The First By-Election Win Since....

Well, just a couple of hours to go until the ballot boxes in Crewe & Nantwich are sealed tight and a few hours after that, unless something very surprising happens, there will be the announcement that this once rock-solid Labour seat will have a Conservative MP.

And this will be our first by-election victory since, well, no-one seems to know.

Not that people are ignorant, it just depends what you mean by "by-election victory."

In general, the press seem to take the line that this is the first win from an Opposition party since 1982 and the first win from Labour since 1978.

Although, it should be noted that if by "by-election victory" you simply mean winning a by-election, then you are looking at Bob Neill winning Bromley & Chislehurst in June 2006- but this was a seat which returned a Conservative MP (Eric Forth, who died in May 2006) at the May 2005 general election. So, this is a Conservative hold.

When political pundits talk about "by-election victories", there is a tendency to be talking about cases where at the previous general election the seat was won by party A and in the by-election the seat was won by party B. The words in italics is where the difference in opinion boils down to.

And this is the difference in interpretation in the Mitcham & Morden by-election of June 1982. This seat was won by the Conservatives' Angela Rumbold, who held onto it until the May 1997 general election, when it was won by its current MP, Labour's Siobhain McDonagh. Now, prior to Rumbold's victory, it had never had a Conservative MP.

So, Mitchan & Morden was clearly a Conservative gain, and it was a gain from....

Well, at the May 1979 general election (the one before the by-election) the winner was Bruce Douglas-Mann, for Labour. In March 1981, a group of Labour MPs (and one Conservative MP) formed the Social Democratic Party. It wasn't until the December of that year that Douglas-Mann switched to the SDP.

One contentious issue among the early SDP was whether its MPs should simply remain in place until the next general election, or whether they should "resign" from the House of Commons and fight by-elections under their new colours. Now, it is reasonable to say that the Liberal/SDP Alliance had momentum, and by the time of the Mitcham & Morden by-election, two senior former Labour politicians had won by-elections as SDP candidates (Shirley Williams in Crosby in November 1981 and Roy Jenkins in Glasgow Hillhead in March 1982- both winning their seats from the Conservatives).

Only one SDP MP refused to wait until the general election, and that was Douglas-Mann, who resigned in May 1982.

And this is where the contention is. Do you look at the 1979 result and say that the Conservatives won from Labour? Or do you argue that it's the party that Douglas-Mann represented at the time he resigned that matters, and say that the Conservatives won from the SDP?

An Insult That Crosses The Blue Line

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, has been appearing before the Police Federation's annual conference, and has been on the receiving end of an extraordinary comment by Jan Berry, the Police Federation's chairman:

Your recent crimes have been more for the Serious Fraud Office than the drug squad.

Well, if Berry does believe that a very senior member of the Cabinet has committed a crime, which is so serious that it is a matter for the SFO to deal with, then the correct course of action would have been to arrest Smith and charge her with whatever crime Berry believes she has committed.

I am sure that Berry would have been able to find police at the conference who could help her carry out the arrest.

While in politics there will always be a frank and full exchange of views, all politicians recognise that there are things that are unacceptable to say. Accusing the Home Secretary of having committed a crime is one of those.

Kill Or Cure?

This evening, the House of Commons is voting on whether to reduce the abortion limit as part of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill.

It was interesting to read in yesterday's The Guardian, Jackie Ashley repeating parrot-fashion the Government line about pro-life MPs (or "anti-abortion" as liberals refer to them) "hijacking" the Bill.

The impression you pick up that this is a piece of legislation that had nothing to do with abortion, and then the Catholic bishops interfere and suddenly there's mention of abortion in it.

The problem with this is firstly that this piece of legislation is designed to amend the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 1990, which, among other things, amended the Abortion Act 1967. The current abortion laws are those in the 1990 legislation, not the 1967 one.

So, it would be very curious if, with the House of Commons looking again at the 1990 Act, that the parts of it relating to abortion were off-limits.

Moreover, the Government is happy to allow pro-abortion MPs to introduce amendments to relax the abortion laws (such as the requirement for two doctors to sign the form), but the moment that pro-life MPs introduce amendments, they are portrayed as "hijacking" it. The first I saw this language was from Dawn Primarolo, the Minister for Public Health, at the weekend.

