CentreRight

William Hague needs to issue a new statement on the flotilla incident

When William Hague released his first statement about the confrontation this morning we didn't know a lot about what had happened.  With growing evidence that the conflict was driven by a violent attack on Israeli soldiers by the "peace activists" on the boat, he needs to issue a new statement that better reflects that reality.

While it is reasonable that the statement earlier today talks about discovering "whether enough was done to prevent deaths and injuries", it does not properly balance that with a condemnation of attempts to force the Israeli Defence Force to use lethal force.  And it does not reflect the evidence that the soldiers were responding to a clear threat to their lives.

Hague's current statement, despite the diplomatic language, is unfair on Israel and needs to be replaced.  By suggesting that Israel is diplomatically isolated, it will encourage Turkey in actions that would constitute a massive escalation, such as sending new ships under guard from the Turkish navy.  That would be incredibly dangerous and very much against Britain's interests.

The evidence emerging suggests four important considerations that should inform a new statement:

Is now really the time for the Queen to be asking for more public cash?

There have been several reports over the last couple of days that the Queen is seeking an increase in the annual £7.9 million civil list payments.

These payments have, according to the BBC, been frozen since 2000 "to compensate for 10 years of over-generous payments", but have not been sufficient to run the Royal household for several years, meaning that reserves have been dipped into to plug the shortfall.

Given the spending cuts on which the Government is embarking, it is unfortunate that the request for more funds from the Queen's Treasurer is coming now.

However, it should be pointed out that the timing is out of the Royal Family's hands - it is simply a fact that the ten-yearly civil list review is due by the first week of July.

I am an ardent monarchist and would not want the institution to be harmed, and trust that the Royal household too are mindful of the need to be reasonable in making a case for an increase in funding.

However, I also trust that Conservative MP Edward Leigh, the outgoing chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, knows more than me about the facts and figures on this matter. He says:

"The Queen, without any shadow of a doubt, needs substantially more money to carry out her duties and responsibilities. There is a lot of catching up to do. The Queen and the Royal Family do a fantastic job considering their very small resources.

"The boost to tourism, to tradition and to the country is enormous. They should be given a lot more money so they can do their job properly. The Queen's [financial] operations and the royal palaces are - compared with the rest of the public sector - exceptionally well run."

Laws' resignation: the consequence of setting the bar too low

Just over a year ago, I argued that most MPs had not been unethical in their expenses claims.  I went on to try to persuade readers that being "ethical" in this context meant principally to abide by the rules and the spirit of those rules, and that the "spirit of the rules" is largely a matter of behaving in a similar way to one's colleagues and in a way that those determining the paying out of allowances would, upon full disclosure, still be prepared to grant allowances.

Why should my old friend Ben tell David Laws how to live his life?

Ben Summerskill, Stonewall's Chief Executive, writes in tomorrow's Observer:

"Pious political parties (that is, all of them) whisper privately that there are more gay MPs than the public imagines."

"But how can anyone 'represent' a community of interest if they're entirely unable ever to admit that they belong to it?"

"Some of us hope for a Britain where one day Westminster is grownup enough to select and promote politicians from all sorts of backgrounds."

I'm very fond of Ben, with whom I had cordial dealings when in the Conservative Shadow DCLG team.  (He must think my views are dotty. He was too polite ever to show it.)

But the assumption behind his words - namely, that there are too few gay MPs and that, once elected, they necessarily represent "a community of interest" - is, to say the least, questionable.

Barack Obama 32, George W Bush 24*

The number of times America's 44th President has played golf in 17 months of being in office and the number of times America's 43rd President played golf in eight years of being America's Commander-in-Chief.

Source: BBC.

What David Laws did with a pot plant

David Laws was apparently offered a new pot plant for his Treasury Office when he arrived there for the first time.

The story is that Laws refused to take it.

That he asked while doing so how much the Treasury spends on pot plants.

That he got an answer quickly.

And that the Treasury no longer has a budget for pot plants.

"It's not the sort of thing we comment on," a Treasury spokesman tells me guardedly, when I ring.

David Laws - don't you love him?

A vignette from the Cameron-Clegg age

A couple of incidents have got me musing about life in these Con-Lib Dem days (I'm sorry my yellow friends, but the Conservatives really should come first in the coalition's title.)

