My vote goes to Nick Clegg

So why am I backing Nick Clegg?

Well I suspect that this will be a two horse race with an extreme outside chance that it might just become a one horse race! I assumed that Steve Webb would also stand but he has now thrown his weight behind Nick Clegg.

Last time I gave my second preference to Chris Huhne and unlike previous leadership elections where there has always been one candidate (usually the winner) whom I would not give a preference to at all I would not have a problem if Chris was elected.

I don't believe that there are huge differences between the two likely candidates and I guess I reserve the right to change my mind if some really significant policy differences emerge.

For me the critical question is which of the two is more likely to be able to engage with and communicate to the electorate at large as opposed to just to friendly Liberal Democrat audiences? Who is most likely to speak in plain language? Who is most likely to understand the every day common issues which affect millions of people? Who is most likely to understand the issues which frustrate people and where we need to identify (and communicate) common sense (a particular bug bear of this blog at the moment) policies for the future.

Given that this is the critical issue for me there is only one answer - Nick Clegg.

Ming quits

According to Sky News Ming has quit as party leader. The announcement was made by Simon Hughes and Vince Cable. Vince takes over as acting leader pending the election of a new leader.

Good news indeed. Ming was always a great foreign affairs spokesman but never made his mark as leader. Let us hope that we can now elect a leader capable of connecting with the electorate without references to things such as the "motor car"!

Public Transport

I guess this is another story about common sense or lack of it

The sort of issue that we need to tackle at a detailed level where the ordinary people of this country can see that what is happening does not make sense and yet nothing is done.

We live about ten minutes walk from Aldermaston station which is on the main line between Reading and Newbury. So far so good with six kids between us and four of them teenagers you would think that this would be a good thing - and so it is sometimes.

Last Saturday night one of them wanted to go to Reading for the evening. He can drive and has a car but being sensible decided that the combination of alcohol and driving would not be a good one. So he checked the train times from Aldermaston to Reading and walked to the station and waited.....................and waited......................and waited. No train so he walked home again and then went back to the Station. He checked the timetables at the station. Guess what there were two of them and they both showed different times for the next train!

Still no trains.

I drove him to Theale. Still no trains and a notice indicating that the line to Aldermaston was not running and no trains to Reading anytime soon. I have no idea why they had not thought to put signs up at Aldermaston Station nor why the two timetables showed different times nor why the internet timetable was not capable of indicating that this section of track did not have any actual trains running over it. Simple actions which would help the travelling public

Then we come to Sundays. On a Sunday as the train wend their merry way from Newbury To Reading and back again try guessing how many trains stop at Aldermaston. Yes you guessed it a grand total of zero. Slow trains go up and down and stop elsewhere but not here. So if you are a teenager and want to get around on a Sunday you will need a car and once you have got that car well it seems silly to use public transport doesn't it?

Common sense

This story about pregnant women getting cash to have a good diet really got me thinking.

Where has all the common sense gone?

Nobody disputes that a healthy diet is a good thing for pregnant women. But just how is this grant of £120 supposed to achieve that. The women will receive the grant too late into pregnancy (some seven months in) to have the desired impact and there is no actual guarantee that the money will be spent on the healthy food it is paying for! In fact the money could be used to buy cigarettes, alcohol or drugs.

All this at an annual cost to the taxpayer of some £70 to £80m a year.

There are a number of issues where I think we should be making a very clear statement ahead of the next general election. These are not necessarily areas which need to be covered by heavy weight policy documents. A lot of what we want to do on the environment and many other issues is common sense but there are a number of smaller but meaningful issues which really resonate with the public and where we could make an impact

These are issues which for want of a better term are what I call common sense and fairness issues. Issues where the current government policy is either clearly barking mad, lacks commons sense or does not appear to be fair to people could yet prove to be a rich area for us to exploit.

Just as important as government policy is the reality on the ground. There may be areas where we would agree with the governments policy but where the practical implementation of the policy is not happening on the ground or where its implementation is not seen to be fair.

