Archive - Story

• Sign up for a user account first of all and then take a look around the site. The username and password we gave you already is just to get into the beta test site.
• Click links and make a note of any that do not work.
• Make comments and note how quick and easy the experience was
• If you're acting as a columnist or have the access given to you try writing a blog post or article
• Click on tags
• Search for content and keywords and note what happens. Do you find what you're looking for?

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

The police reforms discussed in the media today, aimed at cutting bureaucracy and freeing up police time, seem very sensible.  It is also noticeable that the reforms come from the police themselves, not from some incompetent government minister, which probably goes a long way to explaining why the police would benefit so much from them.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith had this to say:
 
She said she accepted the need for an urgent reduction in red tape, adding that it would "make a real difference to every community".  "Sir Ronnie has identified several measures through which we can cut bureaucracy," Ms Smith said.  "Just from his proposal on case file management, we could save 400,000 hours of police time - that is the equivalent of 200 officers." 

I'm sure this is true, but maybe you should ask where all the red tape and bureaucracy came from in the first place? A power-hungry centralised government perhaps?

 Tom Richmond

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

The Madeleine McCann story just gets more and more complicated.  Most of us woke up this morning to the incredible headlines stating that the DNA extracted from the blood sample found in the car hired by Kate and Gerry McCann was a 100% match to Madeleine, and yet within a couple of hours some newspaper websites have begun changing their tone as it becomes apparent that such a claim might not have been made as the infighting between the scientists starts to emerge (which in itself is baffling).
 
How are the public supposed to follow a news story that lacks clarity and objectivity on the part of the media?  The need for a quick headline has got in the way of high quality journalism too many times in this saga.

Tom Richmond

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Gordon Brown's proposals for creating 500,000 jobs have been pushed off the front pages of most broadsheets by the threats made by the unions this morning, but the proposals themselves are not exactly brilliant.
 
Helping out the long-term unemployed is a good thing, but why should lone parents be given extra help and extra money relative to everyone else?  Why should they get guaranteed interview for any job they want?  Extending the number of days that lone parents get benefits from 15 to 42, even when they have a job, also sends out completely the wrong message.  Wouldn't it be nice if Gordon Brown tried to address the causes of poor skills and poor education rather than dealing with the symptoms!

Tom Richmond

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

It looks like HSBC have given in to some good old-fashioned 'people power', thanks to the anti-overdraft campaign launched by students on Facebook.
 
Read the latest development HERE, and scroll down the Tory Radio home page to find the original story from a couple of days ago!

Tom Richmond

Editor's note - Apparently Facebook campaigns have led to Wispa choloate bars going back into production, but equally important, you can join the Tory Radio Facebook Group here!

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

She really is unbelievable. Polly Toynbee is clearly on a different planet from the rest of us, as demonstrated quite beautifully in her latest article for the Guardian. I have no problem with people being cautious about John Redwood's policy proposals that were discussed at great length in the media yesterday, but as usual Polly Toynbee spent the entire article trying to stoke the flames of crisis and disaster in a future Conservative government.

Her arguments are painfully rooted in our socialist past, as she seems to have forgotten that her vision of a "stronger, not a weaker, state" brought this country to its knees many years ago and the Labour party has done its best to move away from those ideals ever since.

Other memorable points include claiming that letting employers use common sense in health and safety laws is a bad thing, and she clearly would like us to adhere to a 48-hour week without exception - thereby collapsing the British economy overnight.

Have a read of the article if you want to be transported back to the last time that left-wingers were in charge.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Promises to commit more troops to Pakistan and labelling the Iraq war as "the wrong battlefield". Are these spine chilling words straight out of the mouth of a Republican candidate trying to distance himself from the Bush Presidency while still appealing to the Neo-Cons? You would be forgiven for thinking so; but these perhaps inciting comments which insinuate that a war against Pakistani is instead the ’correct’ war, come straight from a speech given by the Democratic darling of the moment earlier this week - Barak Obama.

So what does Obama think he is doing? Upping his game by indirectly pointing to the fact that Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and thus hoping to gain some ground in the opinion polls? He may well be doing just that, and it may well just work, but statements such as this push him further away from the category marked as ’suitable’ for the next Commander-in-Chief. Oh yes, let’s not forget that essentially that is what he will be. Not only President, but Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces for the single most powerful country in the world.

With the US in the middle of a war that has no end in sight, is it wise to be considering a man with little to no foreign policy experience at a time when foreign policy experience is exactly what is needed? You just need to look at Bush to see what type of a foreign policy President a stint in the National Guard will produce - can the US really now gamble on a President with no military or foreign policy experience of any kind?

If his Presidential foreign policy were to follow that of his recent speech, he would, by declaring a war in Pakistan, not only unnecessarily rile a military regime that is actually more liberal than its democratic opposition, but would also divert US military forces away from a battle ground which has not yet militarily, democratically, nor in hearts and minds been won. It would surely not have UN support, nor that of the public at home or abroad either. A foreign policy faux pas.

Despite the fact that the votes are won and lost on domestic policies, the war in Iraq is still a contentious voting issue - so why are the Democrats considering a contender who is calling for another war? Sure, he has been and still is a rising star in the Democratic party, and Newsweek have already given him a several page spread a few years back now, but that by no means proves his suitability for Presidency. Nor is it a military or academic foreign policy background which provides his credibility. Perhaps the reason instead lies in the colour of his skin. Of course the US needs to accept a black President at some point, so they should, and when they finally do, it will be a defining moment in US history; but that does not equate to choosing Obama based on this . There is a certain danger in pushing the inevitable forward ahead of its time and causing unnecessary consequences. To push for Obama on race grounds at the expense of failing to recognise and acknowledge his downfalls as well at this important time would demean his election. It is what the US has been waiting for and indeed needs, but importantly, an ultimately poor Presidency rooted in naïve and inexperienced foreign policy choices would over shadow what should be a glorious and defining moment in US history. The US at the next election needs a strong military President, (dare I say McCain?) regardless of race ,who can lead a country, its people and its troops like a true Commander-In-Chief through these war torn times. That person cannot play a game of trial and error, they need to have played before and know how to win.

Burning out one of its brightest stars too early would be a colossal mistake for the US. There will be a time, and a place for Obama in US history - that time is just not now.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

There is no question that the media remain sceptical about David Cameron.  The amazingly varied coverage of his trip to Rwanda superbly demonstrated this point.  Some corners of the press think it was a fantastic idea, whereas some stuck the knife in about the floods (even though the trip was planned over a year ago).
 
Gordon Brown is probably right to remain fairly quiet during a rocky period for the leader of the opposition, and he's not the only one who seems to be benefiting in the polls.  Has anyone else noticed that calls for Ming Campbell's head have subsided greatly and that the Lib Dems are picking up a few more points in the polls, without them doing anything noteworthy?

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •