The infantilisation continues
Our State-funded broadcaster reports how government officials want .... Um ... more government. This time the cry is for speed-limited cars.
Surely, the way to make us safer drivers is to make responsible adults behave responsibly. Putting government into your car takes away responsibility. And when you take responsibility away from folk, you make them less responsible.
When will government funded experts ever call for less government? And would the BBC ever report it?
Posted on 30 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Why your heating bills are high
This winter, many of my constituents - especially older folk - are anxious about being able to pay their heating bills to keep warm. Affordable energy is fast becoming their top priority.
It's no good blaming high prices all on Russia or the Middle East. Government policy over the past decade has very deliberately pushed up the cost of energy.
All around Clacton are plans to build expensive wind farms - both on shore and off shore. Where do you think the money to pay for these has come from? From your heating bill, of course.
It is through higher heating bills that the hidden subsidies are passed on to the energy companies to pay for wind farms that would not otherwise be built. That's right. Local pensioners are left with higher bills today to pay for the vanity projects of the political establisment.
And why? All because fashionable opinion asserts that man-made global warming is a fact. Setting aside the growing evidence that global warming is not primarily caused by human activity, to what are these monstrous wind turbines the answer?
Surely if CO2 emissions need to be reduced, the answer must be nuclear power? It's cheaper and more relible that wind. It's safer than coal with far fewer fatalities and accidents.
And if government had invested in new nuclear power stations - like they have in France - over the past decade, our energy bills would all be lower. It's time for a coherent and sensible approach to energy.
Posted on 29 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Gaza air strikes - who is to blame?
So far, so predictable. Those who were already anti-Israel, blame Israel. Those who sympathise with the Middle East's only liberal democracy, point out that the air raids followed months of provocative rocket attacks. Often the reaction of commentators tells us more about their prejudices, than about who might actually be to blame for the bloodshed.
Might it be that in fact it's neither Palestinian nor Israeli that is primarily to blame, but Iran?
It is a striking fact about the Israel / Arab conflict that Israel has been willing and able to come to peaceful terms with those of her neighbours run by governing authorities in a position to negotiate. Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, even, perhaps, the West Bank. All have been able to come to some sort of understanding - however brittle - with Israel.
Yet two territories, Gaza and southern Lebanon, are not controlled by governing authorities subjected to the usual domestic constraints and pressures. A government in Amman or Cairo, like all governments, has to weigh up competing priorities. This mitigates towards pragmatism and has acted as a constraint – and helps explain why eventually such governments have preferred to find a negotiated solution.
Yet thanks to the pernicious influence of Iran, neither Hamas nor Hezbollah is constrained by ordinary pragmatism. Iran’s influence seems to be the defining factor in explaining when and if there is peace between Israel and her neighbours. In building proxy armies on Israel’s borders, Iran has helped build up proxy authorities whose raison d'etre is to reject Israel.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe Iran's influence over Hamas is marginal. But part of me thinks that if the people of Gaza and south Lebanon were free from the influence of Tehran, they'd eventually want leaders - like those in Cairo and Jordan - who were able to find some sort of accommodation with their neighbour - not yet more endless, bitter, destructive violence.
Posted on 28 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Politics is about ideas
Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Matthew d'Ancona compares the challenges that the centre-right faces today with those they faced a generation ago.
He claims that "The Conservative Opposition of the late Seventies had it easier in one crucial respect: they had a route map ..... Thirty years later, the aspirant Tory successors to Thatcher, Howe and Joseph have no such manual to hand, no off-the-shelf philosophy to espouse."
D'Ancona is absolutely right in one respect; Conservative success, both in seeking office and in using office for good ends, depends on having a coherent philosophy and a plan (Indeed, I made one or two suggestions along these lines in a book I wrote in 2008 called The Plan). When a party has neither a coherent philosophy nor a plan, it ends up looking like John Major's administration, or Gordon Brown's Labour government.
However, I disagree that those 1970s Conservatives that clustered about the think tanks - the IEA or the CPS, or the ASI - were somehow handed a ready-made route map. They drew it themselves. With lots of intellectual heavy lift. Much strategic - as opposed to merely tactical - thinking.
Having read their Hayek and Friedman and Wealth of Nations, carefully they developed a coherent critique of the state that Britain was in. No inner cliques, constructive rivalry saw some of the brightest minds sparking off each other. Thus were they able to forge a genre of policies that became Thatcherism.
Adam Smith and Hayek are still in print and selling well. The IEA, the CPS and the ASI are all still there, you know. The state of Britain in 2009 could look every bit as dire as in the late 1970s.
So where is the next Keith Joseph?
Posted on 28 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
This man thinks he knows what's best for you
Andy Burnham MP, our very own Minister for Culture, wants to rein in the internet, and, according to today's Telegraph, "censor some websites".
Does Andy's internet regulation scheme mean having some sort of a regulator? Rather like OFSTED or OFWAT or OFGEM, perhaps the new regulator could imaginatively be called OFWEB? Maybe it could set minimum standards, educate people on what's appropriate, clamp down on irresponsible bloggers, blah blah blah?
The internet can be a rather wild place. Just as cheap paper and the printing press spawned all sorts of dodgy pamphlets in the 1700s, there's lots of dodgy stuff on-line today.
But surely with a little common sense, personal responsibility and the use of parental controls, it's perfectly possible to avoid anything horrid? As the internet evolves, various websites are evolving brands that guarantee certain standards anyhow, in much the same way that newspapers have.
Besides, how effective would any imposed system of regulation be? OFSTED, the quango regulator responsible for ensuring that Baby P's social workers were doing their job properly, gave Haringey social workers a good approval rating shortly before Baby P died. That's right - the regulator failed to do its job properly. With catastrophic consequences.
Why would quangos and officials be any better at patrolling the internet?
Andy Burnham's proposals are based on an assumption that a remote official is better at deciding what is and what is not good for you. They aren't. You are.
Posted on 27 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Will we become the new Iceland in 2009?
The BBC's Robert Peston makes an interesting comment on his blog: "if the perceived credit-worthiness of our banks - with their trillions of pounds of assets and liabilities - were to deteriorate further, that would have an impact on the perceived credit-worthiness of the state."
Think about that.
The liabilities of some of these quasi-state owned banks exceeds our entire annual GDP. I remember reading someplace that one such bank alone had liabilities several times Britain's 2007 output. If they go bad, you and me and everybody else becomes liable for all that bad debt. Each of us will pay for it - with higher taxes, lower pensions and less public services. For many, many years to come.
Remember that next time someone tries to convince you that Gordon Brown's rescue plan has all been a genius master stroke. Turning private debt into a public liability might have looked like a smart move in late 2008. I doubt it'll look quite such a smart move in a year or two.
We'll look back at the initial public policy response to this crisis and see quite how cack-handed it's been. Interest rates that discourage savings don't help build up credit. Nor does a glut of public expenditure - designed to raise aggregate demand - which itself soaks up whatever credit there is in the system. We're still fighting a debt crisis as if it was a problem with aggregate demand.
Posted on 26 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
The appeasement of evil
I'm reading a history book about Persia / Iran. She is clearly an ancient civilisation and a great country. Yet her people deserve better than to be ruled by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Yesterday, Channel 4 used your money to allow him to deliver an "alternative Christmas message". He spoke about a return to "human values". What about respecting "human values" with regard to those killed at the bombing of the Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires? Until those within the Iranian government involved in the massacre have been brought to justice, there should be no encouragement of Ahmadinejad - let alone promotion of his views.
Shame on Channel 4. Shame on those at Channel 4 who decided to give this man a platform. And shame on us for allowing Channel 4 to use our money to broadcast a lecture from a truly evil man. Today I feel deeply ashamed as I wonder what people in Argentina must think of our country, Britain, for giving this man airtime.
Posted on 26 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Merry Christmas!
Father Christmas seems to have been busy in the constituency last night. Today will be spent singing carols in Church, having Christmas lunch and doing all sorts of Christmas things.
So no more blogging today ... Merry Christmas!
Posted on 25 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Who's been lobbying against localism?
Last week, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that long-awaited plans to make local police more locally accountable were to be scrapped. The move represented a success for those powerful vested interests fiercely opposed to more democratically accountable policing.
The Association of Chief Police Officers seems to have disliked the idea that Chief Police Officers might be made more directly accountable. Obviously. The Association of Police Authorities – equally predictably – dislike the move because turkeys tend not to vote for Christmas.
More surprisingly was the opposition from the Local Government Association. According to the blurb on their website, the LGA “calls on central government to push decision-making to the lowest possible level”. So why did they so actively oppose the first real opportunity to devolve power for a generation? Indeed. You ask them.
There’s nothing wrong with any such bodies representing the views of their members – however much one might disagree. Indeed, the LGA and Association of Police Authorities were pretty up front in the evidence they gave to the Home Affairs select committee.
I do, however, note that shortly after I introduced a Ten Minute Rule Bill on directly elected Justice Commissioners / Sheriffs, I got a call from a charming voice claiming to be from lobbyists, Connect Public Affairs. Connect is very open about the fact that their list of past and current clients includes both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. Nothing wrong with that.
They also list something called the Campaign for Local Policing. Is that “local” as in run from the Home Office? Whatever. There's nothing wrong with running such a campaign, either.
For me the question is has public money - directly or indirectly - changed hands in order to employ lobbyists to run a campaign designed to quash moves to make police more democratically accountable? Perhaps the lobbying is done for free? I merely ask, rather than infer. Yet, I do think that if the services of professional lobbyists have been engaged, by organisations whose funds ultimately come out of the public purse, inorder to influence public policy matters - like how we are policed - we should at least be told.
Nick Hurd, Conservative spokesman on these things, has suggested that there be some sort of restrictions on public funds being used to lobby government. I’m beginning to see why.
Posted on 24 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Parliament isn't working
Following Damian Green's arrest for exposing the truth about illegal immigration, the Freedom Association got me to do the cover article for their magazine this month. You can read it here.
I suggest that the House of Commons has grown monumentally useless at doing its job of holding government to account. Since those with executive power are no longer properly answerable, executive power has expanded into the private spaces of our lives.
With power in the hands of unaccountable officials, voters have clocked just how pointless the system is – and increasingly don’t vote.
Radical reform is needed. Done properly, reforms to clean up Westminster politics would be very popular – and only the centre right is able to deliver on this new agenda.
Posted on 24 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
I'm not much of a name in cyberspace ....
... it would seem. Iain Dale has been drawing up more of his lists - and this one is a survey about politics in 2008.
I've made it on to the shortlist of "Best Conservative MP of 2008" here. But have a look, and you'll see it's spelt "Caswell".
Oddly, I couldn't see www.hannan.co.uk on any shortlists. I must have missed it as more people now read it each week than the Spectator.
Posted on 23 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Lip service localism
A few years ago, I co-authored Direct Democracy: an agenda for a new model party, along with about 25 other young(ish) Conservative MPs, MEPs and activists.
It was pre-Cameron, and we wanted the Conservatives to embrace a new, modernising political agenda based on decentralising power. Instead of ministers and "experts" in Whitehall micromanaging your local school, hospital or police force - and doing so badly - we argued those who ran local public services should answer to you. We wanted power passed from Brussels to Whitehall, from Westminster to the town hall, and from the state to the citizen.
The book was described by the Spectator as "One of the founding texts for the new, revitalised Toryism." And indeed much of what we advocated is now party policy. Indeed, for a while even Labour Ministers started to pay lip service to localism.
Today, Labour at last delivers.
Will they allow us to elect our police chiefs? Err no (they ruled that our last week actually). Will they allow town halls to become self-financing? Um... stop being difficult. Open primaries? Nope. Citizen;s initiative? Stop it.
Okay, then how about just letting parents choose what school their own children go to, rather than allocating places? Don't be daft.
Rather than any meaningful decentralisation of power, Minister instead announce that local people should have a say when new place names are being decided. Not exactly the totality of what we had in mind when we began to advocate local decision-making.
Jacqui Smith cul de sac, anyone?
Posted on 22 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Christmas carols and decorating the tree ....
Being the local MP, I get invited to a number of carol services at this time of year - and I absolutely love it.
At the WI service in Walton-on-the-Naze the other day, everyone sang at the top of their voices - and there were a couple of brilliant solos and a duet.
O come
, all ye faithful, Hark the herald; They are wonderfully familiar, and also in a funny sort of a way strangely evocative and moving.
This morning I've been doing a spot of Christmas tree decorating - with new decorations. As children, we seemed to use the same old tree decorations every year. So much so that it became a tradition to use the same old disintegrating baubles long after common sense would have replaced them.
Maybe the shiny new bits I've been adding to the tree today will be irreplaceable old favourites in a decade or three. I hope so.
Posted on 22 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Is Bob Quick going to arrest us all?
Remember how Damian Green MP was arrested for trying to expose the scale of illegal immigration?
Today Bob Quick, one of Scotland Yard's anti-terror supremos, acts decisively. Not about the illegal immigration, you understand. Nor in relation to any t
error networks, as far as we know. No. He's done something quite different and launched a full pronged attack on the sinister "Tory machinery and their press friends".
Apparently we ... sorry, they .. (I'm not part of the conspiracy. Honest) have been undermining his investigation into Damian Green.
I thought Bob Quick's team undermined their investigation into Damian Green. Around about the time when they arrested an Opposition MP for holding government to account. Then raided his offices without a warrant. Detained him for 9 hours. All with about as much chance of any of it standing up in court as a snowman in July.
When the words “Stop digging, Mr Quick” spring to mind, I don’t think it’s a suggestion that you might scale down the use of your forensic investigative skills, Sir.
UPDATE: Bob Quick issues a grovelling apology. Too late, Sir. The damage is done. I cannot have confidence in the Met's anti-terror supremo - not when he behaves like one might expect the chief of police to behave in some grubby, banana republic. You cannot continue to run this "inquiry" into an Opposition MP for doing his job and exposing the scale of deceipt and lies about illegal immigration.
Posted on 21 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Mark Steyn ...
.... is well worth reading here – it’s all about cars, bailouts and automobiles.
Posted on 20 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Are Labour MPs plotting to oust Michael Martin?
Intriguing. On the last day before the Christmas recess, I see that some Labour MPs quietly tabled Early Day Motion 336 regarding "the election of the Speaker". They suggest that the Speaker be elected "towards the end of a Parliament" (i.e. sort of soonish) rather than in a new Parliament.
