lord of the blog

« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »

Friday, December 30, 2005

Responses

Religion

I know some people see the differences between their religion and that of others as huge. It is also true that differences within a religion can be really crucial to some. Northern Ireland is a classic example and why I refer to the Life of Brian as a sobering reminder of how we can all get in a mess by accentuating difference.

I often think it pays to try and understand what was happening politically at the time some of the major religions were evolving. Rome was the dominant power and would be unlikely to want to get involved in a dispute between the Palestinian authorities and  someone who was being portrayed as a troublemaker who claimed to be the son of God. Pilate was doing what many political leaders would do in those circumstances.

Political Correctness

Political correctness can be very frustrating but it is always worth checking the story. Baa Baa black sheep was alleged to have been banned by a Council in the hey day of PC and "loony left" story's in the 1980's tabloids.

It was never true unless you think an individual nursery worker really does make council policy! The problem was the council didn't put out a denial because they were foolish enough to think the press would ignore them. The problem with that approach is that everyone believes it is true! The story went all round the world - literally!

Political leaders.

Dan. Why doesn't a political party get the leaders you think they should have? The answer is because people won't vote for them! You refer to Patten as an ideal leader for the Tory Party. I agree but the majority of the Tory Party thought he was a raving Socialist!

As with some other members of the Parliamentary Labour Party I talked to Robin Cook about contesting the leadership when John Smith died. We fairly quickly came to the conclusion that Robin would do more damage to his ideas by standing and losing badly then by staying out of the struggle for succession. Had he lived the story might now be different.

Labour fortunes.

It would be foolish to ignore the sullen mood about Labour at the moment but I don't think it will necessarily last unless we don't address it. 2006 is going to be a very important year for us.

Happy New Year everyone!

Saturday, December 24, 2005

Christmas: Muslims, Jews and Christians

As a life long atheist with little knowledge of religion I am probably the last person who should comment on this. However, such ignorance has rarely held me back in the past!

All I want to say is that I agree with Dan that the differences between religions often seem very small but like certain political beliefs the differences can produce intense disagreement to the point of fighting.

Which is why my favourite film of all time is The Life of Brian by the Monty Python group. No politician or religious person should go through life without seeing it to remind ourselves of the importance of small differences!

Friday, December 23, 2005

Happy Xmas and New Year

At five minutes to Christmas Eve I think it's time to wish everyone a happy Christmas and a happy new year.

I have just left family and a friend discussing the way Muslims see Jesus as a prophet and their explanation for Christs disappearance from the cross. So just what did happen?!

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Europe

It was very satisfying to see Tony Blair put the UKIP so firmly in its place. They just cannot see how the world has changed. It was good to see the other MEP's cheering him when he did it. The idea that those dinosaurs represent Britain appalls me.

Child cruelty

The horrible case in  Sheffield shows once again the difficulty we have in recognising extreme abuse of children.

I haven't seen all the details yet and I'm sure that liaison between services was seriously lacking. Having said that it is important that any of us who see signs of extreme abuse or neglect do pursue it. We tend to be reluctant to "interfere"and it certainly can be embarrassing if you get it wrong. But it is better to get it wrong and upset a few people then let this type of abuse continue unchecked.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Murder and manslaughter

I think the suggested reforms on murder and manslaughter make a lot of sense. I don't think the tabloids will like them but I suspect a large section of the public do recognise the need for reform.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Responses

I'm not sure what happened but the comments on one of the House of Lords questions (entry 8.12.05) did a vanishing act. They are back again now retrieved from cyberspace by my specialist recovery vehicle known as pure luck!

I agree with Dave's comments about the Ministerial code. As the political parties always seek to maximise the embarrassment of the other ones you are bound to get people shouting from the roof tops about minor issues as well as major ones. I have to plead guilty myself - it's hard to resist in a political environment!

It does at least help make sure our political system stays free of serious corruption.

Is Cameron going to be a "positive leader" as Paul hopes? I think he will be in the sense that he seems to have a clearer view about the need of the Tory Party to modernise and become more user friendly. Whether or not he can develop the policies and take his Party with him remains to be seen.

My guess is that he can although the decision on membership of the European Conservative group is not a good indicator of positive change. Did he duck that one because he wasn't ready to take on his own opposition? Or does he really believe that the Tory party is better off standing alone in Europe?

Andy you say "Rebels invariably equals progress, thus the party with the most rebels is the more progressive." Doesn't that depend on the purpose of a rebellion? Franco rebelled against the Government of Spain. So did the Communists in Russia and umpteen others in more recent years. Were they really more progressive?

