Britain and America

Your weekly guide to British politics (number seven)

Dear Friends,

      This week’s Letter from London is once again actually coming to you from London.  As such I shall be returning to the usual format of discussing the big issues of the week; in this case two in particular.  The House of Lords, and (you guessed it) cash for peerages. 

      In the last few weeks these issues have been very much one and the same.  However this week saw a House of Commons vote on the reform of the Lords and accordingly we can (for once at least) separate the House from the scandal. 

      On Wednesday MPs voted to reform the Lords by demanding that all members be elected rather than appointed.  The result of the vote came as a shock to many (indeed almost all), who expected MPs to vote for a partially elected, partially appointed House.  Whatever the result may have been however, one thing is certain.  The constitutional significance of reform is startling. 

      The House of Lords has existed since the 14^th Century (although it has only been known as the House of Lords since 1544).  Many would argue the Lords have in that time discharged their task commendably, and would therefore question the need for reform.  Indeed as Philip Davies MP has asked:

“Why are [Labour] so determined that there must be elections to the House of Lords, which has no powers at all, bar those of revising and advising [the Commons]?”

      A fine question indeed. 

      Ultimately though it is safe to say we will have elected Lords in the not too distant future.  However, despite the vote in the Commons, the Lords may not become a fully elected chamber.  Why?  The decision will not pass into law; instead it is expected to ‘inform’ government plans.  In New Labour speak that tends to mean… very little.  As is so often the case, time will tell. 

      With that, let’s move on to the scandal; cash for peerages.  Earlier this week the BBC had an injunction placed on it blocking a report focusing on cash for peerages.  The injunction was sought by Downing Street and needless to say provoked huge media interest in both the injunction and the information subject to that injunction.  Farcically, in a very British way, the injunction did not apply to any other news outlet and as a result lead to an amusing situation involving the publication of stories relating to the story the BBC couldn’t publish, all the while leaving the BBC unable to comment on the stories being published by those other media outlets… phew time to take a breath.  Whatever the story is we can be sure of one thing: the cash for peerages scandal is far from over. 

      On a lighter note (who would have thought I’d end with one of those) Gordon Brown may be many things.  But this week he proved beyond doubt the title ‘Iron Chancellor’ is well deserved.  Not wanting a numb mouth during a speech later in the day the Chancellor opted let a dentist drill through deep nerve tissue hours before the speech… without anaesthetic!  Hardcore.

      Cheers,

     Shane

Your weekly guide to British politics (number six)

Dear Friend,

      I think we can all agree it would be rather silly of me to provide you with update of the week’s news from Blighty given that I am presently located in the Washington, DC.  In fact I am writing this letter from my room in the Omni Shoreham; the location of this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference.  Instead I shall regale you with tales of Brits Abroad (perhaps I should trademark that!?), and offer more general thoughts flowing from my experiences at CPAC. 

      A few minutes ago I returned from the CPAC Presidential Banquet.  A fantastic event all round.  The keynote speaker was of course the Vice President Dick Cheney.  His speech was both well drafted and delivered, sending out a powerful message on the war on terror (among other things).  However the big speech of the evening, in my humble opinion, came from John Bolton; a man who is the very embodiment of what conservative foreign policy should be – tough and sensible.  He reminded the audience that the assessed contributions to the United Nations are in every sense a tax.  A tax affecting certain countries to a much larger degree than others.  As a result he therefore called for a radical change in the way the UN is funded.  His suggestion… voluntary contributions. 

      Why am I telling you this?  Well you may ask.  The answer is quite simple.  I believe Bolton’s comments reflect a much wider conservative message; one deserving of our constant attention.  His call for voluntary contributions pays homage to that most sacrosanct of conservative values – the belief in the individuals’ ability to be the master of their own destiny.  This is a message which of course juxtaposes nicely with my letters over the previous weeks. 