A list of common sense and fair pledges which resonate with the public could be very useful.

Lets start with abandoning this policy and saving the £70 to £80m.

Vote for sex

I guess this is one of my favourite political slogans ever. I would not normally promote a campaign by a Tory candidate but this one by Mr Forse who is standing for a seat on New Forest District Council is certainly causing a stir Apparently this is a delayed poll from the May elections caused by the death of one of the candidates. The strap line across the bottom of his leaflets as shown in the picture above (VOTE FORSE X) has and probably will continue to be misinterpreted! Full story here on Sky News.

A bad week

On so many fronts the last week has not been good news.

The local election results were not good across the country although undoubtedly they varied a lot from area to area. Some areas posted good or steady results whilst other lost ground.

I have been helping in West Berkshire and Portsmouth. The results in West Berkshire were disappointing although we retained control of both Newbury and Thatcham Town Councils. Better news in Portsmouth where we gained one and lost one and where our leader Gerald Vernon-Jackson held his seat after a very strong and determined effort by the Tories to oust him.

If a week is a long time in politics then a week is a very long time in Football - particularly if you are a Leeds fan. Just over a week ago Leeds were 1-0 up against Ipswich and heading towards 48 points and the possibility of today's game against Derby being a meaningful encounter. Then Ipswich equalised and a pitch invasion and FA investigation followed.

In the immediate aftermath it became obvious that we were effectively relegated to league one baring some form of miracle today. Last Monday Ken Bates told Yorkshire Radio that support shown for Leeds over the last 48 hours was "beyond my wildest expectations". By Friday Leeds had called in the administrators, suffered a ten point reduction and been formally relegated to League One.

Meanwhile there is a rumour a minute as to what the future of the club will be in terms of new owners. Apparently Mr Bates wants to buy the club back from the administrators and has set up a new company called something like Leeds United 2007 for the express purpose of doing so! I am not sure where the fit and proper person test fits into all of this but perhaps it should!

Apparently Gary Kelly and an Irish consortium are interested in purchasing the club. So are some Russians. Oh and some Americans as well. And a consortium headed up by Duncan Revie the son of the former Leeds United manager Don Revie. Also according to the BBC The Leeds United's Supporters Trust says it is in a position to make a proposal to buy the club. These are just the rumours I have heard and doubtless there are many more to come

The only positive point to emerge from this whole debacle is the fact that at least the ten point deduction applied to the current season and not the next one.

I suspect that we are in for a long summer whilst the long suffering fans wait for a whole host of issues to be resolved. Even if we have new owners we have no clue as to who the manager will be and which players will be leaving and which players will be arriving. Either way I expect wholesale changes to the team before we begin life in League One

Interesting reason for standing

I would not have thought this worth blogging about normally were it not for the reason that this lady gave for standing. West Berkshire has not normally had the BNP contesting seats but this time two BNP candidates have put up in Thatcham North. Then the Newbury Weekly News published this article outlining why one of the candidates had decided to stand for the BNP.

Apparently she "decided that enough was enough recently when her grandson came home from school after a citizenship lesson and said that he was learning about other religions."

I guess I always thought that that was what schools were for - education about things that our kids would not know about otherwise.

I tried to follow her line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Languages - French, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Mandarin will no longer be on the syllabus - English only please.

History - well ok providing it is only British history

Geography - ditto

Politics - ditto

Art - ditto

Home Economics might survive I guess just so long as there are no foreign foods or recipes on the Food and Nutrition part!

I assume that Maths, IT, the Sciences and Design Technology would survive, but Latin and Greek and their associated history will I assume be just that - History

Could Miliband beat Brown?

I think he could - if and obviously only if he has the guts to stand. I will admit that I have a vested interest in this as I placed a bet of £20 at odds of about 11.5 to 1 on Betfair some time ago. Is it possible that I could make money on all three leadership elections since the last general election? I had a bet on Cameron very soon after polling day and made over £100. I made some poor choices on the Lib Dem leadership election but once it became clear which way the wind was blowing I was able to turn a potential £25 loss into a £9 gain.

So will Miliband run or not? According to this piece in this mornings Observer he could be persuaded to run by Tony Blair. I cannot see what the downside would be for him running. He may feel that he has an agreement with Brown but if he has ambitions of his own then he may be far better to run now. If he fails to run and Brown becomes Prime Minister and loses the subsequent General Election, Labour could be out of power for a decade or more and Milibands chance could have gone forever. If he runs I think he has a good chance of winning particularly given Browns poll ratings head to head with Cameron and even if he does not win I think he will make a good showing and Brown will not be able to exclude him from the Cabinet which is where he is now!

Home Office Watch

I just got around to looking at this site. Home Office Watch is a Liberal Democrat site and is being run by the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Team.

Latest quote from the site is as follows :

Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what databases are controlled by his Department and its agencies; and what percentage of the data in each database he estimates is inaccurate or out of date.

John Reid: The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

as they go on to say

So: they don’t really know how many databases they have, and they don’t really know how accurate they are. And they expect us to trust them to run the National Identity Register, potentially the most complex citizen database in the world?

Thanks, but no thanks.

The real nasty party

Hat tip to Ryan Cullen for pointing out an interview by Nick Griffin in the Lincolnshire Echo.

Some selective points from this interview will suffice to illustrate why this man and his party should be opposed at all costs. VK is the journalist and NG is Nick Griffin

Transport

VK: Our problem in Lincoln is mostly car traffic, because we don't have big lorries travelling through the city. So, have you got any ideas for reducing rush hour congestion?

NG: On policies like that, once you get into the minute detail, there has to be a fair degree of consensus between the parties. You can have minor tweaking, such as allowing more flexi-time - which would at least help. But then you come back to the big, overall picture, which is where we become politically incorrect, and that's that the native population of these islands, the Scots, Irish and Welsh, is in slow decline.

Foreign footballers

VK: When you said about people in need, what about footballers? Lincoln is obviously quite a proud footballing city. There would be a huge number of Lincoln City fans, and Boston United fans, asked to vote for a BNP candidate in Lincoln City Council. But obviously foreign players are quite a big part of that. Would they be allowed over to work?

NG: BNP policy would go far further than that. We wouldn't allow any football team to have anyone who wasn't born, or hadn't been living for a period of time, in their own area. So Manchester United couldn't come here and steal really good players. We'd totally localise football. Big money has ruined football.

Mosques

VK: I did want to ask you about that. The local BNP group have called a meeting because a church in Lincoln is being converted into a mosque. Do you have a particular opinion on that? Why are the BNP involved?

NG: We have a particular opinion on it, for a number of reasons. Firstly, everywhere this is done in the country it acts as a magnet and a boost to further Islamification. Secondly. no-one locally ever wants these things. But they are bulldozed through by the local council and so on, but that's not local democracy. The wishes of local people should be paramount in decisions such as this.

VK: How do you know people living in Boultham Park Road don't want the mosque there? Instead of a derelict church building?

NG: Because we know from good experience, and the petitions we have had up and down the county. It’s an extremely hot issue. People simply do not want mosques in their area.

VK: Are you convinced that is all people?

NG: Yes, yes. The only person that wants a mosque is sometimes a vicar, whose church is totally empty - who thinks its just another version of God and it would do rather nicely if it became a mosque. No ordinary people want mosques in their own areas. Partly because it's just a symbol of something very strange and very foreign. Secondly, they have read enough of the tabloid newspapers to have an idea of what Islam is about, and to have grave concerns about it. And they see it as part of a creeping colonisation of their area. The natural reaction of a non-brainwashed population is to react against colonisation.

VK: You talk about brainwashing, but do you think the people who are opposed to Islam might only be thinking about extremists? Rather than realising that the majority of Muslims practice in a peaceful way?

Muslims don't understand Koran

NG: The majority of Muslims follow the Koran. They practice in a peaceful way until there is enough of them to get their way by force. And then they switch to using force. It's in the Koran. It's nothing extreme. It's simply what the Koran tells you to do. And what historically they do do.