By progressive I mean left of centre politically and for me that inevitably means a belief in democracy and the rule of law and similar basic issues. Not all rebels hold to that.

If you are only referring to the rebellions in the Parliamentary Labour Party then you still have to question purpose even if the issues are not quite so basic. There is not much doubt in my mind that many of the prospective rebels on the education issue are challenging the government because they are worried that it is the wrong type of reform and it won't achieve what the PM wants (he doesn't want selection). Listen to Estelle Morris on this.

On Iraq there were very strongly held views on both sides and in most cases MP's respected their opponents arguments and views.

It would be absurd to deny however that some rebellion's are about anger at not getting Ministerial office or being removed from it. Some other MP's have rebelled pretty consistently about anything they don't like in government policy regardless of whether it is Party policy or not.

I agree that Labour is more prone to rebellions because it is a radical left party. Perversely left wing radicals who uphold communal values in their philosophy are also in my experience much more individualistic then members of right wing parties. That is why it is easy for the Labour Party to go back into opposition. Our opponents are always happy to build on internal opposition and if we allow splits to become as vicious as in the past we will reoccupy the opposition benches.

My encouraging message for Christmas is that these recent internal debates at the moment are being held in a comradely fashion. If we are able to keep that up then everyone will gain - not least democracy!

Sunday, December 18, 2005

America and empire

There was an interesting article by the Professor of History at Princeton University (Linda Colley) in the Guardian on Saturday. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/

She makes the point that although the US doesn't want to see itself as an empire it's behaviour shows many similarities.

I have argued for some years that the issue is not so much empire as the conventional problems of the dominant power of the day. I am a fan of Professor Paul Kennedy's argument in the Decline and Fall of Great Powers published about ten years ago.

The British and US experience is similar and I suspect it is not all that different to other great powers throughout history - although clearly the technology makes for fundamental differences.

Britain as the world's first industrial power and therefore the first with a global reach was bound to be replaced as soon as a continental sized power with an industrial base developed. That was likely to be the US because it had drawn its culture and economic ideology from Britain at the same time that Britain was industrialising.

You can even learn some hard lessons from Britain trying to deal with the collapsing Ottoman Empire in the Middle East when Gladstone intervened in Egypt, mainly for financial reasons but also with the hope of encouraging the development of the rule of law and democratic structures. Having taken over the reigns in Egypt Gladstone's cabinet then spent much of the next few years discussing how they could withdraw. See any parallels?! (See: Africa and the Victorians. Published in the 1960's. I don't have the details with me right now but could get them if anyone is interested.)

One of the books that helped form many of my views on this was Thucydides The Peloponnesian War. Written a mere 2.5 thousand years ago it is an instructive read for students of international relations.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Charles Kennedy

About ten days ago I was taking part in the BBC Radio Four World Tonight programme with Simon Hughes and a Tory. I predicted that Charles Kennedy would beat Tony Blair in returning to the back benches. Simon took it in good part but I suspect he already knew the story was about to break.

Since then he and various other Liberals have been beating a track to the news programmes to denounce the "briefers". So much for the Liberals indignation about spin!

I can't prove it but I would be very surprised if Mark Oaten wasn't one of the briefers as also is Simon. They have been worried about the style of leadership for some time.

In my view the issue is not just style although that does matter in media driven politics. The key issue is where the Liberals wish to place themselves on the political spectrum.

Trying to claim, as they do, that there is no such thing as left and right anymore is naive. I said some months ago that the Liberals made a big mistake in trying to position themselves to the left of Labour when the Tories were led by Ian Duncan Smith. If they had placed themselves to the right of us especially on tax and the economy they could have replaced the Tories and personally I would have welcomed that.

Faced with a reviving Tory Party they are now wandering around in the middle of the road wondering whether they should be on the left or the right. The two big Parties will have a tough fight at the next election and when those two steamrollers start moving parties wandering around in the road end up being part of the tarmac!

Alas, poor Charles.....!

Thursday, December 15, 2005

House of Lords diary

There is no better confirmation that you have arrived in a political institution then that you are attacked by opponents. My thanks to the Liberal leader in the Lords for enhancing my status!

Note: He winked at me as he said this - in the body language of the Lords is this the sign of another impending attack?!

