Which parliament serves its people better ?

Last Wednesday our parliament spent over seven hours praising Thatcher  (at our expense).  Bercow had initially refused Cameron's request, saying we can do it next Monday when we meet anyway.  Miliband backed Cameron and Bercow gave way.

Yesterday, the New Zealand parliament voted on the definition of marriage.  See what happened when marriage between same sex partners was approved.    The House of Commons often leaves me close to tears but not for a good reason.  Time to emigrate ?

Thatcher's Funeral

Some people have commented upon the cost of Lady Thatcher's funeral.  The following script from 2008 showed some foresight.
Script

Part	Words / Actions
[directions]	[Margaret Thatcher sitting on stage; pulls hair spray from her handbag and sprays her hair.]
[F/X]	[Knock at the door]
Thatcher	Dennis! Dennis, do see who it is!
[F/X]	[More knocks at the door]
Thatcher	Oh yes, of course. Dennis was phased out. [shouts] Come in. We are at home.
[directions]	[Enter civil servant]
CS	Lady Thatcher? Good afternoon, your ladyship.
Thatcher	Yes, what do you want?
CS	I’m from the Cabinet Office. Gordon Brown sent me.
Thatcher	Brown? Isn’t he the one who wants to be prime minister but has no idea why? So unlike that dear Mr Blair... [mind wanders] How is Mr Blair?
CS	He resigned, your ladyship.
Thatcher	Then who’s running the country?
CS	Mr Brown is, your ladyship
Thatcher	Oh dear... Anyway, come to the point. What do you want?
CS	It’s rather a delicate matter, your ladyship…
Thatcher	Oh God! What’s Mark done now?
CS	It’s not Mark. It’s you, your ladyship.
Thatcher	They want me back? I knew the day would come! We are ready!
CS	Not quite, your ladyship. It’s about your funeral.

Thatcher	We are not dead and we have no intention of dying. The lady’s not for burning!
CS	The Prime Minister has asked me…
Thatcher	[interrupts] Ah dear, dear Tony, such a good disciple...
CS	Gordon Brown, your ladyship. He has asked me to prepare your State Funeral.
Thatcher	Yes, well I suppose we must do it properly. I expect a full display of our nation’s military prowess, culminating in the sinking of an Argentinian battleship.
CS	The Prime Minister feels that the country owes you a lot…
Thatcher	Does he really? He’s not as bad as I thought. You know, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
CS	The PM wants your funeral to reflect the great contribution you have made to our nation’s history.
Thatcher	Just rejoice, rejoice! We must have everyone there. Everyone except Ted Heath, of course... Oh I forgot. He was phased out.
CS	Heads of State will be invited.
Thatcher	That nice General Pinochet...
CS	I’m afraid he’s… been phased out too.
Thatcher	I don’t want that wet Etonian, Cameron. Tony will come of course. But not that dreadful wife; she’s a bit left wing. Tony can give the eulogy and bring his friend Mr Berlusconi.
CS	Mr Blair can also bring his friend Cliff Richard, who will sing an appropriate song…
Thatcher	‘Living Doll’?
CS	No, I was thinking more, ‘Power to all our friends’.
Thatcher	What about Ronald? He was so helpful in the Falklands. I promised to follow him to the end of the earth – and he offered to arrange it.
CS	So sorry. President Reagan has also been phased out. But all the leading members of society will be there.
Thatcher	There is no such thing as society! But I do want the band of the Grenadier Guards.
CS	There’s just one thing, your ladyship. Mr Brown wants your funeral to reflect your own values…
Thatcher	Well it could hardly reflect his. We don’t know what they are.