VK: Just to be completely clear, you think all Muslims practice in a peaceful way until they are strong enough together to turn to extremism?

NG: The majority of Muslims don't really understand what's in the Koran. Traditionally it's in Arabic. None of them read Arabic. And most of them don't have any translation, they don't actually know what is in it. But once they do know what is in it, knowing perfectly well the theories in the Koran, which repeatedly tell Muslims that it's their job to Islamify the world. They do it by persuasion if they can, by force if they can't. But they don't start to use force until they get to ten per cent of the population. At which stage they are encouraged by Allah to use force to impose their views and their religion on their non-Muslim neighbours. It's just in the Koran. It's just the nature of the beast.

VK: So you think the conversion of a derelict church is imposing Islam on people who live in Lincoln? Even though we are talking about a corrugated iron, listed, building that can't be pulled down, but has fallen into disrepair? Which is now going to be used, once again, for worship. Which was its original purpose?

NG: No, it's original purpose was to be used for Christian worship, not to be used for the Islamification of another part of this country.

VK: If everybody who lives in that street goes to that meeting and says, yes, they are fully behind the conversion of that building - will you then change your mind?

NG: No, we will continue to oppose it, if we had councillors elected. We would continue to oppose it. But, obviously, if they turn out to be the only place in Britain where the natives actually welcome this thing, well, that would be odd. But we will respect their wishes and carry on trying to persuade them they are wrong.

Homosexuality

VK: Do you have a particular perspective on homosexuality? We have a thriving gay community in Lincoln.

NG: Our position on homosexuality is that it is something that happens, it's not the norm for society. We believe in a stronger Clause 28 so we will put homosexuality back in the closet. What people do in their own homes, and so on, is entirely their own affair. We've got no problem or interest in that. But it shouldn't be presented as normal. It shouldn't be taught to children in schools, particularly primary school children, which is the latest insanity. The homosexual community, well, they can either vote for us or not, but in the end, the present legal system in this country won't last for much longer. They will have a choice between our position of pushing them gently but firmly back in the closet or the fundamentalist Islamic position which is to stone them to death. In the end they will have a choice like that.

Perverse and repulsive

VK: I have a quote here. I don't know if it is rightly attributed to you. It was written in 1999 and I'm sure you have had it quoted back at you many times: 'TV footage of dozens of gay demonstrators flaunting their perversions in front of the world's journalists showed just why so many people find these creatures repulsive.' Is that rightly attributed?

NG: It's an accurate quote, yes.

VK: It's an accurate quote?

NG: Yes

VK: Do you still stand by those terms? The gay community would probably be unimpressed.

NG: Well, as I say, we respect their right to do whatever they want and they must also respect the fact that there are millions of ordinary people, particularly people with young kids and so on, who find what they do, when they do it in public, repulsive.

Civil partnerships

VK: What do you think about civil partnerships?

NG: I think they are entirely wrong. They undermine the value of marriage and marriage is the best way to bring up kids. One man, one woman, bringing up children. Married couples stay together longer because they have more commitment. Since that is good for society, things which are divided are bad for society, so civil partnerships are something we put in the politically correct litter bin with the rest of it.

VK: But if you take away civil partnerships, it doesn't mean gay people will get married? They won't suddenly stop being gay?

NG: No, but it's also a matter of tax and so on. The tax breaks should be for married, heterosexual couples - not for anybody else.

VK: But gay people still have to pay the same taxes as everybody else so why shouldn't they have the same benefit?

NG: Because they are not the ones rearing kids. They are not the ones helping to bring on the next generation. They are not the ones making the sacrifice for the next generation. For the next generation to be at it should rely, or be able to rely, on decent, stable family backgrounds. We have to discriminate in favour of the family and that means discriminating against people such homosexual couples who are ruining families.

Gay adoption

VK: But what do you think about homosexual adoption?

NG: It shouldn't be allowed.

