CentreRight

Should we care about manufacturing?

By Neil O'Brien

Should free marketers worry about manufacturing?  During the 1980s the Thatcher administration was forced to make a virtue of necessity.  As manufacturing shrank, the right tended to argue that this was probably inevitable, and that it should be left to the market to determine where Britain’s comparative advantage lay.

This left many uneasy, including me.  It is certainly the case that politicians can’t know which sectors should grow or shrink.  I also am very sceptical about the “new industrial interventionism” pushed by Lord Mandelson, which looks a lot like the old industrial interventionism.  Governments which have tried to “pick winners” have generally ended up propping up losers.

But manufacturing really matters, because it’s the area of the economy where productivity grows most quickly.  Output per person in our economy as a whole grew 1.9% a year between 1980 and 2008.  But output per person in manufacturing grew 3.1% a year.

There are sensible things that policy makers can do, not to favour manufacturing over other sectors, but to create the right conditions for it to flourish.  That’s why Policy Exchange is holding a conference with Ken Clarke and leading manufacturers, and conducting a major research programme on the subject.

For a decade or more Britain’s politicians have thought a lot about how to divide the cake, and not enough about strengthening the productive base of our economy.  We need reforms across the board to enable recovery and growth: from reforming our restrictive planning laws, and repairing our creaking infrastructure, to our making our public sector smaller and more productive.

But we should also specifically try to create better conditions for manufacturing in Britain. There are three main things we are looking at right now:

•    Science skills.  According to the CBI 92% of firms across all sectors require people with science, technology, engineering maths (STEM) skills, but more than 59% are experiencing problems finding them.  But Since 1997 the percentage of pupils studying A-levels in Biology, Chemistry and Physics has fallen.  The Government says the number doing science subjects at University are up.  But we found that’s because the list of subjects classified as ‘science’ by the Government has become much broader, and now includes ‘Nutrition and Complementary Medicine’, ‘Geography Studies’, and ‘Sport Science’ among others.  The number studying Chemistry has in fact fallen during the same period– from 13,923 to 12,515. Meanwhile, numbers doing Engineering and Technology subjects have dropped from 90,930 in 1997 to 80,425 in 2008.

•    Tax and the role of Government.  In general Britain has gone from having one of the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe to one of the highest.  But as well as reducing the overall burden, there are some specific things the Government could to help manufacturers who make big investments in machinery. Current rules on capital allowances are designed for a bygone era where the pace of change was slower and machinery could last longer before it had to be upgraded.  It can take 20-30 years to write down investments under the current tax rules, but firms now replace machinery every 7-8 years.  Instead of the Research and Development Tax Credit, which has not raised the rate of R&D, we suggest that Government should increase capital allowances, so that investment in new machinery will “pay for itself” more quickly.

•    Innovation in universities. More needs to be done to exploit the ideas developed in higher education and to strengthen business links with universities.  We will shortly be publishing ideas about how get better at turning our good ideas into profits.

I am struck by the number of manufacturing success stories that there are in Britain, despite everything.  A product may say ‘made in China’ on the bottom because the plastic case was made there - but its most valuable components are often made here. Britain exports a higher proportion of high tech products than the US, Germany and France, and leads the world in many sectors.  I think there is a lot more that can be done to make sure we stay an engineering and manufacturing nation.  I’d be interested in your ideas about how we can help make it happen.

Nigel Evans MP: The House of Commons is the people's chamber

By Nigel Evans MP

I am pleased to see that progress is being made to allow Members of Parliament to question Government Ministers who sit in the House of Lords, including Lord Mandelson. It is high time that the Executive was completely answerable to the elected Legislative.

At the moment, plans are afoot to allow MPs to grill Ministerial Lords in Westminster Hall. However I, like Speaker Bercow, would like to see this go further and for this to occur in the chamber of the House of Commons. The chamber off Westminster Hall is small for a start and also plays second fiddle to the main chamber. The Executive must be accountable to Members of Parliament and I believe that this will, in my opinion, enhance our democratic process.

