Today, of all days, David Cameron has the chance to massacre Gordon Brown at PMQ’s. 

Its is clear there is a division at the heart of Government.

Alastair Darling, Chancellor claims that inside Number 10 ‘the forces of hell’were unleashed on him when he predicted a deep and severe recession and that Damien McBride & Charlie Whelan actively briefed the media against him.

Gordon Brown, of course, denies this,  ”I was never part of anything to do with this.  I would never instruct anybody to do anything other than support my Chancellor.”

So the question is, either Gordon Brown was in control and authorising his inner circle to brief and smear his Chancellor, (in itself the very worst of playground bullying), or, if Brown is right, he would never instruct his advisers to do anything but support his Chancellor, then the accusation must be that he had lost control of the heart of Downing Street and ‘advisers’ were going off doing their own thing.  What else were advisers doing?  Again a very damning position. 

This feels like the court room scene in ‘A Few Good Men’, when Jack Nicholson, (Playing Nathan Jessop), was goaded by Tom Cruise to admit that he had ordered a Code Red.  Nicholson denied ordering his Commanders to enact a Code Red attack on a Private marine, (like Gordon Brown today!).  Nicholson’s Commanders protected him and denied everything.  But Nicholson had to be seen as in total control.  When this assertion was undermined, ie he lacked control or knowledge of what was going on, he cracked.  Lack of control was weakness.  Gordon Brown likes to revel in power, he loves to be seen in control, he is itching to say he ordered a Code Red on Alastair Darling, he just needs David Cameron to rattle his cage hard enough and fire him up to crack. 

So which is it Gordon?

I look forward to DC having some mileage on this in PMQ’s.  DC has his moment as Tom Cruise in that famous scene.  I hope his opening gambit goes something a little like this:  ‘Would the Prime Minister confirm whether he authorised the ‘forces of hell’ on his Chancellor, whether his Chancellor is lying, or whether he was unaware of the briefings taking place by his senior advisers to the media, in which case has he lost complete and utter control of the Downing Street Machine’?

I would also love to see DC draw the comparison with bullying.  ‘Would the Prime Minister agree that one definition of bullying is using advisers to brief against your Chancellor behind their back’?

Should be a fun PMQ’s. 

How many people do you meet nowdays that call themselves Thatcherite?

A PPC said to me the other day whilst he is a Thatcherite by ideology he would never say it publicly as it may not go down well in the Party!  He though David would not approve!

Seems like Thatcherism is an ideology that is out of fashion.

But what does being Thatcherite mean?

It means you believe in limited Government, sound economics, spending only what you can earn & not getting into debt, rolling back the frontiers of the State, espousing liberty, enpowering the individual, cutting tax, incentivising the private sector and entrepreneurs, a strong Britain on the World Stage, a strong defence policy backed by a well equipped Army, Navy & Air Force, limiting the power & scope of Europe to a free trade area not a political superstate with a single currency………

Hhhhhmmmmmm sounds good.  Aren’t we all Thatcherites? 

Hello all.

I have been away….for some time.  Thank you to so many of you who have been emailing me and also keeping your views posted on Facebook.

I really needed a break from blogging.  But now I feel refreshed and with new perspectives to share and debate with you all.  I realise by taking a break that I will need to again start rebuilding my readership but word will get out….added with a bit of interesting PR.

So in the words of Take That….I am Back for Good.

Enjoy the ride………

Is there a case to be made for the legalisation of prostitution in a modern free society? 

Would it shock you that official best guesses are that there are over 80,000 prostitutes working in the UK today!  Wikipedia details that, in 2003, it was estimated that, in London one woman in 300 was working as a prostitute (compared to one in 35 in Amsterdam).

Prostitution is known as the oldest profession but one that still can generate the feeling of utter revulsion.  For many older readers of this blog, the word itself ‘prostitution’ conjures up seedy images of dirty old men in tweed coats, sneaking off into side alleys with ‘skanky’ looking women and performing unimaginable acts of depravity.  For others, the freedom of the individual is to the fore, whereby, two consenting adults should be left to do what they want. 

Where do you stand?

A controversial subject….for many taboo.  One in which very few blogs will pass comment.  So why this one?  What got me thinking about this subject?  Two things.  Firstly, the media publicity surrounding ‘Belle de Jour’ breaking her anonymity and ‘going public’ this past week and secondly a recent comment left by a reader, ‘Jenny’, on this blog site about how she was struggling to make ends meet in this recession and how she turned to prostitution to support her family.

‘Belle de Jour’

For those of you unaware of this story, ‘Belle’, was for many years a high-class London call girl / prostitute — who wrote an anonymous blog about her experiences, detailing her many sexual and emotional encounters, (some would say taking the Adrian Mole diary concept to the next step for liberated women!).   This blog was then turned into two best-selling books, ‘The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl’ and ‘The Further Adventures of a London Call Girl’. Belle’s books were re-energised two years ago, when they were turned into a highly rated TV series starring Billie Piper.  For those interested to look at Belle’s blog site, you can find it HERE and her Twitter feed HERE  

For those thinking this was some dirty, seedy diary, Belle’s behind the scenes insight into her life and views on men is not a blow-by-blow sex guide, but more akin to a camp & fun Sex & the City style adventure!  It must noted that reviewers of these books critically state that the style of writing is what engages readers and that Belle comes across in a ‘sassy, finger-snapping, girl’s best-friend style’.

What is fascinating in this story is who the real Belle turned out to be!  Now for some, the expectation was for a horrible, ‘ugly’, desperate woman that could be pilloried and held up as an example to batter the oldest profession.  Brooke Magnanti crashed through the barriers of anonymity and revealed herself to be the real ‘Belle’.  But Brooke is in fact, DOCTOR Brooke Magnanti, a research scientist at Bristol University.  Now why did Brooke, an intelligent woman with bright prospects turn to prostitution?  Her reply…..she became a £300 an hour high class escort to help fund her studies for a doctorate!  See her here on Sky News….

Now that is an eye opener.  A clever woman with a bright future freely took the decision to fund her way through college via selling her body for ‘protected sex’.  And today, no one harmed, she is proud to be a successful Doctor, (and writer!). 

Does Belle glamorise prostitution as some are saying today?  Opponents of prostitution, quite rightly, point out that Brooke or ‘Belle’ was a fortunate high class hooker and that ‘in real life’ there are many prostitutes who work in horrific conditions, ‘owned’ by a pimp and who earn little money and live a desolate life.  Which is true.  But supporters of legalising prostitution counter that the very seeds of arguing against the legalisation of prostitution are contained in the opponents arguments for banning it.  Yes it is a dangerous profession, yes Pimps need to be banned, yes disease is prevalent.   But are these in fact arguments that support and regulation solve and that making it illegal, drives it underground and hence into dangerous hands.

But Belle is not the only case.  Let’s take Jenny, who left comment on a blog about the depth of the recession.

 ‘Jenny’

Turning to Jenny and the blog comment she left.  Jenny challenged blog readers to come up for a better solution for her problems.  Seems like Jenny had a boyfriend who left her and their kids and she was left with a mortgage to pay and aforesaid kids to provide for.  She claims that there are too few jobs and that state benefits are pathetic. 

