Saturday, November 21, 2009
Politics and the law
According to today's Guardian the Tories are in a bit of trouble over the badly-thought through plans to create elected police commissioners.
Some might say that they have been watching too many Batman films (yes, I know Commissioner Gordon wasn't elected) but for the Association of Chief Police Officers it is a bit more serious than that. They believe that the Tory proposals will damage the fight against crime and cause resignations from the service.
The incoming president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde has warned that some of his members will quit because they believe the plans represent political interference.
Labour have already dropped plans for direct elections to Police Authorities because of the fear of extremists winning the elections. The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne is also sceptical. He is quoted as saying: "Sir Hugh Orde was right to highlight the dangers of the Conservatives' plans to politicise the control of the police.
"The last thing British police need is an elected sheriff leading the shootout at the OK Corral. Accountability must come from a broad-based police authority elected to represent all strands of the local community."
There is already an element of local accountability through the role of police authorities of course and the Home Secretary is answerable to Parliament for his job in overseeing the Police. I would argue that there is a case for devolving more powers over justice and the police to the Welsh Assembly Government but apart from that the general principle that needs to be applied in my view is: 'if it ain't broke don't try and fix it.'
Some might say that they have been watching too many Batman films (yes, I know Commissioner Gordon wasn't elected) but for the Association of Chief Police Officers it is a bit more serious than that. They believe that the Tory proposals will damage the fight against crime and cause resignations from the service.
The incoming president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde has warned that some of his members will quit because they believe the plans represent political interference.
Labour have already dropped plans for direct elections to Police Authorities because of the fear of extremists winning the elections. The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne is also sceptical. He is quoted as saying: "Sir Hugh Orde was right to highlight the dangers of the Conservatives' plans to politicise the control of the police.
"The last thing British police need is an elected sheriff leading the shootout at the OK Corral. Accountability must come from a broad-based police authority elected to represent all strands of the local community."
There is already an element of local accountability through the role of police authorities of course and the Home Secretary is answerable to Parliament for his job in overseeing the Police. I would argue that there is a case for devolving more powers over justice and the police to the Welsh Assembly Government but apart from that the general principle that needs to be applied in my view is: 'if it ain't broke don't try and fix it.'
The digital future that divides us
The BBC report on a report by Consumer Focus Wales which warns that there is a risk of a growing digital divide for the 750,000 adults in Wales who either cannot or choose not to use the internet.
The report found 67% of households in Wales have a home internet connection and 94% of these internet connections are broadband. People aged 35-44 are most likely to have a home internet connection (83%) and 37% use a computer outside the home. However the one in three Welsh households which lack internet access could miss vital information and better deals in goods and services.
The study found a "significant minority" of consumers, 41%, who did not access the internet choose not to do so, while 19% said they did not need it. It concluded that low levels of literacy may also be a deterrent to using the internet.
The report cited the Basic Skills Agency which suggested that 25% of the population of Wales have literacy skills expected of an 11-year-old. It also referred to figures suggesting 72,000 people - 4% of the adult population - have the lowest level of literacy, where they can understand short texts and common signs and symbols. It concluded: "Addressing the educational requirements of people with low literacy levels is essential for achieving greater levels of digital participation."
I do not think that there are any easy answers to this other than to improve education in both literacy and IT, expand the availability of high speed broadband across Wales, improve access to computers to those who cannot afford them and ensure that information is available in other formats. I look forward to the Welsh Government's response.
The report found 67% of households in Wales have a home internet connection and 94% of these internet connections are broadband. People aged 35-44 are most likely to have a home internet connection (83%) and 37% use a computer outside the home. However the one in three Welsh households which lack internet access could miss vital information and better deals in goods and services.
The study found a "significant minority" of consumers, 41%, who did not access the internet choose not to do so, while 19% said they did not need it. It concluded that low levels of literacy may also be a deterrent to using the internet.
The report cited the Basic Skills Agency which suggested that 25% of the population of Wales have literacy skills expected of an 11-year-old. It also referred to figures suggesting 72,000 people - 4% of the adult population - have the lowest level of literacy, where they can understand short texts and common signs and symbols. It concluded: "Addressing the educational requirements of people with low literacy levels is essential for achieving greater levels of digital participation."
