Censorship is not the answer to the Woolwich attack

Tyranny does not come as a thief in the night, but openly. The killing, by two radicalised islamic extremists, of a British soldier on a London street has brought the usual calls to suspend the rule of law. A BBC interview with one radical preacher prompted Home Secretary Theresa May to ask what the state broadcaster thought it was doing by broadcasting such a thing, and Baroness Warsi, formerly a prominent Muslim minister, joined the chorus. The newspapers reported that a ban on radical clerics being covered on the airwaves is being actively discussed.

If so, it won’t work. Those with long memories will remember how the UK government tried to prevent the broadcast media carrying interviews with radical politicians from Northern Ireland. That came about after a particularly sickening interview with Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams on the back of yet another Irish Republican Army murder. The law was duly passed, but the media simply used actors to dub the words of their interviewees, or put the text on screen and had the newsreader read it out.

Frankly, I don’t want to hear extremists justifying murder on UK radio and television. It can be pretty revolting, not to mention deeply upsetting for bereaved relatives. But we have – or had – a rule that people should be free to express their opinions, no matter what the rest of us think about them. We have that rule because we believe that, although it may be abused on occasion, and although it may give air to views that might prove damaging, in the long run it is better to have ideas openly expressed and debated. If ideas are good, they will win that debate. If they are bad, they will not.

There is a limit, though, as the libertarian philosopher John Stuart Mill pointed out over a century ago. We do not allow people to say or do things that could cause real damage to others. We do not allow people to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre, and we do not allow them to incite violence. The line between condoning a murder and inciting violence might be a thin one for the broadcasters to tread. But we owe it to the rule of law to try to maintain that line.

Been Away

Hello everyone, it has been a while since i last posted anything on this blog. I have been very busy with my final year of university and starting a new job i simply could not find the time to write. However no i am in the swing of things i feel compelled to once again start my blogging. A lot has happened since i last wrote a post so i will not attempt to cover this as i’m sure most of you know what happened anyway.  Hope you have not missed me to much.

Should the government legalise same-sex marriage?

The simple answer is no: there is absolutely no democratic mandate for redefining marriage. To suggest that two people of the same sex can be married is like saying an apple is an orange. It is a palpable nonsense – in fact, it’s totally nuts.

Having read and re-read the Conservative Party manifesto for 2010, I can say that there was not one single mention of this policy. Out of curiosity, I did the same with the Liberal Democrat manifesto, and to my amazement there was not even a single use of the word “marriage” throughout the whole of the manifesto. They do, however, use the word “family”, which they describe as “mum and dad and children”.

Nevertheless, I’m acutely aware that we have neither a Conservative government nor a Liberal Democrat government. We have, instead, a coalition government, and so I decided to read through the coalition programme for government. Once again, there was not a single mention of redefining marriage.

For more than 2,000 years, marriage has been between a man and a woman. This definition also comes from a religious context, in which the union of a man and a woman is in front of God. And, indeed, the dictionary definition states that marriage is: “The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognised by law, by which they become husband and wife.”

The prime minister has not consulted the country, the party, or his fellow Conservative members of Parliament before trying to change an institution that has been accepted and supported for more than 2,000 years. There is a huge democratic deficit in the government’s action to redefine marriage; without any party even having hinted at it in their manifesto, it is arrogant and unacceptable.

The PM’s position previously had been that civil partnerships give equal legal rights to gay couples, and that he was opposed to gay marriage. That seems eminently sensible, so why the change of heart?

Opinion polls suggest that the public believes the change has come about for party political reasons. They strongly infer that the change is being made to make the Conservative Party look modern and progressive, not because the PM and government believe in the principle of gay marriage. Should a cherished institution be changed just so that the Tory Party will look modern?

The government’s position seems to be that you can have two types of marriages: a religious marriage and a civil marriage. The religious marriage would be for the reactionaries and the dinosaurs who want to live in the past, while a civil marriage, whether it is between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, would be modern, secular and progressive. If you take a step back for a moment, you can see how preposterous the government’s position is: when has anyone introduced his wife as his ‘religious wife’ or his ‘civil wife’?

