Category: Blog

It’s not a topic I wanted to write about. I have studiously ignored the rumours and stories circulating on other websites and at a fairly empty Westminster. Today I cannot ignore it, as Mr Hague himself has issued an unusual statement and has invited all to comment on it.

His statement confirms that he has shared hotel rooms with a young male assistant, and argues that this assistant was well qualified to become a Special Adviser to the Foreign Office. Mr Hague has now accepted the resignation of this Special Adviser, Mr Myers. Mr Hague tells us he did not have an inappropriate relationship with this young man.

Let us hope this is now an end to the matter. Mr Hague himself now seems to believe that it was poor judgement to share a hotel room with an assistant.

A bigger issue of judgement is far more important. What does Mr Hague intend to do to improve the UK’s relationship with the EU? How does he intend to win over Euroceptics to his tenure at the Foreign Office? When will he implement the Coalition’s promise to end transfers of power to the EU or to give us a vote on such transfers? How does he fit in EU criminal justice changes to this policy? The mutterings I hear from fellow Conservative MPs relate to this, not to the state of his marriage.

I have refrained from commenting much on the Labour leadership. I have always thought it a two person race between the brothers. David is clearly the front runner, but I just feel Ed might steal it, given his sharper movement to the left.

Last night’s “debate” on Channel 4 did not do Labour any favours. The candidates were all frustrated by the questions on Blair’s legacy and let their frustration show. They have to get used to the legacy issues, as they are an important part of the new Leader’s job. Any party has to decide what to fight and defend and what to criticise or ignore from a past Leader’s inheritance. Mr Blair’s impact on Labour was large, so there will be plenty of questions for many years. Only Diane Abbott looked comfortable on the topic of Blair, as she proudly reminded viewers of her major disagreements with the more contentious things Mr Blair did.

None of them managed to use a fairly free form discussion to get over a new vision of a Labour Britain. Brother David performed best, seeking to show that he could start to bring together the squablling bunch by fondly praising the better statements of his noisy charges. On a day when Mr Blair sensationally backed much of the Coalition’s economic programme the rest struggled to say something that was both distinctive and convincing. So most of them retreated to the Labour comfort zones of higher taxes, soak the rich and delay public sector adjustments, remembering who their audience is for this election. The whole point of the Blair legacy and the Blair questions was to find out if and when any of these Leaders might want to reassure or even attract strivers and successful people to their broken and reduced coalition.

Let us suppose Mr Hawking does now have a full explanation from the laws of physics of how the Big Bang created the planets and stars as we now see them. Some scientists will assert that the job is done, and they now know how the universe was made without divine intervention.

Religious people will respond and ask where did the matter and force come from that led to the Big Bang? They will see in that the hand of God.

This one will run and run.

A former Director General has stated that the BBC did have a “massive bias to the left”, He admits that many BBC journalists struggled to understand Margaret Thatcher’s popularity with many voters, refused to see Euroscepticism as a serious political position and did not want to handle issues like immigration.

He is right to say bias to the left rather than pro Labour. There were many interviews during the Labour years that put Labour Ministers on the spot, just as surely as the BBC put Conservative Ministers on the spot. However, they were attacked for the wars in the Middle East, for their links with the USA, for failing to spend enough on a range of services and projects. The BBC did not take seriously the attacks of those of us who said the government were spending and borrowing too much, or who provided a critique of their approach to the banks and financial crisis,seeking an alternative to nationalisation.

The BBC does have an institutional tendency to think that most public spending is good and more is better. It does have a wish to look for a government solution to every ill. It finds it difficult to understand that some of us are Eurosceptic not because we are little islanders but because we dislike too much government. We are sceptics of the Brussels bureaucracy and legislative machine, not of our geographical or cultural position.

The BBC can show its new enthusiaism for impartiality by ensuring some interviews are conducted from the standpoint that there is no government answer to a given problem, or that any likely government answer will make it worse. It can show it by exposing the waste, incompetence and excessive intervention that characterises so much EU government. If it does so it will find a large number of new friends.

Tony Blair was right about Gordon Brown. Today we have confirmation of the bitterness and disagreements at the top of the Blair government. All that spinning and all those stories turn out to have been well founded.

Tony Blair was wrong about the Middle East. He still thinks there are military solutions to Middle Eastern problems which the US and her allies can impose from without. At a time when both the US and UK administrations are learning the limits to the effects of military power in Afghanistan, Tony Blair tells us to prepare for the even bigger task of stopping Iran having nuclear weapons.

He may well be right that the world will be an even more difficult place if Iran holds nuclear weapons. That does not mean the west has the power or the right to bomb or invade Iran to stop her. The Iranian government may well be speaking for many people in the country in seeking such an armoury. Bombing installations will kill civilians nearby and may not remove all the offending stockpiles and work in progress. Invasion would entail taking on a hostile people as well as a hostile government. Bungling any such pre-emptive strike would intensify the feelings of hostility to the west.

Mr Obama is stressing again the short term nature of his surge in Afghanistan. Presumably the UK Coalition governemnt would agree in private that withdrawal from Afghanistan would be one of the most popular spending cuts they can make. The appetite for military adventure in the Middle East is waning in both the UK and the US. Over borrowed high spending governments need to rein back. They should heed their electors. Mr Blair’s views on this topic come from a different age. His belief in the efficacy of using force is an unhelpful guide to the future.

The Papal visit has given the media opportunity to debate the role of faith and Churches in our modern society.

The UK is formally a monarchy, with a democratically elected government and Commons legislature and with an established Church of England in the largest part of the Union. Superimposed on this ancient and evolving structure is the recent and revolutionary membership of the European Union, an unelected bureaucracy lightly supervised and directed by indirectly elected politicians through member state governments, and by directly elected MEPs.

One of the interests of the Papal visit was the Church of England response. The Church of England should be the repository of the Reformation in England. The purposes of the Reformation included breaking any recourse to Rome and the Pope for legal and criminal matters, putting all clergy under the common law of England; the ending of general Papal infalliblity and power in England; the wider publication of the Bible and prayer book in english to make the liturgy and gospel more open to the laity; a consequent reduction in the power of the priesthood; the sale of many Church lands to families who might farm and use it better; and allowing more individual conscience and interpretation of the Bible.

The Anglican settlement preserved Archbishops and bishops, some high Church elements in services, altar rails, and even incense and bells in some cases. Over the years the Church showed flexibility in the hands of many Vicars of Bray. In more recent times the Anglican Church has welcomed women priests, elements from the non conformist traditions, and shown more tolerance to minorities within the society. The Anglican Church accepts the Bible in english, a married and female priesthood, claims less moral and doctrinal authority than the Catholic Church and often chooses to debate social rather than faith issues.

Of all the disagreements between Canterbury and Rome, the one which was displayed most prominently was the difference over women clergy. The organsiers chose to let the Pope speak in Westminster Hall, under the shadow of Sir Thomas More’s impeachment for high treason, rather than inviting him to speak in the more neutral Royal Gallery. The Archbishop chose to highlight a less contentious Catholic Saint, Edward the Confessor, for their joint prayer session.

There was no public mention of Beckett, still perhaps a case too hot to handle. It will be interesting to see the struggle between the ecumencial impulses and the rivalry to recruit and retain Church members in the months after the Papal visit. The Archbishop could reply to the Pope’s famous recruitment message by welcoming in all Catholics who wish to see women play a bigger role within the Church.

One of the surprises of recent months has been the emergence of proposals for substantial change in the way the NHS is managed. They emerged gradually and quietly in Opposition, in contrast to the Education changes which were well heralded.

They contain two principal elements. The first is part of the general policy of cutting back the central overhead. Health, like eveything else, will have to demonstrate it is reducing the numbers of central executives, and curbing the amount of central and regional interference with the local surgeries and hospitals. That makes sense, and can be done.

The second is to transfer responsibility for “commissioning”, for selecting hospital or other treatment, from Health Authorities to GPs. This is the ultimate empowerment of the professionals, the ultimate localist move. Out will go the PCTs, Trusts of officials and part time unelected members, and in will come the budget holding GP.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Will GPs want to do this? What back up will they need to do it? Will it lead to higher quality of treatment and more patient choice?

There is something of the Nimby in all of us. As an MP I am very conscious that in many cases I am expected to be chief Nimby, to come to the aid of those who want to save a view, protect a greenfield, avoid the eorision of green gaps and Green Belts.

All the time we have a system of planning that requires a national framework and a local plan it will fall to elected and unelected officials to come to a judgement about where things can be built and how much can be built. It requires us all to avoid ducking the quesiton of where building can take place, if we take the Nimby route in many popular places.

This is becoming a big issue in many areas like Wokingham, now that more power is being transferred to Councils for local decisions. Wokingham has been one of the fastest growing parts of the country in the last twenty years, with large new housing developments going in alongside substantial industrial estates and big new food stores.

The good news is that even in a crowded place like Wokingham where opinion is on the whole very concerned about continuing with the same pace of growth, there is plenty of scope to build for growth in appropriate places. The area contains the second largest Segro industrial estate in the UK at Winnersh triangle. The Council and local opinion is happy to see substantial new and redevelopment on this park, greatly adding to the available area of property, with improved road links to the motorway network. This is now underway. The Council and others are also likely to look favourably on proposals to modernise and extend the space available on the Molly Millars estate in Wokingham itself.

For those wanting to build shops there are substantial oppotunities in Wokingham Town Centre, where there are large redevelopment sites and a Council wishing to see more space completed. The Wokingham sites would also accommodate extra urban residential accommodation where permission is likely to be forthcoming.

The question of more housebuilding is the most contentious, but even here there is one large possible opportunity. The area contains the Arborfield Garrison. There are plans to move all the soldiers to Wales, freeing many acres where the brownfields could be redeveloped with a major new housing area. The final Arborfield decisions will be made as part of the Defence Review.

Sometimes it is possible to be both a realistic Nimby and to find land for the building a growing economy needs. This search for sensible answers and compromises needs to be undertaken throughout the country as we move to more local planning.

There may be delays in moderation over the bank holiday owing to my schedule. Worry not – things will appear shortly afterwards.

More than half the issues which constituents bring to me are matters decided by the local Council, not by Parliament. In recent years there has been an escalation in representations. People are more likely to write to the Prime Minister about something to be settled in Parliament, and more likely to write to the MP about something to be settled in the Council Chamber.

If the new localism is to work well we need to persuade more voters to engage directly with their Councillors, and more Councillors to have local media personalities and to welcome more correspondence and debate with local voters. That way we can move to a world where turnout is higher in local elections, and more thought and passion is injected into local decision making.

When people write to the local MP about a matter for the Council there are three possible responses. The MP can write back correctly pointing out that he has no power to make the decision, and that interference by him would probably be resented by local officials and Councillors. He could take the matter up with the Council, and act as an intermediary with the Council, sending on their reply when it is available. He could himelf take a view on the matter and end up defending the Council’s decision to the local voters,or in a public dispute with the Council.

None of these responses is ideal, because they all have the same main drawback. The public is not directly engaging with the people with the power to make the decision in question. Localism will require stronger local democracy. Democracy requires dialogue between decision makers and decsion sufferers. Bring it on. It will be healthier than central direction, and better than a system where there are so many layers of government you can never pin down who is to blame.