Local lessons

No doubt the psephologists and political pundits will study the entrails of the English local elections and produce all sorts of weird and wonderful (and naturally, unbiased!) analysis and commentary on these but here is my take.

May as well get the Lib Dems out of the way first, which I think is something that could well happen or largely happen at the next general election.  For them a very bad night.  They lost 124 seats or mare than 25% of those they were defending.  Being a member of the Coalition they could have expected some punishment but they are supposed to be strong in local government.  It is at these 'grass roots' levels that they have built and nurtured their base and on the back of this, their move to Westminster.  That foundation was badly damaged on May 2nd.  Maybe irreparably.  Their will no doubt be talk of a Conservative leadership challenge, need for a change, etc., but I think the more likely one to be challenged is Nick Clegg.  Though I think this is just a slim chance as they really are stuck with the Coalition, for now.

Labour?  Didn't see much 'One Nation Labour', did you?  They have been 'banging on' about cuts and austerity and it isn't working etc., for the last three years.  The economy has bumped along going nowhere and yet, for all of these factors which should, if their narrative is to be believed, have delivered a resounding 'kicking' for the Conservatives, it clearly didn't.  Labour gained 291 seats.  From a low base they doubled their representation but ..........  I think that the Labour message of 'we need to borrow more' and 'spend more' just doesn't resonate with the electorate.  When all is said and done, people know that the party is over and that now the bills need to be paid.  They know that continuously living on credit, just gets you deeper into trouble and stores up debt for them and their kids and grand-kids and great-grand-kids, etc..

For Labour the message seems to be, we don't buy your economic twaddle -  your numbers don't add-up, you fooled us once (three times actually but who's counting) and on the economy, we don't trust you. 

I used to say to my children, the answer is no, what was the question you were going to ask?  For Labour, the answer is always, we need to spend more tax payer money, what is the issue?'

So to the 'elephant in the room' - UKIP.  A very good night for them, both in terms of seats gained +139 and share of the vote 23%.  We know that this won't translate to a quarter of Westminster seats but this must cause the other parties to sit-up and take notice.  From what I can gather, UKIP's success was founded on the EU and, allied with that, immigration.  The latter principally from EU countries.  If UKIP are to grow, they must now lay out a fuller policy platform tackling more than just these two issues.  What are their views/policies on the economy, on crime, etc.  They may have policies on a whole range of issues but these have not been articulated.  Likewise, they need to develop the 'team'.  Nigel Farage is a powerful leader.  He brings a refreshing honesty (or so it seems) to the debate but, there really needs to be more people speaking for UKIP than just Farage.  And no, that wasn't a job application.  For me, with UKIP the overall package presents anti-libertarian views I could never support.

For David Cameron and the Conservatives, the danger of these results might just lie in complacency.  They actually weren't that bad!  OK so many good councillors and servants of the people, lost their seats and Labour gained control of 2 councils, from the Tories and the Conservatives lost control of a further 8 to 'no overall control' but it could have been a lot worse. 

The UKIP danger is there for the Tories but so is the solution in place. 

Cameron has promised a referendum on Europe.  However, only in the next parliament.  This needs to be brought forward so that either the referendum occurs during this parliament - how about on the same day as the next general election - May 2015? - or the legislation needs to be passed, in this parliament, committing to a referendum no later than May 2016.

On immigration too, the Conservatives have made in-roads but they need to tackle this, from the 'other end'.  The problem isn't really immigration.  Why do EU citizens come to the UK to work?  Because there is work available.  Why is work available?  Because timidity on welfare reform means that it still pays to not work.  I don't like the idea of further immigration restrictions and believe that the 'demand' side of the equation, is the one that should be addressed.

One way for Cameron to flex his muscles and take some of the wind out of UKIP's sails is to deal with Abu Qatada.  Simply deport him to Jordan.  Pay no heed to the ECHR, the Immigration Appeals courts - just put him on a plane and live with the consequences.  Last time I checked, SIAC was a UK agency!  Also, the ECHR doesn't have any tanks or jets that they can send to punish us.  Justify the decision by saying what all right thinking people know - enough is enough, this has dragged on far too long and the UK has been taken for a fool, but no longer.  

The final message for Cameron and co.?  It's the economy stupid!!  Why alienate natural supporters pursuing the media or marriage for homosexuals.  Focus on what the Conservatives are best at - economic management and law and order.

Oh!  and time for a reshuffle.  Ken Clarke has to go!  Replace with David Davis, would be my suggestion - think of the message that would send.

Abu Qatada - Deport the family

The UK government is getting tied in knots by the ruling, from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), that the UK cannot deport a man who has been labelled as 'extremely dangerous' because, Jordan, the country to which we want to deport him, may have used torture to procure evidence leading to convictions. and might 'probably' (their words) do so in his case.

I will come back to that in a moment but surely we can just go ahead and deport his family?  There seems to be limited information available on their 'origin' but if they are not born in Britain, why can't we deport them?

I have voiced concern about the ECHR ruling before, on this blog. How can judges dictate issues affecting the national security of the UK and against the express wishes of the UK's legally elected government? 

Just as importantly, how can we let them do so?  The first duty of a government must be to protect its people!  That isn't a party political issue, that is first principles.

I am afraid that as regards torture being used on extremists, I may be in a minority.  My view is that with Al Qaeda terrorists (as earlier with those from the IRA and UDA) then the 'normal' rules need to be suspended.  These people do not play by the same rules as us.  Imagine playing football and the opposing team were playing rugby!  While we are nicely following the FA rule book, our opponents are picking up the ball and battering us down on the way to scoring their idea of a goal!  What is almost as galling is we then have apologists who use legal manoeuvres to try to get us to accept this mis-application of the rules.  Usually at the tax-payers expense!!

I do appreciate that it is a slippery road down which to travel but frankly, we grant these people the freedoms of a civilized world  that they would remove as soon as they possibly could, at the same time as they seek to extinguish the lives of ordinary people around the world.    

Jordan is the country to which the UK is seeking to deport Abu Qatada (though he seems to have been born in Palestine!).  Jordan isn't part of Europe and doesn't have to kow-tow to political judges who think they should not only rule on law but actually make it.  So Jordan, rightly says that we don't need lectures on law and what is right from Europeans!

The ECHR ruling is patently wrong.  It sets out 'acceptable' standards of future behavior which no government can predict or control and then ties the hands of the UK government because of those very lack of control!

However, last time I looked, the UK was still a sovereign nation and the UK government was elected by its people, not judges in Strasbourg.  So the UK government must do the right thing and protect its people by deporting Abu Qatada.  And start by deporting his family.

Incidentally, who funds Abu Qatada's family?  Who funds his legal challenges?  MY expectation of an answer is that in both cases, it is the UK taxpayer.

Enough!!

Police and The Sun

Shouldn't all of us be disturbed at the way the Metropolitan Police are handling the investigations about possible wrong-doing at The Sun.

Assigning 170 officers?  More than covered the PanAm-Lockerbie investigation, apparently.

Dawn raids (which get leaked to the press!)? 

These aren't armed killers or dangerous terrorists - they journalists, for heavens sake.

I don't read The Sun and frankly much of what I have heard about its reporting style I find distasteful but as their former political editor has said, where is the proportionality? 

There are killers and muggers and rapists sitting at home tonight and there are 170 less policemen concerned or involved with tracking them down.  What's to stop them going out and doing it again - well 170 less officers for a start!

Abu Qatada is about to be released onto our streets and instead of gathering evidence to put him away or get him out of our way, 170 of the police are otherwise engaged.


Incidentally, given that some of the accusations that are floating around, talk of bribes or improper payments  to police officers, how can any UK police force really lead the investigation?

Oh, and those other newspapers and TV News smiling so smugly at the fate of The Sun, look to yourselves and your house.  Sure that you have never paid a policeman for a lead or a tip?  Or bough a civil servant an expensive dinner, to get the low-down on a story?  No?  Sorry, simply don't believe you.

I do believe that criminal investigations should be pursued.  I do believe that journalists should be treated just like anyone else before the law and that includes being presumed innocent until tried and found otherwise.

I have to question why it seems to be the senior people at The Sun that are being arrested.  I really can't believe that they were the ones, personally passing over the 'brown envelopes', rather than the actual 'reporter'.

This whole episode leaves me with a sense of unease as to where we might end up as regards 'control' of the media (and yes I mean media and not just the printed press) and I also include social media as being at risk.

Worrying times!  And then there is the happenings in Greece!

Abu Qatada - Solutions

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Abu Qatada cannot be deported from the UK because 'information, probably, obtained under torture' will be used against him, if he is re-tried, for terrorism offences, in Jordan, where he was already tried and found guilty, in-absentia, for terrorist offences.

Some ways forward

The court has made clear that if the UK obtained an assurance from Jordan that evidence obtained by torture would not be used against Abu Qatada at trial, there would be nothing to stop his deportation.

So the UK can obtain such an assurance and deport him.

Or

The UK can arrest him based on his seemingly inciting comments made in the past and then deport him based on these?

Or

The UK can put him on a plane to Jordan and then face whatever censure the European Court imposes and either settle or pay any fines or tell the European Court that we simply don't recognise this judgement as it goes against our sovereign rights.  End of!

Or
The UK can put him on a plane to Israel or Palestine and let him go to Bethlehem, which is his birthplace (and isn't in Jordan!)

Or
I don't suppose we could request the countries of the judges that passed this ruling, to take their turn to house him and his family, in their country? 

Whatever,

Abu Qatada and his stated dependents must be denied any and all UK state support - no welfare benefits, no legal aid, NOTHING

If Abu Qatada is released into the UK community, then place him under 24/7 surveillance and overtly so.  Have uniformed officers follow him and his family at every turn and be positioned outside his home all the time.  Also,  have his telephones and Internet monitored and require cell phone companies to turn-over details of all calls he receives.

We must make life extremely difficult for the man that former Home Secretary, David Blunkett describes as 'extremely dangerous'.


Immediately deport all other terrorist suspects who have appeals to the Law Lords or the European Court of Human Rights.  Then deal with the consequences - what will the Law Lords or ECHR do, send in their troops?  Tell them to go to the hell where these terrorists will end up!  This shouldn't be a party political issue.  This is about common sense and decency versus the liberals and legal establishment that have no concept of how their weaknesses imperil our country.