Vince Cable may not vote for his own bill

I'm starting to feel sorry for Vince Cable, no seriously I am.

The great proponents of a change to the voting system, the lovers of hung parliaments, the desirers of coalition government are now feeling the reality of the compromises forced by coalition.  Their argument (and the argument made by a few Conservatives too, to be fair) are looking less convincing  by the day and the revelation that Vince Cable may not even vote for the bill that he has drafted.

This is a deeply embarrassing situation for a minister to find themselves in.

Lunch with Stanley Johnson

I had the pleasure of sharing a table with Boris and Jo Johnson's father Stanley.  If you have ever wondered where the Johnson family get their drive from you don't need to look too much further that Mr Johnson Snr.

He kept the guests at Orpington's Christmas lunch entertained with anecdotes about camping in Kenya with Boris, Jo and Rachel, attending a coronation in Bhutan and watching the flames of his father's crashed RAF plane as a 4 year old.  I had to leave the lunch early to get to my afternoon meetings in Bexley and Stanley was still in full flow when I left.

The one thing that came across strongly both during his speech and the conversations we had while eating was his commitment to ecology and the protection of wildlife.  All in all a very interesting lunch.

I've been reselected

I have just got back from a joint meeting of the constituency associations from Bexley and Bromley.  I am very pleased to say that after giving a short speech and answering 30 minutes of questions I was readopted as Bexley and Bromley's candidate for the 2012 London Assembly elections.

I would like to say thank you to everyone who attended this evening and to everyone who has supported and helped me during the three and a half years since I was first selected.

The F word

It's that word again, the F word. Fair

It seems that the Yes to AV campaign has decided that rather than campaign on the details of the alternative vote system that they will campaign for the much more vague idea of "fair votes".  Just like the proponents of PR systems they attribute all kinds of benefits to their favoured system without actually explaining how the benefits will come about.

For example one of the statements made on their site is "MPs will have to work harder to earn - and keep- our support. Doing just enough won't be enough any more", really?  How?  Another cracker is "Too many MPs have jobs for life. Lets shake those politicians out of their complacency", yes lets. But how will AV do that exactly?

The ultimate argument is that 86 year old Ralph Hill (he fought in the war!) feels that that his vote has been wasted for most of the elections that he has voted in.  Clearly a "fair" voting system would have prevented that.  No need to fill in any details, HE'S 86.  What more do you need,  HE IS 86 FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!!

I wonder if the Yes to AV team would be kind enough to explain to students who voted Lib Dem how a permanent hung parliament is more fair than expecting MPs to stick to their manifesto commitments.

Another senior Lib Dem explains why AV is bad for the country

On BBC 1's Politics Show explained very succinctly why I am deeply opposed to PR voting systems.  In defending his party's position on tuition fees he said that the Lib Dems are bound by the coalition deal, not pre-election manifesto commitments.

"We didn't break a promise. We made a commitment in our manifesto, we didn't win the election. We then entered into a coalition agreement, and it's the coalition agreement that is binding upon us and which I'm trying to honour," Vince Cable, BBC1

 The National Union of Students said it was "insulting" for Lib Dems to deny they had made a promise, but they are missing the point.  Cable didn't say the promise wasn't made he said that it was trumped by the promises made during the coalition negotiations.

I feel that politicians should be held to their manifesto commitments, which Vince Cable has explained is almost impossible in coalition governments.

Vote no to AV

100% Legal - How to avoid paying speeding and parking fines

I've just discovered a great way to beat the system and not pay speeding or parking fines.  Just follow these simple steps to avoid handing over your money to them!

The best thing, it is 100% legal, they can't touch you.

• How to avoid speeding fines:    Don't drive faster than the speed limit.
• How to avoid parking fines:    Don't park illegally or over-stay you allotted time.

There you have it! Simple!!!!!

There is nothing illegal or immoral in avoiding payments to government that you're not obliged to pay and that includes taxes.

Tax evasion and tax avoidance

At Mayors Questions this morning the Labour group asked a question about tax evasion, tax avoidance and benefit fraud, the thrust of the question being about the relative efforts made by the government in tackling each of them.

Len Duval, in asking the question, did the traditional left wing trick of trying to merge tax evasion and tax avoidance, implying that they are both the same.  I and others on the Conservative side, highlighted the fact that tax evasion and tax avoidance are completely different things, one is the illegal act of not paying taxes that are meant to be paid and the other is the perfectly legal act of not paying more tax than you are meant to pay.

When this was pointed out John Biggs started bleating on about morality, suggesting that not over-paying taxes was somehow immoral.  This goes to the heart of the left's attitude to people's and companies' earnings, they believe that it all belongs to the state and it is immoral not to let the state have it.  Being a Conservative, I believe that the state should take from people and companies only what it needs in order to perform the functions that the electorate have decided it should perform.

