How the Other Half...

...Learns!

Another brilliant personal anecdote from Snuffy.

Worry not: I am not planning to turn this 'blog into a series of links to others' writings; but this is again something we all need to read in order to "re-calibrate our thinking" (as my brother would no doubt put it) on the issue covered.

Trust me: you'll be pleased you read it!

Infidels!

In an almost unbelievably offensive act -- at least to anyone concerned with decency and humanity -- a number of left-wing MPs have signed an Early Day Motion praising what they term the "achievements" of Cuba's Fidel Castro, who has just stepped down from office. This follows on from Harriet Harman's well-publicised statement just days ago that in her opinion Castro is "a hero of the left". Says it all, really...

Here is the text of the Early Day Motion, proposed by Colin Burgon:

That this House commends the achievements of Fidel Castro in securing first-class free healthcare and education provision for the people of Cuba despite the 44 year illegal US embargo of the Cuban economy; notes the great strides Cuba has taken during this period in many fields such as biotechnology and sport in both of which Cuba is a world leader; acknowledges the esteem in which Castro is held by the people and leaders of Africa, Asia and Latin America for leading the calls for emancipation of the world’s poorest people from slavery, hunger and the denial of human rights such as the right to life, the right to shelter, the right to healthcare and basic medicines and the right to education; welcomes the EU statement that constructive engagement with Cuba at this time is the most responsible course of action; and calls upon the Government to respect Cuba’s right to self-determination and resist the aggressive forces within the US Administration who are openly planning their own illegal transition in Cuba.

These are the signatories:

Labour:

• Diane Abbott

• David Anderson

• John Austin

• John Battle

• Anne Begg

• Colin Burgon

• Richard Caborn

• Ronnie Campbell

• Martin Caton

• Colin Challen

• Michael Clapham

• Katy Clark

• Harry Cohen

• Frank Cook

• Jeremy Corbyn

• David Crausby

• Ann Cryer

• Ian Davidson

• Dai Davies

• Janet Dean

• Jim Devine

• Andrew Dismore

• Jim Dobbin

• David Drew

• Clive Efford

• Bill Etherington

• Paul Flynn

• Hywel Francis

• Ian Gibson

• John Grodan

• David Hamilton

• Fabian Hamilton

• Dai Havard

• David Heyes

• Jimmy Hood

• Kevin Hopkins

• Lindsay Hoyle

• Joan Humble

• Brian Iddon

• Lynne Jones

• Peter Kilfoyle

• David Lepper

• Andrew Mackinlay

• John McDonnell

• Austin Mitchell

• George Mudie

• Eddie O'Hara

• Albert Owen

• Gordon Prentice

• Ken Purchase

• Linda Riordan

• Virendra Sharma

• Jim Sheridan

• Alan Simpson

• Marsha Singh

• Dennis Skinner

• Dari Taylor

• David Taylor

• John Trickett

• Desmond Turner

• Mike Wood.

  Liberal Democrats:
  

• Paul Holmes.

  Plaid Cymru:

• Elfyn Llwyd

• Adam Price.

  Respect:

• George Galloway.

All of these are this country's true in-Fidel-s, as disconnected from the views of decent Britons as it is possible to be. None of them is fit to call himself or herself a "representative" of any respectable community in this nation. Presumably, every one of the above would like our nation to go the same way as Cuba, and of course there has been plenty of evidence to show that indeed we are now headed in that general direction, in many respects.

Anyone reading this who recognises one of the above as your local MP, I suggest bearing this in mind when you come to vote at the next General Election!

Extremely Unpleasant

EU = "Extremely Unpleasant", as this clip shows...



Here is a photo of the protesters, dressed as chickens, and the logo on their costumes:

The University of Life

Now, HERE is a post well worth reading, from a teacher in inner-city London who runs an excellent 'blog and is known by the pseudonym Snuffleupagus (a character from the superb Sesame Street children's TV series, pictured right).

We all learn from our own life experiences, we generally mature, broaden our appreciation and knowledge of a wide range of topics, and "Snuffy" has done the same. Her article reminds us all that we don't "know it all" and every one of us has something to learn, however old (or young) we are.

I say: well done, Snuffy, for having the courage to put all your cards on the table in your typically open style of writing, which in itself is immensely refreshing.

It is no surprise that I immediately linked to Snuffy's site on my Blogroll, as soon as I discovered it and had read a few articles there. This is the real world that Snuffy represents in part, and none of us should ever forget that!

Party Political Broadcast

Okay, it's only a minute and a half long and has no-one speaking at all, but it's a useful reminder of what we have in this country now, and what (it is being proposed) would happen under a Conservative Government at Westminster. I hope the party has the opportunity to show that it really can be done, after the next General Election...

Would You (Re-) Elect Someone Like This?

Just a typical day in the life of the Greater London Assembly (GLA)...



This happened only last week, on 13^th February 2008.

The original is HERE, and the (five so far) comments are worth reading as well.

Why is it virtually always those on the left who behave so appallingly, even at formal meetings? They never seem to have respect for anyone, but plenty of excuses for their stance. We have had some of the same (though, to be fair, not usually as bad as this) in the Council Chamber from time to time.

One advantage we have, though, is our Standards Committee, with six non-Medway members (four completely independent, and two Parish Councillors), who do at least have some teeth, and monitor many of our meetings. There appears to be virtually nothing to keep Livingstone's antics under control. The Assembly has no real powers, and that was how the Blair Government of the time deliberately devised the structure of the London Mayoral set-up (they also agreed the strange voting system that allows the "wrong" candidate to be elected fairly easily, through so-called second preferences). It's a very poor advertisement for politics in general, and directly-elected mayors in particular.

Fortunately, on this occasion, the chairman eventually adjourned the meeting for five minutes, and hopefully business was then able to continue (I have no videos from later).

The bottom line, though, is that we really cannot allow this kind of behaviour to continue, and desperately need a change of London Mayor to someone who has respect for, and aims concerning, others than himself and his personal buddies. Sadly, the oddball electoral system could mean that either Ken gets back in (via the second preference votes) or even that Brian Paddick (who has only 7% support in the polls) could take it for the same reason.

Here's some more useful information on the present Mayor and what he has been able to get away with doing, using millions of pounds of Londoners' tax money. It's worth taking just two minutes to watch this. Although it was made last year, as it happens it's topical today as it mentions Fidel Castro who is currently in the news...



As matters stand, the London Mayoralty and GLA is a rubbish set-up with a rubbish voting methodology, so perhaps it isn't surprising that it tends to end up with rubbish results, including who ends up elected as Mayor. We shall see at the start of May 2008; but at the moment the only credible Mayor for London is Boris, and even that was at first something of a surprise.

We now know better, of course; and a mark of the real threat Boris is to the present cosy Labour-and-Ken status quo is the extent and nature of comments from the "usual suspects" and other obvious "sock-puppets" (as they are known) who are trying ever more desperately to paint Mr Johnson in a bad light -- largely manufactured, and nearly all containing at least some false slant.

By contrast, these same trolls (many of whom have turned out to be members of Livingstone's 96-person-strong publicity team, pretending to be members of the public!) have little if anything credible to say in favour of Livingstone's record of these past eight years.

London is just up the road a way from Medway, and it has impacts on many areas around the capital, including ours. We need to have a proper governmental structure in place there, so (just as with Europe) we here must keep our eyes on what is going on in London. If it really must have another tier of government (and I am not convinced of this) then make sure it works properly, has a vastly higher quality Mayor, and also one who is made properly accountable to the Assembly, which needs real teeth. Oh, and an enforced dismantling of Ken's hugely expensive personal publicity machine!

Only then can London become credible again. It certainly isn't now, under Red Ken.

Holding to Account

I mentioned a few days ago that Medway's Scrutiny Committees a currently going through our customary "end of term" exercise of holding the Executive to account, as it's termed. I was at Children's Services Scrutiny last night, and the latest Cabinet "victim" to sit in our equivalent of the Mastermind chair and be questioned was the portfolio holder for children's social care -- Councillor David Wildey.

Now, his is a fairly recently created position, and has existed for just eight months, so I felt he needed to justify this additional Cabinet post.

I had (as always) done my homework, and found that someone looking at the official information available from the council's website wouldn't give an impression of much being done by him. Indeed, there have been only four reports to Cabinet that have concerned his portfolio, and all four of those also included the (statutory) "Lead Member" for Children's Services, so do we really need a second portfolio?

I was first off the blocks, so put all of this to him, though not in precisely these terms: asking questions is of course done differently from reporting the sense and import here. David answered fairly well (although, as he will be the first to admit, he isn't the best person in the world at expressing himself clearly in situations such as this), as he did through his forty-minute stint.

By the end of this session, he had justified his job quite well, though it is of course still early days and next year's such event should be much more conclusive. I have a strong feeling that by then his position will have become rock solid. David's a good fellow, his heart is definitely in the right place, and he has that determination to make a success of what he is doing.

