Earlier this month Nicholas Arnold, Margaret Atkinson, Mark Banks, Ben Burcombe-Filer, James Charity, Adrian Cooper, Lisa Crosher, James Foulds, Jeanette Fox, Danny Francis, Jerry Hall, Susan Hall, Patti Hayes, Joy Haythorne, Mike Hughes, Shelagh Lee, Daniel Newcombe, Simon Payne, Gary Phillips, Joan Raistrick, Paul Redding, Albie Slawson, Roger Vivian, Alan Weatherall, and Chris Yates stood as Conservative candidates in the Eastleigh local elections.
As far as I know, only one of them has called for the Prime Minister to go for the Downing Street pandemic parties, and clearly none of them were concerned enough about Johnson’s behaviour to stand as independent candidates.
Eastleigh’s MP, Paul Holmes, a vocal supporter of the Prime Minister, even hosted a campaign visit to Southampton Airport, where Johnson lied about the tax free area only being possible due to leaving the EU.
If none of them had the integrity to challenge their leader’s behaviour when it so clearly breaches the standards expected in public life, how could anyone trust them on local issues? The election results suggest voters didn’t trust them.
Paul in particular has seemed more interested in putting his career, and party leader first, despite the damage being done to his party and the country.
“I understand your concerns about recent distractions from the good work the Government has been trying to do. I am disappointed that certain mistakes have damaged people’s confidence in our ability to deliver on the really important issues which affect all our daily lives.”
He could have done something about the distractions long ago, but chose not to.
“As you will know, the Prime Minister, his wife, and the Chancellor have been fined by the police for breaching lockdown rules by attending a gathering to celebrate his birthday. Like you, I was deeply concerned to read this news, and I will follow further developments closely.”
“You may be aware that the House of Commons recently agreed to refer the Prime Minister to the Committee of Privileges to investigate whether he had knowingly misled Parliament. This motion passed without a vote, which means an investigation will now be carried out.”
“As I have said previously, I believe it is vital that people around the country continue to have faith that those in power in our democratic system are held to account, and that they meet the high standards expected of those who hold public office. I would therefore have voted for this investigation if it had come to a vote.”
“However, I remain of the view that all the processes that are underway must be allowed to run their course. The Sue Gray report has not been published and the Metropolitan Police investigation has not concluded.”
On the plus side, I am pleasantly surprised that Paul hasn’t followed the example of some Conservative MPs and told us all to move on. He has also resigned from his government position, which should allow him to start holding the government, and the Prime Minister to account…
…except he hasn’t yet. Oddly there isn’t actually any criticism of the Prime Minister in Paul’s statement, and no indication that he thinks Johnson should resign.
“It is distressing to me that this work on your behalf has been tarnished by the toxic culture that seemed to have permeated Number 10.”
It’s as if Number 10 was just ambushed by the toxic culture.
“I do not support the lobbying activities that Owen Paterson undertook while working as an MP for two companies that he acts as a paid consultant for. This is expressly forbidden in the rules and it is right that he is punished.”
I think most people agree. I also think most MPs agree. I’m fairly certain most Conservative MPs, like Paul, would now publicly claim they agree as well.
I’m inclined to believe them, which makes it even more inexcusable that they allowed the motion to suspended Owen Paterson, who had been found guilty of corruption, for 30 days to be hijacked by the government.
Paul has a government job as PPS to Priti Patel. Angela Richardson lost a similar job for defying the government whip but, as far as I know, Paul did not lose his job. The most likely explanation is that he did not rebel; he just didn’t vote for some reason that was acceptable to the government.
“I did vote for a review into the Standards Regime which was encompassed in the second vote.”
15 hours per month for share options in the “Employment and earnings” section sounds like a second job to me!
He has since revealed more details of his second job on twitter…
“It’s a judging role for a fund to build housing for key workers and NHS workers”
The share options are a £5 discount on the listed share price of £5.50 per share.
Conservative MPs, including Paul, created this scandal themselves, but it’s telling who their anger was reserved for: not the person who broke the rules (Owen Paterson), or the one who tried to rewrite the rules (Boris Johnson).
No, apparently in a WhatsApp message to a group of new Tory MPs, Paul called Chope a “selfish twat” for not allowing the government to make the scandal go away without even a debate in Parliament.
“The attempt by honourable and right honourable members of this House, aided and abetted by the Government, under cover of reform of the process, effectively to clear his [Paterson’s] name, was misplaced, ill-judged and just plain wrong.”
“As a new Member of Parliament, Madam Deputy Speaker, I need to ask your advice. Is it acceptable in the House to use the word “liar”, and to accuse a Member of lying?”
He seems more interested in covering for the Prime Minister’s lies than having a debate on improving standards in public life. Ironically Paul seems to have missed the start of the debate where the usual rules that protect the Conservative leader from proper scrutiny had been suspended.
Perhaps he was too busy with one of his other jobs?
On the 14th September Paul Holmes insinuated that GPs in Eastleigh haven’t been working
may I emphasise to the Secretary of State the amount of anger there is in Eastleigh about not being able to get a face-to-face appointment with a GP? He stood at the Dispatch Box and encouraged GPs to get back to work. If necessary, and if that uptake has not happened, will he instruct them to get back to work, so we can at least have face-to-face appointments for my constituents?
He referred to the pandemic easing when he publicised his question on social media, and talks about returning to normal on his website. Unfortunately this complacency, when deaths are still averaging 1,000 per week and cases are rising alarmingly in schools, is likely to prolong Covid related issues getting face-to-face appointments. Surgeries and schools are not getting the investment they need to improve ventilation and control the virus, and the government seem to have all but abandoned proportionate public health measures to keep cases down going in to winter.
Three days after Paul’s question in Parliament, four members of staff were injured in an attack on GP surgery in Manchester. The BMA said,
The narrative that GPs are refusing to see patients face-to-face is dangerous and inaccurate and it has to stop. We call on the health secretary to speak up openly and unequivocally in support of general practice…
Paul hasn’t issued an apology publicly but has apparently said this on an Eastleigh social media group,
Let me make clear from the start that I respect and thank our GPs for the work they do. I am the first to admit that I was called near to last in that statement after two colleagues raised the same issue. I wasn’t expecting to be called and had to quickly speak. It was unwise to say get back to work. I should have said get back to physical appointments more quickly, and I apologise for the implication of the question.
That seems like a pretty weak excuse to me and, while any apology is obviously welcome, it certainly doesn’t go far enough to counter the narrative that GPs are refusing to see patients face-to-face. They are seeing patients, and have been throughout the pandemic. He should be apologising in Parliament and asking the health secretary to condemn the scapegoating of GPs rather than reinforcing the myth that they aren’t working.
It’s also somewhat misleading to just blame the pandemic for the lack of access to GPs. Thanks to the Conservative party, it has been difficult to get appointments for a long time. My own GP practice has had issues and had to merge with other GP practices to survive. While Paul complains about practices merging as if it’s nothing to do with his government, I’d rather they merged than closed completely.
Somewhat strangely for an MP in the ruling party, Paul is apparently campaigning for better access to NHS services. He shouldn’t be campaigning, he should be demanding to know why his government is failing to deliver. The prime minister personally guaranteed 50,000 more GP appointments in the 2019 general election. They would help. Having fuel to get to appointments would also be useful.
Perhaps the 6,000 new doctors are just like the 50,000 new nurses, or the 40 new hospitals. Just another broken promise from Paul and his party. Just keep blaming someone else for the problems.
It’s definitely election season again. The first clue was the local MP dusting off his campaign against local housing. I feel fairly certain all the local parties will be campaigning to protect our green spaces but only one party I know of thought filming a campaign video in the middle of the third national lockdown constituted a reasonable excuse to leave home.
Talking of the pandemic, the Conservative Government have got a lot wrong as they repeatedly failed to control the virus and save lives. In fact we are at the relax lockdown restrictions too early phase of the UK Covid19 groundhog day. Soon to be followed by the Eat Out to Help the Virus Out reboot. Not to mention the “why aren’t you all back in the office?” accusations in June. While the NHS is doing an amazing job rolling out the first dose of vaccines, it’s worrying that those vaccines seem to be giving everyone a false sense of security. Let’s hope we’re not just creating the perfect conditions for a world-beating vaccine resistant UK Covid variant.
Anyway, despite all that, one thing the government hasn’t been accused of mishandling through the pandemic was not being tough enough on leaflet deliveries. Not introducing effective quarantine has been mentioned. PPE has been mentioned a lot. Why won’t they stop people delivering takeaway leaflets not so much. Strange then that election leaflets should be such a hot topic of debate in Eastleigh political circles. Is it just Eastleigh?
At least, that’s the plan! To work, the Eastleigh Manifesto needs you! If you have an idea about the future of Eastleigh, don’t keep it to yourself; suggest a change to the manifesto! Anyone can edit the manifesto and there’s a step by step guide to help you below.
There’s already one policy in the manifesto, and the hope is that it will provide inspiration for a positive future in Eastleigh. Anyone interested in standing as an independent candidate in local elections could campaign on some of the policies in the manifesto, local party’s could use it to feed into their own manifestos if they have one, or you could use it to find out which candidates support policies you agree with before voting.
That’s the background, now for the fun bit: how to edit the manifesto!
How to suggest a change
If you already know what you want to add to the manifesto, follow the steps below. If you’re not sure what to add, there’s a list of ideas which you can check out for inspiration first.
(In the future it would be nice to be able to support alternative options for logging in. If that’s something you would like, please leave a comment and let me know which account you would prefer to use!)
Step 3: Start editing the manifesto!
Click on “Suggest a change” in the manifesto and log in using your GitHub account.
Step 4: Grant access to the manifesto app
The manifesto is managed by an app which needs access to your GitHub account. (You should only need to do this the first time you log in.)
Step 5: Submit your first changes!
It’s time to share your ideas for Eastleigh! When you’re ready, click on “Submit changes” at the bottom of the page.
Step 6: Describe your proposal
All proposals are voted on before being accepted for the manifesto, so give yours a memorable name and short description. You also need to confirm that you are happy for your submission to be part of the public domain manifesto. Read the Contributor License Agreement and include the following statement in the description:
"I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA"
Click on “Submit changes” when you’re ready.
Step 7: That’s it!
Just wait for comments and votes on your proposal. If your proposal is accepted and added to the manifesto, you’ll get to vote on future proposals!
If anything goes wrong, or you have any comments or suggestions for ways to improve the manifesto app, please leave a comment below.
Paul told us we should judge him if he was lucky enough to win the election, and that seems like something which is too important to leave until 2024 so here is Paul’s first annual report.
To be frank, I didn’t vote for Paul and I was skeptical that he would be any better than Eastleigh’s previous MP, who had left us so unexpectedly. Having said that, I was pleasantly surprised when he replied to my email shortly after being elected. It wasn’t the usual cut and paste response which Mims might have sent. It was a genuine, direct, reply to the question I had asked, and it confirmed unambiguously that he would stand by the commitment he had made in the election campaign. Perhaps he wasn’t going to be a Mims clone after all.
“For me, it is a question of integrity and honesty.”
(Paul Holmes election campaign)
Unfortunately that pre-election commitment didn’t even last a year. For me, Paul has failed on the question of integrity and honesty, but how did he do otherwise.
“Stop lying about what I said I said I’d vote for a deal by Xmas. Which I did.
(Paul Holmes tweet)
Unfortunately Paul has never replied to my requests for him to explain why he thought I was lying.
Even now Brexit still isn’t done and, despite initially voting to sign the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, Paul has even voted to break that international agreement. The irony of openly threatening to break international law while complaining that China and Iran should stand by their international commitments seems to be lost on Paul.
Whether or not the Prime Minister eventually manages to agree his bad deal, we face the most damaging interpretation of the EU referendum result possible. I don’t think it’s acceptable to shrug off the government’s abject failure and carry on as if they have in any way respected the result of the 2016 referendum, or the 2019 election. They have not.
It’s only fair to acknowledge that Paul faced a public health emergency which would have stretched even the most competent government. Unfortunately our government was not selected for its competence and has largely failed to protect lives or the economy.
I actually think Paul started off strongly when it came to the coronavirus pandemic: he set a good example working remotely; he worked closely with the local council, despite their differences; his pinned tweet told constituents to stay at home, “No ifs no buts.”; he produced a fact sheet; he kept at it, reminding people to follow the rules even in the glorious lockdown weather; he sent a leaflet to all his constituents; and he celebrated the achievements of a local school as they stepped in to help with his government’s lengthy struggle to provide protective equipment. For me it was the highlight of his year.
Unfortunately it didn’t last beyond Barnard Castle.
Paul’s statement was mildly critical of the Prime Minister’s advisor and he admitted that situation had undermined the wider messaging around the public health emergency. I agreed and asked him to respond by reinforcing the rules and remind people what resources were available to help them. Basically to continue the good work he had started. His reply was rather abrupt:
“You can find the rules on http://gov.uk as you know well. So look there.”
(Paul Holmes tweet)
He appeared to give up taking Covid19 seriously after that, and even had his own minor Barnard Castle moment later in the year. At least Paul had the sense to apologise on that occasion.
“For me, growing up, it was nothing to do with immigration; I am pro-immigration. It was purely a sovereignty issue. I do not think that we should have stayed part of an organisation which we voted to join in 1975 as an economic trading bloc in which we slowly had the erosion of the sovereign basis to make our own laws. A majority of people who voted in 1975 did not vote for greater European interference and I think that culminated why I voted to leave.”
One issue I think most people will agree with Paul on, is his opposition to a pay rise for MPs. He agreed with Kier Starmer that MPs shouldn’t get a pay rise this year, however Paul appeared to believe that there wasn’t anything MPs could do about it. While it is true that his pay is set by an independent body, MPs could make changes to that independent body through legislation. Parliament is sovereign after all, although I guess that would spoil the illusion of independence.
Perhaps the biggest criticisms for Paul came when he defended the government’s opposition to Marcus Rashford’s free school meal campaign. Aside from some unnecessary party politics, Paul’s statement explains all the things the government are doing, as you would expect. Unfortunately focusing on some superficially impressive sounding numbers isn’t as helpful as concentrating on outcomes. With news that Unicef will be feeding children in the UK for the first time, I think the government has some work to do. Hopefully they will work more constructively with campaigners like Marcus Rashford in the new year.
MPs have some sort of agreement that they will not deal with issues from people outside their own constituency. Unfortunately they don’t seem to afford the same courtesy to local politicians, so Paul frequently seems to get distracted by issues that he doesn’t need to get involved with. Of course some local issues benefit from being championed in Parliament, and it was good to see him raise the long running issue of Hedge End station accessibility in a debate.
Too often though he just uses his platform in Parliament to complain about Eastleigh Council and the Eastleigh local plan. It’s almost as if he’s trying to thwart the local democratic process for some reason.
Other than the Eastleigh local plan, Paul’s most visible local campaign has been in support of Southampton Airport’s application to extend their runway. This is an issue where he actually agrees with the local council however he is still impatient to rush through the planning process and, quite remarkably, he even appeared to suggest that the government should use a special development order. So much for local consultation.
One area that Paul gets positive reviews for is where he has helped Eastleigh constituents with various problems, and obviously it’s a good thing for those people if his office can help.
What’s less obvious is whether the problems he helps with are best suited to an MP. Apparently Paul and his team answer over 100 cases a day, of which around 5% relate to pot holes. That could just be because it’s not obvious who should deal with pot holes, or it could be that Hampshire council doesn’t have the funding it needs to maintain roads.
Similarly, there will be other cases that could be dealt with by Eastleigh council, or Citizens Advice, or some other organisation. Unfortunately MPs are not covered by freedom of information requests but it would be really helpful if Paul could publish a breakdown of what topics constituents contact him about, and how many he is able to help with.
Paul has done a difficult job in a very difficult year, and he is far from the worst MP in Parliament. Overall though, Paul’s support of a dishonest Prime Minister who is clearly not up to the job far outweighs any good he might do locally. Hopefully that might change in the new year.
Most importantly, these are just my personal observations about how Paul has done this year, and I’m sure I’ve missed plenty of things out. If you’d like to add anything, positive or negative, please leave a comment below.
I guess Paul didn’t actually want to be judged after all. (31st December 2020)
I recently asked my MP, Paul Holmes, whether he would be voting to break the Withdrawal Agreement which he had been elected to deliver. I suspect his reply was similar to most Conservative MPs and it confirms that he has decided to break his election pledge to deliver the Prime Minister’s oven ready deal.
“There has been much speculation about the Government’s commitment to treaty obligations and international law. I believe that some of the commentary has misrepresented the situation.”
It is not speculation that the government intend to break international law, it is a matter of record.
“The end of the Transition Period is fast approaching, and with no agreement yet reached, the Government has proposed a safety net to protect the Union and ensure that the UK’s obligations under the Belfast Agreement are met.”
The end of the Transition Period is fast approaching because the government chose not to extend the deadline, despite it being obvious that the UK will not be ready. The Northern Ireland Protocol is the safety net, which was specifically intended to protect the Belfast Agreement even in the case that no further agreement was reached with the European Union. The Government may have finally understood what it signed up to but however much Paul regrets the Prime Minister signing the Withdrawal Agreement, it is too late. You cannot unilaterally change an agreement between two parties without consequences.
“There is no reason why these provisions should undermine the future relationship negotiations with the EU.”
I wonder if Paul might want to reconsider this risible statement after sleeping on it. Perhaps he has noticed that the EU has begun legal proceedings against the UK.
“Remedying the unintended consequences of the Protocol may breach the Withdrawal Agreement in a limited way but the consequences of inaction could break up the UK. I hope you understand that while I remain fully committed to international law, I have a duty to protect the integrity of the Union – the overriding purpose of this Bill.”
Wow, those are quite some contradictions! If Paul was fully committed to international law, he would vote to uphold it. If he cared about the integrity of the Union, he might start by apologising for his complete lack of scrutiny of the Withdrawal Agreement before it was signed.
Instead of threatening to renege on the fantastic oven ready deal Paul was elected to deliver, the government could still protect the integrity of the Union by reaching a comprehensive deal with the EU which respects the wishes of NI, Scotland, and Wales, which have so far been completely ignored.
Before the election Paul said,
“For me, it is a question of integrity and honesty. I am the only candidate in this election who will deliver on the referendum result and get Brexit done.”
If there was any doubt about why Paul Holmes was dropped in as the Johnson candidate for Eastleigh, there isn’t any more.
Strangely MPs seemed to be debating an extension to the transition period even though the deadline for extending it has already passed, and Paul’s contribution, which he tweeted about, was similarly detached from reality.
“We are here all over again. The ability of SNP Members to focus on their narrow-minded, party interests at a time of national importance is becoming legendary.”
The SNP has a way to go before they can compete with the Conservative party’s world-beating track record of focusing on narrow-minded party interests.
This is a time of national importance, with a great many more lives at stake as winter approaches. Unfortunately, instead of focusing on improving the government’s handling of the current public health emergency, the Conservative Prime Minister decided to waste time, money, and effort on a self imposed deadline that the country will not be ready for. The oven ready deal seems to have been substituted for a no deal Brexit which is certainly not what the majority of people voted for in Eastleigh, Scotland, or the UK.
“If there was ever a sight that shows why we must protect the Union, it was the vision of a Labour party that could not be bothered to show up, with SNP Members behind those Benches. If the Labour party ever has the opportunity to form the next Government, it will be at the price of a referendum on independence to get the SNP onside. Conservative Members do not back that at all.”
I would be very interested to know why Scotland should even need to ask permission to have an independence referendum, when the UK was able to hold the EU referendum without asking.
“The SNP has not changed much in not respecting referendum results. It lost the 2014 referendum, and yet it pursues that agenda, with no thought to getting on with the day job in Scotland. SNP Members lost the 2016 referendum, but they are now trying by any means necessary to thwart the will of the British people.”
The SNP may or may not have changed much since 2014, but plenty of other things have changed. Most obviously, as a result of the 2016 referendum, the UK has left the EU. (Just to clarify that once more, given the accusations of thwarting, the UK has already left the EU.)
It’s also now very clear what Scotland’s place in the Union is.
“This debate is once again a thinly disguised attempt by SNP Members to undermine democracy—nothing else. The irony of that is not lost on me.”
The current Prime Minister unlawfully shut down parliament in a blatant attempt to undermine democracy—nothing else.
“If they voted for a deal when they were offered one—three times—we would not be here today.”
I’m not even sure what Paul is complaining about here. Is he complaining that, like the current Prime Minister and large numbers of Conservative MPs, the SNP didn’t vote for Theresa May’s bad deal?
We would not be here today if David Cameron hadn’t gambled the country’s, and his party’s, future to settle an internal political argument.
“Knowing them, however, we probably would be.
Like any good Unionist, I read the newspapers north of the border. In these difficult times, we all have to spend a few more hours at home, and humour plays an increasingly important role in making sure that we can all get by, so you can imagine my reaction, Mr Deputy Speaker, when browsing The National, I found the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) was quoted as saying that Scottish taxpayers were “footing the bill” as the UK prepared to leave the EU. Indeed, without a hint of irony, SNP Members are trying to claim that they would somehow save money by being out of the Union and part of the EU, when we know that public spending in Scotland is 17% higher than the UK average. Treasury figures, verified by the House of Commons Library, show that per head of population, Scotland receives £11,200; England, £9,200; and my constituents in Eastleigh, £8,600.”
I’m not entirely convinced putting a border in the Irish Sea is the action of a good Unionist. I seem to remember Theresa May having quite strong views on that before the current PM made a sudden u-turn to sign the EU Withdrawal Agreement at the last minute. (Hopefully Paul stands by the international agreement despite comments from one of the previous Brexit secretaries.)
It seems somewhat ironic to be complaining about SNP Members saying they would save money by being out of the Union, when that’s exactly the claim made on the side of a bus in the EU referendum.
“I will always lobby for resources for my constituency, but I accept that that difference is the price that my constituents pay because we are stronger together—and we are stronger together as one United Kingdom.”
I wonder if Eastleigh constituents accept that is a price is worth paying.
“We are stronger together culturally, with our shared history, and we are stronger together economically. It was this Government who introduced the coronavirus job retention scheme, which has protected the income of 630,000 people in Scotland. It was the Government of the United Kingdom who have supported 146,000 self-employed people through the self-employment support scheme, and it was this Government—the United Kingdom Government—who have provided over £2.7 billion to the Scottish Government for rates relief, small business grants and grants for businesses in the retail, leisure and hospitality sector.”
That’s all very nice but it makes no difference if people in Scotland choose independence. It’s not up to Paul or me what people in Scotland want, and I’m sure they would know what they were voting for.
“We need to ensure that we are prepared for Brexit and that our borders are fit for purpose. That investment will help us to maximise the opportunity created by Brexit as we continue to trade with our European partners and to forge new and exciting trade deals across the world.”
Paul seems to be confusing one small part of the ongoing cost of administering a border with more friction, with an actual investment. He is also somewhat vague about what the opportunity created by Brexit is. Eastleigh’s previous MP was unable to explain what the benefits of Brexit were when I asked, and I doubt Paul ever will either.
“While the SNP like to reject referendum results—the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said that it was a narrow gap, but I do not think that 10% is a narrow gap—I take the expression of my constituents’ will seriously. It is a shame that the SNP do not do that for their constituents. My constituents in Eastleigh voted to leave the European Union, and I will support the Government as we make good on our promise to leave the EU and seize the opportunities presented by global Britain.”
