According to my lecturer this morning, my politics will move ‘further to the right than Attila the Hun’ after my Accident and Emergency rotation, because I’ll be able to see how stupid people really are. I can’t see it happening, personally. But stranger things have happened…

So keep watching the blog for a major political shift. It’s still more likely than one at Number 10, though.

‘Violent crime increases by 6%’ (BBC News)

This is the kind of silly political argument that voters so strongly dislike, as it makes all politicians look dishonest.

What I would love to see tomorrow is for either Mr Blair to admit that rising violent crime is a problem, or for Mr Howard to congratulate Mr Blair on the falls in crime in other areas. If Mr Howard took this course of action, it’d blow the wind out of Mr Blair’s attacking sails, and also give Mr Howard a greater sense of credibility among voters, who are intelligent enough to know that statistics like these can’t be boiled down to “Crime getting worse” or “Crime getting better”.

It wouldn’t work so well for Mr Blair, because he seems so manipulative and arrogant, and wouldn’t be able to make a statement like this without adding ‘…but it’s not nearly as bad as under the party opposite’, probably making a direct reference to Mr Howard’s time as Home Secretary, too.

If I was on Mr Howard’s staff, I’d have him doing the above, and also asking a question along the lines of ‘Does the Prime Minister feel that Members who have misled Parliament should resign and stay out of Government?’. Which would be very damaging to the ‘whiter-than-white’ Prime Minister, as he wouldn’t be able to answer ‘yes’, as he has so many once-retired ministers in his Cabinet. With the right follow-ups, Mr Howard could do some serious damage… but, come tomorrow, I bet he won’t.

Guantánamo prisoners return home today (Guardian)

Detention without trial is wrong.

I have yet to meet anyone who can make a convincing argument against the above statement. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental right of modern civilisation – and, for that matter, ancient civilisation too. So why, in the light of a few high profile terrorist attacks, are we denying people that right?

Don’t misunderstand me here – The terrorist attacks against America and other countries have been terrible atrocities, but terrorism isn’t new. Foreign terrorism is a fairly new concept to a young country like America, and it is a major step in the development of a nation. They must decide how to deal with such provocation, and this may well determine the future of their country as a whole. At the moment, I think they’re taking the wrong path.

The Bush administration has violated more international laws at Guantánamo Bay than I can begin to count. The very fact that the American Constitution forbids this kind of treatment on American soil should put up some red flags. They have created a situation whereby the Presidential Administration could, if they wished to abuse the system, detail whoever they wanted and torture them. Is this really the foundation the American people want for their country? Is this not the very kind of Government that they tried to eliminate in Iraq?

I am in no way accusing Mr Bush of taking this kind of action. I’m confident that he is convinced that there is a need to detain these people, and that there are valid reasons in his eyes for not giving them proper trials. But we’ve seen the danger of this kind of approach in Iraq: Mr Blair had what he saw as high quality intelligence, which he trusted and believed, on the existence of WMD in Iraq. He was wrong. What’s to say Mr Bush isn’t wrong? Isn’t the fair trial the protection against this kind of error, just as publishing full information before a vote in the House of Commons is the protection against Mr Blair’s error? Just as Mr Blair failed to publish an authoritative Iraq dossier, Mr Bush is failing to provide trials for these people, and mistakes will inevitably be made.

As for the poor prisoners themselves, I cannot even imagine being locked in solitary confinement for three years. It would be mental torture, and would leave someone with lifelong mental trauma, and would probably have a similar impact on their families. Torture is completely wrong, and has no place in a modern society. The fact that these prisoners have been tortured, and the fact that the British Government has failed to condemn torture (by admitting evidence from torture, so long as it wasn’t torture by British people) shows a deep problem in our society. Cracks of this magnitude in the very base of our society need patching up quickly, or it could lead to a serious collapse.

