My Politician of the Decade

2009 was a gripping end to the first decade in this country's history when we've only had a Labour Government - look how worse off we are as a consequence. But events within the last week highlight for me, the political event and theme of the decade - the war on terror. The war on terror has defined politics, at home and abroad, in the noughties. It has divided political opinion and often divided the nations of the world. However it is because the War on Terror has played such an important part in the politics of the last ten years that I'm naming George W Bush as my Politician of the Decade.

It has become almost a hobby of some to mock George Bush and for many he is a figure of hate. The shoe-throwing incident in Iraq last year probably summed up the world's opposition to George Bush. But like him or loathe him, nobody can deny that no other single person has played a bigger role on the world stage this last decade than George Bush did in his eight years as President.

I still remember the moment when I first saw the pictures of the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001. George Bush's response to that incident was stern and decisive. He launched the War on Terror and so began an armed campaign against Al-Qaeda that is still ongoing today. Many people have died in those conflicts, soldiers and civilians. We even saw the full force of Islamic Terrorism on the streets of London and we were reminded only last week that the threat had not diminished. Barely a week seemed to go by in the noughties without some mention of Iraq, Afghanistan or another front in the War on Terror. Guantanamo Bay and accusations of torture on the part of US authorities have again dominated the headlines these past decade - both features of the War on Terror and the policies of George Bush.

Here in the UK, we have seen our own government follow where Bush led with the PATRIOT Act, with the disgusting attempts to lock up British citizens for 90 days without trial, the introduction of pointless Identity Cards and the increasing powers of state surveillance. This was not the first decade we'd faced the threat of terrorism in the UK but it seems Labour did not learn from previous government's mistakes in relation to Ulster.

Despite the prevailing attitude that one must despise President Bush and everything he stands for, I remain a supporter of his foreign policy endeavours. The spreading of freedom and democracy to the oppressed peoples of the world is a noble and admirable goal - George Bush succeeded in doing that. He was a steadfast supporter of Israel, a lone democracy in an otherwise oppressive region, something for which he should be praised. And one other important foreign policy action of George Bush his opponents conveniently ignore is his hard work in the fight against Malaria and HIV/AIDs in Africa. In George Bush's own words, he should be remembered for liberating 50 million people.

Was he perfect? Of course not. Did he make mistakes? Yes, but to quote John Major: a politician who has never made a mistake has never made a decision. George Bush will never rank amongst Washington, Lincoln, FDR and JFK as the most popular US Presidents. He will probably remain a world hate-figure for some years to come. But then again, being a great politician is not always the same as being popular. You don't have to be popular to change the world and in the noughties, George Bush certainly did do that.

The UK should suspend aid to Uganda

As reported in the press recently, a Bill is currently making its way through the Ugandan Parliament which would impose the death penalty for those involved in certain homosexual acts in Uganda. As well as increasing the standard penalty for homosexuality in Uganda to life imprisonment, those involved in 'aggravated homosexuality' would be put to death; this includes any 'offender' who is HIV-positive. This is completely unjust - nobody should be put to death because of their sexuality.

Gordon Brown and other Western leaders have criticised the Bill and it was raised at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting recently but this does not go far enough. Although this Bill has been proposed by a back-bench MP, the Uganda government is doing nothing to stop it and the Ugandan Ethics Minister is encouraging its passage. The UK currently gives £72 million worth of aid to Uganda every year. If this Bill becomes law then the UK should follow Sweden's lead and suspend its aid contributions to Uganda until such a time as the law is reversed.

I appreciate that some people are 'against' homosexuals, however silly I think that is that is, they have every right to hold that view. Equally, we must accept that some societies have not yet begun to appreciate basic human rights in the same way that the UK does. However executing people for being gay is a step too far. If holding the Ugandan government to ransom over this Bill is the only way to stop it then that is what must be done.

We must share the burden of post-recession sacrifices

It was reported today that the majority of public sector workers are still expecting to see a rise in their pay packets next year despite a 1% cap on pay rises imposed by Alistair Darling in the pre-budget report.

