CentreRight

What The Iraq Inquiry Will Tell Us

Posted by Bob Seely.

Apologies to those who hate predictions, but by the time we’ll have finished hearing the Iraq War evidence sometime next year, may I predict the following:

The remaining vestiges of respect to which Tony Blair still clings, a result not of his personal qualities but of the fact that people genuflect to those who have held authority, will evaporate. This will be due to the overwhelming evidence that secrecy came before honesty, preparation and integrity. He will be seen by the media and the majority as a morally bankrupt individual who misled the people. He will spend the next 30 years of his life being held in increasing contempt and irrelevance – a more wretched version of Harold Wilson. This will strengthen the hand of those in the Conservative Party who do not believe that Conservatives should be modelling our strategy on this man.

The reputations of the BBC and Andrew Gilligan (remember him?), as well as those moderate voices who came out against the war (including people such as Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP and Ken Clarke MP) will be enhanced. By contrast, the Conservative Party’s position on the war will increasingly be seen as an error, not because one should oppose wars for political opportunism, but because there was a strong suspicion at the time that things were not as they seemed. It was as if the issue was too big, too serious and too important. The Opposition’s inability to hold Government to account will strengthen the opinions of those who see our current political system as broken.

Beware of Rogue Polls

There’s been a flurry of excitement about an Ipsos Mori poll published on Sunday: a single voting-intention figure from a sample of 449 has led to absurd speculation about a hung parliament. Fortunately this morning some people seem to be regaining their sense of proportion. The BBC’s Nick Robinson has wisely urged people not to get too excited, reminding them that polls are most fun when most surprising – and unfortunately, surprising usually means ‘rogue’. Remember Twyman’s law: “Any piece of data or evidence that looks interesting or unusual is probably wrong”.

That this particular poll should produce some outlandish figures is even less of a surprise. When pollsters talk about a margin of error of plus or minus 3% it is based on a sample of 1000 people. However, the voting intention figures in this poll weren't based on 1000 people. Firstly only 799 people gave a voting intention. On top of that MORI excluded all of those who were not 10/10 certain they would vote, leaving only 449 people - the margin of error on that is plus or minus 4.6%.

A second issue is that of weighting. Almost every political pollster in the UK these days politically weights their sample to make sure it is properly representative of Britain, not just in simple demographics like age and gender, but also in terms of people's political views. At YouGov we use party identification for this, and most other companies use how people voted at the last election. MORI do not use any political weighting at all. They've got their own reasons for this, and perhaps they’re right and we’re wrong, but the effect is that even the political make up of their samples can change from month to month, further adding to the volatility.

I’m making no negative comment here about the methodology of Ipsos Mori or any other competitor-pollster, just pointing out that which none of us would deny: ‘surprises’ such as those delivered on Sunday are an inevitable effect of the numbers quoted above.

Resisting the urge to be nosy

The big worry for radicals - like myself - who would like to see a serious restructuring of the state is that if and when there is a change of Government, that change will be cosmetic rather than fundamental.

The big bear trap awaiting opposition politicians is the idea that there is nothing wrong with the way Government works, just with the people who are running it - that as long as you have a blue rosette pinned to the Cabinet Ministers rather than a red one, everything will work fine.

This is, of course, a fallacy. As Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell have laid out so brilliantly in The Plan, it is the ship that is at fault - changing who wears the captain's hat will make little difference.

That is why it was worrying to read in yesterday's Sunday Times that Chris Grayling wants official forms to ask people with regularity whether they are married or not.

He seemse to be concerned that whilst official forms request endless information about sexuality, ethnic origin, religious beliefs, family arrangements and so on, they rarely ask about marriage. His argument seems to follow that therefore state paperwork is failing to promote marriage, and considers it unimportant.

There are certainly many things wrong with official forms - not least the kind of lifestyle and personal data that they demand. I personally refuse to answer most of these questions, and I know a lot of people who take pleasure in providing absurd answers to them. The public are fighting back against nosey officialdom in the same way, hence the recent trend of writing "Jedi" when asked one's religion.

Voters would welcome an end to invasive, irrelevant questioning every time they go to the GP or apply for planning permission.

However, Mr Grayling has got it all wrong. The right response to nosey, politically correct questions on official forms is to cut them out, not add in more that satisfy one's own interests. There is no benefit to having even more invasive paperwork, just because you want to snoop from a traditionalist, rightist perspective rather than a trendy lefty perspective.

Shadow Ministers should look at each policy before they propose it, and ask themselves this question: Underneath the bonnet, is this any different to what the Government are doing?

In this case, the answer is no.

The problem with the current policy of information gathering is not that they are gathering the wrong kind of information but that they are demanding so much information at all. A state that holds databases on traditional right wing things, like marriage, or respect for the police, or free market credentials would be just as bad as a state that holds databases on ethno-religious identity, sexuality or household energy usage.

The last thing people need is for this cloying, bullying, prying, database-building Government to be replaced by one that is eactly the same, but painted a different colour. We need a Government that talks sense, rather than the same old rubbish but in a different accent. Mr Grayling should start burning databases, not commissioning his own.

Doing it all with tax rises is not an option

Andrew Lilico is Policy Exchange's Chief Economist.

Michael Portillo has said he does not believe that the Conservatives will succeed in cutting spending, but instead will use tax rises as the main mechanism to cut the deficit.  I want to tell you, in no uncertain terms, why that is not an option.

Without action, the deficit this year and next will be above £200bn — 14% of GDP.  According to the Treasury (which is backed in this by the OECD) just under three quarters of that is structural — about 10% of GDP; £140bn.  That is to say, even when the economy starts growing again, there will still be £140bn of deficit (around 20% of spending) that will not disappear.  Perhaps some of you want to suggest that we do not need to balance the books.  I don’t agree, but let’s concede the point for now.  Let’s assume we just need to meet the maximum deficit, for any one year, permitted by the Maastricht Treaty criteria for sustainability — let’s aspire to have that not as our peak deficit, but as our average deficit.  That means we could run an average deficit of about £40bn.

So, still £100bn to find.  Portillo says we can’t do that by cutting spending, because it will be impossible — one presumes he means politically impossible.  Does he really believe it would be politically possible to raise taxes by £100bn.  If we are naïve, and assume that we wouldn’t damage the economy by raising taxes on this scale, we can think a little of what that might mean.  We could raise the basic rate of income tax to 45p.  Or we could raise the VAT rate to 37.5%.  Or perhaps we could try a bit of each — raise income tax to “just” 35p and the VAT rate to “just” 33%.  Does Portillo believe that any of this is politically possible?

The Chief Reporter of The Times (otherwise known as Ally's cat)

Earlier in the week I noted the anti-Tory tendencies of The Times' 'Chief Reporter', Tom Baldwin. He has a silly story in today's newspaper that is worthy of the Mirror.

After my blog appeared on Monday I received a number of messages from journalists and Conservative politicians about the ways in which Baldwin ran anti-Tory stories throughout the Blair years. Apparently he was known as Ally's cat in recognition of his dutiful service to Alastair Campbell. That The Times continues to give him free rein is very disappointing.

Lying About History - Again

By Bob Seely

I wish the Left would stop lying about history. I also wish conservatives would do a much better job of highlighting the fantasies and misrepresentations of others.

Yet another example came with Labour’s party political broadcast this week. Mid way through, the narrator said that “at one time it seemed impossible to turn the tide of fascism, until good men and women stood in the way,” the good men and women presumably not being Conservative blue rinses but solid working class people and their Fabian masters.

At the heart of the Left's moral posturing is the myth that Socialism was the antidote to Fascism. This is largely, but not entirely, a lie.

The British Union of Fascists was initially Labour splinter group – as was Mussolini’s movement in Italy. And while many Trades’ Union members did oppose fascism in the 1930s, the British intelligentsia - the Guardian-reading classes – were rather less honourable. From the mid-1930s the collective voice of the Left Book Club (approx 50,000 members, the heart of the British Intelligentsia) believed that there was no moral difference between fascism and the British Empire.

After 1939 when the Nazis and Soviets allied to divide up eastern Europe, many Left intellectuals sat on their hands. Only after the Nazi invasion of Soviet Russia and the turn of the war did the intelligentsia throw themselves wholeheartedly into our war effort. The working classes were patriotic, Labour MPs defeatist and Left intellectuals sometimes treacherous – and if in doubt read Orwell’s wartime journalism in which he showers the intelligentsia with contempt. In eastern Europe from 1930 through to the fall of the Berlin Wall, socialism was generally indistinguishable from fascism.

In our ten plus years out of power I wish some donor had had the foresight to fund a research project on the Left’s favourite lies and those who repeat them (BBC London, the Guardian, etc). We can’t win the cultural arguments unless people stop believing these false claims.

The leaders of the Left have never defended Britain against Fascism.

Eurosceptics should welcome Van Rompuy and Ashton, the "Jedward" of European politics

Over a no doubt lavish meal on the taxpayers' tab last night 27 European leaders "elected" a President of the EU [Council] and a "High Representative" or "Foreign Minister" in a process more akin to the election of a Pope than politician. The election of a virtually unknown Belgian and equally unknown Baroness has caused anger among Eurosceptics - it shouldn't, I could scarcely be happier or have made a better choice.

First let us take the job of "President", a job without a job description. Had the European leaders last night selected a well known, high profile and charismatic candidate for the role, particularly one popular in the US, that would have set the mould for the position as one of importance and power - the sort of person you would ring to "speak to Europe", the sort of person who would "stop the traffic". That would have been a disaster for nation states, suddenly bypassed and irrelevant. Instead the "chairmanic" argument won the day. Yes Van Rompuy is a federalist who will push for more integration - which as a Eurosceptic I oppose but feel may at least force the issue to be tackled - but the only way he is going to stop the traffic is if he falls off his bike on the way to work.

