Why EVEL is not the West Lothian answer?

Being somewhat associated with West Lothian and having stood in the race to replace the poser of the West Lothian Question. Tam Dalyell, I have on occassion written about said question and the potential answers. David Cameron's latest take on this is English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) at Westminster.

Now the problem posed by the West Lothian Question was that devolution would allow certain aspects of law to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament (and of course the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies) while their MPs were still able to vote on issues at Westminster affecting people in England but that the English MPs would not have the same say on some of these issues in the devolved powers as they legislators there and not the MPs would have the say. The issue was that devolution was bringing up two types of MPs some who could vote on things that wouldn't directly affect their constituents and others who might find they couldn't bring about change for their constituents if the block who didn't have any direct impact in their area voted against was enough with their English colleagues to block it.

Devolution had in effect brought in two tiers of MPs some were backed up by colleagues (occasionally themselves) who would vote on devolved issues, others who were responsible for all decisions. But EVEL does exactly the same in creating two tiers of MPs, only this time the cut off is less well defined. What exactly is an English Law. In truth as things currently stand only a cost neutral law is truly only English as anything with spending or tax ramifications has because of the Barnett formula got a knock on effect to budgets in the devolved powers.

The result of trying to introduce EVEL in the fall out from the Scottish referendum is a knee jerk reaction to the ;promise of more powers for Scotland (and indeed Wales and Northern Ireland). It ignores however the fundamental difference that devolution has brought to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that is denied to the people of England. Certain aspects of their governance are now decided as a local level below that of Westminster and above that of local authorities. The demands of the North East would not be the same as those in the South West. Yet only London and some other cities with elected mayors seem to have any more control over their own affairs than previously.

Having a elected Mayority is not the sole model for greater devolution, but this appears to be the only one that the Conservatives want to contemplate alongside EVEL, but of course it is not the position used in the three nations with devolution. The First Minister in all three of them is not a directly elected President (the possible exception may have been the 2007 SNP list description "Alex Salmond for First Minister" without mentioning the party name) but are the leader of the largest party. Somehow the conservatives have decided that the American style Mayor led system is better than the European model of Federal Government for the regions.

The only true answer to the West Lothian Question is a more Federal Model of governance as the difference in roles would therefore not exist in the National Government. So until those in Westminster realise that we'll be stuck with the evil of difference that plans like evil or directly elected mayors can inflict unto voters.

Dave's West Lothian Answer Fail

So the prime way that David Cameron sees as giving greater power to the voters in England in a small "f" federal UK is English votes for English laws in Westminster. He is therefore short changing the people of England do not be fooled by him.

In Scotland the Scottish MSPs can vote on Scottish laws in a chamber that is elected via a proportional voting system. Admittedly for the last 3 and a bit years that has been an SNP majority that the majority of voters didn't want but has in the past led to consensus politics.

In Wales the AMs can vote on Welsh laws also in a chamber that is elected via a proportional system, at times Labour have run the administration on its own but it has also often led to consensus politics.

In Northern Ireland while the MLAs are elected on a wholly constituency basis, it is a proportional system so unlike Scotland and Wales it does not have regional top up lists to ensure that people's views are represented as this is done in the six member seats.

If only the 533 English MPs could vote on whatever ends up being deemed to be an English only matter (something that there is actually very little of due to funding impacts for the devolved nations), it would mean that 39.6% of the electorate would end up with 55.9% of the MPs making their decisions. With boundary changes that were brought in since 2010 many of the 92 gains that the Conservatives made are supposedly harder to take away from them. But Labour with 28.1% of the vote and Lib Dems with 24.2% in England last time would have 35.8% and 8.1% of the MPs making such decisions respectively.

It is not proportionate as the other three member states have.

It is as Nick Clegg so rightly pointed out really a case of Tory votes for English laws.

What David Cameron is actually proposing is selling the people of England short and not giving them a true reflection of what the rest of the UK has experienced since devolution. He doesn't get what it is that makes the powers that true devolution can bring, he is seeing it as a way of regaining some control in some part of the UK, but to do so absolutely as only when the SNP had a majority from 2007-11 did they have any real say in any of the devolved powers.

Dear Dave, Why ECHR matters to me

Dear Prime Minister,

Being a white, Etonian, heterosexual, with a Royal bastard in your ancestry you have probably never suffered from having your Human Rights violated.

However, I am a white, homosexual, Northern Irish man with very working class roots and without European judgements I would probably be locked up right about now. Or trying to stay away from the place I call home.

You see without the European Court homosexuality would still possible be illegal in Northern Ireland. Or quite possible only up until 1997, but by then I would have acted illegally in the interim and so would have had a criminal record for loving someone. You see it was only when Jeff Dugeon's case made it to the European Court that the UK Parliament felt it had to act over the wishes of every Northern Irish MP at the time. At least at the present that is not the case, but we do have a situation where even a simple majority of our MLAs being in favour of advancing LGBT legislation here one mighty party has enough MLAs on its own to lodge a petition of concern and veto that advance.

David will no doubt tell us that we have legal recourse within Northern Ireland and the UK.

However, when the ministers of said party appeal every judgement that a High Court Judge in Northern Ireland makes that speaks in favour of LGBT people we have an issue. Of course some will say we have the Supreme Court of the UK. But they have intimated that they will be wary of making a judgement on a area of legislation that's power has been devolved.

So as a Citizen of the European Union (yeah it says that on my passport) I would like to retain full access to the powers of being in that Union. I don't want a majority Conservative Government making judgements as to what should be in that British Bill of Rights. Looking at recent comments from many about the "awkwardness", "unnecessariness" of same sex marriage, I have doubts if left to their own devices such a Bil of Rights would be fully inclusive all in the LGBT+ spectrum the way that the ECHR is.

