Boxing Day hunts, and another broken promise...

Christmas Day has come and gone, and that can only mean one thing - Boxing Day hunts.

Seven years on from what was possibly the most hateful, class-prejudice driven piece of legislation on the statute books, certainly in living memory, traditional Boxing Day hunts go from strength to strength. 2012 saw over a quarter of a million people attending over 300 hunts across the length and breadth of the country, from Cornwall to Cumbria, from Norfolk to North Wales (including more than 6,000 in attendance at the Heythrop Hunt - despite the recent criminal waste of £327,000 by the RSPCA in its ongoing persecution of hunters and hunting).

But the news is not all good. Speaking to the Telegraph, Environment Secretary Owen Paterson appeared to rule out the promised vote to repeal the Hunting Act.

Well, there's a surprise.

The Conservative manifesto, for what it is worth, stated (on page 80): "The Hunting Act has proved unworkable. A Conservative government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time."

Whilst this was a much woolier commitment than many of us had hoped, and was given far less prominence than we'd hoped for - tagged on as an afterthought, the final paragraph in the chapter 'Restore our civil liberties' - it was a commitment nevertheless.

However, hopes of a repeal appear to have been dashed for the foreseeable future.

Owen Paterson said, "At the moment, it would not be my proposal to bring forward a vote we were going to lose. There needs to be more work done on Members of Parliament."  He went on: "It is our clear intention to have a free vote but we need to choose an appropriate moment."

Of course, this would seem to be a sensible stance to take. But are we honestly expected to believe that whilst a free vote could not be won in 2013, it may in 2014? Doesn't really seem plausible, does it?

It is, however, perfectly reasonable to point out that Parliament has more pressing issues to be grappling with at present than repealing the Hunting Act, however badly drafted a piece of legislation it may be. I am inclined to agree.

But that's a much more difficult pill to swallow when David Cameon can dedicate no small amount of time to trying to alienate an entire generation of small- and large-C conservatives to impose a wholesale redefinition of marriage, despite it not being in the manifesto of any major political party, and with not even its supporters seeking to claim it a priority.

So we must continue to live in hope for what 2013 may bring, but I cannot claim to be hopeful. After all, when neither party manifestos nor coalition agreements appear to be worth spit, you will forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

Why it won't be UKIP that leads to Cameron's demise, but himself...

 

There has been much written in recent months about the rise of UKIP and what is perceived to be the resulting decline in the prospect of a Conservative majority in 2015.  This has lead to talk (from outside of UKIP it must be said) of an electoral pact between the two right-of-centre parties.

 

Although much that has been written about UKIP of late doesn’t hold up to any meaningful scrutiny – for example, contrary to their portrayal in much of the media, the EU ranks as only the third most important issue amongst UKIP supporters – that they appear to be benefitting from their stance on ‘equal marriage’, as widely reported over the weekend, does appear to stand up.

 

The Sunday headlines were predictably dominated by UKIP’s rise to 14%, securing a clear third place, in this month’s Comres poll for theIndependent on Sunday/Sunday Mirror:

 

Conservative 28% (-3%)

Labour 39% (-4%)
UKIP 14% (+6%)
Lib Dem 9% (-1%)
Others 9% (+1%)

Despite the headlines, the polling isn’t all bad news for the Conservatives. They continue to be more trusted on the economy than Labour, which is widely expected to be the key battleground come the 2015 election.  But drill down further into the in depth polling and a worrying picture emerges for Cameron.

 

It’s well documented that older people tend to be more likely to vote in elections than younger people.  They also tend to be far more likely to identify with and vote for Conservatives. Amongst 55-64 year olds, Comres finds that Conservatives hold a one point lead over Labour; this lead rises to 8 points amongst those aged 65+.

 

Whilst these figures tend to be relatively stable – certainly more so than amongst those younger voters – Conservative support amongst the key 65+ age group has fallen four points in a month, to 30%. This is despite, according to Comres, 44% of this age group, generally speaking, identifying themselves as Conservatives.

 

Put another way, one in three Conservatives aged 65+ would cast their votes elsewhere if there was an election tomorrow.

 

Tellingly, over the same period support for UKIP amongst this age group has surged by five points, to 21%.

 

Of course, it would be reckless to purport these figures illustrate support switching from Conservative to UKIP over any one single issue.  That said, the polling does add weight to the suggestion that Conservative voters, no longer just activists, are being haemorrhaged to UKIP as a consequence of Cameron’s ‘equal marriage’ crusade.

