection, nominees are forwarded to constituencies so there is a flow of already approved candidates to choose from, selections goes through a 2 committee interview/application procedure like a job,
Labour: NEC can influence selection at local level, formal selection does not vary from constitutionally agreed method. (page 275)

A Review. Martin Jacques (2009) When China Rules the World: The Rise of the Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World. Penguin Books: London.

This review/summary is intended for undergraduates looking at China or military strategy in relation to China.

Martin Jacques’ huge book is somewhat inappropriately titled. Only relatively small sections concern themselves with the rise and future of China and instead focus on the current state of China and how it relates to international relations today.

Jacques is clear however on his prophesy that:

‘’the rise of China will change the world in the most profound ways’’ p12.

He also states the rise will not be 1) only economical 2) be Western in execution and 3) part of a complaint international community.

The author anticipates a future where Chinese will be easily identifiable and invokes Huntington’s ‘fault lines’ to illustrate this. Despite European multiculturalism the future identities between Han Chinese and whites will be distinguishable.

Jacques, an editor for far left academic journals refutes JM Roberts claim that

‘’it is clear that the story of the west is the story of mankind, its influence so diffused that old oppositions are meaningless’’ p45.

Japanese culture did not westernise so why would Chinese? Jacques reminds us of the ‘century of humiliation’s suffered by the Chinese from a British diplomatic visit in 1793 to the occupation of Hong Kong in 1842 after the Opium Wars. And that there was no real sovereignty during the Qing Dynasty. This got worse not better and China was thought, at least by Jacques to have balkanised up to 1949 when Mao came to power.

Chinese identity remained strong as only the major port regions such as Macao and Hong Kong where developed and westernised. The ‘inner self’ of the Chinese was never subordinated.

Jacques leaves us thinking maybe the west should wish it did fully colonise China as it did the Middle East.

This humiliating time and partial occupation along with the remaining Chinese identity made Mao’s jobs of unifying China very easy. The author really does believe this as he cements it by saying:

‘’A Chinese nation state was forged under the leadership of Communists and Marxism, however more to do with Chinese nationalism with reassertion of Chinas former Glory’’ p97

Jacques then apologises for Mao with his claim that phase 1 of Communist rule brought industrialisation not seen for 100 years and 1949 to 1978 lay the foundations for growth.

He observes that we in the west are not ready for ‘Easternisation’ and we could be running into an inevitable problem because of it. Chinese language and news will permeate our lives in the West and we are as unprepared as we were for the transformation after Mao’s death.

The idea that oil per barrel may rise to $200.00 before 2020 allows us to look at the security issues we may experience in the near future. It is not just the democratic peace theory that poses an issue for peace theorists. Its quick introduction to China would cause growth problems as it has in Russia and India compared to China and would make the huge state vulnerable. Economic rise like Chinas and democracy don’t go together. Jacques reminds us that neither the US nor UK economic growth happened in fully democratic environments at home never mind in colonies. In fact according to the statistics that say China is only 50% through the transition and 50% of Chinas population still peasants it would be the worst time to democratise.

China has made effort to reach out. The 1994 Shanghai 5 treaty with Central Asian states and Russia and including Uzbekistan in 2001 was meant to tackle Islamic extremism and foster relationships but is far more telling for it’s the beginning of Chinas multilateral agreement making. It was successful too! Iran, India, Pakistan all became ‘observers’

Chinas reach also extends to territory it believes it owns in the South China Sea such as the Diayou/Spratly and Paracel Islands that mean it is in dispute with Japan, Vietnam and The Philipines respectively. China does not recognise Maritime Law as the US sees it. Chinese artefacts found on the island and an historic claim are all it sees as needed.

There is hope however, sovereignty in China does not take the Westphalia view. Deng Xiaoping in 1984 said that sovereignty can be put on hold and economic development for China and its possible future land comes first. As with Hong Kong, China can wait and then do very little change when it does in fact get ownership. In fact China can be said to have been patient and respectful. It knows it can, Jacques convincingly offers that 1.5 billion Chinese and local populations in the 10, 20 30 million bracket is nothing in Clausewitzian strategic terms. Territory with India is also at stake but as a nuclear power and the relative meaninglessness of the Kashmir region means this can be forgotten.

Taiwan however, that is ‘’unfinished business’’ p299. Chinas sees Taiwan as truly belonging to the mainland and studies Jacques cites show Taiwanese identity is so malleable it is only a matter of time before it does so.

The US may soon consider Taiwan to risky to continue giving a security guarantee as:

‘’China is not so far from achieving hegemony in the region’’ p315

Chinas relationship with Africa is fascinating. In 2007 40% of the continents cement was uses in the middle kingdom and the licences for mining are up for grabs as Africa unopposed compared to US presence in the Middle East. In 2009 following the Shanghai 5 success, 48 African states came to a Beijing conference and $5billion was promised including hospital building and granting of university places in Chinese universities. 100% of Angolan oil was the kind of makeweight agreed.

Chinas friendship with Iran could impinge its international reputation but since 1979 when US and UK stopped dealing with Iran, Chinas has had a free hand and has made a 2004 oil deal that could also satisfy Chinese want for Iran to become or remain a regional power. This would make China dominant in both west and east Asia. Maybe China are getting too big now? Russia were quick to buy up ex US army bases in central Asia when it became available and the US are worrying about Chinese deals with nuclear India and Pakistan.

The US has far, far greater military power than China thanks to an embargo of EU and US weapons. Russia are the only arms dealers China can do business with and they have incentives to stem the flow of offensive and defensive weapons. Despite Chinese military being modernised recently at the time of publication China does not have an aircraft carrier.

Two methods the UK should adopt to create stable change in North Korea

On the way towards a more predictable, open North Korea.
Efforts and sentiment towards this aim have often concentrated on the inevitability of offensive military tactics and rhetoric in relation to the hermetic state. As I have recently stated, rather than this being the best way of dealing with North Korea it would probably lead to a stalemate between the US and China and do nothing for the people suffering in the country as North Korea would be an occupied failed state.
The question therefore remains what to do about the issue. One solution I have put forward before is the so introduction of new ideas and media to North Korea with the aim of slowly altering social norms. PUST University is a charity funded higher education establishment in the capital that educates the top elite’s children in English language, western business studies and other subjects. This may very well be a long and slow process to change but this proliferation of ideas and change will better serve the need for stable transition.
UK policy for North Korea should be the introduction of their own state funded but NGO status university. This could educate North Korean youth as PUST does fully expecting and anticipating the control of the regime. It has been my observation of PUST that some new ideas and the pulling of the veil of ignorance from the students will seep through. North Korean government are at such a state of desperation that they are willing to take this chance, thinking they can deal with it. This is where the UK can take advantage. Nothing as serious as ballistic missile technology would be taught, just business studies, economics and history but it is a beginning and these students will be the elite of tomorrow and be able to facilitate stable, organised and peaceful change. These are the students who may be able to negotiate the states inclusion into world affairs at the concession of joining the NPT (nuclear non-proliferation treaty) and MTCR (missile technology control regime)
Secondly and concomitantly, UK secret service should look to set up a desk that looks at facilitating the movement of media software and hardware into the state via Russian/Chinese border and South Korea. These groups (basically a hand full of individuals) already exist and can be assisted with cash or/and motivation from MI6 to keep the flow of USB’s, DVD, and smartphones into the state and begin the alter norms in the country via a bottom up route. This also need not rock the boat too much and introduce a stable change inside the state not by force. Observations into this already show positive effects.
The UK will be seen as helpful in its overt efforts and relatively interfering in its intelligence operations. The cost of the university could be as little as £10miliion pounds and £1million a year to create one half the size of PUST and the MI6 work could easily be based out of a small office possibly with just one person on a 2 or 3 year mission to get media into the country through existing networks of smugglers. This, including set up costs and wages could cost as little as £50 thousand pounds a year.

How UN self indulgence on North Korea could lead to a Sino-US conflict

With the UN calling for Kim Jong Un to be held accountable for Nazi like human rights abuse in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it is worth bearing in mind what any escalation in North Korea would mean. The ensuing proxy war between the US and China is likely to have dramatic consequences.

James Dobbins in the dystopian titled academic journal ‘Survival: Global Politics and Strategy’ says that conflict in North Korea is the most likely of the sources for US/Chinese conflict and could lead to other conflict in a domino effect of Sino-Yank aggression.

The most likely trigger is in fact internal instability in North Korea. Something announcements like this from the UN is not going to help. Internal instability could currently lead to riots and regime collapse. While European English School theorists may condone the overthrow and neo conservatives like the idea of the possibility of a new democracy in the world, it would in fact be a disaster.

A confused, hungry and scared populous would flock to Chinese and South Korean borders. This would bring Chinese Shengyang Military units in to stem the flow of refugees and US/South Korean troops to the other border to do the same.

The US troops will also look to enter North Korea for a multitude of reasons 1) to confirm any intelligence they have had on North Korea, a test of its reconnaissance work over the last 30 years. 2) To have photographs taken like the Iwo Jima of US troop liberating the oppressed as to increase its damaged rep throughout the world, and most importantly 3) To secure known and unknown North Korean military based nuclear weapons and facilities. An unstable regime, as US boots advanced may wish to deploy nuclear weapons towards US bases in the region (if they can reach yet) and to Seoul itself. Did the UN think of this when it stoked the fire? Did it think what a crumbling North Korean regime would do as it was being invaded. Hitler ordered the burning of Paris before he shot himself and his wife, only for the local commander to refuse.

The UN making statements like it has may eventually get into North Korea via the steam of DVDs and USBs that are either smuggled in on boats or by balloon drop from China and Japan. It could engineer instability that would create a Chinese/US stand-off as they meet in the middle. Neither side would want to concede the state to the other. China would not want such close US forces (on the border) and US would not want further Chinese territorial gain.

Dobbins goes on from here to suggest that this would only be the start. This stand-off would lead to Chinese cyber warfare on US satellites working in the area. Chinese technology and knowhow in this sector of warfare is much more advanced and developed than the US and the US would retaliate likewise by engaging in cyber warfare through disrupting commercial shipping IT systems and transport. While this local cyber warfare is going on Dobbins states that China would also be looking to take advantage of this ability and try and exfiltrate US intelligence on the Chinese nuclear position.

China could also look to make good on intentions of repatriating Taiwan and make amphibious landing on the island. This would stretch US forces in particular its special forces that look to take on most of the tactical ground troop work. China would be unlikely to do the same with the disputed Diaoyu islands at this time due to the risk of bringing Japan into the foray and its proximity to South Korea.

The US can play the long game and starve China of energy as they control the oil routes through the Straits of Adan and Malacca through which China receive most of its oil but short term, especially in the cyber departments China could make a real impact.

UN should concentrate on encouraging openness and stability inside North Korea not make accusations and threaten its leader with court cases that would only make the failed state more hermitic. This kind of self-indulgent rhetoric on North Korean by the UN does not help its people and as I have set out with the help of Dobbins article, only makes war between China and the US and it possible trajectory more likely.

Research about research about research

A reading of Robert Yin’s Case Study Research: Design and Methods will lead you to understanding that it has examples and case studies in it. This leads us to the inevitable of doing research into a guy (Yin) doing research on good and bad research. It has however given me some ideas about how to begin my dissertation and will no doubt appear in it as I discuss the methodology I decided to choose and why.
Yin reassures me that doing any type of study is not hierarchical in relation to others. They are all ways of getting to an answer and case studies can be used to make predictions contrary to popular belief. The accusations leveled at case studies about being biased for example can be said of Inferential statistics as they are liable to sampling bias etc… Also, and most memorable, is that Yin says that the literature review is a way good researchers decide the question they intend to ask and not as way of answering it or looking for an answer.
A good researcher reviews the literature gathered and then looks to answer a question that remains. A general idea beforehand is needed in order to set some parameters of the research. This has put me at ease as although I know my diss will be about terrorism/WMD’s and probably be in the form of comparative analysis (this is the most common methodology in International Security and by Yins admission are being used more and more in the social sciences) but as yet I do not have a title. Having seen Yins description of the perfect way to get to your question I am now pleased about the current state of affairs in my dissertation development.
Helpfully, there is some information on construct validity – where there is good data or research to use, Yin uses the idea that crime data from the police is not valid as it does not take into account the unreported crimes. Police data should therefore only form part of the literature review.
We also see internal validity which is only needed in explanatory case studies. For my dissertation it impacts as if I conclude x led to y, sometimes without thorough investigation, z may have caused y and hence the study does not stand up. A good deep literature review may help me here. We then go to external validity which is can the finding be generalizable? Case studies do ‘analytical generalisation’ where an author ‘is striving to generalise a particular set of results to some broader theory. External validity will be important to me as I take the relevance part of the HAMMER considerations as of utmost importance. For my results to be generalizable is important.
Reliability is also mentioned, another author would need to find the same outcome and conclusions with this case I have. This is hard to judge as it is hypothetical but, I aim to be transparent as possible with the sources I use and be as objective as I can.

