CentreRight

A new Conservative government must reverse 'managed retreat' policies around our coast

Earlier this month Hilary Benn the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs lectured farmers on the need for them to produce more food in the UK, in order to combat climate change and feed a growing population. I am sure I was not the only one to be struck by the irony of that. Mr Benn is responsible for the Environment Agency whose ‘managed retreat’ policies propose abandoning to the sea thousands of acres of farmland that have for centuries been defended or even reclaimed from the sea.

Now, a think tank linked to the Royal Institute of British Architects has suggested applying the government’s ‘managed retreat’ policies even to UK cities, such as Hull and Portsmouth, as a possible response to rising sea levels. Their report suggested allowing parts of large urban areas on the UK coast to flood, while preserving their historic centres – so that they would become ‘like Venice’.

That so respected a body as the RIBA should suggest a partial abandonment of sea defences around cities shows quite how strongly the government’s deeply flawed 'managed retreat' option for sea defence has taken hold. The underlying reason for this is not that most of the areas currently under threat of 'managed retreat' are technically difficult to defend, although cost is certainly a factor in many instances. For an island nation it is shocking to think that we spend less than 0.1% of government spending on sea defence. However, the most fundamental reason is that neither the Environment Agency nor any other government body has any statutory duty to defend the British coast. Instead, the Environment Agency have what are termed permissive powers. In other words they are permitted to interfere in decisions about what sort of sea defences are allowed, but they do not actually have to do anything themselves.

Can someone please tell the Speaker to stop sounding off?

The BBC reported yesterday on John Bercow's latest fulminations against those of us who have called into question his wife's very personal attacks on David Cameron:

Commons Speaker John Bercow has attacked critics of his wife's decision to run for office as "old-fashioned, cowardly and downmarket".

Sally Bercow is standing as a Labour candidate for a seat on Westminster Council in May's local elections.

He told journalists that criticism of his wife's decision to run for office had come from the right-wing press.

"It is old-fashioned, cowardly and downmarket," he said.

Mr Bercow said attacks on his wife for criticising Mr Cameron had been "a lot of nonsense, absolutely unadulterated drivel".

Let's be clear: there is certainly an argument to be made that the Speaker's duty of impartiality should not prevent the Speaker's wife attacking the Leader of the Opposition and standing as a Labour candidate. There is also a case to be made that it does in fact present a problem - with at least an unwritten rule against it.

But surely the point is that this is the sort of political controversy is something the Speaker should not be giving his views on? This seems such an obvious point I find myself surprised I have to type it - until I realise it's a point that this Speaker has either missed or ignored. Likewise, his comments against the "right-wing press". What exactly does he think is wrong with some of our newspapers taking a right-wing line? And how can it possibly be appropriate for the Speaker of the House of Commons to be sneering about the ideological leanings or courage of political journalists?

Re: Nick Herbert: I am determined to curb the power of the supermarkets

Nick Herbert is clearly pretty upset with our criticism of his proposal for a Supermarket Ombudsman.  But, most of his arguments in response are pretty spurious.

The comparison Mark made on the TPA blog to the price-fixing that emerged from the First World War wasn't to suggest that the Conservatives were planning on putting exactly that set of rules and regulations in place.  It was simply making the case that Government intervention in agricultural markets tended to cause more harm than good and reanimating that principle is a very dubious idea.  Those policies, just like the regulator being proposed by the Liberal Democrats, will also have been rationalised as attempts to defend the interests of consumers.  But, they wound up proving entirely counterproductive.

This is particularly important because Nick can set out what he expects a Supermarket Ombudsman to achieve, and frame its objectives narrowly to address a particular perceived market abuse, but once such a quango is established it can steadily expand its remit and intervention in the market.

The Competition Commission actually found that most of the criticisms of the supermarkets didn't stand up to scrutiny.  Some examples:

"Many parties raised the strong market position of Tesco as a matter of concern. We did not find there to be competition concerns that apply to Tesco over and above those that apply to other grocery retailers."

"We found that large grocery retailers, particularly the four largest grocery retailers and especially Tesco, generally obtain lower prices from suppliers than wholesalers. We concluded that these differences in supplier prices in themselves do not give rise to an adverse effect on competition (AEC). Further, we did not find evidence that lower supplier prices for the four largest grocery retailers resulted in higher supplier prices for other grocery retailers and wholesalers."

"We concluded that the current and projected financial performance of the grocery wholesaling sector did not support a finding that the financial viability of the sector was threatened."

"We did not find that the pattern of below-cost selling by large grocery retailers represented behaviour that was predatory in relation to other grocery retailers and did not find that it was likely to have unintended consequences that would represent an AEC. Further, we did not find that below-cost selling was likely to mislead consumers in relation to the overall cost of shopping at a particular grocery store. We found that temporary promotions on some products, including fuel, to attract consumers and increase total sales (commonly referred to as ‘loss leading’) may represent effective competition between retailers and may benefit consumers by reducing the average price for a basket of products."

"Competition concerns have only been raised with us in the context of the vouchering activities of one grocery retailer, Tesco. We did not find that these activities were predatory or would otherwise have an AEC. Similarly, we did not find that the fuel price discount vouchering of large grocery retailers had an AEC. In our view, vouchering campaigns, in the absence of predatory behaviour, represent effective competition between retailers that benefits consumers by reducing their shopping bills."

"We found that Sainsbury’s and Tesco’s expansion in convenience store retailing was likely to have been supported in large part by their existing advantages in terms of brand reputations, low purchasing prices and distribution networks. We did not find their expansion in this sector to be anti-competitive, and to the extent that it has resulted in increased competition, consumers will have benefited. Further, we did not find that Sainsbury’s and Tesco’s expansion in convenience store retailing weakened the competitive constraint on Sainsbury’s or Tesco such that it led to a deterioration in their retail offer (either at their convenience stores or other grocery stores) or a loss of choice in grocery stores for consumers."

Sorry to pull such a large number of quotes from the report, but it is important to make clear that it is dominated by evidence of a well-functioning market, with fierce competition to attract customers.  You can see that in the fortunes of the different supermarkets recently, with Tesco losing ground to other supermarkets then recovering after it improved its proposition to consumers, for example by strengthening the Clubcard scheme.

Polishing His Government

Labour are bringing back their pledge card, that most potent of electoral weapons from their giddy 1997 campaign. But what will feature on Prime Minister Brown's New Plastificated Pledge Sheet? We get a sneak preview:

• Pledge 1: Lord Mandelson Will Run The Government, For Ever ... no matter how often he is forced to resign for mortgage fraud or whatever. Only little people worry about such matters. What are you, a little person?

Cheap booze is only part of the problem

In 1993 fifty-three people died as a result of the same cause – and no regulation came of it. But when four people died in one part of the country from a particular incident, it resulted in massive regulation. The first were accidents in the bathtub and the second was the Lyme Regis boating accident (schoolchildren on an adventure holiday) – which followed a massive campaign by the Daily Mail. No one doubts the tragedy of the Lyme Regis accident but the restrictions resulting from the legislation following from it has curtailed schools and youth groups from even attempting to offer the sort of life transforming experiences that children need as part of a healthy, balanced upbringing.

Legislation in response to knee-jerk campaigns is always dangerous. Typically it is formed in the crucible of national revulsion, whipped up by salacious stories and media campaigns. I fear the same is about to happen with the price restrictions the government are said to be planning on alcohol. Whatever one thinks about the pictures of young people passed out on snow covered city centre park benches on New Year's Eve I think it is unlikely that increasing the price of the drinks they can buy will make much difference. To me it is obvious that the problem is far more ingrained in the psyche of our young people, in a culture that prizes "getting smashed" on a Friday night and where drink is the solution to low self esteem, boredom and lack of purpose.

The Government Chief Whip wants to Save General Election Night - because Friday counts increase the scope for electoral fraud

When I founded the Save General Election Night campaign, I set out a whole range of reasons as to why it is important that the votes are counted immediately at the close of poll on the Thursday night.

I downplayed the issue of the risk to the integrity of the ballot through having millions of ballot papers left uncounted overnight in thousands of unopened ballot boxes.

But in an intervention in support of the campaign's aim, no less a figure than the Government Chief Whip, Nick Brown, has today called for the retention of Thursday counts in order to minimise the risk of electoral fraud.

Mr Brown is MP for Newcastle East and Wallsend, which falls within Newcastle Council - an authority which is insistent on counting the ballot papers on the Friday morning at the coming general election.

He tells the Newcastle Journal:

“The reason the votes are counted immediately after the polls close is to stop people cheating.

“Leaving blank ballot papers and lists of those who haven’t voted and the ballot boxes all together in the same place overnight is not a reassuring prospect. The scope for fraud is obvious.”

Roger Helmer MEP: EU lies and Lib Dem spin

By Roger Helmer MEP

With the wretched Lisbon Treaty coming into force this month, we had a briefing on its implications today in the European Conservatives Group in Brussels.  This included, inter alia, a briefing from my good colleague Ashley Fox, who represents South West England, on relations with national parliaments.

Apologists for the Lisbon Treaty, like the Lib Dem MEP Andrew Duff (Eastern England), like to claim that Lisbon enhances the powers of national parliaments.  Duff is a pleasant enough chap, and I hesitate to accuse him of the mendacious deceitfulness which characterises his party.  But he must know that this claim is nonsense.  Let's consider the process.

Lisbon gives national parliaments certain rights to be informed of EU decisions (as if they could not be so informed).  It then offers the right for a third of national parliaments, acting together, to express their reservations to the Commission if they feel that a Commission proposal compromises subsidiarity (a right they presumably had anyway, with or without Lisbon).  This is the so-called "Yellow Card".   The Commission has to consider this objection but can proceed with its proposal if it doesn´t consider it is justified.

Should the Commission ignore the "yellow card" then a simple majority of national parliaments (currently fourteen) can raise a second objection to the Commission.  This is the so-called "Orange Card".  And this requires action: the Commission must then refer the objection to the Council and the European parliament for a resolution.

So how will this work in practice?  For a start, there is no trans-national mechanism for co-operation between national parliaments, so it is difficult to envisage the Yellow/Orange Card procedure being invoked at all.  And if it is invoked?  The Yellow Card is a paper tiger.  It has no teeth: the Commission can ignore it.   And the Orange Card?  Given that the Council consists of national governments, who broadly control their national parliaments, and given further that the European parliament always favours more, and more rapid, EU integration, it is extraordinarily improbable that the Council and parliament together would act to block a Commission proposal and to support a demand for subsidiarity.

So the procedure is likely to have no effect at all, even if invoked, which is unlikely in the first place.  Why, therefore is the procedure in the Treaty at all?  It is merely window dressing and spin.  It is there simply so that people like Andrew Duff can talk about "increased powers for national parliaments", knowing those "powers" to be so circumscribed as to be meaningless.

Needless to say, there is no Red Card.

Could Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat go Republican?

With only six days to go until Massachusetts voters go to the polls, it appears as if the Republicans are in serious contention for the late Ted Kennedy’s United State Senate seat.

Over the past few days, polls have shown Republican Scott Brown within striking distance of the state’s Attorney General Martha Coakley. Coakley’s 30% lead in October fell to 15% at the start of this month and, in the two polls released in the three days, Coakley records a 9% lead in one while the other shows Brown edging the Democrat by 1%.

An eminently likeable State Senator, Brown has performed well in television debates and has managed to put some distance between his message and that of national Republicans who have wisely avoided getting involved in the race. His campaign adverts have directly quoted John F. Kennedy's comments on the importance of tax cuts, featured images of him in National Guard uniform and touted his socially-moderate credentials. 

Coakley, on the other hand, is a rather chilly personality whose campaign has been based more around her party label than her notable achievements as both the state's Attorney General and the former District Attorney of the state's largest county. In the dying days of the campaign she appears to be training her fire on Brown's rather tenuous links to the Bush administration and opposition to abortion (this rather effective ad went live yesterday).

Brown has already hit back with a personally-grounded ad critical of Coakley's partisanship. His two daughters, one of them a local celebrity following her semi-final appearance on the US version of Pop Idol, have hit the airwaves directly answering allegations he would block the provision of emergency contraceptives to rape victims ("my Dad would always stand up for the rights and needs of rape victims, and he’s kind, understanding and he’s a very compassionate father and man").

When all's said and done, Coakley's strategy will probably pay off.

Despite Brown's impressive fundraising haul in recent days, she retains a significant financial advantage over the Republican. To add to this, Massachusetts voters gave Barack Obama 62% of the vote last year and last elected a Republican to the Senate in 1978.

Electorally-speaking, however, stranger things have happened than a Brown victory.

In the months leading up to the Presidential election last year, Democratic challengers won “special elections” (by-elections) for open Congressional seats in Louisiana and Mississippi which had backed George W. Bush by equally impressive margins in 2004.

The outcome of US special elections, particularly those taking place in states under a thick blanket of snow and battered by chilly breezes, is largely driven by turnout – which rarely climbs above 25%. Barack Obama remains relatively popular in Massachusetts but the same cannot be said of Democratic Governor Deval Patrick whose approval rating stands at a positively Bushesque 22%. 

Even in a state as blue as Massachusetts, a motivated Republican base has the ability to defeat the dominant Democratic machine. Republicans held the Governor's mansion from 1990 to 2006, most recently under Mitt Romney.

For both Democrats and Republicans, the implications of a Brown victory cannot be underestimated.

A Brown victory would instantly deny Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid the 60-vote super-majority he needs in order to prevent the Republican Senators from filibustering key votes on healthcare reform and the President’s judicial nominees. The longest-serving member of the Massachusetts congressional delegation Ed Markey is far from sanguine about a Coakley loss saying that "if we don't win this, 2010 will be hell for Democrats".

Legislatively-speaking, a Brown victory would do little more for the Republicans than strengthen the ability of the “party of no” to say “no” just that little forcefully. It would, however, act as a major shot in the arm for activists and congressional challengers across the country for whom electoral annihilation has become a way of life over the past four years.

Come Tuesday, all eyes will be on the Bay State.

Families include grandparents

Politicians have been talking a lot about the family recently. But it often appears they have a restricted view of what the family is - 2 generations; parents and young children. There's very little evidence of serious detailed policy consideration or priority being given to older people. This is bad policy and bad politics.

The first baby boomers are going to be 64 this year. As the Beatles sang, so we as a society need to ask ourselves: "Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm 64?" - although with longevity I would add another 20 years and ask what's our policy to show 84 year olds that we still need them, value them, and will care for and feed them?

I have blogged before about the impact of ageing and dementia care. Although we don't think about it very much, more people are dying too now; the 30-year downward trend in numbers of deaths is being reversed. Technology has enabled us to postpone death not cancel it. This will contribute to the pressures on the system. At a time of limited resources we need to think openly, clearly and creatively about what sort of future we want for ourselves when we get older, and make sure we change things to give the same opportunities to older people now. The way we care for people at and approaching the end of life is a litmus test for our worth as a society. We are too often failing it at the moment.

I will post more in due course about this. in the meantime, do read this article by Alice Thomson, which puts this really well.

Mark Field MP: An instructive visit to Bangladesh

Mark Field is MP for Cities of London and Westminster and Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Bangladesh. Here he reports back on a trip to Bangladesh last week with a group of UK Conservatives of Bengali origin.

In the near four decades since the civil war that created Bangladesh and resulted in a first huge wave of migration from that country to this, Bangladeshi Britons have been a highly reliable bloc of support for the Labour Party.

This is changing… and fast.

Last week I led a delegation of British Conservatives to Dhaka and Sylhet. Our team consisted of Tim Archer (the PPC in Poplar & Limehouse, a “must win” marginal with a current 4,000 Labour majority), Cllr Mehfuz Ahmed from Westminster North (who won his seat in a sensational by-election victory in 2008), Cllr Ahmed Hussain (Tower Hamlets) and two other Tory council candidates for May in Tower Hamlets, Zakir Khan (from the Canary Wharf Group, the sponsors of the trip) and Sabrina Hussain. Our team of thirty-somethings (present correspondent excepted!) reflected an upsurge in interest from British Bengalis in London and other cities keen to make their way in our Party.

No longer is this a bloc vote that Labour can take for granted, especially as a new young – and not so young - generation of British Bengalis becomes more self-reliant, affluent and consumerist in its political allegiances.

The highlight of the first leg of our trip in the Capital, Dhaka, was a meeting with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Frankly I was astonished that our motley delegation was able to get such high level access. Indeed, the PM asked me pertinent questions about likely UK election timing and results and seemed fully briefed as to its likely outcome, so we were not entirely surprised that our billed “courtesy call” turned into a lively 25-minute long meeting which was extensively featured in the Bangladeshi media the next day.

Our discussions focused on the thawing of Bangladeshi/India relations, especially important as the latter rapidly develops world economic power status. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina also spoke warmly of her initiatives to make life easier for those Bengali Britons wishing to invest and develop businesses in the country.

Neil Kinnock warns Labour not to forget that "self-inflicted wounds are the ones that turn septic most quickly"

Tonight I'll be attending a reception in Westminster organised by the Opposition Studies Forum which will be addressed by former Opposition Leaders, Michael Howard and Lord Kinnock.

Along with Charles Kennedy, they serve as Honorary Presidents of the OSF, which was founded last year by Nigel Fletcher, who is currently researching a doctoral thesis on Parliamentary Opposition at King's College London.

In advance of tonight's event, the trio have issued statements commending the work of the OSF in studying the politics of opposition. Yet Kinnock's word's - reflecting on Labour's civil war in the 1980s - have an extraordinarily contemporary resonance for his party, given the events of recent days:

“Opposition can be hell.  But the lessons you learn whilst you’re there are hugely important – if you learn them. One is that real disabling damage can often come from inside. I think that applies to all oppositions, and it certainly applies to governments. You get a bad cut from the other side, it’ll hurt but you can usually deal with it. Self inflicted wounds are the ones that turn septic most quickly, and where gangrene sets in. We had to stop harming ourselves, learn some discipline and get serious before anyone else would take us seriously, and we should never forget that.”

Definitions of freedom

A small forest has already been cut down to print the column acres of analysis of the abortive Hewitt-Hoon plot last week. Nonetheless, I'm going to indulge in a little bit more.

