On Tuesday I spoke in the Chamber on the debate on The Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. The crux of the Bill, introduced by the Justice Secretary Jack Straw, revolves around measures designed to phase out, through a variety of different means, hereditary peers from the House of Lords. It also includes proposals for scrapping by-elections for hereditary peers.
As one would expect from the Chairman of the Cornerstone Group I am strongly opposed to the Bill. The logic of a democratic country states that we should have a democratically elected second chamber in tandem with the elected Commons, but if we put everything down to logic then the rich traditions and history of our country would be swept away. For example, the Royal family makes no logical sense, but they are part of what makes Britain great. As my Hon. Friend Gerald Howarth put it in the debate, “If they (hereditary peers) went, it would expose the monarchy as the only hereditary institution in the land. [Do I] believe that that would endanger the monarchy? I certainly do.”
The history of the Lords demonstrates that what we have ended up with is an example of a great British compromise. As so often happens with the law of unintended consequences in our historical development, we have ended up with a pretty good system. We have found ourselves in the enviable position of having members with vast amounts of expertise, who have worked all their lives in the professions or in business and who are not politicians. They speak only when they have to speak and vote only when they feel strongly. In short, they do a good job. And we mustn’t forget that there are only 92 hereditary peers, a mere 13% of their total number.
If one looks for a precedent for an appointed second chamber one need look no further than Canada. Do we really want to follow their lead and model our second chamber on the least effective second chamber in the Western world? I think not.
I worry that if we did get to the stage where there was a fully elected Lords then it would be stuffed with inferior Members looking for ministerial office. After all, Parliament is already stuffed with people looking for ministerial office, so why would the elected second chamber be any different?
What this debate boils down to is the agenda of some to push for reform for reform’s sake. The House of Lord’s is an institution which provides an important balance for legislative process of Parliament. It does, and will continue to do, an excellent job and any reform of its entry procedure would not result in better legislation. The phrase, “if it’s not broke don’t fix it” comes to mind.
Saturday 30 January 2010
Wednesday 20 January 2010
"Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death"
I have a tendency to read two or three books at once and have once again fallen into this bad habit. I am reading George Orwell’s 1984 once again and Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall (about the life of Thomas Cromwell) for the first time. The later is a study of the past, whilst the former was written as a study of the future that has now become the past.
Wolf Hall highlights the degree to which government, both Protestant and Catholic, peered into men’s souls in Tudor times, which was frightening.
1984 is not just a satire on Totalitarianism; it is satire on all dominant political thought processes. Nowadays, ours is a kind of vapid centralist social democracy which is utterly dominant in both the so called right and left parties all over Europe.
In 1984 when O’Brien is torturing Winston Smith he says:
“We are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury, a long life or happiness, only power, pure power.”
It seems to me that today many of the world’s leading politicians are less and less interested in ideology, in moving the world in the direction of their own choice. They are focused on power, but not power to do something, just to be.
To obtain an office, to be on the top table with the President of the United States, to have their name inscribed in the lists of Prime Minister, to be someone, not to do anything.
They are empty shells.
As O’Brien says:
“The object of power is power.”
Newspeak is famously the corruption of language to eradicate free thought. Political correctness is the modern equivalent of newspeak.
Modern leaders for instance unashamedly draw back from talking about immigration because is leads inevitably into a language which confronts political correctness.
Thus when the Right seeks to speak out on its favourite theme it is quickly deemed guilty of “thought crime”.
In 1984 any lie can become truth. Two and two can be made to be five.
Now in the modern consensus all conservative heresies are gradually consigned to the dustbin because an opinion pool from some focus group has deemed that any citizen that confronts the notion of social democracy is dangerous or idiosyncratic. In other words the only yardstick to live by is that society knows what is good for me, rather than living by my instincts of what is good for me and my family.
The main component seems to be that people have to believe in something because it is deemed to be good by the dominant politics speak for society and not for them and their families. For instance, when David Cameron bravely speaks out for marriage, a bucketful of invective is poured over his head which argues that because not all marriages are good, we can’t support marriage. He must have the courage to carry out his convictions.
Most people know that the modern state is fantastically wasteful and incompetent but it is somehow bad manners to rise up in intellectual rebellion and demand a bonfire of rules and regulations, a dramatic cut in spending and the return of our own money in tax cuts.
I think that many people would in truth, like to send their children to a privately run school. They cannot afford it because they would have to pay for education out of their highly taxed salaries. They are brain washed into believing that state schools, many of which provide a very mediocre education, are actually best for them and their families. This may be right, but not in all cases.
Many people would like to top up their NHS prescriptions or spend their last days in a private home or a private hospital. However, they think they should want to end their days in a mixed NHS ward.
Many people think that much of the money which they give to charity is wasted in incompetence and corruption and that actually this has been a great cause of the corruption of the ruling classes which has led to the ruination of Africa. But they dare not say so.
Most people like the thought of living in their own country, with their own culture and their own religion in the broadest sense, but they are brainwashed into thinking it is good to live in society where their traditional identities are gradually being forgotten.
Most people would like to believe in marriage and in God, but because they are told that God’s existence cannot be proved and that belief in Him can lead to intolerance and extremism they substitute religious obedience for some vague subservience to the good of society and liberalisation.
This attitude informs the debate on “global warming”. People are told that they should want to live next to a huge, ugly wind turbine. That they must give up their comfortable car because this too adds to global warming. Unfortunately global warming has become a constant crusade by the Left to impose a new, thoroughly painful ideology on us, when their old ones have been demolished.
Is it any wonder that if you look around Europe the Prime Ministers, whether left or right, are generally instantly forgettable suits.
Is it any wonder that there has never been a time when politicians and political parties in Europe were more moribund, and there are increasing calls for state funding to fill the vacuum?
Wolf Hall highlights the degree to which government, both Protestant and Catholic, peered into men’s souls in Tudor times, which was frightening.
1984 is not just a satire on Totalitarianism; it is satire on all dominant political thought processes. Nowadays, ours is a kind of vapid centralist social democracy which is utterly dominant in both the so called right and left parties all over Europe.
In 1984 when O’Brien is torturing Winston Smith he says:
“We are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury, a long life or happiness, only power, pure power.”
It seems to me that today many of the world’s leading politicians are less and less interested in ideology, in moving the world in the direction of their own choice. They are focused on power, but not power to do something, just to be.
To obtain an office, to be on the top table with the President of the United States, to have their name inscribed in the lists of Prime Minister, to be someone, not to do anything.
They are empty shells.
As O’Brien says:
“The object of power is power.”
Newspeak is famously the corruption of language to eradicate free thought. Political correctness is the modern equivalent of newspeak.
Modern leaders for instance unashamedly draw back from talking about immigration because is leads inevitably into a language which confronts political correctness.
Thus when the Right seeks to speak out on its favourite theme it is quickly deemed guilty of “thought crime”.
In 1984 any lie can become truth. Two and two can be made to be five.
Now in the modern consensus all conservative heresies are gradually consigned to the dustbin because an opinion pool from some focus group has deemed that any citizen that confronts the notion of social democracy is dangerous or idiosyncratic. In other words the only yardstick to live by is that society knows what is good for me, rather than living by my instincts of what is good for me and my family.
The main component seems to be that people have to believe in something because it is deemed to be good by the dominant politics speak for society and not for them and their families. For instance, when David Cameron bravely speaks out for marriage, a bucketful of invective is poured over his head which argues that because not all marriages are good, we can’t support marriage. He must have the courage to carry out his convictions.
Most people know that the modern state is fantastically wasteful and incompetent but it is somehow bad manners to rise up in intellectual rebellion and demand a bonfire of rules and regulations, a dramatic cut in spending and the return of our own money in tax cuts.
I think that many people would in truth, like to send their children to a privately run school. They cannot afford it because they would have to pay for education out of their highly taxed salaries. They are brain washed into believing that state schools, many of which provide a very mediocre education, are actually best for them and their families. This may be right, but not in all cases.
Many people would like to top up their NHS prescriptions or spend their last days in a private home or a private hospital. However, they think they should want to end their days in a mixed NHS ward.
Many people think that much of the money which they give to charity is wasted in incompetence and corruption and that actually this has been a great cause of the corruption of the ruling classes which has led to the ruination of Africa. But they dare not say so.
Most people like the thought of living in their own country, with their own culture and their own religion in the broadest sense, but they are brainwashed into thinking it is good to live in society where their traditional identities are gradually being forgotten.
Most people would like to believe in marriage and in God, but because they are told that God’s existence cannot be proved and that belief in Him can lead to intolerance and extremism they substitute religious obedience for some vague subservience to the good of society and liberalisation.
This attitude informs the debate on “global warming”. People are told that they should want to live next to a huge, ugly wind turbine. That they must give up their comfortable car because this too adds to global warming. Unfortunately global warming has become a constant crusade by the Left to impose a new, thoroughly painful ideology on us, when their old ones have been demolished.
Is it any wonder that if you look around Europe the Prime Ministers, whether left or right, are generally instantly forgettable suits.
Is it any wonder that there has never been a time when politicians and political parties in Europe were more moribund, and there are increasing calls for state funding to fill the vacuum?
Monday 18 January 2010
I Believe
Education
As the father of six children I am very interested in education. My wife and I have tried a mix of all types of education for our children; state and private, English and French, day and boarding, faith and secular.
I am not an educational theorist, I am only a parent. I believe that at the end of all this, no type of education is consistently superior to any other.
I do believe in the maximum variety of provision to suit all needs, skills and ambitions.
So my conclusion is clear. Head teachers, both in the private and state sectors must be free to run their schools with the greatest possible freedom.
They should be free to hire and fire staff in order to get the best.
They should be free to set wage rates to get the best staff, particularly where teachers are scarce, such as in the teaching of maths.
Head teachers should set their own curriculum and not be bound by a rigid national curriculum.
We should move gradually to a situation where they are able to decide on which pupils join the school and on the criteria upon which this is based. In fact, the overwhelming majority of schools should always be broad based in their ability range.
Eventually I would like to see a time when the money for a pupil’s education follows the pupil. Any pupil at any school should attract the same basic support from the state, with additional support for special needs according to a statement. This would have to be brought in gradually, starting in year R and building up steadily starting in deprived post codes. Naturally traditional HMI inspections would continue to weed out any incompetence.
I believe that if we break down the divisions between the independent and state sectors, if we set our schools free and if head teachers had to respond to parents, not government targets, then we really could have the best education in the world.
As the father of six children I am very interested in education. My wife and I have tried a mix of all types of education for our children; state and private, English and French, day and boarding, faith and secular.
I am not an educational theorist, I am only a parent. I believe that at the end of all this, no type of education is consistently superior to any other.
I do believe in the maximum variety of provision to suit all needs, skills and ambitions.
So my conclusion is clear. Head teachers, both in the private and state sectors must be free to run their schools with the greatest possible freedom.
They should be free to hire and fire staff in order to get the best.
They should be free to set wage rates to get the best staff, particularly where teachers are scarce, such as in the teaching of maths.
Head teachers should set their own curriculum and not be bound by a rigid national curriculum.
We should move gradually to a situation where they are able to decide on which pupils join the school and on the criteria upon which this is based. In fact, the overwhelming majority of schools should always be broad based in their ability range.
Eventually I would like to see a time when the money for a pupil’s education follows the pupil. Any pupil at any school should attract the same basic support from the state, with additional support for special needs according to a statement. This would have to be brought in gradually, starting in year R and building up steadily starting in deprived post codes. Naturally traditional HMI inspections would continue to weed out any incompetence.
I believe that if we break down the divisions between the independent and state sectors, if we set our schools free and if head teachers had to respond to parents, not government targets, then we really could have the best education in the world.
Thursday 7 January 2010
I Believe
Social Security
If I am going to ask the people in my constituency to vote for me over the next four or five months, I think they have a right to know what I believe in and what I would like to see a Conservative government achieve.
I am delighted that the Party is focusing on aspiration and responsibility. Years ago during the last Tory government I wrote a paper entitled Responsible Individualism. I know that this is an untidy phrase but by it I meant empowering the individual not to be selfish and self centred, and by improving his lot to help society at large, particularly in education and social security.
I am a Tory because I believe in our history, our traditions. Some may argue that it was the eighteenth century rational enlightenment that was the cause of our liberal tolerant democratic society, but in my opinion so many of our institutions and our society as a whole grew slowly over centuries. It is important therefore to place an emphasis on our history and traditions if we are to keep developing as a nation.
I believe that reason, science and progress can march side by side with the personal reassurance given by religious belief and that religious participation (although worryingly in decline) and ethics has contributed to the undeniable advances against poverty. And it is the decline of religion that has made Western society a less happy place in terms of personal fulfilment and supportive family, despite the immense advances made against poverty. The point here is that despite the huge economic advances and the population being better off why aren’t people happier?
Despite this however, there has been a decline in the supporting structure of the family. Of course, families can take many forms and any one of them can be valid in itself, but for most people the model of a man and a woman making an honest attempt at commitment to each other for life is best. Tax and benefit policies should reflect this.
In truth tax and benefit policies on their own are not going to make people stay together, but they send out a message.
One thing is certain. Benefits can influence behaviour enormously for lower income groups.
If you are faced with marginal tax rates, greater than anything faced by the very rich, and you increase your earnings but end up receiving fewer benefits, leaving you less well off overall, then that is a powerful disincentive to work and aspire to self reliance.
For many years I have argued for a much simpler tax and benefits system.
One of the most successful benefits is child benefit. The level of fraud and error is minimal. This is because it is modest and non-means tested.
During the years of which I have been the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee we have published numerous reports outlining the worrying cases of fraud and error in the current system.
What a Conservative government must do is gradually simplify the system and reduce means testing. It will take enormous political will to implement and carry this out but given the £100 billion bill from social security, the harmful effects to the economy of not doing so would be harder to bear in long term.
Next week I shall share my views and beliefs on the subject of education.
If I am going to ask the people in my constituency to vote for me over the next four or five months, I think they have a right to know what I believe in and what I would like to see a Conservative government achieve.
I am delighted that the Party is focusing on aspiration and responsibility. Years ago during the last Tory government I wrote a paper entitled Responsible Individualism. I know that this is an untidy phrase but by it I meant empowering the individual not to be selfish and self centred, and by improving his lot to help society at large, particularly in education and social security.
I am a Tory because I believe in our history, our traditions. Some may argue that it was the eighteenth century rational enlightenment that was the cause of our liberal tolerant democratic society, but in my opinion so many of our institutions and our society as a whole grew slowly over centuries. It is important therefore to place an emphasis on our history and traditions if we are to keep developing as a nation.
I believe that reason, science and progress can march side by side with the personal reassurance given by religious belief and that religious participation (although worryingly in decline) and ethics has contributed to the undeniable advances against poverty. And it is the decline of religion that has made Western society a less happy place in terms of personal fulfilment and supportive family, despite the immense advances made against poverty. The point here is that despite the huge economic advances and the population being better off why aren’t people happier?
Despite this however, there has been a decline in the supporting structure of the family. Of course, families can take many forms and any one of them can be valid in itself, but for most people the model of a man and a woman making an honest attempt at commitment to each other for life is best. Tax and benefit policies should reflect this.
In truth tax and benefit policies on their own are not going to make people stay together, but they send out a message.
One thing is certain. Benefits can influence behaviour enormously for lower income groups.
If you are faced with marginal tax rates, greater than anything faced by the very rich, and you increase your earnings but end up receiving fewer benefits, leaving you less well off overall, then that is a powerful disincentive to work and aspire to self reliance.
For many years I have argued for a much simpler tax and benefits system.
One of the most successful benefits is child benefit. The level of fraud and error is minimal. This is because it is modest and non-means tested.
During the years of which I have been the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee we have published numerous reports outlining the worrying cases of fraud and error in the current system.
What a Conservative government must do is gradually simplify the system and reduce means testing. It will take enormous political will to implement and carry this out but given the £100 billion bill from social security, the harmful effects to the economy of not doing so would be harder to bear in long term.
Next week I shall share my views and beliefs on the subject of education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)