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/51214-01.htm#51214-01_star1

                                         Ministerial Code

Lord Jopling asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether any action has been taken to review the Ministerial Code, in the light of the reported comments of the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that the code needs immediate review.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is normal practice for the Ministerial Code to be updated and reissued after an election. A revised Ministerial Code was published in July 2005. It took account of comments and recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Public Administration Select Committee. The Government do not see a need for a further review of the code.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not clear to everyone, including the chairman of the committee, that the code and the practice need urgently to be reviewed? When will the Government's familiar policy of dither, delay and review over a number of things end? Should we not be thinking of going further? Do the Government really think it is right that Ministers, whose behaviour causes them to resign, seem too often to go through a period of prosperous penitence and then get re-appointed to important positions in the public sector? Does the Minister agree that there would be more respect for the code and more public respect for both Parliament and politicians if the rule for Ministers who resign in these circumstances is “once out, stay out”.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. It is a matter very much for the Prime Minister to decide who forms part of his government. To seek to constrain the formation of government in the way the noble Lord suggests would deny the Prime Minister the ability to appoint those with the ability to do the job in the right way.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, why do we not simply transfer responsibility for policing the Ministerial Code to the Commissioner for Standards in the House of Commons, who is an officer of Parliament, and have an end to all this argument about enforcement?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the Prime Minister has made pretty clear on a number of occasions, the Prime Minister must be the ultimate judge of the standard of behaviour expected of a Minister.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Well, my Lords, I think rightly so because, ultimately, the Prime Minister should be held to account for the actions of his Ministers. I would have thought that was a very important principle in the way we govern our country.

Lord Tugendhat: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, though of course the Prime Minister should have complete freedom of action, no past Prime Minister has been so bereft of talent that he has been obliged to re-appoint people who have departed from his Cabinet so very soon afterwards, not once but twice?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is really not asking that question seriously. I think that our Government have been full of talent. They continue to do the job which the public expect and to command widespread public support.

Lord McNally: My Lords, the Minister has just given a significant reply. The noble Lord, Lord Solely, 14 Dec 2005 : Column 1251 last week pontificated that this was a matter for Parliament. Will the noble Lord confirm that responsibility for the Ministerial Code is the Prime Minister's direct responsibility? That being so, he does not need the Leader of the House to tell him. The Prime Minister himself takes great pride in being the Minister responsible. Why, therefore, is the Prime Minister refusing to publish Sir Patrick Brown's report? Why is the Prime Minister rejecting the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which asks for an independent adviser for this code? Why is the Prime Minister refusing a Standing Committee to examine breaches of the code? Will he now admit that the problems are at the Prime Minister's door and that the noble Lord, Lord Solely was—not for the first time in his political career—wrong?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I rather like my noble friend Lord Soley. I think that he tends to be right on most issues, actually. I have known him for a long time, as I am sure the noble Lord has. Let us start with the Sir Patrick Brown review. The Prime Minister commissioned a review from Sir Patrick Brown. That review has been completed. The report has been submitted and we are giving it very careful consideration and will respond in due course. The Business Appointment Rules are important. They were set up during the Conservative administration in the mid-1990s and have worked well to date. We do not expect that there will be great problems with the way they work. They have been very helpful and will continue to be helpful. The noble Lord asked about the independent adviser on ministerial interests. Again, we have done a great deal, as government, to strengthen the handling of Ministers' financial interests, including the requirement to provide Permanent Secretaries with a list of those interests. It is not an easy appointment to fill. Whoever is appointed will need to understand how government and Parliament work. On the noble Lord's first question, obviously it is for the Prime Minister to determine who are members of his Government and to make judgments about their suitability. It is also a matter for Parliament.

Lord Soley: My Lords, I was about to suggest that we went back to basics on this, but another Conservative government brought that term into disrepute. Why is it that we get into a muddle on this? It has always been clear in the British constitution, under successive governments, that the Prime Minister is responsible for appointing Ministers and for their conduct in office. But Parliament is and remains responsible for the conduct of Members of Parliament. If you confuse those two, you confuse the whole concept of the constitution because the Government are drawn from Parliament and governments answer to Parliament, not the other way round.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, not for the first time I find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord Soley.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is all very well for the code to cover Ministers en poste. Does the Minister agree that the trouble, surely, is that there is no sanction for Ministers post poste? Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, strictly speaking that is true, but no doubt people will form a judgment on people's behaviour which will affect their future careers and aspirations. That is a very important check.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

House of Lords. Questions

This question was interesting because it started off quite rightly as a question about the Governments guidelines to ex Ministers but then did a curious turn into who disciplines Parliamentarians.

Ministers can be made to obey Government guidelines while they are Ministers but immediately they stop being Ministers only Parliament can discipline them because they are an MP like everyone else.

