labourmember

Well with next years planned events to celebrate the end of the slave trade, the argument about an apology has come up again. The PM has expressed sorrow for the trade but not actually apologised, is this the right way to go about it?

Well I think the expression of sorrow is all that is needed. Britain has acknowledged for many years its role in the slave trade, and indeed was one of the countries to push for the banning of slavery. For a government now to apologise is completely unnecessary, it happened a long long time ago so while it must be acknowledged it is not necessary to apologise. Countries cannot go apologising (or be expected to apologise) for everything in their past, being honest there would be too much for a lot of countries to apologise for!

Rather than concentrating on pushing for an apology for the past people should push for a solution to deal with todays slave trade. There is still a big trade in people, particularly for prostitution purposes in Europe and Asia, as well as the man children that are taken and pushed into armed combat in many countries around the world. These are things I have not heard mentioned in the last few weeks and feel they should be. The present should always take priority over the past as it needs dealing with now.

Hopefully governments and people will deal with that soon and start taking action!

Well, it would appear the PM is coming up with more ideas to try and bring the problem of the ‘troublesome youth’ back into line. The new idea is to create a group of ‘super nannies’ that will help parents to bring up their children in a more positive way where necessary, and there are also rumours of parenting classes (not always voluntary) for the parents of troublesome teens. Will it make a difference? Well giving parents, particularly young ones more access to help in their parenting can only be a good thing. Should they be forced to parenting classes? I think not as forcing someone to go will probably mean they will not pay attention when there anyway. So what is the answer to the current problem of the troublesome chavs? I think the answer has got to be to give them things to do. The police have been given more powers to move them on, but move them onto where? They hang around in town centres and cause trouble as there is nothing to do. Youth clubs are closing down, public parks are closing down and being replaced by houses and investment in new activity/leisure areas for the young is not exactly visibly increasing. On top of that, the Government has been very quick to ignore the youth and blame things on them when they are not completely to blame, leading to a bad impression of them. Much as I dislike David Cameron, his idea of showing more respect to the young to get respect in return is I believe the way forward.

Also announced today is the fact that the Olympics have gone up in price by £900m. While this is not good, it is not exactly a shock despite those who are pretending it is. Olympics have a habit of going over the original given price, however the return when it takes place will more than pay for it. So how to pay for it is the issue. Should it come from London? Partly as a lot of the return will go to London. However the Government must also pay some as it is their ‘project’. I cannot understand the issue of it costing so much more. Apparently the VAT bill has pushed the price up, but surely the government will give the Olympic authorities the money to build the stadiums, they will then pay the VAT which will go to the treasury, so in theory the government surely will take the VAT back at the end that they paid in at the start?? I may be wrong, maths never was my strong point!

So, the Queens speech with the details of the plans for the parliamentary year has been given. Normally this is no usual from the last year with some bills carried over from the last year, and some new ones signalling the governments intentions. The key difference about this one is that by the end of the parliamentary year, there will be a new Labour premier. This means that the speech was designed to show the governments intention for the year, give TB his legacy and bind the Labour government to the Blairite ideals when he goes. So will it work? Well the intention for the next year is largely about security, the environment and tying up loose ends from before. The legacy he intends to be environmental, he wants to be remembered as the man that started the saviour of the environment by reducing emissions, sadly Iraq will be his legacy. As for binding a successor to the Blairite policy, its not just about whether the successor agrees, will the labour party let itself be bound to the Blairite policy? It seems more likely a Brown government (assuming he wins the leadership) will go for a middle point between the Left and the Blairites.

So will the speech be seen as a success? If the bills all get through yes. But before then TB needs to realise that Iraq will be his main legacy (sad when he has lead a very successful government). The bill is a strong signal of policy intention from the government at a time when people are getting fed up of waiting for a serious Cameron policy to come out. However no-one will be looking at Blair now, all will look towards his successor, he is in effect a lame duck PM!

For ref, the bills included in this speech were:

Border and Immigration Bill
Child Support Bill
Climate Change Bill
Concessionary Bus Travel Bill
Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill
Corporate Manslaughter Bill
Criminal Justice Bill
Crossrail Bill
Digital Switchover Bill
Exchanges and Clearing Houses Bill
Fraud Bill
Further Education and Training Bill
Greater London Authority Bill
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill
Legal Services Bill
Local Government Bill
Mental Health Bill
Northern Ireland Bill
Offender Management Bill
Organised Crime Bill
Pensions Bill
Planning Reform Bill
Statistical Reform Bill
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill
Welfare Reform Bill

This is a hotly debated point, with many people saying very little and classing the governments performance as disappointing. So is this the case? Well I personally believe (and I do realise I say this as a party member) that this government has been a success marred by the Iraq war.