I have a feeling that they may well be something akin to the DUP "consciousness clause slipping in there somewhere, allowing people of faith to refuse service to someone that they find in conflict with their faith. Raising freedom of religion away from merely the freedom to practice, observe and be treated fairly into the right to use that freedom to counter other freedoms that also need equal billing. That Bill of Rights may well be an Orwellian "some are more equal than others".

So Dave stop bowing to Nigel Farage and knee jerkingly doing away with some of the good bits of Europe, but start to look at the things that even the most ardent Europhiles say need reform.

Red lines from Cameron's welfare changes

So David Cameron wants to ban anyone under 25 for claiming JSA or housing benefit. Well Dave, not every young person is in a benefited position where both their parents are still alive and that work is always going to be available to them, these are red lines over which I will not allow the Conservatives to cross.

When I graduated it was in the middle of the last recession. Banks had been laying off economics graduates who had experience, so how was I along with other economics graduates going to find work immediately. For five months I would have been classified as a NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) but it wasn't because I wanted to be, it was because there was a lack of options.

I needed the then unemployment benefit and housing benefit to be able to stay in the part of the country where I felt I was most likely to get work, London. I'd been to University there and my network of friends was there to help me through those tough times.

But then there were the friends of mine who were orphaned before they had even left secondary education. I know that their grandparents were still around but if they weren't how could they have survived trying to get an education without housing benefit?

There are also a whole range of LGBT young people who are kicked out of the family home as soon as they turn 16, or tell their parents. Again without access to things like housing benefit these young people will either stay at home in the closet living in fear or end up living on the streets. Or the young girls who get pregnant and instead of familial support are kicked out? Or those who get pregnant and leave to live with the child's father only to be abandoned?

Not everyone has the nice comfy start in life that David Cameron would like to have us all believe. Some of those benefits are lifelines to many for all manner of reasons. So unless Dave can guarantee full time employment, or immediate training for ANY young person as soon as they lose their job, for whatever reason, removing these benefits and access to them is wrong. It is enslaving young people to a conformity of expectation of a loving family.

Not every young person has a privileged Witney upbringing, in our inner cities, even in our suburban areas, and to be fair possibly even in Witney, things aren't always so rosy.

This is why the Conservatives cannot be trusted to build a Fairer Society. They are only interested in a Stronger Economy at all costs. Only the Liberal Democrats seek to build a Stronger Economy and a Fairer Society enabling every person to get on with life.

Has Cameron sounded death knell for Coalition? #Leveson

I’m sorry I have no posted for a couple of days but I have been rather busy preparing  for the marriage of fellow bloggers Paul Burgin and my cousin Rachel Stalker. 

Therefore I will be probably be a little late in making this statement but I will make it anyway.

Back in July 2011 David Cameron said:

"The public want us to work together to sort this problem out, because until we do so it will not be possible to get back to the issues they care about even more"

Failure to take on the key part of the report from the Inquiry he was calling for on that day is a sham.

He went on later when being question on that day he recalled Parliament to say:

"...the last Government and the last Opposition too often put on the back burner the issue of how to regulate the media. That is the mistake that we made. We have both—all—got to be honest about it. And by the way, this is not just about the relationship with News International; it is also about the work we do trying to win over the BBC or The Independent or The Guardian. Let us be frank about this, and let us be transparent about the meetings that we have. Then we can learn the lessons and use this as a cathartic moment to sort out the relationship and put it on a better footing."

It appears in his comments about the Leveson report where he says that "writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land." would threaten freedom of speech that hold a problem. He welcomes Leveson's calls for an independent regulator of the press but does not want to regulate for it either. Therefore as Leveson and many of us know the Press Complaints Commission is a lame dog able to bite but not to punish those that have stretched the realms of what is right and decent to print in a free press.

 If David Cameron defies a vote in Parliament about giving statutory powers to an independent press watchdog or issues a lily livered bill that does not take into main thrust of Leveson's recommendation, then we reach an impasse.  I believe, should that happen, the Liberal Democrats should call for a vote of no confidence and vote for the motion. We cannot maintain an sense of integrity if our coalition partners ignore a report that they called for so urgently.

We have the word democrat in our party name for a reason and that should be adhered to. There have been any number of time that I have voted against a policy that our party has adopted but as the majority has accepted it I will defend such things. On the issues that Leveson has raised we have had debates, maybe not formally but as things have been going on, that a self-governing press has certainly failed. Added to this that the Press Complaints Commission has lacked the power to make any punitive judgement that would have any real implication.

From my brief post wedding reading of what Leveson is saying these are two key components. From what Dave ‘friend of the press barons’ Cameron is saying these are just the reasons that he is prepared to fly in the face of democracy.

Last time I checked, which I admit was Thursday lunchtime, the UK was still a democracy. Having at the end of last night had my principles tested as a sole Lib Dem in a hot bed of Labour activists and a few Tories, I know just what we as Liberal Democrats should do. When I showed the groom a treat that said that Harriet Harman had agreed with Nick’s statement that was enough to tell us that there was a consensus there as Harriet has been baying for Nick’s blood for weeks and months now. If the public wants it, Labour, Lib Dems and 70 Conservative back benchers want it, Cameron doing nothing or acting half-heartedly to bring forth legislation is a smite on the democratic principle. If he acts like this he is an affront to democracy and we as a party who support the democratic principle should have nothing to do with this despot

David Cameron's remark 24 hours on in Northern Ireland

Growing up in Northern Ireland I was rather blessed by my name. My surname is neither Protestant nor Catholic. Indeed look at historic records for the middle of the 19th Century and in Londonderry/Derry there are an even split of both with the surname.

My given names especially my, controversial to some members on the staunch loyalist side of the family, middle name meant that I could be known by either to fit in with side depending who I was with and where I was.

