|  |
Home |  | |
Events | | |
Contact Us | | |
Links | |
|
In this section
- News RSS |
|
Sunday, 31 January, 2010 
I was out and about in the villages around Barrow yesterday and I dropped into a Coffee Morning being run in aid of restoring a local landmark. Whilst chatting to people it transpired that one lady had done her original Teacher training at my old Infant School (Hartburn Primary School) just before I started school. It is situations like this which remind you just what a small world we live in. It also reminded me of a time when I was a SCUBA Diving Instructor in South Africa and this guy came into the Dive Shop in Johannesburg to enquire about learning to dive. It turned out he had been in my brother’s year at school and his parents lived in the street behind my parents.
The second spooky event was when another lady told me that her parents had lived above the slaughter house in a flat in the attic. They had just had a curtain to separate them from the activities below. It kind of puts our current housing shortage into perspective.
Friday, 29 January, 2010
A few days ago it was Holocaust Memorial Day. Most people think of the Nazi’s but there have been other genocides since then. In the 20th Century, this included countries such as Rwanda, Cambodia and of course the former Yugoslavia. Under Stalin, the forces of marxist socialism murdered even more, through forced labour, gulags, shootings and starvation, than even the Nazi’s managed and historians will continue to debate which ‘ism, was responsible for the deaths of the most innocent people. This year also marks the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and it is this and the particular nature of the Nazi Final Solution that marks it out. The Nazi holocaust was carried out by a ‘civilised advanced and cultured’ European nation (not my phrase) and it was carried out with mechanical, industrial, and bureaucratic efficiency, against Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and any other group the Nazi’s deemed undesirable.
There is a common view that it was carried out just by a relatively small group of dedicated Nazi’s and in secret. The evidence seems to point to the contrary: it was wasn’t carried out randomly - it was planned, it didn’t rely on a small group of individuals - it was an enterprise which involved most sections of German society, some of whom knew exactly what they were doing, and others who didn’t question it, and although elements were kept secret, the evidence is that most people had an inkling of what the various euphemisms such as ‘resettlement in the East’, ‘special treatment’ or ‘special handling’ actually meant.
This anniversary prompted me to look up a book I read many years ago called ‘Hitler’s Willing Executioners – ordinary Germans and the Holocaust’ by Daniel Goldhagen. This book looks at the various stages of the holocaust: from the initial phase of de-humanizing the Jews and separating them from normal life, the programme of shootings carried out in occupied Russia, the industrial killing operations of the Death Camps and finally the forced marches as the territory occupied by the Third Reich was liberated.
What is shocking and surprising is when he looks at the socio-economic background of the perpetrators, who carried out the shootings or manned the Death Camps, he found that they were representative of German society as a whole. The Police battalion units and camp guards had the same proportion of married men, fathers, church goers, middle class, working class, graduates, and the like as made up most German Army units. They were typically older than front line soldiers but that was the only real difference, and can be explained by the simple fact that the young men were needed for the front line.
He also dispels the idea that people couldn’t object and sites examples of when people requested transfers from shooting parties and of course the fact that the initial programme of killing disabled and incurable people was stopped, for a while, because of objections.
Far from being a small scale activity perpetrated by a small number, he also shows that many sheer scale of the Death Camps meant that many Germans were involved, including: civil servants, industry which built the camps, gas chambers and crematoriums, railways which provided the transport, local police which did the round ups and the SS of course.
Once the mass shootings started in earnest in the occupied Eastern territories the Germans found that this method of killing people was time consuming and inefficient. With typical efficiency they set about finding a better way of carrying out mass murder and the Death Camps were the result. Auschwitz was the main camp and it was chosen because of its remoteness and good rail links so that merely by extending the local rail lines victims could be taken straight into the camp. Once they were unloaded from the trains people were either gassed immediately or sent to work in the labour camp. Women, children, the old, the infirm, all went straight to the gas chambers; families were separated on the rail siding never to see each other again.
Meanwhile in Berlin the bureaucrats worried about timetables, schedules, numbers of ‘units processed’, productivity, and record keeping. They excused themselves that they were just following orders, or that they were merely a clerk and didn’t do the killings themselves. And, it all worked because the machinery of the state was focussed on this one goal, the bureaucracy got on with its job.
Someone once said we are only one generation away from a dictator ship, but more scary for me is just how quickly the bureaucracy was harnessed into running the final solution. So many Germans were involved, either by choice or by choosing to stay silent.
That is why we must not forget.
Tuesday, 26 January, 2010
The GDP figures were published today and thankfully show the first signs of economic growth after 18 months of recession – the longest and deepest since the war. Of course, the end of the Great Recession is good news – even though we were one of the first big economies into recession, and the last out, however with a growth rate of only 0.1% it is a fragile recovery at best. Now we are coming out of recession, Labour’s Debt Crisis is the biggest threat to our recovery. As the Director-General of the CBI says in The Times today, ‘one of the troubles with the Government’s programme [of debt reduction] is that it’s long on aspirations and short on details, and it’s stretched out over the lifetime of two whole Parliaments.’ As any family with a credit card knows, the more we spend and the longer we wait to pay off our bills, the worse it gets.
You can find plenty of comments on other blogs but I think this one sums up the relative position:
To put that into words here are five facts about Labour’s Debt Crisis:
We can’t go on like this. We need change and a Conservative government to get a grip on our debt crisis.
Monday, 25 January, 2010
Link to an article George wrote for the Times today:
Friday, 22 January, 2010
DISCLAIMER: For the benefit of any Labour Party members or other trolls who may read this, it is in no way related to party policy formulation and is merely me thinking about and setting out some arguments in response to this question I was asked by a member of the public and I always try and answer the question I am asked. This posting has been a long time in development and was originally prompted by a question I had from a gentleman (ex Royal Navy) whilst out canvassing for the local elections last June. I have revisited it, and updated it, as representative of the types of questions we should be asking ourselves in the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review if we are truly looking for transformative changes within our defence forces. You could just as easily ask similar questions like ‘do we need tanks anymore?’ or ‘do we need aircraft carriers?’
The main point the person I spoke too was arguing was that the point of having a separate organisation, the RAF, had passed and that the RAF’s role could be split amongst the Royal Navy and the Army. I think this argument is based on the fact that the inception of the RAF, and if my memories from my RAF Air Cadet days are right, was that it was to be an ‘independent air force’ able to wage a bombing campaign separate from the land and naval campaigns. Threnchard who founded the RAF certainly believed this and he founded a bomber force, which grew into the huge strike force of WW2. The proponents of these bomber forces believed that strategic bombing could win wars (the bomber will always get through) and needed to be used without distraction from calls on airpower for other reasons, such as supporting the army or Navy. This view was personified by Bomber Harris, who commanded Bomber Command during WW2. For example he resented diverting bombers from the attacks on German cities to support D-Day. After the war Bomber Command, before it was amalgamated into Strike Command, took on the mantle of delivering strategic nuclear weapons until this role was passed to the Royal Navy with Polaris.
Today the RAF provides:
The RAF is now more focussed as an expeditionary force, able to be deployed in support of ground forces rather than an ‘independent air force’ planning to wage a separate campaign from the land and sea campaigns. This is ironic given that the technology now exists in SMART bombs to actually do what Trenchard always hoped, and bring about victory independent of land or sea war by destroying the enemies capacity to wage war. The best example of this was the air campaign waged by NATO against Serbia over Kosovo when it was just air power that changed Serbian policy and no ground campaign was needed. However the limits of air power have been shown up in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has shown that it is one thing to win a war, but another to win the peace.
So if you decided that you didn’t want a separate air force, you could argue that:
That leaves you with:
So what would you save?
Well there would be less need for the top brass, although this would be partly offset by expanded command teams in the Army and RN which would take over these responsibilities. I suppose also you would remove one competing head of the armed forces in the usual battles about funding which may be helpful.
Longer term there may be more scope for preventing a big procurement decision crowding out others. For example, at some point the Tornado needs to be replaced, it may be better to buy an aircraft that can be used on carriers as well as land instead of buying aircraft for the RN and different aircraft for the RAF.
The drawback is that the fighting for funds would still exist, albeit with two fighters instead of three and other than a few top Air Marshals I’m not that certain you would save a lot of money. I am also not so certain that you need to abolish the RAF to achieve synergies in procurement of flexible aircraft for use on land or at sea.
As I said at the outset this article does not seek to provide answers, merely set out a few brief arguments and prompt a debate.
Thursday, 21 January, 2010
Common observations made about Politicians is that we are can’t be trusted, we never give a straight answer to a straight question and we are all dishonest. Occasionally when people have responded to a letter or leaflet I have sent out they have expressed quite clearly that as a group, politicians are not highly respected…to say the least. It’s nice, therefore from time to time to get an email or letter from a member of the public that actually thanks you for giving a straight answer. It’s refreshing in our cynical times but also sad that it seems to happen so infrequently.
Maybe I’m not very experienced at the darker side of politics, or maybe I just can’t be bothered speaking bull but I can’t see the point of standing for public office if you are just going to lie and cheat. There again maybe I am just some kind of old fashioned romantic fool, but I’d rather be that than be seen as a shyster.
I’ve said it before, and I will keep saying it, ask me a question and I’ll try and give you an answer. You may not like my answer, you may think I’m wrong but that is what I’ve done to date and I’m damned if I’m going to change it.
That’s the way I am, I tell it as I see it, and I serve you the voters and my conscience and no one else.
Tuesday, 19 January, 2010
Dan Hannan has the following story on his blog: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100022697/why-tax-cuts-are-bound-to-favour-the-rich/ Suppose that every day, ten men went to the pub, and drank exactly £100 worth of ale among them. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, the breakdown would be roughly as follows:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank contentedly together in the saloon bar until the landlord, meaning to be helpful, presented them with a dilemma.
“Gentlemen,” he said, “you’re my best customers. To show you how much I appreciate your trade, I’d like to give you a discount. From now on, I’ll knock £20 of the total bill for your drinks”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group wanted to carry on splitting their bill in the way that we pay our taxes. So, obviously, the first four men, those least well off, would continue to enjoy free beer. What, though, of the other six? How could they divide the £20 discount in such a way that everyone got his fair share of the windfall?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, following the principle of the tax system they had been using. This is how the bill now looked.
