I don't think Cameron is quite advocating the Jello Biafra approach, but according to the Mail he's saying "If you're fat or poor, it's probably your own fault". Or the fault of people who decide that Pringles shouldn't have VAT charged on them. (Very disappointed by the response to that post; I thought it would spark quite a debate).
I'm doing a child poverty debate tomorrow, so will be cogitating and deliberating over exactly what Cameron had to say later tonight.
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
Safe european home
Worth remembering what was said in Parliament before Simon Mann's extradition to stand trial. From his MP, Julian Lewis: “ My constituent, Mr. Simon Mann, has completed his jail sentence in Zimbabwe but has been transferred by the Mugabe regime to a potentially terrible fate in Equatorial Guinea, despite the fact that his appeals processes have not been completed and despite the assurances given to the British ambassador to Zimbabwe that that would not happen. May we have a statement as soon as possible on the Floor of the House from the Foreign Secretary about what action is going to be taken? Quiet diplomacy has failed and we now have to save Mr. Mann, whatever he has or has not done, from torture and a horrible death in a terrible situation.”
I didn't catch the name of the guy being interviewed on Newsnight last night about Mark Thatcher's chances of being brought to book, but he certainly wasn't worried about the prospect of being sued, was he?
I didn't catch the name of the guy being interviewed on Newsnight last night about Mark Thatcher's chances of being brought to book, but he certainly wasn't worried about the prospect of being sued, was he?
This charming man
I don't usually pay much attention to the obituaries, but this one, of Senator Jesse Helms, was fascinating. Plus more from the Guardian online. It's a shame he didn't live long enough to see Obama elected.
Monday, 7 July 2008
Do nothing
As in, blog nothing. It's tempting. You can read other people's blogs instead...
Brian May - yes, that Brian May - has been badgering Hilary Benn. (Sorry, couldn't resist that.) There's an entertaining letter to the SoS on the second page, and someone suggesting that farmers are gassing badgers and then disguising them as roadkill.
Apparently he gets very irate on his blog whenever someone criticises Queen. So I'm definitely not going to. In fact I have Bohemian Rhapsody on my iPod. (OK, it's the Flaming Lips version, but still gets me off the hook, doesn't it?)
Brian May - yes, that Brian May - has been badgering Hilary Benn. (Sorry, couldn't resist that.) There's an entertaining letter to the SoS on the second page, and someone suggesting that farmers are gassing badgers and then disguising them as roadkill.
Apparently he gets very irate on his blog whenever someone criticises Queen. So I'm definitely not going to. In fact I have Bohemian Rhapsody on my iPod. (OK, it's the Flaming Lips version, but still gets me off the hook, doesn't it?)
Sunday, 6 July 2008
Cigarettes and alcohol
So, we have perfect weather today - sun in Wimbledon, rain in Silverstone. Fanatastic start by Hamilton. I will spend the duration of the British Grand Prix reading and replying to comments on the 'Smoke it' post. If you're not happy with the response, bear in my mind this blog's rules. If I've ignored you totally it will probably be because you've crossed the line between passionate advocacy of your cause, which is fine by me, and being gratuitously offensive, which isn't. And although, as you say, I'm an elected representative - I'm elected by voters in Bristol East and answerable to them, not the entire British electorate. Constituents get a different level of service, which they get by writing to me, emailing me or coming to see me at one of my surgeries - which is exactly as it should be. (To the one person who asked if he could come and see me - yes, if you live in Bristol East. I'm pretty sure all the Bristol MPs voted for the full ban, so if you live elsewhere in the city you can make the same points to whoever your elected representative is).
What I have done is to cut and paste all comments into a separate document - which runs to 102 pages. I'm going to read through, delete those which don't need (or possibly don't deserve) a response. Then I'll summarise the key themes, and respond to those en masse rather than referring to individual contributions. I will spend up to two hours on this, till the Grand Prix is over - and to prove I'm devoting this amount of time to it, I will insert a running commentary on Hamilton's progess. He's just overtaken Kovalainen.
First point - my comment about these responses being orchestrated by Forest, or other pro-smoking/ pro-choice groups. I was merely noting that these were people who already had a very fixed position on this issue, rather than representing a cross-section of views. Incidentally, it's interesting to note that recent press articles about the success of the smoking ban, citing the figures on heart attacks, public support, etc, have attracted only a handful of comments. Is this because they're moderated? Or is it more fun doling out abuse to an MP than to an anonymous journalist?
Second point - Godwin's law. The references to Nazis, etc are appalling. We're talking about a ban on smoking in pubs and clubs which means people have to stand on doorsteps - possibly in the cold and rain, admittedly - if they want to have a cigarette during an evening out. And - arguably - some pubs and clubs closing down. And that's comparable to millions of people being rounded up and sent to concentration camps and starved and gassed and shot? (See also the 'Hitler was a vegetarian argument').
Third point - the scientific evidence on passive smoking was debated and discussed at great length before Parliament voted on the ban. I considered it carefully, particularly the evidence on whether or not better ventilation or smoking areas would achieve the same objective. I was, and remain, convinced that passive smoking is a genuine risk to public health. I've blogged before about the perils of citing scientific evidence in politics, as each side can usually find facts and figures which support its own prejudices (e.g. on the badger cull, on GM crops, on nuclear energy, to name just a few issues). All we can do as politicians is to try to be as open-minded as possible, read the available information, try to determine which evidence is genuinely independent (as opposed to being funded by the tobacco industry or the pharmaceutical industry) and take a steer from people whose opinions we respect (e.g. in this case, Dr Ian Gibson and Doug Naysmith, two MPs with a huge amount of experience in the health field and both with scientific backgrounds). Which I have done. I don't think the quote from ASH negates anything I've said here or on previous posts. To summarise, I haven't changed my mind about (a) the dangers of smoking, (b) the health benefits of giving up smoking, and (c) the dangers of passive smoking. You will no doubt accuse me of ignoring the evidence; I haven't, I just don't think it's authoritative or compelling.
