Columnists

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:

 •    •    •    •  

It's only a week until the gripping contest that is the Lib Dem leadership contest comes to a conclusion. It's odds on the that Nick Clegg will prevail. Has the leadership election itself and following Vince Cable made his task a little trickier than it looked a few weeks ago though.
 
Before the leadership contest, Clegg had a profile similar to Ming Campbell's few years ago. The man who should have run for leader and had a firm grip on his brief. During the leadership contest though, there have been one or two unedifying moments. His run in with Chris Huhne on the Politics Show over the 'Calamity Clegg' document, as well as undertones from the Huhne camp about lack of real life experience. As well as that, there has not been a lot of vision or ideas from Clegg, partly due to Lib Dem conferences making their policy. Much has been made about breaking the law on ID cards if they are bought in, but that's student behaviour and not that of a statesman.
 
His biggest problem though is taking over from the successful deputy Vince Cable. Cable achieved something almost unheard of when he got the Lib Dems noticed in the House of Commons, with the line about Stalin to Mr Bean which could well stick to Gordon Brown. Clegg will struggle to better Cable in the Commons, and bearing in mind it was the Chamber that shaped the impression that Ming was not performing and incompetent, Clegg will need to be on top of his game for his first performance in the new year.
 
I wonder if he regrets not going for the deputy leadership. If he had, he could have been shown to have been the competent leader following the disastrous reign of Ming. In leaving the field open for Cable, he's created another 'he should have been leader figure'. Dangerous people to have around.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Cynicism towards the Labour government is well-founded.  The recent donation scandal is alarming but not surprising, and it is even less surprising that the government has chosen to revisit the proposals to extend the detention period without charge, such is the controversial and headline-grabbing nature of Jacqui Smith's plan (nicely deflecting attention away from Mr Abrahams et al).  What is baffling is that extending the 28-day detention period seems to be without purpose or objective, which is unusual for Labour as they normally try to sneak some hidden motive past the public's nose even if it isn't immediately apparent.  In the complete absence of any public or confidential evidence supporting changes to the law, the whole process seems absurd.  MPs don't want the law changed and numerous legal experts also fail to see the logic.
 
Gordon Brown's own Security Minister, Admiral Lord West of Spithead, did a spectacular U-turn on his views about these proposed changes.  After recently telling Radio 4's Today programme that was not "fully convinced" of the need to raise the detention limit, he emerged from a meeting with Gordon Brown about an hour later saying "My feeling is, yes, we need more than 28 days,".  His subsequent remark was even more revealing: "I personally absolutely believe that within the next two to three years, we will require more than that for one of these complex plots."  So, in short, Gordon Brown's own Security Minister admits that there has never been a case where a limit above 28 days would have helped.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Ann Coulter may or may not be a name that immediately springs to your attention. She is an American Christian fundamentalist and a conservative commentator. You may naturally think that, as a Conservative, you share common morals, ethics and ideals. Well you probably don't, and that is why I am continually surprised when her books are recommended at various British Conservative events. She is a Republican, and that is often why the more right wing of the Conservative party often offer her up as an ally.
 
Coulter has courted a lot of media attention and, as a result, a lot of airtime in the US. This however, has been heavily reliant on her mostly questionable comments on a range of controversial subjects. Her ultra right-wing repertoire has ensured she is one of the most controversial and outspoken commentators on American politics. So why should British Conservatives not consider her to be a role model?

Well, firstly, there are her comments on Muslim nations such as "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" which is offensive and quite frankly likely to incite hatred. Then she moves on to attack, on live television some particularly outspoken and media savvy 9/11 widows by declaring that "…these broads are millionaires… revelling in their status as celebrities. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much …by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy…". As if that wasn't enough, she goes out of her way to demean every woman in the US with her views on rights to vote. The argument she uses is simple, but unsubstantiated: she says America "would be a much better country if women did not vote". Do I need to go on? It is hard for even the most ardent right-winger to find even a shred of common ground with Coulter. Even the Libertarians in Connecticut turned her down as a candidate after meeting her (and they more or less accept anyone). 

Over the years the American public and many journalists have become increasingly vocal in their attempts to stop Coulter attracting the levels of media exposure she currently enjoys. Much like the BNP in the UK however, her controversial views generate her exposure and a media platform. Everyone loves a hate figure after all.
 
