Queens Speech Education Bill‏ concerns

I blogged on one of the good points of the queens speech 'Queens Speech Equitable Life Bill‏'. Now for one of the more worrying points within the educations bill specifically free schools.

My concerned is the plan to allow parents to setup their own local school or Free state school. The new "free" state school will be ran by parents, teachers or charities. Funded by taxpayers but, independent of the state.

Firstly does this mean less funding for other established schools?

What controls will there be to make sure parents don't setup schools for all the wrong reasons?

For example on BBC Five Live during the election I heard a lady ring into a phone in and say that now she can setup a school for our people. When asked who are people are she replied 'White people'.

I'm not so concerned that only Middle class or chattering classes would setup these schools I'm sure many people of all backgrounds will want to setup these schools if they are not satisfied with the choice given in their area. Many for good reason.

What I am concerned about is what checks and balances are being used to monitor and ensure these schools are not setup for the wrong reasons. I'm also not a fan of faith schools, I can imagine many more of these schools being setup thereby imposing faith on children or excluding others.

What will happen to these schools when the children grow up and the parents can't find other parents to take over. Do we close these schools or hand them over to the council?

Will the parents have too much power over the teachers?

I guess have have alot of questions so I will have to wait on the full details of the bill, Lets hope there are plenty of safeguards and reassurances within the bill.

Queens Speech Equitable Life Bill‏

I'm going to blog on one good point of the queens speech and write another blog on an aspect of the Queens speech that concerns me. Here's the good point blog, Of course all the Liberal, Fairness and social values for me go without saying so heres a subject that has not been widely covered in the political blogosphere.

One Bill which has not been heavily covered in the Queens Speech is the Equitable life bill.


Story of Equitable Life

Equitable Life allowed large unhedged liabilities to grow while guaranteeing fixed incomes to investors. This situation of course could not continue and in 2000 the House of Lords ruled that Equitable Life had to close to new business drying up any income and payments were reduced greatly to its investors (pensioners). A number of reports were commissioned by the government (the Penrose Report) and the European Union plus various legal actions but still Equitable Life policy holders were not paid compensation even after a 4 year investigation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

The government in 2009 appointed Judge Sir John Chadwick to come up with a compensation scheme. Many findings were rejected by the government and despite Equitable Members Action Group bring pressure to bare on the government and asking for interim payments, non of these payments where made. Policy holders in many cases have seen their pensions paid in good faith halved.


What's in the Bill

One question I was asked a few times when I was knocking on doors is "What are you going to do anything about Equitable Life policy payments". One man said that we would do nothing to help. I would like to go back to that door and say too him see. He also didn't believe the me when I told him that the Lib Dems would restore the earnings link to pensions. I'm very tempted to knock on this mans door again and say see its going to happen.

The Bill promises to compensate both current and deceased policyholders and for this not to be means tested. I'm very pleased that after years of inaction and promises that something is now going to happen before more policy holders pass away (30,000 have already died). An independent commission will determine the method of payment but the main point is that these payments will be made.

How should Labour play Laws?

So should Labour try to split the coalition. They have an opportunity to use David Laws for political gain or stay quiet on this issue bearing in mind their own gremlins. If Laws is replaced by say John Redwood this could actually cause a rift in the coalition so could a more left Liberal Democrat.

There are not many experts remaining within the Tories or the Lib Dems to fill Laws shoes and we have already seen that George Osborne does need support. Maybe Vince Cable however I don't believe Vince and George could work that closely together.

At the moment the polls still put the Tories in the lead on 39 points and a general election would still result with a Conservative win but still short of seats. Liberal Democrats would lose some seats and Labour would gain some but the end result would still be the same.

Worse for Labour would be an outright Tory win. The Tories only need a few more percentage points to win. It would be very damaging for Labour to lose again so soon after the last loss.

The real danger for Labour would be a win with again a hung parliament then having to form a coalition again with the Liberal Democrats. Labour would have to make the cuts on public services themselves. This would leave Labour with no stick to attack the Liberal Democrats with or indeed the Tories with and in the next general election would result in a hevy lose for Labour.

Labour of course do not have a leader yet and this contest needs to be played out first. So I'm not sure Labour will want to attack Laws too harshly because It's not in their interests to damage the coalition and end up fighting another election now.

Labour need time just like the other parties also need time as no party accept perhaps the Conservative party could fight an election at the moment.

Only only have to look at the recent result in Thirsk and Malton to understand the dangers of trying to destroy the coalition at this stage. As you can read in the Spectator 'Encouraging early signs for the coalition' The Conservative and Liberal Democrat vote went up while Labours was down.

Breaking the Laws

David Laws recent expenses scandal has been well covered all other the blogger-o-sphere. So I'm not going to wade into this subject but link to it.

Defending Laws

Iain Dale on David Laws: I Hope He Survives
Lisa Harding at Spiderplant Land on
The Telegraph’s vendetta on the coalition government
Sara Bedford at Sexuality, sickening hypocrisy and CGT


Not defending Laws

SNP Tactical Voting on A Laws unto himself
Craig Murray on David Laws Must Resign
GrumpyOldTwat at The Laws According To David

And somewhere in the middle

And John Ward in Medway is already giving Laws Job to John Redwood see Broken Laws


My opinion

I think this does not only look bad but his claims were wrong. David does not need the money and should of made renting arrangements with someone other than a partner even if it would of cost more. I also think that because David Laws was trying to keep the fact that he is gay a secret it has led him down this avenue. Gay men can have very loose relationships as it is more accepted within the gay community to have an arrangement with a partner. In this case David Laws has said that they lead seperate lives. This is hard to explain so he has stated that he is a partner.

Again I do think this expense claim is wrong but it does appear that Laws believed that in 2010 you still can not be gay and hold high office.

This is a massive shame as the country needs David Laws financial skiils but personally I would be surprised to see him in office on Tuesday.

UPDATE: Epolitix has a very interesting and insightful post from the ex editor of Pink news Tony Grew In defence of David Laws

local Blog: Council split on Travellers site

I fail to understand how Bracknell Forest Council’s planning committee could be split over such a small site for gypsies and travelling show people. The site located at at land off Wokingham Road, near the Wellingtonia Roundabout, Sandhurst. This site only has two bays, surely two bays can not cause that much traffic. Should we expect caravans to be driving out of this site every day?

Could the reason why some people don't want Travellers at this site is because they simply don't want any travellers anywhere near them?

The government plan to require sites for caravans is in an effort to halt unauthorised sites. This plan at least is an attempt to tackle sites being setup anywhere illegally at any time.

It's time to stop this not on my doorstep attitude we have to anyone in this country who simply don't live the same lives or have a different culture.

More about this story can be read at Gypsy site given go ahead

Question Time Alastair Campbell 1 Coalition 0

The coalition should of had a minister on the BBC Question Time panel last night. I also think Labour should of had a Shadow Minister on the panel to discuss the queens speech.

However the BBC had booked Alastair Campbell (the Labour spin doctor) and while there is a strong argument to say he is not elected and therefore can't represent Labour its also true that he has been very much involved with Labour policy and is practically an unelected MP.

I think a Minister could of point out Alastairs involvement with the Iraq dossier and could of taken him on. This has resulted in a political win for Alastair Campbell as he can now claim that the new government doesn't have the balls to stand up to him.

If the rumour is true that David Laws was going to be on the panel then I for one would of had full confidence that he could of done a great job for both the government and for the Liberal Democrats.

The government can not dictate who is on the BBC Question Time panel and this should not happen again, next time Ministers should face whoever it is. After all this is question time for the audience to question there MP's as well as commentators to question them on the panel.

I notice that Iain Dale (Tory Blogger) feels the same way on this subject as me see Two Wrongs at Number Ten.

Mark Reckons also thinks the government need to do better see here

UPDATE: Local Blogger Andrew Best as informed on the commentshas a good old fashioned rant while the show is still on see here.

Podcast debut on House of Comments

On Tuesday I made my House of Comments debut with Walaa Idris Conservative Blogger, Tracey Cheetham Labour Blogger at A View From the Public Gallery, Mark Thompson Lib Dem Blogger at Mark Reckons and Stuart Sharpe of Sharpes Opinion.

I managed to stumble my way through, The subjects of the Queens speech, The removal of the Parliament Square protest, Diane Abbott running for the Labour Leadership and the Times Newspaper pay wall.

Please do go and have a listen at http://houseofcomments.com/

Local Blog Newsweek: 8 Bracknell area politics

Here is a selection of issues making headlines during the past week:

Coalition government: ‘Right thing to get into bed...’ - Local politicians discuss the new Coalition

Patients left on hold after problems with appointment system - More problems at Heathwood and Wrexham Hospitals

CAMPAIGNERS who walked out of a council meeting have vowed to fight plans for housing development.

Ashwell challenges MP in economic recovery

This weeks bonus is the news that Reading will now also have a Lib-Con Coalition council 

If you know of any other local political stories then please add them in the comments below.

Newspaper Stings

I have not been impressed by the recent Newspaper stings of No1 snooker player, John Higgins ,Lord Triesman chairman of the 2018 World Cup bid sting and the Sarah Ferguson Access to Prince Andrew sting. Are these attempts to make news rather than properly investigate corruption.

Where's the investigative journalism of actually corruption found within the system. Where is the investigation into what Lord Triesman claimed for example, why not investigate corruption (if any) within football itself. I wonder how many failed sting attempts have been conducted before these stings came off.

Is this just lazy journalism?

Human Rights why no agreement with Pakistan‏ and....

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the recent case where so called known terrorist could not be returned to Pakistan. I fail to understand why we don't have an agreement with Pakistan. Pakistan is both an ally and a commonwealth country, how can we not have an agreement with them that people returned to Pakistan won't be tortured.

If you remember how much hot water the last government got into when Britain was implicated in the torture of terror suspects because of the alleged use of CIA planes in British airspace and soil to take suspected terrorists for torture in secret camps abroad and the alleged MI5 Agent questioning of former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed.

These situations are always blamed on the Human Rights Act (which I think should be reviewed) but is it not also a failing of diplomacy that we can't sent foreign nationals back if we believe they are part of a terror network?

Just imagine what would happen if it turned out Pakistani terror suspects were tortured and then found to not be terror suspects after all. The Daily Mail current says Human rights cave-in: Cameron pledged to scrap Act... now Clegg champions it under ANOTHER coalition compromise. Would it not change to a similar headline to this Torture, a cover-up and Labour's shame. Its very hard to get this right because it can all go so so wrong.

There is another issue that is not considered and thats prisoner release in Pakistan. Pakistan also release known terrorists, there is bribery and more chance of an attempted break out by milliants. So if you have a known terrorist and want to monitor them then sending them back to Pakistan is no guarantee of safety.

Another way to get people convicted is ensure that a jury can hear the case rather than a judge. There must be a way of protecting security information and operatives and providing evidence. Also control orders should be replaced with a better alternative such as a monitored open prison which would be better than a tag at home.

One more point if the Human Rights Act was changed or replaced by the British Bill of Rights and this meant you could send known terrorist back to countries known to torture, then won't the case simply go to the European court of Human Rights and end up costing the public even more money to get the same result?

Is this a coalition or a wing

I'm not so sure this is a coalition. It seems looser than a coalition to me. I know this sounds odd but let me explain.

Nick Clegg has the space to make speeches which include some Tory policys as shown yesterday in his political reform speech because this is strong Liberal Democrat territory.

Also afterwards Teresa May speech on giving powers back to the police (showing trust) included aspects of Lib Dem policy.

It seems that this coalition is providing the space for the parties to express themselves as Tories or Liberal Democrats as well as coalition partners. I would be very impressed if they can continue to carry this off.

I think the Ministers are trying to edge out space which should allows enough room to move within a coalition and then allow it to stay together. Just like a plane wing a coalition needs flexibility to move under pressure otherwise it will snap under the pressure.

One problem could be the Human Rights Act. I expect if it was scraped not only members would leave the party but MP's too. Lib Dems may not want the act replaced by a British Bill of Rights but I think people may be surprised by how the Lib Dems can compromise after the review. The review may be a way of kicking this subject into the long grass but at some point the review will be done and it will have to be tackled then. The Human Rights act is extremely important but I do not believe it is perfect. This will continue to rear its head if we do not have agreements with countries who are indeed members of th commonweath and Allies.

So will Lib Dems and Tories have the space to talk about their feelings on the Human Rights Act. I think they will once they get used talking about subjects which the two parties do not agree on.

Todays link is to Charlottle Gore who covers recently these to interesting articles;Human Rights Act already under fire andDear Bubble World, Meet Reality

Criticisms of the Lib Dem campaign‏

Ray Earwicker Lib Dem PPC for Bracknell believes that some criticism of the election campaign is justified. Here are his thoughts.

The leadership pressed home the four tenets of fairness underlying the campaign for far too long. Once it became clear that the main focus of the debate had shifted on to more controversial areas such as immigration, Europe and Trident we should have been ready to counter more effectively the arguments put forward by the media and the opposition against our proposals. The fact that we weren't able to do so undoubtedly lost us lost votes towards the end of the campaign, as the opinion polls all too clearly showed.

My second criticism concerns the presidential nature of the campaign. This may have been unavoidable given the pressure from the media to make it one but it prevented other members of the campaign team from making a bigger contribution to the campaign and may be taking some of the pressure off Nick. It also meant that the focus of attention remained on personalities rather than policies.

Thirdly, if there are any criticisms to be made of the organisation of the campaign, I would support those who found it difficult to obtain policy advice or guidance from HQ during the weeks before the election. The decision to replace the well-established Extranet information system with the new Huddle software package just before the election was asking for trouble. It was difficult to access, slow to respond and almost impossible to navigate; when time is of the essence familiarity is essential, especially for technophobes like me! The quality of the advice, however, that was eventually provided was generally excellent.

Finally,HQ need to ensure that candidates have a clear understanding of the lines of communication; who is responsible for what and how they can be contacted. Trying to make contact with Cowley Street is never easy but during the campaign it was like trying to make contact with the other side - is there anybody there?

My thoughts

I am not a parliamentary candidate so I do not know much about the Huddle system but I too have some thoughts on this. I believe that Liberal Democrats should of defended some seats better. For example, I like many others was disappointed to not only fall back in Oxford East where local Liberal Democrat campaign teams were directed too but to of lost Evan Harris in Oxford West. Next time I will be helping to get Evan Harris elected as his scientific background was a great loss to the parliament in general.

Newsnight showed a few seats where the surge caught the Liberal Democrats by surprise. This didn't happen locally where teams campaigned hard. but I do feel as if the surge and seat targeting perhaps directed Liberal Democrats away from defence. This I feel was inevitable because the surge too along time to decrease and was more spread between seats (second place in 242 up from 188).

Seats where much less predictable on national swings than anytime I can remember. Result really varied and I think there were local issues affecting many results.

I will add that individually I was impressed with the Lib Dem MP's on the media. If there was any wobbles it was because there was not a comprehensive response to defend some policies. I think this period of shared power will improve the Lib Dems arguments and battle for ideas.