Something a little strange happened when the next questioner -- the Labour spokesman on the committee -- first commented (as he likes to do) on what I had asked. He referred to my "ringing endorsement" of the portfolio holder, in his typical sarcastic manner.

Later I came back to remark on that, and to explain that it was not my job to endorse Cabinet members. It was my job to challenge and scrutinise, though I wondered what some other members of this committee "sitting elsewhere in this room" (i.e. not my own side -- we know our jobs!) thought there were here to do. I informed the meeting that I already have something of a track record of challenging our portfolio holders at these events on other committees, so it wasn't something new or strange.

Well, it has always been obvious that the Labour Group have only one end in mind, and one purpose, and that is to try to make us look bad so that (they hope, rather forlornly I suspect) we shall lose support and lose our overall majority on the Council one day. Not much chance of that! Their's is the group in terminal decline...

Thus their policy is to disregard their own Government's requirement that Scrutiny be essentially non-party political. They have never, since Day One of Scrutiny in Medway (more than six years ago) stopped being as party political as they can get away with, especially when there are members of the public and/or journalists or other media present.

We have learned to live with it, and are generally sharp enough to deal effectively with their worst excesses when necessary. It doesn't really matter, though, as they merely show themselves up most of the time. I have had lifelong Labour supporters tell me in private just how appalled they have been at Labour Councillors' behaviour they have witnessed, especially (but not exclusively) at Scrutiny meetings. It is little wonder that the Labour Group shrinks in numbers at every local election here, and even between elections.

As for my colleagues and me: we definitely know our job, and play it cleanly every time. I think the Medway public appreciates that far more than the Labour Group realise. Yes, sometimes we have to take the opposition's blows right on the chin, but we're big and able enough to do so and come bouncing back every time. We'll do what we do properly, because in the final analysis that is the best way to serve the people of Medway. Labour do what they do because it is the best way for them to serve their own ends and thus themselves, which seems to be what their Party is all about, as recent months have shown (cf. Peter Hain et al).

I definitely prefer our way!

Please Don't Bash the Poor Archbishop!

There have been some quite alarming headlines in the tabloid press this past day or two, but to "Bash the Bishop" (as I saw in one tabloid headline) is not the right way to go, even if it's being done only with words.

No, he is not the problem here, though the way he handled this seems to have been poorly devised, and not helped by our typically selective and slanted media. The problem that has been bubbling up for years is a clash of apparently incompatible cultures, and the unwillingness of those who wish to impose theirs to accept that they are living in others' nations with a long history and culture of their own, including Britain. This of course extends to laws and morality.

My own view of Rowan Williams is that he has been what Denis Healey would call "a silly billy"; and he really should have handled himself much better. Bearing in mind his position, one would have expected him to have been more alert and aware of how what eminent people say is reported and taken in by others. If he really can't handle that very well, then perhaps he should cease lecturing altogether, or delegate this activity to someone better able to do the job.

Meanwhile, the underlying issue of today's Islam and in particular its Shar'ia Law (as it is called) remains.

What few commentators seem to have done on this is to question the validity of modern Islam and this law. After all, it does claim to have come from God.

However, anyone who truly knows God realises that this isn't about him. He made his stance perfectly clear, also that he is unchanging, many many times and via lots of different routes, to make sure that it couldn't be mistaken for one man's personal agenda. He must have known that, one day, individuals would put themselves forward as prophets or Messiahs and their creeds would come only from themselves in each case. Good forward planning by God, I'd say...

God told us very clearly that he is Love, and he did not create us so that we should go around harming each other under any pretext. No intelligent creator would make a world or universe on that basis anyway: it's plain daft, and insulting to God, especially as we know his nature and his commandments.

If there really were to be a need for action (beyond normal legal processes, of course) this side of mortal death, then he would deal with it himself: "Revenge is mine" saith the Lord. He even came here in a form to which we could relate, and told us in person, confirming all that had gone before. The old covenant between God and man was based around the Ten Commandments; and the new covenant around just two, that encompass all that went before in a clear-cut form.

Thus the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" still applies, because if we truly love the Lord our God, and our neighbour (which means everyone), then we shall not kill. All of us have equal status in God's eyes, and anything that goes against that is man's agenda, not God's -- and probably inspired by the Devil, for that matter. Banners and chants proclaiming "Burn!", "Behead!" or similar must always be counted thus, as well as the attitudes behind them. God doesn't do that stuff, and we are instructed not to either.

