Paul Flynn - Read My Day

House of Commons

19 July 2017
2.25 pm

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday’s Order Paper said that the debate on drugs could continue until 7 o’clock. The final speaker sat down four minutes early. The normal practice in this House is then to use that time for other speakers to contribute. It was particularly interesting that the final speaker, the Minister, had denied interventions on the grounds that she did not have enough time to finish. The Standing Orders are not clear on this point. Is it not right that we get some definition of past practice in relation to cases where speakers do not have anything else left to say and other Members can contribute to what would then be a full debate?

Mr Speaker

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice somewhat earlier of his intention to raise it. I am loth to quibble with the hon. Gentleman, who is a considerable authority on matters parliamentary, as evidence by the well-thumbed tome on how to be a Back Bencher of which he is the distinguished author. That said, I am inclined slightly to quibble with him on his proposition that it is normal or commonplace, if a ministerial wind-up concludes early, for other Members to be invited to contribute. In my experience, that is not commonplace. I would not say that it never happens, because you can almost always find an example of something if you try hard enough, but certainly when I am in the Chair I tend to work on the assumption that the ministerial wind-up is indeed the conclusion of the debate.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the conclusion of this debate taking place earlier than listed on the Order Paper, although I am sure that he will readily accept that the Official Report—that is to say, the verbatim account of what was said; there is no question of misleading anybody—will show that the debate concluded a little early. The Chair does not normally allow a further Back-Bench speech, and—this is not directed at the hon. Gentleman; it is just a wider point—certainly not from a Member who had already made a substantial speech in the debate.

As for interventions, the hon. Gentleman, as the author of “How To Be An MP”—available in all good bookshops, and of which I am myself a noted admirer, as he knows—he will appreciate that a Member is free to take interventions or not. I note what he tells me—that the Minister said, “No, I can’t take interventions because I haven’t time”—but that is not something on which the Chair can rule. Sometimes Ministers can be a tad neurotic in these circumstances, it is true, as can sometimes, perhaps, shadow Ministers, but that is not a matter for the Chair. Whether the Member seeking to intervene likes it or not, the situation is as I have described.

Let me take this opportunity, in a positive spirit, to encourage all new Members—I am not sure the Whips would agree about this—to read the hon. Gentleman’s books on being a good parliamentarian. [Interruption.] “No!”, says a Government Whip, chuntering from a sedentary position, in evident horror at what bad habits new members of the flock might pick up. I think that they are fine tomes. The hon. Gentleman has used his position as a Back-Bench Member to stand up for his constituents and to fight for the principles in which he believes. That has sometimes pleased his party and sometimes not, but that is what we are supposed to get here—Members of Parliament who speak to their principles and their consciences. That is a good thing, and, as he knows, I like to encourage it. In fact, when I was a Back Bencher, I had a relationship with my Whips characterised by trust and understanding—I didn’t trust them and they didn’t understand me.

"Wonderful Battle' and a 'Rip-off'

RIP-OFF of the CENTURY

13^th July 2017

·  Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

 

 

When can the House express its disdain and contempt for the rip-off decision made by a gullible Government in agreeing to buy the dearest electricity in the world from a French company and guaranteeing that price for 35 years? Only months after starting out, the project is £1.5 billion over budget and a year behind schedule. Like all other European pressurised reactors—EPRs—this one will involve vast cost overruns and long delays, and none of them has ever produced enough electricity to light a bicycle lamp. May we debate this, to address the continuing rip-off of the taxpayer for the next 50 years?

• Andrea Leadsom

 

 Share this contribution

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, who has been an anti-nuclear campaigner for a long time. I respectfully say, as an ex-Energy Minister, that I just disagree with him. On average, nuclear energy provides around 20% of our electricity needs at all times, and our ageing fleet of nuclear power stations must be replaced. If we want to continue to keep the lights on, we have to take steps. This particular project protects taxpayers from the costs of budget overruns.

 

 

Was it a ‘Wonderful battle?’

• · Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)

 

I think my hon. Friend knows what I am about to say, but does he recall that, through him and the Wiltshire Regiment, I presented the city of Salisbury with a bugle that was used by the 1st Wiltshire Regiment? I understand that it is now in the museum as a recognition and a memory of the brave people who fought in that wonderful battle.

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

I rise because of the description of Passchendaele as a “wonderful battle.” For many who were there, including my father, it was a terrible tragedy that resulted from the misjudgment of generals and others. We cannot look at it without remembering that many of those who lost their lives—they did not give their lives—were told that if they went there, they would stop the “Huns” bayoneting ​Belgian babies. They went there as a result of persuasion and propaganda, and we must remember that if we are going to learn the proper lessons of war and the immense and wasteful loss of human life.

• John Glen

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Every Member will have a different emphasis and interpretation of events, and I hope that the debate will give everyone an opportunity to reflect in our own way on the events of 100 years ago.

 

3.33 pm

 

Will England follow Wales in Saving Lives?

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

   

  I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this debate and on the clarity and comprehensiveness of his speech. He covered the ground in commendable fashion and hit the significant factors involved.

   

  The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) rehashed the debate in Wales. She mainly addressed opinions and fears that were expressed before the change was made in Wales. I am sure that those fears were sincere, but they have not been realised in the way that she suggests. It is not important that the Welsh Government might not have had entirely accurate evidence; evidence rarely is entirely reliable, and there may have been misunderstandings. However, the impressive outcome of the change is absolutely crucial. At least 40 lives were saved—at least 40 people are alive today who would not have been had the presumed consent Bill not passed. As my hon. Friend said, the figure for lives lost in England is 457. That is an extraordinary number of people. If there were an accident today in which that number of lives was lost, that would be our main concern.

   

  My interest in this issue began in 2012, when my 22-year-old constituent Matthew Lammas came here to lobby me and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). Matthew was in need of a heart transplant. He had a heartbreaking story of so many false alarms. He would get a call at perhaps 2 o’clock in the morning and drive up to Middlesbrough or Birmingham, but halfway up he would get another call to say, “Sorry; somebody else got the heart—someone got here before you.” Six months after he visited me here, I attended his funeral. A 22-year-old man’s life was lost. I am absolutely convinced that, had we taken the bold decision to introduce presumed consent in Wales six years ago, we would be in a far better position and Matthew Lammas’s life would not have been lost in that way. Those are the simple facts.​

   

  There have been extraordinary changes in Wales since the passage of the presumed consent Bill. No one in Wales has died for lack of an organ since that system came into effect. In 2015-16, 214 organ transplants were carried out and 192 patients were on the organ donation waiting list. There was a great deal of concern in Wales, and we all understand that; we all know the feeling of wanting to treat the bodies of our loved ones with reverence and care. There is something that upsets us profoundly about the idea of organ transplantation. There are also genuine religious objections, which were played out again and again in Wales. But I come back to my point: look at the outcome.

   

  There has also been a huge change in public opinion in Wales. In 2014-15, 48.5% of the people of Wales had consented to donating their organs. The figure leapt to 64% in two years. Public opinion has come around to this. We must congratulate the Daily Mirror, which demonstrated tabloid journalism at its very best. I am not sure that it sells many papers, but it has, for all the best reasons, boldly sought to ensure that this life-saving measure is introduced. We can now have great optimism, because my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who came sixth in the private Member’s Bill ballot, announced that he will take this issue up, and there is every chance that the spirit of this Parliament will take it forward.

   

  We rejoiced this week when a decision was taken about the long-standing injustice of contaminated blood. We have come to a consensus about that, and the Government have shown themselves willing to move forward and introduce valuable reform. When I introduced my Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill in the last Parliament, my contact with the Government was entirely friendly. They were reasonable; they were cautious in reaching conclusions but made it clear that the door was open for reform soon. We can change that figure of 457 avoidable deaths. We must move rapidly and find consensus among all parties to take the clear and unambiguous lesson from Wales that presumed organ donation consent saves lives.

   

   

 

Politics is always rough

Today Simon Hart will have a moan about abuse of politicians. It's a crude attempt to smear Labour. Of course, all candidates are subjected to abuse. It's worse now because social media allows the trolls to rant anonymously.

 

Slander, lies, mockery and abuse have been the currency of political debate since the Roman Empire. One complaint today is the threat to slash car tires. My first job in politics at the age of ten was to guard the only Labour car in Cardiff South in the 1945 election from similar attacks.

 

Of course all MPs get abuse. It is best ignored. Most perpetrators have serious mental health problems and thrive on repetition of their insults. It was at least a decade when a Newport troll put up a website site saying he hoped I would die soon in agony. There was also a film he made portraying me as Hannibal Lecter-not someone I normally associated myself with. It was a simple matter to block the social media nuisance and ignore him. It's a puzzle to me why colleagues repeat the insults that are thrown at them and widen the attention they get. This is exactly what the abuser craves. 

 

If a threat of violence appears serious, sensible precautions can be taken. Only twice in 50 years as an elected representatives have I had to inform the police. Only once did someone throw a punch at me and he missed. 

 

 

 

Politics is a rough old trade. Those who cannot stand the heat should get out of the limelight.

 

 

Leyton College and Kids Company.

Emotion-churning, brilliantly conceived & acted political theatre on refugees by Leyton 6th Form College today at Barnabas Arts house Newport. Young London actors were trained by Newport's Katy Arnell the daughter of Janet Martin the owner of Barnabas.

The 40 minute performance hit the audience with the force of a full in the face gale of argument, pathos, tragedy and irrefutable logic. It's a polemic and does not not pretend to tell the full story. But it does expose the superficial and selfish arguments that are dwarfed by be a world crisis of immense suffering.

The actors move with grace, elegance and power from the delicate opening depiction of animal migration to the terror of journeys where the weak face impossible barriers. The work was selected for the national Student Drama Festival this year. It deserves a wider audience. Well done Katy and crew!

 

*******************

 

The musical COMMITTEE at the Donmar has reopened the controversy on Kids Company. Reviewers are divided on who comes over as the villains. Fans of the David Cameron's Big Society may still sympathise with Alan Yentob and the incredible Ms Batmanghelidjh.

 

The Mail's Quentin Letts was present at the original committee meeting in 2015 which is depicted with verbatim extracts. He believes the musical has been excessively influenced by Ms B's hypnotic powers of persuasion and distraction that harvested £42 million from Government and £10s of millions from other gullible benefactors. Other reviewers are more sympathetic to the MP questioners who were expressing genuine anger at the gross waste of public funding that served a political gimmick and denied cash to other good-value efficient London child charities. The task of parliament is unfinished. The promised report of the Charity Commission is long overdue. I have written to them about the delay.

There was no penalty against the two ministers who defied their Civil Servants advice and gave £3million to Kids Company a few days before the charity collapsed. The true story is one of clever manipulation. The reason the erring ministers were not reported to the Adviser on Ministerial Conduct is that the only person who can refer them is the Prime Minister who had some involvement in the flopped Big Society project. Not mentioned previously is an attempt was made to manipulate the committee. Information was conveyed to us on the alleged delicate mental health of one of the witnesses. We were asked to tread softly. All witnesses were in robust form capable of fielding the Committee;s questions. The warning was a further example of the techniques of persuasion vividly exposed by the select Committee session.

I have yet to see the show. Chair Bernard Jenkins found the portrayal of himself unsettling and the portrayal of me as more mellow than the real thing. How disappointing.

Sadly the Committee's work was weakened by a reluctance to pursue the falsehoods delivered by witnesses and the need to protect the Poster Girl of the Big Society's failed extravagance.

According to the Tories, if you’re a WASPI women, just get an apprenticeship!

Guest blog by Tito who has been on work experience with me in Parliament this week.

Society is more aware than ever before of the historical plight of women’s subordinate role to men in the workplace.  It is a shame we are only just beginning to fully overhaul.  However, less well-known is the particular plight of women born in the 1950s, who face the travesty of being denied their rightful pensions by a sharp rise in the state pension age from 60 years old to 66 years old with little to no notice. This is a travesty which cannot be allowed to continue and has undermined the hard, often physically gruelling endeavours of women over a lifetime.

The Acts of Parliament which, together, have plunged 1950s women into such an abominable position were passed under Conservative governments.  The Major Government’s 1995 State Pension Law Act put in place a timetable to equalise the State Pension Age for women and men.  The Cameron Government's 2011 State Pension Law Act accelerated this timetable so women’s state pension age would hit 65 by 2018 and both men and women would have a retirement age of 66 by 2020, meaning some women would have to wait an extra 18 months to receive their state pension.

This penalised older women unfairly.  Not only had they made firm plans to retire at 60, they received no letters to inform them they would have to stay working for longer, so for many women the change came out of nowhere and was a nasty surprise.  Ministers’ ignorance to the anxiety and misery this would cause is symptomatic of the Conservative government's approach to women who disproportionately suffer the consequences of austerity Britain in employment and living conditions.  In a debate this Wednesday, Pensions Minister, Guy Opperman, refused to offer any help even to the most vulnerable and suggested those affected women should just take up apprenticeships as a route to re-employment.  In all seriousness, these older women many of whom are educated, have had tough working lives and careers and are on the brink of retirement, are supposed to be sated by the “extended apprenticeship opportunities” offered by the Conservative government.

This is insulting and wrong.

Fortunately, WASPI (Women against State Pension Inequality) have been a resolute campaign group in highlighting the inadequacies of the government in providing justice for older women and have managed to engage thousands of members and acquire the support of 180 Members of Parliament. Their position for the transitional arrangement of a ‘bridging’ pension to provide an income from age 60 until State Pension Age for all women affected is fair and just, and would bring long awaited equity to the pensions of these women. A petition filed by WASPI Voice, a sub-grouping of WASPI, calling for immediate access to their state pension at a reduced rate and earlier, was able to receive over 20,000 signatures in support and necessitated a response from government outlining the somewhat baffling position that "Working longer can improve and maintain physical and mental health – evidence shows that making adjustments and changing working patterns can help older workers to manage health issues and stay in work,"

A society where one can work their whole lives and never receive requital is unfair and as much as the Conservative government believes sexism and inequality is either non-existent or justifiable, the WASPI campaign and that of their prominent supporters in parliament such as Mhairi Black, Graham Jones, Keith Simpson and Paul Flynn will bring justice to those being denied it.

Select Committee Donmar ON SONG

Review: Committee at the Donmar Warehouse

24 JUNE - 12 AUGUST 2017

It’s complicated: Sally Hales reviews the world premiere of a chamber musical based on Kids Company.

Only the biggest personalities in the room take any shape. Paul Flynn (Anthony O’Donnell), MP for Newport West, a veteran Labour man who has literally written the book on how be a pain in the arse from the backbenches, gets air-time via his determination to say whenever he smells bullshit. Conservative committee chairman Bernard Jenkin is played with perfectly affected flair by Alexander Hanson, but with the rest of the politicos there are scant pickings, despite as an ensemble being largely flawless.

Yentob and Batmanghelidjh offer far more. There’s as much creativity in the latter’s ‘verbal ectoplasm’ (™ Paul Flynn, MP) as there is in her outfit, while Omar Ebrahim injects some levity in proceedings with Alan Yentob’s essential Yentobness, all name-dropping pomposity. Sensational singing from Sandra Marvin makes Batmanghelidjh unforgettable, giving passionate voice to her commitment and slipperiness, which makes it even more frustrating that the depths of her character remain hidden. Things heat up when questions reveal – or try to – the perplexing relationship between Yentob and Batmanghelidjh. But this simmering suggestion of a faulty power balance between the ego-driven pair is similarly prevented from really being explored.

