The Dawkins Delusion

Richard Dawkins has been in the news again, plugging his new book, The God Delusion.

This has been seized on by the National Secular Society, who argue that this is a convincing proof of the non-existence of God.

Now, I wouldn't waste my hard-earned money paying for anything Dawkins penned, so haven't read it. There was an extract in The Times.

One of my pet hates are bad arguments for God. The problem is that whenever you point out flaws in these arguments, you end up being seen as arguing God doesn't exist.

Which is bad logic. But it is also Dawkins' logic.

The approach he takes is simple- taking a bad proof for God's existence, showing its flaws and then taking that to "prove" God doesn't exist.

It was once put to me (by a university professor no less) that people believe that God exists because of the Turin Shroud. But, he argued, the Turin Shroud has been shown to be a fake, therefore God doesn't exist. My reasoning that we don't believe in God due to the Turin Shroud simply fell on deaf ears.

But, as Christians, we also need to beware of our own version of the Dawkins Delusion. And it is this- that we can be so desperate to prove to people that God exists, that we rely on any argument, and fail to think it through, or even whether what we are arguing is actually true.

Having a scientific background, the most irksome is the "science can't explain...therefore God exists."

My first problem with this is that many times the "science can't explain.." is something that has been explained. This is something I can get quite annoying by correcting well-meaning Christians on. No-one wants their pet proof of God's existence to be shown to be full of holes. But it has to be done.

Secondly, "science can't explain.." is the message of deism, the "god of the gaps", the god who wound the universe up and let it go, uncaring, unable to intervene, something we can never knew on a personal level. I have read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and I don't find the god of the gaps there. I don't find a god whose existence relies on science never being able to answer certain questions. What I do find in the Bible is a God who is intimately connected with His people, who sent His Son to die on a Cross for us, so we could have salvation from our sins. A God whom we shall share eternity with.

Thirdly, the Cross of Jesus Christ stands on its own. It does not need well-meaning Christians to add scaffolding to keep it in place. The problem with "science can't explain.. therefore God exists" is that some Christians then have to argue for the scaffolding rather than the Cross. My point is that the "science can't explain.." bits then become the crucial beliefs, and things like a non-existence of the Oort cloud, a masslessness of the electron-neutrino etc. in themselves become issues to defend. The discovery of an Oort cloud object wouldn't jolt my faith in God one iota, but I know for others a little piece of scaffolding would fall.

Let the scaffolding fall! The Cross will still be there, and we will realise the scaffolding wasn't needed. Bad proofs of God do need to be ditched- there is no point in dying in the last ditch for a bad proof. Sadly, too often Christians fall for the Dawkins Delusion- by defending fallacious proofs of God's existence for fear that if the arguments and the facts in their proof were shown to be wrong, then their whole belief system would collapse.

Finally, the "science can't explain..." never convinced me. What convinced me 19 years ago was that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was the only logical explanation for the events of the first Easter.

DIY? DIAART!

This weekend is like last one in that I have a headache and am feeling shattered.

Last weekend, I was foolish enough to bang my head on a cupboard door in the kitchen on Saturday morning, and had a bad headache right through to Tuesday lunchtime.

This weekend, a different reason. Someone nearby has taken up DIY. The loud, banging and hammering DIY. In daylight this is bad enough.

Yesterday morning- woken up at 4.45 "bang, bang, hammer,bang, hammer." And couldn't get back to sleep.

This morning- woken up at 4.20 "bang, bang, hammer, bang, hammer." And couldn't get back to sleep.

I understand that it can be difficult for someone who chooses to live off state handouts to understand that people with jobs (whose taxes and National Insurance go to provide his state handouts) need a decent night's sleep, even at the weekends, to function effectively at work. I felt quite washed out this week, and I think next week will go the same way.

I look at another flat on (hopefully) Thursday afternoon.

DIY? Do It At A Reasonable Time.

The Quiet Man Is Turning Up The Volume..

...was the tacky phrase used by Iain Duncan-Smith in October 2003. Within days the Conservative party had removed him as leader.

But there is another quiet man, unnoticed, who could burst to prominence soon.

Since October 2003, Hilary Benn has been the International Development Secretary. Simply getting on with the job. Effective at co-ordinating Britain's response after the South East Asian tsunami.

But now he has thrown his hat in the ring to be Labour's next deputy leader when John Prescott stands down. And is the bookies' favourite, leapfrogging over the big names standing.

The election for deputy leader is conducted by an electoral college system, a modification of the system drawn up in 1981 by Tony Benn (Hilary's dad). In 1981, Tony stood for deputy leader under the system, losing- but with over 49% of the vote. And 25 years later, Tony's son is on course for getting the post Tony failed to get.

The irony in this is that Tony's dad, William, was also a Cabinet minister. Tony has spoken out against the hereditary principle, yet is part of the most successful political dynasty in post-war Britain.

