Mark Pritchard MP: The Libyan people should not be left defenceless in pursuit of freedom

Mark Pritchard MP is Vice Chairman of the Conservative Foreign Affairs Committee and a member of the National Security Strategy Committee.

Having not discouraged the Libyan people from making a stand against Gaddafi’s brutal and bloody regime there is now a strong moral imperative for the international community, including Arab states, to stand with the Libyan people.

It is becoming increasingly clear from hourly graphic media reports that unless opposition forces are given access to modern weaponry, Gaddafi’s forces will soon retake lost ground, reconsolidate the ‘mad dog’s’ grip on power, and advance to kill off anti-Gaddafi forces – with hundreds of women and children cut down in the crossfire.

This is not a call for international troops to land on Libyan soil – but rather a call to the international community to allow the Libyan opposition forces ‘access’ to modern and portable military equipment, so that the Libyan people are given the tools to finish the job. For the crisis in Libya is primarily a Libyan problem, best solved by the Libyan people, and requires a long-term Libyan solution.

Weaponry, such as light machine guns, anti-tank and portable shoulder-launched surface to air missiles, provided via an Arab country or a coalition of Arab countries, would immediately reduce Gaddafi’s overwhelming military advantage, empower the increasingly beleaguered opposition forces and shell-shocked population, and would effect a rapid ‘self-help’ no fly zone - as Gaddafi’s helicopter gunships and fast jets start are grounded following downed aircraft. This initiative would not replace a UN-backed no fly zone but would be complimentary and provide much needed and speedier response.

Mark Pritchard MP: The Government is right to protect the International Aid budget

Mark Pritchard MP is Secretary of the 1922 Committee and Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party’s International Office. In this Platform piece he calls for support for the Government’s plan to increase and protect DfID spending – arguing there is a security imperative for doing so.

What happens ‘over there’ does matter over here. That is why the Prime Minister is right to increase and protect Britain’s aid budget – even at a time of austerity at home.

The Coalition does have its DfID doubters.  But those colleagues need to understand that DfID’s role is increasingly strategic and is inextricably linked to the vital work undertaken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence in safeguarding Britain’s national security.

This is not a ‘securitisation’ of DfID’s budget, the charge from the Opposition, but rather an overdue recognition that development and national security need to be complementary and better co-ordinated; in turn, reducing the number of fragile states becoming failed states and diminishing the number of lawless ungoverned spaces emerging as the breeding ground of franchised global terror.  It is welcome news the Development Secretary now sits on the National Security Council. This innovation, led by the Prime Minister, will help deliver a more robust and integrated approach to Britain’s national security policy.

That is why DfID’s extension into ‘conflict prevention’, capacity building, and governance training, is also welcome. It is often the lack of governance capacity, at regional and local government level, not just nationally, which can block economic and social advancement - even amongst the more stable of developing countries.

Mark Pritchard MP: Right-wingers have plenty to cheer in the Coalition programme - so they should not scupper next week's Referendum Bill

Mark Pritchard is Member of Parliament for The Wrekin and Secretary of the 1922 Committee.

Whether MPs across the parties like it or not, on May 7th the United Kingdom’s political and discerning electorate voted for a new type of politics – coalition politics.

Why outright victory eluded the Conservatives, the most successful political party in history, is something for Number 10, a sub-committee of the 1922 Committee, and political historians to agree and disagree about.

What is clear is that for a party which has enjoyed governing solo for over seventy years, accepting coalition life was never going to be easy. To be fair, David Cameron has never suggested anything otherwise. Addressing the parliamentary party in Committee Room 14, just hours before the final touches of the coalition agreement were being woven together, the then Leader of the Opposition eloquently and transparently underlined this point. For the parliamentary party it was unmistakeably a case of being briefed with eyes wide open - not eyes wide shut.

Moreover, as a hard-headed pragmatist, the Prime Minister is the first to admit that the country’s juxtaposed government is a marriage of raw politics and convenience rather than some political romance blossomed out of mutual desire. More Jackie Collins - than Barbara Cartland? Nick Clegg and his senior colleagues give a similarly candid assessment of the new Whitehall. Indeed, romance will probably always be lacking in this awkward coalition but that does not have to manifest itself in ways that hold back political, economic, and social advancement.

