A Personal Statement - On Tuition Fees

The following is a personal statement I have issued as the former Liberal Democrat candidate for Linlithgow and East Falkirk in the 2010 General Election:



Last night in the House of Commons MPs voted 323 for and 302 against the proposal to increase the cap on tuition fees in England to £9000. If I had been elected on 6th May as the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk I would have been joining the 21 Liberal Democrats who upheld the Liberal Democrat party policy not to increase tuition fees but instead to look at abolishing them. This had been stated in our manifesto as well as the personal pledge that many of our candidates in May signed.

The reasons I would have done so are:

• The party had instructed us to do so, not only in the years before the election, but in motions passed since the general election in most of our federal regions upholding that commitment.
•  Because personally the increase on personal debt to students is something I personally have been campaigning against since I was an undergraduate fighting the introduction of student loans when they first came in to replace grants.
•  We would be leaving students with half a hefty amount to pay off when they leave university, which when you take in the interest payments comes to a sizable part of a second mortgage
•  Even though I would have been representing a Scottish constituency I saw that the cut of the teaching budget funded by the increase in tuition fees would have a knock on effect in Scotland were tuition fees have been abolished.

I take exception to some of the comments made by colleagues in the party I have long considered closely aligned to me on the political spectrum.

Steve Webb wrote on his blog:

"I stood on a manifesto that had literally hundreds of policies and pledges."

I thought a lot of that was aspirations, many of those had caveats dependent on the economic situation, one that didn’t no matter what the financial situation was the promise not to increase tuition fees. He goes on to say that he was elected as part of 'Coalition programme for Government', a programme that allowed for Lib Dems to abstain if the findings of the Browne Report were contrary to our beliefs. That was a concession that was made to our party over this sticky issue yet Steve and 27 others not only didn't take that option, or uphold their pledge but voted for increasing the level of tuition fees.

Lynne Featherstone another blogging MP wrote:

"For some one like me – who has always believed that education should be free – it has been a difficult decision. Sadly, my view of education (free through raising taxation) isn't on the table – or anywhere near it. That vision was ended when Labour introduced tuition fees and the principle of free education for all feel."

Thankfully my colleagues in Scotland didn't feel this way and reversed the decision in Scotland and as a result that was the aspiration of our party nationally to repeat that process in both our 2005 and 2010 manifestos. I also think that because of the general benefit to society as a whole of those who go through Higher (and Further) education that this should indeed be funded, if need be, by increased taxation. The fact that it is not on or near the table would be a reason for me to further vote against.

Last night I heard Vince Cable even say that Scotland had failed to take hard decisions, I beg to differ one that Scotland has taken in that tuition fees should be abolished and from what I understand the main parties are agreeing that they should remain abolished. That is a tough decision made in light of the current situation and one that I was signed up to as a candidate this May, that we, no matter how bad things were would phase fees out.

At least in Lynne’s favour she did have the courtesy to apologise for breaking her pledge.

However, I am most proud of the twenty one, who I feel are erroneously listed as ‘rebels’ they have stood up for what the party believes in, and how the electorate who voted for them believed they would vote. Therefore I salute Annette Brooke, Sir Menzies Campbell, Mike Crockart, Tim Farron, Andrew George, Mike Hancock, Julian Huppert, Charles Kennedy, John Leech, Stephen Lloyd, Greg Mulholland, John Pugh, Alan Reid, Dan Rogerson, Bob Russell, Adrian Sanders, Ian Swales, Mark Williams, Roger Williams, Jenny Willott and Simon Wright.

However, if Nick Clegg things that those listed above and myself are 'dreamers' because of our opposition to increasing tuition fees, I'm glad that I can still dream of a fairer and truly progressive way of funding Higher and, I want to expand it to, Further Education.

I'll not stop dreaming. I will fight on.

Even though this blog may be remaining silent over the next few months due to the nature of my work, I will be keeping up the fight. Recently I was elected as a Conference Representative for my local Liberal Democrat Party. I will not be ripping up my membership card in disgust, I will be pushing up my shirt sleeves and getting down to the business of upholding the things enshrined in the opening paragraph of the preamble to the party constitution:

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."

I'll carry on dreaming of achieving the above, but when I'm awake I'll be fighting tooth and nail to achieve it.

Note: This statement is made in a personal capacity due to the fact that I was a Liberal Democrat candidate in the General Election in May. It is not a statement on behalf of either the West Lothian Local Party, who very graciously selected me, nor the Northern Irish Local Party of which I am now a member, nor of my current employers. 

First Past What Post?

As many reader will now I now reside in North Down won in May by Sylvia, Lady Hermon with 63.3% of the vote. I also stood in Linlithgow and East Falkirk where Michael Connarty beat me and the rest of the field once again, gaining 49.8% of the vote.

Now these are both exceptional cases where in one case the MP has gained a majority of the vote and in the other were even on a preferential system you would expect that the First Past the Post (FPTP) candidate would have been elected. No doubt some of 3rd or 4th place candidates votes would either not have transferred or enough would have to make up that small short fall.

However, what is the post of which FPTP advocates are so keen to defend?

It is off course a movable entity. Take for example another constituency I know reasonably well, indeed I was looking to represent the Southern part of it next May, Edinburgh North and Leith. There the winning post in 2005 was painted red for Mark Lazarowicz with 14,597 votes. Kevin Lang in 2010 took a total of 16,016 on day when the Labour vote was going down on five years previously across the country. Did this reach the post first? No. Because Lazarowicz had moved to 17,740.

The alternative vote does mean that the post is set in stone, at 50% of the vote either as with Lady Hermon cast for you as the first preference or as in the majority of seats as a reflection of the public's additional preferences. AV is actually more of a first past the post system than FPTP, because it has a post that is unchanging, and a post that you need to aim for, rather than a moving line in the sand washed by the political tide.

PS As you may be able to tell I've spent some time on this issue over the past week. No prizes for guessing why. If you want to get involved in the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign visit their website.

UPDATE: I should really not be surprised that Micheal was also thinking along these lines today now should I?

Is Job Sharing MPs Idea Sexist?

I know it is being suggested by a female MP.

I know it's aim is to get more women into Parliament.

But is the idea from Caroline Lucas, the Green Party leader, to allow job sharing MPs not inherently sexist. She s suggesting that people should be allowed to stand as a pair of representatives. Her aim to lift the ability of women to represent the people in the commons.

While her aims are noble, does not the suggestion that women are not able to work in Westminster because of the hours of commitment to do so full time a sexist position? Yes there are needs to allow female members to have the same rights as workers elsewhere. For example how would constituents react to a female member taking her full maternity entitlement? Also if that were to happen what arrangements could be made to cover the duties of that MP.

There are issues of childcare, schooling, the two-centred living for out of London MPs and hours of working which need to be addressed to make the job more attractive and doable for women, or maybe especially younger women with or hoping to start families. Too many of the Blair Babes from 1997 have already voluntarily stepped down from the House because of the pressures they faced.

For years part-time work was all that married women were able to take on. They had to juggle housework, childcare and job, so could only be employed elsewhere for limited hours. It was a glass ceiling on their achievement. How could a job-sharing MP hope to progress beyond the back benches? Is it really possible that a sensitive issue could be handed on to another minister and back again depending on the day of the week. The same would also apply to case work, if you are sharing a job on certain days of the week, how is a job sharing going to make the constituent feel about a sensitive issue if they have to talk to two separate individuals about it. There is a certain member/constituent trust, would that be broken by a job share.

There are issues to be addressed in Parliament of that I have no doubt, but I also think that the proposal from Ms. Lucas appears to have been poorly thought out and indeed is degrading to female politicians. Bear in mind that the Green Party breakthrough has come after the party in England and Wales did away with co-convenorship of the party for gender balance purposes and selected a single leader, a woman.

Yes encouraging women into the chamber is to be encouraged. But to do so by offering them part-time jobs there is surely not progress but a retrograde step.

Read also: Never one to shirk away from starting a debate here is what Kate Joester, the Green party candidate for Edinburgh North and Leith in 2010 (aka Rebel Rising) has blogged in response. Also found this article from Lib Dem Voice back in March which covers the issue.