The point I was making along with Tony Banks was that Parliament must never allow Government to discipline MP's. The Government is the creature of Parliament - not the other way round - and it is bizarre that it took two Labour Peers to tell opposition Peers this basic democratic fact.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/51206-02.htm#51206-02star0

Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will require retiring or resigning Ministers of the Crown not only to consult the advisory committee before taking up employment in the private sector but also to adhere to the Ministerial Code and follow any advice given by the committee.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, paragraph 5.29 of the Ministerial Code states that former Ministers should seek advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments about any appointments that they wish to take up within two years of leaving office. Having received the advice of the advisory committee, it is for the former Minister to decide whether to accept it.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but is he not aware of the serious public concern at the fact that the Ministerial Code has been flouted by two former Cabinet Ministers, who took up jobs in the private sector without consulting the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments? Who is responsible for ensuring that the code is adhered to? Is it not the Prime Minister?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware that former Ministers have failed to consult the advisory committee. As I made clear in my initial response, it is expected that they should consult. Having gone through the process of consultation and seeking advice, it is then up to the former Minister to decide what he does. Ultimately, it is for Parliament to police the scheme, which I think has worked very well since it was introduced in 1995.

Lord McNally: My Lords, is it not essential for public confidence in our public services that Ministers and senior civil servants do not spend the twilight of their period in office thinking of their next appointment in the private sector? Is there not a real danger, particularly in departments with large procurements, of that happening? What has happened to the inquiry by Sir Patrick Brown into the working of the advisory committee, which the Prime Minister has been sitting on for over a year? What has happened to the advice of the Committee on Standards in Public Life which recommended beefing up the powers of the advisory committee?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in response to the first set of comments, of course it is important that Ministers focus on their jobs. That is what our Ministers have been doing. It is also in the public interest, however, that former Ministers have the opportunity to move into business and other areas of life once they have completed their term of office. I would hope that we would all agree that it is very important that there should be no cause for any suspicion of impropriety about a particular appointment. That is why the code is there, and why the expectation is that there should be full and proper consultation. The noble Lord asked about the Brown review. Sir Patrick Brown has carried out a thoroughgoing review of the business appointment rules, which has been submitted to the Cabinet Office. We are currently giving the matters it raises full consideration, and hope to respond in due course.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Minister said that it is up to Parliament to police the system. How does Parliament do that? Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in a sense, the noble Earl has rather fulfilled part of the obligation in posing the question. It is for Parliament to hold its Members to account, to scrutinise and to act in the court of public opinion.

Lord Stratford: My Lords, this is a great big fuss over very little. We have probably the least corrupt political process in the entire world. The more that people try to score cheap political points, however, the more we underline public confidence in the whole political system.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I completely agree with that. We have a robust system. Our Government have upheld the processes very firmly. The Prime Minister has made that very clear. By and large, I think it is fair to say that Ministers stick by the rules.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that if he accepts the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Stratford, we will soon not have the least corrupt political system in the world. It is precisely because these matters should be vigilantly observed and monitored that we ever manage to maintain the standards that are so important to public life in this country.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is a member of a party that found the need to introduce this system. We believe it works well. We are greatly indebted to the committee. All of its members are distinguished Members of your Lordships' House, led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. They do a first-rate job. We have one of the best political systems in the world, and I would have thought that it is clear to all of us that we do not have corruption within that system. The noble Lord, Lord Stratford, made a perfectly valid and important point. I do not think it was about complacency at all. Finally, when we came into office, our Government decided to extend the system so that it covered special advisers.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is it not about time that the Government imposed a rule that not only were ex-Ministers required to consult the committee, but also to accept its recommendations in the same way that outgoing civil servants are.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is clearly desirable that they give fair consideration to the views expressed by the committee. I am not aware that there are manifest abuses of the advice given. However, while the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, may have an important point, how then do you ensure effective policing of that advice? It is a very difficult relationship. On balance, I feel that the committee works well and has got things about right.

Lord Soley: My Lords, can we make it clear that Parliament polices Parliament and we should not ask the Government to police it? It does not work that way. If it did, the Liberal Democrat Party could be asked questions about money coming from overseas and I do not think it would like that. So let us be very clear: Parliament is responsible for the way it polices its Members. Governments are not responsible for that.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord and I suspect he is right that Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches would feel extremely uncomfortable if the system were to operate in the way the noble Lord suggests.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/51206-02.htm#51206-02_star0

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Cat bullying and animal rights

This is really a short note for Ingrid and other cat lovers. I found Slinky the cat on the following blog http://mcmuffin.co.uk/  As my kids cat had similar experiences with an invading neighbour who also left an unpleasant calling card on the floor together with a dead rat it seems bullying in the cat world is reaching epidemic proportions. Jericho, like Slinky, also prefers to use the front door and I suspect would like someone to walk down the path holding his paw!