I do not think that there are any easy answers to this other than to improve education in both literacy and IT, expand the availability of high speed broadband across Wales, improve access to computers to those who cannot afford them and ensure that information is available in other formats. I look forward to the Welsh Government's response.
Friday, November 20, 2009
A European farce
I consider myself to be fairly pro-European. I have argued that the Lisbon Treaty did not require a confirmatory referendum, in fact calls for such plebiscites seem to be becoming far too common in what is still a representative democracy, being used to resolve party differences rather than give people a genuine choice.
I can also see that there is a case for a permanent President of the European Council and a High Commissioner and support the creation of those posts, but the method of appointment and the way that this has been carved up behind closed doors does give me pause for thought.
Personally, I believe that the 27 members of the European Community have done their cause no favours by the events of the last 24 hours. It is not that the eventual appointees are unknown to the vast majority of the UK and European electorate and in one case has never held elected office, but that the collective heads of state have shown the whole process up to be secretive, undemocratic and exclusive.
None of the candidates were required to publish a manifesto or to make their case to the public at hustings or otherwise. Indeed it seems that one of them did not even realise she was a candidate until the last minute. Whilst the fact that there is no ratification process in the democratically-elected European Parliament underlines what a farce this process was.
Being pro-European should mean that we can be critical friends. When these posts next become vacant we need to have more transparency and accountability. Perhaps the appointment should be made by the European Parliament itself. At the very least MEPs should be given the chance to scrutinise the candidates, question the final appointee and vote to ratify them or otherwise. If that does not happen then what is the point of having MEPs in the first place?
I can also see that there is a case for a permanent President of the European Council and a High Commissioner and support the creation of those posts, but the method of appointment and the way that this has been carved up behind closed doors does give me pause for thought.
Personally, I believe that the 27 members of the European Community have done their cause no favours by the events of the last 24 hours. It is not that the eventual appointees are unknown to the vast majority of the UK and European electorate and in one case has never held elected office, but that the collective heads of state have shown the whole process up to be secretive, undemocratic and exclusive.
None of the candidates were required to publish a manifesto or to make their case to the public at hustings or otherwise. Indeed it seems that one of them did not even realise she was a candidate until the last minute. Whilst the fact that there is no ratification process in the democratically-elected European Parliament underlines what a farce this process was.
Being pro-European should mean that we can be critical friends. When these posts next become vacant we need to have more transparency and accountability. Perhaps the appointment should be made by the European Parliament itself. At the very least MEPs should be given the chance to scrutinise the candidates, question the final appointee and vote to ratify them or otherwise. If that does not happen then what is the point of having MEPs in the first place?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Daggers drawn
Plenary went on rather late yesterday so I was obliged to leave before the short debate to attend a meeting in Swansea. The short debate is the Assembly equivalent of an adjournment debate in the House of Commons. There is no vote and opportunities to participate are limited. It is essentially an opportunity for a member to speak for 15 minutes on the subject of his or her choice and have a Minister respond to the matters raised.
Nevertheless there have been one or two memorable contributions including the time Dafydd Wigley led a walkout of the Plaid Cymru group in the early days of the Assembly.
Yesterday's short debate however was as equally entertaining with Labour AM, Alun Davies leading an all-out assault on the Deputy First Minister and with Ieuan Wyn Jones laying the blame for government failures at the feet of those of his Labour cabinet colleagues, who had been in charge of transport before him.
Alun Davies' central charge was that before the One Wales Government the heads of the valleys dualling programme was due to be completed in 2015, since the leader of Plaid Cymru came into post though, the Mid and West Wales AM alleged that this deadline had slipped to 2020.
Alun concluded that the evidence "exposes, describes and highlights some very serious inconsistencies from the Deputy First Minister. Despite our personal differences on this issue and our wider political differences, I believe that the Deputy First Minister is an honourable man. However, he must explain these inconsistencies and account for the different explanations that he has offered Members. There is a serious danger that people here and elsewhere have been misled by the statements that have been made and that the policies of previous Governments have been misrepresented. This is an issue for the whole Government, and it is one that it must address. It has the potential to damage the credibility and integrity of the Government, and it is time that these questions were answered."
In return the Deputy First Minister was equally as robust. He said that Alun Davies had overlooked the publication of two key documents by the previous Labour Government "entitled 'Heads We Win’ and 'Turning Heads’, both of which state that the road should be completed by 2020." He went on:
"Let us get this on the record once again. In my time as Minister, there has been no slippage whatsoever in the programme for the Heads of the Valleys road or in the end date for it. That is highly unusual, because all the roads schemes in the trunk road forward programme are within time envelopes. The reason for that is that road programmes very often have some slippage. Some programmes are brought forward; others are delayed. I am not responsible for anything else in relation to that road."
This is one of the most public rifts yet in One Wales Government and shows that some Labour AMs are getting impatient at having to put up with Plaid Cymru as allies. They are champing at the bit to have a go at Plaid Ministers. That was also evident from tweets posted by Alun Davies during Plenary in particular:
On Planet Plaid Cymru little Ieuan battles away for Wales. What fiction. PC have really made themselves look ridiculous; and
Plaid Cymru making fools of themselves in the budget debate.
On balance it seems that this round was won by Ieuan Wyn Jones but that does not take account of the damage that has been caused to inter-party relations. It is also little comfort to the good citizens of Porthmadog who are going to be kept waiting for their by-pass after the Deputy First Minister told Plenary "if you were to ask me when the Porthmadog bypass will be completed, I could not tell you, because there is no end date for it."
The full debate can be watched here:
Nevertheless there have been one or two memorable contributions including the time Dafydd Wigley led a walkout of the Plaid Cymru group in the early days of the Assembly.
Yesterday's short debate however was as equally entertaining with Labour AM, Alun Davies leading an all-out assault on the Deputy First Minister and with Ieuan Wyn Jones laying the blame for government failures at the feet of those of his Labour cabinet colleagues, who had been in charge of transport before him.
Alun Davies' central charge was that before the One Wales Government the heads of the valleys dualling programme was due to be completed in 2015, since the leader of Plaid Cymru came into post though, the Mid and West Wales AM alleged that this deadline had slipped to 2020.
Alun concluded that the evidence "exposes, describes and highlights some very serious inconsistencies from the Deputy First Minister. Despite our personal differences on this issue and our wider political differences, I believe that the Deputy First Minister is an honourable man. However, he must explain these inconsistencies and account for the different explanations that he has offered Members. There is a serious danger that people here and elsewhere have been misled by the statements that have been made and that the policies of previous Governments have been misrepresented. This is an issue for the whole Government, and it is one that it must address. It has the potential to damage the credibility and integrity of the Government, and it is time that these questions were answered."
In return the Deputy First Minister was equally as robust. He said that Alun Davies had overlooked the publication of two key documents by the previous Labour Government "entitled 'Heads We Win’ and 'Turning Heads’, both of which state that the road should be completed by 2020." He went on:
"Let us get this on the record once again. In my time as Minister, there has been no slippage whatsoever in the programme for the Heads of the Valleys road or in the end date for it. That is highly unusual, because all the roads schemes in the trunk road forward programme are within time envelopes. The reason for that is that road programmes very often have some slippage. Some programmes are brought forward; others are delayed. I am not responsible for anything else in relation to that road."
This is one of the most public rifts yet in One Wales Government and shows that some Labour AMs are getting impatient at having to put up with Plaid Cymru as allies. They are champing at the bit to have a go at Plaid Ministers. That was also evident from tweets posted by Alun Davies during Plenary in particular:
On Planet Plaid Cymru little Ieuan battles away for Wales. What fiction. PC have really made themselves look ridiculous; and
Plaid Cymru making fools of themselves in the budget debate.
On balance it seems that this round was won by Ieuan Wyn Jones but that does not take account of the damage that has been caused to inter-party relations. It is also little comfort to the good citizens of Porthmadog who are going to be kept waiting for their by-pass after the Deputy First Minister told Plenary "if you were to ask me when the Porthmadog bypass will be completed, I could not tell you, because there is no end date for it."
The full debate can be watched here:
The elephant in the room
Although the Queen's speech yesterday was very much a non-event the glaring omission was clearly any statement of intent regarding MP's expenses. It is the case of course that the government has said that they will accept the Christopher Kelly review in full, but having made that statement there also appears to be a bit of back-sliding all round.