Fourth point - for me, passive smoking and its effect on bar/ restaurant staff was only one of the factors influencing my support for a ban on smoking in public places. This obviously isn't going to make me very popular with the Forest supporters, but I subscribe to the view that smoking is something that should be discouraged. Can any of you argue that smoking is a good thing, that it ought to be encouraged? Are you comfortable with the fact that British American Tobacco are now pushing their wares on children in the developing world, selling single cigarettes in a bid to get them hooked? You say it's a matter of choice. For you, yes. But my priority is young impressionable people who I don't want to see taking up smoking. They are more likely to do so if they see it as something which society tacitly encourages. And on the McDonald's point - I think it's a bad analogy; the Government is criticising junk food manufacturers and taking some steps against them as part of the obesity drive (e.g. the ban on pre-watershed junk food advertising, and vending machines in schools). The difference is that smoking is addictive. If someone is told their consumption of junk food is harming their health, they can give it up with a modicum of willpower. When my grandmother was diagnosed with lung cancer she was completely incapable of quitting, after nearly 60 years of smoking. I remember her on her death bed, as she wasted away, asking 'how long does it take to die?' She died at 73; her three sisters died at 98, 100 and 101. My uncle's partner, who spent most of her working life on a production line in a factory where everyone smoked, died of lung cancer a couple of years ago, in her fifties, a few months after diagnosis. My dad - who smoked roll-ups and always insisted that the link between cancer and smoking, or cancer and diet was 'not proven' - died of cancer ten years ago this week. He was 56. So that's where I'm coming from.
Fifth point - I was involved in discussions on this issue prior to Labour's 2005 election manifesto; in fact I argued for a full ban at Labour's National Policy Forum a few years prior to this, but John Reid won the day on that occasion. I agree it would therefore have been wrong for Government whips to have pushed the full ban through Parliament, given that it wasn't a manifesto commitment, but they didn't; there was a free vote. Parliament votes all the time on issues which aren't in the governing party's election manifesto - e.g. the recent free votes in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. So we were pledged to introduce a partial ban, and had a free vote on whether to take it further.
Sixth point - John Reid frequently made the 'class' point, describing smoking as one of the few 'working class pleasures'. I didn't agree with him then, and I didn't agree with him now. I actually think it's just as patronising to say you're defending a working class pleasure as it is to say that the working class need to be saved from themselves. I don't draw a distinction between who smokes. I just think it's a bit disingenuous of Forest to push this line when their idea of effective political lobbying is to congregate in private members clubs in Belgravia and host champagne tea parties in the Commons.
Seventh point - public support for the ban. I was quoting figures widely reported in the press, and I don't think in any case you are saying you have majority support? I can only base it on published figures (and I've cited references for those) and what I've seen in my constituency. I've had virtually no complaints - two, I think - since the ban and one of those was from someone who said he wasn't allowed to smoke in his own home anymore. It doesn't come up on the doorsteps either (once, I think). As I've said, my office is based above a labour club, in which we hold our local party meetings. Customers there haven't complained to me. I have, I admit, had a couple of letters recently about the potential impact on corner shop profits if cigarettes have to be kept under the counter and packets of ten are banned; shop owners tell me that 25% of their profits are based on cigarette sales. I have some sympathy with them if they're facing a threat to their livelihood, but given that I think smoking is something which should be discouraged, I can't exactly condone the fact that their profits are made from selling cigarettes. We can't continue to promote cigarette sales just to keep them in business. (And just to reiterate, I'm not saying people should be prevented from smoking; I just don't think we should facilitate it. I'm not interested in forcing people to give up, but I want to make it easier for them, and I definitely do want to discourage young people from taking it up.) I think this also answers the point about why I don't think separate bars for smokers is a good idea.
Eighth point - I know quite a few smokers, and they all support the ban. Some didn't support it before it was introduced, but do now. Some have actually said they prefer being in non-smoky pubs, even though they are smokers themselves. I have not been approached by a single landlord in east Bristol about the impact on their business. I'm told dry-cleaners' business has also been affected, as people's clothes no longer stink of smoke after a night out. So should we reverse the ban just to keep them in business? It doesn't make sense. As for Ireland, my father lives in a very rural part of Carlow (not to be confused with the 'dad' I mentioned earlier, who was my stepfather from the age of two) and he says that it's actually a Government crackdown on drink-driving which has had the biggest impact on his local pubs, not the smoking ban which came in earlier. Old boys who would drive from their villages to the pub in the evenings now stay at home and drink alone. Which is sad, but does it mean Irish authorities should turn a blind eye to drink-driving?
Anyway, I've spent two hours on this, Hamilton has won (and I've missed a phenomenal race).
I don't expect to make anyone happier as a result of what I've said. As for what happens now - you are of course free to comment on this post, which you no doubt will. I am not going to close the blog down, but I am not going to prolong the debate by responding to comments as we will just end up going round in circles. I will start moderating comments if necessary. And I am going to delete any comments about smoking on non-smoking related posts. As I said, I'm not prepared to allow this blog to be hijacked by proponents of a single cause, especially not one with which I so vehemently disagree.
What I have done is to cut and paste all comments into a separate document - which runs to 102 pages. I'm going to read through, delete those which don't need (or possibly don't deserve) a response. Then I'll summarise the key themes, and respond to those en masse rather than referring to individual contributions. I will spend up to two hours on this, till the Grand Prix is over - and to prove I'm devoting this amount of time to it, I will insert a running commentary on Hamilton's progess. He's just overtaken Kovalainen.
First point - my comment about these responses being orchestrated by Forest, or other pro-smoking/ pro-choice groups. I was merely noting that these were people who already had a very fixed position on this issue, rather than representing a cross-section of views. Incidentally, it's interesting to note that recent press articles about the success of the smoking ban, citing the figures on heart attacks, public support, etc, have attracted only a handful of comments. Is this because they're moderated? Or is it more fun doling out abuse to an MP than to an anonymous journalist?
Second point - Godwin's law. The references to Nazis, etc are appalling. We're talking about a ban on smoking in pubs and clubs which means people have to stand on doorsteps - possibly in the cold and rain, admittedly - if they want to have a cigarette during an evening out. And - arguably - some pubs and clubs closing down. And that's comparable to millions of people being rounded up and sent to concentration camps and starved and gassed and shot? (See also the 'Hitler was a vegetarian argument').