Who are the big beasts (and some small beasts) that Hilary has to beat?

* Alan Johnson, the previous front-runner. MP for Hull West & Hessle. Work & Pensions Secretary from September 2004 to May 2005. Trade & Industry Secretary from May 2005 to May 2006. Education Secretary since then. Assumed to be Tony Blair's preferred successor as Prime Minister. Has the benefit (as far as Labour is concerned) of being a former trade union leader and is also a moderate. Selling point is that he could be a counterbalance to Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if Brown becomes Prime Minister. Supposed to be the potential Prime Minister that the Conservatives fear most. If he won, it would keep Hull near the top of the political world- Prescott is the MP for Hull East!

* Jack Straw, the MP for Blackburn. Home Secretary from May 1997 to June 2001. Foreign Secretary from June 2001 to May 2006. Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons since then. Hmm. Maybe successful if there'd been a contest last year. His star as fallen. Damaged by being seen as too close to Condoleezza Rice by many in the Labour party who detest George Bush and anyone associated with him. Not helped by stories that he'll retire from the House of Commons at the next election. Especially not helped by stories that Blair wanted to sack him in May 2005 but Rice persuaded him not to- which is probably untrue. After all, how could Rice save Straw then but not a year later?

* Jon Cruddas. MP for Dangenham. Never held government office, which he portrays as his Uniue Selling Point. Are you a Labour member unhappy with what the Government has done? Well, don't blame Cruddas as he had nothing to do with it. Emphasises the traditional role of deputy leader as the link between the leadership and the membership.

* Peter Hain. MP for Neath. Welsh Secretary since October 2002 (although since June 2003, shares responsibility for Wales with Charles Falconer, the Lord Chancellor and Constitutional Affairs Secretary). Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons from June 2003 to May 2005. Northern Ireland Secretary since then. Firmly on the left-wing, popular among the trade unions.

* Harriet Harman. MP for Camberwell & Peckham. Was in the Cabinet as Social Security Secretary (a forerunner of the Work & Pensions Secretary post) from May 1997 to July 1998. Not currently in the Cabinet, but is Minister for Constitutional Affairs (hence she is Falconer's deputy). Unpopular is some quarters for being posh. Her husband, Jack Dromey, is Treasurer of the Labour Party, and was the one who blew the whistle on the "loans-for-peerages" scandal, annoying those who felt that if a Labour official finds evidence of wrong-doing, his duty to the party is to keep mouth closed. Harman was controversial for forcing through welfare cuts which Labour had opposed when in opposition. Argues that Labour should have two deputy leaders- one male, one female. Also notes that Labour needs to try hard to keep the female and middle-class voters that Brown could easily alienate, and feels that these are the people she could keep.

This Is No Time To Change Time

This weekend sees the annual ritual of the debate over the time zone.

Tomorrow morning, as is normal on the last Sunday in October, our clocks change from Central European Time (CET) to Greenwich Meridian Time (GMT).

This weekend is accompanied by the usual calls for us to use CET from October to March and EET (Eastern European Time) from March to October.

CET is one hour ahead of GMT. EET is two hours ahead of GMT.

Now, the names give this away. We are not Central Europe. The meridian for this (15 degrees East of Greenwich) runs from Norway, through Sweden, across the Baltic Sea, then through Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, across the Adriatic Sea, into Italy and then into the Mediterranean Sea.

We are not Eastern Europe. The 30 degress East meridian runs from Norway, through Russia, into Finland, back into Russia (nearly through St Petersburg), Belarus, the Ukraine, Moldova, back into the Ukraine, across the Black Sea and through Turkey into the Mediterranean Sea.

So, CET is not our natural timezone. And EET is definitely not our timezone!

We belong on GMT. G for Greenwich. The one in London.

The usual argument trotted out for the CET/EET combination replacing the current GMT/CET one is that children currently walk to school in the morning in the light and go home in the dark. And so, using CET in the depths of winter will ensure that children walk home safely in daylight.

This is heavily flawed. For many reaosns.

Now, sunrise in winter is about 8 (GMT), sunset about 4 (GMT). I always walked to school in daylight and got home in daylight.

The "CET in winter" campaigners choose not to answer difficult questions about the mornings. Too often they bang on about "an extra hour of daylight."

Well, there isn't. If you move sunset an hour later, sunrise goes later as well. If we had had CET in winter when I was young, I would have got to school before sunrise.

GMT in winter- walk to school in daylight. Walk back from school in daylight.
CET in winter- walk to school in darkness. Walk back from school in daylight.

Hmm. Why does the "CET in winter" lobby think the second is safer?

As for children walking to and from school- take a day trip to the real world. Visit my flat when I have an afternoon off. Look at the road and neighbouring roads get filled up with parked cars an hour before the school closes, so parents can ensure their children don't get too much exercise.