Should one view this as an anti-Michael Martin move aimed at bringing forward his departure? Or is it just tribal politicking to try to ensure the next Speaker is Labour?
It's fair to say that those MPs behind this motion are not widely known for their love of the incumbent Speaker.
From more than just one or two discreet little chats in Westminster, my reading is that more and more Labour MPs have woken up to the reality that Michael Martin is an embarrassment to the institution in which we sit - and needs to go sooner, rather than later.
Before dismissing this as a tribal attempt to stitch up the election of Michael Martin's successor, it's worth looking at the amended Standing Orders 1a and 1b that will govern the process. For the first time, it's by secret ballot. It ain't going to be a simple tribal contest. Presumably those MPs behind this EDM must know this and be aware of its potentially big consequences?
Make no mistake; this is an anti-Martin move - sweetened slightly to make it easier for tribalists Labour MPs to swallow.
On a final note, bear in mind every receipt for expenses claimed by MPs in recent months is about to be put into the public domain. If this were likely to mean bad publicity, might some MPs look to start blaming someone for having failed to get to grips with this unholy mess years ago? Do you suppose some Labour MPs might at last be willing to accept that Michael Martin's leadership might have something to do with where we're at?
I spent 2008 campaigning to oust Speaker Martin because he's persistently failed to ensure MPs hold government to account. My bet is he'll be gone sometime in 2009.
Posted on 20 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Are we too dependent on psychology?
One reason it seems to have taken so long to catch the murdered Robert Napper was an unfortunate over reliance on the “science” of forensic psychology. Good for making TV dramas like Cracker, it’s less good at catching criminals – apparently.
Yet twentieth century thinking about psychology
seems to inform a great deal of what it is that certain parts of our public services do. Freud's memes might have mutated, but they live on.
Psychologists seem to me to be amongst the chief advocates of the disastrous policy of “inclusion” for children with special educational needs. Sitting on the Commons Children, Schools and Families committee, I've noticed that some of the more kooky ideas tend to be peddled by those with backgrounds in psychology.
Visiting probation officials recently, I was struck by how many of their assumptions – about the nature of human behaviour and how to change it – seemed to be derived from psychology.
There was a time when those with power in our society made decisions on the basis of certain assumptions that we’d today regard as absurd. With massive advances in neuroscience and our understanding of genes, I wonder if we might look back in 20 years time and marvel at our absurdity today?
Posted on 20 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Partial Robert Peston strikes again
On this evening's BBC Ten O'clock News, Robert Peston continues to blend his own personal political opinions with current affairs - and present the pastiche as "news". According to our State-funded broadcaster, this economic downturn means we need a bigger role for government.
Peston calls this the "new capitalism". This seems to be all about government overseeing big business and public policy-makers directing business. Not much "new" about this idea, Robert. It's called corporatism. And they tried it in 1920s Italy and elsewhere.
In a party political sense, Peston's reporting is fair - equal airtime to each party etc. But intellectually, there's zero balance.
No where in Peston's report was their any suggestion that the downturn - far from being caused by rampant, unbridled capitalism - might just be a consequence of the opposite; State agencies, like the Federal Reserve or the Monetary Policy Committee, maintaining artificially low interest rates for a decade.
When is Peston going to give airtime to free market economists and their analysis of where we're at?
Posted on 19 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
The last sorry chapter in a failed presidency
Once something of a George W. Bush fan, I went on a three day detour to Yale via Kennebunkport in Maine to see where he was educated and visit his family's New England home.
I liked his frank style. I approved of a President that read
Natan Sharansky
, and who could think for himself - rather than regurgitate, a la Al Gore, all the leftist clichés of the day. The condescending, Euro-leftie caricature of "Bush the dim-witted cowboy" tells us more about the shortcomings of the Euro-elite than about the 43rd President of the United States.
And yet. And yet...
Bush's presidency amounts to an unravelling of the conservative position in the United States. The federal budget ballooned. Big government advanced as states' rights fell back. His education policy alone has put federal quangos into every classroom in the union.
And today, he's announced he’s forking out $17 billion to prop up failing industries
. Money Americans do not have is to be handed out to big business. Handouts will prop up an industry brought low by unionised non-wage labour costs. Low income families will be bailing out rich shareholders. And all to make things at a price that the US market is no longer willing to buy at.
Thus has the party of the free market become the party of corporatism. Under Bush, the Republicans are back to where they were before Barry Goldwater. Ideologically, and therefore inevitably in terms of winning elections, too.
Posted on 19 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Late night Christmas shopping in the constituency
I'm out and about doing a bit of late night shopping in the constituency this evening. It's always a lot of fun - and a good way of sorting out one or two last minute presents.
Time to wrap up warm!
Posted on 19 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Partial Peston spins the government line - again
Robert Peston's latest blog entry could be straight out of Downing Street.
Our partial BBC business editor informs us that it is right to use taxpayer money to save Jaguar Land Rover. Why? It's still a "viable" business, apparently. Maybe. But not many investors seem to think so.
And then he adds it is "responsible for a disproportionate amount of precious UK-based research and development in the automotive sector." Surely if it was so precious, there would be a buyer? Or did I miss something?
He then asserts - without evidence - that "the main outstanding question over whether it should be propped up by us is whether its owner, Tata of India, really does lack the ability to obtain the finance elsewhere."
No where in his pro-government coverage does Peston ask why it is that low income families should pay high taxes to bail out businesses owned by Indian millionaires.
I've nothing against the Tata's, but I don't see why Clacton pensioners should bail them out - or why the BBC's Robert Peston should produce such unbalanced coverage about the decision to bail them out or not.
Posted on 18 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Who is leading who?
Does Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, oversee policing, or do senior police chiefs oversee Jacqui Smith?
Today, news emerged that Ms Smith has "been forced" to abandon "plans to make the police more accountable to local communities through direct elections because of opposition from senior officers".
You get that? Top police honchos say "No, Jacqui. We don't want to have to answer to local people." And so she ditches the idea.
No wonder that Home Office Ministers got so shirty with me when I asked them
, in all innocence, how their plans for more democratic accountability were progressing. (Incidentally, I'll write to Mr Speaker this morning to ask what he's going to do about the fact that when I raised this matter in the Commons a couple of days ago, and got no mention of all this, only to see it leaked to the press today. Will post his answer when I get it).
As Daniel Hannan and I point out in this week's Spectator, senior police chiefs are already deeply politicised - remember ID cards, 42 days detention, Sir Ian Blair, Damian Green? The issue is are police chiefs accountable?
I'm delighted that Labour have abondoned their milk and water attempts at reform. The Association of Police Authorities own data (and bear in mind they are fierce opponents of democratisation) shows overwhelming popular support for change. That, plus focus group results, make me think this'll make an excellent wedge issue in any pending general election.
Posted on 18 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Quantative easing is not a magic answer
Cutting interest rates to almost zero and going on a public spending binge will not bring economic recovery. Ask the Japanese.
Even people like Robert Peston at the BBC - some time cheerleader for Downing Street - are slowly starting to grasp that this is not primarily a problem of low aggregate demand, but of debt.
And there are two ways out of a debt problem; high interest rates or higher inflation.
Higher interest rates = more savings = more credit, but it'd be very painful. Higher inflation, on the other hand, would be extremely painful too - especially on all those who had done the right thing and saved. It'd also have all sorts of horrid side effects. What will the government do?
