So, first of all, Georgie Osbourne refuses, in April, to ring-fence schools spending from any cuts in any future Conservative government scenario. Schools spending will receive a "shake-up" he said. In other words, it's back to the bad old days of the 80s and 90s when school governors didn't have a penny to scratch their bums with. We can expect, with reasonable probability, cuts in schools spending by a future Conservative government.
Now Andrew Lansley says that the Conservatives will set a limit on future NHS spending - meaning only small increases, amid warnings from professionals that this will mean ward closures and will "feel like a cut".
So schools and the NHS will, in all probability, suffer under a Tory government.
But don't worry. There's good news for us anally retentive political nerds! Eric Pickles has effectively committed that a future Conservative government will spend extra money to ensure that all votes are counted straight away the night after the polls close on General Election.
Britain - safe in the Tories' hands!
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Tory and Labour MPs earn up to 630 times more per hour than their constituents
The Mail on Sunday has an intriguing list (above - click on it to enlarge) of what MPs earn per hour on jobs outside parliament compared with the average hourly rate for their constituents. Patrick Cormack eat your heart out. The list shows the Top 40 who are all Labour and Tory MPs with one exception (Plaid Cymru). Take dear old Michael Gove. He earns £1437 an hour for four hours work writing articles - that 127 times the average hourly pay rate of his constituents. William Hague earns 114 times his constituents for advising a board meeting. John Gummer earns 630 times his constituents' hourly rate - £4,999 based on 20 minutes work on a conference call for which he was paid £1,666.
Also, surprise, surprise, Patrick Cormack is on the list! The very man who said recently that MPs pay should be doubled earns £191 an hour for advising a restoration firm - 21 times his average constiuent.
These figures do take hourly rates for very small lengths of activity and don't include preparation work, for example, for a board meeting.
But they certainly shoot the canard about MPs being hard done by (at least for this forty MPs and others like them with generously remunerated outside jobs)!
Also, surprise, surprise, Patrick Cormack is on the list! The very man who said recently that MPs pay should be doubled earns £191 an hour for advising a restoration firm - 21 times his average constiuent.
These figures do take hourly rates for very small lengths of activity and don't include preparation work, for example, for a board meeting.
But they certainly shoot the canard about MPs being hard done by (at least for this forty MPs and others like them with generously remunerated outside jobs)!
Saturday, August 22, 2009
The Real Tory party #9934 - a real corker
Almost everyday (indeed several times a day, sometimes) we are reminded that David Cameron seems to be very unsuccessful at taming the beast which is the Tory party.
At times it is ridiculous how he smarms his way around pretending to be "liberal" and progressive, while his party behave in the opposite way. The Daniel Hannan episode, and its subsequent revelations, was an excellent case in point.
Today there is another absolute corker.
You would have thought someone would have briefed Alan Scard. He is only the Chairman of the Association charged with finding a replacement for one of the most high profile casualties of the MPs' expenses scandal - Sir Peter "In the Duck House" Viggers.
But, oh no, he helpfully provides us with a real insight into the Tory party with this gem:
During the Channel 4 News interview, he was asked about David Cameron's push to get more women elected.
Mr Scard said: "If they are attractive, yeah, I would go for it.
"I know it's a sexist thing to say but you could get the blokes saying, 'Oh you know, I would vote for her because she's really attractive', but then the other women say 'Oh I don't like her, she's too attractive'."
He thought the interview was over, apparently. Perhaps all Tory party chairs should take lesson one in broadcasting, which is:
If you are near a microphone, assume it is live.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Cameron: Who's the tw*t?
It is interesting that David Cameron hams it up to try to please particular audiences. It so transparently contrived. Just after elected Tory leader, he appeared on a London community radio station for the "young". When asked to give a message to the audience he said "Keep it real".
Come off it. This man was brought up amidst antique family furntiure in one of the poshest parts of Berkhire -Leckhamsptead. I've been there several times. "Keep it real" is not a phrase you hear in the Stag pub there. "Yah", "Ew" and "Tally Ho" you might hear. "Keep it real" - no.
So today he tries it again. He's on with zoo radio expert Christian O'Connell, so he swears. "Tw*t" and "P****ed off", he says. Oh yes. He's really down with the kids. And Ew, marvellous, some excellent press emphasising his street cred.
Except there is a fly in the ointment:
Asked whether he used Twitter, Cameron said: "The trouble with Twitter, the instantness of it - too many twits might make a twat.
Do you see what he did there? He's a tw*t because he hasn't used Twitter and obviously has no idea what it is, and, let's face it, expecting him to use it would be like expecting Her Majesty the Queen to use the iPod that Bazza gave her and load it herself (I love to think that she has "God Save Oneself" loaded onto it, but I fear not).
But he's turned it round and called all us Tweeters tw*ts, effectively.
That will come back to haunt him.
The twit.
