I like the Dutch. I like the liberal nature of their politics that I am sure will prevail despite the 15% of votes recently won by the anti-Islam ‘Freedom’ Party. I like the impression the Dutch create of having fewer hang-ups than the British. Maybe it’s a consequence of our sanctimonious tabloid press, or an unwillingness here to confront the disproportionate influence of religious extremists, but when it comes to dealing with controversial issues like drugs, prostitution, and medically assisted dying the Dutch are simply more grown up.
Dutch law provides for people suffering unendurably with no hope of recovery to seek medical help to die. Safeguards ensure that all such decisions reflect patients’ free will. Investigations have been made into a few ‘grey area’ cases but no doctor has ever been prosecuted. By contrast, British citizens experiencing great suffering who make the decision to bring forward their time of dying have to travel to Switzerland to seek medical assistance through the Dignitas organisation.
The war on illegal drugs is lost. It has been an expensive failure, and the worldwide cost paid in lives destroyed and honest society undermined has been vastly more damaging than the health effects of the drugs themselves. Debate about replacing prohibition with a regime of licensing and regulation is now firmly on the agenda in the Americas. Dutch policy of permitting the sale of cannabis from authorised outlets has driven a wedge between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ drugs. Consumption of all types in the Netherlands is very much less than in the UK.
The ‘oldest profession’ is not going to go away. Prostitution is legal in Britain but if two or more people work together for their mutual protection they face prosecution. Licensing rules might prove problematic for local councillors but brothels should be made legal, as they are in the Netherlands.
Liberal Democrats have progressive policies on these issues and we should use our role in government to place them on the agenda. Nick Clegg is the first Dutch-speaking leader of our party; I look to him to bring some of the no-nonsense pragmatism of his mother’s country to debate here.
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
Monday, 31 May 2010
GAZA : TIME TO MEET WITH HAMAS
Israel is doing its best to maintain a news blackout to reduce the impact of its attack on the Gaza relief convoy in international waters, but the truth is getting out. Israel has once again proven that it is a rogue state.
The EU is calling for an "inquiry," but this does not do justice to the situation. In any case we know from Goldstone how Israel reacts to "inquiries" that find against it.
It is time that our words were matched by deeds. Israel must be made to realise that unacceptable actions will have consequences.
Ten days ago President Medvedev of Russia met face to face with the Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, in Damascus.
Russia is a member of the Quartet, yet its leader has now thrown aside Quartet policy with regard to having no communication with "terrorists" and entered into talks with Hamas. This was the right thing to do, and it swept aside years of prevarication by the EU and the USA.
You cannot make peace without talking to your enemies. Even Israel should know that.
The response of the EU to Israel's assault on the Gaza relief convoy should be that it will no longer play the game by Israel's rules. Its representatives should follow in the footsteps of President Medvedev.
The EU should talk to Hamas.
The EU is calling for an "inquiry," but this does not do justice to the situation. In any case we know from Goldstone how Israel reacts to "inquiries" that find against it.
It is time that our words were matched by deeds. Israel must be made to realise that unacceptable actions will have consequences.
Ten days ago President Medvedev of Russia met face to face with the Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, in Damascus.
Russia is a member of the Quartet, yet its leader has now thrown aside Quartet policy with regard to having no communication with "terrorists" and entered into talks with Hamas. This was the right thing to do, and it swept aside years of prevarication by the EU and the USA.
You cannot make peace without talking to your enemies. Even Israel should know that.
The response of the EU to Israel's assault on the Gaza relief convoy should be that it will no longer play the game by Israel's rules. Its representatives should follow in the footsteps of President Medvedev.
The EU should talk to Hamas.
Sunday, 30 May 2010
The MPs' expenses regime is stupid
If David Laws were to try and book a room for the next three nights at a Premier Inn close to Westminster the cheapest to be found would be at Kensington Olympia. It would cost him £336.
Multiply that by a House of Commons working year of, say 35 weeks, and the cost would be £11,760.
It is reported that David Laws claimed £40,000 over nine years for accommodation, paying the money to his landlord/friend rather than to a commercial concern. This seems to me like a good financial deal for the taxpayer; it's certainly a very great deal less than many MPs have claimed for mortgage interest payments.
How did the Commons ever get itself into the position when it has to examine the status of private relationships before determining whether accommodation expenses can be paidt? Why should David Laws have publicly to try and define his relationship with his 'partner'?
The European Parliament system is entirely different. MEPs are not paid expenses but a daily allowance intended to cover accommodation and subsistence costs. They can pass it all on to swell the profits of Mr Hilton or Messrs Holiday Inn, or they can sleep on the park bench and pocket the lot.
The amount (€298) can certainly be criticised as excessive, but at least the arrangement doesn't require moralistic scrutiny by officials paid more than the elected representatives.
As Chief Secretary to the Treasury David Laws had the task of proposing cuts in public expenditure. His authority was bound to be undermined by claims that he had not followed the rules to the letter.
But the rules are stupid. The House of Commons should never have adopted them.
Each MP is the elected representative for a constituency of 80,000 people or more. Their current salary is £64,766,
Of course it can be argued that MPs should only be paid the average wage. Or that they should be paid less than this. Or that they should not be paid at all and should be self-funded millionaires. But I think most people will believe that the representative for their constituency should be paid at something close to the rate of the local GP or senior school headteacher - which is a lot more than they get at present - plus a set allowance for living away from home (if they do) for so many days each week..
There should be complete openness and transparency, both about the amount available and the amounts actually claimed, but we should stop micro-managing the way in which MPs use the money paid to them to fulfill the role for which they were elected.
Multiply that by a House of Commons working year of, say 35 weeks, and the cost would be £11,760.
It is reported that David Laws claimed £40,000 over nine years for accommodation, paying the money to his landlord/friend rather than to a commercial concern. This seems to me like a good financial deal for the taxpayer; it's certainly a very great deal less than many MPs have claimed for mortgage interest payments.
How did the Commons ever get itself into the position when it has to examine the status of private relationships before determining whether accommodation expenses can be paidt? Why should David Laws have publicly to try and define his relationship with his 'partner'?
The European Parliament system is entirely different. MEPs are not paid expenses but a daily allowance intended to cover accommodation and subsistence costs. They can pass it all on to swell the profits of Mr Hilton or Messrs Holiday Inn, or they can sleep on the park bench and pocket the lot.
The amount (€298) can certainly be criticised as excessive, but at least the arrangement doesn't require moralistic scrutiny by officials paid more than the elected representatives.
As Chief Secretary to the Treasury David Laws had the task of proposing cuts in public expenditure. His authority was bound to be undermined by claims that he had not followed the rules to the letter.
But the rules are stupid. The House of Commons should never have adopted them.
Each MP is the elected representative for a constituency of 80,000 people or more. Their current salary is £64,766,
Of course it can be argued that MPs should only be paid the average wage. Or that they should be paid less than this. Or that they should not be paid at all and should be self-funded millionaires. But I think most people will believe that the representative for their constituency should be paid at something close to the rate of the local GP or senior school headteacher - which is a lot more than they get at present - plus a set allowance for living away from home (if they do) for so many days each week..
There should be complete openness and transparency, both about the amount available and the amounts actually claimed, but we should stop micro-managing the way in which MPs use the money paid to them to fulfill the role for which they were elected.
Tuesday, 25 May 2010
A COALITION-FREE ZONE
There is no agreement between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in the European Parliament. We fight on, at the same time delighting in the Tory europhobes’ anger and frustration at being denied the influence they had hoped to command.
There is no special relationship between the different political groups (ALDE and ECR) to which the MEPs belong, and we respect the EU separation of powers between the Council of Ministers and the Parliament whatever government is in office. We have different jobs to do.
All of which should help reassure those who fear that the coalition agreement risks diluting the Liberal Democrats’ separate identity.