Let’s try and flesh this situation out some more and perhaps stretch this story to its limits as I don’t have all the details but it serves as a useful illustration.  Let’s take for granted that Jenny has a high mortgage, (perhaps negative equity), stays at home to bring up the children, whilst her partner works and brings home the money to support their lifestyle.  But that partner then ups and leaves.  Gone overnight.  The CSA start their work in tracking the father but that can be a slow process.  So this woman, faced with a mortgage, a lifestyle to support and more importantly children, for whatever reason turned to prostitution.  Rightly or wrongly, according to your position.  She claims that she could ‘work’ as a prostitute and sell her body for ‘mindless sex’ for £500.  (Higher than Belle!)

Now most people’s reaction will be first condemnation.  But then, when you think of it, when faced in a desperate position, did Jenny do so wrong in protecting, as she would see it, her family & lifestyle and indeed, maybe enhance it, (if you see money as an enhancer!).  Yes, there are moral decisions being made but perhaps those that an individual should take not society?

So are we at the point we should liberate our minds and re-consider prostitution?  Why would prostitution be legalised?

The case for legalisation?

So why legalise prostitution?  There are several key arguments propounded.

— Freedom of liberty.   Supporters say that it should not be in the remit of the state if two consenting individuals want to exchange money for sex.  As long as both sides are consenting, nothing is done against anyone’s free will.  Why should the State intervene?  The woman or the man providing sex is proving a ‘service’ that should be seen in the same way as a foot massage or facial.  The State they argue never knows best.

— Safety for both the prostitutes and customers could be assured.   Prostitutes can end up missing, murdered, or severely beaten. If prostitution is legalized and regulated, the number of tragedies involving prostitutes can be lessened. Those in favour of legalizing prostitution feel that “violence, exploitation, and health effects suffered by women in prostitution” are not deep-seated in the trade but are the outcome of the behaviour of “bad pimps or buyers”; many feel that if “prostitution were regulated by the state these harms would diminish”

— Less disease.  Prostitutes would be checked for disease.   With proper and mandatory health care provided to prostitutes, the risk of disease can be lessened significantly. Prostitutes could be required to have mandatory disease testing done every six months.  In the age of AIDS and other sexual diseases, greater control and monitoring is propounded as a step forward. This way, if the prostitutes are clean then they cannot transmit diseases to their customers.

— Pimps would be eliminated.   The power of pimps could be lessened, and perhaps even banned, to ensure the safety and well-being of prostitutes. Pimps often beat, or even kill, their prostitutes, and Prostitutes could be required to be licensed and made to carry some sort of government issued identification card. The state of Nevada gave the right to each county to determine whether or not to legalize prostitution. Churchill county voted two to one in favour of licensed brothels, which were not to be placed on main streets or close to churches or schools. Prostitutes working in these brothels are required to carry identification cards and are usually fingerprinted (“Prostitution”). This is for the safety of the prostitute.

— Better stability of relationships.  Given divorce break up’s, affairs and cheating is endemic in society, would ‘mindless, uncommitted’ sex act as an outlet and ensure more couples stay together for their families?

— A multimillion dollar business would be taxed.  Just consider the amount of tax revenue missed out…… do the maths

                        Miss X charges £250 per hour

                        She sees 1 client in the afternoon and 2 in the evening

                        That’s £750 per day ‘earnt’

                        Miss X works Monday – Fri ie 5 days and pulls in £4,500 per week

                        She works, let’s say 48 weeks of the year, (takes 4 off like the rest of us).

                        That’s an annual salary of £180,000  untaxed……

                        So from a taxation point of view….who is being screwed?

— Prostitution would be removed from residential neighbourhoods.   The famous, ‘Not in my back yard’ argument.  Set, controlled, regulated, safe environments.

My conclusion

Do I have answer to whether prostitution should be legal in a free society?  I find this a tough subject.  My conscience wrestles between a strict moral code where it is abhorrent to the values I hold.  I can see the depths that some dive to and feel so low and desperate that they will do anything to support their families/earn a living.  I revile in reading about the dreadful conditions that these prostitutes have to reportedly work in, many bullied, (physically & emotionally), by pimps to make money for others that they never see.  So where do I stand?  Would I ever entertain the idea of using a prostitute?  No.  Never under any circumstances.  I have my own strict moral guide.  BUT….and this is a big BUT.  I love and revel in freedom.  I want more personal freedom….tough in a society throttling the very liberties we once enjoyed).  Everyone has a right to be different in society.  The State holds no legitimacy or right  to regulate others in personal matters.  My passion for the freedom of the individual knows no bounds.  I cherish individual freedom above issues of morality like this.  Why should I say that people should not be free to do what they want?  Consenting, (and that is a critical word), adults, engaging in a ’service’, harms no one else’s life, indeed the arguments above for legalising prostitution in fact help society….less violence, less crime, less sexual disease, more money for the state.  Therefore, my desire for liberty supports the legalisation of the oldest profession.

Don’t expect to see the legalisation of prostitution in the next Conservative Manifesto.  It is not a vote winner.  But true followers of a free society know that the fight for more freedom for the individual never ends as we ‘continue down the road to serfdom’.   What do you think?  Would you visit a prostitute if it were legal?…but more importantly would you frown on your friends if they did?………………………

Those that condemn….did you enjoy watching Pretty Woman at the cinema/DVD?  Watch Billie Piper on ITV as Belle?……………………..

In a recent comment to Scott Newton’s guest blog, “Why Cutting Income Tax, Cutting Red Tape and Deregulating Business is essential for the UK’s Future.” I promised to write more on UK Tax Policy.

I must add that these are my personal observations and are not intended to upset anyone…

…Including Scott who’s piece is right on the mark. (Well done Scott!)

For the past 4 years my company (www.ditg.org.uk) has been funded by the worlds largest ICT brands to establish a replacement for the Government’s Home Computing Initiative (HCI).

HCI was budget measure implemented by Gordon Brown as a Tax Incentive for employees. Under Section 320 of the Finance Act, employees could acquire up to £2500 worth computer equipment from their employer Income Tax exempt. In turn, employers enjoyed an exemption on Class 1A National Insurance on the amounts salary sacrificed by the employee.

This created an industry worth £450 Million to the UK and about 2500 related employment opportunities.

Unfortunately, the exemption was removed in Budget 2006. (It was proving too successful?)

This resulted in one of the longest cross-examinations during the reading for a finance bill in recent times. (Well worth a read on Hanson – see the below link).

The Government cited “abuse” as the reason for removing the benefit and pledged to “refocus efforts on those most in need”. Check out the written evidence taken at the time:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtreasy/994/994we14.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtreasy/994/994we08.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtreasy/994/994we06.htm

YOU MUST READ THIS NEXT ONE, IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY HCI, BUT IS A GREAT READ.

IT ALSO SHOW THAT INSPITE OF WHAT YOU MAY THINK, WE DO RETAIN A AN OPEN AN UNBVIASED RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENT AS PART OF UK POLITICS.