Which brings me to another historic moment that I believe is a good thing for British politics. I am the Honorary President of the British Youth Council and on 30th October 2009, the UK Youth Parliament will sit and debate in the House of Commons. This is the first time that anybody other than MPs will have debated in that chamber. Such a move makes our parliamentary process more accessible and more tangible. It is a good thing that young people who are interested in politics will be afforded this opportunity.

The House of Commons is the people’s chamber not the MPs’ chamber. To that end, I would also like to see visiting Heads of State address both Parliament and the country in the House of Commons. I once saw Peter Kilfoyle MP address the Colombian Parliament from within, whilst the rest of our delegation also sat in. It was a tremendous courtesy despite the fact that Peter has never been described as a Head of State! Imagine the focus of attention should President Obama visit and address the UK and MPs from in front of the Speaker’s chair.

These ideas should not be seen as debasing Parliament. In a letter that I have sent to Speaker Bercow I have expressed my opinion that such changes would enhance the role that the House of Commons has to play in the political life in our country. Other people may have different views as to how to widen our democracy but I am glad that we have got the ball rolling.

Fiona Beveridge: It is a victory for transparency that the Government has been ordered to publish late abortion statistics

By Fiona Beveridge, a healthcare communications professional and a Conservative activist who highlighted the Government's desire to keep abortion statistics hidden in this Platform piece in June.

The Telegraph and BBC report that the Government has been ordered to disclose abortion statistics, after the Information Tribunal has ruled that late abortions data must be published. The ruling follows concerns that abortion law is being flouted to weed out babies with a cleft palate or club foot, which can be corrected by surgery and the Department of Health's refusal to disclose this information in the annual abortion statistics.

The ProLife Alliance has hailed the ruling as a victory for transparency, saying that transparency is necessary to satisfy legitimate public interest in this controversial medical practice.

Ann Widdecombe was a key witness in the case, which was reported in my Platform piece earlier this year. She is quoted by the Telegraph saying:

"I am delighted with the ruling and I hope the Government complies quickly with it. I suspect the emerging picture for late abortion figures will be very worrying.”

Prof Stuart Campbell, the leading obstetrician whose 3D-scan images of babies “walking in the womb” at 12 weeks led to calls for a lowering of the 24-week limit for social abortion, was among those who opposed the DoH withholding the data, said:

“Transparency is the essence of medicine. If we don’t have that, all sorts of wrongdoing can go on.”

By Fiona Beveridge, a healthcare communications professional and a Conservative activist who highlighted the Government's desire to keep abortion statistics hidden in this Platform piece in June.

The Telegraph and BBC report that the Government has been ordered to disclose abortion statistics, after the Information Tribunal has ruled that late abortions data must be published. The ruling follows concerns that abortion law is being flouted to weed out babies with a cleft palate or club foot, which can be corrected by surgery and the Department of Health's refusal to disclose this information in the annual abortion statistics.

The ProLife Alliance has hailed the ruling as a victory for transparency, saying that transparency is necessary to satisfy legitimate public interest in this controversial medical practice.

Ann Widdecombe was a key witness in the case, which was reported in my Platform piece earlier this year. She is quoted by the Telegraph saying:

"I am delighted with the ruling and I hope the Government complies quickly with it. I suspect the emerging picture for late abortion figures will be very worrying.”

Prof Stuart Campbell, the leading obstetrician whose 3D-scan images of babies “walking in the womb” at 12 weeks led to calls for a lowering of the 24-week limit for social abortion, was among those who opposed the DoH withholding the data, said:

“Transparency is the essence of medicine. If we don’t have that, all sorts of wrongdoing can go on.”

A criminal ruling on criminal records

Far be it from me to say that the Court of Appeal has got it wrong, but... no, wait.  The Court of Appeal has got it wrong.  As told here, with more details on the absurdity of the relevant examples here, the Court has held that even generation-old, spent convictions should be represented on the criminal records database:

Five police forces which challenged a ruling that they should delete records on criminal convictions from their database have won their appeal.

The court of appeal said convictions, however old and however minor, can be of value in the fight against crime.

Absent any specific example of how a 25 year old conviction for lifting a packet of crisps can be of any assistance, I think that's spurious.

The reason that this matters is that people are getting kicked back for jobs because of such convictions.  This is crazy.  We have a Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in this country, which tries to do exactly what it says on the tin – rehabilitate people back into society.

However, the Police are effectively stymieing this by retaining data from age-old, spent convictions, which then go on to show up when people apply for jobs a generation later.

The Court, rather than give guidance on how such old, isolated, spent convictions could or should be used in a reasonable or rational way, just gives the boys in blue and the database state continued carte blanche with this judgment.  The Court states that the rationale for retaining the information is much more persuasive than the rationale for disclosing it to anyone - but when or how will that differentiation actually be manifested?  No help here...

The benefit to the police of retaining the samples is minimal.  The cost to the individuals, as these stories show, can be huge – indeed, potentially life-ruining.

So, to our learned Court, Big Brother Watch says... d'oh.

On stirring up/appeasing the Mob

Every British Parliament has had its share of scandal.  Everyone remembers John Profumo, caught up in a world of call girls and spies, despite being Secretary of State for War.  Jeremy Thorpe was accused (though of course acquitted) of conspiracy to murder.  Keith Best was (initially) sentenced to four months in prison for making multiple applications (under assumed names) for British Telecom shares at privatisation.  But these scandals of the 1960s, '70s, and '80s did not lead to any sense of widespread corruption, either across Parliament as a whole or even within specific political parties.

All that changed because of a deliberate strategy of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell.  For they attempted to paint the inevitable occasional scandals of the 1990s (much milder, in fact, than the cases above) as symptomatic of widespread corruption and decadence in the Conservative Party, as indicative that the Conservatives were no longer fit to rule.  Blair now says he regrets the strategy - likening it to a footballer's diving in the penalty area.  I know of no regret from Alastair Campbell.

Frank Field attacks Thomas Legg's "justice of a roulette wheel"

Frank Field - a truly Rt Honourable gentleman - has blogged his anger at his treatment at the hands of Sir Thomas Legg:

"From honourable member to rogue.  That, thanks to retrospective and unprecedented changes Sir Thomas Legg has made to the rules on MPs' expenses, is how I feel.

You may remember that last year I was part of the small band of MPs who voted to make details of our expenses public. It was a mystery to me why the then Speaker and his allies opposed being open to taxpayers. They were later defeated in the courts.

As soon as the details of our expenses were given to MPs I put mine on my website.  The Daily Telegraph who bought all of this information published a ‘rogues and saints' gallery.  Having considered the evidence, they placed me in the latter category...

Late on Monday I received along with other MPs a letter from Sir Thomas Legg. He recommends I repay just over £7,000: £1,000 housekeeping costs for each year; £1,800 of other household bills, and £230 which I should have claimed from other allowances...

My concern is that nowhere has Sir Thomas explained why he has changed the rules which have resulted in his recalculations.  No matter what the cost of maintaining a second home in my constituency has been, a £3k cut-off point was retrospectively imposed.

Imagine that you have been driving, perfectly legally, through a 30 mile an hour zone at a speed of 25 mph. Imagine then your reaction when, five years later, you receive multiple fines as a decision has been taken to change, retrospectively, the speed limit to 20."

Read the full piece.

Anger among MPs over Legg is close to boiling point. Frank Field could be the MP to lead a backbench insurrection. It has to be backbench - the Tory and Labour leaderships are insisting that Legg is obeyed. David Cameron has said Tory MPs who refuse to do so will not stand as Tory candidates.

But will they have to pay anyway?  As James Forsyth noted on Friday evening, it is far from clear what will happen to MPs that do not repay but retire.

How do you solve a problem like Lisbon?

Having just days ago assured us that he wouldn't sign, it now looks as if President Klaus - the last man between us and the beginnings of a fully fledged European government - has caved in to the bullying of Eurofanatics and will now sign the Lisbon Treaty. The Czech President, whom I hope changes his mind again and delays signing until the Treaty can be defeated at a British ballot box, was on the verge of becoming an icon among Eurosceptics here in Britain. That iconic status and defiant place in history could still be his - and no doubt a good retirement of lecture tours - if he holds out for the likely 200 days until a May election; but we must face facts that this is increasingly unlikely and now prepare a Plan B.

What exactly is it to not let matters rest? Now the first and most simple answer is for an "in/out referendum". I would be termed a Eurosceptic but would rather label myself a Liberal Nationalist - I support self-determination and do not believe in any decision being made above the level of the nation state, without the full approval of that state, as the nation is the only unit we can really call democratic. Decisions can only be democratic if those involved have a sense of shared belonging, of being one people, of being a single "demos". Consequently I do not support the European Union, being made up as it is of numerous diverse (and brilliant) nations; however I do not support a referendum being established on the grounds of "in or out" - because we'd lose.

We - by which I mean those favouring the nation states over the superstate and thus voting for "out" - wouldn't lose because people support integration, because they don't, with polls showing only about 10% wanting more integration. We'd lose because "out" means change, and usually people shift during referendum campaigns to favour the "safe" status-quo to such an extent that it's regarded as neccessary to have a 60:40 margin in polls at the beginning in order to have a good chance of securing change - a fact compounded by the tendency of Europhiles to claim credit for everything and blame for nothing (i.e. lie). It would become a farce of "X many jobs depend on trade with Europe", "Europe helps the planet" and most insultingly "Europe has brought peace" - as if "Europe" and "the EU" are one and the same thing and that we would all descend overnight into trade blocking, Poland invading, tyre burning nutcases planning to start World War 3 because no-one from the European Commission told us not to sell curved cucumbers. It's rubbish, but they'd win.

The second option is a renegotiation. This isn't really ideal as it would take forever, sour relations, be as boring as watching paint dry, and whatever we gained - and it wouldn't be much, probably more a gesture really - would only be given away again by a future Labour government (of which I'm certain there will sadly be).

Really we need the first option of an "in/out referendum - I'm purposely ignorring the third option of accepting Lisbon as just too awful to contemplate - but without the "out" part. Basically we need to do what we should have been doing since the idea of a political Europe first started: proposing an alternative. If we can frame it as a question of being in the European Union or an alternative European Alliance, we could be onto something.

Concerning whether the BNP should be able to destigmatize itself

I wish to disagree with the title of James' nice Platform piece this morning, though not, as it happens, what he says inside the article (that we should undermine the BNP mainly by addressing the legitimate concerns of the people that vote for them), with which I agree very much and which I argued myself here.

Where I disagree with James is his statement: "Nick Griffin must not have the opportunity to turn the BNP into a popular, nationalist party".  Griffin must have precisely that opportunity.  We might seek to deny him success in his opportunity by shooting his fox in the way James proposes (and I have myself proposed), but we should hope that the BNP can indeed convert itself into a legitimate element - albeit presumably always an extreme and (in my view) deeply misguided element - of British political debate.

Czech Republic: President Klaus told ‘too late’ to seek exemption from Treaty

I have just heard that President Klaus is now being accused that it is too late for him to demand the    exemption from the Charter of Fundamental Rights and that he should have done it earlier. The difficulty is that “earlier” the Lisbon Treaty was dead because it was rejected in Ireland, as you know, and unanimity was and is required for its ratification and implementation, if the EU follows its own rules.

That is why President Klaus came up with this demand after the second Irish referendum. He is not demanding anything special, but “only” a legal guarantee which the EU has already granted to two other EU member states. And he requires this guarantee to be legally binding.

(I am currently writing this up in The European Journal).

Implications of an ice-free Arctic

Lots of you will have noticed this report about the Arctic being ice-free, in summer, within twenty years.  Now, let's set aside (I know you won't but I can suggest it anyway!) the question of whether it's really going to happen, whether the earth is really heating up or cooling down, whether the actions of Mankind have anything to do with it, and whether there's really anything we can do about it now, even so.  Instead, let's just take the report at face value and think a little about some of the implications.

Situation vacant: Political Editor of The Sun

That's right, one of the biggest jobs in political journalism is up for grabs.

The FT Westminster blog reports that George Pascoe-Watson, who took over from Trevor Kavanagh in the political editor's chair at the best-selling British tabloid in 2006, has been lured by the big bucks of Portland PR.

So there is a vacancy for what will be a highly influential post in the run-up to the general election, just a couple of weeks after the paper put its full weight behind the Conservative Party...

Update: GPW has said on his departure for pastures anew:

"I cannot wait to join Portland's brilliant, energetic and dynamic team. I leave The Sun with nothing but happy memories of 22 years on Fleet Street. I was thrilled to have played a key role in switching The Sun's support to David Cameron.

"I leave The Sun in the brilliant hands of Dominic Mohan, a friend and colleague who I anticipate will build on Rebekah Brooks’s formidable success. And it is now time to use the skills and experience of 22 years on the country’s biggest paper to great effect. 

"The political and media landscape is undergoing historic change. David Cameron is on course to be the next Prime Minister.  Now I'm looking forward to using my experience to help Portland's clients make sense of a new political and media age."

11pm update: Iain Dale has blogged that the paper's defence editor Tom Newton Dunn has been appointed to replace Pascoe-Watson.

New Quilliam Report: In Defence of British Muslims

As Sayeeda Warsi prepares to take on Nick Griffin on BBC's Question Time next week, she and others in the mainstream of British politics would do well to read the Quilliam Foundation's excellent new report, In Defence of British Muslims: A response to BNP racist propaganda. The report provides a sharp, concise, coherent and well-argued rebuttal of the far-right's hatred towards Muslims, and a profound rejection of the BNP's claim to represent 'Britishness'.

Written by Lucy James, the publication draws clear distinctions between Islamism, Wahhabi literalist interpretations of Islam, and other forms of Islam, and demonstrates clearly what any sensible person knows: that Nick Griffin's sweeping generalisations about the Muslim community are as ridiculous as they are dangerous. As the author notes, "when the Wahhabi literalist mindset combines with Islamism, this can lead to the creation of jihadist readings of scripture that can result in militant Islamism." However, this is a very narrow, distinct brand within Islam, and is not representative of the vast majority of law-abiding, peace-loving, decent, hospitable Muslims. "The BNP appear to have not only adopted Wahhabi literalism alongside Islamist principles of an Islamic state, but to have generalised them as representative of Islam as a whole," writes James.

In the following powerful passage, James sums up the heart of the issue - that the BNP and the Islamists, James argues, feed off each other:

  Extremism needs - indeed breeds - extremism. Islamists bolster the message of organisations like the BNP; the BNP bolster the message of the Islamists. The BNP and Islamists do actually share many commonalities in terms of tactics and the ways in which they operate. They both, for example, share the same binary and divisive world views, denigrating cultures that they feel are opposed to their own: the Muslims versus the 'kufr' ('unbelievers', often the West) and the indigenous White-British versus immigrant invaders. Along with such a worldview necessarily comes a reliance on generalisations and a deliberate dismissal of nuance: for Islamists all non-Muslims are in a conspiracy against Muslims, and for the BNP all Muslims are in a conspiracy against the White-British."

Although they have vastly differing ideological origins and different ultimate destinations, both thrive on manipulating fears, jumping on grievances, and stoking the fires of discontent, scapegoating and hatred.

James and the Quilliam Foundation, established by ex-Islamists Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz, have done a superb job in countering, point by point, many of Nick Griffin and the BNP's most outrageous accusations against Muslims. These point by point rebuttals are well worth reading. The paper concludes with the observation that the BNP "repeatedly portray Islamists as representing all Muslims, but consistently fail to provide adequate evidence for their claims". The BNP "sensationalise unacceptable practices within Islam" and seek to demonise all Muslims by tarring them with the same brush.

As James rightly concludes, "it is now imperative that the British electorate reclaim the 'British' from the British National Party, just as we have asked Muslims to reclaim 'Islam' from the Islamists." For, as she notes earlier in the report:

 "it is not race or religion that matters, but what type of person someone is; individual qualities rather than to what 'faith' or 'ethnic' category they belong. In the final analysis, it is only those who uphold - rather than seek to destroy - the British values of liberty, freedom, equality and democracy that should be considered part of the British mainstream." 

Dominic Llewellyn: Reflections on the Northern Ireland peace process 25 years after the murder of my great-great-uncle by the IRA

By Dominic Llewellyn, Conservative PPC for Newcastle-upon-Tyne East

Twenty five years ago, five people – including my great-great-uncle Tony Berry – were tragically killed in the Brighton Bomb. Five lives and many other livelihoods were destroyed or damaged in a moment of hatred; the murdered and those who were injured were fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and friends to so many.

Tony Berry’s daughter, Jo, has over the past ten years built a relationship with Patrick Magee, the Brighton bomber. This has not been without controversy, but they now stand on platforms together speaking of hope and peace for Northern Ireland. Some have praised her work, others have criticised it.

The path of forgiveness – especially where there has been such pain caused by an act of such hatred – is so emotive and it is not my place to judge people as to whether they walk that path or not. One thing forgiveness does is put the person you are forgiving on the back foot; it can be a moment of victory and not surrender. I think Oscar Wilde was right when he wrote “always forgive your enemies, nothing annoys them so much”.

Another famous quotation poignantly states “to forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover the prisoner was you”. My own small experiences of forgiveness in my life are that it has enabled me to be free, I also believe that in South Africa forgiveness was an enabling and not disabling force in Nelson Mandela’s presidency both between him and his perpetrators and in the country at large.
 
A quarter of a century after the bombing, Northern Ireland is – in the main part – at peace, its people are at peace with themselves, the IRA have decommissioned all their weapons and the British Army has ended all military operations. As with any peace process, trust needs to be rebuilt over time and warring parties need to learn to work together. There has been real progress, but there are still wounds. Both Tony Blair – for his work in the Good Friday Agreement – and John Major – for his role in getting the peace process rolling - deserve significant credit for their works in Northern Ireland.

This week, Hillary Clinton has been at Stormont urging politicians once more to work together and the Prime Minister has also spent time in the province over the past week. I may not be a Labour Party supporter, but I for one hope and pray that Gordon Brown’s role in Northern Ireland helps continue to build on the success so far of the Northern Ireland peace process.

And in tomorrow's news...

All the country's bankers and all the backbench MPs were dragged into Parliament square by a screaming mob and burnt on a huge pyre.  Here is what the papers said...

Gagging reports of Parliamentary proceedings

Very surprised to load Con Home and find I'm the first to comment on this today, but...

As reported by Guido, the Guardian have been stopped from reporting of a Parliamentary Question.   A Parliamentary Question!

It is simply extraordinary, and really very wrong, that this has happened.  This - the right to discuss what our representatives say and do in Parliament - is the exact, basic, legitimate expectation in a democracy for which people fought for generation after generation.  It finally stopped, as Parliament's own website proudly boasts, in 1771.  Well, apparently it hasn't stopped after all.  It is appalling that the fight needs to be had again, but it certainly needs to be had.  We at Big Brother Watch find ourselves (grits teeth, breathes deeply, squares shoulders) firmly on the side of the Guardian.

In an interesting twist, my colleague Dylan (who is "very web 2.0" apparently) tells me that Trafigura, which might or might not be the name of the company that might or might not be involved in said Parliamentary question, is one of the top "trending" topics on Twitter.

UPDATE: Carter Ruck defeated.  Hurray.  It is still an outrage that this ever happened, but still - good.

Harriett Baldwin: Why Independent Financial Advisers may be put out of business unless they make their voices heard now

By Harriett Baldwin, PPC for West Worcestershire

The Financial Services Authority is currently consulting on something called the Retail Distribution Review (RDR). The consultation closes on October 30th 2009, so if you are one of Britain’s many Independent Financial Advisers or the customer of an IFA, please consider writing in here.

As Britain shifts back towards a culture of savings, we are all going to need to rely more and more on good, independent financial advice. As more and more people find themselves responsible for their own pensions, we are going to need more and more good independent financial advice.

Against this backdrop, the Financial Services Authority has launched this consultation on new rules to set standards for investment advice. The worthy aim is to raise standards and trust for savers in the advice they are given.

However, many people are worried that the new standards are going to be so demanding and expensive for the industry that they are actually going to put small IFAs out of business and raise costs for all consumers.  The winners in this review could be the banks and large investors.

I recently met with a group of Worcestershire IFAs, together with my colleagues Mark Garnier, PPC for Wyre Forest and Robin Walker, PPC for Worcester. Small IFA businesses are very concerned for two good reasons.

"Enhanced checks" - coded language for the removal of the presumption of innocence

From today onwards, millions of Britons will be subject to potential (expensive) "enhanced checks" from the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), including information taken from unfounded allegations, on the basis that they might be paedophiles.

First of all, we still (so far) have a presumption of innocence in this country.  These policies are a mandate for smears to destroy careers.

Secondly, Children of course need to be protected, but this is hardly the way to do it.  Millions of perfectly law-abiding people in this country will be inconvenienced, and thousands of businesses made less efficient, as a result.  The state will be empowered to find out and retain more about us.

All in all, it's another harmful aspect of our national obsession with paedophilia.  Just as the threat from a small group of nihilistic thugs has ramped up our "security agenda", greatly harmed habeas corpus, curtailed our freedoms of speech and movement, so the tragic and unpleasant but small threat from paedophilia has empowered thousands of bureaucratic busybodies to pry into our personal lives and clog up our workplaces with (even more) red tape.  And to what end?

Big Brother Watch says "shame".

Nigel Evans MP: Reflections on that fateful night in Brighton 25 years ago

By Nigel Evans MP

I had been involved in Conservative Party politics for ten years when, as a very green but uber-enthusiastic supporter of Margaret Thatcher and as a twenty six year old shopkeeper from Swansea, headed towards Brighton for our Party conference.

Little did I know what horror was about to unfurl at the main Party hotel, the Grand, during the conference. Twenty five years on, Norman Tebbit and his wheelchair-bound wife, Margaret, head back to the scene of that infamous terrorist attack to unveil a plaque in memory of the five murders and thirty four injuries. I meanwhile was lucky to escape unharmed.

For non-aficionados of Party conferences the main hotels are jam packed from 7pm on any given conference day until the early hours. I was at a table with my fellow Welsh Tories discussing what we had got up to that day and whether a teacher colleague of mine should put in to speak at the education debate which was taking place on the last day.

You could hardly hear yourself talk as people mingled in the bar area, moved around the hotel lounge, or shouted goodbye to old friends for another year as they headed towards the door.

At 2.54am I was facing towards the hotel window not far from the bar. I heard a muffled thud, saw glass sprinkling from the heavens (I thought it was water), and then a rather loud explosion, rumbling and the lights went out.

“Get down it’s a bomb,” shouted a journalist who had experienced the noise before when covering Vietnam. It was good advice. I was already on the floor and thinking to myself that I should keep down as another bomb might well have been planted.

Effective Enforcement - Changing the City's Culture

Despite grandstanding galore from the government, there is a growing unease at the paucity of substantial change in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Nowhere does this resonate more than in the field of enforcement, where talks of US-style powers to prosecute alleged wrongdoers in financial services appear to have been dashed.

The general public are not fools. Weak and superficial exercises in chastisement are no replacement for considered and mature discussions between government and the City about the best ways to lead the economy out of the dire mess in which it finds itself. In this way, we must start to look at solid proposals that will make a lasting change to the workings and culture of our financial system. Only then will the banking fraternity earn the public trust so crucial to any economic resurgence.

Two areas at which I suggest we look urgently are the remit of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the related idea of deterrence.

Firesale!

The expected announcement today of the privatisation of £16 Bn assets owned by the Government is reckless and irresponsible. It amounts to a firesale.

There is nothing wrong with selling off assets or Labour's privatisation programme as a matter of general principle, but it is incredibly poor timing. Right now the values of all assets classes are low thanks to the credit crunch and the recession. So it makes no sense at all to be privatising assets. As a nation, we simply won't get the value out of them that we could and should.

What's the better strategy? To live within our means and get the deficit under control, which is the underlying problem. To wait for economic recovery which will bring with it a recovery in the value of assets. That's likely a three to six year horizon, not the firesale we are witnessing. And to take great care before selling assets that touch and concern the security of the nation - like Uranium enrichment. But then Gordon Brown has form on this doesn't he? We all remember how he sold our gold reserves at the bottom of the market. And we are all too keenly aware of his scorched earth policy which will see Britain's finances shredded ahead of a possible change in Government next year. We are witnessing an extension of Brown's scorched earth policy. This firesale is not in the national interest.

Gordon Brown's eyesight should not be an issue for political debate

The various politicians interviewed on television today have all been asked about Gordon Brown's eyesight, on the back of news that he has two small tears to the retina in his good eye - although his eyesight has not diminished and he requires no further treatment.

Liam Fox - the only Conservative to have appeared on the small screen so far this morning - has just given Adam Boulton short shrift when asked about the issue. Dr Fox said it was "unkind" to make an issue out of it and added, as PoliticsHome records, that he was "not concerned":

He added that speculation about the Prime Minister's health was "not the sort of politics we ought to be indulging in", and that whilst there were "lots of reasons" for the Mr Brown to stand down, his health wasn't one of them.

Quite right too.

Brown's resignation speech

Made at Speechbreaker.

£6m of our money spent to scare the children

Nature have called it the Worst. Climate. Campaign. Ever.  The Register's report has more detail of what has happened, including a quote I gave earlier today.

£6 million of our hard-earned cash went on this.  That's a lot of money.  We're facing arguably the greatest fiscal crisis in our history and the Government spend millions on an attempt to scare children into thinking that if they leave the lights on it'll drown their dog and make bunnies cry.  The mind boggles.

Calling all election anoraks - be watching BBC Parliament at 7pm tonight

BBC Parliament is tonight at 7pm showing the general election night programme that was broadcast in 1959. Presented by Richard Dimbleby, father of current election night anchor David, it is the first time in the fifty years that have passed since that election that the programme has been rescreened.

The press release from the BBC sets the context:

"1959 was a watershed in political broadcasting. The BBC mounted its biggest election night programme to date, which attracted an audience of 13 million. Coverage comes from the largest studio at Lime Grove which was specially adapted for the occasion. Richard Dimbleby leads the studio team, accompanied by Cliff Michelmore and Alan Whicker. The political professors David Butler and Robert McKenzie provide analysis, using the now infamous ‘swingometer’. Fifty-seven television cameras are at work, with some moving throughout the night to new locations to contribute to the rapid reporting of results.

"But 1959 wasn’t just about the television; it was about the politics too! The Conservatives were led into the election by their very own ‘Supermac’; Harold Macmillan. Living standards had risen for the masses under the Conservative government and Tories went into the election with a seven point lead. Despite the polls, it was by no means certain who was going to win. Labour had run a slick campaign, and under the leadership of Hugh Gaitskell they were more unified than they’d been in years. The Liberals also had high hopes after having recently won their first by-election victory in thirty years."

Enjoy!

It's not as funny as this

Right, ok, the Norwegians have proved they have a good sense of humour in awarding America's modern-day Neville Chamberlain the Nobel Peace Prize but it's still not as funny as this.