Wrong Type of Excuse

I have an admission to make. I was late into work three times this week.

Tuesday was sort-of my fault. It had rained heavily on Monday night, and I slipped on my doorstep. Lunchbox ends up opening up and spilling contents over wet pavement. Graham puts everything together again, and gets to railway station just as train is leaving. Do I wait the one-and-a-quarter hours for the next train to Southampton Central or do I walk to Southampton Central and catch a train to Basingstoke there? 50 minutes walk. Cold, dark, pouring with rain. I had not dried out by the time I got to work.

On Tuesday evening there was a derailment between London Waterloo and Clapham Junction. Result- chaos.

As the first train I take is a minor-route one (going from Portsmouth, through Gosport and Fareham, through the south-eastern parts of Southampton into Southampton Central) when it comes to priority, we are the lowest of the low. If a service has to be cancelled, it's ours. I didn't get to the station on Wednesday morning, because as I was approaching it, I saw the normal passengers I recognise leaving the station. It had been cancelled. But, I was told, there was a helpful member of South West Trains staff on the platform helpfully telling people they could always wait (for 75 minutes!) for the next one. A group of us took a taxi into Southampton Central. And had to pay for it. I have travelled with other train companies and the normal policy is that if- as a result of delay or cancellation- you have to wait over an hour longer for your train, then they'll pay for a taxi to a suitable alternative station. That's what other companies do. South West Trains' philosophy is "Seriously delayed because of us? That's your problem, not ours."

There are numerous excuses for delays and cancellations. There are the infamous "Leaves on the line" and "Wrong type of snow." There has even been "Wrong type of Sun." (Er, we only have one Sun.) You get the more interesting "Animals on the line."

And Friday was the ultimate travel nadir. The train from Southampton Central to Basingstoke takes 45 minutes. It took two-and-a-half-hours! We were told signalling problems. According to The Daily Telegraph the train in front of us was told that the delays were due to "condensation."

But the question has to be asked- was it the wrong type of condensation??

Lords A-Leaping

In May, Jack Straw was promoted or demoted (depending on your perspective) from Foreign Secretary to Leader of the House of Commons. Technically, Commons Leader is not a Cabinet position in its own right, so Straw holds the Cabinet position of Lord Privy Seal as well. It was technically a promotion, as if it's Prime Minister's Question Time in the Commons, and neither Tony Blair nor John Prescott are in the country, then Straw is in the hot seat.

Straw was never a big fan of electoral or constitutional reform, but now he has big plans for the House of Lords.

Until 1911, the House of Lords was absolute. It could throw out any piece of legislation passed to it from the House of Commons. And often did. The majority of its members were hereditary peers, inheriting the title normally from his father. Women could inherit the title, but- until the Peerage Act 1963, could not take her seat in the Lords.

There were two exceptions. Firstly there were the 26 Church of England bishops (Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop of York, Bishop of London, Bishop of Durham, Bishop of Winchester, and 21 others). Then there were the Law Lords. 12 men, granted life peerages under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. They would remain members of the Lords until death- but their title would die with them. This practice will end soon, as the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 sees the 11 Law Lords and 1 Law Lady form the new Supreme Court.

The Parliament Act 1911 altered the balance of power. With some exceptions, if a piece of legislation was passed by the Commons and rejected by the Lords in one session (which normally runs from November to October), is passed by the Commons and rejected by the Lords in the next session, and then passed by the Commons in the third session, then it goes straight to the monarch to be granted Royal Assent.

In 1947, the Labour Government introduced legislation to limit this, so a piece of legislation passed by the Commons and rejected by the Lords in one session, and then passed by the Commons in the next session goes straight to the monarch for Royal Assent. This was rejected by the Lords in two sessions, so the Parliament Act 1949 become law using the procedure in the Parliament Act 1911. The controversy around this was twofold. Firstly, the Lords saw their powers reduced despite voting against this. Secondly, the Parliament Act 1911 was used to amend itself.

The Life Peerages Act 1958 extended the principle of life peerages to more than just the Law Lords. Since then, the majority of peerages created have been life ones.

The Peerage Act 1963 allowed hereditary peers to disclaim their title, effectively dying as far as the peerage was concerned. In November 1963, the new Prime Minister, Alec Douglas-Home used this to leave the House of Lords and was elected to the House of Commons in a by-election.

And there the matter rested.

In 1999, Blair decided to grasp the nettle. The House of Lords Act 1999 was intended to simply sweep the hereditaties away. However, Blair agreed to some concessions.

The first was that some of the hereditary peers would be given life peerages, so they could remain in the House of Lords.

The second was that the House of Lords could elect 90 hereditary peers to remain "for the interim period". This was done in a two-stage process. In stage one, the whole of the Lords could vote to elect 15 hereditaries to remain. They chose 9 Conservatives, 2 Crossbenchers, 2 Labour and 2 Liberal Democrats.

In stage two, the Lords split down into "party groups"- Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Crossbench (i.e. everyone who was not in one of the 3 main parties). The Conservatives had to elect 42 hereditary peers, the Crossbenchers 28, Liberal Democrats 3 and Labour 2.

Now Straw has raised the issue of reform of the House of Lords.

Blair has often made clear that his preference is for a wholly-appointed House of Lords. The point often made by Valerie Amos, the Leader of the House of Lords (again, not a Cabinet post. Amos sits in the Cabinet as Lord President of the Council) is that a House of Lords with even a small minority of directly-elected peers would challenge the legitimacy of the Commons. The argument is that the Lords is a revising chamber, and the will of the Commons should be recognised. In this model, the Lords has one role- to ask the Commons to think again. But ultimately, if the Lords and Commons disagree, the Lords will back down.

For Blair and Amos, once you have members of the House of Lords elected by members of the public, then the elected members will start getting bolshie, and say to the Commons "Oi! You! We have a democratic mandate as well." For supporters of the Blair/Amos view, you only need to look at Washington and remember what happens when one party controls the House of Representatives and the other the Senate. The Blair/Amos fear is of gridlock.

There is another strong argument for an appointed House of Lords. And that is that through the Crossbenchers- which make up about a quarter of the members- the voices and opinions of those who would be crushed beneath the juggernaut of big political party fighting can be represented. The Crossbenchers include people from the Northern Ireland Women's Coaltion and the Green Party- who don't stand a chance of being elected in the world of winner-takes-all First Past The Post. And above all, the Crossbenchers include the non-politicians. Ideally, they should be the wise men and wise women who are not attached to any party. Unpredictable. Needing to be swayed by reasoned argument rather than "this is the party's view." In a wholly-elected House of Lords, how many Crossbenchers would there be? Zero? One of the greatest strengths of the British Parliamentary system is the way that non-politicians are brought into the heart of the legislative process like this. And of course, at the pinnacle, a Head of State who is not a politician.

And the other argument against elections to the House of Lords is "elect one, elect all." If you were to elect some peers, then it is feared that there would be a two-tier House, some elected, some appointed.

There is a final argument, which might sound odd. And that is that an elected House of Lords would be too democratic. Any plans to elect all or part of the House of Lords relies on a system of Proportional Representation in multi-member constituencies. Normally either party lists with d'Hondt, or the Single Transferable Vote. And this raises the problem that not only would there be elected peers, these peers could say that they were elected on a more democratic system than the Commons. And the only way round that would be to use Proportional Representation to elect the Commons....

Much media attention over the past few days is that Straw is grasping the nettle again. What he appears to favour is:
* A House of Lords with 450 members
* 209 appointed by the House of Lords Appointment Commission and party leaders (as in the current system)- about a third to a half of these to be Crossbenchers
* 225 elected in thirds (75 each time) using d'Hondt on party lists, to serve for 3 terms.
* The number of bishops in the Lords cut from 26 to 16.

Now, 450 members means some will have to go. About 250 to 300. And where will they go? Well, the more active party ones will probably try to go to the House of Commons. This will remove a useful function of the Lords- clearing the Commons, and ensuring a turnover in membership. At each general election, there will be MPs retiring from the House of Commons, and you expect about 20 to 30 to end up in the House of Lords a few weeks later. Now, for many of them it doesn't come as a surprise- they would have learned that they would get peerages and then decide to retire from the Commons. Many of the big names of the 1980s are in the Lords- life moves on. Who would really want to see them still in the Commons while younger people have to wait for one of them to die off and for there to be a by-election.

Good to see that there will still be Crossbenchers, keeping one of the valuable aspects of the current system.

Unclear whether appointed peers will be for life or will have to face re-appointment occasionally. This will enable the Lords to continue the "clearing the Commons for the next generation to take over" function. Also, parties find it useful to appoint members to the Lords to serve as spokesmen and spokeswomen in policy areas, and- in Government- to serve as ministers. But many peers are not seeking office, making the Lords more Congressional than the Commons is. When in the Lords what can you aim to do? Well, serve on policy committees.

Only two Cabinet members are in the Lords. There's Amos, of course. Then Charles Falconer, the Lord Chancellor and Constitutional Affairs Secretary (the post was simply known as the Lord Chancellor until Falconer was appointed in June 2003). But the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 is clear that this post can now be held by an MP. So, you could make a case that there need not be any Government ministers in the Lords at all. If you allowed the Speaker of the House of Lords (a new post, set up by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Held since July 2006 by Labour's Helene Hayman, the first person to hold the post) to take over the Leader of the House of Lords' setting of the timetable, and allowed Government ministers from the House of Commons to appear before the relevant policy committee and argue the case for the committee to introduce the legislation to the Lords once passed by the Commons- or a procedure whereby anything passed by the Commons has to be debated and voted in by the Lords- then there could be a genuinely Congressional House of Lords.

