History Of Modern Britain

February 7, 2010, 10:41

I had originally intended to write a quick review of a book that I had just finished reading. But when I got near the end it raised a question that is very topical at the moment. Confused? I’ll explain.

Over the last couple of weeks I’ve been reading Andrew Marr’s “A History Of Modern Britain”. I had previously seen the BBC TV series of the book but was well aware of that large swathes had been editted out, or the series would have gone on for a lot longer than six episodes. The book gives a fairly thorough look a Britain from VE-day to the End of Tony Blair, and surprisingly (knowing how Marr can be on his TV show) is written in a very balanced way. Although when it came to the Brown/Blair splits, you can see which side he favours when you read between the lines.

However, whilst finishing off one the last chapters yesterday I found a passage that as I said at the beginning of this post, is quite topical. In a chapter called “into the furnace”, Marr as written about the negotiations between Blair and Bush in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, and the certain promises that were made. At the Chilcott inquiry Tony Blair denied that he had promised to invade Iraq alongside the Americans. The passage from the book reads:

“On 7 September 2002 at Camp David Blair finally got Bush’s promise to go via the UN, and Bush got Blair’s promise that Britain would fight alongside America in Iraq if that route failed.”

- (p. 563, A History of Modern Britain, Andrew Marr)

So despite Blair’s denial that there was ever a promise, is seems clear that there was.

Anyway, a thoroughly good book and well recommended.


Watching PMQ’s From Inside The House

February 3, 2010, 19:18

This lunchtime I had a somewhat surreal experience, in that I was able to watch PMQ’s from the public gallery of the House of Commons. I say that it is surreal because I’m a regular watcher, but this was the first time that I was actually there.

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of PMQ’s itself, I did make a few observations. The first is just how small the House of commons is! Mind you this made the atmosphere all the more electric during the main bout of the PM v David Cameron. I also found it quite annoying that I had to hand over my phone to the security desk, before taking my seat. This meant that I was unable to live tweet, despite that fact I could clearly see a raft of MPs doing just that.

I arrived in the central lobby moments before the speakers procession, which despite John Bercow refusing to wear the robes, the walk through the lobby is still an unchanged tradition. After taking my seat in the public gallery I caught the last fifteen minutes of Northern Ireland questions, and the arrival of MPs sneaking in for the main event. One of those MPs was my local MP, Clive Efford, who for some reason was checking out the public gallery for an awfully long time, until he looked directly at me. Was it me he was looking for? More on Mr Efford later.

Anyway, to PMQ’s.

The first question from David Evennett seemed innocuous, but could end up being quite embarrassing for Gordon Brown. He was asked about the £50,000 “fund that had no name”, as alleged by Peter Watt in his book. This was simply rebuffed that he knew nothing about what he was talking about. At this point there was a few shaky looks, most notably from Jack Straw. As Mr Brown’s “campaign manager” he would have known if there was. However, Gordon could end up in hot water as may have deliberately mis-lead the house over this.

David Cameron decided to spilt his question in to two blocks, and the first three centred on the reduction in defence spending, and the now regular and consistent statements to the Chilcott inquiry that our soldiers were poorly equipped, and properly funded. The PM tried to spin two lines, the first was that defence spending had increased. However, it hadn’t been raised by the amount required, or in layman’s terms there was a shortfall! The second was that the Tories in their 2005 election manifesto had pledged to cut defence spending  by£1.5billion, again this was incorrect as if he had actually read the manifesto is says that it would have been INCREASED by £2.7billion. Another “Brownie”?

Anyway, these accusations really angered Gordon Brown, he looked as though he was about to lose it in a big way, but that was only half the embarrassment.

David Cameron’s return to the despatch box with his second three questions which were designed to show up the PM’s lack of consistancy on electoral reform, and it worked. He was asked exactly when in the 13 previous years of government, and with 90 days until the most likely General Election date, did he suddenly become a convert to electoral reform. He follow this with a quote from Paddy Ashdown’s diary that he [Paddy Ashdown] had discussedwith Tony Blair about voting reform but was told that he “would never have got it past Gordon”! The whole house, including the public gallery, was in stitches at this.

Following the main bout, was the usual round of planted question to the PM. Instead of using this opportunity to ask the PM to praise constituents, or raise concerns about events that are happening in the areas, Labour backbenchers just want to use the opportunity to run out a few spin lines. One of those MPs was unsurprisingly Clive Efford.  In what was a fumbled question, that confused everyone listening, all he tried to do was to use every single spin line used by Brown this year. Don’t worry Mr Efford it has been duly noted that you chose yet another opportunity to cozy up to Gordon Brown, instead of speaking up for your constituents.

And that pretty much sums up my lunchtime date in the House of Commons.


Treasury To Lose Out In New Tax

February 2, 2010, 10:52

The Treasury has admitted that it is having to “significantly reduce” its forecast of tax receipts from the expected income from the new 50p tax rate. This is because of the rather obvious ability to avoid paying with creative accountancy.

The problem is that the treasury were warned that this tax would be completely ineffective, and that it was only designed as part of Gordon Brown’s class war. It was a political decision to introduce it, not an economic one.  Again, despite this warning, they wouldn’t listen. Perhaps if the Treasury would start making truly economic decision and not political ones, the economy wouldn’t be in half the mess that Labour have created.


Criticise Us? It’s They Who Are Wrong

February 2, 2010, 09:58

If there is one thing that you will immediately notice from a press conference given by a Labour party Minister or Secretary of State, is that they believe that they cannot do any wrong, or improve themselves. That is the response we are seeing from the Home Office after the very influential Home Affairs Select Committee accused the government of “Institutional Inertia” when dealing with the terrorist threat.

The Committee, chaired by leading Labour back bencher Keith Vaz, has labelled the accusation as during the inquiry the committee found that suggestions for reforms to the counter-terrorism structure where constantly ignored.

This has been the trend of this Labour government over the last twelve and a half years. They truly believe that they do not need to improve anything that they do, as they are the best and know everything. Well, that quite frankly is rubbish. It is the way of life that improvements can always be made, and that is all the important when dealing with the threat of modern terrorism.

However, instead of looking at the report in a sensible and adult way, and thinking “maybe they have a point, and we could make things even better”, the Home Secretary Alan Johnson has criticised the report, and simply said that the Home Affairs committee is the one in the wrong. A very mature argument, I think not.

The fact is that modern terrorism is constantly changing, what structures worked a few years ago, are out of date now. Thats is because the terrorist organisations are smart enough to change their methods to avoid detection. That is why the label in “institutional inertia” is so pertinent. The Home Office think that as they have been successful with one type of threat they will be successful with every terrorist threat. If they truly that then there is a risk to our national security.

The Labour government live in denial when in comes to terrorism, as they are institutional scare of even the slightest criticism. This was evident in the length of time we had to wait for an inquiry into Iraq, and why we have NEVER had a public inquiry into the intelligence failing of the 7/7 (and failed 21/7) bombings in London.

The Home Office need to listen to the Home affairs Select Committee, and have a hard look at whether what is in place meets the current, and future, terrorist threat and not just the previous one.


Another Non-Campaign?

January 29, 2010, 11:32

If there is one thing the my local Labour party is good at, it is starting non-campaigns. “A what?” I hear you ask. Greenwich Council’s ruling Labour party has in the past been seen to start up campaigns, that are basically, political spin. I’ll give you an example.

Last year Greenwich Labour ran a campaign attacking the Mayor of london, accusing him of wanting to scrap the Thames Clipper service. The fact was that the Mayor was not considering it, and was actually looking at ways of funding it better, before adding the use of the Oyster pay-as-you-go system to it. So the spin that Labour put on it was that their campaign had been a success, even though there was nothing to actually campaign about. This was described at a recent full council meeting, Cllr Nigel Fletcher as “It was like campaigning for Christmas, to then announce in the New year that your campaign had been a success”. In layman’s terms, it was a political stunt to try to score a few points over Boris Johnson.

Well, according to the NewsShopper, Greenwich Labour is at it again. The report states that Greenwich Council (ie Labour), along with Eltham’s Labour MP, Clive Efford are campaigning for a new DLR station in Eltham, and for a DLR link at North Greenwich. All very noble on the surface of it, but when you look at the detail questions as to the motives of the feasibility study become apparent.

Mr Efford is quoted in the paper as saying:

“TfL are burying their heads in the sand. If anyone at TfL wants to stick their head out of the window at their shiny new offices on the peninsula they’ll see the problem right under their noses – so sort it out.”

However, as pointed out by Conservative ward councillor and Greenwich & Woolwich PPC, Cllr Spencer Drury, this campaign is “just hot air“. The reason being that the deadline for submissions to the Mayor of London’s transport strategy has already passed!

If Labour were really serious about improving the transport link they should have started this feasibility study months ago, so that the findings could have been submitted.

However, that is not how Greenwich Labour works. It is well documented that the ruling Labour party do not want to work with the Mayor of London, and have regularly voted for motions criticising the Mayor, and even failing to attend many panel meetings. It is clear from the timing of this “campaign” that they had no intention of working with the Mayor, and actually improving transport links. Instead they wanted to hold this study, submitted it with the full intention of being told “sorry it’s too late”, and then blaming the Mayor for not improving the transport links. All spin, and political point scoring, just in time for the local (and general) elections.

Unfortunately that is what you get from Greenwich Labour at the moment, shameless electioneering.


A Century of Guiding

January 29, 2010, 11:02

Yesterday I spent the evening in the wonderful company of the Woolwich District Girl guides at their centenary exhibiton. Although I was there in my auspices as a local election candidate, representing the Conservatives, as a scouter I was proud to show my support for our sister organisation.

The exhibition covers the Guides achievements over the last 100 years, as well as showing what guiding is delivering to young girls today.

However, it must be said that none of this would have ever been achieved without the army of adult volunteers. Much like the scouts, Scouting and Guiding could not exist without adults giving up their spare time to deliver wide ranging exciting and adventurous programmes, and developing youngsters. The skills that they learn in orgainsiation and leadership help them later on in life.

So I would like to thank the Woolwich Girl Guides for the invitation to attend the launch of their exhibition, I was proud to come along and support you.

If you have any spare time and would like to go along an view the exhibiton, it is being held at the Greenwich Heritage Centre until March.


Sinking To A New Low

January 28, 2010, 06:13

Spin and class war politics is something that has become a bit of a trade mark with this government, even more so under Gordon Brown’s leadership. But from what i have learnt recently their campaign is now stinking to a shameless low.

The lastest electioneering tactic from one of Gordon Brown loyal supporters, and my local MP is Clive Efford. The tactic being adopted is to frighten local tenants into sticking with Labour at the general (and local) election. In the run up to the general election, the Labour Party are running a scare campaign alleging that Conservatives will abolish social tenants’ rights of tenure and hike social tenants’ rents to market levels.

Isn’t a shame that our current MP seems to be stooping to this low form of politics. by spreading these unfounded and baseless remarks, utilising scare tactics to try and stay elected. It is especially more gauling when you compare the to parties polices., and Labour’s own record. For example, here are a list of Labour attacks on social housing

  • Gordon Brown’s favourite think tank, the Smith Institute, which supported his leadership bid, recommended: ‘An end to “social” tenancies: Reform of rented tenancies, phasing out assured and secure tenancies to create a wider single rented tenancy which does not necessarily assume a tenancy for life’ (Smith Institute, Rethinking Social Housing, 2006, p.82).
  • A review of social housing commissioned by the Government, considered: ‘introduce some form of “transitional protection”, such as setting market rents for new tenants only’
  • (p.155) and ‘entitlement to fixed support (such as through vouchers) for a certain period, such as one to five years’ (p.156). In the introduction to the report, Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State, said:
  • ‘I welcome this report’ (DCLG/John Hills, Ends and Means: the Future roles of social Housing In England, February 2007, p.xii).
  • Caroline Flint, as Housing Minister, called for the unemployed to be made to look for work or lose their council homes (The Times, 5 February 2008). She advocated: ‘new tenants who can work sign commitment contracts when getting a tenancy, agreeing to actively seek work alongside better support’ (Speech to the Fabian Society, 5 February 2008).
  • When Margaret Beckett was Housing Minister, it was reported that Labour were planning that new social tenants would have fixed-term contracts, under the plans with regular reviews every few years (The Times, ‘Council homes for life to be scrapped’, 10 November 2008).

However compare that to Conservatives policy

Conservative policies – Extending Opportunity for Social Tenants

Standing up for Social Tenants. As compassionate Conservatives, we recognise the importance of social housing and the security it provides. We will protect and respect the rights of social tenants.

Many social tenants have great pride in their homes and the neighbourhood in which they live, and deserve to be encouraged.

Rewards for Good Behaviour. We will offer tenants with a record of five years’ good behaviour a 10 per cent equity share in their social rented property, which can be cashed in when they want to move up the housing ladder. This will give tenants a direct financial stake in the state of their neighbourhood, and reward law-abiding citizens who pay their rent on time, keep their garden tidy, and ensure their children stay out of trouble. By contrast, Labour policies reinforce and reward welfare dependency.

A ‘Right to Move’. We will introduce a comprehensive national mobility scheme for good tenants who wish to move to other social sector properties, and pilot a scheme which allows good social tenants to demand that their social landlord sell their current property and use the proceeds, minus transaction costs, to buy (and thereby bring into the social rented sector) another property of their choice – anywhere in England.