Therefore, any religion or other such system that advocates any other approach automatically cannot possibly be the word of God. He warned us of false prophets; and whether with Islam that was the case from the start, or merely via changes made later from what (for all I know) might have been genuine at first, the clues are there. We have a case of falsehood whenever anyone claims that killing (and a whole range of other ungodly acts and attitudes) is "ordained from God", for whatever reason. It isn't, and that's an absolute -- and a fairly obvious one at that.

Thus, if Islam really is from a genuine origin, but has been corrupted at some time since, then it needs to re-find its roots and get back to them pronto, and permanently. Otherwise it is to be despised as the work of the Devil, operating through compliant evil humans.

The ball is in the Islamic people's court. No-one else can solve this; so they'd better get to it -- now, before something really serious happens. Meanwhile, we'll continue with our own laws, thank you very much: oh, and that includes "one man and one woman" relationships -- as decreed by God, not man. Those who are ungodly enough not to heed this can go and live somewhere else -- but not here. Britain, for all its faults, is still one of God's countries and our laws are based on his commandments and teachings, not man's.

Friendly Fire

This is the time of year when Portfolio Holders (the members of the Council's Executive -- the Cabinet) are called to appear before the Scrutiny Committees to account for their work in that position during the past year. The photograph shows Medway's Cabinet in session, where their decisions are taken.

We have had two Portfolio Holders appear before the scrutiny committee of which I am the vice-chairman already this year -- one in January, and one this month -- and have the Council Leader himself booked to come to our next meeting. The other scrutiny committees have been doing the same with the executive members relevant to their own areas of overview and scrutiny.

The general sequence of events with these "being held to account" agenda items (as they are billed) is that the portfolio holders give a short run-down of what their portfolio covers and what they have been doing during the past year, then the committee members ask questions on any aspect of their work.

At this point I am always reminded of Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) in the House of Commons, and the difference between the searching and challenging questions from Opposition MPs, and the "friendly fire" from Labour MPs. You know the sort of thing: "Does my Right Honourable friend, the Prime Minister, agree with me that..." It's a dead give-away that it isn't really a proper question at all, merely a way to make the Government appear good. No doubt the PM was notified of the question well in advance and was thus able to get hold of all the facts and figures invariably quoted in reply to any of these "friendly" questions.

Indeed, it is probable that it was the PM's own office that wrote at least some of the questions, and the Whips found some backbenchers who hadn't asked anything at PMQs (or not for a long time, at least) to be, in effect, the PM's mouthpieces.

The temptation is to do the same kind of thing here, when one of our Portfolio Holders comes before Scrutiny. It would be so easy for us to do something similar to what Labour MPs generally do at PMQs -- but we don't. Specifically, I devise and write my own questions, with no input, advice or anything else from anyone, so I can come out with just about anything. I know that my colleagues in the Conservative Group do the same. As a reporter is invariably present at these events, this is genuine scrutiny at work, with no punches being pulled.

The only concession I occasionally make is to let the Portfolio Holder know the question a day or two in advance if it is rather technical (as some of mine are!) as I'd rather have a researched and complete answer in the public domain straight away than a response in the nature of "I shall have to find out what the answer is and let you know."

It is to the credit of our Portfolio Holders that they tend to be very well on top of their briefs, and can usually answer just about any question from any Member -- ruling group or otherwise -- that isn't too technical or in minute detail. Although they'd never admit it in public (and especially not when a reporter is present) in private many opposition members have acknowledged how impressed they are with our Executive members at these times in particular.

Just contrast that with the scenario in Westminster!

Will a British Political Leader Ever Say This?

Iain Dale today asks the question: "Are we being Islamaphobic?" as a result of the widespread reaction to the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent pronouncements on such topics as Sharia Law in Britain.

Although Rowan Williams' lecture seems to have been somewhat clumsy, and probably not reported in a way that would accurately convey what he was trying to say, it is timely to ask Dale's question, especially if one takes the trouble to look around at what has already been happening in this country, such as this long (but fascinating) article from Devil's Kitchen.

His own response of "No!" is the correct one, if (as I believe was his interpretation of what is being suggested) there is a real danger of our own native laws and customs being overruled and subjugated as a result. This does seem likely, based on the evidence to date, particularly in respect of other matters (such as polygamy) that operate outside our natural and established laws; and are now effectively being sanctioned and even encouraged by offering additional State hand-outs.

We have been far too weak in upholding our own culture and nature in Britain in recent years, and it appears that those with the power to do so are very much prepared to let our nation be undermined by allowing "alien" influences to dominate in preference to our own.