The news of four British detainees being released is clearly a welcome development, but we should be appalled at their detention rather than celebrating their release. How anyone expects that a society with such a loose moral grasp can ever hope to ‘spread freedom’ about the world, I just cannot begin to understand.

Oxford attacked over plan to cut UK students

It seems somewhat foolish to criticise Oxford university for seeking more profit-making international students at the expense of loss-making home students. Surely it is more appropriate to criticise the politicians who have let the university system degrade to such a level, whilst trying to encourage an absurd quota of 50% of young people to attend university, effectively devaluing the degree and increasing drop-out rates.

Howard raises fears of race riots
Last week, things were beginning to look good for Mr Howard. He was looking good, making sensible pledges, and Labour were in self-destruct mode. If only he’d continued in that style, he could easily have made a significant dint in the election results.

And then he goes and says something like this. Why? He’s gone into self-destruct mode himself! I don’t know who he’s trying to appeal to with this announcement (other than the winner of ITV’s Vote for Me), but these terrible proposals are just draconian and unnecessary. There’s nothing logical about quotas.

A quota would also be slapped on how many refugee seekers Britain is prepared to take, and once the limit was reached even those with genuine claims of persecution would be rejected

With everything that is going on in the world, Mr Howard wants to turn the genuinely desperate away from Britain’s door. That isn’t just bad electioneering, it’s just wrong.

The Tory leader’s decision to go on the offensive over asylum and immigration – with a newspaper advert today listing his beliefs about immigration, claiming that Britain has ‘reached a turning point’ and only his party has the ‘courage to act’ – will inevitably bring charges of playing the race card.

There’s no need to ‘accuse’ Mr Howard of playing a race card here. He’s effectively saying ‘I don’t want so many foreigners in our country’. And it’s a sick thing to say. Particularly for the son of Romanian immigrants.

And if he’s trying to reach the Daily Mail readers, I think he’ll find that they have a new minority group to incite hatred against of late: Gypsies.

Making people apply for asylum from their home countries is one of the most ludicrous suggestions I’ve heard from Mr Howard. Just imagine that there are people coming after you, trying to kill you, and you genuinely fear that you’re not going to see another day. No longer will you be able to fly to England, and be assured of help in your time of desperation. Instead, you are expected to sit in your home and fill in forms, send them off, and wait for a response. That just is not practical in the situation.

I understand that it can be perceived that there is a problem with immigration in this country, with the rate being rather higher than the ideal. I’m not a great believer in this. I think that the main problem with immigration and asylum in this country is that we don’t help the people seeking immigration or asylum enough, so they end up feeling isolated and not a part of the community. If Mr Howard wants to restrict immigration slightly in order than more GBP per person can be spent on extra help for these people, then I think that this could be a positive move. But I’m more confident that Mr Howard proposes to use the ‘savings’ from this policy to cut tax.

Quotas on asylum are definitely not the answer. If Michael Howard genuinely beleives there is a problem with the number of new citizens entering our country (a problem which I’m not convinced exists at the moment), then by all means restict immigration if you must, but please don’t stop helping genuine refugees.

Blair: Tory spending plans ‘ludicrous’ (Guardian)

I honestly think that the soundbites from this speech make Mr Blair look worse than he did before.

For him to call his opposition’s plans ‘ludicrous’ makes him look, frankly, silly, especially when the Tories are out saying that they respect that their’s is not the only point of view. It makes Mr Howard look like a considered broadsheet reader, and Mr Blair look like a reactionary red-top fan. Which, of course, is what won the 1997 election for him. But that isn’t to say it’ll work again. In 1997, he had a broad appeal across the country. This time, if he continues to make speeches like this one, he’s going to isolate everyone from upper-middle-class upwards. He would be much better advised to be appealing to middle England, not brushing half of them aside.

From the campaigns so far, the Conservatives should be (but clearly aren’t) miles ahead. The Tories are landing punches on them, and Labour are damaging themselves with their infighting and poor speeches. And the Liberal Democrats need to be considered as a serious threat too, particularly with being seen as the Iraq protest party.

