The Political Rambler

David Miliband; The Next Prime Minister?

2008-08-05T14:54:00.005+01:00

Was David Miliband's recent newspaper article, and subsequent radio appearance a test of support for a potential leadership challenge to Gordon Brown? I fail to see what else it could possibly have been.

Apparently, the reason for writing was down to the sense of fatalism in the labour party. Following the article he has consistently used words such as can, could, when answering if he backs Gordon Brown, and if he thinks Gordon will lead labour into the next General Election. In addition to this he never really backed Gordon in his radio appearance.

Time will tell what the long term plan is for the current Foreign Secretary, but I can see it being turbulent for Prime Minister.

David Davis; A Principled Stand

2008-06-13T08:21:00.005+01:00

David Davis has made a stand for what he believes in. After all the criticism that politicians have come under for not believing in anything, for being selfish, and self-serving this is a breath of fresh air. His is putting his career in jeopardy, and is playing a very noble, but personally risky game by triggering a by-election.

However, it is not being portrayed this way in the media. Whilst we all know that the BBC institutionally leans towards Labour, I would have expected a different response from The Daily Mail and also The Sun. However, it seems they have once again gone back to the Headline Grabbing articles/titles that do not accurately reflect events and views.

Yes this is an unheard of occurrence, yet so is the abolition, or step towards the abolition of habeas corpus. This country has fought for the freedom of the British people for centuries, and this Labour government has bought the votes to sacrifice this for political measures.

"the most salient example of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms."
David Davis on the 42 day detention limit

David's full resignation speech (which he was not allowed to present in the House of Commons) can be seen below.

Guilty before charge; The 42 day detention limit

2008-06-12T11:09:00.005+01:00

And so it has been decided. At least for now that is. With a majority of just 9, Gordon Brown has managed to avoid another humiliating defeat. 315 to 306 voted in favour of the plans to raise the detention without charge limit from 28 days to 42 days.

The surprise in this tale is that the DUP voted for the plans. Their nine votes swung vote in Brown's favour, and there is now talk about how Gordon managed to "persuade" them. He of course denies all claims by the opposition (both Lib Dems and Tories) that they were bribed with cash for Northern Ireland.

I haven't yet talked about the bill itself, and what it does to this country. We have always been a very principled country, and I believe very strongly in 'innocent before proven guilty'. What this bill amounts to is 'guilty until we can decide what crime you have committed'. The 28 day limit is, in my opinion too long, but I will concede that terrorists do pose a new, and very different threat than mere 'normal' criminals, and have such a hard-line attitude themselves that it is necessary to take a rougher stance when dealing with them.

However, if you have enough evidence to detain them in the first place, then why not charge them? If you don't have the evidence then they should not be held.

This bill is a step in the wrong direction, and just another Big Brother infringement on our society and a severe breach of our civil liberties.

Mr Speaker; Mr Spender

2008-05-15T09:00:00.008+01:00

John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has dismissed the complaint about taxi journeys claimed on expenses by Commons Speaker Michael Martin. Apparently the £4,139.17 claimed was "reasonable" and within the rules. The cost was not "excessive" and the trips were taken to aid her husband.

"It's shocking that they are able to use taxpayers' money for taxis to do their domestic grocery shopping"
Mark Wallace
TaxPayers Alliance

These taxi journeys included trips to the supermarket where the taxi was kept on a wait and return basis as "they were not easy to hail". There were more trips to smaller stores to purchase further provisions and perishables.

There are several things that rile me about this...
a) No "average" person would ever spend over £1000 per year on taxi fares
b) It was the Speaker's wife using the taxi, and not the speaker himself
c) The taxpayer is paying for these domestic trips
and finally, and perhaps the most bizarrely
d) This is apparently acceptable, and not breaking the rules

There needs to be a serious overhaul of the parliamentary expense system. In my opinion the expense system should be scrapped completely. In its place MPs salaries should be increased. However, from their increased salary they should pay all their expenses, including any staff members they may wish to employ. Be in in their home constituency, or in London. Be it a family member, or total stranger. If they want to spend it on taxi journeys then they can, or they can spend it on renovating their second home.

All these things can be offset against income tax as a business expense in the same way that every other businessman, or self-employed person would do. This way we can be sure that there will be no miss-use of expenses.

I appreciate this wouldn't be easy to implement. There are lots of things that would need to be fine tuned. Such as the amount paid. Cabinet members (and Shadow Cabinet members) would need to be paid more. It would also be most likely that the distance each MPs constituency is from London should have a factor on how much they should receive. The total balance given would need to be thought through very carefully too, as obviously some MPs claim large expenses, and others not much, so a balance would need to be achieved. Some MPs would lose out from this, whilst others would gain.

My point though is this. The taxpayers would gain and transparency would be achieved.

Gordon Brown; Asset or Not?

2008-05-14T17:49:00.000+01:00

It is fairly obvious from the video below that Labour in Crewe and Nantwich are desperately seeking to distance themselves from Gordon Brown - despite the temporary fix for the 10p debacle.

As for the compensation-con as George Osborne put it, it is only for this year. That means come April 1st 2009 we will be back in exactly the same position as we have been this year. How is putting it off for one year and one year only helping the poor. It is once again a case of Labour putting forward a short-term fix for a long-term problem. I just hope the electorate see past this conniving government and show their disdain in the bye-election next week..

PMQs; Is Brown Losing it?

2008-05-09T15:36:00.009+01:00

I don't know whether I look forward to Prime Minister's Questions on a Wednesday afternoon or not. I can't help but cringe at the dreadful performances that Gordon Brown consistently puts in. He fails to answer questions, he dithers, and he generally seems to have no idea about what is going on.

I have a clip of PMQs from May 7th below. Whilst not the full 'show' it has many moments of Brown fighting not to be ground to a bloody pulp.

"The Prime Minister talks about salesmanship, we all know his brilliant salesmanship, this is the man that sold gold at the bottom of the market. That's the problem with the Prime Minister. He has nothing to sell and he's useless at selling it"
David Cameron, PMQs 7th May 2008

Boris; The new Mayor of London

2008-05-08T15:19:00.000+01:00

Congratulations to Boris Johnson for successfully overcoming the incumbent Ken Livingstone by 139,772 votes. Boris polled 53% (1,168,738 votes) to Ken’s 47% (1,028,966) of 1^st and 2^nd preference votes.

Boris has been likened to Marmite. You either love him, or hate him. You either see him as a highly intelligent, capable man; or you see him as a bumbling buffoon who makes more gaffes than Gordon Brown. I personally believe him to be the former, and as such admire him greatly. People have always made grand comments such as “Boris for PM”, and “I would vote for the Conservatives if Boris was leading them”. This is now so much closer to being a reality than ever before.

How has this come about then? Boris has been known for years mainly because of appearance on Have I Got News For You (HIGNFY), as well as for the repercussions of many statements made in his articles. Liverpool and piccaninnies ring a bell? But I believe it is his ambition that has driven him on. He gave up his position as editor of The Spectator to take his place on the Shadow Cabinet. This shows the direction he wanted to take his career.

He set about the task of running for Mayor with a seriousness that took a lot of people by surprise; implementing policy idea after policy idea. Now that he is in office he needs to establish himself and consolidate himself in the minds of Londoners as a serious heavyweight in both Local, National and International politics. I have no doubt that he will do this with the animated enthusiasm that he always shows.

Global Warming; What should we believe?

2008-05-07T20:28:00.000+01:00

So..... One of the big questions of the moment is all about global warming. What can we do to stop it?

But then there are those that say it isn't caused by man. And others who say it doesn't exist at all!

What is the truth in all this? Will we ever know?

I don't intend to be a fountain of knowledge, and I certainly don't want to dismiss any side's point of view. What I want to do is put across what I believe, and the opinion that I have formulated from my own reading and interpretation of scientific evidence.

Global warming almost certainly does exist. The sheer quantity of scientific evidence to support it is overwhelming. Whilst there is debate about the scale of it compared to solar activity and other factors that can contribute to warming it is happening.

But are we causing it? Is it all because of us, humans?

This is where I divert from the popular and socially acceptable point of view. I don't feel that global warming is influenced by human activity.

Yes, whilst we do create CO2, and yes, this is a cause of global warming, the quantity we produce on a global scale isn't that much when compared to other sources of CO2 emissions. Humans contribute 26.4 Giga-tonnes (Gt) out of the total 440Gt emitted by respiration of vegetation and consumption of such vegetation by animals and microbes. This is not even 6%. By reducing our emissions therefore, will have a very small effect on the total CO2 emissions.

This is not to say however, than we shouldn't try - I am simply saying we can't expect it to solve the "crisis" as the media and current governments worldwide have blown it up to be.

As I see it, the major problem towards global warming is in a lack of balance between CO2 production and absorption. I believe we should therefore concentrate our efforts on ways of absorbing CO2 levels, rather than the mere political spin and costly - yet nonetheless wasteless - fad of the moment in reducing our levels of CO2 emission.

