Michael Connarty Being Curt with Non-Labour Voting Constituents #LabourFail #LEF

Strange to think that only last Thursday Michael Connarty was being as nice as pie to the people (well with the possible exception of Tam Smith) representing the votes cast by over half the constituents in Linlithgow and East Falkirk.

A concerned constituent has forwarded an email that was sent to him from Connarty over the issue of forming a coalition. Indeed he was urging him not to form a minority or rainbow coalition. The additions in red are my own corrections and comments.

Strong words Mr X,

Why should the Lib Dems be in any government when their vote fell, to 24% actually Michael this was an increase from 22% That means 76% of those who voted , voted AGAINST them, and their main platform of proportional representation So 24% vote and less that 10% seats is proportional? Also as you heard me debate three times you know there was more that that to our main platform. Indeed in our own coinstituency [sic] their vote FELL from 15% to 12%.Tsk 15.3% to 12.8% and also to your and your agents surprise, well done on that squeeze message over the last two days.

Indeed as an avowed Non Labour voter, do you not think it a bit odd and inappropriate to write to me to 'urge' me to do anything? I thought an MP was elected to represent the people not merely those that voted for him. Even Ian Paisley always represented his Catholic constituents. Would it not be more appropriate to write to the leader of the party for which you did vote to URGE them to do something. Well seeing as the Liberal Democrat representative at the election has been informed I'll leave that up to Michael as to whether I'll be passing the message on or not.

I am a graduate Economist you know that was one line I never used against Michael's constant use of it despite it being true and have been elected to various levels of representation for over 30 years. I am actually quite capable of analysing the situation for myself and assessing what would be best in the interests of the people of Linlithgow and East Falkirk. So in other words people of Linlithgow and East Falkirk if you have a concern it will fall on the deaf ears of your elected representative as he is clearly more than capable of working out all your concerns without hearing from you.

I am certain the Queen* will find it of great interest if you decide to write to her. Rather a smug sign off from someone who is an elected representative of over 30 years.

Michael Connarty MP

So there you have it folks we have elected an MP who argues that he needs two offices so that he can hear from the people he represents and serve them over two local authorities, two health trust, two police boards but he is capable of making up his own mind without hearing from you. Now that is a waste of opportunity. Something I'll be letting the people of Linlithgow and East Falkirk before we meet again, and I think we will, across a ballot paper Michael.

As I've already started answering concerns of the people of Linlithgow and East Falkirk once again it looks like I'm ready to take on the concerns of the local residents and challenge Michael when he continues to fail to meet those expectations. Maybe next time the people who turned to Labour in the dying days away from considering Liberal Democrat won't be so easily swung back.

* Actually seeing as the constituent has military experience and threatened to resign their commission and fight against an unelected Government by peaceful means shows a depth of feeling.

An SNP MP Will Cut Your Local Voice

The SNP are standing as they say at this election your local champions, saying that more Nats will get a stronger voice in Westminster. However, one of the answers from our local SNP candidate throws serious doubt on their ability to achieve that.

One of the questions asked at the Linlithgow hustings last night was is £180,000 in expenses an appropriate amount for an MP. This was £7,000 short of the greatest amount our Labour MP had claimed when he was the UKs most expensive member.

As I pointed out none of the four of us sat at the table would have a say in what was the appropriate limits of your MP's expenses from now on, or on their salaries, this was a matter for an independent commission.

Before me however Tam Smith plucked a figure of £60,000 out of the air. He was going to save money by not running a local constituency office and only holding one surgery a week. It would also appear from that amount that he would be hard pressed to employ more than one member of staff whether that was at Westminster or locally to help him out. He had already agreed with me that answering all the election correspondence by yourself was a time consuming matter, so one wonders just how he would survive on such a tight self imposed restriction.

There are ways to save money under the independent expenses cap and I will be aiming to do that. Booking travel tickets well in advance to save money. Looking for London accommodation that is accessible from Westminster but not necessarily within walking distance of the Commons where rents*are extortionate. So that would be somewhere that is within cycling distance, having cycled in London as a student I know that things have improved since then. I'll also use panniers to carry my papers etc not a chauffeur driven car like David Cameron.

Yes there is a limit, but that is not what you should spend to. You can be frugal within the rules and within the limits and that is what I aim to do if elected. But you also need to provide a suitable level of service to your constituents.

That is why if I am elected on May 6th I will also run a local office. Just the one mind, I don't agree with Michael Connarty that you need two to be able to deal with two different council areas, two health boards, two police authorities etc. You merely need staff that are able to pinpoint which part of the constituency someone is in and deal with the correct authority. I think it is important to have a staffed local office so that local constituents do not have to call a London or mobile phone number to get hold of you during working hours.

What Tam is looking to do is cut the service you would receive from an MP if he were elected, rather than aim to give you value for money. He is also going to be cutting the effective voice of local people.

* Yes under the new rules I would have to rent once elected, no more buying of second homes.

Tam Smith Plagarises Me and Fails on Facts #LEF

My SNP opponent Tam Smith has just posted a very familiar image on his blog.



Familiar because it is my image used on my blog on 12 April. Also wrong as Tam himself admitted in the radio debate on Thursday, which airs next week on Central FM, that three of us in our contest are opposed to wasting £100bn on replacing trident. So he is trying to gain political capital out of a deliberate distortion of the facts which he's even admitted in public.

As for Michael Connarty's letter to me yesterday, as I blogged yesterday he wrote to me that:

"As someone who has had cause to visit me at one of my regular constituent consultations or contact me by telephone within the past five years, I hope you will agree that I have done my very best to resolve the complaints or problems that you have contacted me with."

On further investigation I've checked that personal details given to the MPs on casework is not allowed to be used for political purposes unless there is some sort of disclaimer to allow their use. As a hoarder of emails going back to the last millennium I have checked that I have never signed such a disclaimer for Michael, or any other MP for that matter.

I've also just noticed that one two occasions the MP who said "I never give up until all avenues have been pursued on your behalf" failed to even acknowledge my concerns on tightening of our libel laws in 2008 or recognising Montgomery Scott Linlithgow's most famous future son. Also on prohibitive parking regulations for Livingston fans at Stirling Albion he failed to take action. As for his agreement with me when he said "I agree" he went through the wrong lobby for me and many other local voters.

Campaign Diary: What Would Yoda Do?

I got home today to find amongst the mail a letter which says:

"As someone who has had cause to visit me at one of my regular constituent consultations or contact me by telephone within the past five years, I hope you will agree that I have done my very best to resolve the complaints or problems that you have contacted me with.

"I have not always been successful but I hope you will accept that I never give up until all avenues have been pursued on your behalf."

Well actually I wouldn't agree and as I get around the constituency, read my emails, open other letters I know I'm not the only one. As for giving up, I'm sure Yoda who like me you have mentioned in the house would say, "Failure to succeed have you, given up easy have you. The force weak in you is. Need someone who force is strong in after May 6th."

So as for the final line:

"I hope I can count on your support on polling day."

I'm sorry Michael, you can't I voting for the best guy for the job, as are thousands of others, maybe even thousands of others who have recieved your letter (I don't know how many you've sent), that would be Stephen Glenn.

Well that is at least one vote I know is in the bag.

Digital Economy Bill How Michael Connarty Performed

I've been kind of busy since the Digital Economy Bill was discussed and sadly passed in Parliament during the week.

Readers may remember that I stressed my concerns, and those of a number of constituents who had written to me about the various clauses in the Bill. On the day of the rushed committee stage of the bill many amendments were raised, spoken about and then withdrawn by the proposers purely as an expediency of time. That was the shameful way in which this complex bill was rushed through the elected house. If there had been sufficient times these amendments would have been properly discussed at committee stage and where there was dissent put to the vote.

I'd also stressed those concerns to my Labour opponent in the election, who is of course also my own MP. He responded initially with the response 'I agree'. When I wrote to him again earlier this week, he replied 'this is something that [he] will leave up to the front benches'. So how did he perform in the debate.

First up after a little bit of back of forth of pointless identifying which Star Wars © 1977 character various members of Parliament were he got called to make his first intervention.

"I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend and I am a great follower of Star Wars. I realise now, however, that my hon. Friend has identified himself as Yoda [© 1981]."

You wonder just how much interest he was paying to the concerns of the bill or of his constituents that his first intervention was that.

I too am a great fan of Star Wars © 1977 , I also love the number of parodies that are available through YouTube etc. Heck even Doctor Who last night was again full of references to Star Wars © 1977 and indeed other other science fiction. You have to wonder would the BBC have to be shut down for blatantly stealing copyrighted material. The line "Help me Doctor, you're our only hope." being a prime example.

Ok Pete Wishart, got up to speak soon after. Pete is one of the few MPs of whom I have bought some of his copyrighted material, both as CDs and indeed to see him perform live. Other's do include Charles Kennedy, William Hague and Vince Cable, although theirs are merely books and haven't been copied unto my laptop, like Runrig, so I can listen to them wherever I am.

During Wishart's speech Connarty rose again to say:

"I am grateful to another vice-chairman of the Performers Alliance group in this House for giving way. Is it not a myth that co-operation, as we have heard, could somehow solve this? People are not talking about co-operating and sharing their own thoughts and content, but are stealing someone else's content and sharing that. There is an Armageddon, which has partially arrived in Sweden, where the Pirate party, whose leader is in jail, won seats in the European Parliament on the basis that everybody's work-including MP4's-should be free."

Therein lies an issue, these two are part of a Parliamentary group protecting performers rights. Thing is I am a performer, I've played in bands, I've written songs, poems and written a lot of stuff to which I hold the intellectual property rights and copyright. A lot of that I have given freely to public use. Some of it I still make a small amount of revenue from. But we see that Michael has sort of declared an interest there, he's also the chair of the Parliamentary Jazz Appreciation Group, another vested interest in this debate.

His final intervention came during on of Tom Watson's contributions.

"I respect my hon. Friend's forward thinking, but he obviously has not studied his history. The enclosure movement took away the enclosures around small fields to make larger fields so that larger technologies could be used. When all enclosures were taken away in America, the ultimate result was that the wind blew the topsoil off the land and the people starved. I think that he has got his analogy entirely wrong."

I'm not sure but is Connarty telling the farming community that they better replant their hedges and make their fields smaller again here. He's also missing one thing that our whole world depends on, diversity. Options of what needs to be done has to meet the needs where the situation exists. Using the analogy of the American plains where the larger fields in tornado alley did have this effect does not apply to East Anglia where the vast fields still thrive. Thus it is with the move to a digital economy.

There are arguments that the technology that powers up most computers Microsoft's own operation system is actually stolen property from the University where the founders first came up with the idea. The same could be said of the largest search engine Google. In the enclosures that these projects first started out they were small and unlikely to get anywhere, once however they were unleashed by whatever means they have become essential to our everyday existence.

That folks in why the Digital Economy Bill fudge in the wash up period is bad for all of us. Also why my Labour opponent in 4 weeks time has clearly not got it over digital economic matters. He clearly should have sought better counsel than his own front bench.

In the end he voted for the Bill, hardly agreeing with me about the concerns within it as he emailed me initially.

In the Interests of Balance

Here are the contact details of my Labour opponent taken from his official election literature



This from the man who in his first intervention in the Digital Economy Bill Debate said:

"I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend and I am a great follower of Star Wars. I realise now, however, that my hon. Friend has identified himself as Yoda."

Hat tip to Love and Garbage who's also blogged about it.

Michael Connarty Reponse on Digital Economy Bill

On 16th March I sent the following email to Michael Connarty my Labour MP and opponent once again in the General Election regarding the worrying advance of the Digital Economy Bill.

Michael,

I am rather concerned by the events in the Lords yesterday of the passing of third reading of the Digital Economy Bill. Further I am concerned that as we approach the end of this session this complex issue is going to pass unto the statute books without proper scrutiny, consultation or consideration when it returns to the commons.

