Peace, democracy, tolerance and freedom?

The attacks carried out by terrorists and murderers this weekend in Tunisia, Kuwait and France are appalling and distressing for the families and friends of those killed and injured. Those who witnessed the attacks will also be suffering trauma, and I hope they can all recover over time.

In his response to the attacks, David Cameron has said:

"To our shock and grief we must add another word: resolve. Unshakable resolve. We will stand up for our way of life...We must be stronger at standing up for our values - of peace, democracy, tolerance, freedom. We must be more intolerant of intolerance - rejecting anyone whose views condone the Islamist extremist narrative and create the conditions for it to flourish...a full-spectrum response - a response at home and abroad; in the immediate aftermath and far into the future."

Mr Cameron is right that we should stand up for the values of 'peace' 'democracy' 'tolerance' 'freedom,' but I fear that just the opposite may in fact be the result.

I have written previously about the Data Communications Bill the government wanted to enact before the General Election, and they can be found here and here. The Bill has been given the sobriquet of 'the Snoopers' Charter' and would enable wholesale surveillance of British citizens' private communications, and was an extension of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (RIPA). The Conservatives included this in their 2015 manifesto and will look to bring it forward with even more urgency now. I fully expect Mr Cameron in his statement in the House today, or Theresa May in the very near future to  announce that this will will brought forward in the timetable.

In his recent report Sir David Anderson, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, said that the status quo under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) was 'undemocratic, unnecessary and - in the long run- intolerable.' Sir David also says that any new law should comply with international human rights standards and require judicial authorisation, a point picked up by both Yvette Cooper and David Davis in the recent House of Commons debate on the report.

Unfortunately Sir David also suggested that external communication 'bulk collection', to and from the UK, should be retained with 'additional safeguards' as required under RIPA, but overall his conclusion is that, "no operational case has yet been made for the Snoopers' Charter and questions the lawfulness, intrusiveness and cost of the proposals.'

The government has a duty to protect its citizens, and David Cameron has repeatedly said over the years that we should be proud of our values of tolerance. democracy and freedom of speech. However, chillingly, shortly after his General Election victory, he also said this:

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.'

As terrible and terrifying as the events over the weekend have been, and it is expected some thirty British citizens have been victims of the Tunisian attack, they must not be used as an excuse to restrict those freedoms, and to mean that the government adopts mass surveillance as a way of life.

As he faces the House of Commons today, I hope Mr Cameron is questioned on what he means by a 'full spectrum response.' Does this mean that millions of innocent people, living ordinary peaceful lives in Britain will now become targets of our security services? Will we now be considering sending more of our overstretched and undermanned armed forces to take on ISIL, with the prospect of ground troops? These are dangerous words, and need to be clarified, and he needs to be challenged on what he means.

When he first became Prime Minister David Cameron spoke outside Downing Street and said, "Compared with a decade ago, this country is more open at home and more compassionate abroad and that is something we should all be grateful for"

Yet, it is more than possible that within a decade of saying those words, we could be left with a country more intolerant, more divided in ways that we never thought we would see anymore, as the anti-terrorist legislation and rhetoric is ramped up, and we all become suspects, because that what mass surveillance will do. We will all be considered potential terrorists as our most private communications become available to the security services for monitoring. It would, indeed, be a country where obeying the law is not enough.


The government, and our leaders from the other parties. must not panic in light of the events this last weekend. Instead they must be even more determined to stand up for those 'values' they so often espouse, and tell those that do wish to undermine those 'values,' that we will not be cowed, and that the people who live in these islands will continue to do so without fear, and in freedom.

That vote, and why we should stay out of Syria!

For the second time in a decade, the government of Britain seems intent in taking the country into a war nobody, outside  of our political leadership wants. In 2003 it was Iraq, and the regime of Saddam Hussein, this time it's Syria and Bashar Al-Assad.

Both cries for war were, and are, based on evidence about which there is much doubt. The so-called 'dodgy dossier' that helped convince so many that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, has since been exposed as having been largely plagiarised from a number of unattributed sources, and then 'sexed up,' to use Andrew Gilligan's famous phrase, to strengthen its conclusions.

The then British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the American President, George W. Bush, both seemed to be convinced that a military intervention to remove Saddam Hussein was justified but were unable to get a United Nations resolution, despite a detailed presentation by then US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

But many states did not find the US case convincing, and at the very least wanted UN weapons inspectors, led by Hans Blix, to complete their task and report fully to the security council. The only permanent members of the security council who had no doubts were the United States and Britain. France believed that Saddam had a weapons programme but felt intervention would be the 'worst possible solution,' according to then Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin. France's position was not one of never going into Iraq, but wanted the inspectors top complete their work and took a 'wait and see' approach.

The Chinese took a position that  was close to France's whilst the Russians, though reluctant to enable intervention, the then President Vladimir Putin, indicated that if Iraq continued in its failure to co-operate with the inspectors, then support for a US-led intervention was possible. There was one country on the security council at the time, from the elected members, that believed Iraq was meeting all its obligations, and indeed supported the lifting of sanctions, and that was Syria which had been led by the current president since 2000.

So as 2013 unfolds, once again war looms in the middle-east, in a situation which divides the permanent members of the security council. Britain and the United States are once again allied, this time with the French, whilst the Russians and Chinese are implacably opposed, as geopolitics takes centre stage.

In March 2011, as an extension of the 'Arab Spring,' a series of demonstrations against the Ba'athist regime of Syria, ruled since 2000 by Bashar Al-Assad, who succeeded his father. These demonstrations were largely peaceful until the army attempted to quell them, and they have since escalated into a full-scale civil war.

For over a year the anti-government rebels fought as a series of disparate groups each with their own agendas, but last November seemingly got together to form a single grouping Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces, led by Ahmad Jarba, who reputedly has close ties with Saudi Arabia.


Making up the fighting force for the rebels are large elements of the army who defected in 2011, and operate under the title of the Free Syrian Army. However, attached to the rebel cause is a group known as Jabhat Al-Nasra, which has very close ties to Al-Qaeda, merging with the Iraqi branch in April this year. Al-Qaeda did not operate in Iraq before the 2003 invasion, which is perhaps something to ponder?

Jabhat Al-Nasra have been responsible for a series of suicide bombings on government targets, and last December were declared a terrorist organisation by the United States, yet remain part of the opposition which Foreign Secretary William Hague was not ruling out arming as recently as July, confident they wouldn't fall into 'extremist hands.'

To complicate matters even further, Hezbollah, an Iranian funded Lebanese terrorist organisation, is supporting the Assad regime, and has participated in numerous suicide attacks, mainly on American and Israeli targets over the years.