A Cynics Look at PAIR 2004

Pessimism and cynicism are not traits I hold dear but polemical thought, just for the sake of it is. It’s the reason I like talking about football and art.  With this in mind, a few points as to the motivation behind the research projects given to students in a politics degree course in Southampton ought to be raised.

With students undertaking real world research as part of their course on behalf of publically funded bodies are they in fact just doing the donkey work? Are they assuming a proportion of the workload for an organisation that cannot achieve its aims without help from minions running round collecting data and producing statistics? Are student’s part of the ‘Big Society’ without anyone telling them they are?

The organisations are on a win, win. They get research done for free and get round not paying interns by not paying students while they are actually in the middle of their course. Students are expected to feel humble and grateful that they can cite a well-known organisation on their CV’s when in fact they are the ones doing the favour. Are the organisations blind to this or, even more worrying hoping students won’t realise? Perhaps the organisations might want to say a big thank you at the end.

There is also the issue of: What is the university getting out of this? It could be that students are fostering new jobs for the boy’s type networks for the University of Southampton researchers and reputable organisations. It is feasible that the good work we do will nurture the relationships between the organisation and the university and the fruits of which will be felt by those who stay long after students finish their degree. Can you not see a situation where an organisation liaison with university representatives might include the back scratchingly nepotistic exchange of ‘Thanks for getting your 2^nd years to do the boring bits for us over the past 3 years, I don’t see why we can’t give one of your proper researchers a major citation in one of our important reports’

It is too much to say that students are being blagged into doing donkey work for publically funded bodies to make research produced by the real researchers at a university more palatable to them. University staff may even by careful to include links to their own research and mention future career plans in communications.

The upside to this hypothetical parallel universe could be that the marking of our research project will reflect this. It is not in the interest of the University to have students do work for an outside organisation and then say it was of poor quality. It makes the University look bad and if organisations are getting work that is being graded as poor. Why would they continue the relationship?

This may seem cynical and unfair but is just a way of interrogating what it is that you are doing. Something lecturers would be proud of their student for doing. Anyone suspecting the above can claim immunity under the protection of utilising their free and enquiring mind to think about what they are doing, their right to publicise their thoughts and their hope that they are wrong.

The End of the Runway: How and Why we should disband the Royal Air Force

The way we defend the British Isles and engage in conflict rages on. With the announcement of £2.5 Billion spent on a batch of F35 fighter jets and related maintenance and service packages, these debates can be and ought to be related to who should and how should these weapons be used. The former, who should has been discussed recently and it seems clear that the answer as to whether we should keep the Royal Air force or not is obvious.
The creation of the Royal Air Force was a mistake, a err in reaction to a new-fangled technology around about the time of the First World War The Royal Navy and Army have been common features of British defence and aggression for a thousand years apiece and going forward should be the only two services we need. Developments in unmanned aerial vehicle technology and aircraft can continue to be of use to the Ministry of Defence but under the auspices of both the RN and UK Army regiments not the Air Force.
The Army operate 60 Apache attack helicopters as these are of greater use to close combat operations British troops engage in. The RAF could not provide this support with Eurofighter Typhoons, the circumstances infantry regiments are involved with today are just not conducive to having jets as part of the combat solution. When the UK Coastguard take over the Sea King helicopters for sea rescue there will be a smaller role for the Air Force anyway. As drones become a better use of defence expenditure than the new F35s will be the beginning of the end for the service that operates them.
The Falklands and operations such as strategic bombing in Libya could now be fought with a slightly beefed up Royal Navy with an able Fleet Air Arm. There is little need for a whole service who may be called on to do the same.
Our two new aircraft carriers will be the mobile airfield we need. The transport command function the Air Force performs could be split between the two remaining services or become part of a Merchant transport service swallowing up the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and army equivalent or contracted out.
The main responsibility of UK air defence will be the RN and we would go back to the state of affairs that existed for hundreds of years before flying weapons became an option. Drones would become the sole responsibility of each service according to their need. The increased cost to the Navy in particular would be offset by the disbanded Air Force costs with some savings. The Royal Air Force would be seen in the future as a strange addition to the services as 20th century commanders wondered how to deal with the new technology they had on offer. It will very quickly be seen and immature unnecessary service much like the WRENS. Retire the Air Force and give responsibility of air defence to those that know how to use it.

How to stem the rise of the Chinese criminal youth

 

From 1995 onwards there was a large scale migration of peasants in the West of China to the cities to participate in the boom of industry there. In 1949 10% of the Chinese population lived in cities, by 2011 50% of Chinas 1.37 Billion people lived in cities.

This drew mainly men of working age to the cities tired of low wages and corrupt local officials who could sell off the land they tilled to developers moving West from Beijing and Shanghai.

This left a gap back home as children often lacked a father figure and father figures within the community. The remittances were welcome but this was offset by the absence of a whole cohort of males from many western Chinese villages. As such many younger men and children were and are involved in crime in rural China. Local decisions are often made in opaque courts and party meetings by well connected, retired officials influencing their successors and as such there is little investment in rural people either judicially or the communities they live in.

Those families that go altogether to the cities do not escape the hardships and call of crime. Young boys and girls struggle to adapt to life in a metropolis and have to put up with the second class status they are loaded with as internal economic migrants. Many migrants are also non Han in ethnicity and as such have extra baggage that ultimately leaves them isolated and vulnerable to entering the criminal justice system.

There is however hope, economists point to household registration as a possible solution for these migrants.

Housing registration (Hukou) is the recognition of a migrant’s access to legitimate housing, schooling for offspring, welfare and other social benefits. Without a decent education such as the type children born to city dwellers get, the issues look set to go on and on. No registered housing also prevents judges giving probation to juvenile criminals. A systematic problem for Chinese justice.  Unregistered housing is in tenement blocks that can be pulled down and develop into Soweto style slums.

Improvements such as the increased transparency of local party meetings and decision making would foster justice and fairness and see young criminals get the support they need. Also, some investment in areas receiving money from development or central payments for the food/oil they produce for the East would arrest the rate at which the rural young enter the criminal justice system. Although a small consolation for no role models, it is a start.

In the city it is even simpler, Hukou for all migrants so safe housing, health care and good education means the conveyor of young Chinese being enticed into crime to get ahead in life will slow and stop.

A summary of ‘The China Model: Can It Replace the Western Model of Modernisation’ in The Journal Of Contemporary China April:2010 by Suisheng Zhao.

This article looks to answer is the Chinese model, oft called the Beijing consensus, really that much different from the Washington consensus that describes neo liberal economics. It also looks to outline what positives and negatives it has.

Worryingly defined as being admired from Vietnam to Syria the author says the China Model includes aspects from free liberal economic policy along with what Suisheng Zhao amelioratively calls Strong government, an active secret police and state control over information.

The Washington consensus goes back to 1989 when a paper listed 10 aspects of neo liberal economics that would be palatable to bigwigs in Washington to be implemented in Latin America. This schema ended up not working and was followed in 2004 by another competing idea. John Ramos coined the Beijing consensus, an economic idea that focused on equality and basic quality of life as key performance indicators of the success of an economic policy rather than GDP per capita.

Complications come when supporters of free market liberalism see that the Bank of China is state run and property rights are weak to the extent that local Chinese authorities can sell land farmed for decades by rural peasants to developers to raise cash.

The Beijing consensus may be unfairly named as Singapore, South Korea and Hong Kong all have a history with oppressive governments and strong, fast paced, developing economies.

Suisheng Zhao claims China have basically cherry picked the best parts of the 1989 Washington consensus (page 7) and that calling China oppressive is a loaded term as it wishes to introduce democracy but just not at the expense of economy and what it sees as progress. The author back this up using the example of the 2003 amendment to the law that banned closed meeting and the ability of retired officials of continuing to hold sway over local decisions. 2003 also saw health officials held accountable for that years SARS outbreak.