Strolling to the pub to dine with the heroic couple who have hosted me in London for the last few weeks, I happened upon an ugly scene. A man was arguing very aggressively with a woman, who slapped him. I may not be an impressive physical specimen as such but I am a large one, and I feel duty-bound on these occasions to ask the woman if she is OK if I am in any doubt. 

I don't particularly relish doing it. At best it is embarrassing. But hitherto the woman has always been grateful, and the guy usually has the decency to calm down. Yet it is emasculating for a bloke to be challenged, albeit indirectly (I never speak to the chap, addressing the lady exclusively), and last night the man (sic) in question indicated his displeasure and adopted a threatening tone.

From 9am to 1.21pm - working for the tax man

How long do you work for the tax man? This is the new TaxPayers' Alliance video that shows the amount of time an average man works each day just to pay taxes, compared to how long he works for himself. I hope you enjoy it - it's being released today in advance of the Adam Smith Institute's Tax Freedom Day, which falls this year on Sunday 30th May.

How The East Was Lost

Exhibit One: The Hipster Loses His Girl

I see his heavy eyelids flutter (in the words of the song). He’s desperate to impress the girl sat across from him, so nervous to create the right cool-as-**** impression that his fingers are fumbling over the pathetic roll-up he’s trying to make. Shreds of tobacco float away on the warm summer air.

- So like there’s no way I’d vote Tory man? The sense he intended was “I wouldn’t vote Tory, man” but his meaning is still clear.

- No, no way man, she agrees with him, but absentmindedly, flicking her long hair about and looking across the road to the park. She’s very, very bored. Then she goes:

- Oh look, there’s Gary! and her face is transformed, lit up.

Gary comes up and I look away. I know him, in that I recognise him and know why he’s here. The local hard man. “Authentic” (aye right) east end rough. Done up like a gayboy parody of a skinhead, down to the prison-white trainers and the tattoo crawling up his neck. He aspires to be top dog but I’m not sure he’s managed it; he’s certainly always careful to exhibit submissive behaviour when the two rastas who supply most of this street are about. He’s a vicious, drug-dealing psycho; but he’s also undeniably very, very sexy: particularly to these white middle-class students. To both of them. He sits down on the same bench as the girl, sideways-on to her, legs astride the bench. The other boy babbles on something about the election tomorrow, but even I can’t be bothered listening to him anymore.

- What election, man? says Gary, putting his hand into the girl’s hair. He mutters something in her ear and she starts laughing.

Keith and Andrew come up to where I’m waiting and we go off to canvass the Suffolk estate. We’re three boys in our corduroys, we’re not terrific but we’re competent. In the words of the song.

Daniel Kawczynski MP: Any referendum on changing the electoral system should be subject to a threshold of approval from 40% of the electorate

By Daniel Kawczynski MP, Chairman of All Party Group for the Promotion of First Past the Post

In light of the result of the recent General Election, and the subsequent coalition agreement between my party and the Liberal Democrats, the issue of electoral reform has been propelled to the political centre-stage. Our tried-and-tested First Past the Post electoral system now faces an unprecedented level of scrutiny from all angles, much of which is, at best, misinformed. At such a fast-paced and chaotic period of political history, it is important that we take time to reflect on the merits of a system that has served us well for so long.

The effects of proportional representation should not be underestimated. In January of last year, for example, two Green MSPs managed to prevent the passage of a new budget in the Scottish Parliament. These are two out of 129 MSPs in Parliament, elected by proportional representation. Proponents of the system argue it is by far the fairest way to reflect the voting intentions of the people as a whole. The argument goes that the legislative assembly is more truly ‘representative’ of the people under PR, as it reflects the proportion of the votes cast. By extension, proponents suggest that this makes the legislature more legitimate and democratic. Though I recognise the merit of these arguments, I find it astonishing that, eighty-two years after women were given equal voting rights, some commentators still find the time to call our electoral system undemocratic.

These same commentators ignore the fact that, in stark contrast to the current system, legislatures elected under proportional representation often fail to achieve the most vital aspect required of it: decisiveness. The SNP has bumbled through as a minority government since it was elected in 2007, struggling to operate effectively, having failed to get an overall majority from the Scottish population. The two Green MSPs were able to humble the SNP, despite an £11 million sop offered to them, precisely because no party held a clear majority required for the passage of a budget. The entire budget was thrown out the window; and with it the truth behind ‘merits’ of proportional representation were revealed.

