Obama- Fighter not a Quitter

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-lee-myungbak-korea-black-belt.html

What is he going to get awarded next?

Conservatives are better for the Poor.

Every now and again you see some Labour Politician stating that the return of the Tories would mean a return to mass poverty and deprivation. The most amusing case of this I saw recently was Liam Byrne suggesting that the tory plans were ‘neo Dickensian’.Dickens was an author not a policy maker as even Liam Byrne knows, however the main attempt of this soundbite is to present the Tories as uncaring cruel and bad for the poor.

Did this work……………………………….Erm No.

One eye-catching result stands out from today’s Guardian/ICM poll: Labour has lost its crown as the champion of the poor. Last week, in the annual Hugo Young memorial lecture at the Guardian, David Cameron made what seemed the audacious claim that the Tories were best placed to get people out of poverty. Today’s poll suggests many voters agree: the Tories have a symbolic one-point lead over Labour on the issue, 42% to 41%.

Labour. Fail. Any issue they still lead on? Nhs - No Policing- No  Immigration- No Economy- N0 Schools- No. Why does Gordon want to talk about the issues?

Labour Contempt for Democracy Part 1

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227923/Labours-pink-paper-fix-gives-Mandy-freedom-Hartlepool.html

What has Mandy ever done for Hatlepool to deserve that.

Brown the Robot

A downing street petition is shown below.

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to resign.”

Details of Petition:

“There are many reasons why we might want Brown to resign, but rather than having lots of narrow petitions on this topic (most of which have been rejected), I wanted one for all of us.

Tony Blair would laugh this off with a joke or bat the question aside but Gordon..

The Prime Minister is completely focussed on restoring the economy, getting people back to work and improving standards in public services. As the Prime Minister has consistently said, he is determined to build a stronger, fairer, better Britain for all.

Not a hint of humour but a phrase he repeats obsessively.I think he believes that if he repeats it enough we will believe he is achieiving these things.

 

Mystery Politician

Climate change director Fanny Armstrong is pushed against the railings and threatened with an iron bar, she calls out for help to Politician X who chases them down the street. Her quote is below

“I was texting on my phone so didn’t notice the girls until they pushed me against the car, quite hard.  I noticed that one had an iron bar in her hand – it was very frightening. At that moment a man cycled past and I called out for help.

“He said to the girls: ‘What do you think you are doing?’ He picked up the iron bar, called after the girls and cycled after them. He returned a few minutes later and walked me home. He was my knight on a shining bicycle.

The bike should have been a clue……………………………………..Its Boris. All hail Boris for this fine act.

David Wilshire

‘The witch hunt against MPs in general will undermine democracy. It will weaken parliament – handing yet more power to governments. Branding a whole group of people as undesirables led to Hitler’s gas chambers’

NO,NO,NO,NO,NO, do any of the Mps understand that it is taxpayer  money they have been corruptly using(in his case  £105,000 in Commons’ offices expenses to pay for a company owned by him and his good lady)

Thank goodness he is standing down at the next election.

Nick Clegg

The race is hotting up for Eu High representative. In the Red Corner we have David Miliband, In the Blue Corner we have an argument that the corner should not exist and in the Yellow Corner, Nick Clegg by the looks of this exchange in Parliament.

Nick Clegg: “I congratulate the Prime Minister on what turns out to have been a very cunning plan indeed to block the career aspirations of his predecessor. But does he agree with me that the outcome of the discussions over Tony Blair have only strengthened Britain’s hand in arguing for the position we should have been lobbying for all along in the first place – that of high representative?

The president will be a glorified chairman without his own resources, like an admiral without a navy, while the high representative will have real powers, a general with troops by comparison. So will the Prime Minister now confirm that it is this job we are now aiming for, and will the Prime Minister give us an indication of who he would like to see in that role? We all know that he is pushing for the member for South Shields [David Miliband], but will he also look beyond his party ranks at other good candidates like….”

Other MPs: “Wahey!” (Cue raucous laughter, jeering, general interruption, David Cameron is seen slapping his thighs.)

Nick Clegg: “No no no no. No no. That’s for another day… like, like Lord Patten who I’m sure is welcome on these benches, or indeed Lord Ashdown.”

Ian Blair

I see Ian Blair was on the Andrew Marr Show complaining that Boris Johnson sacked him to show his power as mayor. Or he sacked you for being in charge of the operation to shoot an innocent man,offending family of Soham victims,alleged racism towards Tarique Ghaffur,giving Scotland Yard contracts to an under qualified skiing friend and allowing a 14 percent rise in robberies.

Even if Boris sacked you for none of the reasons and just sacked you because he thought you were not the best man for the Job there should be no complaints. Boris was elected with the third biggest electoral mandate in Europe and his views on Ian Blair were clear before his election. As someone elected with the power to transform London it is logical that he should be able to use any means to do this.Some people claim this makes the police political and makes them less interested in catching criminals and more in pleasing politicians. The police are already political, 42 days act, knife crime stategy and Drugs Policy are political issues that senior police officers have expressed public opinions on. People however are right to fear promotion based on friendship with politicians so as to counter that problem we should directly elect Police Chiefs.

