CentreRight

A precedent for Anglo-French co-operation - indeed, for political union

By Paul Goodman

Even as David Cameron was waving a piece of paper signed by Monsieur Sarkozy, Bernard Jenkin was taking to the airwaves like some splendid vintage airplane.

The Prime Minister insisted that the defence treaty between Britain and France "is is not, as some have suggested, about weakening or pooling British or French sovereignty".  But Jenkin warned that "There is a long term record of duplicity on the French part when it comes to dealing with their allies...The UK has permanent interests but not permanent friends...France has never and is never likely to share strategic interests with the UK."

I sort of see what Jenkin is getting at, but "never shared strategic interests" struck me as a bit strong, and I went to my bookshelves to hunt down a precedent for the sharing of such interests, and the pooling of French and British sovereignty besides.  I found it on page 619 of Roy Jenkins's rollicking biography of Winston Churchill, which relates that -

"At a luncheon on 15 June [1940] the idea of amalgamating the British and French states in an indissoluble union had first effectively surfaced.  Among those present were: Halifax, Corbin (French Ambassador) and Sir Robert Vansittart.  In the next twenty-four hours it gathered momentum out of desparation.  The matter came before the War Cabinet at a 3.00 p.m meeting on Sunday, 16 June.  The day and timing of the meeting were themselves indicative of how critical the circumstances were seen to be.  Churchill was surprised at the gust of wind that swept along such figures as Chamberlain and Attlee, who were both normally good at pricking hot-air ballons.  The minutes recorded: "The Prime Mibister said that his first instinct had been against the idea, but in this grave crisis we must not let ourselves be accused of a lack of imagination.  Some dramatic announcement was clearly necessary to keep the French going."  So, with remarkably little detailed consideration, the offer was evolved: common citizenship, a single united War Cabinet, amalgamated armed forces, and maybe, although nothing was specifically said about this, a single polyglot parliament.

It was an amazing confection.  In retrospect it is difficult to decide which was the more staggering: the presumption of the view that the disparate and complex mechanisms of the British and French states could be successfully put together by a document of barely 300 words; or the utterely heterogeneous nature of those who assisted at its hasty creation.  Apart from Churchill himself, with his half reluctantly given but decisive final seal of approval, these were Halifax, Vansittart and on the French side Corbin, the very experienced ambassador, Rene Pleven, several times to be Prime Minister in the early 1950s, Jean Monnet, the founding father of the European Community, and Charles de Gaulle, who was subsequently, both in war and peace, to be the symbol and sword of unnegotiable French sovereignty.  De Gaulle indeed was responsible for telephoning the proposal through to Reynaud as soon as it had been agreed on the Sunday afternoon, and then for carrying the written document with him when he returned to Bordeaux that evening.  Churchill's role at Concarneau was to have been that of reinforcing it with his eloquence and argument, and the purpose of taking with him Attlee and Sinclair was to underpin the seriousness of the offer by showing that it came from all parties in Britain."

Reynaud failed to carry the scheme through his Cabinet.  He resigned, and was replaced by Petain, "who proceeded to form a government of surrender" -

"That was the reason Churchill had been left sulking in his train seat at Waterloo.  There was no-one left in office in France who wanted to confer with him.  The grand and rash scheme appeared counter-productive.  In reality it was just irrelevant.  It was swept quickly into the dustbin of history."

Not much of a precendent, I admit (before Jenkin or anyone else compels me to concede the point).  And conducted in somewhat unusual circumstances.  But there it is.

Final observation: Jenkins doesn't relate whether or not the King was consulted.

Five principles for considering Islam

by Paul Goodman

My starting-points in thinking and writing about Islam and politics are that -

• Islam isn't the same thing as Islamism - in other words, it isn't a political ideology (although, say, the Jamaat E Islami and the English Defence League would claim otherwise).

• Islam, rather, is a big, varied, complex phenomenon - in short, it's a religion, and should therefore be approached as such.

All in all, my general approach is extremely critical of the first and broadly supportive of the second: Islamism bad, Islam good.  I've had cause recently to focus on the first.  I want here to look more broadly at the second - which may be timely, given current circumstances - and set out five principles for considering Islam.

All religions are contested...  At least, I've never heard of one that isn't.  A worshipper at the Temple Beth Am will give a different take on Judaism from a follower of Rabbi Mordechai Dovid Unger.  A priest of the Greek Orthodox Church won't offer the same view of Christianity as a member of the Salvation Army.  If Judaism's a big religion (numerically), and Christianity very much bigger still, it's worth bearing in mind that Islam's almost as big as the latter.  A Salafist jihadi will have little in common with a follower of the Aga Khan, a Senegalise Sufi will possess a different outlook from a Pakistani Deobandi.

So beware of generalisations (including mine).  "Islam doesn't separate the sacred and secular."  Up to a point, but Christian Byzantium merged Church and State, and most modern Muslims live contendedly enough under secular law.  "Islam was spread by the sword."  But so's Christianity been from time to time, and the early Islamic conquests were wars for booty, not means of conversion.  "Islam persecutes minorities and oppresses women."  For most of Islam's history, Christians were better off in the Islamic world than Muslims in western Europe, and women's property rights under Islam compared favourably with those in Britain.

...But Islam is especially so.  Having warned against generalisations, I'll risk a few.  Jewish extremism is relatively confined, affecting parts of Israel and what should be, as part of a durable settlement, an independent state of Palestine.  Christian extremism (based largely in the United States) is also fairly restricted although, like Jewish extremism, it has a sporadic influence on American foreign policy.  Islamist extremism, however, is an unrestrained global problem, menacing the safety of Glasgow airport as well as the stability of the Yemen, passengers on London's tube as well as the future of Pakistan.

Worldwide, there's little Jewish-on-Jewish or Christian-on-Christian violence.  Strikingly, however, there seems to be growing Muslim-on-Muslim conflict: consider the recent Sunni-Shi'ite atrocities in Iraq, or the Deobandi-Barelvi strife in Pakistan.  This confirms that Islamist terror is a symptom of an internal struggle within Islam, as well as an existential challenge to secular democracy.  Wahabism, a minority tradition within Islam, and Islamism, an ideological response to economic and social failure, have bonded to propose an "Islamic state" (ironically, an idea formed under European influence) governed by "sharia law" (which is, strictly speaking, a misnomer).