There was an interesting argument I read today about attempts to allow just one doctor's signature, and that is that the two doctors rule breaches women's human rights. Now, one of the interesting things about liberals is that they often use the term "human rights" to refer to whatever their current campaign is about. If, indeed, the two-doctors rule is a breach of human rights, then where is the European Court of Human Rights ruling on it? Why does the Court not strike down the stricter abortion laws that are found in many European countries? If they are so confident that the two-doctors rule breaches human rights, then there is the right to go to that Court- why haven't those who use the "breach of human rights" argument gone there and argued their case?

The Independent did a bit today on the "benefits" of embryo research, concentrating on in vitro fertilisation. The second bit was that parents are able to select embryos to ensure that their offspring do not carry certain genes.

This takes me back to the excellent book, Faith In Britain, by the Crossbench (i.e. Independent) member of the House of Lords, David Alton, who was the co-founder of the Movement for Christian Democracy. Now, I have lost my copy, and so can only go on memory, but it had something in it about a Christian lady (I think her name was Ellen) who had muscular dystrophy. And Ellen had made the perceptive comment that this sort of option would not have cured her of her condition- it would have led to her being washed down the sink. She would not have made it to birth.

This "benefit" actually does nothing to find a cure to devastating illnesses- it simply stops people with them being born.

One reason why I cannot support euthanasia is that it would stop medical research, not immediately, but gradually. In a Mensan discussion group several years ago, I was struck by an argument made in support of euthansia. And it was the despairing argument that we need to accept some diseases are incurable, and sufferers of those conditions need to be "encouraged" to ask for "voluntary" euthanasia.

Hmm, what if we had taken that stance 100 years ago? 200? Medicine advances because researchers believe in fighting against diseases, not accepting things are incurable.

"Curing" a disease means precisely that- finding a cure. It does not mean killing the sufferers- either before or after birth.

There was another despairing argument for abortion I saw today. And that was that it is better for a child not to be born than to grow up feeling "unwanted." I think that just says it all about what a negative, nihilstic society we have. There is always adoption- there are childless couples crying out for the chance to have a child who will feel wanted.

At the weekend, Primarolo came up with the daftest argument against reducing the limit from 24 weeks to 22 or 20. And that was the fact that pro-life MPs have referred to research which shows that the survival rates of babies born around 22 to 24 weeks have improved. Primarolo misrepresents this as pro-lifers giving a false hope to parents who have very premature children. Not at all- no pro-lifer is citing a 100% (or even as high as 75%) survival rate. What is being referred to is improvements in caring for very premature babies (especially in Arizona) which have seen an increase in babies surviving at an age where they could be aborted.

And the irony in Primarolo's "false hope" accusation is that the Government's main line of logic is that things like hybrid embryos etc. "could" consign several serious diseases to history. Now, that's false hope for people- the Government needs to provide something stronger than "could".

I would like to add a few thing about "pro-life" in general. Firstly, although normally religious-inspired, it should, at heart, be a deeply humanistic viewpoint. I don't mean humanist in the modern watered-down meaning, but in the traditional meaning, seeing value in every human life.

Secondly, concern for people doesn't end at birth. There is no place for the "right, you have to bring up your disabled baby now. Bye!" or "You're ill. Well, you'll just have to suffer" approach. We need to have a consistent stance- that means affirming human life. There needs to be more provision for the ill and the suffering, an emphasis on dignity for the disabled and the elderly etc. Does our stance on, for example, special schools, fall within this pro-life, human dignity, attitude?

If, for example, you find that a restaurant owner has the approach "why do I need to have a disabled toilet? I never get any disabled diners!" then find somewhere else to eat.

Thirdly, an understanding that there will be women who feel that their only choice is to abort. What practically can pro-lifers do to help? The late Thomas Winning, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Glasgow, set up a scheme to provide assistance, partly financial, to women in this situation. Now, these do not need to be run by religious organisations, and Winning's scheme was controversial, but this sort of thing is something that needs to be looked at. It would be a positive sign if the next time abortion legislation were before Parliament, pro-lifers were to add amendments to do something like this.