Come off it. This man was brought up amidst antique family furntiure in one of the poshest parts of Berkhire -Leckhamsptead. I've been there several times. "Keep it real" is not a phrase you hear in the Stag pub there. "Yah", "Ew" and "Tally Ho" you might hear. "Keep it real" - no.
So today he tries it again. He's on with zoo radio expert Christian O'Connell, so he swears. "Tw*t" and "P****ed off", he says. Oh yes. He's really down with the kids. And Ew, marvellous, some excellent press emphasising his street cred.
Except there is a fly in the ointment:
Asked whether he used Twitter, Cameron said: "The trouble with Twitter, the instantness of it - too many twits might make a twat.
Do you see what he did there? He's a tw*t because he hasn't used Twitter and obviously has no idea what it is, and, let's face it, expecting him to use it would be like expecting Her Majesty the Queen to use the iPod that Bazza gave her and load it herself (I love to think that she has "God Save Oneself" loaded onto it, but I fear not).
But he's turned it round and called all us Tweeters tw*ts, effectively.
That will come back to haunt him.
The twit.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
FT: Tory plans for FSA/Bank of England "unwise"
The leader in today's FT says that the Tory plans to close down the Financial Services Authority and give its powers to the Bank of England represent unnecessary and counter-productive butchery:
Under the Tory plans...an unchecked and unchallenged Bank may fall into groupthink about financial stability – as it did during the decade before the crisis. The Conservatives propose recruiting a handful of outsiders to sit on a financial policy committee to inject intellectual competition into the monetary authority. But it is unrealistic to expect these few people to spot and counter biases across the Bank’s domain.
All in all – and taking into account the disruption they will cause – these plans are unwise. They are also a distraction from the Tories’ better ideas, such as improving banking competition policy. And they will make the FSA’s task more difficult over the coming year. A little keyhole surgery on the government’s proposals would yield better results than these plans for wholesale butchery.
Under the Tory plans...an unchecked and unchallenged Bank may fall into groupthink about financial stability – as it did during the decade before the crisis. The Conservatives propose recruiting a handful of outsiders to sit on a financial policy committee to inject intellectual competition into the monetary authority. But it is unrealistic to expect these few people to spot and counter biases across the Bank’s domain.
All in all – and taking into account the disruption they will cause – these plans are unwise. They are also a distraction from the Tories’ better ideas, such as improving banking competition policy. And they will make the FSA’s task more difficult over the coming year. A little keyhole surgery on the government’s proposals would yield better results than these plans for wholesale butchery.
Cameron's blunder over Ofcom
Philip Stephens in the FT says that David Cameron has made a basic error in promising to abolish Ofcom:
The problem is that in promising to transfer Ofcom’s work to Whitehall so it is more directly accountable to ministers and parliament, Mr Cameron has shown he has no clear idea of what it does.
The central charge seems to be that Ofcom’s views on public service broadcasting have strayed too far into realms better reserved for ministers. As it happens, I think Mr Cameron is mistaken, but the details of the argument are irrelevant beside the fact that broadcasting policy accounts for only about 5 per cent of Ofcom’s workload. Moving it to Whitehall would scarcely mean “that Ofcom, as we know it, will cease to exist”. Some 90 per cent of Ofcom’s remit comprises unglamorous work such as telecommunications regulation, upholding broadcasting standards, allocating spectrum, and, crucially, policing competition. All this can properly be done only at arms length from civil servants and ministers.
Unless Mr Cameron tears up the rules of independent regulation – or breaks up the organisation into the several quangos from which it was originally created – Ofcom will indeed survive in something much like its present form. It is curious that someone who once worked in broadcasting could miss this point.
The problem is that in promising to transfer Ofcom’s work to Whitehall so it is more directly accountable to ministers and parliament, Mr Cameron has shown he has no clear idea of what it does.
The central charge seems to be that Ofcom’s views on public service broadcasting have strayed too far into realms better reserved for ministers. As it happens, I think Mr Cameron is mistaken, but the details of the argument are irrelevant beside the fact that broadcasting policy accounts for only about 5 per cent of Ofcom’s workload. Moving it to Whitehall would scarcely mean “that Ofcom, as we know it, will cease to exist”. Some 90 per cent of Ofcom’s remit comprises unglamorous work such as telecommunications regulation, upholding broadcasting standards, allocating spectrum, and, crucially, policing competition. All this can properly be done only at arms length from civil servants and ministers.
Unless Mr Cameron tears up the rules of independent regulation – or breaks up the organisation into the several quangos from which it was originally created – Ofcom will indeed survive in something much like its present form. It is curious that someone who once worked in broadcasting could miss this point.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Parliament Square: The disgusting side of the Tories in microcosm
I haven't met David Cameron. With age, I have decided to at least try not to hate people I have not met, although George Bush is naturally an exception. With a carefully contrived cocktail of alcohol and prescription drugs inside of me, I am sure I would enjoy an hour in a pub with David Cameron. I'd probably need to scream (and wash thoroughly) afterwards, though.