As some of you know I also have both a British and Irish passport.

Therefore bizarrely I have never felt threatened by my community identity passed on where I went to church, nor where my family was from. Indeed I called Northern Ireland's second city by whatever name was more appropriate to the people I was with as another tool of camouflage.

In the last 24 hours when I have ventured out I have done what I always do and pick up snippets of conversations around me as I sit and drink coffee, or go shopping. In that time here in relatively affluent and educated Bangor in Northern Ireland I have people interchanging gay and paedophile more than I have heard in political debate here even from the DUP in recent years. In fact I don't think I heard the common person on the street mention that linkage since my return here over 2 years ago.

All that changed yesterday.

There are snippets of conversation that I pick up on. Of course me being me there are certain key words that spark my ears to hone in. There has been a lot of those snippets in the last 24 hours and it makes me feel uncomfortable.

The thing is of course I don't have a wife to hide behind. My name has appeared in the letters pages defending LGBT rights. Anyone who Googles my name will of course find out just who I am, and probably even quicker than Phillip Schofield's 3 minutes can ascertain my sexual orientation. Here is the worse case of conversation that I overheard earlier today in a local supermarket.

Person A: So David Cameron doesn't want a gay witch hunt.
Person B: Why not? All those gays are at it, no young boy is safe

Now David Cameron warned yesterday against starting a witch hunt. But it appears that in certain people he has started one. One nationally known homophobe tweeted last night in relation to this:

It's time for the majority of gays who are not attracted to children to put their house in order by turning in beasts. 

This after he made what appeared to be unfounded allegations against certain men. He then later added a PS that is also applied to white, heteros as well.

The thing is of course that one individual on a widely watched national television programme in response to a question about paedophiles directly linked it to a certain section of society. Even if one case may well be related to that there are other ongoing investigations that are not, but are also subject to a witch hunt.It may well be that the case he was questioned about fitted the caution he was calling for, but the use of words in the minds of some has reinforced a prejudice that many have worked hard to eradicate. In the space of six short words on a sofa in a studio in London David Cameron managed to rekindle that thought in some, so much so that they feel able to articulate it out loud.

In certain areas of the country homophobia and misunderstanding of the LGBT community is higher than others, none probably more so than here in Northern Ireland. What I have witnessed in the last 24 hours gives me cause for concern.

Dave paedophiles are not a subset of gay men

Update I was not going to post this until I saw this by Tom Chivers in The Telegraph and then heard the way this was reported on the evening news.

Phillip Schofield may have ambushed David Cameron with a list of suspected paedophiles on This Morning but it is the PM's immediate response that this somewhat startling.

"I am worried this could turn into a witch hunt particularly against people who are gay.

"I've heard all sorts of names being bandied around and what then tends to happen is that everyone sits around and speculates about people some of who are alive and some of who are dead."

He did this without even looking at the names. Now if he was concerned merely about it becoming a witch hunt that would have been a fine response. But why did he add the caveat "who are gay"? Indeed until it was raised by David Cameron this morning nobody was linking the latest peadophilia with the gay community, there were a few individual cases but it wasn't so strongly linked.

The fact that the Prime Minister actually hesitated as soon as he said especially does seem to think that maybe his brain did try and catch on from his saying what came after he'd started with the caveat. Maybe his political brain kicked in, but it was too late he had already said especially. Where could he go after including that?

Not all of the victims of this high profile paedophile ring that are coming forward are male. But the linking of gay men to the accusation of paedophilia by being at the front (or indeed anywhere) in the Prime Minister's response does nothing to pull gay men away from the stigma and finger pointing that has historically been the case. It is often used by people opposed to any LGBT equality, especially the teaching of it in schools. Remember that Cameron himself voted for the retention of Section 28.

Does this 'slip' of the tongue actually reveal the true feelings of the Prime Minister about the LGBT community? Does the inclusion of this caveat actually reveal that he is not actually as comfortaable with LGBT equality as he would like for political expediency to make out.

One thing that is worrying is that by making this connection on national television David Cameron has actually thrown that image, that link back into people's minds. He may have tried to prevent a witch hunt but his misspeaking may very well have created one of his own.

Yes the speculation on the net about names can be a witch hunt, but that is not exclusive to one sexual orientation. The victims don't fit the narrowing of that definition of a witch hunt. So in mathematical terms this Venn diagram is not true.

What we do know from case histories is that men and women, straight and gay prey on underage victims.

This is the actual representation of the issue, though not to scale.

I spent a long time today musing over the rightness of posting this. As I said David Cameron was quite right not to support any witch hunt over the paedophiles that are being used. Indeed the news are highlighting not on the issue of the witch hunt but on it being about a witch hunt on gay people. Therefore my concern that more people will link paedophilia with homosexuality has as a result of Cameron's words already increased.

Thanks Dave for putting the positive message from the LGBT community back slightly all because of six words you did not need to include in your rebuttal of this issue. Having heard some comments from some of the This Morning audience while out earlier some people are talking about the link which isn't there already.

Whether he intended to or not, unprompted David Cameron went on daytime TV and linked paedophilia with homosexuality.  He took it too far and the response in some quarters will be a return to linking the two.

Update I have noticed that the comments this morning have given Nick Griffen something to rant about inaccurately (warning this is the only time I will link to a Griffen Tweet).

Cameron the Undeliverer - Is it time for Lib Dems to walk from Coalition?

So David Cameron is to drop Lord's Reform because he is unable to get the legislation past his backbenchers. There are also rumours about a similar thing has been happening to some other policies that are within the coalition agreement.

Now I'm not going to go into an argument here about how the Reform of the Lords is 100 years overdue, but its dropping is a catalyst to another story. I'm sure that Nick Clegg had a tough time with his backbenchers on issues such as Tuition Fees, Welfare Reform, the NHS and other issues. But by in large he has delivered those votes in the lobbies when it mattered, because when David Cameron said on the steps of Downing Street in May 2010 "We're all in this together" the Lib Dems accepted that.

The Conservative backbenchers seem to have forgotten that missive, they also seem to have forgotten that they did not win a majority back then and that a lot of the stuff that they wanted the Lib Dems have helped make happen at great cost to our membership, our vote and some say our political integrity. The last is a dubious point though. Yes we went into the election with a manifesto as did other parties. But when nobody could form a majority we entered negotiations with both the main parties to try and work out how we could help the country in that hour of need.

So a new document of intent was drawn up, the Coalition Agreement*. Now on political integrity to that the Lib Dems have been holding firm, but the Conservatives have been meandering, dropping parts of that here or there or publicly talking about how they will block the overtly liberal elements of it.

That shows weak leadership from Cameron and his whips office. That shows that he has lost control of his part of this coalition. It makes me wonder should the Lib Dems now just walk away from this Coalition and let Cameron have his way.

Of course then he will find it hard to get the majority he needs. There will still be rebels in his own party, bizarrely there always are in the blue corner of the green benches. But he wouldn't even have a majority in the first place.

The problem is would leaving a lame duck Prime Minister and a powerless administration for the next three years (we do after all have the Fixed Term Parliament Act) be good for the country?

No it wouldn't.

Would the country appreciate the Lib Dems maintaining their political integrity while watching Osborne burn trying to get any economic package through a minority House of Commons who disagree?

I seriously doubt it.

So the Lib Dems are caught between a rock and a hard place. We have a weak Prime Minister who is unable to deliver the liberal parts of the agreement, while we help deliver parts whichgo away or are opposed to Lib Dem policies, all the while looking like sell out, but not as big sell outs if we walk away now.

So it is time for David Cameron to step up, not step away. He has to forge ahead with the Coalition agreement implementation in the same way that Nick Clegg does. If he continues to be be unable to deliver, then we will have to look again at walking away.

Update Now I have already had some reactions that Lord's Reform was not in the Agreement, actually it was and it also was a Conservative manifesto pledge. The wording in the agreement is:

We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely that there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

This looks largely to be what is in the Lords Reform Bill without the finer details worked out, which during 5 days of discussion was a matter that clearly there was some agreement in principle but not time to dot all the Is or cross all the Ts.

* Page 27 does mention Lord's reform and talk about bringing forward proposals after looking at it, largely in line with the Bill, because ALL parties were in agreement about the need in their manifestos.

Is Cameron Campaigning for 2015?

First up last week we had the despicable announcement that under 25s will be stripped of the right to claim housing benefit. So much for means testing and compassionate conservatism.

Then today we have him saying that there will be a referendum on Europe. But it it doesn't appear to be the clear in/out option he was rattling on about before the last election but some procedural stuff when the time is right.

Notice that in neither of these cases was Cameron saying this was the coalition Government policy, these are either his ideas of Conservative party idea that they want to air. So is he starting to campaign for 2015?

You see the Conservatives don't have a party wide forum to discuss policy. It comes either from their think tanks or the leaders inner circle. Unlike the Lib Dems where twice a year we debate policy and the leadership don't always get their way at such things, but policy is debated and  voted on. Every member of the Lib Dems knows the fundamentals of the party and what it stands for and ofter the most impassioned debates have come from when there is fundamental disagreement over which of two ideas is the way to take those principles forward with both sides claiming first principles.

The Tories on the other hand air their thoughts in the public forum to all the world and wait to see the reaction. If the reaction isn't good they may gave, or they may carry on anyway. It is always hard to tell with them. But while Lib Dems go about the twice annual ritual of writing, then supporting (currently I'm getting the emails asking for my voting rep support), then debating and voting on the path forward the Conservatives don't have such concrete laid down policies year on year. Things can be changed on a whim and a policy announcement like their one on equal marriage only come out the week before the 2010 General Election. The Lib Dem one was in the offing well before then making its way through the hoops having been passed in Scotland and getting the support to put it before conference in that September.

So if David Cameron is starting to campaign on the fundamental differences shouldn't the Lib Dems be doing the same. Saying on one hand this is what we are doing at the moment for the country, but when the time is right and the Lib Dems are the majority in Westminster we want to do X,Y and Z on the other. We would stop taking flak for the mutual decisions when we can say without damaging collective responsibility "...but if we had things our own way we would do this".

Of course Cameron is reaching for his core vote because of the collective decision he has made with Lib Dems have made him look too caring, to much part of the liberal elite. I have expect him to mute the idea that civil partnerships should be downgraded like has happened in Queensland recently just to appease the Church of England Conservatives.

So why can't the Lib Dems start doing the same reaching out to those who say we have sold out, when compromise was needed to get things done. Saying we still stand for those things you voted for us for in 2010. We do want to do them when you give us the chance, don't desert up, come back. We have a core of libereal minded voters some of whom quite rightly don't like all that this Government has done.

But we as Lib Dems should be allowed just as Cameron is doing now be allowed to say when the time is right and this country is out of recession we will be working to do X, Y and Z. Laying out our plans to take this country on a different agenda to that of the Conservative Party. 

Cameron wrong to take benefit from needy young people

Not every person under the age of 25 has the ability to turn up at home and be welcomed with open homes, Indeed some people under the age of 25 do not have parents or other family at all to turn to. Therefore the decision to scrap all housing benefit to people under the age of 25 is repugnant and should not be allowed to happen.

There are all manner of reasons that someone under the age of 25 may not have a stable household they can live in.

They may have been living in care until the age of 18, when they are turned out into the world, maybe unable to get a job, but needing to find a roof over their head at least to enable them to claim other benefits.