Reason Why the Fifth of May is Wrong Date for Referendum

It is just over 24 hours from when the announcement for a date of a referendum on AV for Westminster was decided to be up against next May's Scottish Election but already we can see how the SNP are going to use it. The SNP are talking about the lack of respect to the Scottish people, Fiona Hyslop going further cutting to the chase when she said:

"It's important that we see action and not just warm words on respect.

"And in terms of what this is saying in terms of how the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government and the Scottish people are being treated, I think this is an example of the British Government just not working for Scotland.

"I think this announcement shows a bit of coalition chaos, where the parties in London seem quite prepared to have a referendum on a voting system that they don't really support but not have a referendum on independence to decide the powers that the Scottish people could have."

That last part is the bit that is going to be concentrated on not respect as that will be shoved out the window by the SNP at the earliest convenient opportunity. No there will be the name calling over why one referendum is good and proper and another is not. There will be no respect for the fact that the Lib Dem MSPs were elected to Holyrood Parliament in 2007 on the promise that they wouldn't hold a referendum on independence in the next four years.

That was a stance I disagreed with on the stand alone principle of it from my stance as a democrat. It has been exasperated now by our own leader the Deputy Prime Minister making two announcements of Westminster to piggy back the next two Scottish elections. In 2015 we already have the concurrent elections of a 5-year fixed term Westminster and the 4-year fixed term Scottish Parliaments, now there are plans to ride over next years Scottish elections too.

For a party that believes in devolution we are being perceived of going a strange way about it, strangling the distinct Scottish message of all parties our own included for the elections for the next eight years of Scottish life with two UK-wide debates simultaneously.

Crowded Fifth of May Next Year !?!

Anybody who's anybody in Scottish politics or with an interest in it will remember the last time Scotland went to vote for its own Parliament. Many recall it like a nightmare only we were in an upright position and awake all night living through horrendous images with no net result. One thing that was clear was that people did seem to want to give preferential votes to candidates however they wanted to do it on the wrong ballot papers, or indeed on only one side or the duel purpose Parliamentary ballot paper.

However, there is news that a referendum on AV for Westminster will take place on the first Thursday of May next year. A date which has long been in my diary as the next Scottish Parliamentary Elections. On Wednesday night at the Edinburgh Central hustings a question about the clash of an AV referendum and the fact that one of the four of us would be fighting for the seat did come from the floor, and what impact would it have on the campaign.

Personally I know first hand that voters expect their MPs or MSPs or candidates to be well versed on all areas of political influence, even if with devolved governance to Holyrood or Council level they may not necessarily have responsibility for that area of policy directly for the person they seek to represent. The number of times you have to say this is devolved, Westminster or council issue before giving an answer shows this.

My plans for the next year are to secure more Liberal Democrat representation in Holyrood. It is why I've put myself forward into the fray is the way I have for Edinburgh Central. In the Lothians it will be a bellweather indicator of how well the Liberal Democrat message is radiated with people. We'll be fighting to get across the message of what Liberal Democrats can do and in fact have been doing in the other levels of governance that represent the people. First and foremost next May will be about the governance of Scotland, I doubt any of the parties in either Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will be concentrating on the referendum they'll be focusing on the more pressing issue of winning seats in constituencies and votes across the regions.

Also personally I'm not really geed up by AV. Is it really a step towards more proportionality or is it a road block in the way to more? An appeasement to lure in Lib Dems to give the Conservatives more than many of us wanted? I don't think it is radical enough, it doesn't give the people a say over who really represents them, merely which party representative does. It maintains party politics above the ability to vote for party but reject objectionable individuals.

In Linlithgow and East Falkirk where I stood in May AV wouldn't have changed the result, Michael Connarty won with 49.8% which with none transfers from other candidates would mean that he would have been secure even if he didn't pick up the remaining 0.2%. However, lets assume STV had happened across the West Lothian and Falkirk Council area.

The vote was*

• Labour 74,056 49.0%
  
• SNP 40,869 27.1%
• Conservative 17,162 11.4%
• Lib Dem 17,130 11.3%
• Others 1,794 (1.2%)

Now it would have given Labour 2 secure seats, however the third may well have gone, indeed a real propability, to the party that 27% of people who had voted for the second biggest party in all three seats; the SNP. Who because of the votes in excess of 45% for Labour in the three seats would not under AV had the change of winning their proportional share for over half of Labour's vote.