For some political purists, especially on the Right of the Conservative Party, such a naked commentary is philosophically distasteful and ideologically bereft. But those luxurious observations are notably offered up from the comfort of the now Conservative government benches - rather than the cold isolation of yet more years of opposition. It may be a classic case of being wise after the event.

Mark Pritchard MP: The increased use of Sharia Councils in Britain is bad news for women and undermines social cohesion

Mark Pritchard has been MP for The Wrekin since 2005 and is a member of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.

Since the 1996 Arbitration Act, government ministers have allowed Islamic tribunals around Britain to rule on a range of financial disputes, provided both parties agree to accept the court's decision. But in recent years, these tribunals have developed into fully fledged Sharia Councils - allowed to settle new disputes, such as divorce, family law, and faith issues. These powers go well beyond the letter and spirit of the original legislation and whilst they provide new ways of dispensing cheap justice they do not always dispense fair justice.

By expanding the powers of Sharia Councils, ministers have set the scene for a breaking narrative which is fractious, discriminates against women, and, incrementally, is establishing a parallel legal system.

As Sharia Councils expand their powers and reach, ministers have unwittingly rolled the dice over a type of cultural snakes and ladders, all in the hope that such initiatives will increase inclusiveness and marginalise Islamic radicals. But all the evidence contradicts ministers' stated aims. Sharia rulings are more likely to create legal ghettos - undermining rather than improving social cohesion.  And in so doing, ministers are found guilty of piecemeal legal vandalism and managing the gradual decline of English jurisprudence.

Mark Pritchard MP: Should all new citizens swear an oath to the Queen?

Mark Pritchard, MP for The Wrekin, asks questions about Lord Goldsmith’s plans to introduce citizenship ceremonies for all young adults coming of age.

The humble British penny provides a revealing insight into why Labour’s plans for swearing an Oath of Alligence to Her Majesty the Queen as a national ‘rite of passage’ for teenagers graduating into full citizenship are fundamentally flawed. The measure is another pseudo-patriotic gasp and strain – an attempt to try and mitigate Britain’s worsening community relations, caused not because few union flags fly over public buildings, but because of forty years of failed multi-culturalism and Britain’s open and porous borders.

Servicemen and women of all faith groups and none already swear an Oath of Alligence to the Queen on joining the Armed Forces, and so do MPs when entering the Commons, but in each circumstance, swearing the Oath is a condition of employment and membership - not a pre-requisite for acquiring basic legal rights. Today, it is less clear, whether a new generation of young adults, many from other faiths, will be willing to swear alligence to the Defender of the Faith – a Christian faith?

Mark Pritchard MP: The BBC's double taxation without representation

Mark Pritchard, MP for The Wrekin, says that the last few weeks show that it is right to privatise the BBC.

This has not been a good few weeks for the BBC. First there was the doctoring of the film misleadingly showing Queen Elizabeth storming out of a photo-shoot in "a huff". Then the television regulator, OFCOM, fined the BBC £50,000 for faking a Blue Peter programme. No BBC employee will have to pay the fine - it will be taxpayers and licence fee payers who will be out of pocket. Then there is the ongoing investigation into claims that viewers were deceived over phone-in polls and competitions - hurting worthy charities like Children in Need and Comic Relief. These recent 'lapses of judgement' are not isolated - but this time the BBC got caught.

There is also good evidence that, for years, the BBC has been, in parts, the 'Bias Broadcasting Corporation', or 'Auntie' as it is affectionately known to its army of 25,000 employees. It is often 'anti': anti-monarchy, anti-Christian, anti-British, anti-Israel, and anti-American. Large parts of the BBC appear more interested in advancing a multi-cultural and politically correct agenda - rather than listening to the needs and wants of hard pressed licence-fee payers.

Mark Pritchard MP: Brown's tragic flaw is his (IVS) condition

Mark Pritchard, MP for The Wrekin, says that Gordon Brown's thin skin and Irritable Vowel Syndrome will be fatal flaws in his Prime Ministership.

As Brown’s predictable, but temporary, bounce pushes Labour ahead in the polls no amount of spin or union flag wrapped policy pronouncements will be able to hide the electorate from the Prime Minister’s underlying tragic flaw - his irritability.

In his previous post as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would often offer a small wager to fellow backbenchers on how quickly the Chancellor would lose his temper at Treasury Questions. Would he "lose it" by Question 4 or 5? Few of us ever won the spoils because invariably Brown would "lose his cool" far sooner than any of us had predicted. Whether it was throwing papers across the despatch box at Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, or slapping down Tory MPs who dared ask questions on tax credits, at some point during the proceedings you could guarantee that "grumpy Gordon" would turn up.

Mark Pritchard MP: Conservative MPs must remain cool under fire

Mark Pritchard, MP for says its time for the Party to hold its nerve as a resurgent Labour Party pulls ahead in the polls.

The summer of 2007 is the season for the Conservative Party to hold its nerve - ensuring that the discipline and unity enjoyed by the Party over the last twelve months continues. Why? Because the Labour lead in the opinion polls is likely to widen over the next few weeks - and possibly continue for several months. Whilst it is true that the Labour revival has mostly been at the cost of the Liberal Democrats, with Conservative support remaining fairly steady on 36/37 points, it is likely that some softer Conservative support will also switch to Labour over the coming weeks. The Chancellor’s media packaging has already made some advances – distancing Blair’s ‘old’ Labour – and reinventing a ‘new Brown’. A political paradox which is as intriguing as it is unsustainable.

Brown’s poll progress is also a combination of the Coronation Story, the media has certainly waited long enough for the carriage to arrive; Brown’s increased Prime Ministerial designate media profile and, to be expected, the corresponding temporary decline in Cameron’s own media coverage. Brown’s media dominance is likely to continue for some while - with the announcement of successive eye-catching policies, most having been worked on for months in preparation for their ‘summer release’ - all helpfully wrapped in the union flag – Brown’s union flag!

Mark Pritchard MP: RAF Cosford bid may determine who governs Britain

As the government contemplates awarding the largest PFI/PPP in UK history Mark Pritchard, MP for The Wrekin, challenges the government to declare its obvious conflict of interest in the matter and to come to its decision based on who the Ministry of Defence believes can best provide the best 21st century training to Her Majesty's Armed Forces - in the interests of the nation as a whole.

Later this year, probably in the Autumn, the government will decide the fate of RAF Cosford, Shropshire - the RAF's largest operational base in the world. In the balance are the lives and dreams of the 2,750 dedicated civilian and military staff employed at the base. The Secretary of State for Defence's decision will have a dramatic impact, negative or positive, for the whole county and the nation. That is why small, medium, and large suppliers to the base, from electronic suppliers in Birmingham to local retailers in quaint Shropshire villages, like Shifnal and Albrighton wait anxiously to hear whether the government will continue to invest in Shropshire's 6,000 strong defence sector , or instead, switch future defence investment to an alternative military base, RAF St Athan, in Wales.

This decision, part of the Ministry of Defence's so-called modernisation programme for defence training, entitled: Defence Training Rationalisation (DTR), will be the biggest public private partnership in UK history - worth an estimated £10 Billion. Success would provide RAF Cosford with a secure future and bring tens of millions of pounds of new investment into England's largest landlocked County - and create up to 3,000 new jobs. Winning the DTR would provide a much needed boost to Shropshire and the West Midlands region's service, retail, electro-manufacturing and aerospace sectors. As the government deliberates the existing socio and economic vitality of East Shropshire and the region hangs in the balance. That is why the whole of the people of the West Midlands has the right to expect the consultation and bidding process to be conducted with integrity, fairness, and transparency. And this is where I have concerns.

Mark Pritchard MP: Does Britain need a Missile Defence Shield?

Mark Pritchard is the Member of Parliament for The Wrekin.