However with the public deficit so high, public sector workers must accept that they are going to have to make sacrifices as we try to get our budget under control. And they're not the only ones. Everyone is going to have to shoulder some of the pain of the post-recession spending cuts which all three parties are now committed to.

Employees in the public sector have been largely cushioned from the effects of the recession. The government's foolish insistence on spending their way out of the recession has meant the public sector has enjoyed more cash, not less, during the recession. Contrast this to the private sector where many firms have imposed pay-freezes, we've had redundancies galore and some workers have even agreed to work for free in order to keep their jobs in the long-term. This contrast cannot continue in years to come.

The 1% cap on public sector wages will cause a real terms cut in pay but this does not go far enough. Beginning in 2010, public sector wages should be frozen in order to help ease the deficit.

But public sector earners are not the only ones who must shoulder some of the pain. I also believe benefit payments should be frozen (it might even get some people back in to work) and pensioners should accept that they cannot go on enjoying above-inflation rises in their pensions whilst families suffer from a falling in come; pensions must therefore be subject to similar restraints in the next few years. Of course this will never happen - politicians would not even dream about upsetting the grey vote for the sake of relieving the younger generation of our lovely big debt.

The coming years will be very painful in terms of budget policy but we must all share the burden of this pain no matter which sector we work in or if we work at all for that matter.

Votes at 16

Probably one of the must unconservative things I have ever written. Taken from the November issue of The Bus magazine (www.heatonmanorbus.co.uk).

British politics has had a bad year. The MPs’ expenses scandal has put lots of people off politics, especially young people. But as we begin to repair our country’s damaged political system, it seems the right time to explore the question of whether we should be lowering the voting age to 16.

When you turn 16, you gain many, but not all, of the rights of adulthood. At 16 we can legally have sex; play the national lottery; leave home; marry; choose whether or not we stay on at school; join the armed forces; and pay taxes. Yet we cannot vote.

The issue that I have the biggest problem with is that we can be taxed and yet we cannot vote. “No taxation without representation” was the slogan used by the revolutionaries in the American War of Independence. Annoyed by the fact that they paid taxes to the British Government but couldn’t elect them, the Americans (in true American style) started a war and eventually declared independence. Over the last decade, 16 and 17 year-olds have paid £550 million of tax to the government. America started a war over this. Why aren’t we so angry?

There is of course the argument that young people are not mature enough at 16 and 17 to make an informed decision at the ballot box. However, I know many 18 and 19 year-olds who I would consider equally as ‘immature’ as some 16 and 17 year-olds. Related is the claim that young people don’t know enough about politics. I bet most adults know as little about politics as young people. At least we have had the benefit of five years of citizenship education in schools
where we have learned about these things.

Maturity, intelligence and political knowledge have never been tests in modern democracies to determine who has the vote. The vote has been given on the principle that it is simply a right that people ought to have. Yes, young people might ‘waste’ their vote by voting for the Monster
Raving Loony Party but one million adults were conned into voting for the fascist BNP at the last election. Who people are going to vote for should not determine whether they are entitled to do so.

The final compelling reason why 16 and 17 year-olds should have the vote is that it will finally mean their needs are taken seriously by politicians. There are a number of issues that specifically affect under-18s: the state of sixth form and college education; EMA; the fact that we have to pay adult fares on buses despite remaining in full-time education. When older people demanded free public transport, politicians jumped and delivered. Why? Because they had the vote. If 16 and 17 year-olds had the vote, politicians would have to listen to us and would have to start responding to our demands as a significant proportion of their electorate.

The reasons for keeping the voting age at 18 do not stand up under scrutiny. The basic principle that the vote must join the rights we already have will prevail, and following the next general election, 16 and 17 year-olds will be given the vote.

Mr van who?

Last year, William Hague predicted the scene when the new President of Europe visited Downing Street for the first time. The long presidential motorcade would draw up outside Number 10, police outriders would clear the streets, the European flag would be flying on the bonnet of the car, the world’s press assembled for this historic occasion. Then out of the car would step…Herman van Rompuy. Who? A bit of an anti-climax I know. After week of hype and speculation that none other than Tony Blair would get the job he created for himself we get Mr van Rompuy (pictured right).

