Oh the Hypocrisy!

Yesterday I wrote in support of the Coalition's plans to increase tuition fees, and explained why I was hoping that the House of Lords would allow the reforms to pass through the Upper Chamber without amendment.  Despite my obvious pleasure at the much-needed reforms finally being passed, I find myself less than comfortable with the way in which they have been passed.

Tuition Fees (Take Two)

A few months ago I wrote in support of tuition fees.  The post was very well received, provoked some interesting debate on the matter, and was even featured on the leading Conservative website, ConservativeHome.  Given the recent votes on Coalition plans to increase tuition fees, and the fact that the House of Lords will tonight vote on whether to ratify the Coalition's plans I feel that the time is right to elucidate a little on my previous post.  Given the previous post, I shall forego some of the more basic details and dive right in at the deep end...

Where do the parties stand?

Last week I received a very interesting and thought provoking e-mail from a friend, asking for my thoughts on the state of the parties.  In replying I thought that he actually raised a very interesting point, and an issue worth sharing.  So here's his question, and my response.

Feeling the benefit

This year's Conservative Party Conference could well prove to be one of the most important for the party in recent history.  With the Spending Review set to take place on October 20th, the Conferernce could well provide a sounding-board for the party to test public reaction to a number of planned cuts.

 If this is the approach that the Government is taking, then they will be most relieved that they have tested the waters with their proposals to cut child benefit for families where at least one parent is earning over £44,000 a year.

The Trouble With Ed

On Saturday afternoon, what seems to have been one of the longest leadership contests in history came to an end.  To the surprise of many, Ed Miliband beat his brother, David, by the narrowest of margins (0.6%) to win the leadership of the Labour Party.  Whilst Labour can look forward to opinion poll leads in the coming months, could the appointment of Miliband-The-Younger prove to cause long-term problems for Labour?

One of the main themes surrounding the election of Miliband as Leader of the Labour Party has been the manner in which he has been elected.  Whilst his older brother, David, won the lion's share of votes from MPs and members alike; Ed Miliband was able to overhaul his brother's lead based on Trade Union votes alone.

In his interview with Andrew Marr yesterday, the charge was levelled at Miliband that the Unions abused their position in order to ensure that he was returned as Labour's new leader.  From the actions of the Unions in the leadership election, it is clear that they felt that there was just one man amongst the candidates that best represented their views - and now they have got him.

The offending envelope sent out by GMB

Surely, now that the Trades Unions have helped to elevate Miliband to the position of power that he was after, they will seek a return for their good deed.  It is clear that the Unions, without whose funding the Labour Party would surely go bankrupt, will have a very large bargaining chip to use on Miliband in order to force their agenda through.

For them, it is very much a case of 'the right man at the right time'.  In the face of Coalition cuts, the Unions will be looking for someone to defend their members at the despatch box; and I am certain that this policy will reap rewards - for now.

What I am also certain of, is that the Unions stand to lose an awful lot of goodwill from the public-at-large should they push through with their plans for an 'Autumn of Discontent' following the spending review on October 20th.  Should these strikes go as planned, there is the potential for the country to be brought to its knees.

Given the lack of support for the RMT Union in the recent London Underground strikes, I cannot see there being much sympathy for the Trades Union movement should the entire country be brought to a standstill.

And if this is the case I can see it being extremely damaging for the Man of the Unions, when the country goes to the polls in 2015.

An important session for the Coalition

Today, the House of Commons will return from its summer recess and, arguably, will move into what could prove to be a make-or-break session for the Coalition government.  So what lies in store for the fledgling Coalition in the weeks and months ahead?

Is your passport illegal?

Despite the EU's 'Open Borders' policy, all UK citizens still need a passport in order to leave the UK for any destination in the world.  With an adult passport now costing £77.50, not only is this extortionately expensive, but it may even be illegal under EU Law.

Does Ian Huntley deserve his human rights?

Following an attack in March, in which his throat was slashed by a fellow inmate, Ian Huntley is set to sue the Ministry of Justice for up to £100,000 for failing in its duty of care towards him.  This incident, once again, brings to the fore the usual questions surrounding prisoners and human rights.  Should Huntley be allowed to bring this action before the courts, or should he just count himself lucky that the death sentence no longer exists in the UK?

The scrappage allowance: a missed opportunity?

The vehicle scrappage scheme, introduced by Peter Mandelson, ended a few months back and can only be seen as a resounding success; helping to revitalise the flagging UK motor industry and provide an economic boost during the recent recession.  The total cost of the scheme is said to have been £400m, but did the Labour government miss a trick?

Candid Cameron in a (lime) pickle over India comments

Yesterday I touched briefly on David Cameron's controversial comments regarding Pakistan, which he made during his trip to India.  Having made similarly controversial comments, describing Gaza as a "prison camp", just the previous day, commentators are suggesting that Mr. Cameron might be lacking a little tact in his style.


Could it be that David Cameron needs to think more before opening his mouth, or does this show a refreshing change in the style of UK politics?

Currying favour on the sub-continent

David Cameron has, this week, taken a large group of Government ministers and British businessmen on a visit to India in order to strengthen ties with the former British colony.  The visit has come in for criticism in light of the UK's current financial plight; but is this actually a shrewd move on the part of the British Prime Minister?

Buildings or Brains?

Yesterday I posted my reaction to the media-frenzy surrounding Michael Gove's mistake about school funding and his subsequent apology.  Today, I would like to focus on my thoughts surrounding the original plan itself; the plan to renovate or rebuild every secondary school in the UK.

Labour MP tired and emotional in Commons

In my other article today I made reference to the unparliamentary behaviour of the Labour MP for West Bromwich East, Tom Watson.  I really do have to wonder whether the gentleman was 'tired and emotional' at the time.  Anyway, here's the video:

Labour MP, Tom Watson, losing his cool in the chamber - tired and emotional, perhaps?

One thing you might notice here is that Mr. Watson doesn't even see fit to apologise to the Education Secretary for his outburst, choosing instead to withdraw the word 'pipsqueak' because he had to.

And as for Mr. Gove's response?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question; it gives me the opportunity once again to apologise to his constituents and to other parents and teachers in Sandwell for the confusion that was caused by the mistake that I made on Monday. I understand the passion that he brings to the issue, and I understand how hard he fights for his constituents. I shall be very happy to go to West Bromwich and apologise to those who have been misled by the mistake that has been made. I am more than happy to do so. As I said earlier, the mistake was mine and mine alone, and I am happy to acknowledge it.

Rather restrained, don't you think?

Michael Gove's mistake - what's the big deal?

The news today has been full of the story of the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, apologising for having announced incorrect information regarding the Government's plans to cancel a number of building projects for schools nationwide.  As a result, 25 school were incorrectly told that their own plans were to be given the go-ahead.  What I'm wondering, though, is what all the fuss is about.

Cutting the NHS? You're doing it wrong!

Despite the manifesto pledge to protect the NHS budget, and confirmation of that promise in the recent emergency budget, the National Health Service has still been asked to make £20bn worth of savings by 2014.  Such savings are intended to ensure it is fit to cope with the pressures of an ageing population, the rising price of drugs, and lifestyle changes such as obesity.  The problem is, they're doing it wrong.

Nice work if you can get it

Last weekend saw the revelation that £250,000 is spent every year on bodyguards for former Prime Minister, Tony Blair.  Whilst I cannot deny that there is unfortunately a need for such protection for any former PM, I do have to wonder if the cost is not a little excessive.

Here comes the satire

Over the last few years, political satire appears to have been a dying art; gone are the days of programmes such as Spitting Image and Not The Nine O'Clock News.  These were the kind of programmes from which no politician was safe.  Now the BBC have suggested that, with the new Lib/Con Coalition, political satire may well be making a return to our screens...

The invisible man

It is now 62 days since Gordon Brown received an overwhelming vote of confidence from his constituents, who have asked him to continue serving them for another five years.  In fact, they are so confident in his abilities that they returned him with an increased majority.  However, it would appear that Mr. Brown doesn't seem too bothered by the wishes of his constituents.

Same Labour, Same Ideas

Following their defeat in May's general election and the subsequent resignation of their leader, you would think that now would be the perfect time for the candidates for the Labour leadership to take stock of the situation, find out what went wrong and to reinvigorate the policies of a failing party.  Or maybe not...

Well, the VAT's out of the bag...

Yesterday saw the confirmation of the worst-kept secret in Westminster since Gordon Brown told the nation that he would be going to the country on 6th May; the main rate of VAT will rise to 20% from 4th January 2011.  The BBC have already been doing their duty to their Lords and Masters by presenting the point of view that everyone is outraged by the decision; but I happen to disagree with them.

A farewell to the Government's longest-serving member

Today George Osborne will present his first Budget; the so-called "Emergency Budget" aimed at setting the UK back on the road to profitability.  However, the occasion of this even will overshadow a far more solemn event; the quiet and humble retirement of one of the Government's longest-serving members.

Where I'd swing the axe - Part 3 (Tax increases)

In the previous two parts of today's trilogy, I have outlined where I would make cuts (if I was George Osborne) in order to cut back on unnecessary Government spending.  In this third and final part, I shall outline the necessary increases in taxation that I would make.

Where I'd swing the axe - Part 2 (More cuts)

In Part 1 I outlined how I would streamline the benefits system in order to ensure that government money doesn't go to those who don't need it.  Here, in Part 2, I shall outline where I would make further cuts in order to ensure the UK's long-term financial stability.

Where I'd swing the axe - Intro and Part 1 (Benefits)

Tomorrow sees the unveiling of what may well prove to be the most important UK Budget in a generation.  Coming as a result of a Conservative manifesto promise (and, let's face it, out of sheer necessity), the "Emergency Budget" will look to make savings in as many places as possible in a bid to cut the massive debt hanging over the head over every man, woman and child in the UK today.

An anachronism in the world's most advanced civilisation

As I write these words Ronnie Lee Gardner has just 45 minutes left to live; by the time you read them he will be dead.  At precisely 0605GMT he will be shot by a five-man firing squad after having been tied to a chair, hooded and having had a target pinned to his chest.

Maggie was right, just misquoted.

The assertion that "there is no such thing as society", has become one of  Margaret Thatcher's best-known quotes and is a staple in the arsenal of her detractors when they seek to justify their claims that she was intent on crushing the working classes.  The problem is that such a quote is taken massively out of context and that the anti-Maggie brigade always use it in isolation. 

In order to understand what was really meant by Thatcher, and why her comments as a whole present a chillingly accurate preview of the current state of 'society', you need to look at the context surrounding the quote.

Is this the end of the 'Elf as we know it?

David Cameron has today announced a review of the myriad health and safety laws, which currently add unbelievable amounts of red tape to even the most simplest of tasks.  Could this move (which could well be one of the fledgling Coalition's most popular announcements) mark the start of a new era of common sense politics?

Those of you who have ever had a passing acquaintance with the Daily Mail will be well versed on the ever-increasing number of ludicrous decrees passed by the Health and Safety executive in recent years.  Its pages carry reports ranging from the banning of the traditional game of conkers from school playgrounds (unless the children wear safety goggles, of course), to the frankly scandalous case of two PCSOs who stood by and watched a ten-year-old boy drown in a lake because "they had not been trained to go into water".

The Emergency Budget - what would you cut?

On 22nd June, just under two weeks away, Chancellor George Osborne will unveil this years second Budget; the so-called Emergency Budget.  In it he will outline Government plans to start tacking the deficit straight away.  Both he and David Cameron have already gone on the record saying that the cuts will be painful for everyone.

Novae Dentes: How do you solve a problem like Germania?

Something I've been trying to get into words over the last week or so has been the current situation in Germany following the shock resignation of President Horst Koehler.  In fact a fellow blogger, Mark Patrick at Novae Dentes, says it much better than I could.

Mark Patrick

Find out more here.

Keeping the Constituency Link

In previous posts I have commented upon electoral reform and the need to adopt a system that is fairer than First Past the Post.  The only real alternative is Proportional Representation.  But as those of you in the know will be aware, PR is not a simple beast; merely an umbrella name for a wealth of increasingly confusing voting methods.


One of the key concessions made by the Conservative Party as part of the Coalition Deal with the Liberal Democrats was to guarantee a referendum on electoral reform within the life of the current Parliament.  Commentators speculate that such a referendum could come as early as next year.

Trades Unions - the new Guy Fawkes?

As various Trades Unions continue to exert their vice-like grip on the country's infrastructure, it is time to consider whether the change in Government could result in a change of attitude from the Unions.

Dave Prentis: The new Arthur Scargill?

It has never been a secret that the Trades Unions are effectively the non-political arm of the Labour Party.  The Unions have enjoyed funding from Labour in the past and in return are the party's main backers, which means that they both enjoy enormous influence over each other whilst sharing a hatred of the Conservative Party.

Why I'm in favour of top-up fees

One of the big themes in modern politics is that of tuition fees.  Ever since their introduction by the last Labour government in 2006, no single issue has caused so much consternation amongst the students of the UK.  Protesting against tuition fees takes up large amounts of Student Union time and resources and their abolition has been a cornerstone of Liberal Democrat policy.

 Students doing what they have become famous for... not studying

Introduced in 2006, tuition fees were aimed at allowing universities across England and Wales to charge students an amount much closer to the actual costs involved in delivering a course.  Prior to this, students were expected to pay anything up to around £1,500 a year for their courses (means-tested according to family income).  This sum was expected to be paid to the university up-front by the student.  Because of the fact that it was means-tested, there was no financial support available for this fee.

With the introduction of the £3,000+ fees, the Student Loans Company incorporated a Tuition Fee Loan into their usual offerings; enabling students to study without having to worry about paying the fees up front.  The idea was that this money would be added to the rest of the loan, which would then be paid off at a favourable rate (9% of gross income above £15,000) once the student was earning over £15,000.  i.e. If a student with such a loan earns £16,000 a year their payments on the loan will total just £90 a year.

Pretty reasonable, eh?  The students get to pay for a service at or below cost-price with a low-interest loan, and then get to pay it back when they can afford to do so.

Strange bedfellows in the Big Tent

A small article on the news the other morning got me thinking.  Apparently the heads of the UK's largest Trades Unions have banded together to demand that their organisations also be invited into the "Big Tent" which he is building for the Conservative Party.  A strange demand if ever there was one.

Never in the history of politics has one movement been as anti-Conservative as that of the Trades Unions.  Ever since the inception of the Labour Party they have been the collective thorn in the Conservative side; using their colossal power to attempt to bring the country to its knees in order to achieve their demands.

Early Promise - Cameron's first PMQs

Parliament was most kind to move David Cameron's first Prime Minister's Questions to a later time yesterday which made it fit in with my lecture schedule and allowed me to watch it.  So here's my take:

So this is where the money goes...

The Eastern Daily Press today reports that a school in Cambridgeshire has spent £500 to reward a pupil for her 100% attendance record.

Given the well publicised financial situation in the UK along with the fact that the Government is working flat-out to cut waste (such as this), one cannot help but think that this money would have been better spent elsewhere.

Heaven help the school should they fall short of money come next March...

Laws oh Lordy

Over the weekend you will no doubt have been made aware (from various different angles) of how evil David Laws is and of how he should be summarily strung up from the nearest tree the moment the press manage to get hold of him.  I personally think that the way he has been treated is disgraceful, and here's why.

Things people are wrong to think about the Conservatives (Part 1)

I'll not hide the fact that this series is lifted from the brilliant Conservative blog at ConservativeHome.  However, it addresses some good points that I feel should be shared with a wider, non-Conservative audience.  I'll add the further parts as they are published.

"The best campaign ever"

The former British ambassador and connoisseur of Tashkent strip clubs Craig Murray famously stood against Jack Straw in the 2005 general election. Apparently still consumed with bitterness towards his former boss, Murray again weighed into the recent contest in Blackburn, backing an apparently “credible and impressive” independent candidate and even travelling to Lancashire to speak at an election event. True to form, Murray had identified someone with a weaker purchase on reality than himself in the form of deposit-losing embarrassment Bushra Irfan. Conor Pope’s hilarious dissection of her election leaflet is re-posted from The Audacity of Pope.

A lesson from Germany

Having moved to Berlin last September, one of the things that took the most getting used to was the fact that, over here, Sundays are still respected.  Not only are shops closed, but it is illegal to mow the law, wash your car or to feed your cat in the garden.  Even the bottle banks have signs on them prohibiting use of them on a Sunday (and on any other designated "Ruhetag" (day of peace) for that matter).

Alastair Campbell and the Lib-Dem Deserters

Owing to the death of the UKIP Candidate, the General Election in the Constituency of Thirst and Malton was pushed back to Thursday 27th May.  As unfortunate as it is, it still provides a very interesting method of gauging public sentiment towards the new Coalition Government after a few weeks of their being in office.

Not everyone's favourite Auntie

One of the prominent stories on the BBC Politics page today centres around a row between Number 10 and the producers of the BBC's "Question Time" programme.  The crux of the matter is that the Government refused to allow a Minister to appear on the programme if Labour spin-doctor, Alastair Campbell was to sit on the panel as Labour representative.

I shall start with a brief primer for my International readers who might not see what all this fuss is about.

Question Time is a weekly political show broadcast by the BBC.  It centres around topical debate with a panel of five; consisting of a representative of each of the three major political parties (Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem), and two non-partisan representatives.  The BBC itself (the British Broadcasting Corporation) is a public service broadcaster which operates under a mandate from the Queen.  It is funded via a TV License Fee which is payable by all UK citizens who use equipment to watch live broadcasts; the level of this fee is set by the Government.  Because of the way it is funded and operated, the BBC has a strict remit to be politically neutral; a remit which it is often accused of breaching.

Alastair Campbell is one of Labour's "star players".  Although he has not been elected by anyone he holds great power within the Labour Party in his position as strategist and spin-doctor.  He deals not with policy, instead manipulating the press in order to present the best public image for the party.

Given that this was the week of the Queen's Speech and therefore the debate would have, naturally, centred around the plans of the Coalition Government for the next eighteen months, I cannot see why the BBC would have asked a spin-doctor to represent the Labour Party rather than one of Labour's own front-benchers, who would have a much better grasp on matters of policy and would be much better placed to enter into constructive debate with a Conservative Minister.

I fully support the decision of Downing Street not to send a Minister, especially when the intentions of the BBC are so obvious.  It is clear, that by asking Campbell to represent the Labour Party, they were merely providing a stage for him to spout forth (again) about how many people have supposedly decided to join the Labour Party in the last week rather than provide any reasoned debate on Coalition policies.  That, and the fact that he has a new book out soon too...

If that wasn't enough, one of the "non-partisan" members of the panel was none other than well-known leftie and Labour supporter, Piers Morgan.  With those two appointments to the panel, any suggestion of political neutrality went straight out of the window and I commend the Conservative Party for having the guts to stand up to the BBC and say "no".

Of course, the backlash from the BBC (and Alastair Campbell) has already begun in earnest, with the BBC trying to take the moral high-ground by stating that they will not have terms dictated to them by the Government.  Surely though, this smacks of something to do with pots and kettles, with the BBC now effectively dictating terms to the Government.

In my mind, yes, the Government was dictating to the BBC.  Not terms, but merely reminding them of their duty to present a level political playing-field, and not just a mouthpiece for more Labour spin.

Over the next five years I sincerely hope that the Coalition will stand up to the BBC and bring an end to their years of acting as Labour's faithful lap-dog, and I hope that this first stand is a sign of things to come.

The Craziness of the British Airways Strikes

Take a look on the BBC website today and you'll see the news that talks between Unite and British Airways have broken down (again!) and that a planned strike of cabin crew will go ahead as of Monday.  If your plans are going to be wrecked because of this, you have my sympathies.  The big question I must as is: "Do Unite really know what they're doing?".

The news of the upcoming strike comes as no surprise, especially seeing as the situation has been rumbling on for months with little sign of reaching a conclusion.  For once though, the situation doesn't appear to be clean-cut for either side.  Unite's allegations of poor pay and working conditions are being met with allegations (and proof) of ballot-rigging and unjustified claims; there are many out there (not just BA officials) who will admit that BA staff are amongst the higher-paid in the industry.

If you discount everything else though, and assume that the Union have a legitimate gripe, you still have to wonder whether or not they are going about things in the right way, or even whether the Union is serious about the negotiations it is entering in to.

As far as the intentions of the Union are concerned, you just have to look at today's news to see how seriously their chiefs are taking negotiations; sitting at the negotiating table Twittering updates from a confidential meeting is a sure-fire way to endear yourself to your opponents.

As well as that, a brief look at the accounts of British Airways should tell you all you need to know about why the cabin crew might not being paid as much as they'd like; over the last two years BA has posted a combined loss of almost £1bn... a sum which certainly isn't conducive to pay rises all round.

With this in mind, I really do have to question the suitability of the action that is being taken by the Union.  How do they expect to extract more money out of an ailing company by financially crippling them.  The logic would stun even a five-year-old:

Union:  We want more money

British Airways:  We've lost nearly £1bn in the last two years, we can't afford it

Union:  Well we'll strike and lose you even more money then

British Airways:  Then we'll be even less able to afford what you're demanding

If you can see the logic in this exchange, please do tell me!

According to reports on the internet, the upcoming fifteen-day strike will cost BA upwards of £100m; with under £2bn in the bank, this will be a serious hit to BA's finances and I would certainly advise against booking any flights in advance with them.

Will Unite be happy when they bring the company to its knees and end up far from well paid, but in fact at the back of the dole queue?

A lesson from Norway (Part two)

Today marked the next step along the Coalition Causeway for the new Government, with the publication of their full plan for the next five years.  It lays bare the amount of compromises that have been made by David Cameron in order to secure the support of Nick Clegg and his party.  One of the u-turns that most disappoints me is David Cameron's decision to eschew his policy of repatriating a number of powers that have been handed over to the EU over the years.

I, like a large number of my fellow Conservatives, would label myself as Eurosceptic.  Whilst it cannot be argued that membership of the European Union does nothing for us, I am of the belief that we get out of it far less than we put in.  This is by no means a new set of circumstances; one of Margaret Thatcher's most famous actions was to go to Brussels in 1984 to say "I want my money back", successfully negotiating a rebate of more than £1bn a year from the EU.  (A rebate that was recently signed away in 2008, meaning that we now receive less money from the EU than any of the other 27 member-states).

To quote David Cameron, I want a situation whereby the UK is a part of Europe, in Europe but not ruled by Europe.

One of the biggest problems with the modern EU is the flawed Common Agricultural Policy.  This policy decides that having farmland in your country is a disadvantage and that such countries should be compensated.  This leads to the ludicrous situation whereby France receives almost twice the amount of money that the UK receives.  At the end of the day, all of this money has to come from somewhere.

The open borders policy also causes its own problems.  It is without doubt that the UK suffers from uncontrollable levels of immigration; the fact that this problem needs addressing was made clear by the policies on the matter that came from many parties.  However, the problem lies in the fact that the majority of this immigration is made up of EU Citizens; people we cannot turn away owing to our EU membership.

Of course, there are clear advantages; trade for example, and the reciprocal nature of the open borders policy.  The question is, then, is there a situation whereby we could pick and choose which elements of the EU we wish to enter in to.  The answer is yes.

Here is where Norway comes in again:

"Yes, we love this country!"

Norway is a member of a much smaller group, the European Free Trade Association.  This operates parallel to the EU and is linked to it.  As a result, Norway enjoys all of the trade-related benefits of EU membership but without the extortionate costs.  Norway's only duty to the EU is to implement any regulations which relate to the running of the trade side of the EU.

This model is almost the exact same model that the UK signed up to in 1973.  Over the years, power has slowly drifted to the centre of the EU and continues to do so to this very day.  I firmly believe that if this is a system that has worked for us in the past and continues to work for a number of other European countries, then it is the system for us.

Surely it can't be coincidence that Norway looks so stunning and isn't an EU member... just look at Belgium!

A lesson from Norway (Part one)

Think of Norway and you often think of fjords, snow and not much else really.  Nine times out of ten, you wouldn't be far wrong; however there are a few things in Norway from which we English could learn a couple of lessons.  One of those things is the matter of the National Anthem...


It's a topic that crops up all over the place on a fairly regular basis; in newspapers, on TV, even in the House of Commons.  The question regarding our National Anthem is one that really doesn't seem to go away.  There is a large number of people (at least 55% according to a BBC poll) who would rather have something other than God Save the Queen as the National Anthem.

I, for one, agree with them.

Let's get things straight though, I am not advocating a complete renouncement of God Save the Queen; it is a cracking Anthem steeped in tradition and famous the world over.  However, the fact of the matter is that it is designated as the National Anthem of Great Britain and the Commonwealth.


If you go to any international sporting occasion around the British Isles (or even the forthcoming Commonwealth Games in India) you will see that England is the only nation within the Union that still uses GSTQ as its Anthem.  The Welsh have "Land of my Fathers"; the Scottish "Flower of Scotland" and the Northern Irish "Londonderry Air", however England still persists in using the Great British National Anthem.


It can't be for the lack of an appropriate song to take its place; both Jerusalem and Land of Hope and Glory have been used as replacements at times but have failed to provide England with a permanent Anthem.  Both are amazing and incredibly fitting tunes, and also have the propensity to create an awesome din when belted out by a 80,000-strong crowd.


Another option would be for England to have two National Anthems; adopting one of either Jerusalem or Land of Hope and Glory as an English National Anthem whilst retaining GSTQ as an Anthem for use on Royal or State occasions.

Far-fetched?

That's where Norway comes in, for that is precisely their stance on the situation.

So to conclude, here are the two candidates; but for me, it's Jerusalem by a nose!  Enjoy!


Jerusalem



Land of Hope and Glory

Breaking through in Scotland

Now that the dust has settled on the General Election, the analysis can begin.  The key point for discussion for the Conservatives is bound to be the question of where they could have done better and won the seats needed in order to form a majority government.  One of the main failings in this respect was the inability of the Party to win more than one seat in Scotland.


Ever since the Thatcher years Conservative performance in Scotland has been in perpetual decline, with the Conservative presence in Scotland falling to just one seat in 1997 and remaining that way ever since.

One cannot deny the fact that the Central Party as well as the Scottish Conservative Party have made enormous efforts in trying to rectify this situation.  This should have been enough, with a respectable number of Scottish seats falling inside the 116 easiest seats for the Conservatives to take in order to gain a majority in the House.

The question that needs to be asked, therefore, is what the Conservatives need to do in order to regain the trust of the Scottish people again.

It is painfully clear that the legacy of the Thatcher years has hit hardest in the north of the UK, in Scotland in particular, which has led to a large amount of not only anti-Thatcher, but anti-Tory sentiment in northern communities; Scotland in particular.  To this extent it has been well acknowledged that victory in the General Election was a vital step in the rebuilding of the party.  Five years in Government should be enough to show the electorate that the Conservatives are no longer the "nasty party" of old.

This idea, however, is only possible if there is a Conservative presence to highlight this aspect.  In Scotland this is sadly lacking.

ConservativeHome has come up with a solution to this problem; the creation of a separate Scottish Conservative Party along the same lines as the CSU/CDU model that works to such great effect here in Germany.

The premise is quite simple.  Whilst the CDU is the "mainstream" Conservative party in Germany, the CSU adopts a different ideology.  Seeing as they operate solely in Bavaria, it enables them to adapt their policies to suit the extreme conservatism of this Catholic heartland.  The two parties then have an agreement whereby they form a union in the Bundestag (not too unlike the Conservatives and the Ulster Unionist Party before the UUP lost its last seat in Northern Ireland).

The foundation of a distinct Scottish Conservative Party (or even just a resurrection of the old Scottish Unionist Party) would provide the opportunity for the Conservative Party to have an arm dedicated solely to the interests of Scottish voters and the tackling of Scottish issues whilst also offering a distinct antithesis to the SNP; almost being in a position to provide a clear and distinct go-to party for those who disagree with the increasing sentiment of Nationalism.

