tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2009-11-09:/A general view and rant of my opinion of things Labour, political and world events in general!MokoFeed2009-11-09T22:18:17+01:00tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-11-28:/2006/11/28/slavery_and_time_to_refocus_on_it~1377697/labourmember2006-11-28T12:34:26+01:002006-11-28T12:34:26+01:00 <p>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?</p> <p>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!</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Hopefully governments and people will deal with that soon and start taking action!</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/11/28/slavery_and_time_to_refocus_on_it~1377697/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-11-21:/2006/11/21/super_nannies_and_the_olympic_costs~1353815/labourmember2006-11-21T16:51:03+01:002006-11-21T16:51:03+01:00 <p>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.</p> <p>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!</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/11/21/super_nannies_and_the_olympic_costs~1353815/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-11-17:/2006/11/17/queens_speech~1339884/labourmember2006-11-17T14:41:46+01:002006-11-17T14:41:46+01:00 <p>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.</p> <p>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!</p> <p>For ref, the bills included in this speech were:</p> <p>Border and Immigration Bill<br> Child Support Bill<br> Climate Change Bill<br> Concessionary Bus Travel Bill<br> Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill<br> Corporate Manslaughter Bill<br> Criminal Justice Bill<br> Crossrail Bill<br> Digital Switchover Bill<br> Exchanges and Clearing Houses Bill<br> Fraud Bill<br> Further Education and Training Bill<br> Greater London Authority Bill<br> Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill<br> Legal Services Bill<br> Local Government Bill<br> Mental Health Bill<br> Northern Ireland Bill<br> Offender Management Bill<br> Organised Crime Bill<br> Pensions Bill<br> Planning Reform Bill<br> Statistical Reform Bill<br> Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill<br> Welfare Reform Bill</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/11/17/queens_speech~1339884/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-11-17:/2006/11/17/blair_labour_government_a_success~1339818/labourmember2006-11-17T14:18:04+01:002006-11-17T14:18:04+01:00 <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/11/17/blair_labour_government_a_success~1339818/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-11-09:/2006/11/09/us_election_and_the_implications~1312127/labourmember2006-11-09T13:02:33+01:002006-11-09T13:02:33+01:00 <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/11/09/us_election_and_the_implications~1312127/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-11-07:/2006/11/07/party_loans_for_peerages_debate~1304863/labourmember2006-11-07T12:45:07+01:002006-11-07T12:45:07+01:00 <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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). *</p> <p>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.</p> <p>*ps. A blog on the Labour governments record is coming!</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/11/07/party_loans_for_peerages_debate~1304863/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-11-07:/2006/11/07/the_eu_enlargement_and_the_opt_out~1304612/labourmember2006-11-07T11:12:14+01:002006-11-07T11:12:14+01:00 <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/11/07/the_eu_enlargement_and_the_opt_out~1304612/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-11-06:/2006/11/06/death_sentence_right_or_wrong_aamp_the_s~1302084/labourmember2006-11-06T17:10:48+01:002006-11-06T17:10:48+01:00 <p>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. </p> <p>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)</p> <p>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!</p> <p>And sadly, with both the death sentence debate and the Iraq situation, both will go on for a long time yet. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/11/06/death_sentence_right_or_wrong_aamp_the_s~1302084/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-11-03:/2006/11/03/local_government_payment_cons~1292312/labourmember2006-11-03T17:16:47+01:002006-11-03T17:16:47+01:00 <p>I have been reading various things in local papers about Central Government payments to local government, and the conclusion, its a con!</p> <p>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:</p> <p>- More money is given to Labour areas and taken from Tory areas (more about electoral success than local government I think)<br> - 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<br> - 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<br> - Central Government investment in local council per person is higher in Labour than Tory local government areas</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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 </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/11/03/local_government_payment_cons~1292312/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-11-03:/2006/11/03/iraq_airports_and_pmq_as_well~1291480/labourmember2006-11-03T12:57:33+01:002006-11-03T12:57:33+01:00 <p>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!