I wonder if he gets on with the neighbours.
(Click the photo to enlarge)
Posts
Out and about with our community
2 days ago
Friday, June 20
Wednesday, June 18
Friends of Zimbabwe
This charity helps do all it can to ensure Zimbabwean voters in the Presidential run-off can vote free from violent pressure.
Click the picture to find out more and donate.
Tuesday, June 17
Polling day: Haltemprice and Howden
Heard on the grapevine that polling day might end up being 10 July (if anyone actually cares).
Monday, June 16
Blue or Green? Cameron tries to convince us that Davey won't Waver
Cameron outlined his 'Blue Green Charter' in a speech today.
Its somewhat disturbing reading for Lib Dem policy wonks. He harps heavily about battery cars, investment in the transport networks and the idiocy of the third runway at Heathrow - all strong points of reference in Lib Dem environment messaging.
His message on nuclear is pretty weak, trying to distance the Tories from the Government, pretty unsuccessfully in my view.
The importance he places on tidal power is striking and surprising given the relative infancy of tidal technology. He certainly has a point with the enormous potential tidal power at the UK's fingertips, but could a Conservative Government in waiting really factor such a technologically elusive form of energy generation into their maths for production?
On energy efficiency, the Tories do of course support the smart meters which the industry, consumers and green campaigners cry out for (a call that the Government maddeningly ignores). However the effectiveness in giving people "a nudge in the right direction" by publishing energy use of neighbours in household energy bills, remains to be seen. His pledge to deliver "the post-bureaucratic age" where Government doesn't control people's lives by "pulling bureaucratic levers from above is of course contradicted by a healthy interest in telling people to live in nuclear families by making people who don't poorer: "every additional penny raised from green taxes will go into a separate pot - a Family Fund".
Still, there's certainly food for thought here. I suppose what matters is whether people believe he is sincere and I'm sure the PR spiv label which his opponents still try desperately to pin to him, is his greatest potential problem politically.
It was a good speech. I wonder if Blair's one-time composer Phil Collins has started writing for him yet.
Friday, June 13
Davis fall(s)out
Drunk on a day in the limelight, the hangover must have truly kicked in for David Davis this morning. As the ex-editor of the Sun Kelvin Mackenzie threatens to challenge and knock this contest into new fathoms of absurdity, Labour look increasingly unlikely to field a candidate.
Labour can do this because of the direction that the media's narrative has taken. It started well for Davis but the coverage on 24 hour news quickly descended into scepticism that this was a stunt and little more.
Many commentators now call his campaign a vanity project. Its not an unfair assessment - he has thrown his toys out of the pram.
The BBC now carry the headline that his campaign is "not madness", almost a typological refrain of a man descending into political insanity.
Mr Davis's actions appear ludicrous to us. We can only assume they appear so irrational because we do not fully comprehend his megalomania.
Perhaps we should give him some of the benefit of the doubt and surmise that he took the defeat on 42 days personally, and moreover, his sense of realpolitik knew that his failure to secure victory meant a (supposedly) hostile inner circle in the cabinet would use this to exact upon him a decline, or merely a stagnation. Perhaps he felt that his position was not under threat at all, but as an extraordinarily ambitious politician who only ever had eyes on the leadership and ultimately number 10, he exploded in a fit of narcissistic egotism.
Thursday, June 12
Dominic Grieve is the new Shadow Home Secretary
Dominic Grieve has been appointed by David Cameron.
He said it wasn't the choice of the leadership or the party to trigger a by-election.
I think I could detect just a hint of anger at the position he has been put in by Davis.
I wonder what is bigger, Mr. Davis's cojones or his ego.
UPDATE: I've put a poll up if you want to vote on that.
Haltemprice and Howden by-election
Sorry to sound like a vulture, but the Lib Dems have a clear chance in this by-election campaign.
Davis will not have the financial support of the party. The Lib Dem by election machine can really go to town here. He will command the media spotlight however.
Yet it looks like Labour may actually be able to exploit this by-election campaign. Davis has said that he will base his campaign upon the issue of 42 days. Clearly Labour's intellectually vacuous position on this is also the most popular one.