The message from the voters of Scotland is clear though.  In order to bring about change, change must first of all come from within.

Why I'm voting Conservative today

Today is one of the biggest days that this country will face in a generation.  The decisions made by the people over the course of the next 15 hours will shape the future of Britain for the next five years (or longer).  I shall be voting for the Conservatives, and here's why:


My first real memory of politics comes from 2nd May 1997, when I was little more than nine years old.  I remember going into the daily assembly at St Helen's CP School in Ipswich, where Mr. Golding, the headmaster, explained to us that the country had a new Prime Minister, a certain Tony Blair (I remember wondering whether he was the same person as Lionel Blair!).  I remember thinking that "Labour" was a rather funny name for a party, what with the connotations of the word.  Not once did I think I'd be where I am today in a mere thirteen years time.

The 2001 General Election is a very vague memory too.  I remember there being a mock election at school (not that I remember who won), and that there was a chap called William Hague who wanted to take Mr. Blair's job.  Again, not much of a memory.

2005 is a lot clearer.  By this time I was starting to get a grip on politics and already knew my views.  I'd already had enough of Labour and willed Michael Howard on to win; disappointed that the election came just a year too early for me to have my say.  I remember feeling disappointed upon finding out the following day that Blair had hung on for another term, having been certain that his time was up.

And now today brings another such election.  However this year I know a lot more and will remember a lot more.  But it's not just what I will remember from today that counts, but what I remember from the last thirteen years.

I've watched a country go to pot, drowning in a sea of uncontrolled immigration, its leaders unwilling to do anything to close the floodgates.

I've watched the social fabric of society decay, policemen disappearing from our streets, violent crime rising uncontrollably with people afraid to leave their houses after dark.

I have seen a nation lose its national pride.  Whilst England was once a name to be proud of, it is now a showcase of all that is wrong with Europe.

I have watched the pound in my pocket tumble in value thanks to the Government's financial mismanagement; I remember when Berlin was cheap... not any more.

I have seen an army go to war on a lie.  I have sat and watched countless reports of young men like me dying as a result of a former Prime Minister's spinelessness.

I have seen an unelected Prime Minister sow the seeds for the predicament we now find ourselves in.  "An end to boom and bust", he said; he was wrong.

It is the Labour party that has got us into the mess which we find ourselves in today.  They know it, I know it, you know it.  They are a desperate party, resorting to lies, fear and fraud in order to cling on to power.  They inherited one of the strongest economies in the world; now we are just months away from passing around the begging bowl.  Should they really be rewarded for their failure?

The Liberal Democrats just don't add up.  Yes, their policies may sound promising but their manifesto was one written on the basis that they were going to be making up the numbers again; they never expected to have to deliver on their promises.  Yes, their plans on tuition fees are commendable, but at this point in time there are much better uses for public money.

For me there has always been only one choice in this election: David Cameron and the Conservative Party.

Yes, people may not like Mr. Cameron but they are not looking at the bigger picture.  He is the leader of a group of equally talented people who all want the same thing; to get Britain working again.  He and his party are deeply committed to each and every person in this country.  Not only are they Conservative, but they are conservative too.

Britain is broken; they will fix it.

Britain is on the dole queue; they will get it working again.

Britain is the sick man of Europe; they will get him up and fighting again.

They will fight for us... and we will win.

The Big Boundary Con (My Solution)

A little while back I blogged about the inherent unfairness in the UK's electoral system, based on the way in which the country's constituencies are laid out.  Back then I declared that I would present my own alternative "tomorrow"...


Apologies for the wait; as I've said before, the election campaign has been taking up vast amounts of my time.  Strange then, that I should find a good, uninterrupted hour or so on the eve of Polling Day!

As a Conservative, many people would be forgiven for believing that I do not support any form of proportional representation and will back First Past the Post to the hilt.  In a way, I disagree with Mr. Cameron on his assertions regarding electoral reform.

I believe that the system can be reformed in two steps:

A complete re-drawing of the boundaries
Mr. Cameron has pledged to cut the number of MPs by 50 should he become Prime Minister.  This would leave us with 600 MPs in a country of approximately 60,000,000 people.  This would be the perfect time to re-draw the boundaries to create much fairer constituencies whereby the share of the vote needed in order to return an MP is roughly the same.

Let's say, for argument's sake, 600 constituencies of 100,000 people each.

A re-vamp of the system
I agree that FPTP is massively unfair and can lead to stupid results.  You only have to take a look at one of my local constituencies (Norwich South), where a four-way fight is taking place to see this.  A party could be returned with as little as 25.1% of the popular vote; that is, just one in four people voting for them.  As well as this (as I mentioned in my previous post), we have the crazy situation whereby Labour can be the largest party with under 20% of the vote...

What I propose is keeping the First Past the Post system, but instead defining where "the post" lies; at 50.1% to be exact.  This could be achieved by using the Single Transferable Vote system.  This would mean that you would mark all of the candidates in preference order.  If no one candidate achieves 50.1% of the vote from first-preference votes, the votes of the last-placed candidate are re-distributed based on the second choice... and so on until someone achieves 50.1%.

So there you have it, my proposals for creating a fairer electoral system whilst retaining the key elements of first past the post.

The Big Boundary Con (Part Deux)

A couple of weeks back I blogged about the fact that the electoral system in the UK is somewhat biased in favour of the Labour party; using the example that with Labour and the Conservatives both gaining 35% of the vote, Labour would have about 100 more seats.  Given the commentary there has been recently on the surge that the Liberal Democrats have experienced, this seems like an ideal time to revisit the issue.

An opinion poll published yesterday for The Sunday Times showed Labour lying in third place following the Leaders' Debate on Thursday evening.  The figures were:

Conservatives: 31%
Liberal Democrats: 29%
Labour: 27%
Others: 13%

If you feed this data into the BBC calculator, you get something that looks like this:

National result based on ComRes poll for Sunday Times (18/04/2010)

Now if you look closely at the figures and the outcome, you may well notice that something appears to be amiss.  Namely, the fact that Labour are lying in third place but that they still have the most seats.  As well as that, take a look at the Liberal Democrats.  They are two points ahead of Labour and two points behind the Conservatives, but they still trail both parties by 175 and 134 seats respectively.

This got me thinking, and I ended up having a little play with the calculator.  I decided to see how low I could take the Labour vote share whilst still keeping them as the largest party.  This was the result:

National result based on my own input

The figures I used in the above example are as follows:

Other: 30.7%
Liberal Democrats: 29.8%
Conservative: 22.6%
Labour: 16.9%

As you can see, the Labour party are now the fourth placed party in terms of popular vote but still remain as the largest party in the House of Commons.  In fact, the number of seats is the complete opposite of the share of the vote.  The biggest injustice here is the number of seats gained by "other parties".  In return for almost one third of the popular vote they receive just one twentieth of the seats in the House.

When the least popular party can still be the largest party in the House of Commons, it is clear that there is something fundamentally wrong with our political system which must be changed as soon as possible, and I will discuss that in my next post (hopefully tomorrow!).