It would have been useful therefore to have had her Majesty make a clear statement of intent as part of her speech. After all the whole thing only lasted six minutes, it is not as if she was pushed for time. Sir Christopher Kelly himself, certainly thinks so.
He said that it was important for the new Parliament due to be elected next spring to start with a "clean sheet" and he protested that the "relatively straightforward" legislation essential to establishing the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), which will police MPs' expenses, was absent from the package.
The Independent believes that the Prime Minister has decided that legislation on expenses would distract from Labour's key pre-election messages on education, social care and curbing bankers' bonuses. If this is the case then Gordon Brown is more out of touch than I thought.
The one subject which is occupying most people's minds is the expenses' issue. It will not go away until is properly dealt with. If we go into the General Election with no 'closure' on this issue then a very expensive price will be paid by those perceived to be obstacles to reform.
It would have been useful therefore to have had her Majesty make a clear statement of intent as part of her speech. After all the whole thing only lasted six minutes, it is not as if she was pushed for time. Sir Christopher Kelly himself, certainly thinks so.
He said that it was important for the new Parliament due to be elected next spring to start with a "clean sheet" and he protested that the "relatively straightforward" legislation essential to establishing the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), which will police MPs' expenses, was absent from the package.
The Independent believes that the Prime Minister has decided that legislation on expenses would distract from Labour's key pre-election messages on education, social care and curbing bankers' bonuses. If this is the case then Gordon Brown is more out of touch than I thought.
The one subject which is occupying most people's minds is the expenses' issue. It will not go away until is properly dealt with. If we go into the General Election with no 'closure' on this issue then a very expensive price will be paid by those perceived to be obstacles to reform.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
A damp squib
The All-Wales Convention has spoken. They have concluded that a 'yes' vote in favour of boosting powers is desirable and obtainable but not guaranteed.
Is that it? I could have told them that for much less than the £1 million we have spent on this talking shop and without wasting two years in which we could have been making the case on an all-party basis for abolishing the costly and time-wasting LCO process that has effectively stymied the Welsh legislative process.
This exercise has not so much advanced devolution as held it back. Plaid Cymru in particular should hang their head in shame for allowing themselves to be manoeuvred into such a political cul-de-sac.
Is that it? I could have told them that for much less than the £1 million we have spent on this talking shop and without wasting two years in which we could have been making the case on an all-party basis for abolishing the costly and time-wasting LCO process that has effectively stymied the Welsh legislative process.
This exercise has not so much advanced devolution as held it back. Plaid Cymru in particular should hang their head in shame for allowing themselves to be manoeuvred into such a political cul-de-sac.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Adam speaks and a nation holds its breath
So far the response of the Welsh blogosphere to Adam Price''s lecture to the Institute of Welsh Politics in Aberystwyth has been a resounding silence. Even the Plaid bloggers seem a bit too embarrassed to do any cheerleading.
The Western Mail of course has gone a bundle on their favourite son. What will they do when he goes off to America? But the comments on their website are not so generous with one contributer suggesting that the Plaid Cymru MP is a 'one-eyed separatist' whilst another suggests that the 'guff' delivered in the lecture is the 'equivalent of taking crack for an impressionable and insecure Welsh nationalist.'
I would not go so far though I have to confess that I found the contents of the lecture to be bizarre and factually suspect. The size of the chip on Adam Price's shoulder grows bigger by the day and now that he does not have to seek re-election he does not seem to care how much he shows it off.
Adam's basic premise that Wales is a post-colonial country that has not yet thrown off the yoke of colonialism would not be recognised by the vast majority of the population. He says that the 'deepest legacy left by English imperialism on Wales is psychological'. "In political terms," he says, "we develop a begging bowl mentality, because we have become resigned to the reality of our own domination." He goes on "we abdicate responsibility for our own future because we doubt our ability to act constructively and change our situation."
Obviously, Adam has been listening to contributions by Plaid Cymru Assembly Members in the Senedd, where anything that goes wrong is the responsibility of the Westminster Government, whilst the difficult decisions they are being forced to make on the budget is all the fault of the Barnett formula.
