Paul Flynn - Read My Day

Avoid an answer? Throw dead cat on the table!

Welsh MPs 'star' in musical version of Commons inquiry

David CornockParliamentary correspondent, Wales

 

Image copyrightMANUEL HARLAN

Image captionSpot the Welsh MP: a scene from 'Committee' at the Donmar Warehouse

If the transcript of a parliamentary select committee hearing were an obvious candidate for a musical then Andrew Lloyd Webber would probably have got there first.

But Lord Lloyd-Webber has left the stage clear for the creative brains behind Committee or The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee Takes Oral Evidence on Whitehall's Relationship With Kids Company - to give the musical its full title.

It is based on the verbatim transcript of the grilling of Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh and chair of trustees Alan Yentob (who is a BBC presenter and former BBC creative director).

Committee members who appear as characters in the show include Conservative former Welsh Secretaries Cheryl Gillan and David Jones and veteran Welsh Labour MP Paul Flynn.

London's Donmar Warehouse stresses "this production has not been authorised by any participant or Parliament" but as a veteran observer of these things I'd suggest there is little for Parliament to get too upset about.

It displays a fair insight into the way select committees work.

Early on, a clerk reveals to the audience: "All select committees are hoping their report gets their chair an appearance on the Today programme - that's the golden thing, the 8:10am slot on the Today programme". Cue a tuneful chorus of "the 8:10 am slot" from the cast.

Image copyrightMANUEL HARLAN

Image captionMPs on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee grill Alan Yentob and Camila Batmanghelidjh in a scene from 'Committee'.

Director Adam Penford said (during rehearsals): "The idea of doing a new verbatim musical based on the transcript of a select committee hearing is quite a crazy idea but potentially incredibly exciting. "Whilst it's part of the musical function to explore how we hold ourselves to account as a society it also asks multiple questions about the relationship of government to the people."

The production presented new challenges for the actors. Robert Hands, who plays David Jones, said: "I've never played a real person before and I didn't know I could do it, I was a bit worried about it actually."

He needn't have worried. Indeed, every member of the cast is thoroughly convincing and instantly recognisable to anyone who watched the original hearing or knows the MPs involved.

'Ectoplasm'

Cheryl Gillan went to see it with other committee members. Her verdict? "A very interesting treatment of a very serious matter using the words that are in the public domain but surreal to see yourself portrayed on stage."

Paul Flynn is played by Anthony O'Donnell ('Dai Davies' in Stella), who delivers Flynn questions - "a spiel of psychobabble, a torrent of words, verbal ectoplasm" directed at Batmanghelidjh - with the gusto of the original.

The Newport West MP tells me he's looking forward to seeing it and meeting O'Donnell. He remembers Camila Batmanghelidjh's evidence with frustration. "It was all about distraction and changing the subject, throwing a dead cat on the table."

A frosty exchange between the two of them about spending £150 of the charity's money on a pair of shoes for a client is given a suitable theatrical treatment.

David Jones recalls: "It was the strangest parliamentary event I have been involved in. It was bizarre, the whole thing. Camila's conduct was extraordinary and in the end I gave up on her and just asked Alan Yentob questions.

"I think it was valuable and I think the value of it was that action is being taken as a consequence of it."

It was revealed on Monday that the Insolvency Service is trying to get the charity's directors, including Camila Batmanghelidjh and Alan Yentob, barred from holding company directorships for up to six years.

Paul Flynn also believes there is "unfinished business" in the committee's investigations.

You can sample the musical here or see it for yourself at the Donmar Warehouse, where it runs until August 12.

Kids Company ; Unfinished Business

Great to hear that the Kids Company Trustees are being brought to book for their failures to do their work in ensuring financial viability to this inefficient charity.

They survived only because of political patronage run by the Poster Girl of the Big Society. I have long argued that the Public Administration Select Committee has not finished its task on this. Our work is on display at the Donmar Theatre in glorious musical form.  As yet there has been no penalties for the two ministers who handed over £3 million of taxpayers' money to Kids Company a few days before they collapsed. That was in defiance of published Civil Service advice. The Prime Minister should have reported them to the the Independent Adviser on Ministes' Interests who supervises Ministers' Conduct. It's a long story but it did not happen. One of the witnesses should have been summoned to appear again at the committee for possible misleading statements. It was not done. The committee conclusions on the role of the Trustees is below.

"Primary responsibility for Kids Company’s collapse rests with the charity’s Trustees. Whether these allegations prove true or malicious, if the Trustees had not allowed the charity’s weak financial position to persist for so long, Kids Company would not have been so vulnerable to the impact of the allegations. e Board failed to protect the interests of the charity and its beneficiaries, despite its statutory responsibility to do so. Trustees repeatedly ignored auditors’ clear warnings about Kids Company’s precarious finances. is negligent financial management rendered the charity incapable of surviving any variance in its funding stream; when allegations of sexual misconduct emerged in July 2015 and threatened to impede fundraising, the charity was obliged to close immediately.

e Charity Commission’s guidance requires Trustees to “make decisions solely in the charity’s interests, so they shouldn’t allow their judgement to be swayed by personal prejudices or dominant personalities”.2 Kids Company’s Board of Trustees lacked the experience of youth services or psychotherapy necessary to interrogate the decisions of the Founder-Chief Executive. is approach le the Trustees unable to defend the reputation of Kids Company and thus to discharge a prime obligation of the good governance and leadership of any organisation. It is essential that Trustees of all charities ensure that some members of the Board have experience of the area relevant to the charity’s activities, in addition to the necessary skills, and that all Trustees have the appropriate attitude towards responsible governance."

Civil Service's new 'hub-mania'

182 jobs will be lost from Newport.

 

DWP have announced the closure of several offices in South Wales including their Sovereign House operation in Newport. Sovereign House has been at the heart of the Newport community for many years and almost 200 back office staff are employed here.

 

Precious civil service jobs are of increasing importance as manufacturing industries have declined. Current plans will strip these jobs from the city centre and move them to Treforest.

 

After leading a debate in Parliament objecting to the closure and meeting with the Minister responsible last week, it is clear that DWP are making baseless decisions and rationalising afterwards. Nonsensical Government strategy to move civil servants into hubs has manufactured irrational decisions. Not unusual for this Government, but this time Newport is the casualty.

 

 

When downsizing means upsizing

 

DWP plan to construct a new super hub in Treforest which will hold 1600 staff.

 

The rationale for hub-mania? DWP insist they have too much floor space relative to the number of employees and must downsize their estate to make savings. As a result Sovereign House will be axed by the Department as the building has capacity for 400 people and is only half full.

 

Confusingly Government have admitted the hub will allow the number of staff in South Wales to increase by 20%. Sovereign House will be closed under the guise of saving on floor space and cost when new staff could be easily accommodated in the remaining space here.

 

Existing infrastructure and solutions have clearly not been investigated. Government believe that purchasing land and constructing a new super hub is more cost effective than maintaining and upgrading their current offices. So as not to be proven wrong they helpfully “have not acquired specific refurbishment quotes for the buildings in question” and refuse to state any costs of the Treforest site.

 

Old buildings are beyond upgrading, unless they are in Whitehall.

 

DWP Minister Damien Hinds denounced Sovereign House, a 1960s building, as “particularly old.” Yet the Education Department are moving from a modern building constructed in 1991 and refurbished in 2009. Instead staff will find themselves shunted to the Old Admiralty Building in Whitehall, constructed in the 1720s. No doubt the building’s listed status will make upgrades expected of a modern office difficult. The refurbishment bill for this 1600 person hub weighs in at a hefty £50 million.

 

If a site fits the hub mantra then money is no object and age no barrier.

 

 

Untold impact on Newport

 

Losing these jobs will have an untold impact on Newport city centre. Civil service jobs in Newport have been a great success providing many local people with well-paid, stable work and career progression.

 

Having these jobs in the local community is of great importance for the economy. Sovereign House workers support local shops, restaurants and businesses in the city centre which will be negatively impacted by the closure. To hear that Government has no plans to publish or carry out impact assessments is not good enough.

 

Welsh Government are at odds with the plans as they have been prioritising the placement of jobs where they are most needed to address poverty in Wales. Their commitment is to creating better jobs closer to home for employees. The UK Government are wilfully undermining this policy to the detriment of Newport.

 

Treating employees with contempt

 

Employees only found out that the new hub would be in Treforest after plans were leaked on the architect’s website. DWP have not been transparent with their staff.

 

In an exercise of utilitarianism civil servants picked Treforest as the best site for most employees using average travel times from google maps. Incredulously they have not bothered to ask employees if they can relocate. A full consultation would likely contradict their unrealistic low estimate of the numbers who will be unable to relocate.

 

DWP fail to recognise that their staff are not pins in a google map. Sovereign House is full of hard working and reliable employees, many with commute restricting caring responsibilities and disabilities. Public transport issues limit the reasonable distance that staff can travel to a new location and cost of the commute will hit low income families hardest in the long-term.

 

With the Minister admitting the business case for the hub is “in development” there is vital opportunity to apply objectivity to the process. Only with published accurate comparative cost models, an impact analysis on Newport city centre and the needs of staff taken into consideration should a decision be taken.

 

Sovereign House is a good investment with a stable, skilled, experienced workforce. Staff turnover in Newport is much lower than some of the larger inner city offices elsewhere in DWP. A rigorous analysis of the evidence would present Newport as the best investment option for future jobs.

 

Time UK caught up with life-saving reforms

From VICE magazine

 

SAFE SESH

Paul Flynn MP: We Must Legalise Medicinal Cannabis

PF

• PAUL FLYNN

Jul 21 2017, 12:52pm

The Labour MP on why it's time for the UK to catch up with the rest of the world.

This article is part of "Safe Sesh", a VICE harm reduction campaign produced in collaboration with The Loop and the Royal Society for Public Health. Read more from the editorial series here.

It seems a reasonable question to ask the new government drugs minster.

"Fifty years of intelligent, pragmatic drugs policies of decriminalisation in the Netherlands has delivered a prison crisis: there are not enough prisoners to fill their prisons. Isn't this a problem we would like to share?"

The minister blinked back at me, baffled. I have jousted with a score of her predecessors in my 30-year Commons battle for drugs sense. All have been fed garbage by civil servants – evidence-free, prejudice-rich. The abiding ethos of the civil service is the unimportance of being right. Most meekly submit to the tabloid's populist views; they refuse to challenge their vote-gluttonous political masters. Their careers prosper. Others caught in possession of intelligent ideas – who know that drugs prohibition increases deaths and crimes – stay silent or suffer career wreckage.

The UK's approach has delivered drugs misery at vast cost, and two past drugs ministers were troubled by the futility of pushing harm-multiplication policies. Mo Mowlam would add hand-written messages to me on the bottom of official ministerial correspondence, saying, "I'll see you in the Strangers' Bar and tell you what I really think." She explained that Prime Minister Blair would "go ape-shit" if she spoke the truth. At the end of her career she decided to write a book condemning the UK's drug policies. I worked on it with her, but very sadly she died and it was not finished. Another Labour drugs minister, Bob Ainsworth, toed the party line in office but became an impassioned anti-prohibitionist when he returned to the back-benches.

Two public prohibitionists who did not believe a word of the civil service scripts they were compelled to obey.

---

WATCH: High Society – How Weed Laws Are Failing the UK

---

Two recent events stung me into a call for medicinal cannabis users to break the law, via using cannabis at Parliament. (Press reports inaccurately suggested I urged users to smoke cannabis on the parliamentary estate. Mixing cannabis with the deadly drug tobacco is unwise and unnecessary with the alternatives of ingesting it as a drink, food or a vapour.) It caused a minor flutter because MPs are not supposed to incite crime, but after 20 years of campaigning impatience is now justified. The law I am inviting seriously ill people to break is an ass.

First, fond memories were stirred by an invitation to help with a new drama-documentary on the life of Elizabeth Brice. She was a marvellous lady, a television producer who listed translating Noddy books into Latin among her many achievements. She campaigned under the name of Clare Hodges, drank cannabis tea on the terrace of the Commons and persuaded the Belgian Parliament to legalise medicinal cannabis in 2001. She died in 2011 with her life's work unfinished.

My pangs of regret and guilt for the lack of progress on Elisabeth's campaign were sharpened by the renewed culpable futility of the "new" government drugs strategy. It is a repeat of the lame, moronic, bovine cowardice of the past 46 years, in place since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Added is some window-dressing of meaningless adjectival jargon: "joined-up, holistic, multi-disciplined, all-embracing, comprehensive" new concepts. Joining one failed policy to another failed one does not make a successful policy. It creates a bigger failure. There is no sign that a single brain cell in the civil service or government has been flickered into new thinking by the current global disillusionment with drugs law.

Until 1973, before drugs policy as we know it was introduced, tinctures of cannabis had been medically available for over 100 years in the UK. In its natural form, it has been used for 5,000 years as a medicine in all continents. Our country was swept along with the international hysteria provoked by President Nixon's missionary zeal to eliminate all illegal drugs use.

Some weed and a Grasshopper vape. Photo: Jake Lewis

The legal use of cannabis is being increasingly established in many parts of the world. Twenty-nine of the USA's 50 states have provision for the supply of medicinal cannabis. In Canada, it has also been legalised. In Europe, medicinal cannabis is produced in the Netherlands and is available in Italy, Finland, Switzerland and Germany.

Incredibly, British laws are locked in a permafrost of ignorance. Nothing has changed. Public opinion is in advance of Parliament. In 1999, a jury sought to be compassionate to a wheelchair-bound cannabis user. They asked the judge if they could disregard a law they all thought was unjust. The judge ruled that Parliament decides, and they were forced to convict. Injustices were meted out as Parliament continued to dodge its responsibility and failed to reform.

Our present law forces users onto the black market, where the most hazardous forms of the drugs are marketed by irresponsible dealers and consumed in the most dangerous ways. A female police officer forced into early retirement by MS had no choice but to buy her cannabis from the petty criminals she once locked up. Others have solved their supply problems by importing seeds from Amsterdam and growing their own. For this victimless "crime", Parliament's law is still punishment by years of imprisonment.

The police and prosecutors are doing Parliament's work for us by ignoring the law. There has been no repeat of the frequent arrest of medicinal cannabis users in the 90s. The law has been ridiculed by druggie grannies into public contempt. But it's still the law.

Medical cannabis legalisation has in every case shown no spike in cannabis use, no increase in road fatalities, reductions in the criminal market and tax breaks of millions of dollars.

On the 10th of October, I will present a ten-minute rule bill to the Commons to legalise cannabis prescriptions. Are UK MPs ready to join the world-wild reform of laws that kill more people than the drugs?

@PaulFlynnMP

 

Paul Flynn (Photo: Lewis Whyld/PA Archive/PA Images)

Trinity of snake-oil salesmen repent

Do you remember this charming picture?

I accurately described it a Trinity of Snake Oil Salesmen. It was early this year when Chris Grayling, David Davies and Alan Cairns posed at the Severn Bridge and announced the 'Good News' that Severn Bridges toll would be set at the bargain rate of £3.00!

 

But it was no bargain because next year they should be nil. It was an attempt to con us. The snap General Election forced a re-think on the Tory Trinity. Today they will announced that they have seen the Labour Light and will resist temptation to continue milking the cash cow of tolls double taxation. It will be announced with a blast of Tory self-satisfaction in Newport today. (no. I have not been invited.)

Will anyone ask if election opportunism played a part in their volte-face?

House of Commons

19 July 2017
2.25 pm

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday’s Order Paper said that the debate on drugs could continue until 7 o’clock. The final speaker sat down four minutes early. The normal practice in this House is then to use that time for other speakers to contribute. It was particularly interesting that the final speaker, the Minister, had denied interventions on the grounds that she did not have enough time to finish. The Standing Orders are not clear on this point. Is it not right that we get some definition of past practice in relation to cases where speakers do not have anything else left to say and other Members can contribute to what would then be a full debate?

Mr Speaker

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice somewhat earlier of his intention to raise it. I am loth to quibble with the hon. Gentleman, who is a considerable authority on matters parliamentary, as evidence by the well-thumbed tome on how to be a Back Bencher of which he is the distinguished author. That said, I am inclined slightly to quibble with him on his proposition that it is normal or commonplace, if a ministerial wind-up concludes early, for other Members to be invited to contribute. In my experience, that is not commonplace. I would not say that it never happens, because you can almost always find an example of something if you try hard enough, but certainly when I am in the Chair I tend to work on the assumption that the ministerial wind-up is indeed the conclusion of the debate.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the conclusion of this debate taking place earlier than listed on the Order Paper, although I am sure that he will readily accept that the Official Report—that is to say, the verbatim account of what was said; there is no question of misleading anybody—will show that the debate concluded a little early. The Chair does not normally allow a further Back-Bench speech, and—this is not directed at the hon. Gentleman; it is just a wider point—certainly not from a Member who had already made a substantial speech in the debate.

As for interventions, the hon. Gentleman, as the author of “How To Be An MP”—available in all good bookshops, and of which I am myself a noted admirer, as he knows—he will appreciate that a Member is free to take interventions or not. I note what he tells me—that the Minister said, “No, I can’t take interventions because I haven’t time”—but that is not something on which the Chair can rule. Sometimes Ministers can be a tad neurotic in these circumstances, it is true, as can sometimes, perhaps, shadow Ministers, but that is not a matter for the Chair. Whether the Member seeking to intervene likes it or not, the situation is as I have described.

Let me take this opportunity, in a positive spirit, to encourage all new Members—I am not sure the Whips would agree about this—to read the hon. Gentleman’s books on being a good parliamentarian. [Interruption.] “No!”, says a Government Whip, chuntering from a sedentary position, in evident horror at what bad habits new members of the flock might pick up. I think that they are fine tomes. The hon. Gentleman has used his position as a Back-Bench Member to stand up for his constituents and to fight for the principles in which he believes. That has sometimes pleased his party and sometimes not, but that is what we are supposed to get here—Members of Parliament who speak to their principles and their consciences. That is a good thing, and, as he knows, I like to encourage it. In fact, when I was a Back Bencher, I had a relationship with my Whips characterised by trust and understanding—I didn’t trust them and they didn’t understand me.

"Wonderful Battle' and a 'Rip-off'

RIP-OFF of the CENTURY

13^th July 2017

·  Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

 

 

When can the House express its disdain and contempt for the rip-off decision made by a gullible Government in agreeing to buy the dearest electricity in the world from a French company and guaranteeing that price for 35 years? Only months after starting out, the project is £1.5 billion over budget and a year behind schedule. Like all other European pressurised reactors—EPRs—this one will involve vast cost overruns and long delays, and none of them has ever produced enough electricity to light a bicycle lamp. May we debate this, to address the continuing rip-off of the taxpayer for the next 50 years?

• Andrea Leadsom

 

 Share this contribution

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, who has been an anti-nuclear campaigner for a long time. I respectfully say, as an ex-Energy Minister, that I just disagree with him. On average, nuclear energy provides around 20% of our electricity needs at all times, and our ageing fleet of nuclear power stations must be replaced. If we want to continue to keep the lights on, we have to take steps. This particular project protects taxpayers from the costs of budget overruns.

 

 

Was it a ‘Wonderful battle?’

• · Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)

 

I think my hon. Friend knows what I am about to say, but does he recall that, through him and the Wiltshire Regiment, I presented the city of Salisbury with a bugle that was used by the 1st Wiltshire Regiment? I understand that it is now in the museum as a recognition and a memory of the brave people who fought in that wonderful battle.

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

I rise because of the description of Passchendaele as a “wonderful battle.” For many who were there, including my father, it was a terrible tragedy that resulted from the misjudgment of generals and others. We cannot look at it without remembering that many of those who lost their lives—they did not give their lives—were told that if they went there, they would stop the “Huns” bayoneting ​Belgian babies. They went there as a result of persuasion and propaganda, and we must remember that if we are going to learn the proper lessons of war and the immense and wasteful loss of human life.

• John Glen

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Every Member will have a different emphasis and interpretation of events, and I hope that the debate will give everyone an opportunity to reflect in our own way on the events of 100 years ago.

 

3.33 pm

 

Will England follow Wales in Saving Lives?

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

   

  I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this debate and on the clarity and comprehensiveness of his speech. He covered the ground in commendable fashion and hit the significant factors involved.

   

  The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) rehashed the debate in Wales. She mainly addressed opinions and fears that were expressed before the change was made in Wales. I am sure that those fears were sincere, but they have not been realised in the way that she suggests. It is not important that the Welsh Government might not have had entirely accurate evidence; evidence rarely is entirely reliable, and there may have been misunderstandings. However, the impressive outcome of the change is absolutely crucial. At least 40 lives were saved—at least 40 people are alive today who would not have been had the presumed consent Bill not passed. As my hon. Friend said, the figure for lives lost in England is 457. That is an extraordinary number of people. If there were an accident today in which that number of lives was lost, that would be our main concern.

