On Wednesday I reported that Peter Riddell had published a piece in The Times about the Number 10 petitions site in which he noted that "As one blogger has pointed out, there is no chance to say whether you disagree, apart from creating a rival petition."
I suggested that this might be a reference to my article on the subject. I wrote to Mr. Riddell to ask him whether my suspicion was correct and on Friday he wrote back to confirm that it had indeed been my article to which he was referring.
Mr. Riddell remains very interested in how the Number 10 petitions site will develop so keep watching his articles in The Times for more information.
Showing posts with label Peter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter. Show all posts
Monday, 27 November 2006
Sunday, 26 November 2006
More nuclear nonsense from Peter Hain
Yesterday I wrote that Peter Hain was reported as having shifted from card-carrying member of CND to a supporter of Trident on the grounds that unilateralism had cost Labour votes in the past.
Today, on Sunday AM, he gave Andrew Marr a different reason for his U-turn. Rather than crass opportunism, as it appeared on Friday, he now says that "...since we are where we are, and the history of having an independent nuclear deterrent, I do not think that people in Britain will accept us giving that up." So basically, the reason for replacing Trident is because it is there. One is reminded of the World War One song "#We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here...#"
Saying that he had been a CND member in the past and "I don't apologise for that" (hardly a ringing endorsement!) he then expressed shock and irritation that Marr would suggest that Parliament should have a free vote. No vote on conscience over whether to develop the most massive of all weapons of mass destruction at a cost of tens of billions of pounds; "You couldn't expect a serious government, in charge of one of the world's global powers - Britain - making a recommendation to Parliament and just say 'you can do what you like, chaps' ."
Hain repeatedly mentioned that "this is a serious government", as though by reiterating the mantra he could give the government more credibility, but he was also clear that the Labour Party members would be whipped through the lobbies.
In fact, the Northern Ireland Secretary is wrong. There is absolutely no reason why Parliament could not vote on its conscience on this matter, except that the parties might reasonably argue that if retaining the deterrent were in the 2005 manifestos then everyone who stood on that manifesto has committed already to upholding it.
On the general principle that no serious government in charge of a global power would allow a free vote, one cannot help but note that the United States Senate and Congress are not bound to follow their Government's line. If the worlds' superpower can have a free vote on its tens of thousands of warheads, can the UK not have a free vote on replacing the system for delivering its 64?
Today, on Sunday AM, he gave Andrew Marr a different reason for his U-turn. Rather than crass opportunism, as it appeared on Friday, he now says that "...since we are where we are, and the history of having an independent nuclear deterrent, I do not think that people in Britain will accept us giving that up." So basically, the reason for replacing Trident is because it is there. One is reminded of the World War One song "#We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here...#"
Saying that he had been a CND member in the past and "I don't apologise for that" (hardly a ringing endorsement!) he then expressed shock and irritation that Marr would suggest that Parliament should have a free vote. No vote on conscience over whether to develop the most massive of all weapons of mass destruction at a cost of tens of billions of pounds; "You couldn't expect a serious government, in charge of one of the world's global powers - Britain - making a recommendation to Parliament and just say 'you can do what you like, chaps' ."
Hain repeatedly mentioned that "this is a serious government", as though by reiterating the mantra he could give the government more credibility, but he was also clear that the Labour Party members would be whipped through the lobbies.
In fact, the Northern Ireland Secretary is wrong. There is absolutely no reason why Parliament could not vote on its conscience on this matter, except that the parties might reasonably argue that if retaining the deterrent were in the 2005 manifestos then everyone who stood on that manifesto has committed already to upholding it.
On the general principle that no serious government in charge of a global power would allow a free vote, one cannot help but note that the United States Senate and Congress are not bound to follow their Government's line. If the worlds' superpower can have a free vote on its tens of thousands of warheads, can the UK not have a free vote on replacing the system for delivering its 64?
Saturday, 25 November 2006
Peter Hain swaps CND for MAD in act of opportunism
The Times reported yesterday that Peter Hain allowed his CND membership to lapse a couple of years ago, and now supports a Trident-replacement.
What tempted the former peacenik to support a continuing independent nuclear deterrent for the UK?
According to the Times, "Mr Hain... said that Labour had been punished heavily in the past when it had fought on a unilateralist manifesto."
So it's about keeping his seat and access to the Ministerial limo, then, rather than what he believes to be right for Britain and the world.
A lesson to everyone about the man who would be deputy-leader of the Labour Party.
What tempted the former peacenik to support a continuing independent nuclear deterrent for the UK?
According to the Times, "Mr Hain... said that Labour had been punished heavily in the past when it had fought on a unilateralist manifesto."
So it's about keeping his seat and access to the Ministerial limo, then, rather than what he believes to be right for Britain and the world.
A lesson to everyone about the man who would be deputy-leader of the Labour Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