I suspect that, on the assumption that the following is accurate (and it has come from a generally reliable source, so I have no reason to disbelieve it), it looks like Australia's John Howard probably has the right approach, as this article demonstrates:

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told recently to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It.'

'I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.'

'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!'

'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us'

'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.'

'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

All we need now is a British political leader to take the same kind of stance, and much of what is wrong with Britain today will probably be wiped out in short order.

Will the Prime Minister...?

This 8-minute WebCameron video affords a behind-the-scenes look at how David Cameron handles Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs), from bicycling in to Westminster, via the pre-PMQ discussion with his team (including George Osborne), his side of PMQs itself (they weren't allowed to include the Prime Minister's responses!) and ending with a "how it went" comment or two. Worth watching...

Why Low Tax Is Better

This introduction to something called The Laffer Curve shows clearly why, in general (though not in all cases) low tax tends to be beneficial to the economy...



My thanks go to the Tax-Payers Alliance on whose website I first spotted this.

UPDATE: There is a more detailed explanation of the Laffer Curve on this web page.

Budget Scrutiny, Part Deux

As the Budget Scrutiny exercise reaches its conclusion this coming week, the true extent of the revenue funding shortfall is worth stating publicly. In fact, it is already clear from last month's documents that went to Scrutiny at the start of this part of the budget-setting process.

I already knew the amount we were having taken away from us, as I had calculated it beforehand, using official information and a knowledge of the way the system is fiddled by the Government to subsidise (and, indeed, bail out) the many hugely overspending Labour councils.

I have stated, at the last Council meeting of 2007, that I had worked out that this was some £26 to £28 million pounds, no less. It was gratifying to have that figure confirmed in the report that came to Scrutiny several weeks later.

In that report (snapshot of the relevant table is at the left) the two key figures for the final settlement from central Government were the two deductions. What happens is that the need is calculated via a formula. Now, that tends to come out with the right result, more or less. Then, the Government apply a so-called "relative resource amount" which allows them to rob Peter to pay Paul, as the old saying has it.

This is considered by the Government to be necessary because (perhaps not all that surprisingly) there just isn't enough money to pay all the actual council needs throughout the country, including the huge excesses needed to get lots of Labour-run councils out of the holes they have dug for themselves. In most such cases, it appears that they don't stop digging because they know they will be bailed out, year after year, as long as there is a Labour government at Westminster. Thus there is no incentive to mend their ways, and the same situation occurs every year, without fail, and we and other properly-run (non-Labour) councils are penalised.

Here in Medway, the Relative Resource Amount for 2008-2009 is therefore a deduction of no less than a whopping £22,194,000.

Is this the end of the story? No: there is a second fiddle factor involved, also a deduction in Medway's case. That is the infamous "floor damping", which has now been increased to £5,396,000. Add these two figures together and guess what? Yes, almost £28 million is being taken away from the amount that the Government's own formula clearly states Medway needs -- not wants, needs! It is personally gratifying to me to find that my own result (arrived at via a different approach) is almost identical to the outcome of the above calculation. This is nearly always a solid endorsement of one's own stance, when an independent assessment arrives at virtually the same conclusion via a different route.

Thus we can now all know exactly why the situation here is so very difficult, even with our lean and efficient council operation, which has again been praised by independent auditors just this past week. Even so, by applying some tough measures, the budget deficit as of now is only a few million pounds (only, he says!) and this will have to be eliminated by the end of this month, as it is illegal to set an unbalanced budget.

The budget we do set at that time will definitely be more robust than in previous years, as such innovations as the new three-year settlement have made it possible to plan better and to eliminate the (admittedly very few) uncertainties in, say, the current year's budget. All of this will be a truly remarkable achievement under almost impossible conditions.

Who said miracles never happen?

London Mayor: an Early Interview with Boris

Never underestimate Boris Johnson! This half-hour interview was conducted in mid-September 2007, some weeks before Boris was selected as the Conservative Mayoral candidate. It takes him a couple of minutes to get going, but it is well worth sticking with this. Listen not so much to the words in isolation, but also to the motivation behind them. Contrast this with Ken Livingstone, and the distinction is clear and obvious.

If ever there was any doubt that Boris is the right person to be London's Mayor from May 2008, this should help to dispel at least a large chunk of the concerns I have read elsewhere. He is a lot better than many of us might have thought, and London deserves far better than it has had during the last eight years, despite some good things happening in that time (though even those were probably done for the wrong reasons).