Here are the 2005 results:
| Haltemprice and Howden General election 2005 | ||||
5,116 | 10.64% | |||
68,436 | ||||
48,098 | 70.28% | |||
| Con Hold (3.17% from Lib Dem to Con) | ||||
UPDATE: The Lib Dems WON'T CAMPAIGN in this election. It is to be on the issue of 42 days. This is unprecedented.
Davis quits!
Unbelievable breaking news, David Davis to RESIGN.
The Telegraph Blog actually predicted that the vote on 42 days would affect his standing in the Shadow Cabinet, but this is well beyond even that.
I actually thought their predictions were totally over-egged. Completely dumbfounded by this.
I've not been a fan of Davis in the past by any means, but I was extremely impressed by his resolute stance, and performance opposing the extension of detention without trial.
I wonder whether the Tory leadership was waiting for even the smallest chance of knifing him in the back. Perhaps Davis like Spellman, wasn't so deep in Cameron's circle. Perhaps he is so personally shattered by the result of the vote that he took it upon himself to leave.
Just in - his campaign won't be backed by CCHQ resources.
This is bizarre.
Ministerial lie of the week: PM on DUP 42 days deal
Bit of an obvious one this week, but it has to be Gordon Brown at his routine Downing Street press conference NOW, claiming that there were no inducements and "no deal" that brought all 9 DUP MPs into the Government lobby last night to support 42 days.
The last time he lied so blatantly was at his No. 10 press conference the day after cancelling the election that wasn't. Well we all know how the media felt about that...
Wednesday, June 11
1000 hours in the dark: 42 days
So the Government have won the Commons' vote on whether to extend the time allowed for detention without charge beyond 28 days to 42 days.
The ayes won the vote by nine votes. The DUP voted with the Government for reasons which I predicted some time ago. Coincidentally there are nine DUP MPs in Parliament.
I watched the debate. It was an incredible display of the intellectual chasm between the ayes and the noes on this monumental vote which concerned the central liberty granted by Magna Carta.
There is nothing I may argue that can match the eloquent power of Members such as Sir Menzies Campbell, David Heath, Frank Cook and Dianne Abbott. In particular, Dianne Abbtt's speech must go down as one of my favourite Parliamentary speeches. The Government's arguments have now been so thoroughly torn asunder that I really don't know where to begin and I certainly could never end once I start.
I have no doubt some of the ayes are honourable in their misguided opinions. And yet in and out of the chamber they have cast aspersions and insinuations that betray their horrible misconception, that those who would defend the right to habeas corpus, defend crime and are in some way culpable if a crime is committed.
Jacqui Smith said that it is the terrorists who have bombed and killed, convinced her of the need for this legislation. If so then they have made one further gain in their project to obliterate liberal democracy and the freedoms that not only enable prosperity as we know it, but create happiness for which no money can compensate.
On the subject of compensation, the final sop to swing Labour backbenchers, this measure is completely unworkable. I argued when detention without trial was first extended that there should be substantial monetary compensation. I don't think a million pounds would excuse a week of the measure for a moment but I was amazed it was not implemented, and that no victims have thus far sued, challenging the law. Yet, giving compensation only beyond 28 days is nonsensical. What is it that qualifies someone for compensation where they do not receive it for a massive four weeks beforehand? Oh yes, it was designed to buy the backbenchers, not to be actually implemented.
The other sweetener is far more worrying, and its implications actually go beyond concerns over individual liberty. I refer to the novel role of Parliament scrutinising the case if a suspect is detained beyond 28 days. The Home Secretary claimed in the debate that the House would not consider the individual case but whether there was a severe threat. Firstly, if only the threat was considered, Parliament would simply be required to trust the word of whatever brief they would be handed. As the Home Secretary's plea went today "Trust me". It would be little more than a rubber stamp in this case. But of course Parliament's decision would consider the case, the suspect, and influence charges and trial. Put it this way, even if Parliament were convinced by the briefing handed them by the Home Secretary (and no one else) what possible bearing would that have on the allowance of the power to detain? Just because a threat existed or had existed, did that justify locking up a suspect without charging him or her? Immediately the case and judgement becomes politicised and coloured with much broader opinions, not even considering the charged politicisation of today's debate on principle. Finally, is this the role of Parliament, to weigh into the judicial process? This is an enormous constitutional innovation, virtually sprung upon the Commons and the country by a Government with no sense of the underlying constitutional functions that hold together society and good governance.
Of course we know that the Government never had evidence to back up their policy. I say this with some care. There is at least one occasion where the Government has come to the Commons with a false leg to stand on. Often 'evidence' is presented to close all intellectual debate. I am glad that their case was so transparent that MPs were at least given a chance to consider what was right and vote with their consciences.
Yet Gordon Brown's words at PMQs were truly sickening. "We have followed the advice of the police and the intelligence services".
This week a number of senior police broke silence and condemned the extension of incarceration on suspicion. The notion that ACPO support the the measure unanimously is a fallacy which the Home Secretary sought to perpetuate until the votes were cast. Of course we already know that the Director of Public Prosecutions, the official that decides on the case to prosecute in these cases, does not want the powers which is said would prejudice the very case for bringing trial because of increased pressure to find guilt once Parliament had been dragged into the case. The intelligence services also took the rare decision to publicly state this week that they did not advise the Government to rescind the right to habeas corpus. Rarely has a Prime Minister issued such misleading phrases so brashly when the inaccuracies are for all to hear if only one had listened to Today each morning that week.
Another point that exposes the absurdity of the Government's argument is the Home Secretary's repetitive talk of 'complex and international nature of the threat of terrorism'.
Yes it is complex and international, but hold on. We should first remember that the Government was criticised quite recently by Interpol, no less, the organisation that deals with international crime and has a huge responsibility in counteracting terrorism globally. Interpol criticised our Government for dedicating less than a handful of police officers to Interpol, for having almost no communication with the organisation and for not preparing a working system that would allow the UK to interact with and listen to the organisation's input. This memory burnt in my mind when I heard Jacqui Smith try to concern MPs with the possibility that in their little offices they couldn't hope to get to grips with the diplomatic geopolitical complexities of international terrorism, unaware that their constituency office probably held more manpower than the Government's police delegation to Interpol.
Now let us think about the challenge of processing the evidence in time ("tonnes of information" etc.). In keeping with my previous point, I won't launch into the differences between different countries. While its clear that we have by far and away the longest legalised suspension of habeas corpus in the world. There are complex differences between the workings of different legal systems and this point only opens the point here to insufficient yet confusing counter-arguments. Lets just ask a simple question of the Home Secretary: If police and prosecutors need more time to prepare a case, would they not theoretically need more resources, more effort? By allowing extra time you have given them extra manpower. What if you were to give them extra manpower? You're paying innocent prisoners £3,000 a day now, don't you have any spare resources? Or is our liberty not worth extra expenditure? As a taxpayer I am happy to pay enough to ensure that these basic but essential protections are afforded to all.
Highly galling is the fact that the number of days itself is completely arbitrary. The Home Secretary admitted that she did not know what the exact number of days should be, indeed the Government began by arguing for "about 50" days, underlining the fact that this is little more than the legislative equivalent of pin the tail on the donkey. As David Heath passionately observed, Members that made the argument that it was justified to suspend the liberty because of suspicion and fear, effectively argued for indefinite limit. They form the block of MPs which have, helped to turn a blind eye to the extraordinary human rights abuses that our Government has become implicated in during recent years. They are even the sort of MP which until recently packed out the Human Rights Committee.
Labour Members often hark to their backgrounds. Their noble protection of underclass minority communities from the repressive reactionary British state, or their protection of embattled working class communities in mining towns for example. Dianne Abbott made the first point, and another Labour backbencher (forgive me I forget his name) made the other, saying that his leaders were protecting British communities just as his party had always done. Ms Abbott for her part said that it was the test of Parliament, that they would protect those who it is easier to fear, to marginalise, or even to ignore, just as the Labour party had protected the 'enemy within' of black youth in the 1980s.
It is her who is absolutely right. No one who paid attention to the outrage and turmoil following the erroneous Forest Gate raids, and others like it, who remembers the man shot in the shoulder in his own family home with children around him, or the testimonies of those abducted only to be returned innocent to their close knit communities, one dissuaded by the experience from serving in the police, can fail to imagine the awful effect that experience must have had on that community and its relationship with the wider community around it. Having had some minor professional involvement in the case of a British citizen detained for years in Guantanamo Bay, gained my own small insight into the real damage wreaked upon the lives of the families of those who have all human liberty and dignity stripped from them.
Just as my professional experience shapes my instincts on the effects of the legislation on community relations and radicalisation, my background as a history scholar informs my understanding that our free and democratic society has never been permanent. It has been challenged, threatened and fought for. It would not have been fought for, and would have been attacked harder if it had not contained the value it did. Liberal democracy has always been a long road to the results many have wanted to achieve. To many authoritarianism in one form or another has seemed an easier route. Yet it cannot be controlled. As a package the liberties we enjoy contain their own dynamic which, while not perfect, has lead to the greatest and most unimaginable improvements and achievements. They are vital and I do not believe the Government fully imagine what their absence would mean.
If suspending this liberty is unnecessary they are simply unconscionable. If the Government's measures are ineffectual they are not just useless in their purpose of protecting us from terrorism. They put us in harm's way, just as so many of our Government's actions have already done. Was the price worth it with Iraq or Lebanon or rendition. I would say not. Is it worth it this time, when the measures are utterly useless and counterproductive. NO.
For all this absurdity, the Government aren't fools. They must know how ridiculous their position is. Why have they pushed this measure?
I am wary of cynicism, but I prise scepticism because it helps us to hold the executive to account. On this occasion it is right to point to base political calculation as the reason behind these measures. The Government have popular support with this, all the polls say so. The rot goes further. Almost ever Labour MP that spoke to support the Government spoke from a position of personal political peril (including Jacqui Smith - my tip for the most high-profile ministerial decapitation come the General Election). Marginal seated Labour Members stood to defend to the House, and probably to themselves, their decision to side with the Government. Yet the DUP are the most unconscionable of the lot. I don't know whether it was a deal on devolution of policing or even the prised reduction of corporation tax that they hammered out at the meeting at Number 10 last week, but it is now clear that that meeting was not just about bringing Sinn Fein and the DUP together to nominate Robinson as First Minister peacefully. The Government won the vote by nine, and the Democratic Unionist nine voted with the Government.
Every now and again politicians do something which I cannot forgive. This time they played for their political skins and their small time policy gains with the rights that underline our freedom, the only thing we really need.
Does it matter that it went through. Yes the Lords will oppose. Perhaps we can string this out, after all if it can fall this session, it may well end up in the horse-trading with the Tories during dying moments of Labour's third and final term.
We have one further worry though. Gordon Brown gave us this promise during PMQs today:
"I don't want [...] to come to this house in a panic to introduce emergency legislation."
In other words, 'Pass this Bill or I'll pass it for you'.
These 1000 hours of darkness are the latest step in the authoritarian creep implemented by a Government that proved itself unfit for office. Lets hope its the last.
42 days result just in
The Commons have backed an extension of pre-charge detention by 9 votes.
Its a sad moment for the House.
I hope that it is possible that the legislation can pass through Parliamentary ping-pong with the Lords until such time as it has to be reintroduced next session, to fall at election time.
More soon...
Abbott's finest
Dianne Abbott is giving the speech of her life on 42 days.
Rushed off my feet can't write more now. I'll post later on this monumental issue.
Watch the debate HERE now.
Gaffes begone
The era of the Bushism novelty calendar is coming to an end, but the lame-hawk is still dropping gems.
"Phrases such as 'bring them on' or 'dead or alive [...] indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace".
Tuesday, June 3
The price of 42 days
"Prime minister Gordon Brown meets the leadership of Sinn Fein in London. The talks are expected to focus on the devolution of policing and justice powers"The vote on 42 day detention may be very tight. Will these devolved powers pay for DUP support of the Government's latest retrograde justice policy in the Commons?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)