Onwards to 2010!

Having reassured people that, contrary to reports, I am alive and well, I'm pleased to now have a new lease of political life. On the same evening as the email confusion, I had the honour of being re-selected by Eltham North Conservative branch to be their candidate for the ward at the Council elections in 2010. The other Conservative councillors for Eltham North, my colleagues Spencer Drury and Dermot Poston, were also reselected.

It's been a huge privilege to have served as Councillor for the ward for the last four years, and to have been elected twice by the people there. One thing I did say to my local party, however, is that the experience of being a local councillor in opposition can be frustrating. For all the minor victories and the satisfaction of being able to help individual constituents with complex problems, you soon realise that major change locally can only be enacted by those in power in the Town Hall.

Labour have neglected Eltham, and mismanaged the Borough as a whole. My experience so far convinces me all the more that we need change at the Town Hall, and a new Conservative administration. Bring on 2010!

Reports of my death...

Late last night I had the odd experience of learning that Conservative Campaign Headquarters had announced my death. An email from a senior campaigning official was sent to all London candidates with details of a forthcoming by-election "following the very sad death of their young councillor Nigel Fletcher".

Thankfully, those who know me will swiftly have realised it was a mistake, as the by-election was in another part of London, and my age was given wrongly. The following correction was then circulated:
Whilst it was reassuring for the error to be so quickly rectified, I was still shocked to have the series of emails sent onto me. It seems the person who had died, tragically young, was someone I knew and liked. We were not close friends, but used to meet up at Conservative functions and on the campaign trail. I had no idea he was ill, so I was very sad to read this. I like to think he would have found the mix-up funny, and would be teasing me about my brush with mortality next time we had a drink together. It is perhaps fitting that I'll always have good memories of him, right up this last, strange, encounter. May he rest in peace.

Obama's second term begins...

To my utter surprise, I am able to use those most satisfying words for any blogger or political hack - "I told you so".

Yes, President Obama has repeated the Oath of Office in a rather more low-key ceremony at the White House.

The White House Counsel, Greg Craig, issued a statement explaining: "We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the President was sworn in appropriately yesterday. But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time."

So there. It would also perhaps explain why Obama publicly rebuked his Vice-President Joe Biden earlier in the day yesterday for making a joke about Chief Justice Roberts' slip-up. When Biden was swearing in the administration's senior staff, he asked for the text of the oath as 'My memory isn't as good as Chief Justice Roberts'". Obama scowled, shook his head slightly, and touched Biden on the elbow as if to restrain him. After the Bush-Cheney axis, it's good to see the new President putting his Veep in his place.

Swear it all over again...*

It seems I am not alone in being concerned over the US Chief Justice John Roberts' failure to administer the correct oath to President Obama. Some Constitutional experts believe that to be on the safe side, he ought to be given the chance to swear the correct oath. Whilst I believe they have a point, I'm more concerned about reports stating it was Obama who made the mistake, when it certainly wasn't. As CNN's Wolf Blitzer later commented, Roberts "had one job to do today and he sort of screwed up." This blog post includes the CNN discussion, and is worth a look.

Other conspiracy theorists ponder whether it may have been a last attempt by the Republicans to deny Obama the Presidency, pointing out that Roberts is a hardline Bush supporter whose appointment the then Senator Obama voted against.

For those tired of conspiracy theories, there's an amusing parody of such musings at The Spoof.

(* with apologies to Westlife)

History is made: But who is the 44th President?
A truly historic and memorable day, and I'm glad I managed to watch the entire ceremony (my American cousin was very upset that she had to work during it, which may have something to do with the fact that she works in the heart of McCain country, in Arizona). Whilst some have claimed President Obama's speech wasn't as memorable as they expected, its climax certainly had the "Bartlett factor" that I was looking for.

A couple of small things marred proceedings, however: Firstly the annoying commentary of Huw Edwards and others on the BBC, who seemed determined to fill every second of airtime with their inane drivel, speaking over the music, the announcements of the guests, and even some of the speeches. It was highly annoying, as well as detracting from the impact of the ceremony, and I see I'm not alone in thinking so.

Secondly, there were some notable hiccups in the ceremony itself: Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the organising committee, will doubtless have some explaining to do about the late running of events, which led to Obama swearing the oath five minutes late. This leads to the intriguing question of who was actually President between the expiry of George Bush's term at midday and the belated Swearing-in of his successor? As Joe Biden took his oath before midday, was he technically the acting President for five minutes? The situation doesn't arise in the UK, where the office of Prime Minister can be vacant, but with the US Order of Succession, there should never be a gap. I'll look into it...

Speaking of the oath, most people will have noticed the confusion caused by Chief Justice John Roberts, who misread the oath, causing a slightly alarmed-looking Obama to promise "I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully" instead of "faithfully execute the office of President...", which is laid down in the Constitution. Most reporters have glossed over the mistake, but it is potentially pretty serious - the new President hasn't actually sworn (or affirmed) the Oath required of him by the US Constitution. A small change admittedly, but the original wording is precise, and must have been set out verbatim for a reason.

To stop me worrying, perhaps someone could fetch a bible and a judge before the Inaugural Balls tonight so he can have another go?

UPDATE: Someone has been in touch to point out that the 20th Amendment specifies that the new President assumes office at midday, regardless of the Oath. What it actually says is 'The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January...and the terms of their successors shall then begin'. To my mind, that doesn't cancel out the requirement to take the oath. But it does at least clear up the matter of the Feinstein interregnum...

Greenwich Labour Leader and his unwilling Councillor

Residents in Shooters Hill have been rather unlucky in their Councillors in recent years. In 2004 a by-election was caused when one of the incumbants was disqualified from office after failing to turn up to any meetings for six months. I remember this by-election well, as I was the Conservative candidate.

Despite a heroic effort by us, the Labour candidate - one Danny Thorpe - won the election. I had to wait until the following year before I won my own by-election in Eltham North and joined the Council. In one of my first meetings I remember Cllr Thorpe taunting me for "pretending to care about people in Shooters Hill last year before running off to Eltham North".

I was therefore intrigued when we learnt last year that he had himself "run off" - to Australia, leaving his electors far behind. It seemed history was about to repeat itself as the six month deadline loomed, and Cllr Thorpe looked set to go the way of his predecessor. At the last minute, however, a special Council meeting was called in September, for no apparently urgent reason except that it allowed the absentee to return briefly from his travels, sign the register, and keep his seat.

Cynical? You bet. A democratic outrage? Certainly. But the plot thickens. It was made clear at the time that he is not claiming his allowance during his absence, so his clinging to office is not benefitting him financially at the moment (of course, should he deign to return to these shores he could always start claiming again, so it's not that noble a sacrifice). And the subtext of all we were hearing was that this whole sorry saga was not Cllr. Thorpe's wish. He had wanted to do the decent thing and resign his seat, but had been begged to stay by his Party's leadership, who clearly fear losing a by-election in Shooters Hill.

Now we have confirmation. I have now seen the text of a letter in which Cllr. Chris Roberts, Labour Leader of the Council, admits that he asked Danny Thorpe not to resign, and takes responsibility for the fact that the errant Councillor caved in to his wishes.

I haven't blogged much about this (one recent comment criticized me for not doing so), mainly because it has been well covered in the local press. But this really is outrageous - Labour in Greenwich are so scared of losing one seat in a by-election that they are prepared to put pressure on a Councillor to stay in office against his own wishes, despite the fact he is on the other side of the world, leaving the people of Shooters Hill without a third of their political representation for nearly a year. They then have no problem with contriving a spurious Council Meeting to get round the very rules designed to prevent such neglect of public duty. Rotten Boroughs don't come much more rotten than this.

Conservatives should ban blood sports!

A provocative headline, and a misleading one. I'm not talking about the activities of country folk on horseback, but the popular Westminster sport of back-stabbing. The latest bout of speculation about a possible reshuffle of the Shadow Cabinet has led to several members of David Cameron's team falling victim to what one blog called 'friendly fire' - anonymous briefing against them by colleagues.

Let's be clear - it's not friendly, and it's those who do it who should be fired. One report on Conservative Home alleges that Shadow Business Secretary Alan Duncan was briefed against by a senior party official. This is utterly unacceptable, and the person responsible should be identified and sacked from their post. As well as being disloyal, they are also guilty of gross stupidity - Alan Duncan is a very effective and able Shadow Minister, and a smooth media performer, who certainly doesn't deserve the criticism he has received from cowardly anonymous voices.

Conservatives have too often resorted to backstabbing in the last few decades, and the description of it as a sport is accurate - it is seen almost as a game, which those taking part in enjoy - planting poison in a journalist's ear, gossiping about who's up, who's down, and trying to avoid getting knifed themselves. Such Westminster intrigue appeals to a lot of people, but not to the public, or to party members in the country. I'm as guilty as anyone else of enjoying the occasional gossip or a bit of political manoevering, but this should never spill over into public squabbling. That way lies disunity and disaster. Will we never learn?