* This of course assumes no tactical voting had gone on under the restrictions of First Past the Post

Mayoral Junta Against Peaceful Protest

The front cover of today's Independent tells a sombre tale.

The top half shows the Queen making her speech in the Lords including the words:

"Legislation will be brought forward to restore freedoms and civil liberties, through the abolition of Identity Cards and repeal of unnecessary laws."

The bottom have shows Brian Haw being arrested earlier just outside in Parliament Square.

It brings up the dichotomy of what was being said inside by a Conservative/Lib Dem government and what was being done outside under the auspices on a Conservative Mayor of London (whose brother is now part of that Conservative group inside).

A Mayoral degree has come from the gherkin to remove protesters from Parliament Square. Where are we? China, Pyongyang, or London? They are not protesting outside the Gherkin but the Palaces of Westminster. There are being peaceful about it yet the full weight of a junta from down river has come to bear on the only piece of open ground near the seat of power where a protest can be made.

Obviously either Boris didn't get the memo, or decided to ignore it in his own power games after finding he is no longer the most powerful Tory in the capital never mind the country.

***BREAKING*** Could Eric Ilsley Prove the First Subject of Recall

When the Liberal Conservative Government actually gets down to making new acts they will include the one that enables the right to recall an MP who has been proven of wrong doing.

This morning's news makes one wonder if Barnsley Central MP Eric Ilsley may be the unfortunate to make the history books as the first MP to face the public's right to recall. He has been called before Westminster Magistrates Court just like his former Labour colleagues Jim Devine, David Chaytor and Elliot Morely along with Conservative peer Lord Hanningfield on the 17 June for dishonestly claiming council tax and other household bills on his second home in London.

Image of the Day

Well here's something I've always dreamed off. Seeing a Liberal Democrat sitting on the Government front bench.

Well as Parliament reconvened earlier and got on with the job of re-elected John Bercow as speaker there was the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats sitting behind the dispatch box not over the aisle on the opposition side of the House.

We are truly in a period of new politics.

Unfortunately that message doesn't seem to have stretched north of the border. The SNP are using the news that the promise to get children out of the detention centre hasn't been acted upon yet at Dungavel after just 7 days of the new Government.

Here's an idea Christina McKelvie and the rest of the SNP at Holyrood how about working with us to provide somewhere for them to be housed safely and properly immediately while the review into the alternatives is actually taken.

SNP Hypocricy Over Being a Voice About Fuel Prices

I have been nice about it, I have told him on at least two occasions that he is wrong to admit that his is the only party that is saying anyhing about it. However, this evening I notice that the SNP candidate for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, Tam Smith has again said on his blog:

"The failure of the London parties to act on fuel prices shows how little they understand of the key issues across Scotland.

"In Scotland, the SNP is the clear alternative to the Westminster machine and the only party with a real alternative that will prevent massive fuel hikes."

It wouldn't be too bad if the last time I raised the issue with him was less than 10 hours ago. If you actually look at page 80 of the Liberal Democrat manifesto you will find the following.

• Introduce a rural fuel discount scheme which will allow a reduced rate of fuel duty to be paid in remote rural areas, as is allowed under EU law.

Now I don't know about you but that is doing something. George Lyon has been pursuing it in Europe and Alistair Carmichael actually secured a deabte on the issue of rural fuel prices on the 20 February this year.

In light of the fact that every single SNP politician seems to be appearing filling up a car at the moment. Claiming that they want a strong voice of local champions. But there wasn't a peep from any of the six* indeed not one of them even bothered to turn up to discuss an issue on which they appear to be pegging their campaign.

If we can't expect the SNP to speak up for their pet subjects in Westminister, what is the point of sending even more of them there?

* Salmond not included.

In Which I Disagree With Nick Clegg (and Jeff)

It probably isn't good for a PPC to disagree with their leader this close to an election, but as Jeff brought it up I thought I'd better put the record straight.