This makes Police Chiefs accountable to their local people and incentivise them to cut crime and get re-elected.  These elected Police Cheifs would decide on prority for spending from foot patrols,speed cameras or greater work on stopping burglaries. The variety in leaderships would provide new approaches to solving crime with the most succesful being adopted by other police forces and the least succesful being lost due to the individual responsible not being re elected.

For more information on elected police, read Douglas Carswells blog

Question Time – 29th October

Last night Question Time was held in Llandudno, a close marginal seat where 4 major parties are fighting for the seat. And so those 4 parties were represented with Jacqui Smith from Labour, Cheryl Gillan from the Tories, Lembit Opik from the Lib Dems and Elfyn Llwyd representing Plaid Cymru. There was also John Sergeant to provide an element of comedy and some accountability for the MPs on the panel.

The programme started off with a discussion about Tony Blair and whether he was right for the post of EU president. John Sergeant started off with a common sense argument, pointing out that of course we should be backing a British person for the job, especially one as qualified as Tony Blair. He thought that it was petty part bickering on behalf of Cameron and the Tories, and that it was foolish that we had descended into a “silly squabble” about how we don’t like Tony Blair. He argues, quite sensibly and rightly that we as the British people should jump to every opportunity to have as many Brits as possible in the top jobs of the European Council and Commission. And of course the remaining politicians on the panel chose their side according to their party, with Smith backing Blair, Opik backing Charles Kennedy(!), Elfyn Llwyd waffling on about Iraq and Gillan giving the old Tory line about how their shouldn’t be the post at all without really realising the benefits to Britain he could bring. She then fails to see the role of the job, playing party politics to attack the Labour government. Opik then humiliates Gillan about the foolish anti-Europe stance of the Tories and how they have missed the point. The new post actually gives more accountability to the member states and the British people and how Europe needs a strong post to give them a voice in a world increasingly dominated by China and the US. Sergeant then points out that there is no other candidate that will give Europe a strong voice throughout the world!

MPs expenses came up next with no MP on the panel wanting to pass judgement, and quite rightly so. Jacqui Smith includes herself as someone who was disgraced from the expenses scandal when considering MPs entering into the House of Lords. All the MPs recognise the need for a drastic change in the system, with the two smaller parties calling for a complete abolition of the expenses system except for transport and just increase the pay of MPs. The audience got angered that there was one rule for MPs and the anther for everyone else regarding proper punishment for wrong doings. Opik blames all MPs, whether they took part in the expense extravaganza or not for the “conspiracy of silence” and points to the origins of the system as to why it failed. He points out that it was set up as a “secret salary” under Thatcher, who was too scared to raise MP’s salaries. It wasn’t a real expenses system and as a result did not come under the same scrutiny as other expenses systems in other jobs. The administrators weren’t entirely sure of its purpose and neither were MPs and so as a result it was liable to exploitation.
Sergeant humiliates Jacqui Smith at not being able to give the right answer to where her home was when she was Home Secretary. He says “if someone asks me where my home is, that’s a question I can answer pretty quickly”! He also humiliates Gillan on charging for a can of dog food, only to realise that her dogs are now dead. “Should have given them more food then!” he replies as the audience bursts out in laughter.

Overall it was a rather uneventful Question Time, apart from Jacqui Smith nearly being burnt at the stake over her expenses by Dimbleby and the audience. You felt rather sorry for them, people need to move on so that the system can actually get sorted out!

Tony Blair and Michael Kaminski

http://order-order.com/2009/10/30/tony-blair-had-downing-street-dinner-with-kaminski/

So will we now see Labour Mps describing Blair as anti semitic, homphobe for his friendship with Kaminski. I will list any that have the nerve to do so.

 

Monstrous Tory Leaders

Halloween, Nasty party special.

Hat Tip – Tom Harris

James Macintyre

Total Politics are doing a poll to vote for the top 100 journalists. Now I would struggle to name 100 journalists but I know who I would put top of the Worst 100 journalists the New Statesman writer James Macintyre.  After the sacking of independent writer Martin Bright by friend of Gordon Brown  and owner of the New Statesman Geoffrey Robinson. A new less critical writer James Macintyre was promoted. He is nothing more than a Labour spin doctor who will write anything Labour want him too.