I think cat ASBO's are required! Come back David Blunket - the cats need you!

Responses and Tory leadership

It has just been announced that David Cameron has won the Tory leadership by a margin of more then two to one. He is untested but I suspect he will be quite effective and the Tory Party is certainly getting serious about winning again.

That has consequences for the Liberal Party as well as Labour and partly explains the decline in support for the Liberals in recent polls.

I thought Cameron ran a good leadership campaign and dealt with the media very effectively especially on his alleged drug use in the past. I gave him full marks for that.

Paul asked me to comment on the Tory position and I think it will be towards a low tax policy. What they will have difficulty dealing with is how you can maintain the levels of investment achieved under Labour. Cameron clearly wants to break with some of the past Tory millstones around race, law and order, and the EU but I am not sure his Party will let him do so.

Andrew Baker comes from a different position. I assume he is a disgruntled Labour supporter. OK, I understand that but the poorer in society have got better off under Labour although the rich have got richer as well. Look at the budget charts in the Guardian today.

That should not lead you to make the mistake that many Labour supporters have made since the Party was founded. All previous Labour Governments fell with rising unemployment and rising inflation. Not this one. I could list hundreds - and I mean hundreds - of achievements that have helped the people I represented as an MP. That is why we are still winning elections although it is true that we have lost support especially from the middle class. That is frequently about Iraq but in our more traditional areas Iraq is not such a big issue whereas immigration and crime are.

After previous Labour governments fell amid cries of betrayal and splits it took about three years for supporters like you Andrew to start remembering the good things you are forgetting now. Even now people look back at the Attlee government as a great achieving government. It was but when it fell it was with the same cries of betrayal that you are making Andrew. That kept us out of office for 13 years. The Left is very good at destroying itself. Why don't we leave that to the Daily Mail Andrew?

I was sorry to hear Peter Todd saying I should have had the teenagers convicted. Since when did Probation Officers start arguing for criminal records for youngsters if there is another alternative available and one that deals with the behaviour that hurts the victims? I spent a lot of my time as a probation officer trying to keep youngsters out of the full criminal justice system. ASBO's help in that respect.

Friday, December 02, 2005

The Lord's Diary. MRSA

I have attached a partial extract from PQ's on the reporting of MRSA. Follow the link for the full exchange.

The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to reports that tests for methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) may be falsely positive as a result of using a single laboratory.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, I am sure that the whole House congratulates my noble friend on that.

Laboratories doing microbiological investigations should be accredited or registered for accreditation. Tests must be undertaken in accordance with

30 Nov 2005 : Column 210

approved standards and operating procedures. The results should be validated by process controls, internal quality control and participation in an external quality assurance program. It is disappointing that test results for MRSA produced by unsound methods are given wide publicity in the media. This causes unnecessary public concern and wastes NHS resources in countering them.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend that helpful reply. Does he agree that the continued use of one particular laboratory which has questionable qualifications and results by the tabloid press shows more interest in criticising the NHS than in reporting the facts? Is he further concerned that this particular laboratory appears to derive most of its income from selling disinfectants to combat MRSA and thus might perhaps be seen to have a vested interest in achieving positive results?

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, given what the Minister has said, what else could be done to indicate to the public and the media more widely the concerns that we obviously share around the House about people passing themselves off as experts in microbiology when they are not?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I would certainly commend to the House the work done by the BBC in its program "You and Yours" on Radio 4 on 14 November, which exposed the circumstances involved. We sent down our inspector of microbiology as long ago as July 2004 to inspect these facilities, which were described as a "garden shed" on the Radio 4 programme I mentioned. We have written to the media to explain the circumstances and given them copies of the inspector of microbiology's report. We expect some parts of the media to behave with a little more responsibility when we have given them this information.

Lord Soley: My Lords, is that not the core of the problem? The MRSA scandal is not the first example of a media scare, with people being genuinely worried and scared by a story that had virtually no substance to it. There have been many other examples of science being misreported in this way. It is not for this House or even the Minister but perhaps for the scientific bodies and, inadequate as it is, the Press Complaints Commission to start looking at how hopes are raised unrealistically and fears are raised unreasonably by press stories that show no scientific understanding. That also undermines public confidence in scientific thought and method.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend's remarks. We all accept that there are some serious issues around MRSA in this country, as there are throughout the whole of Europe, that have to be tackled; but they have to be tackled responsibly and not irresponsibly as has been the case in this area.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/51130-01.htm