Club Newsletter - March 2007

On a recent lengthy TV programme an attempt was made to assess the legacy of Tony Blair.  What was of real interest was not so much what it included but what it omitted.

The programme dwelt lovingly and at length on his relationship with Gordon Brown—such a sexy subject to Westminster insiders.  There was also inter alia the sad and suspicious affair of Dr David Kelly and the decision to go to war in Iraq. 

It was not emphasised that Blair has led us into not one, but two serious wars in the region:  Iraq and Afghanistan; nor was mentioned the number of our soldiers killed and continuing to be killed and injured in both these theatres.  I wonder what their parents thought.  We also had to endure lengthy interviews with the oily Peter Mandelson speaking in defence of Blair.

What was completely omitted from this legacy assessment, and surely of massive interest to “The People”, was:

• The government’s decision to implement a policy of mass immigration where the cost of social provision for the policy far outweighs the economic benefit;
• The decision to donate $billions more of our money to the European Union in return for a mess of pottage;
• The staggering rise of administrative incompetence and the grim fact that some 70% of our laws are no longer made in Westminster but in Brussels.

Yet the shocking infringement of personal liberty was the most inexplicable omission from the Blair Legacy programme:  the sustained attempt to diminish those bastions against central authority—Trial by Jury and Habeas Corpus; the odious rise of Political Correctness in the media and the administrative machine resulting in a curtailment of the freedom of speech; the “snoopers’ charter” to decide Council Tax banding.

But above all, the decision to implement Identity Cards is the most serious infringement of privacy: the disclosure to a State official (who may or may not be trustworthy—knowledge is power!) of a mass of intimate information complete with finger-printing and iris photograph.

It may not be widely known that from an iris photograph, the condition of the health of all the organs of the body can be ascertained.  In fact iris diagnosis has for some time been used positively as a diagnostic tool in some branches of healing.  This intimate knowledge could be very useful not only to Central Government but also to bodies such as insurance companies—particularly of life insurance.

Consider for a moment who will have access to this centralised databank of citizens’ private information.

• How many scores, or maybe hundreds, of people will legally have access to this information? 
• Will they all be honest?  In reality, a few will not. 
• How many will deviously gain access to the databank for criminal purposes?  As we know, no computer system is impregnable, nor are a few people immune to bribery. 
• How many will accidentally gain access and then misuse the information?  Human error is not unknown, such as when officials carelessly leave laptops containing classified information where they get stolen.
• Finally will the Government itself—despite furious denials—deliberately sell the information it acquires via the I.D. system at some time in the future (after all the future is a long time!)?  The answer is definitely ‘Yes, it will’. 

When they were finally put under pressure by journalists, civil servants at the Home Office eventually admitted that the Government will sell the information on I.D. cards.

They will sell to stores, credit companies, utility companies, banks, insurance companies—in fact to nearly anyone prepared to pay.  Maybe not Mr Bin Laden.  On the other hand, they might just put the price up.

All these considerations should have informed a ‘No’ vote in the House of Commons on the subject of I.D. cards.  But then is the House of Commons any longer the guardian of our liberties?  Sadly, it seems not—although it could be revived.

Viewing these lasting legacies of Tony Blair, we as individuals and as a group would do well to take appropriate action before it is too late.

John Hocking

Executive Council Member

Fair Trade

Some questions need to be asked about this.

• Exactly which organisation or group of organisations purports to decide what is or is not Fair Trade?
• From whom does this organisation or group organisations derive its authority?
• How do they define Fair Trade?
• If there are definitions of what constitutes Fair Trade, on what criteria are they based?
• If these criteria are valid, which may be questionable, how is the information to establish them, either generally or in a particular case, actually obtained and who determines whether such information is correct?
• Define in precise detailed term in what way Fair Trade benefits the ultimate consumer.

I emphasise that in raising these points I am concerned with neither the rights or wrongs of ‘globalisation’ or small farmers in the third world or large farmers elsewhere.  I am simply seeking clear, detailed and satisfactory answers to proper and relevant questions.

Meanwhile, I will continue to buy those Waitrose bananas which are not specifically labelled Fair Trade.

Fair Trade—how fair and how good is it?

There are surely questions which need asking here.