Third point - the scientific evidence on passive smoking was debated and discussed at great length before Parliament voted on the ban. I considered it carefully, particularly the evidence on whether or not better ventilation or smoking areas would achieve the same objective. I was, and remain, convinced that passive smoking is a genuine risk to public health. I've blogged before about the perils of citing scientific evidence in politics, as each side can usually find facts and figures which support its own prejudices (e.g. on the badger cull, on GM crops, on nuclear energy, to name just a few issues). All we can do as politicians is to try to be as open-minded as possible, read the available information, try to determine which evidence is genuinely independent (as opposed to being funded by the tobacco industry or the pharmaceutical industry) and take a steer from people whose opinions we respect (e.g. in this case, Dr Ian Gibson and Doug Naysmith, two MPs with a huge amount of experience in the health field and both with scientific backgrounds). Which I have done. I don't think the quote from ASH negates anything I've said here or on previous posts. To summarise, I haven't changed my mind about (a) the dangers of smoking, (b) the health benefits of giving up smoking, and (c) the dangers of passive smoking. You will no doubt accuse me of ignoring the evidence; I haven't, I just don't think it's authoritative or compelling.
Fourth point - for me, passive smoking and its effect on bar/ restaurant staff was only one of the factors influencing my support for a ban on smoking in public places. This obviously isn't going to make me very popular with the Forest supporters, but I subscribe to the view that smoking is something that should be discouraged. Can any of you argue that smoking is a good thing, that it ought to be encouraged? Are you comfortable with the fact that British American Tobacco are now pushing their wares on children in the developing world, selling single cigarettes in a bid to get them hooked? You say it's a matter of choice. For you, yes. But my priority is young impressionable people who I don't want to see taking up smoking. They are more likely to do so if they see it as something which society tacitly encourages. And on the McDonald's point - I think it's a bad analogy; the Government is criticising junk food manufacturers and taking some steps against them as part of the obesity drive (e.g. the ban on pre-watershed junk food advertising, and vending machines in schools). The difference is that smoking is addictive. If someone is told their consumption of junk food is harming their health, they can give it up with a modicum of willpower. When my grandmother was diagnosed with lung cancer she was completely incapable of quitting, after nearly 60 years of smoking. I remember her on her death bed, as she wasted away, asking 'how long does it take to die?' She died at 73; her three sisters died at 98, 100 and 101. My uncle's partner, who spent most of her working life on a production line in a factory where everyone smoked, died of lung cancer a couple of years ago, in her fifties, a few months after diagnosis. My dad - who smoked roll-ups and always insisted that the link between cancer and smoking, or cancer and diet was 'not proven' - died of cancer ten years ago this week. He was 56. So that's where I'm coming from.
Fifth point - I was involved in discussions on this issue prior to Labour's 2005 election manifesto; in fact I argued for a full ban at Labour's National Policy Forum a few years prior to this, but John Reid won the day on that occasion. I agree it would therefore have been wrong for Government whips to have pushed the full ban through Parliament, given that it wasn't a manifesto commitment, but they didn't; there was a free vote. Parliament votes all the time on issues which aren't in the governing party's election manifesto - e.g. the recent free votes in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. So we were pledged to introduce a partial ban, and had a free vote on whether to take it further.
Sixth point - John Reid frequently made the 'class' point, describing smoking as one of the few 'working class pleasures'. I didn't agree with him then, and I didn't agree with him now. I actually think it's just as patronising to say you're defending a working class pleasure as it is to say that the working class need to be saved from themselves. I don't draw a distinction between who smokes. I just think it's a bit disingenuous of Forest to push this line when their idea of effective political lobbying is to congregate in private members clubs in Belgravia and host champagne tea parties in the Commons.
Seventh point - public support for the ban. I was quoting figures widely reported in the press, and I don't think in any case you are saying you have majority support? I can only base it on published figures (and I've cited references for those) and what I've seen in my constituency. I've had virtually no complaints - two, I think - since the ban and one of those was from someone who said he wasn't allowed to smoke in his own home anymore. It doesn't come up on the doorsteps either (once, I think). As I've said, my office is based above a labour club, in which we hold our local party meetings. Customers there haven't complained to me. I have, I admit, had a couple of letters recently about the potential impact on corner shop profits if cigarettes have to be kept under the counter and packets of ten are banned; shop owners tell me that 25% of their profits are based on cigarette sales. I have some sympathy with them if they're facing a threat to their livelihood, but given that I think smoking is something which should be discouraged, I can't exactly condone the fact that their profits are made from selling cigarettes. We can't continue to promote cigarette sales just to keep them in business. (And just to reiterate, I'm not saying people should be prevented from smoking; I just don't think we should facilitate it. I'm not interested in forcing people to give up, but I want to make it easier for them, and I definitely do want to discourage young people from taking it up.) I think this also answers the point about why I don't think separate bars for smokers is a good idea.
Eighth point - I know quite a few smokers, and they all support the ban. Some didn't support it before it was introduced, but do now. Some have actually said they prefer being in non-smoky pubs, even though they are smokers themselves. I have not been approached by a single landlord in east Bristol about the impact on their business. I'm told dry-cleaners' business has also been affected, as people's clothes no longer stink of smoke after a night out. So should we reverse the ban just to keep them in business? It doesn't make sense. As for Ireland, my father lives in a very rural part of Carlow (not to be confused with the 'dad' I mentioned earlier, who was my stepfather from the age of two) and he says that it's actually a Government crackdown on drink-driving which has had the biggest impact on his local pubs, not the smoking ban which came in earlier. Old boys who would drive from their villages to the pub in the evenings now stay at home and drink alone. Which is sad, but does it mean Irish authorities should turn a blind eye to drink-driving?
Anyway, I've spent two hours on this, Hamilton has won (and I've missed a phenomenal race).
I don't expect to make anyone happier as a result of what I've said. As for what happens now - you are of course free to comment on this post, which you no doubt will. I am not going to close the blog down, but I am not going to prolong the debate by responding to comments as we will just end up going round in circles. I will start moderating comments if necessary. And I am going to delete any comments about smoking on non-smoking related posts. As I said, I'm not prepared to allow this blog to be hijacked by proponents of a single cause, especially not one with which I so vehemently disagree.
