Am I the only backbench MP who is not on holiday?
I had calls today for interviews from BBC News on the Iraq Inquiry, Radio Five Live on tranquilliser addiction and Coronation Street and BBC Wales on drugs. But it has been a great day for good news - topped by the Lords ruling on Debbie Purdy.
As always live interviews on BBC News are worthwhile. They allow interviewees a generous amount of time to make serious points which are broadcast live and unedited.
The Chilcot Iraq Inquiry were encouraging in their statement today. 'Thorough, rigourous, fair frank' is exactly what is needed.
It's possible that Tony Blair and Jack Straw will give evidence in public and under oath. But not likely. Already we hear that Tony Blair was 'consulted' in the original calamitous Cabinet decision to have an Inquiry behind closed doors.
John Chilcot hit the bull's eye today by giving first priority to the relatives of the fallen. They have the right to know whether their loved ones were scarified in an illegal war that Britain could have avoided. Did Blair agreed with Bush in March 2002 to commit the UK to war whatever the cost in bloods and treasure.
The key question is whether the facts were trimmed to fit the politics. Bob Marshall Andrews said in the recent debate,
The Downing street memorandum in July 2002, many months before the war began ...shows that our man—Q—who was at the time in Washington, Richard Dearlove, reported to the then Prime Minister in these terms:
- “Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
That was the clearest possible statement, which was echoed in the House almost exactly word for word, although he did not know of the minute, by Robin Cook at the time that he made his resignation speech—that what was happening was that the facts were being fixed around policy.
The 80 reluctant Labour MPs who were whipped into abstaining or voting for the war are still haunted by the fear that were wrong on the most important decision of their political lives.
Boston Sense
Old mate Roger Howard was tentative and mealy-mouthed today even though he had an inspired idea to promote.
He argued for the anti-drug campaigns to switch focus to tackling the related violence rather than simply making seizures and arrests. Great. That's exactly what the Convention I have been pushing through the Council of Europe says.
The Boston Massachusetts example is a striking one. The police did a deal with drug gang leaders. If they stopped killing each other, the police would turned a blind eye to drug trading. It worked and deaths and other crime were reduced. Pragmatic and practical.
No serious commentator would disagree. Sadly drugs law are made by ambitious politicians on the make for for votes.
Politics are the enemy of the good.
Spot the difference.
Can you spot the difference between versions A and B of the following stories.
Versions A
Tough on flowers
A decision by a community council left an 89 year old local widow upset and threatened with the loss of her allotment.
Mrs Avery had enlisted my help two weeks earlier. I wrote to the Rogerstone council asking them to use a bit of common sense. There was no reply. Mrs Avery rang me on a Friday. She expected the bulldozer to arrive on Monday to ‘clear’ the flowers she had planted in defiance of the rules.
The Council was not answering their phone. I gave the national and local press the story. The chairman of the community council then said ‘rules are rules.’
Finally good sense prevailed and they changed their minds. Mrs Avery is now happily tending her vegetables and flowers in the allotment she has rented or thirty year.
Nothing to hide
The expense claims of Newport MPs did not raise any excitement. All my boring expenses are on my website. They were discussed at a well-attended public meeting that I held in the Civic Centre. Thanks to all those who attended.
Versions B
Tough on flowers
A ham-fisted decision by a community council left an 89-year-old local widow upset and threatened with the loss of her allotment.
Mrs Avery had enlisted my help two weeks earlier. I wrote to the Rogerstone council asking them to use a bit of common sense. There was no reply. Mrs Avery rang me on a Friday. She expected the bulldozer to arrive on Monday to ‘clear’ the flowers she had planted in defiance of the rules.
The Council was not answering their phone. I gave the national and local press the story. The chairman of the community council then said ‘rules are rules.’ Finally they were shamed by mocking publicity and climbed down.
Community councils cost taxpayers a lot on money. We expect better of them.
Nothing to hide
No moats, duck-houses or bottles of gin on Newport MPs expenses. All my boring expenses are on my website. They were discussed at a well-attended public meeting that I held in the Civic Centre. Thanks to all those who attended.
Versions B were banned by the Commons as unsuitable for use in a newsletter finaced by the Communications Allowance. Versions A are acceptable.
Interesting.
You said "shamed". That implies that they felt guilt and culpability. But I doubt that's true: they probably merely felt the pressure and made a tactical withdrawal.
Posted by: Kay Tie | July 30, 2009 at 10:24 PM
I think that is correct KayTie. When I first raised the issue, the Council was defended by two correspondents who attempted to justify the threatened evictions. One was clearly well informed and may have been a member of the Rogerstone Council.
The ridicule in the national press did alarm them. Mrs Avery is very grateful
Posted by: Paul Flynn | July 31, 2009 at 12:46 PM
In version B (as Kay Tie says) you ascribed motive to the county council (naughty...) and inadvertently made political points about how much community councils cost and Tory expenses scandals, which could be viewed as "campaigning"
Do we get a prize?
Posted by: DG | July 31, 2009 at 12:46 PM
That right DG. The Commons are following the rule that say that these communication will not be political. Unfortunately it is also less interesting if the language has to be filleted to take out even mild criticism of this sort.
No prizes, I'm afraid. That would definitely be against the rules.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | July 31, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Ah, well. Back to discarded betting slips then...
Just occurred to me:
"Am I the only backbench MP who is not on holiday?"
If everyone has answered the Daily Telegraph's questionnaire, you might have had an answer to that.
Posted by: DG | July 31, 2009 at 05:30 PM