In the meantime, please have a play with the calculator (here) and let me know if you can keep Labour as the largest party with a vote share of less than 16.9%.

The Clegg Effect

First, my apologies for the lack of comment and coverage of late.  I'm back in the UK working on Chloe Smith's campaign in Norwich North and it's taking up a lot of my time.  I shall try and keep you updated but I promise you that normal service will be resumed after the election at the latest.


I will freely and happily admit that Nick Clegg won the debate on Thursday by a country mile.  In retrospect, I guess it was the result that anyone remotely tuned into politics should have expected.  The consequence is a surge in Lib Dem support which, if sustained, gives rise to the real possibility of a sea-change in British politics and the emergence of a genuine three-party system.


Personally, I was a little surprised at the effectiveness of Clegg's technique; not looking straight down the camera was one of the first things I was taught in a media-relations course a couple of years back.  However, it must have struck a chord with the British public and combined with his approach to win over large chunks of the electorate.


The big question now is how long that effect will last.


What the Lib Dems will be hoping for is a permanent shift in public sentiment (or until May 7th at least!) which has thrust their party into prominence and has seriously increased their chances of being able to act as king-maker in a hung Parliament.


What Labour and the Conservatives will be hoping for is a short-term fluctuation, which will subside within the  next few days.


Should we head into next Thursday's debate with the landscape still showing a Lib Dem surge, Brown and Cameron will be faced with some tough decisions.  Namely, those surrounding how to deal with Clegg.  (Well... actually, that's not quite true.  Given the number of times Brown declared "I agree with Nick", last Thursday, I'm sure he would be quite happy to sit back and let the Lib Dems win the election for him).


The problem is this:

The Liberal Democrats have prepared their manifesto from their position as a third-place party.  Therefore, they'll have done it in the mindset of being able to promise the moon on a stick whilst being safe in the knowledge that they'll never have to deliver on these promises.  The danger comes now that they are showing real potential.

David Cameron needs to capitalise on this and make sure the public are left in no doubt come 2200hrs on Thursday that this is the case.  He needs to make it crystal clear that a vote for the Liberal Democrats is not just a vote for Labour (as he has been doing anyway), but also a vote for a party who didn't even expect to be running the country come May 7th, let alone a party who are not even ready for such a responsibility.

Whilst this may be relatively easy to do, the challenge for Cameron will be his delivery.  He needs to be able to present these facts from a position of strength and wisdom and not just come across as a worried and petulant little boy (as Clegg so often has the propensity to do).

One thing, however, is certain.  Should the unthinkable occur and we awake on May 7th under a Lib Dem government, we will wake to a strange and unusual sound.  The sound of Nick Clegg simultaneously laughing his socks off whilst soiling himself at the prospect of what he has let himself in for.

The big boundary con

The upcoming election will be fought on new boundaries in many constituencies, as well as in a small number of new constituencies.  The boundary review that brought this about was intended to even up the size of constituencies (to an average of between 70,000 and 80,000) and to end the anomaly of the party with the most votes not necessarily winning the election.


However, it does not appear to have worked.  Far from it.

A report in this morning's copy of The Sun illustrates just how bad the system still is:

As you can see, if Labour and the Conservatives get an equal share of the popular vote at 35% each, Labour still manage to end up with almost 100 more seats than the Tories; in fact they end up with the magical 326 seats needed to form a majority in the House.  On the other hand, the Tories need to get over 40% of the vote to get even the slimmest of majorities.

How is this fair?

The main problem lies in the distribution of the constituencies.  In the Labour strongholds of Scotland, Northern England and the inner cities, the Labour party enjoys much smaller populations, with the smallest being around 22,000 in northern Scotland.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, enjoy their greatest support in the Shires and the southern constituencies.  They hold the "largest" constituency, the Isle of Wight, with a population of approx 110,000.

This shows a marked difference in the effort required on the part of the major parties.  Whereas Labour only need between 10,000 and 20,000 votes to win 50% of the vote in many of their constituencies, the Conservatives need to poll over 55,000 votes on the Isle of Wight in order to win the same percentage.  This means that Labour are able to win almost five constituencies in comparison to one for the Conservatives.

What is needed is not the token realignments of the last boundary review (which, for the record, boosted Labour's vote in a number of key constituencies at the expense of the Conservatives) but a root-and-branch review.  The Boundary Commission say that the physical size of constituencies is not taken into consideration, so they should prove this.  If Scotland needs giant constituencies up in the Highlands and Islands in order to find 70,000 voters then so be it.  Not only will it increase the fairness in the system, but it will also reduce the costs by slashing the number of MPs.

Unfortunately, it is too late for any changes to level the playing field in time for May, so this will just remain another factor in Labour's favour.  The consequences are clear, the Conservatives will have to work five times as hard as Labour if this country is to get the change it needs.

So he's rich. So what.

Over the last 24 hours, Labour and their pet newspapers have attempted to draw a very clear line in the sand; giving the clearest indicator yet as to the lines on which they will be fighting this election.

If you take a look at the political coverage on The Mirror's website today, you will find yourself unable to move for the multitude of stories imploring voters to avoid David Cameron based solely on his upbringing.  The popular press would have you believe that his privileged upbringing makes him completely unable to relate to the man-in-the-street and therefore makes him unsuitable to lead our country.

But why should the wealth or background of a political leader have any bearing on their party's ability to govern?  Is it really fair to condemn David Cameron for something he had no choice over?

The press would like you to believe that Cameron made a conscious choice to be born into a life of privilege; nothing could be further from the truth.  The fact of the matter is that it could so easily have been any one of us.  As the man himself admits, he was very fortunate.  But that is it; he is nothing more than a very lucky man.

As for the allegations that he has none of the life-experiences that any Prime Minister needs; they may have a point.  But that is where his Cabinet will come in.

In the leader-focussed world of today's politics, the press seem to forget (when it suits them) that we are not electing a President, rather a team of people who are united in their beliefs and visions for this country.  They have been assembled to pool their vast experience in order to create a working, competent government.  They are there to share their experience with each other, to fill the gaps and to help the government arrive at workable, realistic decisions.

Let me be clear here, the plutocratic Conservative Party of the past is long gone; and it died longer ago than you may care to think.

Edward Heath was of a humble background, as was Margaret Thatcher.  People are always surprised when I tell them that John Major grew up in a Brixton slum, went to a normal state school and left at age 16 with three GCSEs.  The modern Conservative Party is a meritocracy, plain and simple.  Are we supposed to deny the leadership to the best candidates just because they come from a wealthy background?

Simply put, a preoccupation with the background of our potential leaders has the serious potential to backfire and leave us poorer, politically, for it.

In fact, since Alec Douglas-Home (46 years and eight Prime Ministers ago) there has been only one privately-educated Prime Minister; a certain Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and, the wars aside, he probably wasn't too bad.

My predictions...

As up-in-the-air as it all is at the moment, no major event would be complete without a set of predictions; so here I go!  Feel free to add your own and we'll see how they do come May 7th...