So in effect what we have in Syria is two opposing groups with close links to active terrorist organisations, who have killing each other and over 100,000 civilians for two years, yet now the American, British and French governments have concluded that things have reached a point where a 'limited' military intervention is required against the Assad government.

The immediate trigger for this, though the forming of the official opposition group is a more medium term incentive, is an alleged chemical weapons attack on 21st August on a rebel held area of Damascus. Weapons inspectors have recently been there, and are expected to release their findings shortly, although their remit was to find evidence of chemical (WMD) weapon usage, not to apportion blame.

The leaders of the three main countries; United States, Britain and France, seeking to use military force are convinced that it was the Syrian regime that used these weapons, and according to President Barack Obama, crosses a 'red line,' he set a year previously.

The 'casus belli' is that this contravenes the UN's Chemical Weapons Convention which prohibits the production and use of chemical weapons, and calls for the destruction of facilities and stockpiles. Syria is not a signatory to the convention, and so acting without an explicit UN resolution must be of doubtful legality.

The United Nations' Security Council, however is at an impasse, as of the five permanent members possessing vetoes, Russia is dead against any military intervention, and the best that could be expected from China is an abstention, but without Russia, no resolution can pass. This is almost a return to the days of the Cold War, when it was fought by proxy.

With little prospect of a UN sanctioned intervention, the Prime Minister David Cameron attempted to get authorisation from the House of Commons, and so recalled it from the summer recess on August 29th,  to take military action, or at least that was the original intention, but Labour Party leader Ed Miliband's decision to table his own amendment, and reluctance to write a 'blank cheque' for intervention, forced Mr Cameron to change his motion to one focussing on the humanitarian aspect, but left open the prospect of military intervention if the government felt it was required:

"Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on savings lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons"

Now it must be noted that the final paragraph reads:

Notes that this motion relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.

But overall the motion does not seem to rule out action without a UN resolution:

Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action

despite the many warm words seemingly in that direction.

During the debate, and following, there has been much dispute about two things, whether or not Ed Miliband said he would support David Cameron in taking action, and as to whether the Labour amendment was sufficiently different to justify its tabling, and dividing the House.

On the first point, this becomes a matter of interpretation, as the meetings between Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband were on privy council terms, and the reality is that Mr Miliband's response was sufficiently ambiguous enough that multiple interpretations were possible. It suited Mr Cameron to see it as supportive, and Mr Miliband to allow room for a different approach.

But the real point is, are there any key differences between the two motions? Malcolm Rifkind didn't think so, and neither did a number of Conservatives, but there are a few which are, in my opinion, decisive.

Firstly, although Ed Miliband accepts on a balance of probability that the regime was responsible for the August 21st attack, he wants to see,

the production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons

and that the United nations votes on it following the inspectors report, and


There being a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;

and also


That the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action. 

So the key differences are that the regime is not blamed without clear proof, that the inspectors must report, and that the United nations must vote sanctioning 'limited' military action.

As we are well aware, both motions were defeated, and since then the accusations of politicking have been thrown at Mr Miliband, yet the large vote by the coalition partners against the Labour amendment would seem to allow such accusations against both sides, especially as the Labour amendment was, supposedly, so similar to the coalition motion.

Mr Miliband has also been accused of 'giving succour' to the Syrian President, Mr Assad, and siding with the Russians. However, I have yet to see him making the same accusations against the splendid Sarah Wollaston, former minister Crispin Blunt and former leadership contender David Davis who also voted against action.

After the desperately close vote, just thirteen, which defeated the government motion, Mr Miliband proposed a point of order asking:

There having been no motion passed by this House tonight, will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that, given the will of the House that has been expressed tonight, he will not use the royal prerogative to order the UK to be part of military action before there has been another vote in the House of Commons?

To which Mr Cameron replied:


I can give that assurance. Let me say that the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion,the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the Government will act accordingly.

Here are the speeches of David Cameron and Ed Miliband so you can make up your own minds on their arguments.


I, along with the majority of the British population, do not believe intervention in Syria would be right or wise, and ironically it is now Mr Cameron who has completely ruled out military action, whereas the Labour amendment, and Mr Miliband's point of order, always left the door open.

Since the vote in the House of Commons, President Obama has announced that Congress would be asked to vote on military action, and President Hollande of France followed suite, although without a vote to follow. The vote in Congress is expected tomorrow the 10th September, and although the Congressional leadership is on board, there are many dissenting voices amongst representatives and senators, which could mean the vote is a close one.

Chemical weapons are an abhorrence, and we've seen their effects over the past century, from World War I mustard gas attacks, the use of Zyklon B in the gas chambers, napalm use during the Vietnam war by the Americans, the use of nerve gas on Kurdish villages by Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, and allegations of other uses throughout the Middle-East especially.

So why is it imperative to act now, when we didn't in 1988 especially? In 1988, the west was supporting Iraq during what was, arguably, the first gulf war, and so turning a blind eye was deemed politik. But, of course, times change too, and President Obama and David Cameron have deemed such use unacceptable, and against international law, which I don't think many of us would disagree with.

But, in Syria, we have a situation where there aren't any 'good guys,' where accusations of the indiscriminate killing of civilians, and the possible use of chemical weapons, have been made against both sides, as well as the involvement, again on both sides, of recognised terrorist organisations, means this is a no win situation. Indeed, many have asked, why it is that it is the west who should intervene, and not the Arab League, or other regional organisations, in what is essentially a local dispute?

The movements of Russian and American ships, the presence of American ally Israel, and the various geopolitical line-ups, lead me to believe that this is a civil war that should be allowed to play itself out. There have been many questions asked as to why Assad's troops would use such weapons, when the war is going in their favour? However, a cursory study would show that over the centuries logical actions, especially during wars, aren't necessarily the way things unfold.

In many ways, the vote has done David Cameron a favour, as it has enabled him to be the voice of humanitarian assistance to Syrian civilians, and the 100,000s of refugees the war has created, a role he has pursued with gusto, perhaps freed, in his mind, from having to take part in any military action, action that has not, and cannot be defined. 'Limited' has no real meaning in a military context, because once you're involved, you can't 'hit and run,' you stay until you win, or as the United States discovered in Vietnam, lose.

So, hopefully, throughout this article, I have shown why we, the British though really I mean everyone, should steer well clear of involvement in the Syrian conflict. The Labour Party have learned the lessons of Iraq, under a leader who was against it, yet the Americans apparently haven't, and their leader raised his voice against when a member of the Illinois state senate. The Americans say they have clear evidence the regime used chemical weapons, but despite promises, have yet to produce it. There are many arguments of falsification, but I believe there are sufficient reasons to stay out of Syria, outside of humanitarian assistance, without getting involved in those.