Fourthly, and I'm sure this might upset some- yes, a married couple is shown to be the best environment to bring up children. However, in the Old Testament, the Israelites were encouraged to have a special concern for the "widows and fatherless." Some families are going to fall into that category, with the father(s) in question alive and uninterested. While we take a pro-marriage stance, the question is whether an unpartnered woman who becomes pregnant will be damned if she does, damned if she doesn't, i.e. condemned if she aborts, and condemned ("ooh, she's pregnant, and she's not even married") if she doesn't.

Being pro-life has got to be more than just opposing abortion and euthansia. The "pro" means being in favour of life, which is more than simply being alive.

Class War. Huh. What Is It Good For?

Absolutely nothing, as Labour will find out on Thursday in the Crewe & Nantwich by-election.

One of the most tedious examples of Labour's class war is the way they have focussed on the Conservative candidate, Ed Timpson, being a "toff". We have seen it before, with Labour being absolutely obsessed with people's backgrounds.

There was the desperate attempt by some Labour campaigners to dress up in "top hat and tails."

One interesting thing is that Labour have not brought in any of their heavyweights. Surely there is a place for Harriet Harman, the Labour party deputy leader, Labour party Chairman, Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Privy Seal and Minister for Women, in the campaign. As part of the attack on Timpson's background, Harman- the daughter of a Harley Street physician and a lawyer; niece of an earl; educated at the exclusive St Paul's Girls School- could go round Crewe & Nantwich to tell people that politicians from privileged backgrounds are out-of-touch...

In The Papers

I overslept a bit this morning- not by much though. What I am aiming to do is go to the 8am Communion service on Sundays, and am developing the habit of going and buying the Sunday papers (I get Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph and Mail on Sunday) on the way.

This morning I didn't have the time to, so decided to try a newsagents on the way to Bitterne after the early service. The first thing I noticed was that there was a sign next to the copies of Sunday Telegraph, saying that not all the supplements had been delivered. That was unusual- normally shops don't tell you and you find out when you get home. You don't normally get that sort of honesty.

As I was being served, I was trying to place the music which was coming from a CD player there. From the words, it was clearly CCM (Contemporary Christian Music).

CCM isn't all that big in Britain, and you would have to specifically seek it out- probably from somewhere like Wesley Owen or Christian Literature Crusade. Now, neither of these are local- there was a CLC bookshop in Southampton, but it closed last year. The nearest Christian bookshop is the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge one in Winchester, and I don't think it stocks CCM.

So, to have a CCM CD, the owners of the shop would have had to have made a real effort to find one- not the thing you pick up in a record store.

I know where I'll be buying the Sunday papers from in future.

As Labour's Majority Faces A Crewe Cut..

As you are probably aware, on Thursday there is the Crewe & Nantwich by-election, and the opinion polls for that constituency indicate that the Conservatives will gain this seat, which has been held by Labour since its creation at the June 1983 general election.

But, all a Conservative gain would do is reduce Labour's majority in the House of Commons to 60. Is that really a big deal?

The period to compare it to is the Labour Government after the October 1974 election- a Government that was born on its last legs, as it had a majority of only 3. It is incredible that it survived as long as it did, but James Callaghan, who took over as Prime Minister from Harold Wilson in April 1976, did his best not to annoy everyone else at the same time, and it wasn't until March 1979 that Margaret Thatcher was able to unite the minor parties behind her and ensure the Government lost a No Confidence motion.

There were the following by-elections in seats which Labour had won in 1974:

• June 1975- Woolwich West; Conservative gain [Woolwich is an interesting area for that era. In July 1974, Christopher Mayhew, the Labour MP for Woolwich East, had defected to the Liberals, and had been defeated in the general election by Labour's John Cartwright. In March 1981, Cartwright also left Labour, becoming one of the founders of the Social Democratic Party]
• March 1976- Coventry North West; Labour hold.
• June 1976- Rotherham; Labour hold.
• July 1976- Thurrock; Labour hold.
• November 1976- Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central; Labour hold. Walsall North; Conservative gain. Workington; Conservative gain.
• March 1977- Birmingham Stechford; Conservative gain.
• April 1977- Ashfield; Conservative gain. Grimsby; Labour hold.
• August 1977- Birmingham Ladywood; Labour hold.
• March 1978- Ilford North; Conservative gain.
• April 1978- Glasgow Garscadden; Labour hold. Lambeth Central; Labour hold.
• May 1978- Hamilton; Labour hold.
• July 1978- Manchester Moss Side; Labour hold. Penistone; Labour hold.
• October 1978- Berwick & East Lothian; Labour hold. Pontefract & Castleford; Labour hold.
• March 1979- Liverpool Edge Hill; Liberal gain.

