Kristofer Wilson

TJ Hughes collapses - Nuneaton suffers

2011-08-09T00:01:00.003+01:00

The concern of the week for many of us in Nuneaton has been the news that TJ Hughes is going to be closing in Nuneaton - and the administrators didn't even have the courtesy to let the Council know that they were doing it until it went on the administrator's website.

This isn't a political issue - it's a human issue. I feel extremely sorry for the workers at TJ Hughes who will lose their jobs, and I hope that they will all be able to find jobs soon.

When I was first elected in May 2010, it was one of the first things I had to vote on at the Council. In fact, on the debate - which at that time was in closed session due to the financial sensitivities - I made my 'maiden speech' in the chamber in support of TJ Hughes and the decision to buy the property and help to refurbish it. It was a unanimous decision made for the good of the Borough and the Town Centre.

I fully support both Dennis Harvey (Labour Leader) and Des O'Brien (Conservative Leader) on this one. The Council, but most importantly the employees, have been treated appallingly by the administrators about this.

And I am glad to see that Marcus Jones is trying to turn the situation into something positive for the Borough by talking to Marks and Spencers about perhaps returning to Nuneaton and that site. It has, afterall, been greatly revamped and could offer them greater space in which to sell both clothes and food - which were extremely popular with shoppers in Nuneaton. As someone who went out and collected signatures in the Town Centre for the petition to keep M&S at the time, almost everyone said how much they valued it.

Perhaps now they could restore the link they once had with Nuneaton and help revitalise the Town Centre.

Shaun Bailey bests Red Ken on Newsnight

2011-08-08T23:47:00.002+01:00

Just been watching Newsnight and Shaun Bailey on the whole Tottenham Riots story. I have to say, having seen him at Party Conference and on various TV shows I have been more and more impressed with him and it is a shame he didn't make it at the last election.

He approached the subject head on and bang on - it wasn't a party political broadcast he was giving, unlike Red Ken Livingstone - and he was right to have him on it. Ken was using the issue for his own election next year. To blame it on government cuts is political opportunism and plain wrong.

Politicians won't solve the problem - it is families and communities. DC can come back from Tuscany, walk up Tottenham high street and talk to people, which is all well and good. But in the here and now it is the operational decisions that matter, and they are made by the police and not politicians.

The rioters are damaging their own communities, and now there are reports of different sections of the community squaring up to one another. If they are trying to protect their livelihoods then I can certainly appreciate it. But they are stealing BlackBerry's and Adidas trainers, and communicating via BlackBerry. Why don't they put that phone to use, which wouldn't have been cheap and go hunting for jobs.

It seems to me, and many other people that I talk to, that there are people who seem to think that the world - The State, i.e. the taxpayer - owes them a living. They think they can live off the state, and that is plain wrong. The state is there to help you when you are genuinely in need and fall on rough times as a hand-up, not as a handout as a way of life.

They say that its tough finding a job. Then make yourself competitive. Go out there and work to make yourself more outstanding then the other person applying for that job - not just expect it.

Part of the problem is, as Shaun Bailey said, a lack of role models and in particular, father figures. The Government is absolutely right to make fathers pay up and do the decent and right thing and stick by their kids and provide for them.

Shaun Bailey has been out there and worked with these people and so I have respect for him. Red Ken showed how opportunistic and desperate he is to get the Mayoralty back.

No excuse for London (and now Birmingham) thuggery

2011-08-08T22:19:00.002+01:00

I have been watching the news with increasing alarm over the whole situation that is arising in London and now Birmingham.

The BBC interviews quote how this is a rehash of the racially-motivated riots in the 1980s. Rubbish. There is nothing in this to do with race, religion, colour or creed and I'm glad to see that David Lammy MP, the local Labour MP who I rarely agree with, acknowledges that.

All of this is thuggery, pure and simple.

Whilst, in the aftermath of all of this, I am sure that the media commentariat like Polly Toynbee and Co will all go on about nasty Tories, slash and burn, cuts, cuts, cuts and all that rubbish, there is no excuse for it. It has nothing to do with cuts.

It is a lack of aspiration, role models and motivation.

What is really going to annoy many people tonight and over the next few days is that it is our taxes that will be paying up for the clean-up operation. It is our taxes that I am willing to bet keep a fair proportion of those culprits in their homes and on benefits. They should all hang their heads in shame about what they are doing. Terrorising people on their streets and putting lives in danger is never excusable.

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is absolutely right - the culprits should be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No excuses. Wrong is wrong.

As for the talk about where was Cameron? To be honest, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. If he had returned it would have been claimed that David Cameron had no confidence in his ministers to deal with the situation and he was being too interventionist like Blair. But now he is returning to the country now the situation is escalating and he is dealing with the issue at hand.

Assisted Dying needs more debate, and in the Commons

2009-07-09T01:29:00.001+01:00

It is a rare occasion indeed when I agree with the former Labour Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. He recently introduced an amendment to the Coroners’ Bill that is currently going through the House of Lords at the moment to clarify the situation regarding the law on Assisted Suicide. In what was an excellent debate all round, and showed the Lords at its best (even if I disagree with its outcome), Lord Falconer opened the debate very well and I copy it in full below:

“7 July 2009 : Column 596

“Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is not a crime to travel abroad to be assisted in dying in a country where assisted dying is lawful. Nobody proposes to change that position, either by amendment or suggestion, in this Bill. However, it is thought to be a crime to accompany your loved one to such a country abroad for assisted dying, and the maximum sentence for such a crime is currently 14 years. I say “thought to be” because, although the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Purdy proceeded on the basis that it was a crime, and the counsel representing the Director of Public Prosecutions and that representing Mrs Purdy accepted that it was a crime, in an appeal to the Judicial Committee of this House a point has been raised by the Law Lords to the effect that it might not be a crime. That matter is currently being debated before the Judicial Committee of this House. We have to proceed on the basis that it is a crime, because that is the latest ruling of the higher courts.

“We know that in the past seven years, 115 people from this country have gone to Switzerland for an assisted suicide. Some of them have been investigated by the police, while some of those cases have been considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In none of the cases has a prosecution been brought under Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, despite the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has made it clear that he has considered in a number of cases that the evidential requirements of the Act have been satisfied. Nobody wishes to prosecute in those cases, because nobody, in my view correctly, has the stomach to prosecute in cases of compassionate assistance. The attitude of the police and prosecution authorities means that they have, for entirely understandable reasons, created a legal no man’s land. The consequence is that there is no clarity.

“The lack of clarity has a number of bad effects. The first bad effect is that some people do not allow their loved one to accompany them to a country where assisted dying is lawful, because they fear that after their death, their loved one may be investigated and prosecuted. With respect to them, I mention Mr and Mrs Syd Robbins, who had been married for 34 years. Mrs Dorothy Robbins had motor neurone disease; she travelled to Switzerland for an assisted dying and went alone, refusing to allow her husband, Mr Syd Robbins, to accompany her for fear that he would be prosecuted. There is no suggestion that that case was anything other than one of compassionate assistance. The problem that Mr and Mrs Robbins faced is the same problem that Mrs Purdy has faced, which is why she has brought proceedings, so far unsuccessfully, up to and including the Court of Appeal, to seek some indication that her partner, if he accompanies her to Switzerland for an assisted dying, will not be prosecuted.

“There is, in my respectful submission, something wrong with a law that is never enforced, but has the effect of depriving people of the compassionate assistance that I believe every single Member of this House, including those who have written letters to the newspapers about this, would think these people were entitled to. The problem goes further than that. The second problem is that the current law offers no safeguard for those who go for an assisted dying mistakenly believing that they are more ill than they are. Looking at five of the cases where people have gone to Switzerland, it has transpired that people in great distress and in great pain had in fact been suffering from such conditions as bad back pain or diabetes and had no underlying terminal condition. Because the law provides no safeguards whatever at the moment, no doctor had ever looked at those cases in the United Kingdom and the consequence was that those people went without any consideration of their medical condition.

“The third problem in the law as currently enforced is that there may be cases of abuse—what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and those who wrote to the Times referred to as “malicious encouragement to suicide”. That is something we would all wish to stop. Currently, the only safeguard in that respect is the fear of prosecution. My amendment would not remove the fear of prosecution in those cases. Instead, it would add further safeguards. I say “my amendment”, but the proposal that we make in our amendment is as follows. It should not be a crime if you accompany someone to a country where assisted dying is lawful if the sole purpose of your accompanying them is to assist them in going to the place where assisted dying is lawful. Two medical practitioners must have certified that the person you are accompanying is suffering from a terminal illness and those same two medical practitioners must have certified that the person going has the capacity to make a declaration to the effect that the medical certificates have been read by them or to them and that they freely wish to go for an assisted suicide.

“A number of points have been made about these safeguards. In an incredibly well written article in the Daily Telegraph this morning, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said that doctors do not want to have anything to do with it. No doctor would be forced to have anything whatever to do with this if they did not want to. However, if a defence is to be made that can be relied on, it would require that two doctors independent of each other had certified that someone was terminally ill. That is two doctors more than look at the matter currently.

“The second point that has been made in relation to the safeguards proposed is that our amendment contains no definition of terminal illness. I am prepared to leave it to the good sense of two doctors as to whether or not someone is terminally ill. I am more than happy to listen very closely to the views of this House about whether that is the right approach. By terminally ill, I mean something along the lines of the definition contained in the 2006 Palliative Care Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which states that,

“terminal illness” means an illness, disease or condition which—

(a) is inevitably progressive and fatal, and

(b) the progress of which cannot be reversed by treatment”.

“The third point is how you deal with the passage of time after the granting of the declaration by the person. I thought very carefully about that before the drafting of the amendment. It is implicit in my amendment and that is why I did not think it was necessary to say that the safeguards—namely, the certificate of the two doctors and the declaration by the person travelling abroad for an assisted suicide—apply to the act of going abroad and having an assisted dying. Otherwise, there would of course be no point whatever in the safeguards. I believe that to be implicit, and that the courts would unquestionably construe the amendment in that way.

“The fourth objection to the safeguards is there being no definition of capacity. Remember—one of my safeguards is that the person making the declaration must have the capacity to do so. My reason for not including a definition of capacity is that, as many noble Lords will remember, comparatively recently Parliament passed the Mental Capacity Act, which would without much doubt apply here. For the avoidance of doubt, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that Section 62 of the Mental Capacity Act says that the reference to capacity in the Act does not apply to murder, manslaughter or Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. Again, I considered that before tabling the amendment and took the view that it was obvious, as a matter of drafting, that that section would not apply to the amendment. I would very much welcome noble Lords’ views on that.

“The reason that I proposed this amendment, along with my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington and the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is that it is absolutely plain that the law is being marginalised. The law is not being applied by the Director of Public Prosecutions because it plainly no longer fits the current situation. The result of the law not being applied is that we have the horror of people going earlier to clinics abroad, without their loved ones being there on the day that they die. Equally, the law provides no protection or safeguard against abusive people, or for those under a mistaken impression of what illness they have. The only current safeguard is the fear of prosecution. That is not removed because the declaration must be made freely.

“What are the objections to my amendment? First, it is said that this is a slippery slope; it is the beginning of a change. However, it is the law that people can go to Switzerland; that is the existing position. Is it fair and right to allow greater abuse than would be allowed if my amendment were passed by this House and the other place, and at the same time to have a situation where people go abroad to die without their loved ones? It is not a slippery slope. The amendment deals with the immediate position. Secondly, there are spiritual objections to my amendment. I do not seek to deal with these. They must be made, but in the context of the existing position. The third objection to my amendment is the idea that, before you make a change such as this, there should be a full-blown consultation. Of course, if we were making a change about assisted dying in this country, there should be a consultation. The difficulty is that the law has already been overtaken by events. It is, I believe, absolutely necessary for the law to reflect a situation that did not exist in 1961.

“I very much welcome the debate that will now take place on the amendment. I have set out—I hope with clarity—my reasons for proposing the amendment. It is a very important debate and I greatly welcome the contributions that will be made. I beg to move.”

Obviously, there were contributions on both sides which were put extremely eloquently and movingly, and I have the utmost respect for those on the opposite side of the argument.

I, personally, cannot find fault with any of Lord Falconers arguments. It is plainly absurd that this law is there and yet it is not used, whilst loved ones of the terminally ill have the prospect hanging over them of being prosecuted for releasing their loved ones from pain. I have my own personal reasons for supporting such a reform.

A few years back a Bill was introduced into the Lords to reform the law but their Lordships voted for an amendment which effectively kicked the Bill into the long grass. The quality of debate was, as now, very high, with some very informed speakers.

Now, however, it is time for the House of Commons to debate this issue properly and fully. For too long the House has ducked the issue and left it to the Lords but there is, I believe, a growing momentum in the country for reform. The Commons should be responding to that growing momentum and debate this properly, in government time.

Lords right to criticise the Parliamentary Standards Bill

2009-07-09T01:11:00.001+01:00

The House of Lords’ Constitution Committee has heavily criticised the government’s attempt to fast-track legislation through Parliament without proper scrutiny and consultation. Perhaps the most damning part of their Lordships report is at paragraph 23:

“We are wholly unpersuaded by the Government’s case for this bill to be fast-tracked. There is an undoubted need to restore public confidence in the parliamentary system. It is not, however, clear to us that a cobbled together bill rushed through Parliament will help rebuild public trust; on the contrary, if Parliament cannot be seen to be scrutinising proposals with the thoroughness they deserve, public confidence in parliamentarians is likely to be further undermined. Governments should find the strength to resist falling into a temptation simply to see something done, which is no substitute for properly prepared policy and legislation.”

It is quite evident that something needs to be done about the whole scandal surrounding MPs’ expenses and their remuneration. The aims and objectives of the Bill are agreeable to all and the measures are, on the whole, laudable. But that doesn’t mean that the legislation shouldn’t be properly scrutinised, otherwise we end up with more bad legislation on the statute book and the system could need reforming again sooner rather than later.

At the moment, far too much legislation goes by with relatively little scrutiny and it falls onto the House of Lords to conduct the necessary and proper scrutiny to ensure that the resulting law is somewhere near half-decent. Perhaps the Government would be better off waiting for the results of the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life’s inquiry into the scandal and the reforms necessary and then legislate with proper scrutiny.

Tory London Assembly Member has right argument, but wrong application

2009-07-09T00:50:00.001+01:00

There has been considerable anguish in the Tory party recently over the statement of one of our London Assembly Members – Brian Coleman. He said in a recent interview:

“They are not entitled to drool over our personal lives. I'm not going to help the mad, bad and the sad, the bloggers on the internet. I'm not pandering to mob rule. It undermines democracy to suggest that all MPs, all politicians are the spawn of Beelzebub”

This was his answer in response to a question over why he wasn’t voluntarily publishing his expense claims, saying it was “none of the public’s business”.

He has the right argument – there are certain elements of a politicians private life which should be off limits to the public and the media. Only if a private action of a politician is hypocritical of a public utterance do I consider it fair game. Not all politicians are bad, in fact I would go so far as to say that 75% are actually good public servants who have been badly let down by the errant 25% who had damaged the standing of politics even more.

Mr Coleman’s application of the principle, however, is completely wrong. How he has spent taxpayers’ money is, of course, a legitimate matter of public concern. He should have published his details along with his colleagues. I am glad that pressure has been brought to bear on him and that he is now publishing his expenses claims voluntarily.

However, Mr Coleman is not out of the woods yet. He has got to be re-selected by his party and re-elected by his constituents. Whether this issue harms him in the future, only time will tell.

Queen institutes the Elizabeth Cross

2009-07-02T03:03:00.001+01:00

I was absolutely delighted yesterday to read in the news that HMQ has, on the advise of the Armed Forces, decided to create the Elizabeth Cross, which will be available to the families of those who have lost loved ones in the Armed Forces.

To me, things like this feel proud to be British and of our monarchy.

Gone to look after her pussy – RIP Mrs Slocombe

2009-07-02T02:59:00.001+01:00

One of my earliest memories is of watching Grace and Favour, the follow-up series to the workers of Grace Brothers from Are You Being Served?, and my love for all of the old comedies probably stems from watching things like Grace and Favour, AYBS? and Only Fools and Horses in my childhood.

Earlier this year, one of the greatest icons of our age died – Wendy Richard, aka Miss Brahms – and a few years ago we lost John ‘I’m Free’ Inman. Now another of them has left us – Mollie Sugden.

Mrs Slocombe’s double entendre will never be forgotten, from her pussy to never responding to any mans finger, her performances as Mrs Slocombe are still shown around the world and she will never be forgotten. Having all of AYBS? on DVD (the ones released so far), I was watching episodes only last afternoon, I still find them all hilarious, and they continue to give joy to people today.

R.I.P. Mollie Sugden

Speaking for Myself by Cherie Blair – Book Review

2009-07-02T02:46:00.001+01:00

I have to admit that I went into reading Speaking for Myself going in with all of the pre-conceived notions of being a Conservative and all that that stands for. However, my respect for her as a lawyer has always remained undiminished.

In what is quite a frank and open autobiography with all the juicy bits left in, I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised by this autobiography. I even found myself being endeared by Cherie Blair, and that will shock quite a few of my friends. Highly readable, well written and humorous, I couldn’t recommend it enough.

Obviously being in the shadow of the PM can be a difficult place to be, and only now can Cherie properly articulate her side of the story without going into battle with the No 10 machinery and the newspapers. She has made some terrible clangers in the past, which she herself admits, and has on occasion overstepped what I believe a Prime Ministerial consort should do, but you cannot question her integrity. Finding herself a place as the Prime Minister’s consort and maintaining your own independence, which she clearly had before entering No 10, was always going to be difficult and she gives a candid account of her struggle to be true to herself and going up against the establishment.

Furthermore, I don’t think anyone can deny that being the consort of the PM actually harmed her legal career rather than helping it. Had Tony Blair not become PM then I undoubtedly believe that Cherie would be a High Court judge by now. She has the legal and intellectual capability to do it, and I would welcome it. Despite our politics, I would be more than happy to see her sitting on the benches of judiciary.

Her sense of humour also comes over well in this book, and if I were to compile a list of my five ultimate dinner guests I have to admit that I would be quite tempted to have Cherie Blair on that list. The debate over politics and the law could be quite and interesting dinner party!

A Fortunate Life by Paddy Ashdown – Book Review

2009-07-02T02:29:00.001+01:00

One of the things that I enjoy about going on holiday, apart from the time away and the sunshine, is the opportunity to catch up on my reading without all of the distractions of modern day life. The autobiography of Paddy Ashdown – A Fortunate Life – was one of the books that I got to catch up on.

The title, A Fortunate Life, is very apt, as becomes abundantly clear when you read his autobiography. From being in the SBS to being a Foreign Office spy (which he has kept all of the operational details confidential, as he should do) to leading the Liberal Democrats and then going to Bosnia, this book was one that I couldn’t put down.

Ashdown is perfectly candid about everything, including his affair, and some of his army stories are hilarious. To the student of modern politics and the rise of New Labour it is also an invaluable resource. And, it has to be admitted by all sides, he was ahead of the game on the Serbian Question of the 1990s, and it was this that made him uniquely qualified to become the High Representative to Bosnia & Herzegovina and help with the rebuilding.

Following on from his exploits in Bosnia, he talks about the offer to go and help Afghanistan following the invasion. Although he wanted to enjoy his retirement, and rightly so, he saw it as his duty, if asked, to go to Afghanistan as we are sending our armed forces there for our country. I think that he would have been a very good facilitator in Afghanistan with his knowledge and experience, and having made the move to statesman would have been able to get much more done with the international community. It is just a shame that President Karzai of Afghanistan played silly beggars and scuppered the whole enterprise.

Ministers should be bound too

2009-06-23T19:42:00.000+01:00

Whilst I agree with almost everything in the Parliamentary Standards Bill, which is long over due, there is one thing that is niggling at me - if the Code of Conduct is legally binding on MPs and Lords, why isn't the Ministerial Code of Conduct going to be legally binding?

Bercow should heed the words of Speaker Lenthall

2009-06-23T19:24:00.000+01:00

"May it please your Majesty that I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak such as this House shall direct me"

These are the words that Speaker Lenthall uttered when he stood up to Charles I when he tried to arrest Cromwell. Bercow would do well to remember this in the coming weeks and months ahead - he is the servant of the House, not its master.

Bercow's role is to be an enabler and to ease the transition of the House into transparency. He should be doing his work behind the scenes like any good negotiator. A nudge here and a stern word there are what he should be doing.

Neither is his role to reconnect Parliament and the public. Quite frankly it is the role of the political parties and the politicians to reengage with the voter.

The international community has been too slow over Iran

2009-06-23T19:06:00.000+01:00

Hardly a day goes by without Iran being in the news, and each day the news seems to get worse. Today the news has been dominated by the murder of the poor music student, who has now become the symbol for this emerging revolution, and the diplomatic tit-for-tat.

International reaction, particularly from Obama and Brown, has been far too slow. The momentum has been building and they are now coming late to the lecturn to issue condemnation.

Both Obama and Brown need to ratchet up the pressure. By responding to the expulsion of our diplomatic staff by doing likewise is welcome. I understand that they have been careful not to play into the hands of Ahmedinijahd, but they could have brought the international community along much quicker.

Unfortunately Obama has failed to provide the leadership he promised over this issue, but both he and Brown will have to get much tougher and bolder from here on in.

John Bercow becomes the new Speaker

2009-06-22T22:12:00.000+01:00

I've been watching the coverage of the election of Speaker, and the result is as I feared - John Bercow is the 157th Speaker.

Obviously I'm disappointed that the Widde didn't get any further and that Sir George Young didn't have the momentum to stop Bercow. I just hope that he can live up to the Office, although anyone will be better than Michael Martin.

There is already talk that if and when the Conservatives form the next government that we would vote him out. Whilst the idea does appeal to me, fairness dictates that he is given a chance to do the job.

Some people are saying that he needs to abolish sayings like "Rt. Hon. Gentleman" and the "the Other Place", and I have to admit that I rather like them and that so long as it doesn't hurt anyone then why change it? I rather like a bit of tradition.

Unions withdraw blank cheque from Labour

2009-06-16T17:29:00.001+01:00

The unions have poked their noses into the debate about the direction of government policy since Gordon decided to consult and listeb more. One union has threatened to withdraw money from candidates who support further privatisation of services, i.e. Royal Mail.

Fair's fair - it is their money and they have the right to decide where it goes.
With fundraising drying up for Labour it will be interesting to see which way Gordon and his MPs will go. It puts them all in a difficult position as a General Election is imminent.

Broadband is a luxury, not a right

2009-06-16T14:04:00.000+01:00

Listening to the radio on my way to my holidays (I'm not driving) and I can't believe that The Great Leader is equating access to broadband to be as vital to life as access to water and gas. That is a prime example of hyperbole if ever I heard one!

To be honest it has the faint whiff of class warfare about it, but there are far more important things to worry about about access to than broadband.

It is a luxury, not a right, Prime Minister.

Widde for Speaker

2009-06-16T02:15:00.001+01:00

The post of Speaker of the House of Commons is a most important one in ordinary circumstances, but the whole Expenses Scandal has heightened the importance of the position both within Parliament and with the public.

Michael Martin was a useless Speaker, and should have gone a long time ago. He was too tribal and too ineffective, leaving Parliament a docile institution at the mercy of the Executive. Now, more than ever, we need a Speaker who can command the support of the whole house, and not just his or her own party.

The thought of John Bercow as Speaker fills me with dread. In my opinion he shouldn’t even be sitting as a Conservative MP at all. Labour are going to use him and will throw him away as quickly as they picked him up. It is, after all, politics. But as a politician you would have thought he would be wise to it. He doesn’t command the support of the whole house, and Labour are using him to ‘get back’ at the ‘Tory Toffs’ for getting rid of Gorbals Mick.

Bercow should be wary – there is talk amongst the upper echelons of the Conservative parliamentary party that if we win in the next General Election, he might not be re-elected Speaker. Under ordinary circumstances, I wouldn’t condone this sort of talk, but, as I said before, these are not ordinary circumstances.

In an ordinary Speaker election, most of the other candidates would be suitable. But this is a special election. Therefore, my favoured candidate would be Ann Widdecombe, even though she is retiring at the next election.

The thought of an interim Speaker would ordinarily be dismissed, but in this case there is an argument for doing so. Ann will be focused on clearing up Parliament, doing what is necessary to restore some respect to the place and not afraid of the party machinery or knocking a few heads together to achieve reform. She could then leave the House cleaned up and allow the new Parliament to select a new Speaker free(ish) from the stains of the Expenses Scandal.

I have a lot of respect for Ann Widdecombe – I don’t always agree with everything she says, but with her you know where she stands and she is very much the conviction politician. It is a shame that it has come to this. I was very much enjoying the prospect of Ann being in the House of Lords as a Conservative peer and contributing to the government from there. Now, if she is successful, she will have to sit as a Crossbench peer. But that would be a small price to pay if she can clear up the damage done by all political parties to the reputation of Parliament.

Just as a footnote – if there was a mechanism for doing so, I would be very much in favour of bringing back Betty Boothroyd. She was a fantastic Speaker!

Brown fudges Iraq Inquiry

2009-06-16T02:01:00.001+01:00

Few people will recognise the man pictured on the left post, but he is the one selected by Gordon Brown to conduct the review of the Iraq War and the events before and after it. His name is Sir John Chilcott, former Northern Ireland Office mandarin and previously sat on the Butler Review.

Whilst I’ve got nothing against the man, he is in effect conducting a farce – a fig leaf covering what is left of Gordon Brown’s political cojones.

At the PLP meeting last Monday that saved his skin, Gordon Brown promised to be more open and transparent – to do business in a different way. This was his opportunity to do it, and he fudged such an important issue.

Gordon has given the usual platitudes – all government papers and ministers will be available for questioning, blah blah blah, but he hasn’t given the Inquiry any teeth whatsoever.

Holding the Inquiry in secret is his first, big, mistake. Yes, national security issues need to be protected, but surely it is not beyond the wit of Whitehall to come up with a method of allowing most of the proceedings to be conducted in the open (like the Hutton Inquiry) save for issues that are of national security. Passages can be redacted, sessions held in private – but not the whole Inquiry itself.

The second mistake was not giving the Inquiry the power of subpoena. It is all well and good saying that government ministers will be available to the Inquiry, but some of the big players have left government or politics completely. The Inquiry should be able to compel witnesses to give evidence, and those that fail to do so should be declared in contempt and dealt with by the due process of law.

Thirdly, the terms of reference are too limited. The Inquiry should have the ability to apportion blame is if believes it is serious enough to warrant it. The DPP can then decide whether to prosecute any cases or not, but the Inquiry should have the power to tell us who they think was wrong and why.

Furthermore, the membership of the Inquiry is limited as well. Some of the members have been connected with foreign policy during, or just before, the period concerned. Sir Martin Gilbert is also said to be one of Gordon’s favoured historians. Whilst I’ve got nothing against Sir Martin Gilbert – I’ve read some of his masterful works on Churchill – I’m not sure whether he is suited to this or not. Membership could have included some serious heavyweight politicians, Douglas Hurd would have been a good one in my opinion, or a retired Law Lord.

Finally, it is absurd to have the Inquiry and then not report until after the next General Election. Gordon Brown is trying to kick this issue into the long grass. He could have started this process long before now.

David Cameron is absolutely right in saying that should the Conservatives be in power after the next General Election he reserves the right to modify the Inquiry – such as terms of reference, the power to apportion blame and to vary the membership.

Holocaust Conference at King Edward VI College

2009-06-15T05:05:00.001+01:00

Being a Trustee of King Edward VI College in Nuneaton is a privilege. Non more so when you get invited to events such as the one I attended on Friday, which was superbly arranged by my friend Zoe Denston, head of RS and Philosophy at KEGs.

Zoe organised a one day Holocaust Conference for her students and History students at KEGs, with Professor Pauline Elkes from Staffordshire University and Director of the Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Education and Research, and Holocaust survivor Dr. Martin Stern.

Going back to KEGs as a Trustee and not a student was, I have to admit, rather strange. But the entire day was completely worthwhile. The students were absorbed by the testimony of Dr. Stern and everyone was moved by what he endured as a child first in Nazi-occupied Netherlands and then in the concentration camps.

I took away a great deal from the Holocaust Conference, and I am still today considering what I learnt. It is fair to say that with all of the students it planted a seed that they are all thinking about. It is vitally important that schools and colleges do what they can, for as Dr. Stern himself said, the Holocaust survivors are slowly dying away. In 20 years time students may no longer have the opportunity to hear first hand the testimony of survivors and have the chance to answer questions.

Furthermore, I am proud that I was able, as a Trustee, to lend my support to the college and Zoe on the running of the Holocaust Conference. It was definitely worth giving up a day for.

Birthday Honours List 2009

2009-06-15T04:47:00.001+01:00

Twice a year the establishment honours those who make a real and genuine difference to the country and to the communities in which people live and work. This year has been no different.

In the celebrity world, a much-deserved knighthood goes to Christopher Lee, Sue Johnston becomes an OBE and the Likely Lad James Bolam gets an MBE. Old Lou Beale, actress Anna Wing, also gets the MBE.

There is one big award locally in Nuneaton, and that is the Principal of North Warwickshire and Hinckley College, Marion Plant, who has been awarded the OBE for services to education. I would like to wish Marion Plant congratulations for all the service she has given to the education of people not only within our Borough, but to Warwickshire, as well.

Brown’s lies – Labour Investment v. Tory Cuts

2009-06-15T04:41:00.001+01:00

One thing that really pisses me off in politics is bald-faced lying, especially on something so big as public spending and the economy. I can understand diversionary tactics and trying to move onto ground that you are more comfortable with, but last week Gordon Brown lied to Parliament and to the public in saying that Labour would invest more in public services and the Conservatives would cut them.

Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, caused some controversy in saying that real term Government spending under a Conservative government would be cut by 10%. What he failed to articulate was that this was based on the government’s own figures, factoring in the real-term loss due to paying off the enormous national debt that Labour have gotten us into and the inflationary pressures on the budgets. This comes to 7% (with govt figures). By protecting the spending of the NHS, which requires an extra 3% to protect it, the total is 10% in all areas bar the NHS.

At the dispatch box at PMQs on Wednesday he said that Labour would invest and Tories would cut. Yet, all the blogosphere and the journalists refused to bite. They’d done their own sums, based on Treasury figures, and Cameron was right and Brown was wrong. Gordon therefore lied to Parliament and to the people.

The reality of the situation is that we need to have a reasoned and serious debate about public spending. Under both a Labour or a Tory government, finances are going to be tight. The real debate is over where the government should spend the money. Scaring the public into voting for you won’t work.

In a brilliant article in The Times today, Shadow Chancellor George Osborne articulates this rather well. Public finances are tight. The sooner that people realise this the better.

Peter Mandelson – We should join the Euro

2009-06-15T04:29:00.001+01:00

This is the biggest indication yet that Gordon Brown is in office but not in power – The Prince of Darkness, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Lord Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool, Lord President of the Council and more political lives than a cat has decreed that Britain should join the Euro.

Given that for 10 years as Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown put every road block that he could in place so that we wouldn’t join the Euro – about the only decent thing he did, in my book – Gordon is so weak that Europhile Mandelson has stated that the policy of the government is to join the Euro as soon as possible.

This is just another incentive for Britain to vote Conservative at the next general election – the Conservatives would never vote to join the Euro. Only by controlling our own currency can we hope to get out of the recession that we are in, not dependent on the European Central Bank in Germany.

Hazel Blears should shut up and live with it

2009-06-15T04:22:00.001+01:00

Poor old Hazel Blears – she’s rather in the shit at the moment. She resigns on the eve of the Local and European elections and, according to her recent interview, didn’t think it would cause as much trouble as it did.

BOLLOCKS!

She knew exactly what she was doing by resigning on the eve of poll, and now she is back tracking as she isn’t exactly flavour of the month with her Labour colleagues, and her own constituency party are moving a vote of no-confidence in her (which she should win, anyway).

Blears’ strategy was fine, if it hadn’t have been for the weakness of Caroline Flint and the other Blairite cabinet ministers. Flint hoped for a promotion and didn’t get one, James Purnell did the honourable thing and resigned because of what he believed in and Miliband didn’t have the balls to do it because he was talked out of it by the Prince of Darkness, who has probably promised him the leadership when Labour lose the next election.

By back-tracking like this it makes her look rather stupid indeed. If she’d have kept quite about it she would have maintained what dignity she had left, but now she’s got the worst of both worlds. She’s trying to weasel back it to the Brown camp because the putsch failed, but she won’t succeed because she did so much damage to the Labour party.

My advice to Hazel – shut up and live with it!

Rats deserting a sinking ship?

2009-06-11T21:35:00.000+01:00

Reading the news and it turns out that former No 10 Spin Doctor-turned minister (Lord) Stephen Carter has resigned to return to private industry.

Does he know something we don't?

Seems a bit careless of Gordon to lose another minister just after he has completed his reshuffle!

“Death bed conversion” to constitutional reform?