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100 per cent saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33 per cent saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28 per cent saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25 per cent saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22 per cent saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16 per cent saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to enjoy free booze. But, as they left the pub, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a pound out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He jabbed an accusing finger at the tenth man,”Why should he get £10?”
“Too right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a pound too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got two measly quid? The system is rigged in favour of the toffs!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. It’s always the worst off who get neglected by the politicians!”
The nine men dragged the tenth into the carpark and gave him a thorough kicking.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beer without him. But when the bill came, they found that their money didn’t even cover half of it.
Monday, 18 January, 2010
The first of a series of economic forecasts are out today from the Ernst & Young ITEM Club. They are predicting a ‘decade of pain after the massive public debt binge’ and that:
On Tuesday the Bank of England will release the next set of inflation figures with the CPI expected to rise above its 2% target meaning the UK has the highest inflation rate in Europe because the Eurozone has an inflation rate of 0.5%. The CPI is expected to rise above the 3% level once the return of VAT to 17.5% is added on from next month.
Thursday will see the publication of the public borrowing figures for December and are likely to hit an all-time high of £20.3bn for a single month, meaning net borrowing for the eight months of the financial year so far stands at £106.4bn and is expected to hit £178bn for the year as a whole.
ITEM Club's chief economist Peter Spencer said:
“We are no longer in a position to borrow - the massive debts that we racked up in the last decade now need to be repaid.”
So if you can’t borrow, you either cut spending or raise taxes, neither of which are very popular.
Brace yourselves for this flood of news!
Sunday, 17 January, 2010
This commentator thinks they are:
Thursday, 14 January, 2010
There was a lot of speculation in the newspaper yesterday following the publication of a Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) report which said defence faced cuts of between 11 and 15%. This equates to a further reduction in force levels of 30,000 personnel and cuts to aircraft, ships, tanks and other equipment. Liam fox refused to speculate and said:
“A strategic defence review (SDR) is the appropriate place to determine the shape of the Armed Forces and to ensure that we have sufficient fighting men for the task required and that commitments are matched with resources.”
Inevitably there are calls for this or that to be cut and Ming Campbell called for the post-election strategic defence review to consider not having a like for like replacement for Trident, and also “a far higher degree of integration with Europe” on defence. His argument is for “force specialisation”, whereby different nations specialised in key areas, and added that other countries were sympathetic to the idea given the financial situation. He added that if frontline services are to be protected “defence has to take its share of the damage” and added but warned that there shouldn’t be salami cuts in the budget.
Although it is frustrating, for those of us who want to just get on with the review, I tend to agree with Liam on this, that the SDR is the appropriate place for these decisions and there is no point on having a SDR if you have already decided what you will do. Where I do agree with Ming is that I think a salami slice approach is the worst outcome. If we did this then we will cut each defence capability and in an attempt to maintain all capabilities we end up being able to do none very effectively. This has effectively what has happened since 1997 (and to a certain extent before also) and we are a reaching a point where we will not be able to do anything of any significance. I wouldn’t agree with him on force specialisation however because that would mean we did not have the capability to act in our own interests.
The key questions to consider are:
My own views on this have been set out on this blog on a number of occasions. We are a trading nation, a long way from potential problem areas and for me this means we need a more maritime based strategy with a fully equipped Navy.
This needs to be a balanced force able to do two main duties:
What is certain is that change to defence is coming and I hope we do not forget our history when we make our choices.
See:
Wednesday, 13 January, 2010
On the 12th January I did a webchat through the Evening Mail and I have re-produced a transcript of the questions (in bold) and my answers. I tried to cover as many questions as possible so you need to keep the answers as short as possible. I enjoyed the experience but I do wonder how effective these are and if there is a risk that some people may use it as an opportunity to try and just pick on a particular topic which has the risk of crowding out other questions. A number of questions I also said I would post an answer on this blog so you will see these appear as I get an answer, they will be posted in blue as an update. Below is the transcript so enjoy! You can also see some comments on this website:
Woodcock:
http://www.dwfisher.com/watching/2010/01/john-gough-webchat.html
Hello I'm looking forward to the questions tonight, and any that I'm unable to answer in the time I'll take away and answer on my blog From Oliver Johnson:
You failed to be selected as the Conservative candidate in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland before winning in Barrow and Furness. Why was Barrow your second choice?
The Barrow selection was originally advertised before the Middlesbrough selection but it was withdrawn so I applied for Middlesbrough, thankfully I was unsuccessful because Barrow was re-advertised in the next tranche of seats to be advertised. When Barrow was originally withdrawn I didn't know when it would be re-advertised.
Emailed Question from Anne:
On last night's Granada Reports David Cameron said an incoming Conservative government would apply a value-for-money test to Trident.
He did not rule out cuts being made to the submarine programme. How many Barrow shipyard jobs might be lost as a result of those cuts? From Gary:
Can you give a catagoric assurance that Trident replacement will go ahead under the Conservatives?
In answer to Gary's question and also the question from Anne which is on a similar subject.
We have always been clear that we fully support the Trident successor programme and that it will be a submarine based system with the submarines built in Barrow. As recently as last month Liam Fox (Shadow Defence Secretary) reiterated this to the Evening Mail. We have been calling for a defence review for some years but we have always excluded the deterrent from this review. However it would be foolish not to look at ensuring that the costs of the replacement system are kept under control and that is all David was referring to. The Conservative party voted to support the deterrent when it was debated in the house of commons and I would refer people to tonight's Evening Mail with the potential threats to the Astute programme and remind people that the Conservatives ordered 18 vessels from 1979 to 1997, since 1997 Labour have only ordered one.
From Carmel:
Why haven’t you pledged to move here? Will you still be keeping a base in the North East if you win the election?
Answer to Carmel
My parents and my wife's parents still live in the north east so I will always have a connection with the north east. From Ann:
Re your answer about Middlesbrough and South Cleveland, so was being an MP wherever would have you more important than representing Barrow?
Answer to Ann
I was selected in June 2007 and I think I have shown my commitment to Barrow since then. From Guest:
The obsession of the party leadership with cutting the national debt seems to be the perfect excuse to return to cruel Thatcherite 'small state' policies that devastated many working people's lives in Britain in the 80's. Can you explain why these policies are coming back alongside an inheritance tax cut which will only benefit the wealthy
Answer to Guest
It is not just the Conservative party who is worried about debt levels, the IMF, Alistair Darling and Lord Mandelson are also worried about it which is why they seem to have been able to persuade Gordon Brown to face reality and stop talking about silly dividing lines. From Aitch:
What is the urgency in reducing the National debt so drastically with a probability of send the country into even deeper recession when the debt for WW2 has only just been paid off?
Answer to Aitch
This year alone we will borrow about £175 BN, the accumulated debt is about £1.5 Trillion or £23,000 per person. This debt will need to be serviced which means from next year we will spend more on debt interest than educating our kids. As any financial adviser will tell you, the first thing you should do in this situation is reduce your debt (watch an episode of "Your money or your life"). From Oliver Johnson:
If you had been successful in the Middlesbrough selection would you have left when Barrow was re-advertised?
Answer to Oliver
Once you are selected I believe it is your duty to see it through, and that is why I was happy that I wasn't selected because the Barrow selection came up again From roger:
So do you or do you not have a house in furness?
Answer to Roger
Yes it's in Scales From Karl:
Re living in the North East - you don't say whether you will still keep a house in the North East. Can you answer that now? Given you have decided not to move to Barrow before the election I think we are entitled to ask what your plans are after it.
Answer to Karl
Yes I do and the reason it's not for sale is because I haven't finished renovating it. Plus also there are a number of developments going on in the local area which means I'm waiting until they're finished also before we sell. From Ryan:
What are your views on gay rights? Was Section 28 right to be removed and do you support civil partnerships and would you support gay marriage being introduced in Britain. What will you do to improve equality for the gay people of Furness?
Answer to Ryan
Yes section 28 was right to be removed it belonged to a different time which thankfully we are past. I support civil partnerships and I am happy to do anything I can to improve equality for gay people in Furness. From Samantha:
If elected, do you pledge to make a home in the constituency? Will you work full time as an MP or carry on your private accountancy business?
Answer to Samantha
I would hope to buy a house (the current house is rented) I would be a full time MP, and the quicker I can give up accountancy the better. UPDATE: I didn’t mention it last night but I do not have a ‘private accountancy business’. I work on temporary contracts so I am a contract worker or temp if you prefer.
From Guest:
Why is cutting inheritance tax still on the agenda alongside severe cuts in services then?
Answer to Guest
Inheritance tax was always designed to be a tax on millionaires but now because house prices have risen over the last 30 years more and more "normal" are caught out by it. Our proposals are merely to rectify this and ensure that only the richest pay this tax. We have explained that the IHT cut will have to take it's place in he long line of Labour tax rises we wish to reduce and our priority is to reverse the 1% rise in national insurance planned this year for everyone earning over £20,000 because this is a tax on jobs From h bell:
I WORK AT THE SHIPYARD.WHAT REASURANCES CAN YOU GIVE A VERY CONCERNED WORKFORCE.FEELS LIKE A RETURN TO THE EARLY 90 S.
Answer to H Bell
Please see earlier answer plus the early 1990s saw the end of he cold war and the subsequent "peace dividend". No party, not least the Labour party, opposed this at the time. I would refer to the fact that after this the shipyard was given orders for Ocean, the Albion class LPDs and the Wave class tankers to fill the gap before Astute was ordered. From geoff:
Are the conservatives committed to cutting farmers' red tape, especially the ridiculous farce that is sheep tagging
Answer to Geoff
I don't know the answer to this but I'll contact Nick Herbert (Shadow agriculture minister) and post an answer on my blog. UPDATE: Nick Herbert emailed 13/1/10
UPDATE: Nick Herbert’s team replied 26/1/10, the Conservative position is:
“A whole new approach to regulation and inspection is required. Rather than inspecting every detail and saddling farmers with mountains of paperwork, Defra should randomly check outcomes such as water quality in ditches and pesticide residues. We will work with the industry to reconsider all existing regulations with a view to reducing burdens without compromising standards. We will pursue a policy of active and early engagement in Europe, to ensure new regulations do not damage UK interests, and move towards a system which focuses on outcomes rather than process, trusting farmers to determine the methods that best suit the conditions on their farm.”
From Philip:
Do you accept it is hard to convince people you are committed to standing up for Barrow and Furness when the first constituency you picked was in the North East - the area you still live in?
Answer to Philip
I have been campaigning here since 2007 I hope that will convince you. From Thomas Davy:
You previously stated in the Evening Mail that William Hague is the politician you most admire. Which aspects of his disastrous 2001 General Election campaign, in which the Tories made a net gain of just one seat, appealed to you most?
Answer to Thomas
I don't remember saying this so if you can send me the link I can see the context in which I said it in. UPDATE: See later question
From Guest:
But if taxes are cut and debt is to be cut, I'm not sure I see how there will be many jobs left to tax if government has no money to support education and growth.
Answer to Guest at 6:33
I'm not sure I understand the question but the point is that if we do not have a growing economy there will be no successful businesses to tax and therefore allow public spending. From Sarah:
about your inheritance tax answer - aren't the Conservatives planning to raise the threshold to homes worth over a million pounds. So is someone with a house worth 800 grand or 900 grand a 'normal' Furness family then, as you put it? Doesn't that make you seem a bit out of touch up here?
Answer to Sarah
As you well know political parties have to govern in the interests of the country at large and so the £1m you refer to is set at an average for the country at large it will be big enough to keep most people out of inheritance tax which is the point and not penalise areas which have higher house prices. After the Conservatives announced this policy a very similar policy was announced by the Labour government so perhaps you may want to address this question to the Labour candidate also because if it's such a bad idea why did they copy it. From Charlie:
If the conservatives win the next election will we see the end of the minimum wage, free bus travel for over 60's, free TV licenses and free admission to museums and art galleries.
Answer to Charlie
No, no, no, and I'll have to check on the last one UPDATE: Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Culture Secretary) emailed 13/1/10
Jeremy’s team replied 14/1/10
I can confirm we will maintain free admission to museums and art galleries. One thing we can give Labour credit for in the arts (irrespective of their slashing of Lottery funding going to the arts and their bizarre Treasury regulations which stifle arts organisations who are trying to raise private funding) is the introduction of free admission to museums. This was restated as recently as December 2009 by George Osborne who said:
“We believe that government funding for the arts is important – and that’s why a Conservative government will continue to fund and support the arts. And of course, we support free entry to galleries and museums, and want that to continue too.”
From Oliver Johnson:
You say you have been campaigning here since 2007, you "hope" to buy a house in Furness, and you want to leave your accountancy post as soon as possible. Why is it then that you don't want to commit your future to the area whilst campaigning here?
Answer to Oliver
I have to work full time, I couldn't afford to be a full time candidate or buy a house here (hence why I rent) From h bell:
will a conservative government reverse the current incumbents proposal to stretch the astute programme again.
Answer to H Bell
I have just heard about this proposal from tonight's Mail but I will be contacting our defence team tomorrow. I'll post a reply on my blog or you can email me at jonnycaver@aol.com UPDATE: Liam Fox emailed 13/1/10
From arthur:
do the conservatives accept that some limits on immigration are needed if we areto prevent this country from becoming even more overcrowded?
Answer to Arthur
Yes and David Cameron was talking about this yesterday and said we want to reduce net immigration to the "tens of thousands" we have also been clear that we will set up a proper border police force to control our borders. From elle robinson:
There is a severe lack of sporting facilities in the borough for talented sports people and in particular athletes. Are you aware that young athletes must travel to Carlisle or Lancaster to use a tartan running track? What are your views on this and how would you help the borough's young sporting athletes achieve their potential?
Answer to Elle
Yes I am aware and I have a friend in Askam who travels to Manchester weekly for similar reasons. I'll take this one away andhave a conversation with our borough and county councillord and post something an answer on my blog. UPDATE: 24/1/10
I have spoken to our Borough Councilors and there is an aspiration to replace Park Vale and to relocate to a better and more central location; the Academy site being one flagged up as potentially suitable. There is however, no obvious funding strategy at the moment from public financing.
From Guest:
Sorry, to clarify, you have earlier said 'We have explained that the IHT cut will have to take it's place in he long line of Labour tax rises we wish to reduce and our priority is to reverse the 1% rise in national insurance planned this year for everyone earning over £20,000 because this is a tax on jobs.' My concern is that with this 'long line of Labour tax rises' you will reverse, that the 'tax on jobs' issue will be irrelevant due to the fact that government has no money left to fund education and other key public sector projects which drive growth, therefore creating and protecting jobs.
Answer to Guest 6:43
As I said in my earlier answer at 6:37 we need a growing economy to generate taxes for public spending. From Lucy:
But come on, you are supposed to be helping Furness out not Rich Tory areas down south. Don't you think that inheritance tax money you will give up taking would be better spent getting down the deficit further or spending more on getting regional economies going?
