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.