Secretary of State John Kerry today said,  'the risk of acting is greater than the risk of not acting,'  but there are occasions when it is better to do nothing, and rush headlong into a war where there will be no winners, and I believe this is one of them.


Finally, and really as an aside, this repercussions for the future could be quite stark. If it develops sensibly, the debate over the ending of the veto could begin, and systems put in place to ensure the United Nations does not become an irrelevance.

However, worryingly, David Cameron did say at the G20 on 6th September that, "Relying on the UN to act over Syria would be tantamount to 'contracting out foreign policy and morality' to a Russian veto," and perhaps the same fate as the League of Nations awaits it unless reform is forthcoming, otherwise we're in for a series of counter-vetoes as each side struggles to maintain an advantage.



 

More questions than answers...........

To many Thursday's County Council election results were a 'game changer,' as the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), seemed to come from virtually nowhere to win 147 councillors a gain of 136 on the same elections in 2009.

These gains were mainly at the expense of the Conservatives who were down 335 seats, although they remain the largest party in County Councils by some margin, having more than twice as many as the Labour Party.

These elections featured another poor performance by the Liberal Democrats, who lost around a quarter of their councillors. The Conservatives also lost about 25%, but they started from a much higher base, and so were always likely to suffer considerable losses.

The coalition partners then for the first time since forming the government in 2010 both suffered substantial losses, but is this just mid-term blues, or a taste of things to come?

Perhaps if the Labour Party had many more gains we could have read more into the results, but despite a gaining a very good 291 councillors, all that has happened is that Labour are back to where they were in 2009.

There were typical to and fros on Friday as both Conservative and Labour spokespeople each claimed the other had done terribly, trading figures back and forth, and really just generating more heat than light.

As a Labour Party supporter, I was pleased with the results on Thursday, especially as we made gains in areas where the party of often has difficulty making headway, such as the Sussex coastal area, the midlands and the west country. In the long run this may turn out to be more significant than whether or not Labour performed as well as they should have.

However, the real story of the 2013 County Council elections was the performance of UKIP, and whether  it heralds a sea-change in British politics (or perhaps more accurately English as UKIP's presence elsewhere is muted), or a protest vote against all the main parties, with whom the public have become increasingly disillusioned.

But UKIP have a number of problems to overcome before they could be said to have made a real impact on the political scene. True they have had candidates elected to the European Parliament for some time, but have never made much progress, until now, on the domestic scene, and still have got nowhere near having an MP elected.

In 2009's elections for the European Parliament, UKIP came second in the national vote, and many pundits are expecting that next year, they could well come out on top. But, until they have an MP elected under the UKIP banner, being taken seriously will be a problem for them.

There have been many rumours over the last year or so that a number of Conservative MP's might defect to UKIP, the principle issue being David Cameron's unwillingness to call a referendum on membership of the European Union. For Mr Cameron this is a delicate issue, as he too has problems with the EU, how it is administered and how much it costs. However, he is in the end, as is the Chancellor George Osborne, in favour of continued membership provided he can get the concessions he wants. Unfortunately for him, a substantial proportion of his own membership in including those MP's, want out altogether.

But, although a defection would cause the Prime Minister some embarrassment, losing a minor backbencher or two isn't an issue, until UKIP start to get members of Parliament elected under its own banner, advocating a UKIP manifesto.

On the face of it UKIP do present the greatest threat to the Conservative Party, but they can also affect the other main parties. Although Labour did not actually lose any councillors to UKIP on Thursday, inevitably some Labour supporters, for a number of reasons chose to vote for them, and almost certainly it cost Labour wins.

The UKIP performance also, probably, skews the performance of the Conservative party, as it is its supporters who switched here in the main, and without UKIP, the Tories losses would have been many fewer.

I think it would be dangerous to write off the UKIP performance as a mere protest vote, because politics has changed substantially over the last few years. The expenses scandal and the financial crisis has lowered people's opinion of politicians more than ever, and it's hard for leaders to make an impact. trust has gone, and UKIP leader's, Nigel Farage, bluff, bloke down the pub strategy is currently paying dividends.

As the elections drew closer, UKIP's candidates came under greater scrutiny, although not yet their policies, and demonstrated that they too have been caught out by their success, and have yet to put in place a proper candidate programme. Although as the other parties will vouch, that is no guarantee that the odd embarrassment won't slip through.

The General Election is two years away, and a lot will happen between now and then which could have a significant impact. The performance of the economy will be key, and the answers that each of the parties comes up with to deal with those issues.

Will the coalition hold together as they increasingly diverge in their approach? Will the Labour Party be able to come up with policies and rhetoric that enables the public to trust them again? Will the Conservative reaction to the UKIP threat be to lurch to the right, to allay that? Will the Liberal Democrats look to position themselves where they can benefit whichever of Conservative or Labour is the biggest party in 2015? Will UKIP make the breakthrough into Parliament they desire, and need, and become a new force in politics?

There is one other issue that may yet have an effect, and that's the referendum on Scottish independence due in 2014, only eight months before the General Election. A yes vote would create problems, as independence itself would not become a fact until around March 2016.

Would Scotland still send MP's to the House, only to have them leave once independence became a fact? If they did, and there were enough Labour MP's (Conservatives currently being weaker in Scotland than elsewhere in Great Britain) to either make them the biggest party, or even give them a big majority?

Alternatively, the Conservatives could move from being the biggest party to becoming a majority one, having once again been in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Would they dump their junior partners, and form a new government on their own?

Anyway, having strayed off the point a bit here, what does the County Council elections of 2013 tell us about the British political scene?

Not much in the end, the main parties both did pretty much as expected, UKIP did better than expected, but now they have entered the mainstream they will come under greater scrutiny. But with two years to go until a General Election, and European Elections and a Scottish independence referendum in between, there are a lot more questions than answers at the moment, so making predictions is a fool's game.

Cameron's weakness and Labour's opportunity?: an in/out referendum on the EU

Prime Minister David Cameron has announced through the Downing Street press office that his 'long awaited big speech' on Britiain' s future relationship with the European Union (EU) will be made on Friday 18th January.

This is when he is expected to indicate that after the next election (depending on a Conservative majority I would think) a referendum will be held. The thing to be decided however is, what exactly will it be on?

There are many people in this country who want a straight in/out referendum on our membership of the EU, notably in the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and many in the Conservative Party.

Opinion polls on the question of our relationship appear to show around half of the population would like to withdraw, but polls should always be treated with caution as all they are is a snapshot of opinion at a moment in time.

However, our relationship with the European Union in its various guises over the decades has certainly been a difficult one. Right from when the post-war Labour government of Clement Attlee refused to even join the negotiations on the Schuman Plan, which led to the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Confederation.

But it is for the Conservative Party that the issue has proved to be a fraught one, and as former Defence Secretary and leadership contender Michael Portillo once said, "Europe is the curse from which the Tory Party never escapes."

Ever since Harold Macmillan became the first British Prime Minister to attempt to take Britain into the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1961 was met with a French veto, and a repeat occurred in 1967 when the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson also attempted to take the United Kingdom into what was then the club of six.

Eventually it was a Conservative, Edward Heath (who incidentally had spoken up for joining the ECSC in his maiden speech in 1950), who took Britain into the EEC in 1973, but not without a struggle, and opposition across the Conservative and Labour Parties, but eventually 67% of the members endorsed membership.

In the mid-70s the question of our continued membership arose and the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson agreed to a referendum which was held in 1975. The referendum had been pledged in Labour's February 1974 manifesto, and the eventual question was

'Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?

But although the question looks a straight in/out one, Wilson had maintained control of the debate,  and made it about renegotiated terms, and he won it decisively 67%-33%.

Margaret Thatcher's arguments with and about the EC are well known and too many to go into here, and are for another time, although perhaps two particular moments can be highlighted. The signing of the Single European Act in 1987, followed just three years later by her famous 'no, no, no!' at the prospect of even further integration. It was somewhat ironic that this was followed just five weeks later by her resignation as Prime Minister, the issue of Britain's relationship with the EC being the catalyst.

Throughout John Major's Premiership he too had his run-ins with members of his party, but unlike Thatcher who was brought down (ostensibly anyway although there was more to it than that) by the pro-Europeans in her cabinet, it was a small group of anti-EU MPs (including the 'bastards' in his own cabinet) that caused him most grief. This led to him resigning as leader in 1995 and inviting them to 'put up or shut up.' The challenge was accepted, and then Welsh Secretary John Redwood stood against him, being decisively beaten.

The Labour government of Tony Blair was much more enthusiastic about Britain's EU membership and was seen as a much more positive member of the club. Some have argued that all he did was give away too much, including a chunk of the rebate much-loved by the Conservatives after Margaret Thatcher fought so hard for it in the early eighties.

However, it was the Blair government which in 1999, despite his own leanings towards it, that decided that it was not in Britain's interests to  join the Single European Currency. In a further irony, it has been argued that the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty (1992) had already given away much of Britain's 'sovereignty.'

Ever since David Cameron became Prime Minister he has tried to tread a fine line between the various versions of Euroscepticism  amongst his MPs. He has attempted to face both ways, and appear as though he is standing up to the other principle European leader, Angela Merkel of Germany and (then President) Nicholas Sarkozy of France.

However this led to confusion as he claimed to have vetoed a treaty when nothing of the sort had happened, and he was made to look very foolish as opposition and many of his own backbenchers ridiculed him in the House.

More recently negotiations over the new EU budget caused Mr Cameron other problems and the defeat for the government's official line of insisting on a real terms freeze in the EU budget, by an unholy alliance of fifty-one Tory backbench MPs and the Labour Party in favour of calling for a cut in the budget.

The Labour Party have been accused of rank opportunism over this, although in 2007 Ed Balls wrote a pamphlet for the Centre for European Reform in which he called for many reforms in the European Union, especially the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and budget.

So now we come once again to the question of what is the United Kingdom's future relationship with the European Union, and whether our future lays inside or out. This isn't the first time this has happened in this Parliament, with a debate on whether there should be a referendum in October 2011 following a petition. I have written about that debate here and perhaps David Cameron's biggest problem is that his position hasn't moved on one iota.

He is still trying to face both ways on the debate and it's not clear exactly what it is he's going to be asking for. It seems likely he will announce plans for a referendum after 2015, but we can't be sure as to what will be the terms.

Mr Cameron has spoken vaguely of 'fresh settlements' and 'seeking consent' and will be setting "out his views on the future of the European Union, how it needs to develop and how Britain's relationship with it needs to develop."

But this language if repeated in his speech is unlikely to quell dissent within his party, as it appears to fall far short of the straight in/out question many want. Indeed, I would prefer that even though I would be working for an 'in' vote, because at least the terms of the argument would be clear.

Ed Miliband has accused Mr Cameron of 'sleep-walking' the UK out of the EU, and this is true. The irony is that both David Cameron and the Chancellor George Osborne are in favour of maintaining Britain's membership, but outside of the occasional reference, he hasn't really laid out why he does.

In fact I do think Mr Cameron's weakness lies in trying this 'all things to all men' strategy, and they seldom end well. He should state his own position clearly and stick to it. Whatever the British public might think of particular politicians, they admire those prepared to state clearly what they believe, even if they disagree.

To me David Cameron sounds like he wishes to try and copy Harold Wilson, but he lacks that old stager's wiliness, honed by years in Parliament having first been elected in 1945, and taking nearly twenty
years and experience in many portfolios before becoming leader and Prime Minister. Mr Cameron may have spent time in PR and as an adviser, but he lacks real political guile (perhaps an accusation that could be made of many modern politicians), and therefore makes too many poor judgements.

Mr Cameron has always said he wants to 'repatriate' some powers from the EU, but is reluctant to be clear as to what he wants, and there is some debate as to what he can really get. This is where he has boxed himself into a corner and is in danger of 'sleep-walking' the UK out.

If he is unable to get what he wants, he has given himself little option but to offer a straight in/out referendum, but this time handing control of the debate to those wishing to withdraw. Very few people are completely happy with the way the EU runs itself, and the arguments are over what changes can and should be made to its institutions and legislation. But the way David Cameron is conducting himself in this debate just weakens his position, and by extension  of those who wish to remain inside but seek fundamental changes.

So from my own point of view I'd like to see the Labour Party seize the initiative here, state that if we win the next election we will hold a referendum, and that we would be fighting to stay within the Union. This does carry risks, but perhaps the time has come to take one and lay this ghost to rest for the foreseeable future.

It would also enable the pro-EU supporters to set the terms of the referendum and the debate, and hopefully, unlike the disastrous AV referendum of 2011, be based on facts and interpretation of what is in Britain's interests.

The debates will be heated, with politicians, business leaders and others putting their side of the arguments, but it would be with a clear objective in mind, in or out. David Cameron is in danger of just muddying the waters of debate, and as Ed Miliband has accused him, of 'sleep-walking us out of the EU,'not because he doesn't want to stay in but because he didn't have the courage to stand up for what he really believes.

