Oxford Spring

MOVE ALONG NOW - NOTHING TO SEE HERE

2011-01-23T11:52:00.004Z

I just dont post enough to keep this blog maintained full-time, so I've decided to shut-up shop.

This doesnt mean that I need to be added to the roll of honour though, because Im still going to be blogging occasionally over at PoliticalReboot where the aim is more analytical and balanced.

I hope you continue to follow me and their other excellent writers here.

It was sparks from Labour's General Election campaign that started the fires in Parliament Square

2010-12-10T09:58:00.009Z

As the dust from pulverised breeze blocks settles over Parliament Square and a battered Rolls Royce Phantom IV is carried like a wounded gladiator into the depths to be restored, questions are beginning to be asked about yesterday's protests.

"Who is to blame? How can they be punished?" will be the cry from the newspapers when they run out of photographs and personal accounts of the protests.

Well no doubt it will amuse many to see the blame placed, for a large party, with the Labour Party. But it is there that it does reside.

The grafitti sprayed onto the Treasury and the Supreme Court tells the story. "F*ck the Rich", "Make the rich pay", "Fuck your Big Society". When protesters attacked the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, they did so with chants of "Tory Scum" (ignorant it seems of the party-politically neutral status our Royal Family has). These are not just expressions of anarchist anger, but campaign slogans, left over from the general election. It was Labour's desperate and destructive desire to cling to power that led to one of the dirtiest fought election campaigns in years. This election was the first in nearly 100 years where a result had to be overturned due to incendiary campaign literature of a Labour party MP. That does not mean it was the most incendiary in nearly 100 years, but it is evidential of the depths that Labour was prepared to go to mobilise its wavering base.

Any Conservative on a campaign trail knows that they will be subject to angry and aggressive outbursts from radical Trotskyists. But everyone I know says that in this last election it was much worse.

This abuse stemmed directly from the centre of the Labour Party. Labour's election adverts whipped the public into an angry fury. The "Nightmare on Your Street" broadcast was the most emotive (note that it is still available for viewing on the Labour Party website). Labour fought their election on the basis of "the many against the few", telling the electorate that Tories were there to look after their millionaire friends. Hansard's record may now be seen on graffiti in our capital: "playing fields of Eton" and "Bullingdon Club" daubed in pink paint on centuries old buildings. Senior Labour members were quite happy to use the #ToryScum tag on their tweets at the last election. What did they think would happen?

We are now reaping the aftermath of Gordon Brown's desperate election strategy, where their policies could not match those of the Conservative Party and so their angry lies were forced to fill a gap. And Ed Miliband's quip at PMQ's this week about the Bullingdon Club shows that his New Direction is as weak as the last. (It is quite amazing how yesterday he managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by explaining how he would be very unlikely to overturn this controversial bill!)

Now Labour clearly 'condemns any violence' but it is they who are responsible for creating the atmosphere in which any expensive car may be attacked in central London, they are responsible for turning anger and violence ('passion' in Labour speak) into the campaign tool we saw yesterday.

The Met's Mounted Branch - did they charge?

2010-11-26T14:53:00.005Z

Earlier this week I visited the protests against student fees and the EMA cuts on Whitehall to see what was going on and get the full picture for myself. Reports on the protest two weeks before outside CCHQ which turned violent had been varied and sometimes contradictory, so this time I wanted to make up my own mind.

At lunchtime, I walked across Westminster Bridge and watched the protests from Parliament Square - safely behind police lines may I

add. I even too a photograph of the mounted police that were waiting there, advising that they should be sent in to break up the protest which was rapidly turning violent with smashing of bus-stops and the destruction of a police van.

At that point, the police appeared to be acting in an exemplary fashion. They were friendly and chatty to the crowd, they were allowing protestors free passage out of the demo and were generally in control.

Later that day, I defended the police against accusations of 'kettling' and commended them for their actions. It seemed so much better than their failings at both last year's G20 riots and the CCHQ protests.

I have since, on viewing further evidence, reconsidered my position and wish to fully retract my remarks. While what I saw was good policing, there can be no doubt that after I left the actions of the police became un-necessarily violent. The best evidence of this comes from a video posted on youtube and brought to my attention by @eddyanderson.

There is no excuse for this mounted police charge into the crowd. No, it is not on the scale of the Miner's Strikes or the Peterloo Massacre but it is still grossly disproportionate to what the police officers faced.

The Met's police chief yesterday stated clearly that there was no cavalry charge. If he does not call what this video shows a 'cavalry charge' he is merely playing with semantics - to any reasonable observer, this is a charge by the Met's Mounted Branch.

It has also been made clear that kettling was used later in the afternoon to control the protesters- this is a dangerous tactic and I am generally against its use, although I accept that in extreme circumstances it may be necessary.

In the meantime, we need a full explanation from the Met on why the mounted police were used in such a way at the protest. It would also be useful to look through any guidance notes for protest control that are used by the Mounted Branch - I currently cannot find any.

As cuts bite hard, riots and protests will become all the more common on the streets. It seems that when it gets difficult for the police to handle protests effectively, they 'stamp down'. We must not let them.

Some thoughtful words on civil liberties...

2010-11-08T14:03:00.005Z

Twitter seems to have aimed a great deal of abuse today at Tom Harris MP on the basis of a tweet where he decreed that "Any minister who puts civil liberties ahead of security should be in student politics, not government". Fair enough. The man's had his say, now Libertarians all, get on with your lives.
Now, I disagree with Tom, though I respect his opinion, and was having a debate elsewhere recently where similar arguments applied. It's an age old debate and anyone who says that they are "correct" on the matter while others are "wrong" should probably be ignored out of hand.
Recently in my professional life I had the good fortune to read some words on this debate which stuck and which I feel like sharing. They may be familiar to some, but possibly not to those younger libertarians who stalk the halls of Twitter looking to be outraged.
These comments are taken from a famous judgement by Lord Hoffmann in the 2004 House of Lords case brought against the government, where it was argued that s.23 (right to detain foreign nationals without charge indefinately) of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act contraveened the citizen's human rights. While the Law Lords found that it was against the European Convention of Human Rights, it was only Lord Hoffmann who argued against s.23 in its entirity. He wrote:

"The power which the Home Secretary seeks to uphold is a power to detain people indefinitely without charge or trial. Nothing could be more antithetical to the instincts and traditions of the people of the United Kingdom.

...

There have been times of great national emergency in which habeus corpus has been suspended and powers to detain on suspicion conferred on the government. It happened during the Napoleonic Wars and during both World Wars in the twentieth century. These powers were conferred with great misgiving and, in the sober light of retrospect after the emergency has passed, were often found to have been cruelly and unnecessarily exercised. But the necessity of draconian powers in moments of national crisis is recognised in our constitutional history. Article 15 of the Convention, when it speaks of "war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation", accurately states the conditions in which such legislation has previously been thought necessary.

...

The question is whether the threat of terrorism from Muslim extremists similarly threatens the life of the British nation.

...

Of course government has a duty to protect the lives and property of its citizens. But that is a duty which it owes all the time and which it must discharge without destroying our constitutional freedoms.

...

Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda.

...

The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the trus measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory."

This is a very difficult argument to unpick, though do feel free.

The Birmingham Bonfire

2010-10-06T20:21:00.000+01:00

With regard to its canal network, Birmingham is often compared to the great city of Venice. But today it reminds me more of Florence. Florence in February 1497. A radical cleric, Savonarola, organised a great pyre onto which some of the most beautiful works of art produced in the early Renaissance were thrown.It has become infamous as one of the greatest barbaric acts in the history of art, The Bonfire of the Vanities. Accounts recall Botticelli, weeping, as he walked towards the blaze with his own works in his arms. We know nothing of what was burnt that day, but our picture of the art of the Quattrocento will forever be tinted with sadness.

You may begin to see where I am going with this...

Yesterday, Nicholas Serota warned in The Guardian of the damage that Jeremy Hunt's cuts would do to the visual arts in this country. He wrote of "blitzkrieg on the arts". When people like Tracey Emin talk about politics, most people ignore her. When Nicolas Serota speaks up, you pay attention. The same was true today when the head of the National Theatre, Sir Nicholas Hytner warned of the closure of numerous smaller playhouses if cuts in the sector went ahead. One man's bonfire ....

Culture is important. There is no doubt about that, and we must not be distracted by New Labour arguments that the arts are simply good economically, for tourism, or as tools of social change, in youth projects. The arts are simply the mark of a civilised society. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis: the arts are unnecessary, like friendship, like philosophy ...

"It has no survival value. Rather is gives value to survival."

John Maynard Keynes, the creator and first chairman of the Arts Council realised this. He did not found the Art's Council on an economic basis or for reasons of health or social inclusion but rather that the war that had just been fought was for civilisation. And what was that without the arts.

The attitide of this Coalition government and of one man in particular worries me. Jeremy Hunt is a very ambitious man. He was clearly disapointed when the Coalition cabinet was formed and he was left with the Culture brief. Rumour had it that he had been angeling for the Chief secretary to the Treasury position which went to David Laws, and now Danny Alexander. One can just imagine Hunt fuming in his office about how such upstarts could have been given his position. Therefore when news was leaked that Hunt sought to review departmental spending with a view to cut far more than most departments, up to 50%, I saw it as a move to try and create a position of Prime Minister's Pet. "Oh look David, I cut the most."

Of course this is a ludicrous thing to do. The DCMS's budget is tiny, and compared to others, relatively streamlined. As Serota quotes Nick Clegg saying in his piece:

"The idea that you can cut a £180 bn deficit by slicing money out of the budget of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport is frankly absurd".

I see no reason why he should have changed his view. The solution to art's funding triumphed before the election was philanthropy. Yet just yesterday, the FT reported on how the Arts and Business report proved that this could not make all the loss and that few steps had been taken towards this Big Society approach by the DCMS.

In years to come then, historians may end up seeing this Conservative conference as a Bonfire of the (New Labour) Vanities, saying farewell to a universal benefits system and to the advantages of tying ourselves in with EU legislation. Art historians will see it in a similar way, with Conservatives quaffing champagne in Birmingham, while their minions lay kindling in Parliament Square. Artists are already visually commentating on the arts cuts, as demonstrated by the powerful piece heading this post by Corneila Parker. She depicts The Angel of the North, with it's wing cut.

At least Savonorola destroyed the arts doing what he believed was right by God and Man. Hunt seems to think that cuts are an acceptable way to progress his career. (He is now the favourite to succeed Cameron as party leader).

Will Coalition cuts kill cyclists? Hardly.

2010-08-21T11:19:00.004+01:00

Hattip to @CarltonReid this morning for posting up this story from the Telegraph: "Cycling Proficiency test faces axe". He went on to make the comment that "Gov ends "war on motorists" by starting one with cyclists? Normal for Tories by LibDems should hang their heads in shame".

Now LibDem bashing aside, where is it "Normal for Tories" to declare war on cyclists? Did he miss the "Boris bikes" by any chance? Did he miss the whole "Vote Blue, Go Green" thing? Does he not realise that the current Tory Prime Minister is an avid cyclist? If there is any evidence that Tories hate cyclists, please bring it forward now.

Now to address the more serious concern of Cycling Proficiency Test, now known as Bikeability and its potential cut. Firstly - the DfT has not yet said that Bikeability will be cut as part of the broader attack on quangos. The Telegraph headline is hardly even worthy of the Guardian. It spends most of the article asking cycling groups what they think of the 'proposed' cut, before finally quoting from a DfT spokesperson who says "The Cabinet Office is reviewing all arms length bodies and an announcement will be made in due course". They really are trying to eke out the column inches this summer, arent they?

So should Bikeability be cut? That's not an easy one - 200,000 kids a year have what is essentially a bike lesson. They enjoy it (although I must say that the comments on the "kids" message board lack a ring of truth). But is that enough? I learnt to cycle without a cycling lesson, and most people learn how to cycle effectively from a family member. It can often be a painful experience at first, and skills such as how to cycle in traffic or how to care for your bike are learnt in the same way. Those I know who took a Cycling Proficiency Test say that it never improved their cycling skills.

If we want to get cyclists onto the road, schemes like the 'Boris Bikes' will lead the way. If we want to make cyclists safer on the road, schemes like the Met's Exchanging Places scheme will do it.

But a war on cyclists by Tories? Oh come on!

Sister Cycles and Inequality

2010-08-20T11:37:00.019+01:00

Sexism.

It's just not an issue that's openly discussed in cycling enough. More generally in sports the issue is ignored: the aspiration to machismo demands that woman are treated as biologically inferior and when women do perform at a high level, they are seen to possess masculine qualities which place them at odds with their own gender. Rebecca Adlington has been talked about as a freak of nature, and just imagine the psychological damage suffered by Caster Semenya.

Professional cycling is, I believe, no better or worse than any other sport when it comes to sexism. There is no female equivalent of the Tour de France, and women are of course not allowed to compete in the men's. In Britain, we show little interest in women's pro cycling. Nicole Cooke won the Giro d'Italia Femminile (the Italian equivalent to the Tour de France and the most high profile women's cycle race) in 2004. Yes, she won the whole race. But in 2004 all anyone in Britain could talk about was 'the human Seabiscuit' and his 6th Tour win! Cooke, a Swansea girl, also triumphed in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, winning a Gold medal in the Women's road race. She was joined by Victoria Pendleton and Rebecca Romero. Ring any bells? Probably not. Bradley Wiggins and (Sir) Chris Hoy took the glory in the national press.

But what about leisure cycling? Why should sexism exist among the more amateur cyclists or those whose main achievement is the daily commute? In today's Guardian, there is an excellent piece by Dawn Foster on the sexism she encounters on her rides. This may take the form of abuse from drivers, verbal ("I hope you put as much effort into the bedroom!") and physical (slapping their backsides as they passed by) . All cyclists receive abuse, but I would disagree with those who suggest that this is just the white-van-man tailor making his insults for his audience. Such abuse is not equivalent to the "Shut the f*ck up you Lycra c*nt" school of abuse that male cyclists suffer. It is much deeper and more ingrained.

But what is worse that troglodytes with driving liscences are the other (male) cyclists. The machismo associated with the professional is increasingly transposing itself onto the amateur. When cyclists hear that female cyclists are much more likely to be killed on the roads, the response is to blame the women for not riding assertively or fast enough, as is done in this Guardian article. Is it not because safety information is targeted to men or that motorists act differently when confronted by a female cyclist? I speak and ride with plenty of female cyclists, and to say they do not ride 'properly' is just wrong.