Adam goes on to elaborate on the Welsh nation's 'profound sense of inferiority', and 'lack of confidence' which he says has produced a 'deep insecurity' that lies at the heart of Wales' "still tentative" embrace of devolution and its rejection of political independence.
So there we have it. According to the unofficial leader of Plaid Cymru, the whole independence agenda has stalled because the Welsh people are too 'psychologically scarred' to embrace it.
Talk about being in denial. I would not be surprised if many in Plaid Cymru agree with me that a prolonged spell in America is exactly what Adam needs right now.
The Western Mail of course has gone a bundle on their favourite son. What will they do when he goes off to America? But the comments on their website are not so generous with one contributer suggesting that the Plaid Cymru MP is a 'one-eyed separatist' whilst another suggests that the 'guff' delivered in the lecture is the 'equivalent of taking crack for an impressionable and insecure Welsh nationalist.'
I would not go so far though I have to confess that I found the contents of the lecture to be bizarre and factually suspect. The size of the chip on Adam Price's shoulder grows bigger by the day and now that he does not have to seek re-election he does not seem to care how much he shows it off.
Adam's basic premise that Wales is a post-colonial country that has not yet thrown off the yoke of colonialism would not be recognised by the vast majority of the population. He says that the 'deepest legacy left by English imperialism on Wales is psychological'. "In political terms," he says, "we develop a begging bowl mentality, because we have become resigned to the reality of our own domination." He goes on "we abdicate responsibility for our own future because we doubt our ability to act constructively and change our situation."
Obviously, Adam has been listening to contributions by Plaid Cymru Assembly Members in the Senedd, where anything that goes wrong is the responsibility of the Westminster Government, whilst the difficult decisions they are being forced to make on the budget is all the fault of the Barnett formula.
Adam goes on to elaborate on the Welsh nation's 'profound sense of inferiority', and 'lack of confidence' which he says has produced a 'deep insecurity' that lies at the heart of Wales' "still tentative" embrace of devolution and its rejection of political independence.
So there we have it. According to the unofficial leader of Plaid Cymru, the whole independence agenda has stalled because the Welsh people are too 'psychologically scarred' to embrace it.
Talk about being in denial. I would not be surprised if many in Plaid Cymru agree with me that a prolonged spell in America is exactly what Adam needs right now.
Monday, November 16, 2009
A Welsh Obama?
The search for a Welsh Obama may well continue for some considerable time but at least we now know that the American President has something in common with one of the candidate for First Minister.
Barack Obama spoke to a group of Chinese students on Sunday night at a town hall in Shanghai where he was asked about Twitter. He replied: "I have never used Twitter but I'm an advocate of technology and not restricting internet access." This is despite the fact that he has an active Twitter account.
In the Spin Doctor column of yesterday's Wales on Sunday, Matt Withers reveals a similar denial. He reports that at last week’s hustings for the Welsh Labour leadership in Swansea talk turned to politicians’ use of social networking websites.
Carwyn Jones announced that, to reach out to voters, he used Facebook, but not Twitter. This will be news to those who follow Mr Jones’ two, separate Twitter feeds, one personal and one specifically for his leadership campaign.
Mind you, Carwyn has form on this. His current rather quiet blog is the second that that he has had in his name. There was a previous incarnation in which he mostly concentrated on the work he was doing in his constituency, or at least that is what it looked like. Because, he once told me that he had been unaware of the blog's existence for some time and had only just discovered it.
Both politicians clearly employ people to do all this new technology stuff for them. It would just be nice if they were aware that they were doing it.
Barack Obama spoke to a group of Chinese students on Sunday night at a town hall in Shanghai where he was asked about Twitter. He replied: "I have never used Twitter but I'm an advocate of technology and not restricting internet access." This is despite the fact that he has an active Twitter account.
In the Spin Doctor column of yesterday's Wales on Sunday, Matt Withers reveals a similar denial. He reports that at last week’s hustings for the Welsh Labour leadership in Swansea talk turned to politicians’ use of social networking websites.
Carwyn Jones announced that, to reach out to voters, he used Facebook, but not Twitter. This will be news to those who follow Mr Jones’ two, separate Twitter feeds, one personal and one specifically for his leadership campaign.