The Great Petrol Swindle; How the Government Rips Us Off

2007-11-07T22:06:00.000Z

Average Petrol prices have breached the £1.00 a litre mark for the first time ever. According to industry researchers Catalist it is now 100.8p for a litre of petrol. The recent rises in petrol are due in part to the rising cost of oil - caused by supply concerns and also the weak dollar.

However, the real reason for the extortionate price we pay is due solely to the government. Duty was increased by 2p a litre from the beginning of last month. Further to all of these increases VAT is applicable, thus even more money is added to the total bill.

As can be seen in the diagram there is a whopping 65.3p of tax on a litre of petrol. With the retailer and distribution/production costs totalling 35p this is a massive 187% tax on petrol.

If we go one step further and look at what is often offered by major supermarkets such as Tesco and Sainsbury's - 5p off a litre of petrol, they are losing 1p per litre they sell. This is absolutely ridiculous to me.

What is needed is for the government to put a freeze on any increases in fuel duty for the next few years, and let the price stabilise. If not, I can see - and certainly hope for - another fuel protest in the making.

Immigration; The Need For Debate

2007-11-04T18:12:00.000Z

It looks as if immigration is once again at the forefront in the political landscape. What with Gordon Brown wanting "British Jobs For British People", David Cameron calling for lower migration into Britain, and Nigel Hastilow the Conservative Party Candidate for Halesowen and Rowley Regis resigning over comments made regarding Enoch Powell's River of Blood Speech.

With the population continually rising - up by 4.4 million by 2016 according to new projections from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) many people are beginning to wonder if this country can handle the influx of migrants arriving daily. Of the new 4.4 million a total of 2.1 million (that's 48%) are from migration. Unofficial estimates will put this proportion at even higher levels, what with illegal immigrants etc...

So, what is the problem? Under the EU there is a freedom of movement between member states. This allows people from Poland and other Eastern European Countries to move to the UK and get a job. Conversely it allows British citizens to migrate and work in any EU country. This is, I believe a good thing. As a conservative I believe in free trade, equality of opportunity and the freedom for people to live/work where they want. migrant workers do, undoubtedly help our economy. They do jobs that most British people turn their noses up at. They have a good work ethic.

However, and there is a big however, I do understand that immigration causes problems too. There are those who don't work, that sponge off our welfare system. Those who commit crime, only to be let of so lightly that they will just go out and re-offend. People who do this, should not be able to get away with it with the impunity that they can currently do so. Rather than serve their jail sentence in our prisons, they should be deported back to their country of origin to serve it their, and be refused admission for permanent residence again. They should not be entitled to welfare benefits. If they want to come and work in our country then they should either have a job lined up before they emigrate, or be able to support themselves until they do. Once here, I feel that after a year of paying National Insurance Contributions then they should be able to have the protection from the state that is automatically afforded to nationals. We should also have stricter controls over non-EU immigration, operating on a points and quota system similar to New Zealand and Australia.

I believe with measures such as these in place immigration won't be a problem to this country, but a vital and wonderful boost to our economy. Once which will see new people be able to experience what is so loved about us, whilst at the same time helping to contribute to it themselves.

Gordon Brown; Running Scared!

2007-10-06T20:17:00.000+01:00

So, we now know at last. There will not be a autumn election. After reviewing the polls following the Conservative Party Conference, and in particular polls regarding marginal seats Gordon Brown has obviously decided that his honeymoon period is over.

This decision shows several things. Firstly that Gordon Brown was indecisive. After allowing several senior cabinet members, and other senior aides to ramp up the speculation about an election, after modifying government plans to suit an election he clearly wanted to be able to give himself a mandate to rule. However, after the display by David Cameron and the Conservatives at their conference they have clearly shown themselves to be worthy oppositions, and GB is scared witless of losing the power he has held for such a short space of time.

"The prime minister has shown extraordinary indecision and extraordinary weakness."
David Cameron

I believe that we will not see an election now until the very last point in time in this 5 year term. Gordon has patiently waited under Tony Blair for his moment, and he is selfishly going to cling to it for as long as he can, regardless of whether it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom, or its people.

Paying for NHS treatment; Could the Lib Dems be right?

2007-09-14T12:10:00.000+01:00

Liberal Democrat Health spokesman Norman Lamb has said people should face the consequences of their actions - particularly if they were "foul and abusive" to NHS staff, by having to pay for their treatment. It has also been suggested that pubs which continually send customers to A&E should have to pay.