Caught in the middle
Here's one I wrote earlier.... but for some reason forgot to post.Interesting article in the Sunday Times about a massive increase in whales and dolphins being caught in fishermen's nets off Cornwall. Apparently the British Government was allowed to ban British fishing boats from a 12 mile zone around Cornwall by way of response, but EU rules meant it couldn't ban foreign boats. There's also a quote from Barrie Deas, chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations: “Dolphins are an iconic species and no one likes to see them being killed but it’s a question of proportion. Why don’t you stop motor cars because of the death of hedgehogs?" This is one of those analogies so beloved of special interest groups which is self-evidently ridiculous, but does the job of diverting attention away from the original issue, at least momentarily. As you say Barrie, "it's a question of proportion".
Saturday, 5 July 2008
Shot by both sides
Was going to go to St Pauls carnival today, but forgot I'd promised my friend Stan I'd see him on his birthday and go to Pride with him. (And no, I'm not, but I'm not going to do a Jason Donovan about it).
In Trafalgar Square I got into conversation (incognito) with the guys staffing the Liberal Democrat LGBT stall. I asked whether, given the Tories' abysmal record on gay rights, they'd want their party to go into coalition with them. Cue lots of waffling. One said he personally wouldn't want it. I said it looked as if Clegg was preparing the ground, doing a deal with David Davis over his by-election stunt. How could they square DD's posturing as a 'champion of civil liberties' with his opposition to Section 28, civil partnerships and lesbians/ gay men serving in the armed forces? They insisted the by-election was about 42 days, and only about 42 days. (I don't think that's what DD said).
Then they started saying it was a numbers game, and they couldn't predict the terms of any coalition deal until after an election. (This is the standard Lib Dem line when you try to pin them down over whether they'd get into bed with Cameron and chums). But would gay rights, I asked, be a deal breaker? They said the Tories might change their stance if they needed Lib Dem support; they changed their mind over Scottish devolution when they realised it gave them 14% of MSPs, so they might change their mind and decide to support PR. (Why is it totally impossible to discuss any issue with the Lib Dems for more than 5 minutes before they start talking about PR?) But surely, I said, you can't shift position on gay rights as a purely tactical move; the underlying attitudes won't change. They started slagging off the Tories' record on gay rights, saying the party was full of homophobes. But I left with the impression that if the Tories offered a deal on PR, everything else would go out the window. (And no, this is not in any way an indication of how I think the next election would go; it's just fun prodding Lib Dems and watching them wobble as they try not to fall off their fence).
In Trafalgar Square I got into conversation (incognito) with the guys staffing the Liberal Democrat LGBT stall. I asked whether, given the Tories' abysmal record on gay rights, they'd want their party to go into coalition with them. Cue lots of waffling. One said he personally wouldn't want it. I said it looked as if Clegg was preparing the ground, doing a deal with David Davis over his by-election stunt. How could they square DD's posturing as a 'champion of civil liberties' with his opposition to Section 28, civil partnerships and lesbians/ gay men serving in the armed forces? They insisted the by-election was about 42 days, and only about 42 days. (I don't think that's what DD said).
Then they started saying it was a numbers game, and they couldn't predict the terms of any coalition deal until after an election. (This is the standard Lib Dem line when you try to pin them down over whether they'd get into bed with Cameron and chums). But would gay rights, I asked, be a deal breaker? They said the Tories might change their stance if they needed Lib Dem support; they changed their mind over Scottish devolution when they realised it gave them 14% of MSPs, so they might change their mind and decide to support PR. (Why is it totally impossible to discuss any issue with the Lib Dems for more than 5 minutes before they start talking about PR?) But surely, I said, you can't shift position on gay rights as a purely tactical move; the underlying attitudes won't change. They started slagging off the Tories' record on gay rights, saying the party was full of homophobes. But I left with the impression that if the Tories offered a deal on PR, everything else would go out the window. (And no, this is not in any way an indication of how I think the next election would go; it's just fun prodding Lib Dems and watching them wobble as they try not to fall off their fence).
Eat y'self fitter (2)
The Jaffa cake - is it a cake, is it a biscuit - saga is well-known, with its makers desperate to prove it was in fact a biscuit, so that it wouldn't be subject to VAT. (Cakes are, biscuits aren't; don't ask me why). Now the Daily Mail brings up the important story that Pringles have been declared to be biscuits not crisps. In a High Court judgment a QC successfully argued that 'A Pringle does not taste like a crisp, or otherwise behave like one. It is totally different.'
So if someone eats their way through half a tube of Pringles while watching the football, does that mean they've eaten 50 biscuits in one go?
So if someone eats their way through half a tube of Pringles while watching the football, does that mean they've eaten 50 biscuits in one go?
Money money money
OK, MPs pay and expenses... Can I start by saying, as I've said so many times before, that I think it's absolutely ridiculous that MPs get to vote on their own pay, and I hope that we've now found a formula so that it doesn't happen in future. I voted against the above inflation pay rise, and 'catch up' proposals (designed to compensate for previous non-rises). I think the PM is right in saying we need to set an example at a time of inflationary pressures and public sector pay restraint.
I also voted to keep the addresses of MPs' second homes private. Having been burgled twice last year, and also been accosted on the doorstep of my London flat late at night by someone wearing a hood pulled tightly round his face and very dark sunglasses (he didn't say anything, just stood waiting for me to open my door), I'd rather not flag up to anyone that here's a property where a woman lives by herself, arrives home very late at night, and isn't there half the week. And most MPs feel the same.
The expenses vote was much trickier. I felt we were somewhat being rushed into reaching a decision on changes. I don't think the various alternative options were debated enough, and the motion that was put on the table was deeply flawed (e.g. the £30 per day attendance allowance, no proposals to remove staff wages from the MPs' allowances system, abuse of second homes allowance, employing of relatives, etc, etc). I didn't think the new package would do anything to address the serious concerns of voters about MPs 'fleecing the system', or having their 'snouts in the trough'. And believe me, even if we'd voted for the new package, the headlines would have been exactly the same the next day. (As Anne Widdecombe put it most eloquently - there were cries of disappointment when she was cut off in full flow at the end of the debate).
As for external audit, which was included as an element of the new package - I wasn't necessarily opposed to the idea, but very little detail was given as to how it would work and I think MPs should be given the chance to put their own house in order. Internal audit systems haven't been very robust, and if they are tightened substantially, that would do the same job but at a much lower cost and less disruption to the everyday running of MPs offices. There is no suggestion of collusion between MPs and internal audit; it's inconsistency and a lack of robustness that's the problem. That can be sorted. For example, we ought to be made to sit down with them at least once each parliamentary session and explain exactly why we've claimed what we've claimed, why we're paying each member of staff what we're paying them, etc, etc.