Last night after his election I understand he sat eagerly by the telephone, and I expect he is still there, awaiting a call from Obama. Eventually it may ring and he may answer - in that old fashioned way - "Brussels 272727, Mr Van Rompuy speaking, President of the Council of the European Union, former Prime Minister of Belgium and officially the World's most famous Belgian - but it is more likely to be his Mother asking if he had remembered to tape The Restaurant whilst she was at bingo than President Obama inviting him to the White House. In short, the election of an uncharismatic, unknown, uninspiring, unexciting and frankly unusual politician from a small country best known for chocolate is a victory for all who oppose the EU having a global role.

The same can be said for the new High Representative turned Foreign Minister, Baroness Ashton. What could have been worse for Eurosceptics than the election as Foreign Minister of a high profile, internationally known, foreign policy whizz with his/her own viewpoint? Instead we have an unelected New Labour peer with no knowledge or experience of foreign policy, no hotline to the Americans, and no real contacts. To be blunt, European leaders have elected the John and Edward of politics to the positions of President and High Representative. Brilliant.

Equally good for Eurosceptics is the way the decision was made. Behind closed doors, by the political elite, over a lavish dinner, the whole process was symbolic of the EU. Had the roles been elected by a Europe wide vote - as some have suggested - it would have given them some degree of democratic legitimacy, built a concept of European Citizenship in people's minds, given the posts a far bigger profile, and moved the centre of political gravity towards Brussells. What could have been worse?

Off the scale and off the rails

By Neil O'Brien

Yesterday  the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted that the government was on course to borrow even more than it expected to. They said that, “If this level of growth in borrowing were to continue for the remaining five months of this financial year, borrowing for the whole of financial year 2009–10 would be about £217bn (or £42bn higher than was forecast in April’s Budget).”

That would mean we are borrowing roughly:

• £818 million a day
• £34 million an hour
• £570,000 a minute
• £9,500 a second.

The interest on all this debt will not be cheap.  Soon, 9p in every pound of tax we pay will be spent not on public services, but on servicing debt interest.  We will be flushing £50 billion a year down the toilet – more than we spend on schools.  That’s real “government waste” for you.

We’ve been carrying out a major research project (which will be published shortly) on international and historical examples of major spending cuts.  That lets us put our current debt crisis in context. 

Britain’s deficit today is at the very upper limit of anything previously experienced by developed economies.  If the Government borrows £217 billion this year, that will be about 15% of GDP.   

The biggest deficit reduction we looked at was in Sweden, where the government deficit was improved by 14.8% of GDP (from a deficit of 11% GDP in 1993 to a surplus of +4% in 2000).  Roughly half of their deficit problem was solved with spending cuts, and the other half with big increases in tax.

If we followed the Swedish example in Britain, it would mean adding the equivalent of 20p onto the basic rate of tax.  Not many people want that.

Vanessa Kelly has won. Now, how are YOU?

As we've written elsewhere, Sandwell Council has backed down in their attempt to fine Vanessa Kelly £75 for feeding the ducks in her local park.

We at Big Brother Watch were proud to support Vanessa, but we know that this example of absurd bureaucratic bullying is hardly unique.  We seek others like her.  If we can help you, let us know.

Big government projects keep going over budget

This morning the TPA has released a new report on the record of big government projects going way over budget.  It finds that the average overrun was a massive 38 per cent.  Bear in mind, that average includes those projects that came in under budget, it includes projects where the amount ordered was cut, it includes projects that have also been massively delayed.  This is a record of a massive failure to properly budget and control costs.

That is an even worse record than the last time we studied this issue back in 2007.  There is no simple solution, fixed price contracts can create as many problems as they solve.  Government will need to be more careful about embracing ambitious projects and improve the skills and incentives for politicians and officials to effectively manage procurement once a project is underway.

Most importantly, and in order to avoid major buyer's remorse, the British public, politicians and officials need to keep the results of this study in mind when new schemes are proposed.  The Olympics should never have been sold to people on the basis of its absurd initial costing of £2.4 billion.  Network Rail have proposed a £34 billion new high speed rail line, in considering whether that represents good value for money everyone should keep in mind that the final bill may be more like £45 billion.

Democratic control over the police is an absolute necessity

Sir Hugh Orde of the Association of Chief Police Officers has warned that police chief constables may resign if the police are brought under political control, as proposed by the Conservative Party.  He says that operational independence is essential and that political influence over how our streets are policed is undesirable.

Is it not normal that the public has a say over how they are policed? Do citizens not pay the salaries of police officers?  Do citizens not suffer the consequences of crime? Do citizens not vote for political representatives to run public services?  Why should the police be an exception?

At the moment policing is divorced from the priorities of citizens.  The priorities are politically imposed from very high above.  For the last ten years or so the priority seems to have been political correctness.

I am a ward councillor for Hyde Park Ward in Westminster, which include the west side of the Edgware Road.  The Edgware Road is of course a centre for citizens of Middle Eastern origin.  Virtualy all are hard working law abiding citizens.  But time and time again I have seen how the police adopt a very peculiar style of policing whenever there is trouble on the Edgware Road.  The trouble is almost always caused by outsiders.  On the Edgware Road far more is allowed than elsewhere. 