Case A- Obama thinks Cameron is a lightweight. This ‘story’ conveniently fitted in with Labour attack plans and attempts to portray Cameron as out of his depth. The White House denied it and Obama’s biographer later said ‘

He had a strong impression, a strong reaction, to both Cameron and Brown. It was right at the end of his foreign trip. And he was really taken with Cameron. He and his aides thought that he had energy and verve, a dynamism that suggested he was a good candidate – remember this was a candidate at the time, not a president. And there was bonding that took place which you might not expect of two people at the opposite ends of the political spectrum ’

Case B-  Michael Kaminski is an anti-Semite and the Chief Rabbi of Poland agrees. Now for a quote from him

There is no doubt that Kaminski is a strong friend of the State of Israel. He himself has spoken out against anti-Semitism on several occasions during the past decade. It is a grotesque distortion that people are quoting me to prove that Kaminski is an anti-Semite. Portraying Kaminski as a neo Nazi plays into the painful and false stereotype that all Poles are anti-Semitic. I would also like to clarify that the headline of James Macintyre article of July 29, 2009 entitled: “Jewish Leaders Turn on Cameron’s Tories: Poland’s chief rabbi and others call on Cameron to sever ties with Polish MEP” does not represent what I said to the author. I made no political statement and this headline is misleading and untrue.”

Case C- The Conservative party is institutionally racist.(taken down later in embarassment) Proof, none just repeating a Labour Smear.

Case D Dan Hannan is racist for saying Obama has an exotic background. Obama admits he has an exotic background and this quote from Hannan in the same blog We should admit something frankly, we conservatives. As the amiable Jimmy Carter says, there is an element of racism in some of the hostility to Obama’. Hannan backed Obama for the presidency.

 These are brief summaries of a few of the many mistakes of this ‘journalist’

Cameron: The Heir to Blair?

Over the past weeks, the controversy over the proposed new EU Presidency has become more and more of a pressing issue. Cameron clearly does not support Blair for the job and he sees that the job should not exist at all. He would rather have an administrative position, he sees creating a President of Europe “an emblem of statehood”, something he feels “uneasy” about (to say the least!). I think most people fear a move towards a unified states of Europe! If either Brown or Cameron win the next election, President Blair would be a nightmare for them. Brown having spent his political career to get into Blair’s job would then find him one position up in the hierarchy, yet again. And Cameron would find that, having spent his career as leader of the Conservative Party trying to oust Blair and Brown’s New Labour, Blair would be in a position of seeming greater authority, yet again! However the truth is, is that the position of an EU President is largely misunderstood. The role is more of a French “President” in a business company. This is more of a position of a chairman. Cameron does not realise this when he puts his case against anyone, especially Blair, taking the job. He would prefer “more cooperation between states” and would want to see a more “chairmanic role”; well this is exactly what the post would be!

Blair has not only come back into the spotlight through Europe, recently he has also shone through in the performances of David Cameron over the past weeks and months. In his conference speech he subtly appealed to disgruntled and wavering Labour supporters, showing a more compassionate side to the Conservative party; promising help and care for those in need. Whether this is merely a mask to win easy votes, only time will tell. Cameron realises the only way to win is to move more to the left and start taking up Labour voters who would otherwise move Lib Dem or abstain altogether. This is exactly what Blair did in 1997 and the following elections. The “Third Way”, he had to move to the centre ground to pick up much needed support. Cameron has learnt a few tricks from Blair, and under the smarmy exterior, this can be seen quite clearly. I personally hope, for the sake of Britain’s future, that he really is moving more to the centre and truly is creating a new compassionate Conservative Party where betrayed New Labour voters can perhaps find a new home?

Eu Waste Part 1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8329425.stm

250,00 for a shower I am speechless.

Reponse to Working Class Tory.

This post is a response to a post to one of my favourite bloggers Working Class Tory

My comment is shown below with Working Class Tory views in Bold

Britain can’t be anti America and anti Europe if it wants to retain any World Influence. America shares more common goals such as democracy and a belief in Individual freedom.

I’m afraid we can be against both simultaneously quite easily. Or rather, just not “for” either. The Prime Minister of this country must stand up for British interests, not those of America or Europe. The PM must ensure the highest possible living standards, prosperity, safety and security for Britain. This means that we must keep an independent, large military, in case of any threats to our security, so that we are not reliant on anybody else to provide us with protection.

 

 

 A British Prime minister first duty is to Britain as I completely agree . However we have a small but effective army that,without massive investment impossible in this economic enviroment, would be decimated by much larger countries. Therefore we need allies in the World to prevent becoming marginalised completely and at risk of attack. The options are Europe, through France and Germany whom we have poor relationship historically and we share few values with, Russia led by Putin who has no respect for the Independence of the Eastern European states which we support and China whose horrific human rights abuses and treatment of the Burmese have been repulsive to most British people. There is one big superpower left America with whom we share a common beliefs in the importance of Democracy and individual freedom.Therefore it makes sense to try and become an ally of America.

Working Class Tory then talks about American domination of Britain

The biggest two examples are Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m not saying that the wars were wrong – indeed, I was, and remain, if it is still called a “war”, strongly pro-Iraq war – but with regards to Afghanistan, we should not be there. We are there to make up the numbers. Look at how few men we have there. You could send in a few units from the Pennsylvania National Guard, and you would already have more men than we have had in nearly a decade. The sole reason we are there is politics, and that is despicable. No British Prime Minister has the moral right to send hundreds of brave men to their death merely to please George Bush and now Obama. But it’s not even like Afghanistan is the only country affected by Taliban-esque warlord rule and Islamic terror training camps etc.

The war in Afghanistan is rather like if the whole London were on fire, and we were trying to put out the fire, at great human cost, only in the very centre of London. It could take decades, but after many years and deaths, would that attempt to put out the fire of terrorism be worth it? No, of course not: the fire exists in the suburbs and surrounds us. There is Islamic terrorism, and the potential for more throughout Africa, Asia, and parts of Europe, like London and Moscow. You even get countries like Venezuela supporting Iran and their axis of evil. Yet we pursue the war in Afghanistan only. It makes absolutely no sense at all. If it is worth fighting, so is the war in Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Palestine and Pakistan.

I agree with some of this. Becoming an ally with America does not mean complete an utter devotion and blind following of America as in the Tony Blairs relationship with George Bush but as a critical friend in the Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thacher relationship. Our participation in the Iraq war was not necessary to maintain the relationship, Bush said that he would rather Blair remained out of the War if it meant he remained in power in Britain. 

yes America does share a lot of values with us, but it thinks of us in the same way as we think of a country like Norway. Complete an utter disagreement America knows in needs allies and realises our help is important. Why else did America try to go through the Un for Iraq an institution it does not believe in.

Many of our shared values are cultural, which says much about the cultural imperialism of the neo-liberal values America has spread, but it also says much about our history. Americans do not, for obvious reasons, have a history – as true American patriots – prior to about 1770, and before that point, all their history is English. Americans looking to a time before the Declaration of Independence must look here, which is why we have an advantage over countries like, for example, Greece and Croatia in terms of Americans investigating history and famous figures.

We share History and Values as you admit.

But this does not mean we are equal to America in any way. We used to be. We used to be far bigger than America, but, largely thanks to their actions during the Second World War, we are nothing like big enough to really influence something in America. Imagine for a surreal moment that France was preparing to invade us. Who would come to our aid? Ireland? No. Holland? No. Spain? No. Italy?

Europe won’t help then so Who will China?

 No. America? They might say a few strong words about how they don’t necessarily approve of France, but would they help us? Almost certainly not. The invading French would have to be approaching one of America’s air bases here for them to consider doing anything

Wrong, wrong America would support us and send troops to help.

As for a belief in individual freedom, this is, in theory, true, but expect the next 7 – at least – years to be very different. Washington is, in the most embarrassing fashion possible, cosying up to the likes of Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. It is even courting China, without saying anything about that regime’s many, many human rights abuses across its land. It has also, in this laughably inefficient “War on Terror”, decided to support the corrupt warlord rule of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. In fact, the only country that Obama has so far criticised is Israel: the easy target. Bashing Israel is popular with the idiot dictators and corrupt socialists of the world, and Obama is fast becoming one of the latter. His government is focusing an awful lot on environmentalism, employing numerous “czars” to deal with the problem, some of whom are avowed socialists, black nationalists and so on. Personal freedom and liberty are certainly not top of Obama’s principles, nor will they ever be.

Obama is temporary and his lack of belief in these principle is why his foreign policy is so unpopular.

 

 

 

 

 

El Presidente Blair

I am a Eurosceptic who does not believe there should be a President of the Eu. However I am also a realist who accepts that Klaus will cave in due to the persistent pressure and threats he has received from European leaders. Cameron will not be able to hold a post ratification referendum for legal reasons as this would be an In or Out referendum on Britain membership of the Eu. This would cause the greatest Tory split since the days of Corn Law reform under Robert Peel.

However when the position is created it is clear that for Britain, Blair is the best candidate. He is a committed free trader and a believer in the importance of a strong America. He does not believe in a federal Europe unlike some of the other likely candidates. The sight of Blair on the World Stage again would cause a massive Eurosceptic backlash.  This move would magnify to the British people what an anti democratic organisation the EU is as fury that a person who the British people had rejected was ruling over them regardless.  I have lost count of the amount of people who have said to me they would favour withdrawal from the EU if Blair became EU president. While I do not favour full withdrawal from the EU this popular dose of Euroscepticism may allow us to bring back some power from the EU.

If Britain does not get the presidency through Blair then it is thought they would get the post of High Representative. The main candidate for this role is the banana man David Millipede. This man spends 40 percent of his time embarrassing himself in front of foreign leaders, insulting the Indian government on a visit, attacking the Polish and Czech presidents and being ignored completely by Hilary Clinton are a few highlights of his time as Foreign Secretary. The rest of his time is spent attacking the Tories European allies(see past post as to why this is pointless) He somehow manages to find the time to get involved in embarrassing photo shoots and backing out of challenging Brown for the Labour leadership. I could not wish his incompetence on anyone in the world. So if Blair is the price we have to pay to avoid the Millipede then it is a price well worth paying.

