where am i? ::
Home > David's Blog
David's Blog
November 09 posts
Page 1 of 2
jgale | 
26 November 2009 at 09:02 | 350 views
Last week we listened to the Queen delivering her “Gracious Speech” setting out 15 new “Bills” which the Government wants to push through Parliament over the year ahead. However, given that a General Election is likely to be called next Spring, many of these will probably never become law.
In my view, the Government should be using its remaining time to deal with three big issues – cleaning up our political system, including the problems with MP’s expenses; addressing the continuing economic problems; and setting out a new strategy for Afghanistan which can deliver success against Al Qaeda, while mapping out an exit strategy which will bring the bulk of our forces back in around 2011 – and not in the 5 or even 10 years time which some people speak of.
One of the issues that still has to be resolved in Afghanistan and in other theatres is the availability of helicopters – something that we have a real commitment to and interest in, in our area.
The Apache ground attack helicopters which were both constructed and are maintained by AgustaWestland in Yeovil have played a crucial role in Afghanistan, saving many hundreds of British lives. Westland staff continue to work hard to keep these helicopters flying, and they have been one of the big success stories of the conflict. Westland has also recently won a very valuable contract to sustain these aircraft into the future.
As far as lighter helicopters are concerned, the Government finally signed off on the £1bn order for Future Lynx helicopters, now named “Wildcat”. This is a crucially important contract for both the UK armed services and for Westland. The first Wildcat flew last week in rather blustery weather in Yeovil, and these are on track for entering service in a couple of years time.
In the meantime, Westland employees are working incredibly hard to adapt existing Lynx Mark 9 helicopters for use on the frontline in Afghanistan – increasing their power, so that they can fly in the “hot and high” conditions of Afghanistan.
I would like to see the Government ordering more Wildcat helicopters (the number ordered is much lower than the number of Lynx currently in service), and it would also be sensible to upgrade more of the Lynx Mark 9s, beyond the 12 which are already contracted for.
Another crucial frontline helicopter is the big Chinook - which has an impressive troop-carrying and equipment-carrying capacity. This helicopter is also much valued by the Armed forces, and we need more of these to be ordered. This may not be a Westland product, but there is no reason why the helicopter should not be produced by Westland under license if more are ordered. And – ultimately – our troops must have the equipment which they need and are asking for.
With Wildcat, Apache and Chinook, there is just one other helicopter which is crucially important to delivering the capability which the services need – the Merlin/EH101 helicopter, which is already in service with the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Arguably, we do not need a fresh “competition” for a new medium lift helicopter – these processes usually take years and lead to long delays, high costs, and uncertainty.
What we need is for the Ministry of Defence to order more Merlins to replace the ageing Sea Kings and Pumas – some of the existing, but very old, medium lift helicopters. The first adapted Merlin (EH 101) helicopter was sent to the front line in Afghanistan last week. A quick decision on ordering more of these could lead to a “win-win” for both the Ministry of Defence, the Armed Forces and Westland – with extra helicopters available quickly, and with a streamlining of the number of different helicopter types in service (which saves money and improves spares availability).
I will be using every opportunity to press the Government for a strategy of this type. It is surely time to bring to an end the long running row over helicopter availability, and give our armed forces the equipment they need to do the job – safely and well.
Ever,
David.
jgale | 19 November 2009 at 10:01 | 315 views
This week the Queen opened the new parliamentary year – the last before the current Parliament is set to end by no later than June 2010.
Parliaments (from the French “parler” – to talk) have been held at Westminster since the thirteenth century, and almost all of these have begun with some sort of formal meeting involving the King or Queen.
In the old days, of course, Parliaments were summoned by the monarch for specific purposes – usually to debate a request from the King or Queen for an increase in taxation to fund some overseas war or expedition.
In around 1320 a book was published entitled “Modus Tenendi Parliamentum” – a description of how Parliament then worked.
This describes how Parliament began with a sermon in the King’s presence; then the Lord Chancellor or Chief Justice had to declare, standing up, “the causes of parliament first in general and then in particular.”
The King then asked Parliament to “diligently, seriously and heartily labour to consider and deliberate on the business of parliament, so that these matters shall be firstly in accordance with the will of god, and secondly to his and their honour and advantage.”
The proceedings all took place in the House of Lords Chamber. The Lords themselves assembled, with the great officers of state. The Commons were then led in to stand at the Bar (entrance) to the Chamber.
As the years passed, the “Gracious Speech” got longer, and began to set out the legislative priorities of the Monarch’s Government. After the speech, the Lords and Commons were then told to meet separately to discuss the contents of the speech, and how the Government could be improved.
Over time, as the power of the monarch declined, the King or Queen’s speech ceased to be a statement of personal priorities and it came to be first agreed to by the Government as reflecting its own agenda, and then actually written for the King or Queen by the Government.
In many ways the modern “Gracious Speech” is very much like those that have been delivered over previous centuries. It is still delivered in the House of Lords, and the members of the House of Commons (including the Prime Minister) are still relegated to the position of standing onlookers – crammed in at the entrance to the splendid chamber of the House of Lords. This is a reflection of the lowly position of members of the Commons in the early Parliaments, when the country was still essentially run by the King and the Barons.
And when Her Majesty the Queen ends her speech with the words “My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, may the blessing of Almighty God rest upon your counsels”, she both seems to be and is echoing the words used by her predecessors over many centuries past.
But in other ways, the nature of the “Gracious Speech” of today and its setting is very different from that in our earlier history. Those first MPs who heard the King’s Speeches in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries were members of a Parliament which might only last weeks or months, and which could be terminated at the complete discretion of the monarch. They would probably never have seen their King or Queen before, and might never do again. They would have journeyed for many days over rough roads or across fields and woods to reach Westminster, and their home towns regarded sending a Member to Parliament as an inconvenient and costly imposition.
Towns and cities that stayed loyal to a King during a difficult period in his reign might be rewarded with special dispensation not to have to send a Member to the next Parliament!
And, of course, the power of those early Parliaments was very limited. They would debate the King’s proposal to them (which usually included higher taxes!), and they would choose one of their number - a “Speaker” to tell the King what they had decided. But if the King did not like the advice given, he might refuse to accept it, and he might instead send the Speaker to the Tower of London, where a number lost their heads – literally!
Sending MPs to the Tower and chopping their heads off might prove quite popular today. But it is a sanction which our current Queen seems unlikely to resort to.
Ever,
David.