I am sure Mr van Rompuy is a very nice man - a typical Benelux politician who is very good at running Belgium. But is he really the sort of the bloke we want running Europe? Well apparently he is. According to our dear leader he is a ‘consensus builder’ who brought ‘stability’ to his country after ‘months of uncertainty’ – how admirable. To you and I that means he has about as much political clout as…well Gordon Brown, is very good at sitting and Chairing meetings whilst having no opinions of his own and doing what the French, the British and the Germans tell him to do. A victory for Brussels bureaucracy! So rather than giving the people of Europe a dynamic leader who can actually lead Europe in dealing with the issues such as climate change. As much as I don’t like him, at least Tony Blair would have the charisma to actually make an impact.

But don’t start getting sulky yet, there is something to celebrate for us Brits. None other than our own Cathy Ashton has landed the new number 2 job in Brussels, European High Representative for Foreign Affairs. Cathy Ashton? Yes she is British I can assure you. Haven’t heard of her? No, nor have I. But she is the best politician we can come up with to represent us in Europe.

Baroness Ashton as she is entitled to be known went to Brussels after Mandy came back to save Brown last October. Before that she did a short stint as Labour’s leader in the House of Lords but her political credentials don’t go much further than that. She will be responsible for being Europe’s top negotiator in diplomatic relations and will have to represent Europe to everyone from Barack Obama to Robert Mugabe. Yet Baroness Ashton’s foreign affairs experience probably extends to the couple of bits of foreign languages she picked up on the odd holiday to the continent. Her job before she joined the Lords? She was Chairman of Hertfordshire Health Authority. Good preparation for the international stage indeed.

If Europe wants to be taken seriously by other countries then we’re going to have to start coming up with something better than the two nobodies European leaders produced today.

We must never forget

Today is Remembrance Sunday when the nation remembers its war dead and mourns their selfless sacrifice in the name of our freedom.

In 1929, the then Secretary of State for War was once asked, 'when the last of the Great War veterans die, will people still commemorate Armistice Day?' his reply 'when the last of the Great War veterans die, people will not know the horrors of war'. The irony of this statement is so potent in the year the last of the Great War veterans died yet now, more than ever in recent years, we do seem to be aware of the great dangers our Armed Forces are facing.

With the death of two more soldiers in Afghanistan today, the total number killed in that conflict comes to 232. The rights and wrongs of that conflict are for another day. Today is about honouring those who have fought and died for this country. And in a year when so many of our brave servicemen have died, it is even more important that we do honour them and never forget their sacrifice.

Why bother with a pointless referendum?

Once again Europe is causing division within the Tory Party. David Cameron’s decision not to offer the British people a post-ratification referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has got the usual suspects quite annoyed. However I would like to defend Mr Cameron and make the case that giving the British people a post-ratification referendum on Lisbon would be as deceitful as Labour and the LibDems have been about their failure to honour their pledges when they had the chance.

Lisbon is now a done deal; there is no turning back the clock. With the Czech President’s signature the treaty has been ratified and Europe will now have its own President, Foreign Minister and legal personality. It doesn’t matter if Nigel Farrage became Prime Minister after the next election, the Treaty cannot be undone.

It is therefore wrong to suggest that we could still have a referendum after the next election. There would be absolutely no point in a post-ratification referendum whatsoever – it would achieve nothing. We would be asking the British people to go to vote in a referendum which would have no impact whatsoever. I think saying to people ‘go and vote in this referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and vote no’, giving them false hope that the referendum will actually have any effect, is deceitful – as deceitful as the Lib-Lab failure to vote for a referendum in the Commons last year.

Instead, David Cameron seems to have taken exactly the right approach and a one that should appeal to Eurosceptics. I myself am firmly in favour of Britain’s continuing membership of the European Union; I do not support the Better Off Out Campaign and would probably have voted yes to the Lisbon Treaty had we had a referendum. But the Eurosceptic mainstream in the Tory Party has won a victory yesterday; a Tory leader saying that the Conservative Party will seek a mandate from the British people at the next election to repatriate powers to Britain from Brussels and a promise of a binding requirement for future treaties to be approved by a referendum. What more could Eurosceptics want than wholesale withdrawal?

We should not kid ourselves that a referendum on Lisbon now would make the blindest bit of difference. The best Eurosceptics can now hope for is a Conservative Government after the next election delivering a manifesto pledge to restore powers to Britain, a pledge that would not need a referendum to substantiate it.

The special relationship is in jeapordy

The debate about the release of the Lockerbie bomber has now moved on from the rights and wrongs of the original decision. We are now beginning to see the wider ramifications of the decision and the effect it is having on Britain’s relationship with the wider world.

In an editorial published yesterday, the New York Daily News asserts that because of the government’s handling of the release of Abdelbasset al-Megrahi the British people are a ‘cowardly, unprincipled, amoral, and duplicitous lot’. Whilst I would like to point out to the editors of the New York Daily News that I would not consider myself cowardly, unprincipled, amoral or duplicitous, I think it is a very accurate character description of our Prime Minister and his conduct over this shoddy affair.

The editorial reflects the anger and resentment in the United States at the decision to release Mr al-Megrahi. Of the 270 people who were killed when a bomb, planted by al-Megrahi, went off on board Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, 180 of those people were American. It is therefore understandable why many Americans share in the disgust that I and many more British people feel at the release of a mass murderer. And we learned yesterday that Gordon Brown supported the release and didn’t want to see Mr al-Megrahi die in jail.

Mr Brown’s conduct during this affair and his sentiment that al-Megrahi should not die in jail has put at risk Britain’s single most important international partnership and potentially soured it for several years to come. I am in no doubt that the United States is Britain’s best friend in global politics and the country we should most seek to align ourselves with. The beacon of freedom for the latter of half of the last century when many parts of the world were locked under the iron thumb of communism, a nation that has exported Anglo-Saxon culture to every party of the world and the most economically prosperous country on earth – America is the coolest kid in school and we should be extremely proud to say we’re its closest mate. From Churchill and Roosevelt to Thatcher and Reagan and most recently Blair and Bush, the ‘special relationship’ has proven to be of benefit to both the UK and the United States.

But we must now thank our dear Prime Minister for putting that special relationship in jeopardy. Not only has Mr Brown managed to mess up just about every area of domestic policy here at home, he’s also decided to go and ruin our reputation on the world stage as well; another achievement to add to Mr Brown’s outstanding legacy.

The Lockerbie bomber should have died in jail

Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted in 2001 of murdering 270 innocent people in the Lockerbie bombing, has been released on ‘compassionate grounds’ and has returned to his home country of Libya.

Mr al-Megrahi was convicted in a British court of having been responsible for the worst terrorist atrocity this country has ever seen. Some people question whether that court was right in his decision and many protest that Mr al-Megrahi is innocent; if that is their opinion then it is for them to pursue the matter in the courts and try and have the conviction overturned. Until that happens, al-Megrahi is a guilty man and should have spent the remainder of his life in prison, in the United Kingdom.

In a letter to the Scottish Justice Minister, al-Megrahi says “my continued incarceration is not conducive to my well-being as my life nears its end” and goes on to describe his wish to die with his family, a comfort Mr al-Megrahi never gave to his victims. I believe in a compassionate society but why should we show compassion to a man who showed no compassion to the 270 people he murdered? Some crimes are unforgivable and this is one.

The decision by the Scottish un-Justice Minister to release the Lockerbie Bomber is simply wrong. A measly eight years in jail is nothing compared to the 270 lives that he took, the plane he is on should be turned around and he should be put behind bars where he belongs.

Alcohol may well become the preserve of the wealthy

There has been a lot of talk in the news recently about banning cheap alcohol sold in supermarkets in order to tackle the nation’s apparent binge drinking problem. The idea is that because alcohol is more expensive people will buy less and in turn drink less.

I am extremely uncomfortable with this proposal.

Alcohol is legal in the United Kingdom and until such a time that it is made illegal, people should be free to consume whatever amount of alcohol they wish. If they choose to drink excessively they will have to deal with the health consequences and the risk they’ll make a complete fool of themselves and end up getting arrested.

