David Cameron has undoubtedly ended 2011 on a high with his personal poll ratings a good deal higher than either Ed Miliband's, Nick Clegg's or indeed his own party's.
The same can most definitely not be said for the Labour leader.
So much so, that there are some in the Labour Party who are now voicing concerns that Miliband does not have what it takes to bring Labour back into power in 2015.
I had my hopes raised after Labour's Annual Conference in September. Most Labour activists were happy with Miliband's Conference speech, despite the press branding it anti-business and one or two lone delegates in the audience booing Ed's support for Tony Blair.
However, I am now much more uneasy about Labour's chances at the next election.
With unemployment at its highest level in almost two decades, public spending cuts starting to bite, economic growth at a standstill and a double-dip recession all but inevitable, Labour should be riding high in the polls and in the minds of the electorate, at least starting to look like an alternative government.
Ed Miliband has said all the right things on many occasions; he was extremely effective in his condemnation of the hacking scandal and had initially set out his party's stall very well in support of the 'squeezed middle'.
But his message has clearly not got through well enough.
It is true that the mostly-Tory supporting press and media still promote the message that the last Labour government are to blame for the UK's current economic situation. And it is a stark reality that apart from one or two exceptions, without the support of the media it is virtually impossible for a party to win an election. However, as the UK gets closer to the next election it should be harder for the incumbent party to blame the previous administration for problems with the economy.
For the majority of the British electorate, PMQs is the only time they get involved in the political scene. With things looking so bleak for the Government, Ed Miliband has missed so many opportunities to nail David Cameron and it is starting to worry many in the Labour Party.
He started off so well.
Thinking back to their first encounter in October last year, Ed's performance was very strong. 'I ask the questions!' he declared, when the PM challenged him across the despatch box.
But the contrast with that performance and Miliband's woeful showing in the last PMQs before Christmas is, frankly, alarming. The Labour leader allowed the PM to completely run roughshod over him with a damning assessment of his first year and a half as leader and Miliband simply did not an answer for Cameron's sharp and quick broadsides. Calling him 'irresponsible, left-wing and weak' was really pathetic from the Prime Minister but Miliband was not able to fight back with any effectiveness whatsoever.
Right now, Ed is simply no match for the PM's brilliant put-downs. He simply wipes the floor with Miliband with his loud declarations that Labour left the country in the depths of bankruptcy. And with Cameron always having the last word, I cannot see what chance Miliband has of proving to the electorate that he is PM-material before any election campaign in 2015.
Before I was temporarily encouraged by Ed Miliband's Annual Conference speech in September, I had said previously that should Labour's poll ratings not improve by the time the Party meet in Manchester in 2012, he should stand down.
I am very firmly of that view now.
I am really not sure that Ed Miliband will convince me to change my mind unless he really ups his game. With the coalition so divided on Europe, Labour at the moment do not have a coherent message to take to the electorate, should the the government fall apart in the near future.
Some Labour activists have said that if Miliband was to come out in favour of holding a Referendum on whether Britain should stay in the EU, this would greatly increase his popularity. But I doubt that alone would save him now. He simply does not have the charisma or gravitas it takes to win.
More importantly, if he can't capitalise on the Coalition's really unpopular economic strategy now, then what hope does he have of winning at the ballot box? I will not be at all surprised if someone does not mount a challenge to Ed's leadership in the not-too-distant-future.
The question is, who in the current Labour ranks is capable of filling his shoes and bringing Labour back into government?
That is a question that is impossible to answer right now.
Friday 30 December 2011
Cameron Euro Treaty Veto Pleases Tory Eurosceptics But Leaves Britain Isolated In EU
http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16126773
There is no doubt that the Prime Minister's decision to veto the recent EU Treaty will have greatly pleased the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party.
Although very much in favour of maintaining Britain's trading links within the EU, I have long had my doubts about European nations being too tightly bound together economically or politically.
And this has now been bourne out by the current crisis in the Eurozone.
I don't often find my self agreeing with Tory commentator Iain Dale, but in a recent interview he recalled how former PM John Major branded the Eurosceptic Tory wing as 'little Englanders' for not wanting to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. They have turned out to be so right on this issue.
Thank goodness Gordon Brown had the sense not to bring Britain into the Eurozone during Labour's time in office. This was despite Tony Blair's enthusiasm for the project.
There were many aspects of the recent Treaty that I was extremely uneasy with. Most notably, the proposal that the budgets of individual member states should be ratified by the EU, so enthusiastically supported by Merkel and Sarkosy.
This was clearly a step too far and would have undermined the sovereignty of each nation beyond measure.
The decision to join the EU in 1975 was a controversial one and the calls for Britain to hold a referendum on whether we should stay in Europe are growing. Many are now suggesting that should Ed Miliband throw his and Labour's support behind holding a referendum on this issue, his popularity would increase overnight.http://labourlist.org/2011/12/the-time-is-right-for-a-referendum/?utm_source=LunchtimeList&utm_campaign=cf1717ac0d-LunchtimeList_72311_22_2011&utm_medium=email
The bottom line is that most Britons have never wanted and do not want a United States of Europe. From this point of view, Cameron was right to use his veto. And the timing of the recent Summit has meant that the Prime Minister is ending 2011 on a high, with his personal ratings well above those of both Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and even his own party.http://news.yahoo.com/cameron-ends-tough-poll-high-190450898.html
However my worry is, that by closing the door so firmly at this stage, Britain's negotiating power within the EU has now been severely weakened.
There is no doubt that the Prime Minister's decision to veto the recent EU Treaty will have greatly pleased the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party.
Although very much in favour of maintaining Britain's trading links within the EU, I have long had my doubts about European nations being too tightly bound together economically or politically.
And this has now been bourne out by the current crisis in the Eurozone.
I don't often find my self agreeing with Tory commentator Iain Dale, but in a recent interview he recalled how former PM John Major branded the Eurosceptic Tory wing as 'little Englanders' for not wanting to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. They have turned out to be so right on this issue.
Thank goodness Gordon Brown had the sense not to bring Britain into the Eurozone during Labour's time in office. This was despite Tony Blair's enthusiasm for the project.
There were many aspects of the recent Treaty that I was extremely uneasy with. Most notably, the proposal that the budgets of individual member states should be ratified by the EU, so enthusiastically supported by Merkel and Sarkosy.
This was clearly a step too far and would have undermined the sovereignty of each nation beyond measure.
The decision to join the EU in 1975 was a controversial one and the calls for Britain to hold a referendum on whether we should stay in Europe are growing. Many are now suggesting that should Ed Miliband throw his and Labour's support behind holding a referendum on this issue, his popularity would increase overnight.http://labourlist.org/2011/12/the-time-is-right-for-a-referendum/?utm_source=LunchtimeList&utm_campaign=cf1717ac0d-LunchtimeList_72311_22_2011&utm_medium=email
The bottom line is that most Britons have never wanted and do not want a United States of Europe. From this point of view, Cameron was right to use his veto. And the timing of the recent Summit has meant that the Prime Minister is ending 2011 on a high, with his personal ratings well above those of both Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and even his own party.http://news.yahoo.com/cameron-ends-tough-poll-high-190450898.html
However my worry is, that by closing the door so firmly at this stage, Britain's negotiating power within the EU has now been severely weakened.
Monday 28 November 2011
Coalition Economic Strategy Under Fire After Osborne's Autumn Statement
http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16120010
Chancellor George Osborne's Autumn Statement, as expected, received a scathing response from his Labour shadow, Ed Balls.
The Shadow Chancellor told the Commons that the Coalition's plan to reduce the deficit they inherited from Labour had failed 'colossally'.
And indeed Mr Osborne made no attempt to sugar-coat Britain's economic woes.
The UK was almost certainly heading towards another recession, he said, with the current crisis in the eurozone likely to have a severe knock-on effect on Britain's economy.
Not only did the Chancellor admit that the deficit would not now be eliminated before 2016/7 as opposed to before the next election in 2015 as repeatedly promised. He also predicted that growth for this year would be just 0.9%; significantly less than the 1.7% earlier predicted.
Unemployment is set to rise even further at least into the first quarter of 2012, with the public sector almost certainly the hardest hit.
Most damning of all, the coalition looks set to borrow a whopping £111bn more over the next five years than originally thought - what a stunning turn-around from a government who have made enormous political capital out of slating the previous Labour administration over how much money they borrowed from the public purse and repeatedly accusing them of leaving the country bankrupt.
What a contrast this year's Autumn statement has been with what the Chancellor declared in his first Budget last year. 'Today's the day that we pulled this country back from the brink!", I clearly remember him telling the House of Commons.
Now George Osborne has been well and truly forced to eat those words and admit that Britain's journey back to economic health will be a long and arduous one.
Chancellor George Osborne's Autumn Statement, as expected, received a scathing response from his Labour shadow, Ed Balls.
The Shadow Chancellor told the Commons that the Coalition's plan to reduce the deficit they inherited from Labour had failed 'colossally'.
And indeed Mr Osborne made no attempt to sugar-coat Britain's economic woes.
The UK was almost certainly heading towards another recession, he said, with the current crisis in the eurozone likely to have a severe knock-on effect on Britain's economy.
Not only did the Chancellor admit that the deficit would not now be eliminated before 2016/7 as opposed to before the next election in 2015 as repeatedly promised. He also predicted that growth for this year would be just 0.9%; significantly less than the 1.7% earlier predicted.
Unemployment is set to rise even further at least into the first quarter of 2012, with the public sector almost certainly the hardest hit.
Most damning of all, the coalition looks set to borrow a whopping £111bn more over the next five years than originally thought - what a stunning turn-around from a government who have made enormous political capital out of slating the previous Labour administration over how much money they borrowed from the public purse and repeatedly accusing them of leaving the country bankrupt.
What a contrast this year's Autumn statement has been with what the Chancellor declared in his first Budget last year. 'Today's the day that we pulled this country back from the brink!", I clearly remember him telling the House of Commons.
Now George Osborne has been well and truly forced to eat those words and admit that Britain's journey back to economic health will be a long and arduous one.
Sunday 27 November 2011
Public Sector Strike Should Not Go Ahead
Ed Miliband has struck the right note in suggesting that both the Government and the Unions try to avoid Wednesday's walk-out by public sector workers and continue to negotiate.
This is a far-cry from the sentiments of his Shadow Chancellor, leftwinger Ed Balls, who has declared that he has 'huge sympathy for the strikers'. http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16118538
I have always been fully supportive of the principle of a worker's right to take industrial action.
However, I firmly believe on this occasion that this week's walkout should not go ahead. Those employed in the public sector enjoy far more generous pensions than most in the private sector can only dream of.
And given the fact that far less than half the union members eligible actually bothered to vote at all, one has to question the legitimacy of this strike.
One has to remember too, that those very militant trade union leaders who call for industrial action at every opportunity currently receive enormous six-figure salaries and will be the beneficiaries of very generous pensions when they retire.
It is impossible to ignore the hypocrisy here.
The Coalition pulled back this week from their threats to reform strike legislation. I only hope that agreement is reached at the eleventh hour and the lives of millions of people are not unnecessarily disrupted.
This is a far-cry from the sentiments of his Shadow Chancellor, leftwinger Ed Balls, who has declared that he has 'huge sympathy for the strikers'. http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16118538
I have always been fully supportive of the principle of a worker's right to take industrial action.
However, I firmly believe on this occasion that this week's walkout should not go ahead. Those employed in the public sector enjoy far more generous pensions than most in the private sector can only dream of.
And given the fact that far less than half the union members eligible actually bothered to vote at all, one has to question the legitimacy of this strike.
One has to remember too, that those very militant trade union leaders who call for industrial action at every opportunity currently receive enormous six-figure salaries and will be the beneficiaries of very generous pensions when they retire.
It is impossible to ignore the hypocrisy here.
The Coalition pulled back this week from their threats to reform strike legislation. I only hope that agreement is reached at the eleventh hour and the lives of millions of people are not unnecessarily disrupted.
Saturday 19 November 2011
GPs Should Not Sign Off Long - Term Sick
Following the Coalition's announcement last week, for once I actually find myself agreeing with them.
GPs are not qualified to comment on or advise patients with complicated conditions.
All too often a patient will approach their friendly GP knowing that they will be able to easily convince them of their inability to work. Most hard-pressed doctors do have the time to really question a patient at length about why they are requesting to be signed off sick.
I have come across people with mild epilepsy that do not work and am aware of organ transplant patients who claim they can't work because of the side-effects of their anti-rejection drugs!
The problem is most visible with those declared unfit to work due to mental health problems. They are just given a sick note and forgotten about.
The Coalition is right to ask that these people are assessed to see if they are able to contribute to the economy in some way. And it is a view that Labour should have taken during their thirteen years in Government. All too often people's claims that they are too sick have been taken at face-value by both doctors and politicians.It is no wonder that welfare spending is so high.
And it must be acknowledged that for every sick or disabled person who can't or won't work there are many more who are willing to contribute. A distinction needs to be made between 'not being able to go out to work' and 'not being able to work at all'. With the existence of the internet and all the employment opportunities that have come with it, there is very little excuse now for most people to say they are too ill to work. It is right that decisions on a person's fitness to work should be taken by someone impartial and they should be not able to twist the arm of a easily-manipulated or stressed-out doctor.
If the new system is a success many people who desperately want to work could be able to, provided they are given the right support to accommodate their condition or circumstances.
And it will get many people who have probably told themselves for years that they've nothing to offer out of the cycle of worthlessness.
GPs are not qualified to comment on or advise patients with complicated conditions.
All too often a patient will approach their friendly GP knowing that they will be able to easily convince them of their inability to work. Most hard-pressed doctors do have the time to really question a patient at length about why they are requesting to be signed off sick.
I have come across people with mild epilepsy that do not work and am aware of organ transplant patients who claim they can't work because of the side-effects of their anti-rejection drugs!
The problem is most visible with those declared unfit to work due to mental health problems. They are just given a sick note and forgotten about.
The Coalition is right to ask that these people are assessed to see if they are able to contribute to the economy in some way. And it is a view that Labour should have taken during their thirteen years in Government. All too often people's claims that they are too sick have been taken at face-value by both doctors and politicians.It is no wonder that welfare spending is so high.
And it must be acknowledged that for every sick or disabled person who can't or won't work there are many more who are willing to contribute. A distinction needs to be made between 'not being able to go out to work' and 'not being able to work at all'. With the existence of the internet and all the employment opportunities that have come with it, there is very little excuse now for most people to say they are too ill to work. It is right that decisions on a person's fitness to work should be taken by someone impartial and they should be not able to twist the arm of a easily-manipulated or stressed-out doctor.
If the new system is a success many people who desperately want to work could be able to, provided they are given the right support to accommodate their condition or circumstances.
And it will get many people who have probably told themselves for years that they've nothing to offer out of the cycle of worthlessness.
Capture Of Saif Brings Final Curtain Down On Gaddafi Regime
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15804299
The curtain has come down for the final time on Colonel Gaddafi's regime.
His son Saif al-Islam, long considered to be the heir to his father, has now been captured and should soon be taken back to Tripoli. He will now face trial for his part in the murder and torture of the people so brutally oppressed for 42 years.
Saif is already wanted by the ICC in the Hague for alleged crimes against humanity. Had he managed to escape into neighbouring Niger and been captured there, there is no doubt that Saif would very soon be on his way to the Netherlands, as Niger recognises the ICC whereas Libya does not.
Therefore the most probable outcome of Saif Gaddafi's arrest and detention will be a trial in Libya itself.
However this is a country that has hardly started to recover from the brutalities of the late Colonel's regime. Libya's entire infrastructure has to be rebuilt from scratch following the end of 42 years of dictatorship. There is no proper justice system in place to speak of at present.
How, when or where in Libya Saif will be tried in court is at the moment unclear, despite the promises of the NTC that he will receive a fair trial.
What the international community is absolutely unequivocal about is that Saif must face justice through the proper legal channels and must not be subjected to the same kind of mob execution his father was.
One one level, it is very difficult to blame those who have been subjected to decades of the most brutal dictatorship for wanting to exact swift revenge on the man responsible. However, it was widely reported that Colonel Gaddafi was sexually assaulted on his capture. It remains a huge disappointment to many that this dictator was not put on trial, neither in the Hague nor by his own people.http://labourlist.org/2011/10/the-libyan-people-deserved-a-trial/
No matter how brutal a dictator the Colonel may have been, Libya will face enormous international condemnation if it fails to put Saif on trial according to international law.
The new Libya must show the world that it follows the same moral compass as those nations that helped it to overthrow Gaddafi's regime.
Only time will tell if Libya can rise from the ashes and fully embrace democracy.
The curtain has come down for the final time on Colonel Gaddafi's regime.
His son Saif al-Islam, long considered to be the heir to his father, has now been captured and should soon be taken back to Tripoli. He will now face trial for his part in the murder and torture of the people so brutally oppressed for 42 years.
Saif is already wanted by the ICC in the Hague for alleged crimes against humanity. Had he managed to escape into neighbouring Niger and been captured there, there is no doubt that Saif would very soon be on his way to the Netherlands, as Niger recognises the ICC whereas Libya does not.
Therefore the most probable outcome of Saif Gaddafi's arrest and detention will be a trial in Libya itself.
However this is a country that has hardly started to recover from the brutalities of the late Colonel's regime. Libya's entire infrastructure has to be rebuilt from scratch following the end of 42 years of dictatorship. There is no proper justice system in place to speak of at present.
How, when or where in Libya Saif will be tried in court is at the moment unclear, despite the promises of the NTC that he will receive a fair trial.
What the international community is absolutely unequivocal about is that Saif must face justice through the proper legal channels and must not be subjected to the same kind of mob execution his father was.
One one level, it is very difficult to blame those who have been subjected to decades of the most brutal dictatorship for wanting to exact swift revenge on the man responsible. However, it was widely reported that Colonel Gaddafi was sexually assaulted on his capture. It remains a huge disappointment to many that this dictator was not put on trial, neither in the Hague nor by his own people.http://labourlist.org/2011/10/the-libyan-people-deserved-a-trial/
No matter how brutal a dictator the Colonel may have been, Libya will face enormous international condemnation if it fails to put Saif on trial according to international law.
The new Libya must show the world that it follows the same moral compass as those nations that helped it to overthrow Gaddafi's regime.
Only time will tell if Libya can rise from the ashes and fully embrace democracy.
Wednesday 19 October 2011
Fox Faces Flat Expenses Enquiry Despite Resignation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15376480
Liam Fox may have resigned as Defence Secretary last week but questions about his conduct remain and he still faces an enquiry into his expenses.
Following a complaint by Labour MP John Mann, an investigation will be carried out by Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyon into claims that Dr Fox allowed Adam Werritty to stay at his tax payer-funded flat in London rent free.
Dr Fox has promised to cooperate fully with any investigation into the matter. But listening to a debate on the BBC's Newsnight, it is clear how bad things are beginning to look for the Prime Minister and the Coalition.
The consensus amongst many commentators is that a general malaise is beginning to develop within the government as a result of the recent revelations over Dr Fox.
Add this to the state of the economy, it is widely believed that should another scandal break over the behaviour of another MP, it could spell disaster for the coalition.
A poll carried out by ComRes for ITV News revealed that 67% of British people now feel very pessimistic about the economy compared to 49% a year ago. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-19/britons-pessimism-on-economy-reaches-record-level-in-itv-poll.html
Liam Fox may have resigned as Defence Secretary last week but questions about his conduct remain and he still faces an enquiry into his expenses.
Following a complaint by Labour MP John Mann, an investigation will be carried out by Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyon into claims that Dr Fox allowed Adam Werritty to stay at his tax payer-funded flat in London rent free.
Dr Fox has promised to cooperate fully with any investigation into the matter. But listening to a debate on the BBC's Newsnight, it is clear how bad things are beginning to look for the Prime Minister and the Coalition.
The consensus amongst many commentators is that a general malaise is beginning to develop within the government as a result of the recent revelations over Dr Fox.
Add this to the state of the economy, it is widely believed that should another scandal break over the behaviour of another MP, it could spell disaster for the coalition.
A poll carried out by ComRes for ITV News revealed that 67% of British people now feel very pessimistic about the economy compared to 49% a year ago. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-19/britons-pessimism-on-economy-reaches-record-level-in-itv-poll.html
Tuesday 18 October 2011
Bad News For Coalition As Inflation Rises To Over 5%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15344297
Despite predications from Bank of England Governor Mervyn King that inflation has probably peaked, this is not good news for George Osborne or David Cameron.
The rise in both CPI and RPI have frustrated the Coalition's plans to cut the budget deficit especially with the rise in pensions and benefits of 5.2%.
With the direction of inflation remaining very much dependent on what happens to the price of oil, the financial situation in the UK remains very volatile.
This is despite the most optimistic forecasts from economic experts.
Despite predications from Bank of England Governor Mervyn King that inflation has probably peaked, this is not good news for George Osborne or David Cameron.
The rise in both CPI and RPI have frustrated the Coalition's plans to cut the budget deficit especially with the rise in pensions and benefits of 5.2%.
With the direction of inflation remaining very much dependent on what happens to the price of oil, the financial situation in the UK remains very volatile.
This is despite the most optimistic forecasts from economic experts.
No Surprises In Cabinet Secretary's Report On Liam Fox
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15352311
It is clear that Liam Fox did the right thing in resigning on Friday over his association with Adam Werritty.
The findings of the report into the affair by Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell which have now been published, reveal that Dr Fox clearly broke the Ministerial Code in allowing Werritty to accompany him on trips abroad.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15358660
And it has now been revealed that the former minister was warned several times about dealing too closely with Mr Werritty.
Had he still now been in post, Dr Fox would have almost certainly been sacked by the Prime Minister.
The fact that the report states that he did not breach National Security or gain financially might be of small comfort to Dr Fox.
But still many questions remain and it is unlikely they will be answered when the former Defence Secretary is expected to make a formal statement to MPs in the House of Commons on Wednesday.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15360827
Despite the repeated warnings Fox was given about Mr Werritty, former Cabinet minister Lord Reid hit the nail on the head in an interview last night, when he said that on his first day in government, civil servants should have made it much clearer to Dr Fox that activities he may have engaged in in opposition might not be viewed as acceptable now he was in power. This is now a key recommendation in Gus O'Donnell's report.
In my view, the spotlight should be on the madarins of Whitehall as much as they are on any future investigation into Dr Fox's affairs.
It is clear that Liam Fox did the right thing in resigning on Friday over his association with Adam Werritty.
The findings of the report into the affair by Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell which have now been published, reveal that Dr Fox clearly broke the Ministerial Code in allowing Werritty to accompany him on trips abroad.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15358660
And it has now been revealed that the former minister was warned several times about dealing too closely with Mr Werritty.
Had he still now been in post, Dr Fox would have almost certainly been sacked by the Prime Minister.
The fact that the report states that he did not breach National Security or gain financially might be of small comfort to Dr Fox.
But still many questions remain and it is unlikely they will be answered when the former Defence Secretary is expected to make a formal statement to MPs in the House of Commons on Wednesday.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15360827
Despite the repeated warnings Fox was given about Mr Werritty, former Cabinet minister Lord Reid hit the nail on the head in an interview last night, when he said that on his first day in government, civil servants should have made it much clearer to Dr Fox that activities he may have engaged in in opposition might not be viewed as acceptable now he was in power. This is now a key recommendation in Gus O'Donnell's report.
In my view, the spotlight should be on the madarins of Whitehall as much as they are on any future investigation into Dr Fox's affairs.
Sunday 16 October 2011
Fox Resignation Inevitable In Unravelling Scandle
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15300751
David Cameron has now lost one of his most senior Cabinet ministers following the resignation of Liam Fox as Defence Secretary.
It is an extremely heavy personal blow for Dr Fox, after over a decade on the Conservative frontbench, a year and a half of which saw him occupy a very high-profile position in the Cabinet, in charge of military operations in both Afghanistan and Libya.