I believe that tax evasion should be tackled and the government should make every effort to collect the taxes that are owed to them.  They should crack down on tax evasion.  If efforts want to be made to crack down on (the perfectly legal) tax avoidance then a massive simplification of the tax system would be the better way of doing it.

There is also a large degree of hypocrisy in John Bigg's outburst.  If John has a pension, an ISA or makes use of his personal allowance he is himself engaged in tax avoidance, while I disagree with John on many issues and have called him many things I would never accuse him of being immoral.

Boris at a new cycle park

Prince William and Kate

Huge congratulations to Prince William and Kate Middleton on the announcement of their engagement.

I wonder if this website will now get a big spike in traffic? http://www.royalwelding.com/

First Pass the Post causes cancer

Over on Lib Dem Voice Mat Smith argues two points.  The first is that coalition governments have to compromise on the promises they made before an election, a point I agree with.  He then goes on to argue that Lib Dems have to be "mature" and accept a that coalition means "One must no longer think about pledges, promises....". 

I think that this is one of the most fundamental reasons why all people who believe that a party should stick to its promises or be accountable if they do not should vote against AV.  Those in favour of proportional representation (in any of its many guises) blame FPTP for almost all ills whilst ignoring the elephant in the room about political accountability.

The other point that Mat makes is that First Pass the Post (FPTP) was directly responsible for the MPs' expenses scandal.  What tosh!

Mat's claims that because we have had the same party for 13 years MPs scammed their expense, conveniently ignoring the fact that PR would have given us a centre left coalition since 1992.  Blaming FPTP for everything is lazy and meaningless, we have seen a massive increase in cancer rates over the last few hundred years that FPTP has operated, are we claiming that they are related too?

As I have said before, PR is a different electoral system but not inherently better.

Patron of Bexley and Bromley Advocacy

I am delighted to be able to announce that Bexley and Bromley Advocacy have asked me to become their patron and I have accepted.

Bexley and Bromley Advocacy work with people aged 14+ who have a learning disability and/or autism in the boroughs of Bexley and Bromley.  What I love about their work is the fact that they focus what people can achieve rather on what they can't do, they help develop confidence and self esteem within the people they work with.

Members of Bexley and Bromley Advocacy visiting City Hall

The transition from teens into adulthood can be awkward and difficult at the best of times and having someone help you find your voice, support you in making decisions and help you to take control of your own life is invaluable.

As a politician I am in a position to make my views heard, I am very conscious that there are many people who are not in such a fortunate position.  Bexley and Bromley Advocacy helps people who are often the least listened to have a voice and I'm honoured to help them do that.

Student protests and the Lib Dems

Traditionally students do society events on Wednesday afternoons.  I played rugby at Uni so was a member of the Sports Soc, it seems that the Violent Protest Soc have converged on Millbank to light some fires, smash some windows and undermine their own argument.

Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems are also getting some stick because they campaigned on a promise to oppose the increase in tuition fees that the students are protesting about, a promise that they are now unable to fulfill.  As Lib Dem MP Martin Horwood pointed out, coalition government means that both parties have to compromise, neither the Conservatives nor the Lib Dems are able to fully make good on their pre-election pledges.

Funny then that the Lib Dems are still pushing for a voting system that would lead to almost perpetual hung parliaments and coalition governments.  As I have written before different election systems have advantages and disadvantages, and if you want MPs to stick to their pre-election promises you need to have a political system in place which doesn't give them an automatic get out of jail card.

Vote no to AV

Why did the Archbishop of Canterbury say nothing about IDS's family policy last week?

Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams

Last week Iain Duncan Smith made a speech about the social and economic importance of the family, something the church might have strong opinions about but Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, said nothing.

This week IDS highlighted a plan to help the long-term unemployed get back into the habit of regular work.  Dr Williams predicts Armageddon.  Why comment on one but not the other?

Jill Kirby has more over at ConservativeHome

The single most importnant government website?

The government have launched the Number 10 Transparency website and as a fan of transparency I think it is a great idea.

It will prove inconvenient and sometimes even embarrassing but the actions of politicians should be in the best interest of the country and people should have the ability to check that it is so.  If you want to see who had lunch with who, who had formal meetings with who and find out who has won government contracts you can now do it easily and far more cheaply that via the FOI process.

This should both save money and lead to better government.

Poppies, soldiers and coppers in Bromley

On Saturday morning I went to Bromley to support the poppy sellers and visit my old unit 265 Battery, Royal Artillery (Volunteers) who were also there.  Here are a few photos from the morning.


Soldiers from 265 Bty and their Rapier air defence launcher

Bromley market festooned with giant poppies

Poppy coloured balloons ready for launch



A Special Constable, a PCSO and a regular sergeant (A full house)

Message from Fire Authority about the FBU strike cancellation

Dear all,

Following negotiations between the Brigade and the FBU yesterday, the Union has agreed to call off the 47 hour strike action planned for the Bonfire Night weekend. The Union has also agreed to attend a meeting of the Resolution Advisory Panel (RAP); a measure we have been requesting for some time. The RAP is an independently-chaired body that can make recommendations to resolve the dispute.

The intention of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority has always been to reach an agreement on proposals that will make Londoners and firefighters safer. Going to an independently-chaired body to help us seek a way forward is a step in the right direction. The meeting of the RAP is taking place on 16 November. We very much hope an agreement will be reached swiftly, using this mechanism or during normal negotiations. Section 188 notices have not been withdrawn.

Yours sincerely,

Councillor Brian Coleman, AM FRSA
Chairman & Leader of the Authority

Ron Dobson
London Fire Commissioner

The Rent Is Too Damn High Party

Just in case you missed it here is the video of  Jimmy McMillan of The Rent Is Too Damn High Party:

Denis MacShane needs a dictionary

Yesterday Denis MacShane (@DenisMacShane) posted this on twitter: "Just heard on R4 the most illiberal assault on fundamental right of jury trial. How many more reactionaries going to crawl out of woodwork?"

Like so many on the left MacShane uses a word associated with the right of politics as a pejorative term, without giving any thought to the word's meaning.  Reactionaries were anti-revolutionaries, initially used to define those opposed to the French revolution and then to describe those opposed to the Russian revolution.  They were people who wanted to put things back the way they were.
 
The idea of removing trial by jury in some cases is a change to what has been the norm for centuries, you could say the idea is a revolutionary one.  I can't the understand how a reactionary could be in favour of such a change, reactionaries are by definition opposed to change.
 
If you feel like helping Denis out with his use of English click here

Michael Gove is wrong on the BNP teacher ban

I know that I'm opening myself up for a maelstrom of criticism here, but so be it.

I have a huge amount of respect for Michael Gove and I think that the education reforms that he is steering through parliament are some of the most significant elements of the government's programme. But on the issue of BNP members being barred from teaching I believe he has got it wrong.

Allowing a system where head-teachers can fire staff just because they are members of the BNP is wrong on both a practical and moral level.

The practical argument first. The BNP thrive on their victimhood status, they love to claim that the establishment and ganging up against them and preventing them telling voters the "truth", clearly the "truth" as the BNP sees it bears little relation to the reality that most of us would recognise. Singling the BNP out in the way that this proposal would serves only to reinforce their, already over inflated, sense of self importance. Selective treatment is counterproductive.

Now the moral case. As much as I despise the BNP and what they believe, they are a recognised political party. If government believes that they should become an illegal, prohibited organisation then it should make them so, until and unless they do we have to treat the BNP just like any other party no matter how unpalatable their views may be. All people have protection under the law against discrimination based on their political beliefs.

If a teacher breaks the law or acts in an inappropriate or unprofessional manner in the classroom or with colleagues then the appropriate action should be taken. But we are at the top of a slippery slope if we allow people to be fired not because of what they have said or done but just because they are a member of a political party.

Thought crime is straight out of Orwell's 1984 and has no place in British life.

Giving prisoners the right to vote is madness

I've just heard that the 70,000 people serving custodial sentences will soon have the right to vote.  This decisions is being forced on us by the European Court of Human Rights and has been fought be both the current and last governments, we face multi million pound fine s if we do not comply.

When someone is sent to prison some of their rights are temporarily curtailed, the right to a private life and the right to free movement for example.  The idea that in prison you should expect all the same rights that you had on the outside is laughable.  In the UK we have decided that the right to vote is one of the rights which is curtailed in our system.  I cannot understand why the ECHR feels the need to dictate in this area.

Many people will feel justifiably outraged that this hugely significant change has been forced on us by Europe and added to the 2.9% European budget increase will further shift public opinion in an increasingly anti EU direction.

The folly of trying to define the big society

I was at an MPA planning meeting the other morning and part of the discussion was the nature of policing and the relationship to the "big society". A number of members tried to define the big society in this context but it became clear that a single agreed definition was not going to be found.

Some people feel that this is a flaw with the concept of the big society, I don't subscribe to that.

The whole point of the big society is that it covers a range of community responses to the circumstances that exist. Big society will mean one set of things in a rural community and a different set of things to the residents of an estate in Peckham.

A single top down definition of the big society totally misses the point, the natural centralisers on the left feel very uncomfortable with this, decentralisers on the right less so.

Although some believe that the big society is what will left when the current big state reduces. I prefer to think of the big society as the force which displaces the overly large and intrusive state. Light isn't what is left when the darkness goes, it is the thing which drives the darkness away.