Bel is thinking ...

Bel is Thinking Has Moved

2006-12-03T02:55:00.000Z

This site has moved to its own domain at www.BelToday.com. You will be redirected to the new site automatically, or you can click here to go to the new site now.

Lord Ramsbotham on prisons

2006-11-30T13:17:00.000Z

Wise words from Lord Ramsbotham on our increasingly shambolic criminal justice system. Writing in the Independent, the former chief inspector of prisons makes it clear that much of the blame for the current state of affairs can be placed on the Government. He also highlights a shocking statistic: in the past five years, the rate of reoffending among adult males has increased from 55 per cent to 67 per cent.

He gives the following reasons for the current state of affairs:

increase in crime legislation resulting in more prison sentences;
failure to resource prisons to ensure that they provide work, education and training;
low morale amongst the workforce;
poorly drafted legislation;
refusal of the Government to listen to experts;
overworked probation services.

His suggestions?

regional, as opposed to national, management of prisons;
appointment in each prison of officers who will be responsible and accountable for each type of prisoner;
redefinition of the role of Area Criminal Justice Boards to include a say in job training;
local authorities to establish adult male offender teams to deal with low-level offenders, thereby leaving the more serious convicts to the probation officers.

I'm not sure I agree with all his suggestions, but they are at least a starting point for meaningful debate. I would add a further suggestion: build more prisons.

For more on prisons, check out the excellent PrisonWorks initiative.

What islamic fundamentalists really want

2006-11-27T13:01:00.000Z

Janet Daley in the Daily Telegraph on the Pope's impending visit to Turkey, and what muslim fanatics really want:

What Islamic fundamentalism plans to achieve (and it has made no secret of it) is a righting of the great wrong of 1492, when the Muslims were expelled from Spain: a return of the Caliphate, the destruction of corrupt Western values, and the establishment of Sharia law in all countries where Muslims reside. That is what we are up against. ... What is being demanded is the surrender of everything that Western democracy regards as sacred: even, ironically, the freedom to practise one's own religion, which, at the moment, is so useful to Muslim activists. We are forced to accept the Islamist movement's own estimation of the conflict: this is a war to the death, or until Islamism decides to call a halt.

Very true. The question is, what are we, as a society, going to do about it? We are fast approaching the point where craven concession to even the smallest (seemingly innocent) demands will spell danger for all of us. We are facing an enemy that wants nothing more than to destroy our society, and our values, whether by terrorism or more insidious means. Benign tolerance is no longer an option.

10 things (better late than never)

2006-11-27T12:28:00.000Z

I've been tagged by Ellee and The Last Boy Scout. Should have done this last
week, but here goes ...

Ten things I would never do:

1) Anything related to Harry Potter
2) Address anyone as 'love'
3) Drink beer
4) Vote Labour
5) Pay for a copy of the Guardian
6) Eat soup
7) Listen to Gordon Brown without sneering
8) Trust Blair
9) Like Bono
10) Love free verse

I'm tagging Morag the Mindbender, Global Village Shaman, Onyx Stone,
and Mike Rouse.

Blogging resumes ...

2006-11-26T15:58:00.000Z

Again.

Sorry for the break in transmission. Been away. Back now.

Ellee has tagged me for something. I'd better go over to her
blog to find out what's been going on in my absence.

More posts to follow shortly.

School retreats on halal-only menu

2006-11-17T19:11:00.000Z

Good to see ordinary folk striking a blow against political correctness. This interesting story from the Telegraph:

Parents have forced a comprehensive school to back down over plans to offer only halal chicken on its Christmas dinner menu. Pupils will now also have the option of traditional turkey with trimmings as a choice after the intervention of a former Government minister.

Nothing more to say, really. People are beginnning to speak out against the takeover of their traditional customs and values. Let us hope that this continues.

John Reid's plans to evict homeowners

2006-11-14T22:22:00.000Z

The latest brainwave from the Government in the crackdown on anti-social behaviour:

Homeowners could be evicted from their houses for yobbish behaviour under plans to punish "neighbours from hell". Home Secretary John Reid announced today that he would be giving police and local authorities the power to impose "closure orders" on any property where there is serious anti-social behaviour.

I'm not too sure I agree with arbitrarily depriving people of the right to use their property. And yes, I said arbitrarily. If (and this is a very big if) property rights must be interfered with in this manner, I would like to see this spelt out very clearly in legislation, together with the very narrow circumstances in which it should be applied. That is not something I am confident that this Government can do, given its proven ineptitude at legislative drafting. If anyone should be deprived of their property, I would expect it to be as a result of a court order, and nothing less. These are the only qualifications I can even countenance. My every instinct is against such an exercise of power. Seizing the property of criminals in an attempt to recover ill-gotten gains is one thing, seizing the home of a yob and his family for keeping the neighbourhood up all night is something else altogether.

The authorities currently have power to evict tenants and board up 'crack houses'. Extending these powers to nuisance neighbours and the like is a step too far. For one thing, boarded up houses in a neighbourhood give the appearance of neglect, and what better way to attract crime to an area?

There is a world of difference between evicting a tenant and seizing a homeowner's property. In the case of the former, a tenancy agreement would have set out the tenant's obligations, the breach of which would entitle the landlord to evict. Where the local authority is the landlord, it is all in order for them to evict a yobbish tenant. However, I cannot see anything that can justify seizing a homeowner's property under these circumstances. Is he still liable for the mortgage during his period of banishment, I wonder?

Under the plans, the authorities, in their magnanimity, will allow the exiled homeowner to return after three months if they undertake to behave themselves. What next? A duty on banks to check the status of potential buyers, and not to give mortgages to people who have been issued ASBOs?

One other question. Where does the Government intend to put all these troublemakers once they have been evicted? They will most likely end up in a hostel somewhere with other yobs and low-level criminals who have been similarly evicted from their dwellings, thereby concentrating the problem in one area. Pity the poor souls who live in such environs.

Anti-social behaviour is not 'tackled' by moving the perpetrators from one part of town to another. That would simply move the problem around without solving it. I would advise a rethink of these plans.

The New Labour guide to child rearing

2006-11-14T11:00:00.000Z

After the Government's 17-page guide to cat owners was wisely withdrawn last week, I thought that perhaps they were beginning to mend their ways. No way. According to the Daily Mail, our beloved Government is back to its interfering best.

Parents could be forced to go to special classes to learn to sing their children nursery rhymes, a minister said. Those who fail to read stories or sing to their youngsters threaten their children's future and the state must put them right, Children's Minister Beverley Hughes said. Their children's well-being is at risk 'unless we act', she declared.

How long before we are required by law to sign over our children to the Government as soon as they are born? Only then would they be satisfied that their 'nursery rhyme requirements', diet requirements and other sundry requirements are met. We could then be granted, in strictly limited circumstances, weekend access visits under the supervision of a Parental Control Co-ordinator, or some such. Our homes would, of course, first be checked to ensure that dangerous items like sweets, cakes and crisps are removed from the premises before the visit takes place. Are you listening, Tony? Gordon? What are you waiting for? Come on, you know it's a good idea. Surely, it's the next logical step. And what's more, it's probably not too late to include it in the Queen's Speech tomorrow.

Prisoners' payout for cold turkey in jail

2006-11-13T19:18:00.001Z

The Government has been forced to settle out of court and pay compensation to prisoners who were forced off heroin, and had to undergo cold turkey in prison. The prisoners had claimed that this amounted to 'assault' and a breach of their human rights.

My first reaction on hearing the news was one of incredulity. However, after considering the facts, I think the Government was right to settle the case, at least in the case of any prisoners who were already undergoing treatment before incarceration.

If we are to take the view (which many do) that drug addiction is an illness, the Government should have ensured that the prisoners continued to receive 'treatment' after they were locked up. In just the same way as someone being treated under the NHS would continue to receive treatment in jail, the appropriate authorities should have ensured that treatment continued in prison.

There is, of course, the argument that 'cold turkey' could be considered a form of treatment, albeit not the one that the prisoners were undergoing before being jailed. The Government could have argued that it was not up to the prisoners to choose which method of treatment they received; ie continued methadone versus cold turkey. This argument would have been bound to fail, however, as it would probably have been impossible to show that cold turkey treatment was given as a deliberate, coherent and informed strategy. Chances are that the prisoners were just thrown into jail, and that was that.

I am not against cold turkey per se, and in future, the Government may well win such a case on similar facts, if they can show that that was the most suitable treatment available, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

Getting people to come off drugs is a Good Thing, not only for the addicts, but for society as a whole. For one thing, the crime rate would come tumbling down, as many who commit crime to fund their habits would do so no longer. If we are to be serious about the drugs problem, we need to adopt proper methods for detoxifying drug addicts, whether in or out of jail. If a drug addict who is receiving treatment is sent to jail and the treatment is discontinued, this is of no advantage to anyone. For one thing, the investment in his treatment up to that point will have been wasted. I suppose what today's news should highlight is the need for prison authorities to ensure that convicts already undergoing treatment be allowed to continue receiving such treatment. By all means, impose cold turkey in future, but let this be the result of a properly thought-out drugs policy. What a prison authority must never do is deny basic health care to its inmates.

UPDATE. Every blog I read on this topic yesterday was of a contrary view to mine (see, for example, Ellee Seymour, West Brom Blog and The Thunder Dragon). I hadn't seen Tim Worstall's post, which argued on broadly the same lines as mine. He states (in my view, rightly) that it is not altogether unreasonable to expect the Home Office to take responsibility for the standard of medical care received by prisoners in their care. It really is not about the heroin at all. It is about treatment.

Peter Hain threatens City bonuses

2006-11-12T14:17:00.000Z

Despite their attempts to pretend otherwise, the green-eyed monster is alive and well in the Labour party. Here is this story from The Sunday Times:

Peter Hain, who is bidding to become Labour’s next deputy leader, has threatened government curbs on “grotesque” City bonuses ... . He is warning that unless Britain’s business community shows more restraint in the pay and perks of top executives, the government should intervene to regulate them.

Exactly what business is it of Mr Hain's and the Government's what a company, accountable to no one but its shareholders, chooses to pay its executives? And this from a Government that has done its utmost to stifle private enterprise. This Government has subjected business to the most complicated, burdensome tax regime ever. On top of that, it has taxed it heavily, regulated it highly, and raided its pension funds. So much so that warnings are increasingly being sounded about the increasing appeal of other countries (see here, here and here). These businesses deliver high taxes to the Treasury, which are then wasted in typical New Labour fashion. Not content with all that, they are now turning their interfering gaze to boardroom pay.

Peter Hain is standing for Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party, and no doubt knows that this sort of talk goes down well with the Party faithful. This is nothing but the politics of class envy, playing to the baser instincts of his Party members. And this from a Cabinet minister in a so-called 'modernising' Government. He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

Griffin not guilty, cartoon protester guilty

2006-11-11T21:06:00.000Z

While Nick Griffin was swaggering free from court yesterday, another jury was convicting an islamic thug of the same offence with which Griffin had been charged. Mizanur Rahman was one of the protesters against the Danish cartoons. The jury found him guilty of incitement to racial hatred, but could not agree on a charge of incitement to murder.

So why was Griffin acquitted and Rahman convicted? Well, for starters, Rahman was not in a private place speaking to like-minded people. He was standing outside the Danish embassy in London, in full view of the passers-by and television cameras openly filming. While one could argue in the case of Griffin that as he was speaking to BNP sympathisers, he was not 'stirring up' any hatred that wasn't already astir, in Rahman's case, his message was to all and sundry.

And what was he saying? Unlike Griffin who restricted himself to offensive insults, Rahman was openly enjoining people to kill. He was carrying placards saying "Annihilate those who insult Islam" and "Behead those who insult Islam". (He also addressed the crowd, saying that he wanted to see British and American troops return home in body bags. I wouldn't class this as 'incitement to murder', but that is a subject for another post.)

I still have a problem with the 'racial hatred' aspect. Islam is not a race. Just as I did not think that Nick Griffin should have been charged with a race hate crime for insulting islam, I do not think Rahman should have been charged with the same crime for his comments about non-muslims. The placards he carried were a clear incitement to murder, and it is right that that charge was laid. As the jury failed to reach a verdict on that, I hope there will be a retrial.

Nick Griffin - the right verdict

2006-11-10T18:32:00.000Z

Nick Griffin has been acquitted of a charge of using words and behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred. The charges were based on a speech he made to BNP party faithful. Referring to islam, he said: 'This wicked, vicious faith has expanded from a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago.' He said a lot of other things besides, including some offensive things about non-white people.