 

It’s hardly a surprise that ‘equal marriage’ enjoys considerably less support amongst older voters.  What is, perhaps, more surprising is the criticism of Cameron’s leadership on the matter from those minded to vote UKIP, with a huge 74% being critical of the Prime Minister – this compares to figures of 51% and 31% amongst Labour and Conservative voters respectively.

 

With UKIP maintaining a consistent stance on marriage – they accused the government of ‘picking a fight’ with religious groups earlier this year – they are increasingly becoming the logical, the only, alternative for those of all political persuasions who are vehemently opposed to ‘equal marriage’.

 

Whilst I may indeed be guilty of making too many inferences from what is only two months’ polling, if these patterns are repeated in the months to come they will represent a major headache for the Prime Minister. (So watch out for more good news for pensioners in coming budgets).

 

Should Cameron fail to deliver a Conservative majority in 2015, the blame will lie fairly and squarely at his door. It will not be because of the activity of UKIP, not even because of Cameron and Clegg’s civil partnership.

 

Cameron’s political obituary will lead with his electoral suicide over ‘equal marriage’ and his alienation of an entire generation of Conservatives.

Why Napoleon was right about Stockton Council...

From controversial parking charges to wonky lines, barely a month seems to pass without the parking arrangements on Yarm High Street hitting the headlines. However, one story regarding the most recent battleground – over the re-location of two signs informing motorists of the extent of the disk zone – caught my eye in particular.

A bit of background. After being issued with a penalty notice for not displaying a valid parking disk, Jason Hadlow – the chairman of Yarm Town Council – appealed to the Parking Adjudicator. After much consideration, the adjudicator found in Mr Hadlow’s favour, ruling the relevant signage to be “inadequate” and “ambiguous”. In the days that followed, two roadsigns were moved from their kerbside location, into the middle of two parking spaces.

 

 

 

Whilst on the face of it this tale is ostensibly another amusing one of Stockton Council’s incompetence, the comments of an unnamed “spokesman for Stockton Council” as reported in today’s Darlington & Stockton Times are altogether more worrying, being so disingenuous as to be downright misleading.

 

The spokesman said, “Two new parking signs have been put up in Yarm High Street. This is a direct consequence of the recent parking adjudicator’s decision. It is unfortunate that we have to reduce the spaces but it is a necessary consequence of the adjudicator’s ruling.”

 

Firstly, no new signs have been put up; instead, two existing signs were relocated. Okay, a trivial point, but not a great start by the spokesman.

 

Secondly, we come to the claim that the change was a direct consequence of the adjudicator’s decision. Whilst there is no doubt that the signs’ previous locations were criticised by the adjudicator, to blame him for their current location is a gross misrepresentation.

 

The parking adjudicator has no powers to direct a council to do anything. His authority starts and finishes with the ability to quash penalty notices; nothing more, nothing less.

 

What he actually said was, “Whilst it is not my place to make recommendations about the signing one obvious step to improve it would be to ensure that the Zone entry signs are placed next to the carriageway where they are more visible”.

 

No mention of where they should be moved to, and certainly no suggestion that there was any need to remove two parking spaces whilst doing so.  The blame for this latest act of lunacy lies squarely with Stockton Council.

 

Could they have been placed, as the adjudicator suggested, next to the carriageway, alongside the existing parking spaces thereby preserving them? Of course they could. Why weren’t they? Draw your own conclusions.

 

I don’t however subscribe to the view of many, that the signs were moved by Stockton Council’s Technical Services out of malice, in some childish act of revenge at Councillor Hadlow’s victory.

 

Instead, I think it far more likely that Napoleon Bonaparte probably hit the nail on the head, when he said, “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.”

If the Church of England is still ‘the Tory Party at prayer’ is Cameron done for?

There have been many examples of David Cameron ‘doing God’ in recent times, from his speech celebrating the 400^th anniversary of the King James Bible last December to him hosting a reception for Christian leaders at Downing  Street to celebrate Easter (not Holy Week in his words but Easter week, though let us not quibble).

Keen to burnish his Christian credentials, this self-professed ‘committed’ but ‘vaguely practicing’ Anglican stated during his Easter reception that “I think there is something of a Christian fight-back going on in Britain and I think that’s a thoroughly good thing”.  Unfortunately, Dave appears to have neglected to mention this to James Eadie QC, the barrister representing the Government in landmark cases currently being heard before the European Court of Human Rights.

Amongst the human rights challenges being considered, Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida – a nurse and a British Airways worker respectively – argue that their employers’ refusal to allow them to openly wear crucifixes at work contravened Articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion.

However, speaking for the Government, James Eadie QC countered that wearing a cross was not a “generally recognised” act of Christian worship as “a great many Christians do not insist on wearing crosses, still less visibly”.  More ridiculously, he claimed that neither Chaplin nor Eadie had been discriminated against by their employers as they were free to “resign and move to another job”.

So how closely do the Government’s words in Court marry to Cameron’s recent proclamations on faith? Well, not remotely so; not even close.

During his Easter reception, Cameron said, “I think we see this fight-back in this very strong stance that I’ve taken and others have taken in terms of the right to wear a crucifix. I think this is important.”

Such a strong stance in fact that his Government’s lawyers are currently arguing that as there is no ostensible obligation for Christians to wear a crucifix then their ‘rights’ could not have been impinged.

With poll after poll, decade after decade, supporting the 18^th century perception of the Church of England being the ‘Tory Party at prayer’, then Cameron has problems.

Without a party co-Chairman who he can any longer instruct to ‘do Allah’ on the Government’s behalf, Cameron’s ability to ‘do God’ is undoubtedly going to be of more importance come the next general election than it was a week ago.

Based on his, and his Government’s, record so far, he’s in trouble…

Can't provide excellence? Buy a press release...

Stockton Council’s recent bout of self-backslapping is well under way (see here) after having been shortlisted for a third successive year for the “prestigious” Council of the Year Award in the Association of Public Service Excellence (APSE) awards.

What is it that makes these awards so prestigious? Well, pretty much nothing.

To shamelessly steal the words of another (from here), "those councils that can provide excellence do so; those that can’t join APSE".

In order to be a part of this far-from-exclusive club, Stockton Council paid £3,159 in “Membership Fees” to APSE in 2011/12. (This is despite a draft report completed last month which could only name, at a push, three 'benefits' of APSE membership, one of which was involvement in APSE events and awards!)

In addition to the annual subscription to APSE, member organisations have the opportunity to hand over yet more taxpayers’ hard-earned cash to participate in APSE’s award ceremonies.

Sponsored by that bastion of efficiency that is UNISON, these awards ‘celebrate’ the least bad organisations that have duly paid their subs and nominated themselves in such illustrious categories as Best Catering Service, Best Transport & Fleet Servicing, and Most Fatuous Piece of Self Publicity (Okay, I made that last one up, but only the last one!).

I do have some sympathy with Stockton Council though. A press release saying “After handing over thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, Stockton Council has nominated itself multiple times to be considered amongst the least useless organisations that subscribe to APSE” is hardly likely to gain much traction.

That said, being voted Council of the Year from amongst APSE members such as Haringey, Nottingham and South Tyneside councils, is akin to being voted as the least hated ‘celebrity’ on Big Brother.

The lesson to be learned? If you can’t provide excellence, buy a press release.

A tolerant society? Not any more...

I have to start by saying that, contrary to some press headlines today, Christians in Britain today are not being persecuted. But yesterday’s High Court ruling seemingly banning the saying of prayers at the start of council meetings is an attack – or more accurately, the most recent attack – on the idea that Britain is a tolerant society.

By definition, tolerance is the acceptance of the differing views and opinions of others. The key word here is ‘differing’. It is not a demonstration of tolerance to allow something with which you agree; tolerance is demonstrated by refusing to suppress something which you find disagreeable.

Yet increasingly we see cases brought before the courts, such as the judicial review brought by atheist former councillor Chris Bone and backed by the National Secular Society, motivated by nothing more than his intolerance of the religious beliefs of others.

If it is not already clear, I profoundly disagree with Chris Bone and his militant atheism. The whole questions of Christianity, of religion, of the existence of God are ones on which he and I are diametrically opposed, and almost certainly intransigently so.

Yet whereas I wouldn't even consider forcing my beliefs and opinions on Mr Bone, and would never seek to suppress his beliefs, unfortunately he feels unable to do the same. Because, we are told, he felt ‘embarrassed’ to be present whilst prayers are being said.

If there is a weaker argument for the banning of prayers in council meetings, I have yet to come across it.

It’s important to recognise that the High Court did not find that councils should not continue to say prayers at the start of meetings because they offend the sensibilities of people such as Mr Bone. It ruled they were unlawful because of a technicality in Local Government Act 1972; a matter which I believe can, and should, be easily remedied through the Localism Act.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that this won’t be the end of the matter. Mr Bone and his ilk will not rest until they have brought their intolerance to bear upon the rest of us.

Unfortunately, this case is indicative of the society in which we now live. The whole idea that we are a tolerant society has been consigned to the dustbin of history, if it was ever anything more than a fiction.

Instead of tolerating the differing views and practices of others, we appeal to the courts and legislators to ban them.  Instead of turning the other cheek, we seek legal protection from anybody saying anything that offends us.  And God forbid we should be made to feel embarrassed.