So, out of 20 by-elections:

• Labour held 13
• Conservatives gained 6
• Liberals gained 1.

Now, I would consider it unlikely if Labour lost their overall majority this side of the next general election. And, from this comparison, it would be a fair showing if the Conservatives gained one-third of the by-elections.

But the important thing is that a good by-election result shows a party having momentum. It shows the tide is now turning.

Trinity

For those who follow a liturgical calendar, tomorrow is Trinity Sunday which is the last of the major Christian events until the autumn- from next Sunday onwards there is the long list of nth Sunday after Trinity, until All Saints' Sunday on 2 November begins the looking forward to Christmas. And this year there are more Sundays after Trinity than usual (there's 23) due to Easter being so early.

What exactly is the Trinity, and why is this important?

Within Christian theology there is this tension between there being one God, and God being in three distinct persons- God the Father, God the Son (i.e. Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit.

This is something that we cannot fully understand. The best explanation, which I heard at a Trinity Sunday service several years ago relied on magnets. The preacher explained that a magnet comes in three parts- north pole, south pole and the field. You cannot have a north pole and a field- there has to be a south pole there. And if you have a north and south pole, then the field will come naturally from that.

Not a perfect explanation, but nothing is, but it's the best I've heard so far.

While I Don't Want To Give Racists The Oxygen of Publicity..

...I was made aware of this earlier on, and it is hilarious.

http://supporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2008/02/some-time-you-just-have-to-wonder.html

The comments these BNP people made about me in their klonversation include:

"What planet is this stupid cow from does she think..." [this is my favourite. No wonder as they get obsessed over whether someone is black or white- after all, if they can't tell the difference between men and women...]

"losers blog" [the BNP like to get worked up about poor educational standards. It should be spelt "loser's blog", with an apostrophe to indicate possession. Tut! If people cannot handle the English language, then should they be living here?]

"ignorant moron"

"blind fool"

Yep, that is the level of intellectual rigour and logic that the BNP uses. So proud of their opinions that they have to use names such as "anonymous"!

One of these anonymous people wishes to tell me I'm a "tad dilluded". Interesting- I have looked in the dictionary for "dilluded." Maybe he/she meant to say I was a "tad diluted."

Am I annoyed? No, amused. The best bit was comparing me to that demon-possessed man, you know the one where Jesus sends the demons into the pigs and they run over the cliff.

Interesting that the big criticism they have of me is being an evangelical Christian. Well, we are blessed when we are criticised for loving and following Jesus. I'm not particularly concerned what Mr/Ms Anonymous thinks. I'm more interested in what God thinks.

While supporters of mainstream parties believe in a robust exchange of opinions, these people just think that a few childish insults are a suitable alternative.

And The Leader of the Opposition Is...

One of the aspects of British parliamentary tradition which seems to fascinate foreign observers is that of Prime Minister's Question Time (PMQ).

One observer who was intrigued by this was Newt Gingrich during his tenure as Speaker of the House of Representatives, when he was able to visit and see Betty Boothroyd, at the time Speaker of the House of Commons, in action presiding over PMQ. And he was quite jealous, wishing that he could make Bill Clinton appear regularly to answer questions.

There is another big PMQ fan, and that is John McCain. So big a fan that it's reported this week that he would like to introduce something similar.

Now, while it is always sensible for political leaders to look at how others do things- and indeed at times there seems to be a large carbon footprint created by Conservative and Labour politicians looking at how an initiative or scheme works in a European nation or American state- it has to be borne in mind that you cannot take one scheme and assume it will work elsewhere.