I believe this to be an eminently sensible suggestion, and as such am surprised that it has come from the Lib Dems. However, I feel that we should perhaps go further than this and include drugs in the plan as well. If people start to realise that there will be financial implications as a result of their actions I feel that in this secular age we live in, it will have far more of an impact than appealing to their moral conscience not to do it again - or even do it in the first place.

I am sure that this proposal will be met with much criticism by those who feel that the whole purpose of the NHS is to provide free healthcare. But what they don't realise is that the NHS should be there to meet the needs of those who really need it. People who have no control over their illness, and who haven't brought their affliction upon themselves. People who drink themselves unconscious, or who start fights because of alcohol induced behaviour only have themselves to blame. As such, they should have to pay the full bill for their treatment.

Stoning; Boys Found Guilty

2007-09-05T09:54:00.000+01:00

So, the five boys who were accused of killing a father of two as he played cricket have been found guilty. Ernest Norton (67) and his 17 year old son James had set up stumps when they were confrunted by 20 youths, who, for 'a bit of fun' began shouting abuse at the pair. They then subsequently started spitting at them and throwing stoens - two of which hit Mr Norton on the head. Mr Norton collapsed with a heart attack, and an off-duty police officer was unable to resuscitate him. The teenages aged between 12 and 14 are due to be sentanced on the 19th October.

It is a sad state of affairs that teenagers today go around abusing people for fun. Gone are the days when they would sit and read a book, it seems as if we have now even surpassed the video gaming era. Instead of setting up their own game of cricket, they took it upon themselves to harass those innocently minding their own business. Whilst reading further into this case I was astonished to hear of the boys further misbehaviour in the court! Judge Warwick McKinnon was forced to apply new bail conditions in the middle of the trial after concerns from staff. Two of the boys had been seen hanging out of windows, he said, and ordered they be accompanied at all times. This is despite their parents already being with them.

I believe this shows where the main root of the problem lies. And that is firmly at the feet of the kids parents. Be they from a broken family or not they need firm boundaries. Instead it seems that they are allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want to do it, and this is frankly unacceptable. No-one is allowed to do anything to stop them (as a recent example on Boris Johnson's Blog displays). By standers are afraid the police will tell them off for intervening, the boys themselves are less afraid of the police than the police are of them.

What I feel is necessary to curb such attacks as these is to allow for more punishment from an earlier age. For one, re-introduce smacking, and secondly make sure that the children are losing out on something they really like - like social status. In many places at the moment it is a good thing to be arrested - it is a macho, gang feeling that you are worthy of other members trust, when it should be the complete reverse. As to how to remove their status is a very tricky questions, and I'm sure it is why nothing has been done about it so far. Community service is the most probable method, but it needs to be something that won't be viewed as being fun, and the sentencing needs to be for far longer than it currently is at the moment.

The one thing that is certain is that moral standards and behaviour has decreased since retribution and punishment has been lightened under the labour government.

Rattling the Bars; The Prison Crisis

2007-08-29T15:03:00.000+01:00

As of 07:00 this morning (Wednesday 29th August 2007) members of the Prison Officers' Association in England and Wales stopped working as part of a 24 hour strike over pay and working conditions. This action follows the decision to pull out of a 'no-strike agreement' with the government. The Ministry of Justice has since been granted a High Court injunction against the strike.

Mr Justice Ramsey said the effect of any strike would have "particularly difficult consequences" to prisons already filled to capacity. The affected prisons have been locked-down, that is, the prisoners confined to their cells. The Prison Governors are doing their best to control the situation, but using Wormwood Scrubs prison in west London as an example, the 1,300 prisoners are being looked after by eight governors.

This strike is beginning to highlight several cracks that are perhaps beginning to show in Gordon Brown's rule. Under New Labour the Prison Service has been neglected. The money directed towards it has been miss-spent, and with overcrowding, and no signs of the rise of inmates abating the situation is far worse now than it was when Labour came to power over a decade ago. This strike has served to bring this situation into the attention of the media, and hence the general public. Gordon Brown has so far enjoyed an extended honeymoon period and has handled the first three tests he has had well (attempted bombings, floods and foot-and-mouth). This action by the POA (Prison Officers' Association) is however, entirely of his own making. It was him, as Chancellor who refused to meet the independent review's recommendation, but instead decided to stagger it in two stages.

The strike by the Prison Officers' will no doubt be of interest to other public sector workers, such as Nurses, who have been given similar unsatisfactory pay rises. They are to decide in a couple of weeks time whether to go on strike. Unless Gordon Brown makes his mark here there could be no stopping this discontent, and while I am sure it won't be as bad as 1979 and the fall of Jim Callaghan's Labour government it certainly won't be in the best interests of the British public.