Barry Lenz

Executive Council Member

CONSERVATIVE MONDAY CLUB JOURNAL Winter 2006/2007

Editorial

Publications Editor: Martin Pritchard

The Grass is Greener?

As the nights draw in and the first frost of winter descends upon the country many people in the country dream of a life elsewhere.  To live in a country like France; bathed in sunshine reminiscent of the rural idyll they stayed in last summer.  They remember the peace and tranquillity and how breakfasts were eaten on the terrace near the sparkling pool.

A short walk to the local boulangerie; a cheery bonjour to Madame who actually understood the request for deux pain au chocolat ET une baguette.  Understanding madame's question regarding was there anything else she could help them with was more difficult, as their schoolboy French didn't extend that far, but nevertheless, they got by.  Wouldn't it be lovely to live there permanently - away from the stress and despondency of working in Britain?

According to recent opinion polls conducted in Britain, it would appear that 53% to 65% of those questioned would prefer to reside in another country.  If this opinion poll is a true indicator of how the British feel, it is a staggering statistic that one in two of the population are so disenchanted with the country that they live in that they would like to leave.

It would appear that since 2000, over one million Britons have, as the Americans would put it, "checked out" and left the UK for pastures new.

Figures obtained from the Office of National Statistics reveal that for the second year running around 200,000 Britons left the country, and that's just the 'official' permanent leavers.

Of the 1.1 million who left in the last six years it is estimated that 600,000 have returned, leaving a loss of half a million citizens whom, it appears, still enjoy residing overseas.

Has there been a counterbalance regarding foreigners wishing to reside in the United Kingdom? 

Since Poland and seven other countries joined the European Union, this government estimates that some 600,000 have arrived.

This figure is disputed by Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch, who believes that this country is facing the largest wave of visitors of immigration in its history.  The Office of National Statistics stated that 565,000 came into the United Kingdom last year with some 474,000 intending to live in Britain.

These figures do not, of course, include asylum seekers, visitors on holiday or illegal immigrants smuggled into the country.  The 'official' figures are not very reliable as they are based upon the International Passenger Survey which is conducted at airports and sea ports.  Also, many people emigrating do not register when they leave - merely boarding a plane or a ferry.

What is it that causes over 200,000 British citizens to leave their mother country every year?  Not forgetting the 1 in 2 who have indicated that they would also like to leave if circumstances enabled them to do so.

Obviously, one can imagine some of these people will be possibly joining relatives who now reside overseas or they may be taking up employment in a foreign country.  What about the rest?

Over the last twelve months I have had discussions with friends, business associates and lots of cab drivers regarding the reasons for British people wishing to leave this country.  Probably, not surprisingly, all felt that the country 'had had it'.  When asked to enlarge they cited in no particular order: appalling crime rate, uncontrolled immigration (this from black cab drivers) draconian tax rates which were crippling both private individuals and businesses alike, a judiciary that appears to be hell bent on not sending criminals to jail - they felt that justice for decent law-abiding people had disappeared.

Many added that they felt a loss of national pride, continually being dictated to by the European Parliament and that the Human Rights Act had made it increasingly difficult, and in come cases impossible, ever to achieve a conviction in our courts.

All of the people I spoke with felt that there were no border controls as to who is allowed to enter this country and that once here the general welfare and drain on all state resources was one of the primary reasons for higher taxation.

Some felt that their freedom of speech had been curtailed and that they no longer lived in a democracy but in a country where the checks and balances by Parliament over the Executive had almost disappeared under the present government.

Many stated that they firmly believed that none of the present government ministers could be trusted and had lied to the public.  Of the people who discussed with me their reasons for wanting to leave Britain, some have already left for, or are preparing to leave for, the following countries: Canada, France, Spain, Holland, Ireland, USA, South Africa ….

If you subscribe to the notion that the United Kingdom is a 'spent force' or, as John Cleese once put it, "Gone to join the choir invisible" a little overcrowded island off Europe, then which is the country that will provide golden opportunities to live in peace and harmony?

The Office of National Statistics does not keep records of which countries UK citizens emigrate to.  The Foreign Office records that the most popular destinations within Europe are France and Spain.  Half a million Britons live in the USA and more than 600,000 reside in Australia.

