In the summer of 1998, I had the pleasure of working on an isolated Pacific island with two Burmese doctors. This ‘husband and wife’ team from Rangoon took care of over 2000 Aitutaki residents, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They had originally found themselves on the island of Aitutaki as part of a VSO (Voluntary Services Overseas) programme. They stayed on after, mainly to help the islanders, however, a contributory factor to their decision was the military government in Burma. In 1988 one of them had been in Rangoon at the time of the military crackdown that led to the deaths of over 3000 Burmese. She told me of the horrific scenes in casualty departments that night. The sight of numerous gun-shot wounds had clearly had a profound effect upon her. Furthermore, her family had, had close links with Aung San Suu Kyi’s opposition movement and hence on her returns home she had been regularly subjected to close observation by the military.

As I watched the footage on television last night, remarkably being shared with the world via new media, I remembered my Burmese colleague’s recollections of the 1988 massacre. Today, Burma stands at a cross-road. The military government has succeeded in benefitting the very few and hindering the economic progress of the many. It has been humbling to see people on the streets calling for democracy ignoring the real threat of being shot. Despite this bravery, the international response has so far been modest at best, primarily because of Chinese heel-dragging. Once more the UN has appeared powerless to defend those rights we take for granted here in Britain: freedom of speech, democratic self-government, etc. What can Britain do to support the Burmese people? If possible, should a former colonial power been seen to intervene? My answer would be ‘Yes’. Not intervene in a military way, but rather, apply firm economic pressure via the EU – e.g. cancel credit, stop gas and oil purchase, freeze state assets, suspend trade and investment by Western companies. And if that did not work, apply pressure to China? How? Mention withdrawing support for the Olympics next year. Either the democratic countries of the world are serious about supporting freedoms abroad or they are not. It is about time basic principles of freedom are supported by the international community. It would be interesting to ask my former Burmese medical colleague what she now thinks about her freedom of speech, her freedom to move and her right to vote.

For a long time now I have thought there was a strong possibility that Mr Brown would ‘cut and run’ this Autumn. Despite it being against his perceived cautious nature, my belief was that the economy was not likely to get better over the next two years and, in view of the fact that his hands are all over the current credit/debt crisis (both public and private), Mr Brown would understand the climate for electoral success would get no better than now. Yesterday’s speech, however, has given me cause to think again. Might he bottle it, ‘do a Callaghan’, and wait for the Spring?

The hype surrounding the possible announcement of an election date had lead most political anoraks (such as myself) to tune in yesterday afternoon expecting a rip-roaring speech designed to inspire the few Socialists left on this island, whilst reassuring the great majority of centre-right leaning voters this country still sensibly possesses. Mr Brown did not deliver. Indeed his performance was more soporific than stimulating. We were beaten into submission by a series of new ‘policy’ announcements – removing licenses from shops selling alcohol to minors (already possible), expelling immigrants who break the law (already possible). A further drone reminded us of the importance he personally attached to tertiary education for all, irrespective of means, without mentioning the implementation of tuition fees by his own Party. Remarkable. And finally, he hardly managed to mention Iraq or Afghanistan. How come British military commitments abroad are not worthy of more consideration? He apparently managed to mention the words Britain and British 71 times in his speech. What about British lives and British military casualties, Mr Brown?

So, on reflection, if this was a speech prefacing an election battle then Mr Brown is no Napoleon. The ‘ovation’ from his troops was relatively short and had the air of ‘thank God he’s finished’ about it. As someone who always thought he would ‘go early’, yesterday’s speech came as a pleasant surprise. I now suspect that Brown is a bottler.

The Conservative Friends of Bangladesh (CFOB) was established at last year’s Conservative Party Conference. At a well-attended launch event organised by Anne Main MP (pictured above with the former Bangladeshi High Commissioner), the Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague MP welcomed the creation of the group and supported its aims to both build better relationships with the Bangladeshi people here in the United Kingdom, and foster a greater understanding about the country of Bangladesh.

There are over half a million British Bangladeshis. Traditionally, Labour has been the political party of choice within the community. CFOB immediately recognised this and set about challenging that attitude. Bangladeshis are entrepreneurial, hard-working and family-oriented people and hence we believed that they should instinctively feel at home in the Conservative Party. Our growing membership since the launch is evidence that we were right. Up and down the country there are ‘key marginal’ constituencies where significant Bangladeshi communities live. CFOB has worked hard to make contacts and listen to the concerns of those communities. One example was the widespread concern about climate change. Bangladesh has more to fear from global warming and consequent rising sea levels than most. Some estimates suggest that over 15% of the country will be engulfed by the Bay of Bengal by the turn of the next century. That would see a forced migration of some 17 million people. We have found that the Conservative Party’s recent emphasis on developing policies that would limit Man’s contribution to that potential natural disaster has been very much welcomed by the Bangladeshi community. By actively listening to such concerns, CFOB has not only successfully spread our fresh political message to Bangladeshi communities that have not previously considered voting Conservative, it has also helped to improve broader community relations at a time when the tolerant British society that we all cherish is under pressure from Islamic extremists. Interestingly, throughout the last year feedback from the Bangladeshis we have contacted has all been very positive.