IT IS ALSO HILARIOUS:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtreasy/994/994we07.htm

Just in case you don’t want to click off the blog – here is a taster:

“The rhetoric of “transformation”, “reform”, “investment”, “transparency”, “devolution”, “prudent”, “cautious”, “audited” and “world class” is so indulgent and self-congratulatory that one wonders if some drafters inside the Treasury are parodying ministers.”

Professor David Heald, Comments on Budget 2006

Ouch!

At the time the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats both lobbied against the decision and the recorded debate on Hansard is a fantastic read. It is also a good introduction to political punditry and how Politician’s really debate:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060502/debtext/60502-22.htm

(The unanswered question for me was always how you can abuse a taxation system that assesses individual taxation in arrears…but then I am bias and this blog isn’t about HCI!)

So with this background you would think that it would be easy to gain Parliamentary support for a refocused replacement scheme developed over 4 years at a cost to the IT Industry (not the tax payer!) of over £2.6 Million.

Not so…

In practice the differentiation between the Parties on the issue of supporting a tax incentives is in practice not all that large. (Sorry Scott)

ALL Ministers (despite what the expenses scandal suggests) are concerned as to how to pay for any incentive, will it fit with policy…

So why post this blog at all?

Well my personal concern is not about the detail of Tax Policies, nor believe it or not HCI.

My concern is the Conservative approach. Will it win us the election?

Have a look at the following comparison of Labor and Tax summary statements.

John questions whether there is enough clear blue water between Labour & Conservatives on Tax policy……you decide!

Treat yourself and see if you can spot the difference!

Conservatives:

“We will freeze council tax for two years by reducing wasteful spending on advertising and consultancy in central government.”

Labour:

“We are reducing the amount of central prescription so that local authorities and their partners are better able to respond to local needs and demands.”

Conservatives:

“We will introduce a £50bn National Loan Guarantee Scheme to underwrite
bank lending to businesses and get credit flowing again.”

Labour (DirectGov):

“The government is announcing that it will offer capital and asset protection on those assets most affected by the current economic conditions. This will reduce banks’ uncertainty about the value of past investments, so providing them with greater confidence to lend in the future to creditworthy businesses, homeowners and consumers.”

Labour (Policy):

“Working with banks, Labour is providing loan guarantees to businesses to help them get the credit they need.”

Conservatives:

“We will provide tax cuts for new jobs with a £2.6bn package of tax breaks to get people into work, funded by money that would otherwise go on unemployment benefit.”

Labour:

“Extra cash to encourage employers to recruit people without jobs.”

“Stepping up the training and support people need to get back to work.”

Conservatives:

“We will cut the main rate of corporation tax to 25p and the small companies’ rate to 20p, paid for by scrapping complex reliefs and allowances”

Labour:

“Allowing businesses facing difficulties to spread their tax payments on a timetable they can afford.”

Conservatives:

“We will give small and medium-sized businesses a six-month VAT holiday, funded by a 7.5% interest rate on delayed payments.”

Labour:

“We have reduce VAT to 15%”

Conservatives:

“We will cut National Insurance by 1% for six months for firms with fewer than five employees, paid for from the above changes to the company tax regime.”  

Labour:

“When it is affordable, we will re-link the basic state pension to earnings.  We aim to do this by 2012 or by the end of the next parliament at the latest.”

Conservatives:

“We will abolish Stamp Duty for nine out of ten first-time buyers and raise the Inheritance Tax threshold to £1 million. Both of these changes will be funded by a flat-rate charge on non-domiciles.”

Labour:

“Extending the Stamp Duty holiday for properties under £175,000”

“Extra mortgage protection to help families stay in their homes”

“Helping savers by increasing the threshold of Individual Savings Accounts to over £10,000”

Now hopefully some clever contributors will now explain to me the differences in the comments…WAIT, some I can see! (And before you comment, I know that the Conservatives have shown how they will pay for it !!)

But you know it all does kind of sound the same to me…and taxation detail is part of my day job…

…So what hope does the deciding electorate have?

I do sincerely hope the Tory manifesto has some really clear taxation differentiators in it.

Otherwise I might get confused and vote for the wrong Party.

Here is a thought…committing to bring back s320 income tax benefits for computers would be a start.

Hey look, it is my daily bread…      

John Laity…..

I don’t know about you but I am getting bored with the constant references to the Bullingdon Club.  Seems that Labour will refer to it in their election campaign in an attempt to discredit former Bullingdon members David Cameron, Boris Johnson and George Osborne.  Such tired, boring politics wont wash with the British People who care for issues and how their lives will be affected not old University high jinx!

So what is this infamous Bullingdon Club we hear of so much?   Well, it is a socially exclusive student dining club at Oxford University, without any fixed abode, well known for its members’ wealth and destructive drinking nights. Membership is by invitation only, and stupidly expensive for most, given the need to pay for the uniform, dinners and breakages.  The Club’s modus operandi has often been to book a private dining room under an false name, as most restaurateurs are wary of the Club’s reputation for causing considerable drunken damage during the course of the dinners. However, it depends on the character of the membership at the time — which necessarily varies from year to year — whether the famous ‘destruction’ is an intentional act of wanton vandalism or a side-effect of drinking prodigious quantities over a lengthy period of time.  Members are well known to trash a restaurant and then pay cash for damages, plus extra, when leaving.

Labour’s goal is to portray Cameron as elitist.  A toff with a silver spoon in his mouth.  Aloof.  Out of touch with the ordinary man & woman on the street.  The Bullingdon Club is one way to do this, hence the photo of Cameron and Boris in penguin suits, looking arrogant and elitist is like political dynamite to them.  Our future Prime Minister and current Mayor of London in sleek, expensive dinner jackets, (fyi Bullingdon members dress for their annual Club dinner in specially made traditional tailcoats in Oxford blue offset with ivory silk lapel revers, brass monogrammed buttons, a mustard waistcoat, and a sky blue bow tie. There is also a Club tie, which is sky blue striped with ivory. These are all provided by the Oxford branch of court tailors Ede and Ravenscroft. The full uniform costs around £3,500), positioned in strong ‘elitist’ poses, Boris sitting on the step looking straight into the eyes of the camera and David, looking wistfully into the distance.  After this group pose, reports regale the press of a wild night out on the town with damage to an expensive restaurant.  Boris was caught by the Police after smashing a window with a plant pot, (and spent a night in the cells).  No information comes to light of any high jinks that Cameron got up to, (he apparently went home early).  Channel 4 considered it such public interest entertainment that they created and funded a tv version of their antics viewable HERE  (If you want to see the original Bullingdon photos of Cameron, Boris and one with George Osborne, Google Search images of the ‘Bullingdon Club’).

David Cameron (Johnny Sweet), top, second left, and Boris (Christian Brassington) in More 4’s docudrama about their Oxford days

Frankly who gives a damn apart from those people who oppose those who have been priviledged to have generated and passed on wealth to their children.

My defence of the Bullingdon Club comes not because I have been a member, (far from it as I am the classic product of a working class family, moving on up through an average state school).  But neither am I jealous of those who have created or enjoyed wealth.  Consider this.  If you won the lottery today or built a business that was worth millions, would you seek to look after your children’s future, as well as building on your wealth?  In most cases yes you would.  So if you could provide your children the best in education, which is generally what all parents want, where are the best institutions?  Most would say Eton School and of course then Oxford and Cambridge University.  These choices are perceived by many as the ultimate goal for their children’s education.  Yet many feel the need to criticise those who can afford to go there, (whilst hypocritically they would do the same if they had that money).

This silly argument came up on BBC Question Time last week.  Yvette Cooper snapping at the heels of George Osborne.  Quite rightly he retorted, why should he be embarrassed by the success of his father in building a business, employing lots of people and yes, making money, (the whole point of business).  Success it appears breeds contempt.  It breeds jealously.  Yet many crave to be in this position yet condemn others if they cant have it.

Let’s tackle the high jinks that the Bullingdon Club got up to.  Those casting their stones at David, Boris and George should consider that most people have done things they regret in life.  University days, not just at Oxford or Cambridge, see many wild nights, with students, (yes future business leaders, politicians and …. parents), doing things that are unacceptable and they later regret.  That is part of growing up.  Learning through experiences and mistakes you make.   Go to any University town in freshers week and there will be shenanigans that turn your hair grey.  Critics say that this is all a question of a persons core ethics, their ‘character’, ‘their upbringing’, ‘their suitability to hold public office’, hence we should have the right, of a future leader to know everything.  Frankly….silly, childish student day pranks do not matter.  What matters is how a person intends to lead. What will they do for the poorest in society?  How will they create and spread wealth?  Can they create jobs?  How will they improve our schools, our roads, our hospitals, our national defences, our position in the world?  All this matters to people, not whether someone was a member of the Bullingdon Club.  Not whether they smoked canabis at school!  Not if they have got drunk and jumped into a river on freshers week!  If they commiteed a heinous crime, yes we have a right to know.  Did people decide they would not vote for the Mayor because when he was young he was merry and threw a plant pot throw a window?  Of course not.

But it is too much to hope for debates on issues by Labour.  They will use this old brush to try and sweep Cameron away from reaching Downing Street.  It will backfire on them and make them look the childish politicians they are.  And of course, their ‘greatest leader’ of recent times enjoyed himself at University as well. Tony Blair had his wild side……

‘Boys will be boys’….’students will be students’!

As John McCarthy says: ‘An excessive knowledge of Marxism is a sign of a misspent youth’.

A young Tony Blair in his underpants played by actor, Christian Brassington (NB he plays Boris above!)

Like watching a car speeding headfirst at 90mph towards stationary traffic ahead, so we witness Post Officers voting to strike this Christmas.   An act testament to corporate suicide! 

Dave Ward, Deputy Leader of the CWU, (Communications Workers Union), the man elected to protect Post Office members will precide over the insane position of the post office workers committing a very public suicide.  As workers vote to strike, the sad truth is that their actions threaten the future of the post office, millions of jobs and their Union leadership don’t get the gravity of the action they prescribe.

As companies, small business, individuals fight o overthrow the effects of the toughest recession since the 1930’s, the actions of Post Office workers act as a kick in the teeth of the man & woman on the street.  Many businesses, small, medium and large are depending on Christmas sales boosting revenues enough to keep their business solvent.  Note I say solvent, not making profits, just staying afloat. 

Strike action this Christmas will be the tipping point for many busineeses and individuals to investigate alternative ways to get their deliveries out.  A large proportion may decide never to return their business to the Royal Mail.  Rival delivery operators will rightfully be rubbing their hands in glee.  A large scale move away from the Royal Mail will end the critical mass the Post Office depends on, hence ending the viability of the Royal Mail.  The very jobs a Trade Union seeks to protect will be undermined and lost to an act of madness.

Post Office workers need to search their soul.  Do they really think that in the midst of a devastating recession, at a time which brings some much needed relief and joy to the population, (aka Christmas), that they will win public support.  There is more chance of Sooty the Silent Bear winning the singing competition the ‘X Factor’ or Roland Rat dancing to victory in ’Strictly Come Dancing’.  Recent National Post Office strikes have shown that workers quickly return to work as their pay becomes the priority as their wallets empty and their families have less food on the table and recent history shows they win little concessions for their efforts.

Of course the Royal Mail needs to be modernised.  The whole organisation is in a dire mess, with a pensions deficit throttling its stability, (estimated to be £10 billion in deficit).  But strike action is not the answer.  We live in a digital age where email and instant communication is a priority.  But many businesses still depend on traditional post like Ebay and Amazon.  Both are now reviewing the best methods to get their goods out at Xmas. The Post Office could have a very healthy future but until the industrial militancy to any modernising moves is ended, the Post Office will sink like the Titanic.

Dave Ward, see the light, look after your workers, dont allow the biggest corporate suicide to take place. 

Wow, what a Conference.  One of the most striking aspects has been the rapid rise of the Charismatic Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, (or BoJo as he has become affectionately known as).  The man’s star is currently shining brighter than a supernova!  Again he fulfilled the role of Conference Darling this week in Manchester.

There can be no doubting his star quality.  Many in the Conference Hall, in the opening session had come in to see the maestro in action.  Boris has that ultimate quality in a politician: likeability.  Before he came on stage, a short video introduced him, highlighting his achievements and then at the end, the familiar thump thump of the EastEnders theme tune boomed into the Conference Hall.  The clip, (also on this site), was shown of Boris meeting and handing his business card to Peggy Mitchell, (Babs Windsor).  The Hall was electric, then the man bounded on stage himself, crumpled suit in place, blonde mop of hair spraying in all directions, to an instant outburst of a spontaneous standing ovation. The audience’s affection for Boris was genuine and heartfelt.

Boris is a natural orator.  He bumbling tones just add to his ‘X-factor’.  When he needs to be he can be eloquent, combined with this he is deeply intelligent but ultimately he understands that to sometimes drive a message home, cripple an opponent and build the excitement in a speech, you need to use humour.  Boris can fulfill the role of Conference Jester very well, but as we know this is sometimes to his detriment and personal brand as a serious politician.  Boris’ political antenna was totally attune to that of the Party faithful.  He wants a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, he wants the abolition of the 50p tax rate, he defended the bankers with panache and exclaimed that it was the bankers money and profits that paid for the public spending boom of Brown, and the hospitals we send our sick and the schools we educate our children in, only benefit from the bankers ability to generate billions of pounds.  He urged “all you banker-bashers out there” to “trust in London”, which he said would lead the country out of recession as it had done in the 1930s. Maybe those bankers aren’t so bad I heard a delegate behind me say. 

‘Cuts’ has been the word of the summer.  Key has been the focus on spending cuts.  Boris changed to to cutting ‘nonsense’.  Boris highlighted a case from last week when it emerged two female officers at the Metropolitan police had been stopped from babysitting each other’s children because they were not registered as childminders. Ofsted warned the women could be prosecuted for being in breach of the Childcare Act. Boris cut to the chase as he proclaimed to Conference: ”If it were up to me I would cut the babysitting monitoring department; I would cut the babysitting monitoring department action day; I would cut the babysitting monitoring department human resources section. “Get rid of this nonsense but don’t cut the investment essential to the UK economy.”

After a speech which lifted the Party faithful, the hall again erupted into a standing ovation.  As quickly as he had come and conquered, he bound of the stage job done, no doubt enjoying the acclamation he had received.

For those that missed it, ITN posted some of the highlights….click below to watch.

Conference speech finished, it was time for Boris to ‘meet the media’.  He pounded from news studio to news studio, journalist to journalist.  Always supportive of Cameron but maintaining the pressure on the leadership on key issues.  Even challenging Osborne to match his spending reductions and efficient use of money in London.  Wherever Boris went, he was pursued by adoring fans and journalists desperate to get him on their news bulletins.  Boris always responded with that natural enthusiasm and blonde mop of scruffy hair flailing in the wind!

Perhaps the best interview of Conference was between the master interviewer Jeremy Paxman and Boris.  This really is a must watch interview.  It is a shame that the BBC has cut some of this as Paxman, his usual sneering self, challenged Boris on the character of David Cameron, his wealth and of course his membership of the now infamous Bullingdon Club.  Boris, turned this questioning on his head and challenged Paxman to reveal his salary.  Repeatedly Boris challenged but Paxman would not relent, (reports place the Paxman salary, of course funded by the British tax payer at between £800k to £1 million…that’s a hefty sum given that the this is 4 times that of the Prime Minister!…up to you if he is worth that…?).  Whilst Boris’ challenge makes some of the final edit, his PR team claim that the whole interview was superb and have challenged the BBC to post the unedited version on iPlayer.  Some of this interview is pure political theatre.  Boris asking Paxman if Newsnight had plunged to the lowest depths when paxman enquired if Cameron had ever thrown a plant pot!  Boris challenges Paxman to get a proper job.  Paxo should stop ‘just’ questioning politicians…….Vintage.  Click below to watch.

Just class.

Boris has been Mayor for over a year now.  He has a lot left to achieve but can point to a number of successes already including freezing council tax, banning alcohol on the tube, devolving more power to local government, opposing a third runway at Heathrow, ousting the ‘hated’ Ian Blair as head of the Met Police,  adding 400 more police on the buses and hence seeing a reduction in violent crime, scrapping the bendy buses and phasing them out, opposing an extension of the congestion charge, the new rent-a-bike scheme.  At Conference he announced he would again freeze the Council Tax next year.  This was Conservatism in action he triumphantly proclaimed.

It was a real pleasure to meet and chat with the man who still has a long way to go in politics.  Boris used to proclaim he wanted to succeed Cameron as Prime Minister, although of late he has stated that being Mayor will be his last big political Job.  Commentators don’t believe him and still see a burning ambition in the man.  Whilst there will not be a vacancy for the Leadership of the Conservative Party for some time, who is to say that after a second term as Mayor, what will be the political situation at that moment of time will be.  Boris, a breath of fresh air in modern politics…keep up the great work BoJo!  A true legend in the making.

What a bad day for Gordon Brown and New/Old Labour.  (And a great day for former Sun & News of the World man, Andy Coulson, Director of Communications for the Tories).

The Sun newspaper throws its full weight behind David Cameron and the Conservatives.  Major blow for Labour.  Of course we all remember the great Sun headlines in 1992, on the day of the election: ‘If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain, please turn out the lights’.  The election was predicted to be a Labour win and hence when John  Major and the Conservatives defied the polls, the Sun claimed that its readership changed the election result with its help, hence the headline: ‘It’s the Sun wot won it’!  There can be no doubt that the media can shape the agenda and sway opinion…but to what degree is the question.

Welcome back ‘The Sun’, we missed you, although recent editorials have felt distinctly Conservative and your policies on immigration, Europe, tax cuts, law and order have always felt more akin to Conservatives than Labour.

Of course Labour are discounting this move by the Sun.  Brown says its the people who decide elections not the media.  Of course he would say that.  Blair was euphoric when The Sun supported in back in 1997. 

There is no doubt The Sun is a great national weather vane in British politics.  It backs the winner.  It senses that, even with 8 months to go, that the Conservatives will win.  Dont forget that The Sun’s circulation is 3.1m, which then is estimated that 3 people read that one copy, hence nearly a 10m readership!  That’s a huge difference.  Yes of course, The Sun urging people to vote Conservative is a big thing BUT hat is even bigger is the headlines and reporting style moving forward.  Noone will ever forget Neil Kinnock’s head in that lightbulb.  Noone will ever forget former England Manager Graham Taylor’s head shaped into a turnip…’Turnip Taylor’.  This reporting of headlines and caricatures of Brown will have its effect.

So what makes this story so powerful is its timing.  The Sun’s timing is immaculate and devastating.  At the start of the Conference, Labour were in dire straits, the hall was half empty, delegates were quiet and fed up.  Conference was more akin to a morgue.  But still a little flicker of fight back started.  Mandelson started picking them up.  Gordon tried again to rally them.  The hall felt a little more purpose.  But then…….BANG, The Sun kicks all this into touch and the Conference is back to doom and gloom and depression. 

Credit must go to the back room hidden communication maestro Andy Coulson, Conservatives Director of Communications.   Andy may operate in the shadows but his impact is front page.  Whilst Labour champion Mandelson and Alastair Campbell, we have a media maestro in Andy Coulson.  Dont forget Andy used to be very close in Murdoch’s Empire, as a former Editor of The News of the World and editor of The Sun’s showbizz column, ‘Bizarre’.  Surely Andy had a quiet word with his great buddy and new Editor at the Sun Dominic Mohan, (also a former editor of the showbizz column, ‘Bizarre’!  The timing is just too devastating to be left to chance….so credit to you Andy Coulson….great job.

At the time of Andy’s appointment as Conservatives Director of Communications, David Cameron stated: “Andy will make a formidable contribution as a senior member of my team in building the most effective strategy and operation to win the next general election. I look forward very much to working with him”.  DC, good call….Andy has already left his mark !  Pay rise that man!

So bad start to to the day for Gordon….but it gets worse…….

The Financial Times, launched its own equivalent of a damaging editorial on Brown.  Remember the readership of the FT is professionals, entrepreneurs, risk takers, wealth generators.  For the FT to report on Gordon Brown’s views on the failure of the market economy and need for more and more intervention, is as powerful in that community as The Sun announcing its support to its own readership.  This week Labour have been bashing the bankers at every opportunity.  Brown did the same.  This is coming home to roost now and the FT made clear its concern at intervention, market corrections and bashing bankers.  Don’t forget, much of the public spending that Brown has spent has been generated for many years by those bankers.  (And even more Brown spent was on tick!).  Those bankers will be the ones to help repay those debts, hence Brown bashing them, will secure him even less City support.  Not the best City PR strategy Gordon!

But still it gets worse…….

Iain Dale  reports today that the Labour Party is in dire straits financially.  Noone is investing cash in what is seen as a lame duck administration.  Iain reports close Labour sources that state Labour does not have enough cash to front an effective election campaign.  Also the prospect of Labour going bankrupt is raised as there is too little cash to meet its annual loan interest payments of £2 million.  That is a dire situation to be in.  So not only has Labour demonstrated it is inept in running the nation’s finances and landing us with the largest public deficit in history, unsurprisingly it has made mess of its own finances.  Hence, Labour is even more dependent on the Unions, especially UNITE, for its cash.  Expect to see a surge in Labour propaganda to the Left as Labour Leadership placate their comrades in the Unions as they beg for election cash!

Not surprisingly, Gordon, is ‘furious’ today, (in the words of the Evening Standard).  This has shone through……

Did you see Gordon’s interview with Adam Boulton on Sky News today?  Gordon is obviously tired and frustrated but take time out and listen to this poor interview.  He is evasive, he badgers the interviewer.  Worst of all he accuses Adam of being a political propagandist.  He may think that but to say it is poor.  This is the Prime Minister, not a 3rd grade debating contender.  Poor show Gordon, poor show!   

Which led to this headline in today’s Evening Standard.  Is he cracking up?

Prime Minister cutting Trident budget.  Prime Minister cutting £2bn off education spending.  More cuts yet to be announced as Whitehall Mandarins currently do the maths.  Where does this leave the Tories?  Is the Emperor trying to steal our clothes?

One of the key differentiators over the summer, ‘clear blue water’, between Labour and Tories has been the early identification by the Conservatives that there needed to be spending cuts to reduce the spiralling deficit.  Pre the recess Gordon Brown was scornful of Cameron’s policies.  At times deeply patronising.  For Brown the choice was between ‘Tory cuts, Labour Investment’.  Cameron was Mr 10%.  The man would axe teachers, health workers, public sector jobs etc.  Oh how times have changed over the Summer.  Brown has been dragged kicking and screaming down the road to Damascus.

Labour have now u-turned.  They have done a complete 180 degree turn and now are prioritising expenditure reviews….only because necessity dictates.  Brown wants to avoid that visit to the IMF, cap in hand, for a bailout of bankrupt Britain….pre the election at least.  So how has this situation developed over the past 2 weeks?  First up, leaked Treasury documents showed that Labour have been in the planning stages of 10% cuts over this summer, (making the abuse that Brown gave Cameron as Mr 10% farcical and deeply offensive).  Ed Balls comes out at the weekend to announce £2bn cuts in education spending.  Yes, this involves axing teaching staff, (something Cameron had been accused of).  Now today, Brown announces he is planning to cut circa 1/4 off Trident spending.  More spending cuts will be announced over the coming weeks.

Trident is an easy card for Brown to play.  He needs his friends on the Left of the Party.  The card carrying dregs left of CND will rejoice that this decision is a move in their direction, albeit only 1 submarine!   It will be interesting to see how Cameron plays the Trident decision.  The Conservatives have always been the Party of Defence.  Known for strong investment into the defence of the realm.  Does he play this card?  Does Cameron say that Labour is leaving the country weaker, as evidenced by the Afghanistan war with soldiers left with insufficient manpower, equipment, armoury, transportation and air power, backing this up with cuts in Trident? 

Or does Cameron focus on economic reality.  He needs to make big cuts.  Not every area can be ring fenced.  The health service is sacrosanct. But cuts need to be made, is Trident one area?  Tough decisions, which will be political by nature.  Cameron also has to be aware of the prevailing times.  Obama’s New World Order, reduce nuclear proliferation.  But times that also pose new dangers.  Unpredictable rogue states like Iran, North Korea, an unstable Pakistan and a real threat of a non conclusion to the Afghanistan War, hence leaving the Taliban regaining control.  Real danger exists and must never be discounted.

The public spending debate is starting to change.  It is no longer a choice of cuts vs. investment.  It is a choice of what gets cut and how much?  As we move forward, ardent critics of the Government’s policy in the past who urged drastic cuts in spending like World Bank, IMF, IOD, CBI, will neutralize their stance / start to make positive noises towards Labour, as they at last announce cuts.  The public sometimes have short memories and hence while the Tories led the way on proposing cuts, the Government will demonstrate they have been cutting, hence moving some way to shortening / blurring the clear blue water we built on this issue.

Now what is the best policy for the Conservatives moving forward?  We could be out manoeuvred by Labour!  This is a key strategic decision by Cameron & team.

Option 1 is silence.  Do the Conservatives need to detail all the policy areas they would cut?  This in effect is the age old argument over whether an Opposition should reveal a shadow budget.  Given spending decisions are being made, unpopularity will follow for this Government.  Already in education, teaching unions are discussing the need for strike action.  Do the Conservatives need to enter into a spending squabble between the Government and Teaching Unions, when we can leave them to it and grab the pop corn and enjoy the fireworks and watch our poll ratings rise.   As other cuts are announced.  More attacks will be made on the Government by those affected.  Strikes will follow.  Public protests.  Marches.  Demonstrations.  All from which we could sit back and watch poll support, in theory rise!

Danger of this strategy is Labour’s response and whether it would resonate with the public.  It is clear that Mandolsen’s strategy in the next election will be, there will be gentle cuts under Labour, precision cuts by a skilled surgeon, and the slogan will be life would be worse under the Tories.  They will state that Tories would propose ‘savage’ cuts.  They will try to paint us as ideologically committed and turned on by spending cuts.  They will paint us as the Party of Unemployment.  This will be the line that every Cabinet Minister will subconsciously try to drum into the electorate’s head.  But will the electorate believe that?  Will they trust a proven lying Government?  That’s the gamble.

Option 2.  That is for the Conservatives to take charge of the spending question.  George Osborne could call a press conference this week and show economic leadership by providing more detail in what Conservatives propose to cut.  We know that Whitehall is preparing the figures and Ministers chewing over what has to be cut.  Before they announce their results, Osborne could have trumped them and then accused Labour of copying Conservative proposals.  We know that Labour are happy to steal our clothing.  Look at Tony Blair.  New Labour was socialism in a pink dress and nice stiletto’s, hiding the evils which lay beneath. 

These are interesting strategic times.  Critical as we approach the next election.  As Conservatives move further towards the Left to attract Liberal Democrat voters, we have to ensure that a clear choice still remains for the electorate.  Choosing between different shades of the same colour can make it easier for bigger poll swings, one way or another.  Electoral volatility is well known in our electoral history.  1992 is a great example, with Major beating the odds, despite poll ratings being wildly wrong.

Of course, Labour are mightily unpopular today.  But what if Brown does decide to retire early because of failing health.  What if the Labour Conference next week is so rebellious, that more follow Charles Clarke and openly criticise Brown, that Brown either quits for the Party of the men in grey coats knock at the doors of Number 10.  The smiling Alan Johnson, the most likely benefactor of Brown going, would enjoy a media bounce and chance to change the Party’s policies, say he is listening to the Public, then the subsequent 3 month honeymoon period, could make it tougher for the Conservatives to achieve the thumping majority we all crave for, (if a snap election had been called to correspond with the honeymoon period).

So what is the clear blue water?  What differentiates us from the other parties?  Well several cards are ours to play.  Core issues like Europe, immigration and taxation are natural Conservative areas.  These are currently on the back burner.  Unplayed winning hands.  Why are they not being played some will ask?

The answer is that polls show that the biggest pool of undecided voters lay in the centre ground.  Lib Dem supporters are volatile.  They are feeling ‘warm and fuzzy’ towards Conservatives.  Given our core supporters want / demand change away from this dreadful Socialist Government, we can bank on their support.  Their votes are in the bank, (however much they want a real swing to the right).  So naturally, as we saw Eric Pickles do last week, the Party seeks to attract Lib Dem voters by playing smooth, sensual, alluring tunes to their supporters to dance to.  Pickles won’t play the Europe card now, as Clegg himself identifies, Lib Dems and Conservatives have different visions of Europe.  Lib Dems love the European Superstate.  Hence, keep Europe off the table.  Discussing Europe will make us less appealing to Lib Dem floaters.  Whilst the Party can, it advisably follows the strategy of winning and building upon core support and keeping away from controversial issues that could be divisive.  No need to rock the boat in the delicate run up to the election.

But….here comes the but….if this Government start to reduce the clear blue water, starts rising in the polls, voters getting more confused at who offers what…..no doubt the European question, Immigration and Tax will raise their head again.  But only if and when the Party need to differentiate itself.  Until that point, the controversial issues will lie sleeping…….

Great to have Scott Newton back with another great blog contribution.  Over to you Scott.  Thanks, as ever, for your support.

————————————————————————-

LABOUR INVESTMENT Vs TORY CUTS, ANOTHER PATHOLOGICAL LIE FROM LABOUR! AND WINTER OF DISCONTENT THE SECOND INEVITABLE?
 
So, Gordon Brown has finally said the Dreaded C Word ‘Cuts’. This time he is not referring to the Conservative Party with his Socialist dogmatic attitude. This time he is actually referring to his own Party, His own Policy, and His Understanding that we are officially bankrupt as a Country and the only way to reduce the Public Sector Debt is with Cuts. So the repeated phrases from Brown like, ‘Tory Cuts Vs Labour Investment is out the Window’ just like Gordon Brown and his Labour Government will be in the next General Election
 
I was watching the TUC live on BBC Parliament when the Prime Minister was making his annual Speech. He struck me as being a ‘bundle of Nerves’ when talking to the Congress. The Union’s were being typical of Protectionism for State Employed workers, demanding safety and Continuous Employment for all employees in the Recession. I think people like Brendan Barber & other Trade Union Bosses are living in a Dream World when it comes to making so much of a demand for protectionism and full state employment, when those in the productive Private Sector are really feeling the pinch due to Labour’s awful economic Policy since 1997.  Brown’s acts as Chancellor of keeping no Capital Afloat in the Treasury in case of a rainy Day have led to the demise of this Nation. He Spent, Spent, and Spent as Chancellor. When Sir John Major left office in the Labour win of 1997, interest Rates were Low, Debt’s Low, a Private Sector Economy Booming, a Managed Civil Service, and also Employment falling to record low numbers.  John Major had 1000x the integrity and Economic Competence of Alastair Darling, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown put together.

We have once again arrived at the time old Truth that all Labour Government’s run out of Money. We have a huge Government State squeezing the Productive bit of the Economy, Union’s once again out of control with Demands of Protectionism and more State Jobs being Created, we have a Bankrupt NHS which will have to be seriously looked at in 2011 if it is to be saved as a National Asset, A Welfare State in desperate need of reform, The Dark Prospect’s of Brown and Darling running to the IMF in need of emergency Capital.

So these next 8-9 Month’s before Election time is going to be played very dirty by Labour. But the people of the United Kingdom are wise and not stupid, they will not fall for it this time. So Brown save yourself the Bother, Resign get down to the Palace and Call that General Election! We in the Conservative Party are ready to Govern with a United Team, a United Party and an Economic Plan to move the country forward! And I will put every bit of faith in David and George. There is also the time old truth that Conservative Government always inherit a Bankrupt Nation a Labour Government. And we always seem to fix the problem!
 
Thank you. Scott Newton-Conservative Party Member. Newcastle upon Tyne.

We must do all we can to prevent another Soham but are we in danger of creating a society in which we think every adult approaching children means to do them harm?

That is a sensible question following a report carried in The Daily Telegraph today which is nothing short of disturbing.  The Government’s obsession with intruding into our lives knows no bounds.  This intrusion is the new anti-paedophile database, set up in the wake of the Soham murders, with a goal of stopping paedophiles gaining access to children and prevent inappropriate people working with vulnerable adults.

Under the plan parents could face a £5,000 fine for the simple favour of driving their children’s friends to a sports event or Cub Scout /girl guide meeting if they have not been vetted first by the massive new government agency. 11.3million people – one adult in four – are likely to come under the scrutiny of the Independent Safeguarding Authority. Launched next month this will be the biggest vetting and clearing system in the world. Every person who comes into regular contact with children or the elderly, through work or volunteering, must be approved by ISA officials checking for criminal convictions, disciplinary action and even unproven allegations……and they will have to pay for the pleasure of being on this database!

Anyone who is paid for their efforts will be charged a registration fee of £64.  Now consider that 11.3 million are expected to register, that means a stealth tax of: £723, 200, 000.

None of us want another Soham.   But the scale of what this prying government are introducing covers even those who have the briefest of contact with children.  Iain Dale highlights a typical situation for many.  Iain regularly gets invited to give talks at schools to help educate them in politics.  A totally honourable thing to do.  But Iain correctly states a point of view many will share: ’Well I for one won’t be signing up to it. I don’t need to prove my innocence to anyone. Some of you might rejoice in the fact that it may mean I won’t be able to impart my words of wisdom to schoolkids any longer. Fair enough. But what about the local historian, what about the local bank manager or careers adviser who decides that they are not going to subject themselves to this? In the end it is the kids themselves who will lose out’.  He is totally right judging from the outpouring of emotion across the web today.  Many innocent people don’t want this intrusion into their lives.

Let’s look at the consequences further.

Chris Grayling is right when he states:  ‘We are going to drive away volunteers, we’ll see clubs and activities close down and we’ll end up with more bored young people on our streets’.” – Daily Mail

Grayling went further today when he added: ’This scheme cannot be allowed to go ahead in this way. We would review the whole safeguarding process and scale it back so that common sense applies. Of course we have to check out those people who have jobs working with children, but the idea that we would vet 11 million parents is complete nonsense’.  Well said Chris!

Graeme Archer, on ConservativeHome, makes a great argument on CentreRight.

‘This insidious, filthy law – actually, would it be possible to design a worse one? – will not protect children – that much is obvious – but it will lead to:

• fewer adults giving up their time to help in their communities;
• an increase in mutual distrust;
• the fostering of the corrosive anti-child culture which causes most men to shy away from so much as talking to a child in public, even if the child is in visible distress;
• an increase in unchecked antisocial behaviour (who’s going to risk approaching a gang of teenage troublemakers now?);
• a waste of money on pointless bureaucracy’.

