Clocking Off the right to see Big Ben

  On Friday, MPs received an email from the House of Commons Commission:

As part of the Savings Programme, the House of Commons Commission has agreed that Clock Tower tours should be self-financing. In order to cover costs of administering the tours, and enabling these premium tours to continue, there will be an admission charge of £15.00 per visitor. This is in line with the emerging policy that while free democratic access to Parliament is maintained, charges will be made for specialist tours.

Tickets for Clock Tower tours will NOT go on open sale in line with Saturday and Summer opening, but will be administered directly by the Visitor Services team upon receipt of applications via a Member’s office. Members of both Houses will still be required to sponsor those on a tour. Please note that the £15.00 admission charge will be administered directly between the Clock Tower Tours booking team and the visitor.

The admission charge of £15.00 per visitor attending a tour of the Clock Tower will be effective for tours taking place from Monday 2 July 2012. Due to the nature of tour slot releases, these paid-for tours will be released from Monday 5 March 2012 and should be booked via email CLockTowerTours@parliament.uk  or, if you have queries, extension number x6554. If you have any queries or bookings related to tours taking place BEFORE Monday 2 July, please email BigBenTours@parliament.uk   or extension number x4862, as usual.

Please note that, in order that Members or their staff are able to accompany their visitors (as is sometimes requested), two spaces per tour will be reserved for Members/staff and will be allocated on a first come-first served basis. For further information on the procedure of how to book a Clock Tower Tour, please visit intranet page http://intranet.parliament.uk/access-buildings/exhibitions-tours/big-ben/.

I responded to the email on Twitter:

I find the idea of charging UK Citizens for visiting Parliament abhorrent. As I said on my tweet, taxpayers already pay for the upkeep. The public should have every right to visit Parliament - and that includes Big Ben - without being ripped off by charges.

I must admit, that, as a new MP, I have little idea what 'The House of Commons Commission' is - and how this decision was reached, but I will be finding out tomorrow. I plan to raise this issue as a Point of Order with the Speaker.

If the authorities want to save money there are better ways - such as publishing Hansard and other Parliamentary papers on-line only. This would save millions a year.

We are lucky to have one of the greatest Parliaments in the world. We shouldn't be charging for the right to see our democratic heritage.

You can read more HERE.
by Robert Halfon - Working Hard for Harlow.

VIDEO: Urgent Question on Iran

Today I asked an urgent question in Parliament, about the military build-up in the Strait of Hormuz.

As I said to the Foreign Secretary, Iran is at crisis-point. It is the new Soviet Union of the Middle East. It supports terrorism, undermines democracy, and is trying to stop the Arab Spring in Syria.

But now we are threatened by an Iranian nuclear bomb, which risks the security of the Gulf States, Israel, and the whole region. Two weeks ago, Iran admitted it has begun enriching high-grade uranium.

The regime now threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz - which represents more than 20 per cent of internationally traded oil.

The UK Government could not have done more to try to contain this problem - with unprecedented action to isolate Iran’s financial sector, and the extra EU sanctions imposed this week by the Foreign Secretary. But the question must now be asked - are we facing the prospect of a nuclear dictatorship in the Middle East?

Today I asked the Foreign Secretary: "Will my Right Honourable Friend set out to the House what military action Britain is planning in the Strait? Will he explain what will happen, if these latest economic sanctions don’t work? And what more is being done to bring Russia and China to the UN table?"

Most would accept that Britain has shouldered its fair burden in tackling dictators. But it seems clear that the free world must send a message to Iran, that if they continue with their nuclear plans it will lead to military action.

No one wants war. But tragically, it is looking increasingly possible.

As The Times said today: “One of the greatest civilisations in history has been superseded for a generation by an extremist regime perpetrating repression at home and aggression beyond its borders.”

To see the Foreign Secretary's reply, watch the VIDEO above.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Iran: the new Soviet Union of the Middle East

Yesterday in Parliament, there was an urgent debate, about the serious threat of Iran building a secret nuclear weapon.

This is deeply worrying: not only for the Iranian people, who are denied their basic democratic rights and freedoms, but for the entire world.