They may have been orphaned themselves in late teens.

They may have been kicked out of the family home, either because they have come out as LGBT or maybe because they have become pregnant or for any other reason.

Or what about those young people who have moved far away from home for the chance to gain employment, even if that is in a low paid job that entitles them currently to housing benefit. Surely Mr Cameron isn't asking them quit their job and return home (if they have one) because they cannot afford to live near their place of work?

The lives of under 25s can at times be hard enough if they are made to fend for themselves for whatever reason, whether above or something else. Scrapping housing benefit for under 25s fails to look at the need and seriously puts many young people in the dangerous position of finding themselves living on the streets.

Cameron said that the Conservatives were now the compassionate party in the lead up to the 2010 General election. That compassion seems to only kick in once you reach 25 or maybe pensionable age.

Looks like David Cameron wants a Big Secret Society

Generated via RedKid
Based on characters by Charles M. Schulz

First we have the Snoopy snooping row today we hear that the Conservatives want more closed, secret court hearings.

The issue is over whose say so court proceedings should be secret. Cameron says it should be the Ministers, but Clegg is saying this power should not go to Parliament but remain with the judiciary. Maybe David Cameron fancies himself as the next James Bond (which after all is just 4 years older than the PM as a film franchise) with Theresa May as Q, but there is too much talk from the Tories about subterfuge at the moment.

Thankful this time it appears that Clegg has taken the bull by the horns before it even contemplates the merest possibility of bolting from through the doors of Westminster, saying:

"[Security Services] cannot be allowed to ride roughshod over the principle of open justice".

Clegg has even said that the Tories have gone about announcing legislation in a "blunderbuss" fashion, the past few days when there have been leaks about secrecy legislation plans being a case in point. Spuriously coughing out a worst case scenario that may have been discussed that in no way would get approval by the Lib Dems, hence making us look bad only to then come in later with another proposal that is less scary after all the initial accusations have passed and nobody gives them as much attention.

However, Nick Clegg has told the National Security Council that the Lib Dems will not back legislation that allows more court hearings and inquests behind closed doors. The excuse from Ken Clarke that the USA are  afraid of the openness of UK judicial proceedings is not a valid one. The USA had long held secret, closed sessions of their supreme court sometimes subpoenaing witnesses at the last minute. They are one of the most secretive states in the world at times for all the appearance of openness on the outside.

Their failure to ratify Protocol I and II of the Geneva Conventions and other Internation Human Rights Conventions, or at least without much alacrity means that the USA is one of the least accountable countries in the World to everyone else. Their use if extraordinary rendition and sanctioning of evidence obtained through torture are things that aren't to be held in esteem. Indeed their retention of capital punishment would make them ineligible for membership of the EU. So the USA is hardly an example of being above board in terms of judicial practice, so the fact that they fear handing over secrets that may expose some of the practices mentioned in an open review is hardly a cause to hide those ourselves.

The Conservatives want secrecy, the Lib Dems want openness. We know how the secrets of the MPs expenses went down with the general public, so how on earth do the Tories think that keeping something so fundamental a secret is going to go down? I'm glad the Lib Dems are in government at the moment and are campaigning for openness and the retention of open justice.

David Cameron is not so much wanting a Big Society as to still be the member and leader of a Secret Society it seems.

Did Cameron wish for a furious Clegg?

It isn't just me who was rather irate about David Cameron's handling of Europe early on Friday morning. It appears that Nick Clegg his Deputy is equally angry.

Of course in 1992 the Prime Minister was special adviser to Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday when his reaction to an Exchange Rate Mechanism crisis was to up interest rates first from 10 to 12%, then to 15%, then back down to 10% and withdraw from the ERM. All in the space of 24 hours. Maybe if he had stayed around the table in Brussels for a few extra hours we would have had some diplomacy, but then maybe we didn't have a diplomat at the table. Two years later there was a Cabinet member training in the way diplomacy works in Europe, but he was sleeping in his flat in Sheffield at the time of the negotiations.

So what was the problem that Cameron ran across, surely it couldn't have been the issue of more fiscal union of the Eurozone countries, that was something that his Chancellor George Osborne had been talking about for months. Although I doubt his talk of a two speed Europe was going to be us against the other 26. Or does that become a three speed Europe those in the Eurozone, the nine not in that yet and then us now?

As for the autonomy of 'our' banking sector, the Tobin tax that was negotiated had a separate veto attached to it. So what additional threat was the Prime Minister protecting his friends in the city from, as this wasn't mentioned in the communique from the EU leaders.

The Prime Minister said that he couldn't let 'our' banking sector suffer while he protecting the parts of Britain that we enjoy like the single market. HANG ON A SECOND! The single market was set up to allow freedom of movement of resources across the EU whether labour, trade, influence etc. So the Prime Minister to protect the single market is ring fencing one favoured indusrty and vetoing the rest of the 'single market' from making inroads or approaches to changing that dynamic. What if the Germans were to do the same with their car industry, or the Estonians with their internet business, or sacre bleu the French were to do the same with their viticulture. Bang goes the champagne at Tory conferences.

How can the UK operate in a single market if he claims that it has the sole property rights to a certain industry? It doesn't work. Either you are in a single market where the industries can decide how and where they wish to operate or you are not. So how is the PM protecting a single market by doing this. What if a new industry wants to relocate to the UK, but the other EU countries that currently have parts of it are reluctant to let that go. The PM will argue that we are in a 'single market' but they will reply, but you have your banking industry, remember Brussels.

The Prime Minister may well have backed himself into a corner in order to protect just one industry. He has decided to lift us out of the centre of the EU. As the Guardian reports Clegg fears as

the "lonely man of Europe", with less influence, not more, for the City of London, less influence with the US and less foreign investment.

If Cameron has indeed put the interests of the city above manufacturing and real jobs he will find it increasingly hard to rely on support from the Lib Dems. If the fall out from this decision to step outside of the decision making of Europe means that we have to try and survive on our own pulling power Cameron may realise that unlike in the time of some of his influential forebears, there is less of that than 100 or 200 years ago.

I'm stepping outside, look after the pound for me - Cameron.

During Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday David Cameron answered the first two questions like this:

The British national interest means absolutely that we need to help resolve this crisis in the eurozone. It is freezing the British economy, just as it is freezing economies right across Europe. Resolving this crisis is about jobs, growth, business and investment right here in the UK. At the same time we must seek safeguards for Britain. That is the right thing to do.

Then to Ed Miliband's first question:

we will have the key aim of helping to resolve the eurozone crisis, and we believe that means European eurozone countries coming together and doing more things together. If they choose to do that through a treaty at 27 in which we are involved, we will insist on some safeguards for Britain—and, yes, that means making sure we are stronger and better able to do things in the UK to protect our own national interests. Obviously, the more countries in the eurozone ask for, the more we will ask for in return, but we will judge that on the basis of what matters most to Britain.

Now today the answer to the crisis the one that Cameron said was about ' jobs, growth, business and investment right here in the UK' was one that he and he alone couldn't get involved with. Apparently it was over regulations of the banks that the problem arose.

Now as a Lib Dem we praised Vince Cable on calling for more regulation of the banks well ahead of the crisis that kicked in. We shouted about the lift of regulations on banks under Labour. Indeed in our manifesto we said we would :

Work through the European Union for stricter international regulation of financial services and banking.

Because here is the thing Mr Cameron there is no such thing as a purely UK Bank bank anymore. They all have interests overseas, or are the UK Interest of an international bank. Therefore Cameron has thrown out the bath water, baby and all to spite his face. There will be discussions going on that the UK will be excluded from that will affect the UK Banking sector that we will not have any control over.

As for the aim of securing the EU, these talks in Europe were to agree to explore the possibility of working together. The details have yet to be thrashed out. Mrs Thatcher even when she disagreed about the move to a Single Market did stay in there and thrash out the details she could live with over Maastricht and other Treaties. David Cameron has put the UK so far on the outside that we're not even sure if we'll get the jobs, growth, business and investment that he's looking for. We're not even sure if our largest trading partners the rest of the EU are going to be allow such investment.

It's almost like the EU are sitting in Scotts camp on his return from the South Pole with 27 in the party as a blizzard blasts outside. But out into Hurricane Bawbag steps David Cameron with the words, "I'm stepping outside, look after the pound for me".

Jeffrey get your facts right about cafés, the bible and LGBT in this country

Today in PMQs the DUP's MP for Lagan Valley, Jeffrey Donaldson, asked David Cameron the following question:

Q8. [76635] Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP): The Prime Minister has warned African countries that unless they improve gay rights, he will cut their aid, yet in many African countries where we pour in millions of pounds of aid, Christians face great persecution and destruction of churches, lives and property. Here in the UK, anyone who displays a Bible verse on the wall of a café faces prosecution. Was Ann Widdecombe right when she said that in the 21st century hedgehogs have more rights than Christians?

Now me being curious wanted to take a look at just how many cafe owners had faced prosecution for the offence of displaying a bible verse as I know a few of them around Northern Ireland that do so. Though I do know that potentially there are a few that are on permanent display on roadsides in Northern Ireland that could cause offence to certain sections of the community under section 75 (1) of the Belfast Agreement and I have yet to hear of anyone or any LGBT group protesting or prosecuting their existence.

It appears I wasn't the only one to want to do a fact check, read this piece by full fact check.

The Ann Widdecombe reference comes from this article in her Express column. But she doesn't mention anything about Cafes.

No that honour goes to the Fail on Sunday (again I have to apologise to readers for the link). After 24 paragraphs of reporting in which it is said that

• the cafe owner was threatened with arrest
• that he was told to stop playing his DVDs of the New Testament
• that he faced and intensive inquisition for over an hour after the police arrived unannounced
• that he was being bullied by the police
• that he feared being put into handcuffs
• that the Christian Institute (yes them again) are preparing a complaint on the cafe owners behalf

We get to this statement from Lancashire Constabulary after it says that they turned up to look into a complaint from a member of the public under the Public Order Act 1986 (which also for the record states that criticism of sexual conduct shall not in itself be deemed threatening or to stir up hatred):

"At no point did the officer ask the cafe owner to remove any materials or arrest the man and we took a commonsense and objective approach in dealing with the complaint. We believe our response and the action we took was completely proportionate and our officers are always available should the cafe owner want to discuss the matter or need any advice in the future. 

"The Constabulary is respectful of all religious views. However, we do have a responsibility to make sure that material that communities may find deeply offensive or inflammatory is not being displayed in public. 

"No complaint has been received about the conduct of the officer in question and we are satisfied that they performed their duties professionally."

Yeah it is another non-story in the Fail.

Maybe Jeffrey should look at some of the activity within his own party. Of course there is the former chair of the Health Committee who said that homosexual should see her little Christian psychiatrist friend for a cure. Or the current deputy chair who says that all those who take part in Pride are repugnant. Even those it would seem who offer counselling to suicidal LGBT young and not so young people, those who offer sexual health advise to all whether LGBT or straight, those who are men/women of the cloth, those who sit with them in Stormont or council chambers across Northern Ireland.

In America the so called family group, the American Family Association (AFA), have this week attacked the Trevor Project, a helpline for suicidal prevention among LGBT teens. So clearly they don't want people to tell these LGBT teens, who are five times more likely to take their own lives that straight teens, not to commit suicide. Sadly that is not so far removed from the actions and words of many in the DUP and indeed the tone with which Mr Donaldson asked his question. The figures for homophobic bullying of teens in Northern Ireland are as bad as in the USA where the AFA operate are just as bad.

Those of us who have been through those feelings in the past want to tell Northern Ireland LGBT teens, young people and not so young that it gets better, but how can we when our leaders fail to get their facts right about issues of homophobia real or alleged.

The Three Conference Speech Wordle Comparison

So David Cameron has just completed the cycle of leaders' conference speeches. So how do they compare as far as key words go here are the comparative Wordles

Nick Clegg

Main words

• people
• economy
• right
• Labour
• easy
• government
• every

Ed Miliband

Main words

• people
• values
• Britain
• country
• right
• change
• economy
• work

David Cameron

Main words

• people
• country
• get
• know
• back
• economy
• one

When equal marriage emphatically isn't equal

The announcement has been made, in time I suspect for Lynne Featherstone's speech at conference tomorrow at 15:55, that David Cameron is 'emphatically' behind a consultation into 'how' not if to bring about equal civil marriage.

Yup that is what he is emphatic about.

It fails to acknowledge there there are LGB people of faith who want to have a religious ceremony and there are faith groups that want to provide it. It fails to expand civil partnership to heterosexual couples, something that Labour backed out of when they brought in civil partnerships in the first place and something that some heterosexual couples want to partake it. Where is the religious freedom for those that wish to offer like the Quakers, Unitarians and liberal Jews and those that wish to partake?

Without the detail it still leaves some room over those seeking gender reassignment. Do they still have to annul a civil partnership or divorce a marriage to then 'remarry' in their new gender or will they, if they wish to stay to stay together not have to part. What if they are of faith and want to get married again but in a religious ceremony?

David Cameron may be emphatic, the Tories are jumping up and down about how they are achieving equality, yet the consultation that they are letting go ahead doesn't cover over half the issues. Cameron is emphatic about a damp squib that will fizzle out without the full impact of what he could achieve. I pity Lynne Featherstone getting to announce this tomorrow at conference before a hall that last year passed a policy and more inclusive way forward than is even being offered to consultation next May.

The Tories are still lagging when it comes to LGBT equality. Time to catch up once again.

Are the rioters about to get anti-terrotist emergency powers enacted? #LondonRiots

COBRA are meeting at the moment but the media while awaiting the Prime Minister's statement are speculating that there may be a recall of Parliament on Thursday.

Why would such a recall be made? Possibly to enact the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. It is clear that the definition of an emergency certainly covers what we have seen in recent days.

(1)In this Part “emergency” means—

(a)an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom,

(b)an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of a place in the United Kingdom, or

(c)war, or terrorism, which threatens serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) an event or situation threatens damage to human welfare only if it involves, causes or may cause—

(a)loss of human life,

(b)human illness or injury,

(c)homelessness,

(d)damage to property,

(e)disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,

(f)disruption of a system of communication,

(g)disruption of facilities for transport, or

(h)disruption of services relating to health.

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) an event or situation threatens damage to the environment only if it involves, causes or may cause—

(a)contamination of land, water or air with biological, chemical or radio-active matter, or

(b)disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life.

(4)A Minister of the Crown, or, in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers, may by order—

(a)provide that a specified event or situation, or class of event or situation, is to be treated as falling, or as not falling, within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1);

(b)amend subsection (2) so as to provide that in so far as an event or situation involves or causes disruption of a specified supply, system, facility or service—

i)it is to be treated as threatening damage to human welfare, or

(ii)it is no longer to be treated as threatening damage to human welfare.

(5)The event or situation mentioned in subsection (1) may occur or be inside or outside the United Kingdom.

There are sweeping powers in the Act. It allows under the monitoring of Parliament and/or the devolved powers for emergency powers, necessary for the overcoming of the emergency to be enacted. There is a quite a scope for just what those powers entail

Section 22

(1)Emergency regulations may make any provision which the person making the regulations is satisfied is appropriate for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency in respect of which the regulations are made.

(2)In particular, emergency regulations may make any provision which the person making the regulations is satisfied is appropriate for the purpose of—

• (a) protecting human life, health or safety,
• (b) treating human illness or injury,
• (c) protecting or restoring property,
• (d) protecting or restoring a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
•  (e) protecting or restoring a system of communication(e)protecting or restoring a system of communication
• (f) protecting or restoring facilities for transport,
• (g) protecting or restoring the provision of services relating to health,
• (h) protecting or restoring the activities of banks or other financial institutions,
• (i) preventing, containing or reducing the contamination of land, water or air,
• (j)preventing, reducing or mitigating the effects of disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life,
• (k) protecting or restoring activities of Parliament, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of the National Assembly for Wales, or
• (l)protecting or restoring the performance of public functions.

(3)Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative; in particular, regulations may—

(a)confer a function on a Minister of the Crown, on the Scottish Ministers, on the National Assembly for Wales, on a Northern Ireland department, on a coordinator appointed under section 24 or on any other specified person (and a function conferred may, in particular, be—

 (i)a power, or duty, to exercise a discretion;
(ii)a power to give directions or orders, whether written or oral);

(b)provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property (with or without compensation);
(c)provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or plant life (with or without compensation);
(d)prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, movement to or from a specified place;
(e)require, or enable the requirement of, movement to or from a specified place;
(f)prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds, at specified places or at specified times;
(g)prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, travel at specified times;
(h)prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other specified activities;
(i)create an offence of—

(i)failing to comply with a provision of the regulations;
(ii)failing to comply with a direction or order given or made under the regulations;
(iii)obstructing a person in the performance of a function under or by virtue of the regulations;

(j)disapply or modify an enactment or a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment;
(k)require a person or body to act in performance of a function (whether the function is conferred by the regulations or otherwise and whether or not the regulations also make provision for remuneration or compensation);
(l)enable the Defence Council to authorise the deployment of Her Majesty’s armed forces;
(m)make provision (which may include conferring powers in relation to property) for facilitating any deployment of Her Majesty’s armed forces;
(n)confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal (which may include a tribunal established by the regulations);
(o)make provision which has effect in relation to, or to anything done in—

(i)an area of the territorial sea,
(ii)an area within British fishery limits, or
(iii)an area of the continental shelf;

(p)make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for a specified purpose;

(q)make different provision for different circumstances or purposes.