In short, Heaven forfend I should need to tolerate anything.

In recognising that the reader may disagree with my argument, I am more than happy for you to post a comment to that effect. I may disagree with you; I may even feel embarrassed by your comment; but, unlike Mr Bone, I will tolerate our differences.

Banker-bashing: our unofficial national sport?

Unless you have spent the past two weeks living in a cave, it will have been nigh on impossible not to have seen at least some of the coverage of the Stephen Hester and Fred Goodwin furores.

Whilst both stories have the obvious common thread of the Royal Bank of Scotland running through them, in one respect they could not have been more different.

As is widely reported today, Fred Goodwin is to be stripped of his knighthood (awarded for 'services to banking') for the catastrophic decisions which contributed to, if not directly caused, the near collapse of RBS.  Last night's announcement comes just days after Stephen Hester bowed to relentless pressure from politicians and the media to forego a bonus worth £963,000.

Where the debate on Fred Goodwin surrounded on the idea that he shouldn't be rewarded for his failures at RBS, for that is how his knighthood has been painted, the debate on Stephen Hester concentrated on how and to what extent he should be rewarded for his successes at RBS.

It does not matter that Fred Goodwin was not solely responsible for the fall of RBS, nor that he has not been charged with any crime or misconduct.  Nor does it matter that Stephen Hester is widely regarded by his peers to be doing a good job at RBS (although granted, how you measure and judge his performance is highly subjective).

All that matters in the eyes of the media, and seemingly now politicians, is that both men share the ignominy of being bankers.  More than that, they are/were bankers at a bank largely owned by the taxpayer, a fact which seems sufficient to give politicians carte blanche to call the shots depending on which direction they think the wind of popular opinion is blowing.

Whilst the dead tree press appears to have been largely as one in their criticism of both men, opinion polls show that public opinion is much more divided.  But what is clear is that most people have an opinion on the subject; and an unflappable, intractable opinion at that.  Either bankers are bad and should be made to live in penury and wear sackcloth and ashes until the end of time, or bankers whilst having made mistakes are being scapegoated by politicians to distract from the wholesale failings of the FSA and the last government in the events leading up to the 2008 bailouts.

Whilst there will undoubtedly be some that genuinely couldn't give a damn either way about bankers, I'd wager such individuals are relatively few and far between.  Therefore given that large swathes of society, if not a majority of people, couldn't give a fig about football, with all other popular bloodsports now banned, and as it's something we as a nation would appear to have a real flair for, perhaps it's time for us to finally recognise banker-bashing as our official national sport?

Parking stitch up

Last night, Stockton Council’s executive scrutiny committee decided to ignore the concerns of traders and residents alike. When given the opportunity to refer the decision to implement parking charges in Yarm back to cabinet for further consideration, the committee elected (by 9 votes to 7) not to do so.

In the spirit of transparency, the 9 councillors who voted against referring the matter back to cabinet are:

Cllr Nigel Cooke               Labour             

Cllr Bob Gibson                Labour             

Cllr Miss Barbara Inman    Labour             

Cllr Mohammed Javed       Labour              

Cllr Eileen Johnson           Labour             

Cllr Paul Kirton                 Labour             

Cllr Mrs Jean O’Donnell     Labour             

Cllr Ross Patterson           Ingleby Barwick Independents

Cllr Mick Stoker                Labour      

       

Despite the lack of any consultation with residents having occurred, despite the obvious risk to the continued success of the business on our High Street, despite the protestations of ward councillors from not just Yarm but also Eaglescliffe, and against the wishes of Yarm Town Council, the aforementioned councillors still voted against referring the matter back for reconsideration.

Now, the eagle-eyed amongst you will have noticed a pattern in the above list.

What is, and should have been considered as, an apolitical ward issue has unfortunately been treated as a political football by all 8 Labour councillors that sit on the committee and one of their new coalition buddies from Ingleby Barwick. They have ignored the concerns of residents and traders alike for the sake of petty politics. 

They should all be ashamed of themselves.

Whilst some Labour councillors will undoubtedly continue to try to pretend that the decision to introduce parking charges in Yarm was made in an attempt to alleviate the town’s parking difficulties, let me share a comment with you made by Labour MP Alex Cunningham on Twitter recently:

As is now abundantly clear, the council’s proposals have nothing to do with solving Yarm’s long-standing issues and everything to do with filling the council’s coffers.

Whilst this battle to prevent Stockton and Labour's latest attempts to milk the cash cow that is Yarm has been lost, I somehow doubt this will be an end to the matter...