Gordon Brown despite his Public appearance would hate the idea of Blair yet again achieving power over him. I cannot put this better than William Hague…

 

PS What an embarrassment Chris Bryant was on Newsnight yesterday with his persistent attempts to smear William Hague and Mark Francois as ‘Dick Dastardly and Mutely’

PPS Is it me or does Kirsty Wark always attack the Tory representative more than the Labour one?

Rory Stewart

A few months ago I was watching Newsnight special on Afghanistan when a young man called Rory Stewart was being interviewed. In the course of the interview I became  impressed at his defence knowledge and depressed at the lack of such knowledge in Politics.

But now the Conservative party has just selected this fine man and with true life experience. He has governed a province in Iraq walked across Afghanistan, tutored Prince William and Prince Harry and is a professor at Harvard and runs a succesful charity. What a man, he will rise far and will walk straight into a minesterial  position. What a contrast to Labours useless defence minister Bob Ainsworth.

The Thick of It

The return of this fine Sitcom tonight with a new over promoted female minister. No shortage of example to draw on, Hewitt, Smith,Blears, Harman,Flint and Yvette Cooper all of whom will have been drawn on for inspiration. Tonight the case against All Women Shortlists will be further strengthened……………………………………..

David Cameron

Rory Bremner plays the class card better than Labour at Crewe and Nantwich in this video

Question Time Verdict

Chris Huhne – Terrible, tied himself in knots on Eu expansion and was marginalised in the discussion. Idiotic quote of the evening explaining how to stop the rise of support  for the BNP was ‘to have more Liberal Democrats’.

Sayeeda Warsi – Fantastic performance, strong on immigration, understood that not all BNP voters are racist and avoided getting angry and shrill.I cannot understand the Tories who do not like her.

Jack Straw – Started well but got over emotional and struggled to defend the Labour immigration policies.

Nick Griffin – Far worse than I expected,struggled to defend his quotes,brought up Jack Straw’s grandfather in a low attack which made him seem petty and mean.He sweated profusely and his note scribbling made him look odd and uncomfortable.His answer on Holocaust denial was laughable and I think would have lost him support amongst hardcore BNP supporters. The aborigines’ incident was embarrassing for him and he ended up being told British History by Greer. However he did speak well on various elements of Radical Islam an issue which none of the main parties have concentrated on.

Bonnie Greer- At first I was sceptical as to inviting an American on to the show but her historical knowledge of Churchill and the origins of the British people provide a means of attack none of the other panelists could provide. She was amusing and was able to mock Griffin which was something he clearly despised. She came the closest of the panelists to making Griffin boil over and show his true colours.

Davis Dimbleby – He spent too long on the first few question and I would have liked to see the BNPs economic policies under examination. He did very well though to control the audience and prevent them becoming out of control.

Audience- Some good questions and avoided heckling which would have allowed Nick Griffin to play the victim card.

Question Time

Today is the day of the greatest media event in History. Erm well no its not its one appereance from a member of a minor political party.The MEP   that features on the program is  from a party with no Mps and a handful of councillors.  Nigal Farage and Caroline Lucas, politicians with simliar electoral sucess have apppeared on the program without fanfare and made little impact. George Galloway a man with views as repellent as Nick Griffin without the hysterical panic this has caused amongst mainsteam politicians in the media.  Nick Griffin has been on the Andrew Marr show and has been viewed by millions of people without causing a  mass riot. This appearence is not the start of some facist takeover of Britain led by Nick Griffin due to a rise of support for him.

All this hype is exactly what Nick Griffin wants. The BNP have risen on a tide of anti politics and every time a mainstream politician condemms them it helps their image as different from other politicians. Nick Griffin should be treated like a normal guest, probed and exposed on the issues. He will not expose his racist views and will attempt to present himself as a reasonable man who has been persecuted by the political and media elite. This is why he should not be heckled which would again help him emphasise his difference from the usual politicians.

Prime Ministers Question

 Gordon Brown was given a planted question by his ex headmaster designed to allow him to say how brilliant the Governments’s response to the Swine Flu problem. Then on to the important part of PMQs the exchange between the two leaders. Cameron starts off with a short simple question about condemning  the Royal Mal strike that Brown deals with well with a strong firm answer to Cameron’s question. Cameron then quotes Mandelson effectively and asks why the Royal Mail has not been sold. This fits in nicely with frequent attacks on Brown as being a man who cannot take decisions.  Brown deals with the question appallingly, saying he cannot sell the royal mail as no-one wanted to buy it (why bring the bill into the lords in the first place) before droning on about the Post Office Modernisation act and losing the attention of the House.

