Becow Has A Job To Do. And It Starts Today.

John Bercow was, as has been reported elsewhere, a firebrand member of the infamous Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) in the 1980s. I should know; I was there.

He was an interesting character in those days, and a leading light in the right-wing "Sound" faction of the FCS. He was articulate, passionate, well-read and obviously very intelligent (I remember him vigorously debating the meaning of Conservatism with Roger Sruton at a seminar on political philosophy at Smith Square). He was a good speaker, although somewhat animated, and the opposing "Wets" used to send him up by repeatedly pointing in the air, football-fan-style, whenever he was at the microphone. I can also vouch for Guido's assertion of his links with Loyalism; I distinctly recall him trying to teach me the words to "No Pope of Rome" on an overnight coach from Edinburgh to London.

Well, we were all young and idealistic then, and perhaps taken in by some we should have left alone. I don't begrudge him those pro-UDF, pro-Unita and pro-God-knows-what-else days - we're all entitled to go off on one in our twenties. He's certainly moved a long way politically since then, but the beauty of his appointment as speaker is that that doesn't matter. What matters now is his ability to get MPs in order.

The House of Commons is a desperate place. Not just in the sense of its shame over expenses, but also because it is so utterly out of touch and out of keeping with the Britain it is supposed to rule and lead. With its arcane practice and procedure, it is out-dated, outmoded and, thanks to the actions of successive governments and the EU, is fast becoming obsolete. It needs new leadership, and a change of direction. And from today, Bercow has a chance to stamp a new authority upon it.

Prime Minister's Questions is a weekly disgrace to our legislature. The shouting, the bawling and cat-calling, the attempts to drown out opposing points of view; these our not ways in which our governors or would-be governors should behave. Today Bercow can start transforming the event, should he want to. He has a fantastic opportunity to restore a little public respect in our Parliament. MPs who aren't called to speak can shut up until they are, those who make speeches instead of asking questions can do likewise, and Prime Ministers who don't answer the questions put to them can be brought to heel.

And he can put a stop to all that "right Honourable Gentleman" rubbish, too.

I wish John Bercow all the best. I don't much care about his history. What matters to me is what happens now. From today onwards.

Nice People Don't Ban Adverts

There are many different types of censorship operating in this country. I've only just come to realise how many different tools are at the disposal of our rulers, and how many they use on a day-to-day basis.

For starters there’s the very obvious type of censorship, increasingly regularly used by the Government; quite simple, straightforward and in your face - the “Say-that-and-we’ll-lock-up”-type thing. Examples of this are specific laws against inciting mass murder and so on. This is Censorship By Decree.

Towards the other end of the scale there is censorship on the basis of social acceptability – the “Everyone-will-look-very-shocked-and-uncomfortable-and-say-‘Oooo-you-can’t-say-that’” form. Irish jokes probably fall into this category (although maybe you could be thrown into prison for telling one these days, who knows ?) This category of censorship usually originates from government or from the Establishment more generally, because they set the tone, but they don't actually impose it on us formally. Instead they seek – usually over a period of time - to create an atmosphere in which certain opinions are deemed "unacceptable". This, in which the Government try to get us to do their dirty work for them - is altogether a more subtle form of censorship than the type that ends up in criminal convictions; I’d call this Censorship By Indoctrination.

Somewhere on the middle is something I’m going to call Censorship by Quango; it’s an ever-expanding method to silence people who, in the eyes or our rulers, are off-message, and to my mind it’s the most insidious form of censorship of the lot. It's harder to pin on the Government, and may peopel don't even realise it happens. A pressure group (the Guardian calls it a "charity" but frankly that's bollocks) called Release has just fallen victim to it.

Release put an advert on London buses, bearing the slogan "Nice People Take Drugs". The aim was to point out over a third of adults in England have used illicit drugs, and to generate some debate about the fact that the law is not working. Release believes that there has to be some liberalisation of drugs laws if drug usage is going to be managed. A completely legimimate point of view...or so you might think.

Well, you've guessed it, Release has been told that the adverts have to be taken down. The bus company has taken fright, because they fear controversy and a rap over the knuckles from the authorities. They suspect, and I bet they're right, that if the ads were not taken down, they would be banned anyway. In short they have saved the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) a job.

The bus company are even blaming themselves for the ads' appearance in the first place: "We should have run it past the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP)". CAP, for those who are unaware of its existence, is administered by the ASA. In other words, these ads were taken down before they were banned...by a quango.

We now live in an era where unelected quangos such as the Advertising Standards Authority have a phenomenal degree of power over the way companies and organisations communicate with people. I've complained before about their banning of an advert featuring women dressed as schoolgirls and another one plugging a film about shooting people. Make no mistake, these guys are powerful. Without many people realising it, bodies like the CAP and the ASA are vetting what we are allowed to see. When it comes to free speech, they are the Government's secret police force.

So, to all intents and purposes, overnight, and courtesy of an unelected, unaccountable group of government-funded administrators, it's illegal to state the bleeding obvious, namely that not all drug users are thugs and hooligans. Except I'm going to say it anyway. If this blog disappears in a few days' time, you'll know why:

NICE PEOPLE TAKE DRUGS

It's been nice knowing you.

A Day's Headlines Under ZaNu Labour

On the way into work this morning I was struck by the following headlines:

NHS faces record budget shortfall (how can this possibly be, after all the bloody taxes we've had ripped from us to pay for increased spending on public services ?)

Metropolitian Police officers accused of water torture (important to say that these are as yet unproven allegations, but I was very conscious that I felt no real surprise when I heard this story)

London hit by tube strike (in the scheme of things it's a pinprick, but public sector strikes of this sort are always a graphic reminder of Labour's past glories)

Law Lords to rule on the practice, instigated by this government, of withholding supposedly incriminating criminal evidence from defendants on the grounds of "national security" (perhaps the most frightening of the lot - the State can basically have you locked up without allowing you to see the evidence against you)

Oh, and an MEP, elected under a system introduced by this government, is prevented from speaking outside Parliament because of a demonstration against him (some demonstrations are allowed in Parliament Square, it seems)

This is Britain today, under 12 years of socialist rule. God knows what it would be like after another five. Let's hope we never find out.

UPDATE: The Law Lords have just ruled that use of secret evidence in the granting of control orders is illegal. Thank God for the House of Lords; they've dug us out of more holes since 1997 then I care to recall.

Glenys Kinnock - Minister For Europe

How incredibly apt that we should have an unelected, troughing bureaucrat in a ministry whose job it is to manage our relationship with a load of, err...unelected, troughing bureaucrats.

I can't work out whom it says more about - the EU or ZaNu Labour.

+++ Purnell Resigns And Calls For Brown To Go +++

The edifice is crumbling. What a wonderful sight.

The Womble's No Show

I've been doing a bit of agonising over who to vote for tomorrow.

I still consider myself a Conservative by instinct but I've long since come to the conclusion that when it comes down to rolling back the State's frontiers which have enveloped our very existence since 1997, they are not up to the job. Dave may slow the growth of State power, he will not reverse it.

I could never, under any circumstances, bring myself to vote Liberal, and Labour and the BNP (one and the same thing) are completely off limits. UKIP, especially in the context of European Elections, have appealed to me in the past but they just seem a bit wacky to me, and they lack discipline. Nigel Farage is an utterly inspiring leader, and the expenses-grabbing conduct of some of their MEPs suggests to me that they're no better than the rest.

If there were a Libertarian Party candidate, I'd vote for them, but they're not playing out tomorrow. That basically leaves the English Democrats. I like these guys, and I voted for them last time round. But they keep a low profile, they've put nothing through my door and the level of support for them last time was pretty pitiful.

In the end, the words my Dad so loved from a non-voting friend of his hold sway. This friend never voted for politicians because "voting only encourages them". Whether it's my age, cynicism or just the expenses thing, I've decided not to "encourage" anyone tomorrow. Let's face it, if there's anyone we shouldn't be humouring, it's the EU. I bet those tax-grabbing, money-squandering, self-interested federalists in Brussels would love a high turnout; it would feed their egos and help them to self-justify their existence.



So the Womble will "stay at home". But abstaining doesn't mean apathy. On Friday and Sunday I'll be hoping to see New Labour in carnage. And if I see it, boy, will I enjoy it !

Customer Surveys You Do Not Need - No 1

A couple of weeks ago I took my father-in-law to Headingley Cricket Ground, supposedly to watch a One Day International between England and the West Indies. The weather forecast suggested a bit of early rain and then a fine day.

About an hour before play was due to start, it rained. A lot. When it stopped raining the mopping-up began and there was a lot of it to do; they were using those cart-things with absorbent rollers, and every time one of them went across the outfield it caused a mini-tsunami as the water sloshed ahead of it. Clearly much was being asked of the new drainage system, installed at a cost of £600,000.

Announcements as to what was actually happening were few and far between. But the fact that play hadn't been abandoned kept the crowd hanging on (and spending money in the bars).

We had an unpires' inspection at 2pm, and another one at 3. After the second inspection (by which time the sun was out) it was finally announced that there would be no play - the outfield was still too wet.

So, in sumnmary, we sat there for five hours, with nothing to entertain us and next to no news, before being sent home.

On the back of an experience like that, what you don't need is an email from Yorkshire County Cricket Club headed:

"How was your day at the cricket? We need your feedback."

Grrrrrrrrrrrr

Music To My Ears

And another one bites the dust. Now Hazel Blears resigns.

If, as I do, you love this country, I guess on one level it's a pretty unedifying spectacle.

One the other hand....

Clegg says "Labour is finished".
Dave says "The Governement is collapsing before our eyes"

....some of us have been waiting 12 years for this.

General Election. Now. Please.

Whilst on holiday I did a few things that I don't normally have time for (stop it !) such as reading the newspapers. And while playing with my son's balls on the beach (that should get Social Services round) I started thinking a bit more about this expenses malarkey. The results of my ruminations aren't exactly earth-shattering, but I thought I'd share them even so. A few things have become clear to me.

1. A huge number of MPs, perhaps even the majority, deliberately supplemented their salary by claiming for expenses that weren't necessarily incurred through the performance of their duties.
2. They were encouraged to do so by the Fees Office, and a culture which said "Get what you can".
3. This state of affairs was allowed to prevail because there was a consensus that MPs' salaries were not commensurate with their responsibilities - i.e. they believed that they were underpaid.
4. A surprisingly small number of MPs were alive to the danger that expense claims might be publicised under the FOI Act.
5. Given that release of data under the FOI was always a possibility, those who claimed what they now admit they should not have claimed showed a quite phenomenal lack of political nous.
6. It is utterly obvious now why so many MPs fought so hard against publication of expenses, and their fight for secrecy, now it has been lost, makes them look all the worse.
7. Those who claimed what they now admit they should not have claimed have thereby sacrificed any legitimate qualification to decide how taxpayers' money is spent. On anything.
8. It is just not credible for our leaders (and by that I mean the likes of Clegg & Dave as well as all of Brown's mob) to pretend that they didn't know what was going on, or that they weren't aware of the extent of it. MPs do talk to each other. It is simply not believable that the party leaders did not get wind of the sorts of behaviour that we all now know about.
9. The fact that, from each of the parties, we got a whole set of proposals hacked together after the story broke, and put together on the hoof, is itself a desperate indictment of our politicians. They appear incapable of any sort of proactive thinking.
10. For all the posturing, the supposed self-flagellation and acceptance of blame, no one has put together a really coherent plan to deal with the problem in future.

Collectively these guys have shown that they are not fit to govern us. They have shown a lack of openness and probity that demonstrates we should not trust them. They have shown a lack of judgement that demonstrates we should have no faith in them. They have demonstrated a lack of care in the use of taxpayers' money that demonstrates they are not fit to decree how it is spent.

In a way, what disappoints me the most is that so few of them are now prepared to stand up and defend the system that they benefited from; they quite obviously thought it was fine to claim expenses all over the place because the £64K basic salary wasn't deemed good enough for them. And yet of all those I've heard, only Nadine Dorries has actually had the guts to stand up and say so. I've got a bit of admiration for her because at least she's attempted to explain the prevailing mood among MPs. Other than that, they have actually failed to engage the public in proper debate. Their performance, start to finish, has been abysmal.

Only one thing can even begin to fix this now, and that's a General Election. When Dave called for one a couple of weeks ago I thought that it simply smacked of opportunism, and indeed it does. But there is a greater, more noble principle at play here now; the need to regain the people's trust. The public hold their rulers in complete contempt.

Those MPs who thing they've done no wring can stand up and defend themselves in the "Court of Public Opinion" which Harriet was so keen to talk about only a few short months ago, and find out what their constituents really think. Those that aren't can go and find something else to do. We, and only we, should judge who stays and who goes. And we should do it now.

I May Be Gone Some Time...

The Womble feels the need to take in some sea air, and has booked a nice little place by the coast.


Oh to be able to claim it on one's Second Home Allowance !