</p> <p>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??</p> <p>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!</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/11/03/iraq_airports_and_pmq_as_well~1291480/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-10-25:/2006/10/25/off_up_and_away~1259992/labourmember2006-10-25T14:12:03+02:002006-10-25T14:12:03+02:00 <p>Well I am off on hols to Prague for a few days so will be back posting mid next week! An interesting point to consider, the Czech Republic had elections earlier in the year and since then have not really had a government due to the main alliances getting virtually exactly 50% of the vote. However where as you expect this to cause serious problems, according to the media the Czech economy has continued growing and the people have carried on with no disruptions to anything, to the unsuspecting eye you would say it’s a country with a popular government with a strong majority. It is an interesting twist on the regular touted idea that without central government things begin to fall apart, it does all make you wonder……!</p> <p>And remember, turn all your lights and everything off to save power, and then rather than sitting in the dark why not go to London and see your environment friendly energy saving used up lighting Bucks Palace (be careful when looking though, don’t want to get hit by a Chelsea Tractor)! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/10/25/off_up_and_away~1259992/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-10-25:/2006/10/25/the_curse_of_the_chelsea_tractor~1259200/labourmember2006-10-25T10:24:22+02:002006-10-25T10:24:22+02:00 <p>Looks like the people owning the Chelsea Tractors (4x4’s if you wondered) are now being charged higher parking charges in some areas with others looking to follow suite. With there also being talk of higher tax rates for these vehicles there is now many unhappy people in suburbia moaning, they are starting to go on TV saying they are being targeted and picked on.</p> <p>In a word, yes they are, and rightfully so. I have nothing against the people driving these things when they live in the countryside or regularly go to the countryside and need to go off road, why though do you need them in central London? People use them to take their children to school, why? If you live in a city why not walk your child to school, or use a bus? That’s surely just as safe and better all round? Also these Chelsea Tractors are dangerous, if you hit someone, particularly a child in them you will cause a lot more damage to them than if you were in a car. It has also been proven that they have more blind spots at the front, in the areas where a child would run into. There was also a lady on TV saying this morning that she needed the 4x4 as she carries quite a few children so needs a bigger car, has she never heard of a people carrier??</p> <p>They are also worse for the environment than a normal car, and people have to accept that if you are going to buy a car that generates more pollution and takes up more of the road, you pay for it.</p> <p>As I said, I have nothing against 4x4’s (or cars) in general, just use them as they are supposed to be used and stop being ignorant to the world around you, a controversial view I know but its about time someone said it!</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/10/25/the_curse_of_the_chelsea_tractor~1259200/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-10-25:/2006/10/25/another_legal_consumer_rip_off~1259055/labourmember2006-10-25T09:29:53+02:002006-10-25T09:29:53+02:00 <p>Well, not quite a political thing here but something I don’t understand so I thought I would mention it! After looking on the various gas and electric company websites to change my supplier, it seems that a lot of them are offering a particularly blatant rip off at the moment. Looking at the deals they are offering, one of the big ones a lot of them seem to be promoting is that you pay the current rate for a fixed term (generally a year or more) and then the price drops by a set percentage. For example, British Gas offer one where you pay the September 2006 rate until December 2007 and then it drops by 4.5%. I hate to point out something that to me is obvious but surely with all people ‘in the know’ (i.e. the experts) saying the gas prices will drop mid next year when the new pipeline from Norway becomes fully operational (in May I think), does that not mean that while gas prices are going down over the year you will be bound to pay the higher 2006 price until the end of 2007?</p> <p>Ofgem have said that if gas prices the companies pay drops and the gas prices we pay don’t then they will fine them, however surely if you sign into a contract then it is above board and you are powerless to do anything.