tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3463101547841586022024-03-05T07:21:02.349+00:00The Sound of GunfireThoughts on Scottish, British and world politics, culture and travel plus a load of other stuff from Inverness-based journalist and Lib Dem activist Bernard SalmonBernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.comBlogger352125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-7973268117329698592009-10-13T20:43:00.002+01:002009-10-13T20:53:15.102+01:00Another small blow for freedomIt's been somewhat overshadowed by the Trafigura affair, but it's good that <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8304926.stm">Dutch MP Geert Wilders has managed to overturn the ban on him coming to the UK</a> which was introduced by former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (whatever happened to her?).<br /><br />I am no apologist for his views, which as I <a href="http://thesoundofgunfire.blogspot.com/2009/02/wilders-does-not-incite-violence.html">blogged </a>in February are based on falsehoods and distortions. But I don't believe he incites violence and so he should be free to come to this country to air his views. People like Wilders can best be tackled if their opinions are exposed and argued with, not given a false sense of martyrdom by being banned from coming in.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-30042506644402424712009-10-13T19:29:00.002+01:002009-10-13T20:33:55.000+01:00It's a remarkable achievement......to go from being a company known by relatively few people to becoming a symbol of global corporate evil within the space of 24 hours.<br /><br />It's even more remarkable to do so without having much coverage in the mainstream media.<br /><br />Today's events surrounding Trafigura and its doomed attempt to gag coverage of its <a href="http://wikileaks.org/leak/waterson-toxicwaste-ivorycoast-%C3%A92009.pdf">toxic dumping in the Ivory Coast</a> certainly show the ability of the internet/blogs/Twitter to make the running on a story like this, although <a href="http://fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/trafigura-timeline-of-an-outrage/">Alix Mortimer is probably right</a> that this would all have been in vain without political action also being taken. It certainly shows an ability for new media outlets to react in a more flexible way than traditional media, very few of whom took the decision to publish the parliamentary question at the centre of the storm.<br /><br />Some might believe this demonstrates the inability of corporations to control and censor adverse information about themselves. Certainly, where information is in the public domain or easily accessible, it's stupid and futile for any company or government even to attempt to keep embarrassing information under wraps.<br /><br />But let's not kid ourselves that this is anything other than a small victory for freedom. We all only found out about the Trafigura toxic dumping only as a result of them taking their blunderbus and aiming it squarely at their own feet by attempting to censor reporting of Parliament. The injunction had been in place for weeks until it was revealed in Paul Farrelly's question.<br /><br />There are doubtless numerous corporations whose sins we haven't heard of, because they are able to use injunctions and gagging clauses to prevent the public from finding about their crimes and misdemeanours.<br /><br />The main benefit of this whole affair has been to let sunshine in on the whole panoply of ways in which press freedom is limited in this country. Using injunctions to gag parliamentary reporting is only the most extreme example of the limitations placed upon the press. Whether it's our absurd <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/23/us-congress-britain-libel-law">libel laws</a>, which even <a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/">restrict legitimate scientific enquiry</a>, or the increasing threat from rules governing breach of confidentiality, the reality is that the UK has some of the most restrictive laws governing freedom of expression and press freedom of any democratic country.<br /><br />While we should celebrate that Trafigura and Carter-Ruck have been defeated in this instance, it's only a small step in the wider battle for freedom opf expression.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-57900248495920262162009-10-13T12:16:00.002+01:002009-10-13T12:30:49.314+01:00A questionImagine you're a multinational firm facing the following question being asked in Parliament:<br /><br />Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.<br /><br />Do you (a) realise that few people pay much attention to what happens in Parliament and that even if it is reported in the media, not too many people will actually read the reports, or (b) get a gagging order against a national newspaper which tries to report the story, thereby giving the story real legs and encouraging websites across the world to publish the details and thereby highlight the absurd lengths you're going to in order to suppress a story of legitimate public concern, in the process trampling on centuries of parliamentary freedom?<br /><br />Answers on a used injunction to Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors, please.<br /><br />I'm delighted that the Lib Dems have realised the importance of this issue and are <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/heath-and-burstow-table-urgent-commons-questions-about-guardian-injunction-trafigura-carterruck-16498.html">tabling an urgent question about it</a>.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-27907142221957106802009-10-12T23:00:00.002+01:002009-10-12T23:24:10.899+01:00Gnats face both ways on defenceMore fantasy politics from our beloved Gnats, this time <a href="http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1435325/">talking about defence</a>.<br /><br />Angus Robertson, the MP for RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth, has been outlining how he thinks Scotland could go it alone on defence when freed of the clutches of the Evil English.<br /><br />To an extent that's fair enough: you wouldn't expect a Gnat MP to do anything else but bang on about how Scotland will be a land of milk and honey come the happy day when independence is achieved and all of Scotland's problems are solved instantly. The fact that Scotland would have to face the significant cost of shelling out for its own defences should it ever gain independence is largely irrelevant.<br /><br />But what really got my attention was Robertson's statement that the remains of the UK could continue to use military bases in an independent Scotland.<br /><br />Let me see if I've got this straight. Robertson wants the supposed benefits of Scotland going it alone on defence AND he wants England to continue to base its forces north of the border?<br /><br />Why the hell should England do that? If Scotland did go it alone, why on earth would England continue to subsidise Scotland in that way? If Scotland did ever become independent, you can be certain that both RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth would see their squadrons withdrawn to RAF Lineham or RAF Brize Norton quicker than you can say 'massive blow to Moray's economy'.<br /><br />Defence is one of those areas that Scotland would more or less have to build up from scratch if it ever became independent, with all the costs that would involve. And it's far too important a subject for people like Robertson to indulge in the sort of juvenile gesture politics he's been displaying today.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-62937035012809253132009-10-12T22:13:00.002+01:002009-10-12T22:45:37.658+01:00Even MPs deserve natural justicePeople have rightly been angered over the behaviour of many MPs with regard to their expenses. It has been a tale of greed and, in some cases, of downright corruption.<br /><br />But that doesn't mean that MPs have forfeited any right to natural justice. MPs have the same right as anyone else to know the nature of any charges against them and to know that they will be subject to a fair process in dealing with these.<br /><br />It's not a principle that MPs have always applied when dealing with other people, particularly in some of the assaults on civil liberties which the Labour government has introduced, such as control orders.<br /><br />But MPs have discovered today why such principles are important. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8303312.stm">Sir Thomas Legg's introduction of new standards relating to expenses claimed for cleaning and gardening</a> means that MPs are being made subject to rules that are being applied retrospectively, which is an abominable principle. As a result, Gordon Brown is having to repay more than £12,000 and Nick Clegg over £900.<br /><br />Legg's introduction of a £3,000 limit on cleaning and gardening seems to me to be a wholly arbitrary decision. He could have decided that having MPs claiming for cleaning and gardening was not 'wholly, exclusively and necessarily' related to their parliamentary duties and thus should be paid back in full. That would be a tough call for many MPs, but he would at least be applying the rule which applied at the time. Or he could have decided that gardening and cleaning were entirely legitimate expenses for MPs and that nobody should therefore pay back any of these costs.<br /><br />But he's done neither - he decided to introduce a wholly arbitrary limit under which cleaning and gardening expenses are 'deemed' reasonable if they are under £3,000. Why £3k and not £2k or £5k? There doesn't seem any particular reason to have chosen that figure.<br /><br />As it is, Legg's introduction of such a limit would seem to breach Article 11 (2) of the <a href="http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/">Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a>: "No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed." Those rights apply even to people we might not approve of, including MPs.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-67353095395344220452009-10-08T13:22:00.002+01:002009-10-08T13:34:03.670+01:00Michael Gove: An apologyI apologise that Michael Gove seems to have drawn his <a href="http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2009/10/michael-goves-history-list.html">narrative of British history</a> from <a href="http://thesoundofgunfire.blogspot.com/2009/09/complete-history-of-england.html">my rather jokey suggestion</a> a few weeks back. The main difference is that Gove appears to be serious.<br /><br />If you want to know why Gove's proposed history curriculum is so absurd, just read <a href="http://fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/education-michael-gove/">these</a> <a href="http://fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/the-proper-narrative-of-british-history/">two </a>terrific postings by the awesome President for Life of the People's Republic, as well as <a href="http://www.markpack.org.uk/missing-from-michael-goves-history-curriculum-islam/">Mark Pack's posting</a>.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-74388399456318151652009-10-06T19:30:00.002+01:002009-10-06T19:36:42.199+01:00Salmond, debates and the Gray manLib Dem Voice has published my views on the election debates controversy in the latest in the series of posts from Scottish Lib Dem bloggers, Haggis, Neeps and Liberalism. You can find it <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/haggis-neeps-and-liberalism-9-16423.html#comments">here</a>.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-60839597241907348342009-10-05T22:11:00.002+01:002009-10-05T22:44:59.641+01:00Carol Thatcher should sue!I'm not a fan of Strictly Come Dancing. Nor have I ever seen Hole in the Wall, which from the trailers seems like a prime argument for abolishing the licence fee.<br /><br />Anton Du Beke has therefore rarely entered my consciousness. Even if you came up to me with his photo and told me: "This is Anton Du Beke, who has achieved minor celebrity through appearing on a TV dance show," I'd just have to take your word for it.<br /><br />But I'm talking about him today because of the story about him <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8290733.stm">apologising after calling his dance partner a 'Paki'</a>.<br /><br />The Beeb believes that his apology puts an end to the matter. This seems like astonishing double standards, given that Carol Thatcher was axed from The One Show for calling someone a 'golliwog'.<br /><br />The corporation says the difference between Thatcher and Du Beke is that the latter apologised for his remarks whereas Thatcher didn't. But an apology wasn't enough to save Big Ron Atkinson from being sacked as a football pundit by ITV after calling Marcel Desailly a 'thick nigger'.<br /><br />Now, there's certainly an argument for saying that using such racial epithets, unpleasant though they might be, shouldn't automatically lead to someone losing their job. I have some sympathy with that view - I think there's a big difference between Carol Thatcher referring to someone as a golliwog in a private conversation and, say, a policeman using the term when searching a young black man.<br /><br />And you can certainly accuse the Beeb of having skewed priorities by getting rid of Carol Thatcher for her comment, but allowing the BNP on Question Time to peddle their filth.<br /><br />But the point is, if the use of such terms is thought so unacceptable that people can lose their jobs over them, it shouldn't matter too much whether someone apologises or not - the damage has been done.<br /><br />If Du Beke is not axed by the Beeb, I think Carol Thatcher should sue the corporation for sex discrimination, as she's certainly been treated differently from a man in the same situation. I think she'd stand an excellent chance of winning.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-2682315131874034162009-10-05T21:32:00.002+01:002009-10-05T22:03:55.652+01:00Sloppy talk from CameronI suspect it was just sloppy wording, but I was intrigued by the way David Cameron phrased his rather vacuous <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8290114.stm">pledge of respecting Scotland</a> should he become Prime Minister.