During the 1914-18 war British generals ordered their troops to charge barbed wire entanglements and German machine gun posts. Millions died on both sides. Relatively little ground was gained at huge cost.

To encourage small numbers of unarmed men and women to demonstrate against the present Supreme Leader and his works, now that the sadistic and psychopathic members of the Basiji have been given free rein ,will not give the opposition additional leverage. The few hundred involved will be beaten, arrested or marked for later ‘punishment’. Violence by the security forces will be blamed on opposition leaders.

If Mousavi wishes to have a chance of changing the course of events his only option is to call for a national strike. The Basiji cannot force hundreds of thousands to work neither can they stop citizens crying out for strike action from the roof tops. Better for young idealistic supporters to risk their lives putting up strike posters at night than for them to have their skulls fractured by spiked clubs, their arteries slashed with razors during the day. Coverage has been so reduced that little seems to be corroborated and all we hear now are ‘unsubstantiated reports’ usually countered immediately by the Iranian T.V.

If factories shut down, taxis disappear etc not even the most skilled state propagandist will be able to conceal what is going on. Unity is strength. Once Mousavi and his friends lose the ability to point to massive support within the community, they and their political power will be lost. The conservative press and the likes of Mortazavi will have their way and any forthcoming election will be irrelevant as far as many within the opposition are concerned.

As things stand now many of the supporters of the opposition and the families and relations of the leaders of the ‘Green Movement’ will pay a high price for their ‘rebellion’. A successful strike call might make a difference. However the Basiji and security forces will always have full bellies and wages. They will be able to withstand the hardships of economic dislocation far easier than ordinary working people.

But what should Mousavi demand? Not only the Supreme Leader but others in the power elite, have now confirmed their belief that the election was essentially fair and so Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should continue as the Iranian president.If Mousavi insists on a rerun of the election he is in effect insisting on the replacement or humiliation of some of the most powerful men in Iran.

It is possible that a successful strike call might lead to Mousavi victory but until he sees how many respond to his call, it is impossible to determine whether the key opposition demand has now become an unrealistic one. It may well be that all Mousavi can hope for now is an amnesty for ‘political prisoners’ , a return to the status quo as far as opposition newspapers etc are concerned and an agreement that both parties that new, fairer monitoring procedures will be agreed for the next election, an election in which he would be able to stand.


Governments across the world must surely welcome the fact that Mr Mousavi seeks only an improvement in the living standards of the Iranian people and that he has no time for those risking conflict over nuclear weapons. However he must also know that apart from a few unimaginative hawks within the United States and Israel, few wish to see yet another country in the area become dangerously unstable. World leaders can already see suicide bombers creating havoc inside Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. In any event a disruption or threat of disruption of Iranian oil supplies would cause another oil price hike which would be damaging for a global economy already in a dreadfully fragile state.

It is conceivable that if strike action led to further political unrest and violence that a point might be reached, if power players were either too intransigent or unimaginative, for civil war of some kind to start.However a civil war that has the military on one side and unarmed civilians on the other is hardly likely to
last for long without outside intervention.

Assume a perhaps unlikely event occurs and the army split into opposing factions. If a serious civil war began it is perhaps possible that pro opposition groups might seek to funnel supplies in from Iraq. However given the Islamic government’s friendly relations with militarised groups within Iraq it is just as likely that it would receive sustenance from the same country. Conflict could well spread across the border .

Mr Mousavi and his family may already be living on borrowed time, who can tell. If he wishes to have a chance of securing anything resembling ‘victory’ he should call for a strike now before fearful resignation becomes the predominant mood amongst his supporters.

Whatever option Mousavi chooses we should pray that it leads to less violence, more freedom and an increased likelihood that a nuclear arms race in the region can be prevented.



RJMA

P.S.

Everything that has happened within the last few week has destroyed the legitmacy of the ruling elite.Youth and the memory of what went on will eventually bring the reign of these grey haired men to an end.

In Korea and other places we are used to seeing heavy handed policing methods which, given the violence they often face, is understandable. If a state is feeling threatened it will generally resort to violent repression of dissent if no other option seems feasible. During the miners strike in Britain mining villages were sealed off, mounted policeman charged into crowds of miners etc. State violence can be seen in countries across the world. However once violence has been used nothing stays the same. Even today many working men would rather lose an arm than vote for a Tory candidate. Margaret Thatcher’s legacy has kept and may well still help to keep a Conservative leader out of Number 10 .

In Iran, over the past few days, the Supreme Leader presented himself as the head of an Islamic family which, while it’s members might disagree, would remain strong and essentially unified. It is quite possible that he spoke from the heart . It is quite possible that things were done in his name without his consent or agreement. Unfortunately for him and the ‘family’ methods used by the state to control demonstrators have destroyed his dream. ‘Family members,’ young and unarmed have had their arms slashed with razors and their throats cut in public. Young woman have been martyred in the full gaze of their peers. Family leaders have had their wives and daughters carried away to jail by members of the state’s security forces. In response banners carrying the image of Iran’s ‘spiritual leader’ have been burned and at night in Tehran hundreds of thousands cry out in rage from the roof tops.

Still the authorities insist that no vote rigging occurred. Once again outsiders are blamed for fanning the flames of dissent. But in spite of all the denials more and more people have come to believe that their President, their Supreme Leader and those surrounding them have played the people of Iran for fools.

INFORMATION

Quote

Chatham House, the thinktank, has published a paper casting doubt on the election result. Its main points are:
- In two conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of
more than 100% was recorded.
- At a provincial level, there is no correlation between the increased
turnout, and the swing to Ahmadinejad. This challenges the notion
that his victory was due to the massive participation of a previously
silent conservative majority.
- In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that
Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, and all
former centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former
reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two
groups.
- In 2005, as in 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and
Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas.
That the countryside always votes conservative is a myth. The claim
that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces
flies in the face of these trends.

--------------------------------------

The opposition leaders know now that if they are to ask their supporters to lay down their lives for a cause, more is now required than a simple re run of an election. They know that a chasm has opened up between the grey haired men of the Islamic Revolution and the disaffected men and women who streamed in their thousands through Iranian streets over the last few days.

The authorities must also know that idealistic young men will not stand by indefinitely as the arteries of their brothers and sisters are slashed by state sponsored thugs.

The choice refered to in the previous post remains the same.The window of opportunity is closing rapidly.



RJMA


EXTRACTS


June 22 2009

From the Supreme Leader’s perspective the record number of votes cast in this election did not reflect a desire for greater personal freedom over dress codes or a hatred of the religious police .From his perspective each vote was a recognition of the legitimacy of the Islamic republic ie him.His point of view will cause some anger.

As far as the Supreme Leader is concerned his immediate acceptance of a result based on decidedly dubious voting figures placed him in an impossible position. He could not call for a fresh election without casting doubt upon his ‘God given’ authority . He could not, therefore, opt for anything other than a hard line position and the usual convenient rhetoric against the ‘treachery of foreign governments’.

Tonight 'aliens and dust clouds' will fill the streets of Tehran. Opposition leaders know that if they call on their supporters to accept a rigged result many will cry ‘betrayal’ and refuse to heed their calls anyway . The same leaders know that once momentum is lost their leverage will be gone and their own personal security may be threatened.

The citizens of Iran now have been put in the position of having to choose between no change under the present Supreme Leader and massive civil disobedience on a scale that brings the country to a halt.

Religious and military leaders will have to choose between watching large numbers of civilians being shot dead in the streets and a change of Supreme Leader.

The only peaceful way out of the dilemma is for all parties to agree ‘not to let a good crisis go to waste’. As far as this outside observer is concerned the Iranian election owed more to the influence of President Mugabe than the angels.