My bet is that "quantative easing" - the government printing more money - is the start of a policy trend that could ultimately see more inflation as a way of dealing with the debt. Current inflation figures don't suggest it, but my guess is that it's around the corner.
"You mean, Carswell, that we could have high inflation AND low growth?" I hear you scoff. Umm. Yes. Like in the 1970s. Don't assume low demand always means low inflation. Remember stagflation, anyone?
Posted on 17 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Commons officials prevent MPs asking about BBC license fee
A growing number of people, including Charles Moore, have apparently decided that they're going to refuse to pay their BBC license fee. I've always taken the view that in a Parliamentary democracy you ought to pay your taxes, however much you might dislike doing so.
Why? Because we all, collectively, elect the government - and democracy means accepting that those we elect decide how much we collectively pay. Taxation is justified by representation, as the American rebels might once have said.
Alas, this turns out not to be the case.
As an elected MP, I tried to table questions in Parliament about the license fee
. Today, the Table Office in the Commons tells me that they're refusing to accept my questions.
That's right; those you elect to Parliament are not able to hold those spending the BBC license fee to account.
This shocking fact tells us two things:
1. The House of Commons is useless at holding those with executive power to account. If Mr Speaker presides over a Table Office that won't allow questions about the license fee, what's the point of Parliament or of elections to decide its composition? (The Table Office claim its because the license fee isn't part of ministerial responsibility - but its the executive deciding what is and what isn't their responsibiliity, not the legislature - as was once the case).
2. The BBC license fee lacks legitimacy.
It’s very naughty of Charles Moore not to pay his BBC license fee. He’s almost as naughty as John Hampden was over ship money, or Ben Franklin over tea tax or Gandhi over salt tax. And where did that get them, eh?
How can the BBC license fee have democratic legitimacy if those we elect can't even ask questions about it in Parliament?
Posted on 17 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell MP
Boorish behaviour of Eurocrats
Read here about the boorish behaviour of Eurocrats, like Danny Cohn-Bendit. They are not simply undemocratic, but anti-democratic -and rude with it.
None of this enhances the reputation of Hans-Gert Pöttering of the European Peoples' Party, either.
Posted on 16 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Robert Peston replies ....
Mr Peston emails me:
From:
Robert Peston [mailto:Robert.Peston@bbc.co.uk]
Sent: 16 December 2008 12:39
To:CARSWELL, Douglas; Jeremy Hillman
Subject: Re: Coverage of Peer Steinbrück comments
Dear Mr Carswell
Please forgive my delay in replying to you. I don't believe that I downplayed the economic significance of PS's remarks on the Ten O'Clock news or the following morning on the Today Prog, although the story was also interesting for what it said about relations between the German and British governments.
On the BBC, we have attempted to explain the risks attached to the very pronounced increase in Government borrowing, without being tendentious. I am surprised and disappointed to learn that you feel that may not be the case.
That said, my role doesn't include deciding which external commentators are interviewed on our many outlets and programmes. So if you have concerns about this, it may be better to address them to my colleague, Jeremy Hillman (jeremy.hillman@bbc.co.uk).
Many thanks for getting in touch.
Robert
UPDATE: .... so I respond back.
From:
CARSWELL, Douglas
Sent: 16 December 2008 13:31
To: 'Robert Peston'; Jeremy Hillman
Subject: RE: Coverage of Peer Steinbrück comments
Dear Mr Peston,
Thank you for your reply.
You begin my asserting that "I don't believe that I downplayed the economic significance of PS's [Peer Steinbrück] remarks on the Ten O'Clock news". I don't mean to be impolite, Mr Peston, but asserting the point doesn't make it so.
At what point did you, during your discussion with the presenter of the Ten O'clock news on December 10th discuss the economic aspects of Peer Steinbruck's remarks? You didn't.
You confined your comments to the appropriateness of a German minister making such comments - not on their economic worth. That's not a statement of my opinion, but of fact.
You went on to mention your subsequent reporting on the Today programme. Not my point, I'm afraid. Perhaps by the time you did Today you realised your earlier coverage was missing the big picture as to whether or not Steinbrück's comments merited consideration as a critique of UK government policy. Maybe in next week's coverage you might give a more balanced overview. My concern, however, is with the coverage on the Ten O'clock News on 10th December.
You then assert - again without supportive evidence - that the BBC has "attempted to explain the risks attached to the very pronounced increase in Government borrowing, without being tendentious. " Oh yes? When? What sceptical economists did you interview? Yvette Cooper?
Have you figures to show how many monetarist commentators you've invited to air their views relative to Keynesians? Of course you don't.
Having shrugged off the factual point I made, you state that your "role doesn't include deciding which external commentators are interviewed on our many outlets and programmes. So if you have concerns about this, it may be better to address them to my colleague, Jeremy Hillman."
While I would like to think that Mr Hillman invited a balanced range of commentators, my beef is with your coverage, not with other aspects of BBC biase.
I don't wish to be difficult or critical of you personally. I'm sure you're a nice person. But I feel I have no choice other than to pursue this.
The government is making economic decisions that will have a massive bearing on our future. Yet your coverage - which we all pay for - on the Ten O'clock News was not balanced or fair. (Fact: You did not assess the comments made by Steinbruck from an economist's perspective, but criticised them in terms of diplomatic niceties.)
If you are not willing to admit that your coverage on the Ten O'clock news on December 10th omitted any economic analysis - and that it was neither fair, objective or balanced on that occasion, I will have to pursue this issue further.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Warm regards,
Douglas Carswell
Posted on 16 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Judicial aggrandisement
According to reports
,
senior judges in our about-to-be-opened Supreme Court, want a grander address. "We all feel that Little George Street sounds ridiculous and doesn't give the right message," says Lord Hope. "If you take out the 'little' it would be fine." Hummm ....
You've been warned. In a small, yet highly revealing way, that sentence tells us a great deal about the mind set of our self-aggrandising judges.
Don't be surprised when, empowered by the Human Judicial Rights Act, if not a grand court house, the Lord Hope's of this world start to assert themselves over democratically elected government. Something tells me it won't just be immigration and asylum policy our judicial overlords strike down ....
Posted on 16 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Peston calling. Calling Peston
A number of German leaders have questioned the wisdom of Gordon Brown's economic "rescue" package. Commenting about such doubts on the BBC's main evening news on Wednesday December 10th, business editor Robert Peston focused on the diplomatic propriety of the German sceptics. He failed to assess the economic merits of what they said or inform viewers that many economists shared such scepticism.
Robert Peston, believed by some to be close to Number 10, is paid for - by you and me - to report impartially. Yet I believe he failed to give a fair, objective or balanced account of Gordon Brown's actions on this occasion.
I've emailed him already, asking for an explanation. See below.
Maybe his response is on the way? Perhaps it got held up in the Christmas post? It can happen with emails.
No matter. I've left a couple of messages suggesting he might like to respond. If I don't get an answer, I'm only going to escalate it. I expect an answer, Robert.
From: CARSWELL, Douglas
Sent: 11 December 2008 17:48
To: 'robert.peston@bbc.co.uk'
Subject: Coverage of Peer Steinbrück comments
Dear Mr Peston,
I am writing to you regarding the BBC news coverage yesterday evening.
You reported on some comments made by the German minister, Peer Steinbrück, in relation to UK government policy.
As I indicate here on my blog, I was extremely surprised that your coverage focused largely on the propriety of Steinbrück’s comments – not on the validity of what he had to say. I think that is somewhat surprising for a business editor, or have I missed something?
There are a number of perfectly respectable economists willing to question the wisdom - just like Herr Steinbrück - of vast increases in public expenditure and debt. At what point when covering this economic crisis, and the government’s response to it, have you allowed such views to be aired?
I would be most grateful if you would let me know on what occasions you have quoted the views of those economists who do not think that massive increases in public debt to be the answer?
Indeed, a number of respected economists have expressed the view that government borrowing is making matters worse – by borrowing what credit there is in the system, the government is leaving less credit available for businesses and homeowners. Less government borrowing would mean more credit and less crunch. Perhaps you are not familiar with these points of view?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Warm regards,
Douglas Carswell MP
www.TalkCarswell.com
UPDATE: Robert Peston replies here
Posted on 16 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Called by the Speaker
I stood up in the Commons this afternoon to ask a question - and got called by Mr Speaker straight away. In fairness to Michael Martin, he's never once failed to call me since I spoke out against his suitability for the job.
So much for the conventional Westminster wisdom which held that by speaking my mind I'd be doomed and never able to debate in the chamber again ....
Posted on 15 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
75% of UK terror threats are linked to Pakistan, apparently.
If true, this should alarm us all. While addressing it, we need to do so sensitively and with great respect to British people of Pakistani heritage. The only people who will benefit from causing offence are extremists.
According to answers I obtained from Ministers, the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office doesn't appear to know how many British passports it's been handing out over the years. Surely national security and social cohesion demand that we carefully and sensitively review the way in which British passports are being issued overseas?
Posted on 15 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
BBC licence fee revolt: questions in Parliament
The BBC licence fee revolt continues to gather pace. Naturally, I think this is all very naughty, and like with the Boston Tea Party, I think it quite wrong that some people go around breaking the law like this. It's good that Benjamin Franklin, John Hampden and Mahatma Gandhi also had the sense never to break the law over unjust taxes.
Today I've tabled some questions in Parliament about it. Let’s see if our normally quite useless Parliament still works. Hopefully, I’ll get some answers, eh?
1. Will the Minister advise the BBC to review the way in which the BBC licence fee is collected in view of the number of people pledged to boycott payments?
2. What assessment has the Minister made as to the number of BBC licence fee payers who might take part in a boycott of the BBC licence fee?
3. What assessment has the Minister made as to the likely impact of the campaign to boycott the BBC licence fee on BBC revenues?
4. In light of the growing number of people boycotting payment of the BBC licence fee, will the Minister review the way in which the BBC is funded?
Posted on 15 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Ultimately it's a stark choice: higher interest rates or higher inflation?
As the great Jeff Randall at the Daily Telegraph never tires of telling us, this economic downturn is about debt
.
For years, big government threw away £billions of our taxes, while keeping interest rates too low. The result? A sea of public and private debt - and, with too little saved, not enough credit. Hence credit crunch.
Many of Mr Randall's rival commentators lack his perceptiveness. They still see this recession as primarily a problem of aggregate demand. If only big government cut interest rates and injected more demand into the economy, they seem to presume, the good times would start to roll once more.
At last one or two in the media herd, besides Randall, seem to have begun to grasp that such a policy would lead us over a cliff. Edmund Conway, in today's Telegraph, writes about "what to do when interest rates don't function any more". The penny is beginning to drop; low interest rates and high government borrowing and expenditure will not solve this economic down turn - ask the Japanese.
Massive government borrowing is already soaking up whatever credit there is available in the banking system - and making life more difficult for businesses and home owners.
Ultimately, there's only two ways out of this debt created mess; higher cost of borrowing or higher inflation.
Higher costs of borrowing would - painfully - encourage people to reduce debt and save more - thus creating more credit. Higher inflation would erode the value of the debt - and clobber savers too.
One would reward the virtues of thrift and saving. One would punish savers, and reward the less prudent.
Ultimately policy-making boils down to a choice between doing one or the other. I know which one I'd prefer.
With rumours circulating that government plans to print more money, guess which one this government prefers?
Posted on 14 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Ken Boston quits - good
Back in September, I called on Ken Boston, head of the QCA, to resign. I'd just heard him give (unconvincing) evidence to the Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee, on which I sit.
Today, he's finally accepted responsibility - and has announced he's going.
Good. He has shown himself to be an honourable man.
Now we need to revisit the role of the Ministerial department. The QCA gave a heads up to the department that not all was well with SATS markings. Ministers failed to act on that information. More to the point, Ministers – not Ken Boston – are the people we elect to improve education.
If accountability to Parliament means anything, those in Parliament must now take responsibility, too. Ed Balls, will you now take responsibility?
Posted on 13 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
A moving thought and a little local history
Visiting a farm shop inside an old converted barn in the constituency this afternoon, my attention was drawn to a photo frame on the wall. It contained two faded, grainy photos of the local village quiots team - one from the 1890s and the other from the 1920s.
In the first photo, a dozen earnest men stood rigidly to attention - some in top hats, all bristling with moustaches and pride. Evidently, hurling quiot hoops for the village had been a big deal to the late Victorians.
What a contrast with the second photo, taken a couple of decades later. The 1920s image contained fewer than half as many men. They stood less stoutly, with something less certain about them.
Perhaps, I wondered, quiots had fallen out of favour in the intervening years? Maybe the advent of radio or newsprint meant the men folk occupied their leisure time with other pursuits, I thought?
And then the realisation stuck me.
Between the two photos, a sizable chunk of the village's men folk had been killed in Flanders. There were fewer men folk in the photo because, quite literally, there were fewer men. Many in the photo would have lost close friends and neighbours - no more the Victorian village of old.
In a tiny way, that one photo frame, hanging in an old barn in Essex on a wet and windy afternoon in 2008, brings home so powerfully the enormity of what happened almost a century before.
Posted on 13 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Time to rethink defence policy?
This week it was announced that we'd be getting less defence kit for the same amount of money we spend. The overall defence budget remains unchanged, but we'll have almost 10% fewer Future Lynx helicopters than before, and the carriers are to be delayed.
Defence equipment purchases seem to be an endless tale of woe; delays, cost increases and incompetence. Why? Yes, there are long development timelines, but should that make such problems inevitable? Civilian aircraft and motor cars have long R&D phases - yet they seem to get things right in a way that defence manufacturers rarely seem able to.
The past two decades has seen the relative cost of most manufactured or engineered goods fall - often dramatically (think white goods or hi tech electronic goods). So why not in defence?
Either minister will have to start asking why we are getting such poor value for money, or we aren't going to have much of an army or navy left.
Posted on 13 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
In this week's Spectator
Daniel Hannan and I have the cover piece article in this week's Spectator
, making the point that we now need directly elected sheriffs running local policing - as well as prosecution and offender management.
The Damian Green affair tells us that senior police chiefs have been politicised - and now need to be made more democratically accountable.
Posted on 12 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Three cheers to Antonia Cox!
Antonia Cox, who wrote the brilliant paper The Best Kit for Policy Exchange, has an excellent article on defence procurement here. Well worth a look
.
The days of the Defence Industrial Strategy are numbered. Those with an interest in it need to recognise that the criticisms of it are valid – and are starting to gain traction.
Posted on 12 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Robert Peston - Downing St spin doctors must love him
Yet another German leader has questioned the wisdom of Gordon Brown's response to the economic downturn.
Far from saving the world economy, the world seems to be telling Gordon Brown he's mismanaging his own UK economy.
So, does
Robert Peston still think that his dismissal of such scepticism on the Ten O'clock news on Wednesday December 10th was fair, objective or balanced
?
To the delight of Downing Street, Peston focused on the diplomatic propriety of such comments - he failed to consider whether they made economic sense.
When are you going to give credence - let alone airtime - to those economists who share the scepticism of certain German monetarists, Mr Peston?
The more this story builds, the more Peston's misjudgement of it makes him appear strong on spin, light on substantial analysis.
Posted on 12 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
A decade of Labour government ...
... prosperity - gone
… low tax, flexible economy – gone
… £1.4 trillion in extra taxes – gone
... aircraft carriers for our navy - gone
... rolls royce, impartial civil service - gone
... politically neutral policing - gone
... respect for Parliament - gone
Now you add to the list.
Posted on 11 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Is this BBC man Gordon Brown's mouthpiece?
Comments by Germany's finance minister dismissing Gordon Brown's economic rescue package have been widely reported. Peer Steinbrück claims that the UK government's fiscal stimulus package will have little impact - and that a debt created crisis ain't going to be solved by creating yet more mountains of debt.
What’s so surprising isn’t that someone should think this, but the coverage given to such comments by the BBC when they do.
The German minister’s point of view was quoted in yesterday's 10 O’clock news. Yet what happened next, when Robert Peston was asked to comment on it, was bizarre. Did Peston, the BBC's business editor, give an economic view about the points Herr Steinbrück had been making? Not a bit.
Peston focused foremost on the propriety of a German minister making such comments about UK domestic policy. Lots of tut tut hyperbole. Fair enough, but hardly the substance of the argument - nor the economic analysis one might have expected from a business correspondent.
Peston then - in the manner of a Downing Street spokesman - asserted that such trying economic times demanded international cooperation, not this sort of stuff from Herr Steinbrück.
Those who hold that the BBC is innately biased object less because of any party political prejudice. Rather we object to the tendency by the BBC to give a very one sided (usually a centre left) view on current affairs. They clearly did so yesterday.
At some point, even Robert Peston is going to have to grasp that Japanese-style interest rates cuts and public expenditure increases are not going to be enough - any more than they've solved Japan's problems. Short term boosts to aggregate demand, which increase debt, aren't the solution to a debt created problem.
Already, there are perfectly respectable economists willing to question the wisdom - just like Herr Steinbrück - of
vast increases in public expenditure and debt. So why did Peston not report such opinions? Either he's biased - and prefers not to give airtime to such views. Or he's not familiar with such a point of view.
Either way, you are being forced to pay for it through the license fee, remember ....
UPDATE: I've written to Mr Peston asking if he could explain his coverage and let me know when he is going to give airtime to the views of economists who share Herr Steinbrück analysis. I'll post my letter in full, and Mr Peston's reply when I get it ....
Posted on 11 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Internet politics will be revolutionary
The other day, I overheard two MPs discussing the internet. They clearly liked having their own websites - no doubt all about them. But they were decidedly iffy about blogging. "Irresponsible", "unnecessary", "can't see the point" - apparently.
Sinking into my chair to be as inconspicuous as possible, I started to think .....
Surely the political system we have today has been profoundly shaped by the rise of organised labour? As a political force, organised labour didn't simply give us the governing Labour party; it forced Liberals and Tories to merge. It pushed classical liberalism backwards in a century long retreat. It shifted the default settings of politics in favour of Big State interventionism.
What if the internet allows taxpayers to mobilise in a way that previously only organised labour did?
Before you dismiss this as the fantasy of some Ayn Rand novel, consider this; since last August, 200,000 people have signed up to a web-based campaign pledging not to pay their BBC license fee. Sounds like a tax strike to me.
What if they succeed? A web-based boycott of the council tax? VAT?
I'm absolutely not advocating non-payment of taxes or the breaking of laws (that said, most Westminster MPs once opposed as unlawful the actions of the Taff Vale railway strikers).
Lots of MPs glibbly say that the internet will have an impact on politics. When pushed they mutter something about more emails and on-line information. My guess is that the internet will transform far more than how MPs hold surgeries.
Taxpayers organised as consumers? Open source parties and policy-making? The democratisation of communication? A long-tail in politics?
Not wanting to appear like a character in a Bateman cartoon, I kept my thoughts to myself. Given that the two politicians I was listening to were so web-sceptic, I think its probably safe to post my thoughts here though.
Posted on 10 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Monster ego spotted in Westminster
Posted on 10 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
PMQs LIVE: Gordon saves the world
In a slip of the tongue, Brown says "we've not just saved the world". He's Blair's messiah complex - without the charisma.
He lacks the wit or grace to catch himself, make a joke, and let it go. He blunders on with the lines he and Maddy have been rehearsing.
Cameron on top form. He makes Gordo look pedestrian and devoid of imagination.
Posted on 10 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
What if no one really knows?
When all the experts agree, it's wise to ask questions.
Many experts agree that our flagging economy needs very low interest rates and lots of public spending to "boost demand". Ummm ....
Isn't that what Japan's tried for the past decade? After their asset bubble went pop, low interest rates and massive public spending have failed to stop their slump. Why will we be any different?
How do low interest rates encourage savings? The "credit crunch" is called thus because there's not a lot of money to lend out - credit. If interest rates weren't so low, surely there'd be more savers and savings, and thus more money to borrow?
If government is busy borrowing what credit there is in the system, surely that leaves less available for businesses and homeowners? Maybe if it borrowed less, there'd be more credit and less crunch?
Is "boosting demand" and consumption, on its own, the right thing to do? Surely the downturn is telling us that demand and consumption need to be balanced against supply and savings?
Before I entered Parliament, I'd assumed that somewhere in Whitehall there'd always be a group of well-informed wise heads asking the key questions, looking out for the country's interests. Now I really doubt it. On key questions, your guess is probably as good as theirs .....
Posted on 9 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
How to reduce public expenditure without cutting services
For as long as I can remember, anyone talking about reducing public expenditure has been pilloried for wanting to cut public services. Yet there is a way to reduce public expenditure very significantly, and maintain the same level of public services. How? By ensuring proper accountability over the £ hundreds of billions in public expenditure.
Parliament still retains notional control over public expenditure - but in reality most decisions happen under executive fiat. Indeed, billions are spent without any real decisions made by those we elect.
Imagine if each select committee of the House of Commons had to annually approve each government department's budget? Imagine if its approval was needed before each quango got its hands on our cash?
Instantly - and irrespective of which party held office - there would be proper accountability. Think of all those big government IT projects that wasted millions undetected? Recall, if you can bear to, all those tens of thousands of non-jobs created over the years? If each Commons select committee had the power to say "no", think of the £ billions in waste and inefficiency that might be saved. With accountability, we'd be able to squeeze proper value out of every tax pound.
Incidentally, it might also restore some purpose to Parliament.
Posted on 9 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
John Redwood has a typically ...
.... thoughtful blog today about German leaders, Angela Merkel. I rather agree with him. Having been rather sceptical of her credebility as a reformist, I'm beginning to hope that she's now on to something.