If Mr Blair is looking for a convincing victory, he needs to get back on form. And fast.

Regular readers will be aware that my MP, David Borrow, and I have some differences of opinion. Some of these have been discussed at some length in personal correspondence, but as we (think we) approach a general election, I thought it would be interesting to review the more interesting points on his voting record in the House of Commons, and see just how much our opinions differ. Of course, if we have very similar opinions, then I might vote for him. Otherwise, I won’t. So let’s see…

Cutting Lone Parent Benefit (10th Dec 1997)
This motion was an attempt to block the government’s plans to cut lone parent benefit.
To me, it would appear that lone parents have a tough time, particularly those with young children, since they are unable to work and therefore reliant on state income. In the vast majority of cases, these parents will not have chosen to be lone parents, and so they will almost certainly be suffering from a degree of emotional and psychological distress at being left in this very difficult situation, on top of everything else. So I would tend to suggest that we should be doing everything possible to support lone parents, and certainly not making things worse for them by cutting their benefits.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
My elected representative voted AGAINST this motion.

Military Action against Iraq (17th March 1998)
This was a motion to allow military action to be taken against Iraq should peace attempts fail.
At this stage in the game, it would probably be sensible to vote for military action as a last resort, since it would be the obvious choice if all peaceful attempts to get Saddam to comply with his UN duties failed. I would expect all military action to be sanctioned by the United Nations of course.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
My elected representative voted FOR this motion.

Cuts in Student Funding (8th June 1998)
This was a motion to oppose the government’s plans to cut student funding.
Students have a tough time in this country. We’ve had the cliché of the penniless student for many years, since the maintenace grants were not nearly enough to pay for someone to live for a year. Therefore it would seem much more logical to be increasing student funding, certainly not cutting it. If I had personally benefitted from this cash when going through university, then I would certainly feel strongly about supporting a motion to block plans to cut funding, and I couldn’t live with myself for making others’ situations worse than that in which I found myself. If I was forced to vote against my conscience on this issue, then I would at least make a reasonably big show of giving an amount equivalent to the maintenance grants I received to a relevant student charity.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
My elected representative voted AGAINST this motion.

Age of Consent (22nd June 1998 and 10th Feb 2000)
This was a motion to lower the age of consent for homosexual sex to sixteen.
Personally, I see no moral difference between two men having sex, two women having sex, or a man and a woman having sex, and so I don’t see any reason for the age of consent to be different.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
My elected representative voted FOR this motion.

Incapacity Benefits Means Test (10th May 1999)
This was a motion to oppose the government’s plans to introduce means testing for incapacity benefit.
I’m generally opposed to means testing of any kind. I don’t see why people should be made to undergo a complex form-filling exercise to claim money to which they are entitled. It doesn’t stop people who shouldn’t get the benefits getting it, because there is a culture of exaggerating circumstances on these forms to ‘get the money’. So why subject genuine claimants to this kind of nonsense?
I would have voted FOR this motion.
My elected representative voted AGAINST this motion.

Freedom of Information Legislation (5th April 2000)
This was an ammendment to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information bill.
I think that it is crucial that we are allowed to see as many documents as possible that the government produce, since they are producing them on our behalf and with our money. I can’t think of many situations where we would pay someone to do work for us, and then allow them to keep the details of that work a secret. I think that Freedom of Information is a foundation of a good democracy – how can we know whether our representatives are acting well on our behalf if we can’t get hold of the details of what they’re doing?
I would have voted FOR this motion.
My elected representative DID NOT VOTE on this important issue.

Ban on Hunting with Dogs (17th Jan 2001)
This was a motion to ban hunting with dogs.
I am opposed to banning most things, since any ban is a distinct limit on the freedom of a country’s citizens. This is no exception: I see no logical, non-emotive reason for banning hunting with dogs, but I can see many reasons for not banning it.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
My elected representative voted FOR this motion.

