Skip to main content

Crime is taken seriously by Ming Campbell

I am pleased with Ming Campbell's approach on the issue of Crime. To quote from his speech:

A party which is serious about social justice cannot fail to be serious about preventing crime and enforcing the rules.
...
I want to be clear: I support the discriminating use of ASBOs in tackling crime and discouraging anti social behaviour.

Liberal Democrats in local government have used ASBOs to good effect.
...
Penalties should go beyond custody. People like Ian Huntley should not have the vote. If you are guilty of a serious breach of the law, you forfeit the right to elect those who make the law.

Comments

TonyF said…
So why does your party still believe people like Huntley should have the vote? Why hasn't anyone said that Oatens ridiculous idea of Go Kart lessons for car thieves should be chucked in the bin? Will the Lib Dems still give car thieves lessons in car mechanics? Still want to raise the age of criminal responsibilty? I suggest you spend a night in a Council flat, then you'll know what crimes are a priority to ordinary people. Hell, you might even find out what real anti social behaviour is. I suggest the Lindhurst Estate. Getting tough on crime? Don't make me laugh!
john said…
The point is that I have never believed that Huntley should have the vote. The change is that my perspective on these issues is becoming into the ascendency in the party.

Hence the party will adopt the approach taken by the party in Birmingham.

I live next door to council flats in any event.
TonyF said…
I said the Lindhurst, I think you'll find that people living there would rather live over your patch. So come on John, are you and the rest of your buddys in Council up to a night of mental torture? Or are you all quite happy to put the people through it and play the three monkey game. By the way, if you agree, we'll pick the flat
PoliticalHack said…
Ming may take it seriously - hey, he has a job to try and save - but he doesn't write party policy. Or are you arguing that the LD constitution is irrelevant?
Bob Piper said…
Hack... If he's not, I am!
TonyF said…
Hack, the LD constitution is there to fill up a few pages on the LD website.
john said…
Parliamentary Group Policy is determined by the Parliamentary Parties in the House of Commons and House of Lords.

General Election Manifesto issues are obtained by a double latch from the Conference and Parliamentary Parties.
TonyF said…
And Party Policy is decided by the Federal Party. If you're going to say something John, say it properly
john said…
I accept that I am bound by the manifesto upon which I stood unless I made it clear to the electorate in my consituency where I disagreed with it.

I work with my colleagues in the parliamentary party by discussion at the meeting of the parliamentary party.

The double latch applies in practise to the manifesto.

Regardless of what is said by any documents the above applies in practise. There are conflicts between the Bill of Rights 1688 and other documents.

The Bill of Rights takes precedence.
TonyF said…
So Bob, Hack, the constitution is irrelevant.
john said…
The constitution of the Lib Dems is, of course, relevant.

Constitutional Laws of the UK take precedence.

Popular posts from this blog

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…