I believe the Not Guilty verdict was the right one in this case. Griffin argued that the comments were made in private. While the law acknowledges that the offence can be committed in a private place, broadly speaking, there is no offence if the comments are made in a dwelling, and are not heard by anyone outside that place. All the accused has to do is prove that he had no reason to believe that his comments would be heard by anyone outside.

Nick Griffin made his comments to like-minded people at a meeting in a pub. It was clear that he did not expect anyone outside that room to hear what he was saying. He was recorded saying that if his words got outside the room, he would 'get seven years'. That, to me, is proof that his comments were intended for 'internal consumption', so to speak.

As for 'stirring up' racial hatred, I am sure his audience did not need Griffin to do that for them. As BNP sympathisers, they were most likely convinced of the same things as he. Quite how he could be accused of intending to stir up racial hatred when he was making a speech to like-minded folk, I don’t know. You could say he was preaching to the converted.

I am still not sure why the rude remarks about islam should have been the basis of a race hate charge. I would have thought the ‘islam is not a race’ truism had been widely accepted by all and sundry. If someone could explain this to me, I'd appreciate it.

No doubt about it, the BNP is a racist party. Some of their policies are utterly racist and repulsive. The fact that they have been acquitted does not mean their policies have been approved by the jury. Today's judgment is nothing more than the result of the law being properly applied; as such it is a victory for free speech and justice. One can be grossly offensive and racist without necessarily committing a crime. That is the most important lesson from today's judgment.

Many are unhappy with the verdict. That is understandable. Sky News is reporting Gordon Brown as saying that the race hate laws may be changed. That is definitely not the right way to go about it. There is nothing wrong with the law as it applied to this case. If politicians find the outcome so unpalatable, they should do something sensible about it. The way to address racism is to have unhindered debate about these issues. Let there be no sacred cows. Let everything be up for debate; islam, immigration, everything. Shine the light into these dark areas and we will drive out the racists. If, however, we are prevented from discussing such issues because of political correctness, self-loathing or any such dogma, Griffin and his thugs will seize the platform every single time.

They trust us - a little

2006-11-09T13:44:00.000Z

Glad to see that even for our bossy, interfering and over-prescriptive Government, there are limits:

A government guide that tells pet owners to provide private lavatories for their cats — and "mental stimulation" to prevent them getting bored —is to be withdrawn. ... The 17-page document lays down rules that cat owners should abide by to ensure the health, safety and happiness of their pets."

Here are some of the words of advice for the clueless cat owners:

"Your cat should have somewhere private to go to the toilet with sufficient clean litter ... You should ensure your cat gets enough mental stimulation from you and from its environment so that it does not become bored and frustrated."

Never mind that the 'guidance' was only withdrawn after protests from MPs. In withdrawing the document, they appear to have realised that cat owners, by and large, are not witless incompetents who would be unable to carry out commonplace tasks without the Government coming along to hold their hands. Nevertheless I am surprised the document was withdrawn. We have become so used to Government interference that it no longer surprises us when another window is opened into our already over-scrutinised and over-regulated lives. We are instead shocked when they realise they have gone too far.

Olympic Games VAT bill: a gift for Gordon Brown?

2006-11-07T18:58:00.000Z

Following on from my post yesterday about the Olympic Games VAT fiasco. More details have emerged as to how the London Olympics could face an unexpected £1bn VAT bill. The Government did not, after all, do its homework properly. The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) was set up with the wrong structure, as far as VAT waiver is concerned. The current corporate structure of the ODA is such that, if VAT is waived, it would breach the EU rules on state aid. Apparently, they had envisaged a different corporate structure at the outset, and no-one realised that using the current structure would lead to this result. Such incompetence is astonishing, but not surprising, given this Government's cavalier attitude to legislative detail and finance.

Tony Blair has now said that taxpayers would not be approached to make up the shortfall. This is welcome news, assuming you trust him. I don't. Where then will the money come from? If Gordon Brown does not 'ride to the rescue', then the National Lottery Fund is the likely target. Cynic that I am, I suspect Gordon Brown, with an eye on his political ambitions, will waive the VAT. As I suggested yesterday, he may want to use this to boost his popularity. I can see the headline in the Sun already, 'Brown saves London Olympics'.

UPDATE. I have been having an interesting discussion in the comments with Alan of Daily Propaganda, about whether or not the £1bn VAT bill will make any real impact, or if the payment is just a circular transaction between two departments. He has also written an insightful post about the funding details of the Olympics, and the Chancellor's commitment to underwrite any extra costs. Interesting material.

London Olympics facing £1bn VAT bill

2006-11-06T13:36:00.000Z

Dearie me, at first glance, it looked as though the Olympic planning folk had not done their homework properly :

"The 2012 Olympics were hit by a £1 billion tax bombshell today. The Treasury has told organisers they must pay VAT on building and staging the Games - a cost which was not built into the initial budget. It is refusing to back down on the bill, saying European rules on competition mean it cannot be seen to be aiding the 2012 organisers."

But then on further reading, it turns out that Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell had promised, when the London Olympics Bill was going through Parliament, that the VAT would be waived by the Treasury.

Maybe that was the original plan. However, now that the costs are in danger of spiralling out of control, dear Gordon is well and truly in a quandary of schizophrenic dimensions. Should he 'generously' waive all VAT, thus boosting his popularity, or should he act 'according to nature' and sting them for every last penny? It will be interesting to watch this one unfold. The downside is that if Gordon does claim the VAT, London council tax payers will find out all about it in a very painful way.

Saddam and the mid-term elections

2006-11-05T19:38:00.000Z

The White House denies that it engineered things so that Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death just in time for the mid-term elections. I doubt that the verdict will make that much difference to the Republicans' fortunes. There was no prospect of Saddam Hussein being found anything other than guilty, so it was only a matter of waiting for the verdict to be delivered. I would be inclined to argue the other way. Saddam's loyalists have already been out on the streets threatening vengeance. Any ensuing violence would surely not be to the Republicans' advantage, as it would only reinforce the point that Iraq is in a state of shambolic lawlessness. In any case, most Americans' views on the war are already settled one way or another, and therefore not likely to be swayed by a verdict that was widely predicted and expected.

Blogging resumes

2006-11-05T17:03:00.000Z

After a few days of rest, this blog is back. It was good to take a break and do some proper reading. I also discovered many interesting blogs. I tried to stay away from political blogs - we have more than enough of that already. Instead, I pursued my interests in economics, literature and philosophy, and was pleasantly surprised to discover many blogs dedicated to these topics. I have created a separate category in my sidebar for blogs dealing (as far as such a thing is possible) with non-political issues. I hope you find them interesting. I am on the look-out for any more interesting blogs, and will add some more in due course.

Christians stirring from sleep

2006-11-05T13:49:00.000Z

Glad to see that voices are being raised against the increased marginalisation of Christians in this country.

A leading church group which represents more than a million Christians has raised the prospect of civil unrest and even "violent revolution" to protect religious freedoms.
In a startling warning to the Government, senior church and political figures have backed a report advocating force to protest against policies that are "unbiblical" and "inimical to the Christian faith".

Hope it doesn't come to violence, though. That is not the Christian way. No need to follow the godless, bloodthirsty jihadists down that path.

Bel is reading

2006-10-25T13:40:00.000Z

Sorry it's been a bit quiet around here. I have a pile of books I want to read, and putting them off just makes the pile grow higher. I am therefore taking some time out to do some proper reading. I will also be traversing the blogosphere, discovering new blogs and such like. In the meantime, my fellow bloggers will keep you entertained as always. Please see my link list for some interesting blogs. Back in a few days.

Clare Short resigns Labour whip

2006-10-20T11:06:00.000Z

Clare Short has taken the next logical step in her political career and resigned the Labour whip (from Sky News). She narrowly escaped having the whip withdrawn after her anti-Labour outburst a few weeks ago. This resignation is a good move on her part. Certainly better than sitting around and waiting to be expelled, which would no doubt have happened eventually, given the way she was going. Independent MPs are a good thing for democracy, and I am willing to forgive her her past misjudgements. Let's wipe the slate clean and see how well she does as an independent.

Get back to work, Aishah - without the veil

2006-10-19T19:10:00.000Z

Aishah Azmi has lost her claims for discrimination and harrassment against the school which suspended her for wearing the veil in the classroom. She however won her claim for victimisation. The Telegraph reports Azmi as saying:

'Sadly the intervention of ministers in my case (against the ministerial code) makes me fearful of the consequences for Muslim women in this country who want to work.'

The woman is mad. If she is as strict a muslim as she is claiming to be, she shouldn't be anywhere outside the house, and certainly not working. And what does she mean, she is 'fearful'? Whatever fear she has, it is nowhere near that which many in this country harbour towards her and her band of mad men. What exactly has she got to be 'fearful' about?

True, the minister involved (Phil Woolas) ought to have kept his trap shut until legal proceedings were over, but it is not Government ministers holding back women like Azmi from working in this country. She is being dishonest in making that claim. Aishah Azmi knows that the one obstacle to her advancing in British society is her religion. Either she is too cowardly to state this, or she is being cynically dishonest. It is her religion (or her interpretation of it) that required her to cover herself up in such a way that affected her ability to carry out her work. Phil Woolas is not responsible for the subjugation of muslim women in this society. For that, she should look to her men and the koran.

Aishah Azmi is no fool. She was canny enough to attend her job interview without the veil. And what happened on that day? Did the heavens cave in? Did lightning strike? She went out and returned home in one piece. When it suits her, she allows men to see her face. All this fuss has been in aid of an altogether more sinister end. Her aims, and those of her extremist brethren in our midst, are as transparent as anything. They picked this fight simply to stake some ground in the battle for the islamicisation of Britain. I expect there to be many more such attempts in the future. They must not be allowed to win this battle. Should that happen, it would signal the death of everything for which this country has stood over the centuries. This is a Christian country, and it should stay that way.

Leave universities alone

2006-10-19T14:52:00.000Z

A 'brilliant' initiative to address the low standards of education in the state sector. Dumbing down examinations is no longer enough. Neither is the strategy of bribing our sullen youth to stay on at school. No amount of Connexions card points will motivate a wild-eyed lout to go to university. So what is a caring Government to do?

The 'solution' is presented in a report by education quango Aimhigher. The good folk there believe it would be a wonderful idea if universities can do a bit more to 'widen access' to higher education. They would like universities to be given background information about candidates so that, in some cases, they may impose lower entry requirements, from an A grade to a C grade, for 'deserving' candidates. These include candidates from poorly performing schools.

It is not clear whether Government will adopt Aimhigher's proposals but nothing will surprise me. It is one thing to suggest that a candidate's background be taken into account, but to suggest that different academic standards should apply to those from disadvantaged backgrounds is something else altogether. What is the point in admitting students who are clearly below the required standard? University tutors already have a hard enough time teaching remedial English to the so-called bright sparks who turn up clutching A* grades, but cannot spell to save their lives. What hope, then, for the C grade students who are smuggled in by the back door?

There is a wider point here, relating to State control of universities. Should the State really have that much say in a university's admissions policy? Most decent universities already exercise discretion in admitting students who may not have made the grade, but whom they consider deserving of a place. There is no need for the Government to interfere to this extent.

The only reason that this happens is because universities are dependent on Government funding. Even with the freedom to charge tuition fees, because these are capped at £3,000, universities still need supplemental funding from the Government. In addition, any university charging top-up fees has to contend with any requirements set out by the Office for Fair Access. This compromises any independence that such universities may otherwise have had. Perhaps it would be a good idea for some of them to cut the apron strings and go their way. The current policy of capped tuition fees is far from ideal for everybody. It makes a mockery of the Government's claims to introduce 'choice' into the provision of higher education. If tuition fees were uncapped, however, universities would have complete discretion over what fees to charge, and they could ignore with impunity any mad counter-productive diktats from above.

Veil good, balaclava bad

2006-10-18T17:17:00.000Z

A man has been arrested for donning a balaclava in protest against the veil. James Scott, from Ipswich, was out in town collecting signatures in support of Jack Straw's comments. He had already acquired 200 such signatures when police caught up with him. He was arrested on suspicion of causing a breach of the peace and taken in for questioning. About what, I wonder? The whole ordeal lasted three hours. What could they have had to ask him that took all that time?

Anyway, Mr Scott has been warned that he faces re-arrest if he puts the mask on again. Ridiculous. Is there now a law prescribing what one may not wear in a public place, and if so, why does it extend to the balaclava and not the veil? Is this the criminal law equivalent of what will soon be known as the 'British Airways exemption'?

Advice for Mr Scott: next time you feel inclined to make any public protests, put on the niqab.

Riot control the Blunkett way

2006-10-17T17:48:00.000Z

Much hilarity over claims by the former head of the Prison Service that David Blunkett, while Home Secretary, had 'shrieked' at him to machine gun rioting prisoners. Blunkett is (of course) denying the claims. It's not hard to choose which of the two to believe, especially as one of them is a New Labour politician. Added to that, Blunkett has shown a tendency to lose both perspective and control at critical times. Remember his bizarre conduct during the Kimberly Quinn episode? And let's not forget his reaction on waking to the news of prisoner Harold Shipman's suicide. On that occasion, he wondered whether it was 'too early to open a bottle'. Let us leave to one side the issue of whether guilty prisoners deserve our concern. If he could show such naked delight at the death of a prisoner under his care as Home Secretary, why is it so hard to believe that he may have wished to gun them down?

They must love us

2006-10-10T19:13:00.000Z

How blessed are we to live under the beneficence of St Tony. The powers that be are so concerned for our health that they want to make sure we all eat our vegetables. Word has reached the highest place that we are indeed 'scared' of strange fruit, and the Government, our worthy defenders, will ensure that they do all they can to help us overcome the fear. To this end, Caroline Flint, the Health Minister, has asked supermarkets to hold in-store demonstrations to show us all how to eat fruit.

How long before a task force is set up to enforce this, led by none but the sainted Jamie Oliver? And how long before it becomes a statutory requirement for supermarkets to hold such demonstrations? Don't laugh. If the past nine years have taught us anything, it is that as far as this Government is concerned, anything and everything can be legislated.

On a more serious note, though, we should worry. Not content with interfering in every other area of our lives, the Government is now itching to take a look inside our pots and pans. Not content with legislating to ban smoking even in private members' clubs, the Government is now looking at banning smoking in the street. But no, we must not complain. It is all for our own good.

But is it? Daily the State encroaches on more and more areas of our lives. Some of these matters, such as diet and smoking, are issues of personal responsibility, and therefore nothing to do with the State. I accept that there is a public health argument, especially given that the health service is funded out of general taxation. However, most times, that is not even the issue. Running through these Government pronouncements is a prescriptive 'we know what is good for you' theme, as though they had responsibility for our lives. It is about time we made it clear; they do not.

Never mind fear of fruit. As the Government want to rid us of all our fears, I can tell them of a few real fears to which they could turn their attention. What about the fear, in some inner city areas, of walking down the streets at night, let alone setting foot outside your front door? If they could take steps to address that, I would be most grateful.

No room at the inn

2006-10-09T11:34:00.000Z

As at last Friday, the prison population was only 110 away from full capacity. The Home Secretary, John Reid, is planning to beg police chiefs to allow convicted prisoners to stay in their cells until ... until when, exactly? Until he builds new prisons, or what? Or until they create more prison space by releasing the next batch of violent murderers well before the half-way point in their sentences?

At first, I was surprised, given the crime rate, that it had taken this long for the prisons to hit full capacity. Then I remembered that this Government has managed, by a strange mix of policy and incompetence, to keep criminals out of prison. If, inspite of all their efforts, the jails are now finally full, it can only mean that crime is way out of control. The battle to maintain even a semblance of law and order has been well and truly lost.

So what do they intend to do in the long term? There is talk of 'creating more prison places', but don't hold your breath.

(For more on prisons, please check out the excellent Prison Works initiative.)

Ken is going nowhere - yet

2006-10-05T17:36:00.000Z

Mayor Ken Livingstone's suspension from office has been overturned. Back in February 2006, the Adjuducation Panel for England issued him with a four-week suspension for bringing his office into disrepute. This arose from an episode in which a possibly drunk Livingstone was characteristically odious to a newspaper reporter.

Anyway, Livingstone appealed, and a judge has today quashed the suspension. This decision is nothing to do with the impropriety or otherwise of Livingstone's conduct. That matter is still to be decided on appeal.

It is however right that the suspension be quashed. Ken Livingstone was (albeit inexplicably) voted into office by Londoners, and it is only they who can decide when to remove him. It is totally wrong that an unelected and unaccountable body, such as the Adjuducation Panel for England, should have the power to prevent an elected official from fulfilling his mandate. This goes against the basic principles of representative democracy. It is therefore heartening that this abuse of power has been checked.

That notwithstanding, every time he opens his mouth, Ken Livingstone brings his office into disrepute. Whatever the outcome of the appeal, I only hope Londoners will be wiser next time.

Employment rights for all the family

2006-10-02T13:19:00.000Z

The Work and Families Act 2006 came into force on 1 October 2006. Among other things, it makes provisions for maternity pay and leave.

These provisions apply to an employee whose expected week of childbirth begins on or after 1 April 2007. Such an employee will be entitled to take a whole year's maternity leave, and to return to her job at the end of the year. The size of the company she works for is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is how long she had worked there in the first place. Before this law, one year's maternity leave was only granted if the employee had been working for that firm for roughly six months. Under the new laws, even if an employee were hired while pregnant, she would still be entitled to a year off, and to return to her post, or a similar one.

This law will be welcomed by many, but it will most likely hit small firms hard. Many of them will not be able to hold open an employee's post for a year. Before the new law, small firms with fewer than five employees were exempt from that requirement. Now they must all comply.

While family-friendly employment laws are desirable, surely some regard must be paid to their impact on small business? A CBI report published today shows that new employment laws have cost UK businesses up to £37bn in the last nine years. Perhaps it is time that someone took into account the concerns of small businesses. There seems to be a mentality among this Government that business is a bad thing, and therefore to be regulated with a heavy hand. They should however note that it will be in nobody's interests if businesses close because they cannot cope with the legal and regulatory burdens imposed by the Government. Not only would the Exchequer suffer through lost taxes, such a situation would also imperil the prospects of these employees about whom the Government claim to care.

Our wicked children

2006-09-29T15:29:00.000Z

Some days I am afraid to open the newspapers for fear of what I might find. Just two stories from today's Telegraph:

a group of muggers seized a baby from a pram and threatened to drop her unless her mother gave them her handbag;
two youngsters were shot in McDonald's restaurant in Brixton

You can be sure that this is by no means the sum total of evil perpretrated in the country yesterday. So many other crimes go unreported everyday. In fact, I am sure that the McDonald's case only made the news because the shooting took place in front of children.

When did we as a society become so wicked? Even our pets are catching the vibe and mauling children left, right, centre. Once upon a time, there were some acts at which even the most violent criminal would draw the line. This is no longer so. Does anyone really believe the muggers would not have harmed that baby if the mother had hesitated to hand over her bag?

The most shocking thing is that these acts are committed, in the main, by teenagers. Some of them would have been no more than nine years old when this Government came into office. These are Blair's babies, the ASBO children begotten as a result of moral relativism and a wrong-headed approach to law and order.

A few years ago, it was a thing of surprise for an eleven year old to be given an ASBO. Now, things have changed. We are no longer surprised to read about a ten year old being given an ASBO and a driving ban, for good measure.

These youngsters are growing up in Britain today without a sense of personal responsibility. When children and teenagers start committing violent crime, it is time to ask ourselves if we have done anything to foster it. Here are some of these Government's policies that may have had something to do with it:

violent criminals released without serving anywhere near their full term (lesson for children: crime pays)
'incentive' payments to bribe children to stay on at school (lesson for children: education in itself is not worth bothering with, hence the bribe)
explosion in benefit payments, with billions lost through fraud (lesson for children: it pays to cheat the system; the Government is too thick to catch you)
reduction in the number of police on patrol (lesson for children: you can do whatever you damn well like, there's nobody out there to enforce the law)
erosion of authority from parents and teachers (lesson for children: you are accountable to no-one)
a tax and benefits system that penalises married couples (lesson for children: there is nothing to be gained from being a strong family unit)

Is it therefore any surprise that these little angels are now running amok, shooting, stabbing, and mugging to their hearts' content? Until these matters are addressed, we will continue down the bloody path to destruction. On-the spot-fines are not the answer. High-sounding speeches are not the answer. It is time for the Government to stop its meaningless rhetoric on crime and begin to repair the damage to the social fabric.

Prescott floored by little old lady

2006-09-27T15:43:00.000Z

Finally, some common sense from somewhere. A court has ruled that John Prescott's house demolition scheme is illegal. The case ended up in court because an old lady refused to take lying down the proposed demolition of her home. Elizabeth Pascoe went to court to challenge the compulsory purchase order and won.

If the CPO had stood, the way would have been clear for the demolition of 500 homes in Liverpool in order to create a route into the city centre. Some other CPOs are in the offing, and it remains to be seen whether the Government will proceed with them.

The Pathfinder scheme is a waste of money. Up to 700,000 homes in the Midlands and the North are targeted for demolition. The project is estimated to cost £1.2bn by 2008. However, knowing this Government, it could very easily exceed that. To date, £500 million has already been spent.

There is no justification for demolition on such a massive scale. The advocates of this plan believe that this is the best course of action to address what they curiously refer to as 'housing market failure'. The properties being knocked down will be replaced with fewer houses, ostensibly to take account of the fact that there are fewer people to occupy them. The lunacy of this plan is even more stark when one considers that this same Government is embarking on a wide-ranging house-building programme in the already crowded South East.

In any case, would it not be cheaper to renovate these properties? The Government has also ignored advice from English Heritage that renovation would also be environmentally friendlier and better for the social fabric.

As today's case was a test case, any other houses covered by that CPO would benefit from the judgment. I don't expect the Government to appeal the decision. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this scheme wasn't shelved altogether. Prescott's successor, Ruth Kelly, doesn't seem to be burning with fervour towards it. She has already stepped in once to save a row of houses from the demolition truck. I certainly hope that this is the last we hear of Pathfinder.

On a wider point, this case has shown us that it is worthwhile to challenge the Government when they act outside their powers. The old lady who brought the case did not even have to dip into her pocket to fund it. She was given legal aid because there were serious legal issues concerning the scheme that needed to be clarified. We should draw encouragement from today's events. No Government is all-powerful, and from time to time, it falls to the citizens to ensure that they do not exceed their powers. Elizabeth Pascoe did that today, and this blog salutes her.

Give us our money back

2006-09-20T15:32:00.000Z

First, education.

Last week, we learnt that standards of education have fallen, despite the Government spending billions extra.

Now, health.

Patricia Hewitt has admitted that the NHS had not improved despite the extra billions the Government have poured into it.

Which department will be the next to confess that they have taken our money and poured it down the drain? More importantly, what is the Opposition doing about this? Isn't it time they began to talk about tax cuts? Apart from a few vague noises here and there, we have heard mostly nothing. Why the half-hearted commitments from the Conservative Party? Of what use of a centre-right party if it will not advocate personal freedom and limited government? At a time when the LibDems no longer fear to talk about a cut in income tax, the Conservative Party should be proclaiming this message, and highlighting Government waste. By now, they should be making the point to the electorate that it is our money being wasted, and that they would like to return a lot more of it to us.

The Opposition must be in a desperate state if the Government can brazenly admit to throwing our money away in this manner, safe in the knowledge that no-one will make a big deal out of it. They have managed this by promoting two ideologies. The first is that public spending necessarily equals better services. The electorate swallowed that in 1997, and are now reaping the (heavily taxed) rewards of their folly. The other was that a cut in tax would reduce public spending. The voting public drew the natural conclusion that tax cuts were incompatible with better public service. Only now is it becoming clear that they were misled. The Conservative Party should be relentless in disproving these two heresies at every opportunity. Why, for example, have I not seen any Party spokesman highlighting the education and health stories mentioned above?

There is also a third, sinister, and altogether more dangerous ideology at work. Implicit in the grossly immoral waste of taxpayers' funds is the belief that the Government knows better than us what to do with our money. It is evident they would rather waste the money than return it to its owners. In other words, even when the Government wastes taxpayers' funds, it has been put to a higher, nobler purpose than anything an individual could have done with it. This is morally wrong, and the Conservative Party must begin urgently to dismantle that ideology.

At the moment, it seems that nobody is accountable to the taxpayer. Abandoned IT projects, overpaid tax credits, surrendered EU rebates, we read these stories every day. This cannot be allowed to go on much longer. We need an alternative policy platform to high-tax and high-spend. Until the Conservative Party begins to offer one, I am not interested in anything they have to say.

Onward, British soldiers

2006-09-19T14:12:00.000Z

Des Brown, the Secretary of State for Defence, has admitted that they had 'underestimated' the Taliban when preparing to send British soldiers to Afghanistan.

In other words, they did not properly assess the situation, and because of this error, British soldiers lie dead in their graves.

This is outrageous. There is no excuse under the sun for this grievous miscalculation. Before the deployment had even taken place, warnings were sounded about the dangers of sending troops to Helmand.

The Taliban greeted the news of the arriving troops with relish. Surely, that should have induced wariness in even the most gung-ho Prime Minister. They gleefully reminded us of the 1880 Battle of Maiwand (not far from Helmand), where an entire British regiment was almost wiped out by the Afghans. Who can forget the words of Mullah Razayar Noorzai, when he warned us a few months ago:

"We have already prepared 600 suicide bombers alone for the Helmand, and you'll see that we will turn it into their graveyard."

A few months before that, another Afghan warlord had warned:

"We thought that it (ie the war) would be between us and the US, but it looks like souls of the British buried in the Helmand after they were killed by the Afghan warriors in the 19th century may be feeling bored. ... Now they are calling their grandchildren to be reunited with them in hell."

This was not just idle boasting. It was sufficient enough to cause worry in many quarters. We were sending soldiers to do peacetime duties, while their reluctant 'hosts' were threatening war.

The then Defence Secretary, John Reid, was criminally deluded about the risks of being in Afghanistan. Apparently, the soldiers were going there to help out in reconstruction and the effort to curb drug production. John Reid talked about leaving in three years 'without firing a shot'. Such naivete would only be touching if demonstrated by a twelve year old schoolgirl. Did he really think that the Taliban would sit back and watch the soldiers as they went around town 'reconstructing' the place? Did he really think the Taliban would give up poppy-control without a fight? At the very least, we should be calling for the head of John Reid, but he has since been promoted to the Home Office. Congratulations, sir.

I can understand, to some degree, if the Government chose not to listen to the warnings from the Taliban. However, concerns were also raised about the difficult terrain of the Helmand, which obviously favoured the native Taliban. These were dismissed with typical careless arrogance.

This Government has shown over time that it has little or no regard for the lives of its soldiers. Daily we read about soldiers being sent into battle without protective gear. Sometimes, their equipment is faulty, and downright dangerous. Even when, against all odds, they survive the heat of battle and return home, they may yet find themselves facing charges of war crimes. Now we hear that even an objective assessment of the risks of battle is beyond the capabilities of this Government. This is truly shocking, but sadly, not surprising. Though the Taliban may wield the weapon, many soldiers are dead today because of the Government.

Benedict leaves them ranting

2006-09-16T20:11:00.000Z

Another day of islamolunacy.

Just as well the Byzantine emperor who was quoted by the Pope has been dead for seven centuries. Who knows what would have become of him in the current climate?

Throughout the day, the news programmes have featured one incensed muslim after another, lining up to denounce the Pope. The last straw for me was the shrill-sounding Baroness Uddin. (Never mind all this, what I'd like to know is how she got into the House of Lords. My background reading reveals nothing exceptional as to qualify her for a title. If she could enlighten me as to her public service record, I would be grateful.)

I wonder which journalist will be brave enough to point out to these shrieking sheikhs (and Uddin) that the fist-shaking, effigy-burning, threats-spewing actions of their brother muslims are simply confirming the offending remarks over and over. As John East asked in the comments to my last post, don't these people get irony?

Apparently not.

To the charge of lacking irony, add those of illiteracy and ignorance. If they had troubled to read the Pope's speech in the first place, they would have seen that this is just a lot of fuss over nothing. But the thing is, the real problem is not the speech. The real problem is Christianity and western values. This was simply another opportunity to attack those values, and by Allah, they were damned if they were going to miss it.

Meanwhile, the Pope has expressed his regret that 'some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of some muslim believers'.

How is that for an apology? Obviously he felt he had to say something, but does not feel the need to apologise. My own preference was for him to stick the Catholic equivalent of two fingers at the mad mullahs, but I can live with this 'non-apology'. I am liking this Benedict fellow more and more each day.

The Pope vs Mohammed

2006-09-15T12:48:00.000Z

The Pope is in hot water with muslims worldwide.

His 'crime' was to quote in a speech certain remarks critical of Islam. He did make clear that this was merely a quotation, but because he didn't expressly condemn the remarks, there is outrage among muslims everywhere. The scenes are now so familiar: angry men waving placards, effigies burning, and threats aplenty. The only thing missing (so far) is a call to behead him.

Ahmed Versi of Muslim News has just been on Sky News saying that there will also be demonstrations in London. Why? What has it to do with us here? Is this just another attempt by islamofascists to bully us into their way of thinking?

Even if the Pope believed that all that Mohammed brought was 'evil' and 'inhuman', surely he has the right to say so? God knows I have heard worse things from muslim leaders about Christianity.

The Pope is being called on to apologise. The Vatican has already issued a statement saying that he meant no offence. Clearly that is not enough for the likes of Ahmed Versi. He wants the Pope to come out publicly and repudiate the comments. Why should he? Perhaps the Pope does actually believe the comments. If so, he is most definitely not alone. Islam has not shown itself to be the 'religion of peace'; certainly not in my lifetime. Although many may balk at saying so, the offending quotation does not seem entirely out of place when one considers current world events. Even the way the islamists are reacting shows that these comments may not be that far from the truth. Perhaps the protesters might like to think on that.

Islamofascism has crept into almost every part of society. It is unrelenting in seeking to impose its 'values' on Western society. We see its effects in law enforcement, the education system, the human rights regime, and almost every other area you care to name. Thankfully, it has not yet subsumed other religions. This latest agitation is nothing but an attempt to assert some form of thought supremacy over Christianity. It must be resisted. Benedict XVI must not apologise.

Harriet Harman on Gordon Brown

2006-09-14T17:42:00.000Z

On Sky News at 6.35pm.

He has been a great Chancellor, and if any other country could
have him by transfer, the way footballers are transferred, they
would have done so.

If only.

Clare facing a whipping

2006-09-14T15:09:00.000Z

Clare Short is facing expulsion from the Labour Party for her latest outburst. After announcing that she would not be defending her Birmingham Ladywood seat as a Labour MP at the next election, she denounced Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and for good measure, David Cameron. Nor was that all. She declared that a hung Parliament might be the best thing for the country, and she would work towards ensuring that.

The Chief Whip is threatening fire and brimstone, but something tells me that Clare Short will not be that bothered. She may well return as an independent MP, and being expelled from the Labour party can only be good for her campaign. Look what that did for Red Ken in 2000. In addition, Labour is so thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the voters, that such a public parting of ways will not harm her in the least.

She should have done it a long time ago, though. Now it looks opportunistic, but isn't that the way with politics?

Blair on prisons

2006-09-12T14:43:00.000Z

TUC conference. A prison officer raises the issue of prisons with Tony Blair. He asks why the number of prison places has increased since Labour came to power. I would have thought the answer to that was glaringly obvious, but let that pass. He then attacks Blair for increasing the role of the private sector, accusing him of 'putting people in prison for profit'. Ludicrous. Anyway, Blair rises to answer to that charge. The reason the number of prison places has increased is ... then he stops short. He stutters. He pauses. He lowers his eyes to the floor. How to explain that the increase is due to rising crime rates under his Government? Finally, he hits upon a face-saving form of words: the increase in prison places is due to the rising number of sentences being passed.

A half-hearted confession, but a confession, nonetheless.

By the way, for more on prisons, don't forget to check out the excellent PrisonWorks initiative.

Our untouchable yobs

2006-09-10T23:20:00.000Z

This story from the Telegraph. Donna Appleyard lives in Yorkshire. She was plagued by yobs for many months. She called the police on several occasions, but no one came round to investigate. Perhaps they were busy with other priorities in the area. Crime rates in the UK are, after all, rising. One can understand if the police are too busy concentrating on murders, rapes and 'honour' killings to deal with a little ASBO-thuggery. Anyway, exasperated beyond all measure, she finally pleaded with the miscreants, telling them to 'please fuck off'. Imagine her shock when police arrived to fine her for her outburst. She, not unreasonably, refused to pay the £80 fixed penalty, and is now facing the option of either an increased fine or a jail term.

Speechless.

ConservativeHome report

2006-09-08T12:02:00.000Z

Over at ConservativeHome, a very interesting report on the bloated public sector. This 145 page document, entitled 'The Machinery of Government (And How To Reform It)' exposes the true level of waste. Not only that, it examines the root causes of the problem and gives recommendations for reform. The author, William Norton, worked for the James Review, so he knows what he is talking about. I will read the document in full, and give my views both here and at ConservativeHome.

Know your local crooks

2006-09-08T11:34:00.000Z

An interesting story in the Telegraph. Merseyside police employed statisticians to produce a list of its most prolific criminals, as well as the crimes they are most likely to commit. The report showed that some crimes are more likely to be committed by people with particular names. All very well, I think. It's always good to see a police force occupying itself with the prevention and detection of crime. Goodness knows that doesn't happen enough these days.

Somehow, the report leaked. The Telegraph reports that:

"the area's top 10 bad boys are named, in order, James, Michael, John, Paul, Stephen, Anthony, David, Thomas, Lee and Christopher.

Women most likely to find themselves in the cells are those called Lisa, Paula, Samantha, Natalie, Emma, Nadine, Sarah, Claire, Gaynor and Kelly."

Apparently, women called Lisa rate highly in the domestic violence stakes. And I howled with laughter on reading that Dionne is the most popular name for a fraudster.

I wonder what the results would look like if my local Lewisham Borough police were to carry out such a survey. Anyway, I would much rather they didn't just now. I have just looked at their website, and the 'News' items are enough to make one barricade the doors and never again set foot outside. Far better that they spend their time patrolling the streets on our behalf.

I shouldn't laugh, but ...

2006-09-07T19:14:00.002Z

I am finding the events of the last few days wonderfully hilarious.

I know, I should be thinking of the nation, and how this crisis engulfing the Labour Party is bad for the country. I should be making the point here that this is a far more serious matter than party politics.

Maybe another day.

For today, though, I am having the time of my life. In particular, I have had much mirth over this article over at The Devil's Kitchen. Am I glad to be a Tory in 2006.

Let the voters decide

2006-09-06T15:49:00.000Z

If there is a leadership contest after Tony Blair goes, the winner will be chosen by Labour party MPs, members and the unions. Blair's successor is most likely to be Gordon Brown. He obviously has no problem entering 10 Downing Street by the back door. He should, however, remember that the British public gave Tony Blair's government a mandate for a full third term. I hope he will have the decency, if not the courage, to call a snap General Election. That would be the only way to gain legitimacy for his Government.

Tom Watson lives a full life

2006-09-06T12:46:00.000Z

First sentence in Tom Watson's letter of resignation to Tony Blair.

'The Labour Party has been my life since I was 15 years old.'

Really? I shudder.

Farewell festivities for Our Dear Leader

2006-09-05T10:41:00.000Z

Today we are greeted with the side-splitting news of a memo drafted by Tony Blair's advisers setting out his exit plans. Part of his whirlwind farewell tour will include jolly japes with the Blue Peter crew and some pious posturing on Songs of Praise. Thanks to Iain Dale typing up the memo, I am now up to speed with Our Dear Leader's exit plans.

Yet again, I have cause to marvel at the shamelessness and total lack of self-awareness of Blair and his people.

Two sentences stand out for me:

"He needs to go with the crowds wanting more. He should be the star who won't even play that last encore."

Not bloody likely now, this scenario. Not when we have former lackeys like Chris Bryant calling for his departure.

Then, of course, there is the classic line:

"His genuine legacy is not the delivery, important though that is, but the dominance of New Labour ideas ... the triumph of Blairism."

One sentence that properly encapsulates everything we know about this shabby, discredited Government and its charlatan leader.

But what about tax cuts?

2006-09-05T09:43:00.000Z

In my last post, I asked if we could trust the Conservatives to deliver us from the burden of heavy taxation. Today, one of the party's policy review groups makes an 'unambiguous commitment' to an increase in spending on public services.

I suppose I have my answer right there.

Will the shadow Cabinet endorse this proposal? Fingers crossed good economic sense will prevail.

Deliver us from heavy taxation

2006-09-04T01:45:00.000Z

Janet Daley in the Telegraph writing about the unfairness of inheritance tax.

She highlights the story of the two sisters in their 80s, who are suing the Government for unfair discrimination. Had they been lesbians in a civil partnership, they would have been able to leave their assets to each other, free of inheritance tax. However, because they are sisters, the surviving sister will face an inheritance tax bill of 40 per cent on anything above the exemption threshold.

This story has been covered elsewhere, so I won't repeat the clear arguments in favour of abolishing this iniquitous tax.

Voices are being raised everywhere on the subject of tax. In the past week, we have had no fewer than five news stories on tax, specifically tax cuts. We are suffering under the increasing tax burden, and the Government has clamped its hands over its ears. Not surprising. This Government does not listen. We know that.

But what about the Opposition? George Osborne has spoken about abolishing stamp duty on shares and raising more green taxes to compensate for a cut in direct taxes. We know that policy detail is still some way off in the future, but could we at least get some reassurance that they have heard the cries of the British people. We need someone to give us hope that this burden will be lightened considerably. Who will deliver us from this grievous yoke? Is it too much to hope that the Conservatives can do this?

Bel's got a Bluetorch blog!

2006-09-03T18:42:00.000Z

This blog has been revamped by those good folk over at Bluetorch Solutions.

I wanted a simple, minimalist look, and I was getting fed up with all the restrictions imposed by Blogger templates. Now, not only have I got a new template, Bluetorch will also take care of maintenance, updating, and any technical questions.

If you want a fresh new look for your blog, speak to Bluetorch.

Time for the truth about the NHS

2006-09-02T22:23:00.000Z

An interesting story in the Daily Telegraph today.

A poll commissioned by the Institute for Public Policy Research has found that the public expects too much from the NHS.

Frankly, they could have saved their money. I could have told them that for nothing.

The truth is, this all-encompassing 'cradle-to-grave' treatment expected by the public cannot be provided out of general taxation. The demands are too great to be borne by a publicly funded health service.

Think about it. Hardly a month goes by without legal action being commenced against some Primary Care Trust for refusing to provide some wonder drug or other. We have just had the Herceptin wars. Then there are all the policy acrobatics being performed by trusts as they try to decide how to spend their limited resources, excluding certain groups from treatment for the most fatuous reasons.

But whose fault is it that we expect heaven and earth from the NHS? Is it not that of the politicians, who come to us every five years promising a 'world class health service'? And in-between election years, the Government spends its time cooking up one initiative or the other, all designed to deceive the electorate that things are indeed getting better. In 2002, the national insurance contributions rate was increased by Gordon Brown. This was to pay for the NHS, we were told. Having forked out the money, is it not reasonable to wonder why things have not improved? Where has all the money gone?

The Opposition is no better. Rather than tell us that our expectations are unreasonable, they perpetuate the deceit by promising what they cannot deliver. This is why David Cameron's decision in January 2006 to abandon the Patient's Passport is such a great shame. That policy was the first step in admitting that there are limits to the NHS. It could have been the starting point in determining what the NHS can reasonably be expected to deliver. He has also ruled out any plans to offer tax relief on medical insurance premiums. Why the timidity? Perhaps it was the fear that Labour would have seized the chance to paint the Conservatives as wanting to destroy the NHS. That charge is enough to paralyse any politician. It is, however, a dishonest charge, and as long as it remains a tool of political warfare, the NHS will stay as it is. This benefits nobody, not least the longsuffering patients.

Until politicians start being honest about the true state of the NHS, we will continue to be heavily disappointed in our expectations.

Our unworthy Mayor Ken

2006-08-31T21:33:00.000Z

Ken Livingstone has aimed his poison at Trevor Philips. I suppose it was only a matter of time. Philips has, after all, recanted his staunch belief in multiculturalism. Livingstone probably had him in his sights from the moment he first expressed his doubts. Anyway, he got his chance to attack today. The erstwhile disciple had dared to suggest that the Notting Hill Carnival (that one-time chaotic assemblage packed with thieves, drug dealers and knife wielders) was not a triumph of multiculturalism. Livingstone immediately swung into action, predicting that Trevor Philips would soon be in the cuddly embrace of the BNP.

I hear the Notting Hill Carnival has changed since I last went, but whatever it may have been transformed into, I would not describe is as a 'triumph of multiculturalism', if such a thing exists. Surely, one can say that without being called a racist?

In any case, has Livingstone not heard the latest edict from our beloved rulers, passed down by Ruth Kelly last week? The Government has changed its mind. We need no longer be slavish adherents of the multiculti sect. We are now 'allowed' to question and debate its merits.

Ken Livingstone is a disgrace to London. He is unworthy of his office. With his odious comments and blatant prejudice, he has dishonoured his office more times than I can remember. As the Anyone But Ken blog states, Londoners deserve better.

We pay them to lie to us

2006-08-30T14:39:00.000Z

We are informed that public spending on spin doctors has increased three-fold under this Government. Not that I am surprised, or anything. However, this massive spending spree seems to have had the opposite effect of whatever it was intended to produce. Public cynicism in politics and politicians has grown over the past ten years. In fact, the latest yougov poll for the Daily Telegraph indicates that a significant number of voters are forsaking the three main political parties in favour of the smaller ones. And who can blame them?

At the heart of the spin culture lies the issue of trust. Most of the time, politicians do not trust us with the truth. Either that, or they dare not tell us the truth. Hence the need for this army of conjurers. We, in turn, do not trust politicians. Consider for example, the recent loans-for-peerages scandal. The Government's response was to float the idea of getting the taxpayer to fund political parties, an idea shamelessly supported by the Conservative Party leadership. Why should we trust such a bunch of self-serving individuals?

Today's news would have been amusing if it weren't for the fact that the spin bill is being paid by the taxpayer. Yes, they lie to us, and we pay them for it.

Practice what you preach, Gordon Brown

2006-08-29T15:43:00.000Z

Gordon Brown is in the Financial Times today, preaching, among other things, about the folly of 'unfunded tax cuts'. No doubt, that particular comment was aimed at those who have been going around talking about abolishing inheritance tax and stamp duty on shares.

His article reads like a traditional Brown budget. Start off by telling us all of the dire economic situation in the world, then point out how, in spite of all these tribulations, Britain has stood firm. Remind us of his one spectacular decision; granting independence to the Bank of England. Throw in the following words: stability (preferably 'locked in'), public investment (now there's a euphemism). He hasn't treated us to a deluge of figures and percentages, so for that, I am grateful.

I agree with Gordon Brown about unfunded and uncosted tax cuts. We should only cut taxes when we have a clear idea of the figures involved, and the likely impact. This is common sense. However, I don't think anyone has been making rash promises to cut taxes.

My question, however, is this: why do we hear about the virtues of 'funding' or 'costing' measures, only when they relate to tax cuts? What about all the tax rises, stealth taxes, etc? Does anyone research them beforehand to see if they are in fact necessary? I remember a few years ago, we were presented with all sorts of figures when the Government wanted to increase the national insurance contributions rate. Perhaps because they were making the case that the increase was necessary to pay for the NHS, they felt the need to come up with all sorts of justifications, etc. However, we generally just get hit with tax rise after tax rise with nobody bothering to explain the 'costings'.

As Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown has presided over so many tax blunders. For him to start preaching to us about stability and proper planning in tax policy is nothing short of laughable.

Here are a few examples of Brown At Work:

Abolition of the dividend tax credit in 1997 which plunged pension funds into their current crisis, forcing many final-salary schemes to close;
The tax credits fiasco, which has resulted in overpayments of £1.3bn for two years running (perhaps some of this money could help cover some of the shortfall from the abolition of inheritance tax);
The introduction of the 0 per cent small companies rate. Gordon Brown had obviously not foreseen how this would work in practice. The rule was then revised 'to counter avoidance' before being withdrawn altogether. All in a period of four years.

Yes, tax cuts must be funded and costed. But tax policy must also be planned. There must be certainty for both the taxpayer and the tax collector. There is not much evidence of that in a Brown-controlled Treasury, so please forgive me for not taking his latest comments too seriously.

History lesson for David Cameron: the ANC were terrorists

2006-08-28T13:45:00.000Z

So Margaret Thatcher was wrong about Nelson Mandela, was she, Dave?

When will this madness end? In this bid to show that the Tories have 'changed', David Cameron has been acting like a madman. And the most dangerous sort of madman; one who really should know better.

Forget (if you can) all the sound Tory principles that have been jettisoned (or at best compromised) on this 'journey'. Not content with that, David Cameron is now determined to rewrite history.

In his view, Margaret Thatcher was wrong to describe Nelson Mandela and the ANC as terrorists. Really? So what exactly were they, then? He doesn't tell us. Perhaps they are now to be known as freedom fighters - the very term that causes so much outrage today when used to justify the actions of terrorists in the Middle East.

Today Nelson Mandela is a globally respected statesman. That does not deny the bloody history that took him to that place. Yes, the ANC were fighting for a worthy cause. Apartheid was an evil policy, and it is a good thing for humanity that it was abolished. However, the fact remains that the ANC used terrorism in pursuit of their ends.

By making those comments, David Cameron has shown himself to have no respect for history. Rather like the current occupant of Downing Street. He is looking at past events with the eyes of the present, and allowing that to cloud his perception.

The truth is, the ANC were terrorists. The only difference between them and other terrorists plying their 'trade' in those days, was one of degree. They did not inflict as much damage because they were spectacularly bad at executing their plans.

Let us make a comparison. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have been trying for years to paint themselves as statesmen. To some extent, they are succeeding. But consider how ridiculous it would be if, a few years from now, a politician denounced someone who, at the height of the Troubles, had referred to them as 'terrorists'.

Cameron has been playing fast and loose with Tory policy. That is one thing. Playing with history is an altogether dangerous matter. In these days of moral relativism, compromise and triangulation, if there is one thing that should be sacred, it is history. We should have respect for historical fact. If we have a leader who does not recognise that, we are all in big trouble.

Grammar lessons for Sainsbury's

2006-08-28T13:39:00.000Z

Good news. One less thing to get irritated about at Sainsbury's. The Daily Telegraph reports that Sainsbury's have (finally) decided to replace checkout signs saying '10 items or less'. I cannot tell you how much irritation those signs have caused me. Every time I go into Sainsbury's, I have to restrain myself from complaining to the nearest member of staff. A spokesman says that they decided to correct the signs 'as a result of customer feedback'. Interesting, that. One would not have expected that a supermarket of that size (or any size, for that matter) would need grammar lessons from its customers.

Oh, and in other news, record passes at GCSE level.

Tory proposal to abolish stamp duty on shares

2006-08-27T21:49:00.000Z

The Shadow Chancellor, George Osbourne, has announced that the next Conservative Government plans to abolish stamp duty on shares.

This is welcome news. Due to increasing equity prices, the receipts from stamp duty on shares have grown steadily over the years. Good news for the public coffers, but not very good news, in particular, for the pension funds. They have suffered heavily following the much criticised withdrawal of the dividend tax credit in 1997 (also known as Gordon Brown's £5bn raid). Abolition of the stamp duty tax charge should afford some relief. It is a good point from which to start.

The Bow Group is publishing a pamphlet tomorrow, which will contain more details of this proposal. I will be posting some more after I have read the pamphlet.

Go by air, arrive whenever

2006-08-26T21:37:00.000Z

These are busy times in the world of aviation.

Every day brings news of yet another emergency landing. At this rate, it would be wise to factor in extra journey time of at least 24 hours when taking to the skies.

Mind you, a day's delay is not that bad considering what the alternative might be. At least, with the former, you will eventually arrive at your destination.

Post Big Brother blogging

2006-08-22T18:11:00.000Z

Hey ho. After a summer of exceedingly light blogging, this blog is back in business. Apologies for the interruption in service. Blame Big Brother 7. Every year, I vow not to throw away another summer in this manner, and every year, I break that vow. Anyway, I have had my fill of Nikki, Pete, Aisleyne (pbuh), and even Russell Brand and his outrageous humour.

So what has been happening in the world while I was held captive by Channel 4?

I am still catching up with the real world but I have been informed of the following:

John Prescott has been in charge of the country (surely they should have interrupted BB with a public service broadcast to warn us!).
The police are still dividing their time between chasing terrorists and being politically correct.
Tom and Jerry have been hit by the smoking ban.
A cricket game between England and Pakistan has led to a blazing row after the Pakistanis were accused (probably unfairly) of cheating. (What is all the fuss about? I see the 'prejudice against muslims' line has already been bandied. How long before someone calls for jihad? )
Oh, and Ian Blair is still talking rubbish.

Terror and the usual suspects

2006-08-10T09:13:00.000Z

We are being told that the Police have foiled a plot to blow up airlines in mid-air. We don't yet know the full story, but Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson from Scotland Yard was kind enough to provide more details. What I did not understand, however, was why he then spent some time 'reassuring' the public that this investigation was not an attack on 'communities' (for which read 'muslims'). Who gives a damn about that right now? We are just being told that this foiled plot would have led to 'mass murder on an unimaginable scale', and instead we have a senior policeman worrying about the sensitivities of 'communities'? It is one thing to appeal for help from the muslim community, quite another to pander to their sensitivities in this way. If there are terrorists in that community, they should be flushed out without the Police having to genuflect before the local imam. It is the duty of every citizen to assist the Police, irrespective of their 'community'.

Steve McLaren's brainwave

2006-07-08T23:48:00.000Z

The new England manager, Steve McLaren, has had a brainwave. Henceforth, the wives and girlfriends (WAGs) of the England team are no longer allowed to accompany their partners to major tournaments. Following press reports of the WAGs' marathon shopping and drinking sprees, McLaren has concluded that their behaviour may have affected the team's performance on the pitch.

That right? So, in addition to Sven, the following are to blame for England's failure to get past the quarter-finals: Cristiano Ronaldo, the Argentine ref, the heat, the lack of water, men in lederhosen (alright, I made that one up), and now the WAGs. In short, everything but the players themselves.

I think a little honesty and self-examination would be a good thing.

Dear Tories, it's not as bad as it looks

2006-06-30T10:32:00.000Z

I almost had a heart attack when I awoke to grim BBC News 24 presenters informing the world of a ‘bad night’ for the Tories at the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election. For one terrible minute, I thought we had lost one of our safest seats. However, I was soon given the good news. The seat is still Tory, but only just. Our majority of 13,342 has been slashed to 633.

I must say that, unlike the BBC, I do not see this as a bad night.

Here are my reasons.

Everybody knows that the LibDems are skilled by-election campaigners. Dirty tricks, negative campaigning, all par for the course for them. True, the other parties are guilty of this, but in no way near the same measure as the LibDems. The real test of LibDem popularity is not a by-election, but the General Elections. In the latter case, with their resources thinly spread everywhere, they are not in a position to make the sort of impact they make at by-elections. Having said that, I am still grateful they did not win the seat. It is incredibly hard to defeat a sitting LibDem MP at a General Election, so I suppose we should be thankful we held on to the seat, regardless of the greatly reduced majority.

True, we lost some votes to UKIP, but not in such great number as to make one panic. This is significant when you consider the fact that they were standing against a Tory candidate that one could reasonably describe as pro-Europe.

Another thing to consider is turn-out. This time around, it was just over 40 per cent. Compare this to a 64.8 per cent turn-out at the General Elections last year. Then, the late Eric Forth polled 23,583 votes for the Tories, and the LibDem candidate managed 9,368. Yesterday, the Tory candidate polled 11,621 votes (down 11,962 votes from last year), while the LibDems got 10,988 votes (up 1,620 from last year). So where did the ‘missing’ 11,962 Tory votes go? Certainly not all to the LibDems. They appear to have acquired no more than 10 per cent of those votes. As a result, their ‘progress’ has been greatly overstated. UKIP managed an increase of 872 votes from last year, but that is hardly sufficient to account for the ‘missing votes’. A sensible conclusion to draw from this is that the Tory vote did not turn out in force, as one might expect. It may be that with a majority of 13,342 at the last General Elections, complacency played a big part yesterday. However, I am confident that this will not happen at General Election time.

So I am not unduly worried. We learnt an important lesson yesterday; complacency nearly cost us a safe seat. However, the stay-at-home Tory voters should not be blamed for this. By all accounts, our by-election strategy wasn’t as effective as one would have hoped. Compared to the LibDems’, our campaign literature was prolix and uninspiring. Also, not enough effort was made to counter the dirty tricks campaign by the LibDems. In conclusion, all I can say is I am grateful that this happened in a safe seat. Had this been a marginal seat, we would be telling a different, more depressing story today.

We have enough laws, Mr Blair

2006-06-23T15:52:00.000Z

Was I the only one to groan inwardly at the 'news' that Tony Blair has (again) called for criminal justice reform?

Haven't we had quite enough of this farce already? Only a few weeks ago, at the launch of the 'Let's Talk' consultation (wonder what happened to that whizz), Blair conceded that the criminal justice system had failed the British people.

The question, quite reasonably, is, what is he going to do about it?

For a start, he has promised more legislation. What, in addition to the mountain of criminal justice legislation already created by this government? When will they accept that the problem is not the absence, but the implementation, of legislation. The point is that most of the criminal justice measures brought into law by this Government were unnecessary in the first place.

The whole point of legislation is to empower action, and not to 'formalise' initiatives. The Government has got this the wrong way around. We can see this by the names of the Bills they bring before Parliament. For example, the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. That title says it all. It sounds more like an aim than anything else. More like a political party manifesto than a piece of legislation. It is this sort of mentality that informs the legislative process. Far too often, we hear Government Ministers talk about the need to legislate for one thing or another, in order to 'send a message'. There seems to be a misconception at the heart of this Government as to the point of legislation.

Blair also says that we need a debate (please, no) 'about the nature of liberty in the modern world'. Am I to understand that this debate, together with more legislation, will solve the problem of dangerous criminals being freed unusually early to kill more people? Or the problem of a vicious paedophile being given a derisory prison sentence because the judge's discretion is fettered by absurd sentencing guidelines?

There is nothing wrong with our existing penal code. For the most part, the crimes afflicting society now are those that existed before 1997. The only differences relate to an increase in numbers of criminals, and a much more lax approach to enforcement. This tells me that what is needed is not a debate, however 'considered and intellectual' it may be. We also don't need new laws. We need efficiency in the criminal justice system, and that can best be achieved by concentrating on better enforcement of the existing laws.

Trouble in the Church of England

2006-06-19T15:57:00.000Z

I never thought the day would come when I would agree with the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester. That day has dawned.

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Bishop Nazir-Ali said that the schism in the Church of England between traditionalists and liberals had grown so wide that compromise was impossible. He warned that in allowing for liberal values, the Church was in danger of leaving the Bible behind as its standard reference point.

The Bishop also made the frightening statement that there appeared to be 'two religions' in the Church of England. It is frightening because he is right, and we are headed for big trouble if we continue this way.

I am now going one step further than the Bishop. I believe that in order to uphold the integrity of the Bible, the Church of England should split. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, must be bold enough to expel from the communion those who would wish to dilute the teachings of the Bible. The Church of England cannot afford to become what Bishop Ali describes as an 'options church', where we live by preferences.

The Bible does not advocate a 'salad-bar religion', where we pick and choose which parts we would like, and ignore the others.

There has always been a place in Christianity for tolerance of different opinion and belief. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem arises where those advocating different beliefs choose to impose them on the Church, in utter disregard of its long-standing doctrines.

More Labour waffle on crime and sentencing

2006-06-14T16:22:00.000Z

Following today's news that 53 people sentenced to life imprisonment since 2000 have already been set free, the Government have now decided to do something about our revolving-prison-door problem.

Are they going to drop the ludicrous sentencing guidelines that have caused some of the problems?

Are they heck. They are responding in the best way they know. Yes, you guessed it. Downing Street has announced that the Government will be 'bringing forward legislation' on sentencing.

As if we don't already have enough legislation. When will this bunch of ditherers get the point that the issue is not the absence of legislation? Rather, most of the time, it is to do with applying the laws we already have, and giving the judges more discretion in sentencing.

Expect more waffle in the days to come, and very little change.

UPDATE: Downing Street has now 'clarified' that the proposed changes need not include new legislation. That's a relief. So can we have some more detail on what exactly they propose to do? What about the simple option of unfettering the discretion of the judges?

Why not empty the prisons and have done with it?

2006-06-13T16:07:00.000Z

A paedophile who kidnapped and sexually assaulted a three-year old girl has been jailed for life, but could be freed on parole in less than six years. Outrage everywhere.

Cue John Reid wading in with righteous indignation. The judge is being blamed, but others are making the not unreasonable point that he was only following the Government's sentencing guidelines.

This Government seems to have a strange aversion to locking up criminals. Only the other day, we were told that they had decided against legislating to criminalise people who facilitate forced marriages. Apparently, they are afraid that such a law could 'harm victims'.

Speechless.

About turn, Mr Reid

2006-06-12T12:19:00.000Z

John Reid has changed his mind. He no longer expects the public to tackle yobs themselves, as discussed in my post yesterday. Following expressions of outrage and incredulity both from the public and politicians, he now realises that this is the job of the Police.

I suppose he should be congratulated for dropping the policy as soon as he realised his mistake. (Leave to one side the question of how any right-thinking politician would even have thought that a good policy in the first place.) The point is, Labour ministers sometimes press on with policies, even in the teeth of evidence of their unworkability or efficiency. I am thinking, for example, of the tax credits system, the Connexions card, the Individual Learning Accounts, and countless IT projects.

So congratulations, John Reid, for realising your folly.

John Reid's suggestion for a crime-free neighbourhood

2006-06-11T21:10:00.000Z

So now John Reid wants us to go out and catch our local criminals with our bare hands? Unbelievable.

Anyway, I suppose that's the way we are heading as a society. Some of us have already opted out of the rotten education and health system. Surely the next step is to opt out of the law enforcement system. We'll catch our own crims and hand them over to the courts.

How about a tax refund while we're at it? If we are not receiving full service, surely that's only fair?

Learning at the Prince's feet

2006-06-08T11:55:00.000Z

Well done, Prince Charles, for doing something about the decline in the study of history and English in our schools.

The Prince of Wales has launched ‘The Prince’s Cambridge Programme for Teaching'. It is an educational charity, established to promote in-depth study of history and English. The charity will organise free courses and seminars for history and English teachers. The aim of these is to impart the Prince’s approach to teaching and studying those subjects.

I am thinking that the teachers will probably need more than that. Teachers who attended school after 1960 will most likely benefit from rudimentary classes in English grammar, as well as some good grounding lessons in history. This is because they are also victims of the sharp fall in educational standards over the past four decades. Perhaps, before discussing his preferred teaching methods, the Prince may wish to consider teaching the subject-matter.

An extremist muslim came to town today

2006-06-06T16:12:00.000Z

Anjem Choudary is at it again. The obnoxious jihadist was polluting our airwaves this lunchtime. Asked for his views on last week's police raid, he made some dark comments about muslims being alienated. Kay Burley, the Sky News presenter asked him if he would inform the police if he had information about a terror plot. His reply? That he would not side with unbelievers (ie the police) over his muslim brothers. He said he would do everything he could to stop a terror attack, such as persuading the terrorist to put away his bombs, but ruled out reporting any suspects to the police. According to him, he doesn't condone terrorism against people in this country. Talk about equivocation. Burley then asked if he condemned the London bombings, and he predictably dodged the question by asking if she supported the killings of muslims in Iraq. If I remember right, this odious man is facing charges following the criminal anti-Danish cartoons protest. I would rather he saved his pathetic proclamations for the jury. Some of us have had quite enough.

The Government in the dock

2006-06-03T16:14:00.000Z

The family of Naomi Bryant, the woman who was killed by Anthony Rice, a dangerous rapist, have launched legal action against the Government.

You will remember that Rice, who was serving a life sentence for rape, was released on licence because the Parole Board feared that his human rights would be breached if he were not released.

I wish Naomi Bryant's family success in their lawsuit. Incidentally, they are bringing their action under the Human Rights Act 1998. Obviously, nothing will bring back Naomi Bryant, but perhaps the legal process and a hefty compensation bill will help focus the mind of the Executive on the following:

1) that decisions made in the abstract can have huge consequences on the lives of ordinary people;
2) that perhaps, not everyone is entitled to drink from the overflowing pool of 'human rights'; and
3) that they are ultimately accountable to the public for their policy decisions.

Let us hope they take note.

Or like a crab cling to his golden post

2006-06-01T21:32:00.000Z

John Prescott has been forced to give up Dorneywood, his grace-and-favour country house. Perk by perk, the hulking Hullster is gradually being denuded of every last trapping of power. And yet he clings on.

Carry on playing, Prescott

2006-05-28T14:46:00.000Z

The Mail on Sunday is upset to discover that, rather than running the country in Tony Blair's absence, dear old John Prescott has been passing the time playing croquet.

I am elated. I would rather Prescott did nothing at all, than executed some ham-fisted attempt at 'governing'. Especially given the latest news about how the bumbling one ruined an area of outstanding natural beauty, killing lots of endangered birds in the process.

Adieu, Eric Forth

2006-05-18T12:07:00.000Z

Eric Forth was the MP for Bromley and Chislehurst, a neighbour constituency to Lewisham West, where I live.

He died last night, after suffering from bone cancer.

He will be sadly missed. I will remember especially his time as Shadow Leader of the House under Iain Duncan Smith. I will also remember his wonderful dress sense. Always nice to see a man take care of his appearance.

My condolences to his family and friends.

'Let's talk?' No, you listen, Mr Blair

2006-05-15T16:44:00.000Z

Tony Blair has conceded that the criminal justice system has failed the British people. Launching the Government's 'Let's Talk' consultation exercise with the public, he bewailed the decline of respect in society.

All well and good, but listening to his speech, it seemed to me the sort of speech a new leader might make. It was a speech setting out a better vision of Britain, complete with all the rhetoric about reform. Above all, it was what I would expect from a man seeking a public mandate, and not one who has been in power for the past nine years.

At this stage in Blair's leadership, we should be expecting a valedictory speech, complete with a list of verifiable achievements. We should not be subjected to yet more meaningless consultation, complete with grand plans for the future. He should be telling us what he has done with the nine years we have given him. The tragedy of Blair is that, with a substantial Labour majority and the goodwill of the British public, he could have done so much. Instead, he has wasted his time and ours, and has now resorted to his favourite technique of soundbites and gimmicks. This time around, he is fooling no-one but himself.

Lord Goldsmith has woken up

2006-05-10T17:14:00.000Z

The Attorney General has called for Guantanamo Bay to be closed down.

Good start, but why now?

Opus Dei members have rights, too

2006-05-09T12:03:00.000Z

Ruth Kelly is being attacked for her views on homosexuality. The argument is that she should not be the minister in charge of equality, because as a member of the Opus Dei catholic sect, she believes that homosexuality is a sin. For starters, not only Opus Dei members believe this. Many Christians do as well. More importantly, her private views should not bar her from doing the job.

I wonder: is there a prescribed set of views public servants should hold? Would someone care to draw up a list?

I dread the sort of society we are becoming if we see nothing wrong in policing people to ensure that they think the right sort of thoughts. Where will this end?

If Ruth Kelly had taken up a post as head of Stonewall, the gay rights campaigning organisation, her critics may have a point. However, as a Government minister, Ruth Kelly is there to implement legislation, and not as a champion of gay rights.

Equality works all ways. Gay people have a right to equality, as do the rest of society. I fear for a society where people with views that do not accord with the prevailing morality are forced into silence, or treated with scorn for daring to think outside the new consciousness.

Am I to understand that in the hierarchy of rights, the right to belong to Opus Dei ranks significantly lower than gay rights?

In a way, Ruth Kelly is a victim of her own Government's desire to control every aspect of our lives; what we eat, what we drink, how we think. This insidious form of control has crept into every aspect of life to the point that people now see nothing wrong in condemning someone whose private views have never interfered with her job. If ever Ruth Kelly expresses any bias in her job, then by all means, condemn her. Until then, please leave her alone.

More hypocrisy from Prescott

2006-05-09T08:59:00.000Z

John Prescott has appealed to the Labour Party to unite around Tony Blair. The man's delusion is complete. It amazes me how he can preach loyalty to his party members, when his serial disloyalty to his wife has just been exposed for all to see.

Poor Charles Clarke

2006-05-05T09:47:00.000Z

I never thought I would ever say this, but I feel really sorry for Charles Clarke. He looks crushed.

Barking brigade gunning for Hodge

2006-05-05T09:33:00.000Z

If the Barking and Dagenham local Labour Party had their way, Margaret Hodge would be in the stocks by now. They are intending to take disciplinary action against her because of her comments, which they blame for the BNP's victory in eleven seats. The BNP have already thanked her for her services.

Why is the local Labour Party blaming Margaret Hodge? That implies that those who voted BNP rushed out and did so because of what she said. As if they lacked the ability to form their own judgement. Is that really what they think of the electorate? While they are busy looking for scapegoats, the local Labour Party could do no worse than shine the torch of introspection on themselves. Could the result have had something to do with voters feeling increasingly disaffected, disenfranchised and disillusioned by local events? Just one possibility.

Charlie Clarke wants more power

2006-05-03T14:18:00.000Z

Charles Clarke wants greater powers to deport foreign criminals. One might reasonably ask how well he has used his existing powers. I presume he has never heard that Biblical saying, 'if you are not faithful over little, you cannot be trusted with much'. Go ponder, Charlie.

The Little Red Book of New Labour Sleaze

2006-05-02T19:51:00.000Z

Keep your eyes open for this little book which will be available soon. It is a list of the top 100 (yes, you read right) sleaze stories of this Government. It is written by bloggers and edited by Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes. I will be posting details of how to get copies once the book is available.

Vote or else ...

2006-05-01T10:58:00.000Z

The IPPR has published a report calling for voting to be made compulsory. That right? I may back it on one condition: that the ballot paper be amended to include a 'None of the above' option.

Poor poor Labour

2006-04-28T09:47:00.000Z

I see the Conservatives have held on to second place in the Moray by-election in Scotland. Anything less would have been worrying. Meanwhile, Labour has slipped down to fourth. And this on top of this week's problems. Can things get any worse for the Labour party? Well, we still have next Thursday's elections. I know it's not nice to gloat, but who cares?

Will we have to pay for a bespoke suit for Ming?

2006-04-25T09:40:00.000Z

The publication of the election expenses of the main political parties should persuade even the most entrenched supporter of state funding not to go down that road. Even in this pip-squeaking dispensation, there are some costs that should never be defrayed by taxpayers' money. Here are a few:

1) Make up for Tony Blair. Bad enough we have to put up with that irritating grin without being stung for the toothpaste and tanning cream as well.

2) Bespoke suits for Charlie Kennedy.

3) Alastair Campbell. Enough said.

4) And the most infuriating of all, millions spent on so-called 'election gurus'. How cynical. Surely the services of such gurus would not be necessary if a political party actually took the trouble to engage with the electorate.

If political parties wish to throw away their funds on such irrelevancies, that is their problem. As long as they keep their greedy paws away from taxpayers' money. However, if they can spend like this out of their limited party funds, who knows what they will do if the tap of state funding is turned on? By all means, buy as many Star Trek costumes as you like, so long as you can trick your activists and 'donors' into giving money. But when that money dries up, do not look to the public purse. A political party that can no longer raise funds from its supporters should not be bailed out by the taxpayer. It deserves to die.

Unison wants more money

2006-04-24T18:46:00.000Z

Just watched the Unison guy on television threatening industrial action because of the problems in the NHS. And this after the so-called 'record investment' in the NHS by the Government? The Government should learn one thing from this: it is futile to bribe unions with taxpayers' money. They will always want more. There is no satisfying their voracious appetite. Far better to provide value for money, even if this results in lower spending. Tories, please take note.

Canvassing for the Tories. Shall I? Shall I?

2006-04-20T11:47:00.000Z

The local elections are almost upon us. I am minded to go canvassing with my local Conservative Party Association, but I have one reservation. If asked by voters about the party's policies, I am loath to parrot out the tired party line about 'policy reviews' etc. Some voters may quite reasonably interpret this as vagueness, or even worse, insincerity. It is also disingenuous to tell voters that the local election should be restricted to local issues. Some of them may want to have some more detail about Conservative Party policy in general. Knowing myself, I would be sorely tempted to make up policies on the doorstep, you know, something to fill the gaping hole. (Who, after all, wants to look like an empty-handed door-to-door charlatan? There is only so much one can say about the environment.) I might 'invent' such right of centre policies as lower taxation, selective education, that sort of thing. Somehow, I don't think that will go down well at Central Office.

Probably best for everyone that I keep indoors.

Big Charlie's Prison Reforms

2006-04-20T11:39:00.000Z

The Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, has finally decided to do something about our shambolic system of administering justice. No, he is not building new prisons, perish the thought! Under the proposals, dangerous criminals will still be allowed out of jail early, but will be subject to a set of new restrictions under a 'Dangerous Persons' Order'. Hmm. Let's see how well that works. On the other hand, people who have the misfortune to be jailed through a miscarriage of justice will see their compensation cut, in some cases, to nil.

So to summarise, the new reforms are as follows: dangerous criminals will still be allowed out early, and innocent people can now be locked up without compensation.

Welcome to Britain, where crime pays

2006-04-06T17:42:00.000Z

I came across this hilarious and thought-provoking letter in the Letters page of the Daily Telegraph. I am republishing it in full below:

Sir - As I approach my 80th year, faced with rising taxes, my dentist going private, my local hospital proposing to close several departments, I am wondering whether prison might not be the best place to be.
There, I will have my heating bills paid. I'll have three meals a day, free dentistry, medical treatment and no responsibility. I might even have free computer classes. What is the best way to go about this? What sort of crime would you advise? I don't want community service and I don't want a philanthropist paying my fine.
It is too late for me to become a Euro MP or a single mum. Prison seems the best answer. I want free food, dental treatment, healthcare and free transport to hospital. We provided all this for the Great Train Robber. Why not for me?

The letter was written by someone called Gillian Rogers. It brightened my train journey, and in appreciation, I would like to make a suggestion as to a 'suitable crime'.

Normally, in such situations, I would suggest withholding council tax, but with local elections round the corner, we can be sure she will not be jailed. Some idiot politician will pay the fine, thereby frustrating her efforts.

Instead I suggest she take a look at the front page of today's Independent. It informs us that two grandmothers have been arrested under new anti-terrorism legislation for the despicable crime of protesting outside an American military base in Yorkshire. I would suggest this crime. No need to don a balaclava, or spend time looking for firearms and the like. This crime is so convenient it can be committed in the course of a good day out walking in the woods. If all goes well, Gillian Rogers should be safely ensconsced in Belmarsh by Christmas.

But seriously ...

Has David Cameron gone mad?

2006-04-04T18:19:00.000Z

Am I the only one getting disillusioned with David Cameron? Having spectacularly failed to seize the initiative over the 'loans for peerages' affair, he now crops up on radio, picking a needless fight with UKIP, of all parties. Are there not enough things a leader of a right of centre political party may reasonably be expected to be doing at this moment? Let me enlighten him:

1) Those policies he promised us. We have long been waiting. This is getting embarrassing.
2) A thoughtful response to the Turner report. What, for example, has he to say about the statement that taxes may have to rise to pay for pensions?
3) The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. I hear he has only imposed a two-line whip. Why?

I could go on. His inaction has started to affect the opinion polls, and I am beginning to worry that we may have surrendered our party to a bunch of vacant PR men. We should be exploiting the current situation. Faced with a decaying Labour party and a government in limbo, a thoroughly discredited Prime Minister, and a high-taxing Socialist Chancellor, Cameron instead turns his fire on UKIP.

Heaven preserve us.

No justice for Damilola today

2006-04-04T18:13:00.000Z

The jury in the Damilola Taylor trial have found the latest defendants not guilty of murder. I think we may never discover, this side of heaven, who killed that little boy. However, I can't help feeling that we would have been a little nearer the truth if not for the first cack-handed police investigation.

Get back to school, Shabina

2006-03-23T10:01:00.000Z

Well done, the House of Lords for restoring common sense into the Shabina Begum story. You will remember that this is the case of a young muslim girl who took her school to court for refusing to allow her wear a jilbab (full-length islamic dress) to school. The school permits muslim girls to wear the shalwar kameez, but very reasonably drew the line at the jilbab. Ms Begum was not happy, and enlisted the services of one Cherie Booth QC in taking her school to court.

After the Court of Appeal found in her favour, the school appealed to the House of Lords, and yesterday, their Lordships decided that enough was enough. Lord Hoffman, in particular, was impressive in dismissing the argument that the school had deprived Ms Begum of the right to manifest her religion. There was no such right, he said, to allow one to ‘manifest one’s religion at a time and place of one’s own choosing. Common civility also has a place in religious life’. Well said!

Lord Hoffman also pointed out that the aim of the Human Rights Act 1998 was not to ‘enlarge’ the rights of UK residents whose convention rights have been violated. Rather it was to give them a platform to enforce their convention rights in this country. Perhaps all human rights lawyers will want to take note of that.

I am glad to read that Shabina Begum has accepted the verdict. Let’s have no nonsense about appealing to the European court. I would advise her to get back to school and see if she can salvage some sort of education for herself. After a self-imposed two year exile from the education system, she will need all her powers of concentration to attain halfway decent qualifications.

And while she’s at it, she will perhaps want to give thanks that she lives in a country that values the education of women to the extent of making the sort of allowances that her high school made for her. If Shabina Begum lived in the sort of country that she undoubtedly wants Britain to become, I guarantee that not only would she never have seen the four walls of a classroom, she would never have been granted audience in the highest court in the land, let alone an expensive female QC to represent her.

The inexplicable blindness of the NEC

2006-03-22T10:19:00.000Z

Yesterday, the National Executive Committee of the Labour party held a meeting with Tony Blair, in which they expressed their anger over the loans for peerages scandal, and informed the Prime Minister that from now on, they would reassert their control over the party’s finances.

This is all very well and good, but I have one question for the NEC. Seeing as they were purportedly unaware that Blair had borrowed £14m to finance the General Election campaigns, where did they think all that money came from? When they saw all the shiny new posters, battle buses, and helicopters, how exactly did they think that Blair had financed all this? Didn’t they think to ask him back then, and if not, why not? Given that they knew the state of their accounts, they should have known what they could afford, and should have been aware that the election spending was way beyond that. Typical lefties that they are, they probably just assumed that money grows on trees. How could their leader borrow £14m and spend it right before their faces, without them wondering as to its provenance? This failure to make the link between money and its source is also reflected in the attitude of the Left towards taxpayers’ money in general. Spend, spend, spend, without stopping to think where the money is coming from.

Now that they have been embarrassed by their greedy, unscrupulous leader, they hope to salvage some credibility by protesting to the rafters that they were unaware all along. I believe them. It is possible that they did not know. However that very fact clearly illustrates why Labour, both Old and New, can never be trusted with money.

Licence to kill

2006-03-20T14:22:00.000Z

The jury in the Mary-Ann Leneghan case has returned guilty verdicts on five of the men charged with her kidnap and murder. A sixth man had already pleaded guilty. It emerges that four of those men were on probation at the time they committed the crime.

This is the third time in as many months that we have heard such a thing. The man who killed John Monckton was out on probation at the time of the murder. So also was the man who murdered Roger Symons after burgling his home. In that case, we were told that the burglar had been released on licence after a quick chat on the telephone with a probation officer to assess his fitness for release.

What exactly is happening to our criminal justice system?

Dodgy pensions advice from Blair and co

2006-03-15T18:50:00.000Z

Today at Prime Minister's Questions, Ming Campbell, the leader of the Lib Dems, asked Tony Blair about the Parliamentary Ombudsman's finding that the Government's guidance on occupational pensions had been "inaccurate, incomplete, unclear and inconsistent". Given that many employees had lost their pensions when their companies went under, there are growing calls for the Government to compensate them.

Blair's reply was that no responsible government could underwrite the massive financial risks that private citizens undertake with regard to their pensions.

Flaming cheek! One could ask him what created these 'risks' in the first place. I can think of two things off the top of my head. The first would be the dodgy guidance I have already referred to in this article. The second would be his pal Gordon's tax policies that currently see the loss of around £5bn each year from private pension funds.

Yes, the general public understand risk. What we do not understand is a Government that causes us, through its greed and incompetence, to lose our hard-earned savings, and then dares to lecture us on its illusory fiscal responsibility.

The walls of Jericho came tumbling down ...

2006-03-15T18:13:00.000Z

Israel stormed the walls of a Jericho prison yesterday and led away some Palestinians in captivity. Harry de Quetteville in today's Telegraph puts it beautifully:

In the Old Testament the children of Israel circled the ancient city of Jericho seven times until its walls collapsed.

Yesterday morning more than 100 Israeli combat troops arrived armed not with the ark of the covenant but bulldozers, helicopters, tanks and armoured personnel carriers.

Wonder what Ahmed Saadat would make of that passage, although I very much doubt that that is uppermost in his mind at this moment.

Cynical Britain? Wonder why.

2006-03-06T12:41:00.000Z

Can it really be that this Government does not understand why the 'separation' of Tessa Jowells from her husband has been greeted with cynicism across the public and political spectrum? Further proof that New Labour is definitely out of touch with public opinion. For all their spin doctors and focus groups, Government ministers cannot even see what the public see when we look at them.

Tessa, your home is at risk if you fail to keep up payments on a mortgage ...

2006-03-02T18:14:00.000Z

Tessa Jowell has been 'cleared' of breaching the Ministerial Code. She claims that she did not know that her husband had received a cash 'gift' of $600,000. Probably. She would have us believe that even though she co-signed an application for a mortgage on her family home, she did not know why her husband needed the money. That may be so. She also did not know when the mortgage was paid off by her husband. Really? So Ms Jowell would have us believe that her husband put papers in front of her, and she signed them, without asking questions? Even though she knew that defaulting on a mortgage could lead to her losing her home, she did not think to ask her husband why he needed to mortgage the house, and how and when they were expected to repay the loan? This is not the sort of behaviour one would expect from a woman of average intelligence.

In a situation where a co-owner wishes to mortgage joint property for his business ventures, the lender normally advises the other owner to seek independent legal advice. Did this happen? Did Tessa Jowell seek legal advice before signing, and if so, then it would appear that her lawyer would have reasonably asked her husband for details of how he intended to repay the loan, so as not to jeopardise Ms Jowell's share of the home. If this happened, then I wonder how Tessa Jowell could claim not to know these details. But who knows?

There are many unanswered questions. However, I have come to one conclusion: Tessa Jowell has fallen upon the classic 'female' defence. 'I'm only a woman, I don't understand numbers, my husband deals with the financial side of things'. What a shame. There is something rather pathetic about that. She would rather the public saw her as a foolish, helpless woman. Far better, in my opinion, to be seen as a financially canny woman with a whiff of scandal about her. No one is, after all, accusing her of breaking the law.

Tessa looking resplendent in pink

2006-03-01T12:09:00.000Z

I never thought the day would come when I would feel sorry for a New Labour Cabinet minister, but I feel some compassion for poor Tessa Jowell. It is Prime Minister's Questions, and she is sitting on the front bench, trying very hard to look inconspicuous. Not much hope of that in a grey tweed jacket and pink blouse combo, methinks. That notwithstanding, a part of me hopes that nobody raises the issue of her husband's pending criminal trial and any suspected impropriety on her part. She is one of those few politicians who appear to be part of the human race. True, she is a nannying leftie busybody, but I hope she survives her current troubles.

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill: tyranny by the back door

2006-02-23T13:50:00.000Z

One of my law school professors was very passionate about the doctrine of separation of powers. Rarely did a lecture on Constitutional and Administrative law take place without his musing on this subject. Shortly stated, separation of powers is good for democracy, because it acts as a check against autocratic rule by any of the three arms of Government.

This is the way the thing is supposed to work: the legislature (ie Parliament) makes law, the judiciary interprets the law, and the Executive enforces it. In my mind’s eye, I still see my professor pacing about the podium as he quoted Locke: it is a recipe for corruption for "the same persons who have the powers of making laws to have also in their hands the power to execute them". He told us that separation of powers was not a clear-cut thing; there is a bit of overlap, but nothing dangerous. For example, the Lord Chancellor, who is the head of the judiciary, sat in the House of Lords.

In some cases, legislative power may be delegated to the Executive. For example, in the United Kingdom, an Act of Parliament may state that statutory instruments may be made by the Executive (eg the Treasury, or a relevant Secretary of State) to deal with particular issues. However, these statutory instruments are not meant to provide for significant changes in the law. That remains the work of Parliament. The most a statutory instrument can do is to flesh out details for a skeletal framework of law already provided for in an Act of Parliament. It should never be the means of changing a law, or introducing substantive law. That is what our Members of Parliament, who are elected by, and therefore accountable to, the public, are supposed to do. A situation where a statutory instrument can change the law, and therefore alter our rights and duties, is a dangerous one. It amounts, in effect, to the seizing of power from the Legislature by the Executive. In crude terms, it means that our rights can be determined (or removed) by an unelected, and therefore, unaccountable Government body or minister, without Parliament having the opportunity to debate the issue.

It is against this backdrop that we must view the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. One of the aims of the Bill is to enable Government ministers to 'amend, repeal or replace legislation in any way that an Act might'. As a liberal, I fear that some of our rights could thus be curtailed by ministerial fiat. As a taxpayer and a tax professional, I worry whether this Bill might give power to the Treasury to impose new taxes. As a citizen, I am alarmed at this brazen assault on our constitution by a Government with no sense of history.

Rightlinks have launched a campaign to raise public awareness about this Bill. They have also prepared some questions which we can put to our MPs and other useful people. I reproduce below a few of the questions, but for a full list, please see their website.

1) What guarantees are there that the Bill could not be used to bring in the EU Constitution by the back door?

2) If the Bill is just a simplifying measure for deregulation, why does it contain no requirement for any orders to actually reduce the amounts of red tape and regulation?

3) Why does the Bill give the power to create new law, including new criminal offences, to the Law Commissions, which are unelected quangos appointed by Ministers?

4) If the Bill allows Ministers to 'amend, repeal or replace legislation in any way that an Act might', does this not give them an unlimited power to ignore a democratic Parliament and legislate by decree?

4) If the Bill is so sensible, why has Parliament used a different way of making laws for 700 years?

5) If the Bill gives Ministers powers to charge fees by decree, is that not a charter to bring in unlimited stealth taxes?

6) As the Bill permits an order to be made by a Minister under the Bill provided its effect is "proportionate" to his "policy objective", since when in our history as a democratic country has a Government Minister’s "policy objective" directly received the force of law?

7) What guarantees are there that the Bill could not be used to bring in ID Cards by the back door?

8) Why does the Bill give the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly a veto over Ministers’ power to change the law which it denies to English MPs?

Bird flu bypasses the UK

2006-02-22T12:06:00.000Z

The H5N1 bird flu virus is merrily winging its way around the continent, and our ministers have grimly informed us that it will soon be arriving here. My guess is that it is here already. After the Government’s disastrous handling of the foot-and-mouth crisis a few years ago, who could blame the UK’s poultry farmers if they failed to alert the Government about any suspicious dead chickens on their land? They will probably surmise that the best thing to do would be to say nothing and dispose of their dodgy fowls in secret.

A day out at the weekly muslim demo

2006-02-18T12:05:00.000Z

Today I shall be observing at close quarters the now-weekly muslim demonstrations in Central London. Somewhere by the crowd of ranting sheikhs, you will find me doing my bit for Danish industry. I will be taking along a packed lunch of Danish bacon sandwiches and Carlsberg. To alleviate the boredom (during George Galloway's speech?), I will either be reading the latest issue of Jyllands-Posten or building a Lego church. I will be doing all this in the pleasing environs of Hyde Park, as is my right as a member of the public. I expect neither to be attacked by demonstrators nor moved on by police. And rather than me provoking anyone, it is I who have been provoked by the constant stream of noise, complaint and abuse from one particular section of society. Here's hoping we all have a good day exercising our civil and political rights.

Lock up the mother and leave nothing to chance

2006-02-15T15:25:00.000Z

I read an amusing story in the Daily Telegraph today. Somewhere in Berkshire, a mother has been placed on curfew and tagged. Her crime? She failed to stop her daughter’s persistent truancy. As a result, the fun-loving mum will not be allowed out at night. Before I tell you what amused me so much, a few side issues:

1) why should she be held responsible for her daughter’s truancy when she has no right even to be told if the selfsame underage daughter was seeking an abortion?

2) what would placing her under curfew at night achieve? Surely, if at all she were to be compelled to force her daughter to attend school, her efforts should be concentrated on the daylight hours. I assume the school her daughter attends operates during the day?

Anyway, what amused me greatly was the reaction of Carol Horne (for that is her name). She declared that she was not bothered about her daughter missing school, as in her view, getting a job was "a matter of luck, not exam results".

And she is right. Standards in education are falling despite increases in Government spending. To compensate for that, exams are now so easy to pass that an A-level certificate is hardly worth anything in the workplace. Late last year, the National Audit Office had the cheek to suggest that employers might want to invest in literacy and numeracy classes for their employees. And university tutors are finding that they have to offer remedial classes in essay writing and the like to first-year students.

I doubt that La Horne had these considerations in mind when she made her declaration, but that notwithstanding, her statement is uncomfortably close to the truth. How does a potential employer distinguish between today’s semi-literate school leavers, all of whom waving a a sheaf of Grade A* GCSE and A-Level certificates? Might as well toss a coin.