The achievements and reforms the TB Labour government have committed to and enacted have been massive and on the whole successful. The economy has been steady through world recessions, interest rates, growth and inflation have remained steady. Unemployment, while currently rising, is still low and benefit fraud down. The NHS has been through many painful reforms, and is still going through them, but has improved, waiting times have gone down and the service in general has improved, there are also more nurses employed by the NHS (i.e. less agency and overseas staff are now needed). Education has seen improvements with more being invested in schools, more teachers and class sizes down. The city academies have improved many schools as well, although they are debatable in others. The foreign policy, excluding Iraq, has been strong, steady and well thought out. Northern Ireland has been changed beyond belief with the troubles there mostly in the past. Terrorism and security policy have also come on a lot, more because of the increasing threats that previous governments did not face though.

There are many areas in need improvement and change though. These include NHS finances, education pass rates, welfare reform, Iraq, energy and environmental policy. Most of these are being worked on now though and some were included in the queens speech.

The Iraq issue has badly tainted an otherwise good government. Labour has been a successful and more effective government than previous governments, and I think they will be seen as a successful government in the future. However as long as the Iraq war goes on it will always mark against them, however this will probably change when Tony Blair leaves.

So what for the future? Labour look like bringing in Gordon Brown which will offer a government somewhere between the Blairites and the left of the party. His policy ideas which he has mentioned sound good and should do earn the party another election victory.

So, the Democrats have resoundingly won the House of Representatives, look set to win the Senate and have got the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. So what next for George W Bush and the Democrats, and what effect will it have on the next presidential election and on the Iraq war, and the UK position on it.

Well, the Democrats are understandably in a celebratory mood, preparing for a slice of power. The victory has essentially forced Bush to subtly rethink his strategy, even more so if the Democrats win the Senate. Luckily for him, Nancy Pelosi is sensible and is more willing to work with him to change direction in Iraq and America rather than heed some of the calls to bring various inquiries and impeachment proceedings. Now George Bush needs to prove he can work with Democrats to avoid becoming a lame duck President, while at the same time the Democrats need to follow up their victor with hard policies. The basics like a minimum wage and introducing reform to Capitol Hill to stamp out corruption (something the GOP (Republicans) promised and largely failed to do) they look likely to introduce, however with foreign policy the President has full control. The Democrats also need to clearly show what they mean by the much pushed change of direction in Iraq. Only time will tell whether the president can work with the Democrats, something that is more likely now that Donald Rumsfeld, much despised by the Democrats, has gone and looks likely to be replaced by a more moderate candidate.

The next presidential election is due in two years time and George Bush will be unable to run, so it will mean new candidates on both sides. Hillary Clinton is the favourite on the Democrats side with various candidates including John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani on the Republican side. The mid-term elections could go for or against the Democrats. If they prove to be successful in their period in-charge of Congress then that would put them in a very good position for a presidential campaign, if however they fail to stick to their promises and get caught up with fighting amongst themselves then it could severely harm their chances. The GOP also have a part to play, they need to realise their mistakes and change, if not they will still be in the same position they are now in 5 or 10 years only offering a weaker challenge to the Democrats.

One country that this result could cause problems for is the UK. Previously the UK government has maintained its stance that British troops should stay in as long as is required, strongly backed in this point by the USA. However now the Democrats favour a withdrawal plan, something they could potentially get from the President, then Britain would be left alone in insisting on staying the course without a timetable for withdrawal. This would leave the British Government under intense pressure from the public to withdraw, however if they turn around and state they will follow any US plan for a withdrawal timetable people will again see Tony Blair is more under the control of the US government and is more of George Bush’s lapdog than ever! On the other hand any US withdrawal would give the new Labour PM (who will be in place by the end of 2007) a chance to bring in a British plan to get out and therefore potentially remove one of the biggest weights around the Labour Governments necks before the next general election.

The ironic thing to come out of the whole thing for me was George Bush’s speech, when he said that the election was close but the electoral college system had skewed the results, funny when you think the is the way he won the election in 2000 (he got less votes than Gore but more electoral seats)! That could be why he hasn’t really argued the point!

The Labour loans argument keeps rolling on with accusations going back and forth about the Lord Chancellor (and close friend of the PM) saying he will have the final say over any decision to prosecute anyone, including politicians. Meanwhile the CPS has counteracted this by saying they will make their decision public regardless of the Lord Chancellor in an effort to try to take the political control element out of this.

The whole affair is a big problem for all three main parties, despite the attention being concentrated on Labour. The Conservatives are making attacks on the Labour party about this issue, even though while Labour have revealed all donors/lenders to the party the Conservatives continue to refuse to make known the list of their donors and the Lib Dems have made known most of theirs. I am not saying that any of this excuses the Labour Party, all I am saying is that if there is going to be investigations (which there are, and rightfully so), it is only fair all parties give out the same amount of info rather than being secretive. The whole thing about the Lord Chancellor having the final say is also very wrong, when it is an issue like this, it should be the CPS final decision, no-one else. And if that means the PM or any other politician being taken to court then so be it, the law is the law at the end of the day.