The other argument the government runs is that churches would not be forced to conduct gay marriages. This is deliberately misleading. There can be no doubt that if gay marriage were legalised, within a few months there would be a case before the European Court of Human Rights demanding that a gay couple be allowed to get married in the Anglican Church. Does anyone believe that the European Court would not rule in favour of such a claim?

Another key aspect of this debate, on which David Cameron has been silent, is whether the government is going to force this measure through Parliament on a whipped vote, or whether there will be a genuine free vote. Matters of moral concern have always in the past been treated by Parliament as free votes, where parliamentary members could vote and campaign according to their conscience. I know that there are many ministers and Conservative MPs who want to speak out and vote against this ill-thought-out and inadvisable measure. Why has Cameron failed to authorise a free vote?

The prime minister is right on so many issues, but on this one he is out of touch with the British people. And he is plain wrong.

The Conservative have more in common with Unions than many think

With fuel strikes in the headlines again, it is more important than ever to remember that there is a huge difference between moderate union members, and some hardline union leaders, who Conservatives are bound to have disagreements with. In fact, I would take it a step further: it’s time we Conservatives stopped bashing trade unions and started remembering our roots.

This is because sometimes when we criticise unions, the effect is not just to demonise militancy, but every trade union member, including doctors, nurses and teachers. There is a world of difference between the policies of Len McCluskey, and the ordinary activities of the Unite trade union. In reality, Unite is a very capitalist organisation. On their website they advertise tax-minimising services through a business called ‘Tax Refund Co’, with the strapline: “Over £6.3m already refunded to Unite members – see if you’re due a refund.” They also advertise private health insurance deals through Eyecare Express, Macmillan Cancer Support, and Unite Family insurance. There is even a ‘Unite Lottery’, a gambling game raising funds for the union.

It’s not just Unite. Many other unions offer identical services on their website. Unison, for example, also has private health schemes and tax-avoiding services. And yet both are formally affiliated with the Labour Party, and are Ed Miliband’s main source of funds. This serves as a reminder that there are far more trade unionists with private healthcare than who go on strike. The Daily Telegraph reported in 2001 that 3.5 million trade unionists – more than half the TUC membership – now have some form of private health cover. By contrast, the TUC estimate that less than two million went on strike in 2011 over pensions reform
The truth is that while the Conservative Party has a long history of caring for trade unionists, the battles with Arthur Scargill in the 1980s and the miners’ strikes have clouded many people’s perceptions. I suspect you don’t believe me, but let me ask you this: who first set out to legalise the trade union movement? A Conservative, indeed a Conservative prime minister: the Earl of Derby. And who said that the law should not only permit, but also “assist” the trade unions? It was Margaret Thatcher.

In fact, Mrs Thatcher was a committed trade unionist. The first political office she held was in the Conservative Trade Unionists (CTU). Perhaps because of this she understood very well something that many Tories now forget: that most trade union members are not political. They are commuters, workers, people going about their daily lives. That is why, as leader of the opposition, she fought hard to recruit members for the CTU. It is hard to imagine now, but in 1979, trade union members flew banners in Wembley Stadium that read: “Trade Unions for a Conservative Victory.”

Recent controversy does not make this relationship an easy sell, but we cannot allow nay-sayers like the Labour MP Denis MacShane to get away with tweeting that “Tories despise union folk”. It is simply not true. There are 6.5 million trade union members in the UK – that’s more than the entire population of Scotland – and the majority of them are moderate, hard-working Britons. A Populus poll in 2009 showed that a third of Unite members actually intended to vote Conservative at the general election. Of the 58 unions in the TUC, only 15 are Labour-affiliated, leaving 43 non-affiliated unions in Britain.

Conservatives share many values with trade unionists. To start with, many union members are thoroughly capitalist but they are also wonderful communitarians. Trade unions are the largest voluntary group in the UK. TUC research has shown that trade union officers actually are eight times more likely to engage in voluntary work than the average person. That is the big society in action.