Mind you, Carwyn has form on this. His current rather quiet blog is the second that that he has had in his name. There was a previous incarnation in which he mostly concentrated on the work he was doing in his constituency, or at least that is what it looked like. Because, he once told me that he had been unaware of the blog's existence for some time and had only just discovered it.
Both politicians clearly employ people to do all this new technology stuff for them. It would just be nice if they were aware that they were doing it.
The cost of authoritarianism
Today's Daily Telegraph reveals that the daily cost to the taxpayer for the roll-out of ID cards is now six times the size it was just three years ago:
Last month it emerged some 28 million people would have to sign up for an ID card in order to cover the cost of the scheme.
The Identity and Passport Service spent a £42 million on developing both the ID cards and biometric passport programmes in the six months since March this year.
That was equivalent of £229,508 every day – the highest amount of spending on the joint scheme so far.
In 2008/09, a total of £81.5 million was spent – the equivalent of £223,288 a day.
Between April 2003 and April 2006, a grand total of £41.1 million was spent – just £37,534 a day, although costs were always expected to rise as the programme expanded and began to roll out.
In the current financial climate and when the case for ID cards has been completely discredited it is difficult to see how the Government can justify this expenditure.
Last month it emerged some 28 million people would have to sign up for an ID card in order to cover the cost of the scheme.
The Identity and Passport Service spent a £42 million on developing both the ID cards and biometric passport programmes in the six months since March this year.
That was equivalent of £229,508 every day – the highest amount of spending on the joint scheme so far.
In 2008/09, a total of £81.5 million was spent – the equivalent of £223,288 a day.
Between April 2003 and April 2006, a grand total of £41.1 million was spent – just £37,534 a day, although costs were always expected to rise as the programme expanded and began to roll out.
In the current financial climate and when the case for ID cards has been completely discredited it is difficult to see how the Government can justify this expenditure.
Labels: ID
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Not in our name?
The Prime Minister faces some major challenges on the foreign policy front if this poll reported in the Independent on Sunday is anything to go by. They say that seven out of 10 Britons believe that there should be a phased withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
They tell us that a report by Oxfam reveals how women and children in Afghanistan are bearing the brunt of the ongoing conflict, undermining the international community's claims that they are the very people being helped by the West's activities. The paper suggests that the contents of the report will add to mounting concerns among the public, and in some quarters of the military and the House of Commons, that the US and the UK are fighting an ill-conceived and ill-judged war that has left as many as 32,000 Afghans dead and 235,000 displaced.
If Gordon Brown wants to find one of those concerned citizens then he need look no further than his own cabinet. According to yesterday's Times the Welsh Secretary, Peter Hain, became the first Cabinet minister to openly question the Government’s strategy. He called for greater clarity over the mission, saying: “We need to get a grip on it.”
The Times says that although he disagrees with the former Foreign Office minister Kim Howells who believes that troops should be withdrawn, Mr. Hain says that the public will not tolerate a long campaign: “My timetable is this: we can’t be there for ever and we can’t leave now,” he says. “When people starting putting 20 years on it, that is unacceptable. I’m not going to give a limit but we don’t want a long time frame.”
Mr Hain echoes concerns expressed in The Times last week by Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon about the credibility of the Afghan Government after a rigged election, and warns that corruption risks undermining the military campaign. “You need a legitimate system of government, we don’t have that at moment and it has to be sorted,” he says. “The whole credibility of our attempt to create a democratic system of politics is under threat if there isn’t a principle of good government embedded.”
Peter Hain, at least, appears to be listening to public opinion because what this military intervention needs now is a rethink on its objectives, the methods being used, the logistical support for troops and some form of exit strategy.
They tell us that a report by Oxfam reveals how women and children in Afghanistan are bearing the brunt of the ongoing conflict, undermining the international community's claims that they are the very people being helped by the West's activities. The paper suggests that the contents of the report will add to mounting concerns among the public, and in some quarters of the military and the House of Commons, that the US and the UK are fighting an ill-conceived and ill-judged war that has left as many as 32,000 Afghans dead and 235,000 displaced.
If Gordon Brown wants to find one of those concerned citizens then he need look no further than his own cabinet. According to yesterday's Times the Welsh Secretary, Peter Hain, became the first Cabinet minister to openly question the Government’s strategy. He called for greater clarity over the mission, saying: “We need to get a grip on it.”
The Times says that although he disagrees with the former Foreign Office minister Kim Howells who believes that troops should be withdrawn, Mr. Hain says that the public will not tolerate a long campaign: “My timetable is this: we can’t be there for ever and we can’t leave now,” he says. “When people starting putting 20 years on it, that is unacceptable. I’m not going to give a limit but we don’t want a long time frame.”
Mr Hain echoes concerns expressed in The Times last week by Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon about the credibility of the Afghan Government after a rigged election, and warns that corruption risks undermining the military campaign. “You need a legitimate system of government, we don’t have that at moment and it has to be sorted,” he says. “The whole credibility of our attempt to create a democratic system of politics is under threat if there isn’t a principle of good government embedded.”
Peter Hain, at least, appears to be listening to public opinion because what this military intervention needs now is a rethink on its objectives, the methods being used, the logistical support for troops and some form of exit strategy.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Water, water everywhere
According to the BBC Obama's decision to bomb the moon was not in vain after all. Apparently, scientists have found significant quantities of water up there. But what have they started?
Could the monsoon-like weather we are now experiencing be a retaliatory strike by the Clangers?
Could the monsoon-like weather we are now experiencing be a retaliatory strike by the Clangers?
Government lose the plot on DNA database
The Daily Telegraph reports on an astonishing proposal today, which if true is final proof that the Government really has lost the plot. They suggest that the Queen's Speech will contain a new power that will allow members of the public to challenge a chief constable's refusal to delete their profiles in court - but they will have to pay a £200 application fee to do so.
Up to a million people are on the national DNA database who have never been charged or convicted for an offence. There are now more than 5.3 million profiles on the system, making it the largest of its kind in the world. It was only a few days ago that I blogged that the Government latest plans to store innocent people’s data for six years will allow police to label them “half guilty”.
Now, it seems that anybody who has been placed on this database and who is completely innocent of any crime will have to fight the police to get themselves removed from it, and that this fight may include court action. Whatever happened to the principle of innocent before proven guilty? Since when has the possession of personal information been a reason to introduce a new tax?
Up to a million people are on the national DNA database who have never been charged or convicted for an offence. There are now more than 5.3 million profiles on the system, making it the largest of its kind in the world. It was only a few days ago that I blogged that the Government latest plans to store innocent people’s data for six years will allow police to label them “half guilty”.
Now, it seems that anybody who has been placed on this database and who is completely innocent of any crime will have to fight the police to get themselves removed from it, and that this fight may include court action. Whatever happened to the principle of innocent before proven guilty? Since when has the possession of personal information been a reason to introduce a new tax?
Labels: ID
Friday, November 13, 2009
Canadian Dead Cat story
The BBC report on a kerfuffle caused by a careless text from the Canadian Transport Minister, John Baird that nearly caused a diplomatic incident.Announcing the death of his cat, who was named after his political hero, Mr. Baird sent a message reading: "Thatcher has died" but the text led to the Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper being informed that 84-year-old former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had passed away.
The confusion spread around a gala event in Toronto, where some 1,700 luminaries were gathered at a black tie event.
Calls to puzzled officials in both 10 Downing Street and Buckingham Palace followed.
Embarrassed aide Dimitri Soudas had reportedly already started preparing an official statement mourning the passing of the Iron Lady.
He was told that Baroness Thatcher - who just a few days ago attended a Remembrance Day service at London's Westminster Abbey - was alive and healthy.
"If the cat wasn't dead, I'd have killed it by now," Mr Soudas is reported to have said of the 16-year-old grey tabby.
Why is everybody blaming the cat?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Interfering in the scrutiny process?
Labour AM, Alun Davies has just made some astonishing accusations against his Plaid Cymru colleagues over the way that they have behaved over the Assembly Finance Committee's scrutiny of the Welsh budget.
It was reported on the programme that Plaid Cymru AM, Chris Franks had refused to sign up to the report after tabling, and failing to get accepted, a number of amendments that would have toned down criticism of the government.
