Wear your Poppy with Pride

You can shop here and buy other things to support the troops - even an app for your iPhone (if you understand what that is!!). You can also offer practical help.

Europe - a betrayal?

I'm not disappointed with Cameron's reaction to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. It was Gordon who betrayed his manifesto commitment, not Cameron.

It was Blair who allowed the net contribution we make to more than double to £7.8 billion next year, with nothing in return.

Cameron has made the best he can of it at present. I would like to see us stop "gold plating" European directives, and I would also like to see us refusing to do things if it isn't in our interests (after all, the French do it all the time!). I agree we need to bring back some powers - particularly in areas that harm our economy, our way of life, or our ability to control our borders or our crime rates. I think we have £7.8 billion reasons and our markets (which are in deficit to Europe as they are everywhere else) as pretty good bargaining counters, so I think that we can ensure we have the upper hand in getting what we, the British people, want out of Europe.

As for UKIP - I agree with Iain Dale here - "Will it satisfy those whose agenda is leaving the EU? No, and nothing he could say ever will. Frankly, those who start spitting about voting UKIP can ** and do just that if it makes them feel better. They may get a momentary warm glow of satisfaction, but what they could end up with is another five years of Gordon Brown. Think on that, if you're one of those people. And then think about the word 'self-indulgent'."

"Meanwhile, the rest of us will get on with trying to support a party leader who is trying his best to rescue the country from the Euro-mess created by the present lot.

Some people seem to have forgotten that it was Gordon Brown who reneged on his manifesto pledge for a referendum, not David Cameron. Cameron could never deliver on it if he wasn't in government. Brown was and didn't. That should tell you all you need to know."

Just too cute to be the last chance to see...

I've been watching some taped episodes of the BBC programme "Last chance to see" with Stephen Fry. Regular readers will know that I am passionate about wildlife, but I was really moved by this animal - the Madame Berthe's mouse lemur. The way it moved, the way it looked at you was simply a delight. It is a recently discovered native of Madagascar, the smallest known lemur (a primate, and therefore a distant cousin of ours).

Unfortunately this TV programme is about endangered animals. Madagascan forest has been practically destroyed. I can't find a video to upload of this wonderful animal (but if anyone knows where I can find one, I would be grateful), but just for the joy it gave the viewers, a campaign is needed to save it - it would be a marvelous figurehead for a charity.

The two charities that do seem to be doing something to save the forests and biodiversity of Madagascar are WWF (their work described here) and the Gerald Conservation Trust. If you too would like to ensure this little creature - smaller than 4 inches long - gets a second chance, you can donate to either of these charities.

Evidenced Based Drugs Policy?

The row between Alan Johnson and Professor Nutt is actually very disappointing on many levels.

Advisers advise, ministers decide - that is a fact. The buck stops with the minister, who has to make decisions in the context of a political situation and also in a way that joins up with other demands and government policies.

That is not to say that this situation should have got to where it is. If Mr Johnson were on top of his department, perhaps he wouldn't have fallen out so spectacularly with his adviser. Perhaps his adviser wouldn't have actively campaigned against government policy.

The one thing that does however give me more sympathy with Mr Johnson is Professor Nutt's words today where he said "Politicians think that they know the facts but scientists know the facts." This is pure poppycock - and I say that as someone who has a medical degree, years as a doctor and someone who has postgraduate qualifications in the critical appraisal of evidence and policy development.

The fact is that, as Ian Duncan Smith (who has looked at the evidence more than anyone and is just as able to understand systematic reviews and listen to advice as the next person) said "There is no settled position from the scientific community right now and for Professor Nutt to say that he has the beacon of knowledge is wrong,".

Scientific opinion forms from evidence at different levels. The gold standard is a systematic review of a number of randomised controlled trials. This is what we try to do in medicine and in public health practice. The fact is that in wider population issues, or on behavioural issues, the evidence is more difficult to ascertain. Drugs policy has largely been formed on the basis of consensus, not real hard facts.

