CentreRight

Prosecute Abu Qatada

The government's pushing through of the 42-days legislation is intended to keep us safe from the worst of the Islamist ideologues who threaten our way of life.  So the fact that one of the worst offenders, Abu Qatada, has just been released is certainly embarassing for the government.

What is strange is that Abu Qatada should not have to be freed.  Not should he have to be held without charge.  Abu Qatada has said things equal to the statements which landed Abu Hamza and Abdullah Faisal in prison.  In an effort to help the government and police, the Centre for Social Cohesion last night released excerpts from transcripts of translated recordings we discovered on one of the UK's leading Islamist sites.  The full report can be read here, but people might be interested in the particular utterances of Mr Qatada which can be read here.

They include the following:

"Our countries have been infiltrated by kaffirs [non-Muslims].  It is farid [duty] for us to turn our swords on to them and kill them."

Taking the initiative after the Irish "No" Vote

The media reaction in Europe over the Irish 'no' vote is interesting. Contrary to expectations, there have been quite a few pieces like this one in Der Spiegel in Germany calling for a new direction for the EU, in favour of democracy:

"European governments are at their wits' end. It is time for them to admit it -- and let the public decide about the future of the European Union."

Yesterday in the House of Commons in a thinly attended debate, Bernard Jenkin and I each made the point that the Irish 'no' vote should be seen as an opportunity for radical change. David Heathcoat-Amory called for a return to the principles first laid out in the 2001 Laeken Declaration calling for a more open, democratic Europe, whilst Sir Malcolm Rifkind sought a solution in an 'a la carte Europe'. Different voices, all with a common theme - the Irish have given us an opportunity to change Europe fundamentally, but that opportunity must be seized now.

Compare this with the Government's depressingly passive and defeatist response, as set out by David Miliband on Monday:

"We should allow the ratification process to continue in all countries; we should then see what the Irish decide to do and plan our next moves after that."

This sounds depressingly like the "wait and see" of the 1990s. Surely we can do better than this?

Prison, Arizona-style.

For anyone who didn't get the circular e-mail containing the text below...

TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO, HE IS THE MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF (ARIZONA) AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

These are some of the reasons why:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio created the 'tent city jail' to save Arizona from spending tens of millions of dollars on another expensive prison complex. He has jail meals down to 20 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.

He banned smoking and pornographic magazines in the jails, and took away their weightlifting equipment and cut off all but 'G' movies. He says: 'They're in jail to pay a debt to society not to build muscles so they can assault innocent people when they leave.'

Less dependency = less government = lower tax

Speaking at a Centre for Policy Studies seminar yesterday David Cameron acknowledged that the best way for government to help people struggling with higher living costs is to reduce their tax burden. To achieve that reduction, government must do less. And the way to ensure that government does less is to place fewer demands upon it.

Hence the virtuous circle which a Conservative government would seek to create in the 'post-bureaucratic age.' The aim is that voluntary, private and social enterprise organisations will be given much greater freedom to provide services currently in the public sector. Dismantling the bureaucracy which at present inhibits this freedom is a huge task. As Eric Pickles explained in the same seminar, public services today are dominated by the requirements of 'structure' rather than 'function.' 

This series of seminars continues to wrestle with the difficulties inherent in moving to the 'function-led' approach. The goal is worthy  - to create a stronger society in which fewer individuals depend on the state. The dangers are that the project can sound too daunting (how many governments have tried and failed to reduce bureaucracy?) and that the language can be too esoteric. David Cameron's remarks yesterday succeeded in bringing the discussion down to earth. Less dependency= less government= lower tax.

Thinking about the free market

I am a passionate supporter of free markets, where they exist, and a promoter of them where they don't.

This subject came to mind today as I emerged from the Tube at the station closest to my work, Temple.  It's a little station and it is surrounded by little shops - a kiosk with snacks, a dry cleaner, a little restaurant, a fruit stand and a news chappie with several racks of magazines and journals.  Nobody had to tell the owners that it would be a good idea to have their shops there, they just saw the opportunity and did it.  If the state had been in charge, the dry cleaners still wouldn't be built, the kiosk wouldn't sell fags and the newsagent would only sell three titles (they'd all be left wing and would cost £8 a pop).

So that makes me feel good about the free market.

But then... one's argument occasionally runs into the contaminating influence of awkward facts.

We took the train to Cambridge on Friday evening.  The post-work, weekend train out of London.  This train has been busy ever since there has been such a train.  Why oh why don't they put extra carriages on, and/or more frequent services?  I'm sure that there is an answer for the failure of the market to service this need, I just don't know what it is.  Do you?

-

Related post: Random thoughts, where Stoo quite reasonably points to a contradiction in my free marketeering...

Brown's 'Shallow Salesman' jibe will lose Labour votes

Since David Cameron became Conservative Leader, Labour have tried a range of critiques, none of which have really worked with the electorate. From 'hard right secret Thatcherite' to 'Insubstantial' to 'Eton toff', the attacks have failed to detonate.  So the latest tactic has been to call Mr Cameron 'a Shallow Salesman' or a 'Slick Salesman' or a 'Used Car Salesman'.  But this could come to be a huge tactical mistake by the Labour Party.

Far from wounding Mr Cameron, Mr Brown instead insults hundreds of thousands of people across the country – if not millions - who earn their living by being precisely that –  Salesmen.  By implication, he also criticises not just the Salesmen but also their families and close friends.  After all, if being a Salesman is 'dishonest', then being associated with a 'Salesman' is dishonest also. So the many many people who sell cars, windows, heating systems, health products etc. etc. are according to the Prime Minister, either 'shallow', 'slick', 'used' or 'dishonest'.   This was brought home to me when I visited a car garage recently in Harlow to get my car fixed.  The car salesmen there have always done their best to help me and are highly honest and hard working.  They told me that they didn't take kindly to be described as 'a used car salesman' and had become quite anti-Labour.

The truth is that most salesmen work very long hours, often work on low basic or commission only and have to travel far distances in order to make a living. Many years ago I worked in telesales, and I was struck how many people were doing it as a second job in the evenings in order to provide extra support for their families or had suffered some kind of financial hardship.  Far from being used as a political insult in which Mr Brown can attack the Prime Minister, salesmen should instead be celebrated for their hard work, entrepreneurial spirit and for providing services that many people could not do without.   Mr Cameron should wear the salesmen badge with pride.

Bill Cash demands judicial review at High Court on Lisbon Treaty

You may know already from the newspapers that Bill Cash has sought a judicial review in the High Court to ensure that the Lisbon Treaty should not be ratified, given the continued ratification of the Treaty in the UK after the outcome of the Irish referendum vote. This is from the PA newswire a few hours ago:

Eurosceptic Tory MP Bill Cash expects to hear today whether his application for judicial review of the treaty will be allowed to proceed.

Mr Cash said he was not challenging Parliament, but seeking a statement from the High Court that the treaty was now "incapable of ratification".

"The Lisbon Treaty cannot come into force unless every single member state ratifies," he said.

"The Irish people were asked in a referendum and have answered 'No'. This is directly binding on the Irish government, they cannot change it.

"This treaty is dead as a parrot. What I'm saying is that the treaty has ceased to have any meaningful effect."

London's rivers and the Competitiveness of London

Readers that missed it might be interested to review this article from the Sunday Times, suggesting that Boris wants to enhance quality of life in London as part of his competitiveness agenda to compete with Shanghai and Mumbai - clearly inspired by the recent Europe Economics/London Chamber of Commerce and Industry paper on this topic.  His particular solution of raising London's hidden rivers is very radical.

Copayment in the NHS

Those of you thinking about the issue of whether those making their own top-up payments for NHS treatment might find it of interest to read my column on this topic from last September: The key reform needed in the welfare state.

A turning point for the NHS

Alan Johnson has made a historic statement in the House today.  The review of top-up payments for drugs must find that they are right and acceptable in at least some cases.  Once that principle is accepted, top-up payments will become acceptable for treatment too.  Suddenly the NHS funding system has fundamentally changed.  And for the better: the service would reflect the decisions of doctors and patients working together rather than the bureaucracy.

Doctors for Reform, the campaigning group of 1,000 doctors, issued this statement today:

“This is a historic moment that points the way towards a modern NHS based around the needs of patients rather than bureaucratic rules.  NHS doctors are clear that the current policy on top-up payments is unfair.  Professor Mike Richards’ review should find that top-up payments are acceptable and right.

