Being rather sad, I forewent a Friday night out to see Boris confirmed as London Mayor. Before the result was announced, I watched a very funny edition of Have I got news for you hosting by Brian Blessed in maniac mood. It was quite fitting really as had it not been for Boris’s appearances on this programme, Ken Livingstone could well still be Mayor. For it was this programme that launched Boris on the national stage. You could argue he would have been famous due to his work at the Telegraph and Spectator but it was HIGNFY which put him in the public consciousness.
 
It was also this programme which helped the public rehabilitation of William Hague of course with a series of hilarious and very professional guest appearances which made the general public release this man isn’t a sad political loser but a clever funny normal bloke.
 
Add in the regular appearances of the likes of Bob Marshall Andrews giving New Labour a slating, and you could say the Conservative Party have a lot to thank the producers of this show for in the last few year. Whether that lasts into a new Conservative government of course remains the subject of debate.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

I'm not referring to the Zimbabwean elections, but the election for MEP candidates for the Conservative Party. Never before have I seen such an arse covering undemocratic election.
 
Let's start at the beginning. Currently we have a majority of MEP's whose view on Europe is largely at odds with the membership. A quick perusal of those guilty of this shows that many of these are MP retreads who were kicked out of the UK Parliament in 97. They then found sanctury in Europe a couple of years later, and it is questionable what they are actually achieving out there. Whatever it is, it's certainly what the membership and indeed the country wants with a step back from federalism. Their determination to remain in the federalist European Peoples Party shows that.
 
Realising they are out of tune with the membership, it would appear some of our MEP's lobbied the Party to remove members from voting to rank them within the whole list, but instead rank the sitting MEP's so they are guaranteed their place and don't have to face the membership. This is the sort of election system Mugabe would dream of. No accountability and no risk of losing your seat of power.  
 
The other unfair factor in this election is the fact that after incumbents, the next place is guaranteed to a women no matter how far they placed behind the highest ranked men. Another self explanatory unfairness, which has rendered this selection process virtually impossible for a man to get into the European Parliament next year no matter how talented. Indeed it's surprised any man applied given how the odds are so stacked against them.
 
The Party has done this for short term benefit. No European arguments and more women. However in the longer term, it may well live to regret this. There are many well qualified men who would have added some real talent to our MEP delegation, and would have been far more in tune with the direction of the party. They have effectively no chance of election. We also have kept in place a lot of MEP's who rather enjoy the status quo in Europe and have no wish for reform or change. While they may keep their head down and say nothing of the EPP withdrawal proposal at the moment, once set free for a 5 year term, they will be very difficult to control and may well prove an obstacle to us when in Government when we step away from the federalist programme some of them appear to endorse.

Andrew Woodman

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Pro-life, pro-choice. A controversial subject at the best of times, but when Emily's List was recently reported to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner for 'buying votes', it opened up a whole new debate. So what is Emily's List, and why do pro-lifers think that the grants used to help women become elected are buying pro-abortion votes?
 
Let's start with what Emily's List is. It was founded in 1993 by Barbara Follett, the Labour Minister for women's rights. Emily is an acronym for 'Early Money Is Like Yeast' (it helps the dough rise) and it serves to offer grants to women who are seeking selection in the Labour Party. The grants awarded are for £250 per candidate and are offered for assistance in elections for Westminster, the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and in fact any political election. They are meant to assist with expenses such as travel and child / dependency care during a selection process.
 
So why are pro-life supporters trying to stop the grants? Well to qualify for the grant, candidates must sign a declaration saying they support the aims of the pro-choice campaign. The pro-life lobby argue that by signing the declaration and accepting the grant, the women are being undemocratic (essentially they are being accused of 'selling' their vote), unreasonable and also insinuate that these women are signing their lifetime approval to pro-abortion votes.
 
Partisan issues aside, these accusations are a fallacy.
 
Firstly, what Emily's List does is support women who have the same views and beliefs as the organisation. Nothing unusual there. If a grant is to be given by an organisation, there are usually restrictions placed on it.
 
Secondly, Emily's List does not 'buy votes'. At the time of receiving the grant, the women must sign a declaration identifying themselves as pro-choice - however, there is nothing which ties them into voting that way when actually called upon. Indeed, Claire Curtis-Thomas MP who was voted in with the help of an Emily's List grant has since changed her opinion and now votes in favour of reducing the abortion limit.
 
And finally, and let's make this very clear, Emily's List is not pro-abortion. Yes, you read that right. I repeat, it is not pro-abortion. It is pro-choice. There is a difference.
 
Promotion of pro-choice attitudes is one of the organisations aims, but it is not the only aim; and the promotion of pro-abortion attitudes is not an aim at all. Essentially, the organisation seeks to promote and support women's rights, for example, the right to run for election to be a political representative. As such, it also promotes and supports a woman's right to choice. This extends to the right to choose as to whether she wants an abortion or not. To have a right to an abortion as an option among many options; it does not represent it as the only option, nor necessarily as the right option. It simply forms part of the right for a woman to choose. This is the pivotal thing the pro-lifers both fail to understand and fail to endorse themselves. Unlike the pro-lifers, Emily's List does not pick and choose what rights women should and shouldn't have, it believes in endorsing women's rights totally. No ifs and no buts.
 