Policing is systematically done in an über-sensitive way – presumably to shield the police from any possible spurious allegation of discrimination or racism.  Political correctness rules at the expense of protecting the public.  What the residents living around it – of whatever origin - have to suffer is apparently quite irrelevant.  Typical is the non-intervention by the police when there are for example noisy celebrations for whatever Middle Eastern event.  Often these result in disorder on the streets.  Often the police just stands by and watches. There are exceptions.

As a ward councillor one is quite powerless.  The only thing you can do is to beg the police to maintain law and order.  The only weapon you have is their goodwill.

Some progress was made when the Metropolitan Police introduced ward panels: regular meetings between local police and local citizens to set priorities.  But this suffers from the usual non-representative nature of (often self-styled) community representatives.  Councillors elected by all are put on an equal footing with individuals who often do not represent anyone but themselves.

Boris and GLA Member Kit Malthouse (responsible for the Metropolitan Police) are trying to introduce democratic control over the Metropolitan Police.  The Conservative Party wants locally elected leaders to be in charge of the police.  Frankly, if police chief constables are unhappy about this, I wish them good luck and goodbye.  I’m sure we can find replacements. Real cops who make our streets safe again.

And The Winner Is ... Brussels

In perhaps the least-watched and least-electrifying “election” of recent times, the European Union (EU) today appointed a permanent President and a Foreign Minister.

Described by The Daily Telegraph as a “little-known Belgian federalist and (the) Labour peer who has never held elected office,” the anonymous Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy and the UK’s European Commissioner Baroness Ashton were appointed to the posts by EU leaders over a private dinner in Brussels this evening.

Rompuy – officially from the centre-right of the political spectrum, whatever that means in Belgium – enjoyed the support of France and Germany, who saw his key attributes for the role as (1) unstinting support for further European integration; and (2) invisibility on the world stage; neither Merkel nor Sarkozy are ready to relinquish the spotlight just yet. Ashton’s attributes were simple (1) she was female, center-left and from a large EU member state; and (2) she wasn’t the Iraq-War supporting, American-loving Tony Blair. Divvying-up the posts between left/right, male/female and large/small member states are the way things are done, Brussels-style: there’s no room for merit or democracy in Brussels’ processes.

Catherine Ashton will take office with an international rolodex thinner than the average city councillor. Then again, Herman Van Rompuy will take office without even a job description. The only winner in all of this is self-aggrandizing EU elites who have finally realized the trappings of an EU superstate, albeit without a semblance of credibility or legitimacy.

The EU's new foreign minister is British... and creates another vacancy

Update: I stand corrected. Baroness Ashton will, it turns out, remain a member of the European Commission as well.

William Hague has just issued the following reaction to the appointment:

“We congratulate Herman van Rompuy and Cathy Ashton on their appointments. We wish them well. We will work with them in the British national interest. We did not agree with the Lisbon Treaty’s establishment of these posts but they are now a fact. We look to the President of the Council and the High Representative to ensure that the EU’s business as an association of nation states is conducted efficiently.
 
“So I am very pleased that those of us across Europe who said that the President should be a chairman, not a chief, have won the argument. Gordon Brown spent a great deal of energy and political capital trying to secure the presidency for Tony Blair. The summit’s result is a defeat for him. Now that Britain will no longer have an EU Commissioner with a major economic brief it will be vital that the British Government, whichever party is in power, engages closely with the EU Commission to ensure that it keeps to a pro-growth agenda.”

---

It is being confirmed that Baroness Ashton is to be the EU's new "High Representative" - the job being described colloquially as "European Foreign Minister" (the Belgian Prime Minister is set for the job of President).

She is of course currently Britain's European Commissioner, so a vacancy is now created for that post. Would Gordon Brown dare send an MP out to Brussels and create a by-election? I think it highly unlikely. Ashfield - the seat of the most obvious Labour nominee, Geoff Hoon - was lost to the Conservatives in a by-election in 1977 when a Labour MP took a job in Europe.

So who might Brown send to Brussels now?

Paul Goodman MP: Only two Labour backbenchers bothered to turn up to defend their Government's programme today

By Paul Goodman MP

Today was the second day's debate on the Queen's Speech. Proceedings began at about 11.30 after Business Questions and could have run until 18.00.

There were Conservative backbench speeches from Peter Bottomley, Nigel Evans, David Evenett, Graham Stuart, Robert Syms, Lee Scott and myself.

There were Labour backbench speeches from... Barry Sheerman - who as Chairman of the Education Select Committee is a special case. Otherwise there were none, other than Dennis Skinner, who got to his feet at 15.35, and hadn't been in the Chamber before at least 14.30.

The debate concluded just after 17.30 - almost half an hour early.

• Number of Labour backbenchers present after opening speeches: one (Sheerman)
• Number of Labour backbenchers present for much of the debate: nil.
• Number of Labour Cabinet members present after opening speeches: nil. (Andy Burham, who was replying to the debate, didn't get to his place until after 15.30.  His opposite number, Andrew Lansley was in place more or less throughout.)
• Number of Labour Cabinet members present for closing speeches: one (Burnham, who had to be present to reply.  Michael Gove, who opened for us, returned in time for both Burnham's and Lansley's closing speeches.  Ed Balls, who opened for the Government, returned ten minutes late.)

Question: if only two Labour backbenchers can be bothered to turn up to defend their own Government's programme, what does that say about their faith in it - and the current state of the Commons?

And if they don't believe in it, why should anyone else?

> Jonathan Isaby noted the lack of Labour MPs present for yesterday's opening of the Queen's Speech debate.

> Michael Gove's speech this afternoon was covered in this earlier Parliament post.

Has Gordon Brown done another sneaky deal with the DUP and Sinn Fein?

In my post a little earlier, I pointed out how the Government failed to include any of the legislative measures recommended by the Kelly Report in the Queen's Speech.

One such measure was the banning of MPs sitting concurrently in devolved legislatures.

And it got me thinking. Who stands to lose most from such a ban? There are currently seventeen MPs with a dual mandate. One of those is in Scotland: Alex Salmond, who is standing down from the Commons at the general election to concentrate on his duties in the Scottish Parliament.

The other sixteen are in Northern Ireland: all nine DUP MPs, all five Sinn Fein MPs and two of the three SDLP MPs.

Now, David Cameron and Owen Paterson have made clear that all the MPs elected under the Conservative/UlsterUnionist banner in Northenr Ireland will be expected to be full-time Westminster MPs after the general election.

But were the MPs from the other Northern Irish parties hoping to continue as part-timers (but getting an additional chunk of salary and allowances, of course)? And was the decision of Gordon Brown not to include this measure in the Queen's Speech a sop to them perchance?

It wouldn't be the first time that a crackdown on the way we do politics didn't extend across the Irish Sea - the legislation on registration of donations to political parties still does not extend to Northern Ireland.

Just a thought.

The vapid futility of putting targets into law

It has recently become an obsession of the Government to put what would have previously been policy targets into law. We already have a "legally binding" target of cutting carbon emissions by 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, and today's Queen's speech lays out further plans to put legal guarantees on education, public finance and child poverty.

This is both pointless and meaningless. The Government have long been accused - accurately - of Governing by press release, but this is taking it to the ultimate absurdity. They used to announce long term policies of the top of their heads in order to grab the next day's headlines. Now they are actually introducing full legislation to achieve that same aim.

As well as a waste of time and money in Whitehall and Westminster, this is damaging to democracy itself. For a start, there is the clear intent to attempt to bind future Parliaments. Happily, the constitution does not allow that to happen in strictly legal terms but the rhetoric of "setting this in stone permanently" is clearly pushing in that direction.

At best, they are effectively boobytrapping the statute book for future Governments - delaying them implementing their own policy and legislative agenda by requiring them to defuse a series of obstructive laws before they can even start doing what they want.

Even worse is the disillusionment that this foolish PR tactic will undoubtedly spread amongst the public. Most people already do not believe the pledges that politicians make - their repeated betrayal of such promises has cheapened their word until it has become in most cases utterly devalued. Instead of working hard to regain popular trust in their pledges, the Government have instead tried to wrap themselves in the authority of legislation in a desperate attempt to persuade people to believe them.

That approach will simply cheapen people's belief in legislation and Parliament, too. Just as with MPs' expenses, our politicians would rather tarnish the standing of our democratic institutions than admit and correct their own failings.

The really infuriating thing is that the Government itself doesn't even believe that these targets will be hit, as legally required. They don't even care - as long as it has the desired effect on the content of next week's fish and chip wrappers, then job done. If the target is hit or not when the arbitrary date comes  round, it will matter not a jot to them - particularly as they will be comfortable on their pensions, or even long dead by the time.

Transnistria: a den of crime, hotbed of human rights abuses and a risk to international security

“Most people”, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic’s burlesque propaganda website admits, “don’t know Transnistria exists”. For the sake of the survival of the Transnistrian regime, that’s probably a good thing.

Located on the left-bank of the River Dniester between Moldova to the west and the Ukraine to the east, the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica is one of the few remaining scars the Soviet Union left on South East Europe – a province suspended in a frozen conflict and stuck in a time warp where grand statues of Stalin and Lenin still dominate the skyline.

The province of Transnistria, much like the rest of the Republic of Moldova, is typical of many countries in South Eastern Europe for its rich ethnic mix, being home to diverse groups of Moldovans, Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Gagauz, ethnic Jews, Poles, Bulgarians and Roma. Across sovereign Moldova, Moldovans comprise around three quarters of the country’s 4.3 million citizens with ethnic Ukrainians and Russians making up much of the remainder – the bulk of who live in Transnistria.

Since 1956, Transnistria has been home to Russia’s 14th Army who has capitalized on its convenient strategic geographic position to garrison troops and stockpile munitions. The collapse of Soviet rule in Moldova had inspired hopes that such troops would depart the state’s newly-liberated territory. On August 27th 1991 the Moldovan Parliament – comprised of MPs from across the country’s territory – passed a declaration calling on Russia to "to terminate the illegal state of occupation and annexation and the withdrawal of Soviet troops from its national territory".