As I've said, I would campaign to stay within the European Union, which I believe politically, trade and for business reasons in the United Kingdom's interests. However, it is pointless going into details as to why here, and that can be left for a referendum itself, if it ever happens.

 As to whether a referendum would heal the enduring sore within the Conservative Party is doubtful, because the differences within the party go far deeper than whether we stay in or leave the European Union, there are fundamental disagreements over what being a Conservative is which will just continue.

  


  

1984 rebuffed or postponed?

Earlier this year I wrote a very critical blog on the coalition government's draft Communications Data Bill which was being scrutinised by a joint committee of the Commons and the Lords. Finally the committee's report was published in early December 2012, and it was very critical of not only the bill itself, but also of the way it was written.

Right from the beginning the report gives a hint of how importantly it took its job, and its view on the government's role in security, of balancing, 'the safety and security of its citizens,' but with a duty to respect their rights, 'without avoidable intrusions on their privacy.'

The committee then get straight into their core criticism, and it is one that demonstrates why this bill should alarm us all: 

we believe that the draft Bill pays insufficient attention to the duty to respect the right to privacy, and goes much further than it need or should for the purpose of providing necessary and justifiable official access to communications data. Clause 1 would give the Secretary of State sweeping powers to issue secret notices to communications service providers (CSPs) requiring them to retain and disclose potentially limitless categories of data.

The committee is also very doubtful of the claims by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, that she would not use the powers in ways that would be considered overly intrusive and so recommends, 'that her powers should be limited to those categories of data for which a case can be made.' Indeed later on they say explicitly that current safeguards actually work better than is believed, and so prefer to see a strengthening of the roles of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and the Information Commissioner.

As I wrote in my original blog, the police and security services already have sufficient powers to investigate possible criminal and terrorist activities, and the committee is saying that is enough. Indeed they go on to say that if a case can be made for a future increase in powers then proper Parliamentary scrutiny would be required, and it should also apply if powers were to be extended beyond the many agencies, as well as the police, who already have access to the data already available.

The committee, unlike the government, seeks to enable the necessary agencies to properly investigate activities, without, 'the risk of intrusion into the privacy of the vast majority of honest citizens.'

Until 1984 who had access to communications data and what could be done with it was not protected by law, but it was in 2000 and the passing of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), that an attempt to regulate who could access what data and what they could do with it was made. But unlike the new bill it did not dictate which information should be retained, but dealt only with acquisition and disclosure. The new bill, on the other hand, expects data to be stored that is of no use to the service provider, and as I said previously, if the government don't want to access what is being said, why keep it?

I was equally critical in my previous blog of the Labour government which had a similar bill, but dropped it following protests from civil liberties groups, and the opposition in the House from all sides, including the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties and the Information Commissioner was not convinced as he wrote, "that the case has yet to be made for the collection and processing of additional communications data for the population as a whole being relevant and not excessive." Eventually the proposals were dropped due to the amount of opposition, and the impending General Election in 2010.

When the coalition was created in May 2010, the agreement stated, 'We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason,' but as we see it hasn't taken them long to go back on that. This is despite the Liberal democrats long, and creditable record in opposing such legislation, and the Conservatives own document published in 2009 Reversing the Rise of the Surveillance State.

The report includes a large number of examples of what it calls, 'a major encroachment into individual liberty,' which is quoted in the annual report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner. These include things like there being 1.85 million CCTV cameras in the UK (1.7 million being privately owned), the DNA Database, the ELMER database of suspicious activities, the National Pupil Database, and this is all in addition to the trail we leave in our electronic communications.

There are also examples of how communications data was used to prevent a terrorist bombing in 2002 or to catch the murderer of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells. It has also been used in uncovering major cases of tax evasion, but as we can see, these already be done using the current legislation, so again I ask, why do they need to store more unless they intend to use it?

However, although the report cites many reasons as to how communications data is invaluable in catching perpetrators, this is to put it all in context, and is not to defend the intentions of the bill.

The committee spent a lot of time, and heard and read evidence from many sources on both sides of the argument. Much of the written and oral evidence can be found here on the committee's web page, although some of it remains secret.

Part of the government's defence is that some 25% of communications data is unavailable to investigators, and will increase with technological progress. But it is unclear where this figure comes from and the committee deems it to an 'unhelpful and potentially misleading' figure as there has not been a 25% drop in the amount of data available. Indeed they say that with in arrival of social networking since the passing of RIPA in 2000, the amount of available data has actually increased.

The service provider London Internet Exchange (LINX) wrote:

Certainly, as people make ever greater use of Internet‐based services, there is an ever greater quantity of data that either exists, or could be brought into existence by statutory requirement. However to say that this “is no longer always retained by communications providers” is highly misleading: communications providers are retaining more communications data than ever before and making it available to public authorities under existing law. The mere fact that even more data could be created, collected and made available hardly constitutes a loss.

However, the committee says that the real issue is not missing data, but 'a lack of ability on behalf of law enforcement agencies to make effective use of the data that is available.' That does not need new legislation to address this problem, but training and resources.

Although many service providers from the United Kingdom and overseas were invited to ask the Home Office questions, they were not consulted on the proposals, although the Home Office claims that they would have been aware of their thinking from the discussions had over time. But, and this is damning, the committee then more or less accuses the Home Office representative of lying and that the Home office were giving a different version to that of the CSPs and that 'On the face of it, there is an inconsistency between these two accounts.'

In the end the first view the CSPs had of the draft bill was under embargo, just a week before its publication. This is despicable behaviour by the government in my opinion, as they have sought to present Parliament and the service providers with a fait accompli and prevent proper scrutiny. 

The committee condemns the government's actions and attitude:

The evidence we received shows that United Kingdom CSPs were not given any details about the possible content of notices before the draft Bill was published, overseas CSPs were not consulted about the draft Bill at all, nor was there any further public consultation.

I think it is becoming plain that what the government is trying to do is predict what may happen in the future, and as we've seen with weather and economic forecasts over the centuries, these are notoriously inaccurate. The committee rightly comes to the conclusion that there is no good reason for granting such wide powers at this time, or that Parliament should do so on a 'precautionary principle.'

The committee, however, whilst aware of the dangers does seem a little complacent on the threat to web logs believing the safeguards in the bill as well as their recommendations would be sufficient. But they do go on to suggest that the Home Office investigate the technological, operational and financial implications of asking CSPs to only keep web logs on services that enable communications between individuals.