 

Adam Penford’s production, while skilfully executed, reinforces the point that we are watching the British equivalent of the Soviet politburo. When Paul Flynn reasonably asks why £150 was spent on a pair of shoes, his colleagues suddenly produce samples of extravagant footwear from under their desks. It wouldn’t have happened in reality, but it clinches the show’s anti-politics argument: that the committee is more interested in exercising its power than addressing the plight of deprived children.

All the performers do a good job. Sandra Marvin is excellent as the defensive Batmanghelidjh and Omar Ebrahim is touchily unapologetic as Yentob. Alexander Hanson as the crisply authoritative Jenkin and Rosemary Ashe as the inquisitorial Hoey stand out from the committee. But eventually it is a case of means and ends. The aim is clearly to make us ask how Britain is governed and whether our institutions genuinely serve the people. For all the good intentions, however, music distorts the issue by making it look as if Kids Company was a victim of parliamentary arrogance. A musical can do many things but not, I would suggest, capture the humdrum detail of a committee at work.

Adam Penford’s production, while skilfully executed, reinforces the point that we are watching the British equivalent of the Soviet politburo. When Paul Flynn reasonably asks why £150 was spent on a pair of shoes, his colleagues suddenly produce samples of extravagant footwear from under their desks. It wouldn’t have happened in reality, but it clinches the show’s anti-politics argument: that the committee is more interested in exercising its power than addressing the plight of deprived children.

It is above all served by a remarkable ensemble company, who grippingly bring each of these characters to utterly believable life. The intimidating and powerful Batjanghelidjh is embodied with fierce and ferocious command by the formidable Sandra Marvin; Omar Ebrahim's Yentob, on the other hand, wears an expression of perplexed, defensive befuddlement that their good intentions have come to this. The MPs, led by Alexander Hanson as Bernard Jenkin, are also strongly differentiated and keenly brought to life by Liz Robertson (as Cheryl Gillan), Robert Hands (David Jones), Anthony O'Donnell (Paul Flynn) and Rosemary Ashe (Kate Hooey).

The Donmar, who have done remarkable work in recent years in illuminating real-life events from the formation of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in Steve Waters's Limehouse and testing the value of notions of privacy in the internet age with James Graham's Privacy, have once again gone behind-the-scenes with a startling, keenly felt version of a story that needs to be told -- and thanks to this memorable treatment, will help it to be remembered.

 

It is a fascinating and still unresolved story, not least because of the exuberant, eccentric figure of Camila herself; and the way a select committee works is actually not undramatic, especially when made surreal as the panel rise up, sing choruses (“We want to learn! This is not a show trial, we want to learn!” ) or read written statements from outside witnesses. The interrogators are all pitch-perfect, with that characteristic MP-mixture of earnest administrator and “showbiz-for-ugly-people”. Notably there is Alexander Hanson’s urbanely civil Jenkin, Liz Robertson’s sarky Cheryl Gillan, Rosemary Ashe as the maverick Kate Hoey and the Welsh terrier Paul Flynn (Anthony O’Donnell).

But of course the focus is on the odd couple who sit before them (and are seen up on screens, and occasionally rise to pace the floor, singing) . Sandra Marvin is unnervingly like Camila in multicoloured dress and turban, gait, high-pitched speech, and unnerving smile: when she sings the sincerity of both the woman’s good intentions and her dangerous self-belief are gloriously magnified. As Yentob, Omar Ebrahim is not quite the cornered-rat one remembers from the TV relay (possibly because he’s a splendid baritone, which gives a Verdiesque dignity even to his absurdities, like the notorious claim he signed off that without more money London would see “riots and looting”) . But he does often catch the pompous worry of a man addicted to citing powerful friends and colleagues who approve of him: the PM, Michael Gove, the “Chairman of WH Smith”, big banks, whoever….
 