This isn't really a bit of Kremlinology or speculation on who was behind it all, but rather an insight into the way the Left thinks.

Hewitt and Hoon's letter was not, as it is generally characterised, the announcement of a specific leadership challenge, but a call for a vote of no confidence. In its own way, that was quite a clever attempt at avoiding the pitfalls that wrecked previous challenges to Brown's authorit.

The anti-Brown rebels on Labour's benches have typically hit two major obstacles in the past. The first is that the potential challengers, such as David Miliband, have proved too cowardly to put their heads above the parapet. The second is that even if you have a willing challenger, the Labour Party's constitution requires them to get the fairly high number of 70 Labour MPs to publicly support the challenge for it to become official.

The idea for a vote of no confidence sidesteps both of those issues - no need for a challenger as a figurehead, and no constitutional requirement for a set number of MPs to back you. Of course, the plot fell down on its own in-built walking pitfall, Geoff Hoon, but their tactic did have some logic to it.

It was the reaction of Brown's allies and the Party authorities that was particularly revealing, though. They simply declared that the vote of the Parliamentary Labour Party proposed by the plotters was "unconstitutional" as there were no provisions for it in the Party Constitution.

This illustrates the fundamental philosophical difference between Right and Left. Whereas the Right generally take the view that you are allowed to do anything unless it is explicitly forbidden, the Left assume that you can only have rights that are explicitly granted by the rules. For the Right, your freedom was born with you and can only be taken away by rules and regulations, and for the Left, what freedom you have is given to you by the powers that be.

The power to stop and search at random is unlawful

So ruled the European Court of Human Rights today.

Today is a great day for freedom.  Random stop and search powers were an abuse of our historic, hard-won liberties. 

No successful prosecutions for terrorism offences resulted from these draconian stop and search powers.  They failed to safeguard us from anything - they served only to intimidate, and to empower officials to intrude on us and our privacy without just cause - a terrible inversion of the proper relationship between the individual and the state, as I've pointed out previously on behalf of Big Brother Watch.

What this tremendous judgment cannot undo is the embarrassment and anguish felt by the many people abused for no good reason under this now unlawful power.

We must fight this last battle to clean up MPs' expenses

Whatever you do today, please, please, please respond to the final consultation on MPs' expenses.

When, on 4th November, Sir Christopher Kelly delivered a popular, coherent and firm manifesto on how to clean up Parliament, it was widely assumed that his decisive action meant that the expenses problem was going to be sorted out.

After all, they were a solid set of practical reforms built on a foundation of massive public demand and issued by an authoritative source. Kelly's proposals also had the unequivocal backing of all three main political parties.

They had, however, forgotten something. Back in the summer, when MPs lived in fear of being phoned by a Telegraph journalist, the Commons rushed through a new Act that they hoped might deflect some of the criticism by demonstrating a willingness to reform the system. In doing so, they created IPSA, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority - the quango which is now charged with designing and then running the new system of MPs' expenses.

By virtue of the Act that created it, IPSA is now legally bound to hold one last consultation which will produce the eventual system of MPs' expenses.

This is undoubtedly frustrating. After all, the Kelly inquiry was popular, attracted plenty of evidence submissions and produced a set of recommendations that would have done the job very well. Now, with IPSAs consultation there is a danger that the public will begin to feel that, EU-style, the establishment intends to keep asking the question until they get the answer MPs rather than the public prefer.

That may or may not be IPSA's intention. Many IPSA staff whom I have met seem to just want to get on with implementing Kelly's proposals. Sir Ian Kennedy, the IPSA Chairman (whom I haven't met), has been widely reported in the media over recent days to have sympathies that fall far short of the public's views, particularly on the employment of family members and the number of MPs who should be able to get free London accommodation.

What is certain that a determined and hard-bitten bunch of MPs are engaged in a coordinated campaign to use this final consultation to so drastically water down and fudge Kelly's proposals that they will be allowed to carry on with business as usual.

This is why it is crucial that the largest number of people possible respond to IPSA's consultation to insist that the reforms must be firm and clear. Kelly has demonstrated that a transparent, modern, and honest system is perfectly possible - and it is now down to all of us to insist that his proposals are adopted.

At the TPA blog we've published a question by question guide to the consultation, which may well be of use and interest to you all when making your own responses. You can find our guide to the consultation here.

Gordon Brown killed aspiration by a thousand cuts

Gordon Brown's mantra of aspiration is either a remarkable reversal of his policies, or cynical spin at par with the lies floated by Labour back in 1997.

After thirteen years social mobility is at an all time low.  Vast numbers of people have been pushed into state dependency and are punished if they try to climb out of it.  As a councillor I regularly meet perfectly able and intelligent young people who only work minimum hours out of fear that otherwise their welfare payments will be taken away.  Grammar schools are stifled in their expansion and the assisted places scheme – allowing the poorest to go to the best schools – have been abolished by Labour.  Labour doubled the tax rate for the working poor from 10 to 20 % and urged them to claim tax credits instead.  Clear red water: give us your pay and we'll give you state alms instead.  For thirteen years Brown was the driving force behind pushing aspiration to the margins of society.

Is his clarion call for aspiration just cynical spin?  Would that be unheard of?  Labour famously won the 1997 elections after Tony cuddled up to the middle classes.  Tony and Gordon then proceeded to increase the size of the state from 39 to more than 47 % of GDP – a truly massive increase of socialism.  Who pays for this? The wealthy have tax shelters or (increasingly) flee.  Those on benefits don't pay .  So who does?  Those who are in work.  Those who are no yet wealthy enough to afford tax advisers.  Those who are not net recipients of state handouts.  In other words: the lower middle and middle classes.  If ever turkeys voted for Christmas it was in 1997, 2001 and 2005.

So what is it: has Brown come to his senses, and will he reverse his socialist policies and reduce the size of the state to allow the aspirational to thrive?  Or is it cynical spin?

Why London should not say a farewell to arms

The governing authority of a great city like London should have its own coat of arms – not only to celebrate its centuries of history as our capital city but to project London 's corporate image in the future, not least with the 2012 Olympics fast approaching. I’m campaigning for the Greater London Authority to resume the long-established convention that London as a whole has a coat of arms. I’m glad to have the support of assembly members Brian Coleman and Roger Evans in this endeavour.

Even under Ken Livingstone in the 1980s the then GLC possessed a coat of arms, as did its predecessor London County Council. Therefore, it’s hard to think of a reason why the GLA should now not have a coat of arms. Since the creation of the GLA in 1999, London has been a combined capital city and administrative region with an incorporated authority but no coat of arms. This is unusual among great European cities and probably unique among European capitals (not to mention the fact that many city and town councils across the UK have their own arms).

The creation of the GLA should have been accompanied by the transfer of the old GLC arms, or the creation and grant of a new design. The College of Arms told me that it had written to the Mayor’s office to raise the matter in May 2008 following the election of Boris Johnson but after a couple of months heard back from a City Hall official that there were no plans to seek a coat of arms for London.

Respect for and equality before the law

Martin and Cranmer have both discussed the refusal of seven Muslims to stand when the judge entered court at their trial, on the grounds that they stand for no-one but Allah.  Each of them attempts to argue that Islam includes no such rule.  Neither discusses what seems to me to be an interesting question of whether they would, in practice, have refused to stand had the judge been a man rather than a woman.

I personally find it inappropriate and (in the literal sense) offensive when non-Muslims attempt to pronounce upon what is or is not true Islam.  I certainly have no interest whatever in the opinions of non-Christians as to whether true Christianity "really" opposes all wars or forbids homosexual practice or the various other issues upon which non-Christians presume to pronounce.  (I have great interest in their views as to whether practicing homosexuality is right or whether we should all be pacifists, but that is quite a different matter from my regarding non-Christians as religious authorities, well-placed to pronounce upon the true nature of a religion they do not share.)  I imagine that many Muslims must feel much the same when Jack Straw or Tony Blair lecture them upon whether true Islam really requires women to wear veils.  Those that publicly disavow involvement in a religion have thereby disqualified themselves from pronouncing upon the "true" content of that religion.  (People can, of course, say things along the lines of "My understanding of the orthodox teaching of Islam is..." or "The form of Islam I have always found most attractive teaches, I believe, that..."  But neither the orthodox form of a religion nor the form I might find most attractive as a non-believer is the same thing as the "true" form of that religion - the form the god in question really commands/desires (if it exists and does issue commands/have desires).)

Martin and Cranmer are both quite right to be disturbed by the case, but not, in my view, because it involves any distortion of orthodox Islam (which they may well be right that it does).  Here is my take.

Islamists make up their own rules

This week seven Islamists refused to follow court procedure by standing up when the judge entered court. The seven were accused of shouting abuse at soldiers of the Royal Anglian Regiment during a home coming parade on the regiment's return from Iraq last March. The abuse included:

 "British solders, murderers," "British solders, baby killers.," "British solders go to hell," British soldiers burn in hell," "Baby killers and rapists all of you" and "British solders, you will pay."

Appearing in court this week the seven refused to stand as the judge entered the court room, claiming that their religion only allowed them to stand up for Allah.