Just to clarify, here’s some of what Eastleigh constituents voted for over the last few years:
2015 – Five years of Mims Davies as MP and David Cameron as PM (something about not wanting chaos if I remember correctly)
2016 – To leave the EU (54% which polling showed had dropped to 49.3% by 2018)
2017 – Five years of Mims Davies as MP and Theresa May as PM (something about being strong and stable)
2019 – Five years of Paul Holmes as MP and Boris Johnson as PM (something about being oven ready)
We’re getting used to being disappointed; we didn’t even get Mims for the full five years! At no point did we vote for any specific Brexit, and certainly not Brexit at any cost.
The Conservative party has never respected the referendum result, or sought to build a consensus on a new relationship with the EU. Instead they have treated the referendum, the UK, and particularly remain voting Scotland with utter contempt.
As for promises, the Prime Minister made very clear promises to EU citizens during the referendum campaign which has not kept. Similarly, Paul Holmes made a commitment to EU citizens in the last election campaign which he has so far not kept either. The way EU citizens in the UK and British citizens in the EU have been treated by the government since the referendum is beyond shameful.
The increasingly likely no deal end to the transition period at the end of the year is nothing like what was on offer in the referendum.
“The SNP should focus on the day job to fix the lack of educational attainment that harms Scottish children; to fix their dire record in government and public service; and to stop the political gimmicks.”
It would be nice if Eastleigh’s MP could focus on his day job instead of complaining about Scottish MPs representing their constituents, or complaining about decisions made by local politicians. There’s a likely second wave of Coronavirus coming, and the country needs to get ready for Brexit at the same time.
“We deliver; they delay.”
This would be funny if the government’s ongoing dither and delay in tackling the Coronavirus pandemic wasn’t causing thousands of unnecessary deaths.
“It is time to get Brexit done, and I will vote against the motion this evening.”
Brexit wasn’t done by last Christmas, and it won’t be done by this Christmas. We have however already left the EU, and there isn’t anything MPs can do to delay the end of the transition period now even if they wanted to. Let’s hope we don’t all come to regret that.
I was caught unprepared by an actual parliamentary candidate knocking on the door this evening! Unfortunately I was about to bath the kraken so I didn’t have time to come up with any sensible questions. Still, it’s about time I took an interest in the election…
It’s not long since I last got to vote for an MP and, like last time, I’m undecided. Unfortunately there aren’t as many candidates to choose from this time, with the final list being:
It’s puzzling why digital interactions are somehow viewed differently to other aspects of everyday life. I suspect the economics of getting away with mass surveillance online vs. offline has a lot to do with it. Whatever the reason, making it explicit that our offline rights extend online is well overdue. The six proposed principles don’t seem all that unreasonable:
1. No surveillance without suspicion
Mass surveillance must end. Surveillance is only legitimate when it is targeted, authorised by a warrant, and is necessary and proportionate.
2. Transparent laws, not secret laws
The Government is using secret agreements and abusing archaic laws. We need a clear legal framework governing surveillance to protect our rights.
3. Judicial not political authorisation
Ministers should not have the power to authorise surveillance. All surveillance should be sanctioned by an independent judge on a case-by-case basis.
4. Effective democratic oversight
Parliament has failed to hold the intelligence agencies to account. Parliamentary oversight must be independent, properly resourced, and able to command public confidence through regular reporting and public sessions.
5. The right to redress
Innocent people have had their rights violated. Everyone should have the right to challenge surveillance in an open court.
6. A secure web for all
Weakening the general security and privacy of communications systems erodes protections for everyone, and undermines trust in digital services. Secret operations by government agencies should be targeted, and not attack widely used technologies, protocols and standards.
If we miss this opportunity, there’s a real risk to democracy. How is oversight possible if the people you’re overseeing know things about you that you’d rather keep private. My last MP, a candidate for the Lib Dem leadership, certainly had things to hide. Perhaps we need to know more about MPs. A lot more.