Reading the Koran doesn't make one an expert. It's often assumed first that the source of this ideology is the Koran itself, and second that Islam has no tradition of contextualising its contents.  The Koran indisputably has violent sections (as has, say, parts of the Bible), and if some readers are determined to interpret them as calls to indiscriminate terror, no power on earth will be able to dissuade them (just as no power on earth will be able to dissuade some readers of Exodus 17 that the chapter doesn't justify the murder of non-Jews, or some readers of Matthew 27:24-26 that the verses don't legitimise anti-semitism).

It's on this basis that contributors to mainstream western websites will solemnly quote verses from the Koran bandied about on Al Qaeda-supporting websites, and explain them in the same way as Osama Bin Laden.  Consider, for example, an old favourite - the verse "slay them wheresoever you find them" (2:190), cited by Al Qaeda as a licence for massacre.  But in its original context, it applied to pagans, not Christians or Jews.  Furthermore, it applied in a particular place and time.  Furthermore still, its application was constrained by "the limits": in other words, the rules of war. "...But transgress not the limits.  Truly, God does not love the transgressors [of limits]" (2:191).  In short, there's a whole science of contextualising the Koran - Asbab Ul-Nuzul, traditionally the province of Islamic scholars (not to mention other Islamic sciences, such as the study of hadith, fiqh, and so forth).

Islam doesn't need a Reformation...  Like all religions, Islam must evolve and adapt if it's to survive.  And, sure, there are barriers to progress.  Muslim-majority countries are resistant to human rights norms in general and religious freedom in particular.  There's no real academic freedom to probe, say, the origins of the Koran.  The sharia inheritance provisions are an obstacle to development and opportunity.  But the frequently-heard, unthinkingly-accepted contention that "Islam needs a Reformation" poses as many problems at it apparently solves.  Trying to impose western Europe's past on much of the rest of the world's present would be impossible (because the past's gone) and undesirable (because Europe's religious wars were convulsive and bloody).

And trying to impose western Europe's present on much of the rest of the world would be dubious (though Ataturk tried in his time).  The Iraq War and its consequences have sated voters' appetite - never strong in the first place - for attempts forcibly to export the rule of law, elections, free markets, religious freedom, women's rights, strong and independent civil institutions, and all those things that together make up "democracy".  However, our system and beliefs are better and stronger than a totalitarian ideology dressed up in Islamic garb - just as they were better than fascism and communism - and should be promoted unceasingly through "soft power": trade, diplomacy, training, education, aid, the promotion of human rights norms.

...So much as a Counter-Reformation.  In other words, economic and social development may take place alongside revived forms of the traditional, classical Islam.  This would represent a counter-reformation, if you like (though the parallel's risky) in the face of the puritan Wahabi movement, and its Islamist political counterpart.  It would be able to dismantle barriers to progress by drawing on concepts of the public interest long present in parts of Islamic law, and be reasonably disposed to democracy and pluralism.  This certainly won't happen in any place where the Muslim Brotherhood and its equivalents seize power, barring religious minorities from advancement and women from participation in society.

I concede at once that no Muslim-majority country fits the bill.  However, it's more likely that one will do so, in the medium term, than that one will convert itself into a western-style liberal democracy.  Very tentatively, one might look at, say, Indonesia, Turkey (if it doesn't slide into Islamism), Morocco and Jordan as offering, in very different ways, some positive signs.  The most encouraging indicator of all would be the collapse of Iran's theocracy - for although the country's outside the Sunni mainstream, the implosion of a political project which draws on Islam could take the wind out of Islamism's sails elsewhere, just as the rise of Khomeini put it into them at the end of the 1970s.

I apologise if some of my assertions - such as "all religions are contested" - are statements of the obvious.  But, when it comes to Islam and Islamism, the obvious is often overlooked.  A footnote: I'm not an expert on Islam, haven't lived in Islamic countries, can't read Arabic, and don't speak the languages.  But then again, neither are most of those who pronounce on this subject with greater stridency and certainty.

Why the Conservative Party should have nothing to do with the East London Mosque

By Paul Goodman

Student Rights, Harry's Place and Nick Cohen are up in arms about the trahison des clercs at University College, London, over the Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab scandal - see here, here, here and here.

In 2009, Abdulmutallab tried to blow up an airplane flying from Amsterdam to Detroit.  Between 2005 and 2008, he studied at UCL, where he was President of the University's Islamic Society.  It's been claimed that he was radicalised towards extremism during this period, that he was under surveillance by MI5, and that he was directed to carry out the attempted airplane atrocity by the Al-Qaeda linked preacher Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was later in contact with Major Nidal Hood, the perpetrator of the Fort Hood massacre.

An enquiry commissioned by UCL into the Abdulmutallab affair was recently published.  Student Rights describes it as a "whitewash", Harry's Place as "self-serving" and Cohen as "a lame effort".  I want to make only one point arising from it.  Cohen writes -

"UCL [chose] to put on the inquiry team Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain. Dr Bari is high up in the Jamaat-e-Islami-dominated East London Mosque".

Dr Bari is the Chairman of the institution's Mosque Committee.  On December 27 2008, the Daily Telegraph reported that Al Awlaki had been invited to deliver a video lecture at the mosque, that he was allegedly "a spiritual adviser to three of the September 11 terrorists" and that he had been described by the US Department of Homeland Security as "an Al-Qaeda supporter" which had accused him of using video lectures to "encourage terrorist attacks".

I was at the time the Party's front bench spokesman in the Commons, and had had some dealings with Dr Bari in his MCB capacity (we hadn't at that point broken off relations with the organisation).  This was the first I'd heard of Al-Awlaki, and I wrote to Dr Bari about the Telegraph's report.  In my letter, I said that "the claims in the piece are serious" (a statement of the obvious) and "have serious implications for the relationship between the mosque and the Conservative Party" (ditto).

However, I noted that the mosque "hasn't had the chance to put its side of the story to us, and would be grateful for your view of the claims".  Dr Bari replied a fortnight or so later.  He wrote that "we saw no need to revoke the permission for the event based on one article in the Daily Telegraph, whose record on reporting our institution or our community does not inspire us with much confidence".  He didn't address the US Department of Homeland Security's view.

He did write that "we found no evidence that the event was promoting hate".  Interestingly, he didn't add the words "or violence".  As the Telegraph reported, the material advertising the event "appears to be a clear reference to the attacks on New York, and features meteors raining down on Manhattan, setting fire to the city and shattering the Statue of Liberty".  As for further evidence of hate, another speaker advertised for the event was Khalid Yasin, who according to the Telegraph "has described the beliefs of Christians and Jews as 'filth'."

In short, we have a mosque committee Chairman who, when asked about the visit to his mosque of a preacher viewed by one of our main allies as an Al Qaeda-linked preacher, either couldn't be bothered to address the matter or evaded it - the same preacher, remember, who later turned out to be associated with an attempt to blow up an airplane and a separate attack which killed 13 people.

And we also have a college which appoints the same mosque committee Chairman to an enquiry...which investigates a student linked to a Al Qaeda-linked preacher... who that same Chairman had allowed to broadcast into his mosque (despite being warned not to do so).

At the end of all that, the single point that I'm making is this.  The Mosque's website says that "we unequivocally reject all terrorism".  But for as long as terrorist-linked preachers are allowed to broadcast into the mosque, the Conservative Party should have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

It's time for Charles Farr, Whitehall's top security adviser, to move on rapidly

By Paul Goodman

The Daily Telegraph reports that Charles Farr, Director-General of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, pledged support for an attempt by an extremist to enter Britain.

I've written previously about that extremist, Zakir Naik - whose website is commended by the group that carried out the Mumbai massacre.

Farr would have known before meeting Zaik's representatives that the new Government's policy is different from the old one's.  It seeks to target the causes of violence, not just the symptoms - that's to say, the extremist ideologies that help drive terrorist acts.  This is why Theresa May rightly decided to bar Naik from Britain.

The Telegraph's report is drawn from notes of the meeting made by Naik's representatives.  It's possible that they're over-stating their case.  But it's well known in Westminster and Whitehall that Farr doesn't always share the Government's view in relation to targeting extremism.

I've met Farr once.  He's very bright, extremely well briefed, and a testimony to the quality that the Civil Service can attract.  But in the eternal words of Margaret Thatcher: "Advisers advise, and Ministers decide."  It's time for Farr to move on rapidly.

Seven reasons why the Pope's visit was a success

By Paul Goodman

I identified last week seven barriers to a successful Papal visit - modern secularism; the impact of 9/11; the child abuse scandal; media bafflement; the deterioration of the relations with the Church of England; and money - and wrote that I hoped that the barriers could be cleared.

It's evident that they were, and here are seven reason why the visit was a success.

• Low expectations.  If an occasion's written off in advance as a failure, it's more likely to out-perform the expected outcome than if it's expected to be a triumph.
• The Pope's message.  Whether one agrees with the Pope or not, he has a case to make, which is strongly rooted and carefully compiled.  He seized the unique chance of blanket British media coverage to get his message across.  Yesterday evening, others - not least the Prime Minister - were responding to his agenda.
• The Catholic Church's media exposure.  Intelligent and articulate lay Catholics - Eamon Duffy, Clifford Longley, Peter Stanford - don't usually get a lot of airtime, let alone at once.  The Pope's visit gave them and some of the Bishops a chance to put their view.  Like the Pope, they utilised the opportunity to do so.  Sky's coverage in particular was very good.
• The bomb plot that never was.  The apparent Al Qaeda Papal assassination bid turned out to be Algerian street cleaner banter.  Many of those who read huge headlines suggesting the former won't have read later reports describing the latter.  Most people won't have liked the idea of the Pope being killed in Britain, and reports of a murder plot will therefore have done him no harm at all.
• The child abuse apology.  If an institution's at fault, people want an apology.  The Pope delivered it according to his own timetable, which ran more or less to plan throughout.  He wasn't pelted with eggs or subject to a citizen's arrest.  In short, the visit wasn't knocked off course.
• A relatively small protester turnout and a relatively large Church turnout.  The brouhaha before the visit, particularly in the left-of-centre media, suggested that it was resented by the public.  Some ten thousand people marched in London against the Pope.  This was a reasonable turnout, certainly, but scarcely a popular uprising - and largely consisting, too, of a narrow sliver of society.  But the test of the visit was always likely to be whether British Catholics turned out for the Pope.  They did, in tens of thousands. 
• The Queen.  She made it known that she wanted the visit to go well.  That she did will have been no small contributor to its success.

A Shady customer - and a case for exclusion

By Paul Goodman

I wrote earlier this summer about the forthcoming Global Peace and Unity conference taking place in London next month -  the Royal Ascot of the British Islamist calendar, organised by the Islam Channel, a TV station which has a number of fundamentalist and extremist presenters - see Quilliam's report on the broadcaster.

I described the Ascot Gavotte danced out each year between the GPU organisers and the main political parties, as the former aims to gain credibility, patronage, and muscle among British Muslims by manoevering politicians to speak from the event's podium - and linked to Dominic Grieve's GPU address, in which he read the organisers the riot act (politely, but firmly).

I concluded: "Theresa May's made a good start at the Home Office by barring Zakir Naik and Bilal Phillips from entering the UK.  The final list of speakers for GPU has yet to be published.  Part of the annual gavotte is backstairs negotiation between the organisers and politicians.  Ministers don't have to make up their minds at this stage whether or not to attend."

"But they shouldn't lend legitimacy to people who support attacks on our troops, on civilians as a matter of principle, or incite hatred and violence - and who, furthermore, don't represent the mass of British Muslims for whom they purport to organise.  If such people are on the platform, Ministers shouldn't go to the GPU this year."

Here's one of the Speakers: Sheikh Shady Al-Suleiman.

According to The Age, Anwar Al-Awlaki, linked both to Major Nidal Hasan, perpetrator of the Fort Hood massacre and to Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas Day bomber, was engaged to speak at a youth event at an Australian mosque.  The Age reports - 

"According to a director of Lakemba mosque, Ziad Ghamraoui, Sheikh Shady al-Suleiman was in charge of organising evening youth events at the time of the sermon. Sheikh Suleiman refused to comment. He would not say whether Mr Awlaki was paid and would not comment on the subject of his speech."

Al-Awlaki was spiritual adviser to three of the 9/11 perpetrators, and has been described as the number one terrorist threat to the U.S.  Harry's Place has the story, and notes re Suleiman: "I wonder why he has been coy with the media. You can still see an ad for the event on one of Suleiman’s websites. There’s nothing hidden there."

This is a clear case for exclusion.  If - for whatever reason - he's admitted, Ministers certainly shouldn't share a platform with Suleiman on the basis of the Australian reports.  Oh, and a footnote: since I last posted on the matter, the video of Grieve's speech has been "removed by the user" from YouTube (try clicking the link above).

Funny, that.

Seven barriers to a successful Papal visit (which I hope can be cleared)

By Paul Goodman

The last and first Pope to visit Britain was John Paul II, the best part of 30 years ago (1982).  Benedict XVI, his successor, will arrive at the end of next week.  I hope that his visit goes well.  But here are seven barriers that he'll have to clear.

• Secularism.  Britain is a more secularised country than it was 30 years ago.  Social attitudes to (for example) authority, rights, sexuality, privacy and transparency are very different to those of 1982.

• The impact of 9/11.  There's a new suspicion of established religion.  There's always been some - perhaps much.  But 9/11 was a gleam in almost no-one's eye in 1982.  That horror produced, unsurprisingly, a chariness towards - and some hostility to - Islam in particular and established religion in general.  The writings and actions of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Peter Tatchell with regard to organised religion are in some respects a product of the post-9/11 culture.

• The child abuse eruption.  The reaction to it of some senior Bishops was flawed at best and scandalous at worst.  Some of the abuse had taken place by 1982.  But there was no public recognition of it then.

• Media bafflement.  This cocktail of secularism, suspicion of established religion and the child abuse scandal suggests that any Pope visiting Britain today would receive less sympathetic coverage than John Paul II did in 1982.  Claims of media antipathy to the Church, and other faith communities, are often exaggerated - though the Times' coverage, as Damian Thompson has proved here, here, here, here, here, here and - please note - here (and elsewhere) is usually unsympathetic and sometimes misleading.  However, the main obstacle to fair coverage isn't aversion, or even bias, but incomprehension - a product of the secularisation mentioned earlier.  This isn't confined to the media: remember the Foreign Office civil servant who, when asked for ideas to help this Papal visit, suggested that the Pope open an abortion clinic.

• Memories of Pope John Paul II.  Pope John Paul was viewed in many quarters, at the time of his visit to Britain, as a heroic battler against Communism - and a novelty as the first non-Italian Pope for over 400 years.  With Communism collapsed - an implosion in which the Polish Pope played an epic role - Pope Benedict is in no position to compete.  John Paul II was an extrovert, a communicator, and a philosopher by training with a bent for mysticism.  He was also young (for a Pope) and fit (for his age) when he visited Britain.  Benedict XVI is an introvert, an intellectual, and a theologian of exceptional distinction with a deep understanding of liturgy.  He is also a man in his early eighties who will need rest during the visit.

• The deterioration of relations with the Church of England.  The early 1980s were years of giddy hope, in some quarters, for reunion between the two Churches.  Pope John Paul's visit took place in that context, and was probably its high point.  Since then, this prospect - always distant - seems to have vanished.  The Church of England has ordained women as priests.  The shock waves of the 1960s and 70s no longer rock the Catholic Church, which has since acquired a more traditionalist flavour.  Benedict XVI's announcement of a special arrangement to receive converts from the Church of England, set up to allow them to preserve parts of their Anglican heritage, was made without consultation with Lambeth Palace.  The reaction of the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury to the visit will be watched closely by the media.

• Money.  John Paul II's trip wasn't a state visit.  Pope Benedict's is.  Taxpayers stump up for state visits, and there's no evidence that they're any more hostile to one by the Pope than one by any other head of state (though many will be surprised and baffled that he is one).  But opinion polling suggests that many non-Catholic taxpayers at least don't want to meet the bill.

There is, by the way, an eighth barrier: the tangle of the arrangements for the visit made by the Catholic Church in Britain (hence the appointment of Lord Patten to try to smooth them out).  But that's another story.

As I say, I hope that the visit's a success.  It will open with lower expectations than those of 1982, which isn't a bad place to start from.  And Benedict XVI has a certain understated charm.

By the way, one barrier that would not so long ago have barred a Papal visit altogether - a particular old-fashioned prejudice against Catholicism in particular (as opposed to a more modern dislike of religion in general) - has faded away as a force.

Conservative members attack Osborne budget...Labour ones support it

By Paul Goodman

They don't, of course - at least, not usually.

But they would have done, had the budget been presented by, say, Ed Balls, and the Government been led by Gordon Brown rather than David Cameron.

That, at least, is the suggestion of a compelling piece on the blog of www.neurosciencemarketing.com, called Why Politics is Hard, twittered out by an "eternal student" called Anibal Astobiza, and re-twittered out by Stephan Shakespeare under the more punchy title "How political party identification can turn us into idiots".

The piece describes how a social psychologist took -

"...two groups of subjects, one composed of liberal Democrats, the other of conservative Republicans. Then, he showed them very different proposals on the topic of welfare. One policy proposal was very liberal, and involved large expenditures of tax money. The other was harshly conservative, and proposed far lower levels of assistance and expense. As you might expect, the liberal subjects preferred the free-spending plan while the conservatives liked the restrictive plan.

Here’s the bizarre twist: when the subjects were told that the plan they didn’t like had been proposed by their own party, their attitudes changed and they favored the plan they had initially opposed. Liberals thought that cracking down on welfare was a good idea, while conservatives found they could justify opening the coffers for this important social purpose. They even wrote essays explaining why the policy they now favored was appropriate.

And, as Neuromarketing readers could anticipate, the subjects were unaware of this influence. They did think that other people were influenced by party beliefs, but considered their own decision-making to be rational and not tainted by politics.

This is another example of why getting votes from opposing party members is so difficult. One’s political affiliation can trump everything, including logic and common sense".

Discuss.

Why Kashmir's a British issue

By Paul Goodman

No, not because we sold it to a Maharajah in 1846.  Nor because we made a mess of it roughly a hundred years later (though that's a matter I'll return to).  Rather, it's because at least half a million people of Kashmiri origin live in the UK - which means that what happens there matters here.

They originate from a region that's being shaken by a mass uprising, is a crucible of oppression and terrorism, and has been contested for over 60 years by two Commonwealth members - both of which are now nuclear armed - one of which could collapse entirely.  And that's not taking into account Afghanistan, where both have ambitions and our troops are fighting.

Jonathan Foreman, who knows the Kashmir valley well, has clocked that violence and protests there are rising, and has written an account in this week's Spectator.  I see that my old host Barrister Sultan Mehmood has been waving banners outside Downing Street, complaining that the Prime Minister has "exhibited his inexperience" on the Kashmir issue.  As it happens, David Cameron has said next to nothing about it, but his remarks on Pakistan have been noted by the Kashmiri diaspora (which, again, is a matter I'll return to). They'll also have spotted that the Disasters Emergency Committee has to date managed to raise only a tenth of the money for Pakistan that it did for Haiti.

All that's to set the scene.  Here's why Kashmir's a British issue: that's to say, one with the potential to impact on our country in a big and baleful way - more than any conflict abroad in which our armed forces aren't engaged.  In what follows, I'll use "Kashmiris" as a synonym for British citizens of Kashmiri origin.

• For Kashmiris, read Mirpuris - who speak Pahari, not Kashmiri.  Most British Kashmiris originate from Azad ("free") Kashmir, which isn't so much free as controlled by Pakistan (a source of suppressed anger).  But they're Kashmiris in the sense that they originate from the old princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.  That's right: the one sold by us to that Maharajah back in 1846.
• And officially, they're of Pakistani origin.  Our census lumps them with in with their 500,000 or so fellow citizens who originate from Pakistan.  Add well over a million British citizens of Indian origin, and you've a large number of people, concentrated in a relatively small number of urban areas, among whom the Kashmir issue arouses divided views and fervent passions.
• The conflict in Kashmir, like the condition of Pakistan, thus has ripple effects in Britain.  Pakistan's a long way from collapse.  (The army remains a dominant force.)  But trouble there has effects here.  The Al Qaeda connection's too obvious to stress.  A further war over Kashmir between India and Pakistan - three have been fought since the 1940s - could have serious consequences.
• Kashmir's a crucible of oppression and terrorism.  India holds one part it; Pakistan the other; the insurrection's in the Indian-administered (or occupied) part.  As Foreman points out, some 80,000 people have been killed in the conflict, and the population of Kashmir's roughly 10 million.  It's unclear how many troops India has there, but some estimates run as high as 700,000.
• The scale of the conflict is far greater than Israel/Palestine.  As Foreman notes, ten times as many people have been killed in Kashmir than in Israel/Palestine.  80,000 people is approximately the same number as live in High Wycombe in my old constituency.  If we'd as many troops per head in Britain as India's 700,000 in Kashmir, our army would be roughly four million strong.
• But it commands only a tiny fraction of the coverage.  Unlike Israel/Palestine, the Kashmir conflict can't be squeezed into a narrative of present-day western colonialism.  Nor is it a focus for European religious preoccupations.  Kashmiris complain: the West's quick to act in Afghanistan or Iraq.  And prone to diplomacy on Israel/Palestine.  But Kashmir's ignored.
• There's little merit in the assignment of blame.  Pakistan blames India for occupying the Kashmir valley.  India blames Pakistan for stoking terror.  In the valley, there's been murder, rape, terror, torture, mass graves - and indigenous protest.  Al Qaeda and Wahabi extremists are in on the scene. The Kashmiris complain of India flouting UN resolutions while the world does nothing.
• Britain can do little, if anything, to soothe the conflict.  Some Pakistanis and Kashmiris say  that Britain has a special responsibility to help solve Kashmir's problems.  However, India's a growing power that sees Kashmir as no-one else's business, is sensitive to what it views as British interference, and is fearful of domestic separatism.  The UK only has scope to work at the margins.
• However, the Government's support for India's Security Council membership is problematic.  Under Michael Howard, the Party had reservations about India's application, and specifically hoped for progress on Kashmir.  After Cameron succeeded him, the Party took up India's quest with enthusiasm.  The shift has gone down worse with Kashmiris than the Prime Minister's recent remarks about Pakistan.
• If there's a solution - and there may not be - Northern Ireland's a possible model.  In other words, the withdrawal of Indian troops and Pakistani insurgents; making the line of control "just a line on a map" (as the current Indian Prime Minister put it), so that people and goods can move across it; maximum autonomy in the Valley; cross-Kashmir bodies to promote trade and tourism.

I'm not an expert on Kashmir, but I did spent the best part of ten years representing a large number of Kashmiri-origin constituents and, for what it's worth, I've been to Azad Kashmir, India and Pakistan.   I tend to focus on cohesion rather than trade when considering our relations with all three.  This may be an unbalanced view.  But I own up to wondering, when David Cameron criticised Pakistan in India for looking both ways on terrorism, whether he'd thought of the domestic effects of saying so.

The English aren't Irish, and the Irish aren't English - except when both are

Everything that could be written about the Saville Report has already been.  But yesterday's reactions on both sides of the water said much about both countries. Or did it?

To a certain sort of Irishman, there's nothing more English than an Old Etonian Conservative Prime Minister speaking at the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons. As David Cameron did yesterday when responding to Saville.

To a certain sort of Englishman, there's nothing more Irish than a crowd marching through a city on the island to protest about a past atrocity.  As people did yesterday in Londonderry (as that certain sort of Englishman would call it) when responding to Savile.

Cameron wasn't unemotional.  But he was impersonal, rational - and he kept his stiff upper lip.  The relatives of the dead weren't unreasonable.  But they were, understandably, personal, fervent - and, well, whatever the gaelic term for the opposite of stiff upper lip is.  The House of Commons, with its clipped questions and responses made to a third party (the Speaker), might almost have been designed to embody a certain English formality.  Yesterday's Bogside crowd, with its banners of the dead carried like icons of the saints, might almost have been composed to illustrate the wounds of nationalist Ireland's past.

Whatever one's view of Saville, it can surely be agreed that yesterday will have done nothing to diminish mutual stereotypes.  Which is why it's worth remembering that there's another Ireland, another England.  I declare an interest. I'm a Unionist, who was opposed to much of the "peace process" (that slippery term), and married into an Irish family.

To that certain sort of Irishman, the English are perfidious, repressed, murdering snobs. To that certain sort of Englishman (oh, and Scotsman), the Irish are manipulative, idle, devious, paddies.  But how typical are either?  England is dotted with fake Irish pubs. They're presumably marketed to English drinkers - for their supposed warmth, informality, "craic".  Ireland is targetted by UK media outlets.  This is presumably because Irish consumers, inter alia, watch Sky Sports, follow Corrie, and read News of the World.

And if the English are so inhibited, how are the X Factor, Ann Summers, and Diana's funeral to be explained?  If the Irish are so useless, how come a Fianna Fail government cut taxes with a relish unknown since...well, since Lawson and Thatcher? How come the Irish economy was, until recently, out-performing ours on many measures?  (Don't blame Irish enterprise if it isn't now; blame the Irish politicians who joined the Euro.)