CFOB has also been keen to encourage a stable and prosperous Bangladesh. It actively supports the principle of secular democracy enshrined within the Bangladeshi Constitution drawn up in 1971. Furthermore, it retains an independent voice in Bangladeshi affairs, as it has no affiliation with any Bangladeshi parties. Evidence of this active support by the CFOB for Bangladeshi democracy was demonstrated at the beginning of this year by a group trip to Bangladesh headed by our Chairman, Anne Main MP. It had been arranged to assess the political situation which had then become very unsettled. CFOB believes that an orderly and violence-free general election held at the earliest opportunity would be in the best interests of all Bangladeshis. For Bangladesh to continue enjoying the economic growth it has seen over the last 15 years, it desperately needs the relative political stability it had experienced until the recent unrest began. Since its inception, CFOB has provided much support to all interested parties in Bangladesh, and has plans to further strengthen ties with the country. Meetings have been held with leaders of all the major political parties and a further group trip to the country is planned for later this year.

In just our first year, CFOB has increased its membership base within British Bangladeshi communities, actively supported Parliamentary candidates throughout the country and forged strong links with Bangladesh. We have every intention of making our second year just as successful for we believe that the Conservative Party has plenty to offer the British Bangladeshi Community.

(this article was also posted here on Conservative Home)

To be honest, I have never been tempted to pick up a Salman Rushdie book. Friends of mine who have dared, have reported that it was a soporific experience. Despite this, I would willingly fight, both in word and by action, to defend the right of Sir Salman, and other authors, to express themselves freely. Furthermore, I would defend the right of the elected government of this country to bestow any honour it chose to award to whomever it deemed worthy, however misguided I felt the decision appeared to be.

The recent events surrounding Mr Rushdie’s proposed knighthood are concerning. Burning effigies of the Queen and British flags in Pakistan, along with calls from Pakistani politicians to remove the honour, should be firmly resisted. The right of freedom of expression should be defended and shown to be a non-negotiable part of a successful democratic country. To not do so would be cowardly.

If society believes in the principle of the freedom of expression, it must apply it to all authors, irrespective of the content of their books. If an author offends a particular group, be it one based on faith or political persuasion, he should be openly challenged. Indeed, society should tolerate the freedom to criticise other beliefs and thoughts. To my mind, any religion or political philosophy is the stronger for having undergone rigorous challenge and assessment. Those followers who call for censorship appear weaker. Religions that need such protection (and I am aware of none) will probably have a short history. Islam, Judaism and Christianity, to name but a few, are all capable of withstanding continual re-evaluation. That is one of the reasons they have retained support across many centuries. Religious observance and the principle of the freedom of expression can, and should, co-exist happily in our society.

You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilized value. You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilized men and women

– Alexander Litvinenko

The recent suggestion by Vladimir Putin that he may once again aim Russia’s nuclear arsenal at Western Europe has attracted much comment. The fear of a resurgent Russia bearing its military teeth has no doubt sent a few chills down the spines of Western foreign policy-makers. A cyberwar with Estonia, gas supply interference in the Ukraine and the on-going war in Chechyna are all reminders of Russia’s recent tendency to seek confrontation. The ex-KGB man, Mr Putin, has not been shy of talking and acting tough. The Litvinenko case, though unlikely to have been directly state-sponsored, is an unpleasant reminder of a Soviet past in Russia. Friends of mine who have working experience of the country talk of it verging on lawlessness, “a Wild West” in the East. This can hardly instill much confidence in Washington and London when formulating a diplomatic approach to the country’s foreign policy.

Not so long ago, Russia, in the guise of the Soviet Union, straddled the world as a proper super-power. This is no longer the case. The problem for President Putin is that Russia now has all the appearances of an old heavyweight boxer returning to the ring: it is bloated on oil and gas revenue, less agile and apt to use under-hand (KGB-style) tactics to win each fight. Its economy is inherently weak, relying heavily upon revenues from mineral resources. With the G8 summit taking place over the next few days, what should the Western powers do in response to this Russian Rocky?

For Europe, a proper response is difficult. Our dependence on Russia for gas supplies is only going to increase over the coming decades. It is for this reason alone that building nuclear power stations is unavoidable. Indeed, energy independence for Europe would greatly aid our future relations with Russia. Furthermore, the mention of Russian missile targetting should sadly put to bed any question about replacing Trident.

For the USA, however, a proper response is more straightforward. American foreign policy of late has rightly “taken a kicking”. With Russia, they have a chance to re-establish their democratic, liberty-defending credentials. The democratic deficit, the apparent disregard for a proper legal process and human rights, in general, within Russia, should all be top of the agenda in US-Russia bilateral talks. A stable, democratic Russia will be good for both Russians and the rest of us. American and European foreign policy should be about achieving that goal. It should not be about tolerating a failing state simply because we need its gas. Our children and grandchildren would not thank us for that policy decision.

So we, the British people, will not look back on Tony Blair and love him: he has been in power too long for that. We, even his opponents, will not hate him: his attributes have always repelled that. But we will, on all sides, look back and ask “What did he really believe in doing? And when was he going to get round to it?” – William Hague MP

Twenty five years ago, a fresh-faced Tony Blair came to my political patch and ran his first Parliamentary campaign. In 1982, shortly after the Falklands War victory, Mr Blair had been selected as the Labour Party candidate for the Beaconsfield by-election. At the time, he was a member of a party that believed in the nationalisation of industry, unilateral nuclear disarmament, secondary picketing, the withdrawal from the then EEC, and the introduction of an ‘annual personal wealth tax’. What does he believe now? A year later, he became the MP for Sedgefield, and went on to share his Parliamentary office with Gordon Brown.

In 1997, when Labour swept to power with a massive majority, Mr Blair and his cabinet, having ditched many of the principles held dear by ‘Old Labour’, trumpeted ‘new policies for a new century’ – an ethical foreign policy, a ‘new politics’ to combat cynicism about politicians, the decentralisation of government, the reform of the welfare state, encouragement for saving for retirement and early CAP reform in Europe. What does the Prime Minister (PM) think of his New Labour record of achievement? Did he achieve as much as he promised the British people?

In the coming weeks, Britain is set to ‘inherit’ a new PM, the co-architect of the original Labour volte-face, Gordon Brown. He was present in 1997 when the policies mentioned above (and many others) were announced. He is still present ten years later with the facts telling us all that none of these policies have been successfully implemented. So, as he announces his ‘Programme for Change’, let us remember Gordon Brown’s ‘achievements’ of the past. Remember the desire for a ‘new kind of politics’ as we recall Peter Mandelson, the Hindujas, Bernie Ecclestone and the ‘Cash for Peerages’ saga. Remember the ethical foreign policy as we recall Darfur, post-war Iraq and Zimbabwe. Remember the promised CAP reform as we recall the misery of the farm payments disaster. Remember the “retirement savings encouragement” as we recall the outrageous raid on private pensions. But above all, remember that as we are saying au revoir to Mr Blair we are saying bonjour to his partner in crime. For it is a crime to have promised so much, spent so much, and delivered so little.

Today, it is expected that three in five eligible voters in this country will fail to exercise their democratic rights. This compares unfavourably with elsewhere in the world. Last week, almost 85% of the French public cast a vote in the first round of the Presidential elections. In the 2005 Iraq elections, almost 80% of registered voters took part in the democratic process, despite the real threat of violence. Why are Britons so apathetic about voting? What should be done about it?

In this wave of local elections, new methods of casting votes have been introduced. To postal voting has been added e-voting. This new approach has come about as a response to poor voter turnout, particularly amongst the young. The principle appears to be: make the process easier and more people will vote. I am not so sure it is that simple. It is not just voter turnout that has fallen. At the same time, the level of membership of political parties has dropped dramatically. The constituency of which I am Deputy Chairman has been aware of this trend for a number of years, and even though we have maintained a membership total above 2000, that admirable figure does not compare well with the 10,000 our agent told me we once had during the 1970s.

An Australian friend of mine was over recently and he told me that he had recently been fined for failing to cast his vote at the last election. Although it was a modest sum, he accepted it was a fair penalty for not having taking an active part in his country’s democratic process. How would should such a system go down in this country?

I have long been a believer in compulsory, traditional voting. By that I mean that each eligible voter should be obliged to attend in person on an election day. Each individual would be free to not vote for a candidate by ticking a special box or spoiling the paper. And for those incapable of making it to the polling station, special mobile polling booths would circulate each constituency collecting votes from the infirmed. I do not like the postal vote system and and am very suspicious of e-voting. It should take effort to cast a vote as it took more than that to secure it and defend it. We all share a responsibility in protecting our hard-earned democracy. By casting a vote today for the party of our choice we make that democracy stronger.

Dealing with dictators has become more difficult in recent times. In the past, democratic governments could go to war more easily, secure in the knowledge that they had public support, safe in the knowledge that distressing imagery from ‘the front’ would not make it on to screens back home. With the advent of 24-hour news media, those images of warfare are now spread quickly around the globe, often eliciting a negative response from the viewing public.

Recently, the BBC ran a series of programmes on BBC Parliament illustrating how the media’s coverage of war has changed in just the last 25 years. During the Falklands Conflict, British journalists were embedded with our forces and technically unable to broadcast live from the Islands. Furthermore, the MOD censored the footage and reports that did make it back to Britain, often causing a significant delay in the reporting of incidents. For example, footage of the May 4th attack on HMS Sheffield was not shown until over fortnight after the Exocet was launched against it. I could not imagine that type of delay being acceptable today.

This change in the way the media handles warfare has been widely welcomed. Commentators have argued that seeing the realities of war on our screens makes us all less inclined to support the use of force. That may very well be true. My concern is, however, that whether we like it or not, the world remains an unstable place, and as the pictures above highlight, there are still countries around the globe controlled by aggressive and violent dictators. What with the spread of nuclear technology and the apparent acceptability of state-financed terrorism (e.g. Hezbollah and Iran), the democracies of the world need to be on guard to defend freedoms that we all now take for granted.

But it is not just the defence of our freedoms, and indeed, the freedom of all peoples, which will require Britain and its fellow democratic countries to resort to force throughout the next century. It is also the defence of human rights, and the prevention of crimes against humanity, that should concern us all. What if the very media that provides daily reports of the loss of civilian life in Iraq, also brought us regular footage of barbarity in the Sudan and Zimbabwe, and detailed coverage of the recent famine in North Korea? Would there be a call for military intervention to save African and Korean lives? And if not, why not?

For being inconsistent on these matters elicits derision from the developing world. Displaying such double standards does nothing for our moral standing in the world. The situations in Zimbabwe and Darfur are an international disgrace, a shame on all of our houses. We should not be weak in the face of these issues, for it only serves to provoke further transgressions against humanity. Britain and its Allies should be prepared to intervene to protect any innocent life. And if it came to it, we should also be prepared to accept the awful face of the realities of war on our TV screens, if the ends justify the means. It would be a sad irony of the 21st century if the modern media’s detailed coverage of warfare inadvertently ended up costing more lives.

Let a thousand flowers bloom, and let some of them be prettier. Then the people who get the worst flowers can challenge local leaders, locally, and sack them briskly when they fail.

– Libby Purves

Yesterday in The Times, Libby Purves called for a localisation agenda for England. She did this in the light of a recent decision by the Welsh Assembly to abolish prescription charges. This announcement has joined a number of similar pledges made by both the Prinicipality’s elected assembly and our friends north of the border over the last few years. To free prescriptions for the Welsh, one can add free residential care for the Scottish elderly and free university tuition for Scottish students at Scottish universities (note: not free for English students studying in Scottish universities!). All these commitments are to be paid for by the UK taypayer. To add insult to injury, the First Minister in Wales, Rhodri Morgan, declared that the English would be “jealous” of free prescriptions.

And let us not forget the ‘West Lothian question’ so eloquently asked by a Labour MP, Tam Dalyell, in November 1977 –

For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate… at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Yes. 1977. This is not a new problem. It has, however, been further exacerbated by the devolution imposed since 1997 by this Labour government. We now have a situation where Scottish MPs have voted on Westminster legislation, safe in the knowledge that it would not affect their own constituents. Furthermore, in the case of tuition fees, the absence of Scottish MP’s support would have led to the government failing to get the policy implemented in England and Wales. The audacity and inappropriateness of this behaviour was remarkable.

And let us also not forget the ‘Barnett formula’. This 1970s implemented policy has led to the present-day unfairness of regional public expenditure in the United Kingdom. On the basis of figures from the financial year 2003/2004 (source: HM Treasury Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis -PESA), the expenditure per head in England is £5,940. This compares rather unfavourably to Scotland where it is £7,346, Wales where it is £6,901, and in Northern Ireland where it is £7,945. Lord Barnett himself now views the formula as unfair. In The Scotsman in January 2004 he wrote “It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn’t create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding.” When will this formula be consigned to history? Not by a Scottish dominated Labour Party I suspect.

In Libby Purves’ article, she went on to call for a localisation drive in England. The blatant unfairness of the present situation should, she argued, be seen as an opportunity for the English local regions to reassert themselves. I have long been an advocate of localism in schools and hospitals administration. The “postcode lottery” that in the past we have been led to believe is so wrong, has now been introduced by devolution in Scotland and Wales. I welcome the different approaches by our Celtic friends, and would like to see more diversity in service provision throughout the United Kingdom. What I resent, however, is that the English, from whom the Exchequer extracts the most tax, are being short-changed financially. This must stop. The poorer regions of England need more money and we should be providing it. I believe future Conservative Party policy should be about empowering local areas to organise the public services they want. It is not only the right thing to be doing, it is also politically the most astute. And with regards to the democratic deficit, it remains to be seen how the English will respond to a future Scottish Prime Minister whose Parliamentary majority in Westminster could very well be solely due to the demographic over-representation of Wales and Scotland. Interesting times ahead I believe.