But it was clear almost as soon as this story broke that Fox would not survive in his job.
The spectre of his best-man at his wedding, Adam Werritty, accompanying Dr Fox on foreign trips to Dubai amongst others, when he was neither a paid advisor or a civil servant, brought the latter's judgement into severe question and raised speculation that this was a breach of the Ministerial Code.
Fox had, however unintentionally, allowed his personal and political activities to become blurred and the revelations that have come out so far certainly have given the impression of wrong-doing. I find it unbelievable that Mr Werritty was allowed to carry business cards carrying the Portcullis symbol and stating that he was an advisor to Dr Fox when he was nothing of the kind.
It is clear that more details of Dr Fox's activities have yet to be publicised. The Cabinet Secretary has yet to release his report on the affair. The Electoral Commission is poised to investigate Fox's affairs too, amidst new claims that he failed to declare sources of funding. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iwlm0FR5dCTGqzunJTlMNARayw9w?docId=N0095721318721984977A And with the announcement that the Government is to look into changing the rules on political lobbying, this is really starting to look like an episode David Cameron might want to forget.
Add to this, the announcement that Mr Werritty could now be questioned by police on suspicion of fraud, this affair could run on for the foreseeable future.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15324686
Dr Fox was a very competent minister with a strong handle on the workings of an extremely complex department.
In his time on the frontbenches, Fox, although considered to be a standard-bearer for the Tory right, had earned respect from all sides of the House of Commons and as well as his constituents. His resignation as Defence Secretary has brought a very distinguished frontline career to an untimely halt.
It is very hard to see, certainly in the short- or medium-term, Liam Fox making a return to the political limelight.
David Cameron has now lost one of his most senior Cabinet ministers following the resignation of Liam Fox as Defence Secretary.
It is an extremely heavy personal blow for Dr Fox, after over a decade on the Conservative frontbench, a year and a half of which saw him occupy a very high-profile position in the Cabinet, in charge of military operations in both Afghanistan and Libya.
But it was clear almost as soon as this story broke that Fox would not survive in his job.
The spectre of his best-man at his wedding, Adam Werritty, accompanying Dr Fox on foreign trips to Dubai amongst others, when he was neither a paid advisor or a civil servant, brought the latter's judgement into severe question and raised speculation that this was a breach of the Ministerial Code.
Fox had, however unintentionally, allowed his personal and political activities to become blurred and the revelations that have come out so far certainly have given the impression of wrong-doing. I find it unbelievable that Mr Werritty was allowed to carry business cards carrying the Portcullis symbol and stating that he was an advisor to Dr Fox when he was nothing of the kind.
It is clear that more details of Dr Fox's activities have yet to be publicised. The Cabinet Secretary has yet to release his report on the affair. The Electoral Commission is poised to investigate Fox's affairs too, amidst new claims that he failed to declare sources of funding. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iwlm0FR5dCTGqzunJTlMNARayw9w?docId=N0095721318721984977A And with the announcement that the Government is to look into changing the rules on political lobbying, this is really starting to look like an episode David Cameron might want to forget.
Add to this, the announcement that Mr Werritty could now be questioned by police on suspicion of fraud, this affair could run on for the foreseeable future.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15324686
Dr Fox was a very competent minister with a strong handle on the workings of an extremely complex department.
In his time on the frontbenches, Fox, although considered to be a standard-bearer for the Tory right, had earned respect from all sides of the House of Commons and as well as his constituents. His resignation as Defence Secretary has brought a very distinguished frontline career to an untimely halt.
It is very hard to see, certainly in the short- or medium-term, Liam Fox making a return to the political limelight.
PM Forced To Alter Speech In Conference Speech Conference Address Embarrassment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15189614
It was a very complacent display from the Prime Minister in his speech to the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester.
I found it quite galling to hear someone with a fortune of £30m telling the most vulnerable in our country that they should 'stand up and fight' in these difficult economic times.
It was no surprise that David Cameron was forced to change the wording of a paragraph in his speech which initially lectured the public on how they should tighten their belts. A clear embarrassment to the Party illustrating just how out of touch Cameron, Clegg and all the other millionaires in the Cabinet are with the difficulties of ordinary people struggling to make ends meet.
But telling people to fight and that 'we are all in this together' is one thing.
This was a speech which Cameron insisted that their economic strategy of enormous reductions in public spending was right, even though these cuts are hitting the poorest people - the sick, the old, the unemployed and the disabled - the hardest. And now that they are are really starting to bite, it is clear from all the opinion polls that the coalition's austerity measures are proving extremely unpopular with the public.
And of course much of the speech was devoted to how the Coalition was clearing up the mess that Labour had left behind. All very predictable stuff designed to please the party-faithful but not at all directed at the public at large.
On a positive note, Cameron did re-affirm his support for gay marriage, which will have pleased those who have been attracted to a more tolerant, inclusive Conservative Party.
And he was right, in my view to point out how counter-productive it was of those who chose to boo Ed Miliband's praise of Tony Blair in his Conference speech. No matter how controversial Margaret Thatcher may have been or how unpopular she became towards the end of her Premiership, she was never booed by Party members at Conference. And neither was John Major in the dying years of the last Tory government, or Iain Duncan-Smith just before he was dumped by the Party.
However, this was a vacuous speech which, despite its 'can-do' message, gave the majority of British people not the slightest glimmer of hope that things will improve for them any time soon.
It was a very complacent display from the Prime Minister in his speech to the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester.
I found it quite galling to hear someone with a fortune of £30m telling the most vulnerable in our country that they should 'stand up and fight' in these difficult economic times.
It was no surprise that David Cameron was forced to change the wording of a paragraph in his speech which initially lectured the public on how they should tighten their belts. A clear embarrassment to the Party illustrating just how out of touch Cameron, Clegg and all the other millionaires in the Cabinet are with the difficulties of ordinary people struggling to make ends meet.
But telling people to fight and that 'we are all in this together' is one thing.
This was a speech which Cameron insisted that their economic strategy of enormous reductions in public spending was right, even though these cuts are hitting the poorest people - the sick, the old, the unemployed and the disabled - the hardest. And now that they are are really starting to bite, it is clear from all the opinion polls that the coalition's austerity measures are proving extremely unpopular with the public.
And of course much of the speech was devoted to how the Coalition was clearing up the mess that Labour had left behind. All very predictable stuff designed to please the party-faithful but not at all directed at the public at large.
On a positive note, Cameron did re-affirm his support for gay marriage, which will have pleased those who have been attracted to a more tolerant, inclusive Conservative Party.
And he was right, in my view to point out how counter-productive it was of those who chose to boo Ed Miliband's praise of Tony Blair in his Conference speech. No matter how controversial Margaret Thatcher may have been or how unpopular she became towards the end of her Premiership, she was never booed by Party members at Conference. And neither was John Major in the dying years of the last Tory government, or Iain Duncan-Smith just before he was dumped by the Party.
However, this was a vacuous speech which, despite its 'can-do' message, gave the majority of British people not the slightest glimmer of hope that things will improve for them any time soon.
Miliband Gives Party Vision In Brave Conference Speech
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15082652
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/09/27/miliband-conference-speech-2011-reactions
I attended Ed Miliband's speech at this year's Labour Party Conference in Liverpool, neither expecting too much or too little from it.
Miliband has spoken out well on a number of issues, most notably the hacking scandal.
But he has not stamped his mark on the Party in his first year as leader sufficiently in my view and Cameron almost always has had the upper hand at PMQs.
However, I was pleasantly surprised.
Miliband's second Conference speech as Labour Party leader was, in the main, very well received by delegates and Party members.
It was his best yet, and an address in which Miliband spelt out very clearly where he stands. It was obvious straight away that he can no longer be justifiably described as 'Red Ed', as he praised some of the Thatcherite policies of the 80s, like the sale of council houses and measures to curb the unions.
These were very bold words from a man who, up until this year's conference had still to explain to the electorate what he stands for, after more than a year as Labour leader.
Despite later criticism from the media and Business leaders, Miliband delivered his vision of a new kind of capitalism, distinguishing between the Producers and Predators, companies that put something back into society and those that abused their financial power and ripped people off. I thought this was an extremely clever way of taking the Party forward, pledging that a future Labour government would promote more responsible practices when re-elected and was a clear admission that the previous admistration had failed to curb the excesses of the banks which had contributed to the recession of 2008.
Miliband declared that he was his own man, but at the same time, was eager to praise the achievements of his predecessors Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. It was extremely disheartening to hear boos in the audience at the mention of Blair's name. Clearly these were people who never liked Blair anyway and felt he took the Party too far to the right. But how perverse to heckle someone who to date has been Labour's most successful Prime Minister, leading the party to three successive general election victories. Blair did make very notable mistakes, such as with Iraq, but his many achievements in government should be applauded. The consensus amongst those in the hall was that Labour should embrace their leaders, not disparage them, as this sends a message to the country at large that the Party is disunited. http://www.labourlist.org/lets-talk-about-blair. And of course it allowed Cameron in his conference speech to really take a swipe at Labour for doing so.
Whilst this speech lacked concrete policy announcements, which is not unexpected four years away from a general election, it was about Ed Miliband the man, his beliefs and where he wants to take the Party.
Labour have a very hard task ahead in restoring the Party's credibility on the economy, especially with Gordon Brown's protegee, Ed Balls, in charge of that brief.
But Miliband certainly has now convinced me that he has what it takes be Prime Minister. He excelled too, in the Q&A session, the following day, in which non-Labour members were invited to participate. It was further evidence of his ability to connect with ordinary voters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2SAkFYgbok
I am sure that he will continue to make a positive impact over the next twelve months. Miliband will no doubt be helped by the worsening state of the economy and the coalition's increasing unpopularity.
What Ed Miliband has to do now is take advantage of these economic events in carrying his message round the country so that he convinces the electorate as well.
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/09/27/miliband-conference-speech-2011-reactions
I attended Ed Miliband's speech at this year's Labour Party Conference in Liverpool, neither expecting too much or too little from it.
Miliband has spoken out well on a number of issues, most notably the hacking scandal.
But he has not stamped his mark on the Party in his first year as leader sufficiently in my view and Cameron almost always has had the upper hand at PMQs.
However, I was pleasantly surprised.
Miliband's second Conference speech as Labour Party leader was, in the main, very well received by delegates and Party members.
It was his best yet, and an address in which Miliband spelt out very clearly where he stands. It was obvious straight away that he can no longer be justifiably described as 'Red Ed', as he praised some of the Thatcherite policies of the 80s, like the sale of council houses and measures to curb the unions.
These were very bold words from a man who, up until this year's conference had still to explain to the electorate what he stands for, after more than a year as Labour leader.
Despite later criticism from the media and Business leaders, Miliband delivered his vision of a new kind of capitalism, distinguishing between the Producers and Predators, companies that put something back into society and those that abused their financial power and ripped people off. I thought this was an extremely clever way of taking the Party forward, pledging that a future Labour government would promote more responsible practices when re-elected and was a clear admission that the previous admistration had failed to curb the excesses of the banks which had contributed to the recession of 2008.
Miliband declared that he was his own man, but at the same time, was eager to praise the achievements of his predecessors Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. It was extremely disheartening to hear boos in the audience at the mention of Blair's name. Clearly these were people who never liked Blair anyway and felt he took the Party too far to the right. But how perverse to heckle someone who to date has been Labour's most successful Prime Minister, leading the party to three successive general election victories. Blair did make very notable mistakes, such as with Iraq, but his many achievements in government should be applauded. The consensus amongst those in the hall was that Labour should embrace their leaders, not disparage them, as this sends a message to the country at large that the Party is disunited. http://www.labourlist.org/lets-talk-about-blair. And of course it allowed Cameron in his conference speech to really take a swipe at Labour for doing so.
Whilst this speech lacked concrete policy announcements, which is not unexpected four years away from a general election, it was about Ed Miliband the man, his beliefs and where he wants to take the Party.
Labour have a very hard task ahead in restoring the Party's credibility on the economy, especially with Gordon Brown's protegee, Ed Balls, in charge of that brief.
But Miliband certainly has now convinced me that he has what it takes be Prime Minister. He excelled too, in the Q&A session, the following day, in which non-Labour members were invited to participate. It was further evidence of his ability to connect with ordinary voters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2SAkFYgbok
I am sure that he will continue to make a positive impact over the next twelve months. Miliband will no doubt be helped by the worsening state of the economy and the coalition's increasing unpopularity.
What Ed Miliband has to do now is take advantage of these economic events in carrying his message round the country so that he convinces the electorate as well.
Friday 14 October 2011
Balls' 5-Point Growth Plan No Quick Fix
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15054705
Ed Balls' answer to the debt crisis was largely welcomed by Labour Party members in Liverpool.
Predictably, the Shadow Chancellor urged George Osborne to change course and alter the speed and extent of cuts in public spending.
However, despite admissions during his speech that Labour had made mistakes with economic policy, Ed Balls
has come up with a road map that could possibly make things worse before they get better, with more spending of money we don't have and increasing the already-enormous budget deficit even further.
With his strong links to Gordon Brown, Balls is associated with all the economic mistakes of the last Labour government.
I'm firmly of the view that Ed Miliband should have looked elsewhere to fill Alan Johnson's shoes as Shadow Chancellor.
I am not at all sure that Labour can win back the electorate's trust on the economy with Ed Balls in charge of the Treasury.
Ed Balls' answer to the debt crisis was largely welcomed by Labour Party members in Liverpool.
Predictably, the Shadow Chancellor urged George Osborne to change course and alter the speed and extent of cuts in public spending.
However, despite admissions during his speech that Labour had made mistakes with economic policy, Ed Balls
has come up with a road map that could possibly make things worse before they get better, with more spending of money we don't have and increasing the already-enormous budget deficit even further.
With his strong links to Gordon Brown, Balls is associated with all the economic mistakes of the last Labour government.
I'm firmly of the view that Ed Miliband should have looked elsewhere to fill Alan Johnson's shoes as Shadow Chancellor.
I am not at all sure that Labour can win back the electorate's trust on the economy with Ed Balls in charge of the Treasury.
Saturday 24 September 2011
Clegg Tells Party At Loggerheads 'We Have To Stay The Course'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15008198
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg did his best to rally the Party faithful in his keynote speech at this year's annual gathering of Liberal Democrats in Birmingham.
It was clearly an extremely difficult task for him.
With the British economy in dire straits and teetering on the brink of a double-dip recession and the Lib Dem's popularity at an all-time low, how many of the grassroots could really have been convinced of Clegg's message that they have to stay the course and stick with their decision to join the Conservatives in government?
Party managers did their best to ensure that delegates and ministers alike all showed a united front to the nation. But it was clear that there are still many members very unhappy at being in power with the Tories and grave concern remaining about the troubled economic waters ahead.
Unfortunately for Clegg, having allied himself so firmly with Cameron in government, and in particular with the manner and speed of deficit reduction, it is now almost impossible for him to back out of the coalition.
All he can do is hope that the Party does not face what is now widely predicted to be total annihilation at the polls in 2015.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg did his best to rally the Party faithful in his keynote speech at this year's annual gathering of Liberal Democrats in Birmingham.
It was clearly an extremely difficult task for him.
With the British economy in dire straits and teetering on the brink of a double-dip recession and the Lib Dem's popularity at an all-time low, how many of the grassroots could really have been convinced of Clegg's message that they have to stay the course and stick with their decision to join the Conservatives in government?
Party managers did their best to ensure that delegates and ministers alike all showed a united front to the nation. But it was clear that there are still many members very unhappy at being in power with the Tories and grave concern remaining about the troubled economic waters ahead.
Unfortunately for Clegg, having allied himself so firmly with Cameron in government, and in particular with the manner and speed of deficit reduction, it is now almost impossible for him to back out of the coalition.
All he can do is hope that the Party does not face what is now widely predicted to be total annihilation at the polls in 2015.
Thursday 1 September 2011
PM Right To Oppose Dorries On Abortion
http://blogs.news.sky.com/boultonandcohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14745675
The changes to abortion legislation proposed by Conservative back bencher Nadine Dorries have sparked the usual fierce debate.
Dorries' views are typical of many in today's Conservative Parliamentary party - in particular those who entered the House of Commons for the first time at last year's general election. They reflect the thinking of a growing number of Tory MPs who belong to Christian groups, which also include Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.
She proposes that organisations that provide abortions, like Marie Stopes, should be prevented from providing women with advice before they go ahead with a termination.
Such organisations have long experience of providing impartial counselling women wishing to end their pregnancies in both the pros and cons of doing so.
In my view, not allowing these clinics to do so in future will make an already extremely distressing predicament even more so for women and almost certainly prolong the trauma for them.
A woman's right to choose should remain paramount and no further undermining of that choice by those heavily influenced by the religious right should take place. We do not need to go down the same road as the United States and espouse the same values as Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
The current legislation is sufficient and should not be altered further.
The Prime Minister is right to oppose this amendment.
The changes to abortion legislation proposed by Conservative back bencher Nadine Dorries have sparked the usual fierce debate.
Dorries' views are typical of many in today's Conservative Parliamentary party - in particular those who entered the House of Commons for the first time at last year's general election. They reflect the thinking of a growing number of Tory MPs who belong to Christian groups, which also include Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.
She proposes that organisations that provide abortions, like Marie Stopes, should be prevented from providing women with advice before they go ahead with a termination.
Such organisations have long experience of providing impartial counselling women wishing to end their pregnancies in both the pros and cons of doing so.
In my view, not allowing these clinics to do so in future will make an already extremely distressing predicament even more so for women and almost certainly prolong the trauma for them.
A woman's right to choose should remain paramount and no further undermining of that choice by those heavily influenced by the religious right should take place. We do not need to go down the same road as the United States and espouse the same values as Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
The current legislation is sufficient and should not be altered further.
The Prime Minister is right to oppose this amendment.
UK Riots Not Down To Race Or Poverty - We Are Not A Nation In Moral Decline
http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/tony-blair-in-the-observer-britain-isnt-broken/
Tony Blair may have largely disappeared from the UK political arena but his occasional interventions are usually astute.
Like most people in this country, I watched in horror as unprecedented riots swept through the UK and people from all walks of life - both wealthy and less so - chose to participate in the violence and looting.
The initial police response to the disturbances was worse than woeful.
However, the fact remains that in the most deprived areas that were caught up in the disturbances, only a very small minority of people chose to take part. Most of those people stayed away from trouble. Therefore the theory that social deprivation was the root cause of the riots, is in my view, far too simplistic. As usual, Ken Livingstone was far too quick to blame what happened on cuts in government spending.
By the same token, the Prime Minister's statement from Downing Street in the aftermath of the riots was equally black and white. Yes, of course such behaviour is totally unacceptable and the fact that so many areas were involved does on the surface give the impression to the rest of the world that Britain is 'broken' and 'frankly sick'.
But rather than running Britain into the ground and using the riots to score political points, I would agree with Tony Blair that a more individual approach is needed to tackle social problems and prevents such events happening in future. His view that we should solve problems family by family is surely sensible and avoids the sweeping generalisation that the entire nation is 'in moral decline'.
The courts, understandably, have come down very heavily on some of those involved. However, I don't believe that the sentences of some will be allowed to stand on appeal. The person who was jailed for stealing a bottle of water will surely have their punishment lessened when reviewed. And with the prison population already at bursting point, jailing first-time offenders for very minor offences will only make a very bad situation even worse and won't necessarily deter them from re-offending.
The British people are on the whole, decent, tolerant and law-abiding. Mr Blair is right to point out that, instead of focussing too heavily on those who looted and rioted, we should applaud those who came out to clean up.
We would do well to keep this in mind and should remember that such widespread disturbances are thankfully very very rare.
Tony Blair may have largely disappeared from the UK political arena but his occasional interventions are usually astute.
Like most people in this country, I watched in horror as unprecedented riots swept through the UK and people from all walks of life - both wealthy and less so - chose to participate in the violence and looting.
The initial police response to the disturbances was worse than woeful.
However, the fact remains that in the most deprived areas that were caught up in the disturbances, only a very small minority of people chose to take part. Most of those people stayed away from trouble. Therefore the theory that social deprivation was the root cause of the riots, is in my view, far too simplistic. As usual, Ken Livingstone was far too quick to blame what happened on cuts in government spending.
By the same token, the Prime Minister's statement from Downing Street in the aftermath of the riots was equally black and white. Yes, of course such behaviour is totally unacceptable and the fact that so many areas were involved does on the surface give the impression to the rest of the world that Britain is 'broken' and 'frankly sick'.
But rather than running Britain into the ground and using the riots to score political points, I would agree with Tony Blair that a more individual approach is needed to tackle social problems and prevents such events happening in future. His view that we should solve problems family by family is surely sensible and avoids the sweeping generalisation that the entire nation is 'in moral decline'.
The courts, understandably, have come down very heavily on some of those involved. However, I don't believe that the sentences of some will be allowed to stand on appeal. The person who was jailed for stealing a bottle of water will surely have their punishment lessened when reviewed. And with the prison population already at bursting point, jailing first-time offenders for very minor offences will only make a very bad situation even worse and won't necessarily deter them from re-offending.
The British people are on the whole, decent, tolerant and law-abiding. Mr Blair is right to point out that, instead of focussing too heavily on those who looted and rioted, we should applaud those who came out to clean up.
We would do well to keep this in mind and should remember that such widespread disturbances are thankfully very very rare.
Thursday 4 August 2011
UK Economic Recovery Far Slower Than Government Forecast
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14370681
The UK economy is expected to grow by 1.5% this year, according to the IMF, but slower than the Coalition's predicted 1.7% increase in expansion.
Of course the Treasury has repeatedly said that the waters will be choppy on the journey back to recovery, and certainly the UK has not yet reached the predicament of other European nations and the US in coming perilously close to economic default.
But the Government have tied themselves so firmly to cuts in public spending as the only way to reduce the country's deficit, that I don't believe they are fully prepared what happens if the UK economy does not grow quickly enough. With unemployment still expected to remain high throughout 2011, it is difficult to see the economy growing sufficiently to lift us out of the danger zone.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for George Osborne to dodge Labour's accusations that the Government does not have a Plan B for economic recovery.
And now, with the IMF voicing their worries, the state of our finances is cause for international concern.
The UK economy is expected to grow by 1.5% this year, according to the IMF, but slower than the Coalition's predicted 1.7% increase in expansion.
Of course the Treasury has repeatedly said that the waters will be choppy on the journey back to recovery, and certainly the UK has not yet reached the predicament of other European nations and the US in coming perilously close to economic default.
But the Government have tied themselves so firmly to cuts in public spending as the only way to reduce the country's deficit, that I don't believe they are fully prepared what happens if the UK economy does not grow quickly enough. With unemployment still expected to remain high throughout 2011, it is difficult to see the economy growing sufficiently to lift us out of the danger zone.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for George Osborne to dodge Labour's accusations that the Government does not have a Plan B for economic recovery.
And now, with the IMF voicing their worries, the state of our finances is cause for international concern.
Hacking Scandal Rumbles On Amidst New Revelations.
Despite denying all knowledge of hacking activities whilst at The News of the World, Andy Coulson still has questions to answer.
This will no doubt shift the focus back on the Prime Minister come the end of the summer recess, and renew the debate over his judgement in hiring Mr Coulson as his Communications Director at Number 10.
And with the revelations that Heather Mills, ex-wife of Beatle Sir Paul McCartney, now believes her phone was hacked by journalists at Mirror Group Newspapers, it is clear that such underhand practices were not confined to just one tabloid newspaper.
Indeed Piers Morgan may have created a rod for his own back by revealing that he had heard details of a phone conversation between Mills and Sir Paul. Does he know more than he is letting on?
This story is not over yet.
This will no doubt shift the focus back on the Prime Minister come the end of the summer recess, and renew the debate over his judgement in hiring Mr Coulson as his Communications Director at Number 10.
And with the revelations that Heather Mills, ex-wife of Beatle Sir Paul McCartney, now believes her phone was hacked by journalists at Mirror Group Newspapers, it is clear that such underhand practices were not confined to just one tabloid newspaper.
Indeed Piers Morgan may have created a rod for his own back by revealing that he had heard details of a phone conversation between Mills and Sir Paul. Does he know more than he is letting on?
This story is not over yet.
Wednesday 6 July 2011
Miliband Captures The Public Mood As The Tabloid Press Sinks To A New Low
http://www.labourlist.org/pmqs-verdict-ed-finds-his-voice
Ed Miliband performed brilliantly in today's PMQs, in what was undoubtedly his best outing so far as Leader of the Opposition.
The Labour leader left David Cameron with nowhere to hide as the Prime Minister desperately tried to defend the increasingly precarious position of his friend Rebekah Brooks.
Tabloid reporting has always been sensational and nothing more than gossip at best. But the revelations that employees of The News of the World hacked into the mobile phone of missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler, takes things to a different level.
The deleting of frantic messages left by Milly's anxious family and friends - therefore giving them false hope that she was accessing her voicemails and still alive when in fact she had already been brutally murdered - is nothing short of nauseating and dispicable.
And now of course, it is alleged that the phones of the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, the victims of Soham murderer Ian Huntley - as well as those belonging to relatives of people who died in the 7/7 outrage - were also tampered with.
This is an affair which has all right-minded people totally united in their utter revulsion at the unfolding of events. The Prime Minister is of course right that a police enquiry should be allowed to take its course, but any public investigation into these deplorable events must not be allowed to drag on for years. The British people demand swift action against The News of the World and for those responsible to take the rap for what has happened.
I am reminded of the appalling aftermath of the death of Princess Diana, when greedy photographers took pictures of her as she lay dying in that car in Paris.
Of course no media organisations in this country dared to publish those snaps but it is clear that there are many journalists - if you can actually call them that - still prepared to sink to the lowest depths imaginable just to get a story.
To intercept the private conversations of celebrities, politicians and members of the Royal Family is bad enough. Actor Hugh Grant - interviewed today about his experiences at the hands of the tabloid press - quite rightly said that being famous does not mean you totally forego the right to a private life.
But to play on the emotions of bereaved and distraught relatives of victims of murder and terrorism is not just immoral. There is no doubt in my mind that any enquiry must explore the possibility of bringing the most serious criminal charges against those considered to have broken the law over this affair.
And above all, Rebekah Brooks definitely cannot stay in her job.
No matter how appalled Ms Brooks claims to be at the unfolding of events, as Editor of the News of the World as the time of Milly Dowler's disapperance in 2002, the buck clearly stops with her.
If David Cameron is as disgusted at The News of the World's actions as he says he is, then he must put aside his personal friendship with Rebekah Brooks and take the lead in calling for her to go.
Ed Miliband performed brilliantly in today's PMQs, in what was undoubtedly his best outing so far as Leader of the Opposition.
The Labour leader left David Cameron with nowhere to hide as the Prime Minister desperately tried to defend the increasingly precarious position of his friend Rebekah Brooks.
Tabloid reporting has always been sensational and nothing more than gossip at best. But the revelations that employees of The News of the World hacked into the mobile phone of missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler, takes things to a different level.
The deleting of frantic messages left by Milly's anxious family and friends - therefore giving them false hope that she was accessing her voicemails and still alive when in fact she had already been brutally murdered - is nothing short of nauseating and dispicable.
And now of course, it is alleged that the phones of the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, the victims of Soham murderer Ian Huntley - as well as those belonging to relatives of people who died in the 7/7 outrage - were also tampered with.
This is an affair which has all right-minded people totally united in their utter revulsion at the unfolding of events. The Prime Minister is of course right that a police enquiry should be allowed to take its course, but any public investigation into these deplorable events must not be allowed to drag on for years. The British people demand swift action against The News of the World and for those responsible to take the rap for what has happened.
I am reminded of the appalling aftermath of the death of Princess Diana, when greedy photographers took pictures of her as she lay dying in that car in Paris.
Of course no media organisations in this country dared to publish those snaps but it is clear that there are many journalists - if you can actually call them that - still prepared to sink to the lowest depths imaginable just to get a story.
To intercept the private conversations of celebrities, politicians and members of the Royal Family is bad enough. Actor Hugh Grant - interviewed today about his experiences at the hands of the tabloid press - quite rightly said that being famous does not mean you totally forego the right to a private life.
But to play on the emotions of bereaved and distraught relatives of victims of murder and terrorism is not just immoral. There is no doubt in my mind that any enquiry must explore the possibility of bringing the most serious criminal charges against those considered to have broken the law over this affair.
And above all, Rebekah Brooks definitely cannot stay in her job.
No matter how appalled Ms Brooks claims to be at the unfolding of events, as Editor of the News of the World as the time of Milly Dowler's disapperance in 2002, the buck clearly stops with her.
If David Cameron is as disgusted at The News of the World's actions as he says he is, then he must put aside his personal friendship with Rebekah Brooks and take the lead in calling for her to go.
Wednesday 22 June 2011
MP Calls For Car Smoking Ban
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13875513
Labour MP Alex Cunningham has called for smoking to be banned in cars carrying children.
His Private Member's Bill is unlikely to make it through Parliament with Tory MPs slamming the proposals as politically correct and smacking of 'nanny stateism'.
There are certainly a number of examples of where the last Labour Government can be accused of exerting too much state control over people's lives. I myself, have applauded the Coalition's scrapping of the 'no touching' rule in schools, which in my view was too far-reaching and indeed left many teachers, as well as children in danger from an unruly pupil.
However, despite the endless circulation of propaganda by the pro-smoking lobby, the link between passive smoking and cancer is well established.
The well-being of our children touches a cord with all right-minded people in our country. This is one occasion where a degree of political correctness is more than justified.
Labour MP Alex Cunningham has called for smoking to be banned in cars carrying children.
His Private Member's Bill is unlikely to make it through Parliament with Tory MPs slamming the proposals as politically correct and smacking of 'nanny stateism'.
There are certainly a number of examples of where the last Labour Government can be accused of exerting too much state control over people's lives. I myself, have applauded the Coalition's scrapping of the 'no touching' rule in schools, which in my view was too far-reaching and indeed left many teachers, as well as children in danger from an unruly pupil.
However, despite the endless circulation of propaganda by the pro-smoking lobby, the link between passive smoking and cancer is well established.
The well-being of our children touches a cord with all right-minded people in our country. This is one occasion where a degree of political correctness is more than justified.
Wednesday 18 May 2011
Rocky Times For The Coalition
http://politicalscrapbook.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/indy_front_page_clarke_rape.jpg
The Coalition has attracted an array of bad headlines of late.
Although the Tories' vote in the recent local elections held up reasonably well, the same cannot be said for their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.
Their Leader was quick to promise that he and his party would be more assertive in government and willing to fight the Liberal Democrats' corner in opposing much of the Tories' proposals for reform of the NHS.
Clearly rattled by the bloody nose dealt him and his party, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's petulant outburst following their poor showing in the polls and the result of the referendum on the Alternative Vote going against him, will have impressed very few people, especially those supporters still furious at his abandoning of the Party's pre-election pledge to oppose any rise in student tuition fees.
I am left wondering if the coalition can survive so many Liberal Democrats opposing these changes to the NHS, which after all, weren't in the Conservative manifesto and are changes being proposed for which the Government has no mandate.
To add to the Prime Minister's woes, Business Secretary Vince Cable has continued to snipe at the Tories from inside the Government's ranks, with David Cameron seemingly unwilling or too frightened to remove him for fear of uprooting the coalition.
David Laws, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury has faced suspension from the House of Commons for his role in the expenses row which cost him his Cabinet job so soon after taking office. A rising star, admired by both parties in the Coalition, Laws' chances of a quick return to government have taken a severe blow.
Chris Huhne, the Climate Change Secretary, is now the subject of a police enquiry over allegations that he persuaded his wife to take penalty points on his behalf for a speeding offence in 2003. Clearly if it is established that he did indeed break the law, Mr Huhne's position will become untenable.
But the prize for the biggest recent faux pas has to go to Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke. His comments during a Radio 5Live phone-in implying that some rapes are more serious than others, have provoked fury from all quarters. Labour leader Ed Miliband immediately called for him to be sacked and was quite right to do so; a Justice Secretary has to show that they have some empathy for, and an understanding of what it is like to be, the victims of crime, otherwise they should not be in that position. It was, without doubt, Miliband's best performance at PMQs to date, where he had the Prime Minister - who had not yet heard Mr Clarke's interview - clearly on the run.
Mr Clarke may not have meant to trivialise rape or its effect on the victim. Indeed the basic principle behind the new proposals on sentencing is a sound one; if a defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity then that will indeed spare the victim the trauma of having to give evidence in court and relive their horrendous experience.
The Justice Secretary is, however, guilty of putting forward his case in the clumiest way imaginable, since the new guidelines will apply to all offences, not just rape. It is just deplorable to imply, however unintentionally, that there are some circumstances in which rape can not be considered 'proper' or 'serious'.
Not surprisingly, the Secretary of State's choice of words led to a storm of protest from rape campaigners and victims unlike. The lady that called in to the radio show obviously extremely distressed by what Mr Clarke had said, deserved in my view much more than an impersonal letter of apology from the minister; it would have been far more appropriate if he had actually phoned her to say sorry.
David Cameron had had very little frontbench experience when he became leader of the Tories in 2005. And it was perhaps right, when in Oppostion, that he called upon many former ministers from the Thatcher/Major era - including Mr Clarke - to bring a wealth of experience into his Shadow Cabinet team.
Now in Government, however, the Prime Minister cannot afford to give the impression that he and his ministers are out of touch on such sensitive issues. Having made such a momumental blunder, Mr Clarke should have immediately offered his resignation and not given interview after interview refusing to apologise and repeatedly maintaining that he had said nothing wrong.
If this Coalition is going to maintain any credibility, I cannot see how Mr Cameron can keep Mr Clarke in his post.
Having not gone straight away, it will be astonishing if Mr Clarke is not sacked from the Cabinet or at least moved to another position come the next reshuffle.
When a seasoned political operator as experienced as Clarke comes out with such an appalling and inexcusable gaffe, it is a clear sign that they have had their day.
Kenneth Clarke is a reminder of the Conservative Party's past and it is now time for him to graciously step aside.
The Coalition has attracted an array of bad headlines of late.
Although the Tories' vote in the recent local elections held up reasonably well, the same cannot be said for their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.
Their Leader was quick to promise that he and his party would be more assertive in government and willing to fight the Liberal Democrats' corner in opposing much of the Tories' proposals for reform of the NHS.
Clearly rattled by the bloody nose dealt him and his party, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's petulant outburst following their poor showing in the polls and the result of the referendum on the Alternative Vote going against him, will have impressed very few people, especially those supporters still furious at his abandoning of the Party's pre-election pledge to oppose any rise in student tuition fees.
I am left wondering if the coalition can survive so many Liberal Democrats opposing these changes to the NHS, which after all, weren't in the Conservative manifesto and are changes being proposed for which the Government has no mandate.
To add to the Prime Minister's woes, Business Secretary Vince Cable has continued to snipe at the Tories from inside the Government's ranks, with David Cameron seemingly unwilling or too frightened to remove him for fear of uprooting the coalition.
David Laws, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury has faced suspension from the House of Commons for his role in the expenses row which cost him his Cabinet job so soon after taking office. A rising star, admired by both parties in the Coalition, Laws' chances of a quick return to government have taken a severe blow.
Chris Huhne, the Climate Change Secretary, is now the subject of a police enquiry over allegations that he persuaded his wife to take penalty points on his behalf for a speeding offence in 2003. Clearly if it is established that he did indeed break the law, Mr Huhne's position will become untenable.