Of course, in the land of the free, Coulter has a right to express her opinions, but what exactly is her agenda? It seems simply one of money-grabbing, opportunism and attention seeking. There is no personal ideological message of which she is passionate, but a much more selfish motivation of a large retirement fund; after all, as Ronald Reagan said, " politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book".

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

I'm sure over the past week our football loving readers have been depressed as I about the current state of English international football. I have added depression supporting a team that is bottom of the table and ships 5 goals a game but I won't get into that now. Anyway in the last week reflecting on our hapless heroes inability to hold the ball less than 2 seconds, I wondered if Government and football team run parallel in their triumph and trouble. After all both are in trouble at the moment.
 
I'll start at 1966 when we last triumphed. Harold Wilson won the election of that year and after we won the world cup, traded on the fact that England wore red. You would think that would be enough to win you the next election and retain the world cup with most of the same squad. However in 1970, England went out in red unexpectedly and so did Labour. 
 
A decade of disappointment and failure was to follow. The Government was in regular crisis with strikes, and 3 changes of leader failing to get a grip of the Country. The Football team followed in a similar vain failing to qualify for any major tournaments throughout the decade with 3 changes of manager failing to get a grip of the team.
 
Then entered Margaret Thatcher and later Bobby Robson. Both faced early pressures with a change to moneterism and the dropping of Kevin Keegan. the former leading to high unemployment and the latter to England maybe failing to qualify for the 84 European Championships. Things did pick up though. The Economy for Thatcher and the 86 World Cup for England (where of course we were cheated out of it by Maradona).
 
However in 1990 both were forced out having left the Country in a much better state than they found it in. Both were replaced with lesser men. Major and Taylor both having pretty calamitous reigns with Black Wednesday and Koeman knocking us out the World Cup of 94 by scoring for Holland when he should have been sent off. The media hammered both personally although I don't remember Major having his head made into a Turnip though.
 
Enter Sven and Tony. Both had big promises to live up to, but despite being good at winning, both were held back by the limitations of their teams. What they also have in common is not being appreciated at how good they were until they were gone. For when their number twos took over, a period of ineptitude and failure beckoned. Mclaren is gone, how long before we can get rid of Gordon?

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

I will admit to being a little forgetful sometimes, but the government losing 15 million people's confidential details is truly in a different league.  What will come of this?  There's already been one resignation at the time of writing and there may be more to follow.  Even if a few more Treasury heads are chopped in the coming days, the message to take away from this is quite simple: Labour cannot be trusted.  Their lack of respect for the British public is astounding. 
 
Let us not forget that this latest blunder comes hot on the heels of HM Revenue & Customs losing the details of 15,000 Standard Life customers earlier this month after a CD never showed up at its destination, and a laptop with the details of around 2000 people with investment ISAs was stolen at the beginning of October.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

I had a strange dream on Sunday. I dreamt I'd heard on the radio that GMTV presenter Fiona Phillips has been offered a Government job by Gordon Brown in the summer. I then woke up and found it to be true (well according the the papers anyway). I am astonished. The end of spin and celebrity government claims look more and more hollow every day.
 
On the rare occasions I've ever watched GMTV, I've found it to be dumbed down TV at its worse, with Ms Phillips at the pinnacle displaying the intellectual rigour of a dead badger. A short trail round various internet forums shows the contempt many people hold for her and the programme. I suppose the fact that she's in bed with the equally intellectual bankrupt Mirror Newspaper, it should come as no surprise those in New Labour crave her 'talents'.
 
Later on Sunday, I witnessed those nice Lib Dems having a verbal punch up on The Politics Show. It's quite clear that Huhne is playing a win or bust game for the Lib Dem leadership, while Clegg is a indecisive flip flopper (hence the fact that he's a Lib Dem). The fact that he's complained about the Calamity Clegg document is hilarious and shows that this idea that the Lib Dems are the nice party is as realistic as the chance of Northern Rock paying a dividend this year.
 