Yes in the midst of that are the powers to declare martial law more or less and to make it an offence to fail to comply. It is possible that the rioters may have ended up bringing about such a threat that is even greater than any overseas terrorist threat to the UK in recent years.

Update As I was writing this the Prime Minister said he would be recalling Parliament on Thursday. What powers and actions they discuss on that day we shall have to wait and see.

Update The Hon Lady Mark has told us that his wife Baroness Scott of Needham Market has been told that the Lords will also be recalled tomorrow. Does this mean that there will be some sort of primary legislation, or a vote required on Thursday? Does this mean that the draconion parts of the Civil Contingencies Act may be asked for?

Inappropriate or forgettery

There is a saying in our family that sometimes people have a convenient forgettery as opposed to a memory.

The Prime Minister in the House yesterday

Yesterday David Cameron while making his statement and answering questions kept saying he did not any inappropriate conversation with Rebekah Brooks. He also said they he could not recall every conversation that he ever had when being questioned about specifics about conversations with John Yates.

I have just one question how come he is certain that not once in all the 26 meetings with Rebekah Brooks he can be sure that not one he spoke about BSkyB, yet at the same time when talking to the anti-terrorist chief from the Met he cannot recall talking about phone hacking even once. How are we tracing some of these terrorist threats to the UK if not by occasionally sanctioning phone tapping in the public interest? Surely such discussion could lead unto the phone hacking subject?

But as Mark Thompson points out, how can a senior executive at News Corps not take the opportunity of access to the Prime Minister (on one of the 6 occasions in the last year) to talk about her boss's burning ambition. If it was an inappropriate conversation surely the Prime Minister could have stopped her there, and said so in the House yesterday. Something along the lines of:

"Mrs Brooks did attempt to talk to me about BSkyB, but I stopped her from going further with that conversation."

Instead the formulaic "I had no inappropriate conversations, with that woman" sparks memories of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

One thing that the 138* MPs questions to him yesterday did highlight. The PM had a convenient forgettery over conversations with John Yates, but was crystal clear in his recollection of conversations and their appropriateness with Rebekah Brooks.

I suspect a convenient forgettery was in evidence over both.

* Mr Speaker was right the Prime Minister was wrong, he probably could not  recall all the 138 MPs conversations with him. Still with a 1.45% drop off rate after a couple of hours who knows how much the PM can forget in a year.

The Prime Minister: I think it is ingenious, after 136 questions, to come up with something entirely new, so I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. I am sure the judge will be able to look at all vested interests and the power that they wield in our country.
Mr Speaker: I thank the Prime Minister and all Members. I was advised that there were 138 Members, but we will settle for 136, who have had the opportunity to question the Prime Minister, and I thank everyone for participating.

Hansard Vol. 531 Part 191 Col. 962 20 July 2011

We need a press watchdag with teeth not just a yap

We now are all well aware that self regulation of the Press has been a failure.

This morning both David Cameron and Ed Miliband this morning called on the Press Complaints Commission to be ditched.

The Prime Minister said:

"The PCC has failed. In this case [hacking] it was absent, ineffective and lacking in rigour. It lacks public confidence. We need a new system entirely."

While the Labour leader said:

"It failed to get to the bottom of the allegations about what happened at News International in 2009.

"Its chair admits she was lied to but could do nothing about it. It was established to be a watchdog. But it has been exposed as a toothless poodle.

It is time to put it out of its misery. The PCC has not worked. We need a new watchdog. There needs to be fundamental change."

The thing is many of us have known the problem with the PCC in the past, as indeed I have often blogged. It doesn't offer any real threat, it acts retrospectively and it is self-regulating, coming from the editors themselves shepherding their fellow editors.

Ed's call for a new watchdog misses the fact, what we have is a watchdog that has no bite. We need to give a bite, they have to be able to act quickly. Act not just at the behest of an individual wronged, as now, but in the interests of good, fair and just practise in reporting. It has lacked the rigour as the Prime Minister has said because the leaders of the big two parties have failed to come down hard on the papers and media tycoons, because they rely on these press barons to get their point across.

When Vince Cable said he was going to declare war on Murdoch, he was immediately removed from the front lines of his own department making a decision because the Prime Minister didn't want anyone with cajones to take on the media bosses to endanger his position, especially as his press advisor at the time was a former Murdoch employee.

Let's not shut down the PCC and create the PCC on Sunday that is a Murdoch trick. Let us turn the PCC into a body independent from the press, give it real powers to intervene and punish, whilst also allowing a free press, and allow it to act swiftly.

PM's Constituency Chairman Dies Suddenly

This morning he was quoted in the Mail on Sunday as saying "There's no reason to join the Tories. We've come over as voracious, crass, always on the take".

This evening David Camerons's West Oxfordshire Constituency Party Chairman Christopher Shale has been found dead in a toilet in the VIP area at Glastonbury. His sudden death is not being treated as suspicious but as David Cameron has said ""a close and valued friend - a big rock in my life has suddenly been rolled away".

Having lost one such friend myself very suddenly recently my thoughts are with Mr Shale's wife and three grown up children, other family members and friends, including the Prime Minister.