A Tribute to 'Jack' Weatherill

David Hunt's son Tom has sent me this tribute to Lord Weatherill, who died earlier this year. His Memorial Service was held this week.

When any astute political observer of the last 25 years hears the name Jack they will undoubtedly remember one of the greatest ever speakers of the House of Commons (1983-1992). Jack was the first speaker the nation observed presiding over the tumult of the House of Commons for he oversaw and fully supported the introduction of television cameras. His was the commanding voice people would have seen and heard for the first time calling “Order Order”.

He was proud of his achievement of coming from humble origins often recounting that when he first entered parliament and was sitting in a small room! he heard someone he knew saying – “God I don’t know what this place is coming to Tom, even my tailors here now”. Tailoring was his trade and he always carried around a silver thimble that his mother had given to him to remind him of his background.

On Tuesday, I sat in Westminster Abbey to remember a great family friend. It was a service of thanksgiving for the life and work of ‘The Right Honourable The Lord Weatherill DL 25th November 1920 – 6 May 2007’. Jack was my father’s political mentor. In the Abbey he paid tribute to his great friend remembering his life as a soldier, an MP, Whip, Speaker and later his life as convenor of the cross benches in the House of Lords.

In wartime Jack served in King George V’s own 19th Lancers (an amalgam of three of the original Bengal Lancer Calvary regiments) and as my father said, ‘like all gentle and peaceable men he was the very model of a perfect soldier.”

From war to tailoring and into parliament in 1964 he became the Conservative MP for Croydon. He rose through the ranks of the whips office and when he was deputy chief whip under Ted Heath we heard how the Queen especially looked forward to reading his rather humorous and cheeky takes on what was going on at Westminster. Her Majesty adored him. We also heard how the collapse of the Labour Government in 1979 would not have happened if Jack’s honourable gesture as deputy Chief Whip had been accepted by Walter Harrison (the Government deputy Chief Whip) – he offered to pair with a dying Labour MP even though he was in the best of health - the government fell by one vote. Like Walter he put honour before party.

And that was Jack. He was respected and loved by all sides of the House because of is honour and faithfulness. It was no surprise that he was elected as Speaker in 1983. It was quite a send off for Jack in Westminster Abbey. As his sons Bernard and Bruce said he would not have believed how many people were at the service. Representatives of Her Majesty the Queen, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and too many charities too mention. Mrs. Thatcher was there, John Major too and even Douglas Hurd dressed in his robes of clerical office! Tony Benn was there and listened as his great speech on the Zircon affair was recounted. Jack said that it was the best parliamentary speech he had ever heard. Not many people disagree.

More importantly his many grand-children were present. For they were his bliss and rapture unconfined. His entry in ‘Who’s Who’ sets out that one of his hobbies was playing with his grand children. He was a true family man and with his wife Lynn made the Speakers residence an exemplar of family life - welcoming, warm and unpretentious.

Jack told his closest friends that if he was to be remembered it was that his word was his bond. As my father said in the Abbey, “Jack it always was,and that is why we will remember you here, today and always as one of thegreatest parliamentarians of this, or any time”.

Tim Worstall has a nice anecdote about Lord Weatherill HERE.

A Good Day to be a Conservative

With a poll showing the Tories on 43% in the Telegraph this morning (highest rating for 15 years) and local government by election victories in Sefton and Harlow, it is a good time to be a Conservative.

UPDATE: Actually, it's 41%. That's he last time I believe Michael Portillo, who announced it on THIS WEEK!

Later this morning I will be driving to a secret location in Berkshire where I will be speaking at a Conservative Madrassa Young Britons Foundation training weekend. And by way of a contrast, on Sunday morning I'll be addressing the Institute of Ideas 'Battle of Ideas' conference on the dumbing down of British TV, alongside Peter Horrocks, Guy Rundle, Ray Snoddy and Minette Marrin.

Telegraph Column: Cameron Should Ignore the LibDems

My column in today's Telegraph looks at the challenge Nick Clegg or Chris Huhne will provide for David Cameron.

Earlier this year, I spent a very enjoyable 60 minutes interviewing Nick
Clegg. As we walked out of the studio, I said to him: "You realise you and I
haven't disagreed on anything this evening, don't you?" Quick as a flash, he
replied: "I don't know who should be most worried by that – you or me!" I also
had a similar experience interviewing Chris Huhne. Have no fear, I'm not about
to defect to the Liberal Democrats, but I recount this anecdote to illustrate
that, for the first time in decades, they are about to elect a leader who is
quite prepared to do business with the Conservatives. Indeed, some of us feel
that Nick Clegg is actually in the wrong party.

Read more HERE.

IainDale.TV

The Perils of a Misplaced Exhaust Pipe

Hampshire police thought it would be a good idea to advertise on the rear of a bus... although their planning did not take into account the position of the bus's exhaust pipe... It gives a new meaning to the phrase "would you blow into this, sir"!

An Interview with the Creator of Sir Humphrey Appleby

This afternoon I had the pleasure of interviewing Sir Antony Jay, the co-creator of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister. Here's a five minute clip. For the full interview, click HERE. The rest is mainly about his views on the future of the BBC.

Stop Press: Labour Peer Accused of Cash for Access

I've been leaked a copy of the Guardian's explosive front page story tomorrow. And boy is it explosive. It accuses Labour Peer Lord Hoyle (former Warrington MP Doug Hoyle) of taking money to intriduce arms dealers to the Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson. Here are the opening paras of David Leigh's story...

A Labour peer has admitted taking money to introduce an arms company lobbyist to the government minister in charge of weapons purchases. The case of 'cash for access' in the House of Lords is likely to ignite fresh concern about ethical standards in parliament. The lobbyist paid cash for an introduction to Lord Drayson, the defence minister in charge of billions of pounds of military procurement, according to evidence obtained by the Guardian. Money changed hands with former Labour frontbencher Lord Hoyle, previously Doug Hoyle, an ex-government whip and former MP for Warrington.

The lobbyist, Michael Wood, who trades as Whitehall Advisers, agreed to pay Lord Hoyle an undisclosed sum in June 2005. MoD documents released to the Guardian show that Lord Hoyle then engineered a private meeting between Mr Wood and the newly appointed defence minister. Mr Wood is a former RAF officer who works for BAE and other smaller arms companies to help get them contracts. He has free run of the Palace of Westminster because he has a security pass as a research assistant to another MP. He operates his company from his nearby flat.

Paying cash for ministerial introductions is a practice frowned on at the House of Lords, but not specifically outlawed. 'Cash for introductions' is forbidden by the main lobbyists' trade body, the Association of Professional Political Consultants, but Mr Wood is not a member.

There's a lot more. Read the full story HERE.

Labour Blogger in Denial Over Gay 'Paedo' Smear

LibDem blogger Andy Mayer has the latest in the Miranda Grell saga. Grell a Waltham Forest Labour councillor and blogger was recently found guilty of smearing her LibDem opponent, inferring that he had a unhealthy interest in young men decades younger than himself. As a result he has been forced to move away from the area despite the allegations being totally untrue. However, despite being banged to rights Grell has decided to launch a fund so she can appeal. Andy Mayer concludes...

The continued mealy-mouthed defence of her by some Labour commentators like Paul Burgin, and Chris Paul is disgraceful and frankly does their party a disservice. There are plenty of Labour campaigners who do not exploit hate to get elected, and instead like many Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, simply work hard in their communities, criticise their opponents for what they do, not who they are, and
get on with what should be the decent public service commitment inherent in the
profession of politics.The Labour party needs to get on with expelling Grell,
something that should not depend on the outcome of her PR-driven appeal
campaign, remind some of their bloggers that the party does not endorse the use
of homophobia or other forms of hate in their campaigning, and restate their
commitment to eradicating prejudice.

Why Gordon Brown Is So Crap At PMQs

I have an article on CommentIsFree which was originally titled WHY GORDON BROWN IS SO CRAP AT PMQs. However, I see they have retitled it to THE FINE ART OF PMQs. Read it HERE.

Press Banned from LibDem Hustings Q&A

It seems it's not only Gordon Brown who's good at making enemies of the ladies and gentlemen of the press. At the LibDem hustings between TweedleClegg and TweedleHuhne, journalists are only allowed in to hear their ten minute speeches. They're then gently ushered out of the room before Mr Beard and Mrs Sandals ask questions. As a consequence, many journalists are threatening to boycott the events.

At the twelve Conservative leadership hustings in 2005 the press were allowed in to the whole event. Who's the liberal party now then?!

Who Will Pull the Aussie Strings?

This is another Australian Liberal Party election commercial. It strikes me as a tad desperate.

I Don't Feel Guilty for Driving a Car

The 'Nanny Staters' are at it again. According to THIS story on Guardian Online, car manufacturers will now have to devote 20% of the space of their adverts (or time) to explaining how much pollution they cause. You know, if people want to know about that it's perfectly easy to read in the car's manual. It's stated very prominently in most of them.

Anybody with half a brain knows that cars cause pollution. And anyone who is concerned about that will ensure that they buy a car which they're happy with. When I ordered my new car I made sure I knew what the emissions were before I placed the order. The salesman told me that most people now ask the same question and that it wouldn't be long before Audi were forced, by customer demand, to produce their own version of the Prius. They needn't bother on my account, but it proves that customers are, as ever in a free economy, making their own informed choices. What we do not need are do-gooders telling us that we should feel guilty for driving cars. For many people cars are a necessity, not a luxury.

Brown: Labour Not to Blame for Scottish Elections Scandal

I don't know how other people saw it, but I thought David Cameron absolutely hammered Gordon Brown in the second half of PMQs today, when he questioned him about the conduct of the Scottish elections and Wee Dougie Alexander's part in it. The PM had already stuttered his way through the first half of his weekly ordeal, but to pretend that it was the Opposition parties who were to blame for the Scottish election disaster was beyond belief. He even accused Cameron of "misleading" the House by quoting from the Gould Report, which caused the Speaker to consult his Clerk. The Speaker also - for the second week running - had to rebuke Gordon Brown's PPS Ian Austin for screaming abuse at David Cameron throughout his questioning of Brown. Not very edifying. Brown really is on the ropes in these PMQ sessions nowadays. For three weeks in a row Cameron has had a clear win.

UPDATE: Brownite cheerleader-in-chief and all round man of the people Kevin Maguire blogs about PMQs in a post rather grandly titled MY VIEWS ON TODAY'S PMQS. He can't quite bring himself to say it, but the message was clear: Cameron won

How to Kill the Blogosphere in One Easy Lesson

Romano Prodi's Cabinet has just proved a law designed to kill the Italian blogopshere stone dead. According to Italian blogger Beppe Grillo...

Ricardo Franco Levi, Prodi’s right hand man , undersecretary to the President of the Council, has written the text to put a stopper in the mouth of the Internet. The draft law was approved by the Council of Ministers on 12 October. No Minister dissociated themselves from it. On gagging information, very quietly, these are all in agreement. The Levi-Prodi law lays out that anyone with a blog or a website has to register it with the ROC, a register of the Communications Authority, produce certificates, pay a tax, even if they provide information without any intention to make money. Blogs are being born every second, anyone can start one without a problem and they can write their thoughts, publish photos and videos. In fact, the route proposed by Levi limits access to the Internet. What young person is going to submit to all these hoops to do a blog? the Levi-Prodi law obliges anyone who has a website or a blog to get a publishing company and to have a journalist who is on the register of professionals as the responsible director. 99% would close down. The lucky 1% still surviving on the Internet according to the Levi-Prodi law would have to respond in the case of the lack of control on defamatory content in accordance with articles 57 and 57 bis of the penal code. Basically almost sure to be in prison. If the law gets passed, it’ll be the end of the Internet in Italy. My blog won’t close. If I have to, I’ll transfer lock stock, barrel and server to a democratic State. PS. Anyone wishing to express their opinion to Ricardo Franco Levi can send an email to: levi_r@camera.it

What's the betting that having passed through the Italian Parliament it will then emerge as a Draft Directive in Brussels?

Why a Shadow Cabinet Reshuffle Would be Wrong

ConservativeHome is running a series of ideas on what David Cameron should do next. Today's is to reshuffle his Shadow Cabinet with the key being to move George Osborne to being Party Chairman and for William Hague to replace him as Shadow Chancellor and David Lidington to be promoted to Shadow Foreign Secretary (not gonna happen). The logic behind this suggestion is that reporting lines at CCHQ are blurred with effectively three Party Chairman - Caroline Spelman (the actual chairman), Michael Ashcroft (in charge of target seats) and George Osborne (General Election coordinator).

There are several flaws in this argument, the main one being that William Hague has made it abundantly clear to anyone who will listen that he would rather go back to writing books than be Shadow Chancellor. He's quite happy where he is and intends to stay there.

Speculating about a Shadow Cabinet reshuffle only a matter of weeks after the last one isn't particularly helpful. It would be seen as a pretty desperate step, although I suppose the fact that we are in a post 'non-election' situation could be used to justify it. David Cameron is known to intensely dislike reshuffles and he seems to be happy with his team, which has performed well after a dodgy start. To tinker with it so soon would be wrong.

How to Make a Scary Political Ad

It's not rocket science, as George Bush once said on a visit to Cape Canaveral...

Top Ten Political Misjudgements

If you like counterfactuals, you'll love Paul Linford's Top Ten Political Misjudgements HERE.

Where's Wee Dougie Alexander?

On the day he is accused of making decisions for "partisan political interests" in the conduct of the Scottish elections earlier this year, Wee Dougie Alexander is nowhere to be seen. It seems he has learnt at the feet of MacAvity Brown and done a runner. And yet this is the man in charge of Labour's general election campaign. In any normal political circumstances, where politicians are held accountable for their actions, he'd be collecting his P45 tonight. What a shower this government is. And some people were naive enough to think they would be different to Blair's administration. Some hope.

The Good and Bad Sides of Commons Modernisation

The House of Commons Modernisation Committee has made three recommendations today, one of which I fully support, one of which I fully oppose and one of which I am indifferent to. They are...

