I've just heard that Stoke Central MP, Mark Fisher (pictured) will be standing down at the general election. Mark has been ill for some time and feels someone in better health is needed to see the BNP off in the constituency.

Of course, this couldn't have come at a worse time for my CLP. The faction fight that has blighted the party since the Labour mayor of Stoke, Mark Meredith, was deposed by Democracy4Stoke (a cross party organisation led by several long-standing Labour party members), is damaging the campaign to make sure Mark's seat stays Labour. Scarcely a day goes by without local blog Pits n Pots carrying news on the latest shenanigans. And then last Saturday our campaign was hardly boosted by The Sentinel's front page story on how the party is to be sued by long-standing members Mick Williams, Gary Elsby and Barry Stockley. To add a selection battle to the mix is a situation pregnant with toxic possibilities.

I'd like to send Mark my best wishes and hope he enjoys life after Parliament. But for the rest of us in Stoke Labour, to say we're on the threshold of interesting times is an understatement.

1) Twitter as a symptom of "Broken Britain"
2) Twitter and Politics
3) Daniel Hannan, the NHS and Twitter
4) Social Media and Business
5) Twitter Vs Trafigura
6) Stephen Gately, Twitter and the media bubble
7) Rage Against the Machine and Internet Radicalism
8) Top 100 Tweeting Bloggerss

There are a couple of other things I'd like to touch on.

Firstly, it has changed the way how I experience the internet. My Twitter feed acts as a one stop shop for news, latest blog posts from others, short commentary on current affairs, gossip, critiques, and banter. It might be hyperbole to describe it as consciousness-changing stuff but via Twitter you can feel plugged into a collective thought process. Nothing else offers a better snap shot of what a particular population (in my case, socialists, activists and bloggers) are thinking.

Second, it's difficult to say how Twitter has impacted on the fortunes of this blog. At the moment my account, @averyps has 1,264 followers. In Twitter terms that is a lot. According to a (dated) report from social media firm Sysomos, almost 94% of users have 100 or fewer followers. But as you can see from the top 100 list of blogging tweeters above this number is chicken feed compared to some.

I tweet every new blog post, but generally they bring in less of an audience than incoming links from Socialist Unity and Dave Osler. But I did say generally. If you post something and tweet quickly on breaking news, that can drive traffic your way. For instance, my recent post on Michael Foot appeared a couple of hours after his death was reported. It attracted a higher than average number of visits from Twitter but had it appeared earlier I'm convinced more would have dropped by. Another example was my my defence of No2EU. This appeared and was promoted on Twitter at the time there was a real frenzy over the election of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, and some were pointing the finger at No2EU for letting the fascists in.

So using Twitter for blog promotion is not unproblematic. It's never a case of tweet it and they will visit. If you want to maximise visitors, you have to take the time to get a feel for your followers.

Third, while Twitter followers do not automatically translate into viewing figures for your blog it can raise your profile and promote name recognition. I imagine most Twitter users take an interest in who's following them. Every time my followers increase I look to see who's given me a punt. If they're obviously a spammer or a self-proclaimed social media guru I don't bother investigating further. But if they're a political person with a link to their site I always click through. I might not end up following them but at least I have an idea of what they're up to. And I imagine the reverse happens every time I follow a new person.

So there are a few reflections on my one year on Twitter. I'd be interested to hear what readers think about their experiences - has it helped your blogging? Has it made networking between activists easier? Has it helped change your political views in some way? Or do you find it all bewildering and/or pointless? 

The three headline policies I've set out - increasing the size of the armed forces and the reserves; switching to UAVs and UCAVs; and cancelling the Trident replacement - are intended to provoke discussion. I believe, however, that all should be adopted as part of a drive to reshape the UKs armed forces for the 21st Century.  

The need to replace the Vanguard class provides a useful natural break at which we can and should question both the need to maintain a nuclear deterrent, and the shape which it would take.



Should the UK maintain a nuclear deterrent at all? My answer is an unqualified 'yes'. The chances of a nuclear war breaking out are high today than at any time since the early 1960s. The return of democracy to Pakistan has (predictably) increased the instability in that state, and with it the risk of a war with India. On the Korean peninsula, preparations are already underway for the transition of power which must follow the death of Kim Jong Il. Israel's possession of nuclear weapons both drives Iranian desires for the same capability and creates a threat of a nuclear exchange which could well affect the states caught in the cross fire (or more accurately beneath the flight path).



I do not accept the argument that maintaining a nuclear deterrent is a pre-requisite for latter-day Great Power status, but I do consider that states which wish to be in the business of global power projection is well served by the possession of a nuclear deterrent. It is that projection of power which separates the UK from other non-super power states such as Japan and Germany.



But if we retain a nuclear deterrent, what form should it take? Crucially, how large should it be?



In the present Vanguard/Trident system, each sub can carry 16 Trident II D-5 missiles. Each missile carry up to eight nuclear warheads, each of which is five times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. But while those arguing for nuclear disarmament are fond of bandying about these numbers, they are misleading.



To begin with, the UK does not actually deploy four submarines; it deploys one. Under a system of continuous at sea deterrence (CASD), a fleet of four submarines is required to ensure that there is, at any time, one Vanguard submarine on station.



Secondly, the UK doesn't have 64 Trident missiles (one for each of the 16 missile tubes on each of the four submarines). We share of a pool of missile with the US Navy, from the Royal Navy is entitled to draw only 58. And that's before you count the missiles fired in tests over the years.



Finally, each missile carries no more than three warheads, and some carry only one. Aside from the fact that deploying every missile with its full complement of warheads would make it difficult to respond proportionately, the UK has (since 1998) chosen to limit the number of warheads in use.



Ironically, the deployment of Trident missiles represented a substantial increase in the size and potence of the UK's nuclear deterrent. The previous Polaris/Chevaline missiles had a much shorter range, and were capable of carrying fewer warheads. Crucially, they were also far less accurate.



Trident missiles are first strike weapons - they are accurate enough to be used to strike small hardened targets, such as missile silos. Polaris, by contrast, could not have been used in this role. It was a true deterrent - it could only be used in a "counter-value" role, inflicting devastating damage on enemy targets such as cities, rather than surgically striking enemy nuclear weapons.



It is difficult to justify the continued retention of a nuclear first strike capability. Without it, the UK's nuclear deterrent would remain a powerful deterrent, but cease to be potential weapons of war. Abandoning that requirement would substantially reduce the cost of any Trident replacement.



It is similarly difficult to justify the retention of the CASD approach. Although it may increase the deterrent effect, it does so at an entirely disproportionate cost, and it guards against a risk that is now substantially reduced, albeit not eliminated.



It is wrong to claim that the threat which the Trident missile was designed to counter has disappeared. The United States first deployed submarine launched ballistic missiles in 1960s because of fears about the vulnerability of their land based bombers; they developed the Trident missile in the 1980s because of fears about the vulnerability of land based missiles. The Russian missiles which prompted those latter fears remain in service. What has changed is the state of international relations: a major war between the super powers is now extremely unlikely to break out on brief notice.



Any substantial increase in international tensions would provide ample time to disperse our deterrent forces. It is simply no longer necessary to guard against a surprise nuclear attack which would remove our ability to retaliate. It remains important to guard against conventional attacks on our deterrent forces, but the costs of fixed security is a fraction of the costs of operating a submarine fleet.



Without the need to maintain a CASD posture, do we still need the submarines? The answer will depend on the form our deterrent forces take.



One option is to use a version of the Tomahawk cruise missile, which can be launched from the torpedo tube of an attack submarine. There would be no need to maintain dedicated ballistic missile submarines, and these missiles (developed for use in Europe in the 1980s) have already been developed. Some difficulties do exist: the United States had phased out its nuclear armed cruise missiles and we would have to develop our own warheads and potentially incur the additional costs of maintaining the missiles themselves.



Another credible option would be used conventional aircraft, carrying stand-off weapons. This represents a return to the approach which the UK government pursued in the early 1960s, seeking to equip its V-Bomber force with the Skybolt stand off missile. Then, as now, the range of the stand-off weapon was the principal weakness: against the air defences of a major state (such as Russia) either the carrier aircraft would have to expose itself to the risks of attack, or the missile itself might be shot down.


Either of these options - and they are only two of many potential ways in which a non-CASD deterrent could be deployed - involve the use of assets which can be used for other missions at other times. A move away from dedicated nuclear deterrent forces represents a substantial de-escalation.

At present, the United States is trying to show leadership over nuclear disarmament, with a view to using the five year review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to achieve further reductions in nuclear arms. The UK can take a lead by conducting a "zero-base" review of its nuclear deterrent, and adopting a pragmatic policy as a result.


Ultimately, the substantial benefits (financial, political, and military) which will accrue from not replacing the Vanguard/Trident system like for like are too significant to pass up. 

Sounds obvious, doesn't it?



The regular Army is now around one third of the size it was in the mid-1950s (after the Korean War), less than half the size it was in 1939 (immediately prior to the second world war), and only two thirds of the size it was at the end of National Service (1963).



More important that the simple numbers, the role of the army in recent conflicts has been a policing role, deployed to provide civil security or conduct low intensity counter insurgency operations. These functions require more troops - and if performed properly, require those troops to be more exposed - than the kind of conventional wars which the British Army expected to fight during the 1970s and 80s.



Despite this, the end of the Cold War saw steps taken to reduce the size of the regular Army even further - a process which continued until the beginning of the last decade. Ironically, the only consistent lesson to be learned from recent conflicts - Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, but to a lesser extent Bosnia and Kosovo - is the need for 'boots on the ground'.



We need a larger regular army - and crucially we need more regular troops, not specialists. While increases in the size of UK Special Forces are useful, they are no substitute for having additional infantry men to patrol Afghan villages or man forward observation posts.



But the most significant effect of these reductions has been to increase the pressure on the Territorial Army. Anyone joining the TA today stands a good chance of being deployed on active service. This is a dramatic change from the position before 2001: for the 1991 Gulf War small numbers of TA soldiers were called up (mostly medical staff), but for the 2003 invasion of Iraq about 10,000 were called up (circa one third of the TA's total strength).



At present, around 1,000 TA troops are called up each year for service alongside regular troops. This undoubtedly has some effect on the TA's ability to recruit: it is currently around 20% understrength. Those troops that do so are generally used to fill gaps (read: replace casualties) in regular units.



Outside the Territorial Army, the UK's reserve forces are extremely limited. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force has an establishment of about 1,500, mostly reserves for the RAF Regiment or technical trades. Although its members continue to fight (and die) alongside their regular colleagues, the RAAF is a shadow of its US equivalent, the Air National Guard, which provides a substantial portion of the USA's territorial air defence. The Royal Naval Reserve is larger (about 4,000), but still performing a limited role.



More use can and should be made of the reserve forces, but we need to rethink the way we deploy these forces. Instead of simply using them to plug holes in the regular military, we should be routinely deploying coherent reserve units in tasks (such as territorial air defence, fisheries protection, and military airlift) which both permit them to combine civilian life and reserve service, and free up regular soldiers for frontline service.



This will mean recruiting more reservists, and also rethinking and restructuring their services. Our reserve forces have performed a vital role, and will continue to do so - but we must recognise their ability to do more than simply replace casualties.


Building U(C)AVS



A UAV is an unmanned aerial vehicle; a UCAV an armed UAV. From a standing start at the end of the 1990s, these aerial platforms - often misnamed "drones" - have come to play a vital and ever increasing role in modern conflict.



By far the most famous is the Predator UAV. It saw service in Bosnia and Kosovo, before becoming famous when deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Together with its UCAV variant (the Reaper), the Predator has become symbolic of the “War on Terror”.



UCAVs offer an irresistible combination of strengths, and relatively few weaknesses. They are far cheaper than manned platforms, have greater endurance, and place no aircrew at risk. While the current generation of UAVs and UCAVs remain somewhat vulnerable to missiles and jamming, these weaknesses are being addressed by a new generation of stealthy and semi- (or fully) autonomous aircraft.



The killer application for existing UAVs is surveillance, both passive (loitering in an area and observing) and active (hunting for targets). These are roles which have traditionally been performed by manned aircraft at significant expense, and often considerable risk to aircrew. When any manned surveillance platform comes up for replacement, it will be increasingly difficult to make a case for using manned aircraft.



The RAF’s fleet of Nimrod aircraft is an excellent example. In the mid 90s, a decision was taken to replace the then-30 year-old Nimrod MR2 maritime surveillance aircraft. The RAF was due to take delivery of the first rebuilt MRA4 in 2003, but the first production aircraft did not make its maiden flight until 2009. As of today, the first aircraft is not expected to enter service with the RAF until 2012 at the earliest.



Assuming that nothing else goes wrong, each new Nimrod MRA4 will cost c.£400M, more than twice the c.£200M unit cost of the brand new P-8 Poseidon aircraft the United States is currently procuring to replace its equivalent of the Nimrod, the Orion P-3. That US procurement represents a half-way house: the manned P-8s will be paired with a fleet of maritime UAVs derived from the current Global Hawk UAVs.



But in Europe, Germany too is replacing an ageing fleet of maritime patrol aircraft, and they have chosen a specially modified version of the US Global Hawk UAV. These so-called “Euro-hawk” aircraft will replace the current manned aircraft at a cost of around £150M each (half of which represents the cost of a specially developed sensor suite).



Beyond surveillance, armed UAVs, or dedicated UCAVs, are increasingly being used as first strike weapons. The RAF operates a flight of Reaper UCAVs, which have undertaken numerous combat missions in Afghanistan. It would be wrong to suggest that the current Reaper aircraft are a direct replacement for the new ground attack aircraft now being procured, the F-35 Lightning II: the Reaper's payload capacity is about 15% of that carried by the F-35 (about 25% that of the RAF Harriers it will replace). However, the Reaper is substantially cheaper (about a sixth of the unti price), and does not place air crew at risk.



UCAV technology is one in which a British company - BAe - has substantial expertise, and a growing profile. The BAe Taranis, currently under development, is a stealthy, largely autonomous UCAV, intended to both attack ground targets and defend itself against airborne threats. Its development has received support from the Ministry of Defence, but the next government - of whichever colour - should make the development of this and other UCAVs a key priority.



There will inevitably be resistance to the routine deployment of armed robot aircraft, and there are valid questions to be answered about the status of these platforms both in domestic regulation of aircraft and in the law of armed conflict. These issues must be openly addressed and dealt with, but we must recognise the significant financial and military benefits to be derived from the increasing deployment of UCAVs. 



Let us be clear: we cannot conduct debates about defence policy in way we all too often approach health or education. Where new schools and hospitals can be delivered in a matter of months or a few years, it takes years to build up military forces, and decades to introduce new weapon systems.



Simply pledging to spend money, without a clear strategic vision for how it will be spent, is not policy. Defence spending has risen, in real terms, by over 10% since Labour came to power, but it is far from clear that this increase has been accompanied by a real increase in the capability of our armed forces.



In the same period, we have seen how poorly equipped our armed forces have been to fight the conflict to which we have sent them. The Army had plenty of tanks and unarmoured landrovers, but little in between, and limited supplies of body armour. The RAF was prepared to accept the much-delayed Eurofighter Typhoon, but had only small numbers of heavy lift helicopters, and was reliant on an ageing fleet of aerial reconnaissance aircraft. The shape of our armed forces today reflects 1980s assumptions about the conflicts we would fight. They have been almost universally incorrect.



To make defence policy requires consideration of the foreign policy objectives which we pursue today, tomorrow, and for several decades to come. We must consider not only current commitments, and those which we might want to make, but also the unknowns: those events we cannot properly predict, but must nonetheless prepare for. It also requires that we take account of the experience of the last century, and learn the lessons. This will necessarily lead to dramatic changes in our thinking about defence.



The single most important change will be an acknowledgement that we are at not “at peace”, nor have we been at any time since the second world war. As the asymmetric conflicts of the past two decades demonstrate, the concept of states observing peace and declaring war is little more than a 19th century formality, if not an outright fiction. The choices we make for weapons systems must reflect this reality.



Consider this: since 1945, there has been only one year in which no British soldier died in the line of duty. In the same period, only two ships worldwide have been sunk by attack submarines. It was not until 1982 that a nuclear submarine did so. No RAF jet fighter has ever recorded an air-to-air kill.



Others in this series of policy blogs are going to consider what should foreign policy objectives the UK should pursue. I want to propose three strategies for defense planning and procurement, which reflect these realities. Some may be controversial, but I believe each should be adopted by the UK.


As a fledgling student at university, I remember being asked by one of my Labour supporting counterparts,

"How on earth can you be a teacher and vote Conservative?"

"Quite easily!" I replied.

In hindsight a little idealistic, but never-the-less, the beginning of a beautiful (if not at times volatile) friendship.

Teaching at that time was all about inspiring and entertaining young people into learning. It was about spontaneity, humour and having fun. Teachers taught through a range of topics, and included the 'core' and 'foundation' subjects as an integral part of each day. Lessons were planned - outcomes were set - and assessments were made as a matter of professional course. Everything was ticking along quite nicely thank you very much, until that apocalyptic day in May 1997. Labour swept to power and the country changed forever.

The English education system is now an unrecognisable shadow of it's former self. Systemic ideological flaws at the heart of government have presided over a meltdown in the classroom. As with every area of life in Britain, traditional values, common sense and discipline have given way to hysterical political correctness, bureaucratic dogma and subordination. Never is this more evident than in the schools of today.

The 1997 New Labour's manifesto stated the following:

- "Education will be our number one priority, and we will increase the share of national income spent on education."

- "We must recognise the 3 'R's for what they are - building blocks of all learning that must be taught better

- “We will achieve this by improving the skills of the teaching force; ensuring a stronger focus in the curriculum; and piloting literacy summer schools to meet our new target that within a decade every child leaves primary school with a reading age of at least 11".

There is little doubt that Labour's manifesto pledge to massively increase spending on education has been honoured, (they always seem to manage that part,) but to what end?

The Bow group produced a report in 2007 which highlighted the number of pupils who had taken their G.C.S.E.s under Labour. The report revealed that an entire generation of nearly 4 million young people had failed to achieve 'expected' good grades at G.C.S.E. including English and Maths, and nearly 1 million had failed to achieve any G.C.S.E.s whatsoever.

It revealed that whilst spending per pupil had risen by a massive 75%, the percentage of pupils achieving passes in English and Maths had increased by a mere 9%. It concludes:

Labour has engendered a test-culture since coming to power and the fallout from this is disastrous. Children as young as four are becoming stressed months before starting school, and by the age of nine they're disillusioned due to the pressures of constant testing.

In tackling the paucity of qualified teachers the Conservatives are proposing to raise the entry requirements for taxpayer-funded primary teacher training in English and Maths - from a C to a B. Graduates will need a 2:2 and above in order to qualify from state-funded training.

This is an important step in raising the prestige of the profession. It ensures teaching is a career that people aspire to, and not one that they enter because there’s nothing better around at the time.

Critics like Fiona Miller in The Guardian have slammed the proposals, asserting that,

“ . . .this was yet again a policy designed to shut down opportunities for the majority, rather than improve them.”

Not the case. The figures speak for themselves. Labour’s at times desperate attempts at teacher recruitment have been punished, by a negligible rise in standards and a bill to the tax payer of £75 billion. Central to Conservative policy is that the children of this country deserve to be taught by teachers who are accomplished in basic literacy and numeracy. It is therefore vital, at the G.C.S.E. stage, to ensure potential teachers have these skills.

The Conservatives will introduce tough and realistic measures to give power back to those involved in frontline service. Teachers will be able to do their job, secure in the knowledge that if necessary they can use reasonable force when dealing with violent students. They will be protected from false accusations, and be able to remove disruptive pupils and items that cause disruption, without fear of legal ramifications.

In short, Conservative education policy differs from Labour’s in that it treats teachers as professionals, advocates the decentralization of power and promotes professional autonomy.

There may not be any ‘new money’ available in these exacting times, as Fiona Miller astutely points out. It’s simply a matter of using the money that is available effectively. Something that after thirteen years, Labour still haven’t managed to do.
 

As chance would have it I ended up on a tour of the Palace of Westminster while Parliament was in recess recently that focused almost entirely on the Lords (the House of Commons was closed for maintenance and restoration work). Standing in the chamber itself, and the rooms surrounding it, you get a real sense of how important it is – or at least was– within our unwritten constitution.

In the 163 years since construction on the chamber was completed it has undergone such a transformation as to render it almost unrecognisable to the peers who first sat on those red benches. The only constant: Pugin’s stunning interior. The most startling development is the Commons near-total supremacy thanks to the 1911 and 1949 Acts of Parliament. This has only been exacerbated with the removal of all but 92 of the hereditary peers in 1999 without the faintest idea what put in their place.

Eleven years on and there is still no agreement as to the composition of the upper house. Some want a fully appointed others a fully elected and the rest somewhere in-between. There have been several consultations, numerous debates, votes and even a Royal Commission yet we are no closer to achieving a consensus on the subject.

To be fair, most of Labour’s reforms have been pretty sensible such as the establishment of a supreme court and the restructuring of the Lord Chancellor’s office. But we now lack an essential counter-weight to balance the power of the House of Commons. The government has, on more than one occasion, ridden roughshod over the wishes of Parliament and the people solely because of its Commons majority.

At the moment the lower house is so dominant that if the Lords suddenly vanished tomorrow people would barely take any notice. The house is stuck in limbo, in-between reforms, filled by Labour with some shady characters that created the conditions for the cash for influence and cash for peerages scandals. They did the reputation of Parliament no favours and were to prove the precursors to the MPs expenses fiasco.

But that weakness – the ability to appoint individuals to the chamber– is also its underlying strength. It allows for a wise council of elders, with a huge wealth of knowledge and experience just waiting to be tapped not only for lawmaking but also for high ministerial office. To that end I hope we see a continuation and expansion of GOATs under a future Conservative government.

However, in order to return the Lords to its former glory much more must be done including reforms that lend the chamber some democratic legitimacy. Here are a few suggestions:

- Composition: Reduce the number of peers by at least a third with an equal amount of seats for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland re-enforcing the concept of a truly United Kingdom. The Lords Spiritual should be retained but restricted to one representative per religion. The hereditaries, if they survive the coming weeks, should remain too so to retain a link with history & offer a long-term perspective to proceedings

- Election: End prime ministerial patronage, replaced by an electoral college consisting of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh and NI Assemblies and English MPs (ideally an English Parliament). Leading national figures that express an interest can be sponsored by political parties, vetted by a Statutory Appointments Commission and then elected following the Holyrood, Cardiff Bay, Stormont & Westminster elections

- Powers: Lords should be conferred new powers including confirmation for any major government/prime ministerial appointments. This would help re-align the balance of power between Lords and Commons as well as enhance the effectiveness in holding the executive to account, the primary function of any legislature

David Cameron has said that Lords reform would be a “third term issue” for a Conservative government. Considering the scale of the national problems currently I don’t expect anything in the manifesto. But perhaps we’ll see something in the next one. With the urgent need restore the public’s faith in our Parliamentary institutions I am sure the Conservatives will come to recognise, as I have, the settlement of the Lords Question as an important piece in that very large jigsaw.
 

He gained respect for his determination and stood by his beliefs, no matter whether they were popular or not, at times even being at odds with the party whip. He was there are the very beginning of the CND movement and remained committed to nuclear disarmament during the cold war years and continued to support CND throughout his life.

It is widely accepted within the Labour movement that it was Michael Foot who kept the Labour party together during its most difficult and demanding times. Even during the birth of New Labour he worked to keep the party united and though an 'Old Labour' stalwart, he believed in the 'broad church' and continued to work for unification of the party factions. In 1995, he said of Tony Blair: "No rising hope on the political scene who offered his service to Labour when I happened to be leader, can be dismissed as an opportunist." Ultimately, he was a Labour man and the election of a Labour government and the achievements of that government would have been an immense source of pride to him.

As a politician, Michael Foot trod the path he chose, stuck to his principles, made sure that he was true to the spirit of socialism and used his platform to campaign for peace, justice and liberty. As a person, those who knew him best describe him as an intellectual man of good humour and excellent company.

The spotlight of the media is even more intense today than it was in the days of Michael Foot's Labour leadership, but the attacks on him for his choice of jacket at the cenotaph are comparable to the attacks on Gordon Brown for his handwriting, when sending condolences to the family of a fallen soldier. Public opinion of politicians is at an all-time-low and the parties today increasingly control the public message and stage-manage every detail of even the most minor event or public appearance. Michael Foot would have had no time for that.

Today, we want substance, not spin, we want authenticity and we demand truth over populism. In his time, Michael Foot was pilloried for giving us all of these things. He gave us policies that he believed were right, even when they were unpopular, he gave us brilliant intellect and always presented himself exactly as he was, duffel coat and all.

Today, we have lost a great man and inspirational politician.

Labour have always been the party of public spending (tax and spend) while the Tories have hesitantly proposed the merits of a smaller state arguing for smaller increases in public expenditure, as well as tax cuts. However it was widely considered that the Conservative position on public spending was what contributed to their heavy defeats at the last 2 elections. Shortly after becoming leader in 2005, Cameron said that if he was elected he would match Labours spending plans for the next 2 years. This was a significant intellectual and political concession to the left, and something that Cameron felt necessary in his modernisation of the party. It was a spineless position at the time, and it should how haunt Cameron that he ever made it.

For too long the Conservative party was all too willing to go along with Browns spending consensus and the New Labour agenda on tax and spend. When they did propose that they would not grow the state as fast as Labour, this was viciously spun as ‘cuts’ to public expenditure most notably at the 2005 election. It is not hard to see why the Conservatives then moved to an even closer consensus on public spending under Cameron. Political expediency triumphed over ideology. However those Conservatives who did worry about the size of state spending and the growth of the public sector were vindicated. As always happens with Labour governments, they ran out of money. Gordon Browns end to boom and bust became the biggest bust for 50 years or even a century. A glut of public spending and running a deficit in the good times has left us where we are today, with the biggest budget deficit in the G20. The narrative has firmly shifted from ‘tax and spend’ to cuts.

With this the picture, both parties are now openly offering cuts, although this took much longer for Brown to concede than it did Cameron. What the debate seems to focus on now is how and when these cuts should happen; in other words how fast we should cut. This is a false debate which centres on Keynesian economic thinking. Cuts are going to speed our recovery not harm it. All public sector spending is inherently wasteful; it is spent in top down Stalinist bureaucracies without the forces of supply or demand to allocate resources efficiently. Therefore cutting public spending will free up resources to the free market to allocate efficiently ensuring faster economic growth. While there may be a short term economic cost to laying people off or decreasing public spending we do not have a choice, and the sooner these cuts are made the sooner the economy will become healthy again. A big state is a strangle hold on the economy, not an aid to it.

What really matters in the debate on cuts is if the cuts are smart cuts, if they can be done so that they improve public services (this is more than possible despite what the socialist may scream) and how big the cuts are. Both parties seem to be proposing to cut the budget deficit in half, although the Conservatives seem to be saying they may cut a little more. With the deficit currently standing at £180 billion, if we cut it in half we will still be accumulating £90 billion of debt a year; this is unacceptable. I reckon that over a 5 year Parliament you could eliminate the deficit by cutting £150 billion and relying on £30 billion of economic growth. Some small tax rises could be thrown in the mix as well. Then we would simply be left with the problem of paying down our now multi trillion national debt to ensure sound public finances. While this would be the ideal way to eliminate our deficit as fast as possible, the political cost of doing so may be unacceptably high for our politicians to consider.

What then is more realistic, and what are the smart cuts that could improve public services? Various think tanks have published their own ‘shadow budgets’ where they lay out various ideas for cuts. What is needed is a good butchers of all these proposals in order to come up with a mix and match of all the best ideas for cuts. One of the best ideas I’ve seen, is a proposal to cut various local government and regional QUANGO’s saving £21 billion and to pass the powers these QUANGO’s had onto local government. This would save money while boosting localism and democracy, bringing more of government action under the control of democratically elected bodies rather than the quangocrats. This idea is just one of the many great ideas that are out there and it’s up to the political parties to find the best ones. Currently neither party is offering to tell us how they intend to make cuts, only giving estimations of the overall amount they will cut. The public can’t really make an informed decision on this basis. We need to know what the cuts will be and how they will be made to decide who has the best proposals. The politicians daren’t start doing this.

When we get into the details of cuts the Conservatives are promising to protect NHS and international development spending, while the government has said it will protect the schools budget and ‘frontline services’ (whatever this actually means). By saying he will protect the NHS, Cameron has made the same concession to Labour again; this is most worrying. Protecting areas from spending cuts is going to make the situation worse as other areas are cut to the bone while obvious savings are precluded from the protected areas. Every area of government needs to be cut and no area should be off the agenda.

Ultimately the debate needs to move on from the idea that they only way to improve public services is to throw money at them. It’s time to move towards a sustainable level of public expenditure and a smaller public sector. It’s time for the politicians and voters to wake up to reality; the debt binge has gone on too long; public spending needs to be savaged in order to save this country’s future.

@felixbungay blogs at http://youthinkthis.blogspot.com/

In my own town, housing developments were vocally protested against by a vast number of people, even the council went against the development, but this decision was taken over their head and John Prescott decided the project should go ahead. A number of problems present themselves here. Councils should be in the position to take decisions that are going to be detrimental to their area. After all, it is the council that is going to have to put up with the amount of traffic that this will entail and the pressure large developments may put on local education. It’s important we work hard to turn this around.

Localist principles work best for a number of reasons. Firstly, in a time when people are becoming more and more frustrated with the political system, it helps people to become more engaged again. Why is this good? People are becoming more angry with politicians and are deciding to stay at home on polling day, but that is not met by a lack of caring. People do still care and we should try to harness that passion and make it active in our democracy. Secondly, and this will go some way to helping re-build trust in politics too, it means that representatives are more accountable on a national and local level. Top of the localist belief is that the decisions made in communities that effect only people in them communities should be taken as close to those people as possible. This means passing more power over to councils who can consult the public. Local government has become almost meaningless now there has been a huge power shift from town halls to Whitehall, but it’s not too late to change all that.

The Conservatives have made good inroads into the localist agenda, and have been very open in telling people what they would do in regards to this if they get into government. Policies like the one announced last year to give 12 English cities the chance to vote for an elected mayor are steps that we want to make in order to bring power back to the people. The Conservatives have also promised to bring in local referendums on high council tax rises; permitting local authorities to devolve budgets to ward councillors so they can be the voice of that specific community, deciding what should be spent where in a smaller area; bring in elected police commissioners for communities to make the police more accountable; and abolish all process targets applied to local authorities. Just a few of the policies that are already on the Conservative ticket that promise to bring power back from Whitehall, a battle that won’t be easy but will be worthy, and give it right back to the people and the areas around them.

It is very easy in times like these to give up on politics. Those who are far removed from the political world may look around their communities, at the awful parking, at the poor amount of affordable housing, at the run down playgrounds or at the appalling amounts of vandalism, and simply give up. If somebody who is miles way, sitting behind a desk in Whitehall is making these decisions for their area, they needn’t bother voting as they’ll never have a say on how they can enact change in their towns. But don’t give up. With the Conservative Party you have a party which has shown it believes in the renewal of local power time after time. A healthy democracy should be built on the foundation that says people have a voice. That voice has been taken away and we need to give it back.
 

Perhaps there is a marvellous system out there that isn’t based on taxation, but: a) I am yet to find one that is couched in reality and b) even if I were to find one, we don’t have that system now – what we have is a system wherein our country is run on taxes. As such, I think it is a particularly worrying precedent that non-doms can have peerages, be admitted to the Privy Council or even be allowed to stand as an MP while failing to contribute their share. Never mind living in and contributing to the darned constituency, we shouldn’t have to press for our lawmakers to live in and contribute to our country! Letter of the law? Perhaps. Spirit? Perhaps not. But that’s tax law, riddled with loopholes, uncertainties and wriggle space, and sorting that is not something that Britain can do alone.

All of the three main parties have taken donations from non-dom donors, and as such, no-one from those parties can point the finger without having a serious think about whether that is a morally sustainable practice (HINT: it isn’t). However, Ashcroft’s influence (even dominance) over the recent history of the Conservative Party and its campaigns, and further, the fact that one of the conditions of his peerage was that he would make the UK his permanent home for tax purposes by the end of 2000, makes his a more serious case – his refusal to carry out his promise was hidden, obfuscated, as it belied the side of the Conservatives that didn’t match the make-up. So frankly, his latest, updated promise that he’ll do it if the Conservatives win the general election doesn’t exactly inspire me with confidence, much less his “confession”, which occurred just before he would have been forced into disclosure anyway. Let this be another nail in the coffin of Brand Cameron.

But more importantly, let this be another step down the rocky road to the Parliament that Britain needs and deserves. The support for preventing non-domiciled people sitting in Parliament stretches across all three main parties. We’re closer than we have ever been, so let’s stop wavering, and use this anger, energy and coverage to end a ridiculous precedent which allows our lawmakers to dodge our taxes. We deserve better than that. 

Political parties rarely have a detailed Foreign Policy plan in opposition. This is wise on two counts, firstly they have no idea of what they are likely to face and secondly they need to reassure potential allies that they are reasonable and responsible. So oppositions on the whole resort to philosophy and generalities and picking obvious targets for attack. The Conservatives have done this quite successfully with attacks on policy towards Zimbabwe, philosophical speeches about the need not to attempt to drop democracy from 20,000ft and not much else. This is wise as they don’t know what they will have to face up to.

The other factor that has impacted Conservative thinking, and will impact Conservative action, is the economic situation. The big question that has to be at the forefront of Conservative minds is how to have a robust Foreign Policy without it costing the earth? One thing that is essential to answer that question is to understand where the threats lay. This is both easy and hard simultaneously; clearly terrorism and Europe are huge parts of Foreign Policy, but I want to look at the other areas that could cause issues.

Recently Argentina has been sabre-rattling over the Falklands. That demands close attention and will need to be factored in. I suspect that it will come to little but any future government needs to be fully on its guard. By no means is Argentina the only potential issue in that region, I suspect Cuba could move up the agenda. The question has to be what happens when the Castro family are no longer around to keep Cuba together? There are also other issues in South America that have largely been ignored over the last decade that may need to be looked at, such as the drift in a number of countries towards a hard-line xenophobic leftwing nationalism. All this could provide intriguing policy questions going forward.

The Middle East is likely to be the most interesting ground in foreign affairs terms for the foreseeable future. Recently the US Secretary of State has been toughening rhetoric towards Iran which may signal that diplomatic patience is running out. That brings the spectre of alternative approaches to ensuring that Iran remains a non-nuclear state. Any Military response to Iran is unlikely to be on the scale of that in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it would raise multiple issues not just the cost and logistics of any action. There is the diplomacy that would need to be carried out to ensure that we retain allies in the region.

The Far East provides another policy challenge in that we have a number of good relations in the region that we wish to pursue and enhance. Also the big foreign policy challenge in the region is adapting as China becomes the dominant economic and political force in the region. Clearly the relationship that the UK has had with China will change as China grows and we need to be sure what sort of relationship we want and be able to pursue vigorously our aims and objectives. Clearly the issue of the Chinese human rights needs to be factored in as well.

Then there are those totally out of the blue events that could blow both Foreign and Domestic Policy off course. Assassinations, coups, wars are the obvious things that can strike as well as natural disasters that require an international response, the recent earthquake in Haiti is a case in point. However even democratic election results can shift the balance of opinion in the world and affects how Britain relates to those countries. Ukraine is one example that used to look west but is likely to now look east. That has the potential to alter the bilateral relationship with Russia. What happens for instance if the USA ejects President Obama after one term? It would, overnight, alter the assumptions on which foreign policy is currently based.

The ultimate aim of UK Foreign policy will remain much as it is under Labour to retain a significant role in world affairs that is greater than that which usually attracts to a power of the UK’s inherent capability. That will require some far-sighted thinking and imagination especially given the economic strictures that will mitigate against the kind of role the UK has historically been in a position to play. That is unless of course the next Conservative government accepts that the UK is to be relegated down the list of front rank powers. I doubt that they will which will make Foreign Policy, which is at root a pragmatic policy area, all the more interesting.
 

Over 40% of people say that immigration is one of their top three political priorities. The immigration debate needs to be decontaminated from reactional racist accusations. If you cannot have a free debate amongst reasonable people then you are denying the opportunity for the best possible policy solution to be arrived at. There needs to be proper debate. For a generation people have avoided expressing their honest views on immigration. Immigration is not a black or white subject. It is a lot more sophisticated than that.

Labour’s attitude of not wanting to discuss the culture and social issues around immigration, and their attempt to tar those who raise these concerns, has created a situation where negative minority parties have increased their vote. We suspect that many BNP voters do not want Nick Griffin as Prime Minister. They want the current Government to take their concerns seriously.

The Conservative Party will highlight our Immigration Policy on leaflets and posters. The recently released ten reasons to vote Conservative leaflet will include: “Having an annual limit to control the numbers admitted with regards to the wider effects on society and the provision of public services.” Immigration policy will be one of the subjects for the Conservative Draft Manifesto discussion series. David Cameron will attack Labour’s record during the debates. The Conservatives made a mistake in 2005 by having the passive negative slogan “Are you thinking what we are thinking?” The 2010 philosophy is “We are going to talk about what you want us to talk about”.

Mission Statement

Net migration to the UK increased from an average of 51,000 a year between 1993 and 1997, to an average of 209,000 a year between 2004 and 2008. Labour’s manifesto of 2005 presented their expansion policy in purely economic terms. “Our philosophy is simple; if you are ready to work hard and there is work for you to do, then you are welcome here”. This narrow view neglected to take into account the significant social and cultural impact rising immigration levels would have. Important questions such as how will front line services in the south-east, where roughly 70% of new migrants settle, cope were not asked, let alone answered.

There is a public perception that Labour’s immigration policy was too more focused on the needs of those arriving at our shores, rather than being in the interests of those who are already part of British society. A Conservative Government will regain the publics trust by signing-up to the below statement of principal, from which all immigration policy will flow. “We, the Government, will have an immigration policy which reflects the long-term interests of Britain and all its citizens. We will always consider the social, economic and cultural impact, along with the impact on public services. These impact assessments will be made public, along with other relevant information, in order to assist the public debate”.

Controlling numbers

Maintaining an open border policy is not appropriate for economic, infrastructure and public opinion reasons. A Conservative government will:

- Have an annual limit to control population numbers. This will be broken down to include regional limits if services in an area are over stretched.

- Have an effective system to count people in and out of the country. Monitor where they are coming from, where they are going to and their reason for entering/leaving.

- Deport those who are not allowed to stay.

- Tighten the student visa system.

- Maintain the points based system to ensure that immigrants have the appropriate attributes.

- Use data to assess where skill gaps are present and then adapt education/apprenticeship policy as appropriate.

Embracing the British way of life

Those who want to settle in Britain are making a decision to bind themselves to British values. By requesting to call Britain their home they are agreeing to respect the traditions, laws, rights and responsibilities which have led British society to the place where it is today.

Those who apply for British citizenship will be subject to a one-year probation period. During this period the applicant will attend classes to learn about British history, laws, values and customs. If their English is not at a satisfactory high level they will also be given the year to reach GCSE C standard. Applicants will have to do at least five hours a month of community work.

Those who complete the qualification period will be invited to a ‘citizenship ceremony’ which will celebrate their achievement. The best 250 applicants each year will be invited to a tea party at Buckingham Palace. EU citizens who want to settle in Britain will also be encouraged to go through this process.

This policy section has dealt solely with immigration and not asylum, which we regard to be a separate issue. Asylum seekers are only 3% of net foreign immigration.

Betapolitics is a regular blogger on Platform 10. He can be followed on twitter @betapolitics.

Some believe that the Conservatives have been only too ready to sit back and let Labour lose the election, for instance feeding the media frenzy over the Brown bullying allegations last week, rather than just pressing on with the Conservatives' own agenda. This gave Cameron the double blow of looking opportunist and also losing a chance to push forward Conservative policies whilst Brown was temporarily on the back foot. Much as Cameron wants to paint Brown as the school bully, he is now making himself look like Billy No-mates at the back, shouting out comments that he thinks make him look big and clever.

It appears that Andy Coulson has brought a tabloid mentality to the Tories' communications. Don't worry about the policy details, just get the screaming headline. But when Labour were on the ropes, one big punch every now and again was enough to keep them there. Now they have been allowed to struggle back to their feet, Cameron and his party are short on the fancy footwork.

But to me the real problem for the Tories is their timidity. If they have any big ideas, it seems that they are too nervous to propose them. It's no good going on about change, as if that were in itself a good thing. Change to what? There isn't even a clear policy on the economy and the need for cuts. Having first talked of large cuts, private polling warned the Tories that there message was not popular. So the 'cuts' became 'modest ¬reductions in public spending', at least for the first year. So voters are left not knowing what the Conservatives would do on probably the most important issue facing the country at the moment, nor with any idea what a Cameron government would do to the public services they and their families rely on.

Maybe the Tories have overestimated how badly people feel about the current economic situation, a point not lost on Michael Portillo. The former Treasury minister said on BBC's 'This Week': "This has been a phoney recession for people who have kept their jobs. They have seen their mortgage interest go down, inflation was much lower than they thought it would be when their wages were awarded last year. Lots of people have done quite well."

So if the Conservatives cannot rely on scaring voters into going blue, what can they do to gain a majority in May? I believe that they still have a lot of work to do on detoxifying the Conservative brand. This morning's revelations concerning Lord Ashcroft will not have helped them rid themselves of the image that the Tories are still the nasty party, of and for rich people. They cannot continue to act as if they just need to wait for the ripe majority to fall from the election tree: they must try to make the running, not wait for voters to turn to them.

Finally, I cannot help but feel that there are strange echoes of 1992. Then most people were just waiting for a Labour majority. But somehow people took fright at the Labour Party, however much Kinnock tried to assure us that he and the party had changed their spots. And the arrogance of the Labour hierarchy, well before the infamous Sheffield rally, was a real turn off.

But the greatest similarity between 2010 and 1992 is the economic situation. And the truth is that voters don't want to jump ships during stormy weather. Brown may be inept, but to many he feels safer than the unknown. As Hillaire Belloc put it:

And always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse.
 

Although the cupboard is not only just bare but has been sold to the pawn-shop, the Conservatives remain committed to lower, simpler, fairer taxes. You can’t say that about anyone else.

Headlining the list is the abolition of Inheritance Tax (IHT) for estates valued under £1m – Osborne’s “death knell for death taxes” that was also the death knell for an early election – funded by a levy on “non-domiciled” residents who currently pay no tax in the UK. Lower, simpler, fairer.

As eye catching as the IHT pledge is, especially given its ability to provoke those on the Left who think seizing 40% of an individual’s wealth upon death is fair, it is by far alone. The Conservatives, working with the very limited financial resources left to the nation, plan to boost the economy, enterprise and jobs by having “the most competitive corporate tax system of any major economy within five years.”

By simplifying the tax code, reducing the number of bureaucratic corporate allowances, the rate of Corporation Tax (CT) will be cut by 3p to 25p, with the lower rate cut to 20p. Given that a report from Civitas argued that the CT burden was “jeopardising business and undermining our ability to escape from recession”, and firms such as Unilever and Diageo have threatened to leave the UK due to our high tax rates, this policy should be viewed not only in the light of what it will bring to the UK but what it will stop from leaving.

However – bringing our tax tour to an end – a less dramatic but much needed tax cut underlines the “fairer” aspect of Tory tax policy. Announced in 2007, the plan to abolish Stamp Duty for first time buyers on homes under £250,000 will be a help to the millions struggling to buy their first home – “giving people more opportunity, power and control over their lives.”

David T Breaker is a conservative blogger and internet consultant. He blogs at ConservativeHome’s CentreRight and at www.davidbreaker.com

But Mr Cameron went further than his recent predecessors as leader of the Conservative Party. Last year, Mr Cameron withdrew the Conservative MEPs from the EPP, the mainstream centre-right coalition in European politics, and formed a new right wing group, the ECR. This decision appeared short-sighted from a narrow, political perspective as he risked isolation and impotence in Europe; and troubling (albeit politically expedient given the UKIP threat) from a broader ideological perspective as he appeared to drag the Conservative party towards its Eurosceptic wing. But perhaps the greatest cause for concern was his choice of partners in this bold new venture: very right-wing politicians, predominantly from Eastern Europe, and often with less than savoury reputations. As a moderate, pro-European Conservative, these impressions deeply concerned me.

Strangely, the “optics” are at least as troubling as the decision itself. At its simplest, it appeared to be a desperate sop to the more reactionary wing of his party: a clumsy attempt to lure back voters lost to UKIP. Symbolically it was even more troubling: Mr Cameron appeared to be signalling publicly and internationally that actually he was more ideologically aligned with his new friends than with his more traditional (and, one would hope, his more “natural”) allies across Europe such as M Sarkozy. It also signalled that perhaps Mr Cameron wasn’t going to be the pragmatist he insisted: perhaps the boy wonder was more right-wing than we had suspected.

Most peculiarly it was a reactionary move that appeared to be out of step with Mr Cameron’s otherwise progressive agenda and the mood of the voters he is trying to court. As a country we have become more liberal socially and more conservative economically -- perhaps a cultural counterpart to the entrenchment of the NHS and the City into the mainstream. Culturally we have become more European even as economically we have become more Atlanticist.

Perhaps Mr Cameron was relying on the received wisdom: apparently Britain is more Eurosceptic than most of Europe. It’s easy to understand this attitude, as there are significant problems with Europe which the media are more than willing to let us know about. Brussels was long the pinnacle of tax-payer funded excess. It’s inefficient, bureaucratic and curiously unaccountable. Moreover, there is the fear of Federalism; that we should no longer be Sovereign.

However there are so many brilliant things that have come out Europe that improve our life in Britain. Some are small conveniences, some are fundamental: everything from the ease of taking a tour around Central Europe through to the intangible and difficult to quantify impact of a prosperous Europe on our day-to-day lives. Moreover, operating within the framework of the EU is frequently in our best interests. The world is becoming smaller; and more and more agreements of greater and greater importance need to be made at the international level, including climate change legislation and working to contain the threat of Iran. Taking a more international approach to many problems in the future should help ease their economic footprint: it is encouraging to hear Dr Liam Fox is working to bring France back into NATO, for example; and a “Robin Hood” Tax could only work if implemented internationally.

All this is somewhat beside the point: there are many more issues of much greater importance and urgency facing the next Prime Minister than Europe. The Conservative position is frankly not of any consequence for the time being. In November last year a survey for the Times suggested that only 3% of voters ranked Europe as their most important issue - a number which I’m sure will have retreated further in the face of more pressing concerns. It is an issue of periodic importance, and even then only when we don’t have anything else more important to worry about.

But even if by some strange quirk Europe does become an issue, the Conservatives have a unique opportunity to dominate this issue; and should Mr Cameron win the election, he is excellently positioned to take a vital role in the future of Europe if he seizes the opportunity - and co-incidentally put to bed the decades-long European angst that afflicts his party.

First it is important to note that Mr Cameron has a lot of leeway on Europe. He can be vague and woolly. He blundered in offering The Sun a “cast-iron guarantee” that he would hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty -- his hands are effectively tied on this -- but that “blunder” allowed him to position himself at the more Eurosceptic end of his party and stem any potential losses to UKIP. By keeping to his previously announced positions, especially as they are sketched out on the Conservative party website, Mr Cameron sits firmly in the mainstream of British society; moreover no party can credibly challenge that position or seek to displace him from it.

In Europe the establishment is wary of Mr Cameron, no doubt as a consequence of his referendum guarantee and his withdrawal from the EPP. Indeed, a victorious Mr Cameron will have serious clout: as a newly elected Prime Minister he has a mandate, the threat - or, if necessary, the result - of a referendum, and a not insignificant caucus in the European Parliament. Mr Cameron can go to Europe in the ascendency. This is why this is a golden opportunity to embrace Europe. By doing so, Mr Cameron can negotiate from a position of strength, particularly if he can ride his honeymoon period, and he has the opportunity to have his say and (whisper it) get his way. The fundamental principles of the European Union are perhaps less Atlanticist than he would like, but they are sound principles that are not at all against Conservative ideology.

Mr Cameron runs under circumstances unique to modern Conservative leaders, and this applies more than ever to Europe. He has bought himself some room and some time: partly through his own manoeuvres, partly through missteps by his political foes, partly through chance. If he is bold, he has a chance to shift the existing paradigm enveloping the Conservative party on Europe; and if he is prepared to accept the reality of our place in Europe and work from within, he will have sewn this issue up for the foreseeable future.

You can follow Ali on Twitter, or visit his blog here.

"What's Twitter?" she asked. "What posters?"

We are drawing closer to a general election, politicians and the politicos inevitably grow more negative and the stories in the media grow darker. Personal attacks take over, shutting out real debate. Tribalism sets in. By the time the rosettes are pinned to lapels on polling day, the idea of actually 'thinking' beyond what is written in a manifesto seems foreign.

It becomes about us and them; about winning and losing.

That is not what politics should be. It is so easy to become submerged in the story of politics and not the ideas we are really fighting for; it is much harder to actually think about what is good and what is bad for the electorate. The lady I startled on the street didn't care about posters, Piers Morgan or Christine Pratt. It certainly wouldn't influence her vote. What she wanted to know was whether the milk she'd just bought was cheap, whether the bus I was keeping her from catching was on time and if her kids had had a good day at school.

Politics isn't entirely about policy issues, but they must be at the core of the debate.

In old media, the issues and style of debate were decided by politicians or newspapers. In the 21st century we have the unique opportunity to form the debate. We on the blogs and on Twitter help to decide what is talked about.

Starting on Monday, the (brilliant - Ed.) House of Twits website has agreed to clear the Tory Front bench for the next few weeks and replace it with the 'Positive Policy' series. A group of us decided that we wanted to try to bring the online debate back to issues and policy. Every writer was given a policy area to research, contemplate and write about with an open mind. Some are well known and proliffic posters- others have rarely written before.

The articles are positive: they talk about what is good, what currently prevents our country from reaching it's full potential and what a Conservative government could do to help. There were no other instructions, and each blogger took on the challenge in their own way. Topics vary from immigration to the arts, from tax to foreign affairs. We have even dared to tackle Europe! The articles all differ - not just in the writing style, but in the political philosophy behind them. They show an open approach to policy, a willingness to think and a genuine interest in making this country better.

They also include some of the best political writing I have seen in some time.

But this is only one part of the project. For this to work, we need positive enagement from every reader - from you.

I am sure you will enjoy the series, and I hope that in some small way, we will make what is bound to be one of the nastiest elections in many years just a little bit better.

I was lucky enough to have an interest in American politics sparked in December 2007. I caught the tail end of the period where Presidential candidates were putting the finishing touches to campaign machinery for the Iowa caucuses. It was fascinating. By mid-January it had snowballed into what could be described as a borderline obsession with the campaigns. I knew who all the main advisors and consultants were for Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, McCain, Romney and Huckabee. I knew of all the main political action committees that would be playing substantial roles in the campaign. I knew where to go for all the best polling. I remember being in my Business Studies classes at sixth form spending at least half of the time in each lesson trawling through websites like CNN politics, The Hill, The WaPo, POLITICO, The NY Times, the Time Magazine website (Joe Klein and Mark Halperin FTW!!), Huffington Post, Drudge Report.... maybe this explains the 'CC' grade I got for Applied Business Studies lol!

The best thing about developing such a strong interest at such an early stage of a VERY LONG election, was that it became almost a self-education in domestic political issues and campaign strategy. I learnt extensively about politics in relation to economics, healthcare, education, foreign policy, national security, the environment. That then lead to further learning about lobbyists and interest groups etc etc. You get the picture!

So its November 2008, I come off this amazing high of following such immense ideological warfare with the motivation to get involved in campaigning myself. I put a lot of thought into who I wanted to support. I decided that the Liberal Democrats best represented what I wanted to see from a Government and the direction I wanted to see society go in. So I get in contact with my local PPC, Dr. Sue Farrant, and its off to the races! I was schooled in resident surveying, doorstep/telephone canvassing, attended party conferences, met endless numbers of activists etc.

While I was enjoying it and appreciating the extent to which I was being involved in campaigning, it was becoming more clear month after month that UK politics is in such a devastating rut.

This country is very old. We've had so many great historic triumphs. We've been victorious in world wars, we've seen an extensive progression of the way the State addresses poverty and healthcare, we've seen equal rights awarded to people who fought for generations and we have these great ancient traditions and institutions such as our political system.

The consequence of it all seems to be this notion that we can't achieve such historic greatness again. All discussions about change to our system, even from my own party, are "what can we change within the confines of this rut. What can we do that won't step on the toes of our history."

I want to see an end to that. I am tired after only eighteen months, of trying to find ways of supporting people who think they are destined to be leaders because they can string a sentence together. American politics is insanely commercialized, but at least they have some people with backbone and energy.

There are some very tough questions facing this country. Some we havnen't even realised yet. We need someone with vision, someone with backbone who's connected to other people's lives. We need someone to inspire us. That's the only way we are going to be able to face the great challenges coming our way. Instead of telling people who's the most qualified, instead of telling people who's got the better ideas, we need someone who can make it obvious. Nobody is making it obvious.

The current generation of "leaders" have proved that they are incapable of moving past the attitude that our political system can now only be tweaked rather than radically progressed.

In this election my generation has the opportunity to rise up and say "If you guys are incapable of making Great Britain great again, we'll do it for you".

Decisions are made by those who show up. If my guys don't.. we're destined for another decade of McBrides. Another decade of smear/fear politics where the battle of ideas takes a back seat. We can't keep laying the blame on Parliament. It is our responsibility to rise up!  

Leaving aside the allegations themselves and the blatant breach of confidentiality that has likely destroyed the National Bullying Helpline, what has been the overall effect on the electorate? Calls for an investigation seem fairly reasonable to me – shouldn’t ALL allegations of bullying be fully investigated anyway? I would have expected that someone from the Cabinet Office would have been able to say, as they have done previously, that there had been X number of allegations, of which, Y number had been upheld and disciplinary action taken or Z number had been rejected and no action taken. But, with or without an investigation, it is still far too early to say if there has been an impact on the narrowing polls.

The Conservatives are rubbing their hands together with glee at the prospect of damaging the Prime Minister's reputation and making him more unpopular at a time when Cameron’s approval rating has fallen by half since September 2009. Is this the only impact of stories such as this though? With a large section of the electorate not exercising their right to vote and disengagement at sky-high levels, will stories like this – and the reaction to them – only serve to confirm the low esteem in which many people hold politics and politicians as a whole?

This impact is reflected on the many social media platforms; Twitter for example, is a good reflection of the feelings of party activists and many of them who use Twitter as a point of political discourse frequently cross swords and enjoy a good, spirited debate. For most of us, there is a line we automatically draw and would not dream of crossing, for this is where one enters the realm of personal attacks and insults.

The imminence of the General Election is the likely cause of the rise in tribalism on Twitter and there has certainly been an increase in…I’m going to call it passion, in recent weeks. There is a cross party consensus on the need for greater respect among online activists, and opinion formers like Anthony Painter ask pertinent questions about the impact of negative on-line battles. I personally think that the impact of Twitter on the general electorate is negligible but if the facile partisan swipes and tribalistic posturing continue, it could have a far deeper and more damaging effect on some of the activists that the parties currently take for granted.

Two points strike me:

1. The damage that this episode has had on the work and reputation of other more reputable charities who work hard in the anti-bullying field. BullyingUK are such a charity who have had a particularly bad day today. Their Twitter Manager has tweeted on at least half a dozen occasions today that his charity is not the one mentioned on the media as breaching confidentiality of callers.

2. The political posturing from Labour and the Conservatives on the affair. Both parties have seized the opportunity to take pot shots at the other side and claim a moral victory. This close to a General Election, every small nuance and story is going to seized upon and debated to infinity but the vitriol with which both have levelled at each other is a new level not yet seen.

There is only one real loser in all this. That's the person being bullied. Whether they are at home, the office or at school they now have a raft of people thinking that they are just cry babies who cannot cope with leadership. They may conclude that they cannot trust an anti-bullying charity for fear of their calls being reported to others or worse, the person bullying them. Whatever you might think about Gordon Brown and his behaviour, think about that and how the bullied actually feel. Someone somewhere forgot that today and look what happened.

So what if Hennessy updates his book to include Gordon Brown? What chapter heading then, what treatment given through the window of recent history? "Flawed by design, floored by events", perhaps?

It was always clear, before the relaunched Observer gave up its pages to the newest allegations, that Gordon Brown is a man of short-temper and bullying tactics. It's how he got the job of Prime Minister in the first place; influential blogger Guido Fawkes has been detailing these allegations for years.

That Brown has mental instabilities is not the sole reason behind wanting him to lose the next election. Pick any of the disastrous policies of this Government from 1997 to the present day for more than enough - from the billions wasted on Trident renewal to decrease in civil liberties through the continued scandal of child poverty levels, lack of funding for public transport, and of course the £800bn national debt. Every failure of the Labour "regime" has Brown's fingerprints all over them.

The "clunking fist" can barely keep a grip on the ramshackle, tumbledown caboose that is the current Government, of which he has been the over-controlling keeper of the purse for too long.

That Downing Street has been in smear mode for most of today should come as no surprise, either. This Government has run a parallel news agenda to the rest of the media since Tony Blair became its leader; there is the news, and there is the New Labour Reality Information Service, and occasionally the latter will force the hand of the former while rarely vice versa.