Posted on 8 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
COMMONS LIVE: Why we can no longer have confidence in the Commons
Every adult is able to vote to decide who represents them here in the House of Commons. Today's "debate" proves that those you elect to sit here have almost no power to hold government to account.
First, government triggered events leading to the arrest of an opposition MP for embarrassing them. Yet, today they've acted to ensure that Parliament cannot even debate the issue properly.
They've acted to stitch things up; a committee of grandees to review it. With a government majority. Chosen by the government. To report after a good long delay.....
Sitting in his chair, "presides" Mr Speaker. Out of his depth. In the pocket of government.
As long as he remains there, we can have no confidence in the House of Commons. It is useless, deserving of contempt.
Posted on 8 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
LIVE BLOG: If Parliament worked ....
As I'm not going to be able to speak in the Commons debate - since the government's stitched it up and the Speaker is useless - I shall blog, more or less, what I would've said here:
"Members of this House come from many traditions. From a range of views. All manner of opinions, from all across the political spectrum. Yet on one thing, I hope we can agree; the sovereignty of the people.
Parliamentary sovereignty is shorthand for sovereignty of the people. Parliamentary government isn't a question of special rights for MPs. It's not about politicians rights. It's about the people's right to elect whoever they choose - and the ability of those elected to hold government to account. Without the later, the former has little purpose.
As MPs, we must have the ability to hold the executive to account - free from interference from the executive.
Mr Speaker, on your watch there's been a grotesque failure - by you - to defend the people's prerogative. You knew the police wanted the green light for the raid - and you did nothing.
As a new MP, I see this failing, by you Mr Martin, as the last straw. It isn't the first failure, by you, to allow this House to hold those with executive power to account.
Written Questions cannot be tabled. Points of Order are so much hot air. You've shown a biase in favour of ministers, against even backbenchers on the government side.
This House is not a seat of government of the people, for the people or by the people. No. This House is controlled by the executive.
Supine and spineless, this legislature is monumentally useless at holding those with executive power to account. No wonder executive power has grown. No wonder we've had more big government intruding into the nooks and crannies of our lives.
Today, it's the authority and credibility of the House that's at stake. Hon Members know where I stand. Mr Martin, you've sat here for too long for any good that you'll do.
We need a reformist Speaker. One who realises the extent to which Westminster isn't working.
If confidence is to be restored in this House, the incumbent Speaker must go"
Posted on 8 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Parliament is useless - and asleep on the job
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled illegal the police practice of keeping DNA records of innocent citizens on its database. I agree with the ruling, but am troubled by who is doing the ruling. Why is Parliament not making this decision? Why is it left to foreign judges to hold Big Government to account?
No one you or I can vote for ever seems to have sanctioned the police practice of putting innocent people onto their database. It’s something that just seems to have been done – and, quite rightly, you can't simply have state agencies make this sort of public policy decision for themselves.
Yet, if there is a strong case for putting innocent people onto the database – and there may be one - let the case be made in Parliament. Let those elected to represent us there make the final decision.
I simply don’t think it’s ever happened. As an MP for three years, I can remember plenty of indignation at Westminster over MPs expenses, lots of bluster about Freedom of Information exemptions. But a Bill to allow the police to build up a DNA database full of innocent citizen’s? I don’t recall that one being debated, let alone appear in anyone's election manifesto.
While I agree with the European Court, I loath the idea that it should take this unelected, unaccountable foreign quango to up hold our liberties. Nothing better illustrates our failed constitutional settlement than this case.
Where was Parliament? When was a vote held to decide if the police were acting right?
Parliament was – once again - asleep on the job.
Too many MPs, from too many safe seats, worrying about the froth and bubble of Westminster. Yet those with real executive power go unchecked - until the Euro judges stepped in.
Is this the best our Parliament can do? Keeping things as they are means leaving it all to the Euro judges.
Posted on 7 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Labour MP calls on Speaker to quit
It ain't just me any more.
Even BBC types - like Nick Robinson - are waking up to the reality; Michael Martin's position is untenable. He can't recover from this.
Ming Campbell of the Lib Dems says otherwise. But when was Ming's judgement ever much to go on?
It's game over for Mr Martin - and the Westminster village is slowly coming round to recognise it.
Posted on 6 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Beware the spin about defence cuts
According to spin and leaks, major cuts and / or delays in defence projects are going to be announced this coming week. The whisper seems to be that the carriers will be put back, and one or two other bits and pieces will be put on ice.
Overlooking the point about MoD seeming happy to have this sort of information leaked into the public domain in a way that the Home Office doesn't, what are we to make to it all?
First of all, it's perhaps wisest to wait and see the small print of any actual announcement. Spin doctors love to create false impressions as a means of managing expectations.
That said, I expect that any announcements will ultimately amount to yet more dither and delay. An attempt to postpone facing up to the unpalatable truth; defence procurement is a shambles, run in the interests of contractors rather than our armed forces.
Our Defence Industrial Strategy suits a handful in the industry more than it does our armed forces. Note how the actual armed forces seem to increasingly like using Urgent Operational Requirement to buy stuff - because it means they can buy the best kit, right away. No lobbying for contracts - just good kit.
Perhaps this week will see Ministers announce the end of Defence Industrial Strategy. I doubt it - but some day, someone with courage is going to have to.
Posted on 6 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Send for the Sheriff? He's already on the way
Back in 2002, I wrote a pamphlet calling for directly elected Sheriffs running local police, public prosecution and probation.
Since then, I've been a bit of a bore about it.
But others are now behind variants of this Sheriffs / Police Commissioner idea.
It's really wonderful to read a piece by Philip Johnston in today's Telegraph that actively takes up this idea - it's the kind of new thinking that the centre right so clearly needs.
Posted on 6 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Nadine in Clacton!
Nadine Dorries MP is the special guest at our Christmas party in Clacton. Nadine has real star quality - and with her determination and eloquence, something of a following in these parts. She's a fellow blogger, but rather more widely read on the blogosphere than me.
I'm looking forward to what she has to say this evening!
Posted on 5 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
A right Westminster fix
Michael Martin wants to set up a committee of grandees to review his mishandling of events. It'll be appointed by him, with a built in government majority.
So that's okay then. It's sure to be impartial, fair and open-minded....
UPDATE: It's significant that as the Leader of the Commons refuses to back Mr Martin, there're now a number of MPs, besides me, now willing to go on the record with their criticisms. Read what Richard Bacon has to say. Even Labour's David Winnick is now critical .....
Posted on 4 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Cui bono?
One theory doing the rounds has it that the arrest of Damian Green was some sort of dim-witted attempt to derail moves towards democratically accountable policing.
Since the publication of this policy paper
, momentum to make those who run the police more accountable to local communities has steadily grown. Indeed, all three parties are now committed - to some extent - to establishing local democratic control over local policing.
It's fair to say that some senior police chiefs and Home Office officials are not entirely supportive of every aspect of such plans.
Could it be that arresting a senior opposition MP was an attempt to poison the public debate against reform? Was it meant to make us all recoil in horror at the notion that policing and politics should meet?
Personally, I doubt it. Such a move would require competence - and surely this is a story of incompetence.
If anything, this sorry episode demonstrates that there now needs to be far greater oversight and transparency over policing.