Cameron then attacks Gordon’s argument that they could not find a buyer, by asking why if that is so they are selling off other public assets such as the Tote and the Dartford Crossing. He then accuses Gordon of being dishonest a theme he has used in past exchanges between the two. Gordon then talks about the Modernisation Bill again showing a complete inability to think on his feet as he just reads out his prepared notes. His attack on the Tories for not knowing whether they can sell off the Royal Mail is ridiculous as the Tories have no idea of the state of Royal Mails finances unlike the Government. The attack also falls flat due to him not naming the Minister whom he is talking about.  Cameron on form with the next question, offering support of the bill making him reasonable and bipartisan. Hs simple statement of the Tory position contrasts Brown’s long-winded rambling about the Modernisation Bill. Then Brown goes on about………………………….the Modernisation Bill  again and only Brown could spend half his time suggesting Tories threaten jobs and the other half boasting about 40,000 lost jobs at the Post Office. Harman looks like an idiot sitting behind Gordon nodding for the sake of it. George Osbourne is just as bad though with his smug look behind Cameron is not the image the Tories should be attempting to cultivate. Cameron has I believe extracted all he can from this issue and should change subject now to try and wrong foot Brown. His next question is vague and long-winded.

Brown then proceeds to show one of his worst characteristics by lecturing Cameron as if he is infinitely superior to him in intellect and cares more about the country. Very strong final question from Cameron,encompassing most Tory attack themes, no leadership, can’t make decisions, untruthful and that he is lame duck leader. The use of humour with ‘biscuitgate’ being mentioned, this angers Brown who starts bellowing about all that the Tories have been wrong on.

Nick Clegg steps up and despite not being a big fan of his, I thought he did very well. His question were on good subject, the banks and his clear questions caused Gordon problems and considering how hard it is too only have two questions too ask was the most impressive of the leaders.

Ratings

Cameron 6.5 weak beginning, good end,ok middle should have changed subject to wrong foot Brown.

Brown 4 Good start but spent too long talking about the Modernaisation Bill and his anger did not make him come across well.Needs to stop the claw like hand gestures as well.

Clegg  7 Strong question on a good subject in one of his better performances.

All Women Shortlists

Oh dear David you have just made a massive error, in your desperation to prove the Tories were doing something for women, you blurted out you would consider All Women Shortlists. Most Tories are absolutely fuming as a result of this decision by Dave Cameron. These are the reasons why……………

1 Conservative believe in judging people on ability not the colour of their skin,sexuality or background.

2 All women shortlists centralise selection power in the hands of Central Office, meaning more puppets and special advisers to Shadow Cabinet members and less Independent minded candidates

3 The Tories manifesto will feature strongly on Localism, elected mayors, police chiefs and more power for local councils are a big theme for them. Yet they cannot trust local people to choose their Mp

4 There is no shortage of Women Candidates being selected. 30 percent of  people on the Tory Candidate List  are women and 31 percent of parliamentary Candidates are women. More women need to be encouraged to stand and people will choose them.

5 The idea a certain number of women are needed to represent them is patronising. Women do not all have the same views and a Tory male may have more views relevant to them than a Tory male. Many women would fundamentally oppose Nadine Dorries views on abortion and be more supportive of George Osbourne a more socially liberal Tory.

6 Should we have all Yorkshireman shortlists? All people who think we should leave the Eu shortlists? All Anarchists shortlists? All these people are arguably under represented but no-one is suggesting these shortlists.

7 Thatcher was not from an all women shortlist she had to fight for a seat and this fight helped her become the fine Politician she was. All women shortlists produces people such as Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman.

Time for a new PMQs? No, not Prime Minister, but Peter Mandelson!

Peter Mandelson - a question of accountability?

John Bercow is proposing, in his new mandate for modernisation as Speaker, to allow government ministers in the House of Lords to answer questions. Ever since our parliament has existed the Commons and the Lords have been kept separate, but Bercow is hoping that the parliamentary authorities will make it possible so that ministers, who sit in the Lords, can be accountable to MPs. The Speaker is originally proposing that only Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, and Mandelson, the business secretary, to answer questions in the mini-Commons chamber which is attached to the Westminster Hall. This move by Bercow is supported by both Adonis and Mandelson, who recognise concerns over the question of accountability. It is largely seen as a positive and radical move by most, though some, like the veteran Labour MP Tony Benn said that “I am not in favour of giving peers who are not elected the sort of authority of being in the Commons.” (This is, however, a largely minority view). As the expenses scandal has come back to haunt MPs and further damage the reputation of UK politics this is just the sort of move that can help restore a connection. Especially in the case of unelected ministers accountability is of integral importance. Accountability of Lords to the Commons is, however, only a first step, accountability to the people will be the final stage. The debate on how to achieve this is not going to reach a conclusion any time soon.

Speechbreaker

Great gadget for making conference speeches with the words party leaders used. Here is my Brown effort. Post any good ones in the comments and we will publish.