So I voted to stick with the status quo, in the hope that better plans can be brought back at a later date. With hindsight, an abstention might have sent a better signal - but people would probably have just assumed I'd decided to clear off early for the night. All in all, an opportunity missed, I'd say.
P.S. Of course this has been portrayed in the press as MPs' voting for the 'John Lewis list'. I'm not going to be claiming anything from that. But again, it shows up the unsatisfactory nature of the current system - someone like me, once they've got a sofa and a bed and some storage, simply wouldn't have room, even if they did want to buy more. Yet another MP could have a family-sized house in both the constituency and London, and kit one of them out in full at the taxpayer's expense. Also, someone like David Cameron can choose to have a top-of-the-market second home, and blow his entire allowance on paying interest on the mortgage - and then be given credit for not claiming for his TV licence or electric bills. It doesn't mean he's claiming any less than the rest of us; he isn't. It just means he's got lots of his own money to add to the pot too.
I also voted to keep the addresses of MPs' second homes private. Having been burgled twice last year, and also been accosted on the doorstep of my London flat late at night by someone wearing a hood pulled tightly round his face and very dark sunglasses (he didn't say anything, just stood waiting for me to open my door), I'd rather not flag up to anyone that here's a property where a woman lives by herself, arrives home very late at night, and isn't there half the week. And most MPs feel the same.
The expenses vote was much trickier. I felt we were somewhat being rushed into reaching a decision on changes. I don't think the various alternative options were debated enough, and the motion that was put on the table was deeply flawed (e.g. the £30 per day attendance allowance, no proposals to remove staff wages from the MPs' allowances system, abuse of second homes allowance, employing of relatives, etc, etc). I didn't think the new package would do anything to address the serious concerns of voters about MPs 'fleecing the system', or having their 'snouts in the trough'. And believe me, even if we'd voted for the new package, the headlines would have been exactly the same the next day. (As Anne Widdecombe put it most eloquently - there were cries of disappointment when she was cut off in full flow at the end of the debate).
As for external audit, which was included as an element of the new package - I wasn't necessarily opposed to the idea, but very little detail was given as to how it would work and I think MPs should be given the chance to put their own house in order. Internal audit systems haven't been very robust, and if they are tightened substantially, that would do the same job but at a much lower cost and less disruption to the everyday running of MPs offices. There is no suggestion of collusion between MPs and internal audit; it's inconsistency and a lack of robustness that's the problem. That can be sorted. For example, we ought to be made to sit down with them at least once each parliamentary session and explain exactly why we've claimed what we've claimed, why we're paying each member of staff what we're paying them, etc, etc.
So I voted to stick with the status quo, in the hope that better plans can be brought back at a later date. With hindsight, an abstention might have sent a better signal - but people would probably have just assumed I'd decided to clear off early for the night. All in all, an opportunity missed, I'd say.
P.S. Of course this has been portrayed in the press as MPs' voting for the 'John Lewis list'. I'm not going to be claiming anything from that. But again, it shows up the unsatisfactory nature of the current system - someone like me, once they've got a sofa and a bed and some storage, simply wouldn't have room, even if they did want to buy more. Yet another MP could have a family-sized house in both the constituency and London, and kit one of them out in full at the taxpayer's expense. Also, someone like David Cameron can choose to have a top-of-the-market second home, and blow his entire allowance on paying interest on the mortgage - and then be given credit for not claiming for his TV licence or electric bills. It doesn't mean he's claiming any less than the rest of us; he isn't. It just means he's got lots of his own money to add to the pot too.
Everything's gone green
Alarming report in yesterday's Guardian about the World Bank's report impact of biofuels on world food prices,which took me, at least, by surprise with its conclusion that the rush to biofuels has pushed prices up by 75%. (The Americans are sticking to 3% at the moment).
The Government is due to publish the results of its own inquiry, the Gallagher report, very soon - although it has of course already been widely leaked and, if the leaks are accurate, also concludes that biofuels have had a 'significant' impact on food prices.
It looks as if the brakes will have to be put on biofuels. So what's the alternative? Biomass? More wind turbines? Tidal power? Solar power? Do opponents of nuclear power believe that these can alone fill the gap? (By the way, my question about the Severn Barrage's impact on Bristol Port at last week's DBERR session.... not to be interpreted as in any way opposing plans for the Barrage. OK? But we do need to look at its impact on the future of Bristol as a deep-sea container port, as well as the environmental consequences. Locks could be put into the barrage, but it would be costly and delay ships by a couple of hours, making the port less competitive. The Port Authority therefore prefers the tidal lagoons option, if there has to be a tidal power scheme at all. Me, I'm reserving judgment on what's the best option until the Feasibility Study is concluded, as that's the point of conducting a feasibility study, isn't it?)
There was also this report that UK voters believe that taking action on climate change is more important than tackling the global economic downturn, and that 63% of them support more green taxes. Traditionally voters tend to say that kind of thing to pollsters but then vote for lower taxes when it comes to an election; but it does offer hope that the battle of ideas is slowly being won.
The Government is due to publish the results of its own inquiry, the Gallagher report, very soon - although it has of course already been widely leaked and, if the leaks are accurate, also concludes that biofuels have had a 'significant' impact on food prices.
It looks as if the brakes will have to be put on biofuels. So what's the alternative? Biomass? More wind turbines? Tidal power? Solar power? Do opponents of nuclear power believe that these can alone fill the gap? (By the way, my question about the Severn Barrage's impact on Bristol Port at last week's DBERR session.... not to be interpreted as in any way opposing plans for the Barrage. OK? But we do need to look at its impact on the future of Bristol as a deep-sea container port, as well as the environmental consequences. Locks could be put into the barrage, but it would be costly and delay ships by a couple of hours, making the port less competitive. The Port Authority therefore prefers the tidal lagoons option, if there has to be a tidal power scheme at all. Me, I'm reserving judgment on what's the best option until the Feasibility Study is concluded, as that's the point of conducting a feasibility study, isn't it?)
There was also this report that UK voters believe that taking action on climate change is more important than tackling the global economic downturn, and that 63% of them support more green taxes. Traditionally voters tend to say that kind of thing to pollsters but then vote for lower taxes when it comes to an election; but it does offer hope that the battle of ideas is slowly being won.
As it is when it was
I’m genuinely disappointed that Boris Johnson’s appointment of Ray Lewis as Deputy Mayor didn’t work out. From the little I knew, it seemed he was to be commended for his work with disaffected black youth; this week’s revelations don’t necessarily negate that either. He could have been a great role model, if he’d been all he seemed, and a breath of fresh air. But it now appears that Boris didn’t know enough about him either – and perhaps was in rather too much of a rush to appoint him to office.
This calls to mind a story I was told this week, about a recent visit by a Tory MP to the Vassall Centre in Fishponds. He was lobbied pretty hard by a guy in a wheelchair, who is involved in running the Centre and is on the board of the Spinal Injuries Association. He wanted to know what the Conservative policies were on issues affecting people with disabilities.
The MP was clearly impressed, and told him: ‘You’re exactly the sort of person we need in the Conservative Party; here’s my card’. I am pleased to report that Kelvin Blake, ex-Labour councillor and the guy who ran my 2005 election campaign, who came off his motorbike in 2006 and severed his spinal cord, hasn’t taken him up on his offer!
This calls to mind a story I was told this week, about a recent visit by a Tory MP to the Vassall Centre in Fishponds. He was lobbied pretty hard by a guy in a wheelchair, who is involved in running the Centre and is on the board of the Spinal Injuries Association. He wanted to know what the Conservative policies were on issues affecting people with disabilities.
The MP was clearly impressed, and told him: ‘You’re exactly the sort of person we need in the Conservative Party; here’s my card’. I am pleased to report that Kelvin Blake, ex-Labour councillor and the guy who ran my 2005 election campaign, who came off his motorbike in 2006 and severed his spinal cord, hasn’t taken him up on his offer!
Friday, 4 July 2008
Being boiled
Well the good news yesterday was that my modem at home wasn't working, so unfortunately I couldn't spend the twilight hours reading comments from angry smokers.Today's good news will no doubt lead to a convoy of combine harvesters congregating on parliament, with dairy farmers throwing cows off the ramparts onto the heads of treacherous MPs.* (And yes, I do know combine harvesters are nothing to do with milk production). The Government has announced that it's not going to authorise a badger cull. Pretty sure I've blogged before as to why I think this is the right decision, and it's not just because - to quote the really, really tall MP with the Polish name - 'badgers are sweet'. In fact it's not because of that at all.
Obviously the last 24 hours or so has been a lesson in the perils of the Google alert. How many times have I blogged about the smoking ban before without attracting a single comment? But ridicule a certain organisation for holding a champagne tea party...
When I posted on the Canadian seal hunt earlier this year I got a few negative comments from Canadians; next time I'll actually mention Bash the Seal, Inc. by name and watch my comments count go through the roof. (Someone is going to Google that now and tell me there really is a company of that name, or at least an online game. And someone else is going to comment on this post that clubbing seals is not remotely funny. Yes, I know).
Obviously the last 24 hours or so has been a lesson in the perils of the Google alert. How many times have I blogged about the smoking ban before without attracting a single comment? But ridicule a certain organisation for holding a champagne tea party...
When I posted on the Canadian seal hunt earlier this year I got a few negative comments from Canadians; next time I'll actually mention Bash the Seal, Inc. by name and watch my comments count go through the roof. (Someone is going to Google that now and tell me there really is a company of that name, or at least an online game. And someone else is going to comment on this post that clubbing seals is not remotely funny. Yes, I know).
(In future I'm just going to put "yes I know" in brackets whenever I make a flippant comment.)
On the subject of being lobbied en masse, I got an irate email from someone the other day. I'd sent his elderly father a letter explaining why I wasn't able to sign the EDM on post office accounts (because I don't sign any EDMs) . The son's email basically said, what's the point of telling my father you're not going to sign the EDM when you don't even tell him what the EDM is about? I replied saying that seeing as his father had sent me a postcard urging me to sign the EDM it was, I thought, a reasonable assumption on my part that he would actually know what he was asking for....
This was, I suppose, a little disingenuous on my part. Last year I got more than 600 postcards about the double-taxation of bingo profits, and dutifully forwarded a reply from the Treasury to them all, probably to their complete bafflement. The front of the postcard said "Save our Bingo" and I don't think it's being patronising to assume that was what motivated most of them to write in. (Although by all means accuse me of it, as seems par for the course at the moment). On the other hand, most of the people who write in on individual issues are incredibly well-informed.
* I should point out this is a reference to a comment left on a previous post, about a certain episode of Alan Partridge. Included for an audience of one.
Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Just the two of us
Des Browne might be hoping the next reshuffle comes sooner rather than later.
At PMQs today Gordon Brown suggested that the almost surreally pompous Sir Peter Tapsell should accompany the Defence Secretary on his next visit to Afghanistan, to see for himself the contribution our troops are making on the ground. Cue much hilarity from the rest of the Cabinet, and a rather unsuccessful attempt by Des not to look completely horrified.
At PMQs today Gordon Brown suggested that the almost surreally pompous Sir Peter Tapsell should accompany the Defence Secretary on his next visit to Afghanistan, to see for himself the contribution our troops are making on the ground. Cue much hilarity from the rest of the Cabinet, and a rather unsuccessful attempt by Des not to look completely horrified.
The drugs don't work
Or do they?
Not difficult to think of a good news story today. Those of you who saw yesterday's Evening Post will have read about the case of Gary Humphries and his battle to get the PCT to give him the drug he hopes will help him fight kidney cancer. Gary came to see me at my surgery a few weeks ago, and has just emailed to tell me that today's appeal was successful! Great news, and I hope he responds well to treatment.
Also worth reminding people that earlier this week the Government announced a fundamental review of the way NICE works, and an end to the postcode lottery. Would have been too late for Gary, but the PCT's decision today may well have been made with that in mind.
Not difficult to think of a good news story today. Those of you who saw yesterday's Evening Post will have read about the case of Gary Humphries and his battle to get the PCT to give him the drug he hopes will help him fight kidney cancer. Gary came to see me at my surgery a few weeks ago, and has just emailed to tell me that today's appeal was successful! Great news, and I hope he responds well to treatment.
Also worth reminding people that earlier this week the Government announced a fundamental review of the way NICE works, and an end to the postcode lottery. Would have been too late for Gary, but the PCT's decision today may well have been made with that in mind.
Wherever I lay my hat...
I'm sure David Drew MP won't mind me including this picture, showing his sterling efforts to support Save the Children's knitting appeal. We're holding a knitting session in Parliament next Wednesday. I sent out the invitations, and now I keep being accosted by MPs who seem to think this means I'm a knitting fanatic. I can't knit! But having seen David's marvellous effort, I'm going to have to give it a try.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
There is power in a union
I didn't get time to post Monday's good news (although the turtles being set free was quite heart-warming, wasn't it?) Anyway, I launched a new APPG on Credit Unions and the Minister, Kitty Ussher, used the occasion to announce fundamental changes in credit union law. This was what we were being set up to lobby for, so it left us in a bit of a quandary as to whether or not to disband immediately, mission accomplished. But we have decided to trudge on, ploughing our not very difficult furrow, which will mostly involve talking to the Treasury about the detail of the proposed new laws.
To get a bit anoraky on you for a moment... The idea of a 'common bond' is to be revised, which will basically mean that if, for example, First Bus decided it wanted an employees' credit union, it wouldn't need to have separate ones in each geographical location where the company operates; it could have a company wide one. (And some big companies are very interested in that, which could hugely boost the credit union's coffers). The bit I'm really excited about though is the fact that groups, as well as individuals, will soon be allowed to open credit union accounts. This opens the door for Bristol's huge number of voluntary sector organisations to start supporting the credit union - and for the credit union to support them when they hit cash flow problems towards the end of the financial year and are waiting for new funding to come on stream.
Speaking of the voluntary sector, today - Tuesday - the Government announced another £500m for New Deal for Communities , which includes Bristol. It's been a year since the smoking ban was introduced on 1st July 2007 and the results are pretty good (98% compliance and 76% public support, but I've already blogged about that). And the sun was shining at Wimbledon. But it's going to rain tomorrow.
To get a bit anoraky on you for a moment... The idea of a 'common bond' is to be revised, which will basically mean that if, for example, First Bus decided it wanted an employees' credit union, it wouldn't need to have separate ones in each geographical location where the company operates; it could have a company wide one. (And some big companies are very interested in that, which could hugely boost the credit union's coffers). The bit I'm really excited about though is the fact that groups, as well as individuals, will soon be allowed to open credit union accounts. This opens the door for Bristol's huge number of voluntary sector organisations to start supporting the credit union - and for the credit union to support them when they hit cash flow problems towards the end of the financial year and are waiting for new funding to come on stream.
Speaking of the voluntary sector, today - Tuesday - the Government announced another £500m for New Deal for Communities , which includes Bristol. It's been a year since the smoking ban was introduced on 1st July 2007 and the results are pretty good (98% compliance and 76% public support, but I've already blogged about that). And the sun was shining at Wimbledon. But it's going to rain tomorrow.
Home and dry
I was up first in topical questions for Communities and Local Government today, and asked about the way in which councils treat applications for rehousing from the homeless, or soon to be homeless. My concern is that councils tell people that they have to hang on until the bitter end and fight legal proceedings they have no chance of winning, before they will be considered homeless. It's not enough for a landlord to serve a notice to quit, or a mortgagee to gain a repossession order. They're meant to hang on until the bailiffs are virtually knocking down the door, and then the Council will swing into action and rehouse them, at very short notice. You can imagine the stress and anxiety that causes families, especially ones with young kids, when they don't know if they'll have a roof over their head in 24 hours time. Or whether it will be a B&B, or somewhere the other side of Bristol, far from the kids' schools. I try to reassure them that the Council will step in, in the end - but I find it hard to explain why they can't do so as soon as the problem arises.
This case study in the Guardian is about a family who were told that because they didn't fight a repossession by their mortgage company they were "intentionally homeless" and the council had no duty to house them. (Although I think I'm right in saying that in families with young children, the housing department might not have a responsibility in such circumstances, but social services do - and they end up stepping in, with much the same outcome as if housing had accepted them).
And I've had people come to see me, whose landlords have a perfectly good reason for wanting them to vacate the property - e.g. if they're selling it - and yet they're told they have to stay put until the landlord takes legal proceedings against them. Sometimes the landlord might even be a personal friend, and neither party wants to go down this route, or incur the costs involved, but the council will treat them as intentionally homeless if they don't put up a show of resistance.
The Minister replied that as soon as the local authority is satisfied that homelessness "is likely within 28 days", it must take steps to ensure that the applicant and his or her household will continue to have somewhere to live. That doesn't quite tie in with what happens in practice, but it gives me a bit of leverage to take this up with the Council.
This case study in the Guardian is about a family who were told that because they didn't fight a repossession by their mortgage company they were "intentionally homeless" and the council had no duty to house them. (Although I think I'm right in saying that in families with young children, the housing department might not have a responsibility in such circumstances, but social services do - and they end up stepping in, with much the same outcome as if housing had accepted them).
And I've had people come to see me, whose landlords have a perfectly good reason for wanting them to vacate the property - e.g. if they're selling it - and yet they're told they have to stay put until the landlord takes legal proceedings against them. Sometimes the landlord might even be a personal friend, and neither party wants to go down this route, or incur the costs involved, but the council will treat them as intentionally homeless if they don't put up a show of resistance.
The Minister replied that as soon as the local authority is satisfied that homelessness "is likely within 28 days", it must take steps to ensure that the applicant and his or her household will continue to have somewhere to live. That doesn't quite tie in with what happens in practice, but it gives me a bit of leverage to take this up with the Council.
Smoke it
My recent post about the success of the smoking ban mentioned a reception by Forest, the pro-smoking group at a private members club in Belgravia. And today they're having a champagne tea party for MPs in the Commons. Kind of bears out what Libby Brooks is saying in today's Guardian.
The article on Amsterdam's smoking ban, and its impact on coffee shops, is quite entertaining, especially this quote: "It's absurd. In other countries they look to see whether you have marijuana in your cigarette, here they'll look to see if you've got cigarette in your marijuana."
The article on Amsterdam's smoking ban, and its impact on coffee shops, is quite entertaining, especially this quote: "It's absurd. In other countries they look to see whether you have marijuana in your cigarette, here they'll look to see if you've got cigarette in your marijuana."
Harvest for the world
Spent quite an interesting two-and-a-half hours in the Chamber yesterday for the Food Security debate. Made a couple of interventions: the first I don't think I put very well, but at least the pont was made; that why, when we can grow apples in this country, do we import them from New Zealand, with all the environmental costs that incurs (not to mention the financial costs - which I didn't). I was roundly rebuked for this later by the Tory MP, David Curry, who said that we'd built this country on trade and if we didn't buy their apples, they wouldn't buy our whiskey. But where does it stop? Do we just carry on with an endless cycle of goods being unnecessarily transported halfway round the world? The Secretary of State's response was along the lines of people being able to exercise free choice. In other words, don't buy New Zealand apples if you're bothered about food miles.
My second intervention - on the Lib Dem frontbencher who is, I gather, a hill farmer in Wales - was to reiterate the 7kg of grain = 1 kg of beef point, as no-one else seemed willing to mention increased meat and dairy consumption as a factor affecting food security. I was somewhat chilled by his response. To quote: "The ruminants do not have a good conversion factor in converting corn and soya into meat, but species such as pigs and chickens are relatively efficient." This reminds me of the recent article in the Observer, which said that chickens are referred to as 'units' on intensive farms. They make it sound as if animals are machines, where you input feed at one end and meat is produced at the other.
For those who say that there's little difference between political parties these days, it's worth reading the debate. Although the Tories had called for a debate on food security, it should really have been entitled "Protecting the livelihood of British farmers". (Which included most of them, it seemed). Hilary Benn's response, by way of contrast, scanned the global horizon, talked about developing countries, and put things into their rightful international context.
Of the Tories, Michael Jack, chair of the DEFRA select committee, actually made quite a thoughtful and well-argued contribution, which he only slightly spoilt by admitting that he talks to slugs and snails in his garden. (He tells them to go away, and they ignore him). He also talked about a field of leeks that had "effectively melted" after being hit by a severe cold spell. I'm no horticulturalist, but even I know that leeks don't melt. Not even if you put them in a wok.
Disappointingly the Lib Dem chair of the APPG for Cheese made no mention of cheese in his intervention. The chair of the APPG for Dairy Farmers (aka that really, really tall bloke with the Polish name) blamed global insecurity of food supplies on badgers spreading bovine TB; the sooner we cull them the better. One farmer in his constituency is particularly suffering. (See earlier point re the importance of having an international perspective on this issue).
The Labour MP Ian Gibson spoke about "the Haber-Bosch process of making ammonia from gaseous nitrogen and hydrogen". He also told us that "In Norwich, we have groups working on the prospect of transferring to other crop plants, such as wheat, the genetic capacity of legumes, which fix their own nitrogen through associated bacteria" and that "radiant energy for photosynthesis is all about latitude. We cannot do too much about that, but through molecular genetics it is possible to make photosynthesis more efficient and therefore fix more carbon for growth". Couldn't have put it better myself. As the Tory frontbencher quipped at the end, he should probably do a Powerpoint presentation next time.
Parliament's only UKIP MP made us laugh by inadvertently referring to CAP as the 'Common Agricultural Problem', and a Tory got very indignant about the fact that smoked bacon doesn't even have to be smoked anymore; it's all chemicals these days! And another Tory complained that only 13% of the lamb fed to our very own armed forces was British. (So presumably he doesn't buy into his colleague's argument about having to buy lamb from NZ so they buy our whiskey?)
All in all, quite a fun way to spend a few hours.
My second intervention - on the Lib Dem frontbencher who is, I gather, a hill farmer in Wales - was to reiterate the 7kg of grain = 1 kg of beef point, as no-one else seemed willing to mention increased meat and dairy consumption as a factor affecting food security. I was somewhat chilled by his response. To quote: "The ruminants do not have a good conversion factor in converting corn and soya into meat, but species such as pigs and chickens are relatively efficient." This reminds me of the recent article in the Observer, which said that chickens are referred to as 'units' on intensive farms. They make it sound as if animals are machines, where you input feed at one end and meat is produced at the other.
For those who say that there's little difference between political parties these days, it's worth reading the debate. Although the Tories had called for a debate on food security, it should really have been entitled "Protecting the livelihood of British farmers". (Which included most of them, it seemed). Hilary Benn's response, by way of contrast, scanned the global horizon, talked about developing countries, and put things into their rightful international context.
Of the Tories, Michael Jack, chair of the DEFRA select committee, actually made quite a thoughtful and well-argued contribution, which he only slightly spoilt by admitting that he talks to slugs and snails in his garden. (He tells them to go away, and they ignore him). He also talked about a field of leeks that had "effectively melted" after being hit by a severe cold spell. I'm no horticulturalist, but even I know that leeks don't melt. Not even if you put them in a wok.
Disappointingly the Lib Dem chair of the APPG for Cheese made no mention of cheese in his intervention. The chair of the APPG for Dairy Farmers (aka that really, really tall bloke with the Polish name) blamed global insecurity of food supplies on badgers spreading bovine TB; the sooner we cull them the better. One farmer in his constituency is particularly suffering. (See earlier point re the importance of having an international perspective on this issue).
The Labour MP Ian Gibson spoke about "the Haber-Bosch process of making ammonia from gaseous nitrogen and hydrogen". He also told us that "In Norwich, we have groups working on the prospect of transferring to other crop plants, such as wheat, the genetic capacity of legumes, which fix their own nitrogen through associated bacteria" and that "radiant energy for photosynthesis is all about latitude. We cannot do too much about that, but through molecular genetics it is possible to make photosynthesis more efficient and therefore fix more carbon for growth". Couldn't have put it better myself. As the Tory frontbencher quipped at the end, he should probably do a Powerpoint presentation next time.
Parliament's only UKIP MP made us laugh by inadvertently referring to CAP as the 'Common Agricultural Problem', and a Tory got very indignant about the fact that smoked bacon doesn't even have to be smoked anymore; it's all chemicals these days! And another Tory complained that only 13% of the lamb fed to our very own armed forces was British. (So presumably he doesn't buy into his colleague's argument about having to buy lamb from NZ so they buy our whiskey?)
All in all, quite a fun way to spend a few hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
