ThunderDragon Blog

There is controversy over the unveiling of a statue of David Lloyd George in Parliament Square. Apparently it wrong to put up a statue to Lloyd George because he ordered bombings in Iraq between 1916 and 1922, which “makes today’s celebration of Lloyd George’s legacy highly topical and disgraceful.”

What on earth are Harold Pinter, John Pilger and Denis Halliday on about in their letter to the Telegraph? Whilst Lloyd George wasn’t perfect, it is hardly “disgraceful” to erect a statue of him in Parliament Square.

The reaction to Lloyd George’s statue is especially remarkable in contrast with the reaction when a statue to Nelson Mandela was erected in Parliament Square. The BBC article on Mandela’s statue has absolutely no mention of his less-than-salubrious past and objections to his statue because of it, whilst the article on Lloyd George has more on the opposition to his statue than support for it.

Mandela was a terrorist. No matter what the cause for which he fought, his actions ticked absolutely every box of that definition. Lloyd George, on the other hand, just authorised bombings during a war! There is no denying that Lloyd George has more right to have a statue in Parliament Square than Nelson Mandela. To start with, he was a British Prime Minister, and not a terrorist!

So why, why was there a deafening silence on opposition to Mandela’s statue but the utter opposite for the far more noble and deserving Lloyd George?

Source: BBC

Thirteen days ago, a Sunday Telegraph poll put the Conservatives on 43%, Labour on 36%, and the Lib Dems on 14%. Today, a Daily Telegraph poll today puts the Conservatives on 41%, Labour on 38%, and the Lib Dems on just 11%. These were done by two different pollers - ICM for the Sunday Telegraph, and You Gov for the Daily Telegraph - and so show that the Tories are consistently beating Labour, for now at least.

This means that the Tories are now on top. Maybe not by much, but they are. Their lead after party conference and Brown chickening out of an election is nore than just a blip. The very least that can be said for now is that it is a sustained blip.

The biggest issue with the polls has to be for the Lib Dems. They are now severely behind where the level they were at at the last general election - and even dumping Ming hasn’t helped them yet. They will get a bounce in the polls when either TweedleClegg or TweedleHuhne is selected to be leader, but it won’t last. The Lib Dems go up and down in the polls despite what they do, rather than because of it - as they are, after all, primarily a protest party. They might nick a few points of both sides, but a huge number from neither.

This is a good poll for the Conservatives, a bad one for the Lib Dems, and a not-so-good-but-it-could-be-worse poll for Labour. The challenge is for the Conservatives to hold and extend this lead, and for the Lib Dems to prevent internal panic and to use this point as a measure of how well their new leader - whichever he is - is doing.

£135,000 each in just one year?! The MP who claimed the most was Labour minister Shahid Malik [who must be the big pig on the far right in the picture above], claiming £185,421, which can be contrasted with the lowest - Tory MP Philip Hollobone, who claimed just £44,551, less than a quarter than Shahid Malik!

By average claim per party, the Liberal Democrat MPs claim £140,756 each; Labour MPs claim £138,366; and Conservative MPs £129,948 on average. The top claimers are the SNPs six members, with an average of £154,231.

It’s all way too much, as it adds up to £87.6m! A 5% like-for-like rise on last year. MPs either need a pay cut or closer inspection of their expense claims. I think the latter is the best choice.

Source: BBC

What are they going to suggest as a means to stop this? Banning Google Earth? There isn’t anything that can be done to stop them from using it. Quite an ingenious idea, though, really. Very clever use of available resources.

Sources: The Guardian, The Telegraph

This is quite probably the most liberal thing that Labour has done in more than a decade of government:

But the reasoning has nothing to do with liberalism, but rather populism:

But I suppose the right thing done for the wrong reason is still the right thing.

Maybe they will use this new-found liberalism to cut the absurd number of laws that they have passed? Maybe they will use this new-found consideration of the people to decide to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution “Reform Treaty”? Ok, maybe not - but we can dream!

Source: BBC

What are the biggest political misjudgements? Paul Linford has listed his top 10 in a very good post, all of which make sense - bar one. The political misjudgement that he lists as the second biggest is actually the utter opposite. Paul says:

Unfortunately, Paul has got it wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Enoch’s “Rivers of Blood” speech was the very reason he could ever have been elected leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister, not the reason he wasn’t.

Until he made that speech, in any leadership election he would have been nothing more than an also-ran - just like he had been in 1965, when Edward Heath was elected Conservative leader, and Powell polled just 5% of the vote, with just 15 votes. It was after his infamous speech that Powell’s reputation with the people and his profile began to rise. It was precisely because of the speech for which he was widely criticised, but ultimately vindicated by shifts policy shifts across all parties, that he became well known.

Before 20 April 1968, Enoch was nothing more than just another mid-level politician - generally regarded quite well, but nothing more. After his speech and the reactions he got, that all changed. He rose in the opinion polls personally and as a potential leadership candidate should Heath step down, becoming far more well known and liked than others of his party.

But then Enoch made his big misjudgement - he stepped down as the MP for Wolverhampton South West at the February 1974 general election, and called for the electorate to vote Labour instead [primarily because the Tories had taken Britain in the EEC and Labour promised a referendum on the issue - at least they gave one that time]. That election ended with a hung parliament with Labour the largest party, and was followed by Labour winning a Commons majority of 3 in October of the same year.

Had Enoch remained a Conservative MP in February 1974, it is very likely that he would have been asked to replace Heath as leader, and is unlikely to have faced any opposition for the position. The last part of Paul’s “what might have happened” could have. But without making his “Rivers of Blood” speech - the very speech which Paul considers to have been Enoch’s political misjudgement - he would never have been any more than an also-ran in any leadership race. That speech in 1968 was the one thing that could have led him to be Prime Minister, not the one thing that stopped him. That distinction undoubtedly goes to his decision is stand down as a Conservative MP in February 1974.

I am very much for this modernisation. As I wrote before when the idea was raised:

Quite frankly, it is a long overdue modernisation. In fact, I would go further and say that MPs should also be allowed to take laptops in. That way, MPs can continue doing constituency and other work whilst aiding in holding the government to account.

Having the ability to do other work whilst waiting to speak in a debate would also allow MPs to increase their efficiency and give us, the British taxpayers, better value for money. Instead of sitting on the green benches for
hours with little or nothing that they can do, having the opportunity to do other work, such as answering constituents’ emails.

Britain is a modern nation, and it is really about time that our democratic institutions begin to reflect this… Of course, precautions would have to be taken with the noise that such equipment makes, but that should really be a minor effect, especially if silent “rubber keyboards” like those on the Welsh Assembly computers were used.

It is simply about time that MPs can email in the Commons. Iain Dale is “totally against” it, but I just can’t see any reasons why. It just makes no sense. Parliament must not be cut off from society.

I am also very much for the “open questions” period, but I’m not convinced by the idea of giving new MPs three weeks to “settle in” before the House of Commons returns to session after a general election.