The author, as promised, then moves onto + and – of the Chinese Model:

+

1.       It can be seen as an economic fast track without the social/political disorder that can be a by-product of democracy.

2.       According to Joseph Nye who seems to be everywhere in a politics degree it is particulary appealing to African states who in some cases really need both order and economic growth and quick.

3.       The debt in the West is not a good advert and has not been since 2008.

4.       The Washington consensus treats non developed states as being able to accept privatisation before proper regulatory control and democracy before a shared culture of political tolerance

5.       Chinese foreign policy is guided solely by economics not moral compass. This IS consistent if we note that the Bandung Protocols was signed in 1955.

 

Gerry Stoker may want to not that what LARRY Diamond called the ‘democratic recession’ in his 2008 book may be due to the US neo conservative installation of democracy when African states were not ready. This undermines democracy and makes people look for an alternative.

–

1.       It has no moral appeal. What A. Sen meant when he talked of the intrinsic human value of having your say.

2.       ‘Brand China’ is not trusted outside places like the Sudan and Zimbabwe.

3.       While impressive is any economic development worth the forced labour camps and environmental pollution.

4.       Most of Chinas development has come after the easing of the brutal rule. Maos time was less impressive that Dengs and as China has become less oppressive it has development has been more impressive.

5.       Chinas rise since the 1970’s has been so quick it is too early to judge whereas the liberal values the US live by today can be traced back to John Adams et al…

 

The author concludes with the notion of  a rising and happy middle class but says judgement should be put on hold until after the recession and the come back of the Washington consensus. Suisheng Zhao answers the questions set at the beginning when we learn. The China Model is not the same as the 1989 Washington consecus as China has just cherry picked the best bits. Maybe we should do the same of it such as making foreign policy decision based on economics not our moral compass. It seems to be working for both China and the infrastructure and ultimate happiness of Africans it has been applied to so far.

A review of the journal article ‘A Century On The Edge – Cold War to Hot World 1945-2045’ in International Affairs: January 2014. By Paul Rogers.

A 2nd year Politics students review of the journal article ‘A Century On The Edge – Cold War to Hot World 1945-2045’ in International Affairs: January 2014.
By Paul Rogers.

This article fits nicely with the introductory lecture for the International Security module given by Darryl Howlett at the University of Southampton. Howlett explains our learning and research remit will largely be the beginning of the nuclear age and move into the future broadening of Security studies as we progress further into the 21st century.
Rogers in his article, also agrees that 2014 – 2045 will a defining epoch for our future and places himself firmly in the global security conception realm of International Security studies. He Segway’s from nuclear weapons to environmental security by linking the idea that we in both cases have an ability to destroy ourselves. A claim he concludes by saying is different in as much as the latter is a slow process whereas the former was and is a buttons push away.
He aspires to draw on the Cold War experience to respond to the future issues we will face.
In my view he is unsuccessful in refuting the fact that nuclear learning and subsequent non deployment of nuclear weapons did not mean stability was a structural truth of the possession of nuclear weapons. But I agree with his conclusion that response to environmental and egalitarian security problems will not be solvable by army, navy and air force.
Rogers’ own evidence can be used to refute this. He talks of the paper thin gap between the results of small nuclear mines and large fuel-air explosives. Yet none of the 10 million deaths caused by proxy Cold Wars in Angola, Korea and Afghanistan to name three, were caused by these small nuclear weapons. This casts doubt over his claim that humans cannot cope with scientific development that would cause our destruction. Even though similar results could have been achieved by small nuclear devices, the low level command chose not to.
Also in doubt is Rogers’ claim that 9/11 shows that military response is the most like response to new threats. Dialogue between Iran and the US has proven positive so far, Indian and Pakistan relations has been dealt with some diplomacy with the worst conflict being confined to artillery despite both states being nuclear powers.
Rogers points to issues with nuclear development being the absence of the best scientific brains from developing solutions to famine and the hardships the world poorest have had to suffer from yet Drone technology has been said to be instrumental in securing energy transportation by monitoring 1000 mile pipelines and spraying crops for food.
Rogers ends by saying lack of global inequality and protection from environmental causes of human suffering needs to be tackled together in the next 30 years up to 2045. He explains that the addressing of these issues cannot be militaristic and whilst I agree with him it is not for the reason he set out in relation to our inability to develop nuclear learning.