I spent a lot of the end of last week lobbying Scottish members of my party who were in Birmingham to first get this issue into our emergency motion slot and then to take action. There was even a letter from 25 of our PPCs and many more have since added their support urging our peers to go further with their amendment to secure civil liberties as well as copyright law in the process. In the end our Freedom, Internet and Creativity motion passed with only one representative against.

To summarise my main concerns of the impact it will have :

* This bill, if it becomes law will allow Websites to be blocked by ISPs, search engines and others at the request of "rights owners", without any court involvement or appeals process.. websites will just disappear from view, without warning or notification or even any evidence of wrongdoing.

* This bill, if it becomes law will allow record companies to force ISPs to disconnect users without court involvement, appeals or proof.

* This bill will allow media giants to "steal" copyright property (images, software, music) wholesale by "mistakenly" assuming they are orphaned works.

This bill will add huge costs to every aspect of the Internet in the UK, from additional legal and technical costs, to hampering businesses and harming free speech and competition.

I know that time is running out but I would urge you to prevent this draconian bill being pushed through the house without debate or proper review in the final rush to pass bills before the House rises. This is one matter that by its complexity needs proper examination rather than the somewhat knee-jerk reactionary bill that Lord Mandleson has brought forward.

Yours faithfully

Stephen Glenn

I have just recieved Michael's repsonse which I will also publish in full.

I agree.

Michael

Digital Economy Bill - YourCountryNeedsYou.com #DEBill

I have to say that Jennie puts the urgency of action well while everyone's favourite Elephant sums up the Lib Dem debate from Sunday (plus other stuff) well. I just want to emphasise the need for you to write to your MP about this, the danger is that the already authoritarian Labour party are going to attempt to rush this draconian bill through the House without proper scrutiny, consultation or debate.

If the internet literate in the Liberal Democrats had to call their own representatives to task over their illiberialism in trying to cut the illiberial nature of this bill how much less can we trust Labour or the Tories to see the light unless you tell them, no not tell them shout at them.

You can if you wise use this 38 degrees webform or if you are local to me write a personal email or visit them at their surgeries. Here are some helpful links to get in touch with the West Lothian and Falkirk representatives.

Linlithgow and East Falkirk: Michael Connarty email connartym@parliament.uk

5 Kerse Road
Grangemouth FK3 8HQ
Telephone: (01324) 474832
Fax: (01324) 666811

Or

62 Hopetoun Street
Bathgate
EH48 4PD
Telephone: (01506) 676711
Fax: (01506) 676722

Falkirk: Eric Joyce email joycee@parliament.uk Twitter id @ericjoyce

The Studio, Burnfoot Lane

Falkirk FK1 5BH

01324 679449

Or

37 Church Walk

Denny FK6 6DF

01324 823200

Livingston: Jim Devine email devinej@parliament.uk

4 Newyearfield Farm,

Livingston

01506 497961

Next surgeries:

Michael Connarty
Friday 19th Newton Community Centre 17:00-18:00
Saturday 20th Bathgate Constituency Office 10:30-11:30

Any details of Eric or Jim please let me know in the comments.

How Authoritarian is Michael Connarty?

Lib Dem Voice have launched a new tool showing how authoritarian or liberal your MP has been over it is based on 10 key round of votes over the life of the current Parliament on 10 issues. A liberal approach earned 0 points an authoritarian stance 10.

The issues were (read more details here):

• ID Cards (Vote 18 October 2005)
• Control Orders (3 March 2009)
• MP's Expenses - exception from Freedom of Information request (20 April and 18 May 2007)
  
• Extradition Act 2003 vote on review (15 July 2009)
• DNA Database - protecting the innocent (19 January 2010)
• Abolition of Parliament Bill (Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill) (16 May 2006)
• 90 Days Detention of Terror Suspects (9 November 2005)
• Trial Without Jury (25 January 2007)
• Freedom of Speech (21 June 2005)
• Government intervention in Coroners' investigations and inquests (9 November 2009)

In 2005 when I stood against Michael Connarty not all of these issues were on the Labour manifesto. Though we were question at hustings about the ID cards. I stood up for Freedom, Fairness and Trust three key areas that Labour have failed on over the last five years. Many of them are the issues that I have challenged him on over the last five years. So how did my opponent fair?



Not very well, 83 out of 100. The only points he missed were due to his absence in the division lobby. The people of Linlithgow and East Falkirk have for the last five years had an MP who is eroding their civil liberties, they have elected an authoritarian who has not questioned the party line.

For the next couple of months I'll be making it clear in the run up to the election just how unfair the Labour government have made life in the UK over the last 5, indeed 13, years. It is time to stand up against them taking away more of our liberties. The SNP are not aiming to do that they want all power to revolve around their cabinet table at best taking it away from local authorities.

Labour's Failure by Ommission #1010

I've already written that I couldn't see details of the Labour amendment to the Lib Dem motion on

Here is what Joan Ruddock moved as the alternative to the Lib Dem motion which Labour voted down earlier:

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Joan Ruddock): I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

"welcomes the 10:10 campaign as a motivator of public action to cut carbon dioxide emissions through individual and collective behaviour change; recognises the value of such campaigns to build public support for action by governments to agree an ambitious, effective and fair deal at Copenhagen; further recognises the significant effort made by individuals and organisations to cut their emissions through the 10:10 campaign; supports the Climate Change Act introduced by this Government, the first such legislation in the world, and the system of carbon budgets that enables Britain to set itself on a low carbon pathway; notes that carbon budgets ensure active policies by Whitehall departments and the public sector that deliver long-term sustained emissions reductions not just in 2010 but through to 2022 and beyond; further supports the efforts of local councils to move towards local carbon budgets by signing up to the 10:10 campaign; further welcomes the allocation of up to £20 million for central Government departments to enable them to reduce further and faster carbon dioxide emissions from their operations, estate and transport; and further welcomes the cross-cutting Public Value Programme review of the low carbon potential of the public sector, which will focus on how the sector can achieve transformational financial savings through value-for-money carbon reductions."

Now there is one thing that the Lib Dem motion didn't do. It didn't supercede the relevance and importance of the Climate Change Act. Nor did it over-ride the operations of Central Government departments to reduce their own omissions.

What the Labour amendment didn't do was to include the House itself.

As Don Foster asked Ms Ruddock:

"Can [the Minister of State] explain why the amendment praises everybody else for signing up to the 10:10 campaign, and yet it refuses to allow this House to join in with it?"

Well in her response I think I found the answer:

"We know that action is required at all levels, which is why we applaud the efforts of the 10:10 campaign and encourage greater ambition and getting ordinary people involved. We also agree with 10:10 that the public sector must lead, and have put in place a raft of mechanisms to make that happen. The Liberal Democrat motion calls for all the public sector to reduce its emissions by 10 per cent. in 2010 and for the Government to produce a delivery plan by the end of this year. I regret to say that that is typical Liberal Democrat posturing. Only a party that never expects to be in government could propose a motion for a totally uncosted, unthought-through programme for a single year cut, as opposed to the sustained actions already under way to meet our carbon budgets—carbon budgets that are designed to deliver three times as much, and that were proposed by us in Committee on 18 May and agreed by the Liberal Democrats."

Wow! I just hope Lembit never has to bring to the House news that he was wrong and that a meteorite will destroy the planet earlier. I'd hate to see a similar response while a big ball hurtles through space at us quicker than anticipated.

In replying to an intervention by Jo Swinson it got even more bizarre.

"Regrettably, the hon. Lady has not been listening to what I have said. I have been making it very clear what is already under way and why signing up to the 10:10 campaign does not make sense—[HON. MEMBERS: "This House."] This House can choose to do what this House wants to do, but the Government are clearly not committing the public sector as a whole—this is what the motion seeks—to the 10:10 campaign."

Now forgive me here for looking confused here, but didn't the amendment she moved say "that carbon budgets ensure active policies by Whitehall departments and the public sector that deliver long-term sustained emissions reductions not just in 2010 but through to 2022 and beyond"? Doesn't that mean that they can influence the public sector as a whole? And didn't her motion also omit the House of Commons itself from 10:10?

So therefore the power that she wanted to claim in her opening words is now not a power she professes to not have less than 15 minutes* later. Yet the one piece of central Government she cannot possibly argue she doesn't have jurisdiction over she has chosen to omit. Maybe this is what Linda Gilfoy means by a "stronger amendment" but many people out there are shaking their heads in disbelief.

In a separate paragraph of his letter to me last night Michael Connarty wrote:

"[This motion] reminds me of the Militant in the Labour Party in the 1980's, who didn't want an improvement or progress, but only to score points against the Party for not being 'Socialist' enough. Obviously if the Opposition Motion is couched in a manner that attacks the Labour Government, which has actually done so much to prioritise reversal of Climate Change, I will vote against such a motion, even if is attempting to hijack the 10:10 campaign."

Now forgive me Michael for again looking confused. From reading and watching the debate the only way the motion was couched as an attack on the Labour Government appeared to be by the Labour Government. I'm sure my MP knows me well enough to know that I have actively looked for improvement and progress on Climate Change including being in at the outset of Linlithgow Climate Challenge. Rather than hijacking the 10:10 campaign the motion was seeking to endorse it an expand its reach.

Having seen the result I'm sure Michael stood in the No lobby (I await confirmation from Hansard). But I hope that when he stood there 'point scoring' that he was working out how to face the many who have already made great steps across the constituency to combat their personal and civic carbon footprint whom he has let down today.

PS Ironically one Labour group in Westminster is not scared to commit themselves to 10:10 today.

UPDATE: No confirmed that Michael Connarty voted no. As did three of Labour's Edinburgh MPs Alistair Darling, Nigel Griffiths and Mark Lazarowicz, plus Falkirk's Eric Joyce.

* I'll get more detailed timing when the official full record is reported tomorrow.

Just who is playing party politics with climate change

I wasn't going to post the contents of the email I got back from Michael Connarty last night until I heard the same refrain from elsewhere. Here is the motion I asked him to back:

"That this House believes it is vital that the UK demonstrates political leadership at all levels in response to the climate crisis, and that this is particularly important ahead of the United Nations Climate Change summit in Copenhagen if there is to be an international agreement which will avert the worst effects of catastrophic climate change; further believes that immediate practical responses to the crisis should include a massive expansion of renewable energy and energy efficiency and a commitment for all homes in Britain to be warm homes within ten years; acknowledges that action taken now to tackle the climate crisis will cost less than action taken in the future; notes the declared support of Labour and Conservative frontbenchers to the objective of the 10:10 campaign which calls for 10 per cent greenhouse gas emission reductions by the end of 2010; agrees that the House will sign up to the 10:10 campaign; calls on Her Majesty’s government and all public sector bodies now to make it their policy to achieve a 10 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2010; and further calls on the government to bring a delivery plan before this House by the end of 2009 on how these objectives will be achieved."

Looks pretty much like what the Lib Dems called for at our Autumn conference. However, Michael's opening salvo in his email back to me was:

"I support the 10:10 proposal, but sadly the Lib Dems in the UK parliament have decided to make it a point scoring exercise rather than getting cross party support on a useful target to try to set public authorities, councils and Quangos. I have spoken to your Scottish MPs about their Party's sillyness."

But surely I read in the above 'calls on Her Majesty’s government and all public sector bodies now to make it their policy to achieve a 10 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2010'. So Michael do you support 10:10 or not? I merely ask as that is the core of the message in a nutshell and is what Government can legislate for. If not what useful target do you want to set public authorities, councils and Quangos? Be careful how you answer that as even I recognise that the 10% is going to have to be achieved through tough measures. So higher seems unlikely, therefore I'm guessing based on the past 12 years experience you'll be asking less.

There's even acknowledgement that both the other major parties front bench teams have given their backing to the objective of 10:10. The fact that they have and have yet to talk about, let alone bring a delivery plan to be is an issue that needs to be addressed.

What draws me back to the subject I blogged about earlier was that Labour Internet Tsar Kerry McCarthy MP tweeted about a stronger Labour amendment that she would be backing. She's not alone, Plymouth MP Linda Gilroy used surprising similar language to that of Michael Connarty and Kerry. Indeed she says:

"I think the Lib Dems are playing politics with something that should be above politics.

"I would hope to be in a position to vote for a strong motion as amended by the Government to reflect the leadership role it continues to play. We were the first country in the world to put into law such a comprehensive framework."

So let me get this right as the motion may not reflect the strong leadership (see the graphs from earlier folks) that Labour have given they will not be backing a 10% reduction in public sector CO2 emissions in the next 14 months. The reason I stumbled across Mrs Gilroy's comments was of course trying to find the wording of the Labour amendment. Silly me after yesterday's I should have guessed that was a vain hope.

Piecing two and two together, it would appear that the amendment will be looking for a useful target to be set. By that I'm guessing they'll not impose 10% by the next year, maybe even leave it up to individual departments to come to their own figure. It will praise the Labour Government for setting targets, buying carbon credits, holding off doing much constructively until near the target dates. After all a landing on the magic figure however it is achieved is better than not setting the targets at all, right? Wrong.

The longer we put off reducing our emissions on target for the final deadline the closer the unfortunate deadlines move forward too. Those unfortunate deadlines include the earth's temperature rising, climate being irreversibly changed and weather patterns being distorted. The irony for the UK is that global warming is liable to lead to a UK cooling and the Atlantic Drift Current diverts away from our shores.

I look forward to seeing the wording of the Government amendment I doubt it is as clearly put as the Lib Dem motion and therein lies the crux of just who is playing party politics with the climate. Are Labour really above politics in this issue themselves, or are they just wanting to count up past points ignoring demerits in their own achievements?

Politicians Letting Down West Lothian Workers

The CEO of West Lothian Chamber of Commerce has slated local and national politicians in light of the recent announcement that Bausch & Lomb's plant shutting down in Livingston. He said:

"It is disappointing that during recent years Alistair Darling, Iain Gray, Jim Devine, Margaret Hodge and Michael Connarty all had opportunities to influence changes that might have helped businesses like Bausch & Lomb to stay in West Lothian.

"The consequence of their inaction is that Ireland is now perceived internationally as a more attractive business location."

He is furious that the politicians haven't done enough to protect the regions eligibility under the Regional Selective Assistance programme (RSA). The area had maintained RSA status until last year, i.e. just before the world was thrown into recession, when European officals decided to reduce the number of Scottish areas eligible. Firms in such areas can claim up to 35% grants towards investment. It should be noted that Bausch & Lomb's other European plant in Waterford does now benefit from RSA status that the Livingston plant no longer does. Chamber President Duncan M Walker said:

"The factory is closing not because they're failing to produce innovative products, it's because the location in Ireland has RSA – Bausch & Lomb can get more activity while reducing costs. If we'd had more support from the people David McDougall mentioned, we might have retained the status which would mean Bausch & Lomb might have stayed."

Five years ago the company had won the Scottish Engineering Award for its work with "world-class technologies". As company Chairman Gerald M Ostrov said the closure was "by no means a reflection on our employees' professionalism, dedication, or efforts", but rather a purely financial decision.

Is it possible that Westminster and Holyrood could have done more to help maintain these highly trained, technical and skill jobs stay in the region? The writing was already on the wall even when the RSA was in place with firms like Motorola and NEC and others that formed the once renowned Silicon Glen pulling out to focus on other production plants. The area had been suffering even before the latest economic difficulties. The various industrial campuses around Livingston could become somewhat more of a ghost town if companies cannot be persuaded to stay in the area.

In which I Issue a Retraction

Readers may remember how last year I supported Michael Connarty when he fought for our poorer people who were left worse off by Alistair Darling's scraping of the 10p Income Tax rate.



However, following his vote on Tuesday against the retention of the 10p rate I withdraw my support on that issue. There were still some Labour rebels prepared to fight for what is right and fair for our most hard pressed citizens in these tough times. The Labour Government may well be talking about the 10% cuts of the Tories but have failed to waken up to the fact that they are in fact doing just that to the lowest paid. Frank Field who again led the rebellion to support the amendment to the Finance Bill said:

"The golden thread that knits us all together is that we came into this place not only to protect but to advance the interests of those who get the least from life.

"The 10p is a denial of all that we have come into public life about, and this is our last chance before the general election to rectify it."

Michael seems to have forgotten that thread even though he promised to stand up for such people when he sought election in 2005.

Deeper Reckonings: Mark's MP Meme II (The Political Geek Cut)

After I posted my response to Mark Thompson's meme listing all my MPs through life I read some of the others including Caron's, the political geek in me got interested. Caron had given a brief pen-picture of each and her own connection if any to others. North Down my home constituency is known for being an eccentric or unusual or trend-defying Northern Irish constituency and as for the others I knew there were tales to tell. Here are those tales.

September 1969 - February 1970 George Currie (Ulster Unionist) North Down: George was first elected in 1955 in succession to Northern Ireland's first female MP* Patricia Ford who had succeeded her father Sir Walter Smiles who was a victim of the MV Princess Victoria disaster in Great Storm of 1953 (Sir Walter's great-grandson, Patricia’s grandson may have relished the challenge of surviving that storm he is Bear Grylls). But I digress.

George Currie was first elected in 1955 as I said with a 96.9% share of the vote. This would have had more to do with the only challenger being Sinn Féin's Joseph Campbell actually achieving that party's highest ever box count in North Down than due to Communist era electoral rigging. Four years later he was returned with a largest numeric and percentage majority of 98%. He had already announced his intention to stand down by the time I was born. He died in 1978 hence I never got to meet him in the flesh.

February 1970- September 1988 Sir James Kilfedder (Ulster Unionist-1977; Independent Unionist-1980; Ulster Popular Unionist-1995): Kilfedder was first elected to Westminster for West Belfast in 1964 but lost out to another Northern Irish celebrity politician Gerry Fitt the founding leader of the SDLP in 1966. West Belfast's lost became North Down's gain as Kilfedder served from 1970 to his death in 1995 as the MP for North Down. He also elected for the 1973 Assembly for North Down, in 1975 for the Constitutional Convention, and the 1982 Assembly where he served as speaker to 1986 (earning at the time more than the Prime Minister for his dual roles).

On 20 March 1995 the Belfast Telegraph ran with a story that an Ulster MP was one of 20 MPs targeted by LBGT group Outrage!, led by Peter Tatchell, to come out in an open letter. Kilfedder was died of a heart attack the same day on his train in to Westminster from Gatwick Airport. A 2005 article in the same paper carried a story alluding to Kilfedder's past pointing to being that MP.

September 1988- July 1991 Richard Tracey (Conservative) Surbiton: Moving to Kingston for at the time the Polytechnic I found the third lawyer turned MP Richard Tracey as my MP. In the land of Tom and Barbara Good though he served merely as a JP and followed a career in journalist and Radio and TV current affairs before his election.

He's now a Member of the London Assembly elected in 2008. In 1997 he stayed (see later) to fight for the Kingston and Surbiton seat after boundary changes losing out by just 56 votes to our own Ed Davey. Although I first ran into Tracey on my return to the area in the Surbiton club, I was there playing for Surbiton Chess Club, I'd abstained on the vote to move to such a Conservative hotbed.

I enjoyed the summer all over the place before:

September 1991 - April 1992 Dave Nellist (Labour) Coventry South East: Another character of an MP, many Scottish socialists will find his mantra 'a worker's MP for a worker's wage' very familiar. For yeah in the height of Militant I found myself in the constituency of a Trotskyite Labour deselected Member of Parliament who was the next target of Kinnock's cohorts.

In 1983 when he was first elected it was initially allocated to share an office with the newly elected MP for Sedgefield. But the differing views of the two soon meant that the later was swiftly moved in with another of that year’s intake the member for Dunfermline East so possibly Nellist had something to do with the Blair-Brown pact.

I got to vote in my first election in 1992 Nellist stood as Independent Labour gathered 10,551 votes, trailing the Tory Martine Hyams on 10,591 and my next MP Jim Cunningham on 11,902. Nellist went on to form the Socialist Party (not to be confused with the Socialist Party of Great Britain. In 1998 he was elected to Coventry City Council, 12 years after he had last been a Labour Councillor for Coventry on West Midlands County Council.

April - August 1992 Jim Cunningham (Labour) Coventry South East: As said above Jim won my first Westminster election I could vote in, without my vote, and still represents Coventry South today. For the first time I was represented by a Scottish-born MP as Cunningham hail from just out West at Coatbridge. He has in the past called for the Queen to pay Income Tax as well as serving as PPS to Harriet Harman and Mike O'Brien while they were Solicitors General.

August 1992 - May 1996 Norman Lamont (Conservative) Kingston Upon Thames: Returning to complete my Economics degree I found accommodation in the constituency of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and another Scottish born: did I not see the trend starting? Shortly after he became my MP and just before I resumed studies of course Norman presided over Black Wednesday and I had to reassure new landlord when he walked back in through the door that his mortgage was no longer effectively 50% more expensive but back where it was where he stared the day.

A word of warning though for Darling Lamont starting to see the 'green shoots of recovery' in 1993 during the Newbury by election. After the Government lost that seat to the Lib Dem's David Rendel Lamont was sacked.

I have another chess anecdote about Norman, one evening I overheard the following conversation at the Surbiton club "Norman's seen the figures he's heading for a safer seat.", "Where?", "Harrogate." Of course that safe Conservative seat added to my joy on Election Night 1997 as while SW London went yellow through Twickenham, Richmond Park, Kingston & Subiton, Sutton & Cheam and Carshalton & Wallington. The look on the former Chancellor's face as Phil Willis accepted the people's decision to elect a Lib Dem to serve Harrogate and Knaresborough.

May 1996 - April 2001 Robert McCartney (United Kingdom Unionist) North Down: McCartney was originally an Ulster Unionist like Kilfedder. In 1987 the Unionist Party's agreed in a pact not to stand against each other just a year after all the Unionist MPs had stood down in protest at the Anglo-Irish agreement losing a couple of their number in marginals in the process. Of course North Down was not really in any danger of turning Nationalist but Bob refused to stand down. He was expelled from the party and stood as a Real Unionist. The resulting election proved the narrowest of Kilfedder's 25 year career in North Down in all elections.

He didn't contest the 1992 General Election which saw the Conservatives as the closest challengers to Kilfedder. But in 1995 following Kilfedder's death he was returned with 37% of the vote in an 8 challenger contest, the Tories losing all but 583 of their vote 3 years earlier.

McCartney was elected to the May 1998 Assembly Election and carried 3 other MLAs into Stormont with his former One Man Party. However, by December he'd fallen out Cedric Wilson in Strangford, Patrick Roche in Lagan Valley, Norman Boyd in South Antrim and Roger Hutchinson East Antrim, to remain a one man band in the Assembly getting re-elected in 2003. However, his demise came in 2007 when he lost out on the last seat for North Down to Brian Wilson (not the Beach Boy) the first Green to be elected at that level in Northern Ireland.

May - November 2001 Robin Cook (Labour) Livingston: Having had a Chancellor, Speaker (Northern Irish) I racked up my next high office MP with the Foreign Secretary just before the 2001 General Election. Robin was first elected to Edinburgh Central in 1974. But in 1983 like Lamont was in Kingston was worried that boundary changes might cost him his seat so moved to Livingston a new constituency.

Of course Robin famously took a call at Heathrow, en route to holiday, from Alistair Campbell shortly after becoming Foreign Secretary asking him to choose between his then wife Margaret or his then mistress, later second wife, Gaynor before the press announced the affair. He chose to tell his wife it was over and made the announcement via a press statement in the departure lounge.

He also resigned as Leader of the House on principle over the decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003. After winning the election in 2005 I last saw him at the start of the Make Poverty History March in Edinburgh the date of birth of this blog. Within weeks he was dying whilst walking down Ben Stack on 6 August. His gravestone bears the epitaph 'I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of parliament to decide on war.'

November 2001 - November 2004 Sir Tam Dalyell Bt. (Labour) Linlithgow: Moving less than two miles from Stoneyburn to Whitburn found me in a new constituency.

Tam is, although he never uses the title, 11th Baronet Dalyell of the Binns. He is named after his famous ancestor General "Sir Tam" Dalyell (1615–1685) who was a military commander for both Charles I and Charles II in the Civil War.

Tam first was elected in 1963 for West Lothian and of course leading up the devolution debate in the 1970s asked the famous and so far thus unsatisfactorily answered West Lothian Question about the role of Scottish and English MPs post devolution. The former having votes over English matters while the latter had no say over devolved issues the other way around. In 1963 the seat was split into two and Tam chose to represent the Northern Linlithgow section in which the Binns, a National Trust of Scotland property is located.

Following the 2001 election succeeded former Prime Minister Ted Heath to the honourific position of Father of the House, whose only recognised role is to chair the vote to appoint a new Speaker, which is bestowed on the longest serving member of the House. In 2004 he announced he was standing down at the next General Election to spend more times with his bees and to write his autobiography. The bees must be very demanding and the autobiography has yet to appear.

November 2004 -August 2005 Robin Cook again see above.

September 2005 - March 2006 Jim Devine (Labour) Livingston: Devine served as Robin's agent for decades and is a former, and rumours have it, future psychiatric nurse. I first heard Jim Devine speak at a hustings for the 2005 General Election in Loganlea, Robin couldn't make it and the agent stepped in and quickly took over proceedings something that the candidate would never have done. Of course recent events do not need going over but yet another character in my list of MPs who will go down in history as an MP who never faced a General Election vote despite not dying in office following an by election in peace time.

March 2006 - Present Michael Connarty (Labour) Linlithgow and Falkirk East: Former leader of Stirling Council, former Economics teacher (there were three Economics graduates on the 2005 ballot for L&FE).

Of course Michael and I first crossed swords thanks to the Boundary Commission. Before the current boundaries although Bo'ness and few others where historically West Lothian they had been part of Falkirk Council since the end of Lothian District Council, and Grangemouth had never been with West Lothian before. This is also the closest I have ever lived to a MPs office. It is literally only about 90 seconds walk away from where I'm typing this in my lounge.

Although I have letters from 5 of my previous MPs (6 if you count the election 'letter' from Jim Devine) this is the MP I have had most interaction with. Partly because I've stood in direct opposition, partly because of the ease of email, which has once led to a response with 10 minutes.

However, as the fifth most expensive MP (excluding transport 2nd with), who considers it 'ridiculous and tiresome' to submit all expenses to his employer for scrutiny. And who's first response to the Telegraph printing his expenses was to attack the source as stolen rather than try and explain them, maybe his days are numbered.

Of course while some of the men (sorry WLDs everywhere no gender balance) who have represented me in the past have been replaced by a Lib Dem, just not in my time. So I'd love to be in a constituency with a Lib Dem MP. However, would that outcome really lead to a Lib Dem representing me? I guess that is up to the local party and the electorate.

*See trend setting though it took 46 years to get North Down's second.

Quote of the Day: OK Tuesday Yet Again Michael Connarty

Looks like I missed the most dismissive quote ever of Labour, that's right Labour, MP Michael Connarty in defence of his spending £250 on an alarm clock.

He told the Scotsman defending his claim for a £250 alarm clock from John Lewis by saying that he should not be forced to "shop at 99p stores". Now I don't think there is anything wrong with the 99p stores that fill the main streets just down the road from his office but £250 for an alarm clock is just not acceptable to be claimed on expenses and there are other options between the two when you are not spending your own money but the peoples.

Are Labour Heading for Meltdown in the East of Scotland?

When STV voting was brought in the 2007 Scottish council elections it largely brought about an end of the Labour fiefdoms in the Central Belt at local level. However, the domination of their MPs was only broken from North Berwick to Falkirk by John Barrett for the Lib Dems in Edinburgh West. Is that about to change with almost all of their 11 MPs in the region implicated in some way or other in the expenses scandal?

The former leader of Edinburgh City Council Donald Anderson who stood unsuccessfully for Holyrood in Edinburgh South last time says he is worried. The Labour hierarchy is preparing for the possibility of losing 8 of their 11 seats which in 2005 would largely have been considered safe. The majority would in fact of been expected to survive a 10 percent swing but things are looking so grim that only the Prime Minister may have a safe haven.

The Chancellor Alistair Darling is not immune in his Edinburgh South West seat with his not tax deductible tax advise being tax deducted as well as his flipping. Nigel Griffiths was already precarious in Edinburgh South with his 405 majority from 2005. The West Lothian and Falkirk mob of Connarty, Devine and Joyce are all battling to quell public outcry about the way they have seen to be claiming expenses, in the case of Devine on goods already claimed for when Connarty bought them new.

Michael Connarty Responds

Last week I wrote to Michael Connarty to ask why on 3 July last year he voted to do away with certain reforms in Third Report from the Members Estimate Committee: Review of Members Allowances (House of Commons Paper 578). To see what that entailed see my previous post on that issue. However, I did ask if I could publish his reposonse and as there was no objection here it is in full.

Dear Stephen,

I will be disappointed if this turns out to be a Lib Dem propaganda seeking exercise. I worry that we are involved in a race to the bottom with people being asked to see a cheaper MP as being therefore a better MP. Norman Baker MP who has put himself up as the rent a quote MP on expenses turns out to have charged parliament £7,500 per year to rent a room in his house as his constituency office. I have a large room in my house entirely for my office but I do not charge anything. The Labour colleague who acts in the same holier and thou capacity is rumoured to pay his wife a substantial salary as his secretary. I do not employ family members. Who is to judge what circumstances support which decision?