Answer to Lucy, 6:44
We have stated that our priority is reducing the defecit which is why we will not be able to proceed as fast as we would like with lower taxes. This is being honest and we have been consistent in this approach.
From Steve Atkinson:
Hello John. Very recently this Gov.t, and in precisely the cynical and underhanded manner that is synonymous of it, did extend the Proceeds of Crime Act to every ordinary citizen in this entire country. It did this without democratic permission, without debate and apparently without the knowledge of HM opposition. It means basically, and if one falls behind with Council tax, that Council officials can enter ones home without warrant or attending Policeman -search for and confiscate monies (some of which they can keep). It means anything one owns can be confiscated as its deemed it has been got via criminal means. It is a further and wholly disgraceful degradation of our civil liberties whereby one is, and via Council tax, incriminated via those best placed to profit by it, but treat this discriminated against as a criminal. (It really does seem this Govt wants a war with us)
Answer to Steve
I have some papers on this which I shall post on the blog and forward to you. UPDATE: Steve, sorry I didn’t answer this one at the time but I knew I had talked to you about this previously but I couldn’t remember when. We have said we will ‘prevent councils from using these controversial anti-terror laws to spy on local citizens; surveillance could only be used to stop a serious crime and where a magistrates’ warrant has been obtained’. You can find more details in the news section from a press release I did on 22nd September 2009.
From Graham:
Why are we only just hearing about this Middlesbrough thing? Why didn't you tell people at the time? I read the paper every day and i don't think you ever mentioned it before
Answer to Graham
It's no secret go on the Conservative home website, it's not relevant. From Thomas Davy:
I think I read your William Hague appreciation in an "Inside the mind of..." So do you think Hague's leadership of the Tory Party and associated policies was a period to be admired?
Answer to Thomas
I'll take your word for it, what can be said is that William Hague was leader in a very difficult time and I prefer to look forward rather than to the past. David Cameron is our leader and he has my full support. UPDATE: I checked the Mail website and I never actually mentioned William Hague in this article so I’m at a loss where this person thinks he read this. Perhaps he would like to do what I asked and send me a link to this statement?
From harry:
do you agree with David Cameron's promise to allow all conservative mps a free vote on non-manifesto matters, and do you think that weaker whips will strengthen democracy in this country?
Answer to Harry
There's a role for free votes and I do think that on some issues it is better to have a free vote and it does enhance our democracy so I agree. From Aitch:
The financial crisis was brought on by barely regulated capitalism, started by Thatcher who used North Sea Oil and selling off the "family silver" by privatising everything, from the disaster of British Rail to council housing, and continued by Blair et al. This all created a false prosperity. Why should we vote for even more right wing politics?
Answer to Aitch
We could have a long debate on what caused the current recession an if you contact me I'll be happy to do this but time doesn't allow us to do it now From Charlie Walduck:
Do you support our local football and rugby teams Barrow AFC and Barrow Raiders and do you ever get to any games?
Answer to Charlie
I'm not a huge sports fan but I did go and see Barrow V Sunderland a week last Saturday. From Peter:
Am sorry to ask such a negative question Mr Gough, but do you think we are a bit slow or stupid? Why on earth would you say that it was not relevant that you had put yourself forward for a completely different area before trying your hand at Barrow?
Answer to Peter
I don't think you're slow and stupid but is it not unreasonable to expect people not to have a life before selection. I was a diving instructor in South Africa; do you think this is relevant as well? From Chris:
This inheritance tax change. How many people here in Furness do you think it will help? You promised an answer to all these questions and I want an answer to this.
Answer to Chris
I think you are missing the point which is to take all but the very wealthiest out of inheritance tax all together From Larry:
On the topic of council housing, will the tories reverse the damage labour has done to the right to buy system since talking power
Answer to Larry
We're our of time so I'll take this one away UPDATE: The best summary of what we are proposing can be found in a speech Grant Shapps, (Shadow Housing) gave in October, it’s quite short so rather than para phrase it you can read it here:
We also published a report in 2006 as part of our policy reviews which said we would look at the idea of devolving housing and planning policy to a more local level, with changes in right-to-buy policies; will consult on a proposed scheme in which rents are converted into mortgage payments; and will discuss plans to encourage community land ownership schemes from central or local government.
Link:
Additional questions sent by email and not answered due to lack of time: Question from Colin Beach
If the Tories think that our politics (just like our economy and society) are "broken", how do you think breaking a "cast-iron guarantee" on the Lisbon Treaty can help build any trust the electorate might have in the Tory party.
All parties promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty at the last General Election but only one had it within their power to fulfill this promise and that was Labour. Labour are to blame for the failure to hold a referendum and no one else. Before you vote I would like you to consider the fact that if you vote for any minor party, then there is a chance that Labour, who perpetrated this act, will win again here and any hope of changing our relationship with the EU will be lost.
Like you, I was frustrated and very angry about the lack of referendum but I do believe the time for a pre-ratification referendum has now passed. We are now in a different situation and a post-ratification referendum would indeed be pointless. On this point I think the logic is clear, you cannot turn back the clock, you have to deal with the situation now and that requires a new approach and that is what we have set out.