So it’s all there: the Camila flakiness, the Chairman’s complacency, the dark unseen hinterland of tragic young lives, and the clash between idealism and safe administrative procedure. You reflect, watching and listening to Batmanghelidjh,, that giving – financially and emotionally – is a satisfying addiction, and can if imprudent bring you down. As for Yentob, the reflection is that thinking well of yourself and collecting plaudits from grand friends is probably another addictive behaviour. So what we had here was a kind of folie-a-deux. If the Chair had been some tough, clever, unimpressable terrier of a manager, we might still have the charity.

 

Committee review - we're all on trial in new Kids Company musical
Investigation into the charity's downfall is slickly dramatised at Donmar Warehouse

by Marianka SwainTuesday, 04 July 2017
ShareFacebookTwitterEmail
Under scrutiny: Camila Batmanghelidjh (Sandra Marvin) and Alan Yentob (Omar Ebrahim) face the committee
Manuel Harlan
A memorable 2015 parliamentary select committee hearing asked Kids Company CEO Camila Batmanghelidjh and chair of trustees Alan Yentob whether the organisation was ever fit for purpose. Tom Deering, Hadley Fraser and Josie Rourke’s new verbatim musical – think This House meets London Road – asks the same not just of the charity, but of the political system itself and the way we treat the most vulnerable in this country.
Kids Company was the feather in the cap of David “Big Society” Cameron, and thus, despite repeated warnings, received hefty sums from the Government, including a final £3 million bailout just before its collapse. In October 2015, the cumbersomely named committee sought answers; that name is given a jaunty sting by Deering, and lends the show its epic full title, The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee takes oral evidence on Whitehall’s relationship with Kids Company.
Committee, Donmar WarehouseThe stroke of brilliance is seeing the theatrical potential – and potential critique – in the format of select committee hearings (pictured above). Though its participating MPs are at pains to stress this is not a “show trial”, there is something gladiatorial and performative about the whole enterprise. Robert Jones evokes the drab green-seated committee room, but notably Batmanghelidjh and Yentob's faces are projected on large screens – it's part court, part entertainment. That's possibly exacerated, teases the script, by politicans' eagerness to make the Today programme's coveted "8:10 am slot".
Is this really the best way to learn serious lessons? The committee’s limitations are all too apparent, the demand for short and concise answers indicative of a complex argument reduced to combative sound bites. Yet Batmanghelidjh’s limitations are also laid bare: her inability to provide concrete figures, her dedication becoming pious, possibly poisonous self-justification in the face of reasonable queries.
A dramatic figure – rainbow dress amidst muted institutional hues – she's superbly suited to the musical form, rising from her seat to better address us spectators in the public gallery of Portcullis House in passionate song, and Sandra Marvin nicely captures both the conviction and slippery obfuscation. Similarly, Yentob’s mellifluous self-importance is, in reality, delivered as though expecting backing from a string quartet; Omar Ebrahim is delicious fun in the role, segueing smoothly from patronising defence lawyer mode into full aria.
Committee, Donmar WarehouseThroughout, the show is even-handed in its treatment. Kids Company was certainly filling an ever-widening void in social care, and made a significant difference in thousands of lives. But the cavalier admission that they didn’t bother to build up long-term reserves because they expected the Government to keep topping up the coffers is extraordinary, and so too is the deep hostility towards local authorities and unsustainable personality cult built up around Batmanghelidjh – Corbynites beware…
Fraser and Rourke heighten the argument by selecting key phrases, emphasised and layered effectively by Deering’s score – sometimes lush, sometimes sharply atonal. The committee speaking in one voice or in harmony becomes literal, in contrast to this renegade outsider, and crisp movement by Naomi Said breaks the monotony of a seated committee: tellingly, Yentob the name-dropper revels in glad-handing, while Batmanghelidjh is most comfortable playing with her children.
An excellent ensemble clearly and wittily embodies the major players, including Alexander Hanson’s smarmy but pragmatic Bernard Jenkin (offering the party line on PM May, in one of several topical touches; pictured above right), Rosemary Ashe’s fiery Kate Hoey, Liz Robertson’s silky Cheryl Gillan, Anthony O'Donnell's belligerent Paul Flynn, and Joanna Kirkland skilfully directing proceedings as the Clerk.
At just 80 minutes it does feel a tad abrupt in conclusion, however this is, of course, an ongoing drama – not just with the imminent arrival of Batmanghelidjh’s tell-all book, but the urgent issues like public sector pay that are still very much under debate. As with the Donmar’s recent The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui, Adam Penford’s involving production directs its big questions to the gallery: we are all on trial here.

Committee at Donmar Warehouse until 12 August

What is the point of Theresa May PM?

What is the point of Theresa May?

Europe is laughing. The Prime Minister has humiliated herself. A Dutch cartoon showed her hitting her head with a mallet. Euro-contempt for our self-lacerating Brexit decision has been replaced with Euro-ridicule.

She called an election to strengthen her negotiating position by increasing her total of MPs.  She destroyed the majorities of 33 of her Tory MPs and decrease her majority by 13.  She earned universal disapproval; for an incompetent campaign. But no resignation.

Politicians are strange people, They have herculean resilience. It allows them to divide their brains into two. A conscious one that creates a fantasy reality of perpetual success and an unconscious one where failures lie un-noticed and invisible. John Major emerged smiling from his own catastrophic financial errors and sounded plausible even though schizophrenic. Mrs May is relying on universal amnesia of press and public on the reasons she called the election. Her party are seething but chose to play along with the survival game.

They have no alternative leader who commands majority support in the Conservative party. Boris is loved and loathed in equal numbers. All others are distrusted Brexiteers or anti-Brexiteers. One again the well-being of the UK is suffering to deal with internal Tory Party crises.

Of course May should go, Where we need strength she bring weakness. Where authority and leadership will matter she present chronic weakness and a destroyed reputation.

The Referendum was called by Cameron to escape an internal Conservative Party crisis. It was lost because of the same internal division. The UK is Europe’s laughing stock. Our economy  will be destroyed in the Brexit negotiations. Again because of an internal Tory Party row. Why put up with them?

Fake Market Research

 

All MPs are aware of market research inquiries that are fake. There is convincing evidence that the abuse has spread to politics here in Newport West. 

 

The opinions of MPs are valued. Lobbying interviews with MPs are usually rejected as  a waste of time although dozens of groups try it.  A sneaky alternative to drip information into the ears of MPs as fake market research. The invitation is accompanied by a bribe. Between £50 and £200 is offered as a contribution to a favourite charity. Some MPs pocket the money after declaring it in their registers of interest. Most are legitimate market research inquiries from respected companies.

 

Others are not. I recall one that purported to be seeking my opinion on formula milk. The questions were ridiculously long. Usually on the lines of 'The Midwives Association have said that the formula milk is the best options for most mothers. Do you agree'. It soon became apparent that my opinion was not being sought but my attention was being bought to spread their propaganda. This is probably good value to the commercial company when all other attempts at lobbying have failed.

 

An undercover investigation by C4 News, broadcast on Thursday, claimed the workers may have been carrying out paid canvassing, banned under electoral law, as they promoted key Conservative messages to undecided voters in the weeks before the election. Under the guise of alleged market research, voters in Newport were approached and asked questions that contained information damaging to Jeremy Corbyn. I had complaints about the volume and persistence of the callers. It was suggested the calls originated from a Cardiff Tory Party phonebank. This would have been legitimate had they been volunteers. Channel 4 made the serious charge that the call centre was paid by the Tory Party to make the fake market research calls and, even more serious;y, canvass by phone for their marginal candidates on polling day.  If that allegation is true the Information Commission and Electoral Commission must act.

 

On the final day of the last parliament I raised the final point of order drawing attention to the fragility of our election rules that are no longer fit for purpose.

 

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

 

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that strikes right at the heart of the integrity of our democratic system. It is based on the final report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, as well as two articles in The House magazine, one by a Conservative Member and one by a Labour Member, all of which sound notes of alarm that our electoral system is the most vulnerable it has been since 1880. There is powerful evidence of foreign Governments interfering in the elections in America and possibly here. There is also overwhelming evidence of money being paid in huge amounts, entirely invisible to the system, by the use of methods including algorithms, botnets and artificial intelligence in a manner understood by nobody except those who participate in it. We should be vigilant in this election, because the Electoral Commission does not have the tools to deal with interference of this kind, and we are trying to run a modern election with the tools of the 19th century.

 

​

 

Mr Speaker

 

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has registered a strong and deeply felt concern, and it is now on the record. It is not, however, a matter for me, and I do not say that flippantly. Algorithms are certainly not a matter for the Chair, and I am sure that colleagues will be greatly reassured to hear me say that. The wider issues are ones for us all.

 

The hon. Gentleman, who has now served in this House without interruption for three decades, the overwhelming majority of which, by his choice, has been as a Back-Bench Member, has demonstrated once again, not least for the benefit of Members completing their first Parliament, that he has written the textbook on how to be a Back Bencher. He has written the textbook in that he has published such a book, which is a well-thumbed tome of which I am proud to possess and to have read a copy, and he has written the textbook in the sense that he exploits—I use that word non-pejoratively—every last opportunity to give voice to his concerns. Unless someone is about to surprise me gratuitously, his has been the last point of order. I thank him, and I hope that we can leave it there.

 

The sitting is suspended. Shortly before the sitting resumes, I shall cause the Division bells to be sounded.

 

 

 

The Welsh Tories seems to have proved my point.

 

 

Resisting excesses of architects

 

It was Harry Jones’ first meeting as a councillor. He later became Sir Harry after a long and distinguished career. He told me about his astonishing experience at his first meeting.

 

A councillor urged ending the building of a half-constucted tower block of flats at St. Julian’s, filling the void with concrete and inscribing on the side of the building, ‘This giant tombstone was erected in dishonourable memory of the failed concept of hi-rise living.’

 

That was in about 1976. My remarks were part of a many-faceted campaign against experimental housing. My simple concept was that the evolved model of two –storeys, upstairs for sleeping to protect us from the sabre-toothed tigers, downstairs for living plus two enclosed areas, one in front for decorative use, one behind for utilitarian use. The further the ambitious, creative, imaginative, phallus building architects strayed from the ideal the worst the results became for satisfying habitation. I was also campaigning long before Thatcher for tenants to have the right to buy their houses because in the modern world, rent is theft not property.

 

Newport did twice begin to sell council houses in the 60s and again in the 70s. We also built only three tower blocks and avoided most of the extravagant designs of wedged shaped or flat roofs popular in Cwmbran. I was too late to avoid the open plan designs that denied people the defensible space they desired.

 

Years of experience have reinforced my belief in the ideas of the young Councillor Flynn of 50 years ago. The council was urged to build more tower blocks. A fundamental fallacy was that they made better use of space. It was generally an illusion and much exaggerated as we embarked in building estates to the traditional plan that is much loved of two story dwellings. Newport was not short of land and it was right to spurn the dreams or architects.

 

The unimaginable horrors of this week are the stuff of fiction. All our worst fears are churned up by the suffering of those who were trapped. Newport Council reacted swiftly on Wednesday to the anxieties of their hi-rise dwellers after the Grenfell nightmare. Those who live in high rise deserve the reassurance that only massive investment in new safety measures can provide. We are indebted to the councillors on the 50s, 60s and 70s who built for the fundamental needs of people for acceptable habitats and disregarded the ambitions of architects out to leave massive indelible hi-rise marks of their pioneering fallacies.

 

Related articles

'Tower blocks could be torn down' - Sadiq