Shadow Cabinet Miscalculations

There were really only two questions in the aftermath of Ed Millband’s election as Labour leader. Would David stay in front line politics and who would end up with the challenging task of opposing George Osborne’s cuts as Shadow Chancellor?

Ed Balls had to be top of most people’s lists serving as Gordon Brown’s right hand man at the treasury and being rewarded with a front line cabinet post during his ill fated premiership.

However, when his wife Yvette Copper topped the cabinet vote many started to suggest Balls would be overlooked.

It turned out we were all wrong. Alan Johnson, the former Home Secretary, came out for arguably the second most important job in opposition.

Surprising choice yes, but as this shock new choice was analysed many started to believe this was in fact a stroke of genius by the young new leader.

His humble background as a postman and union leader are certainly in stark contrast to his opposite numbers background which was referred to by many Labour MP’s as aristocratic.

Having served as health and education secretary during the Labour administration he is certainly more used to spending rather than saving cash and his lack of economic background may hinder him in a knock-down-drag-out with Osborne.

Like him or loath him, Brown was a gifted economist with the facts at his finger tips and the type of analytical mind suited to commons debates over financial issues, think back to Brown challenging Nigel Lawson as stand in Shadow Chancellor in 1988.

There are of course other issues here as well. Balls has a reputation for confrontation, admirably and useful maybe in defending any Labour stance in protesting any spending cuts as is his economic and treasury experience, but are these as useful as Shadow Home Secretary?

Theresa May is not universally loved (understatement of the century). She is a bit too far to the right for any Labour or Liberal Democrat supporter and, although many Conservative backbenchers may love her, a lot of moderate Tory’s have their reservations.

Under these circumstances is not Balls exactly the right man to take her on? His combative nature and more left wing stance could contrast May in exactly the right way.

Although not as widely reported as the shock of Johnson’s new position, the other shock appointment was making Copper Shadow Foreign Secretary.

If this had been the story of the day the public’s reaction o this would have surely been similar to when Baroness Ashton was elected as the EU’s foreign representative.

Has she any foreign policy experience? She has served in the cabinet as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Work and Pensions secretary.

Admirable and important positions granted, but more economics based than foreign relations.

It is certainly true the Conservatives have said they will continue British presence in Afghanistan on the basis of a coordinated pull-out with the US making it one of the few points where there is little tension between the parties.

She is, however, being asked to take on William Hague, one of the most experienced politicians in the house. At what level is she going to be able to highlight the differences so important in making Labour electable again?

But let us play out a scenario. The coalition does not go well or the public are so furious about the spending cuts the Labour party are re-elected in 2015 and Ed Milliband becomes our new Prime Minister.

Are we to believe we will have a Chancellor with no economics background, a Foreign Secretary with no diplomatic experience and a Home Secretary more comfortable in combat than in forcing social change?

Yes, you can reshuffle a Shadow Cabinet, although there is the risk it will look like an initial miscalculation and be seen as a sign of chaos.

Admittedly on closer inspection Johnson and Balls may seem well suited to these new roles, with the possibility of Balls taking over later at the Treasury, and Cooper may turn out to be a fantastic states…person.

There will, however, remain fears that Milliband has made a big miscalculation not equipping the Shadow Cabinet with the best people for the roles but instead showing a transparent line of party unity.

Papal Visit: Yes or No?

When the Vatican announced Pope Benedict XVI announced he was to make his first state visit to the UK it was met with, what could be put mildly as, mixed emotions.

On one side of the argument were the many Catholic citizens of the UK’s delight that the head of their church would be visiting them, and on the other side the many people who view his stance on abortion, contraceptives, gay rights and stem cell research as appalling

Not to mention the child abuse scandals that has done some much damage to the church’s reputation in recent years.

But is it even right to protest at the visit of a religious figurehead. Admittedly it would be hard to imagine these protest if the Dali Lama was to visit.

However, as Catholics make up a significant percentage of the population both in the UK and across the globe he does have a far greater reach than any other head-of-state.

This does, in theory at least, make him a very powerful man. But is he as powerful as we think.

The Papacy no longer has the political clout it did in the days of Machiavelli and the Medici popes. His influence stems no further than to the extent of his congregation. Do the people seriously believe if a strict Catholic came to power in a Western nation they would instantly implement a ban on condoms, abortions and homosexuality?

Yes it is hard to argue against the fact in the modern world he’s view are outdated. It is wrong to discriminate against people because they are gay, millions of lives would be saved through AIDS prevention if condoms could be distributed in the third world and there is a possibility stem cell research may discover cures for terrible diseases.

Few would argue against a full investigation into the child abuse scandals alleged to have taken place in the Catholic Church across the world. These horrific crimes have damaged the lives of countless children and have caused as yet untold damage to the church.

It is however wrong of us to lump all Catholics in together. Hardly any Catholics are child abusers, and a large population would argue those who are guilty of the crimes are not actually Catholic.

Catholics believe that man is not saved by faith alone, that a life must be backed up by good works. There are catholic charities in Africa doing tremendous work, but an outmoded religious doctrine regarding artificial contraception is killing millions of Africans.

The ethical struggle surrounding stem cell research is certainly understandable. But is not there something in The Bible about easing the suffering of others?

Homosexuality is also a tricky issue as it is based on a religious belief that it is wrong. But, Catholics have accepted aspects of modern Western pluralism. Catholic churches are now on the same streets as Synagogues and Mosques.

We are not all the same. We are not all Catholic. Is it not time the homophobia that exists in the church went the same way as eating fish on a Friday.

Yes the Catholic Church needs to modernise but so do the protestors beliefs that it stands for all that is wrong in the world.

Protest the child abuse without question. It is a tragedy and should be dealt with properly, not behind the closed doors of the Vatican. But, maybe it is time for us to accept the limitations of the Popes powers as a world leader.

The Saga Continues – MPs Expenses, the Report and Prosecution

The MPs expenses saga may be nearing conclusion with the Crown Prosecution Services announcing three Labour members and a Tory peer will face criminal charges.

Elliot Morley, Jim Devine, David Chaytor and Lord Hanningfield could face up to seven years in prison under the Theft Act.

Labour peer Lord Clark has escaped any further action with evidence being insufficient to bring any further charges.

Many people reading into the claims they made may think these seem like some of the more minor offences which have come to light since The Daily Telegraph first broke the story last spring.

Livingston MP Jim Devine has been the most vocal about this saying he is bewildered as to why he has been singled out after claiming £3,240 for cleaning services and £5,505 for stationary.

Lord Hanningfield, who resigned as leader of Essex County Council in the aftermath of this announcement, allegedly abused the over night allowance granted to him as a member of the House of Lords.

Mr Chaytor, MP for Bury North, seems to be similarly small fry with £1,950 for IT services and £18,000 in rent.

Scunthorpe representative Mr Morley does seem more along the lines the public may have expected using £30,000 of tax payer’s money on mortgage interest repayments.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said prosecutors had decided there was sufficient evidence and it was "in the public interest to charge the individuals concerned".

Devine, Morley and Chaytor released a joint statement saying “We totally refute any charges that we have committed an offence and we will defend our position robustly.”

The public certainly wanted some kind of criminal action in the aftermath of a scandal which threatened to destroy all faith in politics, however if an example was going to be made four relatively minor backbench MPs are hardly going to cut-it.

The announcement from the CPS came on the heels of Sir Thomas Legg’s report into the ‘deeply flawed’ expenses system.

Members of the general public will be disappointed, although not entirely shocked given the revelations in the last year, that the report cost £1.16 million while asking MPs to repay around £1.25 million.

Hardly what you would call a massive net gain for a country trying to cut costs. He must have gone to the expensive coffee place.

Stevenage Labour MP Barbara Follet was the hardest hit by the Legg Report having to repay £42,000 in erroneous claims.

She claimed over £34,000 for security patrols around her home in London and nearly £3,000 for home insurance. It is not your imagination, either those two numbers do not make any sense or she is being massively over quoted for he contents insurance.

Either way she clearly does not have what it takes to cut it in professional politics.

The Legg report laid out new examples of dishonest claims and also gave details of those exonerated of any wrongdoing.

Many have however criticised the former civil servants report claiming the arithmetic was questionable, his logic flawed and for devising the controversial retrospective repayments.

All three party leaders were asked to pay back money with the Prime Minister out in front with nearly £14,000 in cleaning bills.

If Brown, Cameron or Clegg had been singled out for criminal action this story would have been exciting but surely nobody honestly thought they would be dragged through this with such an imminent election.

Of cause this will at least hold the headlines for a little longer. Home Secretary Alan Johnson has already gone on record saying the four accused should face a trial and has tried to dissuade them for invoking parliamentary privilege to dodge any embarrassing revelations.

It is also likely a fifth person will face charges. Labour peer Baroness Uddin may find herself in front of a judge accused of wrongfully claiming £189,000 for her second home. At least this has the sexiness of a six digit number.

The public are getting tired of this story now and with many being forced to pay back money announcements of not seeking re-election will almost certainly come thick and fast.

Almost as certain is that none of the accused will face the maximum sentence which could be handed down to them and will most likely end up with a fine or suspended sentence.

All will of cause not stand at the next election and it has been announced will not collect their parachute payments for leaving the commons. One can only breathe a sigh of relief over that decision.

Is reform needed, yes, but surely it should be the public who decide who claimed wrongly at the ballot boxes come the next general election.

The whole point of democracy is the people have the power to change the system. We do not need expensive and radiucal overhaul of the expenses system simply a full disclosure once a year.

Every local newspaper would cover their own MP or MPs and every national would trawl through the numbers looking for outrageous claims or high profile members of the government or shadow cabinet.

Then the perpetrators would be judged by the people they represent who could decide if their claims were valid and voting them out if they were not.

Of cause it is not as simple as this but it is the best place to start to claw back some of the honour for the mother of all parliaments.

Chemical Ali and the Capital Punishment Question

The Bible says an eye for an eye (Leviticus 24; 19) and surely when it come to a crime such as genocide this theological argument is never more poignant.

On January 25 Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as Chemical Ali, was hung to for fill his four death sentences for genocide and crime against humanity.

To be more specific for his part in the gassing of 5,000 Kurds in the town of Halabja in 1988.

His execution was a quieter affair than that of his cousin Saddam Hussein in 2006 which led to the infamous video shot on a mobile phone.

However despite the undoubted evil of the Iraqi regime of the late 1980s is it right for the UK, a country which long ago abolished the capital punishment, to act so complicit in the killing of a foreign official?

Sunnis in Iraq see these executions not so much as a punishment but as retribution or even revenge for the previous establishment.

Of cause in the aftermath of World War Two we were essential in setting up the war crimes trials in both Nuremburg and Japan.

Many Nazis committed suicide rather than face the consequences and nobody had mobile phones to create martyred images on a camera phone.

It is hard to argue against people, Jews and Kurds especially, who gain some sense of retribution from seeing their persecutors meet a similar demise to their relatives in the same way it brings satisfaction to the families of murder victims in certain parts of America.

There were many however who, in a strange way, were pleased to see the compassion extended to the Lockerbie Bomber which he had not extended to his victims.

Allowing a terminally ill man to die with his family could be seen as the responsibility of any first world country lat alone what he has done to that country.

Again it is not difficult however to see why the decision has become so controversial.

It could be a strange blessing that successful suicide bombers never get to face the death penalty, although as jihadists is not death their ultimate goal.

With this in mind is the death penalty really a punishment at all for Muslim extremists?

Is not the whole reason for having capital punishment in the first place for it to act as a deterrent?

Statistics show murders in America are actually more common in states which have the death penalty suggesting the deterrent argument is ridiculous.

Again however I would ask you to argue against the satisfaction the victims family gets from seeing their demise.

With Muslim extremists it goes full circle yet again to a point where death is their ultimate goal.

Executing the failed bombers of 7/7, Glasgow or Detroit on Christmas Day surely is doing their job for them.

In this case why hang Saddam and Chemical Ali. Does this solve anything and as Muslims doing what they saw as gods work does this not hasten an end which they see as favourable.

Radovan Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic may both yet see the full force of the law extended to The Hague, but again this will not bring back the countless numbers killed in Sarajevo and Srebrenica.

Is not a lifetime behind bars a more apt punishment after the decadent lifestyle they enjoyed whilst others starved and were slaughtered?

Capital punishment is a thorny issue and we should all be thankful this latest execution did not end in the debacle seen in 2006.

Maybe however the West should look at its own morals before passing such judgements on the Muslim world.