Now to the elected element. Electing in thirds is lifted straight from the US Senate. Fair enough. Allows some stability. Being elected for 3 parliamentary terms is a bit odd at first, as in the post-war era, the gap between elections to the House of Commons could be from 8 months (February to October 1974) to 5 years 1 month (April 1992 to May 1997). Uneven. It would have worked out as:

June 1970 to May 1979- 8 years 11 months
February 1974 to June 1983- 9 years 4 months
October 1974 to June 1987- 12 years 8 months
May 1979 to April 1992- 12 years 11 months
June 1983 to May 1997- 13 years 11 months
June 1987 to June 2001- 14 years
April 1992 to May 2005- 13 years 1 month

But I see what Straw is aiming at. By having elections to the House of Lords at the same time as the House of Commons, he is ensuring that defeated MPs don't think "I've lost my seat. But there'll be an election the the House of Lords soon." Instead a defeated MP would have to wait till the next election to the Commons.

Use of d'Hondt party lists. So, the parties decide the order on the list. Effectively the voters say how many new elected peers each party can have, and the parties decide who gets those places. Well, it's an improvement. I'd prefer to see the Single Transferable Vote.

Reducing the bishops. Fair enough. Although our local bishop, Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester, is reliable, most of them follow a Jesus who wandered around 1st century Palestine spouting 21st century editorials from The Guardian.

All in all, a reasonable stab at reform, which deserves careful consideration in the Commons and the Lords.

Tax Reform

This week, the Conservative's Tax Reform Commission produced an exciting report on how we could return to being a low-tax, fair-tax society.

Delights included replacing Inheritance Tax with a type of Capital Gains Tax (from which the main residence would be excluded), scrapping the basic rate of tax from 22% to 20% and increasing the personal allowance (effectively reducing the lower rate of tax from 10% to 0%). To assist families with children, there would be a return to something similar to the old Married Couple's Allowance (so despised by Labour due to the "m-word" and abolished by them)- though, of course, with this being the 21st century, it would be extended to cohabitating couples (whether of opposite-sex or same-sex) bringing up children.

Labour have seized on this, as it will reduce government spending by £21bn. That's about £350 for every man, woman and child.

The correct term for this reduction is "a start."

In The Bumper Book of Government Waste, the Tax Payers' Alliance show how it would be easy to reduce spending by four times that amount.

Labour repeats the tired old mantra that reducing government spending will mean cuts in the health service, in schools, in police etc. They are missing the point; what the Conservatives are proposing is slashing waste, unnecessary spending. It's two different philosophies. For Labour, all government spending is well-spent, and if a pet project is seriously flawed, the simple solution is to throw more taxpayers' money at it, and somehow, Karl Marx will work his magic and make it work properly.

There is another flawed piece of Labour reasoning. Labour works on a simple principle- increase tax, increase revenue. However, reducing tax and letting people spend their money how they wish, would kickstart the economy, increasing consumer confidence, with a positive impact on reducing inflation and interest rates. Abolishing stamp duty on equities will encourage investment in British companies. Reducing corporation tax will encourage non-European companies to base themselves here (and take advantage of the European market) and employ more people here, reducing unemployment, and reducing the money spent on Jobseekers' Allowance.

The Tax Commission proposals create a win-win situation for the people of Britain. The only losers would be the Labour Party.

When is 23 greater than 24?

Answer- when you're trying to appease Sinn Fein in the hope the IRA won't return to terrorist activities.

Recently, at St Andrews, the British and Irish governments came up with the St Andrews Agreement. One of the novel changes is that the "Nominating Officer" of the largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly will nominate the First Minister. And the Nominating Officer of the second largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly will nominate the Deputy First Minister. The remaining 10 ministers will be nominated using the d'Hondt mechanism.

As Tony Blair is keen to remind us, this historic agreement will see the Democratic Unionist Party produce the First Minister, and SF the Deputy First Minister. The prospect- once thought laughable- of Ian Paisley, the DUP leader and MP & MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) for Antrim North, taking the top job, with Martin McGuiness, the SF MP & MLA for Ulster Mid serving as his deputy.

But hang on a minute. SF is the third largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Wait for the usual fudge to be produced by Blair to justify why SF, with 23 MLA's, can be considered larger than the Ulster Unionist Party, with 24 MLA's.

Paisley has the right to either be First Minister, or to nominate a First Minister. But it is Reg Empey, the UUP leader and MLA for Belfast East, who deserves the right to either be Deputy First Minister, or nominate a Deputy First Minister.

The Short Giant

Well, it had to happen someday soon. Clare Short, who was the Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood from June 1983 to Oct 2006, is now the Independent MP for Birmingham Ladywood.