A visit to W H Smith will reveal that numerous magazines are available highlighting other countries that are now in vogue, namely Bulgaria, Croatia, Turkey, Cyprus, Italy, New Zealand and the Cape Verde Islands to name but a few.

Will life be better for the 200,000 ex-pats when they reach their new country of choice? Not all will fulfil their expectations and are most certainly not without major cultural differences.

For many years, France has been consistently popular with Britons for both holidays and those who choose to live there permanently.  Unlike being on holiday, the new arrival will find a land that does not just consist of drinking Chablis or Medoc but a country that is possibly even more regulated than this one.  There is a subtle difference to when the odd ca vas, ca vas on holiday may seem impressive - to succeed in France one needs to speak French fluently.  The French are very proud of their language and to survive in business and in polite French society not only is fluent French a prerequisite but it also needs to be absolutely grammatically correct.

Should our ex-pat wish to open a business in France a legal minefield awaits together with the employer contributing half an employee's salary in benefits.

Young persons seeking employment require qualifications for almost any type of job - a waiter is a profession and in certain areas of France unemployment in the 17 - 24 age group is 30-40%.

Both South Africa and the United States are popular destinations.  The former has a President whom it would appear is already confiscating white farmers' land and may impose leasehold terms on freehold properties owned by foreign residents.  Johannesburg is now one of the most dangerous cities for crime in South Africa with the country now having the highest murder rate in the world.

Apart from the obvious problem of gaining entry into the United State of America, as an immigrant, health insurance is essential.  Without a company health insurance policy if working or a private policy if retired (expensive) one may find oneself selling that lovely ranch style house to pay the hospital bill should you require major surgery.

What fate awaits those British citizens who are not departing to foreign parts?  Do we perceive life to be better staying within these shores than those who are selling their homes and moving on?  Is there anything worth staying here for and if there is, what is it?

Not every part of Great Britain is like Hackney  (just voted worst place to live in the country by a Channel 4 television programme).

This country has a history and traditions that are still the envy of many foreign visitors, together with a national culture enshrined in monuments and museums.

Many of our schools have pupils achieving the highest academic qualifications.

Our business leaders and the financial centres in the City of London can compete with the world's best.

There are National Parks of outstanding natural beauty, together with historic parks.

Over 70% of the adult population are purchasing their own home.

A monarchy which has preserved a free and just society and continues to do so.

A democratic system of government.

The freedom of the press together with quality newspapers and journalism.

A varied and professional television network.

The choice is yours.  Meanwhile, I can do no better than quote from the President of the Conservative Monday Club, The Viscount Massereene & Ferrard, in his recent letter to all members:- "…we, in the Conservative Monday Club, have been endeavouring to uphold, promote and safeguard true Conservative values which have made the United Kingdom the envy of the international community … Even in the changing scenes that we see in our country at this time, we must never give up, for if we give up, what hope is there for a better future?"

(Editor's note: the writer has lived and worked overseas in South Africa and has resided for periods in France, Spain and California)

 

Media Response

In response to an article in The Daily Telegraph, the following letter was sent on behalf of the Club:

The Editor

The Daily Telegraph

1 Canada Square

London

E14 5DT                                                                            1 st April 2005

Sir

In yesterday's publication in an article by Celia Walden on page 23 in the SPY column, you referred to our organisation as simply The Monday Club.   This name obviously covers the numerous societies and clubs around the country, which happen to meet on a Monday.   Our correct title is The Conservative Monday Club.

You have described us as a 'traditionalist right-wing faction'.

We simply support the broad principles and ideas of Conservatism and the practical policies based on them. Incidentally, any person wishing to be a full member of the Conservative Monday Club is required to be a member of the Conservative Party.

Lastly, you incorrectly refer to Ian Smith, whom we were naturally proud to have as our guest at our last annual dinner, as the 'former Rhodesian President'.   He was, of course, the respected Prime Minister of Rhodesia for many years heading governments devoted to providing good and just government for Rhodesians of all races.

How different from today's Zimbabwe!!

pp The Conservative Monday Club

Press Release

4th January 2005

DAMAGING THE FREEDOM OF OUR PEOPLE

The kindest thing that can be said about the record decision or opinion of the Law Lords on the Blair administration's legislation regarding the detention of foreign terrorist suspects is that it reflected a peculiarly narrow and selective view of the law and more importantly of the application of legal principle.

The Conservative Monday Club is no apologist for Blair and those around him:   indeed we regard them as constituting the worst and most incompetent government that the British people have ever had to suffer.

However this is not the issue.

Neither is "freedom" the real issue here.   The Conservative Monday Club yields to none, both in its defence of freedom and in its determination to uphold Habeas Corpus, the presumption of innocence and fair trials, before just judges and juries as the foundation or mainspring of law and the administration of law.  

Whatever one's views of the Iraq War, the appalling reality is that the world lives under the threat of terror.   9/11 and the bombing in Bali and Madrid were scarcely figments of the imagination and freedom to plot acts of terror is scarcely most people's concept of freedom.  

Nothing in this legislation affects the lives of literally 99.9% of foreigners resident in or visiting this country for it is salutary to note that just seventeen person are imprisoned under its provisions and once in prison are not there on the whim of the Metropolitan Police or by random selections but because of detailed evidence which could not be recorded in court without jeopardising intelligence sources and operations which are so vital in the fight against terrorism.

Moreover if those persons detained wish to leave prison they may do so provided that they also leave the United Kingdom.

The British people have a right to protection.   There is no absolute protection against terrorism as we know well but if the power to deter these relatively few individuals who are properly and reasonably believed to be potential terrorists or their aides and assistants tends to reduce the possibility that in 2005 and following years young mothers with children will be looking at the bodies of their husbands on mortuary slabs it is a power to be supported.

Certainly the general public overwhelmingly welcome it and when the law lords seek to take any that admittedly important element of protection they are actually damaging the real freedom of our people.   

 

Press Release

2nd November 2004

 

BLAIR'S BETRAYAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

The European Union Constitution puts the United Kingdom into a straightjacket and will destroy our ability to make laws to safeguard our industries and the freedom of our people.

The signing of the European Union Constitution, which has to be ratified by the United Kingdom in a referendum, is a blueprint or the laying of a foundation stone of a Confederation with a defined super state.

It is ludicrous to pretend that after years of the erosion of the authority of national governments, a European Union with a "Constitution" to say nothing of its own Foreign Minister to project an overall European Union foreign policy, is an association of member states.

The British people, while anxious to have close and good relations with the nations of Europe, reject any external control, whether exercised directly or indirectly, over the affairs of the United Kingdom. It should be the responsibility of all of those in public life to respond to the nation's wishes and work to restore our sovereign independence.

Press Release

30th September 2004

ONE HUNDRED GURKHAS COULD GET THEIR MARCHING ORDERS TO LEAVE THE UNITED KINGDOM

The Conservative Monday Club has always appreciated and respected the Gurkha soldiers who have so bravely served the Crown in the Indian and British armies.  

In the summer of 1997, we appealed to our members to subscribe to a statue honouring the Gurkhas.   The statue, unveiled by the Queen in December 1997, bears the inscription:

Bravest of the brave,

most generous of the generous,

never had country more faithful friends than you.

Gurkha Brigade Association Trust says the statue will act as a permanent memorial to "the most constant friend and ally that Britain has ever known."

There are many who are concerned quite rightly that in the past British Nationality has been granted without sufficient consideration of attachment, commitment or loyalty of the individual concerned. The Home Secretary is to be congratulated for giving his attention to this now.

Equally, however, it is important that those who can show that they are anxious to make this commitment to the Queen and to the United Kingdom should be welcomed.

We, therefore applaud the announcement by Tony Blair that Gurkha soldiers, who leave after more than four years' service, are to be allowed to apply to settle in the United Kingdom and gain British citizenship.   

However, it is disturbing to learn that the new rule does not apply to those Gurkha soldiers who joined the armed forces before July 1997.   This will affect 100 Gurkhas living in the United Kingdom who will not be entitled to stay here.

The Gurkhas have served the Crown for some one hundred and eighty-six years with loyalty honour and enormous courage.   We owe them all a debt of honour and urge that all who have a public voice should press the Home Office to extend the new rule to cover those who at the moment find themselves outside the cut off date.

The Conservative Monday Club can see no justification whatsoever for such discrimination.