The level of political debate, as the election gets closer, continues to decline. The Guardian reports…
Peter Mandelson raises stakes in Lord Ashcroft row
Business secretary says Ashcroft has Cameron ‘by the balls’ and that affair reveals ‘fundamental weakness’
The Guardian reports: “In a highly personal attack, the business secretary said in an interview with the Guardian that Ashcroft had Cameron “by the balls”, the affair showed Cameron was “too weak to pick a fight with his own party” and the Tories were “fundamentally unchanged”.
The story is no longer about non-doms – Labour has a few of those lurking in the deep as well – but about integrity and controlling power. Ashcroft, having made undertakings about tax to a point that Hague said publicly that Ashcroft would be paying tens of millions in taxes, did a quiet deal behind the scenes to ‘alter the effect of the undertaking’ and then, it would appear, kept Hague in the dark until ‘two months ago’. Hague then seems to have kept Cameron in the dark, given Cameron’s statement that he knew only a month ago. It is clear now why Cameron wanted to draw a line under the mater and tried to fob the Press off by saying that the horse was now dead so there was no need to continue flogging it.
Unfortunately for Cameron, the horse is very much alive and the left continues to probe and raise the issue.
Photography under threat: The shooting party’s over
The Times, a bit behind the curve on this issue, asks: Did you hear the one about the mother banned from taking a snapshot of her baby in the pool? Or the student prevented from photographing Tower Bridge at sunset? Be warned. The authorities now have the power to confiscate your camera — or even arrest you — for daring to take a picture in public…
The Independent covered this some time back and, indeed, so did the blogs but it remains, nevertheless an important issue about Police, Police Community Support Officers and others exceeding their powers and, of course, Parliament giving these people too many powers. While I am disposed towards the Labour party their record on civil liberties and the explosion of new criminal laws is very poor and the Libertarians, left or right leaning, are right – government needs to curb its taste for knee jerking. Clarkson got it right recently when he said that one man getting on to a plane with exploding underpants has produced fear in the minds of Americans who seem curiously afraid of a lot of things compared to British and Europeans more used to terror outrages on our soil and our government has followed suit with a raft of poorly thought out laws giving poorly trained police et al the opportunity to ‘big it up’ in their high Viz yellow jackets.
Whatever flavour or colour of government wins the next election – the nanny state tendency and political correctness really does have to be looked at. I read somewhere at the weekend that Harriet Harman has now managed to ban use of the term ‘Chairman’ in parliament. I have never been a great fan of gender when it comes to nouns (This is something foreigners do with their languages!) and I can’t really get hot under the collar about a female leading a panel being described as ‘Chair’ or ‘Chairwoman’ when there are rather more pressing issues to worry about. I am not running the country. Ms Harman is. Perhaps she could get on with doing so on the ‘bigger issues of our times’?
There is far too much interference in our lives from central and local government. CCTV cameras watch our every move, microchips are fitted in our rubbish bins to make sure we don’t overfill them or put in the wrong stuff, PCSOs, when they are not gathered in groups eating buns on street corners, are misapplying the law with tourists and members of the public, police officers are hesitating to break doors down to save people’s lives because of health & safety laws,… the list goes on and on and on… and worse, our government (and I doubt whether the Tories would be any better) continues with kneejerk policy making nd dancing to the tune of tabloids who are more interested in selling newspapers to their mass readership than the fine detail and intricacy of good government.
An example of dancing to the tune of the tabloids is the clamour for the government to release details as to why Jon Venables has been returned to prison. I was appalled, as all were, by the horrific abduction and killing of a very young boy by two juveniles all those years ago. I have every sympathy for the family who continue to serve a ‘life sentence’ of misery as a result of their son being murdered, but I do also feel that as Venables now faces serious charges, law and procedure must be followed to ensure that Venables gets a fair trial for the offence he committed – a serious offence which merited his being returned to prison. Surely everyone is entitled to that… or do the tabloids have a greater right than the individual?
Iraq inquiry: Gordon Brown says war was ‘right’
The BBC reports: “Gordon Brown has told the Iraq inquiry the war had been “right” – and troops had all the equipment they needed. The PM also insisted he had not been kept in the dark by Tony Blair despite not being aware of some developments.”
Godon Brown gave a very competent performance at the Iraq Inquiry – perhaps aided by the lack of forensic questioning skills of the inquisitors which allowed him to evade the difficult follow up questions – or to be more accurate, move on to the next question because there were no penetrating follow up questions as there would have been had experienced counsel been handling the questioning. Armed Forces ‘top brass’ popped up on Newsnight and elsewhere to say various things – ranging from Brown being ‘economical with the truth’ to making disingenuous’ statements. Certainly, Brown gave a far better performance than I expected – and he knew his brief and the detail. More importantly, he had the balls… to use a metaphor from the opening section of this Review… to acknowledge the debt we owe to our armed forces and their families and to acknowledge the suffering of the families. Blair did not do so. Unfortunately, Brown is now being castigated by the press, bloggers and others for making political capital by going to visit the troops in Afghanistan. Sometimes, a prime minister just cannot win.
Libel success fees limited to 10%
The Law Society Gazette reports: “The success fees charged by lawyers in defamation cases will be cut by 90% after justice secretary Jack Straw laid an order to amend the laws on ‘no win, no fee’ agreements. From April the maximum uplift charged by lawyers for winning defamation cases taken on under conditional fee agreements will be reduced from 100% to 10% of their original fee, subject to parliamentary approval.
The Ministry of Justice said the amendment is designed to prevent legal costs in defamation cases spiralling out of control. It follows its four-week consultation ‘Controlling costs in defamation proceedings’, which was published in January.Straw said the move would ‘help level the playing field’ so that journalists and writers can continue to publish articles that are in the public interest without incurring disproportionate legal bills.
So… are things looking up?
The Lawyer reports: Eversheds has become the latest firm to reopen its graduate recruitment programme after confirming it has offered positions to all of the trainees it deferred in 2009 as well as its scheduled 2010 cohort. In total the firm expects to take on 76 trainee solicitors in 2010 made up of 49 from its 2010 intake and the 27 candidates it deferred from 2009.
CEO Bryan Hughes said: “Whilst the economy remains fragile in some areas we’re seeing the benefits of having proactively managed our business as our performance continues to improve.”
Soon every Swiss dog could have his day in court
The Times reports: “There is no better place than Switzerland to be a chicken. Or a hamster. Or even — though the jury is still out on this — a goldfish.
The reason is that the country has an extraordinary set of animal protection laws that closely define the obligations of pet owners and farmers.
Now it is about to go a step farther: a national referendum tomorrow will decide whether to allow animals official legal representation.
The canton of Zurich already has an animal advocate, Antoine Goetschel, a kind of courtroom Dr Dolittle who, for the past two years, has been fighting the corner for flogged horses, depressed Dalmatians and tortured fish.
A “yes” vote will place publicly funded animal welfare lawyers, like Mr Goetschel, across the country. “Then I think the Government should create some form of academy or educational forum for animal barristers,” Mr Goetschel said. “These are not skills learnt at law school.”
This may well be a step too far for us… but we aren’t far behind. I understand, following recent tabloid reports about dangerous dogs ripping faces off children, that the government plans to bring in a National Dog Owning test before anyone can keep a dog. I’m reasonably sure, without needing to set up a Quango to look into it, that the great majority of pet owners in this country love and care for their animals well – but, yet again, a very small minority provides an opportunity for nanny to get her ruler out and be stern…. will this absurd knee jerking interference never end?
More later in the day…
I wonder what kind of spike we can expect to see in CFA signings, and defamation claim issuings, for the next couple of weeks?
As regards Cashcroft, he has apparently directed his money into marginal constituencies.
Which ones?
How much?
When?
I think we should be told, to borrow a phrase. Anyone else up for a sustained campaign of asking ‘Dave’, Conservative Central Office, the likely constituency Conservative associations and the relevant prospective Conservative parliamentary candidates?
I’m prepared to join in but it needs a team. Anyone else up for it? It probably needs a website to publish the results.
‘I can’t really get hot under the collar about a female leading a panel being described as ‘Chair’ or ‘Chairwoman’ when there are rather more pressing issues to worry about.’
i can. at least i don’t see why the term chairman should be used with its old sexist connotations when it hurts nobody to use the term ‘chair’. language creates attitudes and defines our world. you know very well how powerful it is charon. the more hangovers from the days when the white male elite were totally in charge (as opposed to largely) we can get rid of the better for us all, don’t you think? it’s a no-brainer for me.
thinking of qualifying as an animal lawyer – bugger – i’m not an animal. oh well, there goes another career path.