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

One Small Step for Sinn Féin: Why Iain Dale is Wrong

I read this morning that Iain Dale is feeling cold about a Sinn Féin member of the UK Youth Parliament preparing to speak in the chamber of the House of Commons. I disagree I feel a little warm buzz on hearing the news.

Connor Morgan is apparently is about to make history in being the first Sinn Féin speaker in the chamber. That is one small step towards a normalisation of politics. If his senior representatives can find a way to similarly to take a full role in their elected representatives of the people by voting and speaking in the chamber we would be a step closer here in Northern Ireland.

Iain objects to the young man on a number of grounds.

First, that he will address the house in Gaelic or rather Gaeilge. Iain should wake up, this is allowed in all three of the devolved chambers across the country. The addressing of the house in native tongues at Stormont, Holywood and the Senedd is as far as I'm aware allowed, but then must also be spoken in the majoritive language English*. If this is what Mr Speaker Bercow is allowing in the chamber today it is not unusual. The citation of Ray Michie taking the oath in Scots Gaelic is one that has been repeated in the devolved Assemblies and Parliament and is an exception as an approved version in the native tongues is already available. Personally I hope that Connor is as fluent as the Gael speakers in Kelly's Cellars rather than the stuttering version we hear from Gerry Adams at Stormont.

Second there is the objection that turns his heart cold. He cites the killings of Lord Mountbatten, Airey Neave, Ian Gow, yes all the victims of republican violence. But the people of Northern Ireland have less prominent people, their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends etc who they remember who are lost, who have lost life, or home or livelihood as a result of the 'troubles'. In 1998 the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to move on. To look for a shared future together, putting aside the things of the past to look for a new tomorrow. If the people of Northern Ireland are looking to do that since the Belfast Agreement then Iain you should allow us all to do that. That includes letting Sinn Féin, if and when they choose to do so, to speak in the chamber of the House of Commons. You may not agree with them, but Connor Morgan, just like Gerry Adams has been elected to a UK Parliament and if he wishes to speak he should be heard.

Finally Iain falls into the mainstream journalists trap of condemning youth by their Facebook pages. Iain before hurling that stone should look at the pages of some of the Conservative Future members of the same Youth Parliament. Yeah we are growing up with a generation of future politicians who have all their youthful high jinks captured on a mobile phone and uploaded before they have a chance to sober up. We've all done things that we regret, just in our youth if there wasn't a camera loaded with film present it wasn't recorded for posterity and picked over by someone who thinks they know better.

Therefore overall the fact that Sinn Féin are allowing Connor to not only take his seat today but to speak, is a good thing. The fact that the speaker is allowing Gaeilge to be spoken is also a step towards the normalisation that happens elsewhere, I expect the same conventions will apply, the exuberance of youth may have led Dale to believing that the whole speech will be unintelligible to an English speaker.

There is a little ray of hope and an anticipation of history on a young man's shoulders later today. I hope he strikes the right balance between the two, for his own and all of Northern Ireland's shared futures' sakes. Connor Morgan I wish you well, go n-éirí an t-ádh leat.

UPDATE: As I suspected Connor only gave a greeting in Gaelic before carrying on to speak assuredly against the raise of the cap in tuition fees. Some of what he said is here and below:

"It is a great honour to stand here before you and to have the opportunity to address you in Irish.

"Is it just that the current Members of Parliament, many of whom had a university education paid for by the state now expect us, the innocent and disenfranchised in this economic mess, to pay for the mistakes that they have made?

"Is is right that considering we, as young people, are constantly being told that we are the future, our future appears to us to be a burden of debt and uncertain job prospects?"

UPDATE 2: Paul Burgin has added this on his Mars Hill blog.

* I'm not sure if this applies in Wales which is legally bi-lingual, maybe one of my Welsh readers will clarify.

It Ain't Necessarily Bercow

I see that the Common's speaker John Bercow's wife is to stand as a Labour candidate for Westminster Council in the ward where they live. Malc asked the question via Twitter, will he vote for her? My response is it ain't necessarily so.

As anyone who knows my dating history knows the hardest vote I always seem to have to win at any election is that of my other half, whoever they may be. Either if I am merely campaigning or especially if I am standing I have always had to fight for that one vote, it probably has something to do with the fact that I've never (knowingly) dated a fellow Lib Dem supporter. In the 2003 election I actually sat there while my partner at the time went through the postal vote forms. As both the constituency and list seats for Parliament slipped out of my grasp I eagerly waited for the one for the council seat. In the Croftmalloch ward where we lived there were 4 candidates the Lib Dem one being Stephen Glenn. Would I manage to persuade that final vote to go to such a worthy and trustworthy candidate? After a fair amount of teasing it finally did, so I at least knew I had two votes on the day, if only because the preferred options weren't standing a candidate in our area.

It leads back to the point that even though you live with someone, share many aspects of your live with them, when it comes do to political philosophy you may not be able to swing their vote your way. It may be one of those things that you agree to disagree on. I personally always enjoy the fact that one of the toughest audiences I have to argue policy with is at the other side of the dinner table, sofa or bed. I'm not sure what would happen with my own political edge if my partner was of the same political persuasion, I get to rehearse certain arguments in defence of some of our stances (dependent on political allegiances of the OH) on an ongoing basis.

So to answer the question, I think John Bercow should vote for who he wants to vote for, whether that is his wife or the conservative opponent, or anyone else for that matter, its up to him. It is a secret ballot after all.

PS On that note there is recently a vacancy opened up for the position described above. Anyone with a keen interest in politics, prepared to put up with me in full out election campaign mode for the next few months grabbing 'us' time when it is available, may apply. A non-Lib Dem political affiliation is preferable, though not essential (maybe). ;)

Why We Shouldn't Stand Against Speaker Bercow

Darell Godliffe asks 'Why are We Not Standing Against Bercow?' stating that letting Nigel Farrage have a free run at Bercow would be wrong in his eyes.

I disagree, if we wanted an interim speaker only until the end of this Parliament we should have voted for Ann Widdecombe who stood with that as her platform in the recent election. Of course up in Scotland we will soon have the writ moved for the election to replace former Speaker Martin. The gloating that the SNP are doing that they came second here last time is ridiculous especially where you consider the opposition. They were less than a thousand ahead of the Socialist Labour candidate, the other parties were Scottish Socialist, Scottish Unionist, BNP and an Independent. The Scottish Socialist and Unionists had faced him as speaker in 2001 as well. In 1997 Betty Boothroyd was opposed by Independent Labour and the National Democrats.

People talk about the convention of not opposing the speaker but in 1987 Bernard Wetherill was opposed by representatives of both the other political groupings. Bernard had first been elected as a Conservative in 1964, was elected Speaker in 1983. In 1987 he faced Labour's Christine Patrick and the SDP's J.D. Goldie. Indeed it was the 1974 elections that you next find Labour and this time the Liberals opposing a sitting Speaker against Selwyn Lloyd. Although in 1979 George Thomas faced Plaid Cymru and the National Front.

So while the 'convention' for not standing against a sitting speaker is not as set in stone as some people may have you believe, it is none the less a precedent symbolising the apolitical nature of the role. Indeed it seems to be one, that even if contested, the constituents seem to back up as not one speaker seeking election since 1969 has polled less than 50% of the vote.

While Darell did say correctly that Nick Clegg did break convention by speaking out against the speaker I don't think playing party politics in the Speakers seat is the time or place to do so. We can take the case for reform in the commons up against a number of discredited MPs or their successors. Unless the speaker shows evidence of being partisan, biased or a detriment to Parliament, so far I don't think Bercow fits into any of those categories.

So let Farage have his day in the sun, only towards the end of the Euro campaign did anyone challenge him on UKIP expenses when his own are far for austere in nature.

More haste, More Dosh but less Transparency #MPsExpenses

Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems had urged Members of Parliament to take time to deal with the situation of expenses and public confidence before they returned to their constituencies for the summer recess. End result the new outcry over the subsistence allowance.

Not that there wasn't outcry over Gordon Brown's proposal when it was first muted, many MPs from all sides were pointing out that this would give more money with less accountability. The £25 pounds for each night spent away from their main home could amount to £9,000 without the need for a receipt to be shown. There are full time workers in the UK who are lucky to have that amount of money to spend on all their bills, food and getting to work after taxes.

The unreceipted claims for food under the old discredited system was £4,800, but at least was debated even if the Labour and Tory benches overwhelmingly supported it. This new subsistence allowance was rushed through in the final days of the Parliamentary session, without even full Parliamentary scrutiny or a vote. Instead it was passed by a small committee chaired by the speaker John Bercow and including Harriet Harman as Leader of the House and Alan Duncan from the Tory front bench.

All three had said that an expense system not backed by receipts was unacceptable yet what have they done? Almost doubled the unreceitable allowances to the within £1000 of the gross full time Minimum Wage for a adult working 35 hours per week.

This is a disgrace that should never have been allowed to happen. Nick had called on the House to get this sorted out in the open before returning to their constituencies. The people were calling out for this to be sorted and this should have been a priority and constituents would then have understood that they were determined to do something about it. However, with this news coming out just after the English schools have broken up for the summer and with MPs dispearsed makes bad reading and prolongs this distrust that the public has in politicians.