Alun Davies told viewers that Plaid Cymru have behaved extraordinarily badly in trying to insert amendments into the report that have come from the wider party and not from the Committee members themselves. He said that this has raised questions about the integrity of the Committee system.
If this is the case then it is very serious. Plaid Cymru have consistently failed to get the purpose of scrutiny. They have been over-sensitive to criticism and at times some of their Ministers have gone to unbelievable lengths to avoid being questioned on key issues.
They now stand accused of interfering in the process of scrutiny, presumably to make themselves look better and to seek to justify their very poor record in government. I think that the charges laid by Alun Davies need a detailed response from the Leader of Plaid Cymru.
It was reported on the programme that Plaid Cymru AM, Chris Franks had refused to sign up to the report after tabling, and failing to get accepted, a number of amendments that would have toned down criticism of the government.
Alun Davies told viewers that Plaid Cymru have behaved extraordinarily badly in trying to insert amendments into the report that have come from the wider party and not from the Committee members themselves. He said that this has raised questions about the integrity of the Committee system.
If this is the case then it is very serious. Plaid Cymru have consistently failed to get the purpose of scrutiny. They have been over-sensitive to criticism and at times some of their Ministers have gone to unbelievable lengths to avoid being questioned on key issues.
They now stand accused of interfering in the process of scrutiny, presumably to make themselves look better and to seek to justify their very poor record in government. I think that the charges laid by Alun Davies need a detailed response from the Leader of Plaid Cymru.
Ministerial answer of the week
Kirsty Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire): Does the Minister intend to investigate the claim made in evidence given to the Finance Committee that up to a fifth of the NHS’s budget may not be being spent efficiently. (WAQ55104)
Edwina Hart: No.
Unbelievable.
Edwina Hart: No.
Unbelievable.
Half guilty not innocent
Anybody who reads this blog on a regular basis will know that I have a strong interest in civil liberties issues and that for this reason I have opposed ID cards from the start. I have also had huge concerns about the retention of the DNA records of innocent people. It is a interest shared by Cardiff Central Liberal Democrat MP, Jenny Willott, who has proved to be a tenacious and principled campaigner on these issues.
In this morning's Western Mail, Jenny quite rightly claims that the latest Government plans to store innocent people’s data for six years will allow police to label them “half guilty”. The Home Office is proposing that adults who are arrested but not convicted of a serious crime will have their profiles held for six years on the database.
Jenny says: “The Government is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. These proposals will allow the police to label anyone cautioned, warned or arrested as ‘half guilty’ even if they are later found to be innocent.
“This changes the founding pillar of our criminal justice system; that you are innocent until proven guilty. The Government has no right to do this.”
She points out that this latest package of reforms is more or less identical to those that were criticised by DNA experts and thrown out by the House of Lords only a month ago:
“The proposals to keep innocent children on the DNA database for up to six years are frankly appalling.
“There is absolutely no reason why we can’t have the same system that exists in Scotland. I sincerely hope that these proposals get the mangling they deserve when the Government tries to force them through Parliament.”
Jenny is totally right. The fight that she and our party have put up to protect civil liberties against a centralising and authoritarian Labour Government is a persuasive rebuttal to those who question what the Liberal Democrats are for.
In this morning's Western Mail, Jenny quite rightly claims that the latest Government plans to store innocent people’s data for six years will allow police to label them “half guilty”. The Home Office is proposing that adults who are arrested but not convicted of a serious crime will have their profiles held for six years on the database.
Jenny says: “The Government is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. These proposals will allow the police to label anyone cautioned, warned or arrested as ‘half guilty’ even if they are later found to be innocent.
“This changes the founding pillar of our criminal justice system; that you are innocent until proven guilty. The Government has no right to do this.”
She points out that this latest package of reforms is more or less identical to those that were criticised by DNA experts and thrown out by the House of Lords only a month ago:
“The proposals to keep innocent children on the DNA database for up to six years are frankly appalling.
“There is absolutely no reason why we can’t have the same system that exists in Scotland. I sincerely hope that these proposals get the mangling they deserve when the Government tries to force them through Parliament.”
Jenny is totally right. The fight that she and our party have put up to protect civil liberties against a centralising and authoritarian Labour Government is a persuasive rebuttal to those who question what the Liberal Democrats are for.
Labels: ID