</p> <p>I may have missed something but it all sounds like another legal way to rip off the consumer to me! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/10/25/another_legal_consumer_rip_off~1259055/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-10-24:/2006/10/24/iraq_the_chaos_of_extra_note~1256262/labourmember2006-10-24T14:11:32+02:002006-10-24T14:12:27+02:00 <p>Just a note to add to my previous posting, I have jsut read that the ITN/ITV news crews have been baned from reporting with the British troops, effectively restricting ITN's ability to report in Iraq. ITN reported a story about medical treatment of troops at an NHS hospital which the MoD say was an invasion of privacy as well as not being completely true. Am I the only one that thinks it is wrong to go into Iraq, telling them they should all have access to freedom and free speech, then effectively ban a news station from interacting with our troops because they publish a story that the MoD is not entirely satisfied with. Thats what the Press Complaints Commission is for, and the MoD is giving an advantage to the BBC and Sky which surely is not good or right. </p> <p>Surely the answer would be to report it to the PCC and release an official statement denying the story and putting your side across, instead, yet again, after a bit of criticism they overreact and try to make an example of them. Free speech anyone????! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/10/24/iraq_the_chaos_of_extra_note~1256262/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-10-24:/2006/10/24/iraq_the_chaos_of~1255907/labourmember2006-10-24T12:33:04+02:002006-10-24T12:33:04+02:00 <p>Well, thought it is about time to comment on the issue that is the only one that has made me consider cancelling my membership of the Labour party, Iraq! </p> <p>As you may gather from that, I was not, and am not a supporter of the Iraq war. While I do not think we should have gone in there, and do not like us being there, I am not in the ‘get out now’ camp. We have started this and we have to stay to try to stabilise things and sort out the mess we have helped create. I never doubted that the regime was evil under Saddam Hussein, or that it was up to no good, my argument was at the time that while Iraq can be seen as a threat, North Korea was always the larger threat, closely followed by Iran because of their nuclear plans, unfortunately this has since been proven right. What has also become apparent since is that Iraq acted as a counterbalance to Iran in the middle east, Iran always had an ‘enemy’ on its border with Iraq meaning that in a strange way they kept each other in check by focussing on each other, now that Iraq is unstable Iran has only allies and countries in no state to threaten it on its borders, thus it is becoming more confident and more outspoken (and therefore more dangerous). That is not to say Iran would not have created nuclear weapons (indeed if it will), but it would have delayed the process to let the west deal with North Korea first.</p> <p>The one big thing with Iraq is that a major shift in policy is needed, viewing Iraq as one country may no longer be feasible and splitting it up may be the only answer. Also more help will be needed from Arab countries, possibly including Iran and Syria, now is the time to think about the Iraqis not the pride of the UK and US. Its clear that everything we do now is failing, you have to wonder where the millions (probably billions) of dollars that have supposedly been ploughed into the infrastructure have gone, according to various press there is no water, electric or proper utilities in a lot of places, the Iraqi security services are weak, the people are scared for their safety and hundreds of thousands are fleeing overseas. These are all questions that need to be answered and the questions are being asked in the UK, sadly I think America has the answers and are not willing to give them. The only bright light on the horizon is the US congressional elections in November, it looks as though the more sceptical Democrats could retake one (or both) of the Houses of Congress, this would lead to the Democrats asking some serious questions of the administration, only this time the Presidency would have to take note and answer. If the Democrats did win it would also force a rethink on the strategy in Iraq, something I really believe the UK is in favour of but is too weak to stand up to the Americans and say. The General who is head of the UK armies comments the other week show the feeling of the army, although I don’t think military people should normally publicly comment on political decisions (its one area the military should not go) I do believe the situation is exceptional enough for it to be understood.</p> <p>So what will happen next, I see it all hindering on the US and the elections. A change of leadership in congress would lead to a new strategy and possibly a better approach, if the situation in the US stays as it is, sadly it looks as though civil war is inevitable. Alternatively the Arab nations will hopefully get more involved and help pull back the many anti-coalition groups.