The Constituency of Durham North West

Now I am an angry young man, Iraq was two years ago and the Goverment would like it not to be an issue. But in my opinion they didn't listen to 1 million people taking to the streets of London, so this is the time when they should listen to us and this is the time when we make them listen to us.

It is not up to the Goverment to tell us the issues that are important.

The most important issue of this election in my opinion is Iraq and it is my chance to let them know I am not happy about them taking us to a war that was illegal. (Depending on how you read the goverment advice of course).

The only question I really wanted to be answered is one that I have asked Hilary over email so I decided to submit it last night. Now going on what I read on another blog I doubted the people in charge would read my question out, so I submited two others so I at least got a chance to draw attention to myself if I had to shout about Iraq at the end.

Now as I thought my question wasn't read out, so I decided to ask myself. Sadly my timing was rubbish as I opened my mouth the audience all clapped so I was drowned out...so the I word was not heard. I thought I would take a different tact and say that it was a question on the last topic "Truth" but the Chairman was having none of it and Hilary looked a tad annoyed.

Now under a bit of self-induced pressure I wandered up to ask Hilary my question.

Now this is from memory so this is just the "jist" of the conversation.

"Hello Hilary"

"Who are you, you don't sound local" (I think she thought I might be a ringer going by her tone)

"I'm John Wards"

"Where are you from" (Now I guessed the answer she was looking for wasn't "Scotland" as that was a tad obvious)

"Fir Tree"

"What are you doing down here" (Again I assumed she'd spotted I'm Scottish (Got to get up early to catch her out))

"I work in Castle Eden"

"Doing what" (I really think she thought I was a journo or something, as she was quite short with me)

"Web programming stuff" (That got her, "technical job ask no more as I won't understand")

Now I've been "grilled" I got the chance to ask my question.

"Do you feel proud that you voted for the war in Iraq, and as it is your job feel proud that you forced others to do so?"

That got her going

"You don't understand the role of a Chief Whip, I do not force people to vote."

"But the vote was a "three line whip""

"We don't force people to vote, we debate that is called politics"

"Did you not threaten Bob Marshall-Andrews QC, the Labour candidate in Medway, that cabinet ministers would not visit him in the election after he rebelled against the goverment over Iraq" (Now I have added the persons name to this as I actually said a Labour candidate)

"Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail"

"Don't worry I don't believe a word the in the Daily Mail, it was in the Independent and the Times"

At this point I think she had had enough of me, fair enough, and started speaking to someone else. She still hadn't answered my question.

Now I've done a little research on the role of the Chief Whip.

The duties of Whips include:

• keeping MPs and peers informed of forthcoming parliamentary business
• maintaining the party's voting strength by ensuring members attend important debates and support their party in parliamentary divisions
• passing on to the party leadership the opinions of backbench members

The term 'whip' also applies to the weekly circular sent out by each Chief Whip to all their MPs or peers notifying them of parliamentary business. The degree of importance is indicated by the number of times that the debate or division is underlined:

• items underlined once are considered routine and attendance is optional
• those underlined twice are more important and attendance is required unless - in the Commons - a 'pair' (a member of the Opposition who also intends to be absent from the division) has been arranged
• items underlined three times are highly important and pairing is not normally allowed.

'Three-line whips' are imposed on important occasions, such as second readings of significant Bills and motions of no confidence. Failure by MPs to attend a vote with a three-line whip is usually seen as a rebellion against the party and may eventually result in disciplinary action, such as suspension from the parliamentary party.

Now the vote in Iraq was a three line whip, so my interpretation of the role of a whip (Hilary being the Chief Whip) is to make backbenchers aware of the consequences of rebelling against the party..such things as disciplinary action, suspension, no help in getting re-elected...or possibly even a word in the ear of a young backbencher suggesting that it wouldn't be too good for his career...

No Hilary it is not your job to force members of your party to vote with the goverment when it is a 3 line whip.

Back to last night

Hilary finished her conversation and walked up to me and said:

"Yes I am proud that I voted for the war in Iraq" (I thought better of pushing the "forcing" issue)

"Even now we know the war was illegal?"

"The advice the Attorney General states that the war was legal"

"I have read the advice and I read it like he thinks without a second resolution that it would be illegal, to be honest the document can easily be read both ways and it seems he is sitting on the fence"

"I have read 100's of legal documents over the years and usually they are open to interpretation" (I concede this point)

Now onto something that was highlighted to me just before I left for the Hustings.

I took a print out of the legal advice the PM received before going to war. I asked if she had seen it. She said no but "I discussed it with Peter Goldsmith loads of times". Same as she said in todays Guardian.

On 20 March 2003, Tony Blair addressed the nation:

“Tonight, British servicemen and women are engaged from air, land and sea. Their mission: to remove Saddam Hussein from power …”

Oh yes Tony...

Finally, and categorically (my emphasis):

“Any force … must be a proportionate response … regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.”

Now I asked Hilary directly about this, her response was the following:

"It was not the main objective of going to war, if regime change was the sole reason for going to war then it would be illegal. But removing Saddam Hussein was always an objective of going to war"

Now stone me, I can never remember the removal of Saddam as an objective of going to war. It was always about WMDs. Thats the problem though, it was two years ago. How many times since then has Tony and his goverment said that it was an objective since then. If you say something enough for long enough it becomes fact.....it is hard to argue as you doubt it.

I got Hilary to repeat that.

"Yes the removal of Saddam was always an objective of going to war, not the only objective though"

At this point she walked off. I may have come accross a tad short with her, but thinking back she started it ;-)

I do think the goverment have got its way, Iraq is a non-issue to lots of voters. But not this one.