And on the subject of Northern Rock, where was Gordon Brown for Alistair Darling's statement in Parliament about the ongoing shambles. The problem was built up on his watch, yet in Macavity like fashion he had disappeared when the going was tough. Perhaps he was recruiting Ant and Dec to run the Foreign Office. I just hope he wasn't buying tickets for England game on Wednesday, for he has become the gamblers friend. For whenever he's around (as Scotland found out at the Weekend), the opposition prosper. Time for a bet on a Conservative Election victory maybe.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

For the past few years, I've been amazed at how little is made of the fact that Gordon Brown changed the rate inflation is measured from the Retail Price Index to the Consumer Prices Index. We know why he did it of course, and that was to make his target easier to attain whilst ramping up public spending. The problem is we now have an inflation figure that no one trusts and bears no relation to the costs people are facing.
 
Today the rate went to 2.1%. Now when I think of living costs, there is food which has been ramped up, fuel which means motoring and heating costs have been ramped up by double digit percentages and nothing going down in price. The idea of 2.1% is a joke. Much more realistic is the 4.2% RPI index which is what employers have to use the pay settlements (because the unions would destroy them for using the CPI).
 
So what is the point of the CPI? No one believes it, and it is hiding the real problem of inflation in the economy at a time of economic slowdown. If Gordon Brown was interested in candid Government, he would scrap it and allow the bank to deal with the proper inflation rate which is overshooting its target by 2%. Much of which is being caused by fuel, of which the Government is taking 76% in duty and VAT and which it added 2.7 pence last month.
 
The Government needs to work with the Bank of England to sort out these problems before they escalate, and getting rid of unrealistic measures like the CPI would be a start. However, after Northern Rock, can anyone have confidence that they can work together?

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

The use of drug treatments for children diagnosed with ADHD has proved controversial within the medical community for many years.  Parents often see Ritalin and Concerta, two of the more popular ADHD treatments, as cause for hope that their child's behaviour can finally be brought under control.  Today's news that drug treatments are no more effective than therapy will come as a shock to many parents and doctors in the UK and should hopefully bring about a major rethink in how this disorder is dealt with.  In fact, the author of the original study supporting the use of drugs to treat ADHD has said that "there's no indication that medication's better than nothing in the long run", which is a truly astounding comment.
 
It doesn't take a medical genius to appreciate that giving children a daily dose of strong medication when their brains and bodies are still developing puts them at risk for developing serious side effects, and in the case of ADHD drugs children have poorer growth rates and do not physically develop in the same way as other children.  Society's obsession with prescribing drugs to children and adults for a range of disorders such as ADHD and depression is a dangerous habit and opens up problems with dependence and tolerance rather than treating the root causes of these problems.  Perhaps today's report will be the wake-up call that doctors and patients so desperately need.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

The Home Affairs and Justice debate on Tuesday’s Queens Speech was dominated by Government proposals to “seek consensus” on increasing the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects. Yet such a consensus will be difficult, if not impossible, to come by. Yesterday, Members of the House from all corners and sides questioned the fuzzy thinking behind Jacqui Smith’s proposals.

The Shadow Home Secretary reminded us that “our freedom was bought at a very high price. We on this side will not give that freedom away without very good reason indeed.”   So, is there good reason? What is the basis for the planned extension of pre-charge detention? One might expect that the police have been experiencing great difficulty in compiling sufficient evidence to charge terrorist suspects within 28 days. But the Home Secretary admits that there has not been once case where they have been up against the wire. The basis for extension is that, due to “trends of increasing complexity” the Home Secretary can imagine a circumstance where the police might need more than 28 days. There are whole rafts of circumstances I can imagine on a great range of topics, but should we legislate on wholly hypothetical situations?  

With no evidence on which to base more draconian measures, how would the Home Secretary like to go about this extension? Will the Government repeat the tactics of 2005 by seeking a very high figure in order to get a compromise extension somewhere in the middle? Why is the figure of 56 days being bandied around by Government Ministers? What’s the basis for it? Because it’s 28 multiplied by two and it sounds nice? Sir Ian Blair (he of the “if you’ve got the power to remove me, go ahead” attitude to public service) thinks the right amount of time we should detain potentially innocent people should be “somewhere between 50 and 90 days”.

What fantastically useless advice!   So, pick a figure. 90? 77? 56? 49? Whatever the Government decide, this issue is, for good reason, going to dominate the political scene for some time…

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

The case of Sir Ian Blair that's been in the media this week has fascinated me. Here is a man who is running an organisation that has been found guilty of killing an innocent man. In the private sector, if a company is found guilty of corporate manslaughter, the management get sacked and their career would be in ruins. Yet in the public sector, the management who got it wrong are present themselves as the only people to put things right. Imagine the directors of Enron stopping on to sort out their mismanagement. The whole idea is bazarre.
 
Of course, it's another symptom of Big Government and an overbearing state. There are so many controllers, the blame keeps getting laid off on the next person down until the computer programmer eventually sacrifices their job and everyone else 'gets on with the job of putting it right', until the next time. Just look at Government IT projects. Late, over budget and not fit for purpose. Who takes the blame for this non achievement. No one I know of.
 
It is time people like Blair were accountable to the public. Fortunately the Conservatives have a policy to remedy this issue with elected sheriffs. Local communities voting for their representative to hold polices forces accountable for their actions or indeed non actions. This is the way to make voters feel like their vote means something and will reinvigorate democracy. No wonder Labour don't like it.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

There are two institutions I really don't like very much. One is the British Broadcasting Company and the other in the European Union. If I weigh up the positives and negatives of each one, the latter always seems to outweigh the former and most interestingly, the reasons seem to be very similar.
 
Firstly there is the issue of choice. I'm forced to pay the £135.50 licence fee. If I don't a big ugly man demands the right to enter my home looking for a TV. With the EU, I and every other person in the UK is forced to contribute billions of pounds towards the running of the EU in spite of the majority of us never voting to do so.
 
Then we have the issue of accountability. I don't like the way for instance John Redwood is portrayed miming the Welsh National Anthem when he's in the studio to talk about regulation relief. I wrote to the BBC and nothing. Not even the courtesy of a reply. Why should they? They know they're going to get my money so why bother to listen to me. The same goes for the EU. It's an old chestnut but the issue of selling in pounds and ounces has been around for years. Who can you complain to about this. MEP's? We all know they have virtually zero power which is why many of them can't wait to get into the UK Parliament.
 
Moreover, who's running these organisations and who are they accountable to. The BBC is run by a Trust appointed by a quango and ministers. The EU run by unelected commissioners who are more often than not political failures at home. There's no democracy. No say by those who are putting the money up.
 
What can we do about this. Selling one and withdrawing from another is the simple answer many people will give. However, the British public are a conservative bunch and wouldn't swallow that. All we can hope is salami tactics of slice by slice might ignite the British Public into wanting this change.
 
With the EU, it's vital that the referendum is held and the constitution defeated. The EU leaders might start to believe the game is up and a Conservative Government can look to grab powers back. With the BBC, the expansion of channels both on TV and Radio needs to be halted to stop any further damage to it's commercial competitors who are operating in unfair markets. We can only hope that once this ball is rolling, there would be no stopping it, and we once again have accountability within our ruling institutions.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

When it comes to improving the NHS, there is a constant chatter of opinions and ideas that more often than not conflict with each other.  Deciding on exactly how the NHS should develop in the future is debatable - the need for clean hospitals is not.  To read about 90 people being killed by dirty hospitals is chilling.  What greater example is there of a failing government than a government that has invested so much money in healthcare and yet people are dying not through botched operations or tragic accidents, but through incompetence and disturbingly low standards of cleanliness.
 
Labour's desire to control everything from Whitehall has made a huge contribution to this awful situation.  It is time we get the government out of running the NHS, because their arrogant belief that they can do keep hospitals clean from a desk in Westminster is quite literally costing lives.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Right that's enough gloating about the forecast I made here that Brown would bottle the election. What will be the fallout from this though.
 
Firstly Brown will have to reassess which of his advisors he can actually trust. Ed Balls, Douglas Alexander and Ed Milliband and the young turks have their paw prints all over the fiasco. Can Brown trust their advice in the future or does he turn to his older heads. Maybe we'll see the likes of Jack Straw becoming more prominent and even the return of Margaret Beckett!! Either way I think we'll see a distinct lack of direction from Brown as he won't know where and who to turn to.
 
Secondly there seems to be a definite change of tone in the media. Brown has got away with so much in his honeymoon which they won't let him do so now. Northern Rock, Government labs causing Foot and Mouth ect. After making his interview an exclusive with Andrew Marr, the media will look to come down on him like a ton of bricks if an problem is even slightly related to him. I also expect the print media to sharpen the knifes especially if he refuses the EU treaty vote. A John Major style hounding could be on the cards.
 
Thirdly, what he's done for the Conservatives is quite priceless. The media guns are temporally off Cameron and on Brown. The Conservatives have policies to sell, a sense of unity and direction, and a target in their midst. In being ready and procuring resources for the election, many marginally seat campaign teams will be better focused at this stage of an election cycle than ever before.
 
In conclusion, this is a cock up of monumental proportions. He's deflated his own side, alienated a huge section of the media and gave the Conservatives a sitting duck target. And this from a man who's supposedly a master political tactician!!!

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Day 1
 
-Wake up after 2 hours sleep with sore throat. Bad Omen. Arrive at my PPC's house having scoured newsagents for cold and flu pills to car share to Blackpool (Very Green)
-Miss the Lane for the M6 and heading rapidly for Walsall. (Not very green)
-Service Station Breakfast. Woman serving looks like she has all the job satisfaction of a battery hen. Breakfast is overpriced and overcooked and generally revolting. Par for the course I suppose.
- Arrive in Blackpool. Same as I remember. Check into a claustrophobics nightmare of a hotel room.
- Arrive at Winter Gardens looking as tatty and clapped out as ever. Would have made a great casino!
- Head up to the Imperial. Boiling hot as usual. Dread to think about the energy wastage. To go Carbon Neutral, this place would have to plant a forest the size of Yorkshire.
 
Day 2
 
- Throat still feeling like sandpaper. No hot water for a shower. What is it about that Blackpool hotels have against hot water.
- Wonder who on earth OKed the Blackpool school uniform. Short skirts and knee high socks. Wish the uniform was like that when I was at school.
- A rather surreal moment at the bar. Witness one of our Union Jack loving MP's order a Cinzano and then having a rather bizarre argument with the barman about whether the drink existed or was made up. He settled for Martini.
- Head up to the Imperial for the East Midlands reception. A very trim looking David Cameron addressed us and dealt with the mobile phone heckler very well.
- Off to the bar. Speak to Two Tories at completely different ends of the spectrum. Shaun Bailey the candidate for Hammersmith who spoke with real passion about his youth charity work and sense of purpose. Then rather amusingly, we had a chat with a young version Rowley Birkin QC. A barrister from London who told us about how he was mugged twice this year but both times he was very very drunk. The reception from the police was apparently awful because he couldn't remember his phone number. A drunken toff telling the police he 'understood he'd been mugged' and not being taken seriously. Whatever next.
 
Day 3
- Discover that I'd covered the switch for the hot water with my bag so yesterdays cold shower was unnecessary. Didn't help my cold at all.
- Run around like a blue arse fly getting facts about the Post Office closures ready for my PPC to be interviewed for East Midlands Today. Really wished I bought my laptop. Come back to the winter gardens to be told by a jobsworth policeman that I can't go through the main entrance, but have to go to the media one. Refuses to listen to a common sense question of what difference does it make.
- Sit and observe outside the Imperial in the afternoon. Very entertaining. Micheal Howard was getting visibly annoyed by being kept waiting to do an interview by the BBC. Actually get to see Cameron guru Steve Hilton in the flesh. Draw the conclusion that to get in the Shadow Cabinet you need to wear a navy suit. Looks like all the wanabees in the pin strips are wasting their time.
- Association Chinese meal. Observe the BBC journos on the next table enjoying eating with my licence fee. Leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
- Back to the Imperial, amazed at the age of the glass collectors. One looks nine years old. 
 
Day 4   
 
- Relieved it's the last day. Knackered and ill still
- Come across Peter Hitchins who like me was sent to the media entrance by the same jobsworth Policeman. He questions the need for all the police and why they're acting as a security man directing people to different entrances. He's not happy.
- Astonished by the queue for Cameron's speech. Decide it's time to get out of the hellhole that is Blackpool. Never to return.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Everyone knows that Boris Johnson is a bit of an enigma, but who would have thought he could get the phrase "the mating ritual of a pair of giant black hairy caterpillars" into his article for the Telegraph today?
 
Underestimate Boris at your peril.  Especially you, Mr Livingstone.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •