Mike Causey – Wrecclesham and Rowledge
Waverley Borough CouncillorArchive for Parliament
Mr Harris and his ‘career’
How very revealing. Upon reading the Telegraph this morning over breakfast, I turned to the comments pages (as I often do) to find out what was top of the agenda for thoughtful insight. And I found myself reading a Labour MP’s comments on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Committee.
I’m not going to dive into a full throttled defence of, or offence against, IPSA. I don’t know enough to make a judgement on whether MPs are whining too much, or making valid points. However, I couldn’t help but gasp at the unintended transparency of Mr Harris’ view of his political position. It’s his “career”. And I pick this out as I believe it’s incredible that any MP should really believe this.
Being an MP is a privilege and a temp job. It’s never a career. To think of it as such is to reveal that one does not have the right view of the role.
And so, that then makes me suspicious of at least this MP’s view of IPSA. I’m imagining that there must be some truth is all the shouting about it, but I’m not convinced.
What the… ?
How is it possible that one of our government ministers can say that he may possibly abstain on a vote about a policy for which he is accountable?
It’s not often that I agree with a Labour shadow minister (John Denham), but it is ‘outrageous’ that Vince Cable can say this about his own policy, and think that it doesn’t bring his role and department into disrepute. And, devalue government policy making in general.
Lawlessness of Laws
Despair has almost set in. Having been in general pretty pleased with the way that the coalition government has settled in over the past months, and with conviction and a good measures of common sense begun to wield the austerity agenda about, I find myself desparately disheartened by our Prime Minister’s apparent eagerness to welcome back into the fold someon whose actions would have left them permanently without a job in my company. Our Code of Conduct is clear – spending the organisation’s money on paying a relative or close personal friend is unacceptable. Full stop. Why is it so difficult for our MPs to get this?
I’m not making a judgment on how skilled David Laws might be at his work, or the fact that parliament might well be quite short on good people to be ministers (although that’s in and of itself quite an indictment of the calibre and breadth of background of our politicians).
What I’m saying is that it’s unacceptable that behaviours that would mean dismissal in most employment circumstances, seem to invite only temporary and partial penalty in our government. If anything our MPs should expect to be held to higher standards, and this situation only serves to highlight what a gulf continues to exist between parliament’s expectations of behaviour and our own.
Talking God
I would normally dash straight home after landing at 6 am on a Saturday morning at London Heathrow, having returned from a week’s work in Singapore. But, today I was drawn into London by the prospect of attending Theos‘s conference on ‘God and Government’.
A keen reader of Theos publications (which are typically about 40 pages long – just perfect for reading in one sitting and retaining in one’s mind enough of each chapter and emphasis to make sense of the end in light of the beginning), I was excited to be in the company of like-minded believers who strive to make their faith relevant and audible in the public square, particularly in political debate.
I wasn’t disappointed, especially by Jonathan Chaplin and Joshua Hordern of the Kirby Laing Institute For Christian Ethics (KLICE), based in Cambridge. In my opinion, the best publication by Theos so far has been Jonathan’s “Talking God – The Legitimacy of Religious Public Reasoning” which sets an incredibly high standard for clarity of writing, thought and reasoning, and which I cannot recommend highly enough.
If you believe that faith belongs outside of political discourse, then I challenge you to read some of the Theos publications and think again. I believe that it’s imperative for the well being of our nation that religious public reasoning retains its place in the public square.
Forgive, but don’t Forget.
Reading in the weekend Financial Times about the barring of Phil Woolas from the House of Commons elicits many thoughts, and I’ve tried to capture them below, in no particular order:
(1) It’s a good thing for British politics that such ugly smear tactics as employed in the general election by Mr Woolas are now linked to a clear and firm sanction. I hope I’m not naive enough to believe that this will stop all such behaviour, but I do believe that it will curb the excesses that sadly do nothing at all to encourage professional, courteous and ethical – yet robust and direct – campaigning and debate.
(2) Ed Miliband’s appointment of Mr Woolas to the shadow cabinet surprises me greatly. The evidence again his shadow immigration minister was strong, and papers had indicated the strong possibility of his conviction. Now, newspapers are not the bastions of truthfulness that they’d want you to believe, and so sole reliance on such reports to inform shadow cabinets should not be encouraged. But surely the leader of opposition knows that the risk was high, and that the country deserved better?
(3) ‘Forgive and Forget’ is a neat phrase, but in this instance I’d suggest a societal ‘Forgive but don’t Forget’. I mean that we should hold the capacity to forgive Mr Woolas for his behaviour, and hope that he sincerely seeks to serve our society in other ways and with betters ethics. For an example, look at the way in which our country was well served by Mr Profumo after he departed parliament under scandalous circumstances, and at his death was lauded for the quiet way in which he did so much good. But, I hope that we do not forget the unacceptable nature of smear tactics and that MPs (and MEPs and local councillors for that matter) consciously make a note that we expect better from our would-be representatives.
Insulted? A consequence of free speech
Dear Jeremy,
I’ve been considering the Freedom Bill recently – the bill referenced in the “Political Reform, Draft Structural Reform Plan” of 27 July 2010. I’m encouraged by the coalition’s intent to repeal the ill-advised and perhaps even nonsensical acts of law (or parts thereof) that were passed under the past years of Labour Government.
May I suggest a possible inclusion? That the word “insulting” is removed from Section 5 of the Public Order Act.
I believe in free speech, and that it is so important that we must accept that it is possible that what others say may insult us. And I write this in light of the fact that this section of the Public Order Act has recently been used too many times to justify the arrest of individuals expressing their religious beliefs about lifestyle, sexuality and other faiths.
Christians absolutely do not wish or intend to insult others, but equally absolutely believe in the tenets of their faith. Expressing them should not be at risk of criminal charge.
Will you support the removal of the word “insulting” from Section 5 of the Public Order Act?
Yours faithfully,
Mike Causey
Curry and Competence
It’s late, but I must just post a few thoughts on the SW Farnham Conservatives’ Curry Supper last night at Rowledge Village Hall.
As ever the curries were fantastic, and we always seem to have some leftover. Ah well: curries are always better a few days later anyway!
It was fantastic to have Jeremy Hunt MP with us and, even though he had just returned from Los Angeles and must have been suffering from at least a measure of jet lag (as well as more importantly missing his family), he spent a generous time with us, speaking eloquently and informatively, then answering a good number of questions. He is such a competent man and we are extremely well served by him in government.
I won’t dwell on his LA trip (except to say that it was to investigate how to encourage greater opportunities for new industry in the UK and sounded successful). Instead, I wish to draw out a point he made in answer to my question on whether addressing MPs’ expenses and compensation continues to have momentum under the coalition government.
In responding, he highlighted what he saw as the key change driving better behaviour: transparency – namely that when MPs claim their expenses (even before they are scrutinised or approved), the claim is available online for all to see. I’ll buy that. Public and peer scrutiny is a powerful persuader. And in the words of my employer’s Code of Conduct, it’s essentially a “red-face test”.