In fact, much drug policy is based on politically correct perceived wisdom. In treatment of opiate addiction for instance, Theodore Dalrymple's assessment that current policy is flawed and harmful is very compelling from an evidence based as well as an instinctive level. This needs to be further investigated. The idea that cannabis and perhaps other drugs could be prescribed by doctors for addicts to cut out the pushers and therefore end the incentive for the drugs trade should also be examined.

The fact is that we don't really know that much about the harm of some drugs such as cannabis in the long term. There are also other issues such as drug-driving (as opposed to drink-driving) - where the time to excrete drugs from your body can make testing at the road side difficult, which has implications for policing and road safety.

We also don't have sufficient evidence on how to best treat different types of drug addiction, and how to defeat the drug traffickers. We have to base decisions on best evidence and how it fits with wider policy issues.

On this basis, if Professor Nutt really believes he is right - full stop- then he is clearly not the right man for the job. A large degree of uncertainty, open-mindedness and flexibility is required on this issue, and he does not represent a "settled view" of scientists, and seems to have a closed mind to the other side of the debate, and the need for more research in a number of related areas. We would be better off with him back in cosy academia rather than on policy development, it seems.

Managing health scares - best to be honest?

Vaccination is a really tricky issue. People these days seem to have an innate distrust of authority, and there are small but significant numbers of people out there who honestly believe there is a cover up in regard to the safety of vaccinations.

If there is a cover up, it is a pretty good one, as it isn't in the systematic reviews of the published evidence in the peer review papers. It must be really good, because it convinced me to vaccinate both of my children.

I feel like many others in regard to the flu vaccination - is it safe? It's new, relatively untested, and how would I feel if my children got ill after it? On the other hand, there are people dying and seriously ill. Hospitals are starting to strain. My way of tackling this issue is:

1. How would I feel if they got really ill and I hadn't followed advice from experts and given them the vaccination? Much worse than if they got ill when I had followed advice. I breast fed both of my kids for the exact amount of time it was recommended to - do the day, to be precise. I hated doing it, but I don't want the guilt of wondering if it was my fault if they developed allergies or other things that are linked with early bottle feeding. I take the same view with vaccinations.

2. The balance of probabilities - the chance of being seriously ill is higher if don't vaccinate than if vaccinated. I know there is a rigorous licensing process. I know every year they make new vaccines for the latest version of flu. I know that flu can attack healthy people.

There are no guarantees in life. Everything is a balance. At some point you have to let your kids play outside without you being there. It is pretty scary at the time, but if you wrap them up in cotton wool you are probably more likely to do harm (psychological). There is always a pragmatic decision to be made, but it must be made on common sense and the facts as they are at the time.

Perhaps we would have less distrust and fewer bogus health scares if we were honest about the balance of probabilities and the human side of decision making than to just use the words "it's perfectly safe", which seems to have been government policy for a very long time.

NB I believe most GPs and practice nurses do talk about the balance of probabilities. It is the big brother reaction to health scares (rather than the individual clinicians') that I believe can worsen people's fears.

Is this a man the Tamils "can do business with"?

We all remember the beginning of the end of communism and the cold war - when Margaret Thatcher met Gorbachov and said that "this is a man we can do business with". On Monday I met a man who may be that person for the Tamils of Sri Lanka.

I have blogged before about my concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka. As I write this, there are still over 250,000 Tamil men, women, children and babies in internment camps in Sri Lanka. The International Red Cross is no longer allowed in - in breach of international law. The Sri Lankan opposition party (UNP) and Tamil parties are not allowed in. The media has had very restricted access, as has the UN.

There are reports of shooting onto the crowds. We know there is inadequate food - a US report to Congress said so this week. There are reports of fighting for water supplies. Tents are being eroded, and the monsoon season is setting in which will give a huge risk of waterborne diseases - as it is, there are reports of 1400 deaths a day in the camps.

In the rest of Sri Lanka there are media restrictions, disappearances, ethnic resettlements. This cannot go on.

The Tamils need a voice. They need to be allowed home to their houses, or to their families. They need a political settlement. It is in the interests of ALL the people of Sri Lanka to have a settlement that will satisfy the Tamil people's aspirations. That requires trust on both sides and a willingness to work together. For this reason, a possible Sinhalese political partner is important.

The man in the picture with me is Dr Jayalath Jawawardana, Deputy Leader of the United National Party (UNP) - the official opposition in Sri Lanka. He recognises the plight of the Tamils and is someone that perhaps they may be able to start a dialogue with. The picture below is of a letter he has from his leader to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The Tamils need friends within the Sri Lankan mainstream. Sri Lanka needs a free media and to abide with international law if it wishes to be a respected member of the UN and Commonwealth. I will what I can to encourage this dialogue if I feel it will help the cause of the Tamils. Afterall, do the Sri Lankans really want to end up as pariahs to the West, relying on Russia and communist China for their safety and trade?

I will do all I can to push for and facilitate human rights, a free press, getting the IDPs home and a then a political settlement that the Tamils will be happy with. My own personal view is that a two-state solution is the only real answer, but a political process is important, and the views of the Tamil people is what matters here.

PS - My work was mentioned in the House of Commons debate - here online. This is what two of our MPs had to say:

Mr. Lee Scott (Ilford, North) (Con): Let me start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) on securing the debate. I will not repeat anything that has already been said, as I would like to talk about this subject from a personal perspective, before making some suggestions.

Last Thursday, together with three other hon. Members, one of whom is in the Chamber, I visited Auschwitz concentration camp. We saw what man’s inhumanity to man can do, and where things can end. That most emotional trip affected and upset me greatly. I am still thinking about what we saw last week, partly because my own grandparents came from that area, and I might not have been born had the Nazi regime had its way.

In 2009, the position is simple: these camps should not exist; they should not be there. I remember—as I am sure anyone who knows their history will know—that the Nazi regime put up Theresienstadt as a model. They said, “This is where we will let the media in and this is what we will allow people to see. We will create the façade that people are happy, being resettled and getting what they want.” We know what a myth and a lie that was, and how many millions of men, women and children lost their lives.

I have been criticised by the Sri Lankan high commission for making that comparison, and I am pretty certain that I will be criticised again after I have finished speaking today. However, I do not know what is going on in the camps. My constituents do not know what is happening to their relatives, because no one is allowed in to see. They are allowed to see only a sanitised version of what is going on. Therefore, if I am making certain comparisons that are not true, I challenge the Sri Lankan Government to allow people in to see.

Mr. Burrowes: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his long-standing campaign on behalf of the Tamil community and on the importance of respect for human rights. A cross-party campaign has existed for some years both inside and outside the House, and I pay tribute to Rachel Joyce, Andy Charalambous and others. The Foreign Secretary said that this was a war without witness, but the danger now is that any peace will also be without witness. There is an urgent need not only for the International Red Cross to maintain its presence, but for proper United Nations monitoring and freedoms, not least for the press.

Mr. Scott: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments—I agree totally. We must let people from the International Red Cross and from third sector and humanitarian organisations in to see what is happening. Most importantly, let us not talk about 100,000 people, let us not say Christmas or next year, and let us not use excuses that there might be mines. I am sure that if the Sri Lankan Government asked the international community, everyone would help to clear those mines, should they be there. Therefore, the camps should be closed down now, this second, however many there are.

Nothing British about the BNP

This video with - I believe - updates can be downloaded onto your blog/ website/ Facebook etc. I strongly recommend this. We must not allow the BNP to hijack traditional British institutions such as the armed forces.

Labour playing the race card?

Interesting this article which suggests "The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett." Man in a Shed has an interesting take on it here.

My personal belief that all this "playing the race card" - categorising people into groups based on their ethnicity - and treating them differently on the basis of their race - for social and political purposes - is what encourages the rise of the BNP, divides communities, and is just low politics.

I saw this myself when in the GLA election our Brent and Harrow candidate, Bob Blackman was virtually accused of racism by Labour in their literature. Anyone who knows Bob, who has been a very well known figure in Brent Council, particularly supporting the Hindu Temple development at Neasden, and with great links to the Brent and Harrow Indian community, will know he doesn't have a racist bone in his body.

Playing the race card like this for political purposes is incredibly low politics, and it is damaging to all parts of our fantastic multi-ethnic society. The best way to encourage a non-racist Britain is to focus on what unites us (which is practically everything), not focussing all the time on what divides communities.

What does an MP look and sound like?

There currently is quite a bit of controversy in the Conservative grassroots about the idea of all women shortlists for parliamentary candidates. Views in favour are very few - but there is one here. Many are against - such as Iain here.

I was an "A lister". I am so pleased, however, that I was selected in a process that was open to all on the candidates list, not just A listers. Therefore, I was considered by the association to be the best person who applied. I can therefore look the members and the electorate in the eye - I might be female, but I am no token.

In fact, until I entered politics, I had never once seen my sex as a barrier. Perhaps it is because I feel quite comfortable being the first to do things. I was the only girl in some of my classes at school - I did sciences. It never crossed my mind to do humanities just because the other girls were. I was essentially an honorary bloke in those classes - and it has stood me in very good stead - I have always felt very comfortable with sincere platonic friendships with men. Many women (particularly those who went to single sex schools) find platonic friendships with men difficult, which is a shame.

Since I came into politics, I have however noticed that my sex is occasionally an issue - to other people. Some women say they will vote for me because I am a woman. I know of at least one member who has told people she would rather have a male candidate. This is apparently common in particular with older Conservative women members, who see a good looking, well polished male with a strong voice as a comforting figure as their MP. I think it is a security blanket for them - reassurance in what they know. It is not for me to judge their generation, even though I disagree.

It is however these smooth good looking men who may have breezed through life who may least be able to understand the challenges everyday people - in particular women- have to go through. So filling up the House of Commons with them is clearly not a good idea - even though some will be fantastic MPs.

On the other hand, we have accusations of racism from some MPs, like Labour MP Dawn Butler in Brent who says she is the subject of racism because she has never been invited onto Question Time. This view is supported by our own Brent & Harrow GLA member, Navin Shah. Interestingly, she herself was selected by an all black shortlist (which Navin was also on). She uses a comparison with Sarah Teather's regular appearance, even though Sarah Teather is a LibDem front bencher, and Dawn Butler is not (there aren't many LibDems to choose from, so let's face it - they are more likely to be recycled regularly). Iain Dale discusses this here.

That is not to say that there are not enough ethnic minorities on the candidates list and in parliament. There clearly aren't, as there aren't enough women. We do however have some fantastic candidates like Priti Patel who will be a really great MP, I am quite sure.

Management gurus will tell you that when in the management of change, we go through a four stage process - forming, storming, norming and performing. We are clearly in the storming phase of change in the introduction of more women and ethnic minorities into parliament. It is going to be controversial. We somehow need to make sure it is successful - not being racist or sexist in one direction in order to counteract racism or sexism in the other direction. We need to ensure that candidates are respected as being the best selected - allowing them to be called "tokens" would be to do them a serious disservice. To do that however, we have to challenge the stereotypes that perhaps more of an older generation may hold. Perhaps the best way forward is full open primaries as they held in Totnes. But then, they did choose a female doctor, so perhaps I would say that, wouldn't I?

Andy McNab against the BNP

Andy McNab is what you would call a real hero. For people like this, I am wearing the poppy I bought today.

Andy McNab is as disgusted as most decent people are that the BNP are trying to hijack our patriotic feelings and our respect for our soldiers, in order to get people to vote for them. See the video below.



I do however blame Labour for making our armed forces unfashionable in its usual politically correct way up until recently - don't forget the soldiers who don't feel they can wear their uniforms in the street, and who can't even get a room at a hotel. I also blame Labour for the rise in the BNP vote - as they are the people who have treated the white working classes so badly - see here and here.

Another Prediction Come True

Hat tip Iain Dale.

Mr and Mrs Public Sector

Mr and Mrs Public Sector are in a bit of a bind. See here.

Leave comments on how to help them with their "little bit of bother".

Harroween Quiz Night

Harroween Quiz Night

Posted using ShareThis

What is Conservatism?

Basically, it is common sense pragmatism, and respect for people. It is what we humans instinctively understand as the way to behave - sensibly, morally - with family and community at the heart of it all, along with an appreciation of history and continuity.

A really good summary is in this radio programme by Peter Oborne.

Churchill quote

I meet people from the left and the right of politics who admire and respect Winston Churchill. He was flawed (as we all are), but arguably is one of the greatest Britons ever. His quotes are almost prophetic, such as "We must beware of trying to build a society in which nobody counts for anything except a politician or an official a society where enterprise gains no reward and thrift no privileges."

What is interesting is that despite being born to the aristocracy and privately educated, no-one calls him a "toff". Perhaps with the hindsight of history people don't show the same class prejudice people can today - for both ends of the class system.

It will come back to haunt him

David Miliband's nasty smearing of some of our European partners is frankly disgusting. It reaks of desperation, but is inexcusable.

Anyone who decides to accuse someone of racism or anti-semitism should:

a. have their facts absolutely right; and
b. ensure their interpretation of the facts are in accordance with the conclusions most people would draw from the same facts.

People's lives can be ruined by false accusations.

I haven't met one Jewish person who thinks this is true. Shame on you, Mr Miliband. It does not become a Foreign Secretary, and certainly is not the type of behaviour that should be displayed by a person who aspires to be Prime Minister. I believe it will come back to haunt him at a later date.

"Gordon Brown can probably be judged the most expensive leader of any Western democracy since the war"

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

That is, according to Fraser Nelson, and I certainly agree with him. The graphs illustrate exactly how the British taxpayer, the British mortgagee and the British saver have been taken for a serious ride.

The first shows the gap between base rate and retail rate. The second shows the cost of banking crisis as proportion of GDP.

Cameron's speech

For the second year running, I could only see the back of David Cameron's head. I was behind. Not sure if you can see me - I'm at the back, second last on the right. It was nevertheless an inspiring speech, which explains his values. They are the same values that signed me up to the party, too. That is strength with compassion. Empowerment not condescention. Responsibility and a harmonious society which best looks after the vulnerable. Bottom up solutions, not arrogant dictats from the government. A government that supports and leads the way and doesn't boss the public around. A government that works with the people to find the solutions to a modern society's problems. Tough love to sort out some of the serious problems in society that are worse in this country than anywhere else.

I can't find a way of uploading the whole speech here, but here is a link to it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8297708.stm

The verdict was good.

My favourite moment was this shown in this clip, just after he explained that Labour's policies cause an effective 96% tax on the poorest who work -

We need to get Britain working

Great Company

Yesterday at the party conference I went to a lunch. There were lots of people there, but ended up chatting to two people. The first was a serving army officer who was also an expert on Afghanistan.

The second was Alan Wright, the PPC for Hartlepool - Mandelson's old seat. His insights into Mandelson as a previous MP were fascinating. Also very interesting was how he was running his campaign, and the way he can really speak for those in Hartlepool -more than the imported champagne socialists. He would also very clearly make a fantastic MP. I would not be at all surprised to see at the next election the surprise words of "Hartlepool, Conservative gain".

Oh - and no, no-one was talking about Europe! (But the speaker was Douglas Carswell, the man who ousted the speaker and who was joint author of The Plan - a man who has been arguing for the reform of the House of Commons for some time now).