Brand Battle

I'm blogging today in support of a charity called "Grassroots" that's based in Rowledge, helping vulnerable communities in the UK and overseas, and yet finds itself subject to a potentially onerous, and certainly inappropriate, challenge to its identity, by our government.

It was only launched two weeks ago, but already Hugo and Sharon Anson are being called about information on the new central government initiative called "Grassroots Grants". Not for a moment do I believe that this initiative is bad - it's a great programme to match grant giving by local funders. But, I do believe that this is an example of a government behomoth that has neglected diligence by not ensuring that its good intentions do not overshadow or hinder the work already underway by other organisations.

Hugo and Sharon have written to Jeremy Hunt on this, and I do hope he can persuade someone to make it loud and clear that this new programme is definitely not the same as their own charity.

Motion

Travelling to London on the train this morning, I’ve just read on page 12 of the Telegraph, that the government is considering banning the sale of electoral role information to the public by local authorities. Hurrah!

As regular readers will know, I posted my opinion on this some months ago – that the practice should definitely be banned; that officers at the council would be very happy to see this ended; and that it raises very little income and causes much work.

So, I’m writing today to the leader of the council, Richard Gates, to ask him to allow the inclusion of the following motion at the next full council meeting:

“This council believes that the practice of selling electoral register information should be ended.”

If allowed on the agenda, I will speak to this on the grounds not only of privacy, but also as it will very likely lead to the reduction of junk mail, and therefore, in this very difficult economic climate, prevention of mis-selling or over-selling to vulnerable households.

I recognise the potential complaints that some companies will be curtailed in their attempts to maintain turnover if sales opportunities through junk mail are prevented. But, as a business owner myself, I believe that much more targeted marketing, and considerate advertising, would be the more responsible approach.

PPPC

Great news. One of our Waverley Councillors has been selected by the constituency party of Preston, in Lancashire, to be the Conservative Party candidate at the next general election.

Currently held by Labour, with a majority of around 8,500 (due to boundary changes), this is eminently winnable.

Ten questions, from Jeremy Hunt MP

I'm envious. Our MP Jeremy Hunt is off to the Olympics in Beijing. So-called 'Super Saturday' and my brother-in-law's infectious excitement, has made me more envious that I thought I would be.

Today, he's penned ten questions for trip, and they're published on the ConservativeHome.com blog, the home of all blogs Tory.

6 votes

When the polls closed today, the general public (well 6 of you), had declared that local councils shouldn't be selling the elctoral roll.

Hmm... I'm not sure this gives me a mandate to campaign on this just yet! But it's something I continue to feel strongly about.

Selling our soul?

Good news on two counts:

(1) The report out today on privacy of data is recommending decisive action to disallow the selling of electoral roll information by local councils. In today's modern web-enabled world, the abuse of such data leads to the calls and emails that we all label 'spam', and frankly blights our days.

(2) A source at the council tells me that they'd much rather not sell the electoral roll at all, and whilst they only do so to a small handful of organisations each year, and make very little money from it, it's something they currently are obliged to do under existing legislation. With 40% of voters opting out, it's not much use in the grand scheme of things, but it would still give tens of thousands of names and addresses to recipients.

I'm completely in support of a ban on this activity.

When the answer is not 42

When the answer is 42...

"I think the problem is that the question was too broadly based...

"Forty two?!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"

"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."

Reviving Faith Ideological Engagement in Politics

Sat at Waterloo Station, waiting for the Alton train to get me back to Farnham, I'm mulling over the debate this evening. Chaired by BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, it was a conversation between him and Jim Wallis, American author, campaigner, activist and theologian (in no particular order), and 3 MPs - Andy Reed (Labour), Tim Farron (LD), and Andrew Selous (Con).

I made many notes and could could copiously type them up, but I'm not sure that such a verbatim report would make sense to anyone else. So, I've tried to summarise some key points that struck me - not necessarily all of them, or the key ones for others at the debate, but these ones resonated with me this evening.

Issues
* Movements make things possible, not just an individual (even Wilberforce). Millions of individual decisions, and by critical and prophetic minorities, not majorities, bring about change.
* The church should be focussing on speaking to the common good, not about the church 'winning' the debate.
* There is a choice in society's response to its issues - between hope and cynicism, and cynicism is a buffer against commitment.

Quotes
* "Globalization has an inevitable logic, but no ethic": Jim Wallis.
* "If we're [the church] are not careful, we'll become middle-class theatres with great powerpoint": Andy Reed.
* "There's nothing insipid about Jesus Christ, but there's something insipid about the church response...": Tim Farron.

And, I came away with the following questions:

1. How do we change the debate so that the secularist position is given the same critical treatment as the faith position?
2. How do we "change the wind", not just the wet-fingered politician?
3. How often does someone ask "Why do you live the way you do?"

And one final quote, as it's so good:
"Evan Harris is Dawkins' representative on earth": Anon.

Have I Got News For You...

... from guest publication "Dental Tribune", courtesy of my mother-in-law (erstwhile Practice Manager of Weobley, Herefordshire).

Last night it was pointed out to me that the front page of the UK edition reported on the NHS Dental Services debate in the House of Lords, on 24th April. However, what was frustrating, was having reported that Lord Colwyn, listed "eight reasons not to be a National Health Service dentist", it failed to mention them. Given that my father-in-law and one brother-in-law are NHS dentists, and that Lord Colwyn was listing these reasons as evidence of how our government has made it increasingly likely for dentists to become private, I thought I would hunt out the reasons (from the online version of Hansard) and list below:

1. The NHS does not recognise that a dental business is a business.
2. Laboratory bills are huge.
3. The UDAs, the units of dental activity payment bands, are seen as covering too wide a spectrum.
4. Dentists do not wish to take on new patients with an unknown volume of work needed, because of the risk of a large increase in expenses gainst a fixed-target income.
5. If the dentist falls short of the fixed target in his contract at the end of an NHS financial year, a proportion of his fee can be reclaimed.
6. If the dentist exceeds his target, any further work undertaken by the dentist in that financial year has to be carried out unpaid.
7. Preventive work is not carried out fully because dentists are too busy on the UDA treadmill.
8. It has become extremely difficult to realise the good-will value of the business by selling it on to a successor dentist, as the the PCTs will not provide any transfer undertaking or certification.

And the government response to these reasons that many, if not all, NHS dentists and patients would recognise?

Baroness Thornton: "our record on dentistry is strong".

The Public Whip

Another website that's invaluable for holding MPs to account, is The Public Whip which makes available every vote in both Houses of Parliament, searchable by either topic or MP or Peer.

Examples
Click here, for the law of blasphemous libel that was repealed on 6th May.

And click here for a list of the votes in last week's human embryology debates.

Living in a democracy that elects representatives to parliament, does not mean that each MP should simply do as the majority in their constituency tells them - otherwise in this day of technology, we could simply ask everyone in the country to vote by internet on every bill in the House of Commons. But it does mean that we should each take up our responsibility to vote, and to lobby, with seriousness.

They Work For You

Reminded by just reading the email that I get most days, I thought I'd post about a great website. TheyWorkForYou.com records all the words written or spoken by every MP, and anyone can register to be updated by email on any number of MPS. Of course, I'm mostly interested in Jeremy's words, but I also get information on a few other MPs that I either know, or respect, or... well, for any reason really.

Blasphemy

A few days ago a friend of mine emailed me, pointing to a brief mention in the Telegraph of an attempt to repeal the law of blasphemy. Paul was supporting a view that the church should counter this attempt.

However, I'm not certain it should. I'm a Christian, and I believe that blasphemy offends God, but I don't believe that it means it should be illegal in our society, and carry a penalty. Here's what I emailed back:

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your email regarding the 'small print' proposal to abolish the 'ancient laws of blasphemy'.

Thought I'd contribute by being potentially controversial! I disagree that this proposal is a bad thing, and that the church should counter it. I do not believe that there should be a legal penalty for blaspheming. In fact, there's many things that I believe are contrary to God's law / will, which I do not believe should be illegal.

It's possibly hard for us to swallow the fact that this amendment is de facto sponsored by three of the most anti-Christian characters in three of the most opinion-forming sectors of society. However, this doesn't persuade me that they are wrong, merely powerfully remind me that the church is far too reticent about being engaged in public discourse about such issues. And, when it does engage, it far too easily relies on theological and ecclesiastical jargon and assumptions of a superior and naturally authoritative worldview.

And to go further, I believe that it's weak to give the impression that the Christian faith requires protection by law in this way.

Don't get me wrong - I believe that God instituted many things that we should not only cherish, but also seek to codify in law. But blasphemy isn't one of them.

What do you think? :-)

Backbenchers, Revolt! Or Win Nothing (aka The Man Called B.R.O.W.N.)

Simply put, when speaking with Andrew Marr this morning, our Prime Minister's regret at the Labour Party's poor showing in the elections last week was refreshing. However, my surprise and happiness was shortlived, as Mr. Brown continued on to say that he would 'fix the economy'.

FIX THE ECONOMY!! Isn't that what he was supposed to be doing for the past 10 years? In fact, shouldn't he really sack himself for messing it up so spectacularly by creating the conditions within which banks would lend with little restraint, thus building the gigantic (stupendous, horrendous, ridiculous) unsecured debt mountain which now threatens to crumble?

And then to presume that he knew what we (the people) wanted, and what messages we were sending... Didn't he know this beforehand? Why didn't he do anything about it then? Or was it the jaw-dropping, bottom-dropping-out, collapse of the Labour vote, that has made him think that he should do something? Or maybe I'm being cynical.

RIP ...A

Last Saturday I posted about the Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which grants to all local authorities in England and Wales, the use of covert intelligence gathering techniques, under specific constraints and provisions.

The Act was news to me, and so I wrote that I would find out whether Waverley has used these powers at all.

Yesterday I received a great explanatory email from a council solicitor, explaining the Act further, the constraints on its use, and attaching a policy document that Waverley adopted and now follows in its use of the Act. I don't have exact information on use, and this may not be possible due to the inherent nature of the activities undertaken within the provisions of the Act.

I'd encourage you to read the policy document, found our the council website, and let me know what you think.

Bond, James Bond

The Daily Mail (and before you say anything, no, I don't buy it or read it, but happened to see it lying open this morning...) has an article about a council that literally spied on a local family, suspecting that they may be lying in order to get their child into their preferred school.

Having spent a bit of time reading up on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, it does appear that all local authorities now have power to use 'covert human intelligence sources' to gather evidence against those they suspect of misleading them.

I'm a bit taken aback, as I thought we lived in a non-communist country. So, I've decided I'm going to do a bit of digging, and see what I can find out about the use of these powers by Waverley.

Watch this space. As it were.

Free our bills

So, not another post about council tax or great antipodean cafes (see post on Sat 15th March). This time is to highlight a great campaign to make parliamentary bills much more accessible online. The web site They Work For You is already a favourite of mine, but now they've started to campaign for a much more modern approach to transparency.

As Sam Leith says in the Telegraph today:

"The point is not to alter the texts of the Bills, or interfere with their drafting and passage through the House. The point is simply to "parse" them into a format - marking headings, subheadings, dates, amendments and so forth - that makes them available to be searched, indexed and cross-referenced by outside users."

If you support this concept of easier access to information on bills that are passing through the house, and what your MP is saying about them, then register with the site, and they will keep you up-to-date with their progress.

Waverley webcasts its meetings, and is pretty good in my view on publishing what's going on. But, if you have any complaints, and think we could be doing more, let me know.