There are additional concerns which the report highlights, such as cases where information access has been self-authorised, which means that within the system abuse is possible. Another case was where it was used to track whether or not an applicant for a school place actually lived in the area, which is a ridiculous use of data supposed to prevent criminal activity.

These cases demonstrate just how easy it is for this information to be abused, and that if more data is stored then the opportunities for incorrect use will increase and that's without it being used for obviously criminal activity.

Then we come to the issue of which reasons data is accessible; national security, preventing crime and disorder, illegal financial activities, public safety, or to assist in identifying a deceased person. Now these by and large are areas where we might consider some limited access reasonable.

But then there are also a number of reasons for accessing data I find of great concern; 'interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom,' protecting public health, to assess or collect taxes and duties due. These seem to me to far beyond interest of national security, and although they might be in the public interest, that does not mean they should fall within the auspices of a bill such as this and are open to wide interpretation and would just be abused.

The bill does not come without an intense sense of irony, if unintended, there being an annex that links the bill to the European Convention on Human Rights which expressly says, 'Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.' 

So once again government shows it has a different interpretation of this from the rest of us. The committee has further concerns with the reasons listed earlier and in the chapter's summary state:

We are concerned that the long list of permitted purposes for which communications data can be requested adds to public disquiet about the breadth of the Bill. While we do not make specific recommendations about how this list could be shortened, we recommend that the Government should consult on whether all the permitted purposes are really necessary.

Another issue to me is that are seven different Commissioners proposed for communications data oversight in the United Kingdom, and surely this is too many? Indeed the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, has said something similar, 'that there ought to be either a single privacy commissioner or a sort of primus inter pares,' and that not much thought had been given to whether these roles could be carried out by existing commissioners without creating others, and the committee supports this by calling for rationalisation of the offices.

There also appears to be a lack of thought going into how those who misuse data (see examples above) should be treated, as the committee actually feels the need to call for imprisonment as a punishment where serious cases occur. This strikes me as either incredibly complacent or evidence of sloppy drafting and the bill should be rejected on those grounds alone.

The report condemns the government even more  when it comes to costs and benefits describing them as, 'misleading and fanciful,' and a new cost benefit analysis included with a new draft bill. Wider and proper consultation should be undertaken and most importantly, the impact assessment should be more detailed and not used to basically try and delude Parliament into passing the bill.

The committee's overall conclusion is:

that there is a case for legislation which will provide the law enforcement authorities with some further access to communications data, but that the current draft Bill is too sweeping, and goes further than it need or should.

Whilst it is acknowledged that technological advances over time will change the nature of communications data, I am concerned that any bill of this nature will be the government's wedge into ever expanding intrusion, and they will be wanting to actually read our communications in the future.

The Conservative chair of the committee has said there should be a 'substantial rewriting' before the bill is presented to Parliament, and the Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has agreed with the findings of the report saying:

This detailed and thoughtful report shows the Government is making a complete mess of a very important issue...It is important that the police and security services can keep up-to-date with modern technology, but this bill is too widely drawn... and gives far too much power to the Home Secretary without proper safeguards,... provides too little protection for people’s privacy...  The Government have been slipshod with this bill from the word go...the Home Secretary needs to urgently rethink this legislation and get her approach right so that the police can do their job in fighting crime whilst the public have confidence their privacy is well protected too.

Although how this will translate when or if the bill is presented in the House I don't know. The Labour Party could either go down the road of outright opposition, (and as I've said previously I would rather be hypocritical for opposing this bill when we had something similar in mind, than for proposing it when we had been against in the past) or, and more likely I would think, proposing amendments along the lines recommended by the committee.

I am unable to find an official  government response to the report as yet, but David Cameron has said it will be rewritten, but he still insists that he is committed to giving the police and security services new powers to monitor internet activity, pointing out that the committee had said that there was a justification for doing something.

Still, it became an opportunity for Nick Clegg to show just how different the Liberal Democrats are from the Conservatives by threatening to 'block' it unless there was a 'rethink.' This in effect is a repeat of what committee member Julian Huppert said early in the committee's scrutiny, 'If, at the end of the process, the Home Office cannot come up with a bill that is acceptable to Liberal Democrats, then there will be no bill.'

That is a real danger that this bill, in whatever form it is presented to the House will become about politics rather than security or public safety and catching paedophiles and other criminals. The Conservatives want to be seen to living up to their reputation as the strong party on law and order, the Liberal Democrats as the defenders of civil liberties, and Labour as standing up for freedom but needing to be seen as strong on crime and the causes thereof.

The debates will generate a lot of heat, and will not about deciding which is the best way forward, but who can score the most points off each other.  My own preference is for there to not be a bill at all, as the principle of wanting to be able store and potentially read our communications is of itself wrongheaded.

The powers to investigate all these crimes exist now, we don't need to do anything other than clarify the definitions of what is communications data, and I'm sure there is a simple way of doing that without bringing in such a bad and over reaching bill.

The report is probably one of the most critical a Parliamentary committee has ever produced regarding a proposed piece of legislation, and the rigour with which they approached the task, shows that this is an approach that should be taken to more legislation.

The weaknesses in the draft are plain to see, and this is in addition to the basic problem of the government seeking to have our communications data stored 'just in case.' I hope that there is enough support in Parliament on all sides to vote this down when the government eventually gets round to presenting the rewritten bill, though I suspect they will await the outcome of the next General Election first.

Uninspired Cameron stores up trouble, whilst giving Boris his issue.

Well after months of speculation David Cameron has finally got round to performing his first, unforced reshuffle of his cabinet, and pretty uninspiring it was too.

As we know the principal positions remain unchanged; Osborne, May, Hague, Gove, Duncan Smith, Alexander, Cable and Pickles, therefore showing no significant shift in government thinking.  Andrew Mitchell's appointment as Chief Whip and Chris Grayling's as Justice Secretary indicate a right wing shift, especially on law and order. Mitchell is known as a bit of a hard man, and will be expected to keep the rebellious backbenchers more in line, with promises that if they bide their time, then their day will come.

The cabinet does take on a very old-fashioned look, totally dominated by white men in suits, which could well lead to a view that the Conservative party has not changed. This includes those members who are Liberal Democrats, who seem less and less significant, as demonstrated by Nick Clegg's deflated and defeated demeanour during yesterday's statement on the House of Lords debacle.

There are now only four women in official cabinet positions, Theresa May and Theresa Villiers (promoted to Northern Ireland), Justine Greening (now International Development, but more of her later), Maria Miller (replacing Hunt at Culture, Media and Sport) though others will be at the table. Although this is disappointing, no one can really criticise the dismissals of the truly appalling Baroness Warsi and Caroline Spelman.

A number of women have been placed in lower positions and perhaps they will move up as the election draws close, in order to give the government a more balanced look. However, Cameron's abilities as a talent spotter are doubtful as he promotes the likes of Grayling and Miller at the expense of  competent ministers like Harper and Hendry.

There are inevitable disappointments, even for somebody who doesn't support this government like myself. Some of my fellow travellers see all members of the government as the same, but I do not, perhaps because I came later to Labour politics, and was an interested outsider for a long time. Ken Clarke's demotion is a real blow to those who see community justice as a way forward, whereas Grayling is more from the 'hang 'em and flog 'em' brigade. Clarke will have a floating role as a minister without portfolio, but this is unlikely to provide satisfaction unless he has something to get his teeth into.

                                          Copyright Daily Telegraph
            

   

Lansley's removal brought initial optimism, as an opportunity to get same reining back on NHS privatisation presented itself, but unfortunately his replacement is Jeremy Hunt, a reward for not dropping Cameron totally in it during the Leveson Inquiry. Hunt has been known to support the dismantling of the NHS in the past, so we'll have to see if he still holds those views.

                                          Copyright Daily Telegraph


 I'm not going to go into a detailed examination of the reshuffle as others much better qualified and informed will do so, but just give a brief overview and a few thoughts. As I've said, there is no change in direction economically, with Osborne, Alexander and Cable staying where they are, and socially a rightward drift.

So although an uninspiring reshuffle, with the media really trying to find things to talk about, Cameron could have created a few problems for himself, a situation he is not unfamiliar with.

Firstly is the problem of no change in direction on the economy. George Osborne has overseen a return to recession, with no immediate prospect of recovery, as yet more downgraded forecasts indicate. Something needs to be done here, which both left and right agree on, even if they do on what that should be. Both say that some way to encourage growth is required, but differ substantially on whether stimulus or greater austerity is the way to follow.

Osborne seems unable to decide which he wants to follow, and so dithers along doing nothing in particular, and is on the way to borrowing more money in five years, than Labour did in thirteen. So Cameron's refusal to make any changes here is just storing up even more trouble if the economy doesn't show signs of picking up.

However, he has also given himself a number of ticking bombs with his treatment of Clarke and Lansley. As the only 'big beast' in the government he may find it difficult as a sort of roving troubleshooter, and eventually decide he'd prefer life on the backbenches.

Andrew Lansley has sweated blood in pushing through the Health and Social care Act and may well feel that his demotion to Leader of the House is demeaning. He may well be prepared to put up with it for now, perhaps hoping that once the furore over the reforms to the NHS has died down, he can be found a more senior position elsewhere. If this is not forthcoming within the next year or so, he too may feel a spell on the backbenches will suit him better, and he knows where the bodies are buried.

There is one more timebomb, which, if true, also indicates that Cameron was not necessarily making the decisions. Iain Duncan Smith is rumoured to have been offered Justice, but refused to move, which could indicate that the Prime Minister is weak in the face of really determined ministers. This could have ramifications on future cuts where Duncan Smith has apparently said enough is enough.


But there is one man I believe who will be delighted at the reshuffle and its possible ramifications. Michael Fallon was on Newsnight insisting that the government maintained its position on a third runway at Heathrow, but the removal of Justine Greening as Transport Secretary, who is implacably opposed, and replacing her with Patrick McLoughlin has raised suspicions that this stance is about to change.

                                         Copyright Daily Telegraph

As has been trailed extensively in the media, Boris Johnson is almost seen as a Conservative leader in waiting, the one person who could sweep in and lead the Conservatives to victory at the election, save he's not actually an MP at the moment. That problem, however, is solvable if Boris really wants to try.

But the one thing he has lacked is a big issue, something that substantially differentiates him from David Cameron, and this could now be it. He has made public his opposition to a third runway for some time, but today's machinations have really given him the opportunity to repeat them, calling it a 'mad plan.' 

This is what Johnson needed, a big issue that he can make his own, and if the u-turn does occur, and especially if Zac Goldsmith follows through on his threat to resign and force a by-election on the issue, plenty of publicity. Who knows, perhaps that could be his opportunity to fight it an anti-runway campaign, and return to parliament with his own agenda, but this could of course just be idle speculation.

The third runway is not a minor issue, as it has potentially far-reaching economic and environmental effects. Justine Greening, like Zac Goldsmith is an MP from the area which would be greatly affected, and therefore not just a side issue which just affects the locality. It is Greening's move that is the trigger here, having been so clear in her opposition to the third runway and as I said earlier, McLoughlin's appointment to the transport portfolio could signal a change of heart.

Adding up all this, Cameron could well just be storing trouble up for himself, and with other non-parliamentary issues still bubbling away, I don't see his next couple of years being any better than his first.

Cameron's Risky Strategy!

David Cameron and the Conservative led government have had a really bad start to 2012, yet they have brought it all on themselves. Things started so well too, leading in the polls on the back of the Prime Minister's apparent veto at the European Union summit last December. Then a series of policy announcements and speeches from Labour leader Ed Miliband and his shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, seemed to upset the unions, and many supporters, which meant the Labour party seemed to be arguing within itself, rather than challenging the government.

Since those early days, which must seem a long time ago now for the Conservatives and David Cameron has found themselves under pressure on several fronts.

Economic figures have been gloomy, with increasing unemployment, and then when the fourth quarter GDP figures showed a contraction of 0.2% (something which Osborne spent the previous few days preparing us for), on top of all the forecast downgrades for growth, things started to turn against David Cameron and the government.

It began with the Welfare Reform Bill, as a series of defeats in the House of Lords on disability payments for children amongst others, put the government on the back foot. The coalition of Labour and crossbench peers, along with a number of Liberal Democrats, being enough to vote through amendments.

The government was able to reverse these defeats when the bill returned to the Commons, but they then evoked 'financial privilege to prevent it being sent back to the Lords,' the main point being:

"The Commons' claim to sole rights in respect of financial legislation applies indivisibly to public expenditure and to the raising of revenue to meet that expenditure. ... The Commons treat as a breach of privilege by the Lords not merely the imposition or increase of such a charge but also any alteration, whether by increase or reduction, of its amount or of its duration, mode of assessment, levy, collection, appropriation or management ..."

as stated in Erskine May. Therefore, the government is telling the House of Lords that they believe that only they have the right to decide on bills, or clauses, which the Lords feel are unfair, but have huge financial implications. It could be argued that the evoking of this, little used, rule, is an attempt by the government to silence debate on an extremely contentious bill.

There are two sides to this argument, of course, and as a supporter of a fully elected upper house, I do believe the Commons, as the elected body, should have the ultimate say on bills the government wishes to pass. However, the Lords does act as a revising chamber, and evoking financial privilege just looks like the government is running away from the argument.

David Cameron's second issue has been the EU (a running sore for the Conservative Party) and whether or not the Prime Minister has reined back from the boasts he was making following last year's summit, that gave him such a boost in popularity amongst his own forces.

On Wednesday January 25th Ed Miliband is generally have believed to have had the best of the exchanges at Prime Minister's Questions, and he followed it up the next Monday with what many believe was his best performance as leader, as he ripped into David Cameron over his perceived reining back at the previous weekend's summit. Even the vehemently anti-Ed Miliband blogger Paul Staines (in his alter ego Guido Fawkes) said that, 'the boy done good.'

It doesn't actually matter whether Cameron did make any new concessions at the summit, the perception is he did, and this has upset the large anti-EU bloc on the Conservative backbenches (and a couple in the cabinet), and Ed Miliband took advantage, remembered especially for the line, "The whole house now knows that a veto is not for life, it’s just for Christmas."

This was swiftly followed by another PMQs victory for Ed Miliband, and presciently the second set, on which he was adjudged to have certainly got the better of the Prime Minister was the Health and Social Care Bill.

It is this bill that is now causing David Cameron his biggest headache, as the opposition to it increases, seemingly by the day. What makes it worse for him, and the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, is that the calls to drop the bill do not all come from the usual suspects.

The Labour Party are against it, because they see it as a big step on the road to privatisation. It is true that GPs were allowed greater say in where their patients went under the last government, but the bill would enable much greater private involvement, and doctor's surgeries would become small businesses, and doctors more concerned with profit margins than caring for their patients.. This along with 49% of hospital beds being available to private patients (if hospitals wish to) just adds to that perception.

But the real damage is that virtually everyone involved in the medical profession, outside of private health companies seems to be against it. Andrew Lansley's office, before the 2010 election, received large donations from Care UK, a private health provider, which adds to the speculation that these companies have a big influence in drawing up this legislation. To cap it all Hinchingbrooke Hospital (which had had many many problems) has now been taken over by Circle, and although this is a company with a good record, and as a result has met with less opposition than you might think, it is seen as a toe in the door.

On top of this opposition, which Lansley tend to dismiss as 'vested interests' not something likely to endear him to the medical profession, is that coming from his own side. Tim Montgomerie, of the ConservativeHome blog has said the government should drop the bill, "The unnecessary and unpopular NHS Bill could cost the Conservative Party the next election. Cameron must kill it."

This is a really big problem for David Cameron and Andrew Lansley, in that a coalition of sorts is building against the Health and Social care Bill, from opposite sides, and for different reasons; creeping privatisation or election losing, but united in that the bill should be withdrawn.

Last night (Friday 10th February) Ryan Bourne of the Centre for Policy Studies (speaking in a personal capacity), said that he found the attacks on Andrew Lansley hard to stomach. However, it wasn't the Labour Party, medical profession or even ConservativeHome (which has a reputation for independent thought anyway), but the Conservatives in the cabinet.

He believes, with some justification I think, that they are showing weakness by, 'now jumping ship,' once things got a bit rough. Indeed, Tim Montgomerie has said that three of them (anonymously) practically ordered him to write it. If they had opposed the bill from the start they should have made their views clear. I think Tim Montgomerie can't be faulted really, he's not come out against many of the changes proposed, but is honest that it should be ditched, because it could be an election loser.

David Cameron for the time being is saying he will force the bill through, but things could come to a head on February 22nd, when Andy Burnham (shadow Health Secretary) has called an opposition day debate on the risk register. This is a document widely used in government, business and other organisations to evaluate wat problems may arise from a particular policy.

Andrew Lansley has been reluctant to publish the register, despite being ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner last November. As a result, it is believed that the Health secretary has something to hide, particularly as the register is propounded to state the reforms would drive up costs in the health service. He doesn't help his case either by stating that the register isn't being published because releasing it, "would have jeopardised the success of the policy."

Now if I was a cynic, I might think that the Health Secretary, with the encouragement of the Prime Minister, was willing to block, delay and obfuscate to get his bill through parliament.

However, I really believe this is an issue about democracy, regardless of whether you support the bill or not. This government is always harping on about greater transparency, and yet they seem to be disobeying a direct order from the Information Commissioner to publish. The House of Lords are currently debating the bill, yet Lansley is refusing to make available all the information to enable them to debate with all the facts.

An Early Day Motion asking that the risk register be published, sponsored by Labour's Easington MP Grahame Morris, has cross party support, excepting as yet Conservatives, which indicates that this is not just a party political issue.

So why is David Cameron trying so hard to keep Andrew Lansley? He seems to have alienated for various reasons the vast majority of the medical profession, and large swathes of his natural supporters. If Montgomerie is correct, by hanging onto him, and trying to push the bill through, Cameron is turning the possibility of losing the next election, into a very likely event.

He daren't risk Andrew Lansley resigning over the issue, because it would be the second in a fairly short space of time (following Chris Huhne's recent one after he was charged with perverting the course of justice), and the fourth in less than two years in government. Although two were Liberal Democrats, it will just give the impression of a government rife with scandal and in disarray.

David Cameron, therefore finds himself in a very difficult position as the year progresses. He is under fire from his own side because he didn't veto an EU treaty after all, he's losing the argument in the public face of Parliament Prime Minister's Questions far too often, he's losing votes regularly in the Lords (with a large number of those who served in Margaret Thatcher's cabinets amongst rebels), and he has a bill which Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, described as one of the ten worst bills of the last decade.

Hubris is a fickle friend, and throughout his Premiership David Cameron has demonstrated plenty of it. But now it could well be his downfall, if not forcing him out, but sending his government spiralling towards defeat at the next election.

Three years is a long time, and fortunes will ebb and flow over that period. But the Prime Minister has a big calculation to make over the next thirteen days. Drop the Health and Social care Bill, and take the temporary hit, even if it means losing his Health secretary in the process. Or he can plough on, and face the prospect of losing the vote called by Labour on the risk register, and the subsequent fallout from that which could make the damage irreparable.

Yet it could all have been so easily avoided. If David Cameron had stuck to his manifesto promise, "that there'd be no top down reorganisation of the NHS," or had not made such a point of refusing to sign up in December's EU summit, or was prepared to rein back on the cuts that are causing so much pain.. The problems are all of his own making, but he is a man who doesn't admit to mistakes, and will just continue on the same path whatever the outcome.