Nadhim Zahawi: The Importance of Ministering Justice to Ministers.

This morning, Nadhim Zahawi - the Member of Parliament who was Chairman of the Parliamentary Conservative Party who is also constituency MP for Stratford-on-Avon (namely the constituency that I live and work in),  was fired by the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak.

 

Nadhim Zahawi, MP for Stratford-upon Avon

It was found that he had breached several aspects of the Ministerial Code including misleading HMRC over his tac affairs. This was discovered during his short tenure as Chancellor of Exchequer - the very role that has oversight over matters of taxation policy within the UK. Previously it had been claimed that Mr Zahawi's "mistake" was "careless" and not "deliberate". The subsequent probe found his activities and inactivies made this an impossible line to maintain though, and action had to be taken.

It is not the first time that Mr Zahawi has gotten into hot water over his poor choices.in offic. In 2018 at the height of the #metoo movement, he was serving as Children & Families Minister and was caught attending a gala at the scandal-hit President's Club. It was only when he was tipped off that the optics of his attendance were not great, that he made his excuses and left the gala.

Then there was his involvement in the downfall of Boris Johnson. Now I'm not a hypocrite... I'm very grateful that Johnson is political toast, but it should be noted that Mr Zahawi used the opportunity to wrangle up through the ranks and secuiring the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer from the then Prime Minister before promptly turnimg on him and stabbing him squarely in the front. Now you might say that this doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things - he was in that post for under two months. However, the fact remains that by virtue of serving in role AT ALL, he is granted a pension for being in that role.

We also have his role in the expenses scandal some time back, where he notoriously charged the taxpayer his expenses for keeping his stables warm.

When he has been caught out in these findings, his modus operandi seems to be that it's all an embarrassing but honest mistake which he will pay for and do better next time.

It was the author Ian Fleming who once noted in his James Bond book "Goldfinger":

“Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action'.”

I put it to you that Mr Zahawi's history of actions goes far beyond happenchance, and coincidence... ad should be classed as enemy action. You might consider that he has received his punishment from the Government - having been consigned to the backbenches at least for now. But as his constituent, I'm not happy to leave the matter there. So what should be done?

Well ironically, Mr Zahawi provides the suggestion himself in a blog on his own website, written in April 2010, entitled - People Power. kicking out bad MPs:

However our People Power manifesto changes that introducing a right to recall if a Member of Parliament is found guilty of wrongdoing. So unlike in the current system whereby MPs, who have broken the rules and have been officially sanctioned by parliament and the Standards and Privileges committee, can continue to represent a constituency until the next election, we will give constituents the right to recall their Member of Parliament. Under a conservative government if an MP is found guilty of any wrong-doing then a right to recall will be offered to his or her constituents. This process will begin with the filing of a notice-of-intent-to recall petition to be signed by at least 100 constituents and submitted to the local returning officers. A recall petition will then be circulated within the constituency. If this petition has been signed by more than 10% of the electorate (in the case of Stratford by 6,936 people) within 90 days then a by-election will be triggered. This is a radical change, and a change that is truly needed, it removes the concept of the “safe seat” and makes MPs directly answerable to their constituents over the whole, parliament not just every five years. Most importantly it will force MPs to remember who they are are there to represent first, their constituents.

I remember that Mr Zahawi was a vehement supporter of Brexit and yes indeed, my constituency sadly voted for it. However, during the debate the major employers in his seat (most notably the National Farmers Union), spoke out against it. Whatever your views on Brexit, I'm forced to consider that his position in the debate was just another case of the pattern - the enemy action. One does not simply ignore the most important voices  you have a mandate in your tenure to represent. For me, this all points to a potential personal agenda and that for me seals the deal. Mr Zahawi should go on trial locally for the future of his political seat.

Indeed I believe that the Recall of MPs act as limited as its scope unfortunately is, does contain the remit in clause 3 to do this:

If an MP is convicted of providing false or misleading expenses claims, regardless of whether they are imprisoned.

It seems to me that this has been satisfied, so my appeal to my fellow constituentts is to get om this... because the betrayal (though internal) is to my mind as bad as that other Stratfordian MP of old's (John Profumo), external one.

Or perhaps to put it in the words of Stratford's favourite historical son William Shakespeare:

For this revolt of thine, methinks, is like another fall of man.

 

 

Letter to Nadhim Zahawi (and Others) RE: The Proposals to Repeal and Replace the Human Rights Act (1998)

I have recently written a letter to my MP (Nadhim Zahawi), voicing my grievous feelings towards the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act.  I have copied the text for anybody who reads my blog and would be interested in reading:

Dear Mr Zahawi

I am writing to you as one of your constituents who has grave concerns over the Government’s proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act (1998), with the intention of replacing it with a more UK centric Bill of Rights.

