A Future Free from Lords

So Jack Straw is wanting us to believe him when he says that Labour will replace the House of Lords with a full elected chamber. Let's look at what Labour promised as far as some of the reform pledged in 1997, bear in mind they have had a clear majority to do all of this since then (my notes in red).

A modern House of Lords

The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. Well apart from the 92 that remain. This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. Well after 13 years failing to complete stage one what ever next. The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered.

The system of appointment of life peers to the House of Lords will be reviewed. Our objective will be to ensure that over time party appointees as life peers more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election. This has improved. We are committed to maintaining an independent cross-bench presence of life peers. No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords.

A committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to undertake a wide-ranging review of possible further change and then to bring forward proposals for reform.

We have no plans to replace the monarchy.

An effective House of Commons

We believe the House of Commons is in need of modernisation and we will ask the House to establish a special Select Committee to review its procedures. Prime Minister's Questions will be made more effective. Surely a measure of effectiveness is the answers the PM gives, I say failure. Ministerial accountability will be reviewed so as to remove recent abuses. The process for scrutinising European legislation will be overhauled.

The Nolan recommendations will be fully implemented and extended to all public bodies. We will oblige parties to declare the source of all donations above a minimum figure: Done. Labour does this voluntarily and all parties should do so. Foreign funding will be banned. Not from Non-Doms it would appear. We will ask the Nolan Committee to consider how the funding of political parties should be regulated and reformed.

We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system. They took to 2010 to recommend anything to the house, apparently without consultation.

At this election, Labour is proud to be making major strides to rectify the under-representation of women in public life.

Open government

Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in government and defective policy decisions. The Scott Report on arms to Iraq revealed Conservative abuses of power. So now we have Labour abuses of power with a second Iraq war. We are pledged to a Freedom of Information Act, But there will be delays in making MPs subject to such legislation on their expenses. leading to more open government, and an independent National Statistical Service. Unless drugs stats disagree with government policy for example.

So what now do we trust that they'll put this into place over the next 5 years?

A Secret Plan My Lord?

Baldrick: You had a cunning plan my Lord?

Lord Straw: Yes Baldrick, one so mind numbingly cunning and secret that I didn't mention it on 18th March 2003 when we debated the issue, nor mentioned to cabinet. But at some future point in my defence will produce it in an 8,000 word memorandum.

Baldrick: But what about Cook?

Lord Straw: What's Mrs Miggins got to do with this?

Baldrick: Not Mrs Miggins, my Lord, but Robert Finlayson Cook.

Lord Straw: Ah well the red, beard, Robin, went bob, bob, bobbin' along.

So Jack Straw had a secret plan to keep us out of the war on Iraq, or at least it was secret until yesterday.

Of course his predecessor as Foreign Secretary Robin Cook had a far more open plan to keep us out of the Iraq War. He announced his resignation as Leader of the Commons the evening before the vote on sending troops and then voting against the Government. Straw of course trooped through the Government lobbies. Like Cook Straw claims to have had disagreements with Tony Blair.

So what was the secret plan? Well apparently it was to offer support to the US-led invasion but not to send troops. Of course reading Robin Cook's memoires you know that he made his feelings known in Cabinet, there was no mention of Straw doing the same. Indeed in response to just that question yesterday he responded:

"Was there a cabinet or a cabinet committee at which my alternative to the prime minister was discussed? The answer to that is no."

So therefore his cabinet colleagues did not know that there was an alternative, (forgive my scepticism) if there was one, from the Foreign Secretary, even though his predecessor was expressing concerns.

However, compare such aspirations with what he said in the chamber on the evening of the 18 March, 2003;

"My hon. Friend has many arguments against military action, and I respect her for them. ..... I know that if we fail to take action in the face of an obvious evil and an unresolved problem, the costs not only to the international community but, over time, to this country and the rest of the world will be calculable and high."

So there appeared to be no concerns about regime change being an issue, there was an 'obvious evil and unresolved problem'. Was that alluding to the First Gulf War when regime change wasn't carried out?

How staunchly was he for sending troops into Iraq, well also in that debate he said:

"Like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and many others, I have worked for months for a peaceful resolution of the crisis. However, I am as certain as I can that the Government's course of action is right."

And later

"The fact is this: Saddam will not disarm peacefully. We can take 12 more days, 12 more weeks, or 12 more years, but he will not disarm. We have no need to stare into the crystal ball for this. We know it from the book—from his record. So we are faced with a choice. Either we leave Saddam where he is, armed and emboldened, an even bigger threat to his country, his region and international peace and security, or we disarm him by force."

and to conclude

"Our forces will almost certainly be involved in military action. Some may be killed; so, too, will innocent Iraqi civilians, but far fewer Iraqis in the future will be maimed, tortured or killed by the Saddam regime. The Iraqi people will begin to enjoy the freedom and prosperity that should be theirs. The world will become a safer place, and, above all, the essential authority of the United Nations will have been upheld. I urge the House to vote with the Government tonight."

I clearly am missing something here as for the Iraqi people to 'begin to enjoy the freedom and prosperity that should be theirs' surely suggests the regime change that yesterday he said he had arguments with the Prime Minister about. That was the tenant of his closing remarks as he dispatched the Government's troops into the Aye lobby.

***Breaking News*** Nick Robinson Names Cabinet Names

Nick Robinson has just named the names of those in Cabinet that were standing by as Geoof Hoon and Patricia Hewitt too the heat for their letter.

Harriet Harman

David Miliband

Douglas AlexanderJack Straw Jim Murphy Bob Ainsworth The dirty half dozen who were waiting to pounce.

Was their intended successor a Miliband?

Nick Robinson said that you can expect their offices to be issuing denials immediately. At least a lot faster than the statements of support for the Prime Minister earlier in the day.

Night of the Long Songs

Which of the songsters will be the undoing of Brown. Rumours that a big hitter in the cabinet is close to resigning in a move to destabilise the Prime Minister.

Will it be:

• Barry Mannilow's Mandy
• Doris Day Move Over (for) Darling
• The Rolling Stones Jumping Jack Straw

It comes after Lord Mandelson told the London Evening Standard:

"We are not a sectarian party. We are not a heartlands-only party."

This was in response to schools secretary Ed Balls suggesting a targeting strategy in Labour heartlands. Mandelson went on to reject such an idea saying:

"We are not going to win the election on that basis."

It really would appear that the noble Lord's word after the 2001 election that he is a fighter not a quitter still ring true. It appears that the former spin doctor is out to win. As the kingmaker behind Blair it is possible that he may have someone else in mind to take the important role centre stage.

Watch this space.

Oil Be There For You*

There are 2,500 families of the victims of the IRA's Libyan supplied Semtex.But the latest news over Westminster's 'special relationship' with Libya is that Gordon Brown vetoed attempts to force Libya to pay compensation as it would affect Trade Talks.

Lawyers for the victims are wanting the government to get a US-style scheme of compensation which has paid out $2.7 billion (£1.6 billion) to their 270 victims on Pan-Am flight 103. The latest revelation coming hot on the heels of Jack Straw's admission that oil deals with Libya were partially a factor in the talks about Megrahi. However, Gordon Brown in his silence breaking statement Wednesday appears to tell a different tale from his Justice Secretary when he said:

"On our part there was no conspiracy, no cover-up, no double dealing, no deal on oil, no attempt to influence Scottish ministers, no private assurances by me to Colonel Gaddafi

"As I told Colonel Gaddafi at the only meeting with him I have had, a decision on Megrahi was the sole responsibility of the Scottish Government. So when I met him I could not give him comfort or any assurance at all about [al-Megrahi's] fate."

Too much is unravelling, there is something going on behind the scenes that is trying not to look out for those UK citizens affected by Libya sponsored terrorism down the years. Just want stance is the Government taking with our seemingly new best friends (with oil)? There are mixed messages coming from Westminster which are making Iain Grey the leader in Scotland look more and more out of the loop and ridiculous as he attacks Kenny MacAskill. It also seems to be that questions need to be asked of Brown and Straw rather than finger wagging at the Scottish Justice Minister.

None of this affects my previous thoughts on the rightness of the decision at the time, although there does now appear to be even greater subterfuge into the points leading up to that. The unfairness of the treatment of the terrorists over the victims and their families, the deals that were going on behind the scenes. Just what does the Prime Minister et al know that has yet to come out.

*The title of course is a take on a title of the Rembrandts' song used in the title sequence of Friends.

Is Jack Straw a Head Gear Hypocrite?

Now before I start I must say Jack Straw is fully intitled to make a gaffe as much as the next man, we life in a country where there is freedom of speech. However, one of the reasons he gives for asking women to remove their veil is that he thought we lived in a society where watching facial expressions was important for contact between different people. Look over your shoulder on the right Jack, there on the doorstep of Downing Street is an example of a person who has to communicate with people in our society: a policeman. That picture is a graphic example that it is not possible for someone to see the full facial expression of the bobby on the beat the eyes,the window to the soul, can be obscured or in shadow as a result of the helmet.

The counterargument that has been put by some is that the people have the right to observe their own religious observances, without having to conform. However, the picture below is just one example of Jack Straw conforming to fit in with religious leaders. So he is not prepared to offend the believes and practices of others by not conforming to their expectations but he is prepared to cause possible offence by asking others to surrender theirs.



Picture from im.rediff.com

Interestingly in conclusion when he famously visited a arab state on the brink of civil war in his previous job with a female dignatory from a special friend it was Jack who felt his head should be covered while Condi went bareheaded.



Picture hattip to Raw Carrot

Letter is Off to Straw

My letter to Jack Straw regarding his comments on TheyWorkForYou is now winding its way though the etha and also a back up hard copy is now in the custody of the Royal Mail. James Graham's pledge did remarkably well in a short space of time and 103 similar letters will be hitting Mr Straw's in-box very shortly.

My contribution is below for your reading pleasure.

Dear Mr. Straw

I'm writing to you regarding your comments in the House of Commons on 20 July 2006 (HC Deb. Col. 461) when you criticised MPs' researchers for submitting frivolous Parliamentary Questions to "prove a point" and you singled out the website TheyWorkForYou.com as largely or solely responsibile for "encouraging" this.

I'm upset that you chose to attack the work of TheyWorkForYou.com in this way. It is actually a valuable resource and public service which would not need to exist is the Parliament.gov.uk site was more easily accessible to the general public.

TheyWorkForYou.com are actually very careful in how their information is presented including disclaimers about the figures their present. TheyWorkForYou.com is non-partisan but offers ease of access for constituents to find out exactly what their elected representative at Westminster is doing and saying on their behalf.

I understand that the operators of TheyWorkForYou.com are constantly seeking to improve their statistics and how they are presented. To this end they are holding a public consultation on that subject including a public meeting on 7 November, I hope that you will be able to attend.

Meanwhile there are a number of thing which you, in your capacity as Leader of the House of Commons, should be able to achieve.

I trust you are able to ensure that information from the official Parliament site is made more accessible. Was it not this Government that was responsible for the Freedom of Information Act (2000)? Whether that means an internal reappraisal or working with other organisations such as TheyWorkForYou who are making debate and information more easily accessible and digestible would depend on budget and feasibility restraints.

Even if you cannot make the public meeting that you will liaise with the developers of TheyWorkForYou regarding future developments.

Also please desist from criticising members of your fellow MPs' staffs. I'm quite sure that they are merely following their bosses' orders.

Yours Sincerely

Stephen Glenn

Only A Cricket Team More

James Graham's worthwhile pledge to point out the error of his ways over theyworkforyou is nearing its deadline. We only need a cricket or football team more of people to sign up to reach the century.

I notice Stephen Glynn, another policital poster I'm sometimes confused with, has joined me and also signed up and there is quite a cross party mix on there. So if you think that theyworkforyou is an effective tool for highlighting the work of your representative at Westminster get over to Pledgebank and take the pledge now.

BTW Latest Score from Old Trafford England 357-7.

What is Getting up Straw's Back?

Well James Graham has launched a pledge to help educate him and find an answer.

Last time I looked our MPs were elected as representatives of the people, i.e. they are elected to serve all the people of their area no matter how they voted for him. Therefore is it not wise for the people to have a good idea of just what that elected representative is doing or saying at the place he was appointed by such people. Unlike most employees MP dod not have an annual review but they must face one at least once every 5 years unless they resign, retire or die in office.

Therefore sites such as They Work For You which keep a track on their speeches, questions and voting behaviour are mush easier to assimilate that knowldge than Hansard the official reporting of business in Westminster.

However, this is the straw that is threatening to break Jack Straw's back. He thinks people look at such things for 'quantitative rather than qualitative measures'. Well actually Jack, as it does give us a record of our representatives contributions from the floor and also shows us their voting records. Therefore we can see just when they may say something to us in person and then do the reverse when facing a party whip.

theyworkfor you have already launched a consultation to look at the way their measure MPs work. Maybe, as James suggests, Mr Straw would be good enough to get involved in that process. AFter the heated comments he has made about how they operate he clearly thinks some issues should be addressed and should make these known. Or will he do what he is accusing others of doing for the sake of stats and send only his researchers instead.