Kung Hei Fat Choy 恭喜发财 2010

It may well be Valentines Day but it is also Chinese New Year, so as we enter the year of the Tiger let's look at what I said last Chinese New Year.

Then I looked at some of those that were sentenced under the crime of subversion. Just before this new year another sad tale is added to the list Liu Xiaobo who lost his appeal earlier this week against a eleven year sentence for inciting subversion.

He is one of the co-authors of Charter 08 and I wrote about his arrest in December 2008. Last month 4 retired members of the Communist Party officials had written to authorities pleading for Liu's release. They suggested his conviction violated some of the principles for which they had fought.

Charter 08, taking its name from Vaclev Havel's Charter 77 movement in Czechoslovakia against Soviet occupation, originally was signed by 303 people from across China's communities (intellectuals, editors, lawyers, artists and people who described themselves as peasants and workers). It quickly gathered pace and was signed by 10,000 signatories, but the authorities were anxious that so many people had managed to show their support for the discussion laid out in Charter 08 without their authorisation.

His defence lawyers said that in court there was a lack on commonsense to distinguish between the government and ruling party, which Liu had criticised, and the state which he did not attack.

Charter 08 is calling for human rights, democracy and an end of the Communist Party's monopoly on power. The last is the line that has been crossed which has brought the party hierarchy down on those who are leaders of the movement.

Kung hei fat choy means "congratulations and be prosperous" so yet again this year there isn't too much, outside of economic prosperity, to be congratulatory to China about. There is more to prosperity that what is in the bank.

The Case of the Paranoid Ayatollah

If you're going to take militaristic action and fire on those that oppose you the least you could do is allow the families of the dead to take away the corpse for burial. Not however in Iran, and not if you've just killed the nephew of the man who only 6 months before came close to bringing the change that the demonstrators wanted.

It is often a sign that the regime in charge has lost the plot when they know that they have created a martyr and don't want the funeral to become another outpouring of opposition against their actions. The fact that Seyed Ali Mousavi's corpse was ceased from the hospital by the authorities and even close trading Russia are urging restraint shows that the Iranians are on a loose footing.

The news that Mr Mousavi, whose uncle Mir Hossein Mousavi stood aside from the rerun of the June Presidential election, was shot in the chest suggests his shooting wasn't merely for crowd dispersal but an assassination. However, on Sunday forces ring fenced the hospital where Mr Mousavi and four others who were killed were taken before whisking the corpses of for an 'autopsy'. They used tear gas to disperse the crowds that gathered and are also alleging that foreign agents were responsible for the murders to bring discredit to the regime. However, as Mr Mousavi had in recent weeks received death threats, which have now been realised the finger most surely point to Iranian sources.

It is a scene of paranoia the likes of which we maybe haven't seen unfold like this since the last days of the Ceauşescu regime in Romania. We all know how that attempt to kept the people in place ended just over 20 years ago. The fact the the people of Iran after months of thinking about the previous slaughter are prepared once more to take to the streets knowing what fate may befall them is a sign that no amount of Government intervention is going to silence them until their goal is reached.

Make G......g.....granville's Vote C....c...count

It's the 9th February 2009, it's dark, it's late after 8pm at least. Having delivered the third or fourth leaflet of the day climbing numerous back stairs to flats in the dark, we return to car to find a postal ballot paper under the windscreen wiper. Certain we'd pass near a polling place on the way back to the committee room we head off with the sealed envelope, looking for somewhere to deposit this one vote.

Nothing!

I rush into the committee room and ask for the location of the nearest polling station. Finding out it was at Carnegie Hall so I ran across Sinclair Gardens.

Now imagine what would happen if I or the actual voted had done that before 10pm to find that the polling place or station had shut up shop for the night. So that instead of casting that vote on time it would have left a voter disappointed and disenfranchised.

However, the Ministry of Justice is suggesting just that, early shutting of some polling stations. If that were to happen and you couldn't make the hours of opening at your polling station what do you do? Where do you go? Is there an alternate? Can you personally get there? Do you have time?

Admittedly I have long been the person, if I vote in person and not by postal ballot, who is normally the first to post their vote into the box. I once even was told by the police on the door in Bangor that they weren't ready yet. I asked what time it was, to be informed 7:01. So I walked on in. My democratic right is to vote at a polling station near my place of residence from 7am to 10pm on General Election day.

Although the Ministry of Justice are also looking at shutting some of them down too. To be fair there are two other polling stations about as far from my flat as the one I actually vote in. But that is because I'm on the edge of one boxes area in an urban area. There are a lot of boxes in West Lothian and I'd say they are all necessary to enable everyone to vote in their locality and in urban areas to vote unrushed, unhurried and in a timely fashion.

Like all things there are peak times and slow times. When I worked in retail in the West End the shop was open to 10pm. But people still turned up right to that time. The same applied to voters. They will still turn up right to the end. Some of them may be party workers who do it on the way to a quick shower before heading to the count after a long day. Other's may have waiting until putting the children to bed to get some peace before heading off. Other's may be workers who work away from home but have grabbed a train to enable them to get there even if only just before 10pm on a Thursday night.

The reason for these proposals is apparently money. You can imagine there is outcry that of all the ways government want to penny pinch it is in giving the people their say especially in light of recent months.

John Turner, of the Association of Electoral Administrators, told The Times:

"There is a real danger that despite years of trying to get the voter to engage, the Government is doing the opposite."

Ken Ritchie, of the Electoral Reform Society, added:

"The health of the democratic process is more important than saving peanuts. We risk turning an economic recession into a political one."

I would say panic not as the Ministry of Justice are saying this is only a working paper and not policy right now. Sadly I don't trust a Government, with a healthy majority, that has asked for such a working paper to be drawn up that does seem to vote against the public on issues such as 10:10 will do the right thing. I may of course be surprised.

"G...g...g...g....granville! Did you g....g....g...g....g.....go and v...v....v....vote?"

"I went Mr Arkwright but I didn't get to vote they had shut up early."

"Well that's b....b....b....bad. B...b..best g..g...get b...b...b...back to work then. Still a c....c....couple of hours for us."

You're Gagged

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

Between their loved home and the war's desolation!

Like all National Anthems the Star Spangled Banner has more verses than the one commonly known, in this case song before any sporting or public event no matter what the level. But the lines above coming from the opening of the fourth verse are particularly poignant. Of course the recurring theme through the verses is, the land of the free.

America revels in its freedom, free speech, state free from religion, freedom to bear arms. It's history is full of periods and places were men have gone into the unknown to stake claims on land. Admittedly not all of that was totally unoccupied, the native Americans often suffered at the settlers hands. But now one of those Americans is taking freedom too far and the wrong way.

The American in question is Donald Trump. Last I looked he was not an elected representative in nay part of the UK. He may own some land over here but even then he would only have one vote, if he were to settle etc. However, his latest attempt to get his golf course development through planning is to attempt to ban the four most vocal opponents on Aberdeenshire Council banned from taking part in forthcoming decisions about the development and any use of compulsory purchase orders he is hoping to push through.

Yeah the man from the land of free is not elected to serve the people of Balmedie, where Trump owns the Menie Estate. Indeed George Sorial, the Trump executive running the project, has gone so far as to say:

"Enough is enough. The organisation will no longer tolerate their lack of respect for ethical standards. These scoundrels have to be stopped."

There are a lot of ethical questions that have been raised by this development. Although some where answered last week when the Standard Commission found that Debra Storr had not breached the Code of Conduct following Trump complaints. Compulsory purchase orders for a for profit development. Trying to apply English and Welsh trespass law over Scottish right to roam law. Trying to stop elected representatives from going about their constitutional rights to visit constituents or represent them over a matter that directly affects them. It sounds like the Trump Organisation want a Politburo in the council chamber to do what the supreme one with his floppy hair says no matter what the cost.

• The cost to an Area of Special Scientific Interest.
• The cost to the families, some of whom have lived there for generations.
• The cost to his own reputation.
• The cost to democracy itself.

Yes the cost to democracy itself. If our councils give in to one super rich landlord over his planning applications it sets a precedent. Where does it go from there? Then it will become the landlords who dictate things rather than those who are elected to represent the people. Last I looked we still lived in a representative democracy not some business related reality show where whatever the man behind desk said went.

Like many planning applications before him Trump was turned down when it was first presented. No matter what people, from Trump's Organisation, say it wasn't clear cut. However, Sarah Malone, executive vice-president for the Menie Estate development, says that the four councillors should be prevented from taking any further part because they have ' have not remained objective, which is their duty'.

I love the words that Paul Johnson comes up with to counter that claim to disbar him, Debra Storr, Sam Coull and Martin Ford, he says:

"If Mr Trump continues to complain about people, just because he doesn't like their views, he will be seen as vindictive and, indeed, ridiculous in the eyes of the public.