I have studied your rhetoric on Europe and my understanding is that your position is moderately Eurosceptical. For the sake of clarity, I will say that I agree with you that Britain’s best interests lie with us remaining as part of the European Parliament, but whilst I am also in agreement that the EU and European Parliament need reform and that the best solution lies in not “throwing out the baby with the bathwater”, I am generally less sceptical than you and disagree with you on where the “baby” ends and the “bathwater” begins. Whilst I hope to obtain your support on the basis of my own argument, I accept that a more convincing case may be to illustrate to you how Britain’s position within the EU may be threatened by the consequences of a successful repeal of the Human Rights Act.

My concerns on the matter of the Government’s position over the Human Rights Act date back to 2011, where I set out my thoughts at the time on my blog, www.nickssanctuary.com. 

In 2011, when this first became an issue for me, the Home Secretary attempted to convince the public that a Bolivian individual escaped deportation on the basis of owning a cat (when in fact the cat was merely cited as a minor example on a very long list of criteria illustrating that a human relationship the individual in question had, was genuine and thus fell under the right to family life), it became apparent to me that the reasons for trying to repeal the HRA were ideological and not merely practical. The argument most proponents for the intent to repeal make, is that it is simply a transfer of jurisdiction about where and who determines the same rights.  I believe this is a straw man argument - a selling point that highlights a potential beneficial consequence of a repeal that conceals its actual purpose.  Besides, it is our own judges who uphold rulings like these and so the issue is not about who interprets these laws, but on the laws themselves.

When you look at the primary text of the HRA, there is nothing wrong in principle at all with it, we would be right to frown on anybody who objected to them. However, if the HRA is being misinterpreted, it is only because civil case law has gradually, over time, eroded or mutated its intent. I have little doubt that the same fate would eventually await any British Bill of Rights.

We must always be aware that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Even if the reasons for repealing the HRA were noble (something I do not accept), by committing to this course of action we would set a precedent for countries with a far more disturbing human rights record to emulate us. Great Britain helped lead the way in bettering human rights. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, we helped secure the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it was a British citizen who subsequently helped forge the document that became the European Convention on Human Rights. It would be shameful if having played such a significant role in bringing other nations into the light, we enabled the door to swing the other way and became facilitators for nations pining for the darkness.

What happens when we start deciding that for whatever reason, on principle, one human being has more value than another? Is it not a slippery slope that has potential to result in dark episodes?

We must also take the long view with regard to this legislation. If a Bill of Rights becomes something malleable that successive Governments can use to further their own private agendas then even if it were used for a good purpose, the spectre that a more questionable or nefarious use for it would always hang over it. If Government overplays its role in scrutinising who and what is acceptable, the very notion of who is protected by the Bill of Rights becomes a movable feast and this is dangerous.

I don't necessarily oppose the composition of a Bill of Rights as it could be a useful tool to accompany the HRA in defining the responsibilities that accompany the freedoms. However, I don't see why it should need to replace the HRA. The Act doesn't just defend my rights; if I abuse the rights of another, then the Act works against me too. In fact technically, the legislation could be protected against the politicians who wish to do away with it:

“If any of these rights and freedoms are breached, you have a right to an effective solution in law, even if the breach was by someone in authority, such as, for example, a police officer”.

Does that not suggest that if the Government (being a lawmaker and source of authority), tries to repeal the Act, then they are actually violating our existing statutory human rights and are prosecutable themselves?  In my view the only legitimate way around this would be to hold a referendum. If the electorate clearly demonstrate by two thirds majority that they ultimately reject HRA, then I could see (regrettably), a case for doing something about it, but that mandate at the moment is far from clear.

These are my arguments for retaining the current legislation but as I said earlier, I recognise that if I’m to win your support, I must make a different case and this is it:

As a moderate Eurosceptic, you appear to believe that we have a place within the existing EU and that in the case of a referendum; you would prefer us to stay within it. I put it to you that should the law pass within Britain our position within Europe would be threatened from other influential nations within the EU. I also put it to you that should the law fail to pass, less moderate Eurosceptic rhetoric will gain more traction and the influence of Europe may be used as a scapegoat to deflect or embellish embarrassment over Government defeat… this would likely have an adverse effect on the subsequent referendum to remain within the EU. If Great Britain did regrettably exit the European Union, I believe that then and only then would be the a more reasonable time to have a Bill of Rights in place as a legislative successor to the HRA.

In conclusion then, I ask once again for your support. I would be extremely grateful for a response on this occasion; in the past I have tried communicating with you via email and Twitter and whilst I recognise that the latter isn’t the best format for formal political engagement, I am deeply disappointed not to have had the courtesy of a reply to my previous correspondence. I apologise for the somewhat lengthy nature of this letter but I hope the amount of time I have taken to write this demonstrates the level of feeling I and many like me have on this matter.

Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts. I would be grateful if you would consider what I have to say and let me know how you intend to proceed.

Kind regards

Yours sincerely

Nick Payne

Incidentally I have also dispatched similar letters (modified to reflect party position and general commentary), to David Cameron, Harriet Harman, Nick Clegg, Caroline Lucas, Alex Salmond, Jonathan Edwards, Tom Watson and Stella Creasy). I did so in deference to their position as respective leaders of their parties or in the case of the latter two MPs, because I have a modicum of respect for some of the notable high profile work they have done as individuals.

I additionally intend to follow these efforts up by corresponding with Justin Welby, John Sentamu and Prince Charles.

I will keep you up to date as to any response I receive. In the meantime here are a few links to some campaigns if you want to show some support... and a couple of questions for feedback here:
 
Liberty
38 Degrees
Tom Watson

• What are your thoughts and feelings with regard to the Government proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and replace it with a UK Bill of Rights?
• Are you planning on doing anything to make your views known?
  
  

The Wolf is at the Door

I day I have long feared coming is finally upon us. Earlier today I logged on to the BBC Election coverage page for my constituency and saw... this:

That's right, for the first time as far as I can remember... the "British" National Party are fielding a candidate for Stratford-on-Avon's parliamentary seat in just a little over four weeks.

Truthfully, although I am genuinely grieved in my spirit, this really didn't surprise me and as mentioned previously, I've been bracing myself for it... mainly for three reasons.

Firstly I've known for some time that there is a small clique of BNP supporters in Stratford-upon-Avon. During the last Local/District/European elections, I saw one of the terraced houses along Birmingham Road bearing a supporters window sticker. I've also seen the telltale red buboes on the Google Map of leaked BNP supporter locations... and while I am thankful that my own hometown has no official support... I am angered that Stratford and other local towns do have BNP supporters.... even if it's a minimal number, one supporter is one too many!

Secondly, thanks to their atrocious successes in Europe last year, the BNP now has a more substantial war chest and has the resources to expand their influence by fielding more candidates across the country.

Thirdly, the Conservatives decision to elect an Iraqi born Kurd as their candidate has ruffled the feathers of some of the more traditional core vote... and what has almost exclusively been a Tory safe seat... now looks just a little wobbly (especially when you consider that there are feelings of antipathy towards the town's contingent of Conservative district councillors... and the Tory control of the council is  largely supported by their councillors in outlying towns. This antipathy could easily impact on the General Election seat result).

I wouldn't be so concerned, but many voters in the area being quite, quite racist.

Given his background, many have asked if Nadhim Zahawi is Muslim. I am told by my sources that he is at least nominally speaking, a Christian and that his family escaped the Saddam Hussein regime by the skin of their noses. Although that's nice and favourable to someone of a Christian background,  that someone of the faith should be representing is in Parliament... why that should matter in a secular election is beyond me. It certainly didn't matter when John Maples took the seat, or Alan Howarth... but then they weren't foreign nationals and they "ticked all the right boxes" in terms of appearance and cultural perception.

Some of the "smarter" critics cite the fact that Mr Zahawi would be more palatable if he had moved into the area previously and had some working knowledge of the people of Stratford. Isn't it funny that this same argument didn't matter one jot when John Maples was drafted from Lewisham!

I'm not a Conservative supporter, I leave my direct political allegiances deliberately ambiguous (largely because there is no "nearest fit"... although I'm sure my beliefs and opinions on various political issues are quite clear). However once your MP is elected you make the best of what you've got. On two occasions I've written to John Maples and on both occasions I have felt that my opinion has been ignored and his interpretation of what I had expressed was all that mattered. In short, he was the patrician and I was the plebeian. He came across as a typical Tory. Now Zahawi in his PR comes across as someone who genuinely wants to know the opinions of those around him... so I already prefer him to the predecessor.

Although I don't particularly want to be troubled on the doorstep... I am keen to know what makes all the [reasonable] candidates buzz and which ones best represent my views.

Anyway back to my main point. Zahawi is the perfect target for the BNP. If they can pull of the darkest of unholy miracles and claim the seat... it would become like the sounding of a feudal horn. In their warped and deluded tiny little minds, it would be an endorsement of their opinions... and a declarataion that Middle England could be swayed to their vile opinions. The Daily Telegraph has a flawed application on Facebook that gives you the nearest political party match based on opinion. However it only matches on one scale... and so even if you [rightly] find their social policies repulsive, you can score quite highly with the BNP (because their economics are middle of the road).

God forbid anyone uses that app to sway their decision making on polling day. All things being equal, my current prediction is that Stratford will be a Conservative hold... albeit with a significantly reduced majority.

As for the BNP.... now that we know the wolf has come to our door, we can prepare for battle. We can wait for the BNP to begin their campaign in earnest and shoot them dow at every opportunity.  have special vitriol for the BNP... they constantly try to misappropriate Christian favour by misquoting scripture and suggesting that the unpopularity they suffer is on some level akin to the suffering of Christ and the early Church.

The BNP are not martyrs... they are morons and they certainly do not speak for Christians or Christ!

There is a wolf at the door... and I intend to slay it and take it's pelt!