2009-06-11T01:18:00.001+01:00

In the real world, besides those of us who are interested in politics and/or the law, no one is really interested in ‘The Constitution’. The Americans do ‘The Constitution’ in a big way, whereas over here no one would know where to even begin to look for our “uncodified constitution” – forgive me if I slip into law student mode. That’s why, it seems to me, good old Gordon is trying to conflate the issues of reforming the expenses system and reforming Parliament. He wants to try and get the two through at the same time under the same guise.

Reforming the expenses system is necessary and long overdue. Most of the proposals for reforming the way MP’s (and Lords) are paid and reimbursed are reasonable and I believe that the main parties can find a way through on this, although I have to say that David Cameron has been far and away the best on leading on expenses reform.

Constitutional reform, however, needs far more careful consideration.

The way that our constitution works is vital the running of government and democracy, and any changes need to be thought through extremely carefully. With the piece-meal approach that we have had from the present Labour government, there has been no true direction and vision in this very important area, which the public care very little about.

There seems to me to be two big areas of the constitution that are being considered:

The voting system
The House of Lords

In 1997 (and again in 2001), the Labour manifesto stated that they would look at reforming the voting system. Gordon Brown now seems to be moving in the direction of moving towards Alternative Vote, but it is curious why we are getting this “death-bed conversion” now. Does he know that the only chance he has of clinging to power is to alter the rules of the game? My party, and I, believe that whatever the disadvantages of First Past The Post (FPTP) – and we’ve suffered from it for 13 years – FPTP is worth holding on to.

The Lib Dems and other assorted minor parties argue that we should have proportional representation as the current system is unfair on them. If we did move to a PR system then you end up with coalition governments that wheel and deal on their manifesto promises in order to retain power. There is no clear sense of direction, and the voters don’t get what they voted for either. You end up with weak government. Take Italy – on average, their PR system gives a new government every 9 months!

At least with FPTP you get a clear vision and direction for the governance of the country without backroom wheeling and dealing to get into power.

Secondly, is the issue of House of Lords reform, and where I fall out of step with the party line. I don’t favour an elected House of Lords.

Why do we want a clone of the House of Commons? Once you elect any element of the Lords then you risk two things – career politicians and a clash between the two Houses. Both would have democratic legitimacy, but who would give way? You could end up with the system in America where you get political deadlock.

Electing the Lords would lead to more career politicians at the beck and call of the party line. The Lords are the most independent element in Parliament. Now, you have experts in their own fields who would never consider putting themselves up for election – film producers, neuroscientists, university professors, surgeons and more. The combined expertise in the Lords more than outweighs their lack of a democratic mandate.

The Lords have scrutinised far more effectively the raft of legislation that comes from the Commons and held the government to account far more than their elected counterparts in the Commons. Reform of the Lords should only come with in-depth reform of the Commons, too.

Overall, I welcome the measures that Gordon Brown has proposed to reform the expenses system, but reforming the constitution is these areas needs far more consideration then can be given in the remainder of this Parliament.

Nick Griffin gets egged in Parliament Square

2009-06-09T22:14:00.001+01:00

I am appalled as the rest of the country that we are sending two BNP MEP’s to the European Parliament, and dread to think what resources they will now have at their fingertips. I find their leader, Nick Griffin, abhorrent and his views distasteful. However, the actions of Action Against Fascism today do their cause no good.

It is my firm belief that the view of the BNP need to be confronted head-on, and by egging Nick Griffin all that the protestors have done is to give the BNP another platform in the media. It is only by engaging in the political debate can we show the BNP views for what they are, but by engaging in violence all you end up doing is degenerating political debate.

The protestors have the right to protest and make their views heard. I agree with their views about the BNP. But as far as I am concerned they crossed the line when they resulted to egging and throwing punches at people. It does our democracy no good whatsoever, and detracts from having the debate that is necessary.

Chris Mullin: A View From The Foothills – Book Review

2009-06-09T22:05:00.001+01:00

Over the past week or so I have been reading with great interest the diaries of the former Labour minister, Chris Mullin, which I would recommend to anyone with an interest in the New Labour experiment that the country has been forced to endure since 1997.

A View From The Foothills is an absolute gem, edited by Ruth Winstone (of Tony Benn Diaries fame), and Chris Mullin displays a penchant for witty analysis of the New Labour era. Covering the period of his ministerial career, Mullin writes with clarity and humour that is very reminiscent of the Alan Clark Diaries.

Chris Mullin says that he also has diaries from the period of 1994 onwards, and after his ministerial career, and that he hopes to be able to release them in due course, depending on the reception of this instalment. I actually think that he has a duty to the public, and to history, to do so and enlighten us on the birth of New Labour and the death of New Labour.

All in all, a very enjoyable read and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Glenys Kinnock only “part-time minister”

2009-06-09T02:54:00.001+01:00

Reading the newspapers online and I came across this little story about the new Minister of State for Europe, one Glenys Kinnock MEP.

According to the Daily Mail, under EU Parliamentary rules, an MEP is not allowed to serve as a minister in a national government unless and until they resign their seat in the European Parliament. Owing to the fact that she is still technically an MEP until July 14, there is some question over whether she is a minister in Her Majesty’s Government.

The argument over whether you should have ministers in the Lords is a separate issue, but the governance of the country is an important one. Lady Kinnock needs to make up her mind – does she want to be a minister or not? If she does, then she should register formally with the European Parliament that she is resigning. However, that will affect her pension status and her parachute payment to help her adjust to life outside of the European Parliament.

With all of the headlines about Gordon Brown’s survival, it’s a shame that this little story will get buried in the newspapers and not given the airing that it deserves.

Arbury & Stockingford By-election

2009-06-09T00:23:00.001+01:00

With the County Council elections out of the way, one would have thought that that would be enough excitement for now. Unfortunately, however, our recently elected County Councillor for Arbury and Stockingford has had to resign his seat and cause a by-election.

Tom was, until recently, employed as a chaperone with Warwickshire County Council helping the elderly and disabled get onto and off of minibuses provided by the County. Being a community-minded person, Tom thought that he would help the people of Nuneaton and Bedworth and enjoyed his job.

However, once he put in his nomination papers for the County Council elections he discovered that it might not be allowed and submitted his resignation as soon as possible to the Social Services Department at Shire Hall.

Having been slaughtered at the County Council elections, Labour are now determined to do as much as they can to ensure that the voice of the people are now heard. I produce the election results below to illustrate:

Candidate	Party	Votes	%
Alty, James Christopher Myles	Green	692	7.69
Findley, Martyn Russell	BNP	1283	14.27
Henry, Pat	Labour	1472	16.37
Longden, Barry James	Labour	1480	16.46
Wilson, Sonja Lund	Conservative	1582	17.59
Wilson, Tom	Conservative	1637	18.2
Wright, Mike	Green	848	9.43

As can clearly be seen from the table above, Tom Wilson was the choice of the people of Arbury and Stockingford, the area where he was born and bred, to represent them at Shire Hall. Unfortunately, Labour are rather sore losers.

Therefore, with a heavy heart, Tom decided to resign his seat, that was hard fought for, and cause a by-election. I for one will certainly be out there with him fighting to ensure that the residents of Arbury and Stockingford are listened to once again, and that Labour hear loud and clear the result of the people of Arbury and Stockingford.

Gordon lives to fight another day – for now

2009-06-09T00:05:00.001+01:00

Well, the past four days have been interesting in the world of politics, to say the least. With ministerial resignations coming out of his ears, today was make or break for his leadership.

The line that has been put about by the Prince of Darkness (First Secretary of State Lord Mandelson) is that if you have another Prime Minister in this Parliament then you have got to gave an election and go to the people for a mandate. It is also a view point that I subscribe to. The British public will not put up with a third Prime Minister is as many years, especially one that hasn’t been elected.

Mandy has used this argument to great effect. Labour MP’s are scared that if they have a general election now then they will lose their seats – and they probably will, whenever the election comes. But they would rather hang on until the bitter end in the hope that the economy recovers and the defeat won’t be as devastating.

But another point to make is that there was no alternative. Alan Johnson has locked himself into the Cabinet and David Miliband was unwilling to strike at the same time as James Purnell. If he had done then the momentum would have been too great for the PM to stay in post. Labour MP’s were desperate but they had no where to turn to except the one person who they are trying to get rid of.

The meeting of the PLP tonight has bought Gordon breathing room. Jane Kennedy’s resignation will not rock the boat any more – it provides good copy for the newspapers for now, but in the grand scheme of things will not budge anything. The real test will be the Party Conference season. By that point the by-elections in Glasgow and Norwich will have taken place. The Labour delegates may have to do the work that the MP’s were unwilling to do themselves.

Time For Change

2009-06-08T03:44:00.002+01:00

Over the past year a lot has happened in politics, and unfortunately I have been unable to comment about them on this blog about them due to unforeseen circumstances. However, whilst at the European election count at the Civic Hall tonight I had a surprisingly interesting conversation with one of my political opponents about blogging, and he reminded me how much I used to enjoy it.

During the next few days, with any luck, I might just get this thing off the ground again (although I am due to go on holiday next week).

Please bare with me whilst I get back into the habit of blogging again.

Apologies

2008-09-28T23:07:00.001+01:00

To all those that still visit this blog (which given the amount of time that I haven't posted is probably not very many) I must give my apologies for not posting anything on my blog. Over the past three and a half months I've been working for Her Majesty's Court Service in the County Court full-time as well as maintaining my job at the pub and the political work. Unfortunately, something had to give, and it ended up being this blog.

However, my time at the Court has ended. I did feel during my time at the Court that it would be unfair to comment on the job at the time as not only was I a civil servant and I was working with some fantastic colleagues, but any comments that I might have might be better given after a period of time for reflection.

Also, for those of you that do not know, our Parliamentary Candidate, Simon Rouse, has resigned as PPC due to family commitments. It is fair to say that Simon put his heart and soul into the Nuneaton constituency, but he had to prioritise and his family came first - as it should be. I wish Simon well for the future. But the search for the new PPC has begun, and that will be posted on here as soon as there is any news.

Retrospective taxation is unfair and immoral

2008-06-06T01:42:00.001+01:00

There is a general presumption in English law that retrospective legislation should not take place. The justification, and quite rightly in my opinion, is that it is unfair to criminalise or penalise someone for an action in the past, when they would have no idea what they were doing in the future would be criminalised. That is not to say that there are not instances where there has been retrospective legislation - a presumption is just that: a presumption. It can be overturned, but there has to be a compelling case. And, as parliament is supreme, it can make or unmake any law that it likes.

Green taxation has a consensus in Britain that it should be used to help alter people's behaviour, and in order to do so you can provide another way to avoid being penalised for behaviour which society sees as being wrong. You have the option to continue to do as you are but you must pay for it. If you do decide to pursue the favoured way then you can also get a reduction in taxation elsewhere. Therefore, green taxation is supposed to be revenue neutral. But Labour don't seem to understand that bit.

David Cameron was right to attack Gordon Brown on this at PMQs the other day, and he got the better of Gordon. Cameron and the Conservative Party are fully committed to introduce green taxation, not stealth taxation, which is what the proposed change in Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) would do. And yet again we saw Brown rattling off statistics which do not stand up to independent scrutiny.

Someone who bought their car 7 years ago should not have to pay an extra tax on it. They did not know when they bought the car that it would have an additional tax on it. Retrospective taxation is, in general, unfair and immoral. If the so-called green tax will not induce a change in someone's behaviour then it is not a green tax. If you buy a car that is more polluting now, then of course you should pay for it. You know that a) it is more polluting; b) the policy if that if you pollute more then you pay more for it; and, c) I have an alternative to buying the polluting car.

If we really want to get the older polluting cars off the road then perhaps the Transport Department and the Treasury could get their heads together and come up with a package that would induce someone to trade-in their gas-guzzler in return for some kind of reward.

Furthermore, if we are really serious about reducing pollution then the additional money that is brought in from the VED should be ring-fenced off to improve the public transport system. If you improve the public transport then more people will use it and leave their cars at home. Round my neck of the woods we only have a bus service every half an hour. Why should I wait half an hour for a bus when I can get into my car now and go where I want, when I want? These are the real questions that need answering, instead of coming up with a supposedly fantastic wheeze to get more money out of the British public and pissing them off.

Sir John speaks out on 42-day detention

2008-06-06T01:12:00.001+01:00

Sir John Major, the former Conservative Prime Minister, has written a very powerful piece in The Times against the proposed legislation to extend pre-charge detention from 28 days to 42. It is a very persuasive and well thought out argument, which deserves to be quoted in full:

"The Government's legislation to permit 42 days pre-charge detention brings to the fore the wider question of civil liberties. In their response to the security threat ministers have dragged us ever closer to a society in which ancient rights are seriously damaged. I doubt this is the Government's intention, but it is the effect. It began with Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq was justified by overegging the threat of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction - perhaps that error was genuine.

But the case for war was embellished by linking the Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks on New York - for which there is not one shred of evidence. As we moved towards war, that misinformation was compounded by the implication that Saddam's Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom, which plainly it was not.

These actions damaged our reputation overseas. And, at home - on the back of the threat of terror and two serious incidents in London - they foreshadowed a political climate in which civil liberties are slowly being sacrificed.

We now know that, despite repeated denials, our Government was complicit in rendition, or - to put it in plain terms - the transfer of suspects out of civilised jurisdiction to a place where they could be held without charge for a lengthy period.

Although the intention was presumably to garner information, such action is hardly in the spirit of the nation that gave the world Magna Carta, or the Parliament that gave it habeas corpus.

I don't believe that sacrifice of due process can be justified. If we are seen to defend our own values in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it will serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to.

That is no longer theoretical: we now have home-grown terrorists - born in Britain, not in Waziristan. Will they be encouraged or discouraged to rally to militancy if we bypass the sober rituals of law with which we are familiar?

The Government has introduced measures to protect against terrorism. These go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular - and no less violent - assaults from the IRA. The justification of these has sometimes come close to scaremongering.

After terrorist attacks on London, Parliament doubled the time that suspects could be held without charge from 14 days to 28 days. Probably, that was justified. But soon Parliament will be asked to increase detention without charge to 42 days. To appease opposition, the Government is cobbling together face-saving compromises. If the measure is passed, it will be a pyrrhic victory that owes more to political survival than principle. Even so, it is hard to justify: pre-charge detention in Canada is 24 hours; South Africa, Germany, New Zealand and America 48 hours; Russia 5 days; and Turkey 7½ days.

There is no proof that an extended period of 42 days would have prevented past atrocities. There is no evidence it will prevent future atrocities. No example has yet been given of why the police need more than 28 days to frame a charge. This is a slippery slope. Assertions that it “might be useful” simply will not do. If we are to curtail the liberty of the individual, we must have more certainty than that.

But it is not only the case for 42 days detention that is bogus. So is the case for identity cards. They were to be voluntary. Now it is clear that they will be compulsory. Yet the Government has admitted that such cards would not have stopped the London bombers. Nor will they cut illegal immigration, since asylum-seekers have been obliged to carry ID cards for nearly eight years. Nor will they have any real impact on benefits fraud, as this is typically caused by misrepresentation of financial resources rather than by identity.

The Government has been saying, in a catchy, misleading piece of spin: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” This is a demagogue's trick. We do have something to fear - the total loss of privacy to an intrusive state with authoritarian tendencies.

This is not a United Kingdom that I recognise and Parliament should not accept it.

Nor do I believe that anyone can defend another government innovation: a national identity register containing the DNA of tens of thousands of people who have never been charged with an offence. Under present legislation, DNA can be retained permanently for even minor misdemeanours, such as being drunk. A total of more than four million samples are already on the UK database - far more than in any other country. This includes tens of thousands of children, and a disproportionate number of black men. If this is accepted, it will one day go farther. This cannot be right: for me, it is all uncomfortably authoritarian.

So is a society in which the right to personal privacy is downgraded. These days a police superintendent can authorise bugging in public places. A chief constable can authorise bugging our homes or cars.

The Home Secretary can approve telephone tapping and the interception of our letters and e-mails. All of this is legal under an Act passed by the Labour Government. None of this requires - as it should - the sanction of a High Court Judge. Francis Pym once spoke of the democratic deficit of any government having too large a majority. He was right. In a Parliament with a more balanced representation, the undermining of personal privacy, lengthy detention before charge, identity cards and a DNA register would have never been passed.

I understand - and sympathise with - the complex dilemmas of security and crime that face the Government. But, while I understand their motives, their remedies are too stringent and not wise.

No one can rule out the possibility of another atrocity - but a free and open society is worth a certain amount of risk. A siege society is alien to our core instincts and - once in place - will be difficult to dismantle. It is a road down which we should not go."

Sir John is absolutely right, and this is why the Labour backbenchers ought to have the courage of their convictions and join with the Conservatives and the Lib Dems in opposing this diabolical nature.

This "insurance policy", as David Miliband put it on Question Time tonight, is not worth paying the premium. No other western country has adopted such a measure, including America which is Terrorist Target #1. There are a raft of measures that the government could introduce which would enjoy cross-party support in tackling terrorism. Post-charge questioning and allowing phone-tap evidence into court would be a start. For the country that gave the world Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus to introduce such a draconian measure would just end up destroying the very principles which we are trying to protect and do the job of the terrorists for them.

Don't just take my word for it - the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose job it would be to prosecute such cases, has said that this measure is unnecessary. Both Lord Goldsmith and Lord Falconer, former law officers under Blair, have said that it is unnecessary (although they should have spoken out when 90 days was proposed, which was even worse).

Obama secures the Democratic nomination

2008-06-05T01:01:00.001+01:00

Barack Obama has secured the Democratic nomination for the presidency of the United States. It was hardly a surprise that he won the nomination but what was the surprise was that he failed to deliver the knock-out blow that he needed in order to show decisively that he was the voice for change that he claims to be.

I should state that I am currently reading his book, The Audacity of Hope, and it is a very good read with some interesting ideas. Once I've read it all the way through I may post with some comments. I happen to think that most Americans ought to read it now that he is the Democratic nominee to know what his ideals and policies are.

The problem that Obama has got now is the spectre of Hillary at his back all of the time. She is in a strong negotiating position to demand the Vice Presidential ticket. If the Democrats had run a winner-takes-all primary contest instead of apportioning the delegates proportionally, which the Republicans do, then Hillary could probably have taken the nomination with her wins in the major swing states.

Obama is going to have the problem of how to win over the swing states, which will make or break his presidential hopes. If he cannot carry them then America will have another 4 years of Republican rule (which I am not stating is necessarily a bad thing - I wait to see what both sides have to say). Hillary could deliver him these big states and get him into the White House.

But does Obama, the messenger of change, want to be associated with a dynasty that is still powerful in American politics? The Clinton's bring with them immense baggage that he might not want, or need, on the campaign trail.

So what else can Hillary get out of this?, because she will want something out of it. She will probably go for the Vice Presidential nomination, but that remains in the gift of Obama. She has a strong claim to it but she has not helped herself during the campaign. What about Senate Majority Leader? They already have one, and I suspect that her ambitions are higher than that. Supreme Court Justice? She would have to wait for a vacancy to occur. Secretary of State? Could potentially be a good nomination for Secretary of State and help to restore America's image at home and abroad.

John McCain will now have to pick a running mate who could do some damage to the Obama change message. I think the best candidate for the job would be Condoleeza Rice, who has signaled that she wouldn't refuse it. She is African-American and a woman, and those core constituencies could help McCain out against Obama. Whatever he failings, her knowledge of the problems with Iraq and the Middle East would be invaluable to McCain, and she has been the only intellectual force behind the scenes and actually achieving results - regardless of what we believe about the war in Iraq.

One thing is for sure - this is going to be one hell of an interesting race for the White House.

New fuel protests. The only surprise is - why no sooner?

2008-05-27T18:29:00.001+01:00

The headlines on the news stories today seems to be about the fuel protests in London and Cardiff by road hauliers. They are demanding a 25p/litre rebate on their fuel costs and to be put into the same category as buses as necessary road users, which automatically get a discount.

Aside from the successful protests back in 2000 which almost left the country dry in terms of fuel, the previous attempts have been lacklustre and received little support.

I have to admit though, the only surprise is - why haven't we had anything like this sooner? I think the answer lies in the apparent weakness of Gordon Brown at the moment. They are hoping to apply enough pressure on him when he is at his weakest. If he does give in then he looks like a weak Prime Minister, and if he doesn't give in then he looks like he has retreated back to the bunker and is not listening to the people.

Putting aside the political pressure, Gordon does need to do something about the rising fuel costs. The road hauliers are asking for their industry to be exempt. But it has been rightly pointed out in the e-mails that the news channels have been receiving that the whole system needs to be examined. It is becoming so expensive to run a car now that it is the ordinary working man that is suffering the most.

The problem is that Gordon's Chancellor, Alistair Darling, cannot afford to. He's already given away £2 billion to ease the 10p tax problem, which was unfunded and was an attempt to try and save the Crewe and Nantwich by-election. Darling cannot afford another unfunded concession.

Time for a Eurovision Revision?

2008-05-27T16:21:00.001+01:00

I have to admit to rather liking the Eurovision Song Contest. I know that it may not seem fashionable, but I do. The concept of Eurovision is superb. But in recent years with the admittance of the former Soviet bloc to the contest, it is no longer a SONG contest, but rather an exercise in politics.

Sir Terry is a national treasure and a legend. His commentary on the Eurovision is the only thing that makes listening to it bearable. More often than not his commentary has me in stitches, but this time his closing remarks should be listened to very closely.

Western European countries need to consider whether they should continue to enter a song, particularly as it seems that we don't stand a chance of winning based on our musical talents. The Spanish entry scored higher than us even though it was pathetic (barring the comedy value). But the Contest couldn't continue without us as the original founding members all contribute so much money.

As taxpayers, however, we need to consider whether it is worth investing c£170,000 a year for a contest that we don't stand a chance of winning. I don't mind losing out to a better song and with a level playing field, but we are paying for a system which is naturally biased against us. Is this best value for us taxpayers?

Back in the day, Eurovision used to be a symbol of national pride. Now it is a laughing stock in the UK, yet we still continue to pay for it. Perhaps the answer is that we should stop paying so much money and if we get knocked out in the semifinals then so bet it. The only benefit we get for our £170,000 is an automatic pass to the finals.

Conservatives gain Crewe and Nantwich

2008-05-23T15:02:00.001+01:00

The Conservatives made history last night as it was our first by-election victory in 26 years. Many pundits were predicting a Conservative gain, but no-one (I think) thought it would be on such a scale. Turning a 7,000 Labour majority into an 8,000 Conservative one was some fete.

Praise should be given to Edward Timpson, the new MP for Crewe and Nantwich, for not rising to the absolutely abhorrent literature that was coming out of the Labour camp during the election campaign. It would have been easy to have a side-swipe at them, but he was the bigger man for not responding to it.

Eric Pickles, the Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary, is also worthy of praise. He has masterminded a fantastic by-election campaign. Not only is he quite an affable sort of guy, but he has been in local government for years and knows how to win elections. I'm sure that he has untapped resources that the party will be using in the months ahead.

David Cameron is right when he says that this is the end of New Labour. New Labour was all about an exercise in coalition building when it came to groups of the electorate. Blair realised that you need to reach out to the entire electorate, to as broad a base as possible. By focusing on the supposed class divide has seen an end to coalition building and a return to the bunker and the old class bias that used to exist. It failed. If Labour had won this by-election we would have seen this sort of campaigning deployed across the country, and it is a deplorable way to run politics.

It is also of interest to note that the Labour campaign was one of the most hypocritical. Edward Timpson has worked hard to get to where he is, and he might be a barrister in family law but he has done a lot of pro bono work. On the otherhand, Tamsin Dunwoody lives over 100 miles away from the constituency, is a fourth generation Labour politician and is more of a member of the establishment then Timpson is.

There will now, of course, be talk of a leadership challenge to Gordon Brown. But he will see the Labour Party through until the next election. They could not have another change in leadership without a general election. The British public would not stand for having three Prime Minister's in the space of a year without a General Election, and Labour are in no mood to go to the electorate. There are now 150 Labour MPs looking at the size of their majorities and wondering what to do. Do they stab Gordon in the back, or sit it out and cling on to power until Gordon is forced to call an election?

New Nuneaton Politics Blog

2008-05-19T03:19:00.001+01:00

A Mr. Vaughan Jones has just set up a blog to follow the politics of Nuneaton and Bedworth, and the Council in particular. I gladly link to it here: http://nuneatonpolitics.blogspot.com.

I for one welcome this attempt at scrutinising the controlling group on the Borough Council. Scrutiny is a vital part of a healthy democracy. Unfortunately, it was somewhat lacking in the previous administration, but it is something I know that Marcus is keen to change.

Mr. Jones also seems to have had a pop at me as well. That is the nature of politics. He quotes me out of context, and hasn't bothered to do his research, but that's life.

I would just like to point out that my father come's from the community of Camp Hill, and it would have been an honour and a privilege to have had the honour to serve them. At the time of the election Labour were defending just a 59-vote majority. The BNP have an unfortunate habit of throwing the electoral maths out of kilter. But it is their democratic right to stand, and I would defend their right to stand, even though I disagree with their views on many things.

Darren Haywood seems like a nice enough chap, and we have had discussions on a few occasions. I hope that he does stand up for the people of Camp Hill, and does not become too bogged down in party rhetoric. We have an understanding that even though I disagree with his views, I hope that he serves the residents of Camp Hill to the best of his ability. There is no animosity between myself or Darren, or come to it myself an Pete Bradley - the Socialist Alternative candidate.

And, on a final note, Mr. Jones criticises me for using the 'D' in my name. It happens to stand for David, after my godfather. When I was a child I watched Star Trek (and I still do), and would here Captain James T. Kirk. I just liked using my middle initial and I stuck to it. I don't introduce myself as 'Kristofer D. Wilson', but when I sign a letter I do use it. So sue me!

Gerald Smith becomes Mayor of Nuneaton & Bedworth

2008-05-16T02:05:00.001+01:00

On Wednesday 14 May I was lucky enough to attend the Mayor Making Ceremony at the Town Hall, during the Annual Council. Having been part of the team that helped make history in turning the Council to a Conservative-controlled administration, it was nice to have been invited along.

John Preedy, who was the Mayor-elect, lost his seat during the local elections, so there was no Mayor to install. As the controlling group we proposed long-standing Councillor, Gerald Smith, as our nomination. The Labour Group proposed Don Navarro as their candidate but it was voted down. For the Mayor's Appeal for the next civic year Gerald has selected the Palliative Care at the Mary Ann Evan's Hospice and, as a tribute to John Preedy, the Special Care Baby Unit at the George Eliot Hospital.

For the role of Deputy Mayor, the Labour Group proposed Dennis Harvey. I have to admit that this took me by surprise. During Labour's 34-year reign at Town Hall, and Dennis's 20-year leadership, he has had plenty of opportunities to be put forward for Mayor, and Deputy Mayor. However, this was voted down and Tom Wilson was duly elected Deputy Mayor for the next municipal year.

Tom has been our nomination for the Mayoralty since Neil Colledge sadly passed away. I would like to take this opportunity to state that it was Tom's own choice as he would like to serve his 'apprenticeship' as it were, and learn the ropes before becoming Mayor.

It was an historic occasion. Gerald has become only the second Conservative mayor since the Borough was created - Don Jacques was the Mayor in 1995/1996. But it was also historic as it saw the Conservatives officially take control of the Council. Marcus Jones was duly elected as Leader of the Council, and his nominations for the Cabinet were voted for as well.

When it came to the nominations for Overview and Scrutiny Panels, things became a little complicated. The Labour Group tried to nominate Dennis Harvey as Chairman of the Economic OSP, Don Navarro as Social OSP and I forget who they nominated for the Chairmanship of the Environment OSP. But they seem to have forgotten the Constitution of the Council, which they drew up and put into place. It clearly states that the Chairmanship of OSP's are given to the controlling group, which was their way of maintaining control. We were simply abiding by their own rules. They did, however, take the Vice-Chairmanships according to the Constitution.

I have to say that it was probably one of the proudest nights of my life, seeing the team that I have worked so hard for to finally take office, and to finally see history being made within the Borough.

McCain proposes US version of PMQs

2008-05-16T01:48:00.001+01:00

The Republican presidential hopeful Senator John McCain has promised to hold an American version of Prime Minister's Question Time if he were to be elected president.

Owing to the nature of the Constitution in America, John McCain would have to be invited to Congress due to the separation of powers. He has to be invited to give his State of the Union Address even though it is a constitutional requirement.

I happen to think it would be good for American democracy if all of the candidates promised to open themselves up to scrutiny if they were elected, but hats off to John McCain - he came up with the idea.

Why, despite the Obamarama, I'm starting to favour Hillary for the Democratic nomination.

2008-05-15T03:42:00.001+01:00

As someone who studied American politics at A-level, I have been watching the Democratic nomination race with awe, and I have to admit envy. Envy at the politics students who in a few weeks time will have so much material to write about in their exams. Granted, when I sat mine we had the previous presidential election, but this one has really been something extraordinary. But I digress.

I start from a position of being a natural Conservative. The thought of actually liking a Democrat would usually fill a conservative with dread. But we also have to consider that Reagan and Thatcher shifted the centre-ground to the right. Hillary Clinton is beginning to look like a Reaganite Democrat.

John McCain has got the Republican nomination sown up, and I actually think that the bigger battle of ideas in the presidential elections this November, which actually have some intellectual clout, would be a McCain v Clinton election.

There will be many Conservatives out there who will think that I've lost my mind. I'll let the psychiatrist decide that one.

Obama can talk the talk - in that he is like Blair and Bill Clinton. But can he walk the walk?

All throughout the primary battles Hillary Clinton, starting from a position of frontrunner, has had to deal with the difficult questions. Only now that Obama looks like the favourite does he start to get the difficult questions. In these he needs to be a cut above the rest, and as of yet he hasn't proven that.

Hillary has proven that she is a survivor and she is one tough cookie. She answers the tough questions and there is an intellectual force behind them, whether or not you actually agree with them. They are cogent arguments, and ones which would be deserving of a full general election.

John Edwards has come out in support of Obama. It does seem to have a tinge of he is only backing Obama now that he looks like the victor. Would he have come out in favour of Hillary at this stage if the roles were reversed? The announcement has definitely been timed to try and minimise the effect and scale of the Clinton win in West Virginia the other night. Clinton is attracting the very voters that the Democrats need to win the White House, and in opinion polls Obama doesn't have the outright lead in the battleground areas. There is always a question mark.

I hope that the superdelegates decide to support Hillary Clinton. The election in the Autumn would be spectacular both in terms of campaigning and ideas.

JCHR recommends changes to RE lessons and school assemblies

2008-05-15T03:24:00.001+01:00

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has made a recommendation in its report on the Education and Skills Bill currently going through Parliament that those pupils of sufficient maturity should be accorded the right to withdraw themselves from Religious Education (RE) lessons, and similarly for collective religious worship.

The relevant Convention Right is Article IX, which accords the right of freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Thinking about it as a law student, they have a point.

My experience of RE has been from Year 10, when you start your GCSE years, you only study the half-course anyway, which only gives you half a GCSE. For most schools this is compulsory. Some schools then give you an option of completing the full GCSE, but in my experience only rarely. Perhaps it is time to take the half RE GCSE of the compulsory list and put a full GCSE on the options list.

I always felt that assemblies were a bit of a bore, especially when they drag on a bit and then pins and needles start to kick in. Perhaps it is time to investigate whether assemblies are necessary in today's education system. I feel that they are, but they are rather outdated.

On further thought, there are a few problems with assemblies as they currently are. For a start, whole-school assemblies have got to be in breach of fire regulations - my experience of them certainly is. When you have 1000(ish) pupils in for their Christmas or End of Year assembly in one sports hall, and few fire exits it does raise a few questions.

Furthermore, sitting on the floor in confined spaces with crossed knees could, when you think about it, pose a potential health risk. The damage that it could do to your back, and your knees, when you can be sat in a confined space with knees crossed for up to half and hour, and sometimes longer, I certainly feel that something needs to be done about that. Either introduce chairs, have assemblies standing up or don't have them at all.

Crewe and Nantwich byelection is giving politics a bad name

2008-05-15T00:47:00.001+01:00

I have to start this post from the position of genuine sorrow that Gwyneth Dunwoody has passed on, causing a byelection. She was one of the few Labour MP's that I really do like. She was independent, she was fiery and she was a constituency MP through and through. Parliament is sadly losing many of the great parliamentarians that we had left.

Gwyneth was a perfect example of what politics should be - and I speak from the position of being a Conservative. I may not have agreed with many of her views, but I respected her as a parliamentarian and somewhat of an authority on transport matters.

Unfortunately, her party are turning the battle to succeed her into exactly what she fought against, and her daughter ought to see through it. The depths to which Labour are sinking are giving ALL politicians a bad reputation. When people turn on the TV or read the newspapers and they see the shenanigans which the Labour Party are pulling in Crewe and Nantwich is going to turn voters off, which is exactly the opposite of what we want to do.

I'm happy to say that at least my party seem to be rising above it all and actually getting on with the serious business of offering a choice between themselves and Labour, and are going about it in the right way too.

Whilst many are claiming that it is going to be a Tory walkover, I never take anything for granted. You never know what is going to come out of the ballot box so you should never, EVER, proclaim victory until the returning office has declared the result.

On an interesting point, I have to note that I thought the Labour Party had done away with the hereditary principle in parliamentary representation back in 1999. It wouldn't be so bad but for the fact that Tamsin Dunwoody lives 100 miles away.

Conservative success in Nuneaton

2008-05-08T00:18:00.001+01:00

I must apologise for the lack of posting during the election campaign - I was either working, delivering leaflets, canvassing or sleeping. There wasn't must time for blogging in between.

Firstly, I must say congratulations to newly elected Conservative councillors Julian Gutteridge (Bulkington, following John Ross standing down), John Waine (Kingswood - Conservative gain), Andrew Burtenshaw (Arbury - Conservative gain), Damon Brown (Heath - Conservative gain) and John Ison (Slough -Conservative gain).

As some of you may be aware, I didn't win the ward of Camp Hill - the BNP gained it from Labour. However, I could not be more proud of the campaign that went into Camp Hill. We did the most work, we were highly visible and if it was on effort alone then I would have won. Unfortunately, politics doesn't work that way.

I genuinely feel sorry for the people of Camp Hill. They will not get the representation that they need and deserve. Dennis Harvey - ex-Leader of the Council - will probably spend most of his time in his house in France, and the BNP councillor will probably do nothing except grand-stand in the chamber, along with his one other colleague.

But, we have made history. It is the first time since the Council was created in 1973 and we intend to make a difference to the lives of the people of Nuneaton & Bedworth. Whilst I didn't win my seat, I am proud and honoured to have been a part of the team that made history.

This is just the beginning of my career in politics - I don't intend to be beaten by the BNP.

Finally, all that remains for me to say is a massive thank you to the people of Camp Hill that voted for me. Nothing would have been possible without them.

Cameron launches Nuneaton election campaign

2008-04-04T00:38:00.001+01:00

Today we had a very important visitor in Nuneaton. So important that most of us in the Association weren't allowed to know who our visitor was. We were only told that the visitor was one of the 'Big Four' of the Shadow Cabinet.

Since I have been putting the manifesto for our election campaign into a presentable form, I've had Marcus Jones - our Group Leader - giving me little tasks to do, which he has had from the powers that be, and get filtered down to me.

He told me over the phone a few days ago that he needed some urgent revisions before he could have it sent to Cameron's Office. Interesting, I thought. Why would Cameron's Office want to see our manifesto unless it was DC himself coming to Nuneaton? I've been bursting for days, but been sworn to secrecy.

Having seen DC before (at a CCA Conference) I knew he was taller than he appears on TV, and an impressive speaker in person. When he came to see the Conservative Group at the Town Hall he was fantastic. On top of his game, knowing all of the issues, and a good speaker in a group, not just a large audience.

Following our meeting, and the necessary press photos outside the Town Hall, he proceeded into the Town Centre meeting and greeting. The reception he received was brilliant, showing just how fantastic the residents of Nuneaton really are. He even bought some flowers from one market stall to give to his wife, Samantha.

He left us with an even greater sense of purpose and determination, and more fire in our bellies. I am now convinced having seen him in person of his charisma, and abilities, but more so his leadership.

Roll on May 1 - I'm ready!!!

Conservatives hold street stall in Town Centre

2008-03-31T03:04:00.001+01:00

During the Saturday market we held a street stall in the middle of Nuneaton, and we were based right by the George Eliot Statue.

Until we were rained off due to the Great British Weather we were having a marvelous response. We were having people coming up to us - instead of us having to go to them! - saying that we need a change in Nuneaton, and that only the Conservatives can provide it.

There is a real mood out there that people are sick and tired of Nuneaton and are ready for a change.

I remember meeting one man who lives in Cedar Road in Camp Hill, which is where I am up for election on May 1. He moved from the North to come to Nuneaton for work opportunities back in the late-1950s, just like my Grandad Jim. Both were miners. When I told him about this, he actually remembered working with my grandad, and my Uncle Mark, who also worked with him.

It was fantastic to meet someone who actually worked with my Grandad Jim in the mines, and great to meet yet another voter in Camp Hill who is going to vote Conservative.

Convention to be turned on its head

2008-03-31T02:50:00.001+01:00

The Salisbury Convention was developed after the landslide Labour victory in 1945. The Conservative Leader of the House of Lords, the Marquess of Salisbury, decided that the majority of Conservative peers in the House of Lords should not, as a matter of principle, vote against something which was a manifesto commitment of the ruling party in the Commons. This was vitally important for the Labour Government to gets is agenda through a Conservative-dominated Lords.

Sorry to be giving a brief history lesson, but is does explain the irony of the story below.

A group of Lords, spearheaded by the Conservative former Chancellor's, Lord Lawson and Lord Lamont, intend to turn the Salisbury Convention on its head by using it to enforce the ruling party's manifesto commitment which they have since reneged on.

It is a brilliant piece of tactics. It should get cross-party support from Labour and Lib Dem rebels who believe that they ought to follow their own manifesto commitments, and the crossbenchers who will probably vote with the Conservatives if the intellectual point is made.

How will the Government deal with it? Normally when there is a clash between the Lords and the Commons the Commons wins because they claim democratic legitimacy. But the Lords are claiming that they are enforcing a policy which was democratically approved of by the voters in 2005.

I have to say it is a brilliant tactical manoeuvre by their Lordships, which shows the true value of having the House of Lords instead of a clone of the Commons.

Embryology Bill forces Brown to bottle-it

2008-03-26T04:51:00.001Z

I've followed the whole Embryology Bill debate debacle over the past few days, as it was an issue that interested me from a moral and ethical point of view. For that reason I didn't blog about it. It was a personal view point, and I don't possess all of the facts, and this is an essentially political blog (although it does have its moments).

But the politics of the issue have been staggering.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg have, quite rightly, allowed their MPs a free vote on this due to the moral, ethical and religious concerns involved. I fully support that decision as it has always been inappropriate to whip MPs on such issues. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of their views on this issue, religious views require faith, and it would be wrong to ask an MP to go vote for something which is quite clearly against both their conscience and their religion.

Over the weekend I surprised myself and found that I was agreeing with the Catholic Church on this issue, even if not the language used to convey the message. Don't get me wrong - I have huge respect for the Catholic Church even if though I am not religious, but some of its teachings I do not agree with, especially contraception. But I digress.

Brown should have had the political nous to realise that he should have allowed his MPs a free vote on this issue, especially when three of his Cabinet ministers are Catholics. But to be left dangling in the wind, and seen to be dithering over such an issue was sheer stupidity on the part of Gordon Brown. This issue has been coming up for months and he should have been prepared for it. So, yet, again, we have seen Brown bottle-it and compromise to allow Labour MPs a free vote, but only on three aspects of the Bill:

- Preventing fertility clinics from refusing treatment to single women and lesbians - under current legislation clinics must take account of the welfare of the unborn child including "the need for a father". This will be replaced by the "need for supportive parenting".
- Creating a child with the correct tissue match to save a sick brother or sister.
- Creating so-called hybrid animal/human embryos to aid stem cell research.

But, what happens if these provisions are passed? They are still required to vote the entire Bill, whatever shape it is in, through on to the statute book. He's just delayed the problem.

I agree with Gordon Brown - the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 1990 needs updating to come to terms with the advances in medical technology. Technology has come on in leaps and bounds since then. I should think everyone agrees on the necessity to update the law in this area.

On the issues of ethics and religion, though, Brown has made a cock-up of it and shown to be indecisive yet again.

NUT turns back clock with leftist motion

2008-03-26T04:20:00.001Z

Reading and watching the news today, and it seems like it is the loony season in so far as the National Union of Teachers is concerned. It turns out that they have passed a motion to ban the Armed Forces from recruiting in schools and also say that they will not distribute Army 'propaganda'.

They seem to be forgetting that the Army does not actually recruit in schools, although they do give presentations on the Armed Forces in school when asked to do so by the school itself.

Having sat through one of these sessions when I was at school, I did not find them indoctrinating or attempting to recruit in any way, shape or form. They have to be sensitive to the age, and cannot show blood and gore, even though we know it happens. Sixteen year-olds are not stupid. They know the dangers of warfare, even more so now with the daily reporting of events in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One speaker at the NUT said that Army material would have to say:

Join the Army and we will send you to carry out the imperialist occupation of other people's countries. Join the Army and we will send you to bomb, shoot and possibly torture fellow human beings in other countries. Join the Army and we will send you probably poorly equipped into situations where people will try to shoot or kill you because you are occupying other people's countries. Join the Army, and if you survive and come home, possibly injured or mentally damaged, you and your family will be shabbily treated.

Now, on the one hand you have to sit back and just remind yourself that we are in 2008, not 1978 when you had the unions giving such stupid ideas the light of day. But secondly, you have to wonder what the teachers are actually teaching if they are spouting this nonsense. I certainly hope that the teacher that made this statement doesn't teach history!!! His interpretation of events would not meet academic standards if that is what he is preaching.

Just give the students some credit. They know the horrors of warfare and will have talked through any notion of signing-up with the Forces a good deal of consideration and discussed it at length with their families, as well as the Forces recruitment centres as well.

Post Office Closures

2008-03-24T05:21:00.001Z

Last week saw the Conservatives in Parliament propose a motion during their Opposition Day about the closure of local post offices. Given that the neighbouring North Warwickshire MP, Mr Mike O'Brien, has been banging on about this issue in the HEN since the Tory candidate over there, Dan Byles, raised the issue.

The Conservative motion read as follows:

That this House regrets the proposal to close up to 2,500 post offices; recognises the vital role post offices play in local communities; notes the concern and unpopularity amongst the general public of closing such a large portion of the network; has concerns that the access criteria laid down for the closures consultation do not adequately take into account local geographical factors and public transport networks; is concerned that the consultation period is only for six weeks rather than three months, as recommended by Cabinet Office guidelines; believes that post offices must move with the times in the services they offer and that options for business expansion and developing business opportunities with local authorities should be explored further; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to instruct Post Office Limited to suspend the compulsory closure of sub-post offices while these issues are re-assessed.

I don't actually see a lot in the motion that anyone can disagree with, considering the subject matter.

Post Offices are, more often than not, vital to the community. In the name of modernisation this government has actually removed the customers from the Post Offices, without giving the people a choice.

Whilst some local councils have proposed buying some Post Offices that are due to close, which is of course their right and may be necessary in the long run, it is not the most desirable thing to do. Council's would make them a one-stop shop for all of the people's needs, which is what central government should be doing, instead of another burden on local government.

And, as a matter of interest, both Bill Olner (Labour, Nuneaton) and Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire) voted against the proposed motion, which saw a significant number of Labour MPs rebel against their party line in the interests of their constituents.

Macca Settlement

2008-03-20T00:57:00.001Z

It seems that recently the news has been dominated with the details of the divorce between Heather Mills and Sir Paul McCartney.

Lady McCartney had been all over the media throughout the court case, saying how close she was to suicide, and that Sir Paul was trying to discredit her through the media, etc..

The judgment of Mr Justice Bennett (McCartney v Mills McCartney [2008] EWHC 401 (Fam)) is very interesting reading, and dispels some of the myths surrounding the entire proceedings.

I have to say that Mills does not come out very well from the judgment, which she wanted suppressed so as to protect Beatrice, the daughter. I have to say that having read the judgment (I need something to send me to sleep at night) there is nothing in it whatsoever that would endanger Beatrice.

The judge has said that Mills was a less than impressive witness, who wanted to live in a style to which she had become accustomed from the marriage, with extra security provisions from the media. What she was trying to claim was well over the odds, especially considering that most of Sir Paul's wealth was accrued before the marriage, and during the marriage with Linda.

Furthermore, the judge goes on to say that she is her own worst enemy. He details the less than honest claims that Mills made and without any evidence to back it up, even when asked to do so.

This case goes on to prove that if you live by the media then you die by the media. She courted the media for her own career, and she doesn't like it when they criticise her. I'm afraid it is part and parcel of the path that she has decided to take.

Don't get me wrong, I have no particular liking for Sir Paul except that I like his songs. That's it. But he has proven that he did the best thing possible, and that was to keep his trap shut throughout the proceedings and in the fullness of time the truth would come out.

It would seem that Sir Paul's mistake was that he was flattered by a younger girl's advances and still grieving for Linda, whom I think will always be the major love of his life. Yes, he should have known better, but he is only human. And he wants the best for his daughter and she will definitely not go without. He will provide for her until his dying breath, and beyond.

I have no doubt that Mills is a good mother, and Sir Paul has said that he would not take that away from her. She needs to learn when to keep her trap shut and accept that she does not have an automatic entitlement to everything she seems to think she does. Macca earned his - she did not.

Mandelson won't seek second term as EU Commissioner

2008-03-13T15:16:00.003Z

Apparently Peter Mandelson, our present EU Commissioner, will not be seeking a second term in Europe, and that Gordon Brown is in the process of considering who should replace him.

What a shame! My heart bleeds.

I wonder who will replace him. Peter Hain, perhaps?

Desperate Budget from a Desperate Chancellor

2008-03-12T23:01:00.003Z

I read the news over this year's budget with increasing dispair and alarm. As a barman, the news that taxes on alcohol are going to increase are the most alarming. It seems that Darling wants to tax me out of a job! Petrol duty isn't going to help me out either.

Think about it logically. Will increasing taxes on alcohol really stop binge drinking?

First - look at the definition of binge drinking. In doing my licensing course it is officially when a customer drinks his weeks worth of recommended units in one sitting. Depending on the strength of beer that you have that can be four pints. That isn't binge drinking!

Secondly, the pub industry is actually more responsible when it comes to binge drinking then, say, supermarkets. When someone has had enough I will refuse to serve them, and have done so in the past, and will not hesitate to do so in the future. I am legally responsible for them, even when they leave the premises, which is another argument entirely. But I have walked into a supermarket at 2am and see them selling alcohol to people who are clearly already half-cut after being chucked out from the nightclubs. Just because supermarkets have a license to sell alcohol doesn't necessarily mean that they are being responsible with it.

Thirdly, it is the loss-leaders that are the problem, not your average pint of beer or bottle of WKD in the pub. When supermarkets deliberately sell products at a loss in order to entice people in I would call that an abuse of the market forces, not, as they would say, in line with market forces. Customers should pay the going rate for the product that they are purchasing. When you can buy a can of beer for less than the price of the bottle of water then something has gone wrong.

When it comes to tackling the issue of binge drinking, the blunt instrument of increasing taxation will do absolutely nothing. It is a revenue-raiser which is hidden behind the facade of being concerned for the nation's health. If the government were that concerned they would ban alcohol (and tobacco) altogether. But they won't because the Exchequer would lose too much money.

Ensuring that the licensing laws are properly enforced in pubs AND supermarkets is essential, and supermarket staff should have the training (and security) to refuse to serve someone who is already completely off their face.

I won't post too much on the issue of fuel duty, because I am sure that that will be covered elsewhere and I will share the sentiments of most that it is just too much. Delaying it won't help because he'll just be forced to increase it again anyway.

But the issue of "green taxation" is an interesting one. How do you determine who has a legitimate use for a 4x4 and who doesn't? And where does the money go for taxing the most environmentally damaging cars go? I'm pretty sure it doesn't go to repairing the damage to the environment, and it won't be able to whilst it is sat in the Exchequer's coffers.

Conservative Budget would have made a real difference

2008-03-12T01:04:00.002Z

Yesterday I had one of my letters published in the Heartland Evening News. Here it is for those of you that don't buy the HEN:

The budget debate from 20 February 2008 has now set the clear dividing lines between the Conservative and Labour Groups’ on the Borough Council. The former is providing a voice for the people of this Borough, seeking to provide solutions to the problems of the citizens. The latter, unfortunately, are providing more of the same; same old stealth taxes and same old stagnation.

Sheer fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the Labour Group led to an initial budget deficit of £1 million, out of an annual budget of roughly £20 million. The solutions that the Labour Group ‘provided’ were the same old blunt instruments of slight-of-hand and inflation-busting stealth tax increases that will only penalise the citizens of this Borough.

The Conservative proposals, on the other hand, were community inspired and driven, focused on the needs of ALL of the people of Nuneaton and Bedworth. Whilst not only managing to balance the woeful state of the finances, the Conservative Group also put forward more policies to cater for the needs and worries of the people that we speak to on the doorsteps each and every week.

Marcus Jones and the Conservative Group proposed a 2.5% increase in Council Tax, which is inline with inflation. Meanwhile, Labour proposed a 2.9% increase in Council Tax as well as putting 10p on every single car-parking band, equivalent to a 4% increase in Council Tax. In effect, Labour proposed a 7% increase through slight-of-hand and smoke and mirrors.

