PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES IN CORNWALL

Here’s a list of prospective parliamentary candidates I am aware of so far for the six new Cornwall seats.

CAMBORNE AND REDRUTH
Conservative George Eustice, Labour Jude Robinson, Liberal Democrat Julia Goldsworthy MP, Mebyon Kernow Loveday Jenkin, UKIP Derek Elliot

The previous Conservative candidate for Camborne and Redruth, John Woodward, resigned 15 October 2008. Read about it here .

The Times of 25 September 2009 has an article, PR consultants who are working to become your Tory MP, which includes a reference to George Eustice.

NORTH CORNWALL
Conservative Sian Flynn, Liberal Democrat Dan Rogerson MP, Mebyon Kernow Joanie Willett, UKIP Ivor Masters

ST AUSTELL AND NEWQUAY
Conservative Caroline Righton, Labour Lee Jameson, Liberal Democrat Stephen Gilbert, Mebyon Kernow Dick Cole, UKIP Clive Medway

ST IVES AND ISLES OF SCILLY
Conservative Derek Thomas, Labour Philippa Latimer, Liberal Democrat Andrew George MP, Mebyon Kernow Simon Reed, UKIP Mick Faulkner

The MK candidate was Richard Clark but he had to leave the area for work reasons. The Green candidate was Tracy Stanton but she stepped down in November 2009 because of a change in personal circumstances.

SOUTHEAST CORNWALL
Conservative Sheryll Murray, Labour Bill Stevens, Liberal Democrat Karen Gillard, Mebyon Kernow Glenn Renshaw, UKIP Stephanie McWilliam

TRURO AND FALMOUTH
Conservative Sarah Newton, Green Lindsay Southcombe, Labour Charlotte Mackenzie, Liberal Chris Tankard, Liberal Democrat Terrye Teverson, Mebyon Kernow Loic Rich, UKIP Glen Corcoran

The previous MK candidate, Conan Jenkin, resigned because of increasing work and family commitments. Read the MK announcement here. The web has several writings by Loic Rich, just google his name.

Two current Liberal Democrat MPs, Colin Breed for South East Cornwall and Matthew Taylor for Truro and St Austell, are not standing again. The five Cornwall seats have been rejigged into six. There are three newly created seats: St Austell and Newquay; Truro and Falmouth; and Camborne, Redruth, and Hayle.

The parties have websites and details of the candidates are largely available. For example, see here for Derek Thomas and here for Philippa Latimer.

__________________________________________________

Original post 11 May 2008.

Related post

Unitary and EU elections in Cornwall

_________________________________________________

GURKHAS

Yesterday the House of Commons voted for a Liberal Democrat motion to let Gurkhas settle in Britain; an expression of a view and not binding. Frankly, the way the Gurkhas have been treated by British governments 1945-1997 is very poor. To its vast credit the Labour government since 1997 has done much more to treat them justly than ever happened before: between 1945 and the advent of Labour to power in 1997 only five Gurkhas were granted settlement here; under the present government six thousand have (Hansard 29 April 2009 column 997). It is disappointing that the government has so far failed to build on that achievement and find a way to be more generous and fair to all Gurkhas.

What we have now is a moral question. It is in terms of financial and immigration policies complex, but it is fundamentally about dealing justly and generously with people who are prepared to defend and die for our freedoms. As Chris Huhne said, it is about “the sort of people we are” (Hansard 29 April 2009 column 898).

At bottom, the Labour government yesterday opposed justice and generosity.

The Gurkha motion was supported by the Libdems, including all five from Cornwall, along with Conservatives. About a hundred Labour MPs either voted for the Gurkha motion or appear to have abstained, refusing to support their government. The Conservatives did damn all about allowing Gurkha settlement here when they were in power.

Later yesterday the government responded to the debate and vote (Hansard 29 April 2009 column 988) and it is clear pressure on them must continue.

I am pleased all the Cornwall MPs voted for justice and generosity to Gurkhas. Our corner of Britain owes them a debt of honour too.

Read the debate here: Hansard

UPDATE 21 May 2009
The government has today decided to let the Gurkhas settle in Britian if they wish. Yes, it’s a turnabout but it is right.

HOW CORNWALL MPs VOTE

The second reading of the Human fertilisation and embryology bill was debated in the house of commons on 12 May 2008 and approved by 340-78 votes: Hansard column 1145. Four Cornwall MPs, Colin Breed, Julia Goldsworthy, Dan Rogerson, and Matthew Taylor voted for the bill’s second reading.

I shall follow the progress of the bill and the speeches and votes of Cornwall MPs and post information here about what they say and do.