Despite a binding agreement between Moldova’s Prime Minister Andrejz Sangheli and Russia’s Viktor Chernomyrdin signed on 21st October 1994 in which the Russian Federation pledged to "relocate troops to other sites" and guarantee "the political settlement of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova", the 14th Army remains in situ today.

The future landscape of global finance

Such colossal sums of global taxpayers’ money have been spent and immense government guarantees continue to underpin the financial system that it is remarkable how little agreement exists to what constitutes the point at which the banking industry can be said to be fixed. Less still is there any emerging consensus as to the ideal future landscape of the financial services world.

This is no mere academic issue. The imperative to start repaying borrowing at the earliest opportunity cannot be overstated. Yet commercial lending is unlikely to return to anything like normal until the second half of 2011 as toxic assets are gradually removed from bank balance streets. The credit crunch will be with small and medium sized businesses for some time to come.

Westminster's responsibilities under the Lisbon treaty

The Lisbon treaty will become a reality whether we like or not in just a couple of weeks. I have written before about the need for a future Conservative government to engage pragmatically and constructively with the EU under the new architecture presented by Lisbon, particularly with regard to foreign policy. But if and when we return to government we must also understand and exploit the various new enhanced scrutiny provisions in the treaty regarding the role of our Westminster parliament and other member states’ national parliaments within the EU's institutional framework.

It is estimated that something like two thirds of UK legislation originates in Brussels. The logic of such a situation is that the European Parliament would be considered an equally desirable place to seek a political career as the Westminster parliament (were it not for the fact that in Westminster there is a potential career ladder to ministerial rank, so most politically ambitious people overwhelmingly gravitate towards Westminster rather than Brussels). Three Conservative MEPs stepped down at the last European election after successful ten-year stints in Brussels to seek election to the green benches.

Perhaps another of the reasons that Westminster still dominates the UK political scene despite the legislative realities of our EU membership is ultimately that Westminster remains a sovereign parliament, unlike the European Parliament. The decision to withdraw Britain from the EU could only ever be taken by the Westminster parliament (although in reality there would undoubtedly be the need for confirmation by a national referendum). Only the British Parliament has the absolute right to amend or repeal UK legislation related to our membership of the EU. MEPs have no legal say whatsoever on the fundamental issue of whether Britain is or is not a member of the EU, a somewhat ironic situation for UKIP given that the party's only parliamentarians sit in a parliament whose raison d'être they reject. Long may UKIP’s electoral success be confined to the European Parliament!

Thought for the Day should either be scrapped or deregulated

The BBC has rejected requests from atheists that the Radio 4 Today programme's Thought for the Day slot be either abandoned or opened up to non-believers.

As a Christian I think the BBC has made the wrong decision.

What Thought for the Day represents isn't authentic belief but sanitised belief. Contributors to TftD tell me that the editors at the BBC heavily restrict what can be said. We're not getting the real voice of Christianity (or Judaism or Islam) but the BBC's definition of acceptable Christianity. What results is mawkish mush. There's endless handwringing about global warming, inequality and bankers. There's nothing on the Resurrection or other biblical teachings. It's a bit like asking a Conservative to give a political comment but banning them from talking about any of the party's core beliefs.

I'd much rather other voices - atheist included - could be heard at 7.50am every morning but that they be authentic and unedited. At the moment I tend to switch off when that day's contributor tells me that 'he's been driving up and down bendy country lanes and life's a bit like that, isn't it?'.

PS The Archbishop of Canterbury's latest intervention - in favour of the Tobin Tax and against economic-growth-at-any-cost (a straw man if ever there was one) - fits the Thought for the Day frame perfectly. Dr Williams' political beliefs are shared by many Christians but they are not intrinsically biblical.

How capitalist is China?

I visited China twenty years ago, as a backpacker.  I had an awful time: everything was grubby, people were rude, food was poor.  But on every pavement men and women in blue mao suits were trading.  Day and night.  Their wares were often exhibited on not much more than a handkerchief.  A few lighters.  Five cabbages.  There was private banking, too.  Out of nowhere somebody would turn up to offer you a quick mutually beneficial illegal currency exchange in sign language. The hard currency allowed them to buy Western products.  Evidence of a strong mercantile instinct was everywhere.  I remember thinking that if they were ever allowed capitalism they would grow very rich, indeed.

A few weeks ago I went back: what a change.  Will they overtake us economically ? Many think so.  I don't.  At least not with their present  political system.  They are missing out in one vital aspect.  The People's Republic of China was a communist tyranny.  Now it is just a tyranny.  The growth in prosperity created by capitalism is seriously hampered by bureaucracy and bribes.

Lessons from the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution, 20 years ago today

Today (17th November) is the day when Czechs and Slovaks commemorate their 1989 Revolution. Doubtless, this anniversary won't get as much coverage as that of the fall of the Berlin Wall last week, nor as much as the 20th anniversary of the execution of Ceausescu in Romania next month.