Just as British M.P s have been forced by events and public rage to clean up their act now is surely time for all parties to agree an election procedure that is fair, honest and transparent. It is clear, from the experience of Zimbabweans, that local officials should always have the responsibility for announcing the total of votes cast for each party in their area. If the state can simply get away with announcing national totals, it is far too easy for manipulation to occur and impossible for honest observers to cry ‘foul’.

If all parties can agree a new election procedure after meeting together as Iranians rather than rivals, and the president is willing to agree to stand in a few months in order that a fresh election can be held then everyone benefits. No bloodshed, no loss of face and Iranians create a democratic procedure that they can be proud of .

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can help the Supreme Leader out of a hole, prevent bloodshed and, if he puts his country’s interest before his own, gain the respect of many outside of Iran. If he has indeed got the support of a majority of Iranians, what has he got to fear ?


RJMA


P.S.

Obviously agreement about an electoral reform conference would require the release of 'political prisoners' and the end of current demonstrations and state sponsored violence.

EXTRACTS

Lord Judge told the court the cost of the measures needed to protect jurors from potential influence, such as the services of police officers, was too high and that such measures may not properly insulate them.
For example, they "did not sufficiently address the potential problem of interference with jurors through their families," Lord Judge said.



Lord Judge described trial by jury as a "hallowed principle" of British justice, but said the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did allow a trial to he heard by a judge alone in certain circumstances.

-------------------------------------

Lord Judge has decided that defending a “hallowed principle” of British justice is only acceptable if it can done at reasonable cost. Never mind that billions have been spent by the U.K. government “ to be bring justice and democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq” and that millions of British servicemen died in the
Second World War “fighting for freedom”. We are expected to accept that our rights as citizens should be abolished for reasons of accountancy .

It is perfectly possible, albeit at some additional expense, for anonymous jurors, picked in a way that guaranties balance and fairness , to watch televised trial proceedings at a location far removed from the court. How will thugs be able to follow jurors when they leave to go home ? How will criminal associates be able to identify the faces of those they seek to intimidate? If the police force or law service is so filled with corrupt officials that witness anonymity cannot be guarantied then it is not ‘trial by jury’ that needs to be removed

Finally another question. If a criminal gang can intimidate twelve jurors how is it more difficult for the same individuals to intimidate a single judge. Judges have families, private vices and the human capacity to overspend and/or lose money on reckless investments. This is the reason why the jury system exists.

It is to be hoped that judges, politicians and members of the media will not accept the other reason used by Lord Judge to allow the destruction of a vital right ie trial by jury.

EXTRACT

The new trial will be the first Crown Court case in England and Wales to be heard by a judge alone using powers under Sections 44 and 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which came into force in July 2007.
It allows for a trial without a jury when there is evidence of "a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place" and where additional measures to prevent it would not fully succeed.

----------------------
Just because a Labour government, whose ‘raison d’etre’ seems to be the destruction of civil rights in this country, passed legislation allowing him to deny someone the right to trial by jury, doesn’t mean Lord Judge should follow the blind and stupid as they shuffle along on the road to tyranny.

RJMA

Extracts from B.B.C. website.

An article first published in the Washington Post which appeared just over 4 hours ago on the Guardian website, informs the reader that an opinion poll carried out from May 11th to May 20th indicated that a majority of Iranians sampled seemed willing to support Mr Ahmadinejad.

EXTRACTS

The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin – greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.

While western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.

Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, pre-election polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organisations from 11 May to 20 May was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighbouring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our pre-election survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasised his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favoured Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.

Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.

The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.


------------------------------------------------

However look at the dates. The opinion poll was taken three weeks before polling day and more importantly, long before President Obama’s speech in Cairo at the beginning of June. The speech was inspirational and it deeply affected the millions of Muslim viewers who watched it. He gave heart to Iranian women, resentful of enforced dress codes and religious police. He gave heart to those who wish to have the right to voice opinions and elect the leader of their choice. It appears to this observer that the message he sent allowed Persians and Azeris to vote as Iranians . It allowed them to vote for change rather than personal or sectional advantages.

The same speech clearly energised a third of undecided Iranians to vote in such large numbers that extra ballot boxes were in fact actually needed.

Having provided the Supreme Leader and President Ahmadinejad with favourable press comment it is only right that this observer repeats an earlier remark ie If it looks rotten ,smells rotten and feels rotten, it probably is.

The following extracts should also be of interest to those presently leading the Iranian government.


EXTRACTS

…nearly four in five Iranians – including most Ahmadinejad supporters – said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly "politically correct" responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society.

Indeed, and consistently among all three of our surveys over the past two years, more than 70% of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investment. And 77% of Iranians favoured normal relations and trade with the United States, another result consistent with our previous findings.

Iranians view their support for a more democratic system, with normal relations with the United States, as consonant with their support for Ahmadinejad. They do not want him to continue his hard-line policies. Rather, Iranians apparently see Ahmadinejad as their toughest negotiator, the person best positioned to bring home a favourable deal – rather like a Persian Nixon going to China.

From the same Washington Post article.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The Iranian people clearly decided that they wanted a leader who spoke President Obama's language I.M.H.O..The time for hostility and holocaust denial is over.



RJMA

THE HAND OF GOD ?


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 62.6%
Mir Hossein Mousavi: 33.8%
Mohsen Rezai: 1.7%
Mehdi Karroubi 0.9%
Turnout: 85%
Source: Interior ministry



A short time ago a U.K. T.V. station broadcast part of an interview with one of Mr Mousavi’s supporters. According to him his leader was informed by official sources that he had won the election and that he should begin preparing his acceptance speech. He was asked to make it as calming as possible. A short time later men brandishing guns arrived to tell him that everything had changed, that the defeat of Ahmadinejad would be the defeat of the Islamic revolution.

All opposition candidates, one of which is no natural enemy of the Islamic revolution, have complained that the results were fixed.

Perhaps two million people have marched through Tehran complaining that the election was fixed.

If something looks rotten, smells rotten and feels rotten it probably is.

President Obama has said all he needs to in his speech in Cairo. Unlike many Iranian Muslims, he has never been a patient in the Jewish hospital operating inside Iran. Those fortunate Iranians who have been treated there, will have no ill feeling towards Jews, quite the opposite. Neither do a majority of their fellow citizens wish them harm. They might well feel hostility towards the state of Israel and feel enraged about it’s treatment of Palestinians, but they are not un Islamic ie they are able to be tolerant of people of different faiths. They do not feel the need to rewrite history ie. deny the fact that Hitler ordered the extermination of millions of Jews .

Yes President Obama has said all that needs to be said.

He has spoken of the valuable role women are playing, have played and will play within Islamic societies and he was cheered to the roof tops by his Egyptian audience.

He has called for a fresh start to be made as far as Iranian/ American relations are concerned. He will shake the open hand when it is offered in place of a fist. He will shake the hand of the leader the Iranian people have chosen .

It appears that the Iranian people have heard his words.

Yes President Obama has said what needed to be said.

The only question now is whether God would ever wish the Iranian people to have an election stolen from them. Can a leader involved in vote rigging ever be viewed as Supreme ?



RJMA

EXTRACT

Besides the United States and North Korea, the other parties to the nuclear pact include China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.

“People lambaste the six-party process, and sure, it offers no refuge for those in need of instant gratification,” Mr. Hill, the negotiator, said in an interview. “But when asked for alternatives” to the nuclear pact, Mr. Hill said, “even the noisiest critics fall silent.”


Helene Cooper

--------------------------------

Politicians and diplomats have somehow managed to turn a victory of common sense into the triumph of fear and ‘cold war suspicion’. It might be instructive, at this time, to see how defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory.

At first sight it seems possible that various distinct groups, within the powerful elites governing certain nation states, perceived their/national interest to be threatened by a thaw in relations between North and South Korea. These groups looked at the process of dialogue and the faint possibility of eventual unification of Korea and did not like what they saw.

Firstly we have the obvious fear on the part of some within China’s military, that unification could lead to the possibility that a pro Western government in Korea might lead eventually to American troops being positioned close to their borders. They will have seen already with N.A.T.O, manoeuvres in Georgia and the installation of a ‘missile defence shield’ on Russia’s borders, that, America’s politicians , especially those who experienced the Cuban crisis, have shown extraordinary insensitivity as far as Russia’s historical fear of encirclement is concerned. At the other end of spectrum we could probably find right wing Republicans and certain military advisors speculating that unification could lead to Korea becoming ‘neutral’ and that American ‘bases’ could be put at risk.

Others, with an interest in escalating the conflict between the ‘United States’ and Iran might decide that it would be better if cool headed diplomacy did not succeed as far as N. Korea was concerned. If one “mad dictator” from the ‘Axis of Evil’ could be shown to be rational and, in a mafia sense, have a genuine concern for peace and stability and a real desire to stop grandmothers and children from starving to death then how could hawks within Israel and the American government ever hope to win arguments favouring pre emptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Is it a total coincidence, that just as Mr Hill seemed to be making progress with his negotiations with the North Koreans, that Israel launched it’s strike against what it claimed was a nuclear site in Syria. Israeli and American sources claimed that nuclear material present at the site had come from N. Korea. One must question the morality of any nation state willing to attack nuclear facilities, particularly those close to the river Euphrates. What is the point in apologists for the nuclear industry talking about safety mechanisms etc if states are happy to destroy nuclear power plants etc with no regard for the appalling long term radioactive contamination that could be caused.

But , of course, apart from Syrian denials, this outside observer has no way of knowing if Israeli/’America’ intelligence sources were mistaken or duplicitous.

When Mr Kim had agreed to dismantle the Yongbyon nuclear plant which, some claim, had produced enough plutonium to produce a handful of bombs, he was agreeing something substantive. He also provided details relating to his nuclear programmes and denied having provided Syria with nuclear materials.

This was not enough for American hardliners and America then ,in effect ,called Kim Jong il a liar to his face. As another commentator said, the American line was always to assume the worst. Now, if news reports are correct, Kim is threatening to START a uranium enrichment programme.

EXTRACTS

“North Korea also “WILL MAKE A DECISION to build a light-water reactor power plant and START the technological development for ensuring self-production of nuclear fuel as its first process without delay,” the spokesman said. ………

…North Korea reportedly has told United States officials that it has extracted enough plutonium for several bombs by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. But it has never confirmed that it has been pursuing a clandestine uranium-enrichment program that would provide an alternative means of bomb-making. “

-----------------------------

American government officials should ask themselves the following question. Did Russia demand an admission from the United States that it had provided Israel with nuclear weapons before it agreed to sign up to nuclear arms reductions ? Did Russia , at the early stages of the thaw in relations, insist that Russian officials should be able to comb the U.S. with geiger counters etc to seek out ‘hidden installations’ ? Do American and U.N. officials understand the concept of confidence building ? Do they remember Mao’s reply when he was asked how they had managed the Long March? Was the reply along the lines of ‘One step at a time ?”

If U.S. officials seriously believed that Kim would allow a ‘potential enemy’ to pinpoint every single nuclear ‘base’ etc so early on in the process they must be slightly deranged. But those people arguing for intrusive verification measures were ,perhaps,not interested in diplomacy succeeding IMHO. After the promised fuel had arrived in North Korea, after storage facilities had been built at the port, after numerous small but significant acts of good faith had been shown by each side then perhaps, a new deal involving further rewards eg food aid etc might have allowed a more vigorous inspection procedure to have been agreed.

Another point needs to be made. The North Korean leadership allows no debate,no critical editorials. Men are forced to remain in the army until the age of 30.After this time they will likely have lost any teenage rebellious streak. The people and, therefore, the leaders, inhabit something of a fantasy world in which villagers witness miracles hours after a visit by Kim.Now , after the collapse of the old Soviet Block, N. Korea has fewer trading partners and it receives less aid. The leadership look around and they see everyone, even their old ally China,
lining up against them ie threatening sanctions against what is already an impoverished country. They look to S. Korea and they see in the new President a new coldness, all brotherly affection has apparently vanished.

Who do they trust ? What can they rely upon ? Who is showing empathy ?

This, in fact, is the real tragedy. At present an ailing Kim, determined to ensure the dynasty carries on, has apparently decided that North Koreans can only trust themselves and that the one thing they can rely upon is the nuclear bomb. For reasons best known to themselves the Obama administration allowed the removal of the one proactive, trusted individual who might have made a difference, namely Christopher Hill. Today, after the failure of diplomacy, many of the contacts and friends he made may no longer be alive. Who can tell?

The best thing President Obama can do now is to accept that while political instability exists within N.Korea , a calm open hearted approach is the only responsible one available. If a man is threatening to throw himself off a cliff the last thing you do is allow him to go without food and drink or threaten to close his bank account. You talk him down and, sometimes, as negotiations proceed, you begin to see he might have reason for anger.


IMHO

Best wishes to all concerned.

RJMA

P.S.

Time for the U.S. to, privately, regret any ‘misunderstandings’ and allow the oil/aid, once promised, to reach it’s destination as a gesture of good faith. Plans to intercept North Korean ships should be shelved immediately and Christopher Hill should ,perhaps, be brought back to the negotiating table. Scholarships should be offered to North Koreans so, like Kim’s youngest son, they can come to accept that the outside world has a great deal to offer and that a variety of world views are both possible and acceptable. Nothing lasts for ever.

LORDS HELP US

If a headmaster was caught out agreeing to take money in exchange for fixing children's S.A.T.s results he would be sacked. He would not return to the teaching profession.

If a policeman agreed to take money in exchange for altering criminal records he would be sacked immediately the facts became known to his bosses.He would never work as a police officer again.

If a doctor's conversation was taped and it was proved that he/she was conspiring to steal money from drugged patients then he/she would be struck off.

If members of the House of Lord's are taped agreeing to 'fix' legislation in
exchange for money they are told to take a few weeks holiday to reflect on
any wrong doing AND THEN THEY ARE WELCOMED BACK ?

It may well be that neither Lord would have actively sought payment for 'fixing' a particular ammendment etc In this case it is unfortunate that they met with the Sunday Times reporter when they did.It may well be that they have given years of loyal service over the years.

THE FACT REMAINS THAT IF THEY ARE NOT PERMANENTLY BARRED FROM THE LORDS THE PUBLIC WILL SEE IMMEDIATELY THAT ,IN SPITE OF ALL THE ANGRY VOICES IN THE TOWN AND CITIES ACROSS OUR COUNTRY, MEMBERS IN THE SECOND CHAMBER STILL HAVEN'T GOT IT !

RJMA

-------------------------------------

MP’s EXPENSES: POLITICIANS USED TO BE BETTER,WISER-AND OLDER

Only those who have worked outside politics can truly represent the people, says David Young.

By David Young

Last Updated: 6:57PM BST 22 May 2009

It was at my fifth Cabinet meeting that, sitting back and idly glancing around the table, a thought struck me. Of the 21 of us in attendance, 11 had at one time started their own business. In today's House, it is hard to find Members with much outside experience at all, let alone that of working for themselves.
When Gordon Brown introduced Members' outside earnings into his review of expenses, he was continuing the process of discouraging MPs from having other interests. Politics is increasingly described as a full-time occupation, even a profession. Today, the traditional route to the House has become school, university political society, think tank and then Member; this achieves an almost total insulation from the life of their constituents.

The hours of the Commons have changed so that, instead of starting after lunch and sitting into the night, they sit in the day, finishing most days at 7pm. Politics has gone from a vocation to just another occupation. How did this come about and why?

More than 100 years ago, Parliament was a part-time affair, sitting from February to mid- August. The vast majority of Members had outside interests, there were no women and they were unpaid. That seemingly amateurish arrangement sufficed for running the largest empire the world has known.
After the First World War, the widening of suffrage allowed the entry of women and Labour replaced the Liberals. At the time of the post-war Labour government of 1945, Parliament was still part-time. Senior silks who were MPs would finish in the courts at 4pm and go down to the House. Many others were leading lights in the City or industry, in management and the unions. The Commons commanded vast experience, much of it disinterested.

When I entered the Lords in 1984, there was also a tremendous array of talent. Of course it was undemocratic, with its majority of hereditary peers, but the Salisbury convention ensured the House would not stand in the way of a manifesto commitment.

Sitting alongside the hereditary members were many of our most successful men and women. The standard of debate was very high. There were occasions when Kenneth Clarke, who was my minister in the Commons, and I had a debate on the same subject at the same time. I would have a speech going into many pages, invariably heard in attentive silence, while Ken would have four or five paragraphs. He had a simple answer to this: "After that, we will have points of order for the rest of the time."

Of course, the Lords was political, but I remember our Chief Whip complaining to me about one of our captains of industry, who had taken the Conservative whip, being dragged into the chamber against his will for a three-line whip. When the vote came, he voted with the other side and when challenged, said: "I came and listened to the argument, and they were right!"

This spirit went with the Blair reforms of the Lords, replacing most hereditaries with members who carried pagers in order to be able to follow the party line. Probably as a result, we have had cases of questionable behaviour by peers and even an investigation into a member's expenses.
There have been a number of causes for the deterioration in both Houses. First, at least in the Commons, is the cult of the young. Aspiring candidates in their forties have all too often been quietly told that they are too old; yet this is just the age when experience blended with enthusiasm produces a more balanced judgment. The Labour landslide of 1997 introduced far too many Members into the House with little or no experience of life outside politics, and the next election might do the same again for the Conservatives.

Time spent outside politics is important if it is spent in business, unions, voluntary bodies, or academia. The House must have Members who can relate what they are asked to do to their own experience. If more MPs had worked outside politics, alarm bells would have rung over their expenses scheme. Selection committees should look to a candidate's experience.

But there is a more subtle reason. Parliament has been inundated with European legislation, which it had to nod through. The Government has treated the House with barely disguised contempt, introducing unnecessary and ineffectual legislation.

We wasted 700 hours on the law restricting hunting with dogs. The Government was dismissive of the reports of the Lords Select Committee on which I served. This meant that Parliament had less and less of anything important to do and, in time, Members degenerated into becoming superior social workers, making the job increasingly unattractive to people of talent.

What should we do? We can't turn the clock back, but we can encourage new and existing Members to have outside interests and we should reverse the change of hours to enable this to happen. The next government should ration legislation, ensuring that both Houses peruse only important Bills. We should strengthen the Select Committee system to really hold the government to account. Then, and only then, will we get the people that Parliament really deserves.

Lord Young was a minister in Margaret Thatcher's government

-----------------------------------
SEE BELOW





THE LORDS HAVE GOT TALENT

Good evening and welcome. This is the third night of this week’s ‘The Lords Got Talent’ in which you choose, through your votes, the men and women who will be sent to the House of Lords for the next 12 years. Now remember these people will be scrutinising legislation sent up by the Commons and although they cannot reject proposed laws sent up by the Commons they can suggest alterations, throw light onto obvious idiocy and ask our M.Ps to think again.

We have asked professional bodies,business, politicians, the three armed forces, charities etc to provide us with a list of fifteen people each evening from which you will be asked to select ten. Each candidate will be be proposed and a two minute documentary relating to their life experiences will be shown to you. You will not be able to vote until every candidate has been introduced. After the introductions each candidate will be expected to answer three questions from the panel to provide us with some feel for their communication skills etc.The candidates are all 45 years old or older. This is to ensure that they are more likely to have accumulated some wisdom as a result of life experiences.

REMEMBER THIS IS YOUR GOVERNMENT THAT YOU ARE SELECTING.CHOOSE CAREFULLY AND, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, ENCOURAGE YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS TO TAKE PART. REMEMBER TO NOTE DOWN YOUR VOTING RESPONSE CODE BECAUSE YOU COULD BE THE LUCKY WINNER OF £1 MILLION POUNDS. ALSO DO NOT FORGET TO TEXT QUESTIONS THAT YOU FEEL THE PANEL SHOULD BE ASKING.

RJMA

The cynics said that Speaker Martin would not stand down. They were wrong !

The same people said that the party leaders would be unable to take off their party hats and agree effective measures designed to tighten up the expenses system and bring the corrupt gravy train to an end. They were wrong !

The doubters believe that party bosses will allow ‘bad apples’ and M.Ps ,who have shown a complete lack of judgement regarding expenses, to cost them seats at the next election. They do not realise how necessarily ruthless the party leaders are going to have to be. They do not understand that if David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg fail to sanction effective punishments then ‘white knights’ and public/private prosecutions will do the job for them and ,in the process, the three leaders will be made to look hypocritical, cowardly and unfit to govern.

The bloodletting is about to begin.“Legal, within (old )Common’s rules BUT UNACCEPTABLE “.These words tell you all you need to know. (IMHO)

Finally, after reflecting on the pevious post, NMIAI begins to see merit in Nick Clegg’s suggestion that we have a referendum on whether or not the U.K. should remain within the U.K. His insistence, on Radio 4, on a politically unpopular pro E.U.line was something it was hard not to admire. His not unconvincing argument that no single nation can solve environmental and credit crunch problems on it’s own deserves to be put to a national test. As things stand today, however, the British people have much in common with a family that has been forced to accept strangers into the home without prior consultation. In 2004 without consulting their electorates, presidents and prime ministers agreed the expansion of the E.U. Gordon Brown’s party decided against imposing immigration restrictions up until 2011 and ,as a result .the disenfranchised British people have had to deal with all the pressures associated with uncontrolled mass immigration.

An E.U. that has failed to ask it’s electorates for legitimacy will never thrive IMHO.

David Cameron, who has done himself a great deal of good in the past few days, knows that the promise of a referendum may persuade presently angry voters to decide, in a few weeks time, against voting for the BNP and U.K.I.P. After all, apart from providing voters with a proxy referendum on Europe, it is difficult to see how sending Eurosceptics to the European Parliament can lead to anything constructive. Green M.P.s are just as capable of pushing for greenhouse gas reductions, a clean up of MEP expenses and allowances etc. and they argue for sustainability and conservation rather than a continued, destructive, never ending growth in G.N.P. The U.K is overpopulated .Only by supporting politicians who accept the notion that there are limits to population and economic growth will we stave off disaster. IMHO

But we must also ask ourselves which party is more likely to preserve basic freedoms and reduce the power of the surveillance state.

I am still debating how to vote in the local and European elections. It is time for a change and change is the only thing the voters are going to accept. This is the only thing we can be certain of.

UKIP’s TV broadcast was superb and it will have served to educate a great number of voters. The BNP’s broadcast was astonishingly amateurish and the Green Party’s cartoon was basically indecipherable. Why, with such an articulate leader , was the party so poor at communicating it’s ideas ?

There is everything to play for.


RJMA