</p> <p>As for the effect on the domestic politics of the UK, it is seemingly an issue very much divided by party. While Labour was, and still is, deeply divided over the war, the party leadership have always stuck to their view that this was right and have never shirked away from this and the majority of Labour MPs realise we cannot just leave now. The Lib Dems have always been against the war and therefore are one of the only parties with the right to genuinely say they were against it. The Lib Dem policy seems sensible, saying that while they did not agree with it they would not pull straight out. However saying that a timetable for withdrawl should be set I believe to be wrong, the situation on the ground at the moment is bad enough not to enable this to be a viable option. And then theres the Conservatives, quite where they stand is questionable. They attack the government repeatedly on the war and what is wrong about it, almost forgetting that it was the Conservative votes that enabled the government to get the votes to go to war (a similar point was well made in PMQs the other day by Menzies Campbell, leader of the Lib Dems). They don’t seem to grasp that you cannot support the government in going to war and then when it really gets rough and support really plummets for the war turn the issue on the Government. They supported the war, they need to help the Government be part of the solution, not stand there criticising when the going gets a bit tough (although asking them to get a policy on anything at the moment is a joke!).</p> <p>Anyway, this ones gone on for quite a while and could go on forever so will stop it now, its one I could rant all day about! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/10/24/iraq_the_chaos_of~1255907/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-10-24:/2006/10/24/lords_reform_and_the_joke_that_is_the_pe~1255541/labourmember2006-10-24T10:44:18+02:002006-10-24T10:44:18+02:00 <p>Well, this old debate is still rumbling along. Rumours are now circulating that a bill will be put through next parliament, either being passed in the next parliament or the following one (depending on if use of the parliament act is needed). In truth, its about time it was reformed, Labour have promised it in their three election winning manifestos and have only really had a brief, vague attempt at concluding the matter. The difficulty will be agreeing how the Lords should change, the Tories seem reluctant to see any change (although David Cameron may change this if he comes up with a policy), the Labour party is well split down the middle and to be honest, I don’t really know where the Lib Dems stand.</p> <p>The options seem to be a completely elected House of Lords, a split lords with half being elected or carrying on as we are. Seeing as carrying on as we are is not an option and there are concerns about the fully elected Lords causing political gridlock it looks like the middle option is likely. With Brown and Blairs support there is a good chance it will get through, and they will force it through the Lords with the Parliament act. </p> <p>Personally, I would like to see a half elected chamber, half chosen chamber. This would allow the democratic aspect of the second chamber to take place but would also give a chance for the whole of society to be represented and create more of a talking shop for various religious and ethnic groups. Potentially a lot of the problems that are around now (mainly with multiculturalism) would be best dealt with by a half elected, half chosen upper house. The elected side would be the publics chosen representatives while the chosen side would represent the major religious, ethnic and possibly trade union groupings, meaning that it would be the ideal place to deal with sensitive issues within society, also possibly acting as a unifying focus. It would also offer the one thing the that the Commons cannot, voices to the particular groups in parliament. The Commons cannot offer this as MPs are chosen not by grouping but by area, so therefore have to represent all people which is a system that does work, however on some issues having representatives by, for example, religion in religious debates would work more effectively.</p> <p>One idea I do find rather deplorable is the talk that peers that are currently in the Lords but will be removed will be paid a form of compensation or pay off. These are people generally with large country estates and just as large bank balances to match, why should ordinary people pay their taxes to enable these peers who are mostly rich through their family inheritance to become richer? Some of these peers do not even attend the Lords that often. I think personally it is all a bit of a joke (that we will pay for) when you look at where the money should be spent. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/10/24/lords_reform_and_the_joke_that_is_the_pe~1255541/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-10-23:/2006/10/23/government_and_royals_disagreeing_or_hyp~1252477/labourmember2006-10-23T14:12:20+02:002006-10-23T14:12:47+02:00 <p>Just a quick story which made me chuckle, after reading repeated stories on various websites about how as a nation we are the least energy efficient, how the Government and various groups are telling us we should turn our lights off behind us and ensure that we save more energy how can they justify a story on the Sky website about how the front of Buckingham Palace is to be lit up until 11pm so tourists can see it. How come if we wanted to do that to our houses there would be uproar, energy efficient or not (there is light pollution as well as the fact it will use extra power, energy efficient or not).</p> <p>Not a single rule all round i feel! </p> <p>(and incase you were worried, yes they have made sure that none of the staff who sleep at the front of the house will be be kept awake by it) </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/10/23/government_and_royals_disagreeing_or_hyp~1252477/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-10-23:/2006/10/23/european_budget_cap_and_constitution~1251632/labourmember2006-10-23T09:58:49+02:002006-10-23T09:58:49+02:00 <p>Well, according to the press today, the EU auditors are again to criticise the EU spending, highlighting various irregularities for the 12th year running although declaring the accounts reliable overall. I believe in the EU, think it is a good thing and has a big future, however while it is good to see that the situation is improving after years of mismanagement and alleged (and some proven) corruption, it still has to do more to reassure the public in general that it is able to run its finances. </p> <p>One part of the budget that needs reform is the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy), less money needs to be invested overall in farming and more in modern industries to ensure the EU does not fall further behind. Farming is an industry that will always be around, however it needs to be accepted overall that the current massive cash inputs into farming could be spent better being paid into modern industries, this would help increase employment, economic development and economic competitiveness within the EU. And if the CAP payments are decreased far enough then yes, the UK should surrender its rebate. Will the French allow the CAP to be overhauled and reformed though, judging by recent attempts they will allow it to be tinkered around with but reformed, no! While making a demand that the UK rebate should be dropped before CAP reform, will the UK give up its rebate before changes, again no! Stalemate I believe!</p> <p>The other big issue that desperatly needs resolving is the constitution. Though not a lot has been reported into it in recent months, the German EU presidency (starting in January) looks set to make it one of its top priorities meaning it will all soon come back into the limelight. Quite how it can be resolved is anyones guess, you have some nations still backing the original document, some against the original document (of which Britain appears to be one) and some, like France, seem to be advocating passing aspects into law without a referendum. </p> <p>The original constitution has to be classed as dead in my eyes, to pass it would need repeat referendums in France and The Netherlands and the remaining countries to have theirs. However the chance of seeing some countries pass the original document in a referendum, particularly Britain, is pretty slim (especially when the most likely next PMs after TB are not as pro-Europe as he is).</p> <p>Passing parts of the constitution into law without referendums would also be nearly impossible, would the public really tolerate that? And once the press found out, would any government dare?</p> <p>The difficulty is what to do, the EU is currently struggling along on a series of treaties, mainly the Treaty of Nice which is a thrown together bodge-up of a treaty at best, altered repeatedly along the way to get it through various governments and referendums. The answer surely has to be a new defining treaty, adapted from the constitution. And surely the first thing to do is call it a treaty, not a constitution. The name alone makes it sound like it is pushing Europe towards a single nation when it is not. The truth be told, Europe has to have a new, single defining treaty reorganising the way it runs, it is struggling with 25 members, having the 2 new members and possible future ones joining would result in gridlock and meltdown, not good for Europe, the EU or its members. Perhaps the best hope is the French change of president next year, the UK change of prime minister next year, and the new German Chancellor bringing a fresh perspective and new input to Europe. We can only watch and wait! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/10/23/european_budget_cap_and_constitution~1251632/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-10-20:/2006/10/20/clare_short~1242124/labourmember2006-10-20T13:17:34+02:002006-10-20T13:17:34+02:00 <p>So Clare Short has quit the Labour party and will now sit as an Independent MP. I think its a sign that there are serious problems within the party when an MP who has dedicated so many years to the party feels the situation is so bad she has to leave. Another sign for Blair to go before he rips what is left of hte party to shreds </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/10/20/clare_short~1242124/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-10-20:/2006/10/20/the_veil_religion_and_society~1241660/labourmember2006-10-20T10:33:50+02:002006-10-20T10:33:50+02:00 <p>Not sure if anyone watched either Question Time or This Week last night (thrilling I know!) but there were some very good points raised about the whole muslim and veils situation that is going on at the moment. There seem to be many differing views about what the problem is and what is the best way forward on this one, and it is a subject that needs to be dealt with more carefully than it is at the moment. In my opinion, the problem should not be about muslim women wearing the veils, it is a free country and women should be free to wear what they please, whatever religion they are. The only times there should be rules and restrictions are when it does come to security reasons (i.e. at airports, ports, etc.) or when teaching. The problem is ensuring that people can integrate better and more openly with society.</p> <p>I think it doesnt really help that the press seem to focus very heavily on muslims, after all (as someone said on tv last night), if they used any other religion instead of muslims there would be uproar about it. Maybe its about time everyone calmed down, backed off and started to look at this issue more level headed. </p> <p>I think it is right that in certain areas religion does need to accept that it needs to meet society half way, whether its about the veils, religious marches or whatever it is that cause problems. It is also fair to say that it is difficult to understand how government can tell religion it needs to do more to integrate when the whole faith schools thing it pushed so heavily means that from an early age you are almost (arguably) promoting children not to mix with other religions. </p> <p>It is a difficult subject to deal with, both sides have 'hard-liners' that tend to steal the limelight, it is important to realise though that (I dont reckon) they dont represent the mainstream opinion. I think a good start would be to put all children, whatever religion, into the mainstream for education so they learn to interact with other religions.</p> <p>Whatever happens, all sides need to sit down, talk and make some serious decisions about what should be done to protect and further integrate society in general. </p> <p>(Btw, in-case anyone wondered where I stand on the religious isde of this, I am Catholic!) </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/10/20/the_veil_religion_and_society~1241660/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-10-19:/2006/10/19/deputy_leadership_sideshow~1237797/labourmember2006-10-19T09:34:16+02:002006-10-19T09:35:55+02:00 <p>Well, with all the attention focussed on the various leadership contenders and what they do, the contest for the deputy leadership as gone unnoticed. Its just as important a job as it is the leaderships connection to the party and can be an influential position with influence over the direction the party should take. The contenders at teh moment are Peter Hain, Harriet Harmen and Jon Cruddas (all pretty much declared) with Jack Straw also expected to run. It must also be conceivable that David Milliband and Hillary Benn will run. It will be an interesting election largely because the position is not one chosen by the party leader, so potentially you could end up with a leader and deputy with rather different opinions. </p> <p>The candidates running this time vary from the declared Brown supporters (Harman, Hain and Straw), the potential Blairite runners (there will be one in there somewhere) to the rather maverick Cruddas who is already speaking out against the Iraq war and the foreign policy of the government and is also a more 'old' Labour leaning candidate. </p> <p>So who will get in? Personally I would like to see Milliband get it were he to run, if not then Harman or Straw. If (god forbid!)Brown wins the leadership it will need to be someone with a bit of personality to back him up. Of course, the party leader does not have to make his deputy the deputy prime minister, he does not have to put him in the cabinet at all, but that would be an unwise move when the deputy is also chosen by the membership.</p> <p>Either way, whoever gets in, it will be an interesting sideshow to the main leadership battle, at the rate it is going, it will be a more interesting one as well! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/10/19/deputy_leadership_sideshow~1237797/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-10-17:/2006/10/17/pes_declaration~1230613/labourmember2006-10-17T11:30:56+02:002006-10-17T11:33:18+02:00 <p>For anyone that is interested, the PES (Party of European Socialists) are currently urging people to sign a declaration by themselves against the rise of the extremist far-right parties in many European countries. </p> <p>The declaration, under the slogan 'diversity YES intolerance NO' is to:</p> <p>- urge all European and national parties to renounce these parties and their views<br> - urge all parties not to go into alliance with them (as has happened in recent years with some governments in Europe)<br> - reject all forms of intolerance and hatred that these parties can promote.</p> <p>The website is <a href="http://www.pes.org">www.pes.org</a> for anyone that wants to look at signing it, so you know, your name does go on the website as having signed the petition but it is for a worthy cause.</p> <p>Cheers </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/10/17/pes_declaration~1230613/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-10-17:/2006/10/17/so_the_north_koreans_have_acted_on_their~1230338/labourmember2006-10-17T10:02:10+02:002006-10-17T10:02:10+02:00 <p>Well looks like the North Koreans have finally called the worlds bluff and done exactly what they threatened and what the rest of the world buried there heads in the sand about. Now they have introduced sanctions which, if we are honest, will only affect the people dying of starvation at the moment and not the guys at the top. Unfortunatly with the whole Iraq situation I think we have dug ourselves so deep that the Americans and British are now powerless against people like this and we damaged the UN enough to make sure they are as well. Perhaps the new head of the UN will make a difference, or more worryingly, perhaps we are going to have to rely on Russia (a country the Economist said were risking edging towards Fascism) and China to sort out these problems for us, two countries with appaling human rights and anti-democratic records (everything I thought we were supposed to be about). </p> <p>We don’t really help ourselves by offering full support and assistance to India and Pakistan, two recently new nuclear countries, and turning a blind eye to Israel with their rumoured numerous weapons. Unfortunatly by us allowing these countries to have weapons with our blessing more countries that are anti them will now push to get these weapons (like Iran and N. Korea) and this will mean it will make it more difficult for us to get rid of ours. A difficult situation partly of our own making I reckon, with no easy way out! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/10/17/so_the_north_koreans_have_acted_on_their~1230338/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:labourmember.blog.co.uk,2006-10-17:/2006/10/17/title~1230263/labourmember2006-10-17T09:40:28+02:002006-10-17T09:40:28+02:00 <p>Well, this is the first blog I have done, thought I would give my opinion to the world on various things politics wise, mainly Labour as I am a member.</p> <p>Well after the (what I would class as) succesful Labour conference, with TB announcing that he will be leaving the arguments have finally quietened down about the leadership, about time as well as at the rate the party was going it was tearing itself apart. Looks like it will be a Gordon Brown leadership next, not good in my opinion, he is good on ideas but badly lacks charisma and the ability to engage with people, David Cameroon sadly has the charisma and it looks like will kick ass with Brown. Personally, I think TB should stay for longer and let someone else come through, afterall he hasn't done a bad job. I personally think a John Reid premiership is what the country wants/needs, even though he is not the ideal candidate there is not a whole lot of choice! In the long term there is Milliband and Johnson but they are not nearly ready yet. It also needs someone who is not wanting the Blairite changes to the party reversed.</p> <p>As for the whole debate started about the veils by Jack Straw, I cannot see why everyone is getting so annoyed, all he did was say he asked women wearing the veils if they would mind removing them, and if they did he would not make them. And he started a debate that the country has been crying out for. Its about time all people from all religions and points of view were allowed to engage in a debate on this. As long as it is not hijacked by extremists on either side it will be a healthy debate to have.</p> <p>Finally for a quick comment about hte other two. The Tories, does anyone know what they stand for yet? It is good to see them giving a bit of opposition again, good for politics and democracy in general. Although it would be nice for them to say something firm policy wise. As for the Lib Dems, where are they anymore? They have some good ideas on the environment and interesting if not whacky ideas on taxation but you dont hear of them anymore, and Menzies Campbell isnt exactly a leader people feel is the modern facing view of the country! The only real thing I agree with them on really is their Iraq stance but that is not enough to win an election on!</p> <p>Anyway, more laters! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://labourmember.blog.co.uk/2006/10/17/title~1230263/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>