Posted on 4 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Jam tomorrow
Regular readers know that I'm really into making jam. Mulberry, greengage, fig, blackberry - I've pots of the stuff. All homemade in Essex.
A local group near Frinton asked me to talk about jam-making. Lots of points about pectin. I much preferred it to boring old politics …
Posted on 4 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Is even the Met now contradicting Mr Speaker?
Read what Louise Bagshaw has to say here
.
Is this what happens when things start to unravel?
Posted on 4 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell MP
A Runt Parliament: what happens now?...
Readers of this blog will know my views about Speaker Michael Martin. What happens now isn't up to me.
What happens next isn’t a test of Mr Martin, so much as of the House of Commons - and our entire political class.
I suspect Mr Martin will give a statement this afternoon telling us he "followed the correct process". Some committee of grandees (maybe even unelected ones?) will be appointed to hold some sort of investigation. The talk will be of "lessons learnt", and putting the correct "procedures in place" so MPs can do their job.
No doubt, too, there'll be some sort of bogus concession - a “debate” of some sort in a few days. Gosh. Wow.
Throughout this affair, I've been struck at the strength of public outrage. People disillusioned with politicians have kept faith with the notion of democratically accountably government. The British people still see Parliamentary sovereignty as shorthand for the sovereignty of the people – and they recognise it as something precious.
Today we shall see if the politicians do, too?
Posted on 3 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
LIVE from Commons: Keep digging, Mr Martin
Ludicrous. Utterly indefensible performance.
He blames Sergeant-at-Arms, Jill Pay, for not telling him. Yet he appointed her.
He implies its the Sergeant-at-Arms who failed to understand that she need not have signed a consent form.
He blames police for not having a warrant, or telling him. But it's his failure for not verifying, surely?
(That's right, police raided without a warrant)..
He says he didn't authorise it.
Nothing he said removes the strong suspicion that no one is really at the helm. No one is really in control of the House of Commons – bar government whips.
He refuses to accept that the people’s privilege – to elect MPs to hold government to account - has been violated. And as I predicted, he says next time there'll be correct "protocol".
And, worse, he says he'll appoint the committee of grandees to review it all.
Keep digging, Mr Martin. You've blown it.
UPDATE: I was just feeling profoundly depressed at the dire state of our democracy. But reading the great Nadine Dorries MP's blog has helped cheer me up. She's great - refreshing and says it like it is!
Posted on 3 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Even the police can see it's wrong, Mr Martin
News just in that the Association of Chief Police Officers feel that there needs to be an investigation into the arrest of an MP - for doing his job. Indeed.
Yet still Michael Martin clings to the bogus nonsense that he was adhering to "correct process" in allowing the raid. Tomorrow I fear he'll give some pathetic excuse of a statement; announce an inquiry, ask some senior technocrat to conduct a review, changes to process and best practice. All balls.
Tomorrow Mr Martin must announce his departure - nothing else will do.
Posted on 2 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Will the Speaker survive?
If Michael Martin remains Speaker, it'll be because some at Westminster would rather not trigger a contest to replace him quite yet. "Better leave the lame duck in place" they'll say. "Far better we wait until after the next election when we can install one of our own".
Wrong on two counts:
1) Changes to the Standing Orders of the House mean that there will almost necessarily have to be a contest after the next election whatever - and that it'll be by secret ballot. No whips office stitch up. No "our" candidate about it. So if someone took over from Mr Martin now, we're hardly going to be lumbered with them for the next decade or so.
2) If the Commons does take this lying down, if the best our Parliamentarians can do is establish an inquiry or a promise to review process, then what does it say about us? Then maybe those who don't vote at election time have a point?
Posted on 2 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
In the constituency today helping constituents ....
.... including this feathered one.
I came across a beautiful young sparrow hawk that had become hopelessly caught up in some mesh netting. Wearing some gardening gloves and holding it very carefully, I cut it free. It took to the air looking none the worse.
I suspect I'll have gained votes from the sparrow hawk community, but lost support amongst the pigeons that they prey upon. And there are more pigeons than sparrow hawks. Such is politics ....
Posted on 2 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
10 reasons why Speaker Martin must go
It's not because he's Labour. If Mr Martin were a Tory MP, I'd be much less restrained in my criticism.
Here are 10 reasons why Mr Martin has to go:
1. He appears to have given the green-light to a police raid on the office of an opposition MP - because the executive was embarrassed that the MP was doing his job.
2. If Mr Martin seriously claims he didn't know, or did nothing, even worse.
3. In the manner of compliance officials, for days his office has hidden behind the pathetic formula that he was following correct "process".
4. Journalists tell me that there are now those briefing - by leak and spin, presumably? - that "It's nothing to do with me, Gov. It was that Jill Pay in the Sergeant-at-Arms, that's to blame". If it’s true that this is what’s being briefed, it's inexcusable.
5. Mr Martin rarely intervenes to ensure that the Commons is able to hold government to account. Under his stewardship, MPs with legitimate Parliamentary Questions have been prevented from tabling them by officials in the Table Office - and appeals to him have been ignored.
6. He often intervenes to tell backbench MPs that their question to the Minister is somehow out of bounds. When did you ever hear him intervene on a Minister to get them provide an answer?
7. His handling of the MPs expenses fiasco shows Mr Martin simply doesn't grasp the need for transparency in public office.
8. He was never elected in a free and fair ballot of all MPs. He got the job years before the last election - in a rigged process that could be controlled by government whips.
9. Even against Labour MPs, he’s biased in favour of the executive. Remember his decision not to call one of their amendments on the Lisbon Treaty debate?
10. There are many other MPs – Labour, Liberal and Tory – who’d do a better job.
Changes to House of Commons Standing Order 1a and 1b mean that the next Speaker is now to be chosen by secret ballot in a free and fair contest - for the first time. Bring the new arrangements forward.
The reputation of the House of Commons has never been lower. Public confidence in it can only begin to be restored once we have a new, reformist Speaker.
Posted on 1 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Nick Robinson misses the mark
BBC frontman Nick Robinson's coverage of Damian Green's arrest
generates over a thousand - often extremely angry - postings. Robinson 'fesses up that "my earlier post seems to have generated anger from those who were appalled at the arrest of Damian Green". No kidding. I wonder why that might be, Nick?
He then goes on to show he has real teeth, claiming that he "covered the cash-for-honours case (rather more vigorously than the government was comfortable with)". Wow! Bet you showed 'em. That makes it all ok then ....
Come on, Nick. You need to do this event justice.
Posted on 1 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Speaker update
Journalist calls. Apparently an email from Harriet Harman's office has leaked. It proposed a meeting tomorrow between her, Gus O'Donnell, the Home Secretary (presumably her officals to tell her what to say) and the Speaker - allegedly.
Presumably the purpose of the meeting was to help straighten out their story?
Just what the heck is Gus O'Donnell doing? Briefing the Speaker of the House of Commons on his statement? Are we now governed by spivs?
Will Mr Speaker - supposedly independent and answerable to Parliament, not Whitehall officialdom - attend?
Michael Martin has zero credibility. While he remains Speaker, the voters can have zero confidence.
AFTERTHOUGHT: Do you suppose Harman is going to get arrested for this leak? Just 'cause it's not intentional, does it still count?
Posted on 1 December 2008 by Douglas Carswell