by Edward Leigh MP

In Westminster Hall, there is a memorial listing the names of MPs, Lords, and their sons who fell during the First World War. It is a haunting monument to service and sacrifice, two qualities we often seem to take for granted in our armed forces today. Today my colleague Claire Perry MP made the welcome proposal of creating a bank holiday for Remembrance Day, when we commemorate all those who have made the supreme sacrifice in defence of this kingdom and its people. The date’s origins recall the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918, when an armistice was declared between Great Britain and the Allied Powers on one side and Imperial Germany and the Central Powers on the other. This terrible conflict and the vindictive peace treaty that followed it changed Europe forever and shaped the course of the twentieth century.

Who can fail to be touched by the two minutes’ silence at monuments to the dead in cities, towns, and villages across the land? By the rain of poppies from the ceiling of the Albert Hall during the Festival of Remembrance, or at the Menin Gate at Ypres? By the laying of poppy wreathes by the Queen and the Royal Family, including our own Prince Harry who has seen action on the front in Afghanistan? These are not empty rituals, but solemn rites by which we remember, honour, and revere. They serve to educate the young and inculcate in them in a respect for the dead and for the past. Most of all (for someone like me who serves in Parliament) these ceremonies ought to act as a warning to the men of power to do everything they can to prevent needless and unnecessary slaughter and to resist the temptation to go to war unless absolutely justifiable.

The important thing about Remembrance Day is that it is not a holiday, a victory celebration, or a glorification of war. It is instead a solemn time to recollect and remember the sacrifices that so many have made over the past generations, and for the nation to prostrate itself before those poor, brave, honourable souls who gave their lives in the defence of Home.

We need to do more to defend and promote the culture of Remembrance, and a bank holiday on the 11th of November itself would be the most appropriate act, including a national two minutes’ silence at 11:00am.

by John Redwood MP

Most MPs want the Coalition government to be a one term government. Labour wants to replace it, Conservatives want to win a majority next time in their own right. Some Lib Dems would rather form a Coalition next time with Labour, hoping the numbers would allow them to do so. This makes it an unusual government, as most of its members are not dreaming of a second term for the government they support.

When the government set out its stall a year ago it told us it wanted to do two big things. It wanted to bring the deficit down, stabilising the country’s finances. It wanted to be a reforming government, changing education, health and welfare and public service more generally. It wanted to do both these in a five year period, and legislated to underwrite its intention to govern for a full five years. So how is it getting on?

In its first year it did cut the deficit a little, by raising taxes. The deficit fell by £13 billion, whilst taxes went up by £35.8 billion. The plan based mainly on cuts in public spending in practice turned out to be a plan based on a forecast large increase in revenue, with a 5.3% increase in public spending in the first year. It seems likely that they will reduce the deficit more over the life of the Parliament, but also seems likely the revenues will undershoot current forecasts whilst spending in cash terms continues to rise. We should expect steady but not dramatic progress in cutting the rate of increase in public borrowing.

In the first year it set out boldly on a wide range of public sector reforms. The Prime Minister let us know that he had learnt from Tony Blair not to waste the first term as PM. He said he wanted to be seen as a reforming PM: “I want us to make our schools and hospitals among the best in the world. To open them up and make them more competitive, more local and more transparent. To give more choice to those who use our public services and more freedom to the professionals who deliver them”

The Education reforms based on introducing more academies and free schools have gone through at a fast pace. There is momentum in the academies programme. Conservatives are disappointed there will not be more grammar schools, as many see these schools as the best way to encourage upwards academic mobility for all those who cannot afford independent school fees, but pleased with progress otherwise.

The Health reforms are being paused. It is too early to say how much of the pioneering enthusiasm of the White Paper, prepaerd jointly by the Coalition partners and approved in the Letwin-Alexander review will survive. Key to the plans – in the manifestos of both Coalition parties – was offering more choice to patients and more competitive pressure on provision to raise standards and to control costs. The German system of healthcare, for example, is largely delivered through charitable sector and private sector hospitals. Will the UK go further in that direction, set up by the previous Labour government? At the moment it is looking more likely that the government will back away from some of the Blair reforms.

The forest reforms and changes were dropped after a strong campaign against them. I never understood why the heritage forests were included in the plans, as that was always going to be contentious. Will the Coalition government even sell as much commercial forest as Labour did? Time will tell.

The welfare benefits reform is in development stage, with a large computerisation programme under way. Implementation will take place much closer to the election. It is far too early to forecast how radical and successful this might be. The same is true of pension reform.

The government will in practice be judged by how long and strong its economic recovery is. Radical and successful reform of one or two public services would be a bonus. It appears the government is moving from radical to cautious in several important areas.