"It cuts both ways. Every councillor who has expressed support for the
development, on the basis that it is best thing since sliced bread, would also be debarred."

Which could leave a rather echoey council chamber if only those with no preset opinion were ever allowed to take a planning decision. Martin Ford adds:

"It is my duty to raise it and talk about and seek to get the issue addressed in a way that is proper and fair to residents."

For indeed it is the public duty of those elected to stand up for those in the area. To be the voice that is heard to voice their concerns. Trump may be able to trumpet on from his his very public profile but that is not the only voice that needs to be heard. This is a matter for moral judgement as Mike Rumbles MSP has said. If Trump has the lack of moral to bulldozer over democracy before he bulldozers his neighbours compulsory purchased houses he has lost any moral leg to stand on.

I'd say to Trump.

Enough is enough. The residents will no longer tolerate the Trump Organisations lack of respect for ethical standards. These scoundrels have to be stopped.

China Declares Contempt for Human Rights: Part the Umpteenth

Following on from the arrest of Guo Quan last month, China have now arrested Liu Xiaobo on Monday. Liu was first jailed for his role in the Tiannanmem Square demonstrations in 1989 and this arrest came hours before the online launch of the "Charter 08".

The Charter signed by 300 scholars, journalists, freelance writers and activists in China marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by calling on greater freedom of expression and the end of one party system. The hope was to bring about democracy and human rights to China.

It most not be forgotten that the host of this years Olympics did promise the IOC and the World that it was going to improve their record on Human Rights as part of the decision to allow them to host th games. Little more than nothing has been done by the Chinese authorities in this direction. The arrest and detention of leading activist for change Liu Xiaobo, Zhang Zuhua, Chen Xi, Shen Younian and Du Heping over recent days shows that China really does need a change they can believe in.

The fact that leading activists for human rights activists in China are being detained over the 60th anniversary of the declaration that they are seeking to get recognised in their homeland shows the calculated contempt and rejection that Chinese authorities show for human rights and freedoms once again.

Actions Speak Louder than Words

As the saying goes actions speak louder than words, therefore my conclusion the way the SNP are using Holyrood they must be whisper. Of course with all the bravado and rhetoric that exudes from Alex Salmond's mouth you may be led to believe otherwise.

However, using a devolved Parliament as nothing more than a talking shop to knock down your main opposition's governance in the Parliament that devolved that power is a waste of resources. What is more that when the Scottish Parliament does have a vote over something it does have the power if that doesn't go the way of the largest party they then find some way or at least attempt to circumvent democracy.

So why did the people of Scotland bother to elect 129 MSPs?

Surely they didn't expect to sit some weeks and discuss nothing but what was going on at Westminster. Surely they elected them to make the decisions that they had been given control over, to make things better and different in Scotland under their devolved powers.

Maybe Johann Lamont, Labour's deputy leader in Hoylrood does have a point when he says:

"This is a deliberate strategy from the SNP. They are happy to use the
Parliament as a platform for attacking what Labour is doing at Westminster, but
they are not prepared to be held to account for their own decisions."

After 18 months in control it is starting to become clear that the Nats are still thinking like an opposition not a government. The way Alex Salmond behaved during the Glenrothes by Election was a case in point. His dozen visits to the seat why there were things that a leader of a country should have been diverting his attention to but were being neglected. Is Alex like that long surviving journeyman fighter, rolling away from the punches, dancing away from his opponents hoping that nothing lands on his chin? Does he have a glass chin, one that is just waiting to be landed with the killer blow? Is he trying to avoid doing anything that means that blow could spoil his aim?

Nicola Sturgeon said on Question Time on Thursday in relation to Strictly Come Dancing and John Sergeant that inviting the public to be involved in the decision and then not being happy with their response was like holding an election but only allowing it to be on certain criteria. What would she say of having run that election, not carrying out the duties invested in you or the others that had also won?

China's Arrested Democrat

Chinese authorities have arrested the founder of the New Democracy Party (New People's Party) Guo Quan in Nanjing on charges of subversion of state power. He has been arrested several times in the past since founding the party last year but the charge of subversion is one the Chinese authorities often use to imprisons dissidents for years.

He is a well known blogger, though now removed, and he is accused of being 'too radical' he radicalness in recent days has been for blogging about the need for democratic change in the world's most populous nation. He had also threatened to sue Google and Yahoo in February of this year after the US companies in compliance with Chinese Government requests removed his name from searches on their Chinese language search engines. In his own words he said Google have "become a servile Pekinese dog wagging its tail at the heels of the Chinese communists".