Brown, as a leader, is finished after the events of this weekend. He has been lucky to have lost so many Blairites from his Cabinet, so as to dampen the blow of any backbench rebellion, but regardless of this quirk of history, the man has very few friends left to rely on. The allegations of bullying have been around for too long for them to be so easily dismissed by Harman and Mandleson; and events from the "election that never was" and the 10p tax shambles prove Brown can not be trusted to make a single decision without flapping around in a haze of indecision.

Were he a good leader with a short-fuse, very little of this mud would stick. But he is far from a good leader. He has dragged this country to about as low as it can possibly get. Nation-changing, life defining general elections rarely come around very often - after 1979, and 1997, this forthcoming 2010 vote is one of those rare moments.

Show Labour that you cannot afford to trust their policies or unreliable leader any more. Use your vote in 2010 to remove them from power.

Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas, made a very focused speech to conference on the prospects for victory, geeing everyone up and urging everyone to do their bit in the coming election.

I particularly liked this bit though on social inequality;

Inequality And it matters because it is the most vulnerable people who suffer first,and suffer most, from cuts and closures. We see it all around us, every day. Britain under Labour has become a country of inequality.
Those at the top, those with the power and influence, making sure that they get more and more of the cake. And those at the bottom having to make do with just the crumbs. The top 10% in this country now have 100 times more wealth than the bottom 10%. A hundred times.

Nothing - no amount of hard work or talent or commitment - can justify that. Those who have less aren't afraid of hard work.

People in service jobs, working night shifts to keep the country going, put in just as much as the captains of industry. Working with disadvantaged children needs just as much talent as serving privileged clients in private banking. And as to commitment - think of the difference between social workers, struggling with bureaucracy, hammered by the media and often by their own management, and trying to do the best for often difficult clients.

Compare that to the commitment of the bosses of the Royal Bank of Scotland, threatening to walk out if their bonuses were cut back too far. That is Britain today.

Deputy leader Adrian Ramsay's speech the day after was also on the theme of inequality but also trained the focus onto privatisation, PFI and the way market deregulation undermines public services and yet still costs us more.

He praised the Sure Start scheme and warned that the coming period will see the need to mobilise against savage cuts in public services.

This was my personal highlight;

The job market is failing young people and in my county it's hitting hardest. Norfolk has the highest unemployment rate for 18-24 year olds of the whole country. It has the highest number of 18-24 year olds on Job-Seekers Allowance, and the highest number of job losses per head of population against any other county. This is the legacy of Tory and Labour governments. And this is what we need to address.

Those people on the dole, will they be helped under Labour? Today Labour launched their General Election slogan- ‘A Future Fair for All'. How can they be trusted to be fair when bankers are still getting bonuses, yet the recession is still putting thousands of other people out of work?

The people who gambled with our money, who built the house of credit cards that now has crashed, get bailed out, but everyone else picks up the bill. That doesn't sound like Fair for All. That sounds like a banker's ‘Free For All'.

We believe in fighting for fairness- not crossing our fingers and hoping for the best. Our proposals would create a million lasting jobs- not ones dependent on cheap fossil fuels or financial bubbles. We want skilled jobs in public services, renewable energy and low carbon industries. We would nurture small to medium enterprises to encourage domestic manufacturing and local agriculture.

It's this economic inequality that goes to the heart of where we on the left must be going. For instance, when Darren Johnson passionately spoke in favour of the maximum wage (although as comments have pointed out we haven't called it that, but that's what it is) if we're not addressing economic inequality we're not serious about social injustice.

The fact of the matter is, James has been unhappy with his work for some time. He wants to settle down to start a family and doesn’t feel that his continued career in politics would be good for his prospects as a parent, or for his relationship with his long term girlfriend.

Accusations are being made that James has done this through spite, because he disagrees with Gordon Brown, I can say with confidence that this is complete nonsense! He is totally committed to a Labour victory at the general election and despite disagreements with Gordon over the direction of the Party, spite isn’t something he does! When he resigned from the Cabinet he promised not to make trouble for the Government, a promise he gracefully kept.

After speaking to him earlier today I know very well this is not a decision he has taken lightly, and has been done in consultation with the local Party for which he has our full support!

Mine and James’ political beliefs have differed on various issues, but despite these differences he has my utmost respect. I have often enjoyed thorough debate with him around the issues on which our opinions differ, and his capacity for intelligent discussion and open approach to ideas different to his own, has always impressed me.

Although I disagreed with some of the positions he supported within Government, I have no qualms whatsoever with his performance as my MP, he has been a strong advocate for our local area, lobbying for massive improvements to our local schools and hospital, in which the difference is visible!

Obviously people are wondering (they’ve been asking all day) what will now happen with what can be safely described as an extremely safe Labour seat, especially with a General Election so close. Our CLP’s Executive Committee met earlier today to discuss just that.

It has been decided that an emergency General Committee meeting is to be called for March 1st, so we can begin the process of deciding who will replace him. I would not like to speculate on who might replace him at such an early stage, but can confirm that, subject to approval, the Party’s preference will be for an open shortlist.

I would like to convey that James has the full support and understanding of our local Party and that nobody will think less of him, for what has been an extremely difficult and deeply personal decision for him. He has our thanks for his hard work and commitment, both to the local area in general and to our CLP. I have complete faith that our membership will select someone just as capable and dedicated, to continue his good work in the interest of the people of Stalybridge and Hyde.
 

Unemployment. We had one good month – not surprisingly the one before Christmas when the claimant count fell (very slightly) - followed by a further substantial increase in the latest figures. Lot’s of carefully worded excuses surround this but the truth is that there’s a rise in long-term unemployment, cyclical unemployment and overall worklessness. Approaching 20% of the working age population are not working.

Borrowing. So we’re well stuck into the Viv Nicholson economic policy – supported today by all those clever economists who are friends of Gordon and Alistair. But shouldn’t we fret just a tad when the tax revenue forecasts set in November are already wrong – to the tune of £7 billion? And running a deficit in January when all the money comes in? A little frisson of concern is may be in order.

I don’t see anything from the Government that is really addressing these worries. We seem to spend our time arguing about the phone bill while the house is being repossessed. And the public have spotted this. They are not impressed – they want some action, a little bit of leadership. Instead, we’re treated to a four month long election campaign where Labour have reduced any serious discussion of our wrecked economy to the macroeconomic equivalent of an argument about petty cash receipts. 

So, repeat after me, "Winterton is not representative of the views of David Cameron". Oh, except he is... Maybe it isn't 'Same Old Tories', after all - instead it's just 'New Old Tories'.

Adam's thoughts were primarily focussed on ideology, and the principles of democracy. I certainly don't disagree with that and, if every other argument fell down, that one alone would still be strong enough to show the desperate need to get rid of the monarchy.

My belief comes not from this though, but from the internal workings of government. If we look at some of the strong, stable republics around the world, we see a strong argument for the separation of powers doctrine. For those unfamiliar, this is the idea that there are three branches of government; Judicial (courts), Executive (head of state + ministers) and legislative (Parliament/Assembly/Congress etc). These powers, the doctrine suggests, should be distinct. No one person should hold office in, nor should they exercise significant control over, more than one of these branches. The maxim that underlies this theory is that power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power divided up into thirds will reduce the risk of the corruption by power.

Necessary to prevent a corruption through near-absolute power within one's own branch is a series of checks and balances.

I'm never one to claim that the American political system is perfect, but here's one idea they've got right. Each branch has a small element of power over each other, in order to ensure they do not overreach their authority:

The Judiciary has constitutional authority and the power of judicial review over both other bodies. If it views any of the actions to be unconstitutional, it can declare so and go as far as striking whole Acts of Congress off the statute books.

The Executive (the President) has the power of veto of legislation to which he does not approve. The requirement of Presidential signature before a law comes into force means the President has the decision to turn down laws that are excessive.

The legislature can, with the consent of a supermajority of members of congress, override the veto of a President who is using it to be obstructive to the will of the people. The congress can also impeach Judges and the President, if deemed to be guilty of 'high crimes and misdemeanours'.

So what does this have to do with the constitutional monarchy, I hear you cry? Surely we have this seperation of powers, just in a less democratic way? It is true, the Queen is head of state and can take no part in Parliamentary proceedings, and powers are more seperate now than they were a year ago: the highest court no longer sits as the legislature.

While the constitutional powers are now perhaps more seperate than they've ever been, it only takes a cursory glance at the system to see this is not practically the case. The Queen, because of her undemocratic position and distance from the average Briton, is by no means actively empowered to make decisions. No Monarch, as far as I'm aware, has even threatened to withold assent to an Act of Parliament since Queen Victoria allegedly told Gladstone she would not allow any legislation to become law that was prejudicial to lesbians.* The Prime Minister is head of the executive, in practice, and all ministers of the Crown are drawn from Parliament. The Monarch acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council and so, because the Queen is hamstrung by convention and democratic principle, there is absolutely no-one who can hold the executive to account. The checks and balances between legislature and executive simply aren't there.

We can see the effect this has had on Parliamentary democracy over the years. This Labour government has made grotesque use of the powers given to the Leader of the House (a cabinet minister) to control Parliamentary timetable to minimise scrutiny of legislation and push through some of the worst laws in centuries, purely on the basis of significant parliamentary majorities. What's more, once passed, these unscrutinised laws cannot possibly be vetoed, because the one with the power to do so hasn't been elected.

The Democratic argument for disbanding the monarchy is fundamental and sufficient, but it is very ideology based. Here it is possible to see exactly why, in practice, the lack of democratic accountability in our head of state can have serious practical effects on the political system as whole - not by empowering the unelected Queen, but by disabling the constitutional Head of Executive from calling to account the practical Head of State and Parliament.

*I believe the story goes that QV didn't take this stance out of any defence of gay rights, but rather because she didn't believe lesbianism existed and didn't want superfluous legislation on the books!

This may seem like a very odd question, but upon closer consideration of our constitutional arrangement it doesn't seem that odd at all. Of course we are a form of democracy and within any system of government it is perfectly legitimate to debate the democratic credentials of that system, it should be expected. There is no doubt that we have democratic institutions, but just how democratic are these institutions and what impact does this have within the wider context of our democracy? It is my opinion, and indeed the opinion of many academics and commentators, that on first glance our system of government appears more democratic than it actually is in practice.

The most common target for such criticisms are obvious, unlike most western democracies, we have an unelected head of state in the form of the monarchy, which is decided solely by right of birth. We only elect 646 out of 1,386 of the members of our Parliament. And as if having an unelected head of state wasn't bad enough, the government of the day can bypass the entire democratic process, and do so in the name of the monarchy. The final point was sadly not uncommon during the Blair years, and was usually used in the most disgusting of situations.

It is my personal opinion, that the monarchy embodies some of the worst characteristics of modern Britain. It is elitist, it is snobbish and it clings to outdated principles that, put simply, have no place in the 21st century, sometimes acting as barriers to positive change. A group of people, who by the nature of their upbringing and surroundings, feel superior and somehow blessed with wisdom, even though their existence could not be more removed from that of the average British citizen. People like Prince Charles seem to think he deserves input into the process of Government, purely because of his title and the family he was born into, what is democratic about that?

Whenever the debate on Britain's constitution arises I find myself repeating the same question, what is the point of the monarchy? Most Monarchists seem to suggest that it is a cherished link to our history, our culture and our very identity as a nation. Is this the identity we really want to present to the world? If we want to talk history I don't see anything positive in the role played by the monarchy in Britain's history. When I think of monarchy I think of dictatorial rule. I think of Charles and his attempts to undermine the development of representative government. I think of the beheading, the hangings and the burning carried out at the behest of the monarchy against those who disagreed with them, which they believed was their god given right. To say the monarchy is what makes Britain great is insulting, not just to my beliefs but to those who truly make Britain a better place. The teachers, the nurses, charity workers, surely these people are what make Britain great? If anyone wishes to argue that the Queen does plenty of good through charities etc. then I ask you this, could she not continue such virtuous acts without her title and taxpayer subsidised palaces?

Monarchists will often try and argue that the argument is irrelevant, that the monarch retains no real power, which in reality isn't exactly true. Even so, if this was the case then why defend it? What would be the point of maintaining something that has no real impact or significance in the modern world? Is tradition a significant justification for continuing to give millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to one of the largest landowners in the country every year? Is tradition a good enough reason for leaving them exempt from freedom of information and auditing legislation?

I suppose I should register some bias at this point. By my very nature I have always had problems with authority. I don't like unconditional respect or deference, respect is something to be earned. The idea that if (god forbid) I was to find myself standing in front of Her Majesty, I should have to bow and address as her in a manner that implies some element of superiority, really infuriates me. We should all be considered as equals, what has Elizabeth Windsor ever done to deserve my unconditional respect and admiration? What gives her the right to a lifetime of institutionalised privilege whilst millions still live in poverty? The answer to me is clear.

As part of the upper class, the Royal Family has historically served a pretty narrow set of objectives, mainly to perpetuate its own existence. I am not implying that this is solely through some selfish desire to preserve their own status, I think they genuinely believe they serve a positive role in society, after all that is what they have been raised to believe and lets face it, who is ever going to have told them otherwise?

But lets come back to the implications for democracy which are raised by this discussion. The Queen, as head of state is not the head of government, her powers are limited and largely ceremonial, so what is the problem? There is one very important power the Queen does retain, and come May we might just see it in action.

In the likelihood of an hung Parliament come May, "There is a lot of talk of the Queen having to play an active role", as one Palace insider recently told the Guardian. For me this is where serious questions need to be asked. Although there are loose conventions for the role of the monarch in the event of a hung Parliament, due to the lack of a written constitution this process is far from clear and cannot be clarified independently by any constitutional court. Should the power to decide who forms a government be vested in someone who is unelected and totally unaccountable?

For example, it has been suggested that even if the Tories won the election, but couldn't form a stable majority then Brown would be able to remain as Prime Minister, the guiding principle being that incumbency is preferable in the interest of stability. Now as a member of the Labour Party I would be delighted in ensuring that David Cameron never becomes Prime Minister, but as a Democrat, I would shudder at the thought of someone being kept out of No. 10 after winning the popular vote, especially if this was at the whim of Her Majesty and a set of fairly ambiguous conventions draughted by Civil Servants. Surely such an important role would be better off in the hands of someone who is elected and accountable to the people whom it affects?

At a time when confidence in Parliament is so low, serious considerations need to be made as to how we can reform government, in doing so making the democratic process more relevant, more accessible and more representative of the British people. We need a set of rules that leave no uncertainty about the roles played by the various components involved, which serves to uphold the democratic principles we hold dear. For me the solution is clear, a fully democratic Republic with a written constitution that subjects all aspect of power to the will of the people. Its about time we bought Britain into the 21st century, instead of clinging stubbornly to what once was.
 

Often, on Twitter more than anywhere, this opinion is reinforced and exaggerated, with the personal attacks and insults thrown so willingly purely because someone disagrees with you or sometimes only because they are affiliated to a different political party. Political belief is a choice. Religion is a choice & no reasonable person would say, "I hate you (purely) because you're a Christian". But people do that on Twitter. People I respect have occasionally sunk to the depths of hatred based on colour - in this case, red or blue, obviously.

I am trying to promote a culture of cordial disagreement. Where we can discuss, debate and disagree without resorting to facile partisan swipes and personal derogatory remarks. I happily disagree with people who oppose me politically but never feel that they are a lesser person than I am. Nor do I feel that if I am unable to debate further or that I cannot counter what is being said, that I should attempt to belittle or demean my opponent.

How can we expect the public to respect politics as the noble pursuit it truly is, if those who are attempting to engage them behave in this manner?

As we approach the General Election, this is becoming more evident. "Hashtag Wars" are becoming more common and while most of the comments are witty and amusing, there are a few people who are crossing the line.

During Gordon Brown's interview with Piers Morgan on Sunday, there were many derisory comments from some opposition tweeters. None however came close to the offensive & disgusting tweet from Harry Cole AKA @ToryBear, who tweeted "Gordon looks like paedo". A comment for which, despite being asked, he has refused to apologise. Considering the outrage he spewed forth in response to a slightly tasteless joke about Thatcher falling down the stairs a few months back, I expect better from the bear. He has deleted the post, but this is what was done with the Thatcher joke - something that Cole described at the time as a "cowardly" act, insisting that only an apology would do.

Of course the rather foolish tweet that David Wright MP posted under the 'I've never voted Tory' hashtag is another example of going beyond reasonable banter. He did issue an apology but his subsequent attempt at blaming the Twitter imps for tinkering with his tweet after he had posted it, does him no favours at all.

A tribalistic Twitter version of the Hakka is no good, for it surely tars us all with the same brush, when the mainstream press are increasingly using social media as sources. Not only that but it demeans politics and reinforces the poor opinions that many people have. Worst of all, it takes politics off the agenda for people who might otherwise be standing with us, trying to make a difference.

There are many good people who would be incredible representatives, and completely dedicated to their constituents, but they will not enter the world of politics because it is sullied by the people who treat it with contempt from within.
 

Why? Let me say my resignation is entirely political. I don't think Peter Taaffe has become the anti-christ. There are no personality clashes with other members. Nor do I think the CWI should retrospectively back the International Committee's split with the International Secretariat of the Fourth International in the early 50s. Instead it comes down to central questions of political strategy on three matters.

Firstly, I am opposed to Stoke SP's decision to stand against Labour MP Mark Fisher in Stoke Central. There's no need to rehearse the reasons why - they are outlined in this report of the relevant meeting the branch held on the subject (though it's worth noting it still might not happen - the challenge is subject to national SP and the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition's endorsement).

Secondly there is TUSC itself. In this critical post I wrote on the new coalition I was very downbeat about its prospects after the general election as a vehicle that can weld the warring factions of the far left together and lay the ground for future developments. Since then there's nothing that has shifted me from my gloomy prognosis.

Thirdly is the question of the Labour party. For anyone concerned with socialist strategy and working class politics, how one deals with Labour remains *the* central strategic issue. Though I have blown hot and cold over the characterisation of Labour since being a SP member, I never believed the party's settled position that it was a straight party of capital not fundamentally different from the Tories and LibDems. Aside from the formal affiliation of most of the major trade unions, there remain thousands of small scale links. For instance the majority of union activists who are members of a political party are in Labour. You'll find thousands of Labour party members in community-based campaigns too. Neither can you hide from the fact that despite some decomposition in Labour's support, its working class base remains stubbornly welded to it. Where the far left have broken through, such as in Scotland in 2003 and Liverpool in the mid-80s the success has proven episodic. It remains an unfortunate political reality that despite the SP's excellent record in Coventry, every council election - including when Dave Nellist is up for re-election - is an up hill struggle.

All this is a round about way of saying there's life left in the Labour dog yet. At the next election it is highly likely the only socialists returned to parliament will be those standing on a Labour ticket. I've also become increasingly convinced over the course of the last year that it is in the interests of the labour movement to see the present government returned, despite its 13 year record of implementing a raft of regressive policies. Also, win or lose, because of the organic links to the labour movement Labour cannot insulate itself from debates and pressures coming from the organised working class forever. I think we've got to the point where the political space to Labour's left is closing and the space for socialist ideas are opening up inside the party (more on the character of that space here).

It's plain to see that these strategic conclusions are not compatible with SP membership. That's why I have left and joined Labour and the Co-op Party. I don't join with any illusions. Stoke Central CLP has a job of work ahead of it to see off the challenge of the BNP's deputy fuhrer, Simon Darby. Things are not helped either by an ongoing faction fight between the dominant faction in the CLP, and the city and regional party. Fun times!

I will however say this about my time in the SP. In contrast to the blood-curdling stories I've heard from ex-members down the years, my experience has been completely positive. The SP has given me an awful lot and I have much to be grateful for. But most important of all are the comrades and friends I've made, which made my decision to resign all the more harder. When I told the local organiser I did not receive a curt note informing me of my responsibility to cancel my standing order but instead got an expression of genuine concern and regret. Other comrades I've spoken to have been the same. They disagree but have not cast me into the dark recesses of their minds. We *remain* friends and comrades and I wish them all the best.

There's something else I would like to say about the SP too. I may fundamentally disagree with its strategy but compared with the rest of the far left, including the SWP, its politics and methods of work are immeasurably superior. If you're an independent socialist I urge you to join Labour. But I know full well there are many leftists who won't touch Labour with a barge pole. If you fit in that category the SP is a serious Marxist organisation that avoids the twin pitfalls of moonbat politics and cult-like party practices. As I hope this blog has demonstrated, taking out SP membership does not mean you leave your critical faculties at the door.

What now? I plan to carry on dishing up the usual blogging diet of opinion, analysis and sectariana, but as you might expect my writing will be more pro-Labour than it has been previously. Please note, that does not mean uncritically so. I'm continuing being active too. I'm wedded to the same perspective as I was when I first joined the SP. The ongoing priority of socialists is the rebuilding of the labour movement. And whatever organisation we're in we should never lose sight of this. 

I don't believe for a minute that the Conservatives decided to spice the report up a bit by fiddling the figures, unlike the game played last week by Chris Grayling. But let's look at the quote in more detail. In 'Labour's Two Nations' it stated:

"Teenage girls are almost three times more likely to become pregnant. Young women under 18 are three times more likely to fall pregnant in the most deprived areas compared to the least deprived areas. In the most deprived areas, 54 per cent are likely to fall pregnant before the age of 18, compared to just 19 per cent in the least deprived areas."

Did no-one ever think about the sense of these figures before they were published? I understand that Conservatives don't like to make too many forays into local council estates, but surely someone had noticed that there wasn't a pregnancy rate of over 50% amongst the teenagers. Maybe more worryingly, the Conservatives really believed that there was a teenage pregnancy rate of 1 in 5 in the most affluent areas of the country. Do they not get out much, or do they mix with the 'wrong sort'? Do CCHQ's researchers not realise that a calculator only gives the right answer if the correct information is entered? Has 'garbage in, garbage out' ever been a more appropriate phrase?

Sadly, but probably unsurprisingly, Children's Secretary Ed Balls decided to turn the whole saga into a conspiracy, saying:

"David Cameron's latest deception and airbrushed statistics cannot conceal the fact that the Tories haven't changed."

Whilst of course the Conservatives seek to minimise the whole thing, with a party spokesman telling us:

"A decimal point was left out in a calculation. It makes no difference at all to the conclusions of a wide-ranging report which shows that Labour have consistently let down the poorest in Britain."

Which in some ways is right. But it also goes to show that the truth has become a casualty of the message - and that the Tories have no idea what is really going on across most of the UK.

It seems that much of the media and consequently, the public think that politicians should be almost robotic and devoid of emotion. They cannot be human, make mistakes or admit to doing anything that the 'man-on-the-street' may consider to be normal behaviour. Lord help the MPs who make a joke, demonstrate anger, say they like a particular band or are seen to be wearing anything other than a suit!

The media insist on portraying ordinary behaviour by MPs as weird. Remember the Conservative Party Team-building trip that William Hague organised when he was leader? Now, what do you remember most about it? Was there a new policy decision that stands out? No, I'll bet that you, like me, remember Hague wearing a baseball cap in the group picture. See, this is ok for you and for me, but not for an MP, so the press took that and his jeans as the main story.

Female MPs come under even more scrutiny for their appearance. Why is there so much focus on the shoes that our female MPs wear? Should they dare to have a nice pair of stilettos on, that immediately becomes the focus of media attention – no matter what they have done in the Dept of Great Things, they are judged not on their performance, but on their shoes, (there are deeper issues of sexism and misogyny to consider here but I will leave that for now!).

The simple truth is that politicians are just people. They breathe in and out, they love, they work, they marry, have children, they play, they laugh and of course, they cry. When David Cameron and his wife Samantha lost their son Ivan, anyone who is a parent could begin to imagine the pain it must have caused them. I felt incredible sorrow for them and it is this compassion and care for others that is the measure of us as people, it should always supersede politics and partisan nonsense.

Why then, have I heard anyone suggesting that the tears shed by the Prime Minister in his interview with Piers Morgan were not genuine or that they were a contrived piece of electioneering? Just how cynical does one have to be to disregard the devastation that Gordon and Sarah experienced when they discovered their daughter was not going to survive. How heartless and devoid of compassion would someone have to be to not be touched by the obvious pain of the PM and his wife when remembering the last moments of Jennifer's life. It is ridiculous to think that a wound so deep and painful would be opened up publicly, in an attempt at some sort of sympathy Party Political Broadcast. Does anyone really believe that the public are considering this when deciding where to cast their vote?

This type of interview is something that would have been common in the days of Wogan, Aspel or Parkinson but the universally popular, evening chat show of this ilk has long since disappeared. It is now left to special event interviews such as those hosted by Piers Morgan to fill this void. If an actor, director or author were presenting their work to the public for judgment, there would be media attention and interviews. Similarly, while we are in a period of heightened awareness about politics, due to the impending General Election, the media interest in Gordon Brown and other politicians is greater. This is why anyone who is or was involved in politics is bringing their book out now!

The fact is that right from the start, there was a press agenda against Gordon Brown, but this is not unique to him – although it is certainly much more sustained. What is missing in much of the reporting of the lives of politicians is the human aspect. It is easy for reporters to perpetuate the myth of them being unfeeling, worker-bees, devoid of emotion and 'out-of-touch' with real life, when it is simply not true. They are people, just like you and me, merely doing a different job. The media is not now giving them a human face, they are just returning the one they took away.

Gordon Brown, is many things, Prime Minister and Member of Parliament are just two of them. First and foremost, he is a father and a husband. He is a man. This interview will hopefully allow people to see that.

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

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

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

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

So what did I think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under the agreement – ostensibly done “in pursuit of economic recovery” – the Liberals asked for direct elections to the European Parliament to be under a “proportional” system and for “progress” on devolution. The Party got neither of these things and there appears to have been little value to the meetings between the Liberal’s “economic spokesman” and the Chancellor or cosy chats between the Boy David and Sunny Jim. Getting a couple of housing bills through (something that would have happened anyway) seems a big price to pay for propping up Labour.

Leaving aside the disastrous legacy of the Pact – with the wrecking of public finances, the disguising of industrial decline through direct subsidy and the continued preference for a corporate state approach to economic policy (aka beer and sandwiches) – it indicates the most likely approach of the Liberal Democrats. Rather than demanding cabinet positions (why take a position in a cabinet knowing you’ll be outvoted most of the time), the party will demand support for specific policies.

Indeed, despite protesting to the contrary, Nick Clegg has already indicated the price of Lib Dem support. As ever, Clegg is showing his leg and fluttering his eyelashes at the other leaders but he knows that most of his activists will want to sell out to Labour whereas his voters would rather do a deal with Cameron. What Clegg does know, however, is that doing what his activists want and attacking the Tories will cost him votes. And Nick might even have noticed that the Liberal vote dropped from 18% to 13% between 1974 and 1979.

If I were advising Nick (and he has yet to offer me this job) I would tell him to get close to Cameron – even to saying a Tory-led Government would be better for Britain. Why, you ask? Because, the Lib Dems best chance of holding their position comes in winning those seats in Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Newcastle where they are competing with Labour. With the odd exception like Eastbourne, the Lib Dems will be losing seats to the Conservatives regardless of the Party’s policy position. And getting close to Labour – the preferred strategy it seems – is a guarantee that those rural seats in the South West will turn blue.

What I hadn't realised at the time, although in hindsight it was predictable, it was also a way of Brown proving how rubbish the Labour Party is at unity. The BBC reports today that a number of Labour MPs are intending to vote against the proposals and, assuming the Tories go against it too Brown will have just found a way of inflicting a Commons defeat on himself on the eve of the election.

If you're going to get defeated you should at least make sure it's because you're reforms are too radical, not because people don't like your gruel that much. Oh well, one more nail in the coffin. 

You might have thought that, in the teeth of a disastrous recession, in the midst of broken Britain and in the depths of an unwinnable war - a war that has now killed more soldiers than we lost in the Falklands - there might be better things for MP's to spend their time on.

But of course, if you thought that, you'd be forgetting the utter, naked desperation of Gordon Brown and his team to cling on to power.

Not to 'do the right thing' or to 'help hardworking families'. No. Just to remain in Government, like a fat Pekinese on its favourite velvet cushion. To keep sucking on the teat of privilege and power, and to continue driving and directing this unfortunate country on its long, spiraling journey down the shitter.

Parliament's reputation is at an all-time low. Greedy, self-interested MPs have been caught with their grubby trotters in the till. Some of them are still protesting that they've done no wrong, even some of the those who have felt not the Hand of Destiny but the Hand of PC Plod on their shoulders.

So, yes, reform. Yes, change. But not this, for Christ's sake. Not this total waste of time and energy. Not this feeble piece of politicking

This is just another blatant attempt by Broon to create more of his beloved, artificial 'dividing lines'. He simply cannot make himself or his party look good, so just has to settle with trying to make his opposition look bad.

He's on his metaphorical hands and knees, scraping up all the tiny, tiny pieces of shit he can find, in a desperate attempt to make a large enough turd to hurl at his sworn enemy, Cameron.

And this is all going nowhere. There's no time left for this woeful Government. Even Labour backbenchers know this nonsense is not going to make it into law. It's not even going to be properly debated. A distraction. A ruse. A pathetic and needless gesture. Regardless of your views on Constitutional Reform, now really is not the time for this pointless showboating.

Anyway, if you're so keen on a Referendum, Gordon, where the is the one you promised us on Europe? Remember? In that litany of cynical lies and broken promises you called a Manifesto. Where's that Referendum?

There has long been a criminal offence out there in the 'real world', the offence of 'Wasting police time'.

There should be a similar offence, punishable by sacking and refused further employment as an MP, of Wasting Parliament's Time. Wasting our overpaid MPs' time. Wasting everyone's time.

The arrests could begin today.

In a society where the rich and powerful are litigious, this is an important democratic gain worth defending. To see it dragged through the muck to defend the sullied reputations of men caught with their hands in the taxpayer's pocket is a sickening sight. You cannot but agree with Ruth Cox of the Hansard Society, who says,

"If it is a defence against almost any action that an MP takes in parliament, in any relationship with their work, then I think that is going to be deeply damaging for the public. They will see that it is putting MPs above the public, giving them enhanced powers, making them essentially above the laws that they themselves make."

Coming on top of the wider expenses crisis, if this defence is allowed and the trio of troughers emerge unscathed this will compound the widespread antipathy against 'official' politics. Not good news for the mainstream parties or the minor ones to their left, but it provides fertile environment for the far right.

What can be done to prevent a scandal like this from happening again? The anarchists have traditionally argued against seeking election on grounds that democracy in capitalist societies corrupts even the best representatives of the workers' movement. They have a point. I remember a Coventry SP comrade telling me of all the freebies and corporate invites that poured into Dave Nellist's office when he was elected to parliament in 1983. He turned them all down and, famously, only took the average wage of a Coventry skilled worker throughout the two terms he served.

Dave's example, as well as those of Militant's two other MPs and the Scottish Socialist Party's MSPs have provided the far left with a ready made answer to the expenses crisis. I'm sure many SP readers did their share of stalls calling for a workers' MP on a worker's wage at the height of the scandal (I certainly did a few). It sounds good and makes easily understood populist points, but how much of a solution is it?

The argument goes that limiting a MP's wage means s/he is not materially cut off from the people they represent. It's a lot easier to empathise with constituents who struggle to make ends meet if your income is not an order of magnitude higher. While this may be true the workers' wage, in and of itself, is problematic if uniformly applied. There is the wage cut argument (often picked up by Tories and other well-heeled members). If a MP's salary is not sufficiently attractive it will not draw in successful people from business, etc. I couldn't care less if business-types steered clear of the House of Commons (it's not like they're thin on the ground at the moment), but what about comparatively well paid sectors of the labour movement such as teachers, engineers, firefighters, social workers, etc? Some might be willing to take a wage cut for ideological reasons, but with kids to bring up and mortgages to pay off even a modest cut could be enough to put off otherwise dedicated activists. Second, implementing the average wage could exacerbate the already disgraceful situation regarding MPs' second jobs and, for some, make them even more willing to accept the gratuities business lavishes on our elected representatives.

An alternative favoured by George Galloway is to increase the salaries of MPs to the levels enjoyed by members of Congress in the United States. If they were paid a hefty salary out of which the cost of maintaining an office and employing staff was taken, everything would be above board. An unwieldy expenses system would be unnecessary, and MPs would be less likely to take on second jobs. But the problem of the income gap addressed by the average wage argument rears its head again.

Whatever the merits of the two income arguments, it's mistaken to present either as solutions that would banish the problem of institutionally corrupt politics altogether. Two reforms addressing the election and accountability of MPs would likely have more of an impact than either.

The Chartists were certainly onto something with their call for annual parliaments. They were entirely right that the more precarious position an MP is in, the more accountable they are to the electorate. I'm not sure if anyone has the appetite for a general election every year, but the implementation of mechanisms for recalling MPs could work just as well. This must go hand in hand with some form of proportional representation (see here). If political parties and MPs have to fight for every single vote no one will coast into parliament on the back of safe, geographically concentrated majorities (and as Left Foot Forward pointed out, the worst expenses offenders also happened to have the safest seats).

But for any improved system to work, it's not enough to engineer better constitutional arrangements. Politics needs to re-engage the millions of people who've been alienated from it these last 20 years. It's not a matter of educating the electorate or forcing citizenship classes on school kids. Parties need to eat humble pie and listen to the real problems of 'real' people, and pay big business and the mythological 'Middle England' less mind. 

Can it really be that a party with the sizeable majority Labour has in the commons can be thinking of itself as the underdog? What does that say about the psychology of the Labour Party right now?

His contention is that if 'little Hull City' can beat the richest team in the world, then Labour can strike for an historic fourth term in office.

Well, some of his analogy is spot on if you like to stretch analogies, but so do I. Also, some of the analogy is a mess, and sheds some light on the desperation beginning to build in the Labour activist mindset. Clutching at straws is not attractive.

He's not too bad in analogising the leadership of the two teams to the parties. Like the Conservatives, Manchester City does have a significant spending capacity, but again like them, this spend capacity hasn't been really put to the test yet. Ashcroft's money has been developing constituencies, and as a result, developing some nice surprises for election night.

Again, like the Labour Party, Hull City is headed by a man nobody likes, and who would have been gone a long time ago if a good option was available. The analogy breaks down here; while Hull is peopled with players anxious to prove themselves and secure success, the Labour Party has faced a record number of resignations and planned departures.

In reality, Prescott's argument is the 'fight and never surrender' argument. It's right, it's proper and it's the only option the Labour Party has. They have accounts close to bankruptcy, they have experienced a massive fall in membership, they have lost many of their most experienced politicians and they are devoid of inspirational leadership. There were even signs this week that their leader's recovery in the pantheon of Prime Minister's questions may have been but a blip, as Cameron beasted him at the dispatch box.

A dirty, hard fought election with a small, dedicated, dogged guerrilla force of Labour activists is ahead of us. It's only this weekend that they are finally getting the picture.

Finally, if you find yourself in the unfortunate position of a Gordon Brown constituency visit this election, please follow these instructions carefully: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzmhD5IFUOg

"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig!"- Sen.Obama at a high-school rally. Lebanon, Va.

Let's call AV out for what it is. Change for the sake of change, not the progression of our democracy.

The late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead aired serious doubts about AV in a report commissioned by Prime Minister Blair.

"AV on its own suffers from a stark objection. It offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality and in certain circumstances it has even less proportionality than first past the post."

I'm proud to be a supporter and activist for the only political party that proposes making Parliament actually proportional to the number of votes cast, however that is only a small step in strengthening and re-energizing our democracy. It is not enough to stop at reforming the way we send MP's to Parliament or the Upper House.

The United Kingdom is a UN Security Council nation, a nuclear power and a NATO state. We play a leadership role in the European Union, we have an expansive diplomatic service that spans the globe and have over 100,000 armed forces in active theatre right now.

I personally feel that it is wrong and dangerous for the leader of such an influential country to be elected by a couple thousand people in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Witney or Sheffield Hallam under AV, FPTP or even STV.

I want to see a full separation of powers in this country.

Charles Walker MP couldn't have put it better on his ConservativeHome post on the issue:

"Restoring the necessary checks and balances into our systems of Government and cutting out the cancer of patronage can only be done through the separation of powers. A separation that would see the Executive removed from Parliament - unshackling both sides. The Prime Minister of the day would have a direct mandate and have the freedom to hire our greatest talents to run the Country. Likewise, released from the burden of stocking the Ministerial Offices of Whitehall, the nation would get a leaner and meaner Parliament, reduced in size for the right reasons, dedicated to scrutinising legislation and holding the Executive to account."

I suspect Mr. Cameron will make some political reform speech soon in response to Brown. No doubt it will be a shining example of the kind of reactionary headline-grabbing politics that has hampered efforts to change our politics for the better. 

A long debate took place at Parliament's Budget Committee last week about how to cover the €1,500 increase on parliamentary assistance for the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. The discussion was not about deciding whether or not it it should be paid but just how it would be financed. The decision to pay it out had already been made by the Bureau of the Parliament (made up of the President and Vice presidents of the European Parliament plus the Quaestors).

The meeting started with what they call a "coordinators’ meeting", a reduced team where each political group can be represented by one member only. As usual Mr Lamassoure who chairs the committee was looking for consensus. Most of the members came up with "creative" ways on how to finance the extra cost and they all seemed to be looking to put the burden on the European Parliament’s bureau.

There was really no discussion on the need or intelligence of making such increase. I, of course, opposed radically indicating that once again we are asking more money from the European taxpayer when people are struggling to make it through the crisis. I stressed that I had never received an explanation of the activities that such extra allowance would cover so I had no proof that it was really needed.

Others came with the brilliant idea of using reserves embedded in the Budget and which are aimed at covering extraordinary expenditure that cannot be foreseen at the time when the annual Budget is being prepared and debated. But nobody can say they were unaware that the implementation of the Lisbon treaty would bring additional expense and in fact I had opposed, back in October, the fact that such expenditure would not be included in the annual budget and would instead be left for later "amending budget".

I raised my voice to tell Lamassoure that we needed to bear in mind that the unions had already taken the Council to Court over an extra 1.8% salary increase that they were expecting to have for this year and that if the Court would rule in favour of such increase whatever the date, it would have to be paid retroactively. So his and others’ idea that we could use some reserves to cover this extra cost was not prudent as these reserves may have to be used for the financing of the salary increase (I was trying to be polite but strong). Lamassoure acknowledged that this was certainly something to take into consideration. But that was all the recognition I got from him.

The "coordinators’ meeting was followed by the main Budget committee meeting where all the full members and also some substitutes of the said committee attended. The chairman opened the discussion trying to give the impression that there was consensus about the use of the reserves. However myself and the representative of the ECR ( European Conservatives and Reformists) and the GUE ( European Left) expressed our concerns. I voiced my opposition and repeated the arguments I raised at the coordinators meeting.

Lamassoure then came up with an "oral amendment" whereby the committee would "approve the extra means requested by the Bureau of 13.4 million Euro with the intention of financing these resources with equivalent savings taken the European Budget". He intends to get the Bureau to find the savings and is proposing a negotiation. He asked us to vote on this proposal stating that it was only a "political" vote and not a legal vote, so that he could negotiate with the Bureau this proposal.

Guess who was the only one who voted against?

YES! It was me! Even if ECR and GUE voiced criticism they voted in favour. After being here for six months I really should not be surprised. This is not the first time I am witness of such "ambiguity". This happens all the time....

SO... a negotiation meeting should be happening next week in Strasbourg and supposedly I should be part of it but don't hold your breath because they might "forget" to inform me about date, time or place.

What will undoubtedly happen is that the increase will take place and the taxpayers will have to bear the burden! And... when the European Court rules in favour of the unions then again the taxpayer will bear the burden! This is the EU! The MEPs voting in favour of further increases to their salaries and allowances are your representatives, dear Europeans!

It seems to confirm that Brown’s strategy is to play for a messy draw at the polls. Perhaps at night, as he rests his weary head, he fantasises about a minority Conservative government struggling with public finances and making themselves unpopular, while the population start to yearn for the good old days of Brown and, eventually, he is carried aloft on the shoulders of a loving (and repentant, how dare they have rejected him?) public back into Downing Street.

But what I’ve not really seen is any defence of our first past the post electoral system. A system I rather like.

“Well, you are a Tory,” you may snort, “and of course you don’t want change.” But I have actually changed my opinion on a number of constitutional issues. Having been fiercely proud of our unwritten constitution after 13 years of seeing our rights and liberties eroded I’m increasingly drawn to the idea of having a written constitution and bill of rights. I used to see the benefit of hereditary peers, but now recognise that for the one or two whose life experience enhanced the second chamber there were many more who added nothing to our Parliament other than a few minutes attendance to claim their allowances. And while I enjoy traditions like election night, I’m far from wedded to it and see no point in keeping something that – really – seems to be surviving purely because political anoraks want it.

But I do like the electoral system, even though it is currently weighted against the Conservatives to the extent that we could win the vote by a decent margin and still lose the election. I won’t pretend my reasons are novel, they aren’t, they are the same old arguments you’ve heard before. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t good arguments.

For a start, first past the post delivers good results. And by good results I mean decisive results. Since the war it has tended to reflect the public mood rather well. In 1945 it produced the massive victory for Clement Attlee to start the building of post-war Britain. Then it switched between Tory and Labour administrations to reflect the country’s preference for (Butskellite) paternalistic government. It gave us Thatcher to rescue us from the failings of 70s intervention and (to prove that I can see the other side of arguments) it gave us Blair to rescue us from Thatcherism.

The consistent theme is that it provides us with strong governments, but can produce decisive change when that change is needed.

I was having an interesting conversation the other day about whether politics should be representative (essentially that politicians should try to change and adapt to reflect the prevailing public mood on any issue at any time) or should be about leadership (politicians should present their beliefs and policy platform, then deliver on that if elected and stand on that record at a subsequent election). While it isn’t black and white I tend to favour the latter; politics should be about more than just representing the results of a referendum of public opinion, or passing on the opinions of a focus group. First past the post means we can have strong leadership and government.

Having said that ironically, first past the post does lend itself to that more representative form of democracy – since there is a direct link between a member and their constituency. There is none of the mess of multi-member constituencies or party selected lists. People vote for their member and he or she represents their interests. This link, I would contend, is a strength.

But most importantly it keeps power with the people – even if they delegate it every five years – and keeps our politics in the mainstream. Instead of coalitions agreed between party leaders we have governments chosen by the changes in public opinion. Germany was a great example of how a third party dominated politics by effectively deciding who won the election it was only a few years ago that an election, rather than the third party’s whim, actually changed their government. And because it means parties have to appeal to a broad spectrum of the public if they are ever to stand a chance of winning a seat it means extremism remains marginalised. We would not have seen the BNP winning seats in the European Parliament under the old first past the post system. Is it fair that small parties are effectively doomed to constant electoral defeat? Perhaps not. But when it’s the BNP, are you going to complain?

What we really need is a shift in power in the country. Not by changing the electoral system, but from the government to Parliament, so the votes that people cast don’t just make a difference when aggregated nationally, but make a difference locally. We need MPs who have real power to hold the government to account and make a difference to their constituency. That would start to produce a real change and help address the massive disaffection people have with the political process.

Making votes matter isn’t about knowing that your vote elected 1/60,000th of an MP somewhere. It’s about knowing that whoever is elected can make a difference.

Sadly though, unless you can spin that into something that might convince Brown it would save his skin, it isn’t going to be taken up by this Prime Minister. 

I'm definitely looking forward to the debate, in fact I've got tickets! This week we've had a very spicey Iraq inquiry with a number of key figures giving evidence, Gordon Brown announced large-scale Electoral Reform measures and we had the Legg Report on the Expenses scandal.

The first two of these are arguably two of the Liberal Democrats most vocal policy points of the past decade. On expenses, the Lib Dems have been the only party putting forward the clear and necessary reform that Parliament needs in order to restore public trust in our political system. Needless to say, this would be a good week for the Lib Dems to get stuck into Question Time.

It's a shame then that the BBC, in their wisdom, saw fit to drop the distinguished Ming Campbell from the line up. With his experience, conviction and Foreign Affairs expertise, Ming would have been a more-than-valuable addition to panel and would have firmly shown how the Liberal Democrats have some of the strongest policies in all of these areas.

It's more than a shame, though. It's a travesty and unjustified omission that will result in a panel vastly empty of political balance. Let's take a moment to look at who we have on the panel tonight:

Lord Falconer: former Labour cabinet minister.
Theresa May: Shadow Secretary of State of Work and Pensions (Conservative)
Clare Short: Former Labour cabinet minister, resigned over Iraq after voting for the war.
George Galloway: Former Labour MP, now RESPECT MP, expelled from Labour party for criticising the Iraq war.
Melanie Philips: right wing political commentator, journalist for Daily Mail and The Spectator.

1 Labour, 2 ex-Labour and (to all intents and purposes) 2 Tory. Four of these five supported the war at the time of invasion. Two of them have effectively turned themselves into single issue politicians.

We must also remember that Iraq is not the only issue that has been going on this week. How well will Galloway contribute to the debate on Electoral Reform and the expenses scandal? With great and outrageous rhetoric, I'm sure, but do we really expect him to give us anything of conviction or value? The Liberal Democrats opposed the war from the start, opposed it when it was a difficult decision because they knew it was the right thing to do.

The Liberal Democrats have stood firm on the other issues likely to be debated tonight, particularly Electoral Reform and reforming parliament and could genuinely contribute to the debate.

Of panelists tonight, it's entirely likely that Theresa May will try and come out critical of the war, to score points. Clare Short will definitely come out against the war, despite being in the cabinet that lied to the Commons and voting for the war. George Galloway... Well George will be against the war but is unlikely to pour forth his support for various middle-eastern dictators. In the absence of the Liberal Democrats from the panel tonight it's unlikely there will be a strong voice to flush out that the hypocrisy of the 'anti-war' panellists. This, for the inclusion of two effectively single issue politicians.

This is not just an injustice to the Liberal Democrats, the decision to drop the Lib Dems from the panel will severely undermine the quality and value of tonight's debate.

P.S. I'm not claiming conspiracy, but the BBC have form on silencing the Lib Dems when it comes to possible anti-Iraq commentary from Lib Dem Foreign-Affairs experts on BBC question time.  

Don't hold your breath though. Sir Thomas sent out letters to MPs in October last year- more than 4 months ago - detailing his requests for repayment, and still these troughers continue to wriggle.

More than half of MP's have already been told that they should pay large sums of money, that they effectively stole, back to us. The stories, and the ever-changing numbers, have been published so many times that we could all be forgiven for having grown utterly bored of the whole thing, and completely lost track of exactly who owes what, and who it is who's going to pay anything back.

We all know that Jacqui Smith, one of the most egregious troughers of the lot, has already been told she won't have to pay back the tens of thousands of taxpayers cash that she scooped up. Great to have friends in high places, isn't it? That should make your coming richly-deserved and lengthy unemployment easier to bear, eh?

And her fellow MP's are squirming and squealing frantically too. More than 70 MP's have decided that they, like Jacqui, should be able to keep their trotters on the money we gave them, and have appealed against Sir Tom's ruling.

Because if there's one thing everyone in Westminster agrees upon, it's that none of this is the MP's fault. Oh no.

According to the inevitable leaks to the BBC, Sir Tom will criticise a "culture of deference" which made it "difficult for officials to query or challenge their [MP's] claims."

In other words, our beloved 646, to ensure the continued flow of unearned cash into their coffers, fell back on one of the oldest tricks in the fraudsters' book: the 'do you know who I am' bluster.

If some upstart official tries to tell you that you can't have thousands of pounds to give to your sister, or to sort out your tennis court, draw yourself up to your full height, and - raising your voice - let them know just how important and entitled you are.

And now, now it's payback time, they're not going to come quietly. They're appealing, and protesting and pontificating. Not one of them is going to hand over a penny unless they're made to.

Apparently, according to Auntie Beeb:

"Gordon Brown urged MPs to pay up and said he would consider withdrawing the whip from those Labour MPs who did not."

Really? Wow. That must have the Labour troughers trembling in their taxpayer-funded Gucci loafers.

A man they despise, a man they won't be working for in a few weeks time, is 'urging' them to hand over shitloads of what they consider to be their cash?

And if they don't? Well, if they don't, a party that will no longer be in Government in a few weeks time, a party that by 2015 will only be known to students studying politics, is going to 'consider' withdrawing the whip? Well, boo hoo.

If CF had the choice between coughing up thousands and receiving a weak slap on the wrist, he'd be holding out his hand in eager anticipation.

Clearly, it's not just the scapegoat expenses officials who show a 'culture of deference', eh? 

While Dave looks at Brown's motives for making this announcement now, here I will discuss some characteristics of the SMP and Alternative Vote systems, the proportional alternatives and why socialists (whether in the Labour party or not) should favour the introduction of PR.

Those who defend the current set up for Westminster elections (generally speaking, those who have most to lose in the two main parties) flag up three arguments in defence of what we have. Firstly, it's a simple system: the candidate who polls most votes wins. Second, SMP is more likely to turn out stable governments than other systems. As anyone who's a member of a small party will tell you, SMP presents a massive electoral hurdle. Effectively minor parties are locked out of the system. On the other hand, as defenders of SMP point out, this means governments do not have to rely on coalition partners who only command a minority vote. In West and later unified Germany between 1949 and 1998, the liberal Free Democratic Party was only out of government for seven years. The price of their cooperation would have met compromise on some of their senior partners' programme. Thirdly, parliament is made up of representatives elected by constituencies. This ties MPs to certain localities meaning, in theory, they have to adequately represent the interests of their locality to be returned in future elections.

In practice SMP has had a deleterious effect on politics in Britain. It has led to the creation of safe seats, meaning elections are decided by a comparatively small number of marginal seats. These tend to be identified with a socially conservative, relatively affluent, aspirational and upwardly mobile 'Middle England' by party strategists; and policies are designed to appeal to this strata. The likes of the Mail and Express are taken to be their authentic voice. In other words, the outcomes of liberal democracy in Britain is determined by a small minority.

Second the local link is overstated. While it sounds nice in theory, unless one has a rebellious Labour or Tory MP, in the vast majority of cases MPs will vote along the lines dictated by central office and enforced by the whips. Even parliamentary questions (where an MP can raise constituency-based issues) have been undermined by party discipline. You just have to watch an installment of Prime Minister's Questions to see how loyal backbench MPs effectively waste time by asking Brown if he agrees with them that the latest government initiative is the best thing since sliced bread.

Brown's proposals for reform (which will be put to a referendum should Labour win the next election) is couched very much in terms of the continuity it has with the present system. On alternative vote, he says:
The alternative vote system has the advantage of maintaining the benefit of a strong constituency link; allowing MPs to be not simply policy makers, but also community leaders, community organisers, and the strongest champions for neighbourhoods they know and love. But if the people decide to back the alternative vote, it also offers voters increased choice with the chance to express preferences for as many of the candidates as they wish. It means that each elected MP will have the chance to be elected with much broader support from their constituency, not just those who picked them as their first choice. In short it offers a system where the British people can, if they so choose, be more confident that their MP truly represents them, while at the same time remaining directly accountable to them.
Alternative vote was first introduced in Australia in 1918 for House of Representatives elections. Candidates are ranked by voters in order of preference. If one candidate has an absolute majority they win the contest. But if they do not the candidate with the least votes tends to be eliminated and their second preferences are transferred. This process is repeated until a winner with 50%+ emerges (there are variations on the theme - some elections are run that eliminate all but the top two candidates and have their second choices divided among them). While this is fairer and more adequately reflects the political mood of a constituency, it does not address the problem of marginal seats. In fact, the Australian experience has shown it strengthens the already-dominant parties because it favours their existing geographical concentrations of support. Alternative vote, though a slight improvement over SMP, will continue to replicate its problems and do little to combat politics' declining legitimacy.

What's the alternative? Socialists favour the extension of democracy in capitalist societies for a number of reasons. The more thoroughgoing the democratisation of the state, the harder it is for the state to be used as an unambiguous instrument of capital. The greater the habits of democracy are ingrained in a population, the more active so-called civil society is and the less likely wide sections of the working class fall into apathy and despondency. And the more the state comes under democratic control, the greater the pressure there is to extend democracy in the private dictatorships that run the commanding heights of the economy.

This is why socialists should support the introduction of proportional systems - not just because it improves the electoral prospects of small left groups.

Proportional representation comes in all shapes and sizes, but generally aim to express the democratic will of the voting population. For example, the PR system most UK voters will be familiar with is the D'Hondt list PR method, used for the European elections. Here parties present the electorate with a list of candidates to fill a number of available seats. Under the D'Hondt method the list with most votes wins the first seat. Their vote is then divided by two. The next seat goes to whoever now has the highest total, and so on until all the available seats are filled. This following anti-BNP video from the Green's European election campaign explains it simply:

The Sainte-Laguë method works similarly, but divides results by 1.4 and results in less proportional outcomes.

The proportionality of a system can and is often distorted by local peculiarities. For instance, the European parliament elects representatives by D'Hondt on a constituency basis, allowing proportionality to be effected by geographical variations in support. One way round this would be to treat a whole country as the only constituency. This is done in Israel, but there is a 1.5% threshold parties have to cross before entering the electoral formula. Elections for The Netherlands' 150 membered House of Representatives is probably the closest to a truly proportional system - it operates with an effective threshold of 0.67% to gain a seat.

An alternative to list systems is single transferable vote PR, which is proportional but retains a constituency link. The number of representatives a constituency returns is always greater than one. Therefore voters cast preferences. In the Irish Republic this can be as low as one and as high as the number of candidates. In Australia, STV proceeds by stipulating a minimum number of preferences that need be cast. Seat allocation is then decided by the Droop Quota. This is done by taking the total number of valid votes cast and dividing them by the number of seats plus one, and then adding another plus one to the resulting percentage.

For instance, in an example in his 2001 book, Electoral Systems, David Farrell cites Dublin South's 1997 election results to illustrate the Irish STV system. 57,986 valid votes were cast to determine the representatives for five available seats. These were divided by six (five plus one) giving a quota of 9,665. The first seat went to Fianna Fáil, who had won 9,904 (giving them a 239-strong surplus). None of the other parties crossed the threshold, so in the second round votes were distributed according to the second preferences of voters and seats allocated according to these results. Further rounds maybe necessary involving third and fourth preferences until all the vacancies are filled (the returning officer also has the power to eliminate last placed candidates to ensure their second preferences are transferred.

Here, proportionality is dictated by the size of the constituency. The greater the number of seats, the more likely the outcome will be proportional.

STV PR is not without its problems. As defenders of the Westminster model would point out, the multiparty system in the Republic has not been as stable as the British two-and-a-half party system, leading to criticisms around weak coalition governments and instability. Second, STV PR in Ireland has led to heavy localism as TDs compete with each other to secure election next time round. This at least renders the constituency-link critique by Westminster enthusiasts null and void.

These two examples of PR are far from problematic, but are much better from a socialist point of view. It is true they are more complex than FPTP but not prohibitively so. Is it really too much to ask voters to put a cross next to a party list or rank order in terms of preference? Not at all.

The constituency link argument is a red herring too. Multi-member constituencies don't have to break geographical links. Many council wards up and down Britain return more than one representative to the council chamber (though often these are not all elected at once). If voters have a problem they want looking into, they have a choice of which member to contact.

The strong government argument does not wash either. Only the UK and Barbados use the Westminster system for general elections. European countries use a mix of different PR systems, and there is no general tendency to electoral chaos (the difficulties of the Belgian and Italian party systems owe more to the specifics of those countries than the mechanics that govern their elections). In fact, for all the 'strong government' arguments used to back up the Westminster model it has, as we have seen, engendered a situation where liberal democracy faces a legitimation crisis in the face of mass "apathy" and narrowly defined politics around what plays well in key marginals. Coalition governments at least offer an opportunity for otherwise systematically excluded minorities to get their policies on the agenda.

As socialists we, to nick a Brownite soundbite, stand with the many and not the few. But our idea of the many - the working class - is very diverse and riven with all kinds of sexual, racial and sectional divisions, contradictions and interests. If we are to speak to, represent, and infuse it with a consciousness of its common interests we need to favour an electoral system that allows their free play. Neither SMP or Alternative Vote does this.

Edit: Good post on why electoral reform is a class issue by Stuart White here.

Those of you who read this blog will know that I’m not a big fan of the Co-op Party being an “affliate constituent” of the Labour Party. State socialism and mutualism are not compatible. In fact they are mutually exclusive. So all this talk of co-operative schools and housing settlements mean nothing in the context of a welfare state.

As Simon Cooke quite rightly points out there is nothing remotely ’socialist’ about the John Lewis Partnership. But there is a lot to be said for individuals having a stake in the company or institutions they work for and feeling more connected to the profit that they generate. But there has to be profit.

On further thought what struck me was this: why all this emphasis on co-operativism from Labour all of a sudden? I find it unlikely that Gordon Brown is seriously considering dismantling the welfare state… But where are the Fabians? Am I the only one who finds it interesting, however, that instead of harking back and shoring up the core vote in the typical manner, the Labour Party are changing their tack slightly?

Could it be that the Labour Party’s faith in Fabianism is faltering? After all we literally cannot afford Fabian style social democracy anymore. I would so much like for this to be to an acknowledgment of that. Alas, I fear this is not likely. Instead what we’ll see is the conflation of the remains of Fabianism conflated with soft mutualist rhetoric, the unfortunate hybrid of which will taint the name of genuine mutualism for years to come. These are very sorry days for any genuine mutualists, indeed.

The Lib Dems described it as a "deathbed conversion" which I thought was a rather neat turn of phrase.

So there's a proposal on the table about having a referendum on Alternative Voting, where you place the candidates in an order of preference. Although it's slightly messier than this the intention is to ensure that everyone who is elected has the support of at least half the electorate in the constituency.

This referendum would not take place under the Labour government (unless they win the election, ho ho) and in fact might not take place at all which introduces the prospect of Labour painting the Tories as anti-reform before they've had a year in office for not instituting something Labour couldn't be bothered to do in more than twelve years.

Anyway, there are a number of advantages to this over our current system of first past the post.

Firstly it means that someone who is passionately loved and loathed is less likely to get in as the system seeks the candidate who is acceptable to most voters. I've no doubt that part of the calculation here is that it may keep out various fascists, communists, and eco-terrorists although in practice it may well work the other way.

The English Democrat Mayor of Donacaster won his election on the basis of second preference votes coming over from the BNP and Tory candidates and the experience of the London Mayoralty is that the second preferences for the Greens always far outweigh the first preferences, indicating that where Greens can get a head of steam they may reach a tipping point where AV would be very useful.

The second advantage is that it does allow for a more mature political debate should the parties choose to go down that route. Being able to advocate a second choice vote for Ken in the Mayorals two years ago was a real god send and, in effect, the Greens ended up mobilising extra voters against Boris without having to stand down - under the current system it's hardly sensible for a party to say, "Well, if you're not voting for us I'd recommend so and so from a rival party."

That's a shame.

However, it's still a winner takes all system. It may in fact have the effect of entrenching the established parties rather than allowing for more pluralism and the results would still not be proportional leaving literally millions having voted for parties that get either no MPs or a tiny, tiny handful.

If the referendum was in place and taking place today I'd vote for the AV system. If I were rewriting electoral reform myself though it wouldn't look like this. House of Lords? Gone. Monarch? Gone. FTPT? Gone. And proportion elections for local councils as well as Parliament. 

Sure Start isn’t working.

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

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

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

Which is why Sure Start needs radical changes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not need to google the condoms/HIV issue, I have examined this issue in some depth, as someone who is committed to HIV prevention in Africa. Scientific evidence has proven that when used correctly, condoms are >80% effective in protecting against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. I'm sure that the WHO site will be able to verify this.

I agree that non-attendance of NHS appointments needs to be addressed, I have less objection to this than the suggestion that it would be acceptable to charge people to see their GP. Indefensible. As a champion of the NHS (I owe them my life) I am absolutely committed to the concept of healthcare being free at the point of need. To charge people would see a decline in early diagnoses, people would wait until their symptoms got 'really bad' and this would cost the NHS much more in treatment and care as a result. This is as short-sighted as the Conservative pledge to cut the preventative services in healthcare provision, which currently help many people to avoid serious and long-term health problems.

You are wrong about Labour being frantic and desperate. We are neither. Our poll results are moving in the right direction and we are positive and optimistic. As the Tory lead is eroded further, Cameron will continue to U-turn and re-write policy on a daily basis, he will carry on with the flip-flop and flap routine that he has perfected over the past few weeks. I'm certain there are many quotes from Conservative MPs, that would equally expose their detachment from reality.

With policy changing by the day, with the back-tracking and shambolic announcements to the press there has emerged a familiar pattern:

Monday – big policy announcement

Tuesday – backbenchers complain and revolt

Wednesday – retractions and apologies

Thursday – more moderate (but rubbish) policy released, (with lots of crossing out and some crayon)

Friday – silence.

Saturday/Sunday – court the media and try to avoid all mention of the policy, while attempting to reconnect with core Tory voters.

What it does show is that the Tories cannot agree on anything and that Cameron has no idea what he will do if he wins the election. He really is just making it up as he goes along. 

“It is quite understandable when they legally want to transfer their money to lower tax regimes.” Syed Kamall, MEP for London, European Parliament, 24 April 2009.

Well yes, that does seem logical. Say I am a very rich person. I’m going to want my money in a low tax regime, surely?

“The European social model is outdated, it is destructive, it prevents job creation and it acts against entrepreneurship.” Martin Callaghan, MEP for the North East, European Parliament, 11 March 2009.

Again this is about right. Levels of worklessness across Europe are appalling – running at 20% or more in the UK, France, Germany & Italy and approaching a third of the working age population in Spain and Greece.The European “social market economy” does not deliver jobs – it’s pretty good for those in work with minimum wages, job protection, extensive employee rights to maternity, paternity, sick leave and so on. But – however desirable these things are – the downside is that they discourage job creation, undermine enterprise and reinforce worklessness.

“Climate hysteria is increasingly remote from reality.” Roger Helmer, MEP for the East Midlands, European Parliament, 21 May 2008.

Again this seems a pretty fair statement. The Al Gore style, “we are all doomed” view appears increasingly hysterical next to the more considered and restrained approach – focused on practical measures – that is emerging across both public and private sectors.

“Wind turbines are garden ornaments, not power stations.” Nottingham Evening Post, 16 June 2009.

Loved this quote! There’s quite a deal of evidence suggesting that wind power doesn’t offer the kind of reliable, consistent energy needed to drive a modern economy. Oddly enough, microgeneration – the turbine as garden ornament – seems a much better place for this technology that cluttering up our beaches and ruining our beautiful countryside.

“'Homophobia' is merely a propaganda device designed to denigrate and stigmatise those holding conventional opinions, which have been held by most people through most of recorded history.” Roger Helmer, MEP for the East Midlands, on his blog, 19 July 2009.

Can’t argue with any criticism of this statement – utter nonsense, guy should be horsewhipped!

“I know they [NHS charges] are controversial but I don't think people who are in a job would actually be against spending say, £10 to see their GP or being fined £10 if they don't show up to an outpatients.” Charles Tannock, MEP for London, Channel 4 News, 27 August 2009.

There has long been an argument that non-attendance (a big cost on the NHS) should result in a charge or a fine. There is also an argument to be made for charging – both to reduce unnecessary visits (a significant proportion of the total) and to shift the financial burden. The observations here seem reasonable enough – after all if consultations should be free on principle why are eye and dental check-ups charged for under Labour?

“There is little evidence that promoting the use of condoms actually prevents the transmission of AIDS.” Charles Tannock, MEP for London, European Parliament, 7 May 2009

Without spending ages googling I don’t know whether or not this is true. Any more than Tracey does!

“[Enoch Powell was] someone who understood the importance of national democracy, who understood why you needed to live in an independent country and what that meant, as well as being a free-marketeer and a small government Conservative.” Reason TV, Spring 2009.

All this is true about Powell. It is a statement of facts rather than opinion. I suspect that millions of Britons agree with everything in this statement. I know I do.

“The health care system we have is kind of a relic...I wouldn't wish it on anyone.” Fox News, 12 August 2009.

I note the ellipsis. Assuming what’s been taken out is of no relevance, I think Dan’s about right. Which I guess is why the Co-operative Party – in its “Agenda for a Fourth Term” - proposes the breaking up of the NHS (and the education system) and its replacement with a serious of mutually run local trusts?

“[Tax on Bankers' bonuses] is more about class war than raising money.” Fox News, 10 December 2009

Well it’s not going to raise much money. So it might just be about class war? Myself I think its just populism – exploiting banker unpopularity for a cheap headline and ignoring that it won’t raise a farthing and will damage an important industry. I note there’s no special windfall tax on those pharmaceutical companies that have made a mint out of swine flu vaccine purchases by this government.

If this is the very worst that Labour can dig up then it seems my party has little to fear from the coming election campaign. All this seems pretty frantic and desparate – oh, right! It’s the Labour Party – they are frantic and desperate!

Tim Dickinson from Rolling Stone recently put together a seriously over-looked list of 'The 17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming'. Now whoever is involved in combating global warming over the next few decades, I would hope that those individuals/governments/organizations wouldn't waste too much time looking back in anger, trying to blame those responsible for restricting efforts. However, we all love a good bitch! So, here's the list!

1. Warren 'The Oracle of Omaha' Buffett- Invested billions in carbon polluting industries and wagered billions on the failure of cap and trade legislation.

2. Rupert Murdoch- He might say one thing, but his business interests certainly say another. Murdoch's media operations have become the leading source of disinformation and smears in the US on climate change.

3.. Jack Gerard (President of American Petroleum)- Directed the 400 companies within the American Petroleum Institute to construct a fake grass-roots protest against a cap on carbon pollution.

4. Rex Tillerson (CEO ExxonMobil)- ExxonMobil spent $29 million on lobbying against climate legislation in 2008.

5. U.S Senator Mary Landrieu- Recieves financial rewards for voting in favor of tax breaks for Big Oil. Has promised oil firms she will be "putting the brakes" on current efforts to cap carbon pollution. Sounds like a Republican, right? She's not.

6. Marc Morano- A former producer for Rush Limbaugh, its hardly surprising he's a "central cell of the climate-denial mahcine".

7. U.S Senator James Inhofe- former chairman and ranking Republican of the Senate environment committee. Calls global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," insists that carbon dioxide is not "a real pollutant," and doesn't worry about rising sea levels, because, if all else fails, "God's still up there."................ lol *sigh*

8. David Radcliffe- head of America's second-dirtiest electric utility, has assembled an army of 63 lobbyists — almost twice as many as any other company — to defeat climate legislation.

9. Dick Gephardt- former House Dem majority leader, now uses his considerable political clout as a lobbyist for "clean coal" — an imaginary technology being touted by the industry as an alternative to limits on carbon pollution.

10. George Will- As an ABC Commentator and America's most recognizable pundit, Will has become a one-man front for corporate-funded "science" that denies the existence of global warming.

11. Tom Donohue- President of the U.S Chamber of Commerce. Donohue has turned the biggest lobbying presence on Capitol Hill into the biggest friend of climate polluters. In the first nine months of last year, the Chamber spent $65 million — three times more than ExxonMobil — mounting a campaign to block Congress from placing limits on carbon pollution.

12. Don Blankenship- Coal barron. "We must demand that more coal be burned to save the Earth from global cooling." ............. lol *sigh*

13. Fred Singer- "The granddaddy of fake "science" designed to debunk global warming."

14. U.S Senator John McCain- Former touter of cap and trade legislation, electoral circumstances have lead him to bash all efforts to cut carbon emissions. It's possible he won't survive a primary challenge.

15. U.S Rep Joe Barton- Republican. "For us to try to step in and say we have got to do all these global things to prevent the Earth from getting any warmer is absolute nonsense," he insists. "You can't regulate God." .............. lol *sigh*

16/17. Charles and David Koch- CEO and Executive Vice President, Koch Industries. The multibillionaire brothers not only run the nation's largest private energy company, they rival Exxon in funding the front groups that spread disinformation about the dangers of climate change.

Put together by Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone. Original article can be found here.

Labour’s risible approach to defence procurement has seen money flow to Labour constituencies (CVF) and pointless European vanity projects (A400M and Typhoon) even as Geoff Hoon (and others) deliberately refused to provide the requisite body armour to the Army prior to the invasion of Iraq. The RAF has, arguably, seen the worst of Labour’s incompetence, with air-to-air capabilities designed to fight the Soviets supplanting the UAVs, reconnaissance aircraft and strike capabilites that everyone agrees are most likely to be needed in the future. The now almost unavoidable cuts to the size and capability of the RAF and Royal Navy – and, therefore, to our ability to project power on a global scale – are a direct consequence of Labour’s mismanagement and waste, not a peace dividend or a strategic shift in Britain’s global priorities.

So, what’s the damage? The Royal Navy will probably lose one or both of its future aircraft carriers (along with a sub or three), and the RAF will end up smaller and weaker in terms of its offensive capabilities. While we flounder in Afghanistan the public’s indulgence will not extend to unforseeable future conflicts: insurance policies, no matter how vital, tend not to be high on voters’ lists of spending priorities, especially when a bloody ground war is in such sharp focus. There is, however, a lesson to be learned from history here – had John Nott’s proposed defence cuts gone through before 1982, we’d have had no aircraft carriers and Port Stanley would probably be under an Argentine flag today.

Of course, the Army – which does the bulk of the work in Afghanistan – must be protected from the axe. But, as Sierra Leone, Iraq and the Falklands showed, seapower and airpower are also vital parts of Britain’s ability to project power. We lose those capabilities at the risk of losing our ability to influence world affairs. A switch to commercial off-the-shelf procurement – though long overdue – can do little now to prevent cuts and guard against strategic shocks. When those shocks happen – and they will – it will be down to Labour’s waste that we lack the ability to fight back. Is there a more shameful legacy than that? 

A. The recession should be tackled not with cuts in essential public spending, but by massive public investment in house-building, infrastructure and the de-carbonisation of the economy.

B. Banks should be split up with their casino investment arms hived off. Publicly-owned retail banks should be required to meet new social and community objectives and support manufacturing, with lending to businesses and homeowners restored to 2007 levels. Pay and bonuses should be tightly regulated.

C. A clean break must be made with market fundamentalism – deregulation and privatisation. Public provision should be expanded – in health care, education, housing, pensions, energy and transport. Royal Mail must remain wholly in the public sector.

D. In the face of huge and unacceptable growth of inequality, a big redistribution programme must swing resources away from the rich to provide sizeable increases in pensions, the minimum wage, the lowest benefit levels, and to fund job creation and improved public services. Union rights must be restored – it is in economic crisis that workers are most in need of that protection.

E. To achieve the 80% carbon emission reduction target by 2050, renewable sources of energy should be promoted on a far bigger scale, industry (including airlines) should be required to reduce its climate change emissions by at least 3% per year, household carbon allowances should be introduced, and the UK targets should be fully met by domestic action and not by carbon offsetting abroad.
Also listed are a number of suggestions for internal reform and a brief nod to the progress they believe that has been made toward the restoration of a more democratic regime inside the party.

Obviously they do not match the radical verbiage of the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition's list of demands, but they're not a million miles away from them either. Plus they have more of a chance of attracting trade union backing than the coalition does.

In the interests of putting working class politics back on the agenda, isn't it worthwhile looking at the list and considering standing down TUSC, Respect and other left challenges where they face one of the sponsoring MPs?

ECONOMY

“It is quite understandable when they legally want to transfer their money to lower tax regimes.” Syed Kamall, MEP for London, European Parliament, 24 April 2009.

“The European social model is outdated, it is destructive, it prevents job creation and it acts against entrepreneurship.” Martin Callaghan, MEP for the North East, European Parliament, 11 March 2009.

CLIMATE CHANGE

“Climate hysteria is increasingly remote from reality.” Roger Helmer, MEP for the East Midlands, European Parliament, 21 May 2008.
and “Wind turbines are garden ornaments, not power stations.” Nottingham Evening Post, 16 June 2009.

EQUALITY

“'Homophobia' is merely a propaganda device designed to denigrate and stigmatise those holding conventional opinions, which have been held by most people through most of recorded history.” Roger Helmer, MEP for the East Midlands, on his blog, 19 July 2009.

HEALTH

“I know they [NHS charges] are controversial but I don't think people who are in a job would actually be against spending say, £10 to see their GP or being fined £10 if they don't show up to an outpatients.” Charles Tannock, MEP for London, Channel 4 News, 27 August 2009.

“There is little evidence that promoting the use of condoms actually prevents the transmission of AIDS.” Charles Tannock, MEP for London, European Parliament, 7 May 2009.

There is one MEP who deserves a little section all of his own and this is, of course, the inimitable Daniel Hannan, MEP for the South East. A small selection of his finest quotes are below:

“[Enoch Powell was] someone who understood the importance of national democracy, who understood why you needed to live in an independent country and what that meant, as well as being a free-marketeer and a small government Conservative.” Reason TV, Spring 2009.

“The health care system we have is kind of a relic...I wouldn't wish it on anyone.” Fox News, 12 August 2009.

“[Tax on Bankers' bonuses] is more about class war than raising money.” Fox News, 10 December 2009.

These snippets of what goes on in the mind of a Conservative MEP demonstrate the quite scary reality that lurks behind the mask of respectable, 'for-the-people-electability' that David Cameron is trying so hard to promote. He would have the electorate believe that the Conservatives have changed, that they are the party who will look out for the people, but all we have to do is watch out for the “Real Tories”. They are out there and unless we continue to erode their opinion poll lead away, they may soon be coming to a constituency near you. 

The President travelled to Baltimore on Friday to address the House Republican Caucus, where he spent close to ninety minutes engaging and taking questions from the very lawmakers who have been unanimously disrupting his agenda on taxes, health care and the economic stimulus as well as Democrat-pushed conservative measures such as a "blue ribbon" commission to reduce the deficit, a pay-go provision that would limit new expenditures, and a spending freeze on non-military programs.

Why are the Republicans kicking themselves? They let national and cable media networks play the entire event live across the US. (The President delivered such a strong performance that Fox News pulled their coverage 20 minutes before the event ended!)

Before the question and answer session began, Obama slammed what he said was a Washington culture driven by opinion polls and nonstop political campaigns.

"I don't believe that the American people want us to focus on our job security, they want us to focus on their job security,".
(When's the last time you heard a badass line like that in British politics?!)

During the Q and A Obama destroyed Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) for calling his economic agenda radical.

"I am not an ideologue, I'm not," he said. "It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me, 'You could do this cheaper and get increased results,' then I would say, 'Great.' The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who could back up the claims that you just made."

The President carried on, guns blazing when he hit the leadership (who were sat right next to him) for portraying his health care reform proposals as "Some kind of Bolshevik plot".

He further whacked Republicans in the audience for galvanizing against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and then turning up at "the ribbon-cuttings for some of these important projects in your communities."

All of this done while calling for more civility instead of "slash and burn politics".

The consequences for the Republicans could now be severe. The President was able to refute every single Republican talking point used against him on all the major challenges facing the US today.

If the White House is consistent with this level of engagement and accountability, it could turn the tide and strengthen the Democrats capability of defending their largest congressional majorities in a generation. Don't count strong health reforms (even the public option) and cap and trade legislation out just yet.

And that is what he is doing – while you can have the political debate over everything else he did in his ten years as Prime Minister the Iraq War will be the cloud that hovers over it all. And it will be the issue on which he (and the entire government) will be condemned. For any argument Blairite’s or Labour supporters come up with to defend their hero the easy response for many will be simply, “but he took us into an illegal war.”

It struck me as interesting that a Prime Minister, who was so obsessed with spin and the media, did not realise as soon as questions over the war’s legality came up that he would never escape them. Whatever the outcome of the inquiry many will continue to believe we went to war illegally and unnecessarily simply to keep in favour with the Americans.

Going further, as a Prime Minister who, more than anyone since Gladstone, put his personal morality at the heart of his administration, it astounds me that the moral ambiguity of what he was doing doesn’t seem to occur to him. It appears that he was convinced of the rectitude of his crusade, doubt doesn’t seem to have troubled him even momentarily. And if I am worried by this, I cannot imagine the feelings of the families of soldiers killed in Iraq.

And will he say “sorry” for taking Britain to war against a man who wasn’t a threat (while ignoring many who were and are) or allowing then Chancellor Brown to leave them ill-equipped for the challenges they faced? I doubt it. 

Excitable commentators would have us believe that Tone will go in bright-eyed and enthusiastic, but be led out in handcuffs, a broken man.

We all know that there wasn't a legal case for the war. That there was no thought given to whether this was the right thing to do, or to what would happen if it was done.

We also know that this was really America's - well, Dubya's - idea, and we all know that Tony only joined in because his tongue was jammed so far up Bush's arse that he had no choice but to follow him wherever he went.

We also know that the press were more than happy to go along with the whole fucking charade. To faithfully reprint - on the front page, in huge letters - every single lie and distortion that Blair and Campbell cooked up.

We all know - even without this ridiculously expensive show trial - that we were misled, lied to and ignored, while politicians abused their power to do just whatever they wanted to.

So it would be great if Tony - and all the others - acknowledged that. Made some form of apology. Suggested some ways in which redress could be made.

But - much as we might fancy that idea - that's not gonna happen, is it?

No. Tony will squirm uncomfortably for a few hours. His every word, gesture and nervous blink will be relayed in real time to the waiting world. Then, at the end of it, he'll saunter out, past the cameras, onto an aeroplane, and resume his obscenely lucrative world tour.

This time next week, he'll be evangelising to some Christians, or some Capitalists, or a combination of the two, as if nothing had happened.

It would be lovely to see Blair whip out an onion, dab at his eyes, tearfully confess to having done wrong, and announce that he's prepared to take his punishment like a man, and that he'll do whatever it takes to make thing right.

But don't get your hopes up.

Simon Cooke

Irritated of Cullingworth

By refusing to pass the second resolution the UN made it clear they did not endorse the war that we all knew was, by this time, inevitable. However, even if they had passed that resolution it would not have made the suffering any the less acute, nor the injustice any less bald.

Tony Blair is giving evidence to the inquiry tomorrow (Friday) and the Stop the War Coalition is organising a welcome party for him starting at 8 am.
Assemble at:

Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, Broad
Sanctuary, Westminster, London SW1P 3EE
Check out the website for their timetable of events although I'd recommend getting there early as the Metropolitan Police's idea of the right to peaceful protest and ours is not entirely contiguous.

Sadly this inquiry will bring no real reassessment of our foreign policy priorities from the government, opposition or the press, even as the Afghan 'President' cheerfully informs the world that he expects UK forces to stay in the country for another fifteen years.

This particular lie, that bit of spin, this specific distortion of the truth become the day to day fodder of a media that seems oblivious to the wider logic that set us on the course to war not on any given day but over decades. In my opinion we should be challenging the global imbalance of power and wealth in a system built on profit over need.

The campaign is strongly based on defence issues. Plymouth is a navy city which is gradually losing its life-blood as the nuclear submarine fleet has been sent to Scotland and the frigate fleet is to be sent to Portsmouth. UKIP´s contention is that all three main parties are content to cut defence spending and wind down the Royal Navy because they will 'outsource' our forces to the EU (e.g. the EU Navy currently operating off Somalia with one British frigate). Without the navy, Plymouth will lose 1,500 families, many dockyard jobs and its main economic driver.

We started with a press conference in Plymouth attended by people from the area, all apparently from a Naval tradition, many having been part of the Navy life. I explained among other things that although the EU had not yet set up a defence budget, the Lisbon and Amsterdam Treaties look for progressive growth of defence policy. UK´s command centre in Northwood is available to the EU and is at present Headquarter to ATALANTA (the Indian Ocean patrol against piracy). Lisbon sees the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) close to the Common Security and Foreign Policy (CSFP) which is part of Ashton’s empire. I did not mention but it should be noted here that the traditional British reluctance to take part in the CSDP changed to endorsement after Blair met with Chirac in St Malo back in 1998.

Later on we went up to St Mabyn for a small private dinner with Lord Pearson and a handful of selected guests, most of them loyal followers of the Tory party until then.

On Sunday morning I went with Trevor Colman my colleague MEP for the South West to look at the site of a proposed new wind turbine development. We met with a group of neighbors of the area who expressed their concern that this turbine would alter the ecosystem and spoil heritage landscape. Our policy of encouraging wind power at the micro-generation level but rejecting it as a primary source of grid energy because of its unreliability (92% back-up required), is becoming increasingly well-known and popular, and it will be a major election issue in the SW, with all three main parties on the wrong side.

After that we went to a fundraising lunch again in St Mabyn where, after giving a five minute speech on why I am fighting against the EU and have joined UKIP, I had the opportunity to talk with different invitees many of whom, as I said before, after having voted Tory for a lifetime, were now about to jump to UKIP because they did not see the Tory party representing them anymore. Up close it is clear that ordinary British people have a lot of frustration with the existing political elite and parties!

We also had photographs taken with all the PPCs present: Stephanie McWilliam, candidate for SE Cornwall, and Steve Crowther who had organized the whole programme.

I was happy to help there even if it is not my constituency and hope we can organize something similar in the South East. I am prepared to go around the country helping as I did before at the European Elections! All our energy now has to be put into the national election campaign!!! 

If Labour MPs struggling to find anything positive to say about their 12 years in power - what with the aforementioned recession, the increasing deficit, out of control public spending, ID cards, illegal invasion of Iraq, growing gap between rich and poor no better than it was in the 1970s, and so on - they could do worse than to take a leaf out of the book of Preston MP, Mark Hendrick.

One time MEP for the former European constituency of Lancashire Central, Hendrick won the 2000 Preston by-election by a comfortable(ish) margin. He has certainly fostered some kind of reputation, largely for not once voting against the Government line (in a University town he voted for tuition fees, smart enough. Then voted for the Iraq war. Good man. And the DNA database. Everything in fact. Yes-man to the core. Loyalist to a T.)

Well now Hendrick has really taken the proverbial biscuit. Not able to reach for something positive to come from the disastrous calamity that has been Labour in power, he has taken to flooding middle-ranking Ministers with questions that should be prefixed "Could you ensure the answers are easy to copy and paste into my next election leaflet?". These are such blatant electioneering questions it's amazing they're even allowed. Hendrick is wasting our money trying to find content for his election addresses. A scandal by any other name...

But, hang on! Is he actually getting anywhere with this fishing expedition? It seems not. For the good folk in the foothills of Government are not giving Hendrick the kind of answers he'd prefer for his next issue of "The Rose".

For example...

Mark Hendrick (Preston, Labour) "To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many women resident in Preston have been awarded the Sure Start Maternity Grant since its introduction."

To which comes the answer...

Helen Goodman (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Bishop Auckland, Labour) "The information is not available"

Okay, what about...

Mark Hendrick (Preston, Labour) "To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of suspected cancer patients resident in Preston saw an NHS consultant within two weeks of referral in each year since 1997."

Nope, not quite got a good enough answer for his press release here either...

Ann Keen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Brentford & Isleworth, Labour) "The two week wait for all cancers was introduced from 2000 (HSC1999/205). Data for the period 1997-2002 is not available."

There then follows a table detailing the information for Lancashire's Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. Try again, Mr Hendrick! Try again!

Mark Hendrick (Preston, Labour) "To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding his Department has allocated for the treatment of heart disease and cancer care in Preston in each year since 1997.

Ann Keen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Brentford & Isleworth, Labour) "The information requested is not collected centrally."

And again, Mark, come on, you know you can do it!

Mark Hendrick (Preston, Labour) "To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport how many miles of priority bus lanes have been introduced in Preston since 1997."

Sadiq Khan (Minister of State, Department for Transport; Tooting, Labour) "This information is not collected centrally."

Oh dear! Will an answer ever come?

Mark Hendrick (Preston, Labour) "To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in numbers of (a) overall recorded crimes, (b) recorded violent crimes, (c) burglaries and (d) vehicle thefts in Preston has been since 1997."

Alan Campbell (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Tynemouth, Labour) "Information is not available in the form requested."

Oh fail! Oh shame!

The disgraceful behaviour of Mark Hendrick should really not go unreported. This man is clearly not asking questions for the people of Preston; he is dealing with his own re-election. It's a total waste of time, effort, and money. But clearly it is alright for the man whose expenses claims included quite a lot of cash for a comfier bed. I do hope he can sleep well at night... 

This is good news for the Government and Party activists, who can now start focusing on economic improvements as a part of the election campaign. But there are other glimmers of hope that should resound well with voters. Last week we saw a small decrease in unemployment, with the figures for the 2009 and budget being 450,000 below estimates! There are also positive signs in revenue increases, mainly from corporation tax, which has shown a second consecutive monthly increase. It also seems like the forecasts for the budget deficit are not as bad as first imagined, as borrowing in the last quarter increased slower than expected.

The Prime Minister will almost certainly be using this to his benefit at Prime Ministers Questions today, citing his willingness to use fiscal stimulus and continued spending to shore up the economy, as opposed to the Tories, who's grand master plan was to leave the recovery to the market. They proved their commitment to this laissez faire approach when they opposed the capitalisation of Northern Rock. If they were in power to make that decision then thousands would have lost their savings and the housing market would have sunk even further.

But, as one Treasury spokesman said upon release of the figures yesterday, we should be "cautious about the prospects for the economy". For instance take the unemployment figures; during the same quarter as the decrease in unemployment there was an increase, of 99,000, in the number of people in part time work. Most of this is down to involuntary reductions in working hours, a step that is taken to avoid redundancy. The risk here is that this trend continues and disposable incomes start decreasing, meaning less money being spent on the high street, never a useful factor when trying to boost growth.

The other figure most of the headlines left out of the picture was the extra 79,000 people now classed as "economically inactive", people who have given up in looking for work at all or have decided to take an early retirement. This group has now reached a record high 8.05 million people, which works out as slightly over 1 in every 5 people of working age.

As TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber pointed out this morning, "the threat of a double dip recession is looming large". Indeed, we have barely returned to growth, falling back into decline is not unimaginable and if factors Ive already mentioned, such as a combination of decreased disposable incomes/low spending, continue to increase then it could be just the thing needed to  tip us back over the edge.

So there is cause for concern but also cause for celebration. There is little doubt that these reports would be much worse without the fiscal stimulus, employer incentives and quantitative easing, which have helped increase demand and (not quite as successfully) limit unemployment. David Cameron's calls to start slashing the budget only serve to undermine this fragile scenario. If he were to get his way and cut 1 million jobs from the Public Sector then the consequences would be unthinkable. It is initiatives such as Backing Young Britain, which will now guarantee employment for those under 25 who've been unemployed for 6 months, that will get Britain working again! Along with investing money into affordable housing projects in order to give the construction industry the boost it needs, we can produce results and destroy the Conservative myth that Government is the problem not the answer.

For now, I'm afraid, the waiting game is still in play. The Government needs to keep investing, concentrate on programmes that will get people back into full time work and ensure that any efforts to decrease the budget deficit don't harm essential Public Services. In the meantime we can start taking these signs of improvement to the electorate, we can highlight the difference in benefits between Labour action and Tory inaction. Together with a vision for the future, on green jobs, better industry and financial reform we can proudly say, that this fight isn't over yet! 

I’m interested in this in all sorts of ways, but especially because this concept of contagious behaviour is the basic premise of the community engagement aspect of Sustainable Moseley’s contribution to the Green Streets project, which is composed of a microgeneration aspect (photovoltaic arrays for St. Mary’s Church, Hamza Mosque and the MADAHAL allotment pavilion, and solar hot water for Moseley CofE school), and an energy efficiency/behavioural change aspect. The latter is very important – 20 homes will be receiving around £3000 each of energy saving measures based on individual evaluations of those properties – but a whole lot more needs to be done if we can justifiably say that the project is a community-wide success, never mind a template for how behavioural changes relating to sustainability and climate change should be instigated.

So what are we doing to put these observations into practice? Firstly, we’re taking our own advice literally. The local mosque is connected to Moseley’s Islamic community via short-wave radio, and we will be using that to broadcast tips for saving energy via behavioural changes to households. At the start of the project, households will bring their first meter readings to the mosque, and from then, we’ll take readings periodically. This and their bill history to ascertain how much energy (and money) people are saving by changing their behaviour – and more importantly, they’ll be doing it together, allowing them to compare, support and even compete. We will, of course, be encouraging a combination of all three.

More ambitiously, we’re trying to challenge the concept of community, by creating new ones – or exposing those which people may have been unaware of. Too often, we get hung up on the differences that divide us – but then you go into people’s homes, meet them and their families, look at the things that matter to them (like a warm, cosy house in winter that doesn’t cost the earth to heat) – and you see how absolutely ridiculous that is. Respect the differences, yes – but embrace the similarities! We are social creatures, and this makes us happy. So we chose the biggest microgeneration projects for the church and the mosque, who are working together. This has real resonance with people – something which the success of Birmingham’s Faith and Climate Change is testament to. It’s hard work. But people’s lives are connected, and we have to understand and work with those connections to make positive changes.

But is it really over?

For starters the data released today by the ONS is for the last quarter of 2009, and those three months are typically strong as retailers head towards Christmas. Indeed the City and investors are far from impressed. The figures are “a major blow to hopes that the UK economy had emerged decisively from recession,” said Jonathan Loynes, an economist at Capital Economics. The pound fall against the dollar on the news, which was 0.2pc below the government’s forecasts, adding more weight to the argument that economic forecasting and the Met Office may as well be contracted out to Mystic Meg.

The data also has several misleading elements. The recession began officially in Q2 of 2008, but exempt rapidly rising public sector spending and in reality it started at least three months before; the same will be true on the exit, with an as yet unknown increase in State spending almost certainly pushing the data upwards by more than the meagre 0.1pc recorded GDP growth.

There is also the matter of inflation. Markets were surprised last week by a record jump in inflation, sending fears that interest rates would rise sooner than previously hoped by some. Interest rates remain at the record low level of 0.5pc and although the Bank of England's governor Mervyn King is reported to be in no hurry to raise interest rates other members of the Monetary Policy Committee are more hawkish. And then there’s the task of unwinding the stimulus plan and removing the £200bn the Bank has injected into the financial system, and cutting the government’s record deficit...

Recession over? I wouldn’t bet on it.

David T Breaker is a web developer and conservative blogger. He blogs at www.davidbreaker.com and is @DavidTBreaker on Twitter.
 

I understand the Tories' motives, I mean they are hardly going to say that Gordon Brown has done a great job – no matter what the rest of the world says about his achievements in saving the banks. Despite David Cameron trying to convince us that Gordon is not a strong and decisive leader, those are exactly the words that were used to describe the action he took over the banking crisis. He has previously been hailed as “Gordon Brown: European Superhero” by Le Monde and as the “saviour of the world financial system” by Paul Krugman in the New York Times. The fact remains that Gordon Brown was the best leader to guide the country through this world-wide recession and he remains the best person to nurture and encourage the growth that is at last beginning to appear.

The Conservative Government in the early 1990s also had a recession to deal with. Admittedly, the fall in GDP during that recession was lower than the cumulative effects of six consecutive quarters of negative-growth that we have seen in this recession, BUT the number of businesses failing and house repossessions were higher. The figures for unemployment in this recession have been consistently lower than in other recessions in recent history. Figures for the third quarter of 2009 – the sixth quarter of this recession – show the rate of unemployment to be at 7.8%. When this is compared with previous recessions, it can be seen that in the same quarter of the recession in the 1980s, the unemployment rate was up to 9.6% and in the sixth-quarter of the 1990s recession it stood at 9.5%.

Being in work is not just an economic necessity, it is of psychological importance too. Having a purpose, doing something constructive and useful adds value to people's lives. Obtaining a skill that will enable economic survival by providing employability brings hope to the young. Importantly, this Labour government understands that. The priority for the Conservative government that presided over the recessions in the 1980s and 1990s was not to help the blue-collar workers, which is why unemployment was allowed to rise as it did. Margaret Thatcher deliberately moved the UK away from the traditional manufacturing industries and pushed us into greater reliance on finance and banking. Now, that isn't me saying that we can blame Thatcher for this recession, it really was a world-wide phenomenon, but I am suggesting that some of the effects that the UK has felt from it, would have had less impact, had we nurtured and maintained our industrial heritage, rather than throwing it away.

Gordon Brown and the Labour party have policies that genuinely stem from wanting ALL people in the UK to have better lives. Assisting young people into training and work through schemes like the 'jobs guarantee' for all 18 – 25 year-olds and SureStart, which enables parents to obtain the support they need to help them back into the workforce are measures that not only give opportunity but also hope. This will end though, should David Cameron and his Conservatives obtain power in the forthcoming General Election.

Cameron is calling for cuts, cuts, cuts, a plan that further exposes his ignorance when it comes to fiscal policy – let us remind ourselves that Cameron was Special Advisor to Chancellor Norman Lamont at the time of Black Wednesday. With the first signs of growth being announced for the last quarter of 2009 and a fall in unemployment, it is a time for care and vigilance. Knee-jerk reactions are not what we need; Gordon Brown has warned that the action Cameron proposes would risk the recovery, halt growth and jeopardise jobs, we need to reduce the deficit steadily, he says. Brown is the voice of experience here, laying down plans that will reap rewards in the future, not trying to make a short-term point for political gain.

When I speak to young people in my area, they are not pessimistic about the future. They are looking forward to going to college, university or beginning work. They haven't yet developed negative, unnecessary cynicism and most of them understand which of the political parties will look out for them. They are angry when they hear David Cameron talk about “Broken Britain” – that is not the Britain they know. They are right, Britain isn't broken. Eighteen-years of Conservative rule gave her a battering, a bloody nose and almost broke her spirit but they didn't break her.

We must work to ensure the Labour policies that bring opportunity to those who need it most are able to continue. These are policies that allow young people to have ambition, policies that are there to benefit the majority. We have to fight the cynicism and negativity and look to the future with hope.

Under a Labour government, we can. 

On the other hand, it's certainly better to have growth (or even a completely flat economy) rather than economic contraction. The fall-off in investment confidence caused by Labour's prolonged recession has caused serious tensions for those in this country hoping to do business overseas, and there will be relief that the UK is not now a place where investments go to lose value. It could be just a brief breather though, as unsettling indications are that we're heading for a double-dip, some time in April.

But what I want to concentrate on in this piece is the way in which the government has failed to take the action needed to handle the recession sooner, with an eye to the opinion polls.

It is not naive to hope that a politician would put the interests of the nation they love ahead of their own political career. Experience under Gordon Brown, however, has shown that nothing is so important to him as the title on his letterbox, and it's in that spirit that he has sought to govern ever since the onset of economic collapse.

We saw it again and again, that Gordon would sooner pay more after a general election than less beginning now. The tory contention is that, if we begin to make cuts more quickly, and begin those cuts right now, we have a chance of stabilising our markets, showing the international investment community we're serious about tackling our deficits and that we deserve a AAA rating for effective and prudent management of the national accounts. Tories argue, I think correctly, that the current round of increased spending adds to the deficits and contributes to a serious undermining of future plans for growth.

Imagine if one was not dealing with the Prime Minister of a country, but with, say, some teenager racking up debts on his parents' credit card. Would his parents likely accept the argument that he should defer repaying the debt until some unspecified future time, and that, in addition, they should give him a few quid to help out a mate buy a new car?

If you buy the argument that Gordon Brown would sooner wait until after the election to begin paying back the debt, then you must agree that his assessment is either:

a) I will win the election, which is better for the whole country, and I can sort it all out then
b) I will lose the election, and it'll be their mess to deal with

I suspect that, even in the Fuehrerbunker, Brown has realised that the endgame for his premiership is upon us, and he's preparing to salt the earth in preparation for a torrid time for his successor.

Greater love hath no man, than he lay down his country to save himself. 

It irked me immediately. On first examination, this seemed an ill-thought out comment from someone who hasn't really considered the impact that abolishing SureStart would have. SureStart provides more than just childcare. When I challenged this opinion, Matthew said that he believes that SureStart should only benefit the poor and not everyone, including those on £50k per year. I'm sympathetic to this but doubt that many £50k per year families are using the vast array of support services that SureStart offers to families in need. I must be fair to Matthew, who engages in the spirit of friendly, open-minded discussion and is a pleasure to cross-swords with; when I said this to him, he did say that he would investigate further and may reconsider. Still, it got me thinking - how many people think that SureStart is purely about childcare when in reality, it is so much more?

SureStart was launched by this Labour Government as part of the Every Child Matters strategy. It has been a key element in getting 600,000 children out of poverty, a worthy achievement. As Labour Matters says David Cameron's Tories are just not family friendly. Cutting back SureStart with the excuse that they are ensuring it is only targeted at the poorest in society, removes vital access to community health services, parenting and family support, outreach services, integrated early years education and access to training and employment opportunities for parents with children under five.

Local authorities are duty-bound by The Childcare Act 2006 to ensure that services for early-years are accessible and have maximum impact in benefitting families and children in their area. Consequently, in many places, SureStart has become an essential part of the community and has been praised by parents and professionals alike for being a catalyst in turning lives around, such as that of Karol Jacquin, a single-parent in Hounslow, who was directed towards her nearby SureStart centre by her Health Visitor in 2002. She credits this as being the turning point in her life.

To say that the Tories will cut £200Million from SureStart demonstrates the lack of regard David Cameron actually has for the family, for children and for the needs of real families. Robbing Peter to Pay Paul (Earl of Tory) and save him from that nasty Inheritance Tax bill is another example of how they may have fresh-faced posters and clever sound bites, but underneath it all, they are the same old Tories.

The fact is that the poor simply cannot trust Conservative policy and neither can families. 

* We have an education system that fails too many young people – it’s not just the dumbed down exams or the complacency of the education elite that annoys me. It is that they seem not to care one jot for the quarter of young people who get almost no qualification at 16. Young people who are slung out of schools onto the “Connexions” system (you have to worry about a Government programme that can’t even spell) most of whom are fated to a dreary, depressing existence on make-work programmes. It’s perhaps not so much of a surprise that many turn to drink, drugs or crime to provide a little excitement. In these young people's world drinking, smoking and sex provide cheap entertainment – a break from the dispiriting reality of poverty. We surely can’t justify this any more – and allowing schools to be free from bureaucratic direction and for parents, teachers and charities to set up new schools is a great opportunity to transform the chances for young people in poor communities.

All this may not work. But we can’t carry on with the same, centralised, complacent, bureaucratic and – despite all the cash – failing systems we have today. Labour used to get this - to understand the aspirations of working class kids. Today, as the official party of the public sector bureaucrat is merely understands how to protect its own interests. 

His timing is ill thought. Figures released today show overall crime down again. This also comes a day after the Tories confirmed that they would close thousands of Sure Start centres. The Tories would take help away from ordinary working families, using the money to instead reward marriage. How they think a small tax break will convince people to either get married or stay married is beyond me. Instead they will penalise single parents or those who choose not to get married by taking away support they would otherwise have had to bring up their children. That will lead to a social recession.

The level of social support the poorest have had under Labour is unprecedented in the modern era. A minimum wage, better schools and hospitals, Sure Start, tax credits and regeneration of our cities are just a few of the major Labour achievements. It is also incredibly short sighted to suggest that whatever social problems we have today have just arrived.

If Cameron's support for marriage is the only answer he has to our social ills then we are in for a really deep social recession if the Tories were to gain power. 

Oppose the Racist English Defence League

North Staffs Campaign Against Racism & Fascism (NorScarf) has organised the Unity Rally in Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent on 23rd Jan. to mobilise opposition to a planned ‘march’ by the nationalist and racist English Defence League.

Whenever the EDL (which aims to build amongst football hooligans) has reared its head in other towns and cities, it has been opposed by local community activists, trade unionists and anti-racist campaigners defending their communities.

The EDL’s claim to be non-racist and only against “Militant Islam” is a cover for trying to whip up racism against Muslims. Wherever the EDL surfaces there is a vile racist atmosphere; footage exists of appalling anti-Islamic chanting and Nazi salutes. There are also reports of racist attacks occurring near to where their supporters are.

The EDL repeatedly use the plight of British troops in Afghanistan to try to fuel their racist propaganda, and they may do so again on this occasion. While socialists and activists within NorScarf oppose the war in Afghanistan and call for British troops to be brought home, NorScarf stresses that their rally is against the EDL and not against British troops.

Some try to discourage any opposition to the EDL and their activity rather than speak out against them. They seem to see the opposition to the EDL as the problem. But we’re not fooled by claims that the EDL is non-racist and oppose them because their divisive aims pose a threat to the much needed unity of ordinary working class people.

Experience elsewhere has shown that if there is an opportunity, the EDL will try to march. Unlike the EDL, NorScarf does not want provocation or violence on the streets of Stoke-on-Trent, but at the same time is mobilising to show that threats of racial or religious violence and intimidation will be opposed by sheer weight of numbers.

Some people argue that it is better to boycott the NorScarf counter rally and ignore the EDL. Some other local and national politicians from the main political parties are silent on the EDL's appearance, probably because they have no alternative to offer that would cut across division by raising living standards for all communities of whatever background. Instead of tackling unemployment, poverty, homelessness etc, they seem more concerned about bailing out rich bankers.

However, allowing them to organise on our streets would give them the confidence to continue their divisive, racist activities. We are determined to expose and oppose them, by organising a large, well stewarded and peaceful counter event.

For Jobs, Homes and Services, Not Racism!

The far right EDL & BNP try to exploit the devastating economic crisis to promote racist ideas but they have no solutions to the misery caused by this crisis. The EDL are specifically scapegoating Mulsims.

Over one trillion pounds of our money has been used to prop up banks while top bankers continue to pay themselves massive bonuses. The bosses and their politicians want us to pay for bailing out the bankers!

New Labour, Tories & Lib Dems are competing over who can carry out the most savage cuts in public services, already cut to the bone. It’s no surprise that electoral support for parties like Labour has collapsed and this has allowed the BNP to make a breakthrough by getting 2 members of the Euro Parliament elected in June.

Leading BNP members try to hide their Neo-Nazi ideas and past activities but not because they have changed their ideas or their long term aims. They know that if they tried to build an openly Neo-Nazi party with an organised street fighting wing to carry out physical attacks on trade unionists and large scale racist attacks – they would get limited support and be defeated as they were in the massive mobilisations of the late 1970’s & early 1990’s.

This does not mean that the BNP are not dangerous; their electoral success and increasing media profile mean their divisive ideas are reaching a wider audience. The main three parties all whip up prejudice and racism when it suits them and their pro-big business agendas.

They are aided by the right wing pro-bosses media which blames Muslims, asylum seekers and immigrant workers for the problems caused by government policies and the economic crisis. The BBC give Nick Griffin a platform on Question Time but exclude elected reps from socialist organisations and left trade unionists like Bob Crow of the RMT in national political debate.

Where the BNP has a presence racist attacks increase. Their electoral success also encourages far right groups like the EDL who organise demos aiming to whip up tension & violence and demonise Muslims. Groups like the EDL want to provoke violent reaction from Asian, Black and migrant communities to create conflict.

Hardline fascists among BNP voters are a tiny minority. We need to build a movement strong enough to convince those who have been conned by the BNP or voted for them in protest against the 3 main parties. But it’s not enough to just call on people not to vote for them!

To decisively defeat the far right, we need to put forward a positive political alternative to the three main parties who have opened the door to the BNP. We need to campaign for decent jobs, free education, homes and services.

The recent Euro elections saw the far right make gains in a number of countries. But their support has been undermined by new forces on the left that have provided a political alternative. In Germany, the electoral success of the Left Party has meant support for the far right NDP has been limited. The economic crisis does not automatically mean electoral success for the far right. In Ireland, hit hard by the crisis, Socialist Party activist, Joe Higgins was elected putting forward a fighting program.

We need a new mass workers party based on the trade unions and young people that puts forward a fighting programme of a united struggle against attacks from the bosses and their politicians that would tackle the root causes of racism and fascism – unemployment, poverty, homlessness etc and cut across the lies of the far right

Unite against the EDL! Defend our communities!

The reason that I am using quotation marks when I mention the Conservative idea of “family” is because the image they portray, is at odds with what family means to a huge number of people in the UK today. The Conservatives hark back to halcyon days, where every Summer was warm, there was always snow at Christmas and Mummy and Daddy would take little David on holidays to the seaside. They would paddle, build sand-castles and drink lashings and lashings of Ginger Beer. But like the Enid Blyton fantasy that describes, the truth was often very different.

The Second World War changed family life forever. The lengthy periods of separation created marriages that were scarred by conflict, adultery and people who barely knew one another. The done thing back then, was to stick it out and in order to encourage this, divorce was not an easy option, only being permitted in the event of fault, cruelty or adultery. This lead to so many people being unhappy and alone whilst seemingly within the confines of a loving family unit. That is what the Conservatives are trying to encourage again. Stay together for the sake of the children, you loved one another once, grin and bear it or stay married for the sake of a few extra pounds in tax allowance.

The Green Paper unveiled by Ed Balls MP, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, has a much more balanced approach. Entitled ‘Support for All – the Families and Relationships Green Paper’ has a 'whole family' approach. Support for All (not just the marrieds) is an important step in recognising that a family is about more than a certificate that shows you had a nice party and spent a lot of money on frocks and fru fru! (Believe me, I speak from experience – twice!)

This approach sets out clearly the Government's commitment to supporting all families, no matter what their constitution. While announcing this important initiative, Mr Balls recognised the diverse nature of the family today, “Families come in all shapes and sizes these days and the evidence is clear that stable and loving relationships between parents and with their children are vital for their progress and well-being.”

The measures announced will help couples to prevent and resolve marriage and relationship breakdown whilst also offering support and recognition to Dads who need it and Grandparents – with so many parents having no choice but to work, the role of Grandparents has become increasingly important. In addition to this, working parents will also benefit from improvements to flexible working.

Providing assistance and support for those couples who genuinely want to stay together but have problems is a key part of this initiative. It doesn't matter if the couple is married, co-habiting or in a civil-partnership, enabling the people who choose to stay together to obtain the help they need to do so, on an emotional and practical level is far better for everyone involved. Yet, the Tories continue to value the idea of marriage above everything else, their policy says that a couple with three children who are married, deserve more than a couple with three children who are not.

Surprisingly, with this being such an important part of the Conservative manifesto, David Willetts, (Shadow Cabinet Member with responsibility for coming up with the policy) still doesn't know what form any Married Couples tax break will take.

So, to put it in simple terms, the Conservatives will do something, but they, and consequently we, do not know what it is yet. What we do know is that the Conservative party has a definite view of what a family SHOULD look like and it involves Mum, Dad and 2.4 children. It is built around the central concept of marriage.

The Labour policy on families is centered on children. This tells me much of what I need to know and an awful lot about the people creating the policy.

"We're the Government doing the most for the people of this country."

Unlike all the other Governments in the country who aren’t doing nearly as much.

However, this got me to thinking. Why not have competitive government – it works for everything else. Rather than just the one Government with all the power, we could have an open market – any group can set up a government, raise taxes and deliver services but they do so in competition with others.

Tricky I know and we’d end up with a new government to mediate the disputes between the various governments – and so on like the proverbial fleas on a dog’s back. We need some central authority to administer the laws and prevent arbitrary seizure of property. And that authority must be under popular control so as to prevent it become itself arbitrary.

However, the principle underlying the admirable “free schools” ideas could – and in my view should – be translated into the genuinely competitive delivery of government services. If it is right for schools to break free from bureaucracy, the same must apply to health, to waste management, to social services…to the police. The great reforms of the 1945 Labour government created a producer bureaucracy that is no longer suited to today.

A major change is possible in government – delivering through voluntary choice and the decisions of individuals the rapid improvements in service quality, care and cost-effectiveness that bureaucratic fiat can no longer deliver. A truly radical government will start the transformation by handing over power and control to neighbourhoods, to communities of interest and to the creators and innovators now stifled by the dead hand of our centralised state. 

Well, when Liberal Democrat supporters, the socialists, and half the modern Conservative party's members support a dangerous, big-government liberal President, I don't suppose the European political scene wants to accept what a thrashing Obama got last night.

Think about it for a minute. A non-liberal Republican wins Massachusetts.

It would be like UKIP winning all of Liverpool's seats in the next election. Actually, it's worse than that.

This is a truly momentous rejection of Obama's social liberalism, and big-state spending. That Europeans still cling on to vague hopes about "change" in America shows them to be fools.

Lets look at the recent Conservative Home poll of the attitudes of its Prospective Parliamentary Candidates and what they would regard as the most important issue should they be elected. Respondents were asked to give issues an importance rating out of five and the results are revealing; top-of-the-pile is ‘Cutting the deficit’ followed by cutting regulations on business which scores 73 and reducing welfare bills which scores 59. ‘A Conservative agenda for fighting poverty’ (whatever that means) trails behind on 45 (the same score as ‘Winning back powers from Europe’ got). Meanwhile, the establishment of new schools scores 23 and better road and rail services scores 20 and more affordable housing 14. Shockingly, reducing Britain’s carbon footprint scores a paltry 8. So much for ‘Vote Blue; Go Green’; the ‘Green Tree’ is burnt to a cinder by the still-burning Thatcherite torch. This is so embarrassing that Cameron has been forced to ‘re-educate’ his PPC’s about the ‘importance of the environment’.

However, you have to feel sorry for Cameron; there he is desperately trying to sell ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ and his foot-soldiers in this war are selected by people who overwhelmingly back ethnic screening at airports. Conservative Home home must give Cameron nightmares because it is like looking into a mirror of what a Conservative government would be and trust me; it ain’t pretty. Take this horrific piece from Alistair Thompson, the Conservative Candidate for West Bromich East, who suggests the next time there is a big freeze the unemployed should be used to clear the snow;

“let’s use these battalions of unemployed and able people!

Let’s find them work in their local communities, clearing the snow away, delivering hot meals, anything that helps to keep the country running.

Personally I would target this force at clearing schools, hospitals and access to the homes of those vulnerable people who are at particular risk during the cold weather, before clearing the rest of our pavements and roads.”

In other words; Thompson wants the unemployed to do all the things Conservative councils are no longer willing to actually provide because they are too focused on modeling themselves on cheap airlines. Another word for this might be slavery.

So, what can Labour do about this? Ironically, it must take a leaf out of John Major’s book and show the people of Britain that the Conservative Party hasn’t changed and cannot be trusted to govern. Major’s ‘Demon-Eyes’ campaign was brazen and I wouldn’t advocate a direct repetition but the central theme is a valid attack on Cameron’s Conservatives especially as polling consistently shows them to be viewed as, for example, favouring the rich. Secondly, it must have a positive message which embraces the theme of change and makes it Labour’s own. Doing this could well involve some candour about its record in government (what’s gone wrong and what’s gone right) and its policies must match the radicalism that has recently been mooted in the press as being the aim of the next manifesto. It must be radical in word and deed; not just in economic matters (making the case for investment led growth against the tide of deficit cutting mania) but also in social policy (a look at wages and incomes and using the tax system as an instrument of redistribution); constitutional reform (a clear commitment to PR etc, etc) and every other policy area. If Labour goes to the country on this footing it will make 2010 truly a year for change…

Political science has something to say about political leadership. The first notable study on this issue came in a contribution to the edited collection Labour's Last Chance? The 1992 Election and Beyond. In a paper called 'Did Major Win? Did Kinnock Lose? Leadership Effects in the 1992 Election' by Ivor Crewe and Anthony King, the authors asked if the respective leaderships of John Major, Neil Kinnock and Paddy Ashdown in some way determined the outcome of that election.

Crewe and King's starting premise was that political science has traditionally been very quiet on the question of political leadership. Their paper is dotted with anecdotal evidence of how political scientists, like any other interested observer of politics, will speculate on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of particular political leaders in informal settings, but when it comes to formal research this topic has been neglected. For example in Anthony Heath's (1991) study of the 1979-87 period, Thatcher receives only three mentions and none of them address her leadership - despite the political dimensions her personality assumed over that period. To counter this lack, Crewe and King offered two hypotheses on the bearing leadership has on election results.

First a leader can make the policies, ideology, and identity of their party more attractive. Here the leader’s effect on the electorate is indirect and mediated by the party machine.

Second (and sometimes simultaneously) the leader can have a direct impact on the electorate independently of the party’s image. For example, Crewe and King argue Kinnock's leadership managed to enhance the standing of Labour by moving it towards the political centre and making it more of a serious electoral threat to the Tories while his leadership was held in low esteem by the electorate.

To demonstrate it more thoroughly, Crewe and King drew on contemporaneous Gallup data on the standing of Thatcher in her last 15 months of office, and Major’s first 15 months compared with Kinnock's status over this period. In 1989-90 polls put Labour’s lead over the Tories at an average of 13 points. Over 1990-2 the Major-led Tories transformed this into an average 2 point advantage over Labour. Kinnock’s approval rating averaged 10 points ahead of Thatcher's, whereas Major’s stood at 15 points over Kinnock.

But how does this translate into the study of leadership effects? How does one go about it?

In political science Crewe and King identified two possible (and complimentary) analytical strategies for determining leadership effects. The first is that of ‘improved prediction’. This assumes that by looking at the demographic background and ideological dispositions of individual voters, the ability to predict their judgements of a party leader is improved. The second involves performing ‘thought experiments’. This method tries to measure the appeal a party would have had if led by someone else. For example, many polls have been carried out to try and gauge whether Labour would now be any more electable if someone other than Brown was as the helm, and these often apportion results by previous voting preferences/party identification.

A similar Gallup poll from 1992 cited by Crewe and King shows up the kinds of results we can expect from a thought experiment. They asked how the Tories would have performed if led by Thatcher or Heseltine as opposed to Major vs. a Kinnock-led Labour party, and a Smith as opposed to Kinnock-led Labour party against Major’s Conservatives. It found that under Thatcher 10% Tory-identifiers would have been likely to have voted Labour, 34% less likely, and 56% no difference/don’t know. For Heseltine the respective figures were 7%, 19%, and 74% whereas for Smith it was 22%, 6%, and 72%. However Crewe and King were careful to emphasise that these figures can only be taken as suggestive: they note respondents are unlikely to accurately predict how they would have acted in situations they did not experience.

Crewe and King were quick to point out that party preferences do not automatically translate into leader preferences. The same data showed 54% of Conservatives rated Major most highly, 36% of Labour rate Kinnock highly, and for the LibDems 35% positively endorsed Ashdown, leaving significant gaps. Tories scoring Kinnock and Ashdown highly were 1% and 8% respectively, Labour supporters 4% Major and 9% Ashdown, and Major 9% and Kinnock 4% for LibDems. The Tories rating Major and Kinnock on an equal footing were 3%, 7% for Labour, and 2% LibDems. On Major and Ashdown’s equal rating, it was 30%, 4%, and 27% respectively, and on Kinnock and Ashdown the figures were 1%, 24%, and 10%. Rating all three equal the figures were 4%, 17%, and 13%. Overall 91% of Tories placed Major on a par with or above the other leaders, whereas the respective level of party support for Kinnock and Ashdown were 84% and 85%. The issue for Crewe and King then is whether the deviant leader preferences lead to “deviant” voting behaviour.