Irish soldiers fought in the UK's wars.  Ireland's national poet was an Englishman.  (OK, he wasn't: but Yeats' family probably came to Ireland from Yorkshire at the end of the eighteenth century.)  England and Ireland aren't separate, but intertwined by generations of trade, friendship, marriage, and the intermingling of bloodlines.  Yesterday's scenes weren't the whole story, or even the greater part of it.

If you are a bully, don't say you were bullied

Ed Balls has said in this morning's Daily Mirror here that he was bullied at school.

I was sorry to read this.  Bullying is reprehensible.  But I don't think that Balls gave the interview because he wanted to get his feelings off his chest.

Rather, its rationale appears to be that because Balls was bullied at school, he'd be the right Labour leader to take on the Tories (who, by implication, are themselves bullies - remember Labour's "Flashman" jibe at David Cameron, for example here).

This logic is flawed, for the following reason.

Balls has - let's face it - a bit of a reputation as a bully himself.  Don't take my word for it. See what Labour MPs say - for example, here.

And if people think you're a bully, it's no use explaining that you're a bully because you yourself were bullied.  Even if you're bullying bullies.  Or people that you claim are bullies.  Because all it does is remind people that you're a bully. Which they don't like.

I've a hunch that women voters in particular are turned off by the whole macho, swaggering, football-crazy, hard-drinking, Brown-crony, all-lads-together bullying thing, but have to admit that I can't prove it.

But at any rate, don't go on about bullying.  Particularly if the real reason why people laugh at you is nothing to do with either your name or your stammer.  I'll set out this reason, and evidence for it, in LeftWatch later today.

P.S: I apologise if I appear to be bullying Balls.  Because I'm not a bully.  Really.

Has the excitement of Labour's leadership contest gone to Tom Harris' head?

I'm a fan of Tom Harris' blog.  It seems to me the most independent-minded of any Labour MP's.  But I'm baffled by his latest entry here - called "Which candidate is the Tory Party most afraid of?"

In it, Tom explains that the contest is "about" (he means "should be about") "choosing the candidate the Tories least want us to choose".

However, a few sentences later, he explains that the Tories are "incapable of looking at Labour objectively".

But "that's only because there are plenty of Tories who will pretend that David" - David Miliband, Tom's preferred candidate - "poses no threat to their government".

The logic is hard to follow.

If plenty of Tories will pretend that Miliband poses no threat to their government, why aren't they pretending this now?  

In any event, why will Tories pretending that Miliband poses no threat to their government prove that they're incapable of looking at Labour objectively?  Does the pretence provide the proof?  If not, what does?

But above all, if Tories are incapable of looking at Labour objectively, why does it matter who they're afraid of in the first place?

I fear that the excitement of the Labour leadership contest has gone to Tom's head. It's gone to mine already, as indicated by my helpful letter to Ed Miliband here.

Paul Goodman

After Cumbria, calls for tougher firearms laws are understandable. They're also wrong.

It's taken less than twenty-four hours, in the aftermath of the Cumbria horror, for the cry to go up: let's rush in further firearms restrictions.

One case for doing so is up and running in the Guardian (unsurprisingly) here. The author writes: "If firearm owners were not permitted to store guns and ammunition at home, the incident could not have happened".

Wrong - because he could have acquired both illegally.

After each atrocity, there's a chorus of "Something Must Be Done".  This is understandable.  But Governments must remember that When Ministers Do Something, they usher in our old friend The Law Of Unexpected Consequences.

Namely, in this case, more burdens for the innocent and more work for the police - while criminals flout the law.  Not so Unexpected, on second thoughts.

The content of Theresa May's Commons statement today - and her replies to questions - will be an interesting test of to what degree this really is a Liberal Conservative Government.

Paul Goodman

A few deaths on a boat in the Middle East are a sideshow of a sideshow

Imagine yourself to be a visitor from another planet - fluent in English, curious to find out about the Middle East for the first time, and dependent on the British media for news.

After scouring the net, TV and the papers for a bit, you'd get the impression that the only significant deaths in the region during the last few days have taken place aboard a boat.

You'd also get the impression that these deaths were connected to hostility between somewhere called Israel and somewhere called Gaza.  It wouldn't be unreasonable to presume that these are the two most important places in the Middle East.

You'd learn that something called the United Nations, and most governments, are critical of the something called Israel, in this instance.  You might glean, if you scouted the net a bit, that what happened on the boat is ferociously contested.

You'd probably also gather from your enquiries that the something called Gaza has something to do with something called Hamas and something else called the Palestinians - and get the general impression that if the Israelis and Palestinians could sort our their differences, all in the region would be well.

You'd have got the same impression if you'd landed from your planet during the Israel-Hamas conflict the winter before last.  And much the same, too, during the Israel-Hezbollah clash during 2006 (even though that didn't involve Palestinians).

It's an all-pervasive impression - and completely, utterly, totally wrong: a humiliating, shaming commentary on our media's collective complacency, and inattention to Britain's national interest.

Before I argue what that interest is, let me declare mine.  I'm what I think could reasonably be described as an extreme moderate on Israel/Palestine.  I want to see a secure Israel alongside a viable state of Palestine.

I believe that two driving causes of the conflict are the refusal of the Palestinians, over time, clearly to recognise Israel, and the refusal of the Israelis, over time, to stop the settlements.  I now step back, and wait to be denounced, variously, as an instrument of the World Zionist Conspiracy or Islamist Terror International.

As a Jewish convert to Roman Catholicism with an interest in Islam, representing for ten years the largest number of Muslim constituents of any Conservative MP, I think it's fair to say that I had an interesting time in my former seat - High Wycombe.

For better or worse, I supported Israel's action in the Lebanon and opposed it in Gaza.  I explained my position on Israel/Palestine in meetings with my Muslim constituents (and others), and didn't make the speeches and take the actions which they'd have liked.

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.

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

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.

A Conservative case for hiking Capital Gains Tax

"I have long felt it is highly undesirable that Capital Gains Tax should have given rise to a substantial tax avoidance industry dedicated solely to converting income into capital gain, which is taxed very much more lightly."

No: not the words yesterday of David Laws.  Or even of George Osborne.  Rather, I'm quoting from Nigel Lawson's magisterial memoirs, "The view from Number Eleven", on the 1987 budget.  I've changed the tense from past to present, but otherwise altered nothing.

That year, Lawson "decided...to tax corporate capital gains at the relevant corporation tax rate, which at that time meant 35 per cent for larger companies and 27 per cent for smaller companies...instead of at the long-standing Capital Gains Tax rate of 30 per cent."

"It was an astonishing stroke of luck that no-one guessed that I envisaged this merely as the first stage in a two stage process, with the principle being extended to individuals in a subsequent Budget.  It thus came as a complete surprise in the 1988 Budget when I brought Capital Gains Tax for individuals into line with the basic and higher rates of income tax."

Later in his memoir, Lawson names the rates: 25 per cent and 40 per cent respectively.  He adds: "Not surprisingly, this change was, and remains, very unpopular with many Conservative back-benchers, who saw it as an increase in the Capital Gains Rate from 30 per cent to 40 per cent - although they were in no position to complain too loudly in a year in which the higher rates had been significantly reduced."

Obviously, Lawson's CGT rises aren't the beginning and end of the matter as far as Conservatives are concerned.  He wasn't Margaret Thatcher's last Chancellor, and John Major's Government followed hers.  TaxCafe claims here that "by the time of the 1997 General Election, the Conservatives were set well on a path towards the abolition of Capital Gains Tax".  And like many other taxes, CGT has long been subject to a complex series of special reliefs and allowances.

None the less, Lawson's words indicate that there is a Conservative history of raising CGT in order to clamp down on tax avoidance.  He was a controversial Chancellor, not least because of his support for entry to the Exchange Rate Mechanism - a cataclysmic blunder.  None the less, he was a great tax reformer, and deliverer of "flatter, lower, simpler taxes" (copyright: George Osborne).

I'm against tax rises and for tax cuts whenever possible - money should, as Gladstone put it, "fructify in the pockets of the people".  But some tax rises will be necessary to help reduce the deficit, as Osborne indicated during the election campaign.  That being so, CGT increases have a respectable Conservative pedigree, and there's no reason in principle why they shouldn't be part of the mix.

However, I've three reservations -

* The Liberal Democrat manifesto committed that Party to "taxing capital gains at the same rate as income".  Our own made no specific reference to the tax.  The agreement between the two parties referred to "a detailed agreement on taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities".  Questions about accountability are bound to arise from agreements and/or measures that weren't put before voters in an election manifesto.

* The agreement refers specifically to non-business capital gains and to exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities.  This raises specific questions about what constitutes such gains and activities - as well as broader ones about how any further reliefs and exemptions might be structured.  John Redwood has some suggestions here.

* Finally, look again at one of those quotes from Lawson in relation to the 1988 budget: "I brought Capital Gains Tax for individuals into line with the basic and higher rates of income tax."  It was that budget, of course, which slashed the higher rate from 60 per cent to 40 per cent (prompting "grave disorder" in the Chamber from Labour MPs, and the suspension of the Commons for ten minutes).

In the medium term, then, Osborne should remember the other half of Lawson's equation.  If CGT rates are to go up then, the top rate should come down - as soon as possible.  After all, our manifesto said that "we do not regard the 50p tax rate as a permanent feature of the tax system".  I've written about this matter before here.

Paul Goodman

Knock, knock...

"Who's there?"

"David."

"David who?"

"Gordon, get out of my bloody house."*

(*As seen elsewhere on the net, but not here, at least till now.)

Fleet Street endorsements at election time aren't worth yesterday's fish and chip paper

Well, they are - to the papers themselves, that is, particularly if they're changing horses.  The Guardian moving from Labour to the Liberals is more newsworthy than the Telegraph declaring for the Conservatives again.  And papers like to be news as well as write it.

Which, no doubt, helps to explain the former's endorsement of Nick Clegg's party - the Observer has also come out for it today - as well as the Times' of David Cameron's.

Cynics will grumble that in the latter case Murdoch's view was the decisive factor. But Murdoch himself has never been an enthusiast for Cameron, and in any event allows the Times a lot of leeway.  A sense of which way the wind's blowing is a more likely explanation, at least in part.

But the notion that such endorsements count is mistaken.  Sure, the Guardian and Observer editorials are likely to send more nokias flying in Downing Street, and carpets there will cower in anticipation of being chewed.  Nonetheless, those leading articles - like this post - are here today, gone tomorrow.

What matters at elections isn't a paper's editorials.  It's the totality of a paper's coverage during the previous Parliament: what stories are investigated; which ones are covered, and how; how much space they command; for how long they run; what analysis and comment goes with them.

And even then, this totality may not matter.  "It's the Sun wot won it", that paper crowed after the 1992 election.  (On polling day, its front page portrayed Neil Kinnock's head as a light bulb, accompanied by a headline reading: "If Kinnock wins today will the last person in Britain please turn off the lights".)

The Sun's coverage of Labour had been unwaveringly hostile. But its boast has been disputed by claims about cause and effect: did the Sun's view lead the voters, or the voters' view lead the Sun? Certainly, it was no longer backing the Tories by 1997, or even John Major by 1995.  (It summed up that year's Conservative leadership election as "Redwood versus Deadwood".)

In any event, the papers don't always, or even usually, get their own way.  The Mail was unambiguously opposed to Labour by 2005.  But even Paul Dacre's big guns couldn't stop Tony Blair's bandwagon that year.  We had no better luck on the Telegraph when I there in 1997.

Furthermore, power's seeping away from the papers.  Not as much as some tend to claim: for example, consider how the Telegraph was able to utilise the expansive space and distinctive accessibility of newsprint during the expenses scandal.  But visibly and unmistakably to...well, to Left Foot Forward and Guido Fawkes and Harry's Place and, yes, even this site.

For a while, newsprint and the net will work antiphonally, responding to each other's work.  After that, who knows?  But in the meantime, as before, Fleet Street endorsements at election time aren't worth yesterday's fish and chip paper.

Paul Goodman

The prescience of Graham Brady

Articles come and articles go...but some that go are worth bringing back to life.

For example, re-read Graham Brady's article here  - published on this site over a year ago - in the light of the news from Greece and Germany.

Brady argues that the most likely consequence of a Greek-style collapse is a renewed push by the Euro-elite for fiscal union - and further political integration.

Dan Hannan tells me that he'll be blogging soon on the matter here.  And John Redwood has already been doing so here.

Could John Bercow hold Britain's fate in the hollow of his hand?

The following would be among the winners should the next Parliament be hung. Please note: You don't have to triumph at the polls, or even turn up if elected, to be among their number.

Nick Clegg.  Alex Salmond. The Democratic Unionist Party.  Martin Bell.  Gerry Adams.  A scattering of Plaid Cymru MPs with accents unheard since "Zulu".

And John Bercow, until recently Speaker of the House of Commons.

This presumes, of course, that he's re-elected in Buckingham.  This is a strange campaign - not just in that sprawling constituency, but generally - and anything could happen yet.  But sources in the area say, with emotions that vary from resignation to fury, that as matters stand Bercow will be victorious.

In the event of a hung Parliament, he'll most likely be a double winner.  This is because only a Conservative majority stands between Bercow and continuation as Speaker.  It wouldn't guarantee his defeat in a Speakership election, of course: David Cameron has made it clear that he will support Bercow's candidacy.

Nor would he be likely to lose such an election, even were lots of Tory MPs to vote against him. But his position would become impossible in these circumstances were enough of them to do so.  Given a hung Parliament, though, this danger to him will recede.

Which raises a question. In the event of the catastrophe of a such a Parliament - complete with political haggling, economic uncertainty, a falling pound, and pressure on our credit rating - how important would the Speaker's role be?  Could John Bercow hold Britain's destiny in the hollow of his hand?

I'm told that the new Speaker will have no more power in the next Parliament than Bercow had during the last one.  He will retain the power to grant Urgent Questions.  He may have a role in brokering a deal if the new Commons can't reach agreement on electing Select Committee Chairmen or Members.

But he won't sit on any new Business Committee.  (The Party is committed to introducing one.)  And the Government, in any event, would maintain control of much of the timetable.  So it's hard to see the Speaker being a major player.

None the less, the Commons would be a far more important forum in the event of a hung Parliament than one with a substantial majority for a Party.  There would be knife-edge votes.  "Ambushes", as Opposition MPs seek to lull Government Whips into a false sense of security - before voting unexpectedly.

Bad Ministers would be more exposed.  Good speeches would have greater influence.  The Speaker would loom larger in the public eye.  I wonder if Bercow will announce to the world, before May 6, that he stands ready - acknowledging his duty to the nation -  to play his part in stabilising the Commons and the country.

Paul Goodman

It's time to change how the Commons honours our war dead

By Paul Goodman MP.

Each week, Prime Minister's Questions begins with a roll of honour - as it will today.  The Prime Minister pays tribute to members of our armed forces killed in Afghanistan.  The Leader of the Opposition does likewise. So does the Leader of the Liberal Democrats.  So may other MPs.

Am I alone in believing that the Commons could improve upon this practice?

I'm not suggesting that  our present-day war dead shouldn't be commemorated in the Commons.  They should and must be. There are better ways of remembering them - which I'll return to later.  But I want to pause for a moment to explain why the Chamber could do better than the present custom.

The roll of honour was introduced by Tony Blair.  I don't want to suggest that his motives were entirely self-interested. But the innovation was extremely convenient for him.  PMQs is essentially adversarial. The Leader of the Opposition attacks.  The Prime Minister defends - and counter-attacks. Everything else tends to be secondary.

It's that little bit harder after the roll of honour has been read for MPs to press the Prime Minister about anything from new Cabinet splits to lost computer discs.  Set against men making the ultimate sacrifice for their country, even the most legitimate criticism, undertaken by people who aren't laying their lives on the line, seems somehow petty and tawdry.  Which Blair would have known when he introduced the practice.

He'd also have grasped something else.  By bringing in the roll-call, he was identifying honouring our dead with the Executive - and with himself - rather than with the legislature as a whole.  It's right that the Government, through its Ministers, should commemorate our losses.  But Ministers shouldn't own the Commons and its business and procedures.  MPs should.  It would therefore be appropriate for the legislature itself - which represents the whole country, rather than the Executive, which by its nature can't do so - to take the lead in paying tribute to those who've fallen.

Which brings me to alternatives to the present practice.  I've heard two mooted.  The first is that the names of the dead should be read during the prayers that precede Commons business each day.  The second is that, since prayers take place in private, their names should be read out in public - by the Speaker in the moments between the end of daily prayers and the beginning of daily questions.  I've no fixed view: perhaps the two ideas could in some way be combined.  Maybe Conservative Home readers have other suggestions.  Either way, the Commons could surely honour better those who've lain down their lives for their country.

How Parliament should confront anti-Muslim hatred and violence

By Paul Goodman MP.

I have in front of me as I write a meticulously-compiled document from the Community Security Trust – its “Antisemitic Incidents Report 2009”.

The report details such incidents, breaks them down into different types, and reports trends within those categories.  There’s an active All-Party Group on Anti-Semitism in Parliament.  The Government has an inter-departmental working group to combat the prejudice.  Ministers can be held to account in relation to it during an annual Parliamentary debate.

There are no comparable figures for incidents relating to Islamophobia or the hatred of Muslims.  (The two are not quite the same – a point that I’ll return to later.)  Perhaps this is because there is no Muslim equivalent of the Community Security Trust to collect and order data.  Certainly, there’s no All-Party Group on Islamophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice to date, no similar Government working group, no annual Parliamentary debate.

To suggest that anti-semitism and Islamophobia/hatred of Muslims are equivalent is controversial.  There are obvious differences.  One is based primarily on race (though containing a religious element); the other is based mainly on religion (though containing a racial element – often a very significant one).  Comparing and contrasting can take one round in loops and get one nowhere.

The brightest and best won't hang around the Commons

By Paul Goodman MP.

After I was first elected in 2001, I was put on the Work and Pensions Select Committee.  There I found a strikingly young, unflappably bright, upwardly mobile, superbly connected (in New Labour terms) unwaveringly smiling and very cool - in both senses of the word - Labour MP: James Purnell.

He was a first-rate Committee member - not just sharp but actually imaginative, a rare quality; always prepared to let the Government know it could do much better, seldom willing to put his vote where his mouth or pen were by siding with us - which was smart of him, in terms of his own career at least.

So we came in at the same time, and travelled together for a while.  But he was really going places (like the Cabinet, for example), and our paths swiftly diverged. Now we're both going at the same time.

Enough has been written about Purnell already to leave me with only one point worth making.  It's additional to Matthew Parris's column this morning which argues, I suspect rightly, that Purnell has had enough not just of Brown's Labour in particular, but of the Commons in general - of the sense that politicians now operate in a culture which presumes guilt before innocence.

Tough, I hear you say.  And tough especially in the post-expenses afterwash.  If politicians can't take the heat, they should get out of the Parliamentary kitchen - and make way for others.