Nevertheless, there are probably more features of the Czechoslovak Revolution of 1989 which have a greater applicability to today's struggles for democracy and freedom, which I will explain shortly.

First, a little context. As I thought might happen, much more attention was paid last week to the actual fall of the Wall, rather than the forty years of hurt (for want of a better term) for the East German people that led up to it. It was rather like commemorating the end of World War Two solely with footage of V.E. Day parties. Like the East Germans, the Czech and Slovak peoples also suffered horribly under Communism, and we should remember those who either didn't make it through the experience, those who were gravely damaged by it, either physically, mentally or financially, and those who lost the best years of their lives to it.

I spent a lot of 1989 in Czechoslovakia. I was one of around a dozen UK students of the Czech and Slovak languages. In that year, I organised the first ever university exchange between Cambridge and the elite Universita Karlova (Charles University) in Prague, where I had studied myself two summers before. Around twenty Czechs came to Britain for the month of July, and we returned there for the month of September. I was back again in November (photo above), as the calls rang out for "Havel hrada" (Václav Havel to the castle, meaning the seat of government). Having been immersed in student life at the Charles University, and having met some of the dissident activists at various Prague theatres, I knew some of the people involved at the bottom end of the revolution, who were key in fanning out from Prague taking the message into the provinces in the weeks after 17th November.

Enough of personal reminiscences, however. There is no point having experiences unless one is prepared to draw lessons from them, and here are the lessons from the Velvet Revolution as I saw it then and see it now, and why of the three main revolutions of the autumn of 1989, this one has the most relevance today.

First, the Czechoslovak revolution was almost entirely non-violent. In fact, I think I am right in saying that nobody died at all. Enough has been written elsewhere about the importance of non-violence, but for the students of 1989, non-violence was both an end in itself, as well as a means. The symbol opposite (my camera in 1989 was poor) of the red line through the truncheon was seen all over Prague.

Second, that the Czechs and Slovaks through the dissident group Charter 77 confounded many sceptics, especially in the West, by actually seeking to campaign to make sure that their government abided by the international agreements it had signed, in this case, the Helsinki Accords of 1975. Nobody in power in the Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia expected anyone to take seriously their own newly-acquired legal obligations to safeguard the human rights of their own peoples - least of all the people themselves. For me, this shows that international human rights accords can and do make a difference, and why we should always seek to make dictatorships sign these kinds of agreements, as they give people suffering under those dictatorships hope and a legal basis for their campaigns.

Third, the importance of figureheads in revolutionary movements from below. Very few people can now name any of the figures involved in the East German revolution. The Eastern part of Germany has underperformed politically ever since, at least until Angela Merkel became Chancellor in 2005. In Romania, if the revolution could be put down to any one individual it was to someone who wasn't even Romanian at all, but to László Tőkés, the ethnic Hungarian priest who started the revolt in Timişoara. In Czechoslovakia, dissident playwright Václav Havel and even the former Prime Minister during the 1968 Prague Spring, Alexander Dubček, gave the movement names and figureheads. This revolution was a grassroots effort, especially as thousands of students, actors and actresses went forth from Prague to spread the message.

Finally, Czechoslovakia had the strongest democratic tradition of any of the former Soviet satellites. Between 1919 and the Munich Agreement in 1938, the country was the only functioning democracy for all of those years in any of the Central and Eastern European countries which would eventually join the European Union in 2004 and 2007. Indeed, its democracy in the Inter-War Years was one of the best in Europe. There was even a history of resistance to being part of a multi-national conglomerate state, whether the Austro-Hungarian empire, Greater Germany or, at this point, the Soviet Empire. Although the democracy had been extinguished 60 years previously, there was still a collective memory in 1989 which was important. Like Tim Montgomerie, I am wary of drawing exaggerated comparisons between the EU and historic multi-national European empires, but I for one know that Czech history would have weighed heavily on Václav Klaus as he considered whether to sign the Lisbon Treaty just a few weeks ago.

Finally, and back to the main point. Whilst for most of us, the lasting images of 1989 are probably those of people crowding on top of the Berlin Wall, partying amongst the fireworks, or of Nicolai Ceausescu's battered and pathetic corpse, it is the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution, with its urge for non-violence, its grassroots nature, its popular figureheads and most of all its origin in the very legal agreements guaranteeing human rights signed by the country's tyrannical leaders which most makes it a model for liberation struggles across the world today.

From Brussels to Whitehall is not enough

Posted by Bob Seely

For those who have five minutes to spare, please watch Dan Hannan’s fascinating exposition about the benefits of leaving the European Union. (Daniel Hannan: The TaxPayers' Alliance Great EU Debate)

 

I don’t want to repeat his arguments, but Dan makes one incredibly important point that some euroskeptics miss: that there is no point in repealing powers from an undemocratic state in Brussels only to keep that power within a flawed system in Whitehall.

 

To bring, as Hannan says, “honour and purpose to the act of voting, dignity to our legislature and freedom to our citizens,” exit from the European Union, if it were ever to be achieved, would only be the start of the type of revolution arguably last seen in Britain during the Glorious Revolution in the second half of the 17th century.