So next time you read an article condemning Emily's List, stop and consider: when it comes down to it, the argument is perhaps not simply pro-life or pro-choice, but anti-women's rights vs pro-women's rights. Which side of the fence are you on?

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

I really am getting bored with all this talk of MP's expenses. The press have the bit between their teeth and unless there's a royal scandal or a war, we can look forward to it continuing for a while yet. What amazes me is we've known MP's abuse their expenses for years. Instances such as Margaret Beckett claiming £19,722 in 2002/2003 for a London housing allowance when she owns a house in her Derbyshire constituency which is free of mortgage, had a grace and favour flat in Admiralty House, funded by the taxpayer, and rented out her Westminster house. This has been widely known for years but no one's really concerned themselves,
 
Suddenly Derek Conway is caught red handed and the press are portraying every MP as a crook. There is a reason why they do this, and a pretty easy solution to ending it as an issue.
 
Firstly there is the reason. Sixty thousand pounds isn't really enough money to attract a decent calibre of MP. You either end up with incompetents, or people of independent wealth who can afford to pursue a parliamentary career.
 
Secondly there is the solution. Get rid of the housing and additional costs allowances and bung the wages up to £100k a year to end the fiddling. Have a historical guide for travel expenses and postage costs and make MP's who go over this justify their expenses or pay for it themselves, and of course scrap the communications allowance.
 
In addition to this, reduce the number of MP's. Bumping a constituency up to 95000-100000 over the next decade should be on the agenda. That way MP's will have a workload which will mean they couldn't cope without a proper staff, and the cost of Government will be going down. If we pursue a localism agenda, there will be less for them to do anyway.
 
I wonder if the speakers three wise men who are investigating this will have the guts to do this though!

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Yes, that's right - the wrong choice.

Why? Well let's not forget that essentially by 2009, Obama could not only be 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 an anti Pakistan rhetoric (as some of his early speeches have already touched upon), he could 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 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 has no foreign policy experience? Sure, he has been and still is a rising star in the Democratic party, and Newsweek were already giving him several page spreads a few years back, 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 progress and 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 for the wrong reasons. 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, experienced, military and domestic President, 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.

Eds Note - blog post written prior to Super Tuesday

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

It's that time of year again where the oil companies report their profits. It's a time of year that winds me up with such lazy and ill informed media reporting designed to whip up public hostility to the idea of companies doing well.
 
Today it's Shell. They've reported a profit of about £14 billion or billions as Gordon Brown might say. This is wonderful. A British company competing and winning in a highly competitive global market, providing thousands of jobs, helping to keep the country running with new oil finds, helping our balance of payments and paying billions of pounds in tax. It also helps the upkeep of our pensions funds as they hold a significant portion of the shares.
 
How do the media choose to report it. Well for every news report I saw this morning, there was a reporter on a Shell forecourt asking motorists if they're being ripped off in view of these obscene profits. It's the same every year and perpetuates this myth that profits are wrong, and they all go to one or two fat cats while everyone suffers. It's so lazy of the media. What do they expect, oil companies to subsidize the British motorist so only the Government makes money out of them? We have some of the cheapest petrol in Europe, it's only when the Government takes its 70% that it becomes the most expensive.
 
Of course the unions have to have their say. Unite's joint general secretary Tony Woodley said the profits were "quite frankly obscene" and "Shell shareholders are doing very nicely whilst the rest of us, the stakeholders, are paying the price and struggling." He also wants a windfall tax on oil companies. What a good idea!! Let's take legitimate profits from a company so it has less to invest in finding and producing the petrol, make it a target for a takeover and lose another British company(well at least part British). That way we can lose billions of future tax revenues, a few thousand British jobs and do a bit more damage to our pension funds.
 
So how about praising a British success story that's funding a significant part of our public services, instead of lazy ranting about a tax driven petrol price. Expect the same when BP reports.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

The title is naturally sarcastic. I didn't really want to write about the Lib Dems again for a while, but after a recent by election I campaigned in fighting them, I've actually realised just how low their tactics are, and thought I'd share them with anyone who's not already familiar with them.
 
For a start they lie. They will say that only the Lib Dems can win here (even though they recorded barely 20% of the vote in May). This is backed up by dubious bar charts from even more dubious canvassing. They will then proceed to throw as much dirt about their opponents as possible. The truth doesn't enter into this much. A leaflet saying the candidate lives 10 miles away when it's actually only 3, whilst their candidate has been local for about 3 weeks since he registered in the ward. I'm sure anyone who has fought the Lib Dems is fully aware of these tactics, but I just don't understand where this reputation as the nice party comes form. They are negative and dishonest with voters to a degree that take politics into the gutter.
 
There is a side effect of these tactics which the Lib Dems don't seem to realise. By portraying Labour and Conservatives as self serving good for nothings, they damage politics as a whole and aid the cause of the BNP. For when politics is portrayed in a sleazy way, some voters will kick all 3 main parties and side with the protest party. This is what the BNP is taking advantage of. To simply call them racist and nazi's seems to be spurring voters on who feel the BNP are being ganged up on by the establishment. To take on the BNP, parties must expose their far left economics and the implications of their far right immigration policies. Would people be so happy to vote for the BNP, if the generous owner of their football club would be slung out of the country by them. We need to explain implications rather than look like bullies to stem the BNP.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

In the eyes of the public, the latest donation scandal to hit the Labour Party courtesy of Peter Hain is extremely damaging.  It is still hard to believe that no-one of any significance lost their job after the previous round of ooops-I-forgot-to-declare-a-large-sum-of-money, but Peter Hain looks vulnerable and will be lucky to keep his cabinet job.
 
The electorate will be unimpressed by another scandal after the shocking run of Labour Party failures towards the end of 2007.  The latest polls certainly support this theory.  But it isn't all sweetness and joy for David Cameron.  In the run-up to the next election, there will undoubtedly be Conservative scandals to contend with.  David Cameron cannot prevent this from happening, nor can anyone else.  The only variable that he can control is how decisively he deals with problems when they arise.  Gordon Brown has considerably increased the damage to his Government by dithering about sacking people.  If Peter Hain (or for that matter Harriet Harman or Wendy Alexander) had been sacked with immediate effect, the headlines would have disappeared.
 
The lesson for David Cameron is simple: crises will happen, scandals will occur - just make damn sure you fire people who need to be fired.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

This weekend used to be one of the most eagerly awaited weekends in the football calendar (sorry non footy fans but the politics does come later). FA Cup third round day not that long ago would generate great excitement as it meant so much to clubs and their fans. Now, stadiums are half empty and Premiership clubs play weakened teams in the hope of going out of the competition. All this in the name of progress. The Premiership and cash has become king with the side effects of non British players becoming the majority, and in some cases to whole of the first team staff, British owners are being priced out in favour of dubious foreign Billionaires and the big four clubs and the Champions League are now dominating the game.
 
Some would say what’s the problem with this. The world’s best players have made the premiership the best league in the world. I can’t help but feel we’ve lost the soul of the game somewhere along the line though. There’s so little to aim at for clubs outside the top 4 or 5 other than financial survival. This imperative is helping destroy what was once the best cup competition in the world.
 
How does this relate to politics? Well it’s got me wondering if we’re losing the soul of our society. David Cameron has often spoke of our broken society and what has happened to football could be considered to be a metaphor for this issue.

It seems the ever increasing pressures on people and in particular working parents is making finding the time for family life increasingly difficult. The pressure to maintain lifestyle with ever increasing taxes and inflation set against record house prices and student debt means real struggles for the families of the future. The impact of this will surely be less time with children as they grow up.
 
Will this benefit society? David Cameron has said that families are essential to repairing our society. That’s why they must be allowed to flourish and do their job of moulding the next generation into responsible members of society, and steer them away from pitfalls such as crime. Can this be done effectively with all the current pressures on parents to return to work so quickly after the birth. It will be interesting to see how Conservative Party policy is shaped in response to this.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Well it's been quite a year. We've had Blair applauded off the stage (deserved for that level of acting ability), had Ming Campbell kicked off the stage by those nasty Lib Dems and Gordon Brown heralded and hated within the space of six months. And what of David Cameron, he's had a honeymoon at both the start and the end of the year with a near divorce in the middle.

Where do we stand going forward then?

Well I'll make a prediction that Gordon Brown is unelectable. He has all the presentational skills of David Brent and the decision making skills of a lemming. He's shown himself to be scared of the British public by virtue of the fact that he pulled out of an election and an EU treaty referendum. On the doorsteps I see no enthusisim for him. If I'm noticing it, then I'm sure Labour MP's are, so what are they goimg to do about it?

In my opinion they'll do nothing, mainly due to the fact that there is no one to replace him. The mere that that Jack Straw is seen as the only replacement shows how bereft they are of talent. This is a man who helped create the shambles that the Home Office is today. Brown's young turk are totally without experience and likeability. There is an arrogence attached to them which comes of never fighting a marginal seat and have to go out there and win peoples votes. Put together with a complicated process of getting rid of a Labour leader, and a leader who will never want to go, there's little doubt he's fighting the election.

Then I got thinking about counter history and what would have happened had Robin Cook lived. Although they made up before his death, would there have been any possiblity he could have challenged Brown for the leadership. Maybe not, he would have had a senior cabinet post and had reportadly said he was 'insufficiently attractive to be an election winner'. I wonder though. Could you imagine him getting rolled over at PMQ's in the same way Brown does? He could have represented a real change for Labour without Iraq baggage and the fact that he hasn't been 2nd in command in the failing Government.

If he didn't run, then he would now be talked about as the alternative leader now surely. We will never know, but how The Labour Party must wish he was still here.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •