Parliament needs radical, not self-serving, change

Source: The Spectator
Fraser Nelson
May 20th, 2009

It is typical of Michael Martin that his laughably short resignation statement contained a fundamental misunderstanding of parliament. ‘This House is at its very best when it is united,’ he said. The precise opposite is true. Gordon Brown and David Cameron’s places are precisely two sword lengths apart because it is intended to be an adversarial system. When the Commons chamber was bombed in 1941, Churchill rejected plans to rebuild it in a more collegiate semi-circular format. ‘We shape our buildings,’ he said, ‘But then our buildings shape us.’

Churchill understood that the slightest change in parliament, from the architecture to the rule book, alters the balance of power. And this is why, today, there is no such thing as an objective answer as to how precisely the Commons should reform. Each leader is careful to talk about the need for radical change — but defines it in a way that suits his party agenda. When one hears demands that an issue should be put ‘above politics’ it is the clearest sign that politicking of the most brutal nature is underway.

It is said of Gordon Brown that he never so much as chooses his tie without thinking how it may in some way destabilise the Tories. This desire has been much in evidence in recent days. Brown’s narrative is that the Commons has been a ‘gentleman’s club’ — and we all know which party likes such clubs. His proposal for claims on mortgage interest to be capped at £1,250 is being briefed by Number 10 as a means of countering the greed of moat-owning Tories.

For the Liberal Democrats, radical change means proportional representation. This would elevate them from the ‘none of the above’ party to kingmakers. When Labour ministers like Douglas Alexander and Alan Johnson float PR it is on the calculation that a Lib-Lab ‘progressive’ axis will yield a surer return to power. David Cameron’s calls for an early election are delivered with the passion of a man with a 20-point opinion poll lead.

But to ask why Westminster was held in contempt long before the Daily Telegraph exposed all the champagne flutes and Jacuzzis takes us on to harder terrain. MPs have, for example, voted their powers away to Brussels and the Celtic fringe, so it should be no surprise that the public has lost respect for them. Elections are focused on a handful of swing voters in swing seats. So it should be no surprise if so many voters have no interest in parties not interested in them.

Radical reform would mean, for example, repatriating control of England’s legal system with a Bill of Rights declared senior to anything in Strasbourg. It could mean mandatory reselection after eight years to stop idle MPs taking safe seats for granted. Constituents could be given power to recall an MP, especially one who has betrayed them by defecting to a new party. Several such devices could be deployed to make MPs rest far less easily in their beds at night, but no Speaker is likely to be elected on a manifesto of introducing them.

There is talk about how the coming election for Speaker will be an open contest about a new system, not just a new person. A fine aim, but I realised how futile such hope is when I was stopped by a policeman when returning from Members’ Lobby to my desk in the Commons press gallery on Tuesday. The officer said he had just been instructed not to allow journalists through certain corridors — presumably so reporters could not see which MPs are lobbying whom. MPs who have spent years perfecting the art of House of Cards-style chicanery will be loath to let such skills go to waste now.

Reform of the House of Commons may take the traditional format: a decoy message for the public with the real agenda worked out in private. The proposal to have MPs’ pay set independently is a classic example. It is hard for MPs to vote themselves generous pay rises, which is why they started to believe that it was OK to fiddle their expenses to make up the difference. Far better for MPs to have pay rises foisted on them. And the Prime Minister, after all, is a master of setting up supposedly independent groups that do exactly what he wants, from the Monetary Policy Committee to the health spending reviews.

Advisory boards, citizen juries, listening exercises — there are 101 ways to give the appearance of reform while doing nothing. This, after all, is what politics is all about. The MPs who want radical reform are shouting it from the rooftops, but are outnumbered by those who whisper that the press is exaggerating public outrage. As one MP told me, ‘We are seeing the mob, and it is not pleasant. But the mob moves on.’

But the problems of Britain’s electoral system, it seems, will not move on. Take Glasgow North East, Michael Martin’s seat, where there will be a by-election this summer. It is the perfect example of a modern-day rotten borough; it has a majority so large that no party thinks it worth exploring. A scandalous 30 per cent of the constituency are on out-of-work benefits. Male life expectancy in Hamiltonhill, one of its poorer areas, is 60.2 years — worse than Bangladesh, Iraq or Uzbekistan.

Yet even if the voters of Glasgow North East wanted, they could not have voted Tory or Liberal Democrat at the last election because of the convention that the main parties do not oppose the Speaker. So its constituents have been disenfranchised by the same parties who will soon descend on the seat professing a sudden and profound interest in them. Several primary schools are being closed in the constituency at present, a fate that tends not to befall marginal seats. Glasgow North East is what happens when voters are taken for granted.

These parts of Britain have become invisible to our political system, their people too poor to stand a chance of crossing the £199-a-week threshold ministers use to decree that someone has been ‘lifted out of poverty’. Little wonder that so many do respond when a fringe party, [like the British National Party**], comes to the tower block and ask them what they think. With such despair about Westminster and so few proposals for reform, [they**] could hardly ask for a fairer wind.

There is, though, one potential candidate for Speaker who has devoted his political life to such people; their cares have been his concerns. Frank Field has accomplished so much as a backbencher that he may be reluctant to occupy the Speaker’s chair. But real reform can only be brought to Westminster by someone with no interest in its cliques and cabals and someone who has always thought outside its narrow intellectual parameters. If Westminster wants real change, not synthetic change, Field must be dragged to the chair.

[** ed. slander edited by blog author]

Asian Bug Threatens British Plant

[ed. Oh the Irony!]

Source: Daily Mail
By David Derbyshire
14th May 2009

Invading Asian bug could wipe out swathes of Britain's wisteria plants.

Its stunning displays of lavender and violet flowers are a welcome sign of the arrival of summer.

But Britain’s wisteria plants are under threat from a bug that is spreading across the country.

The wisteria scale pest was first found in the UK eight years ago, having been introduced on imported plants.

Under threat: The wisteria scale bug could destroy the beautiful crops found on cottages and historic properties across the country like the 100-year-old variety found on this home in Dorset

It was discovered in the South-East, but experts warn it is spreading into the North and West.

The shell-like wisteria scale can be up to 1cm long – bigger than other species of scale – with a distinctive brown lumpy body.

They damage the plants by sucking sap from leaves and stems. The bugs cannot fly but spread from plant to plant by becoming attached to birds’ feet and feathers.

The Royal Horticultural Society fears the bug has the potential to wipe out swathes of wisteria and is warning gardeners to watch out for infestations.

Andrew Salisbury, of the RHS, said: ‘Our records show it is spreading slowly but like all things it could suddenly mushroom.

'Heady infestations could cause die-back in wisteria so gardeners should definitely keep an eye out for it.’

Changes in weather and the increased global movement of plants are thought to be to blame for the influx of wisteria scale and other pests, such as the scarlet lily beetle, berberis sawfly and rosemary beetle.

Killer bug: The wisteria scale insect attaches itself to the plant and grows a grey sack full of thousands of eggs before they hatch and crawl up the plant to feed

This particular species of scale was originally found in Asia where it attacks fruit trees.

In Britain, however, it appears to be mostly confined to wisteria, which flower for around four weeks in May and June.

Andy Strachan, of Garden Organic, said: ‘They are like little shells and when they breed they erupt and turn fluffy and let out tens of thousands of little scales which then walk about the plant.

‘They are transferred from one plant to another by birds.

‘When the new nymphs settle on the next plant they pierce the stem and suck out the sap. It’s awful. Wisteria are stunning plants and this can really ruin them.’

So far the scale has been found only in London and the South-East on isolated plants but there is evidence that it is spreading – worrying news for many National Trust and other historic properties famed for their beautiful wisteria.

Mr Salisbury added: ‘We have already had reports of sightings this year. The scale does appear to be established and spreading slowly.

‘If anyone spots it they should get it diagnosed properly.’

Canterbury 'not gay enough'

Source: Daily Telegraph
By Aislinn Simpson
13 May 2009

The ancient city of Canterbury has found itself the subject of a complaint from homosexual rights activists for not having a gay bar.

Although it welcomes millions of tourists each year from across the globe, the cathedral city - famed for its association with 14th century Canterbury Tales author Geoffrey Chaucer - has also attracted ire for not having a homosexuals' community centre.

The complaint was lodged with the Local Government Ombudsman by the Pride in Canterbury pressure group which also complained about the "stereotypical" depiction of a gay character in a play staged at the city's Marlowe theatre.

Pride said the Conservative-run city council was not doing its best to attract "pink tourism" – drawing visitors who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

But the council insisted it had helped the gay community by offering money, help and use of its facilities.

Chief executive Colin Carmichael said it had provided Pride in Canterbury with more than £4,000 funding since 2005 to help identify the needs of the gay community and promote their concerns.

"The council strongly refutes any suggestion by Pride in Canterbury that we do not want to engage with the gay community and we are very disappointed that they have referred this to the ombudsman," he said.

"Last year we held a gay open day at the council offices which was widely advertised – including in the gay press – well attended by more than 40 people and received very good feedback from those present."

But Pride's Andrew Bretell insisted it had been left with no choice but to make a complaint because letters to the council had failed to get the required response.

Mr Bretell said: "They're more interested in ticking their equality boxes and engaging in back and forth 'who said what' games than they are in dealing with the real issues. We do not believe the council want a thriving LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender) community in our city."

News of the investigation has surprised some locals. Canterbury University student Chloe Breton, 21, added: "It sounds ridiculous to me, some of my male friends are gay and they've definitely got no problem with Canterbury. I really don't think this is the best way to promote the place. It just makes us sound unfriendly and not tolerant – when actually the opposite is true."

The ombudsman is due to rule on the complaint on May 20.