 

At a national level reform measures could/should include an elected second chamber, a directly elected post of Prime Minister, and open primaries for all members of Parliament, giving the people the power to apply their own checks and balances to the system as well as allowing individuals to chose their Parliamentary representatives free of party machines.

 

At a local level, Hannan mentions self-financing councils (and we know that often councillors’ most important relationships now are with central Government, not the people), local referendums and elected local sheriffs - the mind boggles at the extent to which we could revive the fortunes of our democracy and our nation.

 

In the American psyche is the story of settler John Winthorp, who spoke in a famous 1630 sermon about New England being a ‘city on the hill,’ with the eyes of the world upon it. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to build something like that in Britain? To have politics as a respected civic/patriotic duty rather than a fringe activity for a caste separate from the people, and held in contempt by them? To build something seen by Europeans as a model for a New Europe and a new style of democratic accountability? To revive and dignify our political parties by giving them a mandate that, let’s be honest, their falling membership numbers show they lack?

 

Please can we have another Glorious Revolution!

As innocent people continue to be added to the DNA database, more evidence rolls in to show the fallibility of this "magic" evidence

I've written on CentreRight before about the pervasive issue of wrongful convictions based on DNA evidence. DNA is in the news once more because Alan Johnson u-turned on disposing of the samples taken from innocent people, just as a high-flying lawyer lost her job simply because her DNA is on the database (so much for the presumption of innocence, eh?).

It is on my mind today because this morning I have read the sad story of the investigation into the murder of Suzanne Jovin, which has collapsed after 8 years because of a lab error by a technician.  Think of the frustration on the part of hard-working officers.  Think of the suffering that the poor family must have gone though, only to be so tragically disappointed.  Think of the potential for a miscarriage of justice if the error had occurred in another way, not been detected (or covered up) and a wrongful conviction had resulted.

Law enforcement funds are finite and different kinds of policing efforts are often mutually exclusive.  Money and effort spent on this cannot be put into investigating offences in other ways.  Put more prosaically, it also serves as an example of the colossal waste of money this process often is.  The team on the Jovin case put hundreds of man-hours into DNA sampling and investigation, time which could have been used productively in other ways but we now know was totally wasted.  DNA investigation has its uses of course, but the point is that there is a balance to be struck - overreliance on technology can lead to not following up other leads, and cases solved by DNA must be balanced against unsolved, DNA-reliant cases which might have been solved if properly investigated in the traditional way.

Meanwhile, innocent people are still being added to the database at a rate of knots.  And now the government plans to make you pay if you want your DNA off the database.

At Big Brother Watch we're not luddites - we of course accept that technology has a role to play in law enforcement - but are juries told about errors like these?  Are they told that, according to the last study I know of on the subject (from the University of Texas in 2002), lab error occurs in one in every hundred DNA cases..?

**UPDATE** 26 November 2009: I note with interest that the Director of Prosecutions in Victoria, Australia's second-most populous state, has publicly cast doubt on the quality of DNA evidence used in past cases, including many resulting in convictions.  He promised an audit.  The Victorian police have replied that no such audit will take place.  An unhappy situation for all concerned - for victims and relatives of victims left uncertain as to whether the person convicted was the right individual; for law enforcement, whose achievements have doubt thrown over them; and for those wrongly convicted, offered a ray of hope, now ended.  As the report says, "it's not the first time the Victoria Police DNA database has been the subject of doubts. Last year Victoria Police dropped double murder charges after admitting the DNA evidence they had used was contaminated."

**UPDATE 2** 10 December 2009 A similar story detailing DNA processing errors has emerged in South Australia, where the authorities have claimed that the error doesn't matter because it was in the defendant's favour, so wouldn't lead to a wrongful conviction.  I'm not sure they get it... what if it had led to a wrongful acquittal?  Those of us who query the efficacy of DNA evidence don't want people acquitted willy-nilly, we want the guilty convicted and the innocent acquitted - which is supposedly the aim of the justice system per se.

**UPDATE 3** 21 December 2009 Scientist urges caution over DNA Eleanor Graham, from the East Midlands Forensic Pathology Unit at the University of Leicester, believes DNA should not be relied upon as the only form of conclusive evidence. She said: "I know scientists get into trouble in court because the lawyers try to push them to say about how a stain got into an area. I don't think DNA should ever be used on its own, although it can provide incredible intelligence."

Beware of The Times' Tom Baldwin

Tom Baldwin is back in London, writing political stories for The Times. Before a stint as a reporter for the same newspaper in America he became notorious for writing stories that bore Downing Street's imprint. His close connections to Alastair Campbell are still evident in the number of stories he has helped write in recent weeks about Blair's chances of becoming EU President. Pasted below are the headlines above other stories he has recently written. I don't suggest that he's not capable of writing anti-Labour stories but his heart and head appear dedicated to causing trouble for the Conservatives. If you ever see his name below a headline I urge you to take the story with a very large helping of salt...