The crucial difference is between the parliamentary and the presidential-congressional systems. In the former, the Executive is headed by a Prime Minister who owes their legitimacy to the legislature- the people elect the Parliament and from that a Prime Minister is chosen. In the latter the people vote for a Congress and they also vote for a President. Whoever replaces George Bush owes their legitimacy to the people (with the caveat of the Electoral College actually choosing them) without Congress having a say (except when the College does not choose a clear winner).

So, when a Prime Minister answers questions from the House of Commons, he or she is answering to people with the power to remove him or her from office via a simple vote of no confidence. If a President were to answer questions from Congress, he or she knows that this is a body which has to follow quite a complicated and lengthy route to oust a President.

The second big difference is the Leader of the Opposition. Or the lack of one. At PMQ, the Prime Minister will firstly face three questions from the Leader of the Opposition.

But who in Washington can you point at and say "There's the Leader of the Opposition."? I don't think the Republicans and Democrats have formal leaders in the sense of one individual who is in overall charge of their party. You could point at various politicians who fulfil parts of the role of the Leader of the Opposition, but not one individual. When the President's party controls Congress, the likely candidates would be the House Minority Leader and the Senate Minority Leader. When the "Opposition" controls Congress, you could be looking at the House Speaker, House Majority Leader and the Senate Majority Leader.

And in the first scenario, it would look very odd if the Minority Leaders were considered the "Leader of the Opposition" and could ask the President three questions each, whereas the Majority Leaders couldn't.

The third big difference is the Presiding Officer. While Gingrich and Boothroyd were both Speakers at the time they met, they had different roles. Gingrich was a party politician, with Contract With America in his hands, and was there to bring through a legislative programme. Whereas Boothroyd- although starting out as a Labour politician- was above party politics when Speaker, and was there as a neutral chairwoman of the House of Commons.

PMQ is presided over by someone neutral, who chooses the questions which will be put. The problem with choosing the Speaker of the House of Representatives to preside over President's Question Time is that he or she is not neutral. Now, they could get round that by finding a Representative or Senator whom both parties would be happy to see presiding over Question Time, or choosing one Republican and one Democrat who would take it in turns to chair.

What McCain is reported to be considering is an interesting idea, but it might be tricky to lift something from Westminster without major modifications.

New Labour, New Compensation Culture

It is clear that Labour are terrified of losing the Crewe & Nantwich by-election next Thursday, so have now resorted to panic measures.

The real problem is the backlash over the abolition of the 10% tax band, which at a stroke doubled the amount of tax that people on low wages would be paying. And so, in a moment of panic, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, and Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have introduced "compensatory" measures.

Now, it is a very odd sort of compensation which gives more money to those who benefitted in the first place. What Darling has announced is that the personal allowance- the amount you earn without having to pay tax- goes up by £600. This increase will be in September and will be backdated to April- the first time that the personal allowance has changed in the middle of a tax year.

In effect, many people will pay £120 less in tax.

Now, I was a winner in the Budget, as I earn above the limit at which people were hurt by the abolition of the 10% tax band.

And now, I am being compensated! I think it's called a "tax bribe".

The thing that Darling and Brown are uncomfortable about when mentioned is that those at the bottom of the pile saw their tax increase by- in the worst cases- £230. £120 is just over half of that.

So, as a result of all these changes, those on incomes around £9,000 to £10,000 see themselves paying over £100 more tax per year, even when this "compensation" is taken into account. People above £18,000 saw their tax bill reduce in the Budget and now get "compensation" on top of this. Crazy.

It is surprising that Darling and Brown expect rounds of applause- which Labour is happily giving them- for taking small measures to help alleviate a problem which is entirely of their own making!

Is this going to be the whole approach now from Labour? Create a mess, then take minor steps to do something about it and sit back for the standing ovation from The Guardian and its ilk?

What we are now reminded of is 30 years ago, when there was a Labour Government, which had Denis Healey as Chancellor of the Exchequer. By being completely out of his depth, Healey simply lost control of the country's finances and had to appear in front of the House of Commons several times a year for "Emergency Budgets." Darling has done something incredible- he has actually shown that Healey was not the worst Chancellor of the Exchequer on record!

There are other things to note about this whole debacle.

Firstly, where is the money coming from? In April, "compensation" was not possible, as Darling was clear there was no money available. Come May, with a catastrophic set of local election results for Labour, the money appears as if by magic.