The best thing to do with this proposal?  Ditch it.  Scrap it.  As the Information Commisioner’s Office, the data watchdog highlights, a large database could see personal details being wrongly disclosed.  We have seen the Government lose many data disks over the years.  This is one step too far.  An intrusion into our civil liberty……

We must do all be can to prevent another Soham.  But let’s have sensible & workable suggestions.

Is Gordon Brown ill?  Reports are flying round the blogs and much chattering is taking place amongst MP’s / Westminster village that he is suffering from depression and is taking powerful anti depressants.

Brown certainly has a low profile at the moment but it could explain why he took a month off work and Mandelson is fronting the majority of tv interviews for the Government.  However, this story may be all rubbish and Brown is keeping a low profile because he is deeply unpopular?  The truth will out.

Iain Dale is carrying a well crafted piece today in which he raises this question and states that if Brown is suffering some form of illness he deserves our compassion, not our insults.  Really suggest that you read Iain’s pece as he deals with this issue compassionately and thoughtfully. 

This story all surfaced last week on John Ward’s blog.  Iain Dale details how the story is escalating:  ‘Matthew Norman wrote about it in yesterday’s Independent and Guido Fawkes has given the full details on his blog. Even lefty John Harrisis speculating about the Prime Minister’s state of mind on Comment is Free. And he’s not the first. Behind the scenes in Westminster it is a regular topic of conversation. Labour MPs discuss it, along with the rest of us’.

Guido breaks into more detail: ‘In the broadsheets Simon Heffer, Matthew Parris have touched on the issue and this morning Matthew Norman in the Independent has explicitly referred to the allegation that Gordon Brown is taking “heavy duty antidepressants known as MAOIs (Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors)”. The evidence is first and foremost his behaviour – what some have previously put down to a lack of EQ or emotional intelligence, is now being attributed to drugs to control his dark depressions.  We all know the stories of rages, flying Nokias, smashed laser printers, tables kicked over and crying Downing Street secretaries subjected to foul-mouthed tirades.  We have seen the deranged YouTube performances, the bizarre facial contortions, the incongruent emotional responses – smiling when offering condolences, frowning when giving best wishes’.

Depression is nothing new in politics.  In faction it is very common.  Winston Churchill, the greatest war time Prime Minister, sufferered from serious mental health problems.  Churchill, at times, suffered crippling depression.  He called this ‘black dog’.  His medecine was…..alcohol.

What is depression?   It is very common in the UK.  Especially in times like these with a recession.

The signs

People with depression can feel hopelessly sad. Sometimes it is even possible to be depressed without having the usual ‘miserable’ feelings. There are lots of different signs which may point to depressive illness – the main ones are listed below. Keep in mind that most depressed people only suffer from a few of these feelings.

Changed feelings

You may have noticed  a change in the way you are responding or feeling about things. The following points can be indications that it could be depression:

• Persistent sadness, lasting two weeks or more;
• Loss of interest in your favourite things;
• Finding no fun or enjoyment in life;
• Loss of self-confidence;
• Feeling guilty, bad, unlikeable, or not good enough;
• Feeling empty inside;
• Feeling useless or unable to cope with life;
• Feeling bored all the time;
• Increased feelings of anxiety;
• Can’t see a future for yourself;
• Thinking everything is pointless;
• Thinking life is not worth living;
• Thoughts of death or suicide;
• Wanting to go to sleep and never wake up again;
• Especially low mood in the mornings;
• Feeling more irritable, frustrated, or aggressive than usual;
• Trouble concentrating on things, poor memory.

Given the HUGE pressure that Gordon is under, it would not be surprising if this had taken its toll.  Devastating local and European elections, a fleet of ministerial resignations, JUST holding onto his job, a collapsing economy, a faltering war in Afghanistan with soldiers returning ever more frequently in body bags…this would test the best of us.

Now any one suffering from depression/any form of illness deserves compassion.  But we also have to consider the Office of State he presides over, (if this story is true).  This is the Head of the Armed Forces, finger on the Nuclear button.  This is the man who has to lead this country out of recession and take delicately based economic decisions.  Whilst someone suffering from depression can do the job, (as Churchill did), today is a different scenario with 24/7 media coverage, global challenges being thrown by the hour, an economy trying to climb the cliff back to growth, unemployment still growing, a war that sees no ends.  This requires a leader at the top of their game.

Interestingly, I was re-reading previous blogs I have posted:  This was posted on 20th May

‘Hence, this is what TBB forecasts will happen.   Brown, because of all the above, will announce that he is to step down as Leader.  He will say his job is done.  He has worked day and night to turn the economy round, brought together G20 and everything is now in place for a recovery.  Due to the tolling hours on his health and family life he will say that it is time for a new Leader to take the Party forward in more positive times.  He will admit that he will be tainted with the recession and he would not like to go into an election with this stigma for the Party.  He will play the card that it is now time for him to spend more time with his family.   This is the only chance that Labour have left.  No policy initiative or ‘weapon’ at their disposal can turn around this poll in time for a May 2010 election.  Hence the goal will be a new leader, hence a honeymoon period for that leader in the polls and bang….an election.  This new leader will then say, because of all the sleaze in parliament and events of the past few months, we need a new election, fresh faces, fresh ideas…..and call one.  Labour hope this will minimise losses and perhaps the British people will be gullible and scrape them in’.

As a private individual we should feel compassion for anyone suffering depression, if Brown is.  I am sure many in the nation will feel real sympathy for Brown.  But we also deserve the truth.  Which lobby journalist will ask this question and we have a right to know the state of health of our Prime Minister….?

Any reader of this site knows I am not a fan of Speaker Bercow.  I have been critical of his election to the role, (by majority of Labour MP’s and very few Conservative supporters), his changing of the traditions of Parliament, (eg Speaker’s dressage and plans for upheaving centuries of tradition with new procedures in the House), and his attitude in the role, (very patronising and arrogant).  I also frown on the way he has treated the Conservative Party.  It is well rumoured he was planning a defection to the Labour Party and the seismic shift in his political philosophy from right of Thatcher surging faster than Usian Bolt at full stride…to the Left, is either the greater conversion ever on the road to Damascus or purely political opportunism.  You decide.  So I struggle to have any loyalty to a man who I perceive did not treat our Party honourably in recent years.  Please correct me if I am wrong in my views.

So news come today that Nigel Farage, MEP and Leader of UKIP will be standing against Speaker Bercow at the next election in Buckingham.  A tough act for Farage given it is one of the safest Conservative Seats in the country with a Majority of 13,325.  Readers will know that I suggested that Esther Rantzen would be better positioned to challenge Bercow than stand in Luton.  There are also credible rumours of an Independent Conservative standing for the seat.

By convention, no Party fields a candidate against a sitting Speaker.  But Farage is going to break that convention.

Nigel told the Daily Telegraph today: “