European Allies

 
Over the last few weeks there has been a great deal of interest in the political views of the Tories European friends in the new grouping. Various accusations have been flying around of anti Semitism against the leader of the new group Michael Kaminski. These despite the Jewish Chronicle saying it had no problem with him. Now the Tories have mounted a fight back led by the excellent blogger Tory Bear attacking Labour allies in the Parliament.

This persistent battle is pointless; all parties of any nation and any party have views that could be considered extreme somewhere else in the world. The idea of and NHS is abhorrent to most Americans who see it as socialism yet all British MPs support it. In Poland the country is deeply Catholic so is it surprising that some of their politicians might be homophobic? No it is just a reflection of that nations views and the will of the people.

The European Parliament does not or should not regulate on homosexuality amongst Nations. So why does it matter if David Cameron and a few of his European allies disagree. They will not be asked to vote against each other in the European Parliament on this issue.  They are expected to agree on the future of Europe. They agree on a vision of Europe as a democratic free trade institution with National Self Determination over law making.

So to all those against the Tories and their position on Europe, argue about that, not on the views of a few on issues which do not come up in the European Parliament.

Michael Howard again

This is the last Michael Howard video of our series. In this Rory Bremner turns him into Sweeney Todd.

BNP and Nick Griffin – A Right to be Heard?

The BNP should not be on question time simply to ridicule them but because they have a right to. No matter how much one despises their views, their policies, their members and their ideals the BNP has a right to be on Question Time. I am not defending the BNP because I in anyway agree with them, in fact I despise all that they stand for, but because they have a right to be heard. Some politicians give a reason to why they should be on question time, as that we need to debate their policies and prove to the public they are wrong. This is completely undemocratic. The BNP should be on question time because a significant proportion of this country appears to agree with what they stand for and as a result they have two Members of the European Parliament. It is for this reason alone that we should be able to discuss, not humiliate, their views. The fact that people have voted for them show that, for some, their views are not wrong. Unless they actively incite racial hatred they have just as much a right to express their views as anyone else. The argument, that Alan Johnson gives, that it may give them legitimacy, completely misses the point. THEY HAVE LEGITIMACY, they have two members in a democratically elected body. We should not go back to the days of Thatcher. We cannot have press censorship and deny to the people an opportunity to make a democratic choice. “Denying the oxygen of publicity was the same argument that Margaret Thatcher used to impose a broadcasting ban on Sinn Féin in the 1980s”, Jon Snow from Channel 4 states. If we drive them underground it only makes the situation worse. A party that received 6% of the vote at the last European election should be seen and heard on the BBC in the run-up to a general election. It is our basic rights of liberty that is at stake, nothing else. That is what must be considered.

Last weeks Question Time panellists discuss the BNP

The Media

In an earlier blog post my co-author wrote about the extent to which the Conservative Party Vote is an anti Labour vote and this is undoubtedly true. People are fed up with the mess that Labour has caused and believe it is time for a change in Government. However most voters have no idea what the Conservative Party or the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrat party stand for

In this I blame the media which people rely on for Political News. They are more interested with ‘splits’ in parties when a variety of views and opinions are vital in decision making. They make political judgements in a herd with the current mass view is that Brown should lose and that Cameron should win. At the last few elections the media all backed Blair and as a result he won with comfortable majorities.  The networking of politicians where they attend media bigwigs weddings  is seen as necessary for any politician interested in advancing his career. The reasons there is a lack of ideological debate amongst the parties is the lack of impact and power a policy has compared to a Journalistic endorsement.

The Conservative Party at their recent conference set out policies on welfare, the economy, schools,defence,energy policy and reform of Parliament. What did the media’s focus on but splits on Europe a media favourite and itself in the endorsement of the Tories by the Sun.

Fortunately Media power is on the decline and in a series of blog posts I will discuss why over the next week.

Michael Howard

Recently at a talk by Michael Howard, I asked hm whether he thought the 2005 election campaign was too focused in immgration. He said no it wasn’t but Rory Bremner agreed with me……………….

Gordon Brown Biscuit man.

Yesterday Gordon Brown was asked an impossible queston. It wasn’t, Why did you remove regulatory powers from the Bank of England ?or a probing question on NHS but What is your favourite type of biscuit? Brown dithered and thought and thought before failing to answer the question after 12 attempts.

This shows the complete an utter inability of Gordon to think on his feet. We see this every week at PMQs where he ignores any actual questions and just reads out statistics like some soviet apparatchik explaining how Tractor Production is up. In a crisis such as a terrorist attack we need a Prime Minister who can think on hs feet and respond to constantly changing events not someone who cannot decide if we prefers Jammy Dodgers or Rich Tea biscuits.

David Cameron chose an Oatcake  in a possible attempt to win Scottish votes and Nick Clegg, well no-one actually cares about what he says anyway.

Michael Howard and Jeremy Paxman

The first of a series of videos on Michael Howard. In this he struggles to answer Paxman’s question 12 times. Paxman repeated the question as he had run out of questions and the next Newsnight feature was not ready. This interview went down in Political History.

Is Voting Conservative Next Election Bad for Democracy?

Latest poll figures suggest that the Conservatives have the next general election in the bag. In six or seven months the people of the UK will go to the polls fed up with over a decade of Labour rule. With a new face to the Conservative party, of compassion and honesty, David Cameron will most likely lead his new party to perhaps a historic electoral victory. However is it really the case that people have warmed to Cameron and Osborne’s Thatcher-esc style cuts to public spending and benefits or to Cameron’s stern face of difficult times with a promise of happiness to look forward to in the long run?

People still feel they know very little about Cameron and his eurosceptic cronies and will be dammed if they really believe his pledges on honesty in politics. What real reforms is he bringing to the political system at all? A cut in MP’s wages and 10% fewer MPs, is that really going to restore faith in our political system? To be fair Brown hardly offers any better; a promise for a referendum on the Alternative Vote system, can we really believe that after Labour never followed through on its commitment to a referendum in its 1997 manifesto? Clegg and the Lib Dems seem to be the only party driving for substantial reform, but we know that they can pledge whatever they like; they won’t get in power in 2010.

Instead people will be going out to vote against the record of the Labour party, without going into the detail of what they have actually achieved and what the Tories would have done differently. Gordon Brown has failed to get his message across (however good or bad it might actually be), the people no longer see him as a leader worthy of their attention and his death warrant has already been signed. A Newsnight poll done by the BBC indicated that 64% of those intending to vote Conservative next election will do so mainly against Gordon Brown and the Labour party’s reputation. Only 34% would vote out of thought that Cameron and the Conservatives are the right people to lead the country. This surely cannot be good for democracy. People will choose what they see as the lesser of the two evils, rather than vote for what they really want to see in Britain. Labour appears to have lost its way, no matter how much they try to get through to the people, they have already been shut out. In May or June a blind choice will be made, voting for a party most people know nothing about, disagree with its fundamental principles and not realise what exactly the differences are between Brown and Cameron.

What we need is a debate on the real issues that face our country, not the ones politicians would like us to see, and to do so with an open mind. Judgment must be based on the true facts and on all the facts. It may well be so that a Conservative government will be the right thing for the country, but this must happen through people actively voting for one party and not against another party. For this to happen we must find out what the differences really are and not have our judgement clouded by party propaganda. Our democracy is based on freedom, freedom to choose what we feel is best, let us not be swayed before we understand fully what we are letting ourselves in for.

Boris Johnson and Barack Obama

Some politicians are good Public Speakers with the power to entertain crowds, for example William Hague manages to combine wit with intelligence effectively. However none have the Charisma to gain a messianic following in the style of Barack Obama. There is one true star of British Politics who comes close to attracting such a man called Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.

At first it may seem an odd comparison between the Old Etonian mayor and the first black president of the United States. However there are a surprising amount of similarities. Boris is the grandson of a Turkish immigrant to Britain who fled to avoid being killed by the brutal regime there. Obama’s ancestors were widespread with his grandfather killed by the British in Kenya. These exotic backgrounds helped make them into the extrovert, interesting characters they are. They both travelled and moved frequently with Obama living on two continents and Boris moving house more than 50 times. Both excelled academically Boris winning a scholarship to Eton before relaxing at Oxford University and Obama impressing with his studying of Law at Harvard.

Obama and Boris Johnson also agree on many political issues. They share a hatred of George Bush. A love of America made clear from many newspaper articles by Boris and Obama’s autobiography and his belief that only in America could he rise so high. They both battled to win unexpectedly in elections, Boris to beat Ken Livingstone in London a Labour stronghold and Barack to beat Hilary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. Both faced attacks that they were orators with no idea or experience to run things and it is from their extraordinary ability of words that they gain such a devoted following.

When they give a speech ordinary non political people listen. Boris has wit as his weapon for getting people interested and Obama has the novel story and dream for people to buy into. This allows them a huge base of personal support to exploit and use to their benefit. If there was an elected Prime Minister in Britain, Boris would win. He would be able to mobilise support and inspire people not interested in politics to vote due to his magnetic personality. This is how Obama won in America by organising an incredible Get out the Vote campaign and giving a traditionally apolitical group, of the young interested in Politics.

By now you will be saying that the Boris and Obama are different as one is American and the other is English, but no Boris was born in America and would be eligible to run for President. So could we see a future partnership between the two individuals? Obama- Johnson 2012 ?

Hello world!

Hello and Welcome to our new blog. We aim to provide a series of interesting and original views on Politics. We are students and as result may have different views from the majority of middle aged political bloggers. I hope you enjoy reading this blog and tell your friends about it.