VK: What about the 4,000 children who are waiting to be adopted in this country? Some of them will never be adopted.

NG: There's an enormous shortage of kids for adoption in this country, such that people are having to go to third world nurseries for kids.

VK; There is not a shortage of kids for adoption. NG: There is. VK: There are 4,000 children awaiting adoption. The British Association for Fostering and Adoption has been pleading for more people to adopt British children, because so many people think it is easier to adopt abroad. There is a shortage of people willing to adopt children. There will be some children who won't be adopted. Now, do you think it is better for them to be adopted by gay couples, or be left on the waiting list, which would be the case?

NG: They are better on the waiting list than being adopted by a gay couple.

At this point the tape ends. Nick Griffin then expresses his view that gay adoption is also wrong because incidences of paedophilia are more common among gay people. They are less likely to be prosecuted, he says, because of political correctness. The fact that paedophilia is more common among gay people is a scientific, not a criminal? Fact he says, but he honestly cannot remember where he heard it.

Common sense prevails

So the House of Commons has finally voted in favour of reforming the upper chamber. The 80% elected 20% appointed option was the one that was expected to come out on top so I was delighted that whereas that option got a majority of 38 the option of 100% elected got an even bigger majority of 113.

The only thing that stuns me is that in this day and age 224 Member of Parliament could oppose the concept of a wholly elected chamber in the first place. Does anyone know where we can see a list of who voted against?

In some parts of the world I should imagine we must be a bit of a laughing stock but at least at long last this is a step in the right direction. MP’s also voted for the remaining 92 hereditary peers to be removed. Another no brainer. As far as I can tell they were not offered a vote on the retention of Bishops and Archbishops but they too should be removed from the second chamber.

I assume that the government will now push forward with this option. There is obviously a long way to go yet.

Doubtless the Lords will reject these proposals out of hand.

The major political parties need to get together and agree the details of how a wholly elected second chamber might work. This needs to address the mechanics of electing a second chamber and just as importantly what the role and powers of that second chamber should be. Proposals then need to be included in election manifestos for the next general election thereby weakening the ability of the Lords to oppose such proposals.

Before we get too excited it looks like it could be at least 2010 or 2011 before the Lords is finally killed off and replaced with an elected chamber.

Oh the joys of living in a modern democracy

The state of the NHS

More stories about the problems in the Health Service. Whoever takes over from Tony Blair is going to have their work cut out turning the situation round and convincing the public that they are serious about improving and protecting the NHS before the next general election.

This story from last weeks New Statesman is about West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust which is apparently one of the most indebted in the country and as part of its cost cutting measures it has decided to abolish antenatal classes.

First they told partners that they would no longer be able to attend the classes and now pregnant women themselves have been told that the service has been removed. Apparently teenage mothers and women expecting twins will continue to be provided with a preparatory course.

According to the New Statesman "The West Hertfordshire Trust, which runs four hospitals, says the removal of antenatal classes is only a temporary suspension. " Oh good so long as those women can hang on for a few months longer they should be fine!

Freedom of Information under threat

I must have missed this but the government has made proposals to make it easier for public authorities to refuse Freedom of Information requests on cost grounds. The effect of these proposals would be to severely restrict the amount of information that could be obtained under the Act.

I only realised this when reading this weeks edition of the New Statesman. The opening lines of their leader article this week read as follows "Information is power, and any government's attitude about sharing information with the people actually says a great deal about how it views power itself, and how it views the relationship between itself and the people who elected it." These words were spoken by Tony Blair back in 1996 when in opposition.

If what he said was true then why now is his government seeking to backtrack on its commitment to freedom of information and seeking to restrict the publics right to freedom of information granted under the Freedom of Information Act passed by his own government? If you want to read more about the issues go here to the Campaign for Freedom of Information.

How should we react?

The opinion poll in yesterdays Guardian puts the Tories on 40%, Labour on 31% and the Lib Dems on 19%. Even more interestingly they then go on to examine the state of the polls if the name specific leaders and give figures of 42% for the Tories under Cameron, 29% for Labour under Brown and 17% for the Lib Dems under Campbell. So does this mean anything and should we be worried?