Meanwhile the unelected Archbishop of Canterbury says no-one voted for the Coalition’s radical reforms of health, education and welfare. I suggest he reads the Conservative and Lib Dem manifestos, which contained reforming proposals in each of these areas.

You can follow John Redwood’s thoughts on his blog here.

by John Redwood MP

I did not vote for the Libyan motion when the action was first discussed in the Commons because I was worried about how we could ensure a good outcome. I wondered why Libya and not elsewhere in the Middle East, and why the UK when other countries were closer and had the military means to enforce any UN resolution. Events in Syria reinforce the question of what is special about Libya that warrants military intervention from outside.

Today NATO seems to define success as being the end of Gaddafi’s tenure in office. Action from the air has been successful in lifting the external threat to Libya’s second city, as allied planes were able to destroy tanks and other heavy equipment on the way to attack the city. It is far more difficult to do the same at Misrata, where the Libyan government forces are already inside the town and are fighting house to house. The UN Resolution allows action to protect civilian lives, making it hazardous to attack government forces in urban areas where NATO could kill civilians near to the government forces.

Goverrnment Ministers and senior mililtary are well aware that they must stay within the terms of the UN Resolution. If the aim is now different to that of the Resolution, the correct thing to do is to go back to the UN and seek to persuade it to change the Resolution to allow NATO to do what it thinks now needs doing. If the UN declines, the UK could then with honour cut back its commitment. If the UN wants its forces to do more, it could identify forces closer to Libya from other UN members that might like to take the action forward. A Resolution backing regime change would be the safest legal base for military action to remove Gaddafi.

You can follow John Redwood’s thoughts on his blog here.

by David Amess MP

Ladies and gentlemen the video that we have just seen and the evidence we have just heard should leave little doubt in one’s mind that this was an unspeakable massacre that occurred at Camp Ashraf. It is deeply distressing to watch unarmed civilians be massacred in such a callous and criminal way.

I wish to take this opportunity to add my voice to the international condemnation of this attack, a military assault against defenseless civilians. There is no greater crime in the eyes of international law than that of state sanctioned war against defenseless civilians and I therefore urge the British government, the US and UN to call this crime as they see it. This was a crime against humanity which has not passed, but which continues as Iraqi forces gather to carry out a further violent attack on the residents.

Although we have all seen the footage and although we have all read the details it is critical to speak of the specific lives which have been lost. We have seen in the footage a young woman shot dead as she films the aggression of the Iraqi forces and with her last breath tells the world that the residents will continue their struggle in defending themselves with their bare hands against the butchers sent by Maliki to massacre them. The shooting of reporters in this way and the prevention by Iraqi forces of reporters, lawyers and politicians entering the camp is clear evidence of Maliki’s government hiding the inexplicable crimes they have committed.

With the Iraqi authorities not even allowing independent personnel into the camp how can anyone expect them to carry out a full, independent and transparent review of the attack, impossible and in reality utterly ridiculous. The British government, the US and the UN must now appoint an independent body to investigate the attack, an investigation which must culminate in the criminals who murdered the defenseless 34 residents being prosecuted in international courts for crimes against humanity.

Unfortunately it saddens me to say that we in the British parliamentar continually warned our government, the government of the USA, the EU and the UN that an attack was imminent. In fact in an EDM put forward by me and signed by the majority of backbench British MPs earlier this year we clearly stated that the residents of Camp Ashraf were under threat. It was abundantly clear to us that the Iraqi authorities had no regard for the “protected persons” status of the residents. In fact for over 18 months there had been an inhumane siege of the camp with the residents being denied basic necessities such as food and medical supplies, a siege which lead to the death of ill residents.

The EDM went on to demand action from the US and UN in protecting the residents of Camp Ashraf. If our basic demands at that stage had been complied with we would not be sitting here discussing the massacre of unarmed civilians. The inaction of the international community remains shameful in my eyes.

I now reiterate the demands that we made in that EDM months before this attack. We demand that the US administration provides the necessary protection for the residents of Camp Ashraf. This can clearly now only be achieved with the immediate removal of Iraqi forces from the camp and the US military taking back control over the safety and security of the residents. We further demand that the UN immediately station a monitoring team within the camp to prevent further attacks by the Iraqi military. David Cameron and William Hague must take all necessary measures to convince the US and UN to adopt these measures.

