Evidence Against Brown Mounts

February 28, 2009

 

Iain Dale has in interesting piece on his blog about an extract of a speech the Prime Minister gave to the CBI Conference in 2005 concerning regulation, he said;

 

“The better, and in my opinion the correct, modern model of regulation – the risk based approach – is based on trust in the responsible company, the engaged employee and the educated consumer, leading government to focus its attention where it should: no inspection without justification, no form filling without justification, and no information requirements without justification, not just a light touch but a limited touch.”

 

“The new model of regulation can be applied not just to regulation of environment, health and safety and social standards but is being applied to other areas vital to the success of British business: to the regulation of financial services and indeed to the administration of tax. And more than that, we should not only apply the concept of risk to the enforcement of regulation, but also to the design and indeed to the decision as to whether to regulate at all.”

 

“In the new legislation we will publish before Christmas we will make this risk based approach a statutory duty of the regulators.”

 

It’s all falling apart now, the evidence against Brown is damming and mounting, it exposes the shear hypocrisy of the man in trying to defend his “effective regulation.” The banks took their cue from Brown when he was Chancellor and acted accordingly. It was Gordon Brown’s regulatory system which he devised, that is to blame for the current crisis. What really gets to me though is the fact that he is still trying to deny the blindingly obvious, does he think were all stupid? This crisis was a direct result of his tripartite system, which involved taking away the powers of regulation from the Bank of England and giving them to the FSA which turned out to be as useful as a chocolate tea pot in reigning in the banks.

Advertisements

Boris V Sugar?

February 27, 2009

 

boris-v-sugar

 

On our trip to London last Wednesday we visited City Hall to watch Boris at Mayor’s question time. It was a very enjoyable experience watching Boris answer the questions put to him by the GLA in his own unique way. It is a joy to watch Boris in action bringing humour to what could quite easily be a dull committee meeting. It seems that the Labour members still haven’t quite got over the shock of loosing Ken and being forced into opposition, their actions were at times extremely childish to say the least. But not to worry, Ken was not far away, perching on the edge of his seat in the public gallery like an old vulture surveying the scene, trying to spot any signs of weakness in Boris and the Tories.

 

Ken should get a life! He turns up every month to watch Mayor’s question time, he needs help, he needs to let go. He obviously thinks he has a chance to regain the Mayoralty in 2012 and is putting in the ground work to suss out Boris, to find his weaknesses. All this got me thinking however, is Ken really Labour’s best chance to defeat Boris? I mean, he did lose to Boris last year after all and Gordon Brown and the rest of the leading Labour figures are no real fans of Ken and his policies. That’s why they through him out of the party when he opposed their choice for Mayor in 2000, Ken then ran as an independent and humiliated Labour high command by beating their candidate to become Mayor.

 

So if not Ken who would Labour put up for election in 2012? Andrew Gilligan claimed this week that Labour, through their London director, had approached Sir Alan Sugar to run as their candidate for London Mayor next time. As Paul Waugh reveals in the Evening Standard, Labour are denying it all, but the story should not be dismissed out of hand, after all it would make a lot of sense. Sugar is high-profile, popular with the public and despite his friendship with Gordon Brown, is sufficiently independent to remain separate from the Labour Government. 

 

If Labour were to persuade Sugar to stand it would be a major cue and he would be a formidable opponent for Boris and the Conservatives. Sugar sold his major stake in Amstrad to BSkyB last year, so he is available, it would therefore seem a win, win situation if he could be persuaded to stand. That is the only major obstacle to overcome, Sugar is fiercely independent and will only agree to stand if he is 100% committed. In my mind Sugar would be a very credible candidate, he would cause us a lot of problems and best of all he is not Ken.

 

 


It was right to suspend PMQs yesterday

February 26, 2009

 

cameron-ivan-404_672639c1

 

Everyone at LUCF was deeply saddened to hear about the death of David Cameron’s young son Ivan yesterday. We were in London on a visit to City Hall to see Mayor’s question time when we heard the news. The death of a child is a tragic event and our sympathies go to David and Samantha at this time.

 

After reading some of the comments on today’s blogs and after reading Matthew Parris’ article in the Times I am deeply angry at their response to this tragic event. I think that the suspension of Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday was absolutely the right thing to do and am astounded that they could even suggest it was inappropriate. The death of Ivan happened that day so holding a bitterly fought battle between the two parties would have been disrespectful to the Cameron’s.

 

None of Cameron’s senior colleagues, (who are close friends of the family) would have wanted to stand in for him. The Prime Minister would also have been particularly saddened on hearing the news and would have found the task difficult, having lost a child (Jennifer Jane) himself. Neither knockabout debate nor forensic questioning was appropriate yesterday. And it was a touching mark of respect to a senior parliamentarian to suspend the session.

 

Everyone spoke with great dignity, I was particularly impressed by Gordon Browns response, it was perfect. The automaton had gone, replaced instead by a real human being who looked as if tears were about to roll down his cheeks as he read his tribute and expressed his sympathies. This was genuine and from the heart, having experienced what the Cameron’s are going through himself it was easy to see why he expressed it so eloquently. Here is what was said yesterday;

 

Gordon Brown “I know that the whole House will want to express our sorrow at the sad death this morning of Ivan Cameron at the age of just six, and our condolences go out to David, to Samantha and to the Cameron family. I know that, in an all-too-brief young life, he brought joy to all those around him, and I also know that for all the days of his life he was surrounded by his family’s love. Every child is precious and irreplaceable, and the death of a child is an unbearable sorrow that no parent should ever have to endure.”

 

“Politics can sometimes divide us, but there is a common human bond that unites us in sympathy and compassion at times of trial, and in support for each other at times of grief. Sarah and I have sent our condolences to David and Samantha, and I know that the whole country, and our thoughts and our prayers, are with David, Samantha and their family today.”

 

William Hague I want to thank the Prime Minister on behalf of David and his family for his very generous and, I know, heartfelt words and for the private condolences that he passed on this morning. I also want to thank the Prime Minister for suggesting that we suspend the normal exchanges of Prime Minister’s questions, and the Speaker for agreeing to that exceptional action, which is deeply appreciated by David’s friends and colleagues in every part of the House. As much as anyone in the House, the Prime Minister will understand the dimensions of this loss—which, as he has said, is something no parent should have to endure. I spoke to David a little while ago, and he has asked me to pass on his thanks for the sympathy already expressed by so many colleagues in this House and beyond.”

 

“Ivan’s six years of life were not easy ones. His parents lived with the knowledge that he could die young for a long time, but that has made their loss no less heartbreaking. They also wanted me to say, once again, how hugely grateful they are to the many NHS and care workers, who not only did their utmost for their son this morning, but have helped him every day from the moment he was born. We should remember today that many thousands of other families are deeply grateful for the dedication, support and love of these highly professional people. We know how much their help has meant to the Cameron family. Ivan, their son, suffered much in his short life, but he brought joy and love to those around him, and, as David himself has said in the past, for him and Samantha he will always be their beautiful boy.”

 

Vincent Cable “May I also say a few words on behalf of my party leader, my parliamentary colleagues and my party to extend our deepest sympathy to the Cameron family on the loss of their son, Ivan, this morning? Everybody in the House will have experienced bereavement, but there is something especially sad and shocking about the loss of a child. We all recognise that that is something that is especially difficult to cope with. This is a personal tragedy that transcends all party barriers, and I simply express the hope that the family are given the space and privacy to grieve and cope with the tragedy that they have experienced.”

 

Mr. Speaker “This House will share my sadness at this news. Our hearts and sympathy go out to David and Samantha, and to Nancy and Arthur. As a mark of respect for Ivan, this House will suspend until half-past 12 o’clock.”


Boris Cleared

February 24, 2009

 

boris-21 

I have just found out that Boris has been cleared of any wrong doing by a GLA internal investigation regarding his actions surrounding the arrest of Damian Green. So all Vaz’s hard scheming work was for nothing then! You will remember that a couple of weeks ago he basically went around accusing Boris of concealing the truth (lying) and giving conflicting evidence the the Home Affairs select committee. He did this for purely partisan reasons of course, it seems Labour is still upset that the red flag had finally been lowered from City Hall. Anyway this is what the report says…

REPORT OF AN INVESTIGATION
BORIS JOHNSON
MAYOR OF LONDON
CHAIRMAN, METROPOLITAN
POLICE AUTHORITY
BY JONATHAN GOOLDEN, BA(LAW) SOLICITOR
24th February 2009

11. Recommendations
11.1 I have concluded that in relation to the police investigation of Mr.
Green, Mr. Johnson did not fail to comply which the Code of Conduct of
the MPA. Specifically, he did not disclose confidential information,
improperly confer and advantage or disadvantage or bring his office or
authority into disrepute in breach of the Code.

Boris then issued the following statement.

“I welcome the report of Jonathan Goolden. He concludes that I did not fail to comply with the Code of Conduct of the MPA and GLA and that I did not disclose confidential information, improperly confer and advantage or disadvantage or bring my office or authority into disrepute.”

“I will now reflect on suggestions for the future on how to deal with extraordinary situations when they arise. I have cooperated fully with Mr Goolden’s investigation and am pleased that it has moved so swiftly to deal with the issues that were raised. I am however disappointed that this investigation has so far cost the taxpayer in excess of £11,000. I am happy to engage in the adoption of a protocol to cover the management of information by senior police officers, senior members and officers of the MPA and I in relation to a critical incident.”

So that’s the end of that then. However the Caroline Spelman case still rumbles on. Today the Standards & Privileges Committee did not come to a decision on the case this morning and has delayed a decision for another week. How long ago was it since the investigation against her began? However long it has been it is surely far too long, how Spelman can be expected to carryout her job with this constantly hanging over her is anyone’s guess, a decision must me issued soon, surely?


The New Nuclear Generation?

February 23, 2009

 

nuclear

 

This country is in major trouble at the moment, because it not only faces a major economic crisis, but also a serious energy crisis too. Within a decade a large part of the UK’s antiquated power-generating capacity, both coal-fired and nuclear, is due to close. If it is not replaced, we face a nightmarish future of power shortages and blackouts and dependence on high cost energy imports. How did our power generation system get so run down, and why didn’t people see this coming? Well it was largely down to the actions of Greenpeace and environ-MENTALISTS, that chained themselves to railings or trees or each other, vandalised equipment and attacked workers that prevented development. They criticised the development of nuclear power and lobbied hard against its expansion using events like Chernobyl to plant misconceptions in the public’s minds about how safe nuclear power is.

 

This lead to a massive expansion in coal power stations to meet the shortfall as the nuclear facilities that were mainly built in the 50s and 60s were allowed to run down and close. Now with the mania about man made global warming the green lobby say we desperately need to reduce this country’s greenhouse gas emissions. Today 90% of our energy currently comes from burning fossil fuels. How ironic the one thing they care about most of all, global warming, was greatly increased in this country because of their actions.

 

You only have to look at Germany to see what a disaster phasing out nuclear power is. Germans are very “eco-conscious” and have huge subsidies for solar panels, but these have not yet replaced 1% of fossil fuel electricity generation. Indeed, because Germany (under pressure from environmentalists) is phasing out nuclear power, it is inexorably turning back towards dirty coal: 30 new coal plants are planned, including four burning lignite (brown coal), the dirtiest fossil fuel of all.

 

Now four of the country’s leading environmentalists, who spent much of their lives opposing nuclear power say we must embrace it. These one-time opponents of nuclear power, who include the former head of Greenpeace, Stephen Tindale, have told The Independent that they have now changed their minds over atomic energy because of the urgent need to curb emissions of carbon dioxide.

 

Mr Tindale, who ran Greenpeace for five years until he resigned in 2005, has taken a vehemently anti-nuclear stance through out his career as an environmentalist. “My position was necessarily that nuclear power was wrong, partly for the pollution and nuclear waste reasons but primarily because of the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons,” Mr Tindale said.

 

“It was kind of like a religious conversion. Being anti-nuclear was an essential part of being an environmentalist for a long time but now that I’m talking to a number of environmentalists about this, it’s actually quite widespread this view that nuclear power is not ideal but it’s better than climate change,” he added.

 

Now, I know what some of you might be thinking: “Who cares what these jumped-up climate-change crusaders believe?”  But the fact remains that the green lobby is, rightly or wrongly, a powerful voice in British politics. In my eyes anything which smoothes the passage for an expansion in nuclear power should be welcomed. You will not often hear me praise France but one thing that I greatly admire their successive governments for is their unwavering commitment to nuclear power. France generates >80% of its energy from nuclear power stations and has developed some of the safest, most advanced and efficient reactors in the world. As a result their energy supplies are secured, cheap and reliable. Contrast this with the picture in Britain where every winter we’re squeezed by increasingly high gas prices and where 20% of our energy capacity will be lost in the next decade as power stations go offline. We need nuclear and we need it NOW!


An Evening With Ken Clarke

February 22, 2009

 

clarke_1319090c

 

On Friday a small group of us from Leicester University CF traveled up to Nottingham University to attend an event with Ken Clarke hosted by the Nottingham University Conservative Association. Ken made an excellent speech on why he had returned to front bench politics, the economy, and what the Conservatives will have to do if/when we win office again. This speech was as you would expect heavily weighted towards the economic side of things but he spoke clearly and precisely, using language that anyone could understand. Ken then answered questions from the floor, including my question about how the Conservatives could help small to medium sized businesses through the recession rather than just concentrating on the headline grabbing larger businesses. I certainly came out of the evening with a greater knowledge of economic issues, and in these times of global financial turmoil that is vital. As I said after the event “we’re all economists now.”

 

Anyway I was just reading the Telegraph online today and saw this excellent article by Patrick Hennessy who was interviewing Ken Clarke. He talks about his comeback, the state of the economy, the role of government and the private sector in troubled times, the Conservatives’ prospects under David Cameron, and much more besides. I have reproduced some of my favorite bits here for you to enjoy.

 

KEN ON … his Return to the front bench

 

“David didn’t have much difficulty persuading me back – not in the end,” says Mr Clarke, confirming the suspicion that the Tory leader had been pushing at an open door after taking the final decision to offer the former Chancellor a job.”

 

“Like Peter Mandelson and myself, if you have been bitten by the political bug, it doesn’t leave you. Remaining semi-detached in the end is not what you want to do. Both of us were lured back by the extraordinary nature of the political and economic crisis.”

 

KEN ON … a future Tory government

 

“I can’t imagine that, having been attracted by coming back to opposition, I wouldn’t be attracted by coming back to government. But I’ve been in politics long enough to know it’s not for me to decide. I won’t be hovering nervously by the telephone.”

 

KEN ON … the economic crisis

 

“I think the toxic assets on the balance sheets [of the banks] are at the heart of the problem at the moment. It is exasperating that after so many weeks they [the ministers] have not really come to any conclusions.”

 

“The main thing is to decide two or three key points of strategy and to stick to them. Ignore short-term popularity and short-term reaction to what you’re doing. I think the government is particularly bad at this. Gordon is utterly obsessed about what next Sunday’s papers are going to say.”

 

KEN ON … Europe

 

“The policy is the policy. I spoke and voted against it only a few months ago – but I’m not going to change it. I’d be wasting my time if I tried to.”

 

“I accept that is the policy, and I’m not going to rock the boat on it. That includes the Treaty of Lisbon. If it is not ratified, David says he’s going to hold a referendum on it – that’s what’s going to happen.”


Terrorist Suspects Receive Human Rights Compensation

February 21, 2009

FRANCE/

 

I am outraged that the European court of “human rights” in Strasbourg led by so-called leading judges decided this week that the British Government should never have held terrorist suspects including Abu Qatada without trial following the attacks on 9/11. These idiots decided to award the nine terrorist a total of £75,000 including Qatada who received £2,500 because their detention “violated their right to liberty and security under the European Convention on Human Rights” according to them.  What a load of b******s, if these terrorist were running Europe do you think they would give a dam about our liberty and security.

 

The suspects had demanded compensation of more than £2million but in the end were given £75,000. Under EU law our Government cannot appeal against this decision. These criminals are given money for nothing and yet the victims of 7/7 still struggle to get reasonable compensation because of an attack that these extremists inspired and probably celebrated.

 

Jackie Putnam, who suffered memory loss and trauma after the attack said: “It seems the rules are there to protect the bad guys and the good ones get pushed aside. The suspects have won justice but there has been little or none of it for the victims of 7/7.”

 

This is unbelievable, Abu Qatada once described as “Osama Bin Laden’s right hand man in Europe” had gone on the run after 9/11 as new anti-terror laws were being drafted allowing suspects to be held. Innocent men don’t run! Thankfully in October 2002 he was tracked down to a council house in south London and arrested. Qatada, 48, was sent to London’s high-security Belmarsh jail where he remained until March 2005 when he was released on bail and made the subject of a control order. Again this was because of a breach to his “human rights.” Now I do not approve of detention without trial beyond 28 days, they should be prosecuted under our law after this time or if they are not British citizens they should be immediately deported to their own country.

 

Here is what David Cameron had to say about the EU ruling; “Unbelievably, taxpayers are going to have to pay him and other terrorist suspects thousands in compensation for detaining them. It could have been more, but I resent every penny… This case was not even about whether he might be tortured if returned home — just that he might not get a fair trial by our standards.”

 

“Why should it be our responsibility and what should we do about it? First, we should have stronger border controls. A Conservative government will set up a dedicated Border Police force. If dangerous people slip through, we should bring them to justice. A Conservative government will tear up the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, so we can deal with human rights issues more sensibly.”

 

“It makes a mockery of human rights if we can’t protect ourselves against people who are out to destroy them for everyone else.”

Exactly why were these people even allowed into Britain in the first place? This government has been criminally negligible in this regard. They provided a safe haven in this country for some of the most vial and evil preachers of hate, and terrorist suspects because of their abysmal boarder controls. Why did it take such a tragic event like 9/11 before they woke up to this danger?

 

Some good news however came on Wednesday when the Law Lords ruled Qatada can be deported to Jordan where he has been convicted on terror charges. Fantastic, it’s only taken them 7 years to come to this conclusion because of fears he might be tortured or would not receive a fair trial in Jordan. Again this is not our problem, this man if we can call him that, is an extreme danger to this country, he is not a British citizen and as such has no right to stay here. He is Jordanian and is subject to their laws, who are we to tell them what to do to one of their citizens in their own country? The Jordanian’s warned us about letting Qatada into this country and yet the government decided to ignor them.

 

All this just proves once again the Human Rights Act is a criminal’s charter that lets them quite literally get away with murder! It’s about time that this ridiculous legislation was ripped up and replaced with an act that protects victim’s rights. The Human Rights Act is a stain on our once proud legal system that was essentially drawn up by Champaign socialists to satisfy their consciences and to provide lucrative incomes to lawyers like Cherie Booth.