As Jeff pointed out Nick Clegg said on his trip to Scotland today:

"The truth is the SNP is as irrelevant in London as the Conservatives are in Edinburgh."

Now I know Nick studied Archaeology and Anthropology at University so unlike myself or Jeff may not be as conversant in the numerate arts. But Jeff uses the mathematical argument to point out that at 16 seats to the Tories, the Lib Dems must be a bigger irrelevance at Holyrood. There are however a couple of ways to look at the above statement.

As Jeff saw it purely in terms of numbers I'll take the mathematical argument first. The SNP with 7 currently have 1.1% of MPs even with Alex's target of 20 MPs they would have 3.08% of MPs. That is opposed to the Conservative parties 13.2% and Lib Dems 12.4% of MSPs. So if Jeff is arguing from a mathematical stand point he is unto a loser as Nick is wrong and the SNP are actually more irrelevant in London than the Tories are in Edinburgh.

The second thing that needs to be looked at is political influence rather than just sheer numbers. Again here Nick is actually wrong the Conservatives have been propping up numerous SNP policies in Edinburgh while the SNP have not been doing the same in Westminster. So once again the Tories are having more influence than the SNP, sorry Nick you've got that wrong again.

Jeff then argues that the Conservatives must have more influence than the Lib Dems have in Edinburgh. Maybe at present but over the last 11 years while the Tories have eaten the odd crumb off the SNP table, because neither are willing to formalise their arrangement, the Lib Dems did over eight years of coalition manage to make a more liberal, fairer Scotland than the rest of the UK. As the old adage goes it isn't so much size that matters put knowing what to do with it.

Looking at what the SNP are looking for along with their Plaid colleagues in the event of a hung Parliament they are looking for a fairness that ends at Hadrian's Wall and Offa's dyke. As I blogged yesterday they wanted assurances that all the areas of devolved responsibility are either protected or invested in. For a UK wide election that is not a fair way to deal people, the electorate and I suspect that whoever forms the Government will bring in some reform that will allow Sinn Féin to take their seats without swearing to the Queen if they will support them rather than kow tow to the fiscally blinded and irresponsible nationalists. We need to be as fair as we can be whilst building our way out of the mess that Labour have got us into.

Nick Clegg actually bigged up the SNP by saying they were as influential in London as the Conservatives in Edinburgh.

Digital Economy Bill Now On the Agenda - Take Action Now! #DEB #DEBill

Yesterday at 11:35 am Harriet Harman announced in an almost throw away line to the commons:

The business for next week is as follows:

...

Tuesday 6 April-Second Reading of the Digital Economy Bill [ Lords ], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Equality Bill.

With recent events the letter from 25 Lib Dem PPCs Bridget Fox, Islington South & Finsbury, Julian Huppert, Cambridge, Martin Tod, Winchester, Farid Ahmed, Walthamstow, Jon Ball, Ealing Central & Acton, Alan Beddow, Warwick & Leamington, Mike Bell, Weston-super-Mare, Duncan Borrowman, Old Bexley & Sidcup, Sal Brinton, Watford, Belinda Brooks-Gordon, West Suffolk, Alan Bullion, Sevenoaks, Adrian Collett, Aldershot, Andrew Dakers, Brentford & Isleworth, Sue Doughty, Guildford, Helen Duffett, Romford, Merlene Emerson, Hammersmith,
Gareth Epps, Reading East, Ed Fordham, Hampstead & Kilburn, Steve Goddard, Oxford East,
Simon McDougall, Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Jo Shaw, Holborn & St Pancras, Sandy Walkington, St Albans, Peter Welch, Southend West, Munira Wilson, Feltham & Heston, Simon Wright, Norwich South. Which I, and I know others, would happily have added our names to. Although I hadn't been selected back when it was written.

Then the passing of the Freedom, Creativity and the Internet motion at Liberal Democrat conference in Birmingham. But then yesterday in the comments about the business of the House nothing from the Lib Dem Members of Parliament. I have the feeling we need a large intake of fresh Lib Dem MPs who understand the complexity of this issue as those who were there yesterday didn't catch on to the urgency. That sense of immediate action that had taken us through conference about this one Bill before the House and how we didn't want it in the wash up. Sadly it now looks like being likely where it could end up now judging by the timing announced by the leader of the House and when we all expect Gordon to go to the Palace just before this is due to be debated.