Now I have read the entire Qur’an, large parts of the vast number of Hadith, as well as Islamic commentaries and so forth and I have to confess that I have never come across that one. Nor, I suspect, have the vast majority of ordinary British Muslims, most of whom come from cultural backgrounds that place a far greater emphasis on honour and respect than is common elsewhere in Britain - and there is much in that respect that some of the less polite members of British society could learn from them!

Now, the reason why so few people have ever come across this claim is that one of the fundamental beliefs of Islamism is, to simplify things just slightly, that you can make up the rules yourself about what is and isn’t ‘Islamic’.

Classical Islam fixed the interpretations (ijtihad) of the Qur’an in medieval times and most Islamic theological schools are based on rote learning of those interpretations. However, Islamists, whether in Afghanistan or in the UK, claim the right to reopen the door of Qur’anic interpretation (ijtihad) and come up with their own interpretations. In theological terms this is the essence of Islamism.

Terrorism and our way of being

One way for terrorists to win is if they murder so many people and cause so much disruption (or so much terror) that we are forced to come to an accommodation with them - changing our foreign policy, say, surrendering control of certain countries to the leaders of the terrorists, making special allowance for the operation and flourishing of organisations backed by the terrorists within our own countries.

But another way for the terrorists to win is if we respond to terrorism by turning ourselves into them or into what they want us to be; if we give up our goals and values and way of being.  Tony Blair used to give excellent expression to this point (though, alas, in this as in so much, his actions did not always match his rhetoric).  Barack Obama has begun to do so recently.

Daniel Kawczynski MP: Veterans suffering combat stress should qualify for severe weather payments

Daniel Kawczynski MP makes his point by way of an open letter to Gordon Brown:

Dear Prime Minister,

You claim to be committed to our veterans who have suffered from combat stress. Yet your Government has excluded our combat stress veterans from extra funding during cold weather.

Your Government is today providing an extra payment to help towards extra heating costs incurred during the severe weather conditions for people on a low income and in receipt of the following benefits:

• Income Support
• Employment and Support Allowance (income-related)
• Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
• Pension Credit

This payment is paid automatically when the average temperature in each area is recorded as, or forecast to be, zero degrees or below over seven consecutive days during the period from 1 November to 31 March.

However, many people who do not qualify for this payment still have trouble heating their homes, including combat stress veterans. It is often our most vulnerable citizens who have the most difficulty making ends meet. Quite simply, hard-pressed families should not have to choose between keeping warm and getting into debt.

The sacrifices made by veterans in service of this country are nothing short of inspirational, and they deserve not only the respect and gratitude of its citizens but the support and empathy of its government.

My constituent, Jim Geraghty, and other combat stress veterans have been told by the relevant department in Walsall that they are not entitled to this payment. I would like to ask you why your Government is not offering more support for combat stress veterans who are suffering as a result of this severe weather. Please use your position to change the eligibility criteria so that our combat stress veterans get their extra £25 payment during the severe weather we have experienced.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Kawczynski MP

Paul Goodman MP: A transcript of a recent Islam4UK committee meeting

By Paul Goodman

Readers will be following the row about Anjem Choudary’s Islam4UK and its proposed march through Wootton Bassett.

I can now reveal exclusively a recent transcript of an Islam4UK committee meeting, which has fallen into my hands.

ConservativeHome has kindly agreed to publish it in the public interest:

Choudary: Order, order.  OK, now.  We need exclusives.  We need scoops.  We need the front page.  I want ideas, creativity, stunts –

Voice One: - OK boss, how’s this?

Choudary: Fire away.

Voice One:   Er…let’s see now…how about a photo of Buckingham Palace on our website with…with a giant mosque superimposed!

Choudary (wearily):   We’ve done that.

Voice Two: Me, boss!  Me, me, me!

Choudary: Go ahead.

Voice Two:  Well…how about…how about a picture of Nelson’s column with…with Nelson taken off the top…and a huge crescent put on!

This month's Standpoint magazine

I have to admit, I am becoming a fan of the new magazine Standpoint. I have no vested interest in promoting it, other than that it contains articles which I believe convey important messages for our society and our policy makers today.

The current issue is particularly worth reading, and for that reason I want to draw ConservativeHome readers' attention to it. In particular, to two articles, which while seemingly cover totally different topics, are actually two sides of the same coin.

First, a fascinating article by Geoffrey Robertson QC, prosecutor of numerous war criminals around the world and author of a superb book Crimes against Humanity. Robertson comes out strongly in support of the Conservatives' proposal for a British Bill of Rights. He says:

David Cameron's call for a British Bill of Rights deserves enthusiastic support

He cites our heritage as one reason for supporting the proposal:

..... as a document that will teach our children to take pride in their heritage and history. Take the prohibition on torture: how many know that it was abominated by the common law and abolished along with Star Chamber, while it flourished for centuries afterwards in Europe, solemnly ordered by French and Italian judges? How many can trace freedom of speech to John Milton and "freeborn John" Lilburne, and later to Erskine's defence of the brave booksellers who sold the work of Tom Paine? Or the development of fair trial to the forensic genius of William Garrow, or how the right to hold governments legally accountable for abuses of power began with John Wilkes and Chief Justice Pratt? These rights should be recognised, in our schools as in our courts, as living parts of our own culture, rather than remain lost in the uninspiring Euro-prose of a "European" Convention.

DUP MP Iris Robinson admits to having had an affair

It has emerged tonight that Iris Robinson, the DUP MP and MLA for Strangford, tried to commit suicide last year after having an affair.

The wife of Northern Ireland's First Minister, Peter Robinson, she announced her impending retirement from politics at the end of December, citing mental illness. “The stress and strain of public life comes at a cost and my health has suffered,” she was quoted as saying.

But tonight she has revealed the details which led to her making that decision:

"Over a year and a half ago, I was involved in a relationship. It began completely innocently when I gave support to someone following a family death. I encouraged friends to assist him by providing financial support for a business venture. Regrettably, the relationship later developed into a brief affair. It had no emotional or last meaning but my actions have devastated my life and the lives of those around me."

"I am aware that I did not only hurt Peter, I hurt my family and friends. I let down thousands of people who placed their faith in me and though my medical condition was a factor, I was not, at this time, true to the values, I professed. I grieve that I have damaged my profession in Christ, but I am comforted that He was able to forgive even me... So great was my guilt and regret that I tried to take my own life ten months ago... While, as might be expected, I am struggling at present with my illness and receiving treatment I am determined to regain my health and strength, and work to repair the damage I have caused to my marriage and family."

The BBC has her full statement.

She has worn her religion on her sleeve as a politician, telling the Commons duringa  debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in May 2008, for example:

"I make no apology for speaking as a born-again Christian. I represent the voice of those who look to a higher authority — one to whom we will all one day answer for the decisions that we make in the House."

But her most infamous pronouncement was telling a Common committee that "there can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children".

She defended here position in the Belfast Telegraph at the time thus:

"Can you think of anything more vile than man and man or woman and woman and sexually abusing children? What I say I base on biblical pronouncements, based on God’s word... I cannot think of anything more sickening than a child being abused. It is comparable to the act of homosexuality. I think they are all comparable. I feel totally repulsed by both.”

With Brown, or without him, Labour doesn't have the cojones

When Brown stood for the leadership, there should have been an election, as he had many opponents and doubters even then and it would have been healthy for the party to have an election given that it had been 13 years since the last one, but in the end no-one serious had the cojones.

Brown toyed with having an election in October 2007 (when he'd have lost), but when the Conservatives didn't roll over and die, and the opinion polls turned even slightly against him, he didn't have the cojones.

The snowstorm plot

By Paul Goodman MP

So we have what the lobby is bound to label “the snowstorm plot” – or something like it.  But are Hoon and Hewitt a conspiracy of two, or are they part of a wider, carefully-choreographed manoeuvre?

One suggestion at the Commons is that Hoon was promised the elusive EU Commissioner post which went not to him, nor even to Mandelson, but to Baroness Ashton.  It’s one that the Labour Whips are sure not to minimise.

Hewitt is more interesting, in her way.  Her father was Sir Lenox Hewitt, a former senior Australian civil servant and later Chairman of Quantas.  He was apparently on extremely friendly terms with the late Otto Clarke, a former Second Permanent Secretary at the Treasury and Permanent Secretary of the Minister for Aviation, and father of…Charles Clarke.  This is one of the origins of the Hewitt-Clarke connection.

Readers will need little reminding that Clarke isn’t Brown’s greatest fan.  It’s unlikely, to say the least, that Clarke and Hewitt won’t have exchanged New Year greetings.  Inevitably, a question in the corridors is whether a Minister, or more than one, or a Cabinet Minister (or more than one), will quit later today, perhaps in time for the Six O’Clock news?

Without resignations, it’s quite difficult to see the lever that would force Brown out.  Some will argue that a new Labour leader would be better for us; others the opposite.  What’s certain is that a general election now would be best for the country.  Oh, and don’t forget: the voters didn’t get the chance to validate this Prime Minister in the first place.

P.S. Hewitt’s just said on Sky that she’s prepared to call for a secret leadership ballot… but not to say how she’d vote in that ballot. Risible.