But, as regards Cameron's attitudes I find it very difficult to exaggerate the contempt I feel. His pronouncement on the protests in Parliament Square just sends me into waves of anger. I find it very difficult to restrain myself. I just feel profound hatred, emanating from deep down in my bone marrow, of the stupid stuck-up idiotic pillock Mr Cameron who said:
I am all in favour of free speech and the right to demonstrate and the right to protest.
But I think there are moments when our Parliament Square does look like a pretty poor place, with shanty town tents and the rest of it.
I am all for demonstrations, but my argument is `Enough is enough'.
What hypocrisy! How disingenuous can you get?! He's in favour of free speech but he is not in favour of free speech in one of the most important places we should have it - in front of Parliament!
AAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I should also put in a mention for Boris Johnson who cancelled the pedestrianisation of Parliament Square so that it is more difficult to fit in protests in the first place, due to the traffic flow.
But, as regards Cameron's attitudes I find it very difficult to exaggerate the contempt I feel. His pronouncement on the protests in Parliament Square just sends me into waves of anger. I find it very difficult to restrain myself. I just feel profound hatred, emanating from deep down in my bone marrow, of the stupid stuck-up idiotic pillock Mr Cameron who said:
I am all in favour of free speech and the right to demonstrate and the right to protest.
But I think there are moments when our Parliament Square does look like a pretty poor place, with shanty town tents and the rest of it.
I am all for demonstrations, but my argument is `Enough is enough'.
What hypocrisy! How disingenuous can you get?! He's in favour of free speech but he is not in favour of free speech in one of the most important places we should have it - in front of Parliament!
AAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I should also put in a mention for Boris Johnson who cancelled the pedestrianisation of Parliament Square so that it is more difficult to fit in protests in the first place, due to the traffic flow.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Love and Liberty on the crazy new Tory European grouping
I was thinking of screwing myself up into a flurry of indignation over the Tories and their new European parliament grouping. But Alex has got there first so there's no point in "knocking out" (Boris phrase that) a flimsy "Me-too":
The big problem is that the “European Conservatives and Reformists Group” is made up of only 55 MEPs from eight countries, only just enough to qualify as a “Group” within European Parliament rules – by contrast, the major players that can actually get things done, the European Socialists, the European Liberals and the European People’s Party that the Conservatives have just flounced away from all each have between two and four times as many MEPs, from three times as many countries. This isn’t just a matter of voting strength and influence, though obviously that’s important: the unfortunate fact for Mr Cameron is that if one or two MEPs from the ‘wrong’ country drop out, he suddenly ceases to have a Group at all.
Unlike any of the three major groups, then, Mr Cameron’s new Conservative Group can be held to ransom by most of the crackpots within it. And guess what? It’s already happened. On its very first day, Mr Cameron’s extremist Polish partners threatened to pull the plug unless their man became leader. So the brave British Conservatives instantly surrendered. If that’s his idea of standing up to Europe, I’d be interested to see what difference he can find between that and complete collapse of all negotiating positions.
Who knows what demands the smaller parties can get the British Conservatives to cave in on, when almost any one of them can nuke his Group on a whim?
And how did Mr Cameron get himself into this corner in the first place? Because the promise was forced out of him in surrender to the most hardline anti-European extremists among the British Conservative MPs. If Mr Cameron becomes Prime Minister, how many of them will he be forced to surrender to, how often, and on what scarily right-wing policies, now that he’s proved that his instant response to being held to ransom is to give in completely?
The big problem is that the “European Conservatives and Reformists Group” is made up of only 55 MEPs from eight countries, only just enough to qualify as a “Group” within European Parliament rules – by contrast, the major players that can actually get things done, the European Socialists, the European Liberals and the European People’s Party that the Conservatives have just flounced away from all each have between two and four times as many MEPs, from three times as many countries. This isn’t just a matter of voting strength and influence, though obviously that’s important: the unfortunate fact for Mr Cameron is that if one or two MEPs from the ‘wrong’ country drop out, he suddenly ceases to have a Group at all.
Unlike any of the three major groups, then, Mr Cameron’s new Conservative Group can be held to ransom by most of the crackpots within it. And guess what? It’s already happened. On its very first day, Mr Cameron’s extremist Polish partners threatened to pull the plug unless their man became leader. So the brave British Conservatives instantly surrendered. If that’s his idea of standing up to Europe, I’d be interested to see what difference he can find between that and complete collapse of all negotiating positions.
Who knows what demands the smaller parties can get the British Conservatives to cave in on, when almost any one of them can nuke his Group on a whim?
And how did Mr Cameron get himself into this corner in the first place? Because the promise was forced out of him in surrender to the most hardline anti-European extremists among the British Conservative MPs. If Mr Cameron becomes Prime Minister, how many of them will he be forced to surrender to, how often, and on what scarily right-wing policies, now that he’s proved that his instant response to being held to ransom is to give in completely?
Tory report recommends PR for Second Chamber
Just a few months ago, David Cameron was comprehensively (and wrongly) shredding the idea of proportional representation in the Evening Standard. So it is interesting that today two of his most senior MPs are advocating Proportional Representation for a mainly elected Second Chamber:
We favour a system of Proportional Representation for elections to the chamber. We
believe that the First past the post system, with its ability to deliver clear party majorities,
works well for the Commons and entrenches its role as the source of legitimacy for a
government; however, the second chamber requires a demonstrably different system
Elections for the chamber should be on the basis of the regions that are used for
European elections, although the electoral system should favour greater voter choice than
a pure party list approach. Large electoral areas, coupled with the use of a long, nonrenewable term, will reduce the danger of members of the second chamber encroaching
on MPs’ constituency work and thereby diluting their own revision and scrutiny role.
We favour a system of Proportional Representation for elections to the chamber. We
believe that the First past the post system, with its ability to deliver clear party majorities,
works well for the Commons and entrenches its role as the source of legitimacy for a
government; however, the second chamber requires a demonstrably different system
Elections for the chamber should be on the basis of the regions that are used for
European elections, although the electoral system should favour greater voter choice than
a pure party list approach. Large electoral areas, coupled with the use of a long, nonrenewable term, will reduce the danger of members of the second chamber encroaching
on MPs’ constituency work and thereby diluting their own revision and scrutiny role.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Boris: knocking one off on Sunday morning for alleged £250,000 "chicken feed"
Er.....A weekly article for the Telegraph, that is. From the BBC's Hard Talk:
It's chicken feed. I think that frankly there's absolutely no reason at all why I should not knock off an article as a way of relaxation. I write anyway, I happen to write extremely fast. I don't see why on a Sunday morning I shouldn't knock off an article - if someone wants to pay me for that article then that's their lookout and of course I make a substantial donation to charity.
Just while you're trying to stop your head spinning (understanding any outburst from Boris is a bit like having one's head stuck inside a washing machine while it's on fast spin) let me point out that the "chicken feed" he refers to is the alleged £250,000 a year he receives for his Telegraph articles on top of the, presumably "half chicken feed", £140,000 mayoral salary he gets.
I find this all very depressing. It is very tiresome indeed that the Mayor of London reckons that a quarter of a million pounds - more than ten times the UK average salary - is "chicken feed" and is, furthermore, happy to declare that to the public.
It is hard to decide what attitude brings forward such a statement. Is it the "I'm an arrogant toff with loads of dosh but at least I am honest and open about it and people love me don't they? - or at least they love my lovely hair don't they?" attitude?
Or is it the "I really don't know what I am saying: I just open my mouth and all sorts of nonsense falls out. I really couldn't care if anyone objects to it, because we've got the next few elections sewn up anyway" attitude?
Or...are there any other attitudes that could be behind this? I am genuinely anxious to find out.
Could it be the "look, of course it is lots of money, but if I call it 'chicken feed' people earning £20,000 a year won't start thinking I am a pompous arrogant twit because they will believe that it doesn't mean a lot to me and therefore they shouldn't worry about it" attitude? (Sorry that one is rather obscure, but I am hauling a whole variety of foreign objects up the flagpost here so stick with me and let's see if any of them get saluted). That is, the "Keep calm and carry on - nothing to see here attitude but oops it doesn't quite work but who gives a monkeys? - I certainly don't, I am not going to run for a second term and there's a cabinet job with my name on it and I've got the Camster by the short and wotsits" attitude?
I think we should be told. But we may never know.
It's chicken feed. I think that frankly there's absolutely no reason at all why I should not knock off an article as a way of relaxation. I write anyway, I happen to write extremely fast. I don't see why on a Sunday morning I shouldn't knock off an article - if someone wants to pay me for that article then that's their lookout and of course I make a substantial donation to charity.
Just while you're trying to stop your head spinning (understanding any outburst from Boris is a bit like having one's head stuck inside a washing machine while it's on fast spin) let me point out that the "chicken feed" he refers to is the alleged £250,000 a year he receives for his Telegraph articles on top of the, presumably "half chicken feed", £140,000 mayoral salary he gets.
I find this all very depressing. It is very tiresome indeed that the Mayor of London reckons that a quarter of a million pounds - more than ten times the UK average salary - is "chicken feed" and is, furthermore, happy to declare that to the public.
It is hard to decide what attitude brings forward such a statement. Is it the "I'm an arrogant toff with loads of dosh but at least I am honest and open about it and people love me don't they? - or at least they love my lovely hair don't they?" attitude?
Or is it the "I really don't know what I am saying: I just open my mouth and all sorts of nonsense falls out. I really couldn't care if anyone objects to it, because we've got the next few elections sewn up anyway" attitude?
Or...are there any other attitudes that could be behind this? I am genuinely anxious to find out.
Could it be the "look, of course it is lots of money, but if I call it 'chicken feed' people earning £20,000 a year won't start thinking I am a pompous arrogant twit because they will believe that it doesn't mean a lot to me and therefore they shouldn't worry about it" attitude? (Sorry that one is rather obscure, but I am hauling a whole variety of foreign objects up the flagpost here so stick with me and let's see if any of them get saluted). That is, the "Keep calm and carry on - nothing to see here attitude but oops it doesn't quite work but who gives a monkeys? - I certainly don't, I am not going to run for a second term and there's a cabinet job with my name on it and I've got the Camster by the short and wotsits" attitude?
I think we should be told. But we may never know.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Tories: No decision yet on the Potato Board
I've just enjoyed this excellent clip of Philip Hammond from Daily Politics. Andrew Neil was a bit bullying with him, and Hammond kept his nerve. But Neil teased out a couple of key points:
1. The Tories have promised 17 new Quangoes but can only currently name 2 which they would get rid of, despite having been in opposition for twelve years and the concept of Quangoes having been around for 30+ years. So, in terms of named bodies, they are currently proposing to actually increase the number of Quangoes by a net total of 15.
2. The Tories quote an average of £658,000 annual salary for the Top 20 Quango executives but couldn't provide the Top 20 list yesterday. Now they have provided the list, it includes the BBC who even Philip Hammond, admittedly under leading questioning from Neil, admits is not a Quango. The list also includes executives of several bodies which are not even within the scope of the Tories own definition of a Quango.
My favourite quote from the interview from Hammond:
I can't promise you about the potato board, because we haven't looked at that in detail.
1. The Tories have promised 17 new Quangoes but can only currently name 2 which they would get rid of, despite having been in opposition for twelve years and the concept of Quangoes having been around for 30+ years. So, in terms of named bodies, they are currently proposing to actually increase the number of Quangoes by a net total of 15.
2. The Tories quote an average of £658,000 annual salary for the Top 20 Quango executives but couldn't provide the Top 20 list yesterday. Now they have provided the list, it includes the BBC who even Philip Hammond, admittedly under leading questioning from Neil, admits is not a Quango. The list also includes executives of several bodies which are not even within the scope of the Tories own definition of a Quango.
My favourite quote from the interview from Hammond:
I can't promise you about the potato board, because we haven't looked at that in detail.
Tory embarrassment: Most of their Top 20 quangocrats don't work for quangoes
Most of them work for the BBC (8), Channel 4 (3), the Financial Services Authority and British Nuclear Fuels, none of which have been included in the scope of the recent Tory quango exercise (indeed Philip Hammond, Tory frontbencher, said on air on the Daily Politics show that he didn't think the BBC is a quango).
Andrew Neil explains.
You would have thought a full bells and whistles David Cameron event like this would have been a little better prepared.
Andrew Neil explains.
You would have thought a full bells and whistles David Cameron event like this would have been a little better prepared.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Cameron turns both ways
It was excellent to see David Cameron doing a complete volte face within 10 seconds on Today. Firstly he said that Quangoes should be stringently reviewed, cut down, abolished etc. Then, when challenged to say whether he would freeze public sector pay, he generously sang the praises of independent pay review boards who are....ahem....quangoes.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
A reminder of the beating heart of the Tory party
Oh great. William Hague brings back hunting as a key issue for the Tories. And apparently they need hunt supporters to help them get elected.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Tory MP warns that Tory government endangers Union with Scotland
Staggering stuff From Conservative Home:
Writing in the Local Government Chronicle the outgoing Tory MP, David Curry, concedes that the election of a Tory Government increases the chances of the Union breaking up:
"For Cameron now looks like the next prime minister. And if there is one thing [Alex] Salmond wants, it is a Conservative government looking and feeling culturally and politically wholly alien to Scotland. This will be especially so if Cameron feels he must curb the power of Scottish MPs at Westminster, reduce their number and revisit the spending formula that ships cash up to Scotland to fund services unavailable in England. Even if the Tories pick up a handful of Scottish seats in the general election, Salmond will feel that an independence referendum is winnable. Scotland will be able to vote for what it is against — which is how it likes it."
Writing in the Local Government Chronicle the outgoing Tory MP, David Curry, concedes that the election of a Tory Government increases the chances of the Union breaking up:
"For Cameron now looks like the next prime minister. And if there is one thing [Alex] Salmond wants, it is a Conservative government looking and feeling culturally and politically wholly alien to Scotland. This will be especially so if Cameron feels he must curb the power of Scottish MPs at Westminster, reduce their number and revisit the spending formula that ships cash up to Scotland to fund services unavailable in England. Even if the Tories pick up a handful of Scottish seats in the general election, Salmond will feel that an independence referendum is winnable. Scotland will be able to vote for what it is against — which is how it likes it."