But the prize for the biggest recent faux pas has to go to Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke. His comments during a Radio 5Live phone-in implying that some rapes are more serious than others, have provoked fury from all quarters. Labour leader Ed Miliband immediately called for him to be sacked and was quite right to do so; a Justice Secretary has to show that they have some empathy for, and an understanding of what it is like to be, the victims of crime, otherwise they should not be in that position. It was, without doubt, Miliband's best performance at PMQs to date, where he had the Prime Minister - who had not yet heard Mr Clarke's interview - clearly on the run.
Mr Clarke may not have meant to trivialise rape or its effect on the victim. Indeed the basic principle behind the new proposals on sentencing is a sound one; if a defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity then that will indeed spare the victim the trauma of having to give evidence in court and relive their horrendous experience.
The Justice Secretary is, however, guilty of putting forward his case in the clumiest way imaginable, since the new guidelines will apply to all offences, not just rape. It is just deplorable to imply, however unintentionally, that there are some circumstances in which rape can not be considered 'proper' or 'serious'.
Not surprisingly, the Secretary of State's choice of words led to a storm of protest from rape campaigners and victims unlike. The lady that called in to the radio show obviously extremely distressed by what Mr Clarke had said, deserved in my view much more than an impersonal letter of apology from the minister; it would have been far more appropriate if he had actually phoned her to say sorry.
David Cameron had had very little frontbench experience when he became leader of the Tories in 2005. And it was perhaps right, when in Oppostion, that he called upon many former ministers from the Thatcher/Major era - including Mr Clarke - to bring a wealth of experience into his Shadow Cabinet team.
Now in Government, however, the Prime Minister cannot afford to give the impression that he and his ministers are out of touch on such sensitive issues. Having made such a momumental blunder, Mr Clarke should have immediately offered his resignation and not given interview after interview refusing to apologise and repeatedly maintaining that he had said nothing wrong.
If this Coalition is going to maintain any credibility, I cannot see how Mr Cameron can keep Mr Clarke in his post.
Having not gone straight away, it will be astonishing if Mr Clarke is not sacked from the Cabinet or at least moved to another position come the next reshuffle.
When a seasoned political operator as experienced as Clarke comes out with such an appalling and inexcusable gaffe, it is a clear sign that they have had their day.
Kenneth Clarke is a reminder of the Conservative Party's past and it is now time for him to graciously step aside.
Friday 22 April 2011
AV Not The Answer To Electoral Reform
The referendum on the Alternative Vote has thrown up some new challenges for me.
For the first time in my life, I was initially unsure about which way to vote in a national poll.
However, after much soul-searching, I have decided to vote against the introduction of AV.
I am in favour of reforming the way we elect our MPs and I do think that there are good things to be said about AV.
But I don't believe AV is the system we should adopt in the UK.
When it comes to the issue of whether we should scrap the First Past the Post system of electing our MPs, I do think that it is inherently wrong that a candidate can win a seat in the House of Commons on securing as little as 35% of the constituency vote.
And certainly the principle that a MP must win at least 50% of the support of their constituents is a major selling-point of AV. Eliminating candidates round by round until one has achieved over half the vote is at first glance very attractive.
However, in practice, this will only happen if every single voter ranks more than one candidate in order of preference and you have, say, 4-5 people being put through the eliminatiion process.
Furthermore, I would argue that AV will not abolish the scenario of safe seats.
Die-hard Tory and Labour supporters will always only cast one vote no matter what and will not feel the need to rank any other party candidates. And in traditionally safe seats, whether it be Tory Sutton Coldfield, or the Labour stronghold of Sedgefield, this will mean that a candidate may not need 50% of the vote to win. So you could put forward the view that even under the AV system, a First Past the Post-style result could still occur in many constituencies up and down the country.
There is also a very strong argument for saying that having AV, or any system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, will mean that a candidate could snatch victory at the last minute once all lower preference votes are added up - even if someone else has had more first preference votes than them.
I can think of no better example of this than the election held last September by the Labour Party to choose a successor to Gordon Brown as leader.
Right up to the announcement of the result, it was the more experienced David Miliband who was thought to be the first choice amongst the majority of party members. However, his brother Ed won the leadership at the last gasp thanks to the lower-ranked preferences of those eligible to vote, especially those affiliated to trade unions.
In my view this was extremely damaging to the Party.
The result of the Leadership election gave Labour's enemies in the media, not to mention their political opponents, a huge amount of ammunition with which to attack the Party. The accusation that Ed Miliband had been 'elected by the unions' has been repeated ad nauseum by a whole host of Tory ministers. The Party Chairman, Sayeeda Warsi, in particular, has milked this argument for all its worth.
This has greatly influenced my decision vote against the introduction of AV. It is high time Labour adopted a one-member one vote system for electing its leader. It should not matter from which section of the Party a member comes from. Each vote should be of equal value.
Another factor which has led me to the No to AV camp has been the issue of accountability.
I watched with some amusement the joint news conference held by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron and John Reid, the former Labour Home Secretary. And whilst I felt the veteran Labour peer could have put across his case for keeping our current First Past the Post System more effectively, something Mr Cameron said did strike a cord with me.
The Prime Minister stated that the increased risk of AV leading to coalitions would make politicians less accountable to the electorate. And I do agree here.
Politcal parties quite often spend months, if not years, formulating policies to deliver in a manifesto come election time.
We only have to look at the Liberal Democrats and their very highly-publicised pledge not to support any rise in student tuition fees. Now a member of a Conservative-led coalition, Nick Clegg has abadoned this policy as part of a behind closed doors power-sharing agreement with David Cameron and his Party.
Whilst the result of the 2010 election showed that coalitions can happen under the current electoral system, this has not been the case very often. The adoption of AV will undoubtedly make coalitions a much more likely outcome of a general election. The resulting situation will be that parties entering into a coalition agreement will be forced to compromise on policy, renege on pre-election promises made to the voters and this will surely make a complete nonsense of any published manifesto.
More important, introducing a system that is more likely to result in coalitions and policy being decided behind closed doors, will only make the British electorate even more apathetic towards politics than they are now. If voters think that a party will swiftly abandon any key pledges just for the sake of power, they are only likely to become more cynical and mistrusting of politicians.
Finally, the point should be made that most Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg included, have always preferred the introduction some form of proportional representation. AV has never been the favoured option in the Party. Nick Clegg himself has famously called AV 'a miserable little compromise'. Clearly, AV, in my view, was a half-baked solution rushed through in an attempt to satisfy the need of both Coalition partners to reach agreement quickly on how to work together in power, so that the continuity of government would not be interrupted.
I personally would prefer to see a system where the share of the national vote each party gets is reflected in the number of seats they end up with in the House of Commons. That is not what happens under the current First Past The Post system and whilst under AV, individual MPs might get over half the constituency vote, this system is not a proportional one.
AV is not the only choice we have when it comes to reforming the electoral system of this country. I would like the merits and pitfalls of other more proportional systems to be thoroughly debated, such as the Additional Member System and the Single Transferrable Vote, before we make any decision to change the status quo.
David Cameron and the Conservatives remain vehemently opposed to a change in the current voting system.
Senior figures in the Lib Dems have campaigned passionately for a Yes vote for AV.
Both the Prime Minister and his Deputy have insisted that if the result of the AV referendum does not go in their favour, the survival of the Coalition will not be put at risk. However, backbenchers from both the Tories and the Lib Dems have raised serious doubts about whether, in reality, this could remain the case in the meduim or long-term.
We need to take stock.
The issue of how this country elects its MPs is far too important for a change to the current system to be hurriedly voted on without giving the British people a meaningful choice of what we should replace it with.
For the first time in my life, I was initially unsure about which way to vote in a national poll.
However, after much soul-searching, I have decided to vote against the introduction of AV.
I am in favour of reforming the way we elect our MPs and I do think that there are good things to be said about AV.
But I don't believe AV is the system we should adopt in the UK.
When it comes to the issue of whether we should scrap the First Past the Post system of electing our MPs, I do think that it is inherently wrong that a candidate can win a seat in the House of Commons on securing as little as 35% of the constituency vote.
And certainly the principle that a MP must win at least 50% of the support of their constituents is a major selling-point of AV. Eliminating candidates round by round until one has achieved over half the vote is at first glance very attractive.
However, in practice, this will only happen if every single voter ranks more than one candidate in order of preference and you have, say, 4-5 people being put through the eliminatiion process.
Furthermore, I would argue that AV will not abolish the scenario of safe seats.
Die-hard Tory and Labour supporters will always only cast one vote no matter what and will not feel the need to rank any other party candidates. And in traditionally safe seats, whether it be Tory Sutton Coldfield, or the Labour stronghold of Sedgefield, this will mean that a candidate may not need 50% of the vote to win. So you could put forward the view that even under the AV system, a First Past the Post-style result could still occur in many constituencies up and down the country.
There is also a very strong argument for saying that having AV, or any system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, will mean that a candidate could snatch victory at the last minute once all lower preference votes are added up - even if someone else has had more first preference votes than them.
I can think of no better example of this than the election held last September by the Labour Party to choose a successor to Gordon Brown as leader.
Right up to the announcement of the result, it was the more experienced David Miliband who was thought to be the first choice amongst the majority of party members. However, his brother Ed won the leadership at the last gasp thanks to the lower-ranked preferences of those eligible to vote, especially those affiliated to trade unions.
In my view this was extremely damaging to the Party.
The result of the Leadership election gave Labour's enemies in the media, not to mention their political opponents, a huge amount of ammunition with which to attack the Party. The accusation that Ed Miliband had been 'elected by the unions' has been repeated ad nauseum by a whole host of Tory ministers. The Party Chairman, Sayeeda Warsi, in particular, has milked this argument for all its worth.
This has greatly influenced my decision vote against the introduction of AV. It is high time Labour adopted a one-member one vote system for electing its leader. It should not matter from which section of the Party a member comes from. Each vote should be of equal value.
Another factor which has led me to the No to AV camp has been the issue of accountability.
I watched with some amusement the joint news conference held by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron and John Reid, the former Labour Home Secretary. And whilst I felt the veteran Labour peer could have put across his case for keeping our current First Past the Post System more effectively, something Mr Cameron said did strike a cord with me.
The Prime Minister stated that the increased risk of AV leading to coalitions would make politicians less accountable to the electorate. And I do agree here.
Politcal parties quite often spend months, if not years, formulating policies to deliver in a manifesto come election time.
We only have to look at the Liberal Democrats and their very highly-publicised pledge not to support any rise in student tuition fees. Now a member of a Conservative-led coalition, Nick Clegg has abadoned this policy as part of a behind closed doors power-sharing agreement with David Cameron and his Party.
Whilst the result of the 2010 election showed that coalitions can happen under the current electoral system, this has not been the case very often. The adoption of AV will undoubtedly make coalitions a much more likely outcome of a general election. The resulting situation will be that parties entering into a coalition agreement will be forced to compromise on policy, renege on pre-election promises made to the voters and this will surely make a complete nonsense of any published manifesto.
More important, introducing a system that is more likely to result in coalitions and policy being decided behind closed doors, will only make the British electorate even more apathetic towards politics than they are now. If voters think that a party will swiftly abandon any key pledges just for the sake of power, they are only likely to become more cynical and mistrusting of politicians.
Finally, the point should be made that most Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg included, have always preferred the introduction some form of proportional representation. AV has never been the favoured option in the Party. Nick Clegg himself has famously called AV 'a miserable little compromise'. Clearly, AV, in my view, was a half-baked solution rushed through in an attempt to satisfy the need of both Coalition partners to reach agreement quickly on how to work together in power, so that the continuity of government would not be interrupted.
I personally would prefer to see a system where the share of the national vote each party gets is reflected in the number of seats they end up with in the House of Commons. That is not what happens under the current First Past The Post system and whilst under AV, individual MPs might get over half the constituency vote, this system is not a proportional one.
AV is not the only choice we have when it comes to reforming the electoral system of this country. I would like the merits and pitfalls of other more proportional systems to be thoroughly debated, such as the Additional Member System and the Single Transferrable Vote, before we make any decision to change the status quo.
