I was absolutely astonished when I had a closer look at the front cover of the News of the World last Sunday and read that their headline "Cook Dies" was not referring to Jamie Oliver, Delia Smith or Gordon Ramsay but to Robin Cook the self-proclaimed hairy lefty who had resigned from the Government in principle over the Iraq War.

I was a big fan of Robin Cook. He was often the butt of jokes from ignorant comedians or smart-ass columnists because of his diminutive stature, ginger hair or quirky voice, but what was undeniable was that he was a man of great intellect, capable of dissecting an argument and elucidating his point in a way that far too few politicians are capable of these days.

Many commentators and friends of his have recently written about his great achievement whilst in Parliament and have pointed to his devastating attack on the Thatcher and Major Government's complicity in selling arms to Iraq, or to his pursuit of an 'ethical foreign policy' that was ultimately scuppered by officials within the Foreign Office. I disagree with them all.

I think the most impressive time in Robin Cook's career was during his tenure as Leader of the House of Commons. Not only were his weekly exchanges with Eric Forth, then the uber-traditionalist Shadow Leader of the House, fantastic entertainment; but when he was here he presided over a determined effort to reform the procedures of the House to drag some MPs kicking and screaming into the 20th century. The changes to sitting hours, extension of Westminster Hall sittings, attempts to make the House more friendly for MPs with families and changes to reflect the fact that more and more people rely on the media for political news and debate. These have been lasting changes that have seriously changed the way politics work in the UK and hopefully made our democracy more open to all the British people, which is always a good thing.

Irrespective of the role he has played and could have played within the Labour party, Robin Cook was an excellent parliamentarian, he raised the standing of the House of Commons just by being there and unfortunately British Politics is in desperate need of people like him to regain some credibility.

How can I link this in with Internationalism (with great difficulty but here I go)?

You might think why the hell is Derfel going on about Robin Cook. Well, I was reading a piece in the Guardian on Monday (8 August) by Martin Kettle entitles "the man who saw politics as the art of the impossible", which put forward an argument that I have long tried to elucidate in my own terms.

The ‘possible’ versus the ‘impossible’

In the article he argued that in politics you can split politicians into 2 camps. Those who believe in the "the politics of the impossible" are people who have distinct ideals and beliefs of their own and are always dogmatically trying to achieve them, for them no government is ever good enough because it will never achieve utopia. I would put Robin Cook into this bracket alongside Jeremy Corbyn, Eric Forth, Alex Salmond and Ming Campbell. Others believe in "the politics of the possible", they take a more pragmatic approach to politics, using the leavers of power to respond to individual issues as they arise and dealing with them as well as possible within their arena, but not directed by a strict dogmatic agenda. I would put Margaret Beckett, Bill Clinton, Michael Howard, Tony Blair and David Laws into this group.

This split exists within NUS as much as it does within any other organisation. I don't think there is anywhere where it is more relevant than in the annual conference ritual debate over whether NUS should be concerning itself with internationalism.

Every year we have policy motions for conference to discuss which involve international issues, sweatshops, the war in Iraq, the Isreal/Palestine conflict and the debate is usually heated and divided but not because there are neccessarily deep divisions between groups of delagates on the issues, but because a sizable number of delagates do not believe that it is the business of the UK National Union of Students to discuss international issues when there are always pressing issues at home that need to be solved.

This, in my view, is where the politics of the impossible vs the politics of the possible manifests itself within NUS. Some believe that we should be at the forefront of an ideological campaign others feel that we should be concerned with what we can practically achieve to directly improve the stock of our members. I have to admit that I have sympathised with the latter view in the past, because I would lump myself in the 'politics of the possible' bunch.

Who’s right?

Well . . . I'm afraid I'm going to have to cop out here and say that I believe that both groups are right and a correct balance between the two makes the NUS a much more effective organisation.

If the NUS was left to the politics of the possible then we would be an aimless organisation drifting to the whims of our ever evolving membership, never providing leadership only following like sheep. Pragmatism would kill off inovation, stifle outspoken and radical vision and make us as redundant as a parish council.

Alternatively, in the hands of the politicians of the impossible we would be an organisation so obsessed with lofty ideals, and dogmatic solutions to all the worlds ills that we would be hopelessly out of touch with our members and far to busy chasing utopia to focus on the real differences that can actually be achieved by being politically astute and focussing on the small practical possibilities.

So, I think that we are better off balancing the two. Having all people on board whether NEC, officers in constituent unions or Joe Bloggs student in colleges and universities around the country. That way those who wish to are able to espouse their ideals of a world we want to live in as we grow up whilst their feet are kept on the ground by the pragmatists who concentrate on how to deliver the things that make the difference.

Internationalism and our role as future leaders in the world is important, we should never be afraid of being outspoken. I am proud of what we have campaigned for and achieved in the past, South Africa is a shining example alongside concessions achieved in the 1994 Education Act. We can’t do everything, but without the idealists amongst us we will achieve nothing, we will just plod along accepting our fate and aiming for nothing other than to exist for its own sake.

The Blogs on this site represent the individual views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the National Union of Students.

All links in blogs will open in a new browser window.

The permanent URL for this specific blog entry is: http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/derfelowen/271193.aspx