Thursday, June 11, 2009
A bad 24 hours for the Tories
1. Andrew Lansley assumes the role of shadow chancellor and announces their spending cut plans. 10% cuts on everything except for the NHS, schools and international development. That's a lot! 10% on defence, for example? I hear Tory retired colonels all over their country colectively spitting out their cornflakes!
2. George Osbourne has been reported in the Times for allegedly flipping his second home allowance and allegedly claiming for payments on a £450,000 mortgage. If your the heir to a baronetcy and a massive fortune (the Osbourne and Little wallpaper and drapery firm), I suppose you always need a little help.
3. There are signs we are moving or have moved out of recession. (It's the economy, stupid).
And to add insult to injury, the betting is that the Tories will get the last person they want as Speaker - their very own bête noire John Bercow.
At this rate, Labour will win the next election. OK then, forget that last bit - I had a momentary rush of blood to the head.
2. George Osbourne has been reported in the Times for allegedly flipping his second home allowance and allegedly claiming for payments on a £450,000 mortgage. If your the heir to a baronetcy and a massive fortune (the Osbourne and Little wallpaper and drapery firm), I suppose you always need a little help.
3. There are signs we are moving or have moved out of recession. (It's the economy, stupid).
And to add insult to injury, the betting is that the Tories will get the last person they want as Speaker - their very own bête noire John Bercow.
At this rate, Labour will win the next election. OK then, forget that last bit - I had a momentary rush of blood to the head.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The National Democratic Renewal Council - eh?
The title almost gives me nervous hysterics. This body is supposed to be the engine room for driving democratic reform in this country. So, does it include all parties, the church, Women's Institute, Boys Brigade etc etc like the Constitutional Convention which gave birth to the Scottish Assembly? Er...no.
So what is it then?
Well, it's just a Cabinet sub-committee basically. Downing Street says lists its members and gives other details - or highlights the absence of details - of the council. The members are:
Jack Straw, Harriet Harman, Lord Mandelson, Alistair Darling, David Miliband, Alan Johnson, Hilary Benn, Douglas Alexander, John Denham, Shaun Woodward, Baroness Royall, Jim Murphy, Peter Hain, Michael Wills, Nick Brown and Steve Bassam (the Lords Chief Whip - to attend when Lords issues were discussed).
So, nothing to get excited about. As for voting reform...last night it seemed to be "in" and that the Alternative Vote shambles would be conscribed. Now, after a night's sleep, Brown doesn't seem to be sure whether it will be included and certainly won't suggest a specific system (thank goodness):
On electoral reform, Downing Street played down reports that Mr Brown will propose replacing the first-past-the-post system with an alternative system similar to that used in the London mayoral election, where voters number candidates in order of preference.
A political source at No 10 said the Prime Minister was expected to say only that discussions would form part of the wider debate on renewal of British democracy, but any changes would have to be subject to a referendum.
He is not expected to put his weight behind any particular voting method or make firm proposals for electoral reform at this stage.
So, that could mean anything then. Great.
But we can be a bit hopeful that it is, sort of, on the agenda, at last. One thing's for sure, this is the last chance we have for Westminster voting reform for a good many years. As soon as the Tories get their mits on power they will pull the shutters down and the only "reform" there will be is a complete redrawing of the constituency boundaries to kill off about 50 natural Labour constituencies and keep the Tories in power for a generation.
So what is it then?
Well, it's just a Cabinet sub-committee basically. Downing Street says lists its members and gives other details - or highlights the absence of details - of the council. The members are:
Jack Straw, Harriet Harman, Lord Mandelson, Alistair Darling, David Miliband, Alan Johnson, Hilary Benn, Douglas Alexander, John Denham, Shaun Woodward, Baroness Royall, Jim Murphy, Peter Hain, Michael Wills, Nick Brown and Steve Bassam (the Lords Chief Whip - to attend when Lords issues were discussed).
So, nothing to get excited about. As for voting reform...last night it seemed to be "in" and that the Alternative Vote shambles would be conscribed. Now, after a night's sleep, Brown doesn't seem to be sure whether it will be included and certainly won't suggest a specific system (thank goodness):
On electoral reform, Downing Street played down reports that Mr Brown will propose replacing the first-past-the-post system with an alternative system similar to that used in the London mayoral election, where voters number candidates in order of preference.
A political source at No 10 said the Prime Minister was expected to say only that discussions would form part of the wider debate on renewal of British democracy, but any changes would have to be subject to a referendum.
He is not expected to put his weight behind any particular voting method or make firm proposals for electoral reform at this stage.
So, that could mean anything then. Great.
But we can be a bit hopeful that it is, sort of, on the agenda, at last. One thing's for sure, this is the last chance we have for Westminster voting reform for a good many years. As soon as the Tories get their mits on power they will pull the shutters down and the only "reform" there will be is a complete redrawing of the constituency boundaries to kill off about 50 natural Labour constituencies and keep the Tories in power for a generation.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Crack open the champagne!