Ladies and gentlemen this crime against humanity has taken place using the excuse that the PMOI’s name is included on the US list of banned organisations. With the UK Court of Appeal, after reviewing the closed material, ruling that the PMOI was not involved in terrorism leading to the group’s de-proscription in the UK unanimously by both Houses of Parliament in 2008 and in the EU in 2009, with the US Court of Appeals in Washington in July 2010 ruling in favour of the PMOI and urging the US Secretary of State to re-evaluate the decision to maintain the PMOI on the list and with the European Parliament on 25 November 2010 adopting a declaration calling for protection of Ashraf and the PMOI’s de-proscription in the US; the US administration must now follow the UK in de-listing the PMOI.

One final message must not be forgotten in this entire episode and that is one of hope. The Iranian people are today standing up against their dictatorial leaders and demanding freedom and democracy. The residents of Camp Ashraf have once again inspired the Iranian people with their bravery and steadfastness in not falling under such suppression. The 34 residents of Camp Ashraf who died are heroes of their nation and we must now as a matter of urgency protect the residents who remain there and show the people of Iran that we are fully behind their battle for freedom and democracy.

by Edward Leigh MP

‘Dead Reckoning’ is a term which describes blind navigation by compass, map and various intricate calculations. It is thus possible for a pilot to navigate through mountains in thick fog, although the tiniest mistake early on can be vastly magnified, with disastrous consequences.

Colonel Gaddafi is known for killing his opponents, his numerous incompetent attempts to buy nuclear weapons from other dubious governments, for being friendly with plenty of the wrong sorts of politicians and occasionally even launching terrorist attacks in the West. However, the winds of change are sweeping the Northern Sahara and with the deposition of Mubarak, there is a feeling that Libya too will emerge from a Tyrannical dictatorship. Indeed it may, but it also may not. Any Western support for the rebels assumes that revolution will bring about some superior form of government. It remains to be seen whether this will happen in Egypt, therefore action taken on the basis of that assumption will fly us all into the perilous mists (or sandstorms) of the unknown. Even in Egypt, there was some talk about an alternative leadership (in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood). In Libya, we have no such compass by which to navigate.

The Rebellion is popular in the press at home and it could well pay off in Libya, but we should be realistic about the ramifications of being seen to support one side or another. Already, the expected revolution is dragging its feet and Gaddafi’s credibility grows with each day he holds on to power. Now that we have thrown ourselves in by freezing his overseas assets, we have undermined the Colonel’s ability to surrender and leave Libya even if he wanted to. Our own spending review, meanwhile, has largely scuppered our ability to send humanitarian aid to his people.

I see the popular spectre of the anti-establishment rearing its ugly head both here and in Libya, but barely a whisper of an alternative is coming from anywhere. Usually people understand what they are fighting for, as well as against, before they start a war. We may assume that an alternative will emerge – hopefully a superior one – but until then Libya is at the mercy of political dead reckoning. In the absence of reliable information from that country, I fear our own opinions will be guided by forces at home and in supranational bodies. ‘We must do something,’ is, in this instance, a very dangerous saying.

Backing a good cause for the wrong reasons is one thing, but if we take sides in Libya, we must ask whether the loyalties of British Realpolitik lie with our own Electorate, who may depose their executive on account of their actions, or with Libyan citizens, who may not. If the former, we are obviously hypocrites. If the latter, we will be duty bound to help seek a viable alternative by virtue of our intervention and we will have to be seen to deliver. It doesn’t matter who dictates our reaction –the UK, US or UN – we will be held to account for what we do. By even commenting on the situation, what we gain in political capital now could cost us dear tomorrow.

Our popular reputation is already tarnished in Gaddafi’s neck of the woods by our involvement with Israel and Suez. If we become embroiled Libya, even to the slightest degree, we will have to offer support to the end, further ensuring that we win and further ensuring that we are seen to help deliver a superior society in Libya. A small move now could have colossal ramifications further down the line. The means by which the West could realise the desired ends in Libya would, I suspect, be unviably expensive. It has been bad enough in Iraq, where organised, educated demographics of other faiths and cultures could vie to be heard. The situation there is still worse for many people than before we deposed Saddam.

Humanitarian aid aside, the only course which might just precipitate a situation in which we are no worse off than before is to do nothing. The popular hatred of a man, rather than of his regime, could cloud the West’s judgment when we come to provide backing to one side or another in Libya (if it has not already), and we neither want to lose the support of a nation with Oil, back tyranny, nor be sucked into the vortex of responsibility which arises from ‘having to do something.’

Foreign intervention based on domestic popularity has little place in the modern world and would have been seen as improper even when we were an imperial superpower. The UK government has a duty to UK citizens only. Humanitarian support abroad is one thing, but becoming entangled in the revolutions of others is unlikely to improve anything for anyone. Political navigation must be left to those at the controls of the craft. Failure to realise this leads to what the dossier of avionics jargon would euphemistically term ‘flight into terrain.’