Using the same batch of figures the proportion of Tories who rated Major highly, but then gave their votes to another party was just 3%. Those who placed Major on a par with the other leaders saw deviant voting increase to 11%, and for those who rated Major lower than Kinnock and Ashdown saw the deviance rate hit 27%. For Labour identifiers the figures were 4%, 9%, and 33%, and for the LibDems 9%, 29%, and 47%. So the likelihood of voting deviantly increases as one moves away from strong support of the leader. But also the figures seem to suggest that Major had qualities the other leaders lacked, making Tory identifiers far less likely to switch their votes. Or it could be that the ideological baggage associated with long term adherence to the Conservatives demands stronger leader identification than either the Labour or Liberal traditions?

Crewe and King then perform an improved prediction strategy to gauge leadership effects. They looked at voters' feelings toward the parties and actual votes cast in the 1987 election, and compared those figures with their 1992 vote. They argue that their prediction of Conservative voters who were favourable toward their party, voted for it in 1987, and would therefore vote the same in 1992 was 87.9% accurate. For Labour the prediction rate using the same operation was 87.1%. However when leader preferences are factored into the calculations the prediction rate increases by 1.1% and 0.5% respectively, giving figures of 89% and 87.6%. Therefore while leader effects can be calculated, for Crewe and King they are rarely decisive, and would only be significant in marginal contests.

Therefore in the case of the 1992 election and despite the extensive media commentary on the issue, the outcome was not really a case of either Major winning or Kinnock losing. To back up this conclusion they cited poll evidence of Labour under Smith which shows no significant improvement on the personal approval ratings obtained during the Kinnock era, suggesting Labour’s then problems were more about politics than personality.

But does this situation still pertain today? Like Kinnock Brown is more unpopular with the wider electorate than his Tory opponent. If the findings from the (admittedly dated) study remain true then it won't be leadership that decides the outcome of the election. But then again the Blairite's whole electoral strategy is premised on retaining/winning marginal seats, which hold the key to who forms the next majority. In tight contests the perception of Brown's leadership might just edge it for the Tories. The hope then for Labour lies not in trying to prettify Brown with smiley YouTube appearances but with a credible policy alternative to the reckless slash and burn proposed by Dave and friends. Unfortunately for Labour, Brown's speech on Monday was a return to the empty 'aspirationalism' of the Blair years designed to appeal to the so-called Middle Englanders that will supposedly determine the election's outcome. By narrowing the policy difference between the government and the Conservatives, Brown is creating a contest where the marginal impact of leader effects could prove decisive. It raises the awful prospect that the Blairites might just be right. 

Eight months in, and I’m glad I did – through local meetings, their excellent literature and the London conferences, I have been able to reap some great insights and progressive solutions into today’s issues, as well as meeting many wonderful people.

There were insights and people aplenty at Saturday’s ‘Causes to Fight For’ conference, which left me with plenty to mull over. This will be a two part post (try and contain yourself), which covers the speeches and the seminars.

As you are aware, Gordon Brown gave the keynote speech, and I was struck by a couple of things. He said that “in this crisis have learned what was always implicit in our New Labour message but we now have to make absolutely explicit: a fundamentally ethical message, that we have to bring to markets something they cannot generate themselves - the values of fairness and responsibility which we celebrate in our everyday lives.” To me, this much is abundantly clear – I am one of those hateful lefties that believe free markets, like communism, to be an impossible, unworkable fantasy. I would particularly emphasise the environment. The theory of free market environmentalism assumes that bad things that happen (such as excessive pollution) can (and will) be undone if the market is truly free. Science tells us otherwise – for example, if the ice sheets melt, they can’t come back under current temperatures, and certainly not if the world gets warmer. Ethically, practically – it doesn’t work. The markets won’t take care of the planet, which means they won’t take care of people.

I also liked what was arguably the main thrust of the speech: “ours is not merely a party in Britain – it is the party of Britain.” Labour is not at this stage now, but this is what it must strive to be – and this means being a party that caters to both the working and middle classes (we’ll worry about the upper classes later). Other reviews have expressed concern at what they see as a move away from Labour’s core vote – but do we have to choose between them and, assuming we don’t, how do we represent that in the policies? There’s a few things I’d like to see (possibly in dreamland) that I consider to be unifying: any new social housing (such as the 30,000 proposed in Birmingham) should conform to the highest standards of quality and energy efficiency; improvements in the quality and eco-friendliness of public transport (particularly buses, which are easily the easiest to update) that make it a viable, desirable and affordable replacement for cars; and finally, to ensure that we are bold in ensuring that state education allows the best possible start for children of all backgrounds.

As Gordon joked, he was but the warm-up act for Peter Mandelson – who used his splendid oratorical skills to imbue the Young Fabians (and some old Fabians) with the fighting spirit and conviction that Labour supporters are really going to need in the coming months when he spoke during the lunchtime period. “We're going to fight, fight, and fight again” he crowed, adding that he was “schooled in winning”, and was not about to give up now. Big words, but you know what? I got back, and I see that Grace Fletcher-Hackwood and Kevin Peel have started the inspired #mobmonday – simple, unifying and effective – and proof positive that Labour supporters are willing to be creative and put in the hours to get the results.

In addition, The Big Campaign is ongoing, and I myself am looking forward to January 31st, when I and many other Labour supporters from around the country are heading to Bristol East, the constituency of Kerry McCarthy, to join her campaign. So Peter Mandelson is in good company, I feel.

Ultimately, the speeches were intended to inspire, rather than inform per se, acting as a frame for the narrative that came out of the smaller discussions, which I will discuss in Part II.

I ask because both Labour and Conservative parties are doing their best to create a puritanical, paranoid, conservative [very much sic] state, of tradition and good behaviour which didn't really exist.

Society has moved on from the vision of Mr and Mrs Smith watching their daughter go off to live in married bliss with the butcher's son. David Cameron would like to see the time-machine rewind to these very days. The concept of co-habitation must appear to Cameron like a cryptic crossword clue; the answer must be contained inside but he just cannot fathom it out. "Tax breaks for married couples" is one of the craziest idea suggested by a serious political party in some time. How would this work, exactly? George Osborne inviting himself to weddings with bank-notes mixed in with the confetti?

Marriage is an institution perfectly suited for many people across the country, that I do not dispute. But marriage is not the end solution for just as many people in this day and age, certainly not for my sister, my parents, or the son of my boss who has 20 years of co-habitation together with a loving partner, two children, a well-paid job, and their own house. How offensive would it be for the State to award a married couple next door while penalising them for daring to live a perfectly acceptable loving life without a marriage certificate?

If the Tories' over-controlling tendencies were not bad enough, in the red corner it's almost beyond belief. The Labour Party would never pick on Mr Wall-Mart or Mr Morrisons, for they have expensive lawyers with deep pockets, so instead the new puritans in our Government are hoping to force out of business every corner shop owner and pub landlord. Their latest wheeze - ban everything which could make drinking more than one pint a week possible, (do "drink all you can" offers even exist?), stop grown adults from leaving the house of a week-night in case they dare want to buy more than one bottle of wine from Oddbins, and force the ID Card system on the nation by forcing bar-staff to check the identity of every customer.

It's absolute cuckoo-bananas.

I cannot fathom how the Cabinet came up with this latest round of anti alcohol madness. Well, actually maybe I can. When they did the sensible thing by dragging the UK into the 20th century with licensing law liberalisation, they grabbed the headlines and ran away from the side-effects. Had somebody checked that each and every consequence of a new drinking culture was understood and legislated for, we wouldn't now be in this "cocks on the table" auction between red and blue corners about who can alienate drinkers more.

Why is "white cider" not taxed as much as ale? Why can't the Government reduce the duty on micro-breweries to encourage sensible drinking of heavier beers and ales? If the Home Office want to go after young boys and girls from council estates with drink-related crime issues whilst being too scared to admit it in case it looks like "class war" against the wrong class....tough! The majority of adult drinkers are a combination of a) sensible, and b) know how to deal with having one-or-five-too-many.

On minimum prices for alcohol, which could soon be the case in Scotland, I am not so sceptical. It may dissuade those buying booze for underage drinkers from doing so, whilst it may have the unintended consequence of pricing out students (who inject a lot of finance into the university towns they settle in) or those on fixed-incomes.

Penalising all drinkers in the hope of catching some will do nothing to increase respect from the general public. It's another case of "Labour knows best", of State control, of a massive reversal of the liberal democracy I once assumed was the United Kingdom.

On marriage, and on the right to drink, both Conservatives and Labour have it totally wrong. It should not be the responsibility of the State to make marriage a tax-haven, nor consider the act of drinking a pint of John Smith's the gateway drug to violent crime.

Whatever next? Patrols of Behaviour Police dressed in cloaks and Guy Fawkes masks, I wouldn't wonder..

Stephen William 'Billy' Bragg, senior figure in Leftie Luvvie circles, has threatened to stop paying taxes, and - revolution, Brothers! - called on others to follow suit, unless the government acts to limit bonuses paid by the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Of course, as you would expect, there's the fucking inevitable Facebook campaign, where Bragg whines..

"I understand that the Treasury had little choice but to use taxpayers' money to safeguard savings and stabilise and restore confidence in the financial system."

Oh, you 'understand' that, do you, Billy? It sounds more like you were fed that by one of Gordon's little spin doctors.

'To safeguard savings and ... restore confidence': not exactly revolutionary talk, is it? Oh, and you forgot to mention 'hard working families'.

Bragg bleats on:

"What I don't understand is why, now that we taxpayers are the majority shareholders of these banks, we seem totally powerless to curb their excessive bonus culture?"

Well, Billy mate, without wishing to explain the whole of capitalism to you, it's usually the case that the shareholders want the companies they own to succeed.

One way to do this is to ensure that they have motivated staff, who are compensated at normal industry levels, do you see?

And generally, Bill, something shareholders - at least, those in their right minds, and without an overriding political agenda - would not normally do is to damage the company they have a stake in by pissing off key staff with some mindless political stunt to please blinkered lefties like you.

If you really want to drag politics into every aspect of a company's operations, and run it so it makes massive, crushing losses but ticks all of your Socialist Utopia boxes, then you have to nationalize it. And, thank Christ, even the Labour party aren't that stupid.

"I have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer... Alistair Darling, to inform him that I am no longer prepared to fund the excessive bonuses of RBS investment bankers."

You're not funding them... This isn't like your beloved public sector, where our money is directly funneled into the pockets of the employees.

"Unless he acts to limit them to 25,000 pounds, I shall be withholding my tax payment on 31st January."

Hang on. What? Why 25,000 pounds? Surely you're against bonuses in principle? Why is 25 OK, and, say 30 not? You're just making this shit up as you go along.

Stick to the nasal dirges, Billy: you're good at those.

It would seem Lord Mandelson wants to drop the new 50% tax rate, as soon as “financial circumstances permit”. This 50% tax rate has proved very popular amongst both Party members and the general public - polls have shown nearly 70% of the public support the measures. Not just is it popular, it could be the start of reforming our inherently regressive tax system. The same system that has the bottom 10% of earners paying an average of 46.1% of their income in tax, compared to the 34.2% the top 10% part with.

This is an attempt to appeal to middle class voters, obviously, but he also appears to be invoking some backwards interpretation of the Labour Party constitution, in trying to act in the interest of the few as opposed to the interest of the many. If this objective was really formed in the interest of fairness, then why no mention of returning the 10p tax band? Is it fair to decrease tax contributions of the wealthy whilst maintaining rates levied on low earners? It would lead to an even more regressive system than that which we have now, as if having the lowest earners contribute a higher percentage than the rich wasn’t bad enough! 

The best argument Mandelson could muster against these progressive measures was, “If we had an ideological objection to the top rate being at 40% then why did we keep it for so long?”. Well, Peter, that’s an easy one: because we had Tony Blair as leader! Blair recently described the announcement in the Chancellor’s budget as a “terrible mistake”, so it is no wonder there was a lack of desire to change it during his reign.

The Prime Minister and Chancellor deserve our praise for this and it should be defended against pessimists such as Mandelson.

Mandelson also recently announced plans to reduce spending in the Universities budget, thereby compromising the key Blairite tenet of “education, education, education”. Apparently not, money can be saved they say, even if it means students compressing their studies into two year course or limiting access to support services. Some estimates have suggested that these cuts will amount to nearly £900 million! The Russell Group, a forum of top British Universities, said that the cuts and “efficiency savings” could possibly lead to closures of courses and even Universities.

Contacts in the University Lecturers Union (UCU), have informed me that activists are expecting up to 3,000 job cuts. Being familiar with the work of UCU in other Colleges and Universities, including protests against cuts at Saldord Uni and Manchester College, I know very well these moves will not go unopposed. Indeed, student activists I know from across the political spectrum are already planning resistance to any cuts, resistance that will likely involve Solidarity actions with striking workers and occupations. After all, the Left enjoy nothing more than a good occupation!

If Mandelson wants to take this path, then he’s going to have a fight on his hands. 
 

It's not surprising that their top priority is reducing the budget deficit, "cutting red tape", and reducing welfare payments - although I seem to remember the Thatcher government was very keen on reducing the welfare bill but due to their financial mismanagement it went up year on year anyway.

I was surprised to see that 'victory in Afghanistan' was waaaaaay down the list. Interesting, as the only thing their leader seems to have to say about the war is that we need to invest more money in for new choppers, etc. but prehaps there is a strong current of revolutionary defeatism among the Tory ranks that has hither-too
gone undetected.

The fact that they aren't that interested in improving the rail network is not earth shattering news though, although God alone knows they must be among the only people in the country who don't desperately want the rail network sorted.

Second from last? Affordable housing. Well, you know, housing isn't very important is it? Particularly the cost of housing. I don't think any voters worry about that at all do they?

Anyway, I was leaving the best til last - or at least the Tory PPCs were. Vote blue get green? Ummm... nope. Less than ten of the respondents (or 5.6% if you prefer) thought that taking action on climate change should be a priority, and it was ranked lowest in importance of all the areas the candidates were asked about.

The thing is, I don't expect them to actually do anything about it. They say they'll reduce the welfare bill and cut red tape and they wont do that either, but at least pay lipservice to climate change for goodness sake. They might want to consider that quite a lot of people regard it as possibly the most pressing issue facing the world today... not the prospective Tory MPs though obviously. 

This is partly because they have concentrated on the number of cameras, rather than how they are used – I would contend that Wandsworth’s network of professionally operated and carefully regulated cameras are not a problem, problems occur with small, private installations in which there is no control or oversight of the operator.

The council highlighted some of the successes from the CCTV network over Christmas and New Year recently, when it helped stop a suicide, rescue a man who had fallen into the Thames, guided police to developing problems and helped track a suspect who was then arrested.

But even since then two court cases have illustrated the value of properly used CCTV. First, the case of Aubrey Appiah, who was tracked on the council’s CCTV network and the evidence used to secure a conviction for burglary. The second, and more tragic, was the murder of Paul Peters, in which CCTV evidence was used to disprove his grandson’s story that he was asleep at the time of the murder.

Regulated and controlled CCTV can, and does, continue to play a key role in making Wandsworth safer – whatever the sensationalist headline writers would like to think.

Nick deftly blew all the nonsense you hear from Tories out of the water, sensibly outlining how we need to know who comes into the country and who leaves it, reminding us that it was the Tories who abolished the exit checks. He talked about his visit to the Borders over the weekend where he was told that businesses didn't have enough skille workers locally and where they needed people to come in and do the jobs. He said that a points system based on regional need, as works in other countries such as Australia could help us to manage immigration for everyone's benefit.

He was also very clear that anyone fleeing persecution, violence, rape or torture would be treate fairly if the Lib Dems were in power and, of course, this would include people who could be killed for being gay in their home country.

I don't think I've ever heard Brown or Cameron talk about the fact that more British people leave the country to live and work abroad than people come here from other countries. Nick is worried that if we "pull up the drawbridge" by following Cameron's proposals it'll have a negative impact on emigration as well as being ineffective anyway.

He also laid into David Cameron's ridiculous ideas to give tax breaks to married couples. He explained very clearly how passionately he believed that "happy families who stayed together to love, nurture and support their children" were a good thing. The question of how we get there is not to dole out a tax bribe for holding a marriage certificate. He used the example of a woman deserte by a philandering husband who then went on to another marriage, to get another tax break while she's left with a tax hike as well as the stress of a broken marriage. He could also have used the example of someone being widowed. I thought he managed to effectively deal with the trap the Tories thoguht they'd set him by showing his commitment to family life and showing up the idiocy and unfairness of the IDS thinktank ideas.

Also on tax, he talked about taking 4 million people out of tax altogether by raising the tax threshold to £10,000 while closing down loopholes for the rich. He mentioned the case of the city banker who pays a lower rate of tax on his enormous capital gains than his cleaner pays on her wage, and, let's face it, it's probably the minimum wage.

Marr brought up the experience of tv presenter and singer Myeleene Klass who was told off by Police for waving a knife at two would-be intruders. I felt his response was liberal, sensible and clear. He said that he didn't see a case for a change in the law when the current system gave judges and courts discretion to look at each case individually. My own view is that it's perfectly reasonable for a young woman, when confronted with two men who are threatening who knows what level of harm to her and her baby, to wave whatever she likes at them. If she had chased them down the street and stabbed them, that would have been different. I don't agree with her that the law needs to be changed - but based on her experience and what the Police said to her, I see why she thinks that.

Marr then tried to do the ritual that all Lib Dem leaders get - trying to get a list of what our bargaining chips would be in the event of a hung Parliament. I'm sure Nick must be sick to death of that question by now, but he didn't show it. He explained very clearly what our principles would be in that situation - firstly, that the people were in charge and not politicians and secondly that fairness would be at the heart of our actions. When asked if PR was a prerequisite, he replied that it was crucial to the change the country needed. He said that it was "implausible that the Liberal Democrats would take any position of power without radical political reform."

If I had to pick him up on anything, it would be that I'd have liked him to be more positive about the things like free personal care, saying that of course we want to be in a position to deliver it but the money just isn't there to do it during the next Parliament.

All in all, I think it was a good performance. When Gordon Brown is being interviewed, he's so defensive and closed, even when he's trying to be sincere. It's actually painful to watch. When David Cameron is being interviewed, I just feel he's just trying out slick communication techniques he's learned from a specialist and comes across as airbrushed as his poster. Nick on the other hand comes across like he's having a genuine conversation. He doesn't just trot out a lot of stock phrases. He generally has a go at answering the question he's been asked, but he still gets in the things he wants to tell people.

A Lib Dem friend of mine and I were chatting away the other day about Nick in the wake of his comments about Gina Ford and his unequivocal support for LGBT rights. We were talking about what a joy it was to have a leader who was as open and willing to take a stand as Nick in an environment where politicians have tried to be as bland as can be so as to avoid offending people. In fact, there's a thread on my Facebook where I'd posted the Gina Ford article and someone had said that it was a bit strange that he'd taken a position on someone who could be so polarising, cos he'd no doubt offend Gina's fans. A friend of mine who isn't party political at all said that that was one of his assets.

I don't want Nick getting the idea that he's perfect or infallible, because he isn't, and he is bound to do something that seriously annoys me (which you will hear about) but by being himself, he's doing a great job of getting the liberal message out there.

His latest wheeze is a £300m Broadband Bribe, with the intention of giving any Labour leaning voter even less incentive to aspire to a better life. As often happens with Labour after a few years in power, they've retreated into very safe territory; promote the 'dependency culture', label all opponents as 'toffs', and take it from there. With the country suffering from the longest, deepest recession in history, you'd have imagined somebody at the Treasury would have at least coughed a bit during the Cabinet meeting to discuss handing out free broadband to people in marginal constituencies, but I understand the idea of saying "No" to Ed Balls brings up combinations of genitalia and vice-grips.

Balls' bullying tactics will doubtlessly see this scheme rolled out just in time to shore up support in time for the election. Never before has "shameless" been more appropriate a word. If this scheme is all about helping the lowest earners, helping children do the best in school, why has it taken 12 years for the only solution to be the giving away of easier access to Facebook and Bejewelled?

If the worsening state of education is not enough - and there's plentiful examples of the GCSE system becoming mere window dressing for Labour's doubtful education 'claims' - Ed Balls is of course riding a leadership bid horse all the way to the summer. In another desperate move, MPs from smaller Northern constituencies are being arm-twisted against the idea of moving from First Past the Post to Alternative Vote in time for the General Election. This is Balls' aim to keep as many on-side MPs returned to the Opposition Benches, without the hassle of a fairer voting system or cut in MP numbers getting in the way.

It doesn't take a flick through a GCSE Politics textbook to see where this idea comes from.

There really is only one shot at getting education right. My personal view on the state controlling schools has been coloured ever since the National Curriculum appeared to clip the wings of every decent teacher in my school - "What, the Romans again?". Now education policy has become overtly politicised, school building programmes wrapped up in debt-laden schemes, children forced to take too many exams and generally under achieving. Children unable to even write their own name after 5 years of a Labour government (and this hasn't got much better) is one of many 'milestones' currently along the route leading to Ed Balls' door.

"Class war" is a tired and extreme tactic often used by desperate members of the left-wing looking for some mud to throw in times of trail. Given the state of school education in this country, I suppose it is not surprising that Labour have not learned the lessons of such electioneering...

In any case, I will be campaigning hard in the UK and from Brussels, exposing the true face of the EU. Next weekend I am going down to the South West for the official launch of the national election campaign in that region and will be speaking at different events. I will obviously spend as much time as I can campaigning in the South East, my region, but as I did during the European Election I will go wherever they need me to help the party succeed.

In Brussels, the hearings with the new commissioners have started this week. Last week we were bombarded with information about the different candidates (one for each portfolio... so no real choice offered). I wondered why we couldn´t have had this information before the Christmas holidays so we could read carefully. In any case this is all a charade as they will all be elected whatever their performance as has happened every time the commission is renewed even when personal history included criminal conviction. Nevertheless, I will not miss the opportunity to hit them where it hurts. In the next few days I will be telling you about my experiences at these hearings and you will be able to look at the videos of my interventions.

The scandal of illegal properties in Spain is also growing in importance and I am trying to help the people who are about to see their houses demolished or those who have no roads, electricity, etc around their houses. The Sunday Express has been publishing about this in the recent weeks. The alternative here is to put a motion in the European Parliament to block all subsidies to the regions concerned... a monumental task! But I am working on it and we shall see...In the meantime I am writing to the local authorities announcing my intention to get subsidies blocked...They might react!

This is what happened to me in Leeds over the bin strikes. No matter how it is dressed-up; the local party decided to silence a critic in a fashion that would do any dictatorship credit. All I initially called for was for the ‘consideration’ of the unions’ position and an end to a strategy of defaming the bin mens character in a style that fully deserves the epithet ‘Thatcherite’. However, even this was too much for the local party to tolerate.

If this was an isolated problem then it would not be so much an issue but the blatant truth is that in Leeds, the Liberal Democrats are not fit to govern and that the people of Leeds would be best served by the defeat of the current coalition. The council doesn’t listen nor does it care and what happened to me is a symptom of a wider malaise (as shown by its attitude to things like the community campaign to save Royal Park School). New leadership is required and the people of Leeds would undoubtably be listened to more and better served by a Labour administration.

Furthermore, a Labour council in Leeds would stick-up for Leeds against Cameron’s swinging cuts. The Liberal Democrats cannot be trusted to do that and that is a further reason they are unfit to govern in Leeds. My local experiences have led to national concerns.

At the next election there will be a clear choice and the progressive course is equally clear. The Conservatives must be stopped; the election of a Conservative government will bring this country to its knees. It will destroy communities and services in the name of asset stripping. Above all it will bring our economy to its knees and cause social chaos on a scale that has not been seen for some decades; if at all. It will stigmatise ethnic groups further and will cause more terror attacks than it prevents. Britain will become a pariah in Europe; a joke told around dinner tables. In short Cameron, for the probably short time he survives, will bring disaster to this country.

How can we be equidistant in that situation? Labour does have problems; it has lost its way but it has also delivered progressive social reforms and still, it represents something qualitatively better than that which offered by David Cameron. I cannot be clear in my mind that faced with a choice the Liberal Democrats would make the correct, principled, choice. Already Nick Clegg has signalled he is more interested in power signified by his abandonment of principle and economic sense in a probably vain attempt to hold ‘the Shires’. Furthermore, my experiences in Leeds point to the possible prospect that the lure of power and association with the Conservatives would taint the party.

Progressives cannot be equidistant in that situation or put party before cause and in squabbling with Labour that is what Nick Clegg and the leadership do. There is little signs of resistance within the Liberal Democrats; hopefully that will change. However, within Labour there are already people fighting from that prospective like the Fabians and there are signs that the left is growing in strength and confidence. The progressive cause will not survive by the strength of the Liberal Democrat party alone; nor will it prosper by destroying Labour. Labour still has something to contribute to the progressive struggle and in that spirit I intend to join it as a critical ally who supports its struggles but feels its interests would be best served by rediscovering what Nick Clegg calls its soul.

I am not so one-eyed as to suggest there have been no successes: the NHS has certainly come a long way and schools have had a badly needed infusion of cash. These successes have, however, come at a cost, and for each one of those, there are so many more failures that we can point to. Energy? A looming energy gap. Environment? A yawning chasm between Labour’s rhetoric and its achievements. Defence? Characterised by a penny pinching, incompetent bureaucracy. Housing? Continuing chronic under supply of new housing. Immigration? A laissez-faire approach that has led to the build up of social pressures and public resentment. I could go on and on.

Maybe you are able to overlook all of that and focus only on the successes. However, surely the most ardent New Labour supporters heart must sink when it reads that Britain now educates a smaller proportion of its 15 to 19 year-olds and its 20 to 29 year-olds than it did in 1995, an achievement shared only by one other country (France for the former and Portugal for the latter) among the 30 OECD members.

Perhaps all this proves is that governing is hard. I am sure that if this government could turn back the clocks, they would do things differently in many policy areas. But they cannot. The pact New Labour made with the capitalist devil when they took office has unravelled as the tax receipts have dried up in recession. Faced with the unthinkable prospect of cuts in public spending, their raison d’etre has been taken away and they look and sound defeated. The Conservatives, for their part, having been promising (pre-recession) largely to continue New Labour spending patterns if they won the election, also now sound lost and in search of a convincing narrative.

I’m not going to insult you by saying you should switch allegiance – that would be ridiculous. But do your conscience a favour and don’t go out and campaign for a party that you know you have run out of patience with. When it comes to election time, do the country a favour - stay at home and let the other lot have a go. After all, in all probability they too will foul things up at some point and someone else will take their place at the helm.

To me this was the promise of the Labour Party and their acolytes in the social work industry. They would promote governments founded on high levels of taxation and these taxes would be used to “alleviate poverty”. But sadly the only poverty alleviated by this process was that of middle-class lefty graduates too right-on to get a real job earning money that might really alleviate poverty.

So when Tracey Cheetham (that rare thing, a nice socialist) talks about poverty my ears prick, my eyes glisten and I see the true advocate of the left-wing myth. Poverty isn’t eliminated by taxing rich folk. It really isn’t. And it’s worse when those tax pounds are, in reality, merely transferred from the moderately well-off to the averagely well-off. Two thirds of that “investment” in defeating poverty goes in wages. Wages mostly paid to people who don’t live in the deprived communities that those folk are employed to hug.

I am (as merits a good conservative) sceptical about the magic bullet of family policy. But I can read the evidence. I can see that when we give perverse incentives that encourage single parenthood we are doing something wrong. And I can see that working class communities don’t want collegiate guff about engagement and participation. They want the government to pay up on its side of the bargain – that the working class do all the shit jobs, the one’s you lot are all too precious to do. And you – the government – will make sure our kids don’t have to go through all that by providing a half way decent education, some good health care and a chance at reaching those Elysian uplands.

Dear Labour Party, this was your deal, your offer, your Faustian pact with the ordinary worker. And you reneged on that deal. You bottled it. You failed. Instead of hard work leading to opportunity it led to the benefit trap, to the dole queue, to sink schools, to a depressed and depressing world of drugs, booze and fast food. And your response was to feed the articulate middle class social workers who claimed a solution. And that solution wasn’t jobs. Or education. Or opportunity. It was a lecture about drinking, smoking, fatty foods and slapping kids. At best it was a hug.

Were I one of these victims of Labour’s arrogance, I would be hoping – with every sinew – that things will change and the nanny state is replaced with real opportunity, choice and the fulfilment of that promise of a better future. And they won’t get that from a Labour Government. 

Labour;

In some ways I still see myself as a natural Labour supporter. It's been quite some time since I voted for them but it was my default position for decades. There are still some members in the party who represent the kind of ideals I admire.

Not just the obvious hard-left examples of Corbyn and co but also some of the less radical politicians who have social democratic politics buried deep in their guts. They tend to be older and lodged into specific positions that make staying in the party worthwhile but they do still exist and I admire their tenacity at hanging on in there - even if I don't envy them.

Lib Dems;

The Liberal Democrats have a less centralised culture than the other parties which is still resistant to Clegg's attempts to make decisions on everyone else's behalf. I think that's far more conducive to democracy than the 'love me or sack me' leadership model of the other parties.

It's also true that both the Lib Dem MPs I've lived under (Bob Russell and David Howarth) have been highly regarded as constituency MPs and have been very strong on issues like civil rights and immigration.

The Conservatives;

Now, well, um, I know this, it's on the tip of my tongue. The thing is... no, that's not it. What about, hold on... conviction politics?

Not Cameron obviously. Some of the others. Mind you, Hitler was a conviction politician so it's probably not that great. Not that they're fascists, I'm not saying that. Doing business with fascists, selling them guns, torture equipment and that does not make you a Nazi. Not at all.

Also blue's a really nice colour, don't you think?

Sure, children in this situation have had no choice and on that level I feel sorry for them; however, their parent/s made a conscious choice to enter a vocation where their life would be in direct danger. Yes they do so in the ‘public service’ but so do other professions. What is true of an army soldier is also true of a fireman or police officer and their children will not benefit from this proposal. The reason they wont is because the costs would spiral and the logic behind this Conservative pledge is cheap-sop to the right-wing press and its sense of idiotic patriotism. This is the same press that routinely expresses its support for the ‘war on terrorism’ and the failed Afghan adventure. An adventure that the recent polls show the public don’t want and whose end would end the unnecessary fatalities and stop families being deprived of parents. How hypocritical can you get?

What about the children of parents who die in an accident? The adults involved had no choice and their striking down is no less injurious to the children in question. Will they be given scholarships? Of course they wont. Furthermore, what about the bright student who gets nowhere because of their background? Will they benefit from the Conservatives largess? Again, to ask the question is to answer it. What if these scholarships deny a place to a more-able student? What if the children in question don’t want to attend university?

These examples illustrate how manifestly unfair the policy is and its trashy nature. Of course, this didn’t stop Conservative bloggers celebrating the idea; Oxford Spring gleefully informs us this policy is ‘why he votes Conservative’ while amazingly in his next blog post takes Labour to task for playing politics with war.

If the Conservatives were really concerned about the children of these families then the solution is simple; argue for a complete withdrawal and on a wider-scale say its time for an end to the ‘war on terror’. No easy opinion poll points in that so don’t hold your breath on that one…

Cameron was speaking at a launch of a study into the issue of character by the think-tank Demos. He admitted that material wealth does impact on life chances but dismissed the impact of this in comparison with parenting style. Apparently, poverty matters less than hugs when it comes to a child getting on in life: "What matters most to a child's life chances is not the wealth of their upbringing but the warmth of their parenting."

Of course though, Cameron also believes that less well-off parents are less likely to be good parents, so that is the reason for fewer of them achieving in life! He says, "the research shows that while the style of responsible parenting I've spoken about today is more likely to occur in wealthier households, children in poor households who are raised with that style of parenting do just as well."

Thanks for enlightening us Mr Cameron, all we need to do is encourage those parents who live in poverty, to give a hug a day! That is more effective than any privilege or favour bestowed by wealth.

Does he really believe this? Do the Tories actually think that their tax incentives for married couples will mean that all marriages will be happy and all families will be loving. As Germaine Greer said, at an appearance in Sheffield last month, "Do you really want a woman to continue lying in the same bed as a man she hates, just to preserve the family, Mr Cameron?" Would this really create a stable, loving environment for children? Of course not! This Labour government has done more to end child poverty than any other goverment in history. The effects of poverty run long, deep and seep through generations.

All Mr Cameron is achieving with his words today is to reinforce the fact that the Tories haven't changed. Rich = good, poor = bad and he is simply attempting to absolve himself and any potential Conservative government of any responsibility to adequately address the real issues that affect real families.

[Home secretary Alan] Johnson said: "I have today laid an order which will proscribe al-Muhajiroun, Islam4UK, and a number of the other names the organisation goes by.

"It is already proscribed under two other names - al-Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect.

"Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism and is not a course we take lightly.

"We are clear that an organisation should not be able to circumvent proscription by simply changing its name."

And so the amateur controversialists in al-Muhajiroun have had a banning order slapped on them.

However, from the point of view of the ever-eroding democracy we have in Britain this is indefensible. Nor is it particularly a wise move from a "security" point of view.

That al-Muhajiroun and its various front groups are deeply unpleasant and reactionary is incontrovertible. Yet they are perfectly entitled to their opinions. Ideologically they may be profoundly illiberal and downright anti-socialist, but as far as I'm aware they do not intimidate their opponents or seek to physically disrupt their activities. They pose zero threat to what liberals and conservatives call 'civil society', nor do they significantly challenge the labour movement. True, their brand of political Islam plays into the hands of Islamophobic scare mongering by the gutter press and the far right, but is that reason enough to ban them? That they have a membership among Muslims comparable to the most irrelevant and shrill elements of the Trotskyist left demonstrates the lack of resonance their ideas have.

According to the same BBC report, al-Muhajiroun's founder-leader Omar Bakri Muhammad said of the news "I think it is a grave mistake because it will force them underground". For once, he speaks a truth. Study after study has shown that there is a minority of Muslim-Asian youth who are profoundly alienated from British society for a whole host of reasons. While it is true al-Muhajiroun has only recruited a tiny percentage of this layer their victimisation at the hands of the state can act to *enhance* their status as a radical Islamic answer to the status quo. Is that really what anyone who cares about deepening democracy in British society wants?

Yes, it does appear there are "coincidences" between al-Muhajiroun membership and bomb plots, in the same way there's coincidences between BNP membership/support and would-be terrorists. But neither fundamentalist Islam or white nationalism by themselves *cause* terroristic actions. They, like the ideas they seek inspiration from, have their well-spring deep in the bowels of a deeply unequal, authoritarian and alienating society. Being tough on terrorism requires being tough on the causes of terrorism - and that requires a politics committed to profound social change. Unfortunately for Alan Johnson, while his ban on Islam4UK will secure some positive headlines it will do nothing to ameliorate the sources of disaffection.

Dear old Uncle Will (pictured) starts with the usual left-liberal stuff about private education – all of which is, of course, just like Eton (not only an exceptionally good school but an exceptionally unusual one even for the private sector). But Will says:

“Britain is a chronically unfair and increasingly closed society and private education plays a central role.”

And he’s clever and important so must be right (and can afford to move to the posh places that have good schools – even grammar schools - as well). But all OK so far, just the usual left wing, politics of envy stuff, nothing new or momentous.

But Will goes further he wants to pull down those who have had the luck to be born into families with engaged parents, rich parents or just plain bloody-minded parents who insist their kids get a good education. Why? Because it’s not fair! We have to chop down all the oak trees so the maples can get more light.

The truth about Will’s article is that there is only one way to achieve the levelling he desires – to abolish parenthood. To declare that only the state has the power to make life fair – and to do this by ensuring that all children are brought up in the same environment, unaffected by the positive or negative influence of biological parents. Here’s Will:

“We owe it to them to create social structures that deliver that (fairness), not structures that manufacture good luck for those who can pay for it and close down opportunity and openness for everyone else.”

There are the words – “create social structures” – the social engineering that the left loves. What Will Hutton seems to want is little different from the frightening social control of “Brave New World”, where parenthood is either wholly constrained or de facto abolished, where Government defined “fairness” is enforced by social services, the police and schools. Where a tiny elite – dominated by the likes of Will Hutton – believe they are bettering mankind.

Well Will, I don’t want your 21st Century social model, your cuddly fascism – I don’t want private provision and initiative emasculated because the state has failed. I want a free society where people stand or fall on their own. And I will not allow my choice and my freedom to be removed for the sake of your misplaced idea of fairness.

As I said earlier Will – life’s not fair. 

I wasn't worried about doing this because I was in my own kitchen. Apparently however, I should have been, carrying an offensive weapon is also illegal in one's own home! Or so Myleene Klass was informed by police officers who attended her home after two youths had broken into her garden and approached the kitchen window, where she stood, alone.

Now, before I get all political about crime and punishment, I think we should consider the impact this advice has on other things we may wish to do in the "privacy" of our own homes. My list of recent infractions demonstrates that there is habitual law-breaking going on right here! What will this do to crime figures? My family's recent crime-spree includes the following:

* I recently drove down the drive whilst not wearing my seatbelt! That's at least a £60 fine...

* In contravention of health and safety, I recently climbed on a chair to reach something from the top of the refrigerator. The HSE may wish to inspect my kitchen for other ways that I may have disregarded their regulations.

* Unfortunately, my 5-year old LOVES to write all over the wall of our house. His 'graffiti' is a damning sign of how respect for property has all but disappeared.

* Littering is a constant problem. Next time one of my children drop a Frube wrapper or other "litter" on the floor or leave a tissue on the arm of the sofa, I shall take great pleasure in ensuring they are given a £50 on-the-spot fine for their misdemeanor.

* I'm not proud to admit it, but late on 31st December 2009, there were several adults who were drunk and disorderly. Public nuisance laws may also have been infringed with the noise of singing and general raucousness.

I must be honest, most rooms in my house would become crime scenes, in fact my bathroom is a hotbed of offences that would clearly be in contravention of public decency laws! So what on Earth is this all about?

Myleene Klass was home alone, her partner was away for the night and her young daughter was in bed. She saw intruders in her garden, grabbed a knife and banged the window to let them know they had been seen and to encourage them to leave. She did not chase them down the street yelling "Come 'ere, I'll cut ya!" or attempt to or exact revenge, there was no suggestion of vigilantism or a desire to break the law.

This is nothing like the tragic case of the Hussain brothers who chased an intruder and beat him so badly in a revenge attack, that they broke a cricket bat on his head and left him with permanent brain damage. Before you get all mad at me for being soft on crime, let me put that one straight. I am not soft on crime at all, I believe that crime should be a priority policy and that punishment for a crime should be appropriate for the offence committed. I am in favour of strong and decisive policies on crime and justice. BUT they must be fair.

The Conservatives have already said that they will strengthen the rights of home-owners to defend their property, Chris Grayling said recently, that only householders who use grossly disproportionate force should be prosecuted. This is the sort of language that will appeal to voters who are concerned about crime, while it stops short of appealing to those who think it would be OK to kill someone desperate enough to try and steal a VCR to pay for a fix. The Justice Secretary, Jack Straw has already said that anyone who instinctively defends their family and property should not be punished but we need more than that.

Crime under Labour is down. Fact. Yet perception of crime – thanks to the media – is that we are more likely to be a victim now than ever. This is simply not true, the actual chance of becoming a victim of crime is at an historically low level. Under this Labour government, crime has fallen, overall, by 39%. This equates to more than 6 million fewer crimes. Specifically, there has shown to be a fall in domestic burglary of 55%, a fall in vehicle-related crime of 57%, while violent crime is down by 39%.

This has been achieved by increasing police numbers by over 14,000 and creating almost 16,000 Police Community Support Officer posts. Policing has become more community-focused with Neighbourhood Policing Teams working with local people to ensure that priority issues are tackled effectively. Crime is not the issue it once was but we must be visibly prioritising both tackling and preventing crime.

Common sense must prevail. I would like to think that the police officer who warned Ms Klass about her offensive weapon "misdemeanor", will be taken into a small room by his or her Inspector and get a severe rollicking, maybe with some stern gesticulation to drive the point home.

Ah well, you can now add incitement to assault to my list of home-committed offences. 

Some of Rentoul’s commentary is baffling such as the assertion that there is;

"...evidence of a new alignment in the party between Jon Cruddas, the most important figure on the left, James Purnell and Miliband."

Why Cruddas would choose to align with the candidate who will clearly be the Blairite one of choice is beyond me. Some of the commentary however underlies what will lay beneath any future ‘Battle of the Milibands’;

"If Labour in opposition turned to his brother or to Ed Balls, it would lurch to the left and could be out of power for a long time."

David will be presented as the choice of the sensible, Blairite centre where as Ed will portrayed as leftist outlier. However, in his piece for the Observer the younger Miliband shows he has a clear sense of which way the wind is blowing for Labour;

"We need to rebuild our economy in a different way from the past, with more jobs in real engineering not just financial engineering."

It is probably working the climate change brief that gives him a greater appreciation of the necessary role government must have in society. Whatever it is, it shows he has a greater understanding of the need for a definitively Labour cause and purpose than his brother has. Probably unsurprising since it took his brother 7 hours to make-up his mind whether to support Gordon Brown or not.

Of course, all of this is to leap ahead of ourselves because the election has not happened yet. However, realistically the upper levels of the Labour Party are already triangulating the post-election shake-down (on the assumption they will at least lose their overall majority) so there is nothing wrong with an indulgent blog or two… 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He has received much critical acclaim for this, and is now a genuine minor celebrity.

Sadly, this appears to have gone straight to his head, and now, like many other people who have a couple of perspex trophies on their mum's mantelpiece, he thinks he's fucking Bono.

He believes that his views of the world beyond the TV cameras are something we should hear.

So, this star of a kid's TV programme has decided to give us all the benefit of those views. And the mindless, showbiz-obsessed media have of course lapped it up and regurgitated it.

It turns out that Doctor Who thinks we should all vote Labour in the upcoming election. He will be. He always has. And he thinks you should too.

But like every single other Labour supporter, the good Doctor has no idea why we should be voting Labour. Oh no.

In common with every other mindless NuLab sycophant, he has no clue what's good about Labour, but plenty of views on what's wrong with the opposition.

Apparently, David Cameron, the Leader of the Conservative party is

"..a terrifying prospect."

..and..

"He's a regional newsreader who will jump on whatever bandwagon flies past."

Oh really? Well, that's a convincing argument, isn't it, David? Is that why we should choose Brown again?

And, David, what particular Labour policies are you keen on? What's good about NuLab?

"..they need to sort some stuff out. But they're still a better bet than the Tories."

Oh. Right. Incisive stuff. Bring on the election: we know what to do now. The Doctor told us.

Naturally, desperate Labour activists have leapt on this fucking nonsense. Twitter has been alive with references to the story, and Labour probably fondly imagine that this imbeciles ramblings have won them thousands of extra 'yoof' votes.

We get some idea of why this witless mummer is shilling for the woefully inadequate Labour party when we learn that he was brought up in Paisley, Glasgow: part of Red Clydeside, where every seat has had a Labour MP for nearly 100 years. One of those areas where a fucking pig with a red rosette would win by a landslide.

And then, of course, Tennant made his personal fortune in the bosom of the BBC. The Clydeside Socialist mingling with all the Champagne Socialists. What a heady mix.

All completely isolated from the real world, but all very willing to tell that same real world what to think.

But you know what, David, darling? We're not interested in your views of what's wrong with the eeevil Tories. And we're not interested in who you choose to vote for.

We might be prepared to suspend belief on a Saturday night, and pretend that you really are floating in outer space, but we still don't believe that you know what's best for us out here in the real world.

Stick to what you know, luvvie.

"Clearly, the Labour Party is not without some issues right now and I do get frustrated. They need to sort some stuff out. I don't think the Time Lord would have been in favour of the Iraq War, for starters."

Of course, if the Time Lord had had anything to do with Iraq, presumably he would have simply sonic screwdriver-ed the Ba'ath Party leadership, and Saddam's fascist regime, not to mention his footsoldiers of terror.

Sadly, the Time Lord didn't have anything to do with Iraq, and so the hundreds of thousands (at least) of innocent people who were "impure Iraqis" or political opponents of Saddam perished. The New York Times reported in 2007:

"...he murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants - friends on friends, circles within circles - making an entire population complicit in his rule."

That the Liberal Democrats opposed Britain and America's arrogance in standing up for liberty is historically ridiculous. Gladstone, who ought to be the idol of any Liberal Democrat, of all people, would have supported the invasion of Iraq. It was Gladstone who attacked Disraeli for his indifference to the Turkish oppression of Bulgarians.

Then again, perhaps I am being naive. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats, being a party of the left, is following the farcical logic that imperialist oppressors = bad, but anti-Westerner oppressors = acceptable.

He comes from Bathgate and will no doubt remember a time when the town had a flourishing car factory which was turned into miles of wasteland which lay bare for years. There are many other relics of Scotland's manufacturing industry which perished during the Thatcher years.

The thought of a Tory Government fills me with dread too as I know fine they'll protect the rich and punish the poor. I do think we'd be completely screwed if they had been in power at the start of the recession. I doubt, though, that the Doctor would be quite as happy with Tennant's endorsemennt of Labour, even though that support is somewhat qualified.

Clearly, the Labour Party is not without some issues right now and I do get frustrated. They need to sort some stuff out. I don't think the Time Lord would have been in favour of the Iraq War, for starters, and then there's the not so small matter of detaining people without charge, denying the Gurkhas the right to stay here, creating more of a surveillance state than we've ever had, and sending our troops into battle without the basic equipment they need.

Tennant says he can't understand why anyone involved in the arts would vote Tory, saying that:

"It's weird that you can work in the arts - which tends to be about empathy and understanding and, hopefully, feeling some kind of sympathy for your fellow man - and vote Tory. I find that inconceivable.

"I still don't get it when you meet actors who buy the Daily Telegraph and talk about this terrible wave of immigrants. You just think, where did that come from? Have you read King Lear? Have you read Hamlet?".

While I get what he's saying, if he looked back on his own scripts as the Doctor, he'd find empathy and understanding that you just don't get from Labour. The Labour Party tends to view people as one great big blob and apply a one size fits all approach, rather than acknowleging, respecting and trying to honour people's individual needs. You can see that through the health service, the way they run education, the benefits system, all of whom waste resources and cause real problems for people by not being more flexible in their approach. Their any rose as long as it's red sort of approach is far from the Doctor's more liberal world view.

Look at Mickey, for example. Let down by the schools system, living on a poor estate in London with not very many prospects. Sure, the Doctor had a good go at him because he was jealous, but he saw his potential and encouraged it.

Clearly David Tennant is going to be part of what Labour will try to turn into a very polarising "Vote Labour or you let the Tories in" campaign. I'm sure he's well aware that that's a completely disingenuous argument in Scotland where the Tories remain irrelevant.

If Labour's campaign after 13 years in office is going to be based on a few national treasures saying "vote for them cos they're better than the bad guys", then that really is depressing.

As a newly-elected MEP you are thrown into the deep end. Before I had time to figure out the implications of being an MEP, I was "up to my eyes" with membership of the two most important committees in the European Parliament – the Budget Committee and the Budgetary Control Committee. Important events unfolded in both Committees in the second half of the year: the Budget committee had to approve a budget for 2010 and the Budgetary Control committee had to deal with the European Court of Auditors' annual report. Whilst I was very early into the budget and the auditors report, I also needed to put aside time to understand the politics and the procedural requirements to deal with these matters – not an easy task!

It was as a member of the Budgetary Control committee that I encountered immediate hostility from "the system" when I was voted down as Vice President thanks to an illicit secret vote. In this committee I openly said what I thought and nobody challenged me. They appeared to ignore me but... I could see how uncomfortable they were from their rictus smiles... they could not gainsay the facts! Some of the members, like the German lady from the Popular Party who led the vote against me, made a show in the meetings of being openly critical of the Commission but then completely let them off the hook when it came to making meaningful decisions - at first I was surprised by this display of hypocrisy, but now I am afraid I view it as typical eurocrat behaviour.

The Budget Committee is led by Monsieur Lamassoure, a Frenchman who reminds me eerily of the Budget Director General at the Commission back in 2002. He has an endearingly patriarchal way with members of his "family" and until recently, I think that he dreamt that he could bring the black sheep back into the fold - alas, I fear that I have disappointed him! I gather that after my speech against his report on the transitional measures for the Lisbon Treaty and more recently after my speech in December against the provisions of the 2010 budget, he has apparently given me up as a lost cause – I am sorry to have disappointed him, but I cannot, as others do, voice a lot of criticism of the Commission and even show anger at Committee meetings but five minutes later vote in its favour..

After almost six months here, I fear that my worst suspicions have been confirmed - this Parliament functions in a way that has nothing to do with parliamentary democracy. There is little difference between what the socialists and the conservatives vote, whatever their nationalities. It is revealing to examine MEP voting records. British MEPs of whatever colour - Labour, Tories and Lib-Dems - have consistently voted against ALL my amendments; for example they ALL voted to exclude from the 2010 budget the huge costs pertaining to the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. Instead they have voted to deal with these through separate "amending budgets" which will be incorporated through the back door and "lost"; and they have ALL voted in favour of the the 2010 Budget increases including the one to be applied to their salaries!

From all this, many of my dear readers will think that I am completely wasting my time sitting in this parliament...well this is not quite true! Dissidents such as I disturb their peace and I can certainly tell you that I make them very nervous! Few have attempted to treat me with the contempt they usually show to those who question the system. I always try to speak factually – using facts and figures which they have trouble refuting. AND they all know that I started out as a believer in the EC project only becoming a Eurosceptic after my chastening experience as Chief Accountant of the European Commission. They know "that I know" and the numbers usually speak for themselves! Whilst it is at times lonely and sometimes you feel that you are talking to the wind, I believe that I have a duty to my constituents to tell it as I see it – I think that they want the unvarnished truth. That is what I believe I was elected to do...

With the aim of helping certain constituents who have contacted me (as a substitute member of the ECON committee) about the draft Alternative Investment Fund (AIF) directive, I have started to work on it with the objective of minimizing its adverse effects on the City of London; to this end,I have had meetings with some AIF managers. I have also met with staff from the US treasury to understand what the US congress are planning; I am also organizing a visit to the European Parliament with representatives of the City of London – preferably on a day when the ECON Committee meets to take some important decisions on the proposed legislation (February/March). The situation is made more difficult because the rapporteur – a Frenchman (now there's a surprise) – has come up with proposals that ensure that the original EC draft is even more stringent. Unfortunately, the ECON Committee works in a similarly consensual way to the Budgetary Control and Budget committees and I have not seen much criticism so far of the proposals; worse, I am pretty much convinced, after attending several meetings, that few of the Committee have the faintest idea of the real implications of the AIF directive... very depressing but not, sadly, very surprising.

I can tell you that I have had quite a few conversations with MEPs of different nationalities; some of them have expressed their pride in sharing membership of the European Parliament with well-educated and well-connected people some of whom are "ex-prime ministers". I don't want to disillusion them or sound too world weary...but BIG DEAL! I know for certain that some of these people have been kicked out of their own national politics due to their rank incompetence and have only come to Brussels to earn a salary and a pension...that´s all.. The same is true of most of the EC Commissioners. In the Budgetary Control committee I only know of one member that has an accounting and financial background; as for the rest, many are teachers or philologists; but at least I have the comfort of knowing that the Chairman of this Committee is an Italian judge who has been fighting against Italian corruption – I am certainly putting my trust in him! So there is room for a small amount of optimism...

I have also spent time responding to requests from my various constituents. In particular, I have taken to trying to defend those British citizens who are suffering prejudice in respect of their second residences in the Mediterranean Spanish coast. Not an easy job I can tell you as the problem is very much linked to corruption not only on the part of the builders and real estate agencies but also and more importantly on the part of the local governments. The simple reality is that Spain is bogged down with corruption cases and honest Spanish citizens wake up to a new case every day... and what is worse is that the judges fail to prosecute and jail the fraudsters. I am hoping to put a motion to block subsidies to the region and have a reasonable hope that this should go through because a lot of nationalities are being adversely affected and I imagine – perhaps fondly! – that MEPs will not like to be seen to be so "unhelpful" as to vote against such a resolution...but we shall see because to successfully put forward a resolution I need a large number of signatures..(100 or more).

I receive very many requests... hundreds... but I simply cannot deal with them all and so I have to limit my efforts to those whom I believe that I can really help and where I believe that I can have some impact. I am very sorry that I cannot help everybody, but I hope that my constituents will understand.

All this activity has to date prevented me from having the time to set up a proper organisation to help me do the best possible job; I have been operating with only one assistant. Ries Baeten (he is a Dutch/Belgian, and I have hired him because he has been working in the European Parliament for 10 years, knows how to get things done efficiently in that environment and has followed and supported my case for years) and I am very grateful to him for his hard work thus far; but as from January I will be recruiting two more assistants; one will be a researcher to help me put together specific evidence of fraud in a number of cases that I am investigating and the other will help me with my involvement in the ECON committee. Recruiting the right person for the job is not an easy task: education and background are important, but efficiency and loyalty are of utmost importance.!

Thank you so much for your support over the last 6 months - I really appreciate it. In my next blog, I will speak about the challenges for the future ... as Lord Pearson likes to say - Onwards, Upwards and Outwards!

PS. I am appalled to learn that UKIP will not be included in the BBC national election debates. Don't the Governors of the BBC realize that whoever gets to Downing Street will not be governing the country???? At present 75% of the laws come from Brussels....and shortly it will go up to 90%...so frankly...who cares what Cameron, Brown or Clegg have to say...there is only one party that can change all that - UKIP - and the BBC are denying this party a voice - a complete disgrace. 

The project could be a massive boost to Britain’s green revolution, with estimates suggesting one of the proposed sites could produce a massive 10GW, enough to power up to 10m homes!

This is undoubtedly one of the most important issues we are currently faced with, one that impacts not just upon our environmental policy, but also on the more comprehensive issue of the makeup of our economy and the lessons that have been learnt during the economic crisis.

This recession has shown us that our reliance upon financial services is extremely risky, and has left us dangerously exposed to the problems within international financial markets. Financial services account for more than 110% of our GDP, so it is no wonder that we have suffered a little longer than most G8 Nations, as we struggle to rebound from the problems caused by a speculative Banking sector with obviously inherent risks.

It would seem that Ed Miliband agrees with me, in his speech to Labour Party conference in summer he passionately told delegates that, “we’ve got to build an Economy on more than financial services alone”. He was also keen to point out that Climate Change is no longer just an environmental issue but is “also about the job your kid is going to do”. I couldn’t agree more.

One of the main goals, and achievements, of Thatcherism was to shift the focus of the British economy away from a skilled and highly unionised workforce and start the move towards an economy focused on financial markets with an emphasis on a strong service sector. This shift inevitably led to a massive decline in manufacturing, something more flamboyant voters love to point out to me whenever I go canvassing!

Manufacturing once accounted for more than 40% of economic output in Britain, it now accounts for less than 20%! It is clear that we can’t go on with business as usual in the financial sector, and if we are to shield our economy from the same negative impacts we have seen since the beginning of the crisis, then we need to diversify. The transmission to renewable sources of energy provides the perfect opportunity to do just that.

Ed Miliband made a strong point in his speech, that we are not just investing to combat Climate Change but we are investing in the jobs of the future, however it is so far unclear how much of this money is going to be doing that. One of the sites that are a part of this project, the London Array, is going to cost £2bn, with just £180m of that money being spent in Britain! E.on, one of the companies involved in the project, has said that there just aren’t any suitable British suppliers.

This has raised criticisms from Trade Unionists and Environmental campaigners, who have questioned why the Government allowed the Vestas plant (the only producer of wind turbines in Britain) to be shut down, when firms are complaining about a lack of British-based producers. Those who remember closure of the Vestas plant will remember that it inspired an interesting combination of campaigners duly dubbed the “red-green coalition”. These campaigners had different attitudes about what should be done, some suggesting Nationalising the company others arranging some kind of loan to the employees, so they could take control of the business and make it into our first real Green Co-operative, the latter being the policy I favoured!

When looking at how much of this money is being spent outside of Britain it becomes clear that we need a clear vision on how this spending is going to benefit our economy as well as our climate. If we don’t have the capacity to satisfy demand for green technology then we are in dire need of some strategic policy planning to determine how the Government can nurture home-grown business and meet this new demand.

Perhaps Lord Mandelson can start a discussion on this very matter; after all he has also been converted to the cause of reinvigorating Britain’s manufacturing industry. Remember that catchy punch line from his conference speech, “Less financial engineering, more real engineering”? Well Peter, now is the time, what are we going to do about it!

I hope people within the Party are going to cease the opportunity here, and start a debate on how we can both meet our targets to slash Carbon emissions and create the green jobs of the future. The Labour Party has shown over the last couple of years, in the face of Tory opposition, that we are the Party of State intervention that we believe in Government action to solve the problems facing our society, can we really expect that of the Tories? The Tories that opposed intervening in the economy, an act most economists agree would have almost certainly led to economic depression if successful? Of course not, the Tories would leave these problems to the market, as they always have done, and the market has already proven itself inefficient on this matter. If we don’t ensure we have a fully comprehensive policy on the green transition then we may well find that Britain has missed the boat for green jobs, something which I can safely say we can do without!

Daniel Finklestein writing in The Times argues that even if things had been differently then the Hoon/Hewitt attempt was still likely to fail which begs the question why?

Obviously, the first factor is timing. Polls have started to show a small Labour recovery; something whic