I doubt many people will be surprised by Short's resignation from Labour. And probably in the next few days, Labour will airbrush her out of its history, which will be an ignoble end to a successful career. Labour's George Foulkes screeching that Short is a "traitor" says more about Labour than about Short.

In the early days of Tony Blair's Premiership, when he was a radical pushing through reforms that were needed (whatever happened to that Tony Blair? Who is this stranger called "Tony Blair"? Where has this new Blair come from?), Short was clearly a key ally, serving as Labour's conscience, surrounded by political pygmies thinking of their next promotion.

Above all, Short served as Britain's first International Development Secretary for 6 years. Once "International Development" was seen as no more than a fashionable left-wing cause. Short's moral convictions and genius transformed all that. No serious politician would dream of scrapping the post of International Development Secretary. Every Cabinet will have an International Development Secretary, and the developing world will remain a priority for any Prime Minister, of any political persuasion.

Short quite rightly has turned on Blair, condeming the way that the Executive has ignored Parliament, and calling for a more traditional relationship, where a Prime Minister knew that he or she was accountable to the House of Commons for his or her actions. She is quite right to agree with the Conservative and Liberal Democrats (and several of her Labour ex-colleagues) that Parliament should be strengthened.

The one thing that annoyed Jacqui Smith, the Chief Whip, was Short's calls for a hung Parliament. This was portrayed as Short wanting Labour MP's to lose their seats. Maybe that was so, but that is democracy. Short has become vocal in backing electoral reform. Well, many Labour MP's do that, but Smith doesn't threaten action against them. Maybe it's because Labour MP's who call for electoral reform never think through the consequences. Or because whenever a Labour MP calls for electoral reform, it is normally justified as having one of two outcomes:
* an Alternative Vote system, which- it is dreamed- will see Liberal Democrat voters in Labour/Conservative marginals give their second preference to Labour and see Labour hold those seats, or gain them from the Conservatives. These sort of MP's believe that an electoral system can only be considered fair and democratic if Labour win an overall majority. Don't be surprised if Labour's falling opinion poll ratings sees Labour trying to introduce the Alternative Vote.
* a more proportional system which will give a hung parliament. These sort of MP's accept that Labour will have to hold its nose and enter government with the Liberal Democrats. But they are of the sort who believe that an electoral system can only be considered fair and democratic if the Conservatives cannot form a government.

There is one Labour criticism of Short- that she saw her support in the May 2005 election fall and the Liberal Democrats' support rise. And? So? Ladywood is a poor, inner-city part of Birmingham. The sort of seat where there were sharp falls in Labour support and rises in Liberal Democrat support. Bear in mind also that Birmingham City Council is successfully run by a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition.

Short has said she will not contest the next election. I feel she is making the wrong choice.

What is the difference between Short's views and the Liberal Democrats'? Very little. I believe that- instead of serving the next few years as an Independent, she should join the Liberal Democrats. In Ladywood, there is already a strong Liberal Democrat vote.

Picture the next election- Liberal Democrats win Birmingham Ladywood from Labour; Short elected MP for Birmingham Ladywood for the 7th successive time.

New Labour, New Vindictiveness

Labour likes to portray itself as the party of the National Health Service. It likes to portray the Conservatives as the party that will slash the National Health Service.

However, Labour has now decided to do some slashing of its own.

During its first term (May 1997 to June 2001), Labour targetted Kidderminster Hospital, in the constituency of Wyre Forest, for downgrading. In the 2001 election, the Liberal Democrats decided not to contest Wyre Forest, to allow Richard Taylor, a retired doctor, a clear run as he stood on the Kidderminster Hospital & Health Concern banner. Labour crashed from holding the seat to a poor third, and Taylor grabbed the Wyre Forest seat from nowhere.

Labour has learned its lesson. But what lesson?

Is the lesson not to cut the National Health Service?

Well, no. The lesson they have learned is not to cut the National Health Service in Labour held seats, or seats that Labour stand a chance in.

It has been announced that Labour plan to close two local hospitals- Hythe and Romsey. I was born in Hythe Hospital.

Why these two?

Well, Hythe lies in the constituency of New Forest East, held by the Conservatives' defence spokesman, Julian Lewis. It is a seat the Lib Dems have wanted, but they have now peaked there, and Lewis is fairly safe from them. And it's a seat Labour don't stand a chance of winning.

Romsey lies in the constituency of Romsey (!), held by the Liberal Democrats' health spokeswoman, Sandra Gidley. In June 2001 and May 2005 it saw very close battles between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Like New Forest East, Labour can, on a good day, manage a poor third place. The situation gets a little bit more complicated, as at the next election, there won't be a Romsey constituency. There will be Southampton North & Romsey composed of the bulk of the current Romsey with the northern bits of Southampton Test and Southampton Itchen. Curiously, if the May 2005 election had been fought on the boundaries that will be used for the next election, Southampton North & Romsey would have been a Conservative seat- narrowly though. Expect many confused people when the phrase "Liberal Democrats gain Southampton North & Romsey" or "Conservatives hold Southampton North & Romsey" flash up on the screen next election night.

None of the Southampton hospitals are threatened with closure. Southampton Test and Southampton Itchen are Labour seats. Although the Conservatives could easily grab Itchen (in the May 2006 elections to Southampton City Council, the Conservatives got the most votes in Itchen), and Test has moved from being a Labour/Conservative swing seat to a genuine three-way marginal. At the next election, "Labour hold Southampton Test", "Conservatives gain Southampton Test", "Liberal Democrats gain Southampton Test" are phrases that could flash up on your TV screen.

What Labour doesn't want is to see either of their Southampton seats fall to one of the main oppostion parties. And what they definitely fear would be Southampton Test and Southampton Itchen to fall to a future Southampton Hospitals & Health Concern candidate.

But what about New Forest East and Southampton North & Romsey? Labour doesn't stand a chance anyway, so have nothing electorally to lose.

Meanwhile in the fair city of St Andrews'...

.. this coming week sees Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern, the Irish Republic's Prime Minister, host a meeting of Northern Ireland parties to thrash out any sort of deal to restore devolution by Blair's 24 November deadline.

The sticking point is Blair's insistence that the four main Northern Ireland parties- Democratic Unionist (DUP), Sinn Fein (SF), Ulster Unionist (UUP), Social Democratic & Labour Party (SDLP)- should form a four-party coalition.

The DUP emphasises that before entering any sort of coalition with SF, it needs reassurance that the IRA is well on the way to disbanding, and that SF will accept and support Northern Ireland's policing structure. This they really should do- after all, at SF's request, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 abolished the Royal Ulster Constabulary. And once that concession was made, SF decided that that wasn't enough. Blair's strategy towards SF/IRA is appease, surrender, appease, surrender, in the hope that the bombings and killings won't restart.

Not helping is the tragic way that George Bush has fallen hook, line and sinker for the "cuddly freedom fighters with a legitimate grievance which can only be dealt with by bombings" view of the IRA. This is the man who, with no sense of irony, welcomed a representative from the IRA to the White House less than a week after the Madrid bombings. And standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a representative of a terrorist organisation responsible for the deaths of 1,800 Britons, urged Britain to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in the fight against terrorism.

It is to be welcomed that the US Senate has- after 3 years- passed the extradition treaty between Britain and the USA. The reason for the delay? Concerns that we might use it for the purpose it was designed for- to fight terrorism. Concerns that we might actually try to extradite those IRA terrorists who have fled justice by moving to the USA.

The one thing I never understand is why SF are considered among the Congressional chattering classes to have this extra special mandate. If you look at the Irish Republic's parliament, elected in May 2002, Fianna Fail are the largest party. Fine Gael second. Labour third. Progressive Democrats fourth. Green Party fifth. Sinn Fein sixth. Yes, sixth.

Mary McAleese is the President. Elected for the first time in October 1997, and the second time in October 2004.

Why is Ahern Prime Minister? Well, after the parliamentary elections of June 1997, the parliament elected him Prime Minister, leading a Fianna Fail/ Progressive Democrat coalition. In May 2002, the new parliament re-elected him.

Yet, among much of the Washington political establishment, it is Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein leader, who is seen as having the political authority and right to speak for the Irish Republic. Not McAlesse (the President). Nor Ahern (Prime Minister). Why does having bombs and guns give a sixth-placed party a greater political mandate to speak for a nation than its President and Prime Minister?

The only ray of sunshine on the horizon is that John McCain and Condoleezza Rice refuse to go along with the Washington "cuddly freedom fighters" consensus when it comes to the IRA.

Doctor Doctor

Now, why am I "Dr Pointer"?

The reason is that I spent 4 years studying and researching for a PhD at St Andrews' University in Scotland.

What really annoys me is that, before you formally get your doctorate, at the graduation ceremony you have to sit through a succession of Z-list celebrities, with honorary doctorates being given out like lollipops to them. It is a slap in the face for those of us who actually worked for our doctorates.

At least none of the Z-list celebrities backed Hezbollah. Until now...

Next month Mohammad Khatami, who was Iranian President from August 1997 to August 2005, will visit St Andrews' to open an Institute of Iranian Studies. Fair enough. But the university Chancellor, Menzies Campbell (yes, the same Ming the Merciless who is leader of the Liberal Democrats- his constituency, Fife North East, contains St Andrews'), will honour Khatami by giving him an honorary doctorate.

What sort of message does this give out? How does Ming reconcile his action as university Chancellor with being Liberal Democrat leader? He has been trying to portray his party as a serious one, capable of entering a coalition after the next election.