David Cameron and the Conservatives remain vehemently opposed to a change in the current voting system.
Senior figures in the Lib Dems have campaigned passionately for a Yes vote for AV.
Both the Prime Minister and his Deputy have insisted that if the result of the AV referendum does not go in their favour, the survival of the Coalition will not be put at risk. However, backbenchers from both the Tories and the Lib Dems have raised serious doubts about whether, in reality, this could remain the case in the meduim or long-term.
We need to take stock.
The issue of how this country elects its MPs is far too important for a change to the current system to be hurriedly voted on without giving the British people a meaningful choice of what we should replace it with.
Wednesday 16 March 2011
Miliband On Top Form In PMQs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12760865
Ed Miliband gave undoubtedly his best and most confident performance as Labour Leader to date in today's Prime Minister's Questions.
He accused the Prime Minister of wrecking all the positive things the last Labour government had done to improve the NHS. I thought the list he gave was an extremely effective way of illustrating the point.
David Cameron was clearly thrown out of his comfort-zone, put on the defensive over the Coalition's proposals to reform the NHS.
The Prime Minister trotted out the same old tired soundbites to attack Labour accusing them of only siding with the Trades Unions. I really had to laugh at this-it is the BMA who has led the opposition to the changes.
Is David Cameron really putting the BMA in the same bracket the most militant organisations like the RMT and the NUM? It certainly sounded like it. As Mr Miliband said, this government is showing itself to be totally arrogant and unwilling to listen.
The Labour Leader really hammered home the point that no one wants these changes to take place.
It was a brilliant performance, really tapping into the country's current mood.
Unfortunately, this government is will obvioulsy not take any notice until it is too late.
Ed Miliband gave undoubtedly his best and most confident performance as Labour Leader to date in today's Prime Minister's Questions.
He accused the Prime Minister of wrecking all the positive things the last Labour government had done to improve the NHS. I thought the list he gave was an extremely effective way of illustrating the point.
David Cameron was clearly thrown out of his comfort-zone, put on the defensive over the Coalition's proposals to reform the NHS.
The Prime Minister trotted out the same old tired soundbites to attack Labour accusing them of only siding with the Trades Unions. I really had to laugh at this-it is the BMA who has led the opposition to the changes.
Is David Cameron really putting the BMA in the same bracket the most militant organisations like the RMT and the NUM? It certainly sounded like it. As Mr Miliband said, this government is showing itself to be totally arrogant and unwilling to listen.
The Labour Leader really hammered home the point that no one wants these changes to take place.
It was a brilliant performance, really tapping into the country's current mood.
Unfortunately, this government is will obvioulsy not take any notice until it is too late.
Thursday 10 March 2011
PM's Offer To Help Voters With Rising Prices All Very Two-Faced
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12683275
The Prime Minister has promised to help families struggling to cope with the huge rise in the cost of living.
It is rumoured that the 1p rise in fuel duty due to come into effect next month will be scrapped in the forthcoming Budget.
However with such severe cuts in public spending to come over the next few years, Mr Cameron stands accused of giving with one hand and taking with another.
Voters who face the axing of many vital local services are bound to see this one gesture as a cheap shot in the long term.
The Prime Minister has promised to help families struggling to cope with the huge rise in the cost of living.
It is rumoured that the 1p rise in fuel duty due to come into effect next month will be scrapped in the forthcoming Budget.
However with such severe cuts in public spending to come over the next few years, Mr Cameron stands accused of giving with one hand and taking with another.
Voters who face the axing of many vital local services are bound to see this one gesture as a cheap shot in the long term.
Thursday 3 March 2011
Lib Dem Poll-Battering First Of Many To Come
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12643639
Labour were always going to hold Barnsley Central, despite the huge controversy surrounding the departure of previous MP Eric Ilsey, now serving a prison sentence for fiddling his parliamentary expenses.
This by-election was another opportunity early on in the new parliament for voters to give their verdict on the performance of the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners so far and the path they propose to travel between now and the next general election.
There is no doubt that the Lib Dems' broken promises on tuition fees and their cosying up to the Tories on the need to implement extremely rapid and enormous cuts in public spending were upper-most in voters' minds when they went to the polls in yesterday's by-election.
But I doubt anyone expected Nick Clegg's party to drop from second - their position at last year's general election - to an utterly humiliating sixth place, finishing well behind the Conservatives, who were third, as well as the BNP, UKIP and one of the Independent candidates.
It is a truly-astounding result. Clearly, this is the first of many beatings Nick Clegg and his party are going to endure between now and the next election.
They are waking up to how tough government is.
And we are witnessing this before all the cuts in public spending start to bite.
Labour were always going to hold Barnsley Central, despite the huge controversy surrounding the departure of previous MP Eric Ilsey, now serving a prison sentence for fiddling his parliamentary expenses.
This by-election was another opportunity early on in the new parliament for voters to give their verdict on the performance of the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners so far and the path they propose to travel between now and the next general election.
There is no doubt that the Lib Dems' broken promises on tuition fees and their cosying up to the Tories on the need to implement extremely rapid and enormous cuts in public spending were upper-most in voters' minds when they went to the polls in yesterday's by-election.
But I doubt anyone expected Nick Clegg's party to drop from second - their position at last year's general election - to an utterly humiliating sixth place, finishing well behind the Conservatives, who were third, as well as the BNP, UKIP and one of the Independent candidates.
It is a truly-astounding result. Clearly, this is the first of many beatings Nick Clegg and his party are going to endure between now and the next election.
They are waking up to how tough government is.
And we are witnessing this before all the cuts in public spending start to bite.
Friday 25 February 2011
Is This Really An Economy Pulled Back From The Brink?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12577154
The UK's GDP figures for the final quarter of 2010 which showed the economy shrank by 0.5% during that period, have been revised down even further to 0.6%.
Of course this is a very small change, but it still shows that, far from the economy being 'pulled back from the brink' as the Prime Minister and Chancellor have insisted, the UK's finances are still on very shaky ground.
And it adds support to the argument that massive cuts in public spending and at the speed the Coalition have proposed, could damage the economy even further and make a double-dip recession more likely.
The argument that cuts are necessary because as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury put it, Labour 'maxed out the nation's credit card' are wearing increasingly thin in the eyes of the public.
Watching this week's Question Time, the Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan, was met with loud boos from the audience when she once again trotted out this same line that has been used by the Coalition again and again from the moment they took office last May.
The public are beginning to think the government is sounding like a broken record.
The UK's GDP figures for the final quarter of 2010 which showed the economy shrank by 0.5% during that period, have been revised down even further to 0.6%.
Of course this is a very small change, but it still shows that, far from the economy being 'pulled back from the brink' as the Prime Minister and Chancellor have insisted, the UK's finances are still on very shaky ground.
And it adds support to the argument that massive cuts in public spending and at the speed the Coalition have proposed, could damage the economy even further and make a double-dip recession more likely.
The argument that cuts are necessary because as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury put it, Labour 'maxed out the nation's credit card' are wearing increasingly thin in the eyes of the public.
Watching this week's Question Time, the Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan, was met with loud boos from the audience when she once again trotted out this same line that has been used by the Coalition again and again from the moment they took office last May.
The public are beginning to think the government is sounding like a broken record.
Thursday 24 February 2011
Who's Right On AV? Cameron And Clegg Set Out Their Stalls
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12498624
The issue of electoral reform and more, specifically, the impending referendum on replacing our current voting system with the Alternative Vote, has thrown up a whole host of dilemas for the Coalition.
It was an issue that was key to the Liberal Democrats agreeing to share power with the Conservatives.
But it is no secret that most Tories absolutely hate the idea. The current First Past the Post system has, in the main ensured strong majority government for many years, with very few exceptions in modern times.
And we must not forget is that what Liberal Democrats really want is full Proportional Representation. AV offers voters the chance to rank candidates for MPs in each constituency in order of preference until one gets 50% of the vote. It is a preferential system and not a proportional one; therefore it could be argued, it is a compromise solution that neither side really want.
AV eliminates the scenario of having an MP elected to the House of Commons on as little as 25% of support from the constituents, which its supporters say can only be a good thing.
But there is always the chance that smaller, more extremist parties could end up holding the balance of power, or perhaps one or two independent MPs, as is now the case in Australia.
The ridiculous spectacle of the Prime Minister, David Cameron campaigning against a 'No' vote in May's referendum, with his deputy, Nick Clegg, spelling out the merits of changing our system to AV, really highlights the compromises both sides have had to make in order to ensure the stable government of the country.
Is it really a good thing for partners in government to have to agree to differ on such important issues just so that they can remain in power?
It remains to be seen whether the Prime Minister is right to insist that the result of the referendum will not be a 'coalition breaker'.
The issue of electoral reform and more, specifically, the impending referendum on replacing our current voting system with the Alternative Vote, has thrown up a whole host of dilemas for the Coalition.
It was an issue that was key to the Liberal Democrats agreeing to share power with the Conservatives.
But it is no secret that most Tories absolutely hate the idea. The current First Past the Post system has, in the main ensured strong majority government for many years, with very few exceptions in modern times.
And we must not forget is that what Liberal Democrats really want is full Proportional Representation. AV offers voters the chance to rank candidates for MPs in each constituency in order of preference until one gets 50% of the vote. It is a preferential system and not a proportional one; therefore it could be argued, it is a compromise solution that neither side really want.
AV eliminates the scenario of having an MP elected to the House of Commons on as little as 25% of support from the constituents, which its supporters say can only be a good thing.
But there is always the chance that smaller, more extremist parties could end up holding the balance of power, or perhaps one or two independent MPs, as is now the case in Australia.
The ridiculous spectacle of the Prime Minister, David Cameron campaigning against a 'No' vote in May's referendum, with his deputy, Nick Clegg, spelling out the merits of changing our system to AV, really highlights the compromises both sides have had to make in order to ensure the stable government of the country.
Is it really a good thing for partners in government to have to agree to differ on such important issues just so that they can remain in power?
It remains to be seen whether the Prime Minister is right to insist that the result of the referendum will not be a 'coalition breaker'.
Monday 31 January 2011
New Coalition NHS Reforms Could See Many NHS Hospitals Close
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12321166
The Tory-led Coalition's controversial plans for the NHS were unveiled in the House of Commons today.
The proposals mean that GPs will take over control of most of the NHS budget, supposedly allowing more decisions to be made at local level rather than from Whitehall.
A good idea on the surface, perhaps.
However, this is a clear example of how the Conservatives' obsession with the market is going to be put into practice in the implementation of Government policy.
Private companies will be allowed to compete with NHS hospitals in the provision of services. So obviously any GP being offered a lower price by a non-NHS source will be very tempted to take them on.
This will unundoubtedly lead to patient care becoming secondary to cost and one can only envisage a two-tier NHS emerging as a result.
More worrying is that many NHS hospitals could now go to the wall as a direct consequence of the new reforms. Under the proposed system, where people follow the market, the fear is that those hospitals that do not attract enough patients will be forced to close their doors.
The whole foundation on which these changes are based is that they will increase in choice of care available to patients. But if hospitals do not treat enough people, they will not survive, with their subsequence closure leading inevitably to patient choice being diminished.
The NHS will never be perfect, but the Coalition have engaged in change for change's sake and patients will suffer as a consequence.
The Tory-led Coalition's controversial plans for the NHS were unveiled in the House of Commons today.
The proposals mean that GPs will take over control of most of the NHS budget, supposedly allowing more decisions to be made at local level rather than from Whitehall.
A good idea on the surface, perhaps.
However, this is a clear example of how the Conservatives' obsession with the market is going to be put into practice in the implementation of Government policy.
Private companies will be allowed to compete with NHS hospitals in the provision of services. So obviously any GP being offered a lower price by a non-NHS source will be very tempted to take them on.
This will unundoubtedly lead to patient care becoming secondary to cost and one can only envisage a two-tier NHS emerging as a result.
More worrying is that many NHS hospitals could now go to the wall as a direct consequence of the new reforms. Under the proposed system, where people follow the market, the fear is that those hospitals that do not attract enough patients will be forced to close their doors.