...Or a rambling personal note on the council election results.
First of all, if you lost your seat in the elections, regardless of your party label or lack of it, do remember that losing at an election is God's/Fate's (delete as applicable) way of telling you to live a little.
Stephen Tall gives a very balanced view of the LibDems' performance here.
Overall, the Liberal Democrats projected share of the vote is cause for opening up the champagne! Trebles all round!
It's at 28%, compared to the Tories' 38% - just a ten point gap between us and the Tories. Compare that to the opinion polls in July/August 2008 when we were regularly twenty seven points - yes - count them - twenty seven points behind the Tories. If you don't believe me then look at this graph, which shows the LibDems around 18% in July/August 2008, with the Tories on around 45%.
Also, after all the nonsense we have had over the last few years about leaders, we have at last got a leader who is performing brilliantly, particularly over the last few weeks. Nick Clegg was particularly good and omnipresent on the media yesterday. This is cause for great rejoicing.
Oh, and, by golly, by gosh, we have at last got something which might be loosely described as that precious, precious commodity which the Liberal Democrats have searched and searched and searched for, for many long years. Yes, you guessed it - a narrative!
And let's savour Bristol a little shall we? Barbara Janke and her team have been plugging away at Bristol for many years. This is not an overnight success story. If you go back to the 1995 elections, Labour held a staggering 53 seats on Bristol City Council, with the LibDems on 9 and Tories on 6. So, little by little, the Bristol LibDems have plugged away and gradually built up their representation on the city council to the current level: LibDems 36, Labour 16, Tories 17, Greens 1. Well done team Bristol!
By the way, before any LibDems get too depressed, or indeed any Tories get too elated, they should look at this excellent analysis from Duncan Stott on Split Horizons. It shows that the Tories have grabbed seats way above their vote share. For example, in Staffordshire they won 79% of the seats with only 43% of the votes. How can that be good for democracy? Indeed, I'd argue that it isn't even good for the Conservatives. In a few years time they will get over-complacent, knackered and out of touch from too many council cabals, and then the electorate will take their revenge on them. It's all rather pointless.
I'd like now to focus on Cornwall and congratulate my fellow countryfolk (from, admittedly, my airey-fairey vantage point of exile in in a county where the trees go straight up and round) on establishing Cornwall Council. Yay! At long last!
And many congratulations to the Liberal Democrats for establishing an excellent representation on the new council - 38 seats. That, for Cornwall, is actually very good, bearing in mind it is an area with a tradition of many Indpendent councillors. I am particularly cheered that the whole of the Bude and Stratton area is now represented by LibDem councillors! Hurrah! So, many congratulations to Nathan Bale in Bude North and Stratton, Nigel Pearce in Bude South and Paula Dolphin in Flexbury and Poughill. This is a marvellous full house, when you consider that the area has been represented by independents (as well as some Liberal Democrats more recently) for many many years.
It was also good to see Glenton Brown being elected in Tintagel, a LibDem hat-trick in Launceston and a very strong LibDem showing both in Newquay and Penzance.
Many congratulations to Robin (Lord) Teverson on being elected for St Mewan ward and congratulations to David Hughes for being elected for Tywardreath ward, or the Du Maurier ward, if you prefer it (which you probably don't).
Finally, I would note that no Labour candidates were elected to Cornwall council. This is remarkable when you consider that Labour has traditionally been strong in the Redruth-Cambourne-Falmouth area. They used to have the MP going back years when Dr John Dunwoody held it, then Cathy Atherton from 1997. Indeed Cathy Atherton tried to get elected to the council in Carn Brea North but come third. The nearest Labour came anywhere to winning a seat was in Redruth North where they came 2nd.
First of all, if you lost your seat in the elections, regardless of your party label or lack of it, do remember that losing at an election is God's/Fate's (delete as applicable) way of telling you to live a little.
Stephen Tall gives a very balanced view of the LibDems' performance here.
Overall, the Liberal Democrats projected share of the vote is cause for opening up the champagne! Trebles all round!
It's at 28%, compared to the Tories' 38% - just a ten point gap between us and the Tories. Compare that to the opinion polls in July/August 2008 when we were regularly twenty seven points - yes - count them - twenty seven points behind the Tories. If you don't believe me then look at this graph, which shows the LibDems around 18% in July/August 2008, with the Tories on around 45%.
Also, after all the nonsense we have had over the last few years about leaders, we have at last got a leader who is performing brilliantly, particularly over the last few weeks. Nick Clegg was particularly good and omnipresent on the media yesterday. This is cause for great rejoicing.
Oh, and, by golly, by gosh, we have at last got something which might be loosely described as that precious, precious commodity which the Liberal Democrats have searched and searched and searched for, for many long years. Yes, you guessed it - a narrative!
And let's savour Bristol a little shall we? Barbara Janke and her team have been plugging away at Bristol for many years. This is not an overnight success story. If you go back to the 1995 elections, Labour held a staggering 53 seats on Bristol City Council, with the LibDems on 9 and Tories on 6. So, little by little, the Bristol LibDems have plugged away and gradually built up their representation on the city council to the current level: LibDems 36, Labour 16, Tories 17, Greens 1. Well done team Bristol!
By the way, before any LibDems get too depressed, or indeed any Tories get too elated, they should look at this excellent analysis from Duncan Stott on Split Horizons. It shows that the Tories have grabbed seats way above their vote share. For example, in Staffordshire they won 79% of the seats with only 43% of the votes. How can that be good for democracy? Indeed, I'd argue that it isn't even good for the Conservatives. In a few years time they will get over-complacent, knackered and out of touch from too many council cabals, and then the electorate will take their revenge on them. It's all rather pointless.
I'd like now to focus on Cornwall and congratulate my fellow countryfolk (from, admittedly, my airey-fairey vantage point of exile in in a county where the trees go straight up and round) on establishing Cornwall Council. Yay! At long last!
And many congratulations to the Liberal Democrats for establishing an excellent representation on the new council - 38 seats. That, for Cornwall, is actually very good, bearing in mind it is an area with a tradition of many Indpendent councillors. I am particularly cheered that the whole of the Bude and Stratton area is now represented by LibDem councillors! Hurrah! So, many congratulations to Nathan Bale in Bude North and Stratton, Nigel Pearce in Bude South and Paula Dolphin in Flexbury and Poughill. This is a marvellous full house, when you consider that the area has been represented by independents (as well as some Liberal Democrats more recently) for many many years.
It was also good to see Glenton Brown being elected in Tintagel, a LibDem hat-trick in Launceston and a very strong LibDem showing both in Newquay and Penzance.
Many congratulations to Robin (Lord) Teverson on being elected for St Mewan ward and congratulations to David Hughes for being elected for Tywardreath ward, or the Du Maurier ward, if you prefer it (which you probably don't).
Finally, I would note that no Labour candidates were elected to Cornwall council. This is remarkable when you consider that Labour has traditionally been strong in the Redruth-Cambourne-Falmouth area. They used to have the MP going back years when Dr John Dunwoody held it, then Cathy Atherton from 1997. Indeed Cathy Atherton tried to get elected to the council in Carn Brea North but come third. The nearest Labour came anywhere to winning a seat was in Redruth North where they came 2nd.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
The truth behind Cameron's call for non-political female candidates
Linda Duberley is a perfect example of a non-political, independent-minded woman with great career experience outside of politics. She's been through a great deal of screening to become a Tory 'B list' candidate but has been unable to get a seat to represent as a candidate - despite working very hard on the ground. Then she saw Cameron last week calling for more non-political, independent-minded women to be Tory candidates. She threw her mug of tea at the television. Here is her story.
Gratuitous self-gratification
Well, why not?
Dear Andrew Rawnsley:
...If you want to maximise the chances of securing serious constitutional reform, then the party to vote for is the Lib Dems.
...David Cameron is timid when it comes to reform in Britain. He sees the objection to privileging whoever is prime minister with the ability to try to fix the race by calling an election at any time of his or her choosing. He says he will "seriously consider" introducing the fixed-term parliament. Yes, I am sure he would think about that for all of a sub-nanosecond after he had stepped into Number 10.
...One promise that I do believe from the Tories is that they will implement a sweeping redistribution of constituency boundaries to make more equal the number of voters in each seat. This will not make each vote equal in value. It will have the effect of inflating the number of Tory MPs and culling the ranks of their opponents. After a decade in which the system has been tilted against the Conservatives, they are going to make jolly sure that in future the bias is in their favour.
...The Tory seducer hopes to weaken the knees of liberal Britain with the romance of a "massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power". What he's most ambitious to achieve is a massive redistribution of power from Gordon Brown to David Cameron.
Dear Andrew Rawnsley:
...If you want to maximise the chances of securing serious constitutional reform, then the party to vote for is the Lib Dems.
...David Cameron is timid when it comes to reform in Britain. He sees the objection to privileging whoever is prime minister with the ability to try to fix the race by calling an election at any time of his or her choosing. He says he will "seriously consider" introducing the fixed-term parliament. Yes, I am sure he would think about that for all of a sub-nanosecond after he had stepped into Number 10.
...One promise that I do believe from the Tories is that they will implement a sweeping redistribution of constituency boundaries to make more equal the number of voters in each seat. This will not make each vote equal in value. It will have the effect of inflating the number of Tory MPs and culling the ranks of their opponents. After a decade in which the system has been tilted against the Conservatives, they are going to make jolly sure that in future the bias is in their favour.
...The Tory seducer hopes to weaken the knees of liberal Britain with the romance of a "massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power". What he's most ambitious to achieve is a massive redistribution of power from Gordon Brown to David Cameron.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