I voted for the motion proposed as I thought the proposed system was flawed. For example the daily reimbursement for subsistence at £30 per day would mean that an MP could claim £150 per week, when the system in place at the time was limited to £100 per week. I am against clocking in for £30 a time.

I also think it is wrong that MPs would still be able to claim for a second home that was not in London. I have always regarded the allowance as a ‘Living In London Allowance’ and used it always for the home where I London where I do my parliamentary work. My main home has always been in my constituency, which meant moving my family from their previous location when I was first selected to stand in Falkirk East in 1992. The Members estimate Committee showed their own preference for using the allowance as a second homes allowance to be used wherever the MP wanted to designate their second home. It has been shown that they biggest abuses were of the flipping back and forward of the second home designation to London and then back to a home which is really the family home in the constituency in most cases.


I do not think the case was, or is well made against the need of an MP whose main family home is in his or her constituency being refused support to buy furniture for a flat in London. There needs to be strict and publicly available rules and strict limits, but it is not supportive of family life if an MP has to take money away from support for his family at their main home to buy essential household furnishings. It will lead to more of a two tier Parliament, with the danger that MPs will go back to the system where they work in another business or profession during the day and pop in after the office, or court day.

It was not a well thought out package. I would have been attracted to a review such as is being carried out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life being undertaken by Kelly at this moment. I have always thought MPs pay and conditions should be set by an outside body and accepted without power to amend the proposals, I hope that si what will happen when Kelly reports.

Thank you for asking.

Michael Connarty MP

It Wasnae Me Guv

According the the Daily Record Linlithgow and Falkirk East MP Michael Connarty is claiming that some of the luxury items that he has claimed for were not for him but for Ian Davidson the Glasgow South West MP with whom he was sharing a flat, which they started sharing in 2006. The articles claims that Michael Connarty was claiming the items the £249.99 'alarm clock' (actually a CD/Radio) and £1099 for a Plasma TV and then gave the cash to Davidson.


Excuse me! Doesn't the rules say the the claims are to be exclusively for personal use? If Michael is making the claims that is for his personal use. To then give the cash in full to another MP who then takes the item when the flat share is over leads to question why didn't Davidson claim that item on his expenses.


He also says he was claiming some furnishings (looks like the ones he sold to Jim Devine) for his personal use to take with when he would eventually leave the shared flat.



Davidson goes on to claim that the flat share with Michael actually saved the Taxpayer considerable amounts of money!! Take a look at Michael's additional cost allowance and rankings over recent years.

In 2006/7 Michael who sold the flat in April, would have spent the whole year in the share with Davidson it would seem. From 2002-2005 you can see his ACA was ranked in the top 3 of MPs for each financial year. The gross saving in 2006/7 was £396 pounds. Is that 'considerably cheaper for the tax payer' In 2007/8 Michael resumed his customary position at the top of the ACA charts.

To be fair lets see if Michael was just claiming everything for the two of them. What was Ian Davidson's savings? Let's look at his expenses.

Looking at that for 2006/7 Ian Davidson made a net saving on ACA of -£495 (minus 495 pound saving) he actually cost more. These two sharing had a 'considerable saving to the taxpayer' of actually £99 more. Wow if that is what happens when you start sharing that you barely notice the savings I may just stay in my flat by myself sorry for anyone who loves me enough to move in.

BTW did you notice that in 2007/8 the two of them claimed equal ACA? Where they still sharing a flat? If so, how come the two of them are the equal top claimants cost more than many MPs who aren't sharing? And just how is this a 'considerable saving to the taxpayer'?

To be honest the defence of Michael over his expenses are getting thinner and thinner. I'm just waiting for the ice to crack.

Update on email watch: I have still to hear anything back from Michael Connarty about the email I sent on 19 May. If any constituents are able to get to his surgeries this weekend listed below and gets an answer regarding his expenses please email me on votestephenglenn hat gmail dot spamblock dot com (replace the hat and dots and remove the spamblock).

Friday 22 May Reddingmuirhead Community Centre 17:00-18:00

Shieldhill Road, Reddingmuirhead, Falkirk, FK2 0DT

Saturday 23 May Grangemouth Constituency Office 10:30-11:30

5 Kerse Road, Grangemouth, FK3 8HQ

If you get an answer to any of the questions raised this week, please let me know. I'll treat the response in confidence.

Is Michael Connarty Worth Every Penny?

I know from personal experience that Michael Connarty does indeed draft every letter that he writes to me as he insists elsewhere in today's Falkirk Herald. But obviously I'm not sure whether being one of his four opponents at the last General Election and one of his most public outspoken critics I come in for any special treatment.



That is why I need you my fellow Linlithgow and Falkirk East consituents to take part in the poll.



The option are:



Yes, Michael is a good constituency MP and worth every penny.



Michael is a good constituency MP but some of his purchases on expenses are not necessary and should be paid back.



Michael's shady dealings in property with Jim Devine should be paid back.

No. Not worth every penny.



No and if not deselected I will be voting to get him out.

I'll be running this for a month to give as many local residents as possible a chance to voice their opinion. Comments can be added below, real name not required but if you are a L&FE constituent please indicate.

Quote of the Day: Michael Connarty Again

"People may not like it but everything was above board."

Well the MP for Linlithgow and Falkirk East Michael Connarty has finally spoken and summed up his take on his own expenses claims with the above statement to the Falkirk Herald.

He also had said:

"The thief who stole the documents and the Daily Telegraph, which is clearly guilty of 'resetting' the documents, face prosecution if they breach the Data Protection Act.

"They are criminal and using stolen information for their own financial ends."

Problem is Michael to the people of Linlithgow and Falkirk East you little dealing with Jim Devine, the appearance to claim for the replacement of goods for which the Livingston MP paid you money, the excesses such as a £250 alarm clock (I've sold perfectly adequate ones in my working life which retail for about £10), plus you reluctance to publish you own expenses for public scrutiny, all add up to make it appear that you have used the Parliamentary system for your own financial ends.

Publish and be damned but don't damn the whole electorate with that foolhardy soundbite.