To be clear, I do not expect Bob Crow and other union barons to become Conservative voters. My point is that these leaders do not always speak well for their members. That is why Tory campaigners and supporters should try to speak over their heads, directly to their memberships.

I am not naive about militant unionism. I know that this is the source of 90 per cent of the Labour Party’s funding, and I would like to see that changed. However, I don’t believe that precludes me from holding union membership myself, or from believing that the people who belong to these organisations form the little platoons we love to talk about. It’s no good Conservatives complaining that unions are dominated by the left, if we don’t participate in the union movement.

That is why Conservatives need to re-engage, and to reform. We should not be afraid to praise the union movement or even encourage people to join up. In fact..

We need to show union members that we share similar values and that we appreciate them. I want Conservatives actively to campaign in the union movement again, standing for election as officials, just as they did under Margaret Thatcher. This way, we could oppose subsidies and funds to the Labour Party, and work for tougher strike laws, but do it standing shoulder-to-shoulder with millions of union members who agree with us.

Raw and real, Boris calls for Tory to run statist, corporatist, defeatist, anti-business, Europhile and Leftist BBC

Boris Johnson – the man who has already given up on the Today programme – is in blistering form about the BBC in his Telegraph column:

“The prevailing view of Beeb newsrooms is, with honourable exceptions, statist, corporatist, defeatist, anti-business, Europhile and, above all, overwhelmingly biased to the Left… Eurosceptic views are still treated as if they were vaguely mad and unpleasant, even though the Eurosceptic analysis has been proved overwhelmingly right.”

He also attacks the Corporation’s relentless coverage of Rupert Murdoch:

“In all its lavish coverage of Murdoch, hacking and BSkyB, the BBC never properly explains the reasons why other media organisations – including the BBC – want to shaft a free-market competitor… The non-Murdoch media have their guns trained on Murdoch, while the Beeb continues to destroy the business case of its private sector rivals with taxpayer-funded websites and electronic media of all kinds.”

London’s Mayor goes on to express his deep frustration at the obsessions of the BBC. Why, he asks, does the Corporation never cover the dizzying variety of business start-ups across Britain and particularly in London? “Fully 75 per cent of the London economy is private sector,” he writes, “and yet it is almost completely ignored by our state broadcaster.”

Boris has a solution:

“Well, folks, we have a potential solution. In a short while we must appoint a new director-general, to succeed Mark Thompson. If we are really going ahead with Lords reform (why?), then the Lib Dems should allow the Government to appoint someone to run the BBC who is free-market, pro-business and understands the depths of the problems this country faces. We need someone who knows about the work ethic, and cutting costs. We need a Tory, and no mucking around. If we can’t change the Beeb, we can’t change the country.”

A Conservative DG would certainly be good but a dynamic Eurosceptic businessman might work just as well. Specifics aside today’s Boris column is another reason why he is the Heineken Tory. It’s not just what he says it’s also clear this article came from deep inside him. It’s real and raw in an age when few politicians are.

The Queens Speech – Quick Bill Breakdown

The Government’s priorities for the coming parliamentary year have this afternoon been set out in the Queen’s Speech 2012.

At the official State Opening of Parliament, the Queen’s Speech highlighted the Government’s priorities of economic growth and deficit reduction.

Some of the Bills laid out in the Speech were:

• Public Service Pensions Bill – will reform public service pensions      in line with the recommendations of the report prepared by the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission.
• Enterprise, Employment, Regulatory Reform and Repeals Bill – will promote enterprise and fair markets, including provisions on a Green Investment Bank, a new Competition and Markets Authority and reforming employment tribunals.
• Banking Reform Bill – will put into law the ring-fencing of retail      banking and its separation from investment banking.
• Families and Children Bill – will improve the lives of children, young people and families, especially those coping with special educational needs.
• Pensions Bill – will reform the state pensions system, creating a      fair, simple and sustainable foundation for private saving.
• Energy Bill – will reform the electricity market.
• Crime and Courts Bill – will establish the National Crime Agency to  tackle serious, organised and complex crime and strengthen border security.
• Justice and Security Bill – will provide for strengthened oversight      of the security and intelligence agencies; to provide for closed material procedures in certain civil proceedings; and to prevent disclosure contrary to the public interest of certain material in judicial proceedings, including material shared with us by our allies.
• House of Lords Reform Bill – will change the composition of the      House of Lords
• Royal Succession Bill – will remove the rule under which a younger son displaces an elder daughter in the line of succession to the Crown, permit a person who marries a Roman Catholic to succeed to the Crown and replace the Royal Marriages Act with narrower provisions.
• Electoral Administration Bill – will introduce individual electoral      registration and make improvements to other areas of electoral      administration.

The ceremony and by default Her Majesty The Queen was unfortunately mocked by Labour MP Dennis Skinner who shouted “Jubilee year, double dip recession what a start” as Black Rod entered the House of Commons. Which produced roars of “shame” by Conservative members who found this insult too much.Even by Skinner’s lax standards of respectability

Conservative Should be Shouting From the Roof Tops!

Almost every Tory activist firmly believes that the Government ought to be more radical: more authentically Conservative. What most of them fail to realise is that many of their wishes have already been realised. For a generation, Britain has been blighted by an educational system which failed millions of children. We have also suffered under a welfare system that acted as a disincentive to work, trapping a lot of its clients in a cycle of demoralisation and deprivation. Welfare state? In many cases, it ought to have been renamed the ill-fare state.

What did Margaret Thatcher do to put this right? There is an easy answer: nothing. To be fair, she had other priorities; even so, it was a record of failure. Especially on education, John Major could see what was wrong, but lacked the political authority to put it right. Tony Blair was also aware of the problems. He lacked the political courage to do anything about them.

Over to David Cameron, who HAS acted. Michael Gove’s legislation embodies the most important reforms since the 1944 Butler Act. Iain Duncan Smith’s restructurings are the most significant welfare reforms since Beveridge. Yet many Tory MPs are behaving as if these were covered by the Official Secrets Act, and doing nothing to project the message.

The Conservative party must learn from Mr Blair. No-one has ever been better than he was at broadcasting good news, even if he had to invent it. Forget charming, old-fashioned English reticence; Tories must learn how to boast. They should not go all the way with Mr Blair; realistic boasting is called for, not a claim to have solved every problem. But when Tory canvassers are asked what they are going to do about the idling scroungers next door and how they are going to help people’s kids to get a decent education, there are answers.

On other questions, the answers are harder. Anyone who believes that there are easy solutions to Europe and the economy has not begun to understand the questions. On Europe, the overwhelming majority of Tories know what they want: to rejoin the Common Market, with free trade, political cooperation and no federalism. But we will not arrive there just by waving a magic wand. Much as most of us abominate the Single Currency, we cannot solve the Eurozone’s difficulties just by pouring scorn on it (if only) and its economic weaknesses add to ours. Nor does the Treasury signal box contain a lever marked “economic growth” which the Chancellor is refusing to pull. Recovery depends, not on fiscal juggling at the margins, but on confidence. That would hardly be encouraged by a juggling Chancellor.

Tories have always recognised that we live in a difficult world, and that has rarely been more true than it is now. The answer is what it always has been: hard thinking in the national interest. We have never been the party of fantasy solutions – we leave that to all the others – and this is the last moment to turn our back on ancestral wisdom.

With a bit of luck, House of Lords reform will not dominate the next Parliamentary session. There will be popular measures, which should appeal to the striving classes. How will they be received? In large measure, this depends on Tory MPs.Con

So we are back in recession…

So it’s official: Britain has double-dipped. Is anyone really surprised?

Of course, yesterday’s numbers are relatively insignificant in statistical terms, and there is every chance that the Office of National Statistics will revise them a few months down the line. So we shouldn’t put too much faith in the details of yesterday’s announcement or try to draw lessons that aren’t there to be drawn.

But it has been obvious right from the start that this was not your average, run-of-the-mill, cyclical downturn. The financial crisis and the recession that followed it was and is the result of severe, deep-seated structural problems in Western economies. And Britain has bigger structural problems than most.

Put simply, we are addicted to debt and constant monetary expansion. This has eroded our capital base and undermined our productive capacity, and has skewed the economy disastrously towards those sectors that thrive on credit and easy money: namely housing, finance, and big government. The boom years inflated huge bubbles in these sectors; the bust years have revealed how much of that growth was unsustainable, or even illusory.

The situation we are in now can be summarized as follows. The economy remains heavily distorted: the prices of houses and financial assets are artificially inflated by government policy; banks which would have failed in the market have been kept on life support; gigantic, hugely inefficient public sectors are being sustained by money-printing and growth-sapping taxation. The savings needed to support investment aren’t there, and we’re weighed down with one of the highest levels of public-private debt in the industrialized world.

The astonishing thing is that every single one of those distortions is consciously, willfully being pursued by the government as a matter of policy. Quite frankly, it is surprising we aren’t doing worse than we are.

 Not that there is all that much governments can do to create growth in situations like this. Yes, tax cuts and deregulation would give the private sector a sorely needed boost. And yes, reforming / privatizing / abolishing the public sector (as appropriate) would do wonders for Britain’s productivity. But what really matters is what governments don’t do. They have to allow the mistakes of the boom years to be unwound. They have to let markets adjust. They have to let new patterns of sustainable specialization and trade develop spontaneously, without bureaucratic interference.

 That is a process – and it takes time. But unless we go through it, we won’t be returning to robust, real growth any time soon. The road we are on leads to a zombie economy. It’s time we took a different one.

Now is not the time for House of Lords reform.

Ask most people on the street what their biggest concern is at the moment, and the top 3 will more than likely read:

• Unemployment
• Economy
• Europe & ECHR

It therefore baffles me why on earth this government is pushing forward Liberal Democrat with plans to make the House of Lords 80% elected. The Liberal Democrats talk of a ‘democratic deficit’ within the upper house, this is clearly true, an unrepresentative, unelected body with the power to legislate is clearly undemocratic. However now is not the time for such reform.

Firstly, one must consider the cost, not just of a referendum, but of all the future elections to come, which will run into the hundreds of thousands of £s. In a time when we are all cutting back, now is not the time to be adding financial pressures to the state. Secondly one can imagine that the turn out will be even lower than that of local council election, around about 15% is the estimated turnout for upper house elections, it is arguable that a body elected by only 15% of the population is just as undemocratic as one which is wholly appointed, and finally, the most important point….NO BODY BLOODY CARES, Lords reform has been an issue for years, but an issue observed by politicians alone. To most people this is an unwelcome reform that will just eat up more public finances and leave the electorate anything but inspired. There are far more important issues that require the attention of the government, such as securing a referendum on a British Bill of human rights and dealing with the economic mess Labour left.

It’s time the conservative party in the coalition got some balls (not Ed) and stood up to the Liberal Democrats, especially with local elections looming.

Sayeeda Warsi wants more freedom to attack Libdems

The Tory Chairman has been willing to publicly smack the Liberal Democrats before. At the turn of the year she questioned the behaviour of Lib Dem President, Tim Farron, for trying to take the credit for all of the popular things the Coalition has done and blaming the Conservatives for the unpopular things. “It’s almost like going to somebody’s house,” she said, “eating their meal and then slagging it off afterwards, like a bad episode of Come Dine with Me.”

“Sayeeda Warsi, the Tory chairman, asked – with typical Yorkshire bluntness – for a freer rein to attack the Liberal Democrats. She protested that the party’s Coalition partners keep taking shots at them and the Conservatives need to hit back.”

We don’t know how the PM responded but it is good to hear that Baroness Warsi wants to go into battle. If we are to have any chance at the next election we must pour resources into the Lib Dem-held seats that we have a once-in-a-generation chance of winning back.

Its time to take the gloves off.