In February when he announced his legal actions Guo said:

"Through this I hope that the world will become more concerned to resolve human
rights issues in China. The freedom of the Internet should be realised all over
the world."

Sadly his fight for human rights in China have led to him being denied his own human rights of liberty, freedom of thought, right to question and have a say in his own affairs. It is nineteen and a half years on from the events of Tiannamen Square and the Chinese authorities have moved nowhere politically from that day, even though promises were made to enable them to host this years Olympics. They still seek to control political process by coercion rather than strength of debate.

Is Ming Attempting to Rough Shod Democracy?

We are the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Following May last year we took a lambasting from the Nats because the party with the largest mandate at Holyrood backed a referendum and we refused to enter talks with them about issues we may have agreed on simply, seemingly because they did.

Now it appears that Menzies Campbell is saying that no matter what the Scottish Conference of members may decide on the question of having a referendum, the 16 MSPs should no matter what not vote for a democratic referendum.

There are two issues that our conference needs to debate against the changing political landscape. The first is whether we should allow the people of Scotland to have a democratic say in the future of Scotland, the second is should we back independence. The second issue I'm pretty sure that my fellow Scottish Liberal Democrats will say a resounding, though not unanimous, no to. The first however, should really be a fundamental of our principles and despite some of the leadership being scared of facing the possibility when have we ever shirked from other tough calls in the past.

Now I'm a little worried with the way the party leadership appears to be trying to take the party over the last wee. First Nick Clegg mentioned scaling down the committee structure of the party and now his predecessor is advocating that the MSPs should ignore the democratic vote of the membership should it not go the way of the leadership.

Policy Committee doesn't always get it's own way at Scottish conference, not because it hasn't come up with policies, but because sometimes their policies have ignored some issue out there in the wider Scotland that the root and branch membership feel that the solution that has been come up with is wrong. In those situation often an amendment comes it to make the necessary correction or occasion replace the whole motion or the motion is rejected. This is not a bad thing indeed it is one of the things that drew me in and keeps me within our party. If the leadership don't agree with a certain proposal they have to muck and give firm reasons why and win the debate and hearts of the membership. If they then go and ride rough shod over democracy there is likely to me mutiny in the ranks.

Ross Finnie in the leadership elections has not ruled out the possibility of the party backing a referendum following a full debate, Mike Rumbles has promised that this debate would take place at next Spring's conference. Two very democratic and open minded views. We haven't had such a debate since the 1990s and the landscape has changed. No longer is it abstract but now somewhat more focused, it is high time the party reassessed its view on allowing a referendum on the question, even if we don't back the ultimate outcome desired by those who want to ask the question.

But in liberal democracy 16 should never be allowed to ignore the majority view of the 4,000 members who help put them and keep them in place in the seats they represent.

Hattip to Stephen Tall @ Lib Dem Voice

Tsvangirai Held in Zimbabwe

Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai was arrested and held yesterday for 8 hours while on his way to address an election rally for the rerun Presidential Election.

The Movement for Democratic Change leaders arrest highlight not just the need for democratic change but the need for democracy in Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF supporters are still hounding, beating, and killing MDC supporters in political attack. The arrest of their leader is light compared to what some of his supporters have gone through since the disputed election in March.

Mugabe is of course currently at the UN-sponsored global food crisis summit. Sadly Zimbabwe is not merely affected by the current world trends but also by the fact that state sponsored removal of the traditional farmers from their land to be given to untrained people has turned the lands of plenty into a pitiful shadow of what they could and ought to be.

Pakistan: Where Next?

What a contrast a few short hours and miles makes. Benazir Bhutto arrives to great celebration at Karachi airport to thousands of supporters but as the party atmosphere of many filled the streets an hand grenade followed by a suicide bomb attempt killed upwards of 130 people many of them part of Ms Bhotto's security detail. She had only made half her intended route to a rally marking her return.

Her return is an attempt to return democracy to Pakistan and rein in the militancy that has grown there since 9-11. Of course she knows the risks she has taken, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden have both issued death threats against her should she return.

In a area of the world sadly reknowned for politcal assasinations this stands out as the greatest single act of carnage in Pakistan. Even General Musharraf said the attack was a "conspiracy against democracy". So the war against democracy has a new target, this time close to their hinterland, and has taken yet more innocent victims.