Well, it doesn't appear by magic. For too many low-paid people, there is the tragic downward spiral where they borrow money to get to the end of the month, and then have to pay that back out of what they get, so fall further into poverty, and so borrow more, etc.

The Government (or rather the people) will borrow the money from somewhere in order to "compensate" people like me who benefitted from the Budget. Somehow, the Government will need to pay back what they borrowed, and the money (together with the interest payments) will ultimately come from our pockets.

As Brown and Darling show, Labour is happy to mortgage this country's future, create hostages to fortune, in order to hold Crewe & Nantwich on Thursday next week.

Secondly, and allied to this, there is the sheer short-termism of it all. Rather than any idea of planning long-term for this nation's future, it is all desperate short-term measures to get through the next crisis that the Government creates.

Thirdly, purdah. In the run-up to local, national or European elections, the Government is supposed to enter what is called "purdah"- a type of silence. The aim of this is to draw a clear distinction between the governing party as a Government and as a party contesting an election.

While, as a party contesting an election, Labour will draw up a manifesto to say what it will do if it wins the election, there is a difference between this and announcing a major policy in the election campaign. For example, if there were a General Election, then it would be fine for the Labour manifesto to announce these "compensation" packages. But purdah rules make it wrong for the Government to announce that this is what it is doing.

Purdah is a bit tricky to understand and explain, but it is often clear when the rules have been broken.

And Gus O'Donnell, the Head of the Civil Service, did say that purdah rules apply in the run-up to a by-election.

Fourthly, Brown and Darling have tried to explain why they are doing this now, by waffling about part of unveiling the pre-legislative programme. This is a custom that Tony Blair introduced when he was Prime Minister.

As part of the recognition that the Queen is Head of State, she opens Parliament for each of its sessions. These normally run from about November to the following October. And one of her tasks is to read the Queen's Speech, which is actually written by the Prime Minister and outlines the legislative programme for that session.

Blair decided- in a bid to reduce the Queen's role (and probably with a long-term aim of abolishing the monarchy all together) - that he would announce a "sneak preview" of the Queen's Speech, and this is what Brown is now doing, following on the tradition. And, this "sneak preview" drives a horse and carriages through all the purdah rules...

Meddling Mary

Currently having her 15 minutes of fame is Mary Creagh, the Labour MP for Wakefield. Pay careful attention to what she says, as if you fail to bring up your children the way she tells you, there will be serious consequences- which will include you and your family seeing your human rights ignored.

One of the controversial vaccines is the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) one, and Creagh has solved the problem of how to encourage parents to let their children have it.

It is such a simple solution. When registering new pupils, schools would be legally required to ask parents for proof that the child has had the MMR jab. If not, then the school would be forbidden to take the child on, and he or she would have to be home-schooled.

It is deeply ironical that when Creagh first became an MP, she served on the House of Commons Human Rights Committee. For the Second Article of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right of every child to be educated. It doesn't say "unless the child has not had the MMR jab."

The problem with interfering bossyboots is that these are the type of boots that trample all over freedom and rights.

Should it matter what one minor MP thinks? Normally no- but Creagh has a special role, and that is to draw up the health policies which will be in Labour's manifesto for the next general election. So, if Labour wins the next election, then there would be legislation introduced- maybe Blackmail of Parents Bill- to bring Creagh's nannyish proposals into law.

No, wrong to call them "nannyish". Genuine nannies want what's best for children.

The Campaign To Save The Sunday Morning Heritage Centres

Sunday Telegraph has launched its Save our Churches campaign. In his article of support, Roy Strong, the former director of the Victoria & Albert Museum, emphasises that they are often "major works of architecture", an emphasis that Hugo Swire, the Shadow Culture Secretary also chooses when he mentions the architecture.

And the Campaign to Protect Rural England joins in the act by commenting about these being among our finest heritage.

The odd thing about all the supportive comments is that not one of them suggests that the worship of God could be one of the functions of a church building.

The best way, in my opinion, to see these buildings become loved and saved would be to see them filled to overflowing on Sundays- and this would involve church growth. Not by gimmicks, but by the tried-and-trusted method of clear preaching of the Gospel week after week.

Save people first- then the church buildings will be saved.