Overall result:
Conservative majority of 12


Uniform National Swing (nearest 0.5%):
7%


Seats:
Con: 331
Lab: 237
Lib: 55
Oth: 27


Turnout:
65%


Popular Vote:
Con: 10m
Lab: 9.5m
Lib: 6m
Oth: 4.5m


Green Seats:
1 (Brighton Pavillion)


BNP Seats:
0 (But a strong performance)


Speaker's Seat:
Safe, but he'll be a normal MP again within a month


Major Upset:
Ed Balls

And they're off!

Well, that's it, the cat is well and truly out of the bag and the best-kept secret of modern politics is now public knowledge.  The General Election will be held on May 6th 2010.  The next month will see campaigning activity intensify to tremendous levels as the three major parties jostle to convince us that they offer us the best chance of getting this once great country back on its feet again.


For the first time since the 1987 General Election, David Cameron's Conservative party go into the final month with a clear lead in the polls (an average of 8% based on last night's polls) and will be looking to convert that advantage into votes on May 6th.

As David Cameron has always been quick to say, it is by no means won or lost yet and every action over the coming 30 days will make all the difference.  The one thing that is certain is that the next 30 days will shape the future of this country over the next five years, and Britain will wake up on May 7th either richer or poorer for the decision it makes.

Darling predicts the future

Labour's planned National Insurance increase looks more and more likely to become one of the key themes of the General Election.  Following the boost given to Conservative support following George Osborne's pledge not to implement the increase, the Chancellor has now defended his plans.


In a report by the BBC this morning, Alistair Darling is quoted as saying that the planned 1% increase in National Insurance (for both employees and employers) will not lead to job losses.

How can the Chancellor come out and say this with such certainty?  We all know how brilliant the Chancellor is at making forecasts and predictions from the amount of revisions he had to reveal in his Budget report two weeks ago.  To say that increasing the cost of employing people will not lead to job losses is like Rupert Murdoch saying that his decision to charge for access to the Times website will not lead to a loss in readership.

It would appear now that in desperation, the Labour Party are turning away from Government by facts and instead are turning to Government by crystal ball.

Ashes to Ashes: The bells are tolling for Labour's campaign

Following The Guardian's cracking set of mock Labour campaign posters for April Fools Day, Labour appear to have gotten in on the act too.  However, the best bit (from a Conservative point of view) is that unlike the Guardian's creations, theirs will be hitting 850 advertising sites in the UK as of Monday.

If they weren't who they were, you'd almost be tempted to feel sorry for Labour.  Having to fight an election campaign on meagre funds whilst their main opponents enjoy the talent of the advertising gurus M&C Saatchi with their seemingly bottomless campaign funds.  Labour, on the other hand, have had to turn to their supporters for their next poster; running a competition for Labour supporters to design the next phase in their attempt to win a fourth term in power.

Last night, The Guardian revealed that this was the winner:

(Winning design by Jacob Quagliozzi, 24-year-old Labour supporter from St Albans)

My first reaction (along with that of many others) was one of total disbelief.  Surely this had to be a late (and very bad) April Fools joke.  However, in the cold light of day this is as real as it comes.  Could it be that the Labour media machine, which was so infallible from 1997 to 2005 is slowly coming off the rails?

Here's a selection of some of the best reactions from around the web:

"Amazing. Labour's latest poster (designed by a member of the public because they can't afford a proper ad agency campaign) depicts David Cameron as Gene Hunt... one of the most popular characters on TV. You'd have thought they might have picked someone the public don't actually like. Amateur night."

(Iain Dale)

"...the image actually makes Cameron look cool, young and fairly modern."

(Labour List)

"I'm increasingly certain someone high up in in Labour HQ put a big bet on the Tories winning the election and doesn't fancy losing."

(Comment on The Guardian website)

"Back to the 80's - high growth, low tax, lower regulation, a can do attitude, Great back in Britain, defeating militant trade unions, surely that template of success is one to follow - Labour seem to have forgotten that this receipe was so good they copied it initially."

(Comment on ConservativeHome)

Don't get me wrong, I've never claimed to know too much about marketing, but surely with a poster like that the idea is to encourage people to remember everything that was bad about the 1980s, and to paint your opponent in the worst light possible?  If I'm right there, then contrasting David Cameron with Gene Hunt is a rather big own goal.

Those who know about him generally like Gene Hunt, and see him as a cool, tough, no-nonsense guy who sorts things out old-school style.  By and large, those people would most likely also agree that this country needs a "Gene Hunt" in charge.  And as for the 1980s... well... unless the Labour lot have had their heads under a rock for the last few years, they should know that the 1980s are somewhat "in" at the moment, as the success of the BBC series Ashes to Ashes will show them.

Of course, those in the blogosphere have been their usual obliging and speedy selves in coming up with much better and harder hitting responses to Labour's efforts in the form of these two posters:

Now here, not only do the posters work at illustrating their point, we also have the scary preludes to a return to the 1970s ringing fresh in our ears: increasing numbers of strikes coupled with a government that is rapidly becoming hamstrung by the vice-like grip of the unions upon it.

Quite simply, those who remember the 1980s as something bad are generally Labour supporters in the first place (the miners et. al.) whereas the rest of us will just be reminded about the fact that the country was (by and large) in a much better state back then.

In fact, the people who have the most to fear from a return to the 1980s are the Labour Party themselves.  A return to a time when they were at their lowest ebb, on the verge of going out of business.  Out of power, out of ideas and dangerously close to slipping down to third place in the pecking order.

I think this poster may well prove to be a costly own goal for Labour - especially coming at a time when the Conservative lead in the polls is gradually widening - and I shall be most interested to see how they try and come back from this one.

As a certain 1980s DCI may well say:

Fire up the Quattro, we've got a country to fix!

Bringing culture to the masses

I guess it's something that we've gotten used to in the UK; the fact that (free museums aside) if we want culture, we have to pay (often handsomely) for it.  The major problem with our system is that, nine times out of ten, a flat rate applies for all adults, effectively restricting access to those with a disposable income to spend on such things.


I used to take this for granted as being one of those things that just is, has always been, and will be until the end of time.  That is, until I moved to Berlin.

Here the attitude is quite different.  It would appear that culture is seen as a right rather than a privilege.  Not only are there the usual discounts on admission for children and pensioners but also for the disabled, the unemployed, the recipients of state benefits and also for students.

This brilliant system means that I can go and watch top class theatre and opera for under £10, and that I can visit most museums for free on a Thursday evening.  On a broader level, it means that anyone who wants to partake in such cultural gems need not be deterred by the fact that they'll have to mortgage their home to get a ticket.

Of course, it does come with its own small sacrifices.  For example, student discounts for retail are almost non-existent here.  That said though, I know I'd much rather be able to have a well-priced night at the opera rather than 50p off a CD or DVD that will only be gathering dust in six months time.

And there, I believe, lies one of the big problems with today's "broken Britain".  There exists an ever growing social group who have never experienced real culture, believing it to be beyond them.  Opting instead to define culture as not seeing a comedy at the cinema, or drinking an alcoholic beverage from a glass.

This merely reinforces the untrue belief that success is beyond them and that they will never get out of their life of run-down council estates and government dependency.

I firmly believe that culture is what makes a society great and powerful.  You only need to look at the ancient Greeks and Romans to see that.

So if we want to make Britain great again, we should start by bringing culture to the masses.

The gloves are well and truly off

For the last couple of months or so, the attacks by both Labour and the Conservatives are hotting up. Now Labour's latest advertising campaign takes the gloves off and aims squarely for the face.


Love them or hate them, negative, attacking advertising campaigns are now becoming an integral part of politics; no more so than with the current General Election campaign.

Today, the Labour Party have unveiled a new, more aggressive campaign aimed at playing upon Brown's hard-man, bully-boy image and turning his reputation into votes.

This first image works on both fronts, not only does it emphasise Brown's reputation for aggression but it also calls into question the background of the Tory leader.

Here, Brown admits that he may not be perfect, but that he'll defend himself to the death against any accusations levelled against him by his opponents.

In this poster, marketing gurus Saatchi have managed to turn Brown's famed aggression into a selling point, painting a clear contrast between a weak David Cameron and a strong, passionate, aggressive Gordon Brown.

The message is clear, you're either with Labour or an enemy of Labour.  Don't make the wrong choice.

General Election 2010: brought to you by the X-Factor

Take a look at the video here (from Charlie Brooker's Newswipe): BNP leader Nick Griffin being given an X-Factor style introduction.  It all seems a little far-fetched, no?  Scarily enough, this may be the sort of thing we'll be seeing on our TV screens in the coming weeks.


A couple of months back, universal love/hate figure Simon Cowell announced his plans for a series of prime-time political TV shows to be aired in the run up to the General Election.  Apparently the format would be a series of debates on controversial "hot-topics", with anything from immigration to the death penalty being featured.

Of course, no Cowell-brainchild would be complete without the general public being able to vote for a "winner" by phone at the end of the programme.  And if that wasn't bad enough, he plans to have a hotline on stage which can be called from 10 Downing Street at any time during the debate.

Cowell justifies his interest in such an area by saying "What I'm always interested in is what the public think on certain issues".  This comes as very little surprise, coming from someone who has made his millions by shamelessly pandering to commercial demand.  When you strip away the fat, all his "create-a-popstar" shows are are an extended questionnaire asking "of these 12 performers, whose single would you be most likely to buy?".  Of course, his motives here would have nothing to do with however much he'd be making from every vote cast...

Now please, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against anything that serves to make politics more accessible to the masses.  What we desperately need is a system whereby every voter in this country has the knowledge to feel empowered to have a say in the issues that concern them.  Where my problem lies is the dumbing-down of politics which would almost certainly accompany such a show.

Granted, modern politics is already a long way down the slippery slope of swapping substance for style; but a show in which politicians will have maybe ten minutes to try and get as many votes as possible?  We'd see Gordon Brown going through the family album with tears in his eyes, and Nick Griffin telling a few off-colour jokes.

I dare say that if we reduced politics to this common-denominator approach, there would be a small minority who may even think that the televote that they would be casting would be the real thing, eliminating the need fr them to go to the ballot box on polling day.

What we need is more of what we saw last night in the Chancellors' Debate on Channel 4, and hopefully what we will see in the three leaders' debates next month; the key figures laying out their pitch, and having it scrutinised in a proper, well-moderated debate.  Not some sparkly, high-cost programme with lots of flashy lights, chanting and voiceovers.

In the words of some blue-faced Scotsman:

You can take our pop music, Mr. Cowell; but you'll never take our politics.


(Big thanks to Ben Connelly for telling me about this!)

George, the ball is in your court

Over the last few weeks, many people have been critical of the lack of policy coming out of Conservative HQ; especially from George Osborne on what he plans to do to turn the nation's finances around.


Last week's Budget report from Alastair Darling gave a few hints as to why the Tories are so loathe to release policy information at this stage in proceedings; there's a very high chance that Labour will go ahead and steal it for themselves.  You just have to look at Darling's plans for Stamp Duty and higher taxes on Cider to know that much.

However, with the Budget Labour have laid their cards down on the table (after a fashion, make sure you take a look at what political commentators have been saying about what wasn't mentioned) regarding what they plan to do with the nation's finances should they be given another five years at the helm.  Admittedly though, whilst Darling has finally admitted that cuts will be necessary (harder and deeper than under Thatcher, if you will), he still hasn't said where these cuts will be made.

This aside, the stage is now set for George Osborne to start promoting Tory policies on the economy.

In much the same way as John Smith did for Labour in 1992, Osborne should be looking to release his own Budget; making it absolutely clear to the electorate how he and his party will be seeking to tackle the deficit.

Tonight's Chancellors' debate on Channel 4 at 2000hrs would be the ideal opportunity for him to do this.  Not only will he be joined by the current incumbent, but also by the Lib Dem would-be heir, Vince Cable.  A well chosen release of policy here would give Osborne the chance to make the Tories the complete focus of the debate and allow him to prove from the off that his policies come up to scrutiny from all sides.

Either way, we need some substance and we need it fast.  With an election now only five weeks away it is madness that so many people still don't know what we as a party stand for.

The Speaker: Bercow or just plain Berk?

The role of Speaker is one which is steeped in tradition and history.  The Speaker presides over the House; chairing debates, calling MPs to speak and maintaining order.  Therefore it is essential that an MP chosen for such a role is able to remain completely neutral and free from bias, regardless of his chosen party.


Having been an avid viewer of PMQs over the last few weeks, I am seriously at a loss to explain how the current Speaker (John Bercow, Con, Buckingham) is fulfilling any of these demands of the job.  The amount of times that he has allowed Gordon Brown to get away with not answering questions is beyond belief; as too is the number of times he has allowed Lord Ashcroft to be brought up by the Government whilst blocking almost all questions on Trade Unions funding from the opposition.

Add to this the fact that his wife is a Labour Councillor who is extremely vocal with her anti-Conservative (just take a look at her Twitter page) views as well as the fact that Bercow has never been the strongest advocate of the Conservative cause (he came extremely close to defecting to Labour in 2007), and you end up with a number of reasons why Mr. Speaker may well not have the best interests of all the parties in the Chamber at heart.

As a matter of fact, it is widely speculated that only three Conservative MPs voted for him in the Speaker's Election in 2009; with the majority of his support coming from the Labour benches.

Little wonder then, that there is currently a burgeoning campaign amongst Conservative supporters and MPs to have Bercow removed from the seat; either by "natural selection" in the upcoming General Election, or by actively removing him from the post should the Conservative Party form the next government.  Surprisingly enough, this campaign is slowly starting to receive the backing of Labour MPs too.

Having been particularly impressed with his command of the Budget debate on Wednesday afternoon, I for one would very much like to see the current Deputy Speaker, Sir Alan Haselhurst take up the chair.  Having had a seat in the House since 1977, Sir Alan is an experienced MP who should command the respect of Members across the House.

Whoever succeeds Bercow, one thing is clear; his biased nature is one of the key hurdles to be overcome if we want to rid this House of the corruption which is currently devouring it.