As Bridget Fox one of the architects of the motion and the letter pointed out our MPs currently only deserve two cheers. As she points out our Department of Culture, Media and Sport team have said:

"The controversial parts of the Bill will need to be scrutinised and voted upon by the next parliament before they can be brought into law. Liberal Democrats MPs would not support these sections of the Bill without this process."

On web-blocking they are emphatic

"We do not believe that measures to address site blocking can reasonably be included in the Digital Economy Bill and we will not support any such measures."

On disconnection without proof less clear, which I like Bridget am a little concerned about.

"The Liberal Democrats are unconvinced of the merits of measures such as temporary account suspension or bandwidth throttling"

Please don't tell me they want to be convinced. They do propose a set of technical measures, to be met before any disconnection would be possible; the main ones are that copyright infringers would be notified by letter, without any risk of their Internet connection being affected for at least a year, and that any process to disconnect users explicitly assumes their innocence until they are proven guilty.

They did also pick up on the issue of open access sites being vulnerable to such actions:

"We believe there is inadequate protection in the Bill for schools, libraries, universities and other businesses offering Internet access to the public.....We will take further action in the Commons to improve the legislation."

The third cheer will only occur if we don't get a washed up decision on this issue. We need to get proper scrutiny on some of those complex issues that the time allowed currently or in a wash up is not worthy of the issue at hand. If you haven't written yet to your MP please write, if you have already do what Scott at Love and Garbage has done and write again.

Jeff's Crystal Ball Not all Wonky

No Jeff has been worried that his crystal ball has been a bit wonky of late. Well I thin that on this St Patrick's night this Irishman will be able to partly put his mind to rest.

Almost 18 months ago, conveniently on my birthday so I could remember the date, he blogged:

"Stephen Glenn is expected to stand in Linlithgow and Falkirk East for the Liberal Democrats. A very tough contest indeed for the genial Ulsterman."

My response to him at the time was:

"But I'm expected to stand then am I? You know the result of the selection process before I do, do you? ;)"

Because until tonight the good Liberal Democrat party in West Lothian hadn't selected their candidates for the General Election. However, they did prove Jeff right in deciding that there wasn't "a Lib Dem better credentialed than [my] good self" in given me another turn as the candidate for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. Jeff wasn't alone both Michael Connarty and Tam Smith have asked me am I the candidate, I've had to say only that my name would be in the hat before tonight.

The West Lothian have also kept up the continuity from 2005 by selection Fauldhouse's own Charles Dundas once again as the candidate for Livingston.

You may notice one or two changes around the blog to indicate this event, one of which much as a regret doing is putting comments unto pre-moderation. The main reason for this is that I cannot be always available to check comments that go up. In light of recent events on other blogs this an action I feel I have no alternative with my current position but to face. I apologise for the inconvenience.

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.

Red magazine have named their top 20 women under 30 and includes three politicians one from each of the three main parties. From left to right they are Maryam Khan Labour PPC for Bury North, Jo Swinson Lib Dem MP for East Dunbartonshire and Chloe Smith Conservative MP for Norwich North.

Now I'm not a regular reader of Red Magazine but they did send me an email promoting their March issue in which the full list of 20 is discussed. I don't think Jo's use of Red in the Common's chamber while debating was the only reason she made this list.

Big Ian Steps Down

The first politician I met in the flesh was the Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley. It was in downtown Bangor in the lead up to the 1986 By Election following the mass resignation of the Unionists. He was shaking hands and got to me in the crowd and asked "Can Jim (Kilfedder) count on your vote?", I actually replied firmly "Even if I were old enough my answer would be no, because I disagree with you over rejecting all links with the Republic."

My late Grandmother I've learnt had a similar experience and response with him on her doorstep in Londonderry. I've also since written to him on a number of occasions as one of my MEPs disagreeing with him.

Now we learn that the man most associated with the words 'No' and 'Never' in Northern Irish politics has finally decided to step down from Westminister. Yet who has learned that never doesn't always mean never when he set up the current historic power sharing executive. In 2005 his 25,156 votes in North Antrim gave him a majority of nearly 18,000 for Westminster.