Most male cyclists have these two images of the two gendered classes of cyclists in their heads:

Amateur cyclists, regardless of ability, love to pretend they are Alberto Contador, Lance Armstrong or Mark Cavendish. For a relatively small sport, say compared to football, a huge amount of money is spent on replica kit. Far, far more cyclists shave their legs than actually need to because it is the ultimate mark of inclusion akin to tattooing. This may all be down to the cyclist's mentality, based on the two mantra "just ride the bike" and "get the miles in". All cyclists admire Tom Simpson who died of exhaustion while climbing the Ventoux while on Tour de France in 1967. The rise of richer cyclists (or MAMILs) aspiring to reach these limits of glory with the cash to pay for their costumes will increasingly shift the professional sexism to the amateur level.

If even the commuter cyclist continues to aspire to such 'glorious' feats, the place of the female amateur cyclist will be squeezed.

We must not allow this to happen. Cycling has long been a sport based on inclusion, not on exclusion. In fact, the bicycle itself has a history of breaking down gender roles. Women in the late 19th century only became free to wear trousers outside of work so that they could cycle. The bicycle was embraced by Soviet Russia - it was Lenin's favourite method of transport. Cycling has the power to break down the divisions of gender, class, race and sexuality. A machine pulled from a skip (like that belonging to Flavio Zappi) can be transformed into a racer, and the "just ride the bike" philosophy informs us that kit, chamois creams and moulded plastics is all irrelevant lumber, certainly at amateur level. Everyone can ride a bike of one sort or another. There is nowhere you cannot ride.

Yet cycling isn't even close to fulfilling this potential.

My argument is then that as the interest in professional cycling has taken off, more and more of that 'professionalism' has been transposed into the leisure and commuter sphere. And that is no good thing for women.

Images: The Guardian, Cycling Weekly

David, the Outlaws and the real debate

2010-06-09T10:22:00.006+01:00

It had been raining outside all morning, and the ground was covered in puddles. David and the Outlaws had been playing pirates, but it got too wet even for them so they all sat in the barn and waited for the rain to stop.

"Gosh, I'm jolly bored", said David, "Let's play a game!"

"What a good idea!" said Ed.

"Too right!" echoed Andy and the other Ed.

"Uh oh", said David. All four of them looked around, for into the Labour barn marched Diane Elizabeth Abbott.

"I want to play too" she squealled. The Outlaws all looked down. They had played with Diane before and none of them liked it. If she didn't get her own way she would go running home to her father, Mr. Neil and he and her Uncle Michael would box their ears.

"Well, erm, see the thing is..." began David

"I'll scream" said Diane. "I'll scream and scream and scream, 'till I'm sick"

"Oh alright" chimed the Outlaws. Even if they knew Diane would not win, they might just enjoy running circles around her.

This may in itself be a rather bad mimic of Richmal Crompton's great work, but it betrays a serious point. Labour are bleating on about the fact that they need Diane Abbott in the leadership race for the sake of a true debate.

I see it slightly differently. If Diane Abbot was denied a place in the debate by the PLP, they would never hear the end of it. More, she has a platform and has in the past been happy to criticise her own party from the This Week pulpit.

By putting their support behind her, the other leadership contenders are effectively forcing her into the debate. They need it to appear like it is a real contest, with grass-roots Labour selecting the leader. They will also have the opportunity to geld potentially one of their fiercest critics by using the opportunity to destroy any credibility she has *cough* children at private school *cough*

Labour are not having a real debate. It would only ever be a real debate if the woman in the contest actually had a chance.

*Update* Even David Miliband himself is now nominating Diane for the contest. Could it be any clearer now that it is the front runners who need her to stand so that she doesn't quip from the sidelines about how the PLP blocked a real contest.

@ThatcheriteSteve? Nope.

2010-05-11T20:54:00.005+01:00

This really does warm the cockles of my heart.

I joked earlier on twitter, that every government needs a sycophant in the @BevaniteEllie mould and that I was applying for the new position. But I'm afraid that there will be no @ThatcheriteSteve or @DisraeliSteve.

This government is a coalition - and it is one that, as a progressive liberal Conservative, I am very pleased with. I would hope that, like a magpie, the Conservatives will be able to pick off the shiny pieces of LibDem policy while maintaining our broad, positive agenda for reform, restraint and responsibility. David Cameron has done much to reform the Conservative Party, but I have never denied that there is still much left to do.

Although no details of the coalition have come into the public realm yet, I hope and believe that the Conservative Party, with the help of Nick Clegg, can move further into the centre ground of British politics.

There will be people on all sides who do not want this, and they will no doubt get their way some of the time. There will be, in Parliament as in the Conservative Party, constant heated debate. This is why I will not tow any party line or religiously defend our new Prime Minister with the zeal that some defended the last. To aid this program of progressive reform, we need a loud, proud and clear voice within the Conservative Party. I, along with others, shall seek to provide that voice.

Democracy? Pah!

2010-05-11T14:14:00.003+01:00

Loathsome as this Lib-Lab, Con-Dem, Labservative (?) nonesense is, and whatever the outcome is, it makes me chuckle a bit.

The Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party both go on and on about transparency, honesty, democracy, and trust. Yet here we have a selection of middle-class white men sitting in a room carving up power.

It makes me laugh - and think of this image

Oh how times have changed!

If you want actual analysis, go to www.ReneKinzett.com

Rene4MP on BBC

2010-04-24T18:00:00.004+01:00

Well, I'm biased but I think it's pretty clear who the next MP for Swansea West should be....

Take a look at 5 of the candidates, and drop a comment on who you think looks best!

(ps. It's not the Labour guy)

A Game of Inches

2010-04-22T19:11:00.002+01:00

I've posted this video before, but as the energy in the campaign begins to suffer from fatigue, I thought I'd post it up again for you all - do share it with all who continue to Fight for Change.

#GE2010

2010-04-08T20:20:00.003+01:00

So I haven't blogged recently.

And I wont be for a while yet.

I'm out on the campaign trail, fighting for the people of Swansea West. You can see campaign updates on my twitter feed, the Swansea West Conservative website and on the René Kinzett for Swansea West facebook group.

Will be back when this madness is over......

'Sticky Bottles'

2010-03-20T14:56:00.003Z

Today is Milan-San Remo - the first and longest race of the main cycling season. We can hope that Mark Cavendish has a good chance, although his crash yesterday casts some shadow on this. As a race which is traditionally associated with sprinters, a second place would be a bad omen for Cav's season.

On such a long race, rehydration is essential and cyclists are allowed to collect water from the team cars. The so called 'sticky bottle' is an excellent way of then helping them get back into the peleton without too much energy expenditure. It's not cheating - honest!

Check out how this works in this video:

Sorry that my first blog for so long is about cycling not politics. More of a balance between my two passions will be achieved in future.

Why Osborne is better than Labour think he is....

2010-02-18T22:32:00.003Z

It it not a secret that among many Tory circles, George Osborne is seen as the Conservatives largest liability. It would be a hard task to find someone who genuinely thinks he is the best spokesman for the party - he's too young, too inexperienced and not smart enough to handle the economic brief.

But he's still a damn sight better than what Labour have to offer - and what they have given us.

Watch this excellent video from ToryBear to see why!

Can Dave court the Irish vote?

2010-02-17T22:42:00.003Z

Isn't this quite fun!

I wonder if @davefacts knows anything about Dave's ancestry?

A call to Tory Bloggers.....

2010-02-17T11:04:00.010Z

David Cameron made the first moves on Monday towards a more positive, and issue based General Election campaign. You can read about it here.

In this spirit and with the intention of supporting Cameron's campaign, I would like to organise a series of co-ordinated blog posts by 'grassroots' Conservative bloggers. Each could pick one issue or policy area that they feel strongly about, and write a brief post on it. Why it is important? What have Labour got right or wrong on this issue? What would Conservative plans be, or what should they be? But each blogger should decide on how they approach the subject, so long as the blog is in the spirt of postive change, of moving forwards.

This campaign also has broader aims. In the lead up to a General Election, we all need to think about what we expect from a Conservative Government. Are the current policies laid out in the manifesto up to scratch, can they be improved to target certain issues, where should emphasis be laid?

Our party is a broad and inclusive one; let's celebrate that!

Issues will be decided on a first come, first served basis and can be whatever you like: Economy, Environment, Unemployment, Education, Healthcare, Iraq/Afghanistan. Terrorism, Civil Liberties, Crime, Poverty, Immigration, Taxation, Energy, Housing, Drugs, Europe, Elderly Care, Pensions, Local Government, etc etc.

So get in touch if you'd like to get involved! I've already got a few bloggers lined up, and have posibilities about hosting (though am open to ideas of course). Under 800 words would be perfect, and there will be a short introduction to each blog to tie the whole thing together.

Drop me an email on iwanttoemailoxfordspringATgooglemail.com !

We're thinking of launching sometime around Spring Conference (27th February)

-UPDATE- Issues are moving off the table, but there are still plenty more to choose from!

-UPDATE- The policy areas now spoken for are:

Health
Tax
Drinking & Smoking
Immigration
Europe
Education
Civil Liberties
Environment
Terrorism
Foreign Policy
Devolution
Constitutional Reform
Cuts
Family

But we want more.....

What Labour Did Wrong......

2010-02-16T21:01:00.005Z

For a few days I've been trying to put together a list of all of Labour's wrongs in the last 13 years.

Then I found this one by Archbishop Cranmer today... saved me some time!

"Taken us to war on a false premise.
Replaced Cabinet government with a politburo.
Diminished democracy.
Marginalised Parliament.
Taken in three million immigrants.
Saddled us with recession.
Soaring unemployment.
The highest youth unemployment in history.
Eroded our liberties.
Abolished the right to trial by jury.
Raped the Constitution.
Politicised the civil service.
Brought us to the brink of bankruptcy.
Sold off our gold reserves at the bottom of the market.
Raided our pensions.
Subjected us to the Lisbon Treaty.
Failing schools.
Relegation from 7th to 24th in maths and literacy rankings.
Pensioner poverty.
Increased inequality.
Caused fascists to be elected to Brussels.
Increased tax burden.
Given us 5000 new laws.
Created an authoritarian state.
Debased our politics."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

I dont agree that everything on that list is bad, but it seems the majority of the British people (and Labourites*) do. Let's hope they show their anger on 6th May.

*For further discussion on this term, please see here

How worried are Labour about Scotland?

2010-02-16T18:05:00.010Z

Last month ago Jim Murphy confirmed that Labour will be ignoring the SNP in the forthcoming general election.

Funny enough though - SNP's Education Minister Mike Russell appears to be making a broad appeal to Scottish patriots.

He has said that he will be writing to Oxford University Press on a matter of grave concern to all Scots. Apparently, the Oxford School Dictionary of Word Origins* has noted in their definition of the word 'decibel' that it is named after Alexander Graham Bell "American scientist and inventor of the telephone". (I have directly quoted there to avoid insulting any Scots)

The Minister said today “I will be writing to the publishers to ask that they ensure that this error is corrected in future editions. As a famous Scottish inventor, young people throughout Scotland will be well aware of Alexander Graham Bell”

Well thank goodness for that!

*The full Oxford English Dictionary is suspiciously silent on the question of Mr Bell's nationality.

So you're in government.....

2010-02-16T13:48:00.005Z

I'm always interested in how local politicos and activists would run the country if they ever got in charge.

So here's you're chance - you have £1,000,000,000 to spend on a project. It can be in any department, any issue area, foreign or domestic. You can spend it on literally anything you want.

Just give your plan and any costing details in the comments box below.

If people take part in this experiment, it could be really interesting to see in the run up to the election what bloggers and tweeters of different parties see as the important issues, and how they would solve them.

Does a politician's age matter?

2010-02-15T20:20:00.003Z

In a quotation often given to Winston Churchill, "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."*

So what should we read into the average ages of the Cabinet and the Shadow Cabinet?
Probably nothing at all.

But in case you were wondering, the Cabinet's average age is 50 years and 9 months, while the Shadow Cabinet's is just 50 years.

Does that 9 months add experience and gravitas to the incumbents? Does the youth of the Conservative front bench make them more energetic and vital?

Interestingly, the youngest front bencher of the two main parties is Shadow Chancelloe George Osborne at 38. That such an important role should be given to such a relatively young man is interesting.

Having said that Osborne works hand in hand with Ken Clark who is the oldest member of either front bench at 69. So really we cant even read into that.

*The quotation is actually based on that of Francois Guisot (1787-1874), which was later picked revived by Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929). It is unlikely that Churchill ever said or wrote this.

#ivenevervoted

2010-02-15T16:35:00.005Z

I dont understand this tag and it's not just because of the missing apostrophe.

Examples might include:
#ivenevervotedtory because I don't like jumping on bandwagons.
#ivenevervotedtory because I remember the Thatcher years
#ivenevervotedlabour because coming from a working class labour area they took you for granted, yet didn't do anything for you!
#ivenevervotedlabour because of: Gordon Brown, Geoff Hoon, Bob Ainsworth, Peter Hain, Ed Balls and the fact I'm not a moron.

On the day when David Cameron launched what feels like a new positive campaign, why are members of all parties getting involved in slanging matches? It's indulgent. No one really cares what you are saying outside the blogosphere or Twitter. It's negative. It doesnt engage or develop any argument. It is dull and repetitive.

I want to hear why you WANT to vote for a party!

For why I want a Conservative Government, see this post

THIS is why I vote Conservative....

2010-02-15T15:17:00.007Z

This is one of the best Conservative videos I have ever seen, and these points below explain why.

It gives an honest and fair appraisal of Labour's last 13 years in government. There were the best of intentions in 1997, and much good was done but the party doesnt have the strength to make desperately needed change. Labour acted like a doctor who only treats the symptoms because the real problem is too hard to identify and too hard to treat.
The Conservative Party's aim is to bring the worst off up out of poverty and make our society fairer. We would build on many of Labour's achievements: SureStart, the minimum wage, the Winter Fuel Allowance. What lies ahead isnt going to be easy.

What I think is brilliant is that after a few weeks of, let's be honest here, Conservative failures on small matters of detail, we have the heart of the party confirming what we really need to stand up for. A basic statement of principles and beliefs, backed up by firm policy alternatives.
It's so beautifully positive after weeks of negative from both parties.

To many Labour readers, this will all mean very little because you think you know it all and nothing will change your minds. But this is what I honestly see the mood as being on the streets in Britain, and I hope you can keep an open mind and listen.

-UPDATE- Daily Referendum has written an excellent piece on this video too. Have a look....

The stupidest cycling iPhone app ever....

2010-02-15T15:05:00.003Z

And here it is... BrakeLight.

Idea is: you forgot your bike lights before cycling home from work, so switch this app on and strap your iphone to the back of your bike and all will be well!

Cause Im really going to get the string or tape and tie my iPhone to the back of my bike....
And it really isnt bright - the image here is about as bright as it is in real life.
And you'll still be missing a front light.
And it costs £1.
And get some bloody lights!

I dont even have the energy to rip it to shreds - it's really not even worth it!

If anyone else has spotted a really really rubbish app, drop a comment below!

A Conservative blogger's visit to a Sure Start Centre - Part II: AFTER

2010-02-15T14:45:00.002Z

This article was first posted on the House of Twits website on the 10th February 2010. The original may be found here.

Last week I wrote an article that was critical of the running of the Sure Start program. It was based on reports, statistics and evaluations of the programs from independent third-party organisations and it was generally critical.

This article is based on my recent experience of visiting a Sure Start centre in a deprived area of Oxford.

A bit of background to the area: the council ward in which the centre is based is one of the most deprived in the country. In 2002, 30.68% of children were brought up in Low Income Households. Only 22.86% of pupils achieved 5 A* to C grades at GCSE in 2004. Compare that to North Oxford where the rate of children in Low Income Households was 0.64%, and 75% received A*-C. We must also bear in mind that the ward includes some quite affluent areas, throwing off the general statistics. It has almost double the levels of violent crime and anti-social behaviour of North Oxford. (Source: Oxford Data Observatory; NPIA)

These statistics are just the easiest way for me to explain the poverty on the estate when compared to the affluent areas just a 20 minute bus-ride away.

These were the reasons that back in 2001 it was opened as one of the pilots for the Sure Start scheme. It was one of the areas that needed it most.

So what did I think?

I have to admit that I stand the majority of my original article. This Sure Start centre, it was clear from the outset, was much needed and was hardly in an area that would attract the ‘slummy mummy’ that was referenced in my article.

This centre was clearly doing a lot of good. It was providing children a safe place to play, learn social skills and develop the beginnings of the education they were to start formally at the primary school next door. I could not doubt for a moment the dedication of the staff and helpers I met. All were clearly working wonders for the community. I was more impressed than I expected to be with their energy and enthusiasm.

But after a period of reflection, I feel that my visit was not wholly positive because I saw two major problems with the program as it is now. My councillor ‘tour-guide’ for the day, who knows the local area and people very well, and the staff at the centre are firm believers in Sure Start but I do not believe that there would be much of a point in writing this if I did not direct attention to the problems I saw.

The first was that, at the heart of it, I don’t believe that Sure Start knows what it wants to be. It was explained that the centre provided classes for mothers on pre-natal care, provision for father-child supervised contact, a health visitor, a BackToWork advisor, basic Arabic classes for parents, dance classes for parents, internet access for parents, a laundry. It seemed almost like the centre has become a catch-all for the local community: more of a Community Hub than the Children’s Centre it was designed to be. All these aims are perfectly valid – I can think of nothing better than helping young mothers who wish to back into work – but there was almost a sense that the children playing in the sandpit in the crèche were left behind.

Sure Start’s greatest aim was to provide a secure basis for children in the Early Years Foundation Stage, to give the worst off in society level playing ground when they moved on to primary school. Their play-room was wonderful, it had more toys than I had ever seen in my life, but there was very little direction to it. Even checks and statistics relating to child welfare, learning and obesity were not apparently being collected as they ought. I saw lots of happy young children, but they all seemed to be doing what they wanted to do, without any focus towards structured learning.

My second thought came to me as I was walking through the estate after the visit with the local councillor. A hundred yards away from the Sure Start centre was an old Scout Hut. The Scouts are long gone apparently; the general story of how in the last years the organisation has lost many of its volunteers and been held back by increasing bureaucracy is well known. While the Scout movement is hardly an equal comparison to the Sure Start program, the symbolism struck me. Where have all the small, community groups gone? Where are the amateur dramatics societies, the young groups, the boys’ brigades, the mother and toddler groups, the churches and church choirs?

That’s where real change happens: in the whole host of engaging, educating and inclusive groups where a community pulls together to drive forward change itself.

There is no social engineering, no top down initiatives and no set targets which are only ignored. The government has monopolised control over these basic services, and Sure Start could be an example. It was done with all the best intentions in the world; I do not deny that for a second. But, and here we get onto the big question, why should Government take over and pay for a sector which, given freedom, can manage itself? Yes, we need Sure Start centres to help develop young minds and to break the poorest out of the cycle of poverty in which many of them find themselves, but they cannot be seen as THE answer. Otherwise we will lose forever the community spirit, we will lose the vitality, originality and imagination of the voluntary sector and, on a basic economic level, we will pay more for less. Most importantly, the ownership of the solution needs to be by the people needing the help.

Sure Start does a lot of good, mainly due to the hard work and honest dedication of the workers and volunteers. But, as the project stands, it is not a viable long term solution to the problems it originally set out to resolve.

Oh OCA.... God Bless You!

2010-02-11T18:18:00.007Z

Heard a nice story about Oxford Tories today.

Those familiar with Oxford will also know of the Oxford Conservative Association. They are well known for their weekly 'Port and Policy' sessions and their casual racism/homophobia/misogynism.

They used to be called Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) but alas Oxford University, proud to stand by men such as Wafic Said ('arms dealer extraordinarie') insisted that the association should be banned from associating themselves with the University after a hustings session went too far.

What may shock those in Conservative circles is that quietly some members are trying to disband OCA (once presided over Thatcher herself), so as to finally affiliate with Conservative Future! If CF are seen as a stage to work towards, it shows how bad OCA is!

The story of course is that OCA intends to write its own little manifesto about how they can rebuild our economy, rebuild our society, and support the Party's general aims of giving everyone a chance. Guess where they're going to do the drafting? Would a coffee shop do? No - they've opted for the exclusive, executive and £261-per-night Randolph Hotel!

The sooner we get such people out of our party the better!

-I should make it clear that I never have been, or desired to be, a member of OCA-

A Conservative blogger's visit to a Sure Start Centre - Part II: AFTER

2010-02-10T10:21:00.001Z

For the moment, this post may be found on the House of Twits website.

Campaign Art

2010-02-09T19:59:00.007Z

I want to talk about art for a moment and look at the staggering differences between three campaign posters.
The Conservatives launched with this serious issue-based poster. Despite it's austere message, it's light, clear, and positive. It is about what a Conservative government will do in the future to change the current situation. The colours are not oppressive - they're relaxing. The visuals are great - there is space and light filling the room behind a bold and challenging sitter. It says "I have nothing to hide: this is what I am".The Labour poster riposte took weeks to come, but when it did, this is what they produced. It's dark, sinister and depressing. It's not about their vision or ideas for the future but about fear. It's not about an issue really - it's about losing power. There is no space behind the sitter - just black. By showing the profile, it is intended to make Cameron look evasive, as if he is lying. An impression added to by the smirk. The grain in the image on the right gives the impression of an old newspaper or television cutting - remeniscent of Film Noir. It's negative. It's good - but its negative.
And that is why the Conservatives have had to bring this out. It's negative too. It's good too. The symbolism of the wilted rose is particularly good. Labour turned this campaign negative. It was inevitable, it always happens in politics. But there is hope - because the electorate sense it and they dont like it. They know who turned this election nasty. They want Labour out and this desperation will just give them another reason for it.

Labour 'Lies'?

2010-02-09T17:48:00.008Z

Last week I went to an event where I was told that Labour would fight this election on lies - and I have to be honest I had my doubts. Would Labour really be canvassing for votes while saying things as riduculous as "The Tories will take away your Winter Fuel Allowance" or "Labour are the only ones who will save your free television licence". I didnt think that Labour would be foolish enough to do that, when the Conservatives have made it very clear that such projects have their full support.

And Labour arent that stupid - they intend to fight the election like this:

Click on the image to take you through to this campaign website. A very similar one has been set up relating to the NHS.Neither suggest WHY they need to be "shouted out" for; they use the forceful power of suggestion to spread their lies. They suggest that the Conservative Party does not support SureStart OR the NHS. Both these 'suggestions' are lies. Labour are not telling lies - they are just 'suggesting' them. And I do not think 'lies' is too strong a word either. Conservative support for SureStart and for the NHS may be read very clearly in their draft manifestos: for family and for health.

This, along with the new poster that Labour produced today (which in itself confused me a litte because Kerry McCarthy had previously said that Labour "won't be following the Conservative example" on poster campaigns) is all part of the same electoral campaign. It will be one not based on facts, but based on fear. The 'hope' card, as Barack Obama will discover in the Midterms, can only be played once and Labour used it in 1997 to great effect.

This is the politics of desperation, employed by a government on its last legs who are desperate, not to help our society, but to stay in power at any cost.

-UPDATE- I have come in for some criticism on this post. Some Labour tweeters are a bit mad because apparantly 'Shout Out for a Sure Start' is an independent campaign and nothing to do with Labour. Ok - but only if you believe that being funded by one of Labour's biggest union donors, being launched by Ed Balls and being publicised by the Labour party counts as being independent then sure!

-UPDATE 2- The Conservatives in response to Labour's constant negative campaigning have been forced to turn to similar tactics. They today launched a poster attacking Andy Burnham's plans for a "£20,000 death tax". It leaves a bad taste in the mouth, but as Burnham has refused to actually deny the plans, I dont see the problem. It is more of a policy attack than Labour's lies, but it is still shows us how Labour desperation forced this election to "turn negative" so quickly

A Conservative blogger's visit to a Sure Start Centre - Part I: Before

2010-02-09T15:20:00.003Z

Sure Start isn’t working.

When we are dealing with the futures of thousands of children, there is no room for sentimentality, no space private considerations, and no throwing good money after bad. Determination just isn’t enough anymore.

But Sure Start is essential. Its ultimate goal is to give children a greater opportunity to do well in school and later in life. In order to achieve this simple yet powerful aim, the programme is designed to provide a stable and trouble-free surrounding for the child and family in the earliest stages of its life, tackling those problems which often lead to a child being held back. The child and its immediate family should and must be central.

By giving that impetus and support to a child at a very young age, you save them. The child who starts school at the bottom of the class tends to stay there. By tackling these problems right at the start, you give the child and their family the hope and the opportunity to do anything and everything they want.

Which is why Sure Start needs radical changes.

In Britain today, youth unemployment is at a record high. Unemployment for 16-24 year olds has reached 19.8%, the highest rate since records began in 1992. A damming report from UNICEF in 2007 listed the UK as bottom among rich nations for child well-being. Children of lone parent families are currently 75% more likely to fail at school. The UK has one of the worst rates of child poverty in the industrialised world, and this government are set to miss its target to eliminate it by 2020. Child poverty is rising. Without substantial changes, a 2009 report 2.3 million children will be living in poverty in 2010 - more than half a million above the government’s target. That is 500,000 children. Inequality is at a record high according to the Gini coefficient index as used by the ONS. A boy in Manchester can expect to live seven years less than a boy in Barnet. A girl in Manchester can expect to live six years less than a girl in Kensington Chelsea and Westminster. These aren’t figures from 1997 – these are figures from now.

We cannot give up on Sure Start. The Conservative Party have made their position very clear: “The Conservative Party is committed to keeping Sure Start”.

Much good has been done – the 2008 national evaluation’s primary findings were positive – Sure Start is doing some very good work which may be seen here, and when I visit a centre I expect to find some brilliant and dedicated staff.

But overall, the plan fails because it does not fulfil its primary purpose. The programme which costs £3.1 billion failed to find any positive effects for children and families in more than five of the 14 areas examined in the same 2008 study. Ed Ball’s response at the time was to include two more outreach workers at each centre. Did that help? The National Audit Office has said no: Sure Start is still struggling to reach disadvantaged families, those who need it most.

Two of the most shocking facts for me came in the 2008 Ofsted report into children’s centres and extended schools. The first problem is this: the government does not check or record on how well the children and families do after they have reached school age. Excuse me? You do not “measure systematically the impact of their services”? This is only one of the many bureaucratic difficulties those who work in Sure Start centres face – multiple funding sources, little feedback, and no provision for long-term planning.

The second and more worrying problem is this: “Settings did not do enough to reach out to particularly vulnerable individuals or families, or those living beyond the immediate neighbourhoods”. Middle class parents have the internet, they are motivated, they have no problem finding the centres. It is those parents who don’t know what to do or where to turn who need our help. As David Cameron said in his speech a few weeks ago “The people who need it most – disadvantaged and dysfunctional families – are not getting enough of the benefit.”

To put is as Eleanor Mills did, “At my local Sure Start they banned nannies (a sure sign on middle-class colonisation) and their free crèche and yoga sessions became yummy mummy zones.”

The essence of Sure Start is to do the heavy lifting for families in most need. And it is not doing that because it is not aiming services at the most in need.

So this is why David Cameron has pledged a new generation of Sure Start centres: ones which do what the programme was intended to do in the first place and focus on the neediest, the ones most lacking in opportunity. This is along with 4,200 more Sure Start health visitors to support the child in its very first years. Funding needs to be unified to allow the long term planning children need.

I am sure that when I visit a centre this week, I will find much positive anecdotal evidence and will see much of the hard work that goes on by dedicated staff. But these are people who have been let down by the centralised Labour government, who have once again thrown money at a problem hoping it will fix itself. They have been determined and I do not deny that their heart is in the right place. But it hasn’t worked. And we now need a Conservative government to do a proper job.

This article was first published here on House of Twits on 02/02/10

Cycling AND helping the worst off? Whoop!

2010-02-08T20:15:00.005Z

This is just so inspirational!

Rahsaan Bahati is a 27 year old pro-cyclist who grew up in Compton, Los Angeles and who is now mentoring 6 inner-city kids for a new documentary in the US. I dont want to say any more - just watch the video for a brilliant example of how to inspire and give kids in what are considered 'dead-end' neighbourhoods.

In the lead up to the London Olympics in 2012, I hope we see projects like this in the UK.

Hat tip to @lancearmstrong who is well worth following on Twitter

Lap Dancing.... where do we draw the line?

2010-02-08T09:28:00.008Z

Lap dancing clubs have a place in society - sure, but this just goes too far.

As many of you know, and as Thomas Byrne has often complained about, I have a particular interest in local churches. I do love them, and am a long-time supporter of the Churches Conservation Trust. Yes - I am a geek. Churches are a central point within local communities, places where all people are brought together and who provide focus and support for many.
Near where I live in Oxford there is a beautiful parish church, St Ebbe's. The site has been a place for worship since before the Norman Conquest.

A week ago I was near it and was asked to sign a petition because a bar nearby was attempting to gain a licence as a lap dancing club. I signed it, and offered any support I could. I said 'nearby' but really, it is next door. Here is a map (click to enlarge):
This is just too close for me, and I think for most people. It is less than maybe 50 yards from the door of the church to the door of Thirst Lodge, the bar which has asked for the licence.

I was therefore very upset to read these articles (here and here), saying that the Council has granted Thirst Lodge the right to have lap dancers. How they ever granted permission is a mystery to me! There are plenty of venues in Oxford for such places, why opposite a place of worship which has a vibrant and young Christian community.

A facebook group has been set up to boycott Thirst Lodge, which may come in useful if the church chooses to appeal the council's decision - if you are so inclined, do join.

-UPDATE- This story is locally getting bigger. You can sign a local petition here and there is a protest taking place on Saturday 20th Feb at 2:30pm in Bonn Square.

-UPDATE 2- I have spoken to a local Labour who has said "on the granting of the licence - my colleagues (of my party and others) dropped the ball. I'm furious with them... Think the church are appealing - and I'm sure the panel will take them into account this time" Great news!

Unions, Unions, Unions

2010-02-07T11:21:00.009Z

This morning on the Andrew Marr show, William Hague was asked about donations from Lord Ashcroft. Every Labour activist’s ears twitched, they moved closer to the television, and they began to salivate.

Ashcroft. Rich. Tories. Evil.

Last week I wrote a review of Peter Watt’s book Inside Out. As General Secretary of the Labour party, he was in charge of making the money for the party. What I forgot to mention is that he is a strong believer in funding reform, favouring state funding for political parties.
In the wake of the first ‘cash for honours’ scandal, there was public outcry, and many of the public demanded reform too. Labour still had a huge majority and would have had no problem forcing through legislation. At the very least they could have propelled the debate.

So they had the opportunity. What they lacked was the motivation.

Why after 13 years of a Labour Government are we still waiting for reform? Why with such a huge majority in Parliament has nothing been done? Because while Lord Ashcroft has contributed less than 5% to the Conservative Party, the Unions fund the Labour Party for up to 75%. The Unions essentially own 75% of the Party. In real terms, Labour's National Executive Committee is made up of 32 members: 6 from Local Labour Parties, 13 MPs, MEPs etc, and 13 union representatives. These numbers, taken from Watt's book, speak for themselves - you Labour grassroots who think you have a say, you really really dont.

And it was the Unions who prevented any reform. , 1500% times the stranglehold that Ashcroft has over the Conservative Party,

What we have here is not only an example of Labour hypocrisy, it is ironically an example of why we need funding reforms. The fact that the Unions have such a financial stranglehold over the Labour Party has meant that the Labour Party has never been able to reform funding! If the Unions are forced to stop contributing to Labour, they will no longer have any influence on government policy, above that of other organisations. This would be the final nail in the coffin of many now outdated unions. The Unions have, due to their financial contributions, had a direct impact on policy, and they have made our politics worse, and our nation suffer by causing the lack of trust in our politics.

Would anyone care to deny that?

-UPDATE- A great article on ConHome adds to the case offered here. According to Union member and Chairman of the East Ham Conservatives, Neil Pearce, 71% of Union members want to cut links with the Labour party. The Unions political movement is no longer appropriate to modern politics. You can read his excellent article here.

-UPDATE 2- I should earlier given a platform to Adam White over at the excellent theday2day blog who gave a Union response to this post. You can read it here. Sorry for not linking you in sooner. I would also like to link in a blog on broadly the same issue by Steven Adams, who phrases the argument brilliantly. You can read his contribution here. Thanks the them both!

Wikipedia passes judgement on Gordon Brown

2010-02-01T15:01:00.008Z

It is often asserted that Gordon Brown is the worst Prime Minister this country has ever had. Now while that is not the whole truth (Lord North for example was a bit rubbish), Wikipedia has it right on the money.
On their list of Prime Minsters, they list the major accomplishments and events of their premiership.

Here's that of Asquith:
Hung Parliaments. Liberal Welfare Reforms; People's Budget; Parliament Act 1911; National Insurance and pensions; Suffragettes and the Cat and Mouse Act; Home Rule Act 1914; World War I; Easter Rising.

The entry for Harold Wilson:
Social reforms, including legalisation of abortion and decriminalisation of homosexuality; Rhodesian U.D.I.; adopted, then abandoned, the National Plan for the economy; Devaluation of the pound; foundation of the Open University; dispute over In Place of Strife trade union reforms.

Margaret Thatcher:
First female Prime Minister of the UK. Falklands War; sold council housing to tenants (right to buy); miners' strike 1984–85; privatisation of many previously government-owned industries; decreased the power of trade unions; negotiation of the UK rebate towards the European Community budget; Brighton hotel bombing; Sino-British joint declaration; Anglo-Irish Agreement; Westland Affair; abolition of GLC; Section 28; the "Poll tax"; Lockerbie bombing; the end of the Cold War.

Now while you may not agree with everyting done by any one Prime Minister, most would agree with some. If you dont agree with some, you must respect that the above all had vision and at the very least DID something!

Now let's turn to our current PM:
London car bombs; Glasgow Airport attack; foot-and-mouth outbreak (2007); national floods of 2007; child benefit data misplaced; Donorgate; Northern Rock nationalisation; Treaty of Lisbon; 42 Days detention; 10p Tax rate; Financial crisis of 2007–2010; Parliamentary expenses scandal; arrest of Damien Green; 2009 flu pandemic; national floods of 2009.

Oh dear.

"Inside Out" - An expose told through a deeply personal story

2010-01-31T21:00:00.004Z

In every public facing organisation, there are essential people you would never have heard of. These people keep them going by working away in a reliable, quiet and determined way. I think that Peter Watt is one of those people. I had never heard of him before he was forced to resign and publically branded a criminal by Gordon Brown in 2007. I had no idea what to make of him then - another party member, an administrator, maybe just a fall-guy. But reading his book, I began to feel no only as if I knew him quite well, but actually sympathised greatly with him.
This book is an expose of the Labour Party, and in particular Gordon Brown - in part. But in fact, the vast majority of the headline stories published in the Daily Mail only appear in the last 50 pages.
Before that, we have a wonderfully personal story of a man, who like many of us had a near-impossible time managing work commitments and his family life. It just happens to be that his job is of interest to anyone in the 'political sphere' because it involved saving the Labour Party from bankruptcy. Sod the story about cars circling Parliament Square to take ministers off to fight the election that never was - the real story is Peter Watt himself and he seems to be the sort of guy you'd like to have a beer with.
That said - it is the best insight into the workings of the Labour party I have ever read. We forget about these reliable determined people, but they are often what make an organisation keep ticking. I have grown up under New Labour, and over those years, I think we all forgot a little bit the extent to which Labour was bound to the trade unions and continues to be, and how some in the party tried and failed to break those ties. It gave me the impression that at the heart of New Labour, there was utter confusion about what the party really wanted to be. It was determined to help the 'little people' but needed to take the money off the 'corporate fat-cats' and was forced into taking their agenda more seriously. The smart ones in the party realised that trade union funding and support was not going to last forever, the foolish ones paid no notice and it is partly their fault that Labour is in the state it's in now.

Reading it, a lot of the time I felt angry for Peter. He was left with the impossible job of clearing Labour's debts, a job for which he was given no real tangible support, but when it came down to the wire he was stabbed in the back to save Brown a negative headline. That is of course often-times the way of politics, and maybe Peter was too inexperienced politically for the job he was set to do. But the way he was treated was terrible by any standard.

I recommend this book totally. It's for the most part well written, although occasionally seems to expect a lot of the reader (a 'Jacqui' is mentioned, and it is in no way clear unless you look in the index that it is Jacqui Smith) yet sometimes feels it needs to explain the basic facts of party politics. One trivial complaint I have it that there aren't any pictures! That may sound childish, but I am an arts person and these visual bits do help to relate the argument. Also, come on Biteback, for £16 you could throw in some glossy pictures, surely?

But overall - well done to Peter Watt. Not only for writing a great book, but for the courage it took to do so. If only New Labour was dominated by more people like him.....

An Apology

2010-01-31T11:57:00.003Z

Last night and then again this morning I lost it with someone on Twitter who wrote that she did not care about unemployment in the North. This person works in a small role for the Mayor of London but tweets entirely in a personal capacity, although is loathe to accept that.

But I want to apologise for attaking her so forcefully. She is young and not the brightest crayon in the box. More than anything I lost it because I believe that there are a very few extreme members of the party who would probably share her crazy views.

David Cameron has spent years remodelling, reshaping and rebranding the party not because we want to pretend we are different to the old Tories but because we are, I believe, different. We are a party of pragmatism, a party of fairness and a party which believes that the state should be smaller to allow for increases personal and corporate freedom. We are the party of economic reliability. We are the party of the poor, the party of the NHS, the party who sees our place in Europe as desirable but that we should never be a slaw to it. We are the party of the future. Or at least that's what I believe.

I have my own personal beliefs which are not Conservative Party views- I would want a much smaller central government than the party, I would make more public service cuts than the party, and I would not have gone into Iraq.

But I make it plain that these are my views and do not represent those of the party, any branch of the party, or any other inividual.

So when someone comes along spouting rubbish adn pretending to speak for the party, I despair. I feel as if it's a giant game of snakes and ladders, and everytime David Cameron gets us right to the top, some fool comes along and in a split second all that work to persuade people that the mainstream of the party has changed is wasted. They lose us the trust the Party is gaining - and we cannot allow that, because trust and instinct are what win elections.

So: sorry again- but I hope this explains why.

Divorce rate has nothing to do with Broken Britain

2010-01-29T17:41:00.004Z

Yes - the divorce rate has hit its lowest level since 1979. The Telegraph has the story here.
"The divorce rate fell by 2.5 per cent in 2008, the Office for National Statistics said. In 2007, out of 1,000 married people 11.8 got divorced, but this fell to 11.5 in 2008 – the lowest level since 1979."

However, the article goes on to state that:
"some had suggested that the divorce rate would climb during the recession, which started during 2008"

That, to me, just doesnt make sense. It is certainly true for the richest in society - where financial troubles/loss of job lead to increased pressure on the marriage. They then go off and find expensive lawyers and they get their divorce.

But for the worst off in society that is certainly not the case.
a) History tells us this. The lowest divorce rate in US history was recorded during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
b) Common sense tells us this.Getting divorced will often mean selling your home, paying lawyers and court costs, and on a basic level buying a new one of half the things you shared.

For further information on this, I suggest you listen to this excellent interview with US sociologist Andrew Cherlin, professor of social policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore

So why does a minister like Ben Bradshaw inform us of this fact by stating that is is evidence against 'Broken Britain'? The idea is nonesense! This is not evidence for how many people want to get divorced, or how many married couples there are.

What it suggests is that people are the worst off they have been since 1979.

'Broken Britain'?

2010-01-28T17:47:00.006Z

Oh isnt this funny. Tesco's in St Mellons (a name funny name in its own right) is refusing to serve customers wearing nightwear.

My issue with this is how to decide what is "nightwear" -
Is it:
a) What you wear at night? I wear all sorts to bed (hoodies, gym shorts, a bunny costume), and after a night out it isnt uncommon for plenty of people to sleep in their clothes. Would they be banned?
b) Clothes designed as nightwear? Jack Wills have an excellent line in nightwear which is perfectly robust and seemly for everyday wear. You wouldnt notice the difference from a tracksuit
c) Loose fitting clothing? Well that's the thin end of the wedge really - you cant tell people in loose clothing they cant come into the store! What about people in burquas? Is Tesco's run by UKIP?
d) Inappropriate clothing? Well who on earth decides this one! Should Tesco's or should this woman who lodged the complaint with the BBC? God help us!If I were Labour, I would be making jokes about how this is all about Broken Britain. But that would miss the serious point behind Broken Britain which this story has nothing to do with. And I dont need to do their work for them - they can be cheap and silly all by themselves.

*UPDATE* In fact the BBC found it such an amusing story they even put it up as a Have Your Say topic.
Here's a choice selection of some of the comments:

Utter lack of decency and self respect.

all the lazy sobs can start their own supermarket,and call it Slobs are us.

I feel sorry for the poor woman who is so deluded that she does not see that this behaviour is not acceptable as she was obviouly not brought up to respect herself, let alone other people.

I agree that it just shows how far standards have fallen in this country.

Would things be any different?

2010-01-27T16:22:00.004Z

I'm not into "what if" history, but imagine if the Palace of Westminster didnt look the way it does. Below are Sir John Soane's design's which were never built. Two different views, taken from the river.
Would we respect our politicians if they worked in a Classical building rather than a Neo-Gothic one? By using the Gothic, we associate MPs almost unconsciously with darkness, luxury and quasi-medieval methods of work. By associating them more with the Enlightenment, rational thought and logic, would we think of them differently?

Labour have got us through the storm - but where are we?

2010-01-27T10:59:00.009Z

Yesterday's news that the UK economy pulled out of recession in the last quarter, giving us growth of 0.1%, has been hailed by Labour as a success for the current government and their handling of the recession.
In one way, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats cannot deny this. We have made it through the storm.

But today's news that PIMCO, the world's biggest buyers of bonds with over 1 trillion USD in managed assets, has struck a blow to the whoops and cheers.
Their Managing Director, Bill Gross, who was called "the nation's most prominent bond investor" by the New York Times, and who has a personal fortune of 1.3 billion USD, has said that the UK economy is a "must to avoid".

You can read his full report here, and a basic summary by the Guardian newpaper here.

He writes that

"the U.K. is a must to avoid. Its Gilts [government bonds] are resting on a bed of nitroglycerine. High debt with the potential to devalue its currency present high risks for bond investors. In addition, its interest rates are already artificially influenced by accounting standards that at one point last year produced long-term real interest rates of 1/2 % and lower…"

He even supplie us with this heplful chart, for what he calls "The Ring of Fire"It's a nice chart, and the flames really do add something to the sense of urgency. OK - its kitsch, but the message is clear: UK has the highest negative percentage of GDP of public sector debt. Now we can also see that we are not in the very worst position: Japan is right at the edge, which has led to S&P's warning that they may downgrade the country.

But the UK is in a potentially more dangerous situation, it just hasnt got there yet - with such risk, who would want to invest in such a holding? Gross finishes his letter by saying that this decade, the teens, will be one of "risk and uncertainty for those overfed on a diet of financed-based consumption".
Watching Ken Clarke vs Peter Mandelson last night on Channel 4, it is clear who understands the risks and who doesnt. Clarke's views chimed with those of Gross even before this report was published. The Conservative Party have been warning the government about the dangerously high levels of national debt for months, years even. Labour dont seem to think that debt is bad - well, Gross has explained it to you now. Gordon Brown introduced limits on public debt at 40% when he became Chancellor in 1997 for a reason - anything higher is really quite bad for your economy. So when we are now at 61.7% of GDP borrowing.... and are set to borrow more than any other country in 2010.....

So Labour may have got us out of the storm, but the rigging is shot, the hull leaking water, and we havent got a clue where we are. Oh, and is that another dark cloud I see on the horizon?

*UPDATE* David Jones MP has now blogged on this, but has added the following interesting piece of trivia:
"to make matters worse, it turns out that Pimco’s European operation is headed by Andrew Balls, the brother of the PM’s only remaining significant cabinet ally, Ed."

The lengths some people will go to for David Cameron....

2010-01-26T16:29:00.017Z

Where else could you get such facts as....

David Cameron can get a McDonalds breakfast at 10.31am.
David Cameron can type 141 characters into twitter, but chooses not to.
David Cameron can win a game of Connect Four in only three moves.

Yes - that's right people - it's the now notorious @Davefacts, the API feed managed by David Cameron Facts. This is truely one of the best new political sites I have ever seen!

So how much do those behind DaveFacts really love Cameron?
You want me say that I have Maggie wallpaper and a David Cameron duvet cover don't you! I am not quite that bad, although I was given a Maggie T nutcracker as a Christmas gift this year! The truth is that David Cameron is a charismatic guy and he fits perfectly with a site like ours. It just wouldn't fit with Nicky C and the other chap.

And they're right. There were some vain attempts on twitter to start feeds of facts relating to Gordon Brown or Nick Clegg. They just didnt have the fervour that Dave inspires in his followers.

I have made no secret of the fact that I am a Tory fan but the main emphasis was simply having a bit of fun during a time that is going to be saturated with heavy political stories, i.e. the Election. The site is only just over a week old and it has spread virally better than we could have ever expected so if I am honest I think our motivation has moved slightly to try and make the site get mainstream attention, whilst still having a bit of a giggle.

One interesting and surprising reaction to DaveFacts came from the Labour party. Even in their dreams, Gordon eats cold porridge. So some Labour tweeters and bloggers, led by @Conorpope have started a very negative #REALDaveFacts tag. Even some Labour MPs are trying their luck. So what does DaveFacts feel about this?

I must admit that I have been taken aback a little by some of the hate mail, but the beautiful thing about political satire is that the nasty comments are written in such a posh and intelligent way that it makes me kind of like it. I love that Labour luvvies are trying to counter our tiny little site with their own negative hashtags rather than trying to come up with their own, stand alone funny campaigns. It is mad that they would feel the need to do this. I will leave far deeper thinkers than myself to contemplate the theory behind Labour attacking Cameron rather than bigging up their own man, I just find it funny.

But by and large the reaction has been very positive. Even @TimMongomerie, editor of ConservativeHome, has said that “Tweets from @davefacts makes @Conservatives look disloyal”. What does DaveFacts think of such admiration?

I am going to be brutally honest here and admit we were not ready for the site launch. We were testing the Twitter API and setting up the Twitter account when it just seemed to go mad over night. This has meant some frantic evenings spent trying to get things in place to stop it falling over. Our first weekend, just gone, saw the site getting over 3500 unique visitors a day and this is from Twitter alone. We have not done any wider promotion yet and have quite a few nice ideas in the pipeline to help it go mainstream.

Not bad at all, even compared to the negative campaigining of the mydavecameron website. And to the future- what does DaveFacts have in development stages? Or are they quite happy leaving it as it is: the API Twitter feed of hilarity!

We are pretty much playing it by ear and developing new widgets as people request them, such as the Dave Facts widget that you can now put on your blog. As is the way with Twitter, no one misses an opportunity to monetise a site and we have been inundated with offers from merchandise companies offering to sell David Cameron Fact related goodies and we may look at this alongside an idea we already had to make it mainstream. It is still really early though and to be honest, the web moves so quickly that we may be forgotten by tomorrow so lets just enjoy it whilst it lasts.

Hopefully some day we will discover who this bunch of brave and loyal fanatics are! In the meantime, lets do as they say and enjoy. Dont take it too seriously Labourites - maybe one day eh?

Oh just one more then:
David Cameron was waiting for Edmund Hilary with a hot mug of tea on the top of Everest

*UPDATE* You can now become a fan of DaveFacts on Facebook

A very lazy book review

2010-01-25T14:07:00.004Z

This is one of the best books I've ever read - it's a satire about 1980s Britain showing the damange being done and cultural shifts under Thatcher. Oh blow it - read it, or if your lazy, read its wikipedia entry. I cannot recommend it enough for anyone interested in how this country began to fall apart.

It's funny.
It's fascinating.
And it made me cry.

What more could you want?

"Don't let the Tories take us back into growth"

2010-01-24T22:49:00.003Z

I've been hand writing letters a lot this evening (it will never go out of fashion I tell you!), so when this spoof Labour election campaign poster came to my attention on the Red Rag Blog, I felt I had to share.My penmanship isnt anywhere near as good, but my sentiments are exactly the same!

6th May?

2010-01-24T20:22:00.009Z

Today the count for 'gaffes' about the suspected date of the election rose to three:
First we had Chris Bryant who, on his birthday of all days, mentioned in private meeting with foreign diplomats and academics that:

“I hope that by the time of the general election on May 6, relations will have improved.”

Then we had Andy Burnham (famed for being the most useless Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport since time began - I'll wager he's never gone into an art gallery without the promise of canapés) who blurted out that the election would be held in May.
And now we have Bob Ainsworth himself. The man needs no introduction - Bob Aintworthit or UBOAT (cause he's out of his depth, get it?) - is one of the most useless members in this lagging and exhausted Government. He today announced to Sky News in an interview that the election would be 6th May.
Hmmm. Now Bob Ainsworth is about as much use as a chocolate teapot, so he's the perfect man for the job. What job? The job of blurting out the date of the election.
Now I'm not going to pretend to know when the election will be called, and frankly anyone who says they know, doesnt.

But here are a few questions:

1) Would the Conservatives plan a strategy on the basis of a May election?
2) Would they be in a bad position if the election were called earlier?
3) Can even the Conservatives with £18,000,000 to spend on the election be able to afford such a long pre-election campaign?
4)What part could Alastair Campbell & Peter Mandelson be playing in this?

One thing we have all learnt from this Labour government - you can trust them as far as you can throw John Prescott. With your hands tied behind your back. Up a hill.

*Update* Daniel Finkelstein makes the excellent point that Burnham and Ainsworth dont actually know - "They're guessing like the rest of us". So why does the date 6th May seem to get stuck in Ministers' heads?

Oh of course! 6th May is Tony Blair's birthday!

Daniel Hannan: (sometime) Legend

2010-01-24T15:34:00.002Z

This story posted on Dan's blog has got quite a lot of attention. As I'm busy researching my next blog on ‘Broken Britain’ (involving me with a camera in central Oxford on a friday night *shudder*), enjoy this instead!

This story posted on Dan's blog has got quite a lot of attention. As I'm busy researching my next blog on Broken Britian (involing me with a camera in central Oxford on a friday night), enjoy this instead!

Suppose that every day, ten men went to the pub, and drank exactly £100 worth of ale among them. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, the breakdown would be roughly as follows:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank contentedly together in the saloon bar until the landlord, meaning to be helpful, presented them with a dilemma.

“Gentlemen,” he said, “you’re my best customers. To show you how much I appreciate your trade, I’d like to give you a discount. From now on, I’ll knock £20 of the total bill for your drinks”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group wanted to carry on splitting their bill in the way that we pay our taxes. So, obviously, the first four men, those least well off, would continue to enjoy free beer. What, though, of the other six? How could they divide the £20 discount in such a way that everyone got his fair share of the windfall?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, following the principle of the tax system they had been using. This is how the bill now looked.

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100 per cent saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33 per cent saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28 per cent saving).

The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25 per cent saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22 per cent saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16 per cent saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to enjoy free booze. But, as they left the pub, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a pound out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He jabbed an accusing finger at the tenth man,”Why should he get £10?”

“Too right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a pound too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got two measly quid? The system is rigged in favour of the toffs!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. It’s always the worst off who get neglected by the politicians!”

The nine men dragged the tenth into the carpark and gave him a thorough kicking.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beer without him. But when the bill came, they found that their money didn’t even cover half of it.

The banking crisis in a form I understand...

2010-01-23T00:57:00.010Z

With thanks to lovely friends at the Telegraph.

Click on Alex's picture to see the 'real' reason behind recent economic success and the bankers' bonuses.

Why do hybrids have such a bad reputation?

2010-01-22T17:50:00.003Z

Seems British built hybrids can actually do some miles and fast too. Before I moved up to the Trek 1.5, this Ridgeback made it 400 miles around Yorkshire in little under a week. Not bad going with all that kit....

'Let them stand in this room and say that'

2010-01-22T11:25:00.004Z

Cameron is expected to say today that Labour is presiding over a country in ‘social recession’ and will mention the case of the two brothers being sentenced for attacking two boys in South Yorkshire.

I would like to make three serious points on this issue:

Firstly, David Cameron has not yet made his speech. We cannot prejudge, and this whole argument rests on the tone, level and measure of what he says. The entire basis for the outrage shown by some towards the reference could turn out to fade away once we have actually heard the point that Cameron wishes to make.

My second point is simple. The only reason it is ‘political points scoring’ is because the other party says it is. If Labour realised the broken state of our society, then we would not be having this discussion.

My third and final point is that it is perfectly legitimate to use the Edlington brothers in a speech of this nature, because individual and personal cases often give momentum to change. There are several cases that instantly jump to mind, where in retrospect we could have considered it ‘political point scoring’. The death of Sarah Payne and the campaign led by her brave mother afterwards led to the calls for ‘Sarah’s Law’. The cases of Timothy Evans, Derek Bently and Ruth Ellis were all used as political footballs in the lead up to the abolition of the death penalty. I for one am grateful for it.

After Sarah Teather (yes she) used a West Wing reference on BBC Question time last night, I feel I may now use one. After the shooting of a young girl Melissa Markey, President Bartlet has a discussion with his V-P, Hoynes. Bartlet wants to send Hoynes to Texas to speak at an anti-gun rally.

Hoynes: The NRA is gonna say you're taking advantage of the shooting in Abilene. That you like it when these things happen, 'cause it gives you a chance...

Bartlet: Let them stand in this room and say that. On this day. Let them stand in this room. I like it?! She was nine years old!

The Guardian, May 3, 1997

2010-01-21T19:08:00.004Z

So.........?

Brown still in touch with the PLP?

2010-01-21T09:58:00.012Z

After the failed coup on the Prime Minister by Hoon and Hewitt, we were told that Brown would listen and engage more with the PLP. But is he?
By pure coincidence, a series of tweets of all things have made me think not! Yesterday, these two tweets came up right next to one another. I couldnt help but smile:

The first story can be found here, while the second is here.

Then this morning I saw these two (almost) side by side:
Again, the first story is here, the second here.

So while the Prime Minister is off planning in the bunker that Number 10 has anyone even let the whips know what is going on? Kerry McCarthy MP is now backpeddling on this most recent story, but my point is she shouldnt have to! I think I prefered the Prime Minister when he was closer to Mr Bean - he was still unable to communicate but he was more amusing when doing it!

One year in....

2010-01-20T23:17:00.003Z

One year in, let's assess. How has Obama done?

Feel free to leave your assessments in the comments section

'Computer says no....'

2010-01-18T10:13:00.007Z

Today Michael Gove announced a radical shake up of the way in which we recruit and train teachers. This might involve great incentives for those with better degrees, so as to finally put to death the old adage "those who can't, teach".

Labour have pointed out that this would lose the state sector teachers who have the potential to be great. The full manifesto has not yet been released, and so I am not in a position to deny, attack or conceede this fact.

What I would point out is that such an argument from Labour is blatent hypocrisy. Their overly bureaucratic system has led not only to difficulties in teacher recruitment, with too great a focus on teaching assistants, but also to cases such as that of Tristam Jones-Parry.

You can find full details here on the Telegraph website from back in 2004, but briefly:
Tristam Jones-Parry (also known as TJP) taught mathematics at the best school in the country for most of his life. When he chose to step-down as Headmater, he was turned away from the state sector purely on the basis that he did not have a PGC.

So Labour, who's denying pupils the very best now?

In fact, the whole situtation has the strange feeling of that 'Little Britian' sketch of Carol.

TJP: I have taught at a private school for 30 years, rising to be headmaster. Can I come and use my much needed skill in a state school to help kids succeed?

Carol: Computer says no.

[TJP now works in a tutorial college in Oxford, preparing state school pupils for Further Maths A-level so they can apply to university.]

Why we'll hear a lot of nonesense about the 'pink vote' in the months to come

2010-01-17T11:54:00.002Z

The whole idea of a ‘pink vote’ is terribly outdated, and the attempts by Labour to court it through scare tactics undermine the progress of gay rights in this country. Yesterday, a twitter discussion on the ‘pink vote’ was provoked by an MP re-tweeting a comment that was an attempt to scare gay voters.

What many members of the gay ‘community’ who consider themselves leaders and spokespeople cannot realise is the diversity now found among homosexuals. The times have changed from those days when gay men could only meet in secret clubs, and needed to suggest their hidden sexuality through campness and secret languages. The gay stereotype has, in many ways, totally fallen apart.

Nothing proves this point more than the recent coming-out of Gareth Thomas. In no way does he fit into any gay stereotype, indeed he is almost exactly the opposite. He commented in his recent interview with Attitude magazine,

“I hope I break the stereotype. I’ll go toe to toe with anybody. I’m probably too feisty, I ain’t perfect, like. I’ll have a scrap at the drop of a hat if somebody rubs me up the wrong way. I’m not saying that’s great. All I’m saying is that’s who I am and that’s not the stereotype of a gay man. But who created the stereotype of a gay man? It sure as hell wasn’t me, it probably everybody who’s not gay”

Gay men and women now dont have to act a certain way, and they certainly dont need to vote a certain way!