It is no wonder then, given the experience of the Scottish Parliament, that Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament are some of the most enthusiastic supporters of the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Continuation of First Past the Post - indeed the member for Central Ayrshire is the co-Chairman of the Group. They have seen the mayhem in Scotland and are best placed to know an unworkable mess when they see one.

Flood or high tide?

Melanchthon’s blood has been boiling in recent posts on CentreRight. He has a right to be outspoken. Now is the moment in politics for great reformers.

An opportunity exists to settle the splinter-ridden EU framework in which Britain sits. Attempting to evade the issue, by rubber stamping an economic government for the Eurozone, would be a missed opportunity of the scale of the European Convention, albeit one this time in which this time we could only rescue ourselves alone.

I shan’t revisit the arguments here. Instead, let me raise another question for the Liberal Democrat leadership, since the media are currently emphasising its role in the Government’s presumed lethargy.

If no powers need to be returned to national control, if no major reforms should be forced as the price for a British signature, then that surely assumes that Cowley Street is happy with the current balance of power.

How will that play with the fishermen of the Orkneys or St Ives, when they are told the Government dropped the unexpected last chance they had of saving their industry from the Common Fisheries Policy?

How will that play with the smallholders of Berwick and Mid Dorset, when they are told that CAP reform is off the table, while cement factories and railway companies will still be receiving their farm subsidies?

Or the housewife in Gordon or Solihull, who continues pay higher food bills while contributing towards the £1 billion of British support for continental agriculture?

Or businessmen and workers spitting tacks at the latest directive or regulation, pushed through under QMV, in any Lib Dem seat across the land.

Once you drop the ideology underlying European integration, it becomes an issue of pounds and pence, burdens and red tape, jobs and recession. I may be wrong, but I’m not entirely convinced that all Lib Dem backbenchers will prove to be quite so willing to abandon their constituents and follow the Deputy Prime Minister into the tactical and moral low ground.

What's Tariq Ramadan got against Quilliam? I think we should be told.

The publications section of Quilliam's website here displays booklets that seek variously to explore the aspirations of Muslim women, strengthen the governance of mosques in Britain, and expose the BNP.

And I see from its media section here that the think-tank also challenged Geert Wilders to public debate, and opposed Israel's incursion into Gaza last year.

So why did Tariq Ramadan say during yesterday evening's Rethinking Islamic Reform conference that (according to my note) he disagrees with 90 per cent of what Quilliam says, and agrees with 10 per cent?

Does Professor Ramadan really differ from the think-tank's opposition to the BNP or support for Muslim women?  Or - as is surely the case - was the "90 per cent" a reference to at least some of Quilliam's usually expert and invariably brave campaigning against extremism claimed in the name of Islam?

I enjoyed the event very much.  It gave me the chance to hear live for the first time (and to learn from) Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, one of the western world's leading traditional, classical Islamic scholars - as well as Professor Ramadan.

The latter is an immensely controversial figure.  I've refrained from taking a view about him to date - because I hesitate to leap in where angels fear to tread.  And I liked his biography of Mohammed (though it's not a patch on Martin Lings').

But if he is, as his admirers claim, a force for moderation, I don't understand what he's got against Quilliam, and think we should be told.

I'm sorry to tax readers' patience on this subject, and will now refrain for a while.

But it's important enough - as is Quilliam's role in public life, and indeed Professor Ramadan's - to bring me to my keyboard two days running.

Paul Goodman

Knowing your trade-offs

Lawrence Kay is a Research Fellow in the Policy Exchange Economics Unit.

Iain Duncan Smith has laid out his plans for welfare reform. They revolve around his argument that there is too much waste of potential induced by the benefit system – particularly because of the way that worklessness seems to be passed from one generation to another in parts of the country.

His (right) answer is to do something about the poor incentives to work for people on benefits, to have greater expectations of claimants who don’t fancy getting a job, and to slightly expand the work programmes left to him by his predecessor. A lot rests on this. Welfare reform always gets talked about as one of the top priorities of any government.

But what is likely to happen? The easiest path of reform is in welfare-to-work. The principle of incentivising firms to help benefit claimants into jobs has been accepted by many across the political spectrum so there are really only technical arguments left. These will be around the point at which that incentivisation takes place and how the pricing structure should work.

Improving the incentives to work will be more difficult. The Secretary of State argued that it would be possible in his comments to the Guardian. However, when talking about having to bear the initial costs of his plans while waiting for the long-term gains, he said that he had “…yet to arrive at a point where everyone agrees that this is the way forward”.  This suggests that reform will be tough.

Unfortunately, during the campaign the Conservatives ran posters talking about cutting benefits for people who won’t work that just repeated what the government does anyway. The Secretary of State is right to argue that work requirements are important, but his attention should be directed at the health assessments the system makes for some benefits and whether they are stringent and consistent enough.

There’s no point underestimating how difficult some of Iain Duncan Smith’s reform agenda will be. There are high expectations and a lot to fight for but many problems to overcome. Getting anything done will require some real appreciation of the trade-offs involved and a strong commitment to the cause.

Reformers and Reactionaries

By Thomas Cawston, Researcher at Reform

Last week Reform made Andrew Lansley its “prestigious” Reactionary of the Week for his decision to halt the NHS London plan to redesign services to deliver quality care and reduce costs. Today we have our Reformer. The resignation of Sir Richard Sykes, Chair of NHS London, on account of Andrew Lansley’s decision, demonstrates the level of anxiety among NHS leaders about the Government’s health policy. Already the decision has echoes of Tony Blair’s and Frank Dobson’s decision in 1997 to dismantle some of the reforms of the previous Government.

Before the election there was a growing consensus in health policy that the NHS would have to undergo significant reconfiguration. As Reform’s March report Fewer hospitals, more competition argued, redesigning services is consistent with the long term change in health needs. The key challenge of a modern healthcare system is to improve the quality of life for people with long term conditions. This means the NHS needs new innovative ways to deliver treatment. Medicine has changed and health services need to change with them.

With the NHS facing a £20 billion funding gap by 2014 the case for service reconfiguration was indisputable. After years of consultation and research the Strategic Health Authority plans would have brought service redesign to deliver quality, innovation and productivity in the regional health system. This was the latest in a succession of reviews over the last few decades that have all advocated hospital closures.

NHS London led the way. London is facing £5 billion in real term cuts by 2017, with hospitals required to deliver savings of £2.4 billion. The capital has an unsustainable number of hospitals, as Sir Richard Sykes claims “the current configuration of hospital services is not making best use of taxpayers' money”. The SHA plan would have sought to reduce the number of hospital beds by a third and to close one in three A&E facilities. 75 per cent of all visits to casualty and 50 per cent of all out-patient appointments would be dealt with a network of 100 modern polyclinics. Only through these changes could the NHS in London reduce costs and improve services.

There has to be a new Treaty. The Germans know it. The key blockage is...

...the understanding that a new Treaty will mean repatriation of powers by Britain, as José Manuel Barroso confirmed yesterday.  The Eurocrats understand that this time having a new Treaty would not mean powers passing from London to Brussels, but the other way around.  This time we want a new Treaty, and the Germans must have a new Treaty.  Vince Cable is reported as stating the following:

Wanting to get our relationship within the EU right is not dysfunctional

Shortly, I'm going to post (again) about why it is vital that we take the opportunity fate has presented to us to renegotiate our relationship within the EU.  But before I do that I want to address an important prior issue.  I think that many of you reading my next post will have a thought along the following lines: "For goodness' sake!  The party has been obsessed with Europe for about twenty years.  We nearly tore ourselves apart over the issue in the mid-1990s.  Surely the last thing we want to do, on coming into government, is to start going on about Europe again straight away!  Can't we just move on?"  I suspect that many of you even amongst those that a strongly in favour of renegotiation (perhaps even withdrawal) feel that Europe is something of an embarrassment.  Shouldn't the Right find some other way to define itself than an inability to miss any opportunity that comes along to create a row about Europe?  Shouldn't we at least try to deal with some other matters first and perhaps come back to Europe later?