The whole foundation on which these changes are based is that they will increase in choice of care available to patients. But if hospitals do not treat enough people, they will not survive, with their subsequence closure leading inevitably to patient choice being diminished.
The NHS will never be perfect, but the Coalition have engaged in change for change's sake and patients will suffer as a consequence.
Sunday 16 January 2011
Labour Leader Maintains Tough Stance Against Unions Over Royal Wedding Strike Threat
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12201252
Despite continual sniping from the Conservatives that he was elected mainly due the support of the Trades Unions, Ed Miliband, from day one of his leadership, has maintained a firm, uncompromising stance over the issue of industrial action.
In his first speech as Party leader last September, he stated that he had 'no truck' with the bosses of the major unions wanting to call their members out on strike at the drop of a hat. This was a clear warning to figures like RMT leader Bob Crowe, known for his hardline, militant attitude towards Tube management.
And today, Mr Miliband, has spoken out, quite rightly, against there being any kind of strike action on April 29, the day Prince William marries Kate Middleton.
There had been talk of members of the train drivers' union, ASLEF, walking out that day, but union bosses have now said that is unlikely.
Even so, just the threat of strike action disrupting the day's celebrations will have certainly alienated many people and had it gone ahead, would have no doubt made most of the public very unsympathetic to the unions' cause.
I hope Ed Miliband continues to speak out against any proposed or actual industrial action in this way.
He is doing extremely well in keeping Labour on the centre-ground of British politics, where it belongs.
Despite continual sniping from the Conservatives that he was elected mainly due the support of the Trades Unions, Ed Miliband, from day one of his leadership, has maintained a firm, uncompromising stance over the issue of industrial action.
In his first speech as Party leader last September, he stated that he had 'no truck' with the bosses of the major unions wanting to call their members out on strike at the drop of a hat. This was a clear warning to figures like RMT leader Bob Crowe, known for his hardline, militant attitude towards Tube management.
And today, Mr Miliband, has spoken out, quite rightly, against there being any kind of strike action on April 29, the day Prince William marries Kate Middleton.
There had been talk of members of the train drivers' union, ASLEF, walking out that day, but union bosses have now said that is unlikely.
Even so, just the threat of strike action disrupting the day's celebrations will have certainly alienated many people and had it gone ahead, would have no doubt made most of the public very unsympathetic to the unions' cause.
I hope Ed Miliband continues to speak out against any proposed or actual industrial action in this way.
He is doing extremely well in keeping Labour on the centre-ground of British politics, where it belongs.
SDP Founder Lord Owen Could Rejoin Labour Under Ed Miliband
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12201106
I read with interest today that Lord Owen - one of the four MPs who left Labour in 1981 to form the SDP - is considering rejoining the Labour Party.
Lord Owen, who was Foreign Secretary under Jim Callaghan, has now said that he is very impressed with Ed Miliband's leadership so far and believes he has reclaimed some of the ground lost by Labour when Tony Blair was at the helm.
Now, he is considering voting for the Party again, if not rejoining them.
I find this all quite amazing, since David Owen, as he then was, along with Shirley Williams, Bill Rodgers and Roy Jenkins all left the Labour Party claiming it had gone too far to the left under Michael Foot's leadership.
Now the Labour peer is claiming that he is ready to rejoin a Party that is being led by a man thought to be more on the left than many other Cabinet ministers in the last government and considered to have won the leadership mainly due the support of the trades unions.
Given how far onto the centre-ground Tony Blair took Labour, I am very surprised indeed that Lord Owen did not publicly state his support for them whilst they in power.
This will certainly raise a few eyebrows.
I would be very interested to know what has been the nature of the conversations so far between Mr Miliband and Lord Owen.
I also think that, with so many Liberal Democrat supporters unhappy with Nick Clegg's propping up of the Tories right now, having such a prominent figure like David Owen back in the Labour fold could strengthen them as an opposition and encourage many Lib Dems to come over to Labour.
This could possibly increase the likelihood of the Party gaining enough support amongst the electorate for them to return to power very quickly at the next general election.
I read with interest today that Lord Owen - one of the four MPs who left Labour in 1981 to form the SDP - is considering rejoining the Labour Party.
Lord Owen, who was Foreign Secretary under Jim Callaghan, has now said that he is very impressed with Ed Miliband's leadership so far and believes he has reclaimed some of the ground lost by Labour when Tony Blair was at the helm.
Now, he is considering voting for the Party again, if not rejoining them.
I find this all quite amazing, since David Owen, as he then was, along with Shirley Williams, Bill Rodgers and Roy Jenkins all left the Labour Party claiming it had gone too far to the left under Michael Foot's leadership.
Now the Labour peer is claiming that he is ready to rejoin a Party that is being led by a man thought to be more on the left than many other Cabinet ministers in the last government and considered to have won the leadership mainly due the support of the trades unions.
Given how far onto the centre-ground Tony Blair took Labour, I am very surprised indeed that Lord Owen did not publicly state his support for them whilst they in power.
This will certainly raise a few eyebrows.
I would be very interested to know what has been the nature of the conversations so far between Mr Miliband and Lord Owen.
I also think that, with so many Liberal Democrat supporters unhappy with Nick Clegg's propping up of the Tories right now, having such a prominent figure like David Owen back in the Labour fold could strengthen them as an opposition and encourage many Lib Dems to come over to Labour.
This could possibly increase the likelihood of the Party gaining enough support amongst the electorate for them to return to power very quickly at the next general election.
Friday 14 January 2011
By-Election Boost For Miliband As Tories Are Criticised For Lacklustre Campaign
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12191431
Ed Miliband's leadership has been given a boost after Labour safely held the seat of Oldham East and Saddleworth in Thursday's by-election.
Although the Liberal Democrats did increase their share of the vote on last May's General Election result, Labour's Debbie Abrahams romped home with a confortable majority with the Tories a distant third.
There is no doubt that this will be seen as an endorsement of the new Labour leader, who has received a lambasting in the mainly Tory-backed press for his performance so far, with them still refusing to see Mr Miliband as anything other than the man put at the helm by the unions.
This is, as the Labour leader said after the result, the first step on Labour's path back to power, but nobody is under any illusion that there is an extremely tough road ahead for the party.
Although the Tories were never going to come near to winning this seat, they should certainly be worried about their share of the vote and the Party's co-chair Baroness Warsi has been forced to deny that they deliberately fought a lacklustre campaign to help the Liberal Democrats.
With there being considerable anger amongst voters about the rise in student tuition fees and the huge hike in VAT, amongst other things, this result has to be seen as the first of many damning verdicts on the Coalition's performance.
Ed Miliband's leadership has been given a boost after Labour safely held the seat of Oldham East and Saddleworth in Thursday's by-election.
Although the Liberal Democrats did increase their share of the vote on last May's General Election result, Labour's Debbie Abrahams romped home with a confortable majority with the Tories a distant third.
There is no doubt that this will be seen as an endorsement of the new Labour leader, who has received a lambasting in the mainly Tory-backed press for his performance so far, with them still refusing to see Mr Miliband as anything other than the man put at the helm by the unions.
This is, as the Labour leader said after the result, the first step on Labour's path back to power, but nobody is under any illusion that there is an extremely tough road ahead for the party.
Although the Tories were never going to come near to winning this seat, they should certainly be worried about their share of the vote and the Party's co-chair Baroness Warsi has been forced to deny that they deliberately fought a lacklustre campaign to help the Liberal Democrats.
With there being considerable anger amongst voters about the rise in student tuition fees and the huge hike in VAT, amongst other things, this result has to be seen as the first of many damning verdicts on the Coalition's performance.
Tuesday 11 January 2011
Illsley's Position Now Untenable
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12157768
Labour MP Eric Illsley has pleaded guilty in court today to charges of false accounting over claims of a second home.
Yet he has not resigned as an MP.
Yes it's true that he can still retain his seat in Parliament if he now receives a custodial sentence of less than a year. But given the fact that he has been found guilty of misusing tax-payers' money and can now be said to have betrayed the trust of his own constituents, there is no way, in my opinion that he can remain an MP.
Labour leader Ed Miliband and Prime Minister David Cameron have, quite rightly, called for him to resign gracefully.
Following the conviction and jailing last week of fellow Labour MP David Chaytor over the expenses scandal, this is another black day for the reputation of Parliament.
Mr Illsley's reputation, like Mr Chaytor's, is now in ruins. And there are further trials of other MPs to come.
Nobody found guilty of such serious offences can expect to remain in public office.
Labour MP Eric Illsley has pleaded guilty in court today to charges of false accounting over claims of a second home.
Yet he has not resigned as an MP.
Yes it's true that he can still retain his seat in Parliament if he now receives a custodial sentence of less than a year. But given the fact that he has been found guilty of misusing tax-payers' money and can now be said to have betrayed the trust of his own constituents, there is no way, in my opinion that he can remain an MP.
Labour leader Ed Miliband and Prime Minister David Cameron have, quite rightly, called for him to resign gracefully.
Following the conviction and jailing last week of fellow Labour MP David Chaytor over the expenses scandal, this is another black day for the reputation of Parliament.
Mr Illsley's reputation, like Mr Chaytor's, is now in ruins. And there are further trials of other MPs to come.
Nobody found guilty of such serious offences can expect to remain in public office.
Monday 3 January 2011
Miliband Springs To Life In Attack On VAT Rise
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12106168
After what has been described by many commentators as a lacklustre start to his leadership of the Labour Party and an overall mediocre performance at Prime Minister's Questions, Ed Miliband confounded his critics today by launching a blistering attack on the huge hike in VAT that comes into force today.
VAT is now rising from 17.5 to 20%, a move that is going to hit everyone extremely hard.
Mr Miliband used a speech during a visit to Oldham East and Saddleworth - where a Parliamentary by-election is taking place on 13 January - to press home the consequences of such a rise in the tax.
He spoke effectively and eloquently claiming that the increase will cost families an extra £7.50 a week, and far from being a necessary measure to bring down the huge budget deficit, that it will actually impede growth in the economy and hit jobs.
Mr Miliband needs to maintain this high profile from now until the next election if he is to return Labour to government in the shortest possible time.
After what has been described by many commentators as a lacklustre start to his leadership of the Labour Party and an overall mediocre performance at Prime Minister's Questions, Ed Miliband confounded his critics today by launching a blistering attack on the huge hike in VAT that comes into force today.
VAT is now rising from 17.5 to 20%, a move that is going to hit everyone extremely hard.
Mr Miliband used a speech during a visit to Oldham East and Saddleworth - where a Parliamentary by-election is taking place on 13 January - to press home the consequences of such a rise in the tax.
He spoke effectively and eloquently claiming that the increase will cost families an extra £7.50 a week, and far from being a necessary measure to bring down the huge budget deficit, that it will actually impede growth in the economy and hit jobs.
Mr Miliband needs to maintain this high profile from now until the next election if he is to return Labour to government in the shortest possible time.
Cable Comments Highlights Splits In Coalition
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12045792
Any doubts amongst Liberal Democrats over their position in the Coalition were blown into the public arena today by the publicizing of Vince Cable's recorded remarks that he could be pushed into walking out on the government.
Can we really now take this nonsense of a Coalition seriously now that a senior member of the Cabinet has voiced such disatisfaction with his position?
With a massive rise in VAT to come in the New Year, not to mention all the cuts in public spending, the already shaky position of the junior partners in this Coalition can only become more and more untenable as these sure-to-be extremely unpopular policies start to bit and hit the pockets of ordinary people.
Any doubts amongst Liberal Democrats over their position in the Coalition were blown into the public arena today by the publicizing of Vince Cable's recorded remarks that he could be pushed into walking out on the government.
Can we really now take this nonsense of a Coalition seriously now that a senior member of the Cabinet has voiced such disatisfaction with his position?
With a massive rise in VAT to come in the New Year, not to mention all the cuts in public spending, the already shaky position of the junior partners in this Coalition can only become more and more untenable as these sure-to-be extremely unpopular policies start to bit and hit the pockets of ordinary people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)