I made a short speech about this, which follows below:

Robert Halfon (Harlow): I welcome this debate because, contrary to what has just been said, I believe that Iran is in essence the new Soviet Union of the middle east. It supports terrorism. We know well its strong backing of Hezbollah in Lebanon. It supplies Hezbollah with the missiles and the finance that it needs to destabilise the region and to fire attack missiles on Israel. Iran also supports Hamas, and we know what Hamas has done in Gaza, overthrowing the more moderate Palestinian Authority, running a totalitarian mini-state known as Hamastan in Gaza, stopping moves towards peace and regularly firing missiles on Israel.

Iran has also undermined democratic states. Not long ago it fired missiles on to the Kurdish regional Government. It is supporting the Syrian Government of President Assad and his crackdown on the recent anti-Government protests. It has provided the Syrian authorities with equipment, advice and technical know-how to help curtail and monitor internal communications. It has provided material assistance in the form of riot and crowd dispersal material, as well as military training for Syrian troops. Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria are in essence proxies for Iran. We well know that Iran has sent suicide bombers into Iraq and attacked our troops.

All this would be bad enough were it not for Iran’s nuclear programme. As has been said, the development of the nuclear bomb in Iran is incredibly concerning. The IAEA report has been highlighted and clearly shows that Iran has been covertly developing the technology needed to weaponise nuclear material. If we think the current Iranian regime is extreme, its so-called more moderate predecessor said that it would be okay to use a nuclear bomb in the middle east against Israel, because if a few million are killed in the process, it does not matter for the wider good.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman mentioned nuclear weapons. Does he not have concerns that Israel has 200 nuclear warheads and is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Does he not think a nuclear weapons convention including Israel would be a helpful step forward in the region?

Robert Halfon: I am happy for any nuclear convention to reduce nuclear weapons in the middle east, but the crucial point that the hon. Gentleman misses is that Israel is a democracy and Iran is a dictatorship.

Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green): I agree with my hon. Friend. May I point out that it is not Israel which has threatened to wipe its neighbour off the face of the earth? Is that not the key point in this?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend, who is a strong supporter of Israel, is exactly right.

The one difference between Iran and the Soviet Union is that, when the Soviet Union and the west had nuclear weapons, we lived under the doctrine known as MAD, mutually assured destruction, and for MAD to work one had to be sane, but the sad fact is that Iran does not have that level of sanity, given that, as my hon. Friend says, the President often says that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. We know how the regime behaves from its recent treatment and trashing of the UK embassy, from its taking of American hostages and from its many other human rights abuses.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned the abuse of trade unionists and the imprisonment of women, an issue that The Times has highlighted so well, so I strongly welcome the fact that the Government have brought in the tough measures before us. This is the first time the UK has used such powers to cut off an entire country’s banking sector from our financial sector, and that is hugely important not just because of the hoped-for effect of stopping the Iranian nuclear regime, but because of the message that it sends to other tyrannical regimes throughout the world—that Britain will not be weak, but be strong and do everything it can to stop the actions of such dictators.

Although I strongly welcome these tough sanctions and praise the Treasury for having the courage to introduce them, I note that we may be too late. Iran is not far off acquiring a nuclear bomb, and we—perhaps not this country itself, but NATO—may need to take further military action to rid the world of that bomb, to put pressure on the country’s evil regime and to bring about a true democracy, with the rule of law, freedom and everything that the Iranian people deserve.


by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

The Suffering of the Tamils

Yesterday, there was a debate in  the Commons about the Indian Sub-Continent.  I spoke about the actions of the Sri Lankan Government and their treatment of the Tamils:

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): This is a hugely important debate. As we hope that the Arab spring heralds a new dawn, we must be clear that freedom is a right for people in other continents too. I want to focus on the regime that calls itself the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, because I believe it is neither democratic nor—I am sure that Labour Members would agree—socialist.

The relatively normal relations Sri Lanka enjoys with the west, with little condemnation of its thin democratic credentials or genocide of Tamil civilians, have always mystified me. It is worth looking at the evidence. If we judge a democracy by its rule of law, property rights and religious tolerance, the Sri Lankan Government fails on all three. First, the Sri Lankan military is above the rule of law. As Members have said, 17,000 Tamils are still caged in barbaric camps. We still hear reports of Tamil civilians being summarily executed or disappearing, and that follows the genocide of 40,000 Tamils in the past decade. Secondly, property rights do not exist. Large areas of Tamil land and housing are still occupied by the Sri Lankan military.

Mr Scott: My hon. Friend may have seen the document from the Sri Lankan Government saying to their army that it is perfectly acceptable to take Tamil property. Does he agree that that is a disgrace?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The evidence that he has seen shows, as I am pointing out, that Sri Lanka is not a proper democracy.

Thirdly, there is no tolerance of minorities. An estimated 180,000 Tamils are still displaced, either in transit camps or sheltering, and the names of prisoners have still not been published, so families cannot find out if their relatives are alive.

There is a saying that one judges a man by the friends he keeps. In the same way, one can judge a Government by the allies they keep. In the past decade, Sri Lanka’s key allies have been Iran, North Korea and Colonel Gaddafi. Colonel Gaddafi gave Sri Lanka £500 million in financial assistance for so-called development projects. In return, Sri Lanka strongly opposed the no-fly zone in Libya and offered him sanctuary. Even after Gaddafi was threatening Benghazi, Sri Lanka organised mass rallies in his support, protesting against NATO intervention. We all know the story of North Korea, yet Sri Lanka was happy to sign a major weapons contract with it in 2009. We also know the story about Iran, yet Sri Lanka signed business and oil contracts with that country in defiance of international sanctions. Despite that, Sri Lanka continues to be a member of the Commonwealth and the United Nations.

Mr Virendra Sharma: In the light of all the reports, television coverage and films shown on Channel 4, and the international condemnation, does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is the right time to demand that the Sri Lanka Government be expelled from the Commonwealth until they accept the international court?

Robert Halfon: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. As I will say in my concluding remarks, we should also boycott the Commonwealth leaders summit in Sri Lanka in 2013.

As has been highlighted, the genocide of 40,000 Tamils has brought the civil war death toll to 70,000. We must make a distinction between murder and genocide—genocide is scientific, organised killing. Having taught the Sinhalese to hate the Tamil minority, the Sri Lankan Government used the Tamil Tigers, who are opposed by moderate Tamils, and whose systematic killing of civilians we all condemn, as the excuse for a litany of horrific events and actions. Let us take a couple of examples.

In 2008, according to Human Rights Watch, the Sri Lankans used rockets to obliterate entire refugee camps full of women and children. In 2009, the Sri Lankan Government’s tactics evolved again. They declared a 35 sq km “safe zone” for Tamil civilians, and dropped leaflets appealing to civilians to move into the safe zone as soon as possible. Immediately after several thousand people had gathered there, near a United Nations food distribution plant, the Sri Lankan military shelled the area heavily, killing thousands of people in a few hours.

The United Kingdom has financial leverage. We have millions of pounds’ worth of business and tourism with Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka needs the west. But we have seen what happened in “The Killing Fields”, and we must press for a UN resolution and tough economic sanctions to pressurise the Sri Lankan Government to change their ways. As I said a moment ago, we must boycott the leaders’ summit in Sri Lanka in 2013. I welcome the Canadian Prime Minister’s call for a boycott, because symbolism is incredibly important in politics.

There are very few Tamils in my constituency, so many people may ask why I am here today, but I believe that because of my background, it is my duty to try to support nations that have suffered from genocide. That is why I have been involved in Rwanda and have been there, why I have been very involved in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and why I am supporting the Tamils.

Mr Scott: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Robert Halfon: I will not, because there is very little time. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me.

We must be clear about the fact that Sri Lanka is a rogue nation. It has carried out genocide against the Tamil people, and we must do all that we can to stop the persecution of the Tamils once and for all.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Shaving Foam Pies must not restrict the public's right to Parliament

On Tuesday afternoon, a self-publicist threw a plate of shaving foam at Rupert Murdoch, who was giving evidence to the Commons Culture Select Committee about the phone hacking scandal.

My big worry is that whenever there have been these kinds of incidences in the past, the screw tightens slowly on the public's right to Parliament.  In the Public Gallery, there is now a thick glass sheet separating people from MPs - in reaction to the time when purple powder was thrown from the Gallery.  This in my view was a big mistake.  Our Parliament remains great because it is one of the most accessible Legislatures in the world.  Any constituent can come and lobby their MP. For the sake of our democracy.  The Public must continue to have the right to watch proceedings in Parliament - both in the main Chamber and in Committee.

There will always be idiots who work the system - and bring freedom into disrepute - whatever the security restrictions.  But the actions of a few must not be used as an excuse to cut Parliament from the people.

Yesterday I asked the Speaker the following (note that Mr Speaker is saying that he hopes it is the last point of order from Parliamentarians - not from me!):

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mr Robert Halfon. I hope it is the last.

Robert Halfon: Following your earlier remarks about reviewing security given the incident yesterday, Mr Speaker, will you ensure that the public continue to have the right to go to Select Committees, and that their right is not restricted?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The right to attend meetings in the way that he describes is a very long-established and precious freedom. I think it would be quite wrong for me to seek to constrain or circumscribe what an independent investigation can cover and recommend, but the point he makes is an important one. I have underlined its importance, and I think many people will share his point of view.

I was heartened with Mr Speaker's response, as he showed considerable sympathy for my argument.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

If Gadaffi wins, the West will be to blame

There are reports this evening that Colonel Gadaffi may be on the verge of taking back Libya. I have no way of verifying if this is true. But, one thing is for sure: If the Dictator does succeed, the sebacks to democratic development will be enormous.

Not only will all the opposition be vanquished - and then massacred - citizens across the Middle East will be wary of overthrowing their repressive regimes. The light of democracy - and the chances of freedom - will be put out, possibly for a generation.

The West have only themselves to blame. Instead of confronting Gadaffi, for the past few years he was appeased and even feted by far too many countries, including the UK,Now, there is hand-wringing about whether or not to implement a no-fly zone. By the time a decision is made, Gadaffi could have retaken control. The free world should be doing all it can to facilitate Gadaffi's removal.

Democracy is more than just about Elections

I was invited yesterday - with Sir Ming Campbell - as a guest on the Radio 4 Programme, A Week in Politics, to discuss recent events in the Middle East.  My main point was that democracy was not just about overthrowing a dictator or even just concerned with elections.   Real freedom means property rights, religious tolerance, equality towards women, the rule of law and elections.  Without all these ingredients, democracy is a sham.  My second point was to ask whether what was happening in Egypt and elsewhere was like Eastern Europe 1989 or Iran circa 1977 when the Ayatolllah's began the revolution.   My feeling is that what is going on now, is somewhere in between.  Whilst many of the protesters yearn for liberty - and for food - the Islamists (in the shape of the Muslim Brotherhood), lurk in the background.  British Foreign policy needs to be reappraised so as to support genuine democratic groups in the Middle East, rather than just focusing on supporting those regimes who provide the illusion of 'stability'.




by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Blackberry: The enemy of Dictatorships: Time for a Blackberry democracy index

picture from Chillnite.com

The Economist magazine often has a McDonalds index, which assesses the economic prosperity of individual countries via the cost of a Big Mac.

In a similar context, is it time to judge each country's democratic index based on the level of Blackberry usage? I ask this question following the decision of two Middle East autocracies, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia, to restrict Blackberry services. These regimes have done this on the grounds that Blackberry email and messaging is encrypted, making it virtually impossible for state surveillance and interception. The next country expected to do the dirty on Blackberry is Kuwait.

Last year, the UAE tried to get Blackberry to 'update' its software. It subsequently emerged that the update was in fact spyware, which would have enabled the UAE Government to track Blackberry emails. Fortunately, RIM, the maker of Blackberry, ensured that users deleted the software that had been uploaded.

Although modern technology has its downsides, the beauty of smartphones like Blackberries are that they need no landline and no broadband Internet connection to work. They rely only on mobile telephony and in Blackberry's case, the special Blackberry infrastructure. In moments, emails can be drafted, tweets can be twittered and Facebook messages sent. They are outside the all-seeing eye of the Big Brother State. All we need now is for RIM to develop satellite software that can bust the jamming of these autocratic Governments. These regimes, will be able to hold back this technology for only so long.

I have little doubt that countries which have the highest level of freedom and property rights, have the highest level of Blackberries or smartphones. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "The Liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties". What better 21st Century way of speaking and writing can there be than the Blackberry - the enemies of dictators everywhere.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

The Internet and David & Goliath

I am a passionate believer in the power of the Internet - and its role in diffusing power. To coin a phrase, the Internet makes the impossible possible.

Who would have believed that the financial muscle and celebrity status of Simon Cowell, could be defeated by a couple from Essex using Facebook - without any financial resources whatsoever.

Rage v Joe from X Factor is a true David v Goliath story of the Internet Age. And in many ways - that is what the Internet does. It enables the ordinary citizen to fire a stone from a catapult to the forehead - between the eyes - at the existing establishment, whether it be financial, media or political. It allows anyone to be an instant publisher, commentator and persuader, without needing to belong to traditionally organised groups or associations.

The Internet is changing the face of our society and democracy as we know it. The only question that no one yet knows the answer to is How.

P.S. There is a very interesting article on this subject from Conservative Media Spokesman, Jeremy Hunt MP. You can read it HERE.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Stopped and Searched by Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2000)

Driving down the Embankment mid morning, a few days ago, I looked at some police ahead in a coned area . One Police Officer, a hundred yards away from the cones saw me in my car and spoke to his walkie-talkie. Hey-ho, I thought to myself, what's up?

My answer came quickly, as minutes later I was flagged down by another Policeman who indicated to me to stop my car, which, being a law abiding citizen, I duly did. I did wonder what was going on. There was nothing defective with my car, no offence I had committed.
The Police Officer, incredibly courteous, explained that he had stopped me under Section 44 of the 2000 Prevention of Terrorism Act. This meant that anyone, at any time, even if no offence was being committed could be stopped by the Police. The Act states:

"Under Section 44 officers may search any pedestrian or vehicle for evidence related to terrorism. They do not need to show reasonable cause to stop and search you".

I wondered what evidence they had?

I was asked to get outside the car - although to be fair, they then allowed me to stay in it - whilst my car was thoroughly searched by officers with rubber gloves and licence details checked. I also had to give them a form of identification. Finding nothing of concern , I and my car were cleared of any wrong-doing, I was sent on my way with a friendly cheerio.

Despite the politeness of the Police concerned, I have to say that I felt my liberties as a free citizen were unfairly infringed upon - a sense (albeit a small one) of grievance against the 'authorities'.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act (2000) gives the State huge power against ordinary citizens going about their business, and there is very little redress. I had committed no offence, yet my privacy and my personal property (my car), were seen as public properties of the Government.

The logical extension of this is enormous. Can you imagine what will happen, if Labour gets it way and we are all forced to have ID cards. Our personal freedom as private citizens will be hugely diminished as the State will be able to stop us at will, asking us "for our papers".

Of course, there will be those who say that all this is necessary to fight terrorism. I don't doubt that tough measures are needed. But I would like to know how far random stopping of motorists has really diminished the terrorist threat to the UK. Surely there must be better modes of surveillance?

If we believe in liberal democracy, we have to hold out strongly for its values too. We weaken these values at great cost. Of course there is a balance between liberty and security and state intervention. But are we tipping this balance too far in one direction?

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

So Its finally over - and its not Stacey or Ollie

After weeks and weeks of staying in on Saturday to watch X Factor, it is finally over. Sadly Dagenham Stacey fell at the semi final, and then Essex Ollie was trounced by Joe.

I have to say that I am most disappointed with the final result, as I thought that Joe was inferior to Stacey and Ollie. But democracy wins - with millions voting - and 61% of the vote for Joe. This is high by any standards - most politicians would love to get such a result.

P.S. I am pleased that Stacey has apparently been approached for record deals. I will be sure to get my copy of her future album!

The brutalities of the Iranian Islamist regime

If you have any doubts about the true nature of the regime in Iran, read this article in The Times today. It will make you weep. It shows how ruthless the regime has been in eliminating opposition to President Ahmanidejad - and explains why despite 'fixing the election', the Iranian 'Twitter' Revolution was crushed.

And this so-called Government is on the threshold of having a nuclear weapon capability. Worried? We all should be.

By Rob Halfon ~ Working hard for Harlow, Hastingwood, Nazeing, Roydon & Sheering. http//roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Changing democracy as we know it

Only yesterday, I had written a blog posting, arguing that the expenses scandal represented a real opportunity to make far reaching reforms. When I wrote the piece, I had no idea that David Cameron was to make his speech today about giving power to the people.

Mr Cameron's speech makes remarkable reading. He is proposing radical changes that would change our democracy as we now know it.  

In summary, a future Conservative Government would hope to introduce:
Fixed term Parliaments, ending the chance for a Prime Minister to call an election on a wing and a prayer at any time;
Stronger and more independent Parliamentary Committees;
Free votes on Legislation as it is being scrutinised;
The right for citizens to call local and national referenda;
The ability for citizens to get issues discussed in Parliament, if they get a certain number of signatures;
Locally elected Police Commissioners;
Opportunities for parents and voluntary organisations to set up their own schools funded by the taxpayer;
A requirement for local and national Government to publish expenditure online.
These proposals herald fundamental changes to the political system and the relationship between the state and the citizen.  No longer will we have just one opportunity every four or five years to decide how we are governed.  Never again will Parliament be neutered by an over bearing Government.  

See HERE for full details of Cameron's speech. It makes fascinating reading.

By Rob Halfon ~ Working hard for Harlow, Hastingwood, Nazeing, Roydon & Sheering. http//roberthalfon.blogspot.com

The Taliban Spirit lives on in Afghanistan

One of the most brutal aspects of the extreme Islamism of the Taliban, was the way in which women were subjugated and treated as second class citizens. The West's invasion of Afghanistan was designed not just to deal with Osama Bin Laden, but also to help rid the country of Islamist Totalitarianism and restore a sense of civility to the country.

Now we find that despite a semblance of the mechanics of democracy, the Taliban spirit lives on, even under those who are seen as so called 'moderates'. Today's Guardian and Daily Telegraph explains how President Karzai - in an effort to win votes from Shias, in advance of the forthcoming elections - has signed into law, legislation which, in effect, allows husbands to rape their wives If this barbarism were not bad enough, the new law also refuses wives the right to work, to see a Doctor, or leave the house without their husband's permission. The United Nations has condemned the new laws, demanding to see the full legislation - which thus far they have been denied.

Whilst I was a full supporter of the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda (and remain so) - who couldn't be after 9-11- I can't help feeling that something, somewhere, has gone deeply wrong. What is also going on in Afghanistan today, is also an important reminder, that freedom does not just mean holding democratic elections. It has has to be about upholding the rule of law guaranteeing property rights, and above all treating all human beings equally and with dignity. President Karzai has failed this simple test of genuine liberty.

Time to democratise the Licence Fee

There is a really interesting report out today ,which suggests that the BBC licence fee could be reduced if the BBC focused on core programming, not available everywhere else.

I think this Report should be looked at carefully.

I certainly believe that If we are to keep the Licence Fee, then it is time to emancipate those who are to forced to pay. At present, whether the BBC is good or bad, no Licence-Fee payer has any genuine say-so about programming, no genuine right of consultation about BBC operations and no right to question the level of the Licence Fee. Of course there are always the sham consultations (in which most things are decided in advance), votes in Parliament about the Licence Fee and an ability to complain by telephone, email etc etc etc.

But none of this amounts to very much in reality. If the BBC chooses to over pay its presenters, do we have any real say? If the BBC is biased, do we have any real right of address? If we feel that the BBC need not own travel guides or even local radio stations, do we have any real chance of stopping it? If we feel the Licence Fee is too high, can we get it reduced? Of course not.

The BBC has a monopoly not just over broadcasting, but has put a straitjacket over every Licence Fee payer in the land. Just a little wriggle room, but no real movement.

So how do we change this? Well, if Licence Payers were born free, but are everywhere in chains, it's time to break the chains. Every Licence Fee Payer should be given a pin number and be allowed to vote - via the Internet - annually on the BBC's performance.

Questions could include the quality of programmes, the level of BBC Operational activity (i.e what they should run and not run), salaries, and judgements on the behaviour and standards of BBC programmes. There are various options as to how this could be done.

For those who want to ensure Parliamentary input, the questions could be decided by an independent Committee of MPs and Peers, to be ratified by the respective Chambers. For those who think it should be, entirely in the hands of Citizens, questions could be set by Licence Fee Payers and there would be a vote on the questions.

Every five years, there could be a vote as to whether to retain the Licence Fee, retain part of the Licence Fee (and mix it with advertising), abolish the Licence Fee and have full advertising, or abolish the Licence Fee and have voluntary subscription.

BBC management like to justify their actions by stating that everything occurs is because of the wishes of its viewers – or even 'stake holders'. If this is really true lets make that a reality by letting hard-pressed Licence Fee payers have a genuine stake in what goes on. Television viewers will not tolerate just being 'subjects' of the BBC's Feudal Monarchy for much longer. It's time to give us the vote. Licence Fee payers of Britain unite!

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Cajun Squirrel Crisps and Democracy

As a Prospective MP, I don't get any salary or expenses, so I also have a full time job in London. Driving home I usually pass through City Airport via the Limehouse Link and often stop at an Esso Garage by the airport to fill up and have a cup of coffee.

Although I am on a diet, I often can't resist a packet of crisps and recently bought one of Walker's new special flavours - Cajun Squirrel. As I drove back Harlow way, I got thinking as to whether I would vote for this flavour or my own favourite - Fish and Chips. And then, being a politician I started to think about Walker's Crisps and politics......

What is the biggest vote currently facing the nation? Is it the local elections? The European elections. Fat chance. Does the answer lies in crisp packets?

In the old days, when a company wanted to develop a new product they might have a few boffins create the idea, followed by focus groups and some marketing here and there. After, the new product would appear on the supermarket shelves. It would succeed by its advertising and by a bit of luck.

Walkers Crisps have turned this approach on its head. Instead of centrally announcing a new flavour of crisps to a munching public, the company invited people to send in recipes which were then voted on - by the public via the text or internet. The winning flavours were reduced to just six.

The company then released these six flavours onto the market and, as crisp lovers will know, are available at most outlets. But Walkers didn't stop there at this exercise in crisp democracy. Every packet bought carries a coloured rosette and allows you to vote (again by text or internet) as to which of the six flavours is preferred. The intention is that after the voting ends, Walkers will introduce the extra flavour based on the voting public's final say so.

I expect many political die-hards will watch Walker's Crisp Democracy with cynicism at another marketing exercise. Yet the truth is that more people will know about this Crisp vote than who their MEP is or local MP for that matter.

So what is the lesson for political parties? Why not try and involve the voting public in decision making much more. Instead of centrally announcing policies, why not invite the public to suggest some as long as they are broadly in line with party principles. Get the public to vote the best ones and then use pilot schemes to try them out.

Want a new bypass? Send in your suggestions fully costed - let people then vote on the best suggestion - fully aware of the cost implications and the increase in local taxes.

Worried about a local hospital closing or a particular ward or department shutting down? Offer people a vote, again noting just what the cost implications are. If they want to keep the hospital open, they have choice of paying an extra xxx on their local council taxes.

I appreciate that the above may be too far reaching and too revolutionary in these difficult times, but it is worth mentioning the above to stimulate debate. The voting public are no longer willing subjects content to vote once every five years. They want real engagement and involvement at every level. Walkers Crisp democracy has shown the way forward.

P.S I still prefer Fish and Chips flavour - I have never tasted squirrel before and had nothing to compare it with!!

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Power to the People!

Time and time again local people contact me worried about the Government's plans to concrete over our green belt with thousands of extra houses.

That is why it is good news that David Cameron has announced today that the Government's housing targets will be scrapped, alongside unelected and costly Regional Assemblies like the one in the East of England (EERA).

The Conservative view is that local people should decide where extra housing goes, not faceless bureaucrats or Gordon Brown.

They have also said they will ensure that more power is given to local councils and voters will be able to call a local referendum against excessive Council Tax rises.

We will also be able to elect our own Police Commissioner so we can have some say on policing in our district.

I think that this is good news. We need more local democracy not less. Everyone has had enough of bossy government telling us what to do. Its time to put we the people back in charge of our own affairs!

For more information, please see HERE.


Rob Halfon ~ Working hard for Harlow, Hastingwood, Nazeing, Roydon & Sheering.