Conservatives, on the other hand, propose to freeze the car parking charges at their current levels. Conservatives want to see flourishing and vibrant town centres, not force visitors to park in residential backstreets, which will blight the lives of the residents who live close to the town centre.

On the night, Conservatives proposed to realign the spending of the Council to bring it inline with the priorities of the people: crime and grime.

By providing for Domehawk Cameras for each ward of the Borough, we can target the minority of delinquents that cause anti-social behaviour and make law-abiding citizens lives a misery. These cameras can be moved around the wards of the Borough, and the recordings used in evidence against the perpetrators. We do not claim that these are a panacea for all anti-social behaviour, but would be another valuable tool in the fight against anti-social behaviour. Nor do we want to have political control over the cameras – operational control would rightly remain in the hands of the police in consultation with the community and its elected representatives.

But most exciting of all was not from within the general budget, but from within the Housing Revenue Account.

Money from within the HRA would be redirected to a £300,000 rolling programme over three years, whereby residents living in social housing could apply for funding to revamp and secure their areas, modernising areas which haven’t been touched for twenty years. This proposal would make a real difference to the lives of the residents across the Borough, empowering them to improve their communities.

As the Conservative Candidate for Camp Hill I am delighted and proud to fight the coming election on the Conservative Budget and priorities of crime and grime, whilst also empowering the people to improve their communities. It was a budget from the people, for the people. It is a budget I believe in wholeheartedly, which would genuinely make a real difference to the people of Camp Hill and the Borough of Nuneaton and Bedworth.

Top 10 things that sound nasty in law, but really aren't

2008-03-11T17:22:00.002Z

On my desk I keep a page-a-day calendar, as I suspect quite a few people do. As I am a law student mine just happens to be about lawyers, and all of the stupid things that they do. Today's is a real corker:

10. Have you looked through her briefs?
9. He is one hard judge!
8. Counselor, let's do it in chambers.
7. His attorney withdrew at the last minute.
6. Is it a penal offense?
5. Better leave the handcuffs on.
4. For $200 an hour, she better be good!
3. Can you get him to drop his suit?
2. The judge gave her the stiffest one he could.
1. Think you can get me off?

Nick Clegg defends the undefensible

2008-03-07T19:08:00.006Z

The Leader of the Lib Dems seems to be in a bit of trouble at the moment. At his Spring Conference tomorrow he is going to have to defend his party's actions over the whole European debate.

Firstly, the so-called 'walk-out' of Lib Dems MPs when the Speaker refused to call their amendment to the Bill to pass the Lisbon Treaty into law to have a referendum on our very membership of the EU was pathetic. They couldn't organise a p**s-up in a brewery.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the Speaker's decision, if you're going to take a course of action like that you have to make sure it is going to make an impact. It was more of a damp squib then an explosion. All the MPs should have been there, and all of them should have stood up and left at the same time if that is the tactic you are going to take. Not leave in dribs and drabs.

Clegg and his cohorts used up their ammunition on that particular tactic, which should only be reserved for the most serious of things. There was another option on the table available to them, and that was to support the amendment to have a referendum on the Treaty itself. That one they could have enforced, if only the leadership had a brain cell between them.

Whether you are in favour of the treaty or not, they should all have voted on supporting the amendment and then campaigned for either the yes or no camp. That would have been a respectable position to take, regardless of your stand point.

The most important element of this whole farce was the issue of trust.

In 2005 ALL parties campaigned on having a referendum on the EU Constitution. The Treaty of Lisbon is essentially the EU Constitution repackaged for political consumption. I respect the Lib Dem MPs who resigned their frontbench jobs and voted according to their manifesto, and the Labour MPs who did likewise. I may not agree with them on everything, but I respect them for having integrity on such an important issue as standing by your manifesto commitments.

Clegg will have some explaining to do at his Spring Conference, and Huhne will not wield the dagger for he wants to wear the Crown.

Former Foreign Secretary Pym Dies

2008-03-07T18:55:00.006Z

It is with some sadness that the papers have had to report the death of the former Conservative Defence and Foreign Secretary, Francis Pym.

He might not have been to everyones taste, but he was a politician of the classical variety - believing in public service and duty, which is sometimes lacking in some of the leading politicians today. He might have fallen out with Margaret Thatcher, but he did buy valuable time to assemble the forces to take back the Falklands through his diplomacy with the United States and the United Nations.

His career was inevitably cut short when he said that it is unhealthy for parties to win landslide majorities just before the 1983 general election. It was an unwise comment that he made, although he was using his experience as a former Chief Whip.

I don't happen to subscribe to the view, either. It depends on how you use that majority that makes it healthy or unhealthy. Debate should not be cut short and all views should be heard, but the business of government must continue.

Anyway, I would like to extend my sympathies to his family and friends.

Military Covenant Commission

2008-03-06T13:40:00.003Z

I have to say that I am extremely impressed with the line-up that David Cameron has managed to get for the Military Covenant Commission that he has set-up to investigate the problems in the armed forces.

This issue has been raised before by the former Head of the Joint Chiefs, General Sir Mike Jackson, and he has said that the covenant between the state and the military, whereby the State provides what the military personnel need and they in turn put their lives on the line in the defence of their nation.

To have such an array of people who are providing their experience is going to benefit party policy enormously, and I look forward to reading the proposals. Some of the committee members have said that they might not subscribe to the Conservative Party, which is their choice, but they want to do their bit to ensure that the debate that is had is well informed and that the services get the treatment and resources that they need.

It was also nice to see that Dan Byles, the PPC from neighbouring North Warwickshire, is apart of the Commission, and I am sure that his constituents will benefit greatly from his experience. Having worked with him before, and in the future (hopefully), I know that he contribute significantly to both the report and the debate that will ensue.

Is the world moving towards greater democracy?

2008-02-19T16:50:00.003Z

Today could prove to be the start of a new era of democracy if the world leaders play it right.

With the news that in Pakistan President Musharraf has suffered a heavy defeat in elections, it might just be the turning point that Pakistan needs to become fully-fledged member of the western world. This is not about some misguided imperialist ideal, it is about being able to work with our partners in the fight against terrorism and not having double standards. Musharraf might have been willing to work with us against al-Qaeda, but he was suppressing the very things that they are trying to destroy in the western world, such as freedom of speech and an independent judiciary. These things are coming back to bite him on the backside.

Also, Fidel Castro has announced his retirement and handing over the reins of power to his brother Raoul. Already we are seeing diplomatic pressure being put to bear on Cuba, and it has always been a a nuisance to America having a Communist country just 60 miles off her shores. Cuba should start democratic reforms as soon as possible.

Perhaps we are witnessing the start of a good future. I certainly hope so.

Etone goes for Sixth Form

2008-02-17T14:46:00.002Z

My old secondary school, Etone, is applying to become a Sixth Form college as well as all of the other specialities it so rightly deserves.

With education a big topic in Nuneaton at the moment it is quite right that all options should be examined, and I lean towards supporting the application to become a Sixth Form.

When I left Etone I would gladly have stayed on if it had a Sixth Form. Not only was the teaching excellent but the sense of community was good as well. The teachers there would have already known what I was capable of doing and push me even further to achieve.

KEGs is right to fight for its own future and I am more ambivalent about the proposals than I was six months ago. I could be swayed either way. I respect the principal's right to defend his college and do what he thinks is best for his staff and his pupils, but Peter Kingham is also right to examine what is best for the future of Etone as well.

Geoffrey Howe to advise on tax reform

2008-02-15T12:48:00.004Z

Former Conservative Chancellor, Lord (Geoffrey) Howe of Aberavon is to lead a Conservative review on taxation reform.

I for one welcome this.

We need to look at reviewing the taxation of this country as the tax burden has increased dramatically under this Labour government.

Taxation rules need to be simplified and be understandable to everyone, not just those that take the money off of you!!!

George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, is expected to call for the establishment of an Office of Tax Simplification. If it works then it has my wholehearted support.

'Happy-slapping' conviction welcomed

2008-02-14T17:59:00.004Z

Like many people today, I welcome the charge of the 14-year-old girl who stood by and filmed her friends 'happy-slapping' a man to death and did nothing.

Judith Naylor, CPS lawyer, who investigated whether to charge the girl with aiding and abetting manslaughter, should be on the next Honours List as far as I am concerned. For too long we've been allowing things like this to go by and nothing being done about it.

Justice needs to be seen to be done, and I am glad that it is in this case. A message needs to be sent out that in a civilised society we will not tolerate this sort of behaviour, and the girl in question (who did plead guilty) will probably get a custodial sentence, which is the least that she deserves.

We see incidents such as these as a case of society getting worse and creating a more permissible society. But it only becomes permissible if we let it. If people are filming a crime and letting people get away with it they should be charged with aiding and abetting a crime, as well as conspiracy. In this area the law is only just beginning to catch up with what the public wants.

This case may have been a landmark, and I welcome that wholeheartedly, but it remains to be seen whether this example will be followed.

Government should not computerise 14-year-olds

2008-02-13T23:39:00.004Z

The government has announced today that it plans to put everyone from the age of 14 on a new permanent national database which will keep all of your exam results and grades until you retire.

I'm extremely concerned by this.

Employers, of course, have a right and a need to know what qualifications their employees have, and the same goes for universities. But this is simply an extension of the ID Card. The government cannot get its way over ID cards and so they are trying to slip another mechanism in by the back door.

Everyone has bad days on their exams, or can't be bothered. But surely that should not tarnish you for the rest of your life? You have right to keep certain things private, as well. People will improve themselves as they get older and learn from the University of Life. It isn't just how many A-grades you have (although it certainly helps!), it's also what you actually DO with them that really matters.

This government cannot be trusted to run a computer database, enable medical students to apply for a job or even keep data safe, so why should we trust them with this?

Canvassing in Camp Hill

2008-02-11T12:22:00.001Z

I had a very good day on Saturday, out canvassing in Camp Hill. It was nice to meet many of the residents and hear their issues and concerns and the results were very encouraging indeed. We had a good team out and we were hearing the same things over and over on the doorstep, mainly that it is nice that someone is taking the time to actually come out and talk to them and listen to their problems and concerns.

I've long been under the impression that Camp Hill has for far too long been taken for granted by Labour, and everything that I've heard whilst out canvassing seems to support my view.

Just a quick note to say thank you to all those that took part yesterday, both the canvassers and, more importantly, the residents themselves for being so welcoming and helpful.

Plane spots fire on Queen Elizabeth Road

2008-02-11T12:14:00.000Z

I was amazed to read in the HEN the other day about the fire of a set of terraced houses on Queen Elizabeth Road, which was reported by an airplane on its way to Coventry Airport.

Like everyone I would praise the emergency services for dealing with a dangerous situation, and in fact demolishing the wreckage afterwards to prevent anyone else returning. The housing in question has since been demolished.

The regeneration of Camp Hill is vital, and I fully support it. But, it has to be done safely, efficiently and as far as possible on budget.

Surely there should be procedures in place to ensure that once a house has been emptied a fire assessment takes place for the interim period between the former occupants leaving and the demolition? Is there any routine inspection of the derelict houses to ensure that they are not being used in any way, shape or form?

Death Trap House Knocked Down

2008-02-11T12:06:00.000Z

A while back I posted on a story that I had in the HEN about a derelict house on Queen Elizabeth Road in Camp Hill. It was an absolute death trap that was not secured by the company responsible and signs that there had been children playing in it.

Dennis Harvey said that the Conservatives only take an interest in Camp Hill at election time and have voted against all the proposals for the regeneration of Camp Hill. When will he learn not to lie to the electorate?

Not being one to take things like this lying down I did some research on the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council website. It is a matter of public record that the Conservatives have voted for the regeneration of Camp Hill and, in fact, Cllr Clive Stringer (Con, Attleborough) asked a question about the derelict housing in Camp Hill from the regeneration back in 2006, along virtually the same lines of my complaint. So very little has changed since 2006.

Not three days after the press release was printed in the HEN the house in question was knocked down and proper fencing erected. If I was being generous I would say that this was just a coincidence, but I don't believe in them.

I'm just glad that my press release did something good.

Archbishop of Canterbury should resign

2008-02-11T11:55:00.000Z

Over the weekend Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury made some very disturbing remarks during a lecture to a group of lawyers. In it he said that some elements of Sharia Law should be adopted into British law, and that there are people who have a higher accountability then to the law of the land.

I understand that people have religious convictions, and even though I am not religious myself I respect them even if I don't necessarily believe in them. As so far as they can they should comply with them.

But in the United Kingdom there is one law which we are all subject too. Everyone is equal under the eyes of the law, or at least they should be.

Dr Williams has made the already difficult debate on integration and community cohesion even harder to answer.

We say that people who wish to come and live in this country should accept the customs, principles and traditions of this country. But when we keep on shifting the goal posts it naturally makes it much more difficult for them to integrate.

The British system is built upon Christian foundations and those foundations should remain. We are no longer strictly beholden to them and that is how it should be. I respect other religions, let me make that quite clear. The moment that we start altering the law so that there is one law for one group of people, and a different set for another is that we start on the road to anarchy.

The Archbishop of Canterbury ought to resign now.

Derek Conway stands down

2008-01-31T14:51:00.000Z

Derek Conway announced yesterday that he was going to stand down as an MP at the next General Election after having the party whip withdrawn from him by David Cameron. And then today he has been suspended from the Commons for 10-days after the report of the Standards Committee, chaired by Sir George Young.

Personally, I think he has done the right thing for himself and his party. He caused great embarrassment to the party over the issue of over-paying his sons for working as his researcher, and now it turns out that one of his son's friends may have worked for him as well. If it was within the Parliamentary Payscales then fine, but all the pressure adds up. Especially after his Lib Dem opponent has put in a formal complaint to the police over it.

But all of this does raise the wider question of how far should the police be used in investigating these things? It seems at the moment that the police are being used as another political club to bash over the heads of opponents. Is it the right and proper use of police time?

Clearly selling peerage is illegal, and I had no problem over the police investigating that. There has been some question over whether the police should have been called in over PermaTan. The only options that were available to the Electoral Commission were a slap on the wrist of referring him to the police. The seriousness of the offence clearly meant that the slap on the wrist was not enough. But was going to the police over the top?

My priority is for police to be out there on the streets protecting the citizens of the country and catching criminals. Sure, some of these politicians are crooks, but does it necessarily make them criminals?

I think that there ought to be an investigation over what the right procedures should be for matters like this. It could involve giving the Electoral Commission more powers, banning family members from working for each other and simplifying the method for recording donations, whereby a report to one authority automatically refers it to the other for recording on their system.

Political finance is a serious issue and the police should not be used for such things.

What matters now is that Old Bexley and Sidcup pick a new candidate quickly and make sure that they get to be well known is the constituency.

Judicial Review for Referendum?

2008-01-29T09:43:00.001Z

Reading the news today, it seems that Tory donor Stuart Wheeler is venturing into Jackson territory (if you're a law student you might get it). He is applying for judicial review on the government's decision not to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

I just don't see how it can succeed.

As seen in the Jackson case, the courts are very reluctant when it comes to matters of government decisions behind legislation, even though the Jackson legal argument was extremely logical in my humble opinion, but I digress.

Of course I support having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and he were to succeed then good luck to him, but I'm afraid the High Court won't order a rethink. Judicial Review can only look into the procedures surrounding a decision, not the decision itself. Only if there was a failure to follow procedure could a Judicial Review succeed.

I'm not aware of any procedure existing for deciding whether or not to hold a referendum on a treaty. The manifesto is not legally binding (would that it were). In order for a treaty to be incorporated into British law it only needs to be done so via an Act of Parliament. No court will look 'behind' the act - so long as it is passed by the Lords, Commons and Queen (or Commons and Queen if the Parliament Acts are used) then it is law. Pure and simple.

Whilst I support having a referendum, I don't think Judicial Review will achieve it. I'm all for applying pressure to this government, and if it achieves an amount of pressure, then so much the better. It's his money and he can spend it how he likes.

Conway gives the party a headache

2008-01-29T09:30:00.000Z

At a time when the party is at its strongest for over a decade, some idiot MP has gone and cocked it up. Derek Conway seems to have generously overpaid his son (and now maybe sons) to help fund them through university.

Now, in itself, employing your son as a researcher is nothing new, and I'm sure overpaying a family member from the public purse is nothing new. But in an era when politician's spending is critically analysed, these politicians ought to know better and pay them the market price in line with the Commons pay scales.

Although Derek Conway is not in the same league as PermaTan Hain and Nanny Harman, it is still potentially damaging for the party.

The Standards Committee is absolutely right. He should repay the money, apologise to the House, and be suspended from the Commons for 10 days. But, by the same token, so should PermaTan.

But whilst David Cameron has been making very fine hay from the mess that Gordo and his underlings are creating, he has to be extremely careful not to set fire to it. Or worse, let one of his MPs do it for him.

Cameron needs to act, swiftly and decisively.

There have been clamours for Cameron to remove the party whip from him and for his constituency to deselect him. Cameron definitely needs to publicly rebuke him and sack him from any shadow portfolio he might hold. As for deselection, it will have to await the report into the allegation that he overpaid his other son. Once is foolish; twice is a potential public humiliation for the party.

If he has done the same for his other son then, and only then, would I consider looking at moves to deselect him.

The two great Democrat dynasties collide

2008-01-29T09:18:00.000Z

Things are starting to get interesting in the war for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States of America.

Obama won a landslide victory over Hillary in the South Carolina primary, which Clinton had already predicted. By spending time out of the state she had conceeded it to her rival, Barack Obama.

But the support of Senator Edward Kennedy, the head of the Kennedy Clan, adds an entirely new dimension to the war that seems to be raging itself within the Democratic Party. Not only does it pit the two great Democratic dynasties at loggerheads, Kennedy may have inadvertently given Clinton more support in the moderates.

Kennedy is an out-and-out liberal. Liberal, in America, is akin to a swear word. It is probably like what we would think of the Loony Left over here in the UK. By aligning himself with Obama he will certainly take over the left of the Democrats to the Obama camp. But as we have seen over here in the UK, just playing to your core vote will not win you the election. You need to attract the middle ground as well.

Clinton now has an opportunity to raise her game, if she plays it right. Kennedy's support of Obama could drive the moderates and the right of the Democrat party into her camp. By appealling to the middle ground of the party she could still win the Democratic nomination. She also needs to attract the more moderate Republicans to win the presidency.

Edward Kennedy is trying to invoke the idealism of his brother, John F. Kennedy, in a spirit of rejuvenation and a new generation. Obama needs more than words and the endorsement of a great political family. Edward Kennedy has failed in his previous attempts at the White House, and his support within the Democratic Party needs to be tested as to whether it will migrate to the Obama Camp.

There is still all to play for in the contest to be the next POTUS. This is the closest one we will have seen for a long time.

Condoleeza Rice by Marcus Mabry

2008-01-28T20:01:00.000Z

Condoleeza Rice has become a controversial figure in the current Bush administration. This biography goes some way to helping explain the enigma that is arguably the most powerful woman in the world.

Rice is undoubtedly the brains in the administration. She is highly accomplished, thoughful, tough and disciplined. Yet the very qualities that have enabled her to get to the top have also been her biggest weakness.

More often than not she in unwilling, or unable, to change her mind once she has set upon it. She was unsuited to the role of National Security Advisor as she was having to negotiate between the conflicting personalities of Rumsfeld and Powell, and only later on in the job did she learn how to get around the two.

As Secretary of State, however, she has put more intellectual coherence into the administration. Bush should probably have given her a department to run in his first administration, and he would have probably had a smoother and more intelligent run of things. Capable of seeing the big picture and actually forward planning, many of the successes of post-war Iraq can be put down to her work behind the scenes in actually trying to get it right.

Mabry's biography is extremely important in trying to understand how the Bush administration works. With unprecedented access to Rice and her friends and family, this biography in superbly written and I would highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in current affairs.

Death Trap House in Camp Hill

2008-01-28T19:48:00.001Z

Whilst being out-and-about in Camp Hill, the ward that I have been selected to fight at the upcoming local elections, I came across an awful sight, which I have highlighted in my press release to the Heartland Evening News.

Camp Hill is undergoing a regeneration, one which myself and the local Conservatives support.

In his response to the article, Dennis Harvey, the Labour leader of the council, wrongly stated that the Conservatives only take an interest in Camp Hill at election times and that we have voted against the regeneration of Camp Hill. According to the Council's own website, we voted for the regeneration and our very own Councillor, Clive Stringer of Attleborough, highlighted the issue of derelict housing in Camp Hill.

The house was right next to the children's playground, with no roof, ceiling or wall on one side. There was no fencing whatsoever around it, with evidence of children playing inside the house. It was a hazard, and an accident waiting to happen.

This weekend, whilst in Camp Hill again, not three days after the story in the paper, the house had been knocked down with the proper fencing around it to prevent anyone else from getting in. At least Conservative action finally got something sorted for the people of Camp Hill.

More police on the streets... finally!!!

2008-01-23T12:48:00.000Z

On my way over to Rugby this afternoon, I was listening to the BBC Radio 2 Ken Bruce show.

I know it may be sad, but I actually like the show. Especially when I am travelling to university. The dulcet tones of Sir Terry and underlings or Ken Bruce and his team keep me sane during all of the stresses of commuting.

I was amused by one listener who obviously has a sense of humour.

He was congratulating the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, for actually getting more police on the streets of London. Finally.

Unfortunately, for the Home Secretary, they are campaigning against her plan not to implement the salary review and not giving them their pay increase 2.5% backdated to August, but instead only 1.9% backdated to September, and not there policing the streets.

Poor Jacqui!!!

Obama takes the high ground

2008-01-16T01:08:00.001Z

I note with some interest that The Times has only just cottoned on to the whole Clinton/Obama race row that has erupted. I would recommend that anyone with an interest in the US Primary Season, and the Presidential Race itself, should read the New York Times and its Caucus Blog, which gives you better insight into the race.

In a previous post, I talked about the situation regarding Hillary Clinton and the comment she made about the Civil Rights Act 1964, the pressure the Civil Rights Movement applied and the role of Dr Martin Luther King. This then degenerated into a row between Clinton and Obama, but now it seems that Obama has taken the initiative to close the row down.

Obviously, the tactics are plain to see. He wants to be seen to be above all of the row, and be big enough to call his people off before Clinton's do. But if you read the blog post, with the quotes (which I shall repeat below) he's trying to reclaim the change agenda. By pointing out that they are all Democrats (although with the arguments, you could have wondered) and that they all want change, its just the method that they differ on, Obama is trying to reclaim the initiative in the hope that he can win in the next primary, which is coming up soon.

The question is, does he come off as the bigger man? I think he does.

OBAMA TRIES TO STOP THE SILLINESS

RENO, Nev. – As he campaigned in northern Nevada on Monday, Senator Barack Obama said he was concerned that a heated discussion of racial issues in the presidential campaign could divide the Democratic Party.

“I don’t want the campaign at this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference here. “We’ve got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness. I expect that other campaigns feel the same way.”

Mr. Obama was seeking to be seen as taking the high road in the continuing feud between his campaign and that of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. First, he conducted three back-to-back interviews with the major television networks here. Then, he hastily called a news conference at the Reno Events Center.

After speaking to hundreds of Nevada voters at a rally here, Mr. Obama urged Democratic voters not to become embroiled in racially-charged or motivated discussions.

“If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it,” he said. “I hope the other campaigns take the same approach.”

On a day that initially was devoted to speaking about the economy, he held a nine-minute news conference. Before taking questions, Mr. Obama mentioned his rivals by name and praised them.

“I think that I may disagree with Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We’re all Democrats,” Mr. Obama said. “We all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. We all believe that regardless of race or gender that people should have equal opportunities.”

He continued, saying: “They are good people, they are patriots. They are running because they think that they can move this country to a better place.”

Asked whether he believed either Mrs. Clinton or former President Bill Clinton had shown racial insensitivity in recent days, he said: “I don’t want to rehash that. I think that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of civil rights issues. I think they care about the African-American community and that they care about all Americans and they want to see equal rights and justice in this country.”

News conferences are a rarity for Mr. Obama. The last formal one – with chairs for reporters and a flag backdrop for him – was a month ago in Iowa. It was not immediately clear why he called one today, except to be seen as taking the high road heading into a key debate in Nevada on Tuesday with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards.

Clintons get involved in race row

2008-01-12T14:43:00.000Z

In such a tight race for the Democratic nomination for the White House, the last thing that Hillary needs is to potentially alienate a core section of her electorate. And, albeit by accident, Hillary and Bill might just have done that.

Whilst talking about the Civil Rights Movement and the fight to give blacks the vote in America in the 1960s, Hillary used an ill-judged phrase. She said "it took a President to get it done." And this has been intepreted by some as denigrating the role of the Civil Rights Movement as a whole and the spectre of Martin Luther King has been raised again.

As race isn't a big issue in politics in Britain it is hard for us to see what the fuss is about. Ill-judged, yes; unfair: not necessarily.

Having studied the Civil Rights Movement in the USA for A-level history I know a bit about this subject, and strictly speaking Hillary was right. In fact it took 2 presidents - 1 to die and the other to use the memory of JFK to force through the legislation. The CRM applied a lot of pressure, but ultimately it did take a "President to get to get it done", and that was Lyndon Baines Johnson. A shrewd political operator who got bogged down in Vietnam, he pushed through the legislation in the face of his own party in the South. It is probable that had JFK not been assassinated the legislation would not have come in until much later, even though he had put the wheels in motion.

But Hillary ought to have been a bit more tactful with what she was saying, especially as the black vote in the upcoming Southern primaries could make or break her.

Clinton (I) has also caused a few problems for Clinton (II).

He accused the Obama campaign of being a "fairy tale", which has been taken to mean that it would be fanciful for a black man to become President of the United States. Again, this has been taken out of context, when he was referring to it being a fairy tale about his position on the Iraq War as Obama was claiming to have a solid record on, which he hasn't, but neither has Hillary. The great political operator that was Bill Clinton should have seen that one coming and kept his mouth shut.

Former Presidential Hopeful Kerry Supports Obama

2008-01-12T14:30:00.001Z

Barack Obama's campaign to be the first African-American President received a boost Thursday, when 2004 Presidential Candidate, Senator John Kerry, came out and endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination.

Kerry said:

“Who better than Barack Obama to bring new credibility to America’s role in the world and help restore our moral authority? Who better than Barack Obama to turn a new page in American politics, so that Democrats, independents and Republicans alike can look to the leadership that unites to find common ground?”

But the question is: how influential is Kerry?

His campaign for the presidency was dogged by issues of flip-flopping, and to some extent that label has been applied to Obama by the Clinton camp. But what does it say of his former running mate, John Edwards, when he doesn't endorse him for the presidency this time round? He held out hopes of running again this time but was dissuaded from doing so.

All things said and done, it depends on how much pull Kerry still has within the Democrats and how many of his former band will now play to Obama's tune.

PermaTan has been a naughty boy

2008-01-10T23:06:00.000Z

Work and Pensions Secretary Peter Hain has announced this evening that he failed to declare £103,000 of donations to his (failed) Deputy Leadership campaign. My heart bleeds...

Hats off to Guido for his persistence in holding old PermaTan to account for this. If he can't even organise his own campaign then how can we expect him to run the social security system?

Whilst not in the league of Mother Superior Harman, he deserves more than just a slap on the wrist. What a naughty boy he's been!!!

All this from the government that promised to be whiter than white!

Britain to go nuclear by 2020

2008-01-10T22:53:00.000Z

So, Gordo has finally made it official that we are going to have to build more nuclear power plants. We all knew that it was on the cards, and those of us who think that it's not before time will welcome the news.

If Britain is to have security of energy for the foreseeable future, then relying on fossil fuels from highly dubious nations is simply not sustainable. Then we also have to consider the environmental dimension to our energy security.

Whilst the carbon footprint will increase during the building stages of the new generation of nuclear power plants, once they are operational then we won't have a carbon footprint to worry about like we do with the current fossil fuel generators.

But then we have to think about where they should be built. And I have to confess that if confronted with the idea of having a nuclear power plant on the outskirts of Nuneaton then I would have to say that I would oppose the idea, in all honesty. It is the "not in my back yard" thing. But it is obvious that we need them.

Labour have delayed making this decision since they came to power, and the new generation should have started construction by now. This was probably down to the fact that Blair had quite a few backbenchers who are, or were, member of CND. He was himself, although I cannot vouch for Our Illustrious Leader, who to give him credit has finally made the decision.

But there is one other question that Gordo and his cronies need to answer, and in all seriousness it is a vital question. In an age when nuclear terrorism is a definite possibility, what will the government do to secure the security of the nuclear power plants from terrorist organisations, and also civil contigency plans for anything that goes wrong with the reactors. If a serious debate is to be had about this, then these are the facts that we need.

For the Lib Dems to oppose this is just foolish. They keep going on about reducing our carbon emissions. I agree. But how do you do it? Renewable energy is certainly part of the equation, but it is not the sole solution. They themselves have raised the issue of dealing with Russia for our energy supplies yet when a viable solution comes along they oppose it.

I'm just glad that David Cameron and Alan Duncan, Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary (I know its officially DBERR, but I can't be bothered to type it) have endorsed the announcement, one for which we have been calling for a long time.

Comeback Kid (II)

2008-01-09T11:51:00.000Z

Waking up this morning, I discover to my amazement that Hillary Clinton has actually won the New Hampshire primary. I'm not going to pretend that I could see this coming - I didn't - but I did think that she would come a close second.

Certainly, the Clintons have a strong link to New Hampshire - it was the springboard for Bill Clinton to go on to win the Democratic nomination - but there are a lot of variables to consider.

Clinton (II) has certainly changed her campaign around since Iowa. She is surrounded more by the younger generation then those who served in the last Clinton administration. She has come across as more human then before, which no doubt attracted the the female vote.

But the result is by no means certain for the Democratic nomination. It is clearly going to be a close run thing between Obama and Clinton. If Clinton can carry the majority on Super Tuesday then my money goes on her, but I don't see how either of them could be the running-mate for the other.

But the Republican race is also heating up and is rather uncertain.

Senator John McCain, who almost won the nomination for the Republicans instead of George W Bush, has won the votes in New Hampshire. He did win this state last time, but he is by no means certain to win the nomination for the Republicans.

Rudy Giuliani came fourth last night, but again he has not been campaigning in the first few races and focussing on the bigger states, which is an extremely risky strategy to follow.

The Republican race is wide open, and as uncertain as the Democratic race. This is going to be a very exciting race indeed.

Lord Chancellor Straw prohibits Prison Guards from striking

2008-01-08T18:51:00.000Z

Ooh, what a delightful little story!

Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, has announced that he intends to introduce legislation to make it illegal for prison guards to go on strike. A move which, before anyone thinks I'm not supportive of, I happen to support.

I don't happen to believe that a service as vital as the Prison Service should be allowed to go on strike. By striking, the guards are potentially endangering both the public and their charges, which in my view is unacceptable.

Ordinarily I wouldn't want to spoil this rare consensus between myself and Labour, but I have to point out the irony of a Labour government doing this. What would have been Labour's reaction in the 1980's if the Thatcher government tried to do this? I think we all know what would have been their reaction, and the thought of the Old Labour members on the backbenchers sweating under their collars fills me with glee!!!

Gordo tries to recapture the initiative

2008-01-08T18:42:00.000Z

Our Illustrious Leader has announced a new era for the NHS in its 60th anniversary year, with much greater screening with aim of preventing the illness, not just curing it.

The thing is, it was all just poof and smokescreen.

The NHS has been working on screening for ages now, and is just a headline grabbing attempt to revive Gordo's flagging fortunes.

Yes, public services should operate on a principle of rights and responsibilities, which Labour has only just started to pick up on. But for this gimmick he hasn't shown how he intends to finance his 'new' initiative.

For the past 10 years, Labour have thrown bucket loads of money into the NHS. But that isn't the cure for an over-stretched NHS. Throwing money at something is never the solution. It needs to produce results, not just massage the figures so that they look good.

I don't object to investing more money in the NHS so long as it is spent in the right way, not just on hiring more administrative staff then actual doctors and nurses, or providing more beds and the medicine that a patient needs.

The NHS is rightly a jewel in Britain's crown, but for it to survive for another 60 years the money has to be spend and accounted for much better. Both for our patients to get the treatment they need, but also for the NHS staff to be able to treat their patients as they would like.

Chamberlain takes his rightful place in Portcullis House

2008-01-08T18:25:00.000Z

I'm grateful to Iain Dale pointing out on his blog that a portrait of the much villified Neville Chamberlain has been put on display in Portcullis House. Apparently, he was the only Prime Minister not to be on display in Parliament or any of its buildings. At least this injustice has been corrected.

Having an interest in early-20th century politics, and politics in general, I am fascinated by British Foreign Policy between the Wars, having studied it at A-Level (thank-you Mrs Raybould!!!) and much of Neville Chamberlain's reputation has been maligned unfairly.

They say that history is written by the victors, and much of our understanding of the Second World War and its build-up was written by Winston Churchill following the Conservative defeat of 1945. Churchill was many things, but a true and accurate historian he was not. Being given special access to Government Papers, which strictly speaking he should not have had, he wrote the History of the Second World War which has shaped the national psyche's view of pre-WWII politics even though some of his assertions have proved to be wrong.

Neville Chamberlain was actually a deeply honourable man who unfortunately operated in a dishonourable world. He actually did as much as he could to rearm the country preceeding the war in accordance with the national will. Much of the nation was very anti-war, and he had to operate within the national situation. His downfall was being a Birmingham businessman who took Hitler at his word, when his word wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

History has been unkind to Chamberlain, but at least Parliament has put him in his rightful place.

Ice Maiden suffers from Smoking Ban

2008-01-06T18:03:00.000Z

I read with some amusement in the Mail on Sunday, today, that Caroline Flint has been suffering from the effects of the smoking ban.

Let us not forget, dear reader, that under Blair she was the Minister of State for Public Health who was responsible for introducing and pushing through the Smoking Ban in the Commons. Now she is in charge of reforming our welfare system, but I digress.

As the law requires smokers to smoke outside, they have been doing so outside her ministerial office. The smell of smoke has been so overwhelming that she has had to move offices to escape it.

What you sow, so shall ye reap!

But on a serious note, the smoking ban is starting to make itself felt.

It was all well and good in the summer when we had warm(er) weather so people didn't mind going outside, but it is bloody freezing now. The ban is starting to see pubs closing, with peoples' livelihoods under threat. We are seeing pubs being knocked down and turned into housing developments, with the squeeze between cheap booze at the supermarkets, the smoking ban and increasing beer prices from the breweries. There is talk of £4 a pint. If, and I sincerely hope that this is not the case, it is introduced the pub trade will be killed off. Let us see whether in the budget the price of beer and spirits goes up yet again.

Obama wins in Iowa - Clinton (II) starts to look shaky

2008-01-06T17:50:00.000Z

In between working, throwing up, and sleeping, I've been keeping a keen eye on the US Presidential race. Not just because it will decide the fate of the Western World for the next decade, but because I studied American politics during my A Levels, and when I sat those exams we had the last election for President.

I have to say that I'm actually quite stunned that Clinton came third in the Iowa caucus. I anticipated that she wouldn't win, but I didn't imagine the scale of the defeat for Hillary.

Hillary Clinton is even more divisive in America then her husband, and Iowa is only the first hurdle in a very long race. Remember - Bill Clinton did not win his first few states, and went on to win the Democratic nomination. But she HAS to win New Hampshire. It is said that the Clinton's own New Hampshire, so if she looses here then here campaign will start to loose it's wheels.

But the bigger suprise is Obama coming first. In a state that is 95% white, when ethnic politics does matter in America, it is a big boost for the Obama campaign, more than some may realise. If he can carry a state like Iowa then he stands a chance of winning in the other states. But he cannot rest on his laurels - he MUST maintain his momentum if he is to get the Democratic nomination.

The Republicans, on the other hand, were a mixed bag. Mick Huckabee is rather charismatic, but he lacks the financial backing necessary in a multi-million dollar race. With all the will in the world, if he doesn't have the bucks then he can't win the White House. But the bigger Republican beasts were not contesting Iowa, and saving themselves for the bigger states that hold the greater votes.

Happy New Year!

2008-01-06T17:40:00.000Z

I'd like to wish everyone a belated Happy New Year. I know that it's a bit late, and that blogging has been sparse, but working in a pub over the Christmas and New Year period meant that I was just eating, working and then sleeping, and recovery takes a little time. Especially if you get the norovirus that's been going round, in which case all I've been doing is sleeping and being ill. A nice way to see in 2008!!!

Blair becomes a Catholic - SO WHAT?!

2007-12-24T03:53:00.001Z

I'm getting rather fed up of the complete domination of the news about former-PM Tony Blair converting to Catholicism.

Why is it headline news? It's not as if it wasn't on the cards, as we all knew it was coming. If he was still PM then it might have been news-worthy, but now that he's not it shouldn't be frontpage news that it is.

If he really was a man of conviction he would have converted whilst he was in office. Or did he see his faith as potentially politically damaging? He was just being a coward. He should have converted in office and ridden any storm that might have arisen.

Nick Clegg become Lib Dem leader and announces his new team

2007-12-21T08:36:00.000Z

So the non-election campaign for the Lib Dems has finished, and although the result is no surprise, the margin was. Clegg was the frontrunner throughout the contest, yet he was hardly there! Huhne was there on TV commenting on everything that went wrong for the government that he could.

Clegg was a disappointment during the election campaign. Huhne would actually have been the more dangerous leader for the Lib Dems in that he would really have heralded a return to the three-party politics of the Kennedy era. With only a majority of 500 over Huhne, Clegg does not have the mandate for reform that Cameron did when he was elected. Huhne will be chomping at the bit, always watching and waiting for Clegg to fall. Clegg will have to start off at the top of his game, and he will have to avoid being seen as a Cameron Mark II (which of course he isn't).

But, his reshuffle of his frontbench team (I refuse to use the term Shadow Cabinet, as they are quite obviously not) was actually a rather good one, as opposed to Sir Menzies Campbell's first reshuffle.

Keeping Vince Cable as Deputy Leader and Exchequer Spokesman was a must. He couldn't afford to move him, especially following his stunning performance as Acting Leader. Cable would actually have been the best leader for them in providing something different to the electorate.

Moving Chris Huhne to Home Affairs was actually the only possible move he could make. Keeping him at Environment would have been a snub that he couldn't afford, but putting him at Foreign would have enabled him to build up a power-base of his own. Home Affairs enables him to give him the poison chalice that can make or break a frontbencher, especially as Huhne criticised Clegg for his performance at Home Affairs.

Clegg has promoted some of the rising stars in the party faster than Campbell did, such as Davey to Foreign Affairs and Goldsworthy to DCLG. This is an all or nothing strategy that has to succeed with the Lib Dems faltering behind around 13%. But he's given Campbell the thing that he will really shine at - putting him forward for the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

Illegal Action by Stella Rimington

2007-12-21T08:20:00.000Z

Since reading her previous novels, I have become a fan of Stella Rimington's series focusing on MI5 agent Liz Carlyle. With the insight that Rimington produces, and with a realistic story to tell, Illegal Action does not disappoint.

Having served in Counter-Terrorism in the previous two books, Carlyle transfers to Counter-Espionage, which echoes Rimington's own careers having served in all three of the branches in MI5. Furthermore, Rimington has very cleverly picked on the subject of our difficult relations with Russia and picked on the very real issue of Russian oligarchs and former KGB agents who live in Britain.

Although not as long as her previous forays into the world of fiction, Rimington nevertheless produces a fantastic and high-paced intelligent novel that is every bit as superb as her previous novels.

I eagerly await her next installment in the Liz Carlyle series.

The Double Eagle by James Twining

2007-12-21T08:08:00.000Z

As James Twining's first novel, The Double Eagle had great potential from the plot outline. Extremely rare coins have been stolen from Fort Knox, and their very existence is denied in the quantity that they possess. In order to catch a thief, the FBI inadvertently had to hire a thief in order to get the coins back.

The Double Eagle starts off very slow with perhaps too much attention to detail, Twining takes his time in getting to the action. Beautiful and accurate descriptions of settings are always welcome, but when they detract from the plot they become redundant.

However, towards the end, in Twining's defence, the action picks up pace and there are some good plot and character twists, which leave plenty of room for expansion in future books. It is just a shame that he takes so long to reach anywhere near the potential his intricate plot exhibits.

That said, there is potential there and I would not discount reading any of his future books.

Police call on Smith to resign

2007-12-13T08:41:00.001Z

'Ello, 'ello, 'ello!

It looks as if Brown's Babe, Jacqui Smith, is in a spot of bother with the police.

By refusing to give the police their pay increase back-dated to September they are now calling on all of their members to strike - which in itself is illegal. Who's gonna nick who, I wonder?

Anyway, why has the government decided to create such a mess for itself? In the grand scheme of things, £30 million is loose change when it comes to government spending. They've pumped £40 billion into Northern Rock, yet they can't stump up the £30 million for the police.

Now, I'm not going to comment on the rights and wrongs on the proposed increase in pay itself as I don't feel qualified to do - only to say that they have had significant pay increases in the past couple of years, and now the economy is starting to slow down.

The big issue for me is whether the police should have the right to strike, or not. My gut feeling is no. The Police Act 1919 expressly forbade the establishment of Trade Unions for police and striking of any kind, but established the Police Federation to air their concerns. I believe that a service which provides such a vital service to the public should not strike, especially where it could put lives in danger. They should stick to applying pressure through other means for their cause, not play politics with public safety.

Falconer opposes 42-day detention

2007-12-13T08:32:00.000Z

I've been reading today that the former Lord Chancellor, and former Tony's Crony, Lord Charlie Falconer has given advise to the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Keith Vaz, against extending the pre-charge detention to 42-days.

Now, I missed the boat in blogging on the announcement by Jacqui Smith on the proposed extension (a combination of being lazy and working), but needless to say I oppose the idea. Both on the grounds of civil liberties, that the case hasn't been made for extension (which has been said by many learned people) and that 42 days seems rather arbitrary.

But, what I can't figure out is why Charlie Falconer opposes this? He was a member of the government who supported it. He was the Cabinet member responsible for trying to get it through the Lords and failed (in its 90-day form), so why is it any different for 42-days?

This means that he sat in the Cabinet and was going to vote and support something which he didn't believe in. Why is he now trying to establish civil libertarian credentials? This conversion by one of the leading Blairites is quite astonishing.

Pakistan moves in the right direction

2007-11-29T17:00:00.000Z

General Pervez Musharraf (ret.) has now taken off his army uniform and been sworn in as a civilian president. It is a welcome move and is rightly recognised as so by the international community. He has further announced that emergency rule will end on 16 December 2007.

Musharraf has guaranteed that elections will be held, and all pressure must be applied by to ensure that they are held, and are free and fair.

That said, whilst we must ensure that Musharraf keep his promise, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto must also play ball and take part in the elections, even if there are some irregularities as it is the only way to see democracy begin to take root in Pakistan.

Labour's funding row gets worse

2007-11-28T17:59:00.000Z

So the fiasco surrounding the Labour party donor(s) has started to involve Gordon Brown a bit more than he let on.

His chief fundraiser - his own personal appointment - knew about the situation surrounding the real person behind the donations as he had been responsible for getting him kicked out of Labour Friends of Israel.

But besides this, I was astonished today at one point that was raised at PMQs. One of the more insignificant little lefty labour minions on the backbenches today tried to insinuate that somehow all of this has something to do with the Conservative Party.

What?

His argument, which was really a diversionary tactic to hide the fact that the Labour Party have been involved in illegal activities (or at least some of its officers, just to clarify for m'learned friends), was that really the Conservatives are the baddies because we have Michael Ashcroft giving funding to target seats. Perhaps the honourable gentleman is feeling a little bit hot under the collar as his seat is starting to look at risk? I would suggest to the honourable gentleman that he looks a little bit closer to home for the reasons why if that is the case. Try a Mr G. Brown, 10 Downing Street, London, SW1.

The Conservatives are absolutely right to refuse to give up the Ashcroft funding, which is helping those seats that are struggling financially against the institutional advantages to incumbent MPs, unless Labour gives up its funding from the Trade Unions. All donations to the Conservative Party are from businesses and private persons who wish to donate themselves, not from an organisation, which as part of its raison d'etre is to provide funding for the Labour Party.

It is really rather shameful that a Labour MP is trying to use a situation like this to have a punch at how we fund our party. People in glass houses shouldn't go throwing stones.

Train fares to increase yet again

2007-11-28T17:48:00.000Z

Had I still been a student in Norwich, I would have been highly pissed off today with the news that train fares are to be increased AGAIN in the New Year, by around 5%. Ok, I'm still annoyed as I use the trains occasionally.

Don't get me wrong - I am not advocating a return to nationalised railways, but I do accept that the privatisation of the railways was done in a bad way. Every other reform of the privatised rail industry has also been poorly done.

The government is aiming to get more people out of cars and onto public transport. It is an aim that I and my party support. But why should more and more people go out and by train tickets which can be extortionate and get less and less service. In Nuneaton they are planning to cut back on the Nuneaton to Euston service so that it goes direct to Manchester and extra 5 minutes quicker. Many people use this service and is what has helped to increase Nuneaton's economy.

Before they start charging more for rail tickets they ought to get their house in order, make sure that their services are giving value for money and investigate increasing the number of services that are available by rail if we are really serious about getting more people onto the trains. How about opening up some of the old Beeching tracks?

Latest funding scandal - where's Harman's judgement?

2007-11-27T22:14:00.000Z

In the latest scandal to hit Gordon Brown's government it appears that the laws relating to donations to political parties have been broken, which has resulted in the resignation of the Labour Party General Secretary. The money was donated by the third person and, if the claims are correct, fraudulently.

Good old Harriet Harman accepted one such donation in her deputy leadership bid. She claims that her policy was within "the letter and the spirit of the law" and that they had to be known to her or her staff, or the Labour Party. £5000 might not be here or there to the grand scheme of things but propriety should have been observed and more rigorous checks.

But then we have Hilary Benn, and the same person tries to donate to his campaign albeit under a different 3rd person. He refuses the donation as he is informed that it is from a 3rd party and as such does not comply with electoral law. Why doesn't Harman know?

Let us look at some other vital facts. She is a solicitor by training, albeit a bit of a lefty. She was a former cabinet minister (at the time). She has been Solicitor General. She was (at the time) a Constitutional Affairs minister. Her husband is the Labour Party Treasurer. Where was her judgement? Surely she should have known about the 3rd party scheme. If she has such a lack of judgement over a potentially criminal matter, then how can we know that her judgement is sound in government?

Brown Boycotts the Bully

2007-11-27T22:02:00.000Z

I have to admit that I'm not a fan of Gordon Brown (you'd never have guessed it!), and amid all of the disasters which are befalling his government at the moment, there is one thing with which I am at one with him: boycotting the Lisbon summit due to Mugabe's presence.

Brown announced it in his press conference:

"I will not be attending this summit. Given the circumstances of the last 10 years and our attempts to give assistance in Zimbabwe, which have been thwarted and resisted, it is not possible for us to attend this summit and sit down with President Mugabe."

This is the sought of tougher stance that we should have been adopting long ago. He is a ruthless dictator who is inflicting misery on his people, yet he is allowed to get away with it.

Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the EU Commission says that this summit is "bigger than any personality clash between individuals."

Excuse me? Personality clash?!

There is no "personality clash" between Brown and Mugabe, this is about a brutal dictator who has been inflicting starvation and poverty on his people, abandoning the rule of law and the principles of human rights.

Get a grip, Barroso!!!

Should we steal a Lib Dem policy?

2007-11-23T10:20:00.000Z

Iain Dale, probably the best political commentator on the blogosphere, has written a very controversial column for The Telegraph today.

The main thrust of the argument seems to be that whilst David Cameron has so far managed to handle the EU question very well, the Lib Dems have managed to steal the thunder from us by committing themselves to having a referendum on our membership of the EU, not just on the European Constitution/Reform Treaty (delete as applicable).

Now, I can see that this article may not be very popular amongst some of the higher echelons of the Party, but it holds intellectual water, and I for one support it.

Let us settle this divisive European question once and for all. We voted in 1975 for an economic organisation, not a political being that pervades most of our areas of life. Yes it will manage to hold off UKIP, but it could be divisive for the party, which DC has been trying desperately hard not to do. Perhaps Iain's suggestion of allowing a free vote on the issue is the right road to go down.

One thing is for certain - the European question needs to be solved.

Case for increased detention not made

2007-11-23T10:08:00.000Z

Plans for increasing pre-charge detention were dealt a further blow yesterday when two senior legal figures said that the case for increasing the limit has not yet been made.

Former Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, has said whilst giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, that he did not see any overwhelming evidence for such an extension and that he would have resigned had the government tried to introduce it:

“based on a genuine belief that it is the right thing to do in protecting the country. I do not take the view that, if the proposal was to extend to 56 days, that is justified by the evidence.” He had seen no evidence while in office to support going beyond 28 days, but it might have emerged since"

But probably more important is the testimony of Sir Ken Macdonald QC, who is the Director of Public Prosecutions.

In giving evidence to the HAC, he has said that the 28-day compromise has so far worked well and that there has been no need for an extended period:

“The most I can say is that it is a matter of record that we have not asked for an increase. We are satisfied with the position as it stands at the moment.”

I hope that these very learned legal figures have managed to sway some of the Labour backbenches into opposing the proposed extension. This isn't an exercise in posturing over who is to be seen as the safeguarding the safety of the nation, although that principle in itself is vitally important, but we ought to safeguard the very civil liberties that our enemies seek to destroy. If we do it for them, then they have won.