Can Simpol make international politics simple?

All PPC’s have been asked to sign the Simpol pledge in this election and I have done so as I believe that “Simpol is such a simple idea, yet I believe it could be incredibly powerful. Global problems require global solutions and this could well be the way to get to these solutions.” A copy of the pledge which contains more information about Simpol is included below.

As a candidate for the UK Parliament, I pledge my support for the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) campaign. At this stage, my support for Simpol is given only in principle and signifies my support for Simpol as a process for bringing the governments of all or sufficient nations together around a common global framework for cooperation to address the major global problems we face. I will encourage my party and its members to join this global initiative.

The Simpol framework comprises the following features:

1. Global co-operation: Appropriate policies to solve global problems are to be implemented by nations simultaneously, only when all or sufficient governments have agreed to do so. Simultaneous implementation avoids any nation suffering a competitive disadvantage. If all nations move together, all nations and their peoples win;

2. Subsidiarity: Only those policies likely to result in a significant first-mover competitive disadvantage (i.e. those requiring a simultaneous approach) are included. Policies implementable unilaterally by nations remain excluded, so assuring appropriate subsidiarity and preserving national sovereignty;

3. Give and Take: International negotiations would combine multiple global issues together, such that nations that may lose on one issue can gain on another;

4. Equality: Democratic and non-democratic nations participate in the process on an equal basis (which is evident since the co-operation of all, or virtually all nations, is required);

5. Democracy: If there is sufficient worldwide support for the process in principle, citizens in democratic countries will be invited to participate, if they wish, in the formulation of any policies to be taken up by their government in negotiations, and their agreement to any policies that may be agreed in negotiations will be sought prior to their implementation.

6. Complementarity: The Simpol process does not conflict with established international treaties or with processes such as those pursued by the United Nations. Rather, it works in parallel, so offering an alternative route to co-operation should these processes fail.

Should the Simpol succeed in gathering sufficient in principle support from enough nations, I understand that any policies negotiated under this process will be subject to my further written agreement before I would be willing to vote in Parliament for their implementation.

I further understand that I may cancel my Pledge at any time in writing by notifying Simpol- UK and that Simpol-UK or the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation may make my Pledge – or any cancellation of it – known publicly and particularly to Simpol supporters in my country or region. I am making this Pledge in my own name (not in that of my party*).

Voting Cruelty Free?

The BUAV sent out an email asking for all PPC’s views on six different topics related to experiments on animals, on the basis of that response they then decided whether that PPC either supported or not their campaign to “Vote Cruelty Free”. On their website I am down as supporting their campaign, which I think is an overly simplistic representation of my rather complex views on their six complex topics. A paraphrased version of the response I sent to the BUAV is shown below and I have asked the BUAV to publish my actual response so that people can see what I actually said. NOTE: Sections in itallics were not in my initial response to the BUAV but I have added them here for clarity.

I did not know the exact number of animals used in research in the UK each year but I did not think it would be as high as it is. I find it most disappointing that despite the coalition governments pledge more animals are used in research now than 5 years ago, we should be striving to reduce the number rather than letting it grow. It turns out that the coalition governments pledge was to reduce the number of animals used per experiment, which has happened. It is because a greater number of experiments are being performed that, despite the reduction in the number of animals being used per experiment, there has been an overall increase in the number of animals in experiments.

I will be honest with you and say that I do feel it is acceptable to use animals in research but only in certain cases not in all cases. The poor rate at which drugs shown to be successful in animals convert to being successful in humans is something I have been aware of and concerned by for some time and is part of the reason I feel more efforts should be being made to move towards methods by which the currently crucial role animal testing plays in research is no longer necessary.

In response to the 6 specific points:

1. Ban experiments on cats and dog. Generally I would support a ban on experiments on cats and dogs, with an exception on specific cases where it could be shown that the research was firstly both of sufficient importance and need to warrant the use of the animals and secondly that it could only be done with cats and dogs. Unbeknownst to me this is essentially the current situation, so my views match current legislation.

2. End the secrecy surrounding animal experiments. I feel a compromise should be reached here, between some reduction in secrecy whilst maintaining the safety of the individuals involved in the experiments. I am all in favour of increased transparency in all aspects of life but I also recognise that there have been instances where researchers have been persecuted by certain individuals and I would not want any change to the law to encourage that. It turns out that the vast majority of researchers involved in the field share this viewpoint of mine and that there is already widespread political support for this change.

3. Stop importing monkeys for use in laboratories. Again I would generally support a ban on importing monkeys for use in laboratories, with an exception on specific cases where it could be shown that the research was firstly both of sufficient importance and need to warrant the use of the animals and secondly that it could only be done with monkeys. Unbeknownst to me this is essentially the current situation, so my views match current legislation.

4. End non-medical experiments. I wholeheartedly support an end to non-medical experiments and feel it should have already happened. The issue I had here was that I did not understand the definition of “non-medical experiments”. I interpreted this to mean essentially just cosmetic and industrial testing which I do think should be ended in the few cases where it has not already been done so. Actually the term includes all veterinary and fundamental biological research and I do not support an end to veterinary or fundamental biological research

5. Stop genetically modifying animals pending a review. I feel a review should be conducted into the use of genetically modified animals, but that the outcome of the review should dictate any changes made and therefore that there should not be a stop until we know whether the review concludes that there should be or not.

6. Stop suffering in the most extreme experiments. Experiments that cause unnecessary and extreme suffering should be stopped and stopped as soon as possible.

Hopefully you find my answers on these issues helpful, animal research is a complex problem that I have very mixed feelings about and I feel this may be reflected in my answers.

Supporting the Public Service Users Bill

It is not right, nor fair, that public services can be privatised or outsourced with the users of said services having a say, particularly when the sums of money involved are so large. It is also not acceptable that you or I can’t find out about the performance of service providers, or do anything when the service they provide is not up to scratch.

A bill that promotes transparency, accountability and makes sure all tiers of governments consult the public more is something I would definitely support. I also feel strongly that if it would make government at all levels take the possibility of public ownership of services, where it is suitable, more seriously then that would be hugely beneficial. All information being publicly available and the right to recall poorly performing providers would also be most welcome.

This link to a scorecard showing how well each party matches up against the principles is most informative and it is also encouraging to see relative (minus Conservative and UKIP) cross party support for the Early Day Motion in support of the bill.

High Peak Liberal Democrat PPC gives his views on the proposed Tax Dodging Bill

High Peak Liberal Democrat PPCStephen Worrall has recently received a number of emails from constituents asking his views on the proposed Tax Dodging Bill.

Stephen commented “This issue is clearly one that concerns a large number of people in the High Peak and so that as many High Peak residents as possible can know my views I have decided to share them more widely”.

The Tax Dodging Bill Campaign (http://taxdodgingbill.org.uk/the-bill/) is calling on whoever forms the next Government in May to introduce a tax dodging bill in the first 100 days after the election. This campaign is made up of a broad coalition of seventeen organisations (http://taxdodgingbill.org.uk/whos-with-us/) and aims to:

• Make it harder for big companies to dodge UK taxes and ensure they’re not getting unfair tax breaks
• Ensure UK tax rules don’t encourage big companies to avoid tax in developing countries
• Make the UK tax regime more transparent and tougher on tax dodging

These measures could raise funds to help tackle poverty both in the UK and in developing countries.

Stephen commented “Like many of you I find it very concerning that such huge sums of money are lost to countries all over the world, not just here in the UK, via large companies taking part in “tax avoidance” schemes. Whilst legally tax avoidance and tax evasion are different entities I believe that morally there is little if any difference between the two. You can therefore probably already tell that I am definitely within the 85% of the UK public that feel “tax dodging” is morally wrong even if it is legal!”

“I feel those supporting the “Tax Dodging Bill Campaign” and calling on the next Government to introduce a “tax dodging bill” in the first 100 days after the election are doing the right thing, and I will be adding my support. The three main proposed outcomes of the proposed “tax dodging bill” are not only desirable for moral reasons but as you the additional money raised could help tackle poverty throughout the world, and that alone would be worth implementing such a bill for. If elected I would support the progress of such a bill in Parliament.”

High Peak Liberal Democrat PPC gives his views on Human Rights

High Peak Liberal Democrat PPC Stephen Worrall has recently recieved a number of emails from constituents asking his views on Human Rights Issues as part of an Amnesty International Campaign.

Stephen commented “These issues are evidently ones that concern a large number of people in the High Peak and so that as many High Peak residents as possible can know my views on them I have decided to share my views on the 2 topics they wanted to know my views on specifically, more widely”.

The 2 topics about Human Rights Issues are shown below, along with Stephen’s views in bold.

1) The Human Rights Act

I will like Amnesty International be standing up for the Human Rights Act this election. I believe is of vital importance as the UK would be a lesser place without it, I would be ashamed if the UK was no longer a signatory to it.

2) The use of torture by world governments

I will like Amnesty International be standing up to stop torture across the world this election. It is a disgrace that in our supposedly “civilized” world that something so barbaric as torture is still performed so ubiquitously.The two faced approach of many governments, sanctioning it whilst denying it, if anything makes this even worse.

High Peak Liberal Democrat PPC answers questions on Trident

High Peak Liberal Democrat PPC Stephen Worrall has recently received a number of emails from constituents asking his views on Trident.

Stephen commented “These issues are evidently ones that concern a large number of people in the High Peak and so that as many High Peak residents as possible can know my views on them I have decided to share my answers to the 4 questions they asked specifically more widely”.

trident

The 4 questions asked about Trident are shown below, along with Stephen’s answers in bold.

1) The UK’s submarine-based Trident nuclear weapon system is approaching the end of its operational life. Do you think the UK should replace its nuclear weapon system?

No, it is my opinion that the UK should not replace its nuclear weapon system.

2) The next government will conduct a Strategic Defence and Security Review. Do you think that should consider the possibilities and implications of scrapping and not replacing Trident?

Yes, whilst it is my opinion that the UK should not replace its nuclear weapon system it is only right and proper that such a large decision is fully assessed in terms of its possibilities and implications.

3) The next government will need to attend the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York. Do you think it should support a nuclear weapons convention or ban, similar to those for chemical or biological weapons?

Yes, nuclear weapons have a similar capacity for large scale and indiscriminate destruction and should be considered in a similar way.

4) The next government will have to decide whether to carry out the current coalition government’s projected austerity programme. Do you think spending £100 billion on Trident replacement can be justified?

No, with the public spending cuts that have already been implemented and that are projected to continue, spending such a large sum of money is not justifiable at all.

High Peak Liberal Democrat PPC answers questions from Palestine Solidarity Campaign

High Peak Liberal Democrat PPC Stephen Worrall has recently received a number of emails from constituents via the Palestine Solidarity Campaign asking his views on 7 questions important to them.

The 7 questions asked by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign are shown below, along with Stephen’s answers in bold. Please note that Stephen was requested to answer “Yes”, “No” or “Don’t Know” to each question, and was asked to elaborate if he answered “Don’t Know”.

Indicate if you agree with the following statements

1. I urge the UK Government to uphold the principles of equality, human rights and international law in all its relations and dealings with Israel.

Yes

2. I consider the construction of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to be illegal and unjustifiable.

Yes

In achieving these principles, what are your views on the following steps that a future UK Government could take:

3. Do you agree that one of the first acts of the next UK Government should be the recognition of Palestine?

Yes

4. Do you agree that the blockade on Gaza should be lifted immediately?

Don’t know. I believe that the blockade should be lifted immediately as the impact upon the innocent civilian population of Gaza of the blockade is intolerable. However I feel some limited “blockade” to address Israel’s legitimate security concerns of Hamas’s access to weapons is warranted. A “blockade” that only prevented the movement of weapons would I believe be the correct answer.

5. Do you agree that we should stop trade with Israel’s settlements on Palestinian land, and stop settlement goods being sold in Britain?

Don’t know. In principle I feel this could be a way to discourage illegal settlement, however I feel in practice it could be almost impossible to enforce and I am not sure that directly targeting the settlers rather than the Israeli Government is the best way to go about achieving change.

6. Do you agree that the EU Israel Association Agreement should be suspended until Israel meets its human rights obligations?

Don’t know. In principle I feel this may be a way to persuade Israel to meet its human rights obligations however I feel that this unfairly targets large swathes of the Israeli population who are not at fault for their governments policies.

7. Do you agree that the government should stop supplying arms to Israel until it complies with international law?

Don’t know. In principle I feel this could persuade Israel to comply more with international law, however in practice I have concerns that just the UK no longer supplying arms to Israel would not have an effect if others continued to supply them.