<br /><br />Now leave aside the fact that respect has to be a two-way process. I doubt that Alex Salmond is going to do anything other than continually provoke fights between the Scottish Government and Westminster, in the way he's done over the past few years.<br /><br />And ignore also the fact that respect can't hide the fact that there will be difficult decisions that have to be made about budgets and priorities, even without any manufactured disputes.<br /><br />Let's look at how Cameron actually worded his pledge of respect. He said: <span style="font-style: italic;">"I would govern with respect because I know that even if we do well, we are unlikely to get a majority of Scottish seats and so we have to govern and work with the Scottish administration."</span><br /><br />I'm sure it's unintentional, but that implies that if somehow the Tories did get a majority of Scottish seats at Westminster, they wouldn't feel the need to work with the Scottish Government, even though it's a completely separate Parliament elected by a different system and so is not responsible to Westminster.<br /><br />In itself this probably doesn't matter much, but if Prime Minister Cameron is this sloppy when he's negotiating with the Scottish Government, I'm afraid Alex Salmond is going to run rings round him.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-60253202687373720142009-09-29T20:55:00.003+01:002009-09-29T22:41:46.807+01:00Brown's Labour conference speech: first draftAnd so today, in the midst of events that are transforming our world, we meet united (apart from those idiots Purnell and Blears, obviously) and determined to fight for the future.<br /><br />Our country confronts the biggest choice for a generation. It’s a choice between two parties, yes. But more importantly a choice between two directions for our country. (You can tell I was a crap Chancellor, as I can't count beyond two).<br /><br />In the last eighteen months we have had to confront the biggest economic choices the world has faced since the 1930s, as a result of my stunning incompetence in regulating the financial system and failure to stop the unsustainable debt-led boom.<br /><br />And times of great challenge mean choices of great consequence, so let me share with you a little about the choices we are making. Our first choice is to blame anyone but ourselves for the economic chaos. And our second choice is to splurge even more dosh on our ballooning deficit between now and the election, to really screw things up for the next government. And our third choice is to make ineffective gestures which might get a headline or two, such as our VAT cut last year. We also made the choice to introduce a mortgage rescue scheme which has benefited only a<br />handful of homeowners.<br /><br />And although we're hopeless, the Tories would be even worse. Did you know they eat babies and indulge in Satanic rituals under the guise of Bullingdon Club drinking sessions?<br /><br />As for the bankers, I guarantee that they will all be whipped three times daily and survive in future on a of bread and a glass of water. The fact that I have no real ability to enforce this is irrelevant, as is my own failure to regulate the banking system properly.<br /><br />Now it's time for some buzzwords about fairness, ignoring the fact that the gap between rich and poor has widened under 12 years of Labour rule. The word values should also be used a lot.<br /><br />I grew up in an ordinary family in an ordinary town (unlike those toffs Cameron and Osborne). Like most families on middle and modest incomes we believed in making the most of our talents.<br />But we knew that no matter how hard we worked free education was our only pathway to being the best we could be, but despite that I'm proud of saddling students with tuition fees and record levels of debt.<br /><br />And I come from a family which, independent and self reliant as it was, could not have kept going without the compassion and caring of the NHS which has not been a sixty year mistake but a sixty year liberation. Take that, you swivel-eyed loon Hannan.<br /><br />And it has been those experiences, and that background, that has taught me that yes, too much government can make people powerless, but that won't stop me from leading the bossiest and most authoritarian government of modern times, which wants to make 11 million people prove they are not paedophiles before taking the neighbours' kids to swimming lessons. <br /><br />We will not allow those on middle and modest incomes to be buffeted about in a storm not of their making. We'll just create the most complicated tax system anywhere in the western world, so that people won't realise that when we give them a minimum wage and tax credits (pause for cheers), we're just going to take it back by other means.<br /><br />And so this is our choice – to make rules about how to toughen the rules on those who break the rules, as the more rules we have, the better. That's why we'll introduce new rules on bankers’ bonuses (pause for boos). And any director of any of our banks who is negligent will be disqualified from holding any such post, although such rules won't apply to Prime Ministers or former Chancellors of the Exchequers, obviously.<br /><br />In the uncharted waters we sail, the challenge of change demands nothing less than a new model for our economy, a new model for a more responsible society and a new model for a more accountable politics. Do you think if I say the word 'new' enough, people will forget we've been in power for 12 years?<br /><br />Staying with the status quo is not an option. The issue is not whether to change, but how, although there can't possibly be any change which involves me leaving Downing Street.<br /><br />It's now time for some guff about the economic principles which underlie my approach, although obviously I don't want people to remember any of my previous principles like the 'Golden Rule' on borrowing. I probably also ought to mention the Post Office somewhere in here, despite my government's record of closing thousands of post offices. And I also ought to say some green buzzwords as well.<br /><br />Next I'm going to announce all sorts of spending pledges on education, jobs and care for the elderly, even though we won't be able to afford a single one of them due to the government deficit. But I'm absolutely not going to announce any spending cuts anywhere to pay for them.<br /><br />However, I do have to say something about the deficit, so I'll pretend that by passing a new law, the problem can somehow be tackled. It's nonsense, but I'm hoping no-one will notice that. I'll also mention a rise in National Insurance to help tackle the deficit, even though it's a tax on jobs.<br /><br />By the way, did I mention the Tories want to burn down every hospital and school in the country? In contrast, under Labour the UK is a land of milk and honey (insert all the buzzwords here about the minimum wage etc to get the delegates cheering).<br /><br />Now it's time for some more authoritarian stuff. I think teenage mums should be locked up. We also need to boss parents around a bit more. And all our teenagers are drunken yobs who must be given ASBOs. We're also going to backtrack on 24-hour drinking which was introduced by the evil previous government (Tony Blair's, obviously).<br /><br />I'm also going to continue the fear-mongering over terrorism and immigration. Bloody foreigners must continue to have ID cards, but I'm not going to make them compulsory for British citizens, even though we're going to keep the massive ID database which underlies them.<br /><br />I love Britain, I do.<br /><br />Time for a name-check for President Obama, in the hope that people will think I'm just like him. I probably also ought to mention some guff about all the problems the world faces, even though I don't have a clue how to deal with most of them. Overseas aid (pause for cheers).<br /><br />Did I mention I love the NHS and will guarantee unlimited funding for it, so that we can get rid of all diseases? Unlike the Tories, who want to leave everyone to die horribly on a hospital trolley.<br /><br />But a fair and responsible Britain must be an accountable Britain. Tory MPs who fiddled their expenses should be drowned in their moats. I'm aware that some Labour MPs were also on the take (yes, Blears and Morley and Moran, I'm looking at you).<br /><br />And so where there is proven financial corruption by an MP and in cases where wrong-doing has been demonstrated but Parliament fails to act we will give constituents the right to recall their Member of Parliament. But we're not going to legislate on this before the election, even though we could.<br /><br />I'm also going to announce a referendum on the unproportional Alternative Vote system, even though we promised a referendum on electoral reform in 1997 and never delivered. I'm also going to end the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, even though I've had 12 years to do something about it and not done it. Who knows, both these pledges could be enough to get one or two Lib Dems into voting for us, the fools.<br /><br />I’ve been honest with you about where we’ve got it right, which is actually not very much, if I were actually being honest. And where we’ve fallen short and have to do more, which is in just about every area.<br /><br />Did I mention the Tories are evil toffs?<br /><br />And so I say to the British people the election to come will not be about my future, as we all know I'm doomed.<br /><br />And I say to you now: Insert peroration here, not that anyone will actually believe a word I've said.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-50881058345127845262009-09-22T14:49:00.002+01:002009-09-22T14:54:46.278+01:00Lib Dem Federal Conference: Vince CableThe Sage of Twickenham, Vince Cable, also addressed conference yesterday and it was as usual very good stuff. It's absolutely no reflection on Vince that following his speech I took to my sickbed for the rest of the day.<br /><br />You can see his speech <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2009/sep/21/vince-cable-liberal-democrats">here</a>.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-33618377950547250742009-09-22T14:46:00.002+01:002009-09-22T14:49:35.387+01:00Lib Dem Federal Conference: Tim FarronTim Farron, the excellent MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale, gave a terrific and passionate speech to the conference yesterday.<br /><br />Annoyingly, I can't actually find a video of it to put up, but you can read his speech <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?title=Speech%3a_Tim_Farron_speaks_about_rural_Britain_at_Liberal_Democrat_Conference&pPK=4fc37f4d-83bf-4736-832d-6c19702aef3d">here</a>.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-10613090482879425682009-09-22T14:13:00.002+01:002009-09-22T14:25:57.737+01:00Lib Dem Federal Conference: Real WomenMy <a href="http://thesoundofgunfire.blogspot.com/2009/08/real-women-draft-amendment.html">amendment on Real Women</a> was accepted for debate on Saturday afternoon.<br /><br />I knew even before starting that it was a battle I was never likely to win, and so it proved. Speaker after speaker lined up to oppose me and the result was that the policy was passed without my amendment.<br /><br />This means that we now have policy on airbrushing of images which I think is essentially unworkable, but I can't say I'm too downhearted. It was good to have the debate and it would have been an amazingly dull session without my amendment being discussed.<br /><br />One point that was made during the debate which I meant to address, but forgot to do so in my summing up. A parallel had been drawn with the laws on drink driving, saying that these had preceded a cultural change in the way we now see drink driving as unacceptable. However, I'd point out that the cultural change started to happen long before the drink driving laws were toughened up. I'd also point out that you can easily define a certain level of alcohol in the bloodstream which is unacceptable and that it's far more difficult to define what is and isn't an unrealistic portrayal of women (and men for that matter).<br /><br />But that's now in the past and I was delighted that the rest of the Real Women proposals were passed.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-79666808796762159862009-09-15T09:25:00.002+01:002009-09-15T09:32:46.555+01:00A complete history of EnglandAncient Britons felt blue. Romans came, saw and conquered, built a wall and left. Alfred burned some cakes. 1066 and all that. Magna Carta died in vain. Agincourt and Crecy*. Henry VIII had six mothers-in-law. Frankie and Betty bowled out the Armada. Charles I lost his head. George III went mad and lost America. Nelson was armless. At Waterloo Napoleon did surrender. Victoria invents sponge cakes and waterfalls and Prince Albert invents the Prince Albert. Two World Wars and one World Cup. Extra-time with the Argies.<br /><br />Is that all OK for the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1213246/If-children-taught-patriotism-wrong-Britains-identity-stake.html">officially recognised patriotic version, Melanie</a>?<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">* But don't mention who actually won the Hundred Years' War, natch.</span>Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-37710280313817062162009-09-14T20:37:00.003+01:002009-09-14T22:58:00.602+01:00Will we myth history if it's left in the past?I saw <a href="http://linlithgow-libdems.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-this-history-debate-bunk.html">Stephen's posting</a> the other day about the way history is taught in schools and thought about posting a response then.<br /><br />But I'm glad I didn't, as today I read another couple of articles which touch on this debate, from the appalling <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1213246/If-children-taught-patriotism-wrong-Britains-identity-stake.html">Melanie Philips</a> and the mercurial <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-we-abandon-history-at-our-peril-1786883.html">Yasmin Alibhai-Brown</a> respectively. Both bemoan the lack of historical knowledge among so many young people today, as shown by a survey that showed some people think Winston Churchill was the first man on the moon or that the vast majority of people couldn't name a single 19th century British Prime Minister. But they do so from radically different standpoints: Philips because a lack of historical knowledge undermines patriotism and Alibhai-Brown because it undermines our ability to think critically about our society.<br /><br />These two articles highlight the two contrasting approaches to teaching the subject that Stephen highlighted: history as myth and history as a means of examing the truth about our society.<br /><br />Like Stephen, I wasn't educated in Scotland, so I can't comment directly on the way history is taught here. But like him, I would be surprised if field trips to Culloden or Bannockburn just promoted a narrow nationalistic outlook. I recall my own schooldays when we had trips up to the Imperial War Museum in London: they didn't turn me into a raving Teutonophobe or a flag-waving British patriot; if anything just the reverse. That's why I think Alibhai-Brown's approach is rather more rooted in reality than Melanie Philips.<br /><br />But there is one sense in which Philips is correct, which is that any society does have to have some idea of where it has come from if it is to have shared values that keep people from being constantly at one another's throats. Whether we think of ourselves as Scottish, British, English, Jamaican, British Asian or whatever, there does have to be some understanding of what that means and where that identity comes from.<br /><br />However, one question I do wish to ask is whether the English have an unusual lack of interest in their own history. In Scotland, the vast majority of people will have at least some awareness of the Highland Clearances, and almost every TV programme on Scotland's history will say something about it - as Peter Capaldi's excellent <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ml5dd/A_Portrait_of_Scotland/">A Portrait Of Scotland</a> did last week. But in England, knowledge of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure">Enclosure Acts</a> - which had similar aims of creating larger agricultural units and had the effect of driving a lot of people away from land they had previously claimed ownership of - is more or less confined to specialist academic historians.<br /><br />Now, maybe this doesn't matter too much. Perhaps Scotland is held back by focusing too much on its history and England benefits from its amnesia about its past. And to take a more extreme example, the conflict in Northern Ireland has been fuelled by a striking obsession with past wrongs, with both sides commemorating ancient battles and rivalries which are perhaps better left to decay gently within the pages of dusty history books.<br /><br />But history IS important. Maybe it doesn't matter too much if students don't know who Lord Liverpool or Lord Rosebery were. Maybe it doesn't particularly matter that the English tend to think of an anti-Semitic rapist and probable murderer who barely visited his kingdom and bled it dry to fund his military adventures in the Middle East as a 'good king' (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_England">Richard I</a>). Or that a well-regarded military commander, able administrator and literate Renaissance prince is popularly viewed as a deformed hunchbacked tyrannical monster who committed infanticide (<a href="http://www.richardiii.net/">Richard III</a>).<br /><br />However, a lack of historical understanding of our society and how we got to where we are now will affect us. Alibhai-Brown is absolutely correct that understanding our history is a key part of thinking about where we're going as a society. Our colonial past does have an impact on the sort of society we are now, for instance. And to take one important recent example, Tony Blair's lack of historical understanding certainly contributed to getting us entangled in Iraq and Afghanistan.<br /><br />But, as Philips shows, if we don't have a critical understanding of how our past affects the way we are now, there are all too many people willing to fill the gap with myths. Philips seems to want to cultivate an uncritical patriotism which somehow blames 'multiculturalism' for the lack of understanding of our past. That's the same sort of myth-making territory that people like the BNP occupy with their dream of a country which is exclusively white and Christian, rather than recognising that Britain has been shaped by and benefited from successive waves of immigration.<br /><br />The same myth-making tradition is also present among some strands of Scottish nationalism. To listen to some people, you might get the impression that the next significant date in Scottish history after the Battle of Culloden in 1746 (in my view a necessary defeat for the Jacobite dreams of a revived absolutist monarchy) was 1967, when Scotland's football team beat England 3-2 to become 'World Champions'. I exaggerate, but not by much. It's the same myth-making which has resulted in Braveheart becoming such a popular film among nationalists, despite it being a complete <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart#Historical_inaccuracies">historical travesty</a>.<br /><br />So, where does all this leave us now? Well, one thing I can definitely say is that Henry Ford got it completely wrong: history is NOT more or less bunk. Sure, historical parallels are never exact and history is always written by the victors (the popular view of Richard III referred to above was largely created by Tudor writers seeking to justify the victory of the usurper known to history as Henry VII). But without it, we will be prey to being dominated more by myths than reality - and that could lead us to some very nasty places indeed. It's in our own interests to ensure that hsitory has a future.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-71711655539136453952009-09-14T12:24:00.004+01:002009-09-14T12:45:24.142+01:00I agree with Brendan Barber<a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/cuts-will-lead-to-riots-in-streets-tuc-chief-1.919609">Brendan Barber is absolutely right</a>.<br /><br />I'm so glad we've moved on from the days when the governing party's economic incompetence led to recession <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/16/unemployment-forecast-cbi">which left 3 million people on the dole</a>.<br /><br />I'm delighted we no longer have a government which attacks some of the poorest people in scoiety, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/2420335/Work-in-the-community-to-get-dole-benefit-claimants-to-be-told.html">taking away their benefits</a> and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/05/uk.topstories3">even turning them out of their homes if they can't work</a>.<br /><br />It makes a refreshing change not to have a government which <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14164">blindly supports right-wing Republican presidents in their military escapades</a>.<br /><br />It's terrific not to have a government which <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131708/British-jobs-British-workers-Wildcat-strikes-spread-foreign-workers-shipped-UK.html">panders to the right-wing tabloid press on issues like immigration</a>.<br /><br />And I'm sure I'm not alone in welcoming the fact that we no longer have a government which <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4799689/Gap-between-rich-and-poor-has-widened-under-Labour.html">doesn't care about the gap between rich and poor</a>.<br /><br />Yep, Brendan Barber's totally correct. If we had all those things happening, there would undoubtedly be <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/g20-summit-protests">riots in the streets</a>.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-32204692596995881842009-09-09T21:41:00.002+01:002009-09-09T21:53:43.781+01:00Delight for Michael ShieldsHaving <a href="http://thesoundofgunfire.blogspot.com/2009/07/michael-shields-injustice-continues.html">blogged </a>a while back about Jack Straw's disgraceful decision to deny a pardon for jailed Liverpool fan Michael Shields, I'm delighted that Straw has now reversed that stance and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8246601.stm">released Mr Shields</a>.<br /><br />While this is a very welcome decision, we should not forget that Mr Shields spent four years in jail for a crime he didn't commit. And Straw unnecessarily prolonged that hell by first of all denying he had the right to issue a pardon and then refusing to accept the clear evidence that anyone with even the slightest awareness of this case could see: that Michael Shields was innocent. I don't see what new evidence could have appeared in the last couple of months which Straw would not have been aware of when he made his original decision.<br /><br />But having said that, today is more about celebrating that Mr Shields is a free and innocent man once more.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-28253805127271214392009-09-08T22:04:00.003+01:002009-09-08T23:12:03.146+01:00This is what health fascism looks likeThe British Medical Association is a threat to to our freedom.<br /><br />That's the only conclusion I can come to with the news today that <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8242385.stm">they're seeking a total ban on alcohol advertising</a>. This is an outrageously over the top response to the problems we have in the UK with regard to booze abuse.<br /><br />Let's be clear about this: the doctors want to ban the promotion of a perfectly legal product, enjoyed by millions every day, on the grounds that doing so will somehow reduce the problems of binge drinking and the health problems which result. This is nonsense.<br /><br />If such a ban were introduced, I doubt it would make any real difference to the levels of binge drinking in this country. People don't over-indulge in booze because they've seen an ad on the telly promoting a particular brand of wine or beer - they get drunk because they want to, because of problems in their lives, because they don't know their limits, because they're having too much fun to stop, because of peer pressure, because of 100 different reasons. Indeed, I don't recall seeing too many ads for Buckfast on the telly, but that doesn't stop it being a favourite tipple among teen binge drinkers.<br /><br />As well as being ineffective, such a ban would also be wrong in principle. This isn't the same as banning tobacco advertising. That's a product which has absolutely positive side, whereas there are numerou<a href="http://www.keepthedoctoraway.co.uk/Articles/Drinking:TheHealthBenefits_391.html"></a>s <a href="http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholAndHealth.html">health benefits</a> claimed for <a href="http://www.keepthedoctoraway.co.uk/Articles/Drinking:TheHealthBenefits_391.html">moderate consumption</a> of <a href="http://www.alcohol.gov.au/internet/alcohol/publishing.nsf/Content/01212F447EC2AD34CA257261001F1ACB/$File/alcfs15.pdf">alcohol</a>. So we've got the strange situation that doctors' leaders are wanting to ban the promotion of a product which, in moderation, can have significant health benefits - crazy or what?<br /><br />And a booze ad ban would also have other effects. It's estimated it would <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/08/ad-ban-devastate-media-industries">cost the media industry somewhere in the region of £180m</a> in advertising revenue, at a time when many companies are suffering significantly as a result of the recession. And according to <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article6740686.ece">this story</a> in The Times, drink companies are the second biggest sponsors (behind the financial services sector) of sport in this country, supplying a total of £487 million last year. I wonder how the BMA would propose to fill that £1.4 billion gap between now and the London Olympics if alcohol sponsorship were withdrawn tomorrow?<br /><br />It's time to stop this health fascism nonsense in its tracks. The mad medical zealots can't be allowed to erode our freedom any further.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-33845588182732006982009-09-04T18:48:00.003+01:002009-09-04T19:28:40.260+01:00Farewell to Keith Waterhouse 1929-2009Today is a sad day for all of us who care about the English language, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8238795.stm">as Keith Waterhouse has died</a>.<br /><br />Most of the tributes to him are likely to focus on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Liar">Billy Liar</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Bernard_is_Unwell">Jeffrey Bernard Is Unwell</a>, which is fair enough, as both are modern classics.<br /><br />But as someone who works as a journalist, I wish to highlight Waterhouse's contribution in that area. His book <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Waterhouse-Newspaper-Style-Keith/dp/0140118195/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252087457&sr=8-2">Waterhouse on Newspaper Style</a> should be required reading for all journalists as it is a lively and thought-provoking look at the way we use language. I would also recommend it to non-journalists who have a passion for using words correctly and with flair.<br /><br />Waterhouse's columns for the Daily Mirror and latterly the Daily Mail were among the best bits in both papers. I rarely read the Mail, but if I did and it had one of Waterhouse's columns in, I would savour every word, as there would always be some turn of phrase which surprised or delighted. He always wrote with elegance and wit, so you could appreciate what he was saying even if you disagreed with every word.<br /><br />And Waterhouse will always be a hero for his relentless campaign to improve standards of English in this country. I support the aims of his Association for the Abolition of the Aberrant Apostrophe. He also delighted in pricking official jargon and pomposity.<br /><br />I hope you will all join me in raising a glass to one of the finest writers of his generation.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-54307881819793830282009-09-01T00:07:00.002+01:002009-09-01T00:57:37.338+01:00In (partial) defence of Lembit OpikI don't normally read <a href="http://prawnfreelembit.blogspot.com/">Lembit Opik's column in the Daily Sport</a> - it's not really my preferred sort of reading.<br /><br />But when someone (in this case <a href="http://janewatkinson.blogspot.com/">Jane Watkinson</a> - hello again Jane!) uses one of his articles to make a call for him to be chucked out the party, I'll make it my business to have a look at what he's written to decide if he deserves the suggested punishment.<br /><br />And in this case, not in a million years. I'm not Lembit's biggest fan - I didn't vote for him in either party presidential election - but there is nothing there that would justify a charge of bringing the party into disrepute or withdrawing the party whip from him. Yes, he does sometimes make slightly risque and somewhat sexist jokes in his column, but he also uses it to make some good political points in a way his readership can engage with. Although I'm not keen on the occasional sexism, is it enough to justify chucking him out the party?<br /><br />Even though his column appears in the porn-heavy Daily Sport, I don't think that is sufficient justification for chucking him out either. Let's face it, Nick Clegg has written for the Mail and the Sun, but that doesn't mean he shares those papers' views towards foreigners. Appearing in a paper does not equal approving of everything in that paper.<br /><br />I've known Lembit for several years - I seem to recall getting some public speaking training from him at a youth and student conference at least 15 years ago - and he is somebody who is usually charming and able to engage with people on their own level.<br /><br />I would also say his views are liberal. Although I would disagree with Lembit on the detail of quite a few policies, I am in no doubt that his views are derived from a liberal viewpoint.<br /><br />I also think that the sort of individuality, even eccentricity, that Lembit displays is exactly what our party should be about. Chucking him out the party would send a signal that we're a pretty humourless bunch who want everyone to act and think exactly the same. Is that really the image you want people to have of the party, Jane?<br /><br />That's not to say that everything that Jane says is wrong or over the top. With the talents Lembit has, he should have been challenging for the party leadership by now. Jane is correct to talk about Lembit's fundamental lack of seriousness, which I believe has held him back from achieving all he could have done in politics. Instead, he seems content to revel in the world of being a C-list celebrity.<br /><br />Lembit's done nothing sufficiently bad to justify throwing him out of the party. But this little spat is indicative of his failure as a politician. He's allowed an element of frivolity to become the dominant part of his public persona. If he wants to be thought of as a serious politician rather than just a celeb, he will have to become more serious. I wonder if he's capable of that?Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-45744799972886101372009-08-28T18:18:00.002+01:002009-08-28T18:34:26.412+01:00Stop trolling, Irfan!I'm not going to link to Irfan Ahmed's latest idiotic posting, in which he regurgitates a lie from Tory Bear that the Lib Dems are set to drop their policy of abolishing tuition fees.<br /><br />Not only did Irfan not check his facts (the Lib Dems reaffirmed our opposition to tuition fees as recently as our last conference), he chose to headline his posting 'Fib Dems?'<br /><br />If you look at the post, you'll find Irfan's struck through the text after comments from myself and others which demolished his argument.<br /><br />But this is only the latest instalment of idiocy from Mr Ahmed, following his accusation recently that our party president is a crook. He has had posts in the past which have verged on the anti-semitic and homophobic, as well as one which said women were incapable of taking political decisions and should leave it to men. He has also claimed that there was a moral equivalence between a Tory MP who tried to stop youths from playing football where they shouldn't and the youths who then beat him up.<br /><br />A word of advice, Irfan: stop being such a bloody fool. I'm not the only person who's concluded that you're nothing more than a troll.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-58938867204123391782009-08-27T20:37:00.002+01:002009-08-27T20:57:12.085+01:00The Future of Devolution - draft amendmentAnother motion on the agenda at Bournemouth next month is The Future Of Devolution, proposed by the Scottish and Welsh Liberal Democrats.<br /><br />This is OK as far as it goes, but there is one glaring hole in it, which is that the motion focuses only on Scotland and Wales. There's absolutely no mention of that big bit directly below Scotland and to the right of Wales - what's it called again? Oh yes, England.<br /><br />To have a motion about devolution which doesn't mention the single biggest bit of the UK seems somewhat naive, and possibly a little dangerous given the views sometimes expressed south of the border about the way Scotland and Wales can control their domestic affairs but England can't.<br /><br />Now, it's not really for me to suggest how England ought to govern itself, although I have some ideas on that score. But the issue does need to be discussed at some point.<br /><br />That's why I've drafted the following amendment:<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Add at end:</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Conference also believes that government in England is far too centralised and unaccountable and instructs the Federal Policy Committee to bring forward proposals to Federal Conference within the next 18 months on how this can be tackled.</span><br /><br />As with the Real Women one, if you support this amendment and are a Lib Dem federal conference voting rep, email me at bernardsalmon[at]cix.co.uk with your name, membership number and local party.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-59558959826677502122009-08-27T19:25:00.003+01:002009-08-27T20:15:04.338+01:00Real Women - draft amendmentI've finally got around to reading the new Lib Dem policy paper <a href="http://www.realwomen.org.uk/Real%20Women.pdf">Real Women</a> today.<br /><br />On the whole, I think it's pretty good stuff. It tackles issues that affect women, without making me as a man feel I'm engaged in a massive conspiracy against the entire female population. It proposes lots of sensible, practical ways in which to enable women to improve their own lives.<br /><br />But there are flaws in the motion that Lib Dem federal conference will be discussing next month when we get together in Bournemouth. There are parts of it which assume that some of the problems it seeks to address can be solved by state regulation, rather than through cultural change, which I think is a wrong-headed approach.<br /><br />In particular, I'm thinking of the proposals relating to how women are portrayed in the media. These are either utterly impractical and unenforceable (eg the proposals governing how pictures can be modified) or involve the sort of petty state regulation that Lib Dems should be opposing. The proposals on lessons on body-image involve the sort of centralised control of education that I thought we were against. And the idea to introduce 'name blanking' for job applications is just silly bureaucratic nonsense.<br /><br />That's why I've drafted this amendment, which I'm seeking support for. It's only a draft at the moment, so this may not be quite the final version, but if you're a Lib Dem federal conference voting rep and wish to support it, email me at bernardsalmon[at]cix.co.uk (replace the [at] with an @). I'll need your name, Lib Dem membership number and your local party.<br /><br />This is the amendment:<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Delete sections 3 and 4 (lines 39-52) and replace with:</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><br /><br />3. Proposals to challenge the often narrow portrayal of gender roles within the media, but recognising that this can best be done through a process of cultural change rather than by regulation by the state.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><br />4. Proposals to empower young girls (and boys) to challenge conformity and to decrease their chances of developing eating disorders by encouraging schools and local authorities to develop age-appropriate lessons on body-image and media literacy as part of Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) in schools.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Delete section 6(d) (lines 65-66).</span><br /><br />These are the relevant sections of the motion as they currently stand:<br /><br /><pre></pre><span style="font-style: italic;">3. Proposals to challenge the narrow and overly sexualised aesthetic presented in the media and popular culture by:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">a) Requiring OFCOM and the ASA to mainstream gender equality into their regulation of the media.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">b) Requiring all advertisements to declare the extent to which digital retouching technology has been used to create overly perfected and unrealistic images of women (and men).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">4. Proposals to allow young girls (and boys) the space to challenge conformity and to decrease their chances of developing eating disorders by:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">a) Banning the use of digital retouching technology in advertisements aimed at under 16s, which creates overly perfected and unrealistic images of women (and men); we would work with industry professionals to ensure that legislation was appropriately worded to reflect these aims.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">b) Providing age-appropriate lessons on body-image and media literacy as part of Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) in schools.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">6. Plans to tackle discrimination at work and in pay by:</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">d) Introducing a 'name blanking' policy so that job applicants apply with National Insurance numbers.</span><br /><pre style="font-family: arial; font-style: italic;"></pre>Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-38723183587185977382009-08-19T18:43:00.002+01:002009-08-19T18:59:09.652+01:00A few additions to my blogrollPartly following on from my last post, I've now updated my blogroll. As well as Mark Reckons and Himmelgarten Cafe whom I've already referred to, <a href="http://www.liberalbureaucracy.blogspot.com/">the Honourable Lady Mark</a>, <a href="http://www.dundeewestend.com/">Fraser MacPherson</a>, <a href="http://millenniumelephant.blogspot.com/">that elephant in the room</a>, the <a href="http://socialliberal.net/">Social Liberal Forum</a> (whose two recent posts on the health debate I'd recommend that people read), <a href="http://norfolkblogger.blogspot.com/">Norfolk Blogger</a> and the excellent Welsh Lib Dem site <a href="http://www.freedomcentral.org.uk/">Freedom Central</a> all make it for the first time. I've also got round to updating the often infuriating, frequently plain wrong but always interesting <a href="http://charlottegore.com/">Charlotte Gore</a> from her old site to her new one.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346310154784158602.post-88607052695616732292009-08-19T17:21:00.002+01:002009-08-19T18:03:09.082+01:00Banning MPs' outside jobs would be bad for democracyMark Thompson's <a href="http://markreckons.blogspot.com/">Mark Reckons</a> blog is always thoughtful, well-written and interesting. He's certainly been one of the stars of the Lib Dem blogosphere over the past year. I really must get around some time to adding him to my blogroll, as well as one or two others like the <a href="http://himmelgartencafe.blogspot.com/">cafe owner</a>.<br /><br />But (you knew there was a but coming, didn't you?) I think his <a href="http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2009/08/mps-should-not-have-outside-jobs-mr.html">posting today about stopping MPs from having outside interests</a> is wrong. In a battle of the Marks, <a href="http://liberalbureaucracy.blogspot.com/2009/08/mps-and-second-jobs-this-mark-reckons.html">Mr Bureaucracy</a> also takes issue with Mr Reckons. I largely agree with Mark V that it's none of our business, but I also have other concerns.<br /><br />I want our parliaments to be composed of as wide a range of people as possible. If MPs were banned from having second jobs, I suspect the sort of people who get elected would become even narrower than they are already.<br /><br />Mark Reckons does allow some exceptions, for people who have been directors of their own businesses who might wish to keep involved in the running of their firms. But if that's OK, why should a GP not be allowed to practise at least part-time? Given the vagaries of politics, they could be out of a job in a few years and face the prospect of either getting a new profession or having to undergo retraining to update their skills. Indeed, we've already had <a href="http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/MP-Stoate-to-step-down-newsinkent26715.aspx">GP Howard Stoate deciding to stand down as an MP</a>, as he feared new rules about second jobs would not allow him to continue to practise.<br /><br />Or what about a journalist? Part of the job of a politician is to debate ideas and policies, which can be done through writing articles for the media. It seems rather unfair that a journalist who becomes an MP could continue to get paid for writing articles, but a GP couldn't continue to practise.<br /><br />And if being a doctor or a journalist is also OK, why not a lawyer or a forex trader or an astrophysicist? By denying those people the right to continue to have paid outside interests, you're more likely to find they'll decide that standing for Parliament just isn't worth it in terms of the career sacrifice.<br /><br />We already have a problem with politicians being drawn from an increasingly narrow section of the population, with student politics being followed by a job with an MP or a think tank, followed by election as a local councillor and then on into Parliament, and so on up the greasy pole. I want people in politics who have a wider experience of life than just politics. Stopping MPs from having paid outside interests would only make that problem much worse.Bernard Salmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com3