Fifteen tips for the new Government on integration, cohesion, relations with Islam - and Prevent

Pauline Neville-Jones, the new Security Minister, gave her first interview recently - to the Islam Channel, described by Quilliam as repeatedly promoting "problematic, Wahabi-influenced views on the role of Muslim women, on more mainstream religious traditions, on integration into British society and even promoted the works of extremist preachers or groups - while often sidelining or excluding more moderate voices".

Bearing this in mind, and with Ministers in place, and the Coalition Government now up and more or less running, now is a timely moment to probe its likely stance on cohesion, integration - and relations with Islam.

As some readers know, I've a special interest in these matters - particularly in the Prevent strand of Contest, the Government's counter-terrorism strategy.  For nine years or so, I represented more Muslim constituents than any other Conservative MP. In 2006, five of my constituents were arrested in relation to the airplane liquid explosives plot.  Two of them were released without charge, and three put on trial - and eventually convicted.

In the plot's aftermath, I badgered David Cameron with my views about how to fight extremism and build moderation.  I'm doubly grateful to him firstly for sending me to his DCLG team, which was shadowing a key Government department, and secondly for not firing me when I announced last year that I was standing down from Westminster.  I finally left the front bench of my own volition at the start of this year. I've written about these matters for Conservative Home often, for example here, here, and here.

For two and a half years, then, I worked with an often changing front bench cast: three Shadow Home Secretaries - David Davis, Dominic Grieve and Chris Grayling; two Shadow DCLG Secretaries - Eric Pickles and Caroline Spelman; and two recent Shadow Cabinet arrivals - Sayeeda Warsi and Pauline Neville Jones herself.  David Cameron also took a close and useful interest in events.

Charities adopt "liberal" positions that are nothing to do with their core mission - a mistake, perhaps

Whilst She Who Must Be Obeyed and I enjoyed a drink in a lovely pub in Southwold this weekend, a chap from the Salvation Army came around collecting donations. I've always admired the work and dedication of the organisation so I shoved a few quid in the pot and in return he gave me a copy of the day's War Cry, the Salvation Army's publication.

I opened it and... oh, boy. It was essentially a paean - not to God, but to the gods of Climate Change.

I have no settled opinion on the topic, though I am deeply skeptical about the assertions made with pseudo-certainty by the green crowd about the effects of man on the environment, and I regard the straight-faced, portentous predictions of apocalypse-next-Tuesday-unless-we-tithe-to-Al-Gore with a healthy dose of cynicism. I find the gibbering intolerance displayed by that clique's advocates to any who dare to question their position deeply disagreeable, too. Altogether then, the Salvos bowing down to this secular eco-religion makes it less likely that I will donate next time, rather than more.

This got me thinking about the extent to which charitable organisations more generally might harm themselves by adopting positions outwith their raison d'etre which can actually harm the prospects of receiving funds rather than assist. Because it's not just the Salvation Army. Speaking only for myself of course, although attracted to their core message, I am less likely to donate to the following organisations for the following reasons:

The National Trust and the RSPCA - oppose hunting

Christian Aid and Oxfam - both oppose free trade

The NSPCC - opposes smacking

Perhaps you can think of others, too.

It was this edition of War Cry, but the relevant stuff is not online

Whose idea was it to scrap the ministerial cars?

Tuesday am update:

I am reliably informed that the Conservative with an even longer-standing interest in this whole issue is Justine Greening. During her time as a shadow Treasury and then Communities minister, she established how much the ministerial cars cost through a series of parliamentary questions.

She spoke out about ministers abusing the privilege certainly as long ago as March 2008 and was continuing to criticise the waste of taxpayers' money on ministerial cars in late 2009.

Like Ed Vaizey, she too is now a minister.

---

Of the various cuts announced this morning by George Osborne and David Laws, one will have a very direct impact on ministers (who have already taken a 5% pay cut):

As Laws explained:

"In the future, no Minister should have a dedicated car or driver other than in exceptional circumstances. Ministers will be expected to walk or take public transport where possible, or use a pooled car. The pooling of cars will allow big savings to be made."

The saving is estimated at £5 million and follow through on a promise David Cameron made last September, but whose idea was it?

Nick Watt at the Guardian suggests that David Cameron was inspired by ex-Labour minister Chris Mullin to make the promise.