Afghanistan Airstrikes (11th Nov 2001)
This was a motion against the government’s backing for airstrikes on Afghanistan.
I saw no reason for airstrikes on Afghanistan. In fact, I saw little reason for attacking Afghanistan in the first place. Airstrikes in particular are a ‘bad thing’ as they inevitably lead to a great number of civilian casualties, and so I see no good reason for them being used in Afghanistan.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
My elected representative voted AGAINST this motion.

Anti-terrorism Legislation (21st Nov 2001)
This was a motion to give the government the right to detain foreign terrorists without trial.
I find the very idea of detaining anyone without trial is repulsive. These may be desperate times, but measures like this are simply going too far. How are we any better than our enemies if we allow this sort of breach of civil liberties, and discriminate those breaches on grounds of nationality?
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
My elected representative voted FOR this motion.

Single Faith Schools (6th Feb 2002)
This was a motion to require faith schools to take 25% of pupils from other backgrounds.
I do not understand the logic behind this idea, and if schools are producing results (as smaller faith-based schools tend to) then let them get on with it.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
My elected representative voted AGAINST this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (18th Mar 2002)
This was a motion to completely ban hunting wild animals with dogs.
Unlike some people, my position has never changed on this issue, and I would still not support bans on hunting with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
My elected representative voted AGAINST this motion.

Licensing of Hunting (18th Mar 2002)
This was a compromise measure to allow foxhunting under licence.
I would probably have supported this motion, as it would help to regulate the hunting industry and keep animal cruelty in check, whilst allowing the hunting to continue to the benefit of those who wish to undertake this activity.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
My elected representative DID NOT VOTE on this important issue.

Adoption (4th Nov 2002)
This was a motion to allow unmarried and gay couples to adopt children.
I fail to see the difference in the relationship between heterosexual and homosexual couples, and so see absolutely no reason that unmarried and gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children. I accept that this could be seen as a contentious issue, because gay couples can clearly not naturally have chilren of their own, but I don’t think that this makes them any less suitable parents for an adopted child.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
My elected representative voted FOR this motion.

UN Resolution 1441 (25st Nov 2002)
This was a motion to limit the justification for war with Iraq without UN sancation.
I think that it would only be sensible and right to go to war in these circumstances with UN backing, particularly when one of the reasons given for going to war is that Saddam Houssein is not complying with UN resolutions. This is something that the UN should sort out, not two members acting alone.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
My elected representative DID NOT VOTE on this important issue.

House of Lords (4th Feb 2003)
This was a motion to introduce a fully elected House of Lords.
I like the fact that the House of Lords is not elected, since it adds a level of ‘randomness’ and therefore a level of protection against a rogue government and rigged elections. To remove this level of protection is a dangerous step for future generations.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
My elected representative voted FOR this motion.

House of Lords (4th Feb 2003)
This was a motion to introduce a fully appointed House of Lords.
Again, I’m happy with the way the Lords has always been, including hereditary peers and so-forth. Just as an all-elected House of Lords removes a vital piece of Constitutional protection, and all-appointed House of Lords has exactly the same result.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
My elected representative voted AGAINST this motion.

Foundation Hospitals (7th May 2003)
This was a motion opposing the introduction of Foundation Hospitals.
I think that reform in the NHS needs to spread rather wider than to a few hospitals, and I’m not keen on private involvement in the NHS.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
My elected representative voted AGAINST this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (30th June 2003)
This was a motion to completely ban hunting with dogs.
Again, I’ve made MY position clear on this. I’m not sure where David Borrow is coming from, though.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
My elected representative voted FOR this motion.

Top-up Fees (4th Feb 2003)
This was the bill which included plans for variable student tutition fees.
I think that top-up fees are a distinctly bad idea. Students already pay much more than the House of Commons graduates, and I was positively enraged by Tony Blair trying to sell us this as a ‘better deal’. What other possible deal is there where the cost of something more than doubles, and somebody has the gall to tell us that it’s a ‘better deal’?
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
My elected representative voted FOR this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (15th Sep 2004)
This was a bill to bane foxhunting and hare coursing.
I still haven’t changed my position on this issue. I’m not sure what David Borrow’s position was this time round though, because he didn’t bother to turn up.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
My elected representative DID NOT VOTE on this important issue

ID Cards (20th Dec 2004)
This was the bill introducing ID cards.
As I have outlined in detail previously, I do not see any reason to spend vast amounts of money on the introduction of ID cards, but I can see a number of potentially major problems with the system, and I have great privacy fears over the introduction of this system.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
My elected representative voted FOR this motion.

So, out of the twenty-one most important votes in the House of Commons since my local MP was elected, he has voted as I would have on a total of six occasions. Which is rather better a record than I had expected, but is still pretty appalling. I can’t see any reason to vote for David Borrow at the next election. Whenever that might be.

But, of course, this exercise does not show who I should be voting for: It simply confirms that I won’t be voting Labour. I’ll try and keep you up-to-date over the coming months with my thinking on who I plan to vote for, and I might even have go through this particular exercise with each of the main party leaders in order to help me to decide which party best reflects how I feel on the major issues of the last few years. So keep your eye on this blog.

Fireworks in Washington, despair around the world (Guardian)

If I was in Bush’s position, there is no way that I would have had a massive party to celebrate my inaugration, especially one lasting three days and costing tens of millions of pounds. It’s just tasteless.

Imagine that there are soldiers far from home dying because you put them in harm’s way. How on Earth could you even consider going out and throwing the biggest party in Washington’s history? The guilt of sending hundreds of young men to their deaths would be all-consuming, and any public appearances would be subdued and reflective. And if you were to invite servicemen to the White House, would you really want to invite them to a ball? Or would this seem rather flippant and inappropriate, given that their colleagues are still in danger in Iraq? How can anyone throw a party to celebrate the horrors of sending someone to war? Fireworks seem particularly inappropriate.

This administration has a terrible record on this issue. I cannot tell you how terrible it made me feel to think that Donald Rumsfeld could not even be bothered to personally sign letters of condolence.

I hope that some of these people point these failures out to Mr Bush. Perhaps it will alert him to the true horror of war, which he really doesn’t seem to understand.

Kilroy-Silk quits ‘shameful’ UKIP (BBC News)

Surely this idiot has finally lost every scintilla of credibility he ever had… not that he had much to start with. To appear to quit a party simply because they won’t make him leader, and then to set up his own party, is quite insane. I think he’s very wrong to think that people voted for UKIP as a vote for him: People voted for UKIP becase they liked what UKIP stood for, and his campaigning brought light to those policies. I can’t see voters now following him to a new party led entirely by him, because it will be even less credible than UKIP.

This is very good news for the main political parties, though: There was some danger that UKIP would take votes away from them, but with all this squabbling and silliness going on I can’t see anyone voting for UKIP or Veritas.

Howard unveils Tory tax cut plan (BBC News)

I think he performed very well today, with a good speech on taxes. The juxtaposition of him and his chancellor was a rather good idea, highlighting the split in the Labour government without making any explicit comment.

Oliver Letwin was very good when talking about abolishion of the New Deal programme, and I particularly liked how he pointed out that they were contraversial plans, but that this was what he truly beleived. It was much better than Labour’s usual tactic of saying “We’re right, stupid”, and simply attacking the opposition. By recognising that the opposition have valid points, the party appears much more credible.

My only major criticism is the lighting, which had clearly not been camera-tested. Because it made Mr Letwin and Mr Howard look orange. Which was somewhat unfortunate. It’s minor slips like this that make parties look amateurish and not governmental. And these things can so easily be avoided.

Overall, I was impressed.