There is no special relationship between the different political groups (ALDE and ECR) to which the MEPs belong, and we respect the EU separation of powers between the Council of Ministers and the Parliament whatever government is in office. We have different jobs to do.
All of which should help reassure those who fear that the coalition agreement risks diluting the Liberal Democrats’ separate identity.
PUT WATER ON THE BONFIRE
Local councils have started sending out threatening notices to the 300,000 people in England who get their water from a spring or a well. The ‘Private Water Supplies Regulations 2009’ require them to enforce compliance with new quality requirements. They can charge households up to £500 for carrying out a ‘risk assessment’ and further sums for sampling, investigating, and 'granting an authorisation.'
I guess everyone who gets water from a private source knows that it has not been pumped full of bacteria-killing chemicals and, even when it tastes fantastic, may present a risk. If a collection tank is exposed perhaps a fly may have the chance to do something unmentionable. Before I installed a better filtration system I occasionally had to remove fresh water shrimps that were blocking the shower rose. But everyone on spring water accepts their individual responsibility and will resent Labour’s nanny-state interference.
What gets my goat is the claim that these regulations stem from EU requirements. The 1998 Drinking Water Directive states clearly: “Member States may exempt water from an individual supply serving fewer than 50 persons.” The law is intended to ensure good quality provision of mains water supply, not to interfere in the provision of spring water to hamlets across Europe that have used natural sources for centuries.
It is being applied in a sensible fashion in Scotland. The law as interpreted in that country gives local councils the right to carry out a risk assessment if there is reason for concern, but it's a very much more light touch approach than south of the border.
The English way of doing things is a text book example of ‘gold-plating’ an EU law. The previous government refused to take up the exemption on offer, preferring instead to apply the legislation to every hillside dwelling in the country. As it seeks to make a bonfire of unnecessary regulations, here is where the new government can start.
I guess everyone who gets water from a private source knows that it has not been pumped full of bacteria-killing chemicals and, even when it tastes fantastic, may present a risk. If a collection tank is exposed perhaps a fly may have the chance to do something unmentionable. Before I installed a better filtration system I occasionally had to remove fresh water shrimps that were blocking the shower rose. But everyone on spring water accepts their individual responsibility and will resent Labour’s nanny-state interference.
What gets my goat is the claim that these regulations stem from EU requirements. The 1998 Drinking Water Directive states clearly: “Member States may exempt water from an individual supply serving fewer than 50 persons.” The law is intended to ensure good quality provision of mains water supply, not to interfere in the provision of spring water to hamlets across Europe that have used natural sources for centuries.
It is being applied in a sensible fashion in Scotland. The law as interpreted in that country gives local councils the right to carry out a risk assessment if there is reason for concern, but it's a very much more light touch approach than south of the border.
The English way of doing things is a text book example of ‘gold-plating’ an EU law. The previous government refused to take up the exemption on offer, preferring instead to apply the legislation to every hillside dwelling in the country. As it seeks to make a bonfire of unnecessary regulations, here is where the new government can start.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
ASTONISHING TIMES
The political situation is extraordinary. For the opinion polls to move by as much as 14 points overnight in favour of one party is unprecedented. And for it to happen in favour of the Liberal Democrats is a delight It reveals just how many people would prefer not to have to vote for David Cameron as an alternative to Gordon Brown, and just how much latent support there is for our party that comes to light only when we get the rare opportunity to be treated as equals.
I am revelling in having been a Clegg-for-Leader advocate from the day he told me that he wanted to stand for the House of Commons (after I had failed to dissuade him from leaving Brussels that is). As I now occupy Nick’s former office in the European Parliament maybe I should try to raise party funds by charging visitors to see it.
The enthusiasm should be savoured and bottled for it will not last. I have no doubt that Nick will do well in the next debates but expectations of him are now completely unreasonable. If he defends the principles and policies of the party then he will inevitably lose some support – they would not be principles worth fighting for if our opponents agreed with them.