Defence experts claim that Iran may have the technical capability to develop a long-range Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile by 2010. North Korea has already developed its Taepo Dong -2 Ballistic Missile which is within striking distance of Japan, South Korea, and US bases in Asia. However, it is Pyongyang’s development of a ballistic missile with a 6,700 km range that concerns Western intelligence agencies most. This missile would put the United States’ western seaboard within North Korea's target zone. If North Korea were to share this technology with countries, such as Iran and Syria, then London and Manchester would also be within range. Both North Korea and Iran join a rapidly expanding club of countries who have successfully developed long range inter-continental ballistic missiles - missiles capable of striking Europe’s capitals. The proliferation of these missiles is a 'live threat' and an international menace which is likely to increase.

It is within this fragile security context that the United States is continuing with the deployment of its Ballistic Missile Defence System (BMDS). Co-ordinated by The Missile Defence Agency (MDA) in the Pentagon the primary purpose of the BMDS, is to “to protect the United States, its deployed forces, allies and friends”. However, Pentagon watchers confirm the primary focus of the multi-billion dollar programme is to defend the United States from incoming ballistic missile attack and to ensure American dominance in what Pentagon chiefs call “the missile defence battlespace”. The MDA has already successfully tested and deployed both defensive and offensive weapon systems - providing the United States with counter-missile superiority.

Mark Pritchard MP: Clarity needed on drug laws

Mark Pritchard is the Member of Parliament for The Wrekin. If you would like to contribute a post for Platform please email your suggestion to [email protected].

Individual experiences shape lives. For politicians those experiences can also shape public policy. For too long Britain has lacked leadership on drugs policy and in recent times the government has sent out confusing messages that has led to fewer police arrests and increased drug use - especially among Britain's children. In my own County of Shropshire, school buses are now stopped and searched for drugs. No longer are drugs sold at the school gates by mysterious men in dark cars, but by entreupenrial fourteen year olds whose pencil cases contain more than just pencils and coloured pens. Some social commentators say drug use amongst school children is spiralling out of control - the evidence in schools up and down the country suggests they are right.

My personal view is, that any politician, aspiring to become Prime Minister, should be prepared to say how their own exposure to drugs, or lack of it, will impact on their government's drugs policy. What leadership would they provide? Would they liberalise drugs laws still further or would they toughen up the laws? These questions should not be no-go areas for any politician. Politicians are public servants and they should not expect to pick and choose what questions are put to them - however uncomfortable the questions might be. Seeking to be shielded from difficult questions is extremely naive for any would-be Prime Minister. Confronting thorny issues head-on is a policy I have long advocated. Scrutiny should not be seen an irritant but an opportunity to express views and a platform for a new type of politics. If, as a new backbencher I am prepared to come clean about my own limited exposure to drugs, albeit a quarter inch of a cannabis joint back in 1980, which was spluttered out rather than inhaled, then so should those who seek to lead our Party and country. For the record, I have never taken hard drugs. My constituents are more concerned about no-go areas in drugs blighted rural and urban communities throughout Britain, including some parts of Shropshire, than no-go questions for aspiring Prime Ministers. This should not come as a surprise given the increasing levels of aggravated robberies and assaults up and down the land - much of it fuelled by addicts looking to finance their next fix. Whilst some elements of the metropolitan liberal media may wish to claim the drugs experience of national politicians' is a non-issue, or it is bad form to raise such questions, many parents and families ripped apart by drugs are desperate for national politicians to provide political clarity on the issue.

I also do not believe I am in a minority when I suggest that cannabis is harmful. Cannabis users are more likely to suffer from depression, from psychiatric problems and are more likely to attempt suicide. There is also strong evidence to suggest that a significant proportion of cannabis users go onto use hard drugs. However, it may be a convenient distraction to try and narrow this debate to cannabis alone, for much of Britain the issue is now the increased availability of cocaine - crack cocaine. It is also not enough for politicians to say that more rehabilitation places should be made available - there is cross-party consensus on this, but it is not a policy for deterring drugs supply or demand. What is needed is a new national and legal framework that makes it crystal clear that the supply and possession of drugs feed one another and that the laws of the land, set by politicians, will bear down heavily on those involved in peddling and using this social poison.