      More and more in the UK, a nation that traditionally values individual liberty, we have seen moves towards collectivisation.  We have seen moves that stand in stark contrast to the values which traditionally made my nation strong.  These moves are, I am sure will agree, extremely alarming.  They are alarming of course because they offend our basic sense of justice, our basic sense of the individuals’ ability to act responsibly and in his own interests – interests which lead to a strong, powerful, and free society.

      So what’s the general point I wish to make from all this?  It’s quite simple.  Whilst Leftists (one thinks of the mainstream media in this regard) may wish to restrict the freedom of the individual.  And whilst they may have a certain degree of success in promulgating such limitations.  They will ultimately be unsuccessful in the realisation of their ultimate ambitions.  Why?  Because when you, you, think of the aforementioned affronts to personal liberty you are immediately offended.  You are disturbed to your core by the thought of losing the power to determine your own destiny. 

      For as long as we are retain our capacity to be offended, for as long as we value individual liberty, our freedom should be guaranteed.  We should only start to worry when affronts to our liberty pass us by with little emotional reaction on our part.

      Moving on to something a little lighter the response to 18 Doughty Street’s ‘A World Without America’ has been phenomenal at CPAC.  Nearly everyone I have spoken to (and I have spoken to a lot) have already seen the ad.  More importantly though these same people went out of their way to tell how much they valued the friendship of the United Kingdom, and how much the ad reinforced their already warm feelings towards those of us across the pond.  All I could say in response was that those warm feelings are felt by us in return, despite what the Leftist media would have you believe. 

      Finally many of our friends over here asked me about my colleague Tim Montgomerie whom they had seen on Fox news.  Suffice to say they were delighted to hear that he was busy fighting the good fight back in Blighty. 

      Let us never forget how important that fight is. 

      Cheers,

     Shane

Your weekly guide to British politics (number five)

Dear Friends,

      So, what’s been happening in Blighty I hear you ask?  Well, if there’s one issue that has dominated the headlines it’s gun crime.  Shockingly three young people were murdered recently with handguns; something almost unheard of in the UK.  That’s not to say the UK lacks gun related crime; indeed we have had it for years.  But recently gun related incidents have provoked a huge debate in the media.  And with huge debate in the media comes huge debate in the political world. 

      Tony Blair wants the age at which long prison sentences can be administered for gun possession to be lowered to 17.  However the shadow home secretary David Davis has accused the Prime Minister of reacting in a knee jerk fashion to the problem.  Whilst the Liberal Democrats have come out with a characteristically unsubstantial proposal of their own. 

      Ultimately though the political machinations have so far failed to deliver any proposal that looks likely to solve the problem.  The concern amongst legitimate gun owners is of course that the government will use this situation to remove yet more of their rights.  This concern is, historically, not an unfounded one.  However the simple truth is that the kind of gun crime currently at issue is not committed by legitimate gun owners.  Accordingly a restriction on one’s ability to obtain firearms legally would have no effect on the violent crime currently under discussion.  Naturally, the ultimate direction the government will take on the issue remains to be seen.  But given their track-record of chasing headlines it seems likely that sound bites will be chosen over solutions. 

      The other big story of the week was the announcement by Tony Blair that 1,600 British troops will be pulled out of Iraq in the next few months.  This will cut the total UK deployment to 5,500 troops at a time when the US has committed an extra 21,500 (four times the soon to be total deployment of British troops in Iraq!).  This has lead to accusations of a split growing between the Bush White House and the Tony Blair.  However it could also be argued that the announced reinforces the message coming from the White House.  After all, if a phased handover to Iraqi authorities is the ultimate plan, then the latest announcement from Tony Blair would certainly seem to indicate that Bush’s plan to ‘stay the course’ has merit.  On the other hand the withdrawal could also be viewed as a realpolitic move of the part of Blair.  With only 5,500 troops on the ground, compared to the 45,000 originally deployed, the likelihood of full withdrawal before the next general election is a very real possibility.  And Tony Blair knows that once full withdrawal has taken place the media will lose interest in Iraq very quickly.  Is he hoping to avoid the next election being a referendum on Iraq?  Only time will tell.

      Sadly I am bereft of any lighter note on which to end this week's letter.  But given the gun crime issue perhaps that is for the best.  Next week's Letter from London will actually be a letter from DC as I'll be across the pond at CPAC.  Do say hello if you see me there (the 18 Doughty Street stall might be a good place to look). 

      Cheers,

     Shane

Your weekly guide to British politics (number four)

Dear Friends,

      You may have noticed there was no Letter from London last week.  Let's just blame the British postal service and move directly on to this weeks offering. 

      Things have died down a little in Blighty this week.  Parliament is in recess and as a result we have been without the spectacle of Prime Minister's Questions.  However, just because the green benches have been empty doesn't mean the news screens have. 

      The Environment Secretary David Miliband MP has been urged by a senior member of the Labour Party to stand against Gordon Brown for leadership of the party when Tony Blair stands down.  The former Labour minister, Frank Field MP, feels that Brown is too closely associated with Blair, and feels a break from Blair is needed if Labour is to be successful in the next general election.  Field may well have a valid point, but the likelihood of Brown losing a contest for the Leadership is (at best) highly unlikely.  That said, the promotion of Miliband as an alrernative candidate raises questions about party unity.  Regardless though the scene is set for a Brown premiership when Blair stands down.  The real question is whether that is a good or a bad thing for the Conservative Party. 

      As one would imagine Iraq is never far from the headlines, and this week was no exception to that rule.  Colonel Jorge Mendonca of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment was cleared at a court martial of negligently performing his duties surrounding the death of an Iraqi detainee.  Worryingly though it has come to light that the Court Martial, the most expensive in history, may have been politically motivated.  Indeed the Daily Telegraph this week acquired documents indicating a determined effort by senior army officials to identify officers who could be put on trial for the misconduct of their troops in Iraq.  The politicisation of the Iraq war is of course inevitable, but politicisation of courts martial is an altogether different matter.  One that has put many a senior official on the back foot this week. 

      The 1st of June may be quite a while away, but it's been a very important date this week.  It marks the beginning of a ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces (bars, restaurants, offices etc) and we heard on Thursday that £29.5m is being spent on training 'smoking police'.  These 'officers', who in reality are local council workers, will have the power to give on-the-spot fines to individuals and bring court action against offending premises.  Needless to say smokers' groups are up in arms, along with the smoking industry.  However it does raise an age-old and important question.  What place should government have in society?  And in particular, to what extent should government be able to legislate the behaviour of individuals? 

      As you by now know, I like to end my letters on a lighter note.  This week I am please to be able to offer something both light(ish) and macabre in nature.  Intrigued?  You should be.  Andy Fitchett, 56, was recently told he only had a few months to live.  And in an unusual move Andy has decided to host his own wake to say goodbye to all the people who have touched his life.  A life he considers to have been incredibly lucky.   An inspiring story if ever there was one. 

      Cheers,

      Shane

Your weekly guide to British politics (number 3)

Dear Friends,

    The plot thickens!  As you might have guessed the cash for peerages scandal hasn't disappeared into the night.  If anything it's standing front-and-centre demanding our immediate and unwavering attention.  It came to light this week that Tony Blair was question by the police for a second time.  The questioning took place at Downing Street last Friday and as with the first interview Blair was treated as a witness.  However what is most interesting about the interview - as if it wasn't exceptionally interesting in-and-of itself - is why we didn't find out about the second interview this Thursday.  The police wanted a media blackout for "operational reasons".  This of course raises the question of what these operational questions may have been.  However without wishing to speculate, it is worth noting that Tony Blair's chief fundraiser, Lord Levy, was arrested (for the second time) on Tuesday of this week - before the news blackout was lifted.  If it's a coincidence that the arrest took place before Lord Levy was aware of the second questioning of Tony Blair then it's a very big one.  Of course it's possible Lord Levy was made privately aware of the second questioning, but then again...

    As if scandal at 10 Downing Street wasn't enough, it came to light this week - although it's been building for a while - that scandal looks to be alive and kicking 11 Downing Street as well.  This week the Charity Commission began an investigation into the Smith Institute (a think-tank and registered charity which defines its purpose as researching the changing relationship between social values and economic imperatives).  The reason for this investigation is an apparent breach of the legal requirement that tax-exempt charities are not to get involved in politics.  However as the blogger Guido Fawkes has highlighted the links between the Smith Institute and Gordon Brown are all to readily apparent.  The Smith Institute has held over 150 events at number 11 Downing Street and indeed even held on after the Charity Commission announced the launch of their investigation!  Why is this such a big deal?  Well, it raises the worrying question of cash for access.  The Smith Institute are known to charge lofty amounts for admission to their events at number 11.  Who wouldn't make the connection between the price of a ticket and the fact the event is in the same building that houses the Chancellor?  The coming weeks are sure to produce some interesting.  Already it would seem the Charity Commission's inquiries will produce the alarming result that the Smith Institute didn't pay anything for the use of number 11.  Very worrying indeed. 

    Scandal aside, the Home Office has proved once more to be a source of headline news.  Police arrested nine Muslim men in relation to an alleged plot to kidnap and behead a British Muslim soldier on home leave from Iraq.  However following on from this revelation the besieged Home Secretary John Reid has called for an increase in the amount of time terror suspects can be held for questioning by the police.  The amount of time terror suspects can be held for questioning was increased last year from seven days to 28.  Mr. Reid would like to see that time increased to 90 days.  However as one might expect at the Home Office, all might not be as it first appears.  The timing of this call may be seen to be an attempt to detract from all the problems the Home Office has been having recently by appearing tough on crime.  It is also interesting that John Reid has proposed this increase when the police themselves have not yet come across a situation that requires more than 28 days (including the plot to blow up transatlantic flights).  Finally of course there is the issue of civil liberties.  Three months is a very long time to be locked up with trial. 

    What ever happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty? 

Cheers,

Shane

Your weekly guide to British politics (number 2)

Dear Friends,

      Wow!  What a week.  The cash for peerages scandal has been really heating up.  For those that haven't heard about this yet, basically the police are investigating whether the Labour government has been selling peerages (Lord, Lady, Baron etc) in return for donations to the party.  This week though a key Blair aide, Ruth Turner, was arrested by police.  She was questioned in relation to both the sale of peerages and, interestingly, perverting the course of justice.  The arrest was provoked by the discovery of emails emanating from Miss Turner's workstation at 10 Downing Street suggesting that she may have acted as a go-between for Blair and one millionaire donor implicated in the scandal.  Most worryingly though for Miss Turner, Tony Blair gave her his "full backing".  Traditionally, for Ministers at least, Tony Blair's "full backing" is swiftly followed the end to the backed person's career. 

      Whatever the case may be though the scandal isn't going anywhere soon.  The question of course is how deep the rabbit hole goes, or indeed if it exists at all.  The implications are all too real; the scale of the scandal if proved, would be certain to topple an already unstable government.  As is so often the case, time will tell.  But at the moment it's not looking good for Labour. 

      Problems at the Home Office continue unabated.  You'll remember from last week the shocking revelation that thousands of British citizens convicted of serious crimes abroad were able to return to the UK without their convictions being recorded domestically.  Disastrously (as if it weren't disastrous enough already) this meant convicted paedophiles were able to secure jobs working with children.  This week though John Reid, the Home Secretary, raised the bar of (already impressive) incompetence.  Mr Reid urged judges to send only the most dangerous and persistent offenders to prison because... Britain's jails are running at capacity!  Most alarming of course was the failure of the Home Office, and John Reid in particular, to see this problem coming.  One would have thought prison capacity is a fairly basic thing - algebraic in fact.  "Mr Reid if you have X prison places and Y places currently filled, what is Z where Z represents the number of places still available?".