National House Swap Initiative. We will facilitate a nationwide affordable house-swap programme (through an open data format allowing information to be exchanged). For the first-time ever, every family in social housing will have the chance to relocate by exchanging their home for another one – anywhere in the country.

Tackling Empty State Property. We will scrap Labour’s intrusive and draconian Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EDMOs). Instead, we will give local people stronger powers to demand the public sector sell off its empty or underused property. The Whitehall databases of surplus public sector brownfield land and buildings will be opened up to public inspection on the internet.

Empty Property Rescue Scheme. In addition, to get empty social properties back into use, we will relax current social housing rules temporarily in order to encourage the use of some existing empty properties for those on waiting lists. We will allow short-term tenancy agreements of, for example, three to five years for new tenancies, and partially suspend inflexible rules on design.

Promoting Enterprise. Many social tenancies prevent people from running a business and working from home; the Government has failed to provide any guidance on this issue. A Conservative Government will unlock enterprise across the country ensuring that clauses in tenancy agreements do not stop social tenants from reasonably running a business at home. This policy will apply to new social tenancy agreements, and social landlords will be encouraged to amend existing tenancy agreements. Conditions concerning noise and nuisance will remain firmly in place. We will do this via new guidance, and will legislate if necessary.

With politics being dragged through the gutter, thanks to the MPs expenses row, you would think that they would want to clean up Westminster with a campaign based on their records, both as a government and as contituency MPs.

But with records on issues such as these is it any wonder why Labour needs to stoop to the this sort of low, when their own record has been so poor.


When Will They Learn?

January 26, 2010, 06:17

The story of the two boys who tortured and abused their victims in Doncaster, in one that should finally be the epiphany to the g0vernment that something is truely wrong in our society. But with it’s usual ostrich mentality the government does not want to hear anything that proves a mistake has been made.

Doncasters social services has been a joke, which is why it is under special measures. It has failed to protect the most needy in the area, so something is going going very wrong up there. What is that? Well thanks to this government, we won’t know. The report into to the failings of this case will only see an executive summary published, and after the baby Peter case in Haringey, these summaries have been proved to miss out the key issues that need to be learnt.

The problem stems with this government. The country needs to know what went wrong in Doncaster, what signs were missed, and mistakes were made. This is not about blaming any individuals (unless there was blatant incompetency), but identify what happened so that it can be put right. More importantly by having the full report published social services up and down the country can look at it as see if they are making those mistakes as well, and maybe even be able to prevent cases like these two boys from happening there.

The government however don’t want this. Ed Balls even think that the majority of the nation does not want oublication. What planet is the guy on? The executive summary will be seen as nothing but a whitewaash, which will in effect puitmore children at risk of being harmed. The problem is that the government is scared that it may look bad on them, but that should not stop the publication of the report.

Lessons need to be learnt from this cases, and until the government learn them, more children will remain at risk.


The Banker Finally Held To Account

January 22, 2010, 10:04

The chickens are certainly coming home to roost in Downing Street this morning. After a lot of political posturing by Gordon Brown, and delaying of the formation Iraq inquiry, it was great to hear that he would have to face the Chilcott inquiry before the General Election.

From the evidence heard this week from former Defence Secretary Hoon, and former Foreign Secretary Straw, it would have been unthinkable to delay calling Gordon Brown to give evidence. Sir John Chilcott had said that he didn’t want it to become party political, but if he had delayed calling Gordon Brown until after the General Election it would have been seen as being just what he had hoped to avoid. So calling the PM now is not only logical, but as also right.

Gordon Brown will have some very tough questions to answer. Just what did he know, and when? Did he hold back funds for our troops? The second of these questions will have bigger ramifications. If he did hold back funds for body armour and other vital equipment, as the government were obviously planning for a war, then he will have OUR troops blood on his hands.

We all know that the intelligence presented to MPs was (at best) wrong, and that the decision to go to war was based on that intelligence. But if he did cut the defence budget, leaving our troops poorly equipped, then it will be him who is responsible.
It will be very interesting to see what his explantion will be.

I fully expect him to try and give a non-answer to every question, like he does at PMQ’s, it’s whether Sir John let’s him get away with it.


What Will Labour’s Pledge Card Look Like?

January 16, 2010, 19:28

I have to give a massive hat-tip to Tory Rascal, who has come with this idea of what Labour’s pledge card will look like at the General Election.