Leadership is about tackling difficult and complex issues, and for many urban and rural communities up and down Britain, rising crime fuelled by drug use, concerns them greatly - not Europe. If we are to have a new type of politics then all the candidates should be open and transparent about their exposure to drugs and how this might shape their drugs policy. Perhaps then, we can all move on and Britain may at last have a national drugs policy that sees a reduction in drug use rather than an increase.

Mark Pritchard MP: It's time for the Tories to get off the couch

Mark Pritchard is the Member of Parliament for The Wrekin. If you would like to contribute a post for Platform please email your suggestion to [email protected]. 

Similar to a caricature of an American psychotherapy patient, history's most successful political Party has itself become addicted to self-analysis, introspection, and constant navel gazing. At times, the Conservative Party's incessant apologising for what it stands for, and what it has done, has bordered on self emasculation. Who would want to vote for a Party that declares itself "nasty", "socially distasteful", and "not trusted"?

After three successive general election defeats, the need for self improvement and internal inquiries is entirely reasonable; but self-analysis should not become an obsession, where constant post-mortems and dissections, which might provide some helpful therapies to recovery, become part of the problem rather than part of the cure. Constant reflections and running commentaries on the reasons for successive general election defeats, many inaccurate, do nothing for Party morale and do nothing to convince the public the Conservative Party is ready to govern again. Neither does a revisionist view of modern Conservative Party history.

Internal analysis however helpful, comforting and needed, should avoid being seen as a panacea and providing the yellow brick road to future success. An obsession with self-image counselling is not an attractive political attribute for a Party that needs more, not less electoral support. The country wants a strong and confident Conservative Party not a fragile and timid imitation. Self confidence should replace embarrassment.

Perhaps lying on the couch, under the gaze of media shrinks and social counsellors, has been a convenient distraction from the alternative of the Party facing up to the enormous task of charting Britain's future, especially the pressing need to modernise public services? To some biased observers, the Party's very public therapy, often humiliating, has served as proof positive, that all along, the Conservative Party has been addicted to self - talking about itself, to itself - rather than learning, moving on, and embracing defeat as the universal and cyclical crucible for political character-building.

As the Party conference approaches the good news is, is that there are increasing signs renewed self-confidence within the Party, perhaps a sustained recovery, not only manifest with the arrival of fifty five new MPs, where there is much and obvious talent, but more importantly, by a welcome resurgence of the 'thinking' Conservative Party. Whilst it is true, that it is not unusual to see an array of new ideas published in pamphlets, booklets and articles, whenever there is a Conservative leadership contest, on this occasion, the Party's conversation and policy discourse is very similar. Many of the ideas and speeches by the likely leadership candidates are remarkably connected - both in content and tone. The Conservative Party has found 'common ground' again. This has not been the case in the last three leadership contests. This new consensus is a reason for great hope, and for a Party that has been divided for most of its post-Thatcher years, signals the Party's re-emergence.

The consensus has been found on the 'common ground' of One Nation Conservatism, whether this is confronting the "age of anxiety" (David Davis); the mending of a "broken society" (Liam Fox); tackling the "coarsening and vulgarising of society" (David Cameron) or the need to reverse Britain's "social decay" (David Willetts). This is good news for Party unity and such a 'coming together' may just be enough to provide Britain with its most intellectually cohesive Opposition in over a decade.

Some argue that the Conservative Party's image or brand is so contaminated that no-one is prepared to listen to us, and therefore changing the Party's image must come above all else - even workable and attractive policies. I disagree. The early presentation of modern One Nation policies will do more for the Party's image than any iconic advertising, slick campaigning or discarding of neckwear. Bringing forward credible policies on health, education, social care, the environment, animal welfare, and empowering the voluntary and charitable sectors, as well policies on meaningful public sector reform, will do more for changing the Party's image than any blue-chip West-end advertising agency. The time is now right for the Conservative Party to get off the couch and return to serious frontline politics.