The bill regulates research and activity about the treatment of human illnesses and difficulties in conceiving. Aspects that are contentious include admixed embryos, saviour siblings, and the need for a declared father. Abortion is likely to be raised by amendments about the legal temporal threshold (at present twenty four weeks of pregnancy) and the need for two doctors to consent to an abortion.

Let me be candid so that you can detect more easily any bias in my posting on this question. I support the bill, oppose lowering the abortion time threshold, and support the abolition of doctor consent. Research and activity that the bill allows will benefit people here in Cornwall. Abortion is a procedure that several thousand women in Cornwall have decided to use; the scientific arguments about survival into a decent life point against a lowering of the threshold which is why I wish to see it remain at twenty four weeks.

I should like to see sex education improved and contraceptive availability improved – there are reported difficulties with obtaining emergency morning-after-pill contraception from some pharmacies on occasion and these difficulties should be removed.

However, this post is primarily about Cornwall MPs not an extensive account of my views on the question. Of the several votes on the bill so far, I have selected the ones which I think are the most important.

Vote to ban admixed embryos (Hansard 19 May 2008, column 68, division 191), ban lost by 336-176 votes votes

Voted for a ban: Colin Breed
Voted against a ban: Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Dan Rogerson, Matthew Taylor

Vote to allow saviour siblings (Hansard 19 May 2008, column 124, division 195), permission approved by 342-163 votes

Voted for permission: Colin Breed, Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Dan Rogerson, Matthew Taylor
Voted against permission: none of the Cornwall MPs

Vote for “a father or male role model” for fertility treatment Hansard 20 May 2008, column 215, division 195), rejected by 290-222 votes

Voted for: Colin Breed, Matthew Taylor
Voted against: Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Dan Rogerson

Vote to lower abortion threshold to twenty two weeks ( Hansard 20 May 2008, column 286, division 203), rejected by 304-233 votes

For twenty two weeks: Colin Breed, Dan Rogerson
Against twenty two weeks, ie for the current twenty four weeks: Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Matthew Taylor

Some other votes
Threshold of twenty weeks, column 278, division 201, rejected by 332-190 votes: For Colin Breed, Dan Rogerson; against Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Matthew Taylor

Threshold of sixteen weeks, column 274, division 200, rejected by votes 387-84 votes: Against Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Matthew Taylor; no vote recorded Colin Breed, Dan Rogerson

Threshold of twelve weeks: Against Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Matthew Taylor; no vote recorded Colin Breed, Dan Rogerson

I very much welcome the outcome of these votes and warmly congratulate Andrew George and Julia Goldsworthy, and largely Matthew Taylor, for their across-the-board progressive and liberal votes. I think most people in Cornwall will be glad too.
__________________________________________________
Original post 13 May 2008. Amended 20 May 2008 and 23 May 2008.

CORNWALL MPs VOTE FOR FREE SPEECH

The law of blasphemy, an unjustified restriction on free speech, has been abolished. Four Cornwall MPs commendably voted for abolition after a Commons debate on 6 May 2008: Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Dan Rogerson, and Matthew Taylor. Colin Breed did not vote; I do not know whether this was an abstention or whether he was not available to vote.

You can read the debate in Hansard 6 May 2008 column 638 onwards. The vote for abolition was 378 to 57. Royal assent to the bill that included abolition (the Criminal justice and immigration bill) was on 8 May.

FORMULA UNFAIRNESS

People in Scotland are getting for free a range of public services that people in England are charged for. In England prescription charges are presently £6.85 an item and only off-peak buses are free for people over sixty. In Scotland there are free eye check ups, free dental check ups, and the arrangements for free bus travel for the elderly are more generous. Tuition fees are paid by students at university in England but Scottish students at university in Scotland do not pay them (though there is in Scotland a one-off flatrate graduate fee of about £2300 payable on graduation). In Scotland there are generally shorter NHS waiting list times and smaller school classes; some drugs are available on the NHS that are not available in England; the arrangements for personal and nursing care are more generous.

The Scottish government has just started a six month pilot of free school meals in some areas for pupils aged five to eight and hopes to extend it all over Scotland. It has also announced that prescription charges will be abolished for everyone within the lifetime of the present Scottish parliament and aims to abolish the university graduate fee.

I don’t live in Scotland and it is up to people there and their government to decide what happens in Scotland.

However, these improvements are possible because the Barnett formula gives a much higher percapita amount of UK identifiable government spending on public services in Scotland than in England. The formula, leading to the higher spending in Scotland and the free or more generous services, is increasingly seen as unfair to England. For 2005/06 the percapita public spending in England (including Cornwall) was £6762 and in Scotland £8265 (and in Northern Ireland £9088, and Wales £7666). This formula is unfair and untenable. It should be scrapped and a new arrangement made for spending UK taxes in the four constituent countries.

For Labour, with a majority of the Scotland seats in the UK parliament and dependent on Scotland for its UK majority, this is an issue they will not tackle; nor will they tackle the related issue of MPs for Scotland constituencies voting for England-only issues in the House of Commons. The Conservatives sometimes rumble about Barnett unfairness but seem undecided whether to commit to tackle it. It is noticeable that the Liberal Democrat MPs for Cornwall complain about what they see as unfair public spending in Cornwall, point to the UK government, but do not mention the Barnett formula.

Slowly people in England are realising the unfairness of the present formula and the present House of Commons voting arrangements and eventually parties will not be able to ignore them.

The Times on 11 October 2007 quoted figures from the Centre for Economic Business Research that showed state spending by the constituent UK countries as a proportion of economic activity was lowest in England and significantly higher in the other three countries.

An earlier post on the Barnett formula is here.

LISTENING AND CONSULTING IN CORNWALL

In recent polls around 81 percent of voters in Cornwall opposed the county council’s proposals for a unitary council. In Penwith the figure was a massive 89 percent. See this post.

Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrat county council has decided to persist with its proposals. The five MPs for Cornwall, all Liberal Democrats, supported the original unitary proposals and have supported this decision to persist in the face of vast public rejection. Incidentally, the council’s decision to persist was supported in a vote by only thirty two of the eighty two county councillors.

The MPs have consulted stakeholders in each constituency – people like doctors and school governors. I do not know how many people were consulted and replied, six or sixty or six hundred. I don’t know what questions were asked but I see on one of the websites there is a survey for the public with a series of questions which asked if they supported more decisions being taken locally by “elected Cornish representatives” rather than by “unelected authorities” in the south west region which isn’t the point as people aren’t being asked to decide on an abstract principle but on actual on-the-ground proposals. I assume the stakeholders were asked the same or similar questions by the MPs. If one asks that general question mutatis mutandis anywhere in England one can pretty well guarantee the answer. The MPs got an unsurprising majority Yes vote.

To interpret this as a vote in support of the unitary proposals would be absurd.

An MP should listen to what his or her constituents say and, if consonant with his judgement and principles, accommodate them, but listening does not necessarily mean agreeing. I think if four fifths of constituents, or even nine tenths as in Penwith, take a particular view an MP is still free to stick to his contrary view; indeed it might be seen as his duty to since an MP owes his constituents his judgement not his compliance, but he has also a representative duty to tell the government that most of his constituents disagree with him and to explain to his constituents why he thinks them wrong.

The Liberal Democrat MPs apparently believe that half a loaf is better than none and that a unitary council could lead to many more powers than are on offer at present and a de facto devolved regional assembly for Cornwall – the summa summarum for Liberal Democrats here. I do not share their conviction and for all their trumpeted meetings with the government about this the MPs are not giving guarantees about more powers, but in the long term they might be right. However, this fails to address the seriously unsatisfactory aspects of the current proposals with which we might be lumbered for many a year.

In the meantime, Penwith district council has asked the government whether additional and serious powers will in fact be devolved to a unitary council in Cornwall so we should soon know the answer to that.

To sum up. 81 percent of voters in Cornwall reject the unitary proposals. The county council and five MPs still support the proposals.

In the light of the decisive rejection of the unitary proposals by people in Cornwall, the government cannot credibly go ahead with them. To persist would be to dismiss out of hand people’s views and in a matter of local government that is absurd. The final decision should rest with the people whose local government it is.

Oh, and I expect we shall sooner or later be told by the MPs and the Liberal Democrats generally on some issue or other that the government isn’t listening to people. The Liberal Democrat MPs and Liberal Democrat county council have established – and I agree with them – that to listen to people does not necessarily mean to agree with or to obey, no, not even if it’s nine tenths of people.

CORNWALL MPs’ TRAVEL EXPENSES

The categorised travel expenses claimed by MPs have now been published. The five MPs for Cornwall in 2005/2006 claimed just over £60 000, but how this is made up is interesting.

The six figures refer to the claim in £ for travel by car, third party vehicles, rail, air, cycle, and other, but ony categories claimed for are given:

Colin BREED: car 4822…rail 5878

Andrew GEORGE: car 6893…rail 5735…air 3266…cycle 9…other 120

Julia GOLDSWORTHY: car 2563…3rd party 420…rail 7845…air 382

Dan ROGERSON: car 4545…rail 5256

Matthew TAYLOR: car 6733…3rd party 112…rail 4229…air 1359.

These claims are for travel in the UK on parliamentary business. Third party vehicles mean cars not owned by the MP such a taxi travel or a hired car. Other means such things as tube and bus fares.

The official figures are here.