      The terrible effect of such a shocking level of ineptitude has of course already been felt.  A man convicted of downloading child pornography escaped a prison sentence.  In the words of the judge presiding, Judge John Rogers QC, "as of yesterday, I have to bear in mind a communication from the Home Secretary."  John Reid clearly has a lot to answer for.  It remains doubtful though whether Mr. Reid can in any way justify, indeed even explain, a situation where the sentence no longer fits the crime and is instead dictated by prison capacity. 

      However as is so often the case in Blighty, tragedy and comedy come together hand-in-hand.  This week saw Gordon Brown, the man likely to succeed Blair, winning a significant victory.  Yes, the Iron Chancellor, the man known more for his number-crunching than his personality, has been voted into the top 100 sexiest men in the UK (ranking 97^th).  But a victory for Brown does not a defeat for the Conservative Party make.  David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, charged ahead of Brown and reached the lofty heights of 87^th place.  How far they both are from number 10 though is a completely different matter altogether. 

      As for next week, who knows?  One thing is (almost) certain though, the Home Office will be sure to raise (or should it be lower) the bar once again. 

      Cheers,

           Shane

Your weekly guide to British politics (number one)

Dear Friends,

It's been an interesting time in Blighty recently.  As we approach the tercentenary of the Act of Union 1707 (which united the crowns of England and Scotland) more and more questions are being raised about the union.  Many would like to see an end to it; indeed recent polls from ICM and YouGov have indicated a majority in favour of Scotland becoming independent.  However, interestingly a BBC poll has suggested that most Scottish, Welsh, and English People are in favour of the establishment of an English Parliament.  If the BBC poll has managed to key in on a strong undercurrent of feeling it would suggest the Union is not in so precarious a position as may initially have appeared.  It would however mean the UK's development trajectory has become locked onto path which would ultimately lead to a quasi-federal state.  Whether that would be a good or a bad thing is of course a separate issue altogether. 

Whatever may happen with the union though one thing is certain, the United Kingdom is under threat for one reason and one reason alone; the Labour government's obsession with devolution.  An obsession which has lead only to increased layers of government and a rise in nationalist sentiment. 

The (potential) impending collapse of the union aside, this week has seen some other interesting developments.  In an article for the UK's leading centre-right newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, has attempted to reassure the party's base that he is conservative to his core – branding himself as more the heir to Thatcher than the heir to Blair.  This move came after months of uneasiness amongst the party's base who were concerned by Cameron's increasingly leftist public statements.  The effect of the article was mired somewhat though by the revelation that Cameron had decided to clip the wings of the party's leading hawk, Liam Fox.  As one might expect these two things juxtaposed sent out confusing signals.  At one and the same time Cameron sought to endear himself to the rank-and-file whilst at the same time silencing a member of the front bench who represents the views of large swathes of that rank-and-file.  Most worryingly of all though the action against Fox signified a move towards a dovish stance at a time when aggressive action is called for against islamofacism. 

Problems at the Home Office remained in the news this week.  In yet another organisational disaster it recently became apparent that thousands of British citizens convicted of crimes abroad, many of them sex crimes (including paedophilia), returned to the UK without their crimes being registered by the Home Office.  The net result has been a situation where convicted sex offenders have been able to pass under the radar that would ordinarily have prevented them from obtaining jobs working with children.  Ultimately though the continuing debacles at the Home Office are drilling an ever larger hole in the once (apparently) glistening ship that is HMS Labour. 

Finally – and on a lighter note – many will be disappointed to hear that Tony Blair, contrary to earlier reports, is not recruiting a butler.  Those who would otherwise have relished the opportunity bring Tony his afternoon tea must instead content themselves with applying for the position of house manager.  Tea bringing is the exclusive reserve of Monica and Vera, two long-serving stalwarts of 10 Downing Street. 

No doubt next week will bring some equally interesting stories for us to stick our teeth into.  Until then I wish you all the best. 

Cheers,
Shane