   

  My interest in this issue began in 2012, when my 22-year-old constituent Matthew Lammas came here to lobby me and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). Matthew was in need of a heart transplant. He had a heartbreaking story of so many false alarms. He would get a call at perhaps 2 o’clock in the morning and drive up to Middlesbrough or Birmingham, but halfway up he would get another call to say, “Sorry; somebody else got the heart—someone got here before you.” Six months after he visited me here, I attended his funeral. A 22-year-old man’s life was lost. I am absolutely convinced that, had we taken the bold decision to introduce presumed consent in Wales six years ago, we would be in a far better position and Matthew Lammas’s life would not have been lost in that way. Those are the simple facts.​

   

  There have been extraordinary changes in Wales since the passage of the presumed consent Bill. No one in Wales has died for lack of an organ since that system came into effect. In 2015-16, 214 organ transplants were carried out and 192 patients were on the organ donation waiting list. There was a great deal of concern in Wales, and we all understand that; we all know the feeling of wanting to treat the bodies of our loved ones with reverence and care. There is something that upsets us profoundly about the idea of organ transplantation. There are also genuine religious objections, which were played out again and again in Wales. But I come back to my point: look at the outcome.

   

  There has also been a huge change in public opinion in Wales. In 2014-15, 48.5% of the people of Wales had consented to donating their organs. The figure leapt to 64% in two years. Public opinion has come around to this. We must congratulate the Daily Mirror, which demonstrated tabloid journalism at its very best. I am not sure that it sells many papers, but it has, for all the best reasons, boldly sought to ensure that this life-saving measure is introduced. We can now have great optimism, because my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who came sixth in the private Member’s Bill ballot, announced that he will take this issue up, and there is every chance that the spirit of this Parliament will take it forward.

   

  We rejoiced this week when a decision was taken about the long-standing injustice of contaminated blood. We have come to a consensus about that, and the Government have shown themselves willing to move forward and introduce valuable reform. When I introduced my Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill in the last Parliament, my contact with the Government was entirely friendly. They were reasonable; they were cautious in reaching conclusions but made it clear that the door was open for reform soon. We can change that figure of 457 avoidable deaths. We must move rapidly and find consensus among all parties to take the clear and unambiguous lesson from Wales that presumed organ donation consent saves lives.

   

   

 

Politics is always rough

Today Simon Hart will have a moan about abuse of politicians. It's a crude attempt to smear Labour. Of course, all candidates are subjected to abuse. It's worse now because social media allows the trolls to rant anonymously.

 

Slander, lies, mockery and abuse have been the currency of political debate since the Roman Empire. One complaint today is the threat to slash car tires. My first job in politics at the age of ten was to guard the only Labour car in Cardiff South in the 1945 election from similar attacks.

 

Of course all MPs get abuse. It is best ignored. Most perpetrators have serious mental health problems and thrive on repetition of their insults. It was at least a decade when a Newport troll put up a website site saying he hoped I would die soon in agony. There was also a film he made portraying me as Hannibal Lecter-not someone I normally associated myself with. It was a simple matter to block the social media nuisance and ignore him. It's a puzzle to me why colleagues repeat the insults that are thrown at them and widen the attention they get. This is exactly what the abuser craves. 

 

If a threat of violence appears serious, sensible precautions can be taken. Only twice in 50 years as an elected representatives have I had to inform the police. Only once did someone throw a punch at me and he missed. 

 

 

 

Politics is a rough old trade. Those who cannot stand the heat should get out of the limelight.

 

 

Leyton College and Kids Company.

Emotion-churning, brilliantly conceived & acted political theatre on refugees by Leyton 6th Form College today at Barnabas Arts house Newport. Young London actors were trained by Newport's Katy Arnell the daughter of Janet Martin the owner of Barnabas.

The 40 minute performance hit the audience with the force of a full in the face gale of argument, pathos, tragedy and irrefutable logic. It's a polemic and does not not pretend to tell the full story. But it does expose the superficial and selfish arguments that are dwarfed by be a world crisis of immense suffering.

The actors move with grace, elegance and power from the delicate opening depiction of animal migration to the terror of journeys where the weak face impossible barriers. The work was selected for the national Student Drama Festival this year. It deserves a wider audience. Well done Katy and crew!

 

*******************

 

The musical COMMITTEE at the Donmar has reopened the controversy on Kids Company. Reviewers are divided on who comes over as the villains. Fans of the David Cameron's Big Society may still sympathise with Alan Yentob and the incredible Ms Batmanghelidjh.

 

The Mail's Quentin Letts was present at the original committee meeting in 2015 which is depicted with verbatim extracts. He believes the musical has been excessively influenced by Ms B's hypnotic powers of persuasion and distraction that harvested £42 million from Government and £10s of millions from other gullible benefactors. Other reviewers are more sympathetic to the MP questioners who were expressing genuine anger at the gross waste of public funding that served a political gimmick and denied cash to other good-value efficient London child charities. The task of parliament is unfinished. The promised report of the Charity Commission is long overdue. I have written to them about the delay.

There was no penalty against the two ministers who defied their Civil Servants advice and gave £3million to Kids Company a few days before the charity collapsed. The true story is one of clever manipulation. The reason the erring ministers were not reported to the Adviser on Ministerial Conduct is that the only person who can refer them is the Prime Minister who had some involvement in the flopped Big Society project. Not mentioned previously is an attempt was made to manipulate the committee. Information was conveyed to us on the alleged delicate mental health of one of the witnesses. We were asked to tread softly. All witnesses were in robust form capable of fielding the Committee;s questions. The warning was a further example of the techniques of persuasion vividly exposed by the select Committee session.

I have yet to see the show. Chair Bernard Jenkins found the portrayal of himself unsettling and the portrayal of me as more mellow than the real thing. How disappointing.

Sadly the Committee's work was weakened by a reluctance to pursue the falsehoods delivered by witnesses and the need to protect the Poster Girl of the Big Society's failed extravagance.

According to the Tories, if you’re a WASPI women, just get an apprenticeship!

Guest blog by Tito who has been on work experience with me in Parliament this week.

Society is more aware than ever before of the historical plight of women’s subordinate role to men in the workplace.  It is a shame we are only just beginning to fully overhaul.  However, less well-known is the particular plight of women born in the 1950s, who face the travesty of being denied their rightful pensions by a sharp rise in the state pension age from 60 years old to 66 years old with little to no notice. This is a travesty which cannot be allowed to continue and has undermined the hard, often physically gruelling endeavours of women over a lifetime.

The Acts of Parliament which, together, have plunged 1950s women into such an abominable position were passed under Conservative governments.  The Major Government’s 1995 State Pension Law Act put in place a timetable to equalise the State Pension Age for women and men.  The Cameron Government's 2011 State Pension Law Act accelerated this timetable so women’s state pension age would hit 65 by 2018 and both men and women would have a retirement age of 66 by 2020, meaning some women would have to wait an extra 18 months to receive their state pension.

This penalised older women unfairly.  Not only had they made firm plans to retire at 60, they received no letters to inform them they would have to stay working for longer, so for many women the change came out of nowhere and was a nasty surprise.  Ministers’ ignorance to the anxiety and misery this would cause is symptomatic of the Conservative government's approach to women who disproportionately suffer the consequences of austerity Britain in employment and living conditions.  In a debate this Wednesday, Pensions Minister, Guy Opperman, refused to offer any help even to the most vulnerable and suggested those affected women should just take up apprenticeships as a route to re-employment.  In all seriousness, these older women many of whom are educated, have had tough working lives and careers and are on the brink of retirement, are supposed to be sated by the “extended apprenticeship opportunities” offered by the Conservative government.

This is insulting and wrong.

Fortunately, WASPI (Women against State Pension Inequality) have been a resolute campaign group in highlighting the inadequacies of the government in providing justice for older women and have managed to engage thousands of members and acquire the support of 180 Members of Parliament. Their position for the transitional arrangement of a ‘bridging’ pension to provide an income from age 60 until State Pension Age for all women affected is fair and just, and would bring long awaited equity to the pensions of these women. A petition filed by WASPI Voice, a sub-grouping of WASPI, calling for immediate access to their state pension at a reduced rate and earlier, was able to receive over 20,000 signatures in support and necessitated a response from government outlining the somewhat baffling position that "Working longer can improve and maintain physical and mental health – evidence shows that making adjustments and changing working patterns can help older workers to manage health issues and stay in work,"

A society where one can work their whole lives and never receive requital is unfair and as much as the Conservative government believes sexism and inequality is either non-existent or justifiable, the WASPI campaign and that of their prominent supporters in parliament such as Mhairi Black, Graham Jones, Keith Simpson and Paul Flynn will bring justice to those being denied it.

Select Committee Donmar ON SONG

Review: Committee at the Donmar Warehouse

24 JUNE - 12 AUGUST 2017

It’s complicated: Sally Hales reviews the world premiere of a chamber musical based on Kids Company.

Only the biggest personalities in the room take any shape. Paul Flynn (Anthony O’Donnell), MP for Newport West, a veteran Labour man who has literally written the book on how be a pain in the arse from the backbenches, gets air-time via his determination to say whenever he smells bullshit. Conservative committee chairman Bernard Jenkin is played with perfectly affected flair by Alexander Hanson, but with the rest of the politicos there are scant pickings, despite as an ensemble being largely flawless.

Yentob and Batmanghelidjh offer far more. There’s as much creativity in the latter’s ‘verbal ectoplasm’ (™ Paul Flynn, MP) as there is in her outfit, while Omar Ebrahim injects some levity in proceedings with Alan Yentob’s essential Yentobness, all name-dropping pomposity. Sensational singing from Sandra Marvin makes Batmanghelidjh unforgettable, giving passionate voice to her commitment and slipperiness, which makes it even more frustrating that the depths of her character remain hidden. Things heat up when questions reveal – or try to – the perplexing relationship between Yentob and Batmanghelidjh. But this simmering suggestion of a faulty power balance between the ego-driven pair is similarly prevented from really being explored.

 

Adam Penford’s production, while skilfully executed, reinforces the point that we are watching the British equivalent of the Soviet politburo. When Paul Flynn reasonably asks why £150 was spent on a pair of shoes, his colleagues suddenly produce samples of extravagant footwear from under their desks. It wouldn’t have happened in reality, but it clinches the show’s anti-politics argument: that the committee is more interested in exercising its power than addressing the plight of deprived children.

All the performers do a good job. Sandra Marvin is excellent as the defensive Batmanghelidjh and Omar Ebrahim is touchily unapologetic as Yentob. Alexander Hanson as the crisply authoritative Jenkin and Rosemary Ashe as the inquisitorial Hoey stand out from the committee. But eventually it is a case of means and ends. The aim is clearly to make us ask how Britain is governed and whether our institutions genuinely serve the people. For all the good intentions, however, music distorts the issue by making it look as if Kids Company was a victim of parliamentary arrogance. A musical can do many things but not, I would suggest, capture the humdrum detail of a committee at work.

Adam Penford’s production, while skilfully executed, reinforces the point that we are watching the British equivalent of the Soviet politburo. When Paul Flynn reasonably asks why £150 was spent on a pair of shoes, his colleagues suddenly produce samples of extravagant footwear from under their desks. It wouldn’t have happened in reality, but it clinches the show’s anti-politics argument: that the committee is more interested in exercising its power than addressing the plight of deprived children.

It is above all served by a remarkable ensemble company, who grippingly bring each of these characters to utterly believable life. The intimidating and powerful Batjanghelidjh is embodied with fierce and ferocious command by the formidable Sandra Marvin; Omar Ebrahim's Yentob, on the other hand, wears an expression of perplexed, defensive befuddlement that their good intentions have come to this. The MPs, led by Alexander Hanson as Bernard Jenkin, are also strongly differentiated and keenly brought to life by Liz Robertson (as Cheryl Gillan), Robert Hands (David Jones), Anthony O'Donnell (Paul Flynn) and Rosemary Ashe (Kate Hooey).

The Donmar, who have done remarkable work in recent years in illuminating real-life events from the formation of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in Steve Waters's Limehouse and testing the value of notions of privacy in the internet age with James Graham's Privacy, have once again gone behind-the-scenes with a startling, keenly felt version of a story that needs to be told -- and thanks to this memorable treatment, will help it to be remembered.

 

It is a fascinating and still unresolved story, not least because of the exuberant, eccentric figure of Camila herself; and the way a select committee works is actually not undramatic, especially when made surreal as the panel rise up, sing choruses (“We want to learn! This is not a show trial, we want to learn!” ) or read written statements from outside witnesses. The interrogators are all pitch-perfect, with that characteristic MP-mixture of earnest administrator and “showbiz-for-ugly-people”. Notably there is Alexander Hanson’s urbanely civil Jenkin, Liz Robertson’s sarky Cheryl Gillan, Rosemary Ashe as the maverick Kate Hoey and the Welsh terrier Paul Flynn (Anthony O’Donnell).

But of course the focus is on the odd couple who sit before them (and are seen up on screens, and occasionally rise to pace the floor, singing) . Sandra Marvin is unnervingly like Camila in multicoloured dress and turban, gait, high-pitched speech, and unnerving smile: when she sings the sincerity of both the woman’s good intentions and her dangerous self-belief are gloriously magnified. As Yentob, Omar Ebrahim is not quite the cornered-rat one remembers from the TV relay (possibly because he’s a splendid baritone, which gives a Verdiesque dignity even to his absurdities, like the notorious claim he signed off that without more money London would see “riots and looting”) . But he does often catch the pompous worry of a man addicted to citing powerful friends and colleagues who approve of him: the PM, Michael Gove, the “Chairman of WH Smith”, big banks, whoever….
 

So it’s all there: the Camila flakiness, the Chairman’s complacency, the dark unseen hinterland of tragic young lives, and the clash between idealism and safe administrative procedure. You reflect, watching and listening to Batmanghelidjh,, that giving – financially and emotionally – is a satisfying addiction, and can if imprudent bring you down. As for Yentob, the reflection is that thinking well of yourself and collecting plaudits from grand friends is probably another addictive behaviour. So what we had here was a kind of folie-a-deux. If the Chair had been some tough, clever, unimpressable terrier of a manager, we might still have the charity.

 

Committee review - we're all on trial in new Kids Company musical
Investigation into the charity's downfall is slickly dramatised at Donmar Warehouse

by Marianka SwainTuesday, 04 July 2017
ShareFacebookTwitterEmail
Under scrutiny: Camila Batmanghelidjh (Sandra Marvin) and Alan Yentob (Omar Ebrahim) face the committee
Manuel Harlan
A memorable 2015 parliamentary select committee hearing asked Kids Company CEO Camila Batmanghelidjh and chair of trustees Alan Yentob whether the organisation was ever fit for purpose. Tom Deering, Hadley Fraser and Josie Rourke’s new verbatim musical – think This House meets London Road – asks the same not just of the charity, but of the political system itself and the way we treat the most vulnerable in this country.
Kids Company was the feather in the cap of David “Big Society” Cameron, and thus, despite repeated warnings, received hefty sums from the Government, including a final £3 million bailout just before its collapse. In October 2015, the cumbersomely named committee sought answers; that name is given a jaunty sting by Deering, and lends the show its epic full title, The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee takes oral evidence on Whitehall’s relationship with Kids Company.
Committee, Donmar WarehouseThe stroke of brilliance is seeing the theatrical potential – and potential critique – in the format of select committee hearings (pictured above). Though its participating MPs are at pains to stress this is not a “show trial”, there is something gladiatorial and performative about the whole enterprise. Robert Jones evokes the drab green-seated committee room, but notably Batmanghelidjh and Yentob's faces are projected on large screens – it's part court, part entertainment. That's possibly exacerated, teases the script, by politicans' eagerness to make the Today programme's coveted "8:10 am slot".
Is this really the best way to learn serious lessons? The committee’s limitations are all too apparent, the demand for short and concise answers indicative of a complex argument reduced to combative sound bites. Yet Batmanghelidjh’s limitations are also laid bare: her inability to provide concrete figures, her dedication becoming pious, possibly poisonous self-justification in the face of reasonable queries.
A dramatic figure – rainbow dress amidst muted institutional hues – she's superbly suited to the musical form, rising from her seat to better address us spectators in the public gallery of Portcullis House in passionate song, and Sandra Marvin nicely captures both the conviction and slippery obfuscation. Similarly, Yentob’s mellifluous self-importance is, in reality, delivered as though expecting backing from a string quartet; Omar Ebrahim is delicious fun in the role, segueing smoothly from patronising defence lawyer mode into full aria.
Committee, Donmar WarehouseThroughout, the show is even-handed in its treatment. Kids Company was certainly filling an ever-widening void in social care, and made a significant difference in thousands of lives. But the cavalier admission that they didn’t bother to build up long-term reserves because they expected the Government to keep topping up the coffers is extraordinary, and so too is the deep hostility towards local authorities and unsustainable personality cult built up around Batmanghelidjh – Corbynites beware…
Fraser and Rourke heighten the argument by selecting key phrases, emphasised and layered effectively by Deering’s score – sometimes lush, sometimes sharply atonal. The committee speaking in one voice or in harmony becomes literal, in contrast to this renegade outsider, and crisp movement by Naomi Said breaks the monotony of a seated committee: tellingly, Yentob the name-dropper revels in glad-handing, while Batmanghelidjh is most comfortable playing with her children.
An excellent ensemble clearly and wittily embodies the major players, including Alexander Hanson’s smarmy but pragmatic Bernard Jenkin (offering the party line on PM May, in one of several topical touches; pictured above right), Rosemary Ashe’s fiery Kate Hoey, Liz Robertson’s silky Cheryl Gillan, Anthony O'Donnell's belligerent Paul Flynn, and Joanna Kirkland skilfully directing proceedings as the Clerk.
At just 80 minutes it does feel a tad abrupt in conclusion, however this is, of course, an ongoing drama – not just with the imminent arrival of Batmanghelidjh’s tell-all book, but the urgent issues like public sector pay that are still very much under debate. As with the Donmar’s recent The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui, Adam Penford’s involving production directs its big questions to the gallery: we are all on trial here.

Committee at Donmar Warehouse until 12 August

What is the point of Theresa May PM?

What is the point of Theresa May?

Europe is laughing. The Prime Minister has humiliated herself. A Dutch cartoon showed her hitting her head with a mallet. Euro-contempt for our self-lacerating Brexit decision has been replaced with Euro-ridicule.

She called an election to strengthen her negotiating position by increasing her total of MPs.  She destroyed the majorities of 33 of her Tory MPs and decrease her majority by 13.  She earned universal disapproval; for an incompetent campaign. But no resignation.

Politicians are strange people, They have herculean resilience. It allows them to divide their brains into two. A conscious one that creates a fantasy reality of perpetual success and an unconscious one where failures lie un-noticed and invisible. John Major emerged smiling from his own catastrophic financial errors and sounded plausible even though schizophrenic. Mrs May is relying on universal amnesia of press and public on the reasons she called the election. Her party are seething but chose to play along with the survival game.

They have no alternative leader who commands majority support in the Conservative party. Boris is loved and loathed in equal numbers. All others are distrusted Brexiteers or anti-Brexiteers. One again the well-being of the UK is suffering to deal with internal Tory Party crises.

Of course May should go, Where we need strength she bring weakness. Where authority and leadership will matter she present chronic weakness and a destroyed reputation.

The Referendum was called by Cameron to escape an internal Conservative Party crisis. It was lost because of the same internal division. The UK is Europe’s laughing stock. Our economy  will be destroyed in the Brexit negotiations. Again because of an internal Tory Party row. Why put up with them?

Fake Market Research

 

All MPs are aware of market research inquiries that are fake. There is convincing evidence that the abuse has spread to politics here in Newport West. 

 

The opinions of MPs are valued. Lobbying interviews with MPs are usually rejected as  a waste of time although dozens of groups try it.  A sneaky alternative to drip information into the ears of MPs as fake market research. The invitation is accompanied by a bribe. Between £50 and £200 is offered as a contribution to a favourite charity. Some MPs pocket the money after declaring it in their registers of interest. Most are legitimate market research inquiries from respected companies.

 

Others are not. I recall one that purported to be seeking my opinion on formula milk. The questions were ridiculously long. Usually on the lines of 'The Midwives Association have said that the formula milk is the best options for most mothers. Do you agree'. It soon became apparent that my opinion was not being sought but my attention was being bought to spread their propaganda. This is probably good value to the commercial company when all other attempts at lobbying have failed.

 

An undercover investigation by C4 News, broadcast on Thursday, claimed the workers may have been carrying out paid canvassing, banned under electoral law, as they promoted key Conservative messages to undecided voters in the weeks before the election. Under the guise of alleged market research, voters in Newport were approached and asked questions that contained information damaging to Jeremy Corbyn. I had complaints about the volume and persistence of the callers. It was suggested the calls originated from a Cardiff Tory Party phonebank. This would have been legitimate had they been volunteers. Channel 4 made the serious charge that the call centre was paid by the Tory Party to make the fake market research calls and, even more serious;y, canvass by phone for their marginal candidates on polling day.  If that allegation is true the Information Commission and Electoral Commission must act.

 

On the final day of the last parliament I raised the final point of order drawing attention to the fragility of our election rules that are no longer fit for purpose.

 

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

 

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that strikes right at the heart of the integrity of our democratic system. It is based on the final report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, as well as two articles in The House magazine, one by a Conservative Member and one by a Labour Member, all of which sound notes of alarm that our electoral system is the most vulnerable it has been since 1880. There is powerful evidence of foreign Governments interfering in the elections in America and possibly here. There is also overwhelming evidence of money being paid in huge amounts, entirely invisible to the system, by the use of methods including algorithms, botnets and artificial intelligence in a manner understood by nobody except those who participate in it. We should be vigilant in this election, because the Electoral Commission does not have the tools to deal with interference of this kind, and we are trying to run a modern election with the tools of the 19th century.

 

​

 

Mr Speaker

 

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has registered a strong and deeply felt concern, and it is now on the record. It is not, however, a matter for me, and I do not say that flippantly. Algorithms are certainly not a matter for the Chair, and I am sure that colleagues will be greatly reassured to hear me say that. The wider issues are ones for us all.

 

The hon. Gentleman, who has now served in this House without interruption for three decades, the overwhelming majority of which, by his choice, has been as a Back-Bench Member, has demonstrated once again, not least for the benefit of Members completing their first Parliament, that he has written the textbook on how to be a Back Bencher. He has written the textbook in that he has published such a book, which is a well-thumbed tome of which I am proud to possess and to have read a copy, and he has written the textbook in the sense that he exploits—I use that word non-pejoratively—every last opportunity to give voice to his concerns. Unless someone is about to surprise me gratuitously, his has been the last point of order. I thank him, and I hope that we can leave it there.

 

The sitting is suspended. Shortly before the sitting resumes, I shall cause the Division bells to be sounded.

 

 

 

The Welsh Tories seems to have proved my point.

 

 

Resisting excesses of architects

 

It was Harry Jones’ first meeting as a councillor. He later became Sir Harry after a long and distinguished career. He told me about his astonishing experience at his first meeting.

 

A councillor urged ending the building of a half-constucted tower block of flats at St. Julian’s, filling the void with concrete and inscribing on the side of the building, ‘This giant tombstone was erected in dishonourable memory of the failed concept of hi-rise living.’

 

That was in about 1976. My remarks were part of a many-faceted campaign against experimental housing. My simple concept was that the evolved model of two –storeys, upstairs for sleeping to protect us from the sabre-toothed tigers, downstairs for living plus two enclosed areas, one in front for decorative use, one behind for utilitarian use. The further the ambitious, creative, imaginative, phallus building architects strayed from the ideal the worst the results became for satisfying habitation. I was also campaigning long before Thatcher for tenants to have the right to buy their houses because in the modern world, rent is theft not property.

 

Newport did twice begin to sell council houses in the 60s and again in the 70s. We also built only three tower blocks and avoided most of the extravagant designs of wedged shaped or flat roofs popular in Cwmbran. I was too late to avoid the open plan designs that denied people the defensible space they desired.

 

Years of experience have reinforced my belief in the ideas of the young Councillor Flynn of 50 years ago. The council was urged to build more tower blocks. A fundamental fallacy was that they made better use of space. It was generally an illusion and much exaggerated as we embarked in building estates to the traditional plan that is much loved of two story dwellings. Newport was not short of land and it was right to spurn the dreams or architects.

 

The unimaginable horrors of this week are the stuff of fiction. All our worst fears are churned up by the suffering of those who were trapped. Newport Council reacted swiftly on Wednesday to the anxieties of their hi-rise dwellers after the Grenfell nightmare. Those who live in high rise deserve the reassurance that only massive investment in new safety measures can provide. We are indebted to the councillors on the 50s, 60s and 70s who built for the fundamental needs of people for acceptable habitats and disregarded the ambitions of architects out to leave massive indelible hi-rise marks of their pioneering fallacies.

 

Related articles

'Tower blocks could be torn down' - Sadiq

Theresa May: The best kicker to touch since Neil Jenkins

A piece by Matthew, one of my Parliamentary team.

Following this week’s awful events at Grenfell Tower, Theresa May’s first reaction was to call for a public inquiry. Indeed during her tenure as Home Secretary, this was her go to move to diffuse difficult situations to which she had an inkling she wouldn’t enjoy the answer. She had a habit as we say in Wales, of kicking the ball into touch. The Child Sex Abuse Scandal Inquiry, The Daniel Morgan Murder inquiry and multiple inquiries into the UK Border Agency litter Theresa May’s time at the Home Office. There is one thing that unites all of them. They are all yet to report.

The Child Abuse inquiry is the perfect example of a troubled inquiry that Theresa May has mismanaged. Whilst Home Secretary, Mrs May repeatedly ignored the advice of Home Office officials in relation to the Inquiry’s then Chair, Dame Lowell Goddard. This is after the two former Chairs of the inquiry stepped down after potential conflicts of interest were exposed.

All those who have listened to the ‘Untold’ podcasts or paid any particular attention to the Leveson reports will know the story of Daniel Morgan and his murder. In 2013, 26 years after his death and following intense pressure to do so, an inquiry was set up by, you guessed it, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May. The report was due to be published early 2016 but is still yet to be released. This panel has also struggled with retaining Chairs, now being on its second.

The Saville Inquiry was set up to report on the events of Bloody Sunday, the massacre that occurred in Derry on the 30^th January 1972, where 14 people lost their lives. Tony Blair set up the Saville Inquiry in 1998, with the results published in June 2010. It took twelve years to unpick the chaos of one afternoon’s horror.  

You do not hold a public inquiry when you want quick answers, you do it to kick difficult answers into touch.

There are further problems inherent within the public inquiry system. Namely, that the Government can unduly influence the inquiry when they set the terms of reference. With Leveson they were able to block its second stage. Inquiries are not held when you want answers, they are what you do when you want to hush things up. Sophie Khan, legal director of the Police Action Centre, has advised the bereaved families to press for inquests instead of the public inquiry. “I’m very concerned as to why Ms May came out so quickly to say ‘public inquiry’. What is there, that she knows, that needs to be hidden?” she said, adding that inquest juries often “get out of control” and say things that may be very difficult for the government to hear.

If we want truth to prevail we must add weight to calls for an inquest. We cannot allow the ball to fly over our heads this time.

Trolls pressure blocked

Trolls are a new irritant in the political debate. 

I have been swarmed by a group of them these past few days. Their mission is to set the agenda to match their cause with multiple messages. These were all tweets asking me to answer a catalogue of baseless charges in tweet replies. A university essay might be adequate but a 140 character reply would not satisfy.

Most were anonymous or of questionable origin, none were constituents and all pushed a case on an outrageously titled source LABOUR HATES JEWS.  I initially thought it was a webssite as I two messages under that title. I am told that it is not a site but a word page.Whoever they have reached their conclusions and are thrashing around for evidence to justify it. Any tweet reply from me would have been rejected by the closed minds and more tweets would follow. If they were serious about a debate they would write to my blog or Facebook. But that is not what they are up to. The intention is to seize the agenda and use MPs' sites as platforms for their views. Like cuckoos laying their eggs in the nests of other birds.

They contain complete untruths that could become accepted facts such as the claim that I had said there are no anti-semites in the Labour Party. It's a complete invention. There are bigots, racists, anti-semites in all parties. In my experience there are higher proportions in the UKIP and Tory parties than in Labour Party. The trolls are convinced they are right by their claims of events that took place, or did not take place, many years ago. My judgement is based on 70 years of experience working in the Labour Party. I started at twelve. Their condemnation of some Labour Leaders is based on hearsay: mine is based on 30 years of friendship with them. Neither I nor them have an atom of racism/anti-semitism in our bodies.

To stop LHJ imposing their agenda on my sites, there is no practical defence except to shut the stable door and block them. Other trolls have attempted similar swarming in the past. To answer their fake enquiries would by a distraction, a waste of time and a neglect of the essential agenda that it is my duty to follow. Tories tried to raise irrelevant issues in the election campaign for the same reason, always off-piste. If this truly dreadful hate-filled website wishes to gain attention they can try to do it through their own sites and not mine. A supporter of this group is a constitent of mine who I have replied to many times with details of lifelong support of Israel, Jewish charities and my host of Jewish friends many of whom that I have known since childhood. All of this is dismissed by my constituent. She is unmoved that I have visited Israel 3 times, including a family holiday, wept at Yad Vashem, met Netanyahu and the widow of Yitzak Rabin and supported Youth Alliah. All is dismissed as meaningless. Being a member of the Labour Party condemns me in her eyes. There is no hope of reasoning with such granite prejudice. 

Extra dirty tricks to create new invented grievances were a person complaining I had blocked a 'distinguished journalist' and a particular group, Not one of the 50 swarmers identified themselves as either. No journalist has EVER tried to contact me by tweets. All journalists know how to contact MPs directly. These were further ploys to create more baseless grievances to strengthen their complaint of victimhood. I stand firmly by my lifelong devotion to the politics of non-racism that started with leading a demo in Cardiff in 1953 against the banning of black US soldiers from the Victoria Ballroom.The level od debate was dire. One siad that 'Denial of anti-semitism in the Labour Party was equivalent to Holocaust denial. There is a mountain of evidence for one and rumour, prejudice and innuendo for the other. To conflate the two is absurd, I recommend the writer takes a course in logical thinking and a study of the difference between truth and propaganda.

Already the Labour Party and a Select Committee has conducted a thorough review of all the charges and the Chakrabarti report said they were much exaggerated.

The clear conclusion of the thorough Labour Party report was:

“The Labour Party is not overrun by antisemitism. … An occasionally toxic atmosphere is in danger of shutting down free speech within the Party rather than facilitating it, and is understandably utilised by its opponents.” A Commons Select Committee reached similar conclusions.

People were punished unfairly, others suffered because they were unjustly accused. Demanding that I should re-open another Joe McCarthy style hunt in the Labour Party originated by this bigoted group is futile. Prejudice is everywhere but to concentrate the attacks on one party is wrong. This group has tried to damage the Leader and Party by these accusations but the effects on the elections results were negligible. T

This group has  tried to damage the Leader and Party by these accusations but the effect on the elections results were negligible. There are so many crucial issues to pursue.

This orange has been sucked dry.

 

 

From foul-up to farce

One of the assorted trolls that infested my  facebook page before the election complained because I had mentioned ' printing on goatskin' in my election leaflet.

Little did he know that the excuse for delaying the opening of parliament is the time it takes for the ink to dry on the goatskin on which the Queen's speech is written. This is 2017-not 1017. Not that the Queen reads from the goatskin. She has it all typed out on a piece of paper. In a bid for sanity and to spare the goat, I made an impassioned speech last year to print acts and speeches on a memory stick. Cost would drop from £140,000 to about £2.

The fears of a Coalition of Chaos is becoming hideously clear. Theresa May is detached from reality and acts as though the decision to waste £130 million on an unnecessary election that costs her majority the careers of 13 of her MPs was a great success. Her MPs are seething with suppressed rage and may explode before next week. Where there was stability there is now turmoil, a majority Government a hung parliament, a self-satisfied Tory Party a rebellious mob, a tough Brexit posture a jelly of quivering fear. All from one Prime Ministerial decision of monumental stupidity.

How long can a broken-backed Government stagger onwards from foul-up to farce?

From doom to glory

It's deeply satisfying to win an election - especially when it's the 8th win in a seat targeted by the Tories.

Of course it was a marvellous team campaign led by the great Josh Worrad and a host of seasoned campaigners. Electoral doom was the group think of 7 weeks ago. The media swallowed the poll that said the Tories led with 40 points over Labour's 30 in Wales. They never fully recovered and allowed their expectations of Labour doom to colour their reporting until the end. Accurate polls in the final week were dismissed. Those of us who were canvassing knew that a change had taken place. Carwyn had led a splendid Welsh campaign. Jeremy's appearances on television debates de-toxified the Tory Tabloid image. The Mail, Sun & Express plumbed new depths of malicious fiction to Demonise Corbyn. The voters rightly identified the abuse as fake news. The media is now slow to recognise Welsh Labour's triumph. All Labour MPs increased their majorities and we gained 3 seats from sitting Tory MPs.

The humiliation of May is complete. Calling the election was a sinful waste of public money that sacrificed the careers of 13 sitting Tory MPs and ushered in 30 Labour fresh ones. The Tory campaign was the worst ever of any democracy in the Northern hemisphere. May acts as though no calamity has happened. The Crosby chip implanted in her brain is overdue for re-programming. Today there was action. Nothing becomes a Prime Minister more than her willingness to lay down the jobs of her Spads to save her career. She has also given us the recipe for a coalition of chaos. Mix one disgruntled angry party betrayed by their Leader's incompetence with a party of un-compromising sectarian bigots. That's bound to work.

May must not be allowed to forget that calling the election was a cheap, opportunist political stunt designed to increase her powers and influence. It failed on all measures. She should have resigned and hung on to a few shreds of dignity. Instead she has chosen the path of prolonged humiliation by the ruthless Nasty Party-skilled in destroying their leaders.

I believe Newport West was selected for the first visit of Mrs May to claim a Tory Targeted seat. Did all the seats she visited have increased Labour votes? I believe they did. Newport West Tories had an invisible campaign that let down their imposed a candidate from Cardiff. There were dozens of mailshots from the PM and phone canvassing from Cardiff but no voter direct contacts by canvassers. Stressing the 'strength of the wobbly PM was leading with their weakest argument.

They advertised their weakness by tweeting pictures of the pathetic support they amassed for Tory Cabinet ministers including Grayling Brokenshire and Liam Fox. Never did the assembled crowd have more than six people (usually the same six) including two boy groupies too young to vote. Prepare for ructions from Newport West Tories forced to obey their HQ's determination to impose political correctness over local decisions. It's what Tories call devolution. I'm sure the imposed candidate is a pleasant person from the brief conversations, I've had with her. Like all aspirant MPs, she is ambitious. Few would turn down the chance of being forced on what looked like a certain Tory gain 7 weeks ago. But it was a mistake. Three lost campaigns will not help her political career hopes. The Tories still have never had a Welsh woman MP.

Longing to get back to Westminster to re-start interrupted work and welcome back lost colleagues Chris Ruane and David Drew cruelly axed in past elections. The election was not all bad. It forced Welsh Tories to drop their plan to charge £3.00 for the Severn Bridges toll after all the debt has been paid.

I feel excited by the welling-up of new idealism among the young. They are not motivated by the bleak greed and grab of the Tories but by the ethical messages of socialism of re-organising society of the hope of fairness and justice. This is a turning point from the rush to materialism and the retreats from sustainable goals.

For the past two election the Labour majority has been on the 3,500 mark. This time it increased to 5,700. Thanks to all the new supporters who rejected the myths of the trolls and malicious liars who infest the Internet. Truth will out. Diolch o'r galon.

From my election website

In many years serving Newport as an MP I have never lied to my constituents.

My main challenger in this election begins with what is, at best, an attempt to mis-inform, at worst, a lie. She claims to be the only candidate who backs the PM’s line on Brexit. UNTRUE. I already did-by voting for Article 50. Ignorance of that fact is no excuse. I have made clear that as a Remainer as was my Tory opponent, I fully accept the democratic vote of the people of Newport. I have already been working for a good deal for Newport’s Airbus and steel jobs and for the best settlement for the environment.

Had they checked, Newport Tories, would have found that I have been very active as a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee pursuing this aim including a visit to Brussels to probe Welsh hopes post-Brexit.

This unnecessary election was called on the falsehood that parliament threatens Mrs May’s Brexit plan. Balderdash! The PM says she is worried about opposition from SNP and LibDem votes. That’s a total of 60 against 650! Some threat. The Commons voted 494 votes to 122. Even the Lords have agreed to accept Mrs May’s plan. To suggest otherwise is an untruth. What a terrible start for someone hoping to represent this city of democracy. Indulging in a cheap deception is unworthy.

Deepening the Divide

There is a great deal of empty posturing from the parties after the Manchester tragedy. Most of it is unconvincing self-justification. Of course our foreign policies have increased terrorist attacks. Read below how hundreds of recruits to our armed forces were assured that putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan stopped terrorists from attacking us here. I called that a ‘lie’ at the time. I was expelled from the Commons for refusing to withdraw the word ‘lie’. It was then and remains now entirely justified. On the question of being wise before the event, in late March 2003, I wrote to Tony Blair about Iraq:

“Our involvement in Bush’s war will increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks. Attacking a Muslim state without achieving a fair settlement of the Palestine–Israeli situation is an affront to Muslims, from our local mosques to the far-flung corners of the world. A pre-emptive attack of the kind we have made on Iraq will only deepen the sense of grievance among Muslims that the Western/Christian/Jewish world is out to oppress them. This will provide a propaganda victory to Osama Bin Laden and can only increase his support and the likelihood of more acts of terrorism.

In the Commons you repeated that it is an article of faith to you that Britain and the USA should have a common foreign policy. Fine when there is an American President such as Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Carter or Clinton: disastrous when it is a right wing fundamentalist Republican such as Bush.”

September 19th 2012

Hammond offered a despicable justification for more war without ending. ‘Four hundred and thirty British service personnel have given their lives, and we intend to protect that legacy by ensuring that the UK’s national security interests are protected in future by training and mentoring the Afghan national security forces.’

His argument is, to justify the waste of 430 lives by foolish politicians, more lives should be lost. Since the expulsion of al-Qaida there has been no threat to British security from Afghanistan. The Taliban attack us because we are occupying their country not because they plan terrorism on the streets of the UK.

Later on Monday afternoon I began to read the list of the fallen in Afghanistan. 25 of my Early Day Motions have filled 13 pages of the Commons motions paper for the past two weeks. I previously sought an arrangement for the full list to be read in the Commons. The Speaker courteously stopped me. ‘Mr. Flynn raised with me his view that there should be a formal oral recording, periodically, of lives lost, and asked me to look into the matter. I said that I would, and I am doing so, and I think it wise to proceed on the basis of consultation. I intend to speak very soon to the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and various others about the matter, and then to revert to the hon. Gentleman.’ I was delighted with that assurance and ended the reading.

Tuesday dawned with the news that ISAF had fallen for the precise Taliban trick that Hammond said would never fool him. Humiliated, he was dragged back again to the Commons.

I asked: ‘The role of our brave soldiers is to act as human shields for Ministers’ reputations. The danger to our soldiers has been prolonged by those on the Front Bench who have the power to stop it. Other countries have removed their soldiers and are not doing, what we are doing, in arming and training our future enemy. Is this not similar to the end of the First World War, when it was said that politicians lied and soldiers died, and the reality was, as it is now, that our brave soldier lions were being led by ministerial donkeys?’

The Speaker asked me to make clear if I was saying a Minister was lying. There was only one possible answer. My head was full of the deceptions of vain ministers since 2006, the avoidable 430 deaths and 2,000 soldiers who return home broken in mind and body.

‘Yes, ministers had lied’ I said. Exclusion was inevitable and a price worth paying.

April 16th 2016

Paul Flynn
I am very much enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s authoritative speech. Will he confirm what he has just said, because it is a matter of some importance? I was expelled from the House for saying the same thing some years ago. Will he confirm that the story that those young people going to Afghanistan were actually stopping terrorism on the streets of Britain was an untruth; that those people were deluded into going there in the belief that they were defending their families here; and that the only reason the Taliban were killing our soldiers in Afghanistan was that we were there and that as soon as we came out they lost interest? Does he think that there was a continuing deception of our soldiers, many of whom lost their lives?

Mr Adam Holloway (Tory MP)

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman in the sense that the original invasion of Afghanistan was highly effective and that the Afghan people essentially removed al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but unfortunately it was the disastrous NATO deployment to Afghanistan that whipped up the insurgency. I shall come on to that point in a minute if I may.

As I was saying, people do not get promoted for telling the truth. I sent my first draft of this speech to a friend who is a well-known and courageous BBC foreign correspondent. He emailed me, saying, “Reminds me of being attacked for negative coverage that I put out in Iraq and Afghanistan by officials who later admitted, either privately or in memoirs, that things were actually worse than I was saying in my news reports.”

The agony of Manchester will haunt us forever
May 25, 2017
Edit
Leave a comment
The memories of the faces of children and others photographed in happy times have moved us all especially when we hear of the futile brutality of their deaths. The shock and hopelessness gives way to facile solutions.

Beware the posturing of politicians and groups with vested interests. We have drifted into a world of division between the west and east which cannot be swiftly resolved. During my time on the Home Affairs Committee we sought solutions. The imperfect Prevent programme and court orders were welcomed and all found wanting. Blame was easy where the failures were paraded before the committee. Devout young Muslims complained that they had been bullied by the law for their religious beliefs. The 7/7 murderers were not detected and frustrated by the police or secret services in spite of abundant evidence.

Solutions are demanded. They are provided-even when they are meaningless. As a result of the murder of Jo Cox all MPs have been inundated by security advice. Expensive equipment has been installed in our dwellings. It may be thought ungrateful to point out that none of these precautions would have prevented the killing of Jo. The ‘Something must be done’ political myth rules. Even when that ‘something’ is an expensive folly.

David Blunkett expressed his regret today for sending Armoured Personnel Carriers on the streets near Heathrow in 2003 when there was a claim of a possible missile attack. The public were terrified. Sending troops in to help the police protect an empty House of Commons looks like a hollow grandstanding gesture. It also invites criticism on the run-down of police numbers.

Good judgement is blurred by emotional turmoil. When parliament returns rationality should inform policy. It is excusable for any system to miss a lone wolf terrorist operating without accomplices. That appears to be the case with the Westminster terrorist armed with knives and a vehicle. But legitimate questions must be answered in the case of a terrorist who had self-advertised his murderous intentions and terrorist connections for years. There is culpability.

Tories flounder and upset their core voters
May 21, 2017
Edit
Leave a comment
Senior citizens are alarmed and upset by Tory plan.

Apart from dementia itself what could be more worrying than a Dementia Tax? The triple whammy of blows to the income of mature citizens is bitterly resented. For decades the elderly had inflation nibbling away at the value of their real fixed incomes. Now, they greatly value benefits that are universal and protect against inflation. Means testing creates stigma of handouts. The elderly have long memories of the old despised Poor Law ignominy of the past.

The loss of universal benefits given to achieve a level of fairness will be strongly resented at a time when the Government still plan vast multi-£Billion giveaways to the super-rich. It’s no surprise that there is a backlash from senior citizens. Will the Tories do a u-turn as they did on the planned National Insurance rise? Possibly they will.

Letting the their smiling mask slip has revealed the mean face of the Nasty Party. This election is all about their ratting on their election promises of 2015 and imposing a new austerity that will degrade the NHS, pensions, environmental policies, education and welfare.

Who wants five years of that?

Will bullying and omerta work?
May 20, 2017
Edit
Leave a comment
The Newport West campaign this time is unique and wonderful.

The previous candidates were a mixed bunch-but none were accused of cancelling an appointment with a distinguished journalist from the national press and then ‘dodging’ her phone calls. It’s eccentric PR for a candidate who is unknown in the constituency and was imposed under duress here.

Feature writer Janice Turner from the Times newspaper arranged to meet me and the Tory before embarking on the train ride from London. When Janice tried to confirm the arrangements for meeting on the train, the Tory candidate ‘cancelled the meeting then ‘dodged her phonecalls’. Newport West has attracted UK interest as it’s the only constituency in the UK where Tory HQ has imposed a ‘shortlist’ of one. Bridgend had two and they are in open revolt. The rest of the ’empty’ constituencies had a choice of three. I have a theory about the reason which I will give at the Hustings.

There were no shortage of Newport based Tories who wanted to be on the shortlist to challenge the Cardiff based candidate who had lost her two previous elections in 2010 and 2011 and was not subsequently readopted by the constituencies where she stood or any others. The 2015 candidate in Newport West complained in a tweet that he was denied a place on the shortlist. A brilliant London-based Newport Tory is ‘hopping mad’ that he was excluded from the shortlist. The truth will come out. Former Tory candidate Iain Dale of LBC knows the inside details from an impeccable source. So do I. Iain humiliated Andrew RT Davies in a radio interview by repeating the same question 8 times.

It’s still baffling. Why should a candidate run away from national publicity in Tory sympathetic newspaper? Could it be that Tory HQ told her to pull out of the interview for fear that the reporter would ask why she was imposed. If that was the tactic it backfired. The Times reported without qualification that the Tory ‘is from Cardiff and was imposed on the constituency’.

It’s hardly started yet but it’s already almost the most interesting campaign I’ve ever had. The best was when the Tory candidate’s personal pension policy was to ‘ship Newport pensioners to Eritrea because poverty is relative.’

Three weeks to go. Time to find whether the policies of omerta and the Tory HQ bullying Newport Tories works?

Rhodri’s Welsh Labour
May 18, 2017 Format Post format: Image
Edit
Leave a comment
Rhodri Morgan Tribute.jpgThis is a blog I wrote in 2009 in preparation for the book, Dragons led by Poodles.

September 26, 2009

Anthracite and gossamer
Rhodri Morgan’s creed is the anthracite Labour of Aneurin Bevan and Jim Griffiths not the gossamer Labour-lite of Blair and Mandelson.

The ugly power grab by Tony Blair to choose Wales’ first leader for centuries eventually helped Rhodri. He was unquestionably Wales’ choice triumphing over London’s choice. Wales was blighted by generations of politicians promising home rule who failed at Westminster. Rhodri’s generation honoured the dream. Never again, will we have alien princes and governor generals imposed on us.

In awe we witness the outpourings of his encyclopaedic brain reminiscent of the poet’s schoolmaster, ‘and still they gazed and still the wonder grew that one small head could carry all he knew’.

Rhodri’s language is direct, honest and unadorned. When New Labour explained the credit crunch in soothing verbal ectoplasm, Rhodri was asked what will happen. ‘God knows’ he said. We all understood that. In spite of few opposition corgis snapping at his heels, Rhodri’s popularity continues to soar. He is a beacon of straight forward honesty in the cascading mire of sleaze that is engulfing politics.

Comfortable in his skin and with his nation, Rhodri has led Wales with vision and courage. The deeply egalitarian personality of Wales can cwtch up to a leader that everyone knows by his first name. Sports loving, humour inspired, untidiness-phobic, history maker, beer-tasting, casual dresser, two language wordsmith, Mwnt holiday-maker,universal friend, jargon-free talker, Real Labour rooted, international Welsh diplomat and icon, Rhodri has done Wales proud.

What a shame ten years is such a short time in politics.

Press treat Tory stunt with contempt
May 17, 2017
Edit
Leave a comment
The shameless piece of Tory cynical opportunism had the treatment it deserved from the press.

BBC Wales hardly mentioned the deathbed conversion of the Tories to abolish the tolls on the Severn Bridges. Previously the Conservatives had tried to pull a fast one by trying to prove that a cut was good. It was actually an increase – from nothing to £3.00. They have behaved like fairground hucksters. Perhaps now they know they can fool some of the people only some of the time.

Some Tory candidates are leaping up and down with feigned joy. Oh Dear! They’ll learn.

Labour Pressure forces Tory U-Turn
May 16, 2017
Edit
Leave a comment
Labour has forced yet another Tory policy U-turn, this time on the rip off of the Severn Bridge tolls.

Theresa May’s Tories have surrendered to Welsh Labour pressure to end the Highway Robbery of Severn Bridges tolls.

Former Minister Alun Cairns planned to deceive the public by promising to cut tolls to £3.70 and then to £3.00 as though he was offering a bargain. Then a new wheeze. It was to be cut to £1.50! Great. But bothways. Not great! It was a con. This year the 50 year debt on the bridges will end. Any charge will then be a rip-off as local people are already paying full road taxes. The Tory con has been exposed. Toll-free bridges are our right.

This has been one of my calls in the General Election campaign following the Tories persistent refusal to end the cash cow of the bridges. In 1992, the clear promise was to end all tolls when the debts had been paid. Without this election the Tories would have persisted with the double-taxation for local bridge users.

Campaign diary, 26th April-2nd May
May 15, 2017
Edit
Leave a comment
This election diary was published in House magazine on 4th May 2017.

26th April

Failed to be called for terminal PMQs so I raised a point of order about the health of members. Had Mr Speaker noticed the outbreak of Parliamentary Tourette’s caused by the Crosby chip implanted in the brains of Tory MPs. It compels them to make involuntary noises of repetitive mantra syndrome by saying ‘Strong and Stable’ every 18 seconds. Triple offender Michael Fabricant denied that the thing on top of his head is a chip. I’ve always thought it was a dead cat. But he denied the House further details.

27th April

My oral question on Brexit’s threat to Welsh farmers had a characteristically vacuous and meaningless answer. Minister said he would secure ‘the best possible free trade agreement.’ Time for farmers to dig out the worry beads.

Seeking the truth, I asked the David Davis to explain “Why we are going into this premature election? Remainers have fully accepted the decision and voted for article 50, as did the Lords. Isn’t the real reason for this election the Government’s wish to rat on the promise made two years ago—a five-year promise—not to raise taxes, and to respect the triple lock? What lies ahead on the economic front is a great sinkhole into which our economy will fall in a tailspin.

In the final Point of Order of the Parliament I said that our electoral system is the most vulnerable it has been since 1880. There is powerful evidence of foreign Governments interfering in the elections in America and overwhelming evidence of money being paid in huge amounts, entirely invisible to the system, using algorithms, botnets and artificial intelligence. The Electoral Commission does not have the tools to deal with interference of this kind. We are trying to run a modern election with the tools of the 19th century. Mr Speaker replied with kindness and courtesy.

28th April

Furiously writing election literature, trying to be persuasive without giving out too much information to opponents. The polls are dire but I am consoled. Newportonians have kindly been voting for me in elections since 1972. No sign of any Tory opponent but some prominent councillors are angling for support. Our election-winning machine purrs into confident activity. Evening exchange of unpleasantries with John Redwood on LBC.

29th April

Shock! My Tory opponent in 2015 tweets that he applied to be shortlisted this time but was rejected. Ingrates! What genius do they have lined up against me? Double shock! Tory Party Wales have imposed a shortlist of one on Newport West rejecting the Newport contenders even though they are all ‘strong and stable’. Their party will now feign unity but the resentment is palpable. The voters will not like this. Perhaps a vote bonus for me.

30th April

Furiously cleansing internet sites of the ‘MP’ appendage. Writing blogs and articles on interrupted campaigns plus a therapeutic ventilating shout on Paul Ross’s Radio show. News of the Tory candidate who is employed by an MEP and lost two previous elections in winnable seats. Third time unlucky, I hope.

1st May

Nation’s brain is deadened by merciless soundbites plus May’s insistence on speaking only to lobotomized Tories locked in hermetically sealed rooms.

2nd May

Visit from depressingly well-briefed reporter from the Today programme urging me to slag off my party. Told him that the Labour Party Wales has its own Leader who gained three seats last May in the Assembly election that we had lost in 2015. Reporter promised to be equally nasty to the Tory candidate. Optimism would not be reasonable. But every election surprises. Waiting now for the meek to inherit the majority.

2017, a unique election…
May 15, 2017
Edit
1 Comment
There has never been an election like this. Party loyalties are breaking down. I have been touched by the numbers from other parties who have promised to vote for me.

There is outrage that a candidate has been parachuted into Newport and accepted by Newport Tories only under the threat of disbanding their Newport party if they did not toe the party line. So many people have said to me, ‘Can you keep a secret? I am voting for you.’ My lips are sealed. The kindness of political opponents is welcome. I have long respected individuals from other parties. Many are old friends. They understand my devotion to our city above all other issues. That’s what keeps me angry and passionate.

Might mean nothing. Might mean a lot. 30 of my team were out canvassing this morning. Just 6 in a Tory picture, including 2 MPs & a Councillor!

Many are now asking the question, what will 5 years of hard right Tory Government do. Accelerating privatisation will degrade the NHS, Education, the Welfare state and put back cruelty into fox hunting. All the great reforms over the past 70 years will be under attack.

Fake News?
May 12, 2017
Edit
Leave a comment
Interesting the the Argus is running a FAKE NEWS love-in this
morning after an appalling fake news headline that Tories up, Labour down.

Using the old trick of comparing apples with pears, they compare an election RESULT with a POLL. The last poll that had vast publicity in Wales was one that put Tories on 40 and Labour on 30. This POLL puts Labour on 37 and Tories on 27. That is Labour up, Tories down.

This is FAKE NEWS.

 

F

Former Labour Party Shadow Commons Leaders and Shadow Welsh Secretary (July to September 2016), Shadow Minister for Welsh Affairs and Social Security (1988-90).

Author of Television in Wales (1973), Commons Knowledge: How to be a Backbencher (1997), Baglu 'Mlaen (1998), Dragons led by Poodles (1999), How to be an MP (2012), The Unusual Suspect (2012), Clockwinder Who Wouldn’t Say No: The Life of David Taylor MP (2012),

 

1. Recent Tweets

   Nothing becomes a tough and stable Prime Minister more than her willingness to lay down the jobs of her staff to save her career.

    
2.  

   Paul Flynn‏Verified account @PaulFlynnMP Jun 10

    

   Mass-think Media hysteria 7 weeks ago forecast Welsh Labour election doom. Now hacks slow to hail Welsh Labour triumph. 3 Labour gains !

    
3.  

   Paul Flynn‏Verified account @PaulFlynnMP Jun 10

   More

   Recipe for Coalition of Chaos:mix a disillusioned Tory Party self-harmed by incompetent May with a party of bitter sectarian bigots

    

Details of Election 2017 blog

From Wednesday 3rd May, I will not be an MP as Parliament will have dissolved. 

Follow this link to my *Special General Election Blog*.

Before we were rudely interrupted....

It’s galling to be interrupted in the middle of a task.

I and my team were busy on many campaigning issues and hundreds of individual complaints. Suddenly it all stopped. Not for any good reason but to get the Government off the hook of promises made in the 2015 General Election.

We all know that our days are numbered as the Tories plan to get rid of the Newport West  constituency but we all thought we had three years left to complete our work. The continuing tasks include:-

My Presumed Organ Consent Bill could save hundreds of lives. The Government are reasonable but cautious in a letter to me. They are waiting for the splendid news of the Welsh NHS to be confirmed. This will happen and I will re-table my bill if re-elected.

I opened the debate on Trump last year. My worries about him are greater now. He is dangerously inflaming what were previously non-threatening frozen conflicts. The UK should be challenging him not trying to butter him with a state visit unlike any other American President has enjoyed. Flattering him will only encouraged new excesses at Trump impulsive finger hovers over the nuclear trigger.

For decades I have argued for medicinal use of cannabis to be ingested in ways other than smoking. It’s an ancient medicine that safely relieves pain. I have always been critical of failed prohibition which increases drugs misuse and deaths. Many parts of the world are implementing these reforms. I’d love to be there to help shape similar life-saving changes here.

A campaign that lasted several years was identifying the deadly peril of bully bars on cars. They concentrate and multiply the force of a collision at the level of a child’s head or vital organs. They were used as macho fashion accessories that served no useful purpose. Persistent campaigning worked in Europe and here. They are now effectively banned and are shunned as unfashionable and lethal. Lives have been saved.

Another debate that I led is on the gratuitous cruelty to badgers in a cull that is not working in England and a non-cull that is working in Wales. It’s a mark of our civilised values that we protect sentient creatures from avoidable suffering. Bringing back the cruelty in foxhunting is planned by some MPs. They must be stopped as a step on the road to reducing all abuses of animals.

My books have now been read by most MPs. They are not only the best books for the rookie MPs, they are the only ones. Mixed in with lessons on rules and spicy gossip is a plea for cleaner politics. This includes an MPs ten commandments. Little progress has been made. The Commons closes ranks when under attack and is far too permissive with its own. I have long pursued reforms as the Senior Opposition member of the Public Administration Committee. There is much more to be done.

Between 1989 and 2002 I formed close ties with the Baltic States. I was once sent by PM John Major on a mission to hear details of the situation when the crisis of  independence was at a dangerous stage. My contacts are still live. There is work to be done as  a new Putin crisis threatens.

Representing miles of estuary where the second highest tide in world rises and falls twice a day, I have long pressed for the immense power of the tides to be harnessed as entirely predictable renewable power source, Britih, green, eternal and carbon free. The Tories are dragging their feet on the report of tidal lagoons that came down strongly in favour.

 

Ingratitude

Few things are more demoralising in politics than a kicking from your own party a few days before an election.

The Prime Minister visited Newport but did not inform the Leader of Newport's Conservatives. Now all their council candidates have been told that they are not good enough to be considered for a shortlist of General Election candidates in Newport West. A candidate has been imposed on the constituency.

I've always been on good terms with Newport Tories. Some of them even vote for me! So do some Plaid Cymru and Green voters. I'm grateful to them. Their secrets are safe with me. I've always tried to be courteous and respectful to candidates of other parties. I have never attacked them. This time, the Conservatives have left me baffled.

The obvious strong Tory candidates in Newport would have been those with a history of serving the city and proving it by working as councillors, parliamentary candidates or charity volunteers. It was shocking to read a tweet from the Tory candidate in 2015 complaining that although he had applied to go on the shortlist this time, he had been rejected. A leading councillor hinted that he has been approached to stand. Neither of them were on the shortlist of one that Tory Party Wales has imposed on Newport West. They deserve a little gratitude for their service. Local Tories in Bridgend have complained of 'bullying' because they have a choice of only two where party rules say there should be a list of three.
Now I am deeply embroiled in current serious Newport issues. I am convinced that my team and I are best placed to fight Newport's corner in the many difficult battles ahead. Newport deserves a choice of strong 'Newport Nationalists' from all parties.

The candidate that has been imposed on Newport is not known to me. Checking on Google reveals that she lost her two previous winnable elections. Presumably, she is now facing the end of her job with an MEP because of Brexit. It may be convenient to Tory Party Wales to force favourites on local constituencies, but it is deeply insulting to their members in Bridgend and Newport to imply that they are not good enough to be considered for shortlists. If they are not fit to be on a shortlist the public may well ask, are they qualified to run the City?
Voters in the past have deeply resented party HQs imposing candidates on reluctant local parties. Newport Tories will now be ordered to put on a show of feigned unity. Some will do it resentfully. I doubt whether many Newportonians will be convinced.

As always, I am keen to talk to all constituents. Over the phone is the most relaxed way to have sensible conversations. Please ring me on 016233 262348.

 

Conservative activists in two Welsh target seats are angry that general election candidates are being imposed on them by the central party

But local hopefuls have been swept aside in favour of a shortlist of two outsiders in Bridgend and just one in Newport West.

A Bridgend Conservative told us: “As a concerned member of the Conservative Party in Bridgend, a seat which the Prime Minister has just visited, I wanted you to be aware of a situation which is developing.

“The party centrally is trying to impose a shortlist of two candidates on us – Dan Boucher and Karen Robson – neither of whom are from the local area. They had an opportunity to shortlist three candidates but chose not to. This is in spite of high-calibre local candidates putting their names forward.”

“This situation has been challenged by a number of members who have written to the party hierarchy at Conservative HQ in London and Cardiff to ensure that we have our local choice of candidate on the shortlist. Not only that but the rules simply haven’t been followed.
The activist claimed that instead of reviewing their decision and listening to the local membership the party was closing ranks and bullying local members, threatening them with supportive measures if they don’t comply.

“The majority of members are up in arms as this is an outrage and tearing our association apart in a target seat,” said the Bridgend party member. “It is hardly an example of strong and stable leadership in the national interest. This is immoral and treats all of us hard-working volunteers who have been here through thick and thin with contempt.

A Welsh Labour source said the Tories were 'stitching up seats for friends of the Prime Minister'
A Welsh Labour source said the Tories were 'stitching up seats for friends of the Prime Minister'
“Some senior members are threatening to resign and there will be a meeting on Sunday at 7pm at which there will be an attempt to overturn this decision to force a candidate upon us and ensure that our excellent local candidate can contest this important election.”

An email to executive members of the Bridgend party from Carolyn Webster, who chairs it, and David Deere the president, said: “[We] have over the past day received emails about the candidates selection process for the general election in five weeks time. According to the special rules laid out by the Conservative Party, nominations are the responsibility of the party chairman.

“The rules state that if the association fails to nominate one of the candidates put forward for selection then a candidate will be appointed and the association will be put into supportive measures.”

In Newport West Angela Jones-Evans has been imposed on the local party. A former Assembly candidate for the Vale of Glamorgan, she has been working for MEP Dr Kay Swinburne. The 2015 candidate in the seat Nick Webb tweeted to local Labour MP Paul Flynn: “I did apply to stand for Newport West but was not offered a place on the shortlist drawn up by the Conservative Party.”

A Newport West Tory source said: “At least Bridgend has two candidates to choose from. We have no choice.”

Does the loss of one MP matter?

 

Don’t expects objectivity. All MPs believe their own favourite campaigns are important - that’s why we pursue them.

The Timing of this election aims to get the Tories off the hook of the 5-year promises they made in 2015 on the Triple lock and no tax, VAT or NI rises.  They want to jump now before a giant sinkhole opens up in the road ahead into which the economy will fall in a tailspin. The falsehood about Brexit ignores the full support given to the referendum decision by both Commons and Lords. That's settled. We all want the best deal for Britain.

Jamming the revolving door from ministerial office to retirement riches has been a major campaign of mine for the past 12 years. At last we are on the brink of a breakthrough with a Select Committee report on the futility of Governments to police the most potentially corrupt element in our political system.  It not just the public’s anger at an incontinence of greed by former politicians, it’s the likelihood that deals are done while ministers are in office, not in the best public interests but in order secure a retirement sinecure or hacienda in Spain. Some of these deals are worth £billions

While there is no accusations against the individuals involved, the Public Administration Committee  wanted to ask George Osborne about a meeting he had with Blackrock while he was Chancellor and the subsequent decisions he made to change the law and deliver a bonanza to Blackstone. He is now employed on a part-time basis by Blackrock at a salary of £650,000. This may be perfectly proper but it is galling that snap election has got him off the cross-examination planned. As the senior Labour MP on the select committee  I want to continue that campaign.  The press has generously acknowledged my role-especially Private Eye. I know of no other MP who has campaigned on this with the persistence that I have.

Ed Davey agreed an extraordinary generous deal with EDF to buy the dearest electricity in the world with the price guaranteed for 35 years. When he lost his seat he took a job with firm that does EDF’s PR work. It might be perfectly in order but the public would like to hear that from him. I cannot see that happening unless I am re-elected. Human nature being what it, there is a great vested interests among politicians in not losing the possibility of retirement riches. The costs to the public are probably enormous. The present watchdog to prevent absues is run by the Great and the Good to serve the interests of the Great and the Good. Not the rottweiler needed, just a blind pussy-cat without teeth or claws.

All MPs have their own priorities and passions. By choice, I have long been a campaigning backbencher.  I have worked to make killer Bully Bars unfashionable, to expoes the futility of drug laws, for dignity in dying, for assumed consent for organ donations and fore environmental reforms of clean air and sustainable renewable energy.. Some of them successful, others still work in progress.  For the next few weeks I will try to  convince my constituents that my roles in parliament are so vital and unique that they deserve their votes.

Please give me a ring and I will explain further.

Give us the old Time Politics!

Hustings or Public Meetings?

Bring back the old time politics.

I long for the excitement of public meetings of my youth. Politicians spoke at length, developed arguments and preached with passion and sincerity. Questions were always invited. The occasions were uplifting, lively, exciting and informative.

In my eight General Election campaigns, I have attended all Hustings to which I have been invited. This is against the advice given to all sitting MPs by their own parties. They believe it gives an equal platform to challenging candidates and reduces the value of incumbency.

Hustings are displays of conflicts where the weapons are shallow sound bites. Public meetings can be constructive, educational and inspiring. In this election I intend to concentrate my energies on public meetings.

Sitting Tory MP Mark Robinson in 1987 dodged the four Hustings held. Since then I have attended about 25. In the 2015 Election there were games played. One candidate attended one school hustings but made an excuse to be absent from all public ones.  A candidate from another constituency was substituted. He was a disruptive nuisance and soured the atmosphere of calm and respect among the other candidates.  A Hustings was held to which I and other main candidates were not invited. The organisers criticised us afterwards for non-attendance! The interloper candidate of 2015 has resigned from his party and is unlikely to trouble Newport voters again.

While I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate of Hustings, sitting MPs can only claim the same speaking time as all other candidates including those who have little or no chance of success. This encourages frivolous candidates to stand. The Husting debates often have half a dozen candidates when the realistic choice for the electorate is between two or three candidates. There is also a sense of futility in the Hustings because parties send along their faithful supporters. Very few uncommitted voters bother. I have never known a case of anyone being converted to a different point of view at a Hustings. I am not saying that I will not attend any Hustings this time but they are not top of my priorities especially as Theresa May is running away from debates. But I will probably find invitations to well-rum Hustings irresistible.

But the best use of my time is in direct contact with the voters. At the last election I had direct conversations with 2,000. I hope to exceed that this time. Our canvassing work will be the most ambitious ever. The Tories planned to abolish the Newport West Seat. Wales would have been robbed of 11 seats. Now there will be  a new lease of life for Newport West and other traditionally Labour constituencies until 2022.

Newport West Labour will also be active in social media. I am always available to speak to organisations or individuals. It is in direct communications with uncommitted voters where elections are won.

Soon I will publish the dates and venues of my public meetings.

See you there.

Paul Flynn

Related articl

 

A few last words

Here are some contributions I made to the House before the dissolution of Parliament occurs next week. I apoligise in advance for the Minister of State's meaningless two answers. 

A looming crisis for Farming

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

What steps he is taking to ensure protection of the Welsh sheep meat trade in negotiations on the UK leaving the EU. [909882]

The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)

The Government are working hard to get the very best deal for the United Kingdom—a free trade deal with the EU that is more ambitious than any other trade deal yet struck. We are considering and analysing the impact of future trading arrangements on all sectors of our economy, including agriculture, developing policies to support our vision for a global Britain that is producing more, selling more and exporting more.

Paul Flynn

That answer was characteristically vacuous and meaningless: could the Minister try to concentrate? Welsh farmers are saying that the door is open to New Zealand competition that could clear Welsh lamb off the shelves because of the price, and the door is not open to new markets in the United States, although that was promised. The Minister will understand the cultural priority of maintaining life on Welsh farms, where one of the most ancient languages in the whole of Europe prospers at its purest and best. Is it not a major priority for the Government to give a guarantee to Welsh farmers?

Mr Jones

May I say that I represent many more Welsh farmers than the hon. Gentleman does, and that I intend to continue to do so after the general election? The Government are intent on securing the best possible free trade agreement for this country, which will benefit all farmers, including Welsh farmers. Furthermore, we intend to ensure that Welsh exports continue after the general election.

 

Why a premature election?

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

Will the Secretary of State tell us why we are going into this premature election? Those of us who voted to remain in the EU have fully accepted the decision that was made, and voted for the triggering of article 50, as did those in the other House; so that is not the reason. Will the Secretary of State confess today that the real reason we are having this election is the Government’s wish to escape from the promise that they made two years ago—a five-year promise—not to raise taxes, and to respect the triple lock? Is it not true that what lies ahead on the economic front is a great sinkhole into which our economy will fall in a tailspin?

Mr Davis

I note the attention paid to your call for short questions, Mr Speaker, but I will give the hon. Gentleman’s question a short answer. Throughout this process the Labour party has maintained its interesting schizophrenia, first saying, “We respect the outcome of the referendum”, and then, at every turn, trying to thwart it. Labour Members say, “You have a mandate to leave, but not on those terms.” Well, when the election is over, we will have a mandate on those terms.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that strikes right at the heart of the integrity of our democratic system. It is based on the final report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, as well as two articles in The House magazine, one by a Conservative Member and one by a Labour Member, all of which sound notes of alarm that our electoral system is the most vulnerable it has been since 1880. There is powerful evidence of foreign Governments interfering in the elections in America and possibly here. There is also overwhelming evidence of money being paid in huge amounts, entirely invisible to the system, by the use of methods including algorithms, botnets and artificial intelligence in a manner understood by nobody except those who participate in it. We should be vigilant in this election, because the Electoral Commission does not have the tools to deal with interference of this kind, and we are trying to run a modern election with the tools of the 19th century.

​

Mr Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has registered a strong and deeply felt concern, and it is now on the record. It is not, however, a matter for me, and I do not say that flippantly. Algorithms are certainly not a matter for the Chair, and I am sure that colleagues will be greatly reassured to hear me say that. The wider issues are ones for us all.

The hon. Gentleman, who has now served in this House without interruption for three decades, the overwhelming majority of which, by his choice, has been as a Back-Bench Member, has demonstrated once again, not least for the benefit of Members completing their first Parliament, that he has written the textbook on how to be a Back Bencher. He has written the textbook in that he has published such a book, which is a well-thumbed tome of which I am proud to possess and to have read a copy, and he has written the textbook in the sense that he exploits—I use that word non-pejoratively—every last opportunity to give voice to his concerns. Unless someone is about to surprise me gratuitously, his has been the last point of order. I thank him, and I hope that we can leave it there.

The sitting is suspended. Shortly before the sitting resumes, I shall cause the Division bells to be sounded.

Troubles in Newport Tory land.

The Argus informs us that not all is well in the Newport West Tory Party.  They still have no candidate.

 

• Nobody bothered to tell the city's Top Tory Matthew Evens that the Prime Minister was visiting this week.
• Their Parliamentary candidate in 2015 Nic Webb has been refused a place on their shortlist this time. He does not sound pleased about it in a tweet. I respect him as a courteous and forceful opponent- well above the standards of Tory challengers in Newport West since 1987. 
• The Tory Assembly seat challenger in 2016 has announced he is not a candidate for the parliamentary seat. The result was disappointing one especially having pulled out all the stops in getting Boris here with his bus.

I am excited and exhilarated at the prospect of another election campaign. The Tories planned to get rid of the Newport West seat along with ten other Welsh seats this year. Possibly there is less interest from their prospective candidates in a parliamentary career that will last only one term if the Tories get their way.

Future of Welsh lamb remains uncertain

 

 

Welsh lamb has had protected status by European law since July 2003 and is worth (approximately) £200 million to the Welsh economy. 

35 percent of sheep meat produced in Wales is exported to the European Union.  EU has 93 percent of the Welsh lamb export market.  Welsh lamb exports to the EU have been rising every year since 2007.

Theresa May and New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English met in January to discuss post-Brexit free trade deal between the two countries.

Farmers’ Union of Wales fears bilateral trade deal with New Zealand will price Welsh lamb off the shelves in the UK.

In 2014, £240m was given to Welsh Farmers in direct payments alone. Half made a loss, or would have done so that year, without those payments.

There is uncertainty over any potential export deal of Welsh lamb to the US.  In July 2016, the government put out a press release suggesting such a deal was imminent.

However, no progress has been made since then, and reports that Donald Trump is putting a trade deal with the EU ahead of the US is cause for concern.  Foreign Minister George Eustice, in response to a written question from Liberal Democrat MP Mark Williams, stated:

“The US authorities are conducting the necessary steps to formally lift their restrictions on exports of EU lamb to the US. Defra is working with the US authorities to ensure exports of lamb from the UK can commence as quickly as possible once the restrictions have been lifted.”

Supposing the UK leaves the single market and has to rely on World Trade Organisation rules, the extra cost of exporting UK lamb would be £90 million a year.

There are no guarantees over what proportion of a UK agriculture budget would come to Wales. If Wales’ proportion reflected current allocations, Wales would be worse off by around £85 million per annum.

Without the profits made by Welsh lamb, the Welsh Assembly would struggle to subsidise Welsh farming and many farmers will be lost.

Oral question on Welsh sheep farming - Thursday 27 April 2017

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

12. What steps he is taking to ensure protection of the Welsh sheep meat trade in negotiations on the UK leaving the EU. [909882]

The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)

• The Government are working hard to get the very best deal for the United Kingdom—a free trade deal with the EU that is more ambitious than any other trade deal yet struck. We are considering and analysing the impact of future trading arrangements on all sectors of our economy, including agriculture, developing policies to support our vision for a global Britain that is producing more, selling more and exporting more.

   

  Paul Flynn

  That answer was characteristically vacuous and meaningless: could the Minister try to concentrate? Welsh farmers are saying that the door is open to New Zealand competition that could clear Welsh lamb off the shelves because of the price, and the door is not open to new markets in the United States, although that was promised. The Minister will understand the cultural priority of maintaining life on Welsh farms, where one of the most ancient languages in the whole of Europe prospers at its purest and best. Is it not a major priority for the Government to give a guarantee to Welsh farmers?

   

  Mr Jones

  May I say that I represent many more Welsh farmers than the hon. Gentleman does, and that I intend to continue to do so after the general election? The Government are intent on securing the best possible free trade agreement for this country, which will benefit all farmers, including Welsh farmers. Furthermore, we intend to ensure that Welsh exports continue after the general election.

Voter manipulation in referendum cause for grave concern

 

Following piece was published in Friday's new edition of House magazine before news over the weekend of the Electoral Commission's decision to launch an inquiry into "potential offences" by the Leave.EU campaign during the 2016 referendum campaign.

 

Undue influence

Not since the 1880 reforms have our systems for election and referendums been in greater peril.

The single thunderous lesson from the Euro Referendum is that new technology trumps long-established democratic safeguards. Clandestine artificial intelligence, algorithms, and invisible money sources can overwhelm surface democratic rules.

PACAC’s report Lessons learned from the EU referendum gained considerable attention for highlighting the possibility that foreign Governments interfered with the referendum.

The voter registration website crashed last June threatening disenfranchisement of thousands, forcing the Government to extend the registration deadline. The committee reported that the crash had indications of a botnet attack on the voter registration website.

The crash may well have been the result of an attack designed to influence political outcome. Worryingly There is no chance to address these concerns before Theresa May’s opportunistic snap Election.

As we enter this Election campaign period an alarming narrative is emerging of online voter targeting calculated to cause mass interference and influence. An elite group is shaping world politics to suit their private beliefs, their behaviour having untold and unquantifiable affects. Whilst the plot reads like that of a comic book this cyber manipulation is no fiction and played a role in both the EU Referendum and President Trump’s election.

Exceptional investigation work by journalist Carole Cadwalladr has exposed the wide reaching implications of issue including the probity of June's General Election.

Billionaire Robert Mercer is Donald Trump’s biggest donor. He is also reported to be an owner of Cambridge Analytica, a company specialising in election strategies and involved in both the Trump and Brexit campaigns.

The company proved to be instrumental to Leave.EU and taught the campaign how to build profiles, target people and gain data from Facebook profiles.

When interviewed by Cadwalladr, Leave.EU’s communications director admitted, “Facebook was the key to the entire campaign. A Facebook ‘like’ was their most “potent weapon”. Using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert. And you knew there would also be other people in their network who liked what they liked, so you could spread. And then you follow them. The computer never stops learning and it never stops monitoring.”

So worrying is Cambridge Analytica’s actions that the Information Commissioners Office has launched an investigation into their reported use of personal data.

There is contempt for the electoral process they are manipulating. Leave.EU have not declared Cambridge Analytica’s work as services in kind to the electoral commission. Arron Banks of Leave.EU has since declared “I don’t give a monkey’s about the Electoral Commission.”

In June the Electoral Commission is expected to deal with tomorrow’s problems. The Referendum proved their outdated tools will ensure a free ride to those wishing to exploit it.

Broadcast advertising is subject to controls. Recent shifts have proved unfair advantages are now to be gained from online activity which lacks regulation.

Sir Tim Berners Lee has condemned the disgusting practice of selling private citizens online data. He summed up the problem best “We’ve lost control of our personal data…it’s too easy for misinformation to spread on the web” and “Political advertising online needs transparency and understanding.”

Lobbyists and Billionaires are manipulating media and public opinion in defiance of transparency regulations.

We are in the disturbing era where lobbyists can weaponise fake news for the highest bidder. They can track voters’ personal data and manipulate public opinion. All of this they can do under cover of anonymity and without regulation or oversight.

The EU Referendum was a battle of dishonesty. It was won by the side with the means to distribute the most plausible lies.

 

 

Jamming the revolving door.

A Select Report will hammer the Government for failing to stop former ministers from profiting from their ministerial experience. George Osborne is the latest example and features in one of these EDMs I have just put down asking for investigations. Allowing former ministers to work in areas they once regulated in the most potentially corrupting element in British politics that needs statutory policing. The present watchdog ACOBA is made up of the great and the good judging the great and good.

ACOBA is a blind pussycat without teeth or claws.

 

Conduct Of The Right Hon. Member For Tatton (No. 2)    

EDM number 1160 in 2016-17, proposed by Paul Flynn on 20/04/2017.

That this House notes the reported employment of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Tatton, to a post as an adviser to the BlackRock Institute, part of the BlackRock Investment Group, a global investment management company; further notes that it was reported that the right hon. Member for Tatton had had contacts with Blackrock in his previous ministerial role prior to changes in Government policy; and calls on the Government to investigate the conduct of the hon. Member for Tatton in order to protect the House's reputation for probity.

Conduct Of Mr Edward Davey    

EDM number 1159 in 2016-17, proposed by Paul Flynn on 20/04/2017.

That this House notes the reported employment of Mr Edward Davey as an adviser to MHP Communications, the lobbying firm·that conducts the bidding for Electric­ité de France, the French energy firm to whom Mr Davey awarded the controversial contract for the Hinkley Point C power station when he was a Government Minister; and calls on the Government to investigate the conduct of that past Minister in order to protect the House's reputation for probity.

Thursday 20th April 2017

• 
  
• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
  
  
  The reputation of politics was rock bottom, but now it is subterranean, as we have done nothing to reform the deep corruption at the heart of our political system by doing nothing about lobbying and the revolving door. What the country needs is a leader of integrity—a man who is not mired in corruption and is not dedicated to seeking office in order to gain insider knowledge that can then be prostituted to the highest bidder upon leaving office. We need a man who is different from what we have had, and that is what the country is looking forward to. When can we investigate the activities between previous Ministers and Electricité de France and Blackstone investments? These are unresolved problems, where we have people leaving this House honoured but then having the consolation of vast salaries of up to £650,000 for a part-time job. This does not honour politics—it drags politics down into the gutter. What we need is a new Prime Minister of probity and integrity.
  
  
  
  
• Mr Lidington
  
    
  As always, the hon. Gentleman speaks with passion, and in this case on behalf of the 25% or so of Labour MPs who support the Leader of the Opposition. He may not have meant it in this fashion, but I think he was being extremely unfair to successive Prime Ministers from both the main political parties in this country, and to the people who have served in their Governments, who have, after leaving office and membership of this House, gone on to work in other capacities in our country. Whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat, these are men and women who have things to offer and, subject to the various codes and rules that apply, it is right that when they leave office, and particularly when they leave membership of the House of Commons, they should be free to pursue new avenues.

Newport Elections

There is new bounce and confidence in Labour's Welsh Local Government campaign.The widely trusted and admired Carwyn Jones has been in Newport twice. The fresh crop of Labour candidates are a good blend of experienced and new candidates. Newport has had deep-seated to loyalty to the Labour Party since 1945. The most recent example was a salutary warning to Labour's only viable opponents for control- the Tories. The Labour in Wales has avoided the divisions of the party in England and remains strong, united and grounded. Polls show the voters' loyalty is constant

In May 2016 they pulled out all the stops in Newport and were confident of victories in the Welsh Assembly elections. They brought Boris Johnson and his battlebus here-plus two other cabinet ministers. On the night of the Assembly results, the Tory Welsh Leader told BBC Wales that "Labour will get a bloody nose' tonight'. Not quite how it worked out. Labour won back three Welsh seats that we lost to the Tories in the 2015 General Election! In Newport it resulted two triumphs for Jayne Bryant and John Griffiths. Both greatly increased Labour's share of the vote from the previous year's General Election. No wonder the Tories are quiet this time. Their Leader's launch speech was a string of half-baked platitudes lacking a single practical policy.

Other local opponents are in some confusion. The two most prominent LibDem self-publicists have gone. One has joined another Party and the other Paul Halliday has resigned from the party shortly before the party was about to announce their decision on a disciplinary matter. UKIP's 7 Ams has dropped to 5 with another facing a vote of no confidence. In Newport it is difficult to detect a pulse in their activities. There are a crop of other candidates standing who may pick up enough votes toinfluence some results. Past experience show that a multiplicity of candidates generally helps Labour as our core voters are usually loyal. A choice of parties usually splits the anti-Labour vote.There is no indication of any changes visible on our mass doorstep canvassing.  The choice is a basic Labour or a Tory Council as no other parties are fielding enough candidates to secure a majority in the council even if all their candidates win.

IT is great to see all candidates contesting hard. However with the Tory Government's record of cuts, whoever is elected will face some tough future decisions.

 

Loss of a friend

LAST week, a good friend and comrade slipped out of life.

The end was peaceful with all his family present. Only a few short weeks ago his friends and family celebrated his birthday. It was a warm event full of companionship, laughter and a joyous revival of happy memories. He had accepted the inevitability of an early death with great forbearance, strengthened by his strong Christian faith.

Rev Mark John had a rich fulfilling life of service as a prison chaplain in Cardiff and North Wales.

Forget the stereotype of a doctrinaire humourless vicar. He had experienced all that life has to offer from its spiritual heights to its disagreeable depths. He remained firmly optimistic, practical, idealistic and a convinced socialist.

He candidly described his work, "Yes, perversely. Prisons are horrible. Putting people in custody is horrible. It's society's answer. If you ask me if prison works, I would say no it doesn't. But within that cesspit that we've created there is a need. As a prison chaplain, I'm there to address that need. Every morning I wake up and think that I'm doing something that I'm comfortable with. I'm doing the best I can in an environment that I love."

His zeal was in creating empathy with the prisoners and building on it to transform lives. He said, "During my prison ministry I have worked with many murderers. I've worked with some who've come to a Christian faith and to a spiritual realisation. Only a very few cold people can be murderers and feel no remorse. The majority have a sense of remorse and guilt. As a prison service, we are always looking in to their attitude towards their offence. I want to know their attitude and what strategies they have in place to stop them from doing it again."

Mark had no hint of resentment against the dreadful disease that was to cruelly shorten his life. He planned his burial spot, noting there was a bench nearby where visitors could rest and remember him. Talking to him in his final days was an inspiration. He sought no material benefits from life. His satisfaction was in bringing hope and dignity to others. His family and those who shared his prison work will, at a future event, reveal to us full accounts of a great life, richly lived, in the service of a despised minority.

Rest in peace comrade.

 

UK sense needed to cool crisis

The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 was less worrying that the present tension.

I vividly recall being on a night shift in Llanwern on the crucial night when we waited to hear if the Russians would accept Kennedy's ultimatum. Then, as now. the world had the capacities to wipe all human life off the planet with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

The main difference is, then the world had a highly intelligent American President wise enough to listen to the advice of his team. Now we have a dim-witted, ignorant impulsive President hellbent on inflating his ego and scornful of advice from the cooler heads in his Government. Trump's uncertain grasp of foreign affairs is revealed in his verbal blunders. The most recent was saying that he sent cruise missiles to Iraq. His Fox News interviewer had to remind him that they were targeted on Syria. Then two super powers, who had avoided nuclear conflict for 17 years, confronted each other. Now two untried,  infantile forces are posturing in a lethal 'game'.

Emily Thonberry has written a fine article in the Guardian questioning the silence of our PM and Foreign Minister. May is mute because she is desperate to ingratiate herself with Trump to gain some trade to replace that which Brexit will lose. Boris staggers from maladroit comments to strategic errors and fears new humiliation. As an old ally, the UK should be urging caution on the petulant child Trump. His adversary is a country with a brainwashed population led by another deluded fantasist leader.

British common sense has rarely been needed more than now.

 

*****************************************

 

We are in the disturbing era where lobbyists can weaponise fake news for the highest bidder - @PaulFlynnMP blogs http://huff.to/2or9upK

Our ethical democracy that was created over two centuries has been undermined by invisible techniques that neither Government nor Parliament has recognised. 

See Huffington Post article or read below 'Lessons not learned from Euro Referendum'.

 

********************

 

 

Newport still has unfairly high share of asylum seekers

For three years I have been raising the issue of the grossly unfair distribution of asylum seekers throughout the UK. It matters. Some areas have none. Perversely they are the areas that have the highest levels of prejudice against asylum seekers. Other areas have large numbers with consequent strains on local housing, education and the NHS. It is in everyone's interests to have as even a distribution as possible. 

 

In three years there has been no improvement. As far as Newport is concerned we have gone backwards as the figures below obtained by my staff illustrate:

 

Top lines

• Number of asylum seekers in Newport has risen by a third in three years to a record high of 517
• Cardiff has nearly triple the number of asylum seekers than two English regions put together.
• Prime Minister Theresa May’s constituency has grown (in same period)… from 0 to grand total of 4!
• Chancellor Philip Hammond’s constituency has doubled (in same period, 2013-16), from 1 to 2!
• 34,936 asylum seekers live in areas with Labour-led councils compared with 1,680 in Conservative-led areas (figures reported in The Observer on April 9^th 2017).

 

Fluctuation of asylum seekers in Newport since 2003

Newport: Now 517 asylum seekers, 145,700 population,

Year	UK total	Newport
2016	39,389	517
2015	35,693	467
2014	29,753	435
2013	23,459	316
2012	20,182	233
2011	20,894	205
2010	22,039	172
2009	28,518	233
2008	31,339	256
2007	43,052	394
2006	47,774	455
2005	49,430	375
2004	61,625	430
2003	80,123	413

Newport’s share of asylum seekers (in context of the UK as a whole) stands at 1.3%, its population is 0.2% of UK as a whole.

One Welsh city supports greater share of refugees than South East region

Cardiff is taking nearly triple the number of asylum seekers than the South East region as a whole, despite accounting for a much smaller percentage of the UK population.

Cardiff, in 2016, had 1,409 asylum seekers, like Newport, a third higher than in 2013 (when Cardiff had 934).

The South East is the most populated region in the UK with 8.9 million people, 13.7% of the UK’s entire population live there.  In contrast, Cardiff’s population size of 341,000 represents only 0.4% of the UK.  Despite this, the South East of England (where Labour only has two MPs) only has 580 asylum seekers. 

Cardiff has more asylum seekers than two English regions, South East and East of England (580 + 597 = 1177) put together.

While Home Secretary Amber Rudd’s constituency Hastings and Rye, which falls within the Hastings local authority, has a greater number of asylum seekers (100 in 2016) receiving support provided under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 – the local authority had 248 in 2003.

Dispersal unfairness also within Wales as well as UK

While Cardiff takes more asylum seekers than two entire English regions combined, the unfairness of dispersal is as pronounced within Wales as within the UK.

Monmouthshire gained its first asylum seeker in 2016.

 

Figures for the first quarter of 2017 will be published on May 24^th 2017.

EDF screw customers with nuclear tax

· EDF increasing electricity prices again, for 2nd time in 2017, highest price hike among Big Six energy companies

· Follows news that US nuclear power company Toshiba/Westinghouse filing for Bankruptcy in America

· EDF’s other projects in Flamanville (France) and Olkilhoto Island (Finland), both grossly over-budget and behind schedule, are grave warnings for UK taxpayer

· Cost of nuclear decommissioning, recently at the centre of a debacle, now running into hundreds of billions

· Further strengthens National Audit Office’s devastating assessment of Hinkley Point cost for taxpayer and energy users.

 

Energy suppliers’ % price rise of electricity in 2017

Supplier	% Rise
EDF	18.1%
Npower	15%
SSE	14.8%
E.On	13.8%
Scottish Power	10.8%
British Gas	0%

On Wednesday 12th March, EDF announced that it is to increase its electricity prices for the second time this year, bringing total rise in 2017 to nearly 20%, more whopping than any of the other Big Six suppliers. EDF’s price rise will affect 1.5 million UK energy users.

Huge price rises are clear early indication that the taxpayer will be forced to bail out corporate nuclear energy builders. Chaos of current EDF nuclear building projects, combined with financial crisis in America and spiralling nuclear decommissioning costs, shows Hinkley Point as a financial basket case and a disaster for both the UK taxpayer and energy users.

EDF's current projects also give cause for grave concern. The Flamanville nuclear site in France is three times over budget (initial estimate of €3bn Euros is now €9bn) and seven years behind schedule. In Finland, meanwhile, the Olilhoto site is €5.2bn (Euros) over budget and nine years behind schedule.

To make the financial case for UK nuclear projects even grimmer, it has also emerged this week that Toshiba subsidiary Westinghouse Electric are on the brink of bankruptcy. The UK’s prospects for a planned new nuclear power station at Moorside in Cumbria, behind which Toshiba is a key financial player, have been diminished.

Huge nuclear decommissioning costs only adds to the waste. In late March, details of a debacle in which two US firms were handed out-of-court settlement by UK government for its mishandling of a £6.1 billion nuclear decommissioning contract were brought to national attention.

Together, these developments make an embarrassing mockery of the government's Hinkley Point contract.
In July 2016, the government spending watchdog - National Audit Office - predicted that falling wholesale energy prices would mean the taxpayer would pay £30 billion for the Hinkley Point due to debt guarantees this financially insane government has agreed with EDF. If the National Audit Office were to write another report, the case for Hinkley Point would be even more ludicrous.

Peter Atherton summed the case up well in The Spectator: “You might think that, given inflation, such a hike is not so terrible. Think again. The £92.50 is in 2012 money: it will be inflated by the Consumer Price Index. If we assume that CPI inflation averages 2.5 per cent over the next decade, the price EDF will be guaranteed for its output in 2023 will be more like £121 per MWh, or £130 per MWh if CPI averages 3 per cent. Amazingly, the indexing continues throughout the 35 years of the contract. So by 2030 the guaranteed price would be about £150 per MWh."

Hydro power, in much brighter contrast, has been quoted at £22.50 per kW for the delivery year October 2020 to September 2021.

Lessons NOT Learned - EU Referendum

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s reports on lessons learned from the Euro Referendum misses the main lessons and seeks to continue controversies on matters of minor importance such as ‘purdah’.

I did not vote for the report because the LESSONS MISSED include:-

Referendums outcomes are decided by the side that tells the most plausible lies.

It’s significant that two of our witnesses also led campaign in referendum on the Alternative Vote, and the north East Devolution referendums’ are Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive, Vote Leave, William Norton, Legal Director, Vote Leave. Everyone knew about the message of NHS money on the Red Bus and Osborne's threat of chaos. Few read official briefings.  It was the hyperbole that won it.

The PACAC report covers cyber security poorly and with what appears to be a rudimentary understanding of the issues.

PACAC refer only to practical, tangible events such as the website crashing. This may well have been the result of an attack but the much more troubling issue is the continuous use of online data to target and manipulate. An elite group is shaping world politics to suit their private beliefs, their behaviour having untold and unquantifiable affects.

Although the Committee has no direct evidence, it considers that it is important to be aware of the potential for foreign interference in elections or referendums. The report on lessons learned from the website crash described it as “technical in nature, gaps in technical ownership and risk management contributed to the problem, and prevented it from being mitigated in advance”.

However the crash had indications of being a DDOS (distributed denial of service) ‘attack’. We understand that this is very common and easy to do with botnets.There can be many reasons why people initiate a DDOS: commercial, political etc. PACAC does not rule out the possibility that the crash may have been caused by botnets.

 Lessons in respect of the protection and resilience against possible foreign interference in IT systems that are critical for the functioning of the democratic process must extend beyond the technical. The implications of this different understanding of cyber-attack, as purely technical or as reaching beyond the digital to influence public opinion, for the interference in elections and referendums are clear. PACAC is deeply concerned about these allegations about foreign interference. 

The use of algorithms and artificial intelligence was probably a significant but invisible element in the campaigns.

The journalist Carole Cadwalldr has exposed the influence of American billionaire Robert Mercer and Cambridge Analytica in manipulating voters’ opinions.

There is the absence of evidence of Russian cyber influence or other invisible campaigning from other countries because the Electoral Commission has not investigated.

We are living in new age of propaganda. “psyops” – psychological operations and cognitive warfare will that determine the result of future elections and referendums.

Damian Tambini, director of the media policy project at the LSE, says electoral Law isn’t fit for purpose. He calls for a parliamentary commission to urgently review it. He says “It’s totally covert. And people don’t realize what is going on.”

PACAC Report – Cyber Security 

The implications of this different understanding of cyber-attack, as purely technical or as reaching beyond the digital to influence public opinion, for the interference in elections and referendums are clear. PACAC is deeply concerned about these allegations about foreign interference.  

Reasons why PACAC should investigate further

Issue is wider than EU Referendum

There is evidence to suggest that this is a much wider issue than the EU referendum. Evidence from analysts, below, suggest that this type of targeting was used in the last General Election and as recently as the Stoke By-Election. Furthermore the billionaires involved intend to extend the areas they cover to encompass the rest of Europe.

Lack of transparency regarding foreign election funding

This is wilful manipulation of the media and unchallenged use of foreign funds to influence our electoral processes.

An investigation by PACAC could raise the issue that this type of work has yet to be declared by any group as ‘services-in-kind.’

Broadcast advertising is restricted in the interests of fair play as it traditionally had a wide reach and great impact. Recent shifts have proved unfair advantages are now to be gained from targeted online activity bringing into question the requirement for tighter regulation.

Extent of available expert evidence was not considered fully during this EU report

The issue is also wider reaching than one- off, concrete events pinpointed by the Committee such as the website crashing during the referendum campaign.

Damaging News Sites

CNSnews is owned by the Media Research Center. They promote themselves as "America's media watchdog", an organisation that claims an "unwavering commitment to neutralising leftwing bias in the news, media and popular culture".

Receives a large bulk of its funding from Robert Mercer - Trump's single biggest donor.

Robert Mercer

Started his career at IBM, where he made "revolutionary" breakthroughs in language processing - a science that went on to be key in developing today's AI.

Became joint CEO of Renaissance Technologies, a hedge fund that makes its money by using algorithms to model and trade on the financial markets.

One of its funds, Medallion, which manages only its employees' money, is the most successful in the world - generating $55bn so far.

Since 2010, Mercer has donated $45m to Republican political campaigns and $50m to rightwing, ultra-conservative non-profits. He funds a climate change denial thinktank, the Heartland Institute.nThis is a billionaire who is trying to reshape the world according to his personal beliefs.

 

Breitbart

 It was $10m of Mercer's money that enabled Bannon to fund Breitbart - a rightwing news site, set up with the express intention of being a Huffington Post for the right.

Regularly hosts antisemitic and Islamophobic views, and is currently being boycotted by more than 1,000 brands.

Phenomenally successful: the 29th most popular site in America with 2bn page views a year. It's bigger than the Huffington Post. 

It's the biggest political site on Facebook and Twitter.

In 2014, Bannon launched Breitbart London, telling the New York Times it was specifically timed ahead of the UK's forthcoming election. It was, he said, the latest front "in our current cultural and political war". France and Germany are next.

Cambridge Analytica

Robert Mercer's is reported to have a $10m stake in Cambridge Analytica, a small data analytics company spun out of a bigger British company called SCL Group.

It specialises in "election management strategies" and "messaging and information operations", refined over 25 years in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan ie: Mass propaganda that works by acting on people's emotions.

Cambridge Analytica worked for the Trump campaign and the Leave campaign.

How these Companies are used for Manipulation of Media and Politics

Jonathan Albright, a professor of communications at Elon University, North Carolina mapped the news ecosystem and found millions of links between rightwing sites "strangling" the mainstream media.

Trackers from sites like Breitbart could also be used by companies like Cambridge Analytica to follow people around the web and then, via Facebook, target them with ads.

Cambridge Analytica boasts that it has psychological profiles based on 5,000 separate pieces of data on 220 million American voters - its USP is to use this data to understand people's deepest emotions and then target them accordingly.

Andy Wigmore, Leave.EU communications director said Cambridge Analytica had worked for them and taught them how to build profiles, how to target people and how to scoop up masses of data from people's Facebook profiles. 

Facebook was the key to the entire campaign, Wigmore explained. A Facebook 'like', he said, was their most "potent weapon". "Because using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert. And you knew there would also be other people in their network who liked what they liked, so you could spread. And then you follow them. The computer never stops learning and it never stops monitoring."

They hadn't "employed" Cambridge Analytica, he said. No money changed hands. "They were happy to help."

Services-in-kind were not declared to Electoral Commission. A foreign billionaire influenced the referendum without that influence being apparent.

Wigmore confirmed "Nigel Farage is a good friend of the Mercers. And Robert Mercer introduced them to us. He said, 'Here's this company we think may be useful to you.' What they were trying to do in the US and what we were trying to do had massive parallels. We shared a lot of information. Why wouldn't you?" Behind Trump's campaign and Cambridge Analytica, he said, were "the same people. It's the same family."

Sam Woolley of the Oxford Internet Institute's computational propaganda institute believes one third of all traffic on Twitter before the EU referendum was automated "bots" - accounts that are programmed to look like people, to act like people, and to change the conversation, to make topics trend. And they were all for Leave. Before the US election, they were five-to-one in favour of Trump - many of them Russian. Last week they have been in action in the Stoke byelection - Russian bots, organised by who? - attacking Paul Nuttall.

You can take a trending topic, such as fake news, and then weaponise it, turn it against the media that uncovered it.

Our Marvellous Parliamentary Police

 

Parliament is saddened by the death of PC Keith Palmer.

 

Below is a tribute I paid to the parliamentary police several years ago. Sadly the circumstances in which the brave parliamentary police carry out their duties has changed since this was published, as has the threat level officers face every day. Kind, considerate and courteous remains an entirely accurate description of valiant PC Keith Palmer. All thoughts are with his loved ones today.

 

Parliament is grateful to our police officers who continue to provide reassurance daily.

 

“Security threats have regrettably made the palace a fortress. London Police are stationed on key entrances. They provide reassurance. The unarmed, traditional, unique breed of parliamentary police has survived unchanged. They are an unrelated species to the police on Vera or Eastenders. Their career paths may have been wayward. Once they planned to bring law and order to unruly streets ….They were consigned to the police Nirvana of parliamentary duties. Even those who have had bad previous experience of the Metropolitan Police acclaim the Commons Police as kind, considerate and courteous. All MPs say to other MPs, ‘Aren’t our police marvellous?’”

 

 

Extending the expensive badger cull is a mistake

The most beguiling of recent parliamentary metaphors was spawned by the badger culling debate. Farm Minister Owen Patterson sought to shift the blame for an irrational with of policy by claiming. 'the claiming that 'The Government has not moved the goalposts, the badgers have'.

This delightful preposterous image was symptomatic of a parliamentary debate that has been prejudice rich and evidence free. More than 100,000 petitioners are calling for an end to the badger cull and cancellation of plans to expand the slaughter to new areas, The petition says that, Since 2013, thousands of badgers have been killed in a Government cull attempting to control bovine TB. Against scientific advice & before a 4 year trial has completed, the government is now expanding the cull to new counties - tens of thousands of healthy badgers could be killed.

Experts in disease control and animal welfare agree that pilot badger culls have proven both ineffective and inhumane. Shooting badgers is also expensive, costing tax-payers some £5,000 per animal. Bovine TB is a serious problem but killing badgers is not the solution, and could actually make the situation worse. It is a costly distraction from an effective solution incorporating vaccination, increased cattle movement control measures and improved testing.

The issue divides Great Britain. In Scotland cattle herds are TB-free and no culling takes place. In Northern Ireland a 5 year research project is being conducted to test the effects of culling infected badgers and vaccinating non-infected badgers. The Welsh Government has rejected culling in favour of vaccination. The Republic of Ireland has been culling badgers for 32 years. In 2014 the Government started a four-year vaccination pilot trial programme to try and phase out culling in favour of vaccination. They have already purchased TB vaccines from Canada to ensure they have enough to continue.

The Government's long-term Strategy for achieving TB free status for England was published in April 2014. It set out the range of measures, including increased biosecurity on farms and culling, intended to eradicate Bovine TB by 2038. There are problems. The Strategy relies on culling. The Krebs trial in England produced a net reduction of 16% of new incidents of bovine TB over nine years. In contrast, the number of new incidents in Wales has fallen by 47% in eight years through tighter cattle controls, improved biosecurity, more testing, and no culling. The testing measures are not robust. the International Fund for Animal Welfare state inaccurate testing is costing farmers with hundreds of cattle potentially being killed unnecessarily. The tuberculin skin test is reportedly 80% accurate, meaning one in five tests are wrong. This means infected animals could be accidentally left in the herd to infect other cattle, and false positives mean some cattle will wrongly be slaughtered.

IFAW state that Government may apply early for TB free status for the low risk areas of England. These areas were historically bTB free. The cull has not been a factor in that. Monthly TB incidence statistics from DEFRA show that alongside a reduction overall in new herd outbreaks in the high risk areas, there has been an increase in incidents in the surrounding areas. Between November 2015-16 there were 36 new herd incidents where official TB Free status was withdrawn. The number of cattle destroyed was up 8%.

The massive Krebs experiment reach the conclusion that Proactive culling reduced the incidence of bovine TB by 19% within the cull area, although increased it by 29% up to 2 km outside the cull area. Reactive culling increased bovine TB by 25%/ Further trails prove that they were no permanent benefit from culling.

It costs £6,700 to cull each badger.In Ireland farmers have been contributing towards the cost of the TB eradication scheme since 1979 through the payment of disease levies. In addition farmers pay for annual testing. In the UK all costs are paid by the taxpayers. If farmers were to pay for their own solution in England and were not compensated for their losses chances are they would choose vaccination and better biosecurity over the proven failure of badger culling. In contrast the number of new incidents in Wales has fallen by 47% in eight years tighter cattle control, improved bio-security , more testing and no cull.

There is new element in the debate. The Kimblewick hunts over land in six counties, Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire The Hunt's hounds are infected with bovine TB. Campaigners against the badger cull have long complained about poor farm hygiene and the feeding by hunts of disease-ridden 'fallen cattle' carcasses to foxhounds. But the fact that 25 of its foxhounds had to be put down because they were infected with bovine TB, with a further 120 undergoing testing, has been a cause for worry.

Hound excrement may even be infecting badgers with bTB. Defra's online map that plots where the current outbreaks are shows several occurring within the hunt's territory. The Kimblewick Hunt had been sitting on the news since December. The problem could be widespread.There are reports that some farmers, belatedly trying to protect their cattle, have banned hunts from their land. Those local to the hunt kennels are refusing to let the hunt exercise the hounds on their land. It has been suggested that the hounds have been fed raw, TB-infected meat. Although this would be a contravention of meat hygiene rules and bTB. controls. If the Government deny this then what are they doing to establish the cause?

Hounds travel to hound shows across the country. They move freely without testing or controls. Hunts often receive invites to be guests of other hunts.

The Government have been permissive and unscientific and always are eager to bow to farmers’ interests. He knew the threat from hunting hounds may change that. Perhaps for once, evidence will rule in parliament.

An abridged copy of this piece was published in The Times on March 27, 2017.

Mass contempt for cruel, unscientific badger culling ignored

 

Yesterday I took charge of a Commons debate in Westminster Hall spawned from an E-petition signed by over 100,000 people which called on the government to end their cruel and unscientific culling of badgers. The Minister George Eustice's response and my closing remarks are below.

 

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

   The petition reads:

  “Since 2013, thousands of badgers have been killed in a Government cull attempting to control bovine TB. Against scientific advice & before a 4 year trial has completed, the government is now expanding the cull to new counties—tens of thousands of healthy badgers could be killed.

  Experts in disease control and animal welfare agree that pilot badger culls have proven both ineffective and inhumane. Shooting badgers is also expensive, costing tax-payers some £5,000 per animal. Bovine TB is a serious problem but killing badgers is not the solution, and could actually make the situation worse. It is a costly distraction from an effective solution incorporating vaccination, increased cattle movement control measures and improved testing.”

   

  I have no special expertise in this area, but I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for asking me to move the motion. However, I have one claim to authenticity, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden): a predecessor of ours, Roy Hughes, who represented the areas we now represent, sponsored a private Member’s Bill in 1991 that was intended to control the abuse of badgers taking place at that time by protecting their setts and making activity against them illegal. We therefore have a good tradition in Newport.

   

  I share with most people a great affection for these beautiful creatures. As the superior species, we have a responsibility towards them; as the intelligent and thinking species, we have a duty to ensure that all sentient, living creatures are protected from gratuitous violence or cruelty. I believe that the Government’s policy on badger culling is evidence-free and prejudice-rich. The present Government have a long record of appeasing farmers—everything farmers want, normally farmers get from this Government, however unreasonable the demands might be.

   

  The case has been made powerfully in other parts of the world for the futility of culling, which appears to be a simple solution only to those who believe in shooting first and thinking later. We heard similar nonsense in the debate about hunting; some people thought that it was a reasonable method of pest control to take 100 riders and horses across the countryside to deal with one fox. Sadly, that rural attitude is not as respectful as it should be of all animal life.

George Eustice (Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs)

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate all the petitioners. I understand that more than 108,000 individuals signed the petition, led, as has been said, by Mr King. That shows that this is an emotive, but incredibly important, issue, and it is right that we spend this time debating it. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stockbridge (Angela Smith) declared an interest, in that she is a member of the Wildlife Trusts. If that is considered an interest, I should probably join her by declaring that I am a member of the Wildlife Trusts in Cornwall. They do some fantastic work, but it has to be said that this is one area on which I and my local Wildlife Trust have to agree to disagree. The truth is that TB is an incredibly difficult disease to fight. It is slow growing and not easy to detect. We are constantly trying to improve diagnostics, and I will come on to that. No vaccine is fully effective. The best we have is the BCG vaccine, which we know is only about 70% effective. The disease has a huge impact on our livestock industry. Last year, we slaughtered about 29,000 heads of cattle. This is a disease that costs us £100 million a year to manage and fight. There are no easy solutions and there is no single measure that provides the answer to a disease of this sort, which is why the Government have set out a comprehensive 25-year strategy that involves us using all the tools at our disposal to bear down on the disease. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stockbridge pointed out that the previous Labour Government decided not to proceed with a badger cull. I have to say that had they acted as one should with any animal disease—swiftly and assertively to get it under control—it might have been easier to turn the situation around. The reality is that we had 15 years that can be best described as a period of dither, when clear action was not taken on all the available fronts to tackle the disease.

Paul Flynn

The reply that we have had from the Minister is very disappointing. He has said that he will not take any action on hounds, because it is very rare for bovine TB in dogs or hounds to be transferred to other species. The Government cannot have it both ways, if that is their policy, because the chief veterinary officer, Mr Nigel Gibbens, took to the airwaves in 2013 to proclaim that it was not safe to take one’s pet Labrador, or let one’s pet cat, out into the woods, as it might catch bovine TB from badgers and subsequently infect its owner. I think that that was taken as a rather extreme view at the time, but if the veterinary view is that bovine TB is infectious to other species from hounds, we must take very seriously what is happening in a hunt that has been trampling over six of our counties. We should look, too, at other methods and ensure that, if there is a new source of infection, such as hounds, we carry out inspections. The reason we do not know whether TB is in hounds is that we have not looked, and it is about time that that was done.

An interesting claim was made about possums in New Zealand. In 2009, the New Zealand Government reported that the incidence of bovine TB in possums was 0.004%, which is vanishingly small, and pointed out that the virtual elimination of the disease from the possum population was to do with cattle control—reducing movements of cattle around the country—and nothing ​to do with culling. It is entirely false to pretend that it was. Some Government Members put forward a sort of Enid Blyton view of wildlife—that wild animals should abide by the ten commandments and not go out and eat other animals, or follow their natural life. That view is put forward sentimentally by some to defend what are barbaric acts against these dumb animals.

Some other points made in this debate were entirely false. The figures about Wales that one Government Member gave were just untrue. We know that the system in Wales is working, but the system in England is not. Between November 2015 and 2016, there were 36 new herd incidents in which official TB-free status was withdrawn—we are going backwards with those—and the number of cattle destroyed was up 8% in some areas. We know, too, that the number of herds that are identified as infected with bovine TB at slaughterhouses is in the hundreds. The crude, unscientific system that we have for detecting TB is not working. The Minister gave some pie in the sky hope for the future about things that are unlikely to come to fruition for many years, but the Government have shown a lack of conviction in this policy by setting a 25-year target for its delivery. I do not think many of us will be around to see that, and the Government will constantly use the excuse, “You must give us time to deal with this.”

I accused the Government of being crowd-pleasing. I was talking about the farming crowd, not the general crowd. The Government have outraged the majority of the public. It is not reasonable to mock those who sacrifice their time and safety to protest vigorously against unnecessary acts of cruelty that have no basis in science or what happens throughout the rest of the world. The worst mistake that politicians make is to say, “Something must be done. We can’t think of anything intelligent to do, we can’t think of any practical to do that will work, but we must do something.” I am afraid it is one of the great sins of this House and the way that we legislate that the worst mistakes we make are often in the pursuit of “something must be done”. Badger culling is a very bad idea. It is cruel, and the country will rightly show its contempt for a Government who continue with it.

Taliban Captures City of Sangin

Yesterday the Daily Mail reported on the capturing of the city of Sangin by the Taliban in which 114 British soldiers lost their lives since 2001. They say:

 

Taliban fighters captured the strategic southern district of Sangin on Thursday in another setback for Afghan forces in Helmand province. 

The capture of Sangin, where US and British forces suffered heavy casualties until it was handed over to Afghan personnel, marks the culmination of the Taliban's year-long offensive to seize the opium-rich district and underscores their growing strength.

Most of Helmand is already estimated to be under Taliban control, with the capital Lashkar Gah - one of the last government-held enclaves - also at the risk of falling to the Taliban's repeated ferocious assaults ahead of the annual spring offensive. 

Since 2001, 456 British troops were killed in Afghanistan. 

Of those, around 114 died in the city of Sangin. 

Helmand governor's spokesman Omar Zwak said: 'Our forces have retreated from government offices, including the police headquarters and the governor's office in Sangin, but we are preparing to take it back.'

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid also said that insurgents had overrun the district centre.

Senior Labour MP Paul Flynn said the loss of Sangin underlined the need for an inquiry into the ill-fated Afghan war.

He told MailOnline: ‘Up to the point we decided to go into Helmand, we had lost a dozen of our soldiers in combat.

‘After we went into Helmand, the total went up to 450. We were there in the hope not a shot would be fired.

‘We have yet to engage with the fact that going in there was the worst mistake since the charge of the light brigade – it was a mistake of historic proportions.

‘We lost 450 of our troops there. The result is the situation is very much the same.

‘Quite rightly, the loved ones can ask why did we do it?’ 

For years Helmand was the centrepiece of the Western military intervention in Afghanistan, only for it to slip deeper into instability.

The Taliban effectively control or contest 10 of the 14 districts in Helmand, the deadliest province for British and US troops over the past decade and blighted by a huge opium harvest that helps fund the insurgency.

The Pentagon has said it would deploy some 300 US Marines this spring to Helmand, where American forces engaged in heated combat until they pulled out in 2014.

The Marines will head to the poppy-growing province this spring to assist a NATO-led mission to train Afghan forces, in the latest sign that foreign forces are increasingly being drawn back into the worsening conflict.

Separately on Thursday, a policeman linked to the Taliban killed nine of his colleagues as they were sleeping in the northern Kunduz province, local police chief Aziz Kamawal said.

So-called insider attacks - when Afghan soldiers and police turn their guns on their colleagues or on international troops - have been a major problem during the more than 15-year-long war.

Last week, three US soldiers were wounded when an Afghan soldier opened fire in Helmand, in the first known insider attack on international forces this year.

Futility of Watchdog revealed-again!

Article I published on January 12, 2016

Someone now listening?

Revolving door to retirement riches spins

 

Published in the International Business Times UK

Why do we allow former politicians to become high-paid advisers on companies they used to regulate?

By Paul Flynn MP
January 12, 2016 14:16 GMT 1

At least 25 former ministers from Cameron's coalition are raking in over £1m between them.

The revolving door from high public office to private company sinecure is spinning as freely as ever. At least 25 former ministers from David Cameron's coalition are raking in over £1m ($1.4m) between them.

Five former members of the prime minister's cabinet are among dozens of ex-coalition ministers earning up to £600 an hour in the sectors they used to regulate. Most have plum part-time roles as directors, advisers or board chairmen.

The job of the Commons watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), is to restrict the abuse of former ministers, civil servants and generals by selling their insider knowledge and contacts to the highest bidder. But it is a fawning pussycat without teeth or claws.

Informed born-again lobbyists are placed into influential commercial positions where they are motivated by private greed – not the public's good. The tentacles of this permissive system penetrate deeply and threaten the integrity of public life.

The roles of top civil servants, generals or government ministers were traditionally the pinnacles of careers. Now they are often judged as stepping stones on the climb to retirement riches. When in office, decisions involving billions may be subtly influenced by a nod or a wink in favour of the prospect of lucrative job in retirement and a hacienda in Spain.
Rules on taking on private work

Under the present regime of permissiveness and snoozing Acoba, they have broken no rules. But alarm bells are ringing and a Select Committee probe is now planned.

All former ministers are obliged to seek the committee's advice if they take on any job within two years of leaving office. And cabinet ministers are expected to wait a minimum of three months before taking private work.

The work of Acoba is justly mocked. Its previous chair, Lord Lang, was interviewed by the Dispatches sting team that forced transport secretary Stephen Byers, former health secretary Patricia Hewitt and former defence secretary Geoff Hoon into suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party in 2010 for allegedly "bringing it into disrepute". Lang did not commit himself into working for the bogus job offered but he sent his CV to the Dispatches team for further consideration.

New chair Tory peer Angela Browning was cross-examined by the Public Administration Committee at a ludicrous "retrospective pre-appointment" hearing confirmation of her role. She was a minister in the Home Office until 2011 and is now paid between £300 and £800 a day for occasional work for a political consultancy firm that trains people in the health industry on topics such as "how to influence the political agenda".
Well-paid retirement roles

Nearly all other members of her committee are drawn from the great and the good that regard £60,000 for a part-time retirement job as normal entitlement for themselves and for their chums. Acoba has never banned a minister from taking a job and its recommendations on restricting lobbying are not binding. They have no powers to enforce them.

I submitted evidence on the Revolving Door to the Kelly committee on standards a few years ago. I urged them to nail two former generals who criticised Gordon Brown for low military spending. They later became paid advisers to arms companies. The committee did not act. They were too preoccupied with duck houses and moats at the time.

The spectre of parliamentary sleaze is returning and we are slipping back into the bad old ways that led to the expenses scandal. As I told the Commons last week, bodies in the House took lenient decisions on the recent cases involving Malcolm Rifkind, Jack Straw, Tim Yeo and Lord Blencathra but independent voices outside, including a court and Ofcom, took harsh decisions.

Parliament should act swiftly to strengthen our internal controls on standards. Restoring the public's trust in parliamentarians should be a prime objective after the self-lacerating nightmare of the expenses scandal. At the moment, though, the impetus for reform is weakening and new scandals loom.

 

 

Published in the International Business Times UK

Why do we allow former politicians to become high-paid advisers on companies they used to regulate?

By Paul Flynn MP
January 12, 2016 14:16 GMT 1

At least 25 former ministers from Cameron's coalition are raking in over £1m between them.

The revolving door from high public office to private company sinecure is spinning as freely as ever. At least 25 former ministers from David Cameron's coalition are raking in over £1m ($1.4m) between them.

Five former members of the prime minister's cabinet are among dozens of ex-coalition ministers earning up to £600 an hour in the sectors they used to regulate. Most have plum part-time roles as directors, advisers or board chairmen.

The job of the Commons watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), is to restrict the abuse of former ministers, civil servants and generals by selling their insider knowledge and contacts to the highest bidder. But it is a fawning pussycat without teeth or claws.

Informed born-again lobbyists are placed into influential commercial positions where they are motivated by private greed – not the public's good. The tentacles of this permissive system penetrate deeply and threaten the integrity of public life.

The roles of top civil servants, generals or government ministers were traditionally the pinnacles of careers. Now they are often judged as stepping stones on the climb to retirement riches. When in office, decisions involving billions may be subtly influenced by a nod or a wink in favour of the prospect of lucrative job in retirement and a hacienda in Spain.
Rules on taking on private work

Under the present regime of permissiveness and snoozing Acoba, they have broken no rules. But alarm bells are ringing and a Select Committee probe is now planned.

All former ministers are obliged to seek the committee's advice if they take on any job within two years of leaving office. And cabinet ministers are expected to wait a minimum of three months before taking private work.

The work of Acoba is justly mocked. Its previous chair, Lord Lang, was interviewed by the Dispatches sting team that forced transport secretary Stephen Byers, former health secretary Patricia Hewitt and former defence secretary Geoff Hoon into suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party in 2010 for allegedly "bringing it into disrepute". Lang did not commit himself into working for the bogus job offered but he sent his CV to the Dispatches team for further consideration.

New chair Tory peer Angela Browning was cross-examined by the Public Administration Committee at a ludicrous "retrospective pre-appointment" hearing confirmation of her role. She was a minister in the Home Office until 2011 and is now paid between £300 and £800 a day for occasional work for a political consultancy firm that trains people in the health industry on topics such as "how to influence the political agenda".
Well-paid retirement roles

Nearly all other members of her committee are drawn from the great and the good that regard £60,000 for a part-time retirement job as normal entitlement for themselves and for their chums. Acoba has never banned a minister from taking a job and its recommendations on restricting lobbying are not binding. They have no powers to enforce them.

I submitted evidence on the Revolving Door to the Kelly committee on standards a few years ago. I urged them to nail two former generals who criticised Gordon Brown for low military spending. They later became paid advisers to arms companies. The committee did not act. They were too preoccupied with duck houses and moats at the time.

The spectre of parliamentary sleaze is returning and we are slipping back into the bad old ways that led to the expenses scandal. As I told the Commons last week, bodies in the House took lenient decisions on the recent cases involving Malcolm Rifkind, Jack Straw, Tim Yeo and Lord Blencathra but independent voices outside, including a court and Ofcom, took harsh decisions.

Parliament should act swiftly to strengthen our internal controls on standards. Restoring the public's trust in parliamentarians should be a prime objective after the self-lacerating nightmare of the expenses scandal. At the moment, though, the impetus for reform is weakening and new scandals loom.

 

Someone now listening?

 

Published in the International Business Times UK

Why do we allow former politicians to become high-paid advisers on companies they used to regulate?

By Paul Flynn MP
January 12, 2016 14:16 GMT 1

At least 25 former ministers from Cameron's coalition are raking in over £1m between them.

The revolving door from high public office to private company sinecure is spinning as freely as ever. At least 25 former ministers from David Cameron's coalition are raking in over £1m ($1.4m) between them.

Five former members of the prime minister's cabinet are among dozens of ex-coalition ministers earning up to £600 an hour in the sectors they used to regulate. Most have plum part-time roles as directors, advisers or board chairmen.

The job of the Commons watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), is to restrict the abuse of former ministers, civil servants and generals by selling their insider knowledge and contacts to the highest bidder. But it is a fawning pussycat without teeth or claws.

Informed born-again lobbyists are placed into influential commercial positions where they are motivated by private greed – not the public's good. The tentacles of this permissive system penetrate deeply and threaten the integrity of public life.

The roles of top civil servants, generals or government ministers were traditionally the pinnacles of careers. Now they are often judged as stepping stones on the climb to retirement riches. When in office, decisions involving billions may be subtly influenced by a nod or a wink in favour of the prospect of lucrative job in retirement and a hacienda in Spain.
Rules on taking on private work

Under the present regime of permissiveness and snoozing Acoba, they have broken no rules. But alarm bells are ringing and a Select Committee probe is now planned.

All former ministers are obliged to seek the committee's advice if they take on any job within two years of leaving office. And cabinet ministers are expected to wait a minimum of three months before taking private work.

The work of Acoba is justly mocked. Its previous chair, Lord Lang, was interviewed by the Dispatches sting team that forced transport secretary Stephen Byers, former health secretary Patricia Hewitt and former defence secretary Geoff Hoon into suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party in 2010 for allegedly "bringing it into disrepute". Lang did not commit himself into working for the bogus job offered but he sent his CV to the Dispatches team for further consideration.

New chair Tory peer Angela Browning was cross-examined by the Public Administration Committee at a ludicrous "retrospective pre-appointment" hearing confirmation of her role. She was a minister in the Home Office until 2011 and is now paid between £300 and £800 a day for occasional work for a political consultancy firm that trains people in the health industry on topics such as "how to influence the political agenda".
Well-paid retirement roles

Nearly all other members of her committee are drawn from the great and the good that regard £60,000 for a part-time retirement job as normal entitlement for themselves and for their chums. Acoba has never banned a minister from taking a job and its recommendations on restricting lobbying are not binding. They have no powers to enforce them.

I submitted evidence on the Revolving Door to the Kelly committee on standards a few years ago. I urged them to nail two former generals who criticised Gordon Brown for low military spending. They later became paid advisers to arms companies. The committee did not act. They were too preoccupied with duck houses and moats at the time.

The spectre of parliamentary sleaze is returning and we are slipping back into the bad old ways that led to the expenses scandal. As I told the Commons last week, bodies in the House took lenient decisions on the recent cases involving Malcolm Rifkind, Jack Straw, Tim Yeo and Lord Blencathra but independent voices outside, including a court and Ofcom, took harsh decisions.

Parliament should act swiftly to strengthen our internal controls on standards. Restoring the public's trust in parliamentarians should be a prime objective after the self-lacerating nightmare of the expenses scandal. At the moment, though, the impetus for reform is weakening and new scandals loom.

 

Multi-tasking Osborne

 Business Question

16th March 2017

     
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

 When can we debate early-day motion 1079, which covers the House’s abject failure to deal with the potentially corrupt revolving door between ministerial office and outside jobs?

[That this House recalls former Prime Minister David Cameron’s condemnation in 2010 of politicians who are out to serve themselves and not the country by lobbying; notes the abject failure of the Government’s watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, to reduce the abuses of the potentially corrupting revolving door between ministerial office and big business lobbying; and calls on the Government to establish an effective watchdog that would enhance the House’s reputation for probity, removing the opportunities for former Ministers to sell their inside knowledge and contacts for financial advantage by prohibiting their lobbying for companies they influenced or regulated in their Ministerial roles.]

The temptation is there for former Ministers to use their insider knowledge and contacts for their private gain. How is it right that the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which is responsible for approving such appointments, saw fit to give its blessing to a former Minister receiving £13,000 a day in addition to his parliamentary salary? Does that not bring this House into deeper disrepute?

 

CONDUCT OF THE RT HON. MEMBER FOR TATTON
Date tabled: 15.03.2017
Primary sponsor: Flynn, Paul
Sponsors: Stephens, Christopher Hopkins, Kelvin
That this House believes that the reputation of the House may be placed in jeopardy by the right hon. Member for Tatton's acceptance of a job with BlackRock, which pays him £13,500 a day in addition to his full-time salary as an hon. Member.

Leader of the House 

  Mr Lidington

It is right that we have a committee that is not part of the Government and not a Committee of this House or the other place to make rulings on individual cases. It is important that former Ministers stick to the proper procedures in seeking clearance before taking on any new external appointment.

· Chilcot Report      
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

 

I am also a member of the Committee, but I do not support this report because I believe it has been interpreted by the press as an act of absolution for the Prime Minister involved and the other culpable people who were led by him, principally the three Select Committees of this House. Going to war was the worst blunder this House committed since sending troops to the Suez war. We should be objective in dealing with our blunders and, although this report has many merits, it does not address the truth that we were led into an avoidable war by a man of vanity who was in a messianic mood—he misled the House in a very serious way.

The hon. Gentleman’s report contains evidence from Dr Rangwala, who rightly says that there are two interpretations of the evidence before Chilcot. One interpretation, which the report suggests should be referred to the Privileges Committee, might lead us to conclude that we went to war in vain. We must remember the principal need to avoid sending soldiers to war in future because of the vanity or inflexibility of this House in making fair judgments. We have that responsibility. If we do not condemn the errors of the past, we are responsible for them.

Chair of Public Administration Committee

    Mr Jenkin

 

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Committee, and I respect that we differ on the report. I appreciate the emphasis he wants to  ​make by declining to support the report, but it is open to the House at any time to refer any matter to the Committee of Privileges. There is a procedure for doing that, and he should try to implement it if he thinks there is a case for doing so.

The difficulty, as the Chilcot inquiry said, is that there are two interpretations of all this and that there is no definitive evidence to suggest culpability or that the former Prime Minister deliberately sought to mislead the House. There are lots of lessons to be learned. As an aside, for the House to be able to make an informed decision, it relies entirely on what the Government tell it. We are in a new era in which the House is consulted about such things, which never used to be the case. We used to have rather more retrospective accountability on such matters, rather than forward accountability, and I question whether such forward accountability works. I do not think the House of Commons is competent to make strategic judgments on the spur of the moment and in the heat of a crisis in the way that a Government should be.

Duffryn-An oasis of hope.

From the gloom of Trump and Brexit, yesterday I joyously ventured into an oasis of hope.

The senior pupils of Duffryn Junior School delighted with a series of vital debates. The teachers had kindly divided the children into two phalanxs facing each other-Commons style. I sat in the middle and played the Speaker barking out ‘Order, Order” and encouraging braying noises instead of applause.

The children chose the subjects for debate. Two volunteers spoke for the subjects, two against, followed by contributions from the floor. Then the vital votes. Yesterday the votes went in favour of keeping the House of Lords, adopting a maximum wage (to help low wage earners) and supporting essential animal experiments. They voted strongly against pollution and bullying and declared that Homer Simpson is not a good father. They thought the voteless Newport Chartists were a tad restrained in 1839 for not killing their vote-rich oppressor Lord Tredegar. Generally they approved of a retired steelworker being an MP rather than a millionaire aristocrat.

The speeches were all relevant, insightful, intelligent and powerful. There was a reassuring kindness and compassion in all the comments. It was refreshing to excape the stale platitudes of Westminster and rejoice in the simplicity and virtue of the young minds.

Diolch o'r galon plant Duffryn am y Croeso cynnes. I left with a song in my heart. With children and teachers like these, a safe Newport future is assured.

 

From Today's Guardian.

Veteran Labour MP Paul Flynn, who sits on the public administration select committee, said that Osborne and other former ministers were “making money out of their ministerial experience [is] dragging the reputation of politicians deeper into the gutter”.

He added: “We need a powerful watchdog to stop former ministers from prostituting their insider knowledge by selling it to the highest bidder,” he said. “Acoba is not a watchdog, it is a pussycat without teeth or claws. All it can do is give advice but former ministers ignore it with impunity.”

On the international speech-making circuit Osborne can command more than £50,000-an-hour for some events, as well as free first-class or private jet travel and luxury accommodation.

In just one week in November he earned £187,474 giving speeches to banks and hedge funds in London and New York, including £34,109 for a speech at BlackRock’s HQ in Midtown Manhattan.

 

From Today's South Wales Argus.

We cannot turn lies into the truth by carving them on war memorials or by putting them into the mouths of dignitaries. When can we face up to the truth about the Helmand disaster by having an inquiry? 

Probe into Helmand blunder overdue

 

 

Business Question

9th March 2017

 

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab) When can we debate the call made in the Daily Mirror yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) that we should learn the lessons of the Afghan war if we are to avoid any repetition of what happened? In 2006, after only six of our soldiers had died in Afghanistan, the decision was taken to go into Helmand province on the basis that not a shot would be fired. The result of that was that 450 more soldiers lost their lives. We cannot turn lies into the truth by carving them on war memorials or by putting them into the mouths of dignitaries. When can we face up to the truth about the Helmand disaster by having an inquiry?

 

Mr Lidington (Leader of the House) It is right that we should have a public memorial to those, both military and civilian, who served so valiantly in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also that we should learn the lessons from both those conflicts. The forthcoming debate on the Select Committee report on the Chilcot inquiry will clearly relate primarily to Iraq, but I would have thought that the lessons to be learned from that conflict and the Afghanistan conflict could be debated during that time.

State visit nightmare of a protozoan President

 

The Trump Debate was a lively battle of brief comments, endless interventions and wildly conflicting views. I have the task of opening the debate and I prepared a 20 minute speech in case few turned up. There was no need to worry. It was heavily oversubscribed and I took all interventions demanded. This added to the brevity of the contributions and made for good viewing as it avoided the tedium of long speeches.

 

Many planned comments that I intended to make were ditched or used out of context including these:

Those who agree with the smaller petition supporting the state visit must make the case that by denying him the trappings of a state visit the President’s will be denied the privilege of free speech. His mouth will be bandaged.

Others may observe that Donald Trump has been wallowing in an incontinence of free speech since inauguration day.

Our duty today is to respond to the massive welling up of outrage and fear. The plea made by the petitioners is a narrow one. They do not object to a visit by the President, they are appalled at the prospect of STATE VISIT. Hansard report that State Visits by American Presidents are very rare –only two since 1952.

 

We must respond to the thunderous expression of public outrage. If we don’t we are deepening the gulf between political class and public opinion. That is the road that led Americans to put their trust in a non-politicians. Unless we respect and respond to public opinion we risk embarking on a path that could lead to deepening of distrust the path to British Trump.

Other manifestations in the spontaneous marches. At least partly instigated by his extraordinary behaviour in creating his own fantasy news report on the event which had the biggest crowd ever, biggest Electoral College since Reagan and rain did not fall on his parade. He has attacked the revered press organs as perpetrators of fake news. Instead of accepting his election victory and getting on with job he obsessed about press reports from Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN and even the BBC because they repeatedly assault his fantasies with the truth.

 

The lethal danger of mighty power wielded by the president with an intellect of protozoan ability.

NOW the 31^st day on his presidency.  So far –so bad. He has inflamed slumbering frozen conflicts in the China Sea, Ukraine, and The Israel-Palestine with a maladroit support for an impossibilist solutions. He rushes in where wise politicians refuse to tread.

Now we have the Political Dilettante, the amateur with his impulsive finger on the nuclear button. The likelihood of a nuclear war comes not from an act of malice but an accident t, a misunderstanding between nations, a human error a technical failure as happened when the UK test firing was launched in the direction of the United State. Trump believes in nuclear proliferation, is spreading ownership of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states, thus multiplying the risk of nuclear war.

 

Do we chose to invite Trump here to bolster his standing in the US and in the World? Do wish to give him the imprimatur of our national approval. Should we offer our supreme hospitality to the president who is threat to the safety of the world?

President Obama waited 854 days before being invited for a State visit, President George W Bush 1032 days. President Woodrow Wilson waited 2,123 days before coming to the UK on a State Visit. It took Donald. J. Trump 7 days to receive an invite, with his arrival almost certainly coming within his first year in office.

Why did the Prime Minister single him out for an instant invitation to enjoy Royal Hospitality? Some state visits have been universally applauded including Nelson Mandela in 1996 and Lech Walesa of Poland in 1991, Obama. Others have been derided and caused considerable embarrassment to our reputation of the UK. No case for repeated the embarrassments of the past.

However, to lavish on President Trump the highest accolade that our nation can offer in his first week in office, is premature, foolish and undeserved.

The Prime Minister sought the reflected glory that friendship with new president in his honeymoon first week. She is suffering the reflected ridicule that trumps has attracted worldwide.

Although the Queen plays host to the visitors, invitations are initiated by Downing Street. The visits are nearly always politically inspired, designed to increase Britain’s diplomatic influence and business links.  And in the case of Donald Trump, with Theresa May desperate for new trading partners as the UK prepares for a departure from the single-market,

There is little evidence that the legacy of state visits of oppressive leaders to the UK has improved long-term business or political relationships:

Nicolae Ceaușescu was given a state visit in 1978.  The Government of the day, and Prime Minister Jim Callaghan, hoped it would encourage Romania to embrace pro-western reforms.  At the time British Aerospace had been negotiating for months to sell Romania's Tarom airline a fleet of BAC 111 aircraft, some of which were to be assembled in Romania.

Police alone for policing the Notting Hill carnival was £7 million. Controversial state visits will inevitably be the most costly.  The BBC reported in 2003 that the thousands of extra police officers for the state visit of George W Bush cost the taxpayer an estimated £5 million due to mass disapproval.  Protests at a Donald Trump state visit may be more difficult for the police to handle. Distinguished journalist, Andrew Rawnsley has stated:

‘Some ministers mutter that the big mistake was to issue the invitation to make an early state visit to Britain, a notion conceived as a way of flattering his colossal vanities. At the very least, it would have been prudent to wait before rolling the royal red carpet. Pimping out the Queen for Donald Trump. This, apparently, is what they meant by getting our sovereignty back.’

Professor Michael Mann, whose work was key in demonstrating that global temperatures had risen dramatically because of human activity, said Mr Trump’s “assault on science” meant the US was “firmly back in the madhouse” of climate science denial. The new US President dismissed climate change as a Chinese hoax before the US election and since then has appointed a string of people with links to the fossil fuel industry and a track record of global warming scepticism to senior positions in his administration.

Trump is trying to construct an Orwellian world. Where Chaos is order, where war in Peace where Lies are the truth, where fantasies are fact. Wherever present Big Brother Trump is the only source of news. 

The reason for the Prime Minister’s spluttering haste to get her invitation in first was party political. She is the destroyer of bridges between us and our European partners. She seeks salvation a bridge builder to Trump. Her offer to EURO’s ambassador to the US was ridiculed by the Prime Minister of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskaite: "I don't think there is a necessity for a bridge. We communicate with the Americans on Twitter."

Severe problems with nuclear plans

£225m black hole may stall the completion of giant Cumbria nuclear plant

The future of nuclear project Moorside has been thrown into doubt
It has emerged that £225 million is needed to fund its preparation over 2 years
The Cumbrian project was set to be approved at the end of next year
By Neil Craven for The Mail on Sunday
PUBLISHED: 19:29, 18 February 2017 | UPDATED: 19:29, 18 February 2017

The future of Moorside, one of Britain’s three big nuclear projects, was thrown into doubt last night after it emerged that cash-strapped Toshiba and its partner Engie needed to find £225 million in the next two years to fund its preparation.

The Cumbrian project was set to be approved at the end of next year, to join Hinkley Point C in Somerset and Wylfa in North Wales as the nuclear alternative to coal and gas.

But last week Toshiba, which owns 60 per cent of Moorside’s would-be builder NuGeneration, threw the project into doubt with its announcement it was pulling out of large nuclear power projects after revealing a £5 billion writedown.

The future of Moorside, one of Britain’s three big nuclear projects, was thrown into doubt last night over major funding issues (

Toshiba has said it will continue to fund the project, in Sellafield, to approval stage, leaving open the question of who will build the reactors.

But documents filed at Companies House reveal that a further £225 million is needed from Toshiba and Engie by the end of 2018 to gain Whitehall approval, potentially adding to the firm’s financial woes.

Toshiba and Engie have already invested £425 million.

This will fuel expectations that the Government needs to formalise Britain’s nuclear ambitions with taxpayers’ cash, as most projects are run by foreign firms.

An announcement could come as soon as this summer, amid growing concerns about the viability of big nuclear projects.

Toshiba confirmed the figures but added it ‘cannot comment on anything further at this time.’ Labour MP Paul Flynn, whose Newport West constituency overlooks Hinkley Point across the Bristol Channel, called for a reassessment of the power generation plans for the next 60 years. He said: ‘These are huge decisions and it’s important to get them right.

‘We need this to be done on an all-party basis with opinions based on science, not wishful thinking. There are problems both with Toshiba and EDF.’

He said a recent report had identified the ‘immense power’ of tidal and hydro schemes which were ‘eternal, entirely predictable and non-polluting’.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4237800/225m-black-hole-stall-Cumbria-nuclear-plant.html#ixzz4Z4jX5mZ4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Voyage into a world beyond sight. Notes on Blindness

Notes on Blindness

 

BBC Four 9.00 pm 16th February 2017

The sounds and images of this great film have invaded my thoughts and colonised my brain since I saw it in November. Without enthusiasm and full of misgivings I went to a pre-release viewing of the film Notes on blindness: into Darkness.

The dread of blanket of blackness descending on our heads is a universal fear. In direct vivid language a gifted writer and theologian John Hull describes his total loss of sight. The last fleeting powers of Hull's sight were destroyed by clumsy surgery. Just before the birth of first child, he is plunged into a world of fear and wonder from which there is no escape.

Listening to sounds in a park reveals a hierarchy of noises calibrated by distance. Rain is a complex orchestra of subtlety and depth, single drops, gushing rivulets, tamping downpours, pattering dribbles, rattling on dustbins.. An organ playing loudly in a cathedral is a thrilling, throbbing sensation of trembling pews and blood tingling vibrations. Blindness was not desired or requested by Hull but he recognises is as 'a gift' that adds richness to the human existence.

Fear and despair overwhelm frequently. In a strange house a child screams. The blind father thrashes around in a hopeless agonised search for the whereabouts of his distressed child. His sighted wife comforts the child and deepens the father's sadness of his helplessness.

Torments come in a dream when sight is apparently restored and the face is 'seen' of a child born after total blindness took hold. The memories of still photographs are better recalled in the world of blackness than memories of events of movement.

The film is an experience that falls just short of pain but ultimately illuminates with the discovery of a life beyond sight.

 

Delightfully outrageous Tory, my favourite opponent

Below is the obituary written by the Times last Friday of my favourite political opponent, Peter Clarke, who died recently was the most entertaining and delightfully outrageous Tory of his epoch. The Times drew heavily on a blog I wrote about him a few years ago while including some fascinating new insights into Peter's relationships and alleged relationships with women. If only more Tories were like him.

 

My favourite opponent,
In 1997 the Newport West Tory candidate was Peter Clarke. I was sorry to hear today from the Times newspaper that he had died. Tomorrow they will include some of the blog below in their account of his fascinating life.

A few days after he was adopted I raised a point or Order in the Commons about an article he had written in the Scottish Edition of The Sunday Times,

“It is many years since anyone was called to the Bar of the House, but Erskine May makes clear your powers to summons here those who besmirch the good names of members. Have you read, Madam Speaker, the attack on the Secretary of State for Wales (William Hague) in which he was unfairly described as ‘deluded’ and ‘simple’ , for his fine work in bringing 6,000 Korean jobs to Wales he was accused of ‘pimping for Britain.’

Will you now call to the bar of the House and insist on an apology from the Conservative candidate for Newport West. ?”
There were better things to come from the colourful Mr Clarke. He had been a candidate before and amazed party and public.

Peterclarke Standing in East Lothian in 1987 he advocated, declaring war on South Africa, the privatisation of police and fire brigades, lowering the school leaving age to twelve, ending all dole or social security payments, the abolition of all local councils, a tax on golf, and the demolition of all un-sold council houses. He said ‘General Pinochet must be our inspiration’ and that ‘Enoch Powell is the greatest Welshman of all time’. He described Mrs Thatcher’s conduct on the Anglo Irish Agreement as ‘treacherous and foolish’ and threatened to stand as an Orangeman’s candidate in East Lothian. He also volunteered to serve in the American Cavalry but he was rejected.

There was only one public debate at St Mark’s Church in the heart of Newport in the 1997 election. Arthur Scargill was one of speakers as a candidate in Newport East. Arthur’s plan to double pensions next Thursday seemed measured and reasonable compared with Clarke novel remedy.

His answer to pensioner poverty was to ship all the pensioners to Eritrea. The audience were white faced with shock. He did not spend enough time explaining the advantages to the elderly. On a British state pension someone in Eritrea could afford the best mud hut in the village or the finest meal of locusts that money could buy.

Davies moaned that life was unbearable in the Conservative Party office surrounded by octogenarian ladies reminiscing about when they were canvassing for Stanley Baldwin.

In Wales on Sunday on the April 27th, four days before polling day, Peter Clarke complained that he had been the victim of menacing phone calls. They were the latest in a series of incidents since ‘he helped fund a manifesto produced by Scottish Conservative Students that advocated a relaxation of the incest laws.’

Wales on Sunday quoted him saying ‘Malicious and unfounded allegations that I am a paedophile have followed me around ever since. The reason I am standing in Newport is that I am barred from standing in Scotland, where I am from, because of these malicious allegations.’ On Sundays the Labour Campaign in Newport West meet to discuss the week’s strategy. After reading the Wales on Sunday on April 27th many of our team decamped to the marginal seat of Monmouth.

The Labour majority doubled in Newport West to a record 14,800. Monmouth was gained for Labour from Tory Roger Evans. Thanks, Peter.

Will ye no come back again?

 

 

 

Times Obituary

Conservative Party maverick married to Teresa Gorman MP and embroiled in a libel action over the relaxation of incest laws

Clarke claimed he was blackballed because his policies were ahead of their time.

Peter Clarke belonged to a wing of the Conservative Party perhaps best described as “swivel-eyed”. He advocated privatising police forces and fire brigades, lowering the school leaving age to 12, removing all social security and unemployment benefits, abolishing local councils, taxing golf, demolishing unsold council houses and declaring war on South Africa.

In 1986 he told the Conservative Party conference that “General Pinochet must be our inspiration”. On other occasions he declared that Enoch Powell, his political hero, was “the greatest Welshman of all time”; William Hague, the Welsh secretary, was “pimping for Britain” by bringing 6,000 Korean jobs to Wales; Margaret Thatcher’s conduct on the Anglo-Irish agreement was “treacherous and foolish”; and the answer to pensioner poverty was to ship the elderly to Eritrea where on a British state pension they “could afford the best mud hut in the village or the finest meal of locusts that money could buy”.

Between dreaming up these policies he claimed to have had an affair with Edwina Currie at the same time as her relationship with John Major, alleging that she seduced him with the line: “Would you like to come and see my Peak District?” Clarke, who at the time was a speechwriter for Sir Keith Joseph, the education secretary, said he ended the affair because of sheer physical fatigue: “She was quite athletic. I just closed my eyes and thought of Scotland.” Currie denied knowing him.

More seriously he won a pyrrhic victory to clear his name after allegations surfaced that he had advocated a relaxation of incest laws. In 1986 he had agreed to donate £200 to the Federation of Conservative Students to help to pay for the printing costs of a pamphlet that, unbeknown to him, included proposals to bring certain Scottish and English laws into line regarding sexual relationships. Clarke insisted that he was unaware of the contents of the pamphlet. However, his many political enemies — both inside and outside the party — spotted the word “incest”, saw an opportunity and took it.

When the allegation was repeated once too often he successfully sued The Independent over an article published in 1989, winning £20,000 damages. However, he was left with a bill for costs of £600,000 that effectively ruined him. He lost his home and there was no money to pay for the many other libel actions that he believed should be pursued. Despite his court vindication, it was a long time until a local party would touch him. He claimed to have been blackballed, arguing that the Conservative high command was waging a dirty tricks war against him because he was ahead of his time with his maverick policies. “I am still crushed by a matter the Tory party could have resolved in ten minutes’ diligence,” he said in 2006.

Peter Derek Clarke was born in April 1947 in Venice where his father, Derek, a major in the Royal Signals, was posted. His mother, Denholm (née Pearson), was from Glasgow and Peter went to prep school in Scotland. He was educated at Loughborough Grammar School and spent a year at the University of Bradford before signing on for PPE at the University of Leeds and taking a masters at Balliol College, Oxford.

He became a tutor at Swinton Conservative College near Ripon, North Yorkshire, and in 1973 was selected as the Tory candidate for the safe Labour seat of Houghton-le-Spring, Co Durham, although did not stand at the 1974 election. In 1972 he had been appointed political secretary to Powell and spent some time at Ulster Unionist party headquarters, from whence came his views on Thatcher’s “treachery”. At various times he worked for the BBC, Private Eye and The Scotsman.

In 1975 Clarke married Gillian Strickland, one of the first female reporters at ITN. They had two sons, Alex and Rory, both of whom are in poor health. Gillian died in 2005 and in 2010 he married Teresa Gorman (obituary August 31, 2015), an unashamedly populist and rightwing Tory MP who was 16 years his senior. Newly widowed, she had placed an advert in Private Eye reading: “Old trout seeks old goat. No golfers. Must have own balls.” She received 128 replies, although Clarke denied being one of the respondents. She described him as “very good at looking after things . . . it’s like having a butler”.

In 1986, while working for Lord Hanson’s Businessmen for Britain campaign, Clarke was selected as the Conservative parliamentary candidate for the rural East Lothian constituency, but stepped down at about the same time as the incest allegations surfaced, later saying that he had done so because his wife was ill and Lord Hanson had terminated his employment. He was selected to stand for the Tories at Newport West in 1997, although he claimed that his agent received a call from party headquarters urging that he be dropped quietly and discreetly. The agent, assuming it was a slur on his sexuality, replied: “Don’t worry, duckie, we’re all perverts here.”

He told Channel 4: ‘My buttocks are smooth, my mind is clear, vote Ukip’

It was during this campaign that he put forward his policy on pensioner poverty during the sole public debate. Arthur Scargill, the former leader of the National Union of Mineworkers and a candidate in the neighbouring constituency, also spoke. Paul Flynn, the Labour MP who has held the seat since 1987, later recalled: “Arthur’s plan to double pensions ‘next Thursday’ seemed measured and reasonable compared with Clarke’s novel remedy.”

When not fighting his political and legal battles Clarke had a passion for restoring wild animals to the countryside and old houses to their former glory. He helped to found the Wild Beasts Trust in 2006, seeking to reintroduce wolves, bears and lemmings to the British countryside, arguing that they were harmless creatures. “Everyone has Little Red Riding Hood in their mental furniture, but that is far from the reality” he declared of those who feared ending up inside a wolf’s stomach.

The houses were less problematic. His first was Powrie Castle, a 16th- century pile near Dundee. Strickland had won it shortly after their marriage in a competition run by the National Trust for Scotland. They then turned their attention to the old manse at Kirton Manor, near Peebles, but they had to sell up after Clarke’s battle with The Independent. Finally, he restored Kirkhope Tower in the Borders.

At the last election he was doorstepped in Essex by Channel 4 News. He told Michael Crick that he had abandoned the Conservatives, adding for good measure: “My buttocks are smooth, my mind is clear, vote Ukip.”

Peter Clarke, journalist and political activist, was born on April 16, 1947. He died from suspected heart failure on January 24, 2017, aged 69