But in my column in GQ magazine in December, I suggested that the Tory leader had been lobbied by one of his own front bench about the idea:

Back in the summer, David Cameron announced that a Tory Government would reduce the number of chauffeur-driven cars available to ministers – not a move that went down especially well with those eyeing up jobs after the election. But if budding Conservative ministers want someone to blame, they need look no further than their colleague, Ed Vaizey, who was heard to complain after the announcement that he was not getting any credit for coming up with the idea. So now we know.

ConHome noted Ed Vaizey's view on the issue here back in February 2009.

Now a minister, Ed Vaizey is regularly to be spotted dashing by foot between the Commons and the two departments to which he is attached...

The Grim RIPA

Big Brother Watch has a new report out today, on councils using covert surveillance to spy on people. You can read the report here.

The key point I'd make is that all of the things being investigated by Councils (if true) are wrong, but none of them justify covert surveillance. Be it fly tipping, dog fouling, flouting the smoking ban or snooping on the council's own employees, when the man from the council is given spying powers, the cure has become worse than the disease.

As you read it, remember that

1) NONE of these uses are for serious crimes or terrorism - those are of course investigated by the police or security services (indeed, many people are very surprised to find out that councils have covert surveillance powers at all)

2) ALL of the 8,000+ uses of surveillance in the past 2 years are based on Councils Freedom of Information responses - they're all their words and explanations, not ours!

3) Getting rid of these powers from Councils would NOT mean that people just "get away with" whatever is alleged. Bradford Council stopped using RIPA in 2007, writing to people to warn them they were going to be monitored for e.g. noise nuisance ("overt surveillance", I suppose) - and compliance went UP, not down.

4) NOBODY who was watched and found "innocent" was told that they were under surveillance. It's not scaremongering, but simply accurate, to point out the obvious - that it could have happened to you.

Given the remarkable abuses of RIPA outlined in our report that I believe that the Coalition's very welcome pledge to cut back on council surveillance powers by requiring them to obtain warrants from Magistrates before snooping (which, astonishingly, is not currently required) does not go far enough. Councils have failed to demonstrate the responsibility needed to use such serious capabilities and they should be stripped of them altogether. If an alleged offence is serious enough to warrant covert surveillance, then it should be in the hands of the police.

Immigration Officers deserve the Golden Jubilee medal

Why is it that Immigration Officers have been denied the Golden Jubilee medal, awarded by the Queen to those in emergency services?  Immigration officials are clearly in the front line, protect our nation against terrorists entering the UK and do their part to make our country safe. Whenever there has been a crisis, such as the hijackers at Stansted Airport, it is immigration officers who have been called on to deal with the resulting emergency. 

It was only two years ago that a Labour Minister apparently described them as "shits".  They seem to be taken for granted and have become the forgotten service. Their work in keeping our borders secure - against great odds - deserves to be recognised.  Just as Prison Officers and the Police have received Jubilee medals, so too Immigration Officers have a right to be rewarded for their dedication and commitment to Britain. Qualifying Officers should belatedly receive the Golden Jubilee medal, so as to ensure that they are in line for the next medal awards in 2012. Our Immigration service should be forgotten no longer.

Daniel Kawczynski MP: It's time to rally support in the Commons in favour of First Past The Post

By Daniel Kawczynksi MP

Below is a letter I have just sent to all MPs regarding the proposed changes to our electoral system and inviting them to join the all-party group which seeks to defend the First Past The Post voting system.

I would ask all ConHome readers who feel passionately about FPTP to contact their MP and urge them to join the group.

Dear Colleague,

During the course of the last Parliament I set up the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Promotion of the First Past the Post electoral system.  Together with my friend and Co-Chairman Labour MP Brian Donohue, we interacted with the previous government to campaign against abandoning our precious, tried and tested voting system.  I am convinced that it is down to the good work of many Labour MPs in the previous Parliament, objecting to a full blown version of PR, which prevented Gordon Brown from pursing complete destruction of our voting system.

We now face the prospect of a referendum on the alternative voting system.  This I must admit is the least worse option considering it allows you to continue representing a specific constituency, a link I believe we must always retain for direct accountability.