I am revelling in having been a Clegg-for-Leader advocate from the day he told me that he wanted to stand for the House of Commons (after I had failed to dissuade him from leaving Brussels that is). As I now occupy Nick’s former office in the European Parliament maybe I should try to raise party funds by charging visitors to see it.
The enthusiasm should be savoured and bottled for it will not last. I have no doubt that Nick will do well in the next debates but expectations of him are now completely unreasonable. If he defends the principles and policies of the party then he will inevitably lose some support – they would not be principles worth fighting for if our opponents agreed with them.
Friday, 9 April 2010
A TARGETING STRATEGY WITH LIMITS
An election system that does not give equal value to every vote has for many decades prevented the Liberal Democrats from exerting real influence over government policy. The outrageous insult to democracy demonstrated by the Liberals winning 18% of the votes yet less than 2% of the seats in February 1974 was the spur that made me apply for membership. More recently the scale of our under representation has been reduced. At the last election we won some 20% of the votes and more than 9% of the seats. Not fair, but less awful.
The success of the Liberal Democrats’ targeting strategy has been hailed as one reason for the improvement. We have concentrated our money and resources into a limited number of target seats where we have the greatest chance of making a breakthrough. For the most part the target seats are self-evident, they are the places where we have won more than 50% of the places on the local council, gaining electoral credibility from people knowing that when they vote Liberal Democrat they often get Liberal Democrats elected. This is usually achieved between general elections not at them.
But targeting has its limits. It has not really sunk into the consciousness of party members outside the targets. Once a general election is called a great proportion of local activists (not that we have many in the first place) feel obliged to campaign locally. They want to make a creditable effort, or perhaps “frighten” the incumbent Tory MP. A mist comes over their eyes that blinds them to the reality that a ‘creditable’ third place counts for absolutely nothing. It’s an utter defeat. If there are no prizes for coming second do you have to give them away yourself if you come third?
Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats in a target seat just a short distance away may be crying out for extra help that could make all the difference between victory and a near miss, yet too often they can’t get their neighbours to set aside their local loyalties.
In Warrington South, where I am giving a bit of help myself, we are working to build the necessary bridges. By letter and telephone we are trying to explain the necessity for the approach. By encouraging some teams from Cheshire constituencies each to “adopt” a South Warrington ward we are trying to create an alternative element of loyalty.
Maybe the targeting ball is starting to move in our favour. Whether it gains momentum, and allows us to demonstrate that targeting is more than just a word, remains to be seen.
The success of the Liberal Democrats’ targeting strategy has been hailed as one reason for the improvement. We have concentrated our money and resources into a limited number of target seats where we have the greatest chance of making a breakthrough. For the most part the target seats are self-evident, they are the places where we have won more than 50% of the places on the local council, gaining electoral credibility from people knowing that when they vote Liberal Democrat they often get Liberal Democrats elected. This is usually achieved between general elections not at them.
But targeting has its limits. It has not really sunk into the consciousness of party members outside the targets. Once a general election is called a great proportion of local activists (not that we have many in the first place) feel obliged to campaign locally. They want to make a creditable effort, or perhaps “frighten” the incumbent Tory MP. A mist comes over their eyes that blinds them to the reality that a ‘creditable’ third place counts for absolutely nothing. It’s an utter defeat. If there are no prizes for coming second do you have to give them away yourself if you come third?
Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats in a target seat just a short distance away may be crying out for extra help that could make all the difference between victory and a near miss, yet too often they can’t get their neighbours to set aside their local loyalties.
In Warrington South, where I am giving a bit of help myself, we are working to build the necessary bridges. By letter and telephone we are trying to explain the necessity for the approach. By encouraging some teams from Cheshire constituencies each to “adopt” a South Warrington ward we are trying to create an alternative element of loyalty.
Maybe the targeting ball is starting to move in our favour. Whether it gains momentum, and allows us to demonstrate that targeting is more than just a word, remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