The whole idea that this makes the Labour government corrupt though I view as nonsense, the party has been largely scandal free compared to the last years of the Tory government. It has had a few scandals (as have all governments in history), unfortunately most were repeatedly around the same people (names like Blunkett and Mandelson come to mind). *

So what is the answer for party political funding then? Well, funding parties from tax money is not a popular choice so that is unlikely, and would cause debates about smaller parties like the BNP receiving state funding. The current system could work if made more accountable and monitored, which I think is the best option. The government need to be less defensive though and need to start giving answers about what will happen next, particularly with the next lot of European Elections in a few years time (an ideal chance to try any new campaign funding system), the opposition also need to stop attacking all the time, open up and come up with some helpful suggestions and options.

*ps. A blog on the Labour governments record is coming!

Well the EU seems not in itself to be the dominant talk of the moment, but there are many small stories that put together make it a generally large story line. The main EU linked stories around at the moment are the next stage of the enlargement next year, Turkeys application to join the EU and the 48 hour working week opt-out that the UK has.

So, the enlargement next year to bring Bulgaria and Romania into the Union has been approved. Should they be allowed in yet? In my opinion no. I say this not because of the potential influx of people into the UK or other EU countries, but because there seems to be constant stories (particularly in Bulgaria) about the high levels of corruption and organised crime. There does not seem to be enough being done to sort this out either. The big question is will the reforms have been enforced when they actually join, all the signs are the Romania may well be almost there but Bulgaria could be quite a way off. It is a shame that the EU countries are putting in place restrictions on the feared influx of migrants from the two new states. At the end of the day (from Britains point of view), the signs are that more people are looking at going to southern Europe (Italy and Spain) than Britain, it is mainly the press making a situation sound worse than it is and a reactionary home secretary who reacts more to the press than the real needs.

And then there is Turkey, the thorny European issue of the moment. Many governments support the entry, many do not. I think the whole issue of Turkey joining is more fundamental than it all appears. While Turkey does have to do more to solve the Cyprus issue, as does the EU. Ignoring Northern Cyprus is not fair on the people that live there, everyone on all sides need to come up with a solution to this issue. The Turkish are reforming at a quick pace and changes for the better are being made. Sadly it is not Turkeys reforms that are the key issue (as it should be), it is about the EUs future. The big arguments about whether a country with that large a population can join or whether a predominantly muslim country could fit into the EU, they are excuses member states use to avoid the real subject which is what is the EUs future. It is a subject all seem wary of approaching as it is one that is never agreed upon and the status quo, however unworkable, is what they want to keep. Sadly, the Turkey question has pushed this back to the front, the countries like France that have always favoured a more ‘United States of Europe’ are against the entry as this would be inconceivable with a country with the population and diversity of Turkey, also if/when Turkey join they would be unlikely to favour this. On the other side, countries like the UK who want the EU to be a group of independent nations united in trade, diversity and who work together on issues that all member states face. To them Turkey joining would promote this and put a halt to the chances of a single European nation. Sadly, it appears that the Turkish genuinely want to be EU members while the EU member states are using them unfairly as piece in their games, the priority now should be whats best for the EU and Turkey, not the politicians running the system.

The other issue is the 48 hour working week opt-out. Currently all of Europe complies by this rule about limiting the working week to 48 hours except for the UK which has an opt-out (which is used quite regularly). This looks to be ending very soon unless the UK government can use its diplomatic skills to the foremost and persuade the Commission to allow it to continue. Personally I think the UK should be allowed to continue with this, the working culture is different over here, people are willing to work the longer hours and its what the economy works on. I do believe though that it should be written into peoples contracts that while they may agree to do over 48 hours a week it should be their choice to make and not the companies.

So overall, the EU needs to decide where it wants to be in the future before further enlargement and the UK should be allowed its opt-out, with conditions!

So, Saddam Hussein has been found guilty (no surprise there then, the evidence was beyond doubt) of crimes against humanity and will face death by hanging. Western and many Arab governments are obviously publicly pleased by this while it is rumoured that many other governments that have said nothing are pleased with the outcome. Although the inevitable question about the death sentence has come up again with Britain and the rest of the EU saying that they still do not believe in the sentence while America is known to have it in force in places.