The price of alcohol in pubs and bars is quite high. The average price of a pint of larger in the United Kingdom is £2.68 (higher in Newcastle at £2.80); that compares with £1.95 in the USA and just £0.40 in the Philippines. For the wine-drinking, middle class establishment, £2.68 for a pint is affordable. But for low-income families, the price of alcohol in pubs is too high. That's why many stay in and drink at home. They can quite easily go down to Asda and buy 15 cans of Fosters for £10.00 on special offer; the maths is simple.

The risk of minimum unit pricing and banning special offers on alcohol in supermarkets is that enjoying a drink on a regular basis becomes the preserve of the wealthy. It's very easy for the people who can afford to buy their wine from upmarket wine merchants to say they're thinking of the nation's health, when in fact they are ignoring the fact that those on low-income have as much right to drink alcohol as them.

Why we need to stay the course in Afghanistan

As British deaths in Afghanistan reached 200 over the weekend, we were once more reminded of the harsh fighting our troops are engaged in overseas. Although every single death in Afghanistan should cause us to reflect on why we’re there, the 200 mark is logically a point where we have to start asking ourselves some hard questions.

As we watch the pictures of our troops being brought back from Helmand on our television screens the easy thing to do is to say let’s bring them home and end our mission in Afghanistan. The hard thing to do, yet the right thing, is to recognise that our mission in Afghanistan is one of great importance and one we mustn’t lose.

The mission in Afghanistan is important for two groups of people: the British Public and the people of Afghanistan.

For us, our security depends on creating a stable and peaceful Afghanistan without the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We should not forget that it was the Taliban Government that financed and encouraged the September 11th attacks on the United States and trained Islamist terrorists that were dispatched to numerous other countries across the world. That threat has not diminished. I recall an interview I saw several weeks ago on television where the father of a solider who was in Afghanistan was talking about the contents of an email his son had sent. In the email his son had said: “if we don’t fight them here, we’ll be fighting them in the streets at home.” I think that puts it all in to perspective.

For the Afghan people, the end of the Taliban’s regime means and end to several years of brutal oppression and abuse at the hands of one of the harshest regimes the world has seen. Next week the Afghan people will take part in Presidential elections which is an important milestone in the country’s transition to a democracy. This is a stark contrast to the days of the Taliban; days when women were regularly flogged and stoned in public as half-time entertainment in football stadiums, where primary school education was virtually non-existent and Sharia law was enforced in its most barbaric form. It’s so the Afghan people don’t have to suffer the same again that we must succeed and we must stay the course.

The next few months will no doubt be as bloody as the last and our mission may go on for many years to come, but it is in our own security interests that we stay in Afghanistan and complete our mission.

Sorry George - Yes they should be paid bonuses

George Osborne told the Guardian today that the Tories would put a stop to bonuses in the banking sector. He described bonuses paid to bankers as "unacceptable" and suggests that the Conservatives would legislate to stop them.

Although I agree with George Osborne's plans for reforming the way we regulate the banking sector, abolishing the tripartite system of regulation which allowed us to slip in to this mess in the first place, on this occasion, I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the Shadow Chancellor.

When it comes to banks such as RBS and Lloyds which had to go cap-in-hand to the government for tax-payers' money, I agree there is no room for bonuses. Employees at these banks, especially top executives, should be subject to similar pay restraints that exist in the public sector. But why should staff at Barclays and HSBC have to suffer?

Earlier this month both Barclays and HSBC reported profits of around £3 billion each. Surely, in times of economic hardship, two of our leading banks making profits is a good thing? It seems not; if Mr Osborne were to get his way, they would have to suffer the state's interference too. But why should they?

After all, neither Barclays nor HSBC had to resort to asking the government to bail them out in those dark days when our banking sector seemed on the verge of collapsing. And, despite hard economic times, they're making profit. Why, therefore, should employees at those firms be rewarded with bonuses? Isn't the whole point of bonuses to reward success?

The backlash against Mr Osborne's proposals from the business world has been harsh. And no wonder. There was a time when the Tories were the friends of business. People knew they could trust the Conservatives when it came to supporting our financial services sector. This announcement from Mr Osborne, which stinks of unhealthy state interference, puts that reputation and the Tories' relationship with the City at risk.