• Allowing MPs to check emails while in the chamber as long as it doesn't interfere with the business of the Commons
• The final 10 minutes of departmental question times each day will be set aside for "open questions". This will be like prime minister's questions, where no notice is given of what is to be asked.
• There will be a three week gap between a general election and Parliament re-starting, to allow new MPs time to learn the ropes

Now, your task over the next hour is to decide which I agree with, which I don't and which I'm indifferent to. And let me have your views too, as they say in Radioland. At least here you don't have to text!

UPDATE: I am totally against allowing MPs to check emails in the chamber, totally in favour of open questions and indifferent to the three week gap for inducting new MPs. But then, most of you guessed that. In the words of Elaine Paige, you know me so well!

Is the Abortion Industry Manipulating a Select Committee?

There are three subjects guaranteed to attract comments from the blog equivalent of the 'green ink' brigade - Israel, Climate Change and abortion. The last time I wrote about abortion (HERE) the post got 162 comments. I am going to write this blogpost in the calmest way I can, and I would ask that the ensuing debate in the Comments reflects that. In June I wrote...

In an ideal world there would be no abortion, but we do not live in that world and never will. Those of us who adopt a pro-life attitude must recognise that we cannot roll back the clock and shouldn't try to. We have to be pragmatic, but that does not stop us trying to understand why the abortion rate in this country is so much higher than in most others, and then doing something about it. The question is, what. The Select Committee of Science & Technology is holding an inquiry into the subject at the moment. Health Minister Dawn Primarolo appears before it tomorrow.

Nadine Dorries, a member of the Committee, has written a blogpost today which is quite explosive. In it, she accuses the vested interests on the 'abortion industry' of manipulating a Select Committee inquiry for their own ends. In particular she highlights the role of the British Medical Association (BMA) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Nadine writes...

The RCOG Committee which drew up the guidelines, that regulate the abortion
industry is made up mainly of abortion providers, both on a large and small
scale. For example both the BPAS and Marie Stopes who carry out the lions share
of 200,000 abortions per year are advisors to the Committee. Dr Kate Guthrie, is
an advisor – it was she, who when giving evidence to the Science &
Technology Select Committee, said speaking with her RCOG hat on, that she saw no
evidence to change from 24 weeks – and then said on national TV the following
night via the Dispatches programme, that she wouldn’t abort a baby over 20
weeks. When asked was this because it was too much like a baby, she said “I
suppose so.” Militant, pro-abortion groups are also advisors, but in the name of
balance, no pro-life groups. Almost every person on the committee has a vested
financial interest in ensuring that the number of abortions which take place in
the UK remains amongst the highest in Europe.

I believe that the RCOG may have deliberately attempted to mislead the
Science & Technology Committee in its submission. It failed to mention the
Hoekstra study which demonstrates how with good neonatal ntervention, 66% of all babies (that is babies born naturally because there may have been medical
complications not healthy babies aborted) at 23 weeks live. It failed to mention
how in the UK at good neonatal units such as UCH London and Hope hospital in
Salford, 43% of 23 weekers live. Instead it chose to quote a study which
averages out births at all hospitals across the UK, which puts the figure at 10
-15%. The RCOG also failed to quote any papers linking abortion to pre-term
delivery which had been published after 2003 and completely ignored the recent
peer reviewed acclaimed study into foetal pain produced by Dr Anand. The RCOG
also went foolishly further than this and have in a very childish way claimed
they are not aware of Dr Anand on their web page. Dr Anand is the world's authority on foetal pain - it was his work at Oxford in the 1980’s which resulted in all neonates being given anaesthesia for general surgery today. Until he produced his work it was thought that neonates could not feel pain, by measuring stress hormones he proved otherwise. Dr Anand has been published world wide. The RCOG web site stating that they are unaware of Dr Anand is the equivalent of a group of mathematicians asking “who is Einstein?”

She then goes on to question the role of the BMA, which "voted at its conference to support the move to require only one doctor's signature for an abortion to be performed, not two".

Nadine is accusing Dawn Primarolo of coming to the Committee tomorrow having already publicised her evidence in advance. Primarolo is a known advocate of the liberalisation of abortion laws, so I am not sure that this should come as a great surprise to anyone, but if she really has made up her mind on the 20 versus 24 week term limit argument, Nadine has a point in asking why the Select Committee has bothered to have an inquiry.

On the argument in question, my own view is that the law should indeed be changed to reduce the limit to 20 weeks. Medical science has moved on in light years and it is now possible for a 24 week old foetus to be kept alive. We know this because it regularly happens. It also feels pain, as Dr Anand has proven. Those who argue against this and accuse us of having a wider agenda of banning abortion (not true in my case) need to think again and accept the fact that by arguing for an outdated 24 week limit they are arguing for the continuation of licensed murder. Even Sir David Steel, who introduced the 1967 Act agrees.