So is the death sentence right? Well in this case, whether anyone outside of Iraq thinks it is right or wrong is completely irrelevant really, we have to accept that it is Iraqi law and that is that, it is not our place to interfere with other countries legal systems when there has been a fair trial (or as fair as possible in this case). He will have a right to appeal, although not in the European sense of it. It will be an appeal that will purely look at how the case was orchestrated and whether it was fair, not at the evidence given, etc. But as for the overall question of the death sentence, in my opinion it is not a modern or humane option. While it would only be used for the worst criminals I personally would prefer to see these people lose all their freedom and everyday access to the world and to be left in jail for the rest of their lives. The common arguments about the costs side (being cheaper than keeping them in prison) is one that does not stand if you look at the American system where life imprisonment is cheaper than the death sentence. It has also been shown that the death sentence does not deter people from crime, that has again been shown in the US. Also I find it difficult to say how evil someone is for killing an innocent person (which it is if done intentionally) and then punish them by killing them, the state should not be killers of its own citizens, whatever the situation. But on the other hand, prisons should be more strict and rigorous. People who will be released should go in a prison that is focussed on rehabilitation, like our current ones, however people that are in prison and will not be released should be denied the ‘luxuries’ that normal prisons get, after all the crimes are that much more serious with little chance of the prisoner being release. The prisons also need to be cleaned of the various weapons, drugs and other things that are in them, and they need to be taken control of again as too many stories are about prisoners running prisons their way (although, in fairness, how wide spread this problem is will be open to debate depending on which paper you read)

Going back to the Iraq question, will the verdict and execution of Saddam Hussain help ease the violence? In a word, no. The violence is about sectarian and insurgents fighting for various causes, very few of these groups care what happens to Saddam as it is not about him anymore. That’s not to say though that some will not be smiling and some angered about the verdict. There was no easy way to try him, if he had been tried in the International Court insurgents and some Iraqis would have said it was a show trial by the west, the same allegations that could be used for the Iraq trial. Trying him in Iraq was the only real option to bring closure to his reign and begin sorting out the next lot of problems!

And sadly, with both the death sentence debate and the Iraq situation, both will go on for a long time yet.

I have been reading various things in local papers about Central Government payments to local government, and the conclusion, its a con!

I may be slightly one sided in saying this, as although I am a strong Labour supporter I live in Kent, arguably one of the strongest Conservative areas. So whats my gripe over it? Well. over the last few years the figures show that more payments are being made by local government to the midlands and northern England counties. While people may look at this and say that the midlands and north is generally where the less wealthy areas of the UK and where most investment is needed, my argument is this. The UK is clearly divided into North and South, that does not justify more money being taken from the south and given to the North. The issues I have are:

- More money is given to Labour areas and taken from Tory areas (more about electoral success than local government I think)
- The South is most of the UK economy and is more industry and financially advanced than most of Europe so it needs more investment to enable it and the UK to maintain its position
- Virtually all illegal immigration comes into the UK via the South so councils like Kent have to pay more to this while having their budget more restricted
- Central Government investment in local council per person is higher in Labour than Tory local government areas

In my opinion the Government should grow up on this issue and make it equal throughout the UK, a set amount of investment per person (and extra for things like immigration issues where certain areas pay more.) This should also cover Scotland, more is invested per person there by England (where 50m of the UKs 60m population live) than on its own people. The classic example there is the fact that Scottish students get grants for Uni while English and Welsh ones have to pay, most of this money comes from the English Economy.

This is not a rant against the north or Scotland before anyone says so, it is a simple call for all areas to be allocated funds by population and, where necessary, extras like immigration

So, have just got back from hols and shock horror Iraq is still in the news! Looks like the Tories are still trying to back track on their support for the war by demanding an inquiry into the Governments reasons for going to war (eventhough at the time they said they had seen hte evidence for hte war and supported it). While its a big issue perhaps they should look at deciding a policy before attacking everyone elses!

Have just got back from my hols, wasnt quite sure what to expect going through the airports with people saying about huge delays and problems due to the new regulations. I must say from my experience the other day its very well organised, the regulations are not the cause of the delays, its people that dont bother to read them before htey get to the airport and dont remove the proper items from their bags. Its really quite straightforward to find the details of the new rules so cant people just think a bit and check (although that uses the one thing many seem to lack, common sense!). Was quite scary when you look in the secure box they have at the security in the Czech Republic for the return journey, the number of knives and things like that people have had to give up from their hand luggage, are they mad trying to take them on in the first place??

Suppose I should mention Prime Ministers Questions the other day as well, it seems the press was not about the PM, or the opposition leader, it was about the speaker. Apparently he told the leader of the opposition he could not question the PM about certain areas, mainly the Labour Party leadership and then proceeded to repeatedly interrupt the proceedings getting more and more flustered. Surely its about time an independent became leader of the house instead of a party person, the questions David Cameroon was asking were OK, he has asked them before (as labour did to the tories when they had there leadership elections) so why the problem, could it be the Labour whips are reigning the Speaker in (as he is a Labour MP after all)? I hope not, it will only further damage the Labour party and we dont need any more of that!