If elected a Conservative Government will:
I am a strong Eurosceptic, and I firmly believe that if we elected then in the lifetime of the next Parliament we will resolve the European issue once and for all. Either we will have successfully renegotiated our position, in a way that we are all happy with, or we will be having a different discussion about our future relationship with the EU.
Question from Arthur Sansam
What is your stance on a proposed Bridge over the Duddon Estuary, linking Barrow and Millom? What suggestions do you have for the improvement of the A595?
I think a bridge over the Duddon Estuary would have enormous benefits for Barrow and Cumbria in general. Unfortunately due to the severe financial situation the country and County faces, and given the urgent need to repair roads and bridges in the north of the county it is likely this will slip down in priority.
As regards the A595 there have been improvements which have helped but what I think would be most beneficial would be to dual it further. I don’t know how practical, or affordable, this would be but I know it is something that the Conservative Group in Cumbria want to consider in addition to the Duddon bridge.
Question from Tom Smith
Do you agree with your party’s policy to raise the threshold for inheritance tax in the next Parliament? How will that help families in Barrow and Furness?
This has been covered in earlier answers.
What I would also add is that our proposals are to be funded through a non-dom tax. Therefore by implementing this proposal we will lift people out of IHT right across the country, but it will be paid for by a tax on non-doms so surely this is an example of redistribution and given that it will lift people out of a tax, and be paid for by wealthy folk, something all progressives should support?
Question from Mark Phifer
Homophobic bullying is a real problem in schools.65% of gay,lesbian and bisexual young people have experienced homophobic bullying. What would you do to try and address this in the Barrow's schools?
The prime responsibility for this is the schools of course who will need to stamp this out. There would be very little other than offering my support, and raising the issue that I could do personally. If there are specific instances that can be reported to me I will be more than happy to do what I can to help on this issue.
Sunday, 10 January, 2010
I have done another interview in the ‘Mind of’ series for the Evening Mail which is reproduced below 2009: How was it for you?
Overall a very busy but successful year, with work, family and of course campaigning. The year divided into three parts, the first part up to June I was fully engaged on campaigning for the County Council elections so there was leafleting and canvassing. Then there was the summer when we had a nice break and went to Brittany in France. The final part of the year from September was taken up with leafleting and other campaigning.
Who has been your local sporting hero of 2009?
I would go for the Dalton speedway rider Adam Roynon who was injured back in March but is now back on his bike. I suppose this is because I am a biker also and I had a crash in 2008 but I was lucky and just had cuts and bruises. I wish him all the best for the future and I think his determination to get back into the sport he loves is an inspiration to us all.
What's been the best local event you've been to this year?
The event we (my family) enjoyed the most was a Golf Fund raiser we did in July in Roosecote. My son John, wife Lynne and I had never really played golf before so it was hilarious at just how bad we were. Although my wife claims she ‘won’, I’m sure her memory is playing up. We also enjoyed our trips to the zoo in the summer and at Christmas.
What's been your favourite TV programme of 2009?
I can’t remember if this series finished in 2009 or late in 2008 but it was Battlestar Galactica. I have watched all the series and was really hooked right from the start. I think what I liked about it was that although it was a sci-fi series it was really dealing with modern issues such as the war on terror.
What's been your favourite film of 2009?
We had a debate about this and decided that the favorite family film of the year was ‘Monsters v Aliens’ which narrowly beat ‘Kung Fu Panda’. I also enjoyed the new ‘Star Trek’ movie although I’m not sure Lynne will agree with me on that but I thought it was a god update on the original series, especially Simon Pegg as Scottie..
What's been your favourite book of 2009?
I read ‘Vulcan 607’ by Roland White right at the beginning of the year. It is the story of the Vulcan raids on Port Stanley in the Falklands war in 1982. What I found amazing is finding out how quickly they were able to put the raid together, make the necessary modifications and then carry it out. I also re-read some Bond novels and although they are a little dated they are still a good read.
What's been your favourite album and single of 2009?
Well as an indie music fan in my youth I would have to say Rage against the Machine. When it was top of the charts just before Christmas I found an old cassette tape of the album but it was so covered in sawdust because I left it in the garage it didn’t look like it would play so I may have to download the album, assuming I can get over my IT issues.
Mince pie or sherry?
I don’t like either, could I have a cup of tea and some biscuits instead?
What was your best day of the year?
There have been many good days so it is quite hard to narrow this down but I think it was a day when we were on holiday in Easter. Our son John had just learnt to ride his bike without stabilizers and this was his first big ride. We cycled from the campsite into Oban and had fish and chips on the sea front. It was one of those days when all of your cares and worries just disappear and you just enjoy yourself. Other good days were Election Day in June 2009 and the day John got his red belt in Karate.
Predictions for 2010?
That the next MP for Barrow & Furness will be called John…or Barry.
What's your new year resolution?
I haven’t really made any but I would like to do some diving over the summer. Unfortunately last year the weather was awful when I had a free day so I didn’t manage to do much. We also didn’t do the usual trip to France so I would like to get back diving in the caves next year again.
What single thing would make 2010 a great year for you?
Well other than the obvious it would be nice to have a good sunny summer so we can get out and about in our camper van.
If you could change one thing about your life to make it better what would it be?
I am fairly satisfied with life and I do tend to change things if they are bothering me but if I had to choose one thing it would be that I would like to have more patience with IT. For example, I want to set up my PC to be able to download movies and then play them on the TV but I find the whole world of setting this up on the PC a bit heavy and I just can’t be bothered with it.
Wednesday, 06 January, 2010
Over the Christmas break I refreshed my knowledge on nuclear deterrence theory. It has been a long time since I had read up on this, in fact nearly twenty years. I studied deterrence theory as part of my degree course (Economics and Politics) but of course this was set against the background of the Cold War which ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall just after I left University.
What prompted this was a couple of articles I found on the Politics Home website, both which relate to replacing Trident with a Cruise missile based system, one of which is by the Labour MP Alan Whitehead.
They join a number of commentators who have suggested the idea that instead of going ahead with a new class of ballistic missile carrying submarines (SSBN) to replace the current Vanguard class submarines, we could instead opt for nuclear armed cruise missiles which can be fired from attack submarines (SSN). They claim that this would be a cheaper alternative than a full blown new SSBN class and the Trident replacement missiles it will carry. They do not make it clear whether they would expect to build more attack submarines to take on this role or subsume this responsibility into the existing and planned force but I will ignore this point for the purpose of this article and concentrate on the idea of a Cruise based system itself.
It is true that all Royal Navy (Swiftsure and Trafalgar class) submarines are currently equipped to fire cruise missiles and that the new Astute class will be similarly equipped. However to state that this could offer the same or similar level of deterrent as offered by the Trident boats I believe is misplaced and shows a complete misunderstanding of deterrence theory as well as the different missile systems being referred to.
First some information: the SSN currently can fire land attack cruise missiles (TLAM) via their normal torpedo tubes. This was demonstrated in the Iraq war and the opening phases of the Afghanistan campaign. In addition it is perfectly feasible to fit Cruise with a nuclear warhead so theoretically it would be possible to use the SSN’s to provide a deterrent platform.
The key question is would it offer a credible deterrent?
A deterrent to be credible needs to be: able to survive a first strike, able to deliver an overwhelming second strike and it needs to have a near one hundred per cent chance of it getting through and hitting the target, which therefore means it needs to be able to penetrate any anti missile systems.
Let’s start with a ballistic missile system such as Trident and its successor:
A submarine based ballistic missile system provides all of the criteria listed above. A submarine based system provides the security that it will survive an attack and ballistic missiles, such as Trident, once launched are virtually unstoppable. Added to this is its range of over 4,000 miles which means that your submarines do not need to be anywhere near the enemy to strike them.
A rational opponent would calculate that your system would be hard to intercept before it was fired and therefore able to survive a first strike, and if launched would have a near 100% chance of getting through and hitting the target. The potential opponent is deterred because they know that the damage they would suffer from a retaliatory nuclear strike would be overwhelming.
How about a Cruise Missile based system:
Cruise Missile based systems just cannot meet all of these criteria. It is true a submarine based system would have the same chance of surviving a first strike. However when it came to launching a retaliatory strike, the force it could unleash would be less than Trident and will be prone to being intercepted. We have all seen the TV footage of cruise missiles flying along in Iraq, so it is a lot easier to shoot these down than a ballistic warhead plummeting from orbit. Cruise also has a smaller range, about 1,000 miles, so in order to fire, your submarines would need to get closer to the enemy, putting them at risk from detection and destruction.
A potential enemy may make a rational decision that they may be able to intercept your submarines before they can fire, and even if they didn’t then they could survive a nuclear strike because they could destroy enough in flight so that the damage they suffer from those that get through will not be overwhelming. If they make this calculation then deterrence theory fails.
Now some argue that the enemy we are trying to deter is not the same as in the Cold War and so we do not need the same level of deterrence. Whilst this may be true at the moment, who is to say who we may need to deter in twenty years time? That is why a ballistic based system, because it is big and powerful enough to deter ‘big’ opponents can also deter ‘little’ opponents, where as a Cruise based system would only be good for smaller opponents. I suppose it is a question of being fully comp or 3rd party fire and theft, and in deterrence I would prefer to be fully comp!
You can review this as many times as you like but if you want a credible deterrent, able to deter the full range of potential adversaries, able to survive a first strike, able to deliver overwhelming force, and with sufficient range and likelihood of actually hitting the target, then ballistic missile armed submarines are the only choice for a small island nation like the UK.
Tuesday, 05 January, 2010
Tom Harris, the blogging Labour MP made a good post on election campaigns. I especially like the following bit: “Oh, how awful it is to live in a democracy and to be given a choice about who forms the government! And how dare the government and opposition parties interrupt our daily diet of Big Brother and Celebrity Soap Stars Do Their Washing Up or whatever just so that they can explain what they would do with the reins of power in the next five years…”
and:
“Maybe democracy is a rubbish way of running a country, but as Churchill said, it’s better than all the alternatives.”
Read his full piece here:
| |
Blog RSS feed