The 83 year old has been an MP for most of my life first being elected in 1970 before forming the Democratic Unionist Party the following year. From 1979-2005 he also served as one of Northern Ireland's three MEPs, his most infamous intervention in Brussels was shouting out calling Pope John Paul II "The Anti-Christ" as the Pope addressed the Parliament. He also often held a triple mandate being returned top of the list for North Antrim in any devolved Assembly, Forum, Parliament elections over that period.

He stepped down as the first leader of the DUP in 2008 and as Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church, which he also founded in 2007.

Jim Allister the leader of Traditional Unionist Voice who had succeeded Paisley to the DUP's Euro seat was to challenge in North Antrim and it is expected now that the name Ian Paisley may carry on for the DUP in the area with his son standing in the big man's place.

Probe Into Bullying Helpline's Action - But Main Issue Still the Bullying

Fear over public trust in charities that run confidential helplines has led the Charities Commission to launch a probe into the National Bullying Helpline (NBH).

The Commission said it had a duty to "promote public trust and confidence in charities, and is aware of the potential impact on other charities that run confidential help lines". Also that is sought to "ensure the trustees continue to protect this confidential and sensitive information" and have also made an order "preventing the transmission or disclosure of information, including details about the nature and source of the confidential calls it has received" without its permission.

NBH founder Christine Pratt had at the weekend identified in all but name members of Downing Street staff who had called in confidence seeking assistance. All the charities patrons had resigned by the end of Monday over the leakage of information. The Charity Commission had received 160 complaints and the service of NBH was suspended yesterday.

The action had also come after Max Clifford has told Mrs Pratt she needed to provide evidence to back up her claims. The action taken by the charity commission will be a stop of such information becoming public and the protection of those who sought advise.

The one issue though is that there may yet be a case to be answered to within Downing Street, the way the information has been released is not following due process. The denials from Downing Street even starting before the allegations in Sunday's Observer from Andrew Rawnsley's book show that there is over sensitivity there on this issue. The crux of the story is still whether there was bullying at the heart of Government. So while NBH have done themselves and confidential helplines some harm in the public perception from their actions they have highlighted an issue that needs addressing.

***BREAKING*** Only MP with two Premiership Teams Steps Down

One of the aspects of Liverpool Walton is that it contains both Goodison Park and Anfield. That makes it unique in the country as the only constituency with two Premiership grounds within its boundaries (also making it the constituency with the most League titles and European trophies).

What doesn't make it unique is that its Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle has joined the long list of late members to step aside at the General Election expected in May. As yet I do not have any more details, this news is just breaking. But he isn't walking alone.

Kilfoyle has been the member for Walton since the 1991 by election to succeed Eric Heffer, who like Kilfoyle was an Evertonian. He'd played a key role as Labour's North West Regional Organiser in the fight against Militant that was exceptionally strong in that area. In 1994 he served as Tony Blair's campaign manager for the leadership.

Upon Labour entering Government he had a role in the cabinet office before becoming a junior minister at the Ministry of Defence a role he resigned from in 1999 at a protest of Labour neglected their heartlands. In 2006 the 63 year old MP suffered a heart attack which had lead to a quadruple by-pass so it is expected that his health is the major reason for his stepping down. However, again the question must be asked why leave it so late if health was a major deciding factor.

MPs Can Travel by First Class Rail...

If Sir Nicholas Winterton wants to travel up to Macclesfield in a first class carriage he is more than entitled to do so. This is after all a free country and we protect people's liberties. Of course the fact that "They are a totally different type of people" would not entirely endear him to the masses of potential voters who inhabit standard seats, or the future voters running up and down the aisle, who will all still be children when Sir Nicholas retires this year.

Of course some of his other arguments for coming down from Macclesfield do not make a lot of sense, so maybe he really is out of touch. I didn't for example realise that the greater Macclesfield metropolis extended far enough for local councillors to have the option to travel first class between their ward and the council offices. I really must try and stay awake next time I travel through on the train, I've clearly missed vast swathes of Macclesfield, and another mainline station.