Be merciless towards Khatami, Ming. Don't give him that doctorate.

Gym progress

I have posted about using the company gym. We went again on Monday and Thursday last week. Great fun, and I find it encouraging to make progress. I am now on to rowing, bench presses, jogging (it's really odd that with my knee, I struggle with the stairs to my flat, but I can comfortably jog on a treadmill with no pain- maybe as it's flat) as well as a bit of pugilism. Each time I do things that I thought were beyond me.

Although I wasn't well over the weekend (normally, if I'm ill on a Sunday I skip church, but over the past few weeks I have come to realise that I need to be more committed, and forced myself to go- and afterwards realised this was the right choice) and yesterday I was "washed out". So, we rescheduled the gym for today. Still feeling the same, so we intend just to go on Thursday this week, and it'll probably be a lighter session.

Labour's double standards

This week is the Conservative party conference in Bournemouth, Hampshire.

This is the first one under David Cameron's leadership. One of Cameron's jibes at Tony Blair upon becoming leader was "You were the future once." This easily springs to mind when one compares that Labour had Bill Clinton addressing their conference (wasn't Clinton the future once?)- and we get John McCain. McCain is clearly looking at Ronald Reagan's example of the late 1970s and is developing close links with leading European centre-right politicians, starting with British Conservatives before moving on to Swedish Moderates and German Christian Democrats.

I will have more to write about this in coming days.

One thing which struck me is Labour's double standards. Yesterday, Mary Ann Sieghart, Labour cheerleader and journalist (excellently parodied in St Albion's Parish News as the brown-nosing Mary Ann Seekjob) suggested to George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he was "faintly autistic." Now, Osborne's response was not the most tactful or sensitive, as he said "We're not getting on to Gordon Brown yet."

Labour spokespersons rightly criticise Osborne for his comment. But, why are they not condemning Sieghart for her "autistic" jibe against Osborne?

A Taxing Council

Only two things in life are certain- death and taxes.

But what if an organisation existed that made it difficult to pay tax? Well, there is- it's called Southampton City Council and it's run by the Liberal Democrats.

Now, 10 months of the year I have to pay Council Tax, as does every other household.

They entered the 21st century by enabling one to pay Council Tax online. Normally, the principle is that one progresses- going from the 19th century to the 20th and then into the 21st. Not so here- one can no longer pay Council Tax online. Which I found the quickest and simplest way of doing it.

I used to pay by cheque. The problem with that is that you write your reference number and postcode on the back of the cheque. In the Cash Office, the thought process seems to be "Ooh. Here's a cheque for Council Tax from Graham Pointer. He's put a postcode and reference number on the back of the cheque. Let's have a look at our list of Council Tax payers. There's a Graham Pointer on the list. Same reference number. Same postcode. Could it be the same person? Nah, put it in the suspense account until we find out whose it is. And, by the way, write out to Graham Pointer and tell him he hasn't paid his Council Tax."

Last November, the simple task of this led to much correspondence between myself and the Cash Office (not helped by the fact that- common for local government bureaucrats- they work part-time hours. And yes, I call 32 hours a week part-time). So, I switched to doing it online.

There is one thing I really object to about Council Tax. And that is the bureaucrats it supports. Firstly, there are too many of them. If they worked proper hours, then there wouldn't need to be so many of them. And by the way, why do they seem to feel the need to throw "sickies" on the grounds of "stress" so often? Absenteeism on the grounds of "stress" is much higher among local government penpushers than people with real jobs.

But the real injustice is the pension scheme. Besides the State Pension, pensions come in two basic forms.

The first is the Money Purchase Scheme. In this, you and your employer make payments into a pension pot (often invested in the stock market) which is then used when you retire to purchase an annuity. It's a gamble. What you get depends on so many factors.

The other is the Final Salary Scheme. In this, the pension you get depends on your final salary and your length of service. No worrying about the vagaries of the stock market.

Local government bureaucrats are in the latter of these. And this is where the real problem arises. What happens if there isn't enough money to pay them their pensions? Well, not a problem. There are all the pensioners and hard-working families paying Council Tax. Just bung up Council Tax and all the bureaucrats can sleep safely in their beds knowing that other people will have to make savings, cut back, so the bureaucrats can get their pensions.

There is another injustice. When I was younger I knew that I would not be able to draw my State Pension until I was 65, in August 2037. Recent reforms mean that I will have to wait until August 2039.

Now, local government penpushers are in the same boat. Except, they can draw their occupational pension (paid out of Council Tax) when they are 60. The Government recently suggested that this could be raised to the State Pension Age.

The problem is that the unions aren't having it. And, as Labour relies on the unions for much of its funding, they will not antagonise the unions. So, local government penpushers contine to retire at 60, with their generous pension scheme bankrolled by the rest of us.