If a Pakistani who says enough is enough and is seeking to change the outlook is targetted we know that our own leaders have to try harder to understand and seek a solution which doesn't cause total antagonism. If that moment has not already passed.

Ming Versus Sir Humphrey

What is it with the press that they have the obsession with a fictional senior Civil Servant?

I was watching with trepidation as the Tax Debate unfolded in Brighton. There were people I would position myself alongside speaking against and for amendment 3 (the retention of the 50p upper tax rate). It was a typical civilised debate by a party that allows its members freedom of expression in policy decision making. You would have thought the media would have got the hang of that with us by now. But no they were still obsessing that accempting any ammendment would be a slur on the leadership. How can following a democratic agenda be a slur on the leader of party with the name Democrats taking up half the party name?

If I had been there and been called to speak I would have echoed one of the speakers who was an accounted by starting:

There is an old addage that where more than one economist in a room you will have their number plus one ideas in the room. Well today that is not true with this economist Vince.

While as someone did state if our Green Tax Switch Proposals do have the desired result they will reduce the revenue raised as a result of the change in lifestyle they encourage. That is a bridge that a trust a Liberal Democrat Chancellor of the Exchequer will be more than capable of meeting when he is present at No. 11 having implemented these proposals.

But in this mornings papers and immediately after the policy was passed without amendment I was flicking through both Sky News and BBC News 24, conveniently placed on freeview and they both saying that Sir Humphrey Appleby would be ridiculing these as radical. No doubt he would but he does not exist?

I'm sure that previous premanent secretaries have said to Liberal Minsters you can't abolish slavery, you can't introduce an old age pension etc to many of our radical proposals. I'm gald that the historically radical party is still thinking outside the box. For the good of the poor people that Labour have failed to help. For the good of the planet which both Labour and Tories are currently only failing with their stance of rhetoric alone.

As for the Civil Servants as a former one myself I know that many of them actually enjoy a challenge. Admittedly my personal experience was at the initial period of devolved government in Northern Ireland but my colleagues thrived on being the chance to try new things then. While the civil servants may point out what is not achieveable they also will give their all to succeed.

Sir Humphrey doesn't stand a chance against a fair, simple, green tax system that is bound to engage the populace at large.

Letter is Off to Straw

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

My contribution is below for your reading pleasure.

Dear Mr. Straw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours Sincerely

Stephen Glenn

West Lothian Versus North Antrim

You know who your friends and enemies are. Or least it is becoming apparent if you live in a devolved part of the UK. Also you would think in times when patronage of the Lords was under such scrutiny that David Cameron would not make any policy decision on the hoof which might be miscontrued as patronage within the Commons. If you did you would be wrong.

In his hurry to come up with an answer to the West Lothian question about the rights of Scottish MPs to vote on affairs at Westminster over which they have no overall control, he has entered the quagmire of Northern Irish politics. When John Major had a wafer thin majority in the 90s, and some of that was rebellious, he could normally rely on the Unionist parties from Northern Ireland to dig him out of a whole. David Liddington, the Conservative's Shadow Northern Irish Secretary, has refused to extend their proposed voting ban on English issues of Scottish members to those of Northern Ireland. This is fast becoming referred to as the North Antrim question, so named for Ian Paisley the DUP leader's constituency.

Some have accused the delay on the Tories to bring about the same conditions on all devolved areas as hypocritical, merely a way to ensure that should the votes be close after the next election that the Tories could squeeze through legislation with the help of their Northern Irish bretheren. However, the entire restriction on any MP's voting rights might just be under threat from the very Unionists that David Cameron is attempting to cosy up to. As Jeffery Donaldson the DUP MP for Lagan Valley said:

'We would oppose any proposal to deny Northern Ireland MPs full voting rights at Westminster. That right embodies the very concept of the Union. The House of Commons is not an English regional assembly.'

Surely if the DUP mean this they would also oppose the restriction on Scottish and Welsh MPs as well.

But is Cameron playing into the hands of the 31% of English who want independence from Scotland. Typically of Alex Salmond who ignores the view of the majority who did not want separation he said that:

"Clearly this is the future. This growing support shows that unionist politicians are on their way out and the argument for independence and self-respect is on its way in."

Strange then that the level of support for England to separate for Scotland is actually higher than his own party has actually scored recently in Scotland something which is nowhere near their peak, and we all know what that has meant for the separation of the Union.