  

CS	…and therefore I am afraid that the Guards Band is unlikely…
Thatcher	Why not? The lady wants them and the lady’s not for turning!
CS	[Aside] Not even in the grave. [To Thatcher] I’m afraid the budget may not permit, although the Grenadier Guards might make the winning bid...
Thatcher	Bid?
CS	Yes, your ladyship. Bid.
Thatcher	But whatever for?
CS	Yes, your Ladyship. As a mark of respect, we will be putting the State Funeral out to Compulsory Competitive Tender.
[directions]	[lights out]

[ENDS]

Thereby hangs a tail

Friends have commented that cats seem to follow me around.  If I had been a woman years ago, I would have been burned.  Yesterday canvassing in Cambridge, a beautiful Burmese cat took a fancy to me and accompanied me to a doorstep.  When the residents opened the door, the cat went straight in. "What a lovely cat you have", I began, but it wasn't their cat and they had never seen it before.  They chased the cat which disappeared upstairs.  I never found out how they were going to vote.

So, farewell Margaret Thatcher

(Margaret Thatcher waving from Central Office after winning the 1983 election.  The building is now Europe House, HQ of the European Parliament in London. Ha !)

Never since the death of Princess Diana has so much been said and written in 24 hours about one dead person.  Some of the eulogies had me reaching for the sick bag, but nor could I join those who are tempted to echo Thatcher's own words, "Just rejoice, rejoice !".  I did rejoice greatly when she lost power but the death of someone who once held power years ago does not provoke gaudeamus igitur.

I will not add to the litany of praise and blame but this story will suffice. One day in the early '90s I was walking in the Cuillins with Lord Bonkers and my son Charlie.   As we returned to Glen Brittle we were overtaken by a thin, elderly, bearded man.  As we removed our walking boots at the car we could see him becoming very agitated in the telephone box. (The Glen Brittle telephone box was a vital resource.   You were advised to ring a friend before setting out and ring again on returning.   If you failed to call the second time, your friend could alert the mountain rescue.)  The professor (it turned out that he really was) emerged from the box and we asked him what was the matter.    He told us the telephone didn't work and his mother (God knows how old she was) would be getting at the gin as he was late in calling.   "I teach nuclear physics but I can't make the phone work", he expostulated.  He had managed to get through to an operator to complain.  The operator wouldn't put his call through, told him it wasn't a BT telephone but refused to divulge which company did operate the box.   (We're getting there. Bear with).   At this point, he drew his conclusion, "Margaret Thatcher ruined this country", then he drew breath and added "Mind you, I'm not a socialist".   He was of course one of us, invigorated by mountain air, exasperated by failing technology, a Liberal expressing the outrage that we all feel in our hearts.

Three impossible things before breakfast

David Cameron is rapidly catching up with the White Queen.  In one speech today he shows he can believe three impossible things before breakfast.

1. North Korea wants to launch a nuclear attack against the UK alone, not involving the USA or anyone else.
2. North Korea is capable of delivering a nuclear attack against the UK.
3. North Korea, which is not put off by the US nuclear and conventional capability, will be put off by Trident or its successor.

Wow, Dave, if that's all true we should spend billions on replacing Trident, shouldn't we ?   So much more important than actually supplying our conventional forces with the basic kit they need !   Which planet are you on, Dave, and why are you so keen to destroy it ?

Don't join the xenophobes, Nick

It is hard to believe that recent statements by Cameron, Clegg and Miliband on immigration were spontaneously synchronous.   Perhaps they were just responding to each other.  More likely they were all responding to UKIP's performance in Eastleigh.  Nick Clegg's statement came first.  Wrong and foolish, Nick.    We don't want the xenophobe vote and, even if we did, we wouldn't get it. Farage would.   Far better to talk sense about immigration and its benefits, like President Obama and like Francesca Montemaggi in her blog Blunt and Disorderly.  Simon Titley also analyses Nick Clegg's attempts to change Liberal Democrat policy unilaterally on the Liberator blog.

Don't do it, Nick.  We won't let you. We're still Liberals.   As we used to say in the Young European Federalists, Xenophobes, Go Home !

Where were Blair's tears ?

I never thought I would have something good to say about Margaret Thatcher but archives released by Churchill College reveal that she understood what her decisions meant for soldiers and sailors, even weeping over the loss of HMS Sheffield.    I doubt that papers released in future will show such concern by Tony Blair over the lives he destroyed in Iraq through his lies and cavalier attitude to war and invasion.

Fine words butter no parsnips

As usual great rhetoric from Obama in Israel:
Palestinians have "a right to be a free people in their own land".
"The only way for Israel to to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the realisation of an independent and viable Palestine".

I am not cynical about his rhetoric or the value of saying such things in the heart of Israel but US support for Israel despite the continued illegal settlement building and despite their treatment of innocent Palestinians, all of which Obama condemned, this support gives Israel permission to carry on.   

Palestinians are cynical about Obama as they see US aid to Israel increase.and no change in their situation.

Time to butter some parsnips, Mr President.

Belgium - "a land that might almost have been dreamed"

I spent a total of seven years of my life living in Belgium but I never met the man obsessed with penguins.  Tabloids like to use "Brussels" as shorthand for the EU, as if there was some bureaucratic cellar in the Grand Place dreaming up madder and madder regulations to impose on Britain.   Douglas Adams' take on Belgium was surprisingly unpopular when I played it to a Belgian friend.   Jonathan Meades' take does more justice to the country and its delightful oddness.  See volume 2 of 3 at  6m29s for the national sport of finch watching and 9m30s for the museum of underpants, but if you have time watch all three volumes. Penguin man is in volume 3.  It will lighten and illuminate your day.

"Can you name 12 famous Belgians ?" people ask.  No problem:
Jacques Brel
Adolphe Saxe (inventor of the Saxophone)
Plastic Bertrand
Georges Simenon
Herman van Rompuy
Eddy Merckx
Herge (inventor of Tintin - you're not allowed Tintin)
Rene Magritte
Leo Baekeland (inventor of Bakelite)
Audrey Hepburn
Jean-Claude Van Damme
Maurice Maeterlinck

I've excluded people born before Belgium became a nation (1830) such as Peter Paul Rubens and Simon Stevin (inventor of double entry bookkeeping).   If you want more, there is an excellent website on the theme called "Famous Belgians".   John Cleese doesn't seem to like them.

(That's enough Belgium - Ed)

Sorry I'm slow moderating comments

Just seen several comments awaiting moderation.   I returned from Brighton hoarse, not the singing but a rapidly developing cold, but this is no excuse.  I'm sorry I didn't check sooner.

An excess of deference. Never give up !

At the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference, Jo Shaw, a human rights campaigner and former parliamentary candidate, resigned from the party in the most public fashion when speaking from the rostrum against the Justice and Security Bill.  Conference overwhelmingly supported her view but she was wrong to resign.   A party is the sum of all its members not the errors of its leaders.  I hope she will be back.

To my surprise, Jo did not support my campaign against accreditation, which I promise is not over. Of course the question of secret justice in the courts is a far more important matter but how we run our own party and how much members care about it angers me more.   Although I share Jo's view of secret courts, I can understand the argument on the other side and do not consider that those for whom it is persuasive are therefore not Liberals.   Strangely, I am more upset by the manipulation of our own processes by those we elect to run our party's committees.  If I wanted unfair procedures or manipulation, I would have joined the Labour Party.

Last year it was the Federal Finance and Administration Committee (FFAC) which overruled the clear view of conference by imposing accreditation again. This conference saw another blatant example. The Federal Conference Committee took it upon itself to overrule a ballot of members on the choice of emergency motions.  They rejected the representatives' choice to debate the economy and substituted their lower preference to discuss Leveson.  Whatever the respective merits of the motions, they behaved undemocratically and beyond their powers.   Standing Order 4.5 empowers the committee: "Following the counting of any ballots the Committee shall decide how many motions shall be debated in the time available.".  It does NOT empower them to choose WHICH motions shall be debated nor to overrule the ballot.  When I shouted "outrageous" as the decision was announced, a lady objected that the committee had informed us before the ballot that they would do this.   Giving notice that you intend to behave undemocratically and to exceed your powers is no excuse !  Andrew Wiseman, chairman of the committee, told me that they had done it before.  I regard that as asking for previous offences to be taken into account.

When Martin Tod challenged the decision by seeking to suspend Standing Orders, we failed to get the required 2/3 majority.   This saddens me immensely.   It represents a change in the culture of our politics.  I have no doubt that the old Liberal Assembly would have stood up for itself and respect for its rules and suspended the standing orders to put the committee in its place as its servant.   We are suffering from an excess of deference to authority.  Jo, come back and help us challenge it.

Why we waited

Returning from Brighton yesterday, we were held up in long queues south of the Dartford crossing, where we found the bridge was closed.  I have now learned the cause of our delay.  A man wanted to commit suicide by jumping from the bridge and the police and negotiators closed the bridge and spent four hours trying to dissuade him.  This sad story is only relieved by the thought tat the authorities tried so hard to save this man.   I do not begrudge our long wait in a queue of cars if it gave him the chance of living, which sadly he did not take.

Voter fatigue

Back from Eastleigh with a bad ankle (too many doors) and a bad stomach (too much fast food), but happy.   On polling day, we found many residents had attached hand-written notes to their front doors, loosely translated as "Go away !".  O'Farrell posted one on twitter than was more explicit in conveying what Clement Freud used to render as "Go forth and multiply".  In case they can't be read the two above say "NO leaflets or callers: religious or political" and "No voting rubbish please".   Given the huge effort by Liberal Democrats and other parties, it would not be fair to say that these people don't value their vote.  They had simply had enough paper and enough canvassers.  Those who have the vote will never value it as much as those who don't.  In the 1980s I was knocking up with a vigorous old lady, a former suffragette, when a first-time 18-year-old girl voter said she probably wouldn't vote as she had to wash her hair.   My companion exploded at her. "I marched to get you the vote" and much more.  The girl agreed to go and vote.

Dining with the Tories

The allegations against Chris Renard, like all such allegations, provoke the inflammatory old saying "No smoke without fire".   As a longstanding pipe-smoker I know that it takes attention to light a fire and more attention to blow smoke rings.  It would be interesting to know whether the women concerned approached Channel 4 or Channel 4 approached them.  If the latter, who prompted Channel 4 and why now ?  Were the women interviewed before or after the Eastleigh by-election was called ?  Whatever the answers, we cannot doubt that the Tory press is exploiting the issue to the full.  Just look at today's misleading headlines.    Can anyone believe that these allegations have emerged during the Eastleigh by-election by accident ?    The Tories themselves can maintain a disingenuous silence.   Their backers in the press will do their work for them.   Another old saying applies, when dining with the Tories "Take a long spoon"

BBC, which continent do we live in ?

It's OK.  There's still ten days for the BBC to start reporting on the Italian election.  Compare how much attention they had paid to the US Presidential election ten days before the vote.  Remember how much coverage they gave to the Danish election ? No ? Not a lot. Then tell me the BBC reports Europe fairly !

Let's all join the NRA's list of opponents

According to a BBC report here, the National Rifle Association has set up and published an index of its opponents including Britney Spears,Barry Manilow, the makers of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, George Clooney, the Kansas City Royals baseball team, Chaka Khan, Hallmark greeting cards, the American Nurses Association, Dick Van Dyke, the National Parent Teacher Association, Moon Zappa, offspring of the late musician Frank, Kevin Bacon, Tony Bennett, Missy Elliott, Gloria Estefan, Art Garfunkel, Dustin Hoffman, Ricki Lake, John McEnroe, Sarah Jessica Parker, Sylvester Stallone, Reese Witherspoon.

Can't find the list.  They seem to have taken it down from their website.

If you want to go on the index of the opponents of the NRA, join the Facebook Page here:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-the-NRA-Index-of-opponents/539115289443935

Well bless me !

Caption competition: What's Pope Tony saying ?

Here's a suggestion.
"Look, you can trust me.  I'm an honest kind of guy.  Kiss my ring."

Labour policy revealed (at last)

I've finally discovered what the Labour Party's policy on everything is !

The trivial world of the Today programme

Dumbing down at the BBC proceeds apace.  The Today programme covers Michael Gove's GCSE reforms.  Very little discussion of their merits or otherwise.   The presenter's agenda is clear, to label changes as a U-turn.  We leave the subject little the wiser to race through the possibility of a solar storm.  Clearly Sarah Montague wants to get this over quickly.  She interviews the scientist as if he were a politician avoiding the question.  His explanation of the phenomenon becomes disjointed by her frequent interruptions.  I'm shouting at the radio - "Let the man speak !".  He uses the word "perturbation". That's too much for Montague.  She questions it.   It's all right Sarah.  We're the Radio 4 audience.  We've heard it before. Why this rude rush ?  All is revealed.  We have to get to the important item: the BBC Breakfast Poll on how many people eat lunch at their desk.

I have in my hand a piece of paper...

Fascinating debate tonight in Cambridge on whether the preamble to the constitution of the Liberal Democrats should be amended.   We decided not to, not only because Cllr Colin Rosenstiel has  amended it enough already, but because it embodies in reasonable prose values which have stood the test of time.   There are indeed one or two minor infelicities of expression and a bit of repetition but nothing any of us would actually want to oppose.

Julian Huppert compared our golden opening words with the other main parties.

The Liberal Democrats (constitution here)The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

The Labour Party (constitution here)

Clause 1 - Name and Objects

1 This organisation shall be known as ‘The Labour Party’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the party’). Its purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.

The Conservative Party (constitution here)

PART I

NAME, PURPOSE, OBJECTS AND VALUES

1 This is the Constitution of a political party which shall be known as “The Conservative and

Unionist Party” (referred to in this Constitution as “the Party”).  

2 Its purpose is to sustain and promote within the  Nation the objects and values of the

Conservative Party.

So the Labour Party and the Conservative Party  exist to maintain and promote themselves.  I always thought so.  (Actually the Labour Party says a little more in Clause 4 - no, not that clause 4)

Looking a little deeper, I wondered about how each party makes policy.

The Liberal Democrats (constitution here)

5.8 Subject to the foregoing procedure, all Federal policy papers and motions approved by

the Federal Conference shall thereby become the policy of the Federal Party.

...

6.7 Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Conference shall be the sovereign

representative body of the Party, and shall have power to determine the policy of the

Party in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Article 5.

The Labour Party (constitution here)

Clause 5 - Party Programme

1 Party conference shall decide from time to time what specific proposals of legislative, financial or administrative reform shall be included in the party programme. This shall be based on the rolling programme presented to conference by the National Policy Forum as approved by conference. No proposal shall be included in the party programme unless it has been adopted by conference by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the votes recorded on a card vote.

BUT N.B. " The 2008 Labour Party Conference was the first at which affiliated trade unions and Constituency Labour Parties did not have the right to submit motions on contemporary issues that would previously have been debated.^[28] Labour Party conferences now include more "keynote" addresses, guest speakers and question-and-answer sessions, while specific discussion of policy now takes place in the National Policy Forum."  (Source - wikipedia)  How many constituency members in the National Policy Forum ? 55.

The Conservative Party (constitution here)

PART VIII
THE CONSERVATIVE POLICY FORUM
64 There shall be established and maintained a national policy development forum to be known as
the Conservative Policy Forum, the principal functions of which shall be:
64.1 to encourage and co-ordinate the formulation and development of policy ideas

...
BUT  nowhere in the Tory Constitution can I find who actually decides on policy. It's a mystery.