labourmember

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……!

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)!

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.

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??

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.

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!

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?

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.

I may have missed something but it all sounds like another legal way to rip off the consumer to me!

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.

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????!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!).

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Not a single rule all round i feel!

(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)

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.

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!

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.

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).

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?

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(Btw, in-case anyone wondered where I stand on the religious isde of this, I am Catholic!)