What I think we are seeing from ‘gay community leaders’, and from the Labour Party in particular among other parties, is fear: that as the stereotype breaks down and as the group grows increasingly diverse, they realise they will lose their self-nominated roles as leaders on ‘gay’ issues. They will no longer have the powerful role they want from our society.

I think it would be a great step forward for equality if they did.

Playing politics with war?

2010-01-11T18:12:00.009Z

Alas I am forced to continue on the sad topic of Labour's failure with regards to our nation's troops.

I have only just sat down to look at my newspaper, to see front page Sir Jock Stirrup is facing calls to stand down early.
But what shocked me in the piece was this statement:

"A Whitehall source described Sir Jock as "dead meat", whoever won the general election. Ministers had only avoided forcing him out because Labour wanted to avoid another damaging row with a senior military figure, the source said"

So in order to prevent more damage being done to this government, Labour Ministers refused to contemplate the possibility of changing the Chief of Staff. If Sir Jock is as ineffective as the rest of the article suggests then Labour Ministers have put lives at serious risk, and who knows what damage has been done. All to save themselves the embarrasment of negative headlines.

The sooner we have Liam Fox in charge of the Ministry of Defence the better! Dont play party politics with our troops.

This is why I vote Conservative!

2010-01-10T22:12:00.003Z

Yesterday I heard some very exciting news.

It appeared last night here on the BBC news website, and this morning was announced as official party policy on the Conservative Party website. Yes – it is the plan to give scholarships to the children of deceased military personnel.

Why does it matter so much? Currently army pay is poor at any level. Were you to factor in the time a soldier is actually in service to their pay, they get paid an absolute pittance per hour. Their accommodation is, generally, pretty rubbish. They are currently hugely overstretched fighting a war for us in Afghanistan. Much of this is, alas, typical and to be expected in the soldier’s life.

But this government has been pretty rubbish to our armed forces personnel. They have hardly increased defence spending in real terms at all in the last 10 years, and in terms of GDP it has fallen dramatically. This while expecting our armed forces to travel to Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan? This has led to the breakdown of the Military Covenant, which very simply states that Britain has a ‘duty of care’ to its fighting men and women. News today, a parting shot from the battered Geoff Hoon, confirmed the Prime Minister’s personal involvement in this breakdown.

But they have not only failed to support our armed forced with boots and helicopters, they failed to support them in Whitehall. For over a year, Des Browne was both Secretary of State for Defence AND Secretary of State for Scotland, leading some to believe that the army was only worthy of a part-time minister. The Prime Minister has never held a formal war cabinet, which has led to a lack of coordination across Whitehall and with our allies. The current Secretary of State for Defence, Bob Ainsworth, is such a mess that even most of his own party don’t support him and who has suggested CUTS, yes that’s right, CUTS in current front-line Defence spending. No wonder that injured soldiers at Selly Oak Hospital drew their curtains rather than see the leader of this government.

That is why my party, the Conservative party, has introduced this policy. Some might call it gimmicky, and what better an insult! Everyone wants this: it confirms that a new Conservative government would take the Military Covenant seriously again. It doesn’t cost anything to the increasing deficit because the money will be taken out of the £455 million Widening Participation budget, and at £1.5 million it’s cheap at the price. In fact, it is not much more expensive that the most recent Direct Gov advert. The current losses of personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan has left not only more children in need of a break, but has left SSAFA and other military charities overstretched and in need of high profile campaigns such as this in the Daily Mail. They do an untold amount of good work, but it is time that government started to do some of the heavy lifting.

And to those who say it is a gimmick and should be ignored, I would ask them to look at the rest of my party’s policy on Defence. Not only has David Cameron answered calls to introduce a cross-party war cabinet, the shadow cabinet has also pledged to double the current operational allowance to £4,800 for a six-month tour and piloting a Mental Health Service for veterans. This policy fits into a pattern that the Labour government aren’t familiar with: respect and responsibility.

Last week, George Osborne and William Hague were out in Afghanistan talking to troops, working out the best way that money can be spent and, let’s be honest here, making some tough decisions. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister was fighting another silly revolt within his own party. He later laughably claimed that he was ‘just getting on with the job’: if we believe Peter Watt that is probably the last thing we want! This all proves that my party, the Conservative Party, is that of the forces.

This is possibly the best single policy I have heard from any party in months, perhaps years. It’s quick, it’s cheap, it’s effective, it’s popular. In fact, there could be no reason for any MP not to support it (and judging by the private conversations I have had with some MPs, none would oppose it). This is why I vote Conservative.

This blog was first posted on the House Of Twits blog on the 10th January 2010.

Can I try again, please?

2010-01-10T12:07:00.005Z

We're all pretty familiar with this poster now arent we? Lord knows its been attacked enough for very shallow and petty reasons. The 'funny' versions of it that appear everywhere tend to just be rude, pathetic and personal attacks. I still think it's an excellent poster by the way.

But it got me thinking, what would Labour actually put on their campaign posters? They cant stick to their legacy because, lets be honest, the last 5 years have been pretty rubbish and many of their 'economic successes' that Gordon Brown was so proud of have at last come home to roost.

It seems from the conversations I've had with Labour party members that the mood in the party could be summed up in this excellent poster from the excellent Tory Rascal blog. I am sure that Labour spin will come up with better design, a cunning subversive message and negative campaigining. But: Is it this poster that the Labour Party really want us to see?

Is that an election winning strategy?

How up to date is this chart?

2010-01-08T16:42:00.001Z

In the run up to the election campaign, I dragged this up again and wondered how up to date it still is. Anyone in the know have any idea?

2010-01-06T16:34:00.000Z

With thanks to Matt Page of Wiggle Bikes.

This Blog

2009-12-08T09:14:00.001Z

I have been increasinglt irregular with this blog due to work commitments.

As of today those commitments have risen to a new level, and I will therefore not be blogging until at the earliest the 18th of December.

Sorry - but if you're in such need, just read through previous posts and pretend they're new!

This Week's #FF for you all

2009-12-04T09:41:00.001Z

Right it's #ff Follow Friday time for me! We're gonna have some groups of them, then my pick of the week!

The Labour Twitter Hounds: @jbevershed @OxfordUniLabour @tomwilliamsisme @conn1231 @Jon2aylor @jachartuk @Andrew_GwynneMP

Honorary Labour (cause they're actually Lib Dems) Twitter Hounds: @chriswiggin @hypnotic

And the Master of the Hunt - the tenacious @BenCooper86 who never lets me get away with a view untested. And he's usually civil

We can't forget @kyletaylor812 too - he's not a hound, but he's going to be a great local candidate for Kidsgrove. Well worth a follow!

The Tory Twitterati: Benjaminglass @Dillan1989 @jacobwilkinson @astone16 @ThePhilNorth @jamesburdett @MatthewRBarrett @lgbtoryuk @DeclanLyons and of course the lovely and amazing @ReneKinzett

A special mention to @eljmayes who doesnt always tweet on politics, but when he does they are priceless!

And a shout out to someone who described her self as @OxfordSpring 's "fierce supporter" - great to have you @clarissacambrid

Final #FF goes to @TomBage who I cant believe I didnt follow until this week - great blogger, decent bipartisan style and he's a cyclist!

World AIDS Day - I am so proud of my Party

2009-12-01T22:29:00.003Z

A few weeks ago now, I blogged my Image of the Day as the Conservative Party website - proudly displaying the Poppy which the Labour Party did not.

Once again, on a day that means so much to me personally and to millions of people all around the world, I am made to feel proud to be a Conservative.

This was my Party's website today:This was the website of the Labour Party:

Need I say more - other than I am so damn proud of my Party.

And thank you to everyone who put a red twibbon on their avatar, thank you to everyone who I saw around Oxford wearing a red ribbon, and for everyone who used the word #Red in their messages. Your support means so much to those of us who have personal experience of HIV. Thank You.

#GameOn indeed.....

2009-11-30T21:36:00.003Z

A new ComRes poll came out today, which gave us these numbers to talk about: CON 37%(-2), LAB 27%(+2), LDEM 20%(+3). Others are at 16%.

This is the third in a series of polls giving us similar numbers, so is it time for Labour to go crazy and for the Conservatives to quake in our boots? I dont think so.

I disagree with Labour tweeters on almost everything, but on one thing I really do think (and hope) we agree. Whoever wins this forthcoming election needs to do so properly. That means not winning because the other side have lost energy, or over some scandal or even on the basis of the dislike of the leader's face.

No - this is one of the most important elections in quite some time, for the party voted into office will have a huge defecit to manage (a defecit which ladens each and every one of us with at least £17,000 of debt). They will have to decide where to make the necessary cuts in a system where it seems everything has value. They will need to decide on the future of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on our international position on climate change. It's by no means an enviable task.

And that is why which ever party wins the next election, needs to do so by force of argument, ideas and a vision for the future. That is why I as a Conservative do not feel threatened by these polls. I welcome them.

And because it gives me an excuse to watch this video and better relate to it:

Because it's Game On!

Views on the current Parliament:

2009-11-30T12:43:00.002Z

I have been reading about the 17th century recently, and came across this very famous speech by Oliver Cromwell. By 1653, during the Inter-regnumn, Parliament became corrupt and lost its way. Oliver Cromwell decided to Dissolve it and take full powers to himself as Lord Protector. He did so with this short speech:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!

Why was this speech not used more as a view of the expenses crisis??

Zac Goldsmith: A Hero in the Mould of Ancient Rome?

2009-11-29T11:56:00.003Z

Blogs and Twitter seem to be going crazy over Zac Goldsmith for the fact that he does not currently pay as much tax as he ought to in the UK because much of his money is based offshore.

Now you all know how I like an interesting take on the story, so how's this:

Over the last few months, the 'Tory Toffs' (or Members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as I prefer to call them) have been attacked for placing the interests of the Notting Hill set above all others in the country. The Prime Minister, in an attack-line almost certainly given to him by Alastair Campbell, said when talking about IHT, that

"That must be the only tax change in history where the people proposing it – the leader of the opposition and the shadow chancellor – will know by name almost all of the potential beneficiaries."

So why now are Labour going crazy that Zac Goldsmith is a non-dom? Wouldnt such a tax status give him the objectivity in government that we need and Labour voters would hope for?

Let me explain a little. I am not advocating the avoidance of income tax. It pays for schools, hospitals, and front line services needed by all members of society. To shirk paying them when one could easily afford them is, to me, to exclude yourself from society. I have worked in places where the main objective was to show people how to avoid paying tax, and because the lawyers charged 99p when the tax would have been £1 it made business sense for their clients. Labour have, over the last 12 years, failed miserably to close down these tax loopholes, and in many cases have made them larger. The notion that Gordon Brown spearheaded the closing of tax havens at the G20 is a myth.

In the Ancient Rome, Senators were forbidden from engaging in banking, entering into contracts, or foreign trade. Such was the fear that they would favour themselves over the citizens they were supposed to represent.

So, Labour folks, do you want that system - where MPs should not enter into business but not pay tax, OR would you want them to be free individuals with experience of every aspect of life. I mean - someone has to represent the tax avoiders dont they?

When Blair came to power

2009-11-28T20:36:00.002Z

The Weather on this day in 1990 - When Thatcher left....

2009-11-28T19:55:00.000Z

World Aids Day 2009 - Oxford Events

2009-11-28T12:56:00.003Z

THT Events in Oxford for World Aids Day - 1st December 2009

Monday 30 November (7.00am - 9.00am): Street collection, Oxford train station
Staff and volunteers from THT will be out in force during the morning rush hour at Oxford train station, raising awareness of HIV, giving out red ribbons and asking for donations.

- Monday 30 November (10.00am - 5.00pm): Awareness drive, The Clarendon Centre
THT staff and volunteers will be out in force at the Clarendon Centre all day, raising awareness of HIV, asking for donations and giving out red ribbons. They will also be promoting THT's weekly 'Fastest' HIV testing clinic, which takes place Thursday evenings from 6.00pm - 9.00pm and offers results within one hour.

- Tuesday 1 December (10.00am - 5.00pm): All-day 'Fastest' HIV testing
THT's Oxford centre (43 Pembroke Street) will be throwing open its doors all day, to offer free, confidential HIV testing to local people. The test involves a simple finger-prick blood test, with results available within one hour. Those who attend the clinic will be given information and advice before and after the test, and anyone who tests HIV positive will be fast tracked into a treatment centre. They will also be given information on the range of services available for people living with HIV, including counselling and peer support.

Joshua Hall, Centre Manager for THT in Oxford, said: "World AIDS Day is one of the most important events in THT's calendar. Currently in the UK one in four people with HIV don't know they have it, so it's vital that we continue to raise awareness. We hope local people will get involved in some way, either by attending an event, making a donation, or just wearing a red ribbon."

More information may be found on the THT website

If you're on Twitter, you can show your support by adding a Twibbon here

2009-11-27T16:36:00.001Z

yes - I know. The whole Image of the Day weekly theme thing didnt get off the ground....

Sorry about that but it really has been a hectic time here in the OxfordSpring 'office'... please forgive me!

Image of the Day: Images of Parliament

2009-11-23T14:12:00.002Z

Image of the Day this week will be themed. They've been floating around a bit too much for my liking, so I am limiting myself to a History of Parliament.

This is the first known representation of the Palace of Westminster, from the great tapestry commissioned by Odo of Bayeux from (probably) English nuns.

Last week we saw the State Opening of Parliament - nice to know that things dont really change all that much in just under 1000 years.

2009-11-21T21:47:00.004Z

This evening, we have heard the news of a poll by Ipsos MORI to be published in the Observer tomorrow. Labour party members I have spoken to seem to imagine that this will have David Cameron and the Conservatives quaking in thier boots, and is a serious blow.

No.

1) The poll is a single poll. Show me three in a row and I'll take notice.

2) The poll is a week old, and therefore has more to do with the media's reporting on Glasgow NE and the Sun's outrageous personal attacks on the Prime Minister. Attacks from which the Conservative party distanced themselves from by the way.

3) This is what a lot of the Conservative Party want. I am among them. We want and deserve a mandate for government. We must not allow Labour to lose this election. We must win it!

Some have also been talking about the recent Conservative Party PPB shown on Thursday night. I know that I am not alone in the party in thinking it was not as good a broadcast as we deserved. Certainly in response to the gimics, fancy emotional music, kitsch editing and down-right untruths of the Against The Odds cast, it did not show Cameron at his best. The idea of the Cameron Direct is to talk to people, and here's the key, Directly. It just doesnt translate to camera.

The May broadcast is what the party needs to do more of, broadcasts which dont need gimics or technology. But speak plainly, honestly and to the camera about what we Conservatives believe:

Alan Turing deserved an apology, but do did all the others

2009-11-21T16:02:00.001Z

Richard Bevan wrote an exceptionally good article in the December issue of Attitude on the subject of the recent apology by the Prime Minister for the treatment of the science genius Alan Turing.

For those of you who do not know the work of Turing, he essentially invented the modern computer while working at Bletchley Park during the Second World War breaking German submarine codes. He was also gay.

In the post-war period, Turing was subjected to the rampant state-managed homophobia. At the time, it was not uncommon for gay men and women to be subjected to electroshock therapy, chemical castration and injections of female hormones. As Bevan writes, it was the “kind of psychological and physical torture that makes water boarding look like a picnic”. This led to a situation where gay men and women were forced to “take refuge in other countries, or were imprisoned, stripped of their dignity, sacked and forced to undertake ‘aversion therapy’ – the lucky ones went on to lead unfulfilled and frustrated lives in sham marriages which also destroyed the lives of the women they married.” In Turing’s case, the shame and loss of any sense of self-worth lead to his suicide in 1954. He died after taking a bite from an apple he injected with cyanide.

Tragically, this is not an isolated story. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, were subject to such treatment. In our country. Only 50 years ago.

When the Prime Minister issued an apology in response to a petition calling for one on the Downing Street website, it was therefore graciously received. But it is not enough.

It was an apology to one man, and while it did make note of “the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws”, that surely is not enough. Think back on the treatment and abuse suffered by those men and women, who continued nonetheless to live their lives as they saw fit and not as public morality at the time suggested.

“Where is the apology to all the other gay men who were persecuted and had their lived ruined by institutionalised homophobia?”

And that is why I, with Richard Bevan, would call for a further apology. Not one directed towards Alan Turing but one for all gay men and women of the time. This issue does not deserve an aside comment, but a full throated roar of apology. Nor should it be in response to a petition, but one freely given, with the Prime Minister taking the lead.

The issue of who should apologise has been raised and it is worth addressing. All politicians, enforcers and those who formed the policy should openly apologise. But their apologies are personal ones. It is the role of the Prime Minister to make the official apology on behalf of the whole Government. Readers of this blog and my Twitter feed will know that I have great respect for the Prime Minister as a man (I also try to refer to him as the Prime Minister and not as Gordon Brown), and that this is not any form of a #saysorrybrown protest. It is about standing up, admitting the mistakes of the past and allowing gay men and women to breathe more easily.

To quote Richard Bevan again, “We’re not asking for a symbolic statue on the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square but it would be nice if the Prime Minister’s apology to Mr Turing had embraced a far wider picture.”

Image of the Day: Obama in Trouble

2009-11-17T09:38:00.003Z

Obama has over recent weeks (and dare I say months) been in a bit of trouble. The health reforms up all of his political capital and he still didnt get them where he wants them to be; Afghanistan, once a popular war in the US, has turned into a second Iraq; the economy is still in trouble, with a rising defecit; Copenhagan's climite summit was a farce of epic proportions; and lets not get started on those held illegally at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But let's not forget his election. Regardless of where he took it from there, the election itself was a milestone. We always knew, certainly I did, that hope would be shattered because Obama could never achieve everything he promised. But let's for a second remember that election day, and here is my favourite image of it:

Nick Clegg: When will he grow up

2009-11-16T09:32:00.004Z

When Nick Clegg was a young boy at Westminster School, he would have been taken on the morning of the State Opening of Parliament to watch Her Majesty and her entourage arrive at the Palace of Westminster. She would have been driven in the magnificent Irish State Coach, accompanied by the Household Cavelry and officials of both church and state. A young Clegg would have seen all this, standing on College Green in his grey uniform suit.

Yet he would want rid of this pagentry, because it does not serve a purpose. Of course it doesnt serve any purpose! In what way does the ceremony of the State Opening of Parliament actually affect the democratic running of our nation? None whatsoever!

So why has Clegg just discovered this?

Because, as Tom Harris MP has correctly pointed out, it is his job as the leader of the Liberal Democrats to make a fuss over such things. I would, I think, go further than that. There is merit to the argument that the State Opening makes the Lib Dems look small, and Clegg smaller still. He takes no part in the ceremony, is hardly noticed shoved into the back with other MPs. For a man with as little genuine gravitas and charisma that is hardly a good place to be.

The Queen's Speech will headline a new year for the current Government, it will get the ball rolling on an election campaign. Its broadcast attracts thousands of viewers (and not those who regularly tune into BBC Parliament). It is part of our culture, history and heritage. We may also be sure that Clegg's call, like so many others he has made, will be ignored. He did better when he and his party stormed out of the Chamber!

And let's be honest - Parliament does little enough right now as it is. One day isnt going to make a difference.

Although, that's probably what young Clegg said at school as an excuse not to do his homework - and look what happened to him!

Image of the Day - a personalised bike

2009-11-15T20:31:00.003Z

I've been cycling a lot again today, and was thinking how I could personalise my bike more.

This is what Mark Cavendish (amazing legend, my cycling role model and hero) has on his!

Love it!

Why #saysorryBrown is silly and wrong

2009-11-15T15:32:00.002Z

The #saysorryBrown tag being used on Twitter is a #fail by any standard.

1) The tag has only gained in popularity through Chris Brown in the US who has many things to apologise for.

2) Personal attacks should have no place in an election, and it seems that the use of them by both sides in the coming debates and election broadcasts is getting more and more likely.

3) Why should Brown say sorry for the actions of an entire party?

4) Why should Brown say sorry for our actions as a disinterested electorate, who allowed the sidelining of Parlimentary democracy.

5) Sorry implies genuine regret - we should never force anyone to apologise if they do not have any regret. And Brown has no regret.

I dont want Brown to say sorry. I want Brown to fight Cameron and the Conservative Party, because its an election and a debate that should not be easy in the way that Blair's was. If the Conservatice Party are elected, and I pray they are, it should be on their own merits as a party of the future rather than Labour's failings as a party of the past.

Image of the Day - branding everywhere!

2009-11-14T23:41:00.002Z

Cant remember where I found this, but it's awfully funny!

Imitation of Parris: Letter to a 16 year-old me

2009-11-14T19:40:00.002Z

In today's Times, Matthew Parris wrote an excellent article which took the form of a letter to his 16 year-old self. It was a wonderful list of knowledge - practical as well as philosophical - and should be read by all!
I feel I should respond with a list of my own. 16 was only 5 years ago but still feel I have much knowledge to impart:

Books are to read and should never be used as wallpaper. If it's rubbish, throw it out afterwards.

Never buy cheap boxershorts. They become uncomfortable, wear easily and are embarrasing in this low-slung trouser world.

Get an iPhone not a Blackberry.

Buy only one mug, one plate, one bowl, one fork, one knife. You dont need anything else, and it means you are forced to wash up!

Attention is not always a good thing. In fact, in many cases, it's terrible.

A Nutri-Grain is no substitute for a proper Shreddies/Oatabix breakfast.

Hats dont suit you - you even look a prat in a cycle helmet- so dont start that collection.

Karaoke to Shania Twain isnt impressive if its in your own home at a dinner party.

To make home-made pasta, you need a pasta-machine.

Only buy a fine cigar if you're planning to smoke it within the week. They taste terrible after. In fact, stop buying cigars. You are not Toby Zeigler and you're mouth always feels horrific the next morning.

And finally, and most importantly: Role models are always a terrible idea. You will never measure up to someone else because you are your own person.

Image of the Day - What about free access to the Press?

2009-11-13T19:34:00.004Z

Every time I attempt to access the Daily Mirror website, I recieve this message:That's the same message I get when I attempt to access 'naughty' websites. I can sort of accept that I cant access this site,

But the Mirror? I can access the BNP, WhitePride, National Front (although Combat 18 is blocked), but not the Mirror....? Newspapers have plenty of rights but do I have a right to read them?

I could probably get it unblocked. But am I really going to the IT people and demand access to the Daily Mirror and the Daily Star? I'd rather chew off my own toe.

[There are a few other irregularities:

I can access Ladbrokes and William Hill, but not Betfair.

And worst of all! I can access Penderyn but not Laphroaig. Now that's just silly!]

Image of the Day - Why Do We Think What Isnt There?

2009-11-12T22:02:00.006Z

There is a Danish photograher called Peter Funch, based in New York, who is I think trying to teach us a valuable lesson about the world. We always want to think things in black and white, up and down, left and right -polarities essentially. Everything in between confuses us for some reason.

Yet - we are all shades of grey. It's what the world is made up of. So when we see an image like this,

or this

they look totally surreal. So why do we think what we know isnt there?

Image of the Day- Who is satire for...

2009-11-10T18:01:00.004Z

On my favourite street in Oxford, Turn Again Lane, someone (probably some aimless hippy Brookes student) has written on the back of a sign:

'What gain the Earth but lose your soil?'

It always struck me as a little profound, full of such meaning and cold logic. The demand for a better world and a value to life....

Did it hell!

We need to remember that satire is not an attack by 'voiceless' left-wingers on upper-class politicians, celebrities and royalty. Satire is a tool for everyone, and hence the image of today, which follows yesterday's Banksy image.

Labour is digging itself in to a deep hole...

2009-11-10T13:19:00.002Z

The recent furore over the Prime Minister’s handwritten note to the mother of Guardsman Jamie Janes has taken an interesting and notable tangent which has yet to be commented on.

The bile of Labour blogs.

The Sun only chose to back David Cameron’s Conservatives in late September, not even two months ago. Before then, you would have rarely heard members of the Labour party heavily criticise the newspaper – of course it happened, but it was nothing on the level of the rage we see now. Blogs (such as that of Kevin McKeever) and twitter postings are now full of rage towards the newspaper for exploiting grief, provoking discrimination and even waging a vendetta against the Prime Minister. The name of Murdoch is being used as a punching bag for left-wing anger.

Now fair enough – whether or not you are angry about the issues raised by Ms Janes, is this really the right way to go about it?

The Sun changed allegiance, as I said, just over a month ago. The election is still about 6 months away. Are Labour blogs really hoping to sway the 8 million or so readers of The Sun back to their agenda by accusing the newspaper they read of discrimination and a personal vendetta?

Labour no longer talk about a vision for Britain; they talk about winning and losing, that the election is not in the bag for the Tories yet, that they can still claim victory from the jaws of defeat.

If that is what they are trying to do, they are going the wrong way about it!

Image of the Day: Today's Berlin Wall

2009-11-09T21:41:00.003Z

Today is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. According to everyone who was there, or who watched it on television, it defied the era.

I cannot wait until my era is defined by the fall of another wall that does nothing except divide:

Why We NEED a War Cabinet

2009-11-09T19:48:00.005Z

In the last six months or so, the subject of our armed forces’ involvement in Afghanistan has become a lead story in almost every newspaper and journal. The lack of proper equipment, the shifting tactics of the Taliban, the general confusion between both the Whitehall departments and our international allies, the lack of a legitimate government in Kabul, the general ineffectiveness (to put it mildly) of Bob Ainsworth.... Tragically, the list goes on.

Rene Kinzett, Conservative Party PPC for Swansea West, and I have recently been debating the function and potential behind a ‘war cabinet’.

There are many merits to this argument:
1) It would help to reduce the confusion between departments in Whitehall.
2) It would ensure that allies have the same relationship on the ground as they do to our FCO.
3) It would help to enable just and sensible defence procurement.
4) It would help to focus our strategic aims in the region.
5) It would examine the best time and method of an evitable withdrawl.

Most importantly, it would send a signal: to our troops, to Whitehall departments, to our politicians, to our people, to our allies, and to the Taliban that we are taking this war seriously. We are AT WAR and we should stop pretending that Afghanistan fits under the umbrella of ‘business as usual’.

Tonight our ideas faced their most learned critic: Lord Guthrie, former Chief of Defence staff. On being asked a question as to the need for such a cabinet, he excelled himself. He confirmed that no cabinet exists at present, although he has asked the Prime Minister to form one. He said that Whitehall needs to be shaken around to remind them that this is a war in which we must succeed, for to leave Afghanistan with a motivated and successful Taliban would be to allow a similar movement to develop in Pakistan. Pakistan is a nuclear power with difficulties with India... The point needs no further explanation.

He argued that Gordon Brown is the first Prime Minister not to have one, for even Tony Blair had his ‘sofa cabinet’ upon which Lord Guthrie sat (his joke, not mine). He ascribed much of our success in the Falklands Conflict to Margaret Thatcher’s ‘war cabinet’ which she ruled firmly and decisively.

He wants a WEEKLY war cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister, with all involved ministers attending.

Rene Kinzett is very keen for such a cabinet to be a cross-party one. I am still unsure as to how necessary or efficient that would be. Lord Guthrie said that such an idea was ‘desirable’ though not necessary at present.

Either way – I believe that the sooner a War Cabinet is formed, the better, for as Lord Guthrie said "War is not like cricket".

The Gordon Brown handwriting story is purely a symptom...

2009-11-09T09:46:00.007Z

Today, Jacqui Janes has appealed to the press over Gordon Brown's handwriting and poor spelling in a note she was sent after her 20 year old son Guardsman Jamie was killed in Afghanistan. An image of the letter she was sent is below, with each error circled by The Sun newspaper who published the story.

Is this story about handwriting? No.

Is it about spelling? No.

Is it even about Guardsman Jamie Janes and his family? I dont believe so.

At the heart of this story is Gordon Brown, and the fact that he has lost all sense of conviction with the British media and its readership. Leaders of governments need gravitas, oratorical skill and hard-earned respect. Otherwise they become just jobsworth politicians, or dictatorial menaces.

Were this self-same letter sent by Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, Barack Obama or even, dare I say it, Tony Blair there would be no upset. For a letter from one of those leaders carried a weight and gravitas all off its own, for it was imbued with such qualities by the great man or woman who wrote it.

The evidence here is not the letter, but the story itself. That we can think/care about how our leader spells is proof enough that we need him out, a general election called, and a man capable of great oratory and gravitas appointed in his place.

I am reminded of a quotation (or a tragic joke) from the West Wing. I'm sure its not original to the show but it sums this up perfectly:

"What do you call a leader without any followers?

Just a guy taking a walk."

For that is what Brown has become, just a guy.

My Thoughts on Local Government

2009-11-08T16:00:00.004Z

It may sound strange that while I was at my local Remembrance Service by the Oxford War Memorial in St Giles, a political revelation occurred to me.

The service was attended by the Mayor, the Lord Lieutenant of the County, the High Sherriff, judges, members of the council, the traders associations of the city and representatives of the various faiths that co-exist (reasonably) happily in Oxford.

Yet why do the vast majority of our laws, regulations, statuettes, and legislation emanate from London and Brussels? What do these people do?

I am not a Eurosceptic or radical (I think), but it seems to me that the best people to decide Oxford policy are those people who I saw today, and not those tens or hundreds of miles away. I can talk to these people directly, I can impact on the way my community is run and the law practised. These positions evolved over hundreds of years, and are full of safeguards and a logic not found in new methods of centralisation.

Aren’t the Oxford Trading Standards officers better at regulating the Covered Market traders than those in Brussels?

Aren’t the local councillors better at judging the road layout than the civil servants in Whitehall?

Aren’t street cleaners and refuse collectors better managed by local councillor than by bureaucrats in a different county?

Isn’t justice better meted out but Oxford judges than by those in London?

Isn’t local determination better, in general, to centralisation?

Let's be honest - the service I saw, organised at a local level, was far better, more refined, more moving and more sensitive to the needs of the congregation than had someone in London or Brussels tried to plan it!

Gordon Brown's PR people fail again.....

2009-11-08T13:21:00.007Z

On yesterday's BBC coverage Royal British Legion's Festival of Remembrance at the Albert Hall, Gordon Brown showed jut how badly his PR team are letting him down. The BBC would have set up cameras well in adavance of the event, and the format would have been known for some time. The Queen is clearly the figure who will appear on camera most, yet Brown allowed himself to be sat out of shot, making it impossible for him to be included in any shot with Her Royal Majesty. They could only ever get close ups of him, like this:

It wasnt as if he was very far away from the Queen though. In this shot, his wife Sarah is shown in shot with the Queen, but Brown is just caught off. Even if he had swapped places with his own wife, he would have been seen more:

But who was sat in shot? To the left of the Royal Box? That's right - a man with a much better PR team, David Cameron.

In fact, it was this shot of the Royal Box that appears in the festival coverage most of all:

Now I want to make it clear that I do not think that sevices of this nature should ever be dragged through the mud of party politics. But we all know that they are - more so by the Labour Party (remember that memo from Tony Blair about the Queen Mother's funeral). So why has Brown, despite all that money he throws at his image, allowed himself to be sat outside of the 'money shot'??

What the Tory Party could learn from Al Pacino....

2009-11-07T13:17:00.002Z

The Oxford Blues crew watch this video before the boat race every year. I watch it often before a long cycle as I did this morning.

The message is clear - that a team relies on absolute trust and devotion to a shared goal. That goal is made up on tiny stages which, when all played in the right way, makes the difference between winnning and loosing.

Members of the Conservative Party - we have finally got past the in-fighting of the last nearly two decades. We now share a common goal, a vision.

All we have to do is be prepared to work every stage, fight every battle with fire in our hearts so we can bring our vision to Britain. Or we will fail as individuals.

They should have played this before Cameron's speech at Conference!

Labour Party play catch up

2009-11-05T13:26:00.004Z

So very pleased to see this change to the Labour Party website! Only 3 days after the Conservatives did it.

I wonder if I had anything to do with it?

Before anyone says that this is a petty issue of little signicance, I would remind them that yesterday Alastair Campbell wrote an entire blog post based on two different newspapers' photographs of David Cameron [Was he standing or sitting on the train?!].

(And for those Philistines who asked yesterday, the picture was of of me looking towards the Ponte Vecchio in Florence. Cant believe I get such readers!)

Image of the Day

2009-11-04T10:22:00.005Z

Sorry - will be away in London today to see Anish Kapoor, so I'll leave you with this. You couldnt get more cultured!

Image of the Day: It makes you proud to be a Conservative

2009-11-03T21:33:00.005Z

Today I popped onto the Conservative Party website (by chance you understand; it's not as if it's No. 1 on my links bar....) and saw in the top left hand corner, a poppy incorporated into the header bar.

It makes me so proud to be a member of a party which also includes someone at Conservative Cenrtral office so thoughtful as to place this simple, understated reminder of the sacrifice so many gave for our freedom.

[The Labour Party public website does not appear to have any such tribute - I would be overjoyed to be corrected]

Thoughts on ILLEGAL file-sharing

2009-11-03T12:36:00.003Z

I have been meaning to blog on Peter Mandelson’s plans to combat illegal filesharing for a while now, and a discussion I’ve just heard on the new House of Comments podcast (great debate forum – really enjoyed listening to it) has driven me to finally do so.

The key to this debate is the word ‘illegal’. No matter how many people share music through torrent, P2P or youtube style websites, to do so outside the terms of fair use is illegal under national and international law.

Copyright has two central justifications: the moral right of the artist, and the right of the artist to profit from their work. Largely, in terms of file-sharing the first of these is not infringed. No one pretends the songs of Cliff Richard are those of anyone else (why would they: let him take the blame). However, moral rights extend to use of a work. If an artist does not wish his or her work to be used or shared in a specific way, they as the artist have that right. It’s those rights that allowed artist Tom Petty to ban George Bush from using his 1989 single Don’t Back Down in his 2000 presidential campaign.

It is the second right that really is at issue when it comes to illegal file-sharing. An artist has created a work, and therefore is deserving of payment. I hate to sound like those annoying piracy adverts, but there is legally no difference between stealing from a shop and downloading a song online. It’s intangibility may make us feel better, but it’s just illegal.

And we cannot accept the “everyone does it” argument for two reasons:
1) not everyone is downloading/uploading music illegally (and its certainly not in the millions),
2) ideologically, the majority (illegal file-sharers) must not be allowed to beat up on the minority (artists). As a society we have such rules for they are what divide us from beasts.

Now I accept that this is a battle between new technology and old fashioned record labels, but to suggest that the law lags behind is just WRONG. The law is very up to date on this issue – the artist has the right to profit from his work. If we wish to change the law, we must first change that philosophy. If we as a society decide that an artist deserves no reward for their work, so be it, but I don’t want to live in a society where the art is that bad!

On the House of Comments podcast, it was essentially suggested that copyright law change to include file-sharing as fair-use, or that a levy be made to then fund artists. There are several problems with this. Why should I, as someone who does not download music, be forced to pay such a levy? But more importantly and practically, it cannot happen. Copyright law evolved over time to suit various complex philosophical shifts in the notion of originality and moral rights. Copyright laws are therefore very different in each country. In England, all a piece of art has to be is original. In France, one has to prove that it took effort.

Copyright is also slightly different depending on the medium and the role of the artist. The House of Comments podcast brought up the example of Sir Cliff Richard whose copyright will run out during his lifetime. That is because he is the performer, who has fewer rights than the author/artist of the work, whose copyright extends until 70 years after their death. The notion that “well, Cliff’s got a lot of money.... he can afford it” is a puerile one, not worthy of such a debate program. Where would the incentive be for artists if they received nothing for their talent and effort? Not only then is file sharing immoral, any changes to the law have to be on an international basis (not likely).

I disagree with Peter Mandelson on this issue – I don’t think three strikes and you’re out is justified. What would be justified is the basic principal we apply to all other forms of theft– you steal, you pay.

(with thanks to those at House of Comments, Mathew Hulbert and Thomas Byrne

Image of the Day

2009-11-01T21:37:00.001Z

Have had a tough day of high culture - this image helps to bring me back down to Earth.

"All Tactics and No Strategy"

2009-10-31T14:54:00.003Z

Yesterday evening I was watching Alastair Campbell on Sky News while I was at the gym, and I heard him use the phrase "all tactics and no strategy".

Something in my head went ringing.... Where had I heard that phrase recently?

Oh yes. It was in a question and answer session after a speech in Oxford by..... Peter Mandelson. As far as I can see, he has never used the phrase before. Its not in the text of any of his speeches, or in any interview of him I've seen.

Alastair Campbell has used the phrase before. In fact, a week before Mandelson's speech (7th October2009) he used it in his blog here - the whole piece is about that phrase.

I think we all know how involved Campbell is in this Labour government, but for Peter Mandelson to be quoting his blog.... well well well

Image of the Day - Boy Racer

2009-10-31T13:24:00.002Z

In homage to my favourite living cyclist - Mark Cavendish!

There's a myth outside cycling that the ideal physique is tall, lean and with quads then times the size of your face (see Belleville Rendezvous for further visua desciption)

Cav, as he is affectionatly known by the cycling community, has got a pair of very short but strong legs. He himself is the same height as me - to the cm - and acts as my counterargument for every lanky sod who rides up to me and gives a discouraging look. Cav is now Britian's most successful Tour de France rider EVER, and almost without argument the best sprinter in the world.

So when I get a discouraging or snooty look, I mention Mark Cavendish before sprinting off and leaving those 'pros' in a cloud of dust!

His book - Boy Racer - is a great read too!

Image of the Day

2009-10-30T16:42:00.002Z

I was sitting on a train back to Oxford and I saw a guy with either his younger brother or son, and they had such a connection and were playing around in the nicest way that it instantly made me think of this.

Here's a great article on the photograph - and it rather takes what I wanted to say and does it well.

But what is so attractive about with a child. Maybe it's like wearing a ring. Studies have shown that men who wear rings (wedding or signet) are found to be more attractive because it symbolises loyalty and fidelty. Maybe its the same - there is a feeling to total trust, faith and love. So openly displayed.

Or maybe I'm just getting broody - oi, Jamie! Get over here! x

The Rubbish Excuse the Oxford Union just sent out regarding their cock-up over Iain Dale's talk this evening

2009-10-28T17:59:00.002Z

Dear Members,

We would like to sincerely apologise on behalf of the society and those who organised the Ian Dale speaker meeting which was meant to have taken place tonight, for its cancellation. This was due to a severe miscommunication between the organisers and Mr Dale.

The speaker meeting was confirmed by Mr Dale via email on 23 September, and a subsequent email was sent with a request for details about the arrangements of the event, to which a response was received and a title of the talk confirmed, though no mention was made of a change to the times mentioned in an earlier email from 17 July which set out the time of arrival as around 6.30pm. Thereafter the organisers changed the time of the event but the message does not appear to have made it to Mr Dale that he would need to be here earlier. Today the event organisers received an email from Mr Dale where he asked for more details, but upon receipt of those details indicated that he could not attend due to other appointments in the afternoon.

We sincerely apologise for any inconvenience caused.

The Oxford Union

(And no - they didnt even spell Iain's name correctly! Mandelson had it best when he said "chumps")

Mandelson in Oxford

2009-10-28T13:10:00.003Z

Now a while ago now Peter Mandelson (yet, he of the jet black Brompton bike fame) came and spoke at Oxford. He spoke at the Said Business School, and at St Catherine' College, where he was an undergraduate.

Andrew Sparrow wrote a great blog on the more important speech of the day, that at the Business school: you can see it here

Much was repeated from that speech in his St Catz address, but it was I think toned down for Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) because obviously their supporters are to immature to understand deep policy. [There was no sarcasm in that sentence]

He talked mostly about Cameron - the true mark of a leader-in-waiting is where all anyone talks about is you, rather than their own policies.
He made the occasional joke - too poor now to remember.

But the heros of the day were OULC (now there's sarcasm) who not only charged an entry fee (bloody outrageous socialists) but whose choice of questioners were rather suspicious. Most were along the lines of, how can we beat Cameron, or some rubbish question on why Univesities now do not fall under Education, but Innovation and Skills.

Mandelson made a few interesting point - Cameron needs to start introducing some substance over his style and veneer. Interesting because it's what Labour failful have been preaching for years (is Mandy behind the times?) and because this was coming from the man who put Blair in power!

He said that in order to be elected, one needs three things- Personality (which Cameron has), Policies (which Cameron doesnt apparently), and Instinct (which the voters must trust - and he didnt trust Cameron's).

He also said that the role of government was to do the "heavy lifting for the economy" - he put his finger on why I dont vote Labour. That is not the role of government.

One question was of genuine interest to me. It came from a lad who said that he wished he could campaign for Labour, bang on doors and get the vote out, but he couldnt believe in them. Why? Because in stead of talking about policies, the Labour Part keep talking about the need to identify the problems with themselves and the country. Why, he asked, could they not get past identifing the problem and do something about it!

A good lad.

Mandelson's discussion was also of note for its tone - it was the speech of a man who knows about election; about how to get and hold onto power. Winning the next election was not for him about making the country better, it was about winning.

Why I won't be wearing a Poppy this year

2009-10-28T12:53:00.004Z

I wish I could be a pacifist.

But I'm not.

That's not why I wont be wearing a Poppy this year.

This may be the silliest Blog post you have ever read.

I wont be wearing a poppy cause I wear lots of different clothes. Im not tied to a suit all day, or have one jacket I always wear when I go out. I'm in an out of my house all day, running around, back and forth.

Last year, I had to buy four poppies as each one got crumpled, and as I broke them or lost the pin as I tried to reattach it to each different shirt.

I therefore ths year will not wear a Poppy. I hope it does not cause offence, but it is an impractical medium for my show of support. If there were Poppy wristbands, or badges, I would wear one.

I will continue to support our troops and wear my Help For Heroes band.

And that's why I wont be wearing a Poppy

Such a Powerful Video - We should talk about these issues more often

2009-10-28T11:46:00.001Z

Top Headline from the Sun

2009-10-27T22:21:00.002Z

Today - I purchased the Sun. I dont know why - I'm on an economy drive and needed a newspaper of some kind. Anyway, here are my top 5 favourite stories:

5 ..... Hubba Chubba [Curvey women are better in bed than size 0 models]
4 .... 'A syringe and a vial of frozen spern arrived by courier. I got pregnant on my first attempt' [Need I say more]
3 ... 'Myth' of rape drug [apparently girls are more in danger from the booze than the foul and dangerousdrugs seedy men slip into them]
2 .. It's the way I Patel 'em! [Classic! Go get up Philip!]
1 . Here's Lord Mandelbar [Mandy rides a jet black Brompton]

So sorry to those of you which didnt make the cut - you were appreciated all the same!