42% is heading towards the sort of figure that the Tories were getting in General elections during the eighties and early nineties when they were polling around 45 – 46%. 29% is (according to the Guardian) the sort of poll rating that Labour were achieving under Michael Foot in the early eighties. 17% is historically not a bad figure for the Liberal Democrats although recently we have done better. Our figures tend to rise during election periods as we get more coverage and between elections we struggle to be heard.

The political landscape at present is extremely unusual. Blair is damaged goods and is limping on until some as yet unknown date – probably after the local elections on May 3rd but who knows. Brown has his agreement and is biding his time and whilst he may be making plans for his post Blair regime he is unable to go public with anything as yet.

Most worrying for the Liberal Democrats is that we have been unable to exploit this situation. Part of this is undoubtedly down to the normal difficulty we have as the third party in gaining media attention for what we are saying but the opinion poll hints at the fact that for us Ming Campbell is not a positive. This is important because whereas Brown cannot act publicly as Leader Campbell already is Leader.

The Tories are not surprisingly exploiting this vacuum on the British political stage. At present Cameron is in effect getting a free run and not surprisingly his opinion poll ratings have risen accordingly.

The political landscape in the UK will look very different in about six months time if and when Brown walks through the door of number 10. The stage will be his and pretty much his alone for some time and we can fully expect him to hit the ground running having had so much time to prepare for the transition.

A number of high profile announcements will attempt to reposition Brown and the Labour government. Expect a quick exit from Iraq (at least quicker than todays likely announcement) and a complete repositioning of our foreign policy possibly along the lines of “an ethical foreign policy” but with a different strap line. He may also attempt to do something about the lingering problems in the NHS. Whether or not this re-branding will succeed only time will tell but the opinion polls will look significantly different for a while.

The key question is how the Liberal Democrats in general and Ming Campbell in particular can best attempt to exploit the current vacuum – that is the bit we should be worrying about.

My suggestion for what it is worth is as follows.

Set up a group to identify and review likely Brown initiatives which he may wish to launch in the early days of his administration.

Focus in on those that he will need to push if he is to succeed in re-branding the Labour government and disassociating itself from Blair.

Find those that match with our own policies and principles and focus all our fire power on pushing for these things to be done.

In other words show leadership and steal Browns thunder before he gets to Number 10!

Greenpeace victory on nuclear power

Apparently Greenpeace has won its High Court bid to make the government rethink its programme to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. The judge ruled that the consultation process before making the decision last year had been "seriously flawed" and "procedurally unfair".

Greenpeace complained that there had been a failure to present clear proposals and information on key issues, such as disposal of radioactive waste and building costs.

The Trade and Industry Secretary contested the judicial review but Mr Justice Sullivan took a different view. He said "something has gone clearly and radically wrong" He went on to say that "the consultation document contained no actual proposals and the information given to consultees had been wholly insufficient for them to make an intelligent response" and that"the information given on waste had been not merely inadequate but also misleading".

Of course the DTI say (correctly) that this is about the process of consultation and not about the principle of Nuclear Power. The point they omit to make is that of course with full, correct and accurate information the consultation paper might have led both the consultees and the DTI itself to a different conclusion!

The future of the British nuclear deterrent

The government claims it is undergoing a period of debate and consultation ahead of a final decision although it is starkly clear that the decision to develop a new generation of weapons has already been taken. That much was clear nearly a year ago when The Sunday Times ran a piece entitled Revealed: UK develops secret nuclear warhead. I blogged about this at the time and my main concern was that the debate should take place in the open and parliament should have the final say on whether or not we want a replacement and if so what form that should take, when it should be developed by and what budget should be allocated to it. To be already spending money on a replacement weapons system without parliamentary approval was and is quite simply wrong.

The Liberal Democrats will be deciding their policy on this issue at their Spring conference in Harrogate on Saturday 3rd March. The motion can be found here.

In a nutshell the Lib Dem motion notes the Labour governments position namely to retain a nuclear deterrent, extend the life of Trident and reduce the number of warheads by 20% and commence procurement for a new class of submarine. The motion then goes on to propose that the Liberal Democrat policy should be as follows :

a) Britain should now begin a major reduction of its nuclear arsenal by approximately 50%, retaining no more than 100 warheads; with each Trident submarine carrying no more than 24 warheads when on deterrence patrol;

(b) The current Trident nuclear system should be maintained and its operational life extended;

(c) A final decision on whether and, if so, how to procure any successor system be taken at the point when the significant capital spending would begin to be incurred on a three boat replacement.

An amendment is to be tabled along the lines of conference resolves that the UK should not procure a successor nuclear weapons system to the current Trident system.

I hope that the amendment is passed and that we make a clear stand on what is the correct way forward for the UK. Why do I feel like this?

1. From a moral standpoint I do not see how we can justify the possession or usage of nuclear weapons let alone the design and production of a whole new system and the submarines which act as a delivery platform.

2. As I understand it the development and production of a new system would break our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for a start.

3. Were we ever to use nuclear weapons there would be disastrous consequences for the local population and the environment in the affected region. Not forgetting of course the continuing environmental impacts of the current weapons system just through the work going on to maintain the system in a safe state.

4. The governments own scientific advisor has stated that the greatest threat that the UK faces is global warming - perhaps we would be better employed spending our time and money on tackling this issue

5. The biggest threat to our security would seem to come from terrorism within our borders. The possession of nuclear weapons will not help us protect the security of our own people against this threat one jot. According to No New Trident one retired general has summarised Trident as: "useless, expensive and dangerous". The defence of the UK actually requires more and better equipped infantry and air and naval transport. Trident is a poor use of scarce resources needed elsewhere for our national security.

6. There seems to be a general consensus that we could not use our nuclear weapons without the consent of the United States - if this is so then we do not have an independent nuclear deterrent so why have one and pay for one if we have to ask someone else for permission too use it?

7. The potential cost of this new system is colossal. The figures I have seen quoted range from £65bn to £75bn depending on the option selected. The reality of what it will eventually cost is I suspect likely to be much greater than these figures given the propensity for such schemes to experience time and cost overruns. Indeed CND quote another figure - the savings which could be achieved if the UK were to spend at the EU average for military spending would equate to £8.5 bn per year (over 25 years that is £212.5bn)

If we accept that we should not have them and are obligated not to design and produce new systems then it seems far more sensible to scrap the system and have a genuine debate about the best way to spend the consequential savings. Some could doubtless go on conventional forces and security measures but I would prefer to see most of this money being invested in protecting us from the greatest threat we face - global warming. It depends on what figure you believe for the cost of a Trident replacement but a couple of ideas of how this money could be spent were given recently in The Ecologist :

• Nine million homes in the UK need cavity wall insulation. Providing this would cost £16bn and would save 6.5 million tonnes of C02 emissions per annum
• 25,000 onshore or 8,000 offshore turbines would generate 33% of the UK energy needs and would cost £75bn. I guess that if the government invested in this then the government would reap the income from the sale of the resulting electricity so providing further funds for other projects.

This is to say nothing of the many other issues which face the UK and desperately need tackling.

The NHS needs fixing once and for all, clearly some more money is required given the shortfalls but more importantly would be some form of cross party consensus which would take the NHS away from being a political football and towards being a stable organisation which can deliver a consistently high standard of health care and drugs throughout the UK.

The waste we generate and how we deal with it is a huge problem and we are only scratching at the surface of what needs to be done to invest in systems to deal with the waste as well as the requirement to ensure that we produce as little as possible in the first place.

Public Transport need some serious investment - it is just not acceptable to have stations (as we do) with no service whatsoever on a Sunday. More houses have been built near our station in recent years and even more are going up now. Wonderful until the occupants discover that the service is somewhat infrequent at the best of times and non existent on a Sunday and they will have to use a car anyway

If you want to read more about the issues go to No New Trident here or click on the button on my side bar.

Straw man

Jack Straw has published his proposals for reform of the House of Lords but I have some serious concerns about what the government are proposing.

Their proposals are summarised on the BBC site as follows:

• A 'hybrid' of elected and appointed peers
• Reduce size of House from 746 to 540 members
• End hereditary and life peerages over time
• Elected peers to be voted in at same time as Euro elections
• Maximum time in office of 15 years for elected and appointed peers
• Appointees a mixture of party politicians and non-party figures
• Lords may be renamed - possibly 'The Reformed Chamber'
• Anglican bishops and archbishops to keep seats

In contrast with this Liberal Democrat policy is that:

1. The majority of the House of Lords should be elected, with no more than 20% appointed by an Independent Appointments Commission.
2. There should be no additional political appointees.
3. No more hereditaries and no more life peers created. Hereditaries should cease to serve at the date of the first elections.
4. Members should be elected under a system that gives voters real choice (such as the Single Transferable Vote).
5. Members should serve for three fixed 4 year terms, i.e 12 years non-renewable.
6. The Reformed Lords (and Commons) should retain its powers of scrutiny over the government.

I support 4, 5 and 6 but quite frankly in a modern democracy the first three are too weak. One hundred percent of the members of the second chamber should be elected. There should be no appointed members whatsoever. Aside from the lack of democracy involved in appointed members it would also help to avoid so many of the questions about cash or loans for peerages. Hereditary and life peers should lose their seats immediately and there should be no places for bishops and archbishops. If they want to take part then they can stand and get elected like everyone else.

No New Trident button added

I have added a No New Trident button to my sidebar.

If you click on the button it will take you to No New Trident a campaign website set up by the Lib Dem Peace and Security Group who are seeking to secure a vote at the Harrogate Conference in March that will establish Liberal Democrat policy as being opposed to the replacement of Trident.

I will be blogging about my views on this later on.

Should we abandon GMT?

Apparently there is a Private Members Bill before parliament sponsored by Tory MP Tim Yeo's which proposes that clocks be moved forward an hour in England initially for a three year trial. We would continue with the practice of summer and winter time so winter time would effectively be GMT + 1 and summer time would be GMT + 2

This issue comes up from time to time and the same old arguments get trotted out each time. Farmers and Postal workers would be opposed. ROSPA is in favour because of the likely reduction in accidents. They claim that there would be 450 fewer road deaths and serious injuries every year if we switched.

Up until now I do not recall there being any mention of potential environmental benefits. However, this bill is called The Energy Saving (Daylight) Bill and Tim Yeo believes that it will cut electricity consumption and cut carbon emissions.

The BBC Online article on this which can be found here makes very little of the potential environmental benefits to be had but the article in The Guardian which can be found here is more forthcoming on the specifics stating that “A rough assessment reported in the journal Nature today shows that by aligning clocks with Europe, Britain is likely to save around £485m each year by using lights less in the afternoon and evening. The drop in energy consumption would trim carbon dioxide emissions by 170,000 tonnes, the equivalent of reducing the emissions of 70,000 people to zero for a year”

I think the vast majority of people would appreciate the extra daylight hours at the end of the day. I know I would and we can save lives and help the planet at the same time. Seems like common sense to me. So we won’t do that then will we? As a Private Members Bill this measure is likely to fall unless it receives government support.

Passports and ID cards

Apparently three million Britons have already been issued with the new hi-tech passport, designed to frustrate terrorists and fraudsters although frankly I find this total somewhat amazing given that I renewed mine earlier this year specifically to avoid the new type for as long as possible.

According to this article in the Technology Guardian the new passport is about as secure as the proverbial chocolate fireguard. The new passports incorporate tiny microchips to store the holder's details and a digital description of their physical features. These techno wizards were able to extract all the data from the chip using just the information printed on the passport.

And they say the data on ID cards will be secure!