It is vital however that those of us who believe in the FPTP system should work together constructively on a cross Party basis, both in Parliament and across the country.  For the sake of a well informed and fair referendum it is pivotal for us to be able to explain the great benefits of FPTP and its inherent fairness, which proponents of AV incorrectly denigrate.

With this in mind, I would very much like to invite you to join the reformed All Party Parliamentary group for Promotion of First Past the Post.  This is to continue to ensure a collective and strong voice is heard in support of our current voting system, and that our legitimate concerns of the other systems are raised at every opportunity.

Please call or email my office in order to register with the group.

Thank you, and I look forward to working closely with you on this important cause.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Kawczynski MP
Shrewsbury & Atcham

Out of Order

The Sunday Telegraph leads with an exclusive inside look at the forthcoming Queen’s Speech.

The paper clearly underlines that it is looking at a genuine late draft, and not some pritt stick album combining snippets from last month’s manifestos. That means someone either left a copy of a highly sensitive (probably market sensitive, possibly even officially classified) document on a photocopier outside of Whitehall.

Alternatively, and far more likely, someone high up in Government thought up the idea to leak it; someone near the very top authorised it; and someone senior passed the document on.

Whenever the Labour Government leaked plans, Conservative Shadows created a furore. Theresa May as Shadow Leader of the House was just one of many, now in ministerial positions, who were justifiably livid whenever Labour spin doctors briefed the press before Parliament was told.

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If this is indeed a leak, sanctioned at the highest level, it just confirms prejudices many ordinary voters will have about one politician or political party being as bad as another. So much for a new broom for politics.

It will also confirm suspicions that the Conservative upper echelons do not take Parliament seriously, but consider the democratic institution to be nothing more than a nuisance. First the 55% rule; then the 1922 Committee; and now this.

Bad precedent does not justify the continuation of a bad action. The Speaker would be bang within his rights to summon a very senior Tory to the Despatch Box on Monday to make an emergency statement on this leak. If that is what it takes to forestall an odious practice from expanding under the Conservatives, so be it.

Time to face the truth: drugs get into prison via corrupt prison officers

By Neil O'Brien

You might think that a prison sentence would be a good opportunity to get drug addicts clean. But according to a survey of prisoners carried out by Policy Exchange, more than a third of prisoners are using drugs inside, with one in five using heroin.

Why does it seem to be so hard to keep prisons drug free?  Surely prison should be one place that chaotic, criminal people can experience a bit of order?

One problem is the culture of denial about how drugs really get into prison.  Previous government reports have always stressed the role of prison visits, and material coming in "over the wall".  But the sheer volume of drugs being consumed in prison suggests a more important channel.  In fairness, a previous investigation by the Met suggested that one in ten prison officers is corrupt. But nothing has been done about it.

Its hardly surprising that there are so many officers are bent, given that drugs are worth up to 1,000 per cent more on the inside, and the current anti-corruption regime is a joke.  As the Sunday Times reports today, even when serious problems are identified in particular prisons, no action has been taken.

Drugs in prison are a massive social problem: making re-offending extremely likely. It doesn't take any money to fix this problem - just the political willpower to face up to the real issues. It is a classic example of a problem the coalition can fix. My hunch is that the trade unions won't like some of the things that must be done to fix the problem.  But many prison officers will welcome a clean out.

Britain should agree to a new EU Treaty, and use it as an opportunity to renegotiate

The EU needs a new Treaty.  The only way for the euro to survive now, in anything close to its present form, is if there is some robust mechanism by which Brussels can scrutinize the budgetary decisions of Eurozone Member States.  There must be a coordinated fiscal space and a system of economic governance to go with the debt union.  Even these measures may not be enough to save the euro.  Without them, it's probably toast.

The Single European State is an excellent, visionary project that Britain should support as a friend, even though not a member.  We should not act in ways that imperil the formation of the Single European State for narrow short-term, selfish partisan reasons.  The Times reports Cameron today as saying "There is no question of agreeing to a treaty that transfers power from Westminster to Brussels. That is set out 100 per cent clearly in the coalition agreement. Britain obviously is not in the euro and Britain is not going to be in the euro, and so Britain would not be agreeing to any agreement or treaty that drew us further into supporting the euro area."  Well...okay.  But even Alistair Darling could agree with that.