He can overcome the being unable to get a seat by that wonderful convenience of a reservation, it is small extra amount he'd have to pay to guarantee the seat of his choosing, then he would "always get a seat" in standard if he wanted. I believe this reservation system has been around almost since the advent of the first steam trains. Wonderful what you can do these days.

As for peace and quiet I believe there is a quiet coach in standard on the Macclesfield to London trains so he could reserve a seat in there if he wishes. Just woe betide him if he starts up him laptop not in quiet mode and the Microsoft ident whistles out around the coach.

Although as I said should he, or any other MP, still be desirous to travel by first class they should be allowed to do so. Buy a standard ticket, and keep the receipt, and then purchase the upgrade that many of he rest of us do if we are a particular long journey.

As I said we live in a free country and the option is there for them to do so, just don't expect us to pick up the tab for that desire to be a class apart.

Fact Checking Nick Herbert and the "Gay Friendly" Conservatives

Earlier today Nick Herbert spoke at the Cato Institute on the theme Is there a place for gay people in Conservatism and Conservative politics?


Mr Herbert told BBC Radio 4's Today programme:

"I think David Cameron has taken the view that we need to broaden to appeal of the Conservative Party - that you can't be a party that is seeking to appeal to the whole country unless you are properly representative of the whole country.

"And that the position that we had been taking in the past towards gay people had been one that appeared to be hostile and that we were wrong."

So that's the talk but how did they walk the walk.

In 2003 on the Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality (Section 28) in the Local Government Bill 71 (plus 2 tellers) voted no, only 23 voted along with Labour and the Lib Dems to rescind it. One notable name in the no lobby was the newish MP for Witney David Cameron along with a third of the "current" shadow Cabinet.

The year before in 2002 to allow homosexual couples to adopt, even more 118 (plus 22 tellers) voted against, including that great champion of liberty when he resigned David Davis, William Hague. In total 7 members of the current shadow cabinet, congratulations to Kenneth Clarke and the current Speaker John Bercow 3 of only 7 Tories to vote aye.

In 2007 one third of the current Conservative party in the house 83 (+2) voted against the Equality Act. The act was to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations defining discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation. Those against included 33 of their front benchers 4 of the Shadow Cabinet, they included Dominic Grieve, but also Eric Pickles and Iain Duncan Smith. Admittedly this time David Cameron did vote for gay rights along with 28 others.

Most recently in 2008-9 the Conservative Party objected to the Equality Bill. In fact 19 members of the Shadow cabinet attempted to block the legislation.

These are not old, historical situations can be put off as the intentions of the party of another age, these are the votes of many who are in the current Conservative team, standing for re-election again this year, people who should be showing loyalty to the leader's grand idea. But they are not, indeed their leader himself hasn't even been fully signed up to the idea over recent years.

Herbert attempted to also say:

"I think this has been a rapid conversion but the change is definite."

Looking at the voting record I'm sure an impartial observer would say where is this conversion?

They're changing guard at Westminster Palace

After A. A. Milne in light of news of Westminster plans for civil partnership for MPs and members of the public as result.

They're changing guard at Westminster Palace -
Christina Robyn is marrying Alice.
They're getting married in the Jubilee Room.
"The Speaker's really a moderning broom,"
Says Alice.

They're changing guard at Westminster Palace -
Christina Robyn is marrying Alice.
We looked out over Cromwell Green.
"A smiled thinking the puritan wasn't so keen,"
Says Alice.

They're changing guard at Westminster Palace -
Christina Robyn is marrying Alice.
We looked for the Gordon he never came.
"Well, God take care of him, all the same,"
Says Alice.

They're changing guard at Westminster Palace -
Christina Robyn is marrying Alice.
Members all parties can do this too.
"Be Civil Partnered like me and you,"
Says Alice.

They're changing guard at Westminster Palace -
Christina Robyn is marrying Alice.
A face looked out, but it wasn't the Dave's.
"He's much too busy planning what to save,"
Says Alice.

They're changing guard at Westminster Palace -
Christina Robyn is marrying Alice.
"Do you think Nick Clegg knows all about me?"
"Sure to, dear, but it's time for tea,"
Says Alice