Most importantly the review opens the door to a modern NHS funding system which allows both taxpayer and individuals to pay towards health and which covers treatment as well as drugs.  This is the model of countries such as the Netherlands, France and Germany which enjoy better and fairer patient care than the UK.

The Department of Health deserves great credit for listening to the public’s opposition to its policy and for understanding their desire to have greater control and choice over their NHS care.”

Love's Dream May Be Alien

Sunshine. Commuter faces turn toward the warmth of the sun, opening like buds in a long-chilled garden. This garden is a coffee terrace outside Liverpool Street station, but even so, something more beautiful than even a flower is growing here, growing now. In front of my eyes, a potential new couple is forming. He is a City boy, elegantly pinstriped, with a cheeky smile; she is a waitress from the coffee shop, on her ten minute break, exhaustion mixed with beauty. Essex meets Poland. They are shyly yet deliberately making clear their newfound pleasure in one another's company. What will happen to them, I wonder to myself, running for the train. Impossible not to wish them well, impossible not to hope that a connection is made, and impossible to think of an algorithm which could determine, just from these inputs, the suitability or otherwise of their coupling.

Well, at least, I find it impossible to think of such an algorithm. The Church of England appears to have one, however, which manages both to be partial in its reach yet absolute in its application: there is no function (in the mathematical sense) which can be applied to an XY-XY pairing that maps to love. Perhaps I'm unfair. Same-sex love may be imaginable for Anglicans: but they have a problem with what to call the outcome of such bonding. At one extreme, there is "XY+XY=sinful abomination"; at the other "XY+XY=Civil (and civilised) Partnership". What XY+XY must never amount to, though, is marriage. Any Anglican caught taking part in a same-sex bonding ceremony, which resembles anything like a marriage ceremony, is likely to find himself or herself in a great deal of trouble. With the Bishop of London!

'The ungrateful Irish'

Open Europe is compiling the reactions of EU leaders to Ireland's "no".  This is my favourite with my emphases, from Axel Schäfer, SPD leader in the Bundestag:

“We think it is a real cheek that the country that has benefited most from the EU should do this. There is no other Europe than this treaty. With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority.”

The Times had this great paragraph yesterday:

"Two of the most vocal supporters for pushing ahead with the treaty were Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German Foreign Minister. Both had been under consideration for the two big posts created by the treaty: those of EU president and EU foreign minister."

About that apology

I was away for most of last week and managed to miss the editors' apology for the timing of their editorial on the 42 days issue. For the record, I'm a staunch civil libertarian and was unconvinced by their arguments, but there was really no need to apologise either for the editorial or its timing. If one sincerely believes that something is necessary for the good of the country, then one should only apologise for not speaking up at the crucial moment.

Yes, it's embarrassing that Gordon Brown quoted from the editorial in PMQs. Embarrassing, that is, that we have a Prime Minister who thinks that a political movement should be of one mind, right down to the last blogger. I get more creeped out by the man every time I listen to him.

There are very few issues where honourable arguments cannot be made on both sides. Certainly, I would not wish to trust my liberties to those who think otherwise. 

Cameron must see the Lisbon Treaty scrapped and the EU Treaties renegotiated

It is a terrifying thought that whilst Ireland has rejected the Lisbon Treaty, the rest of Europe – led by Germany’s Merkel, France’s Sarkozy, Netherlands’ Balkenende, and our very own Gordon Brown – have all called for the continued ratification of the Treaty as originally planned. I am baffled.

Firstly, this is an illegal move (is it not?), since all the 27 Member States of the European Union must, by law and for the purposes of Parliament, agree to the Treaty in order for it to be implemented in law. If they do not agree, it cannot be pursued, ratified, repackaged, recycled, or maintained as legal.

Secondly, it is certainly the most undemocratic thing I have heard from Brussels for some time. Our supposed EU leaders have grown so overtly authoritarian (in the European manner) in these modern times, under Germany’s authoritarian European leadership, but the proposal that we just go on regardless of the Ireland vote makes no sense. Miliband has admitted this in BBC interview at the same time as defending the continued ratification of the Treaty – it is a completely untenable and undemocratic position.

Are you with Andrew Sullivan or John Rentoul?

Andrew Sullivan: "When it comes to sitting down and actually reading a multiple-page print-out, or even, God help us, a book, however, my mind seizes for a moment. After a paragraph, I’m ready for a new link. But the prose in front of my nose stretches on.  I get antsy. I skim the footnotes for the quick info high that I’m used to. No good. I scan the acknowledgments, hoping for a name I recognise. I start again.  A few paragraphs later, I reach for the laptop. It’s not that I cannot find the time for real reading, for a leisurely absorption of argument or narrative. It’s more that my mind has been conditioned to resist it."

John Rentoul: "All the evidence is that the internet encourages people to read more books, not fewer. We know more, can access much more, much more quickly, and so are, individually and collectively, cleverer than ever."

Not a two speed Europe. A flexible Europe

David Cameron was proved right last week in his stance that he would not decide a Conservative response to Lisbon until it had cleared all its hurdles. The Irish voted no by a large margin. Since the treaty must be ratified by all 27 member states, it is now dead. Brown and Miliband are proceeding to ratify something that no longer exists. The Treaty has ceased to be. It is an ex-treaty. Logic, as we know, is not Labour’s strong suit.

Yet none of us can think the rejection of Lisbon solves the fundamental problem. There are two visions of what the EU should be, and they are not reconcilable. If our party doesn’t admit this basic truth, David Cameron and his eventual successors will be bogged down in the European question for decades to come.

And we simply can’t waste time navel gazing over Europe. We’ve got a country to fix. We should give up entirely trying to convert France, Germany and Luxembourg to our vision of the EU, and they should give up wrestling with us over ours. What is needed is a permanent solution that embraces both visions – a flexible Europe. It is the only answer when the unstoppable force of ever-closer union meets the immovable object of pragmatic nation states.

Equality has made dunces of children

Over the years I have come greatly to admire Minette Marrin's writing - even to the extent that I seek out her columns in a paper I don't normally read (The Times).

She surpassed even her own high standards this weekend, with a piece comprehensively (no pun intended) demolishing the state of British education.  I urge you to read it.

FWIW, during my time working on the education brief for the Conservative Party this is exactly the sort of message I tried to convey.

I always suspected it...

Turns out that Conservatives are just all round better people than lefties. Not that we should be too smug, that would be selfish.

Dr No

Gotten over the feeling of elation following Ireland's rejection of the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty yet?  No?  Neither have I. 

For that success, much of the credit must go to Declan Ganley, a 39 year old London-born, Galway-based entrepreneur who, despite being outspent twenty to one, managed to snatch a last minute victory for the "no" campaign from the jaws of defeat. 

He is profiled here, here and here.

Reading the numerous profiles of Mr Ganley and watching his media appearances, what I am most struck by is the simplicity and accessibility of his arguments.  Whilst his opponents in the "yes" camp focussed on complex policy issues his message was tightly focussed on the Treaty's ability to hit people's pay packets, jobs and protecting Ireland's way of life from the "bullying" of the domestic and external political establishment.

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that the British Eurosceptic movement, despite having the overwhelming majority of public opinion behind it, lacks a young, articulate and instantly likable figure from outside the tawdry world of politics to help make its case.  In Mr Ganley, we appear to have the ideal blueprint. 

Fatherless's Day - the spirit of our age?

Bel Mooney received this letter from a young girl, aged about 11 she thinks. Do read her whole article as well.

Dear Bel Mooney

My daddy left home when I was 2 so I don't kno him. We lived with Dave who is nice and his 2 children Rosie and Tom.

I liked to have a sister, we shared a room, and a brother who is 5. Now mummy says we are moving away to another house and I wont see them.

I will be at a new school and wont kno anyone, I am very sad. Dave says it is up to mummy to say I can see them but she says no.

I do not like were we will live, I want to see Rosie but she wont be in my class so I wont see her. I liked having a bedroom with her and I new Tom from when he was 2.

I am very sad but Mummy is cross and says she doesn't like Dave any more but I still do because he was nice and as good as a daddy.

Mum wont come to sport day at school like he did. She works and I have to get a key and be home until she is home.

Can you make her let me see Dave and Rosie and Tom sometimes even if she wont see them.

Rosie says she and Tom cry and so does Dave and he is grown up.

Love from

Gemma x

Smoke without fire?

While we're on the subject of civil liberties, can I ask readers to shed light on what appears to be a grey legal area?

As a dedicated monarchist I took my two godchildren along to the Trooping the Colour yesterday. It was a beautiful sunny day, the crowds were big and the spectacle moving as always.

As an equally dedicated smoker I lit up on the Mall as we waited for the procession to begin.

Within a couple of minutes I was approached by a policeman who asked me to 'step away from the crowd.' This was easy simply because we were at the back with nobody behind us, and as I'm sure readers will know, the Mall is one of London's widest, airiest and leafiest thoroughfares.

A collision course with the European elite

When one sees, as per Marr's show this morning, such dyed-in-the-wool anti-Tory people as Tony "I look forward to the day that Thatcher dies" Parsons railing against the EU, it becomes - I think - increasingly clear that we are becoming more and more Eurosceptic, as I have said before.

This, I say, has us set on a collision course with the European elite.  I would demonstrate that by asking these two questions:

1) Do you know anyone who thinks that the Irish result should be ignored, and that the Lisbon Treaty ratification process should just carry on regardless?

2) Do you know anyone who thinks that the elite will actually stop the process?

I think that, across the political spectrum in this country, we all believe that the Irish result should bring the Lisbon process to a halt.  However, none of us think that Europe will do what we believe they should do. 

If I'm right, when that sort of apolitical, general resentment against something builds up, it's bad news - for that something - and good news for those of us who would be free of it.

Might the Westminster village have the politics of 42 days detention wrong?

Most of SW1 thinks David Davis' resignation over the issue of 42 days detention was a huge political mistake.  The Government's position is popular with the public and Davis has shifted the debate to one of the few areas where Brown is in tune with ordinary people.  The Conservatives won't be allowed near government if they aren't seen to take the nation's security seriously.

On the other hand, Tim, and many others, have made the point that at every opportunity the public seem to be noisily expressing their support for the former Shadow Home Secretary.  If there is a silent majority it is keeping very quiet indeed.

What polling evidence we have suggests that SW1 is right.  A YouGov poll suggests that 69% of the public support the proposal.  That's a mountain of opinion, I can't see anything much wrong with the poll and YouGov are by far the most reliable UK pollster.

However, that might not be the end of the story.  After all, when the question is asked by YouGov it is rightly and necessarily removed from its political context.  I doubt people have a particularly strong opinion on 42 days in particular - they just, quite understandably, want to see the Government strengthen policy to combat terrorism.  They would give a positive answer to a broad range of tough security policies.

Stone dead

Don't you just love the Irish?. Friday the 13th is unlucky for some, but in this case the some don't matter.

One of the overwhelming reasons why people are unloving of the EU steamroller is because steamrollers are pretty effective at steamrolling. The arrogance of the EU elite is there for us all to see. The only nation that has had the opportunity to vote on the treaty has rejected it by a large majority. By my account that is 3 votes no to the constitution, or treaty.

I know it is customary in medical circles to ask for a second opinion before declaring a corpse dead- but surely a 3rd opinion along the same lines is somewhat conclusive.

If only the British government would do the same…

Well, it took European Commission Chief Commissar President Barroso a whole five seconds into his pre-prepared statement in response to the Irish rejection of the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty to say it but, as we all knew he would, he did:

"The vote in Ireland should not be seen as a vote against the European Union".

Sorry, Mr Barroso, you’re wrong. 

Anyone who has watched the progress of the ‘no’ campaign, led by the highly articulate and personable Declan Ganley, will know that the central argument of the campaign has been against the reduction Ireland’s power in the European Union that would have surely ensued from the ratification of this Treaty.

The Irish people, who account for little more than 1% of the European Union’s total population, have struck a blow for democracy and made it very clear that they would not accept a reduction of their power in the European Council or the loss of their Commissioner.  They've made it clear that they won't accept the supremacy of a distant and unaccountable body, nor will they bow simply to the will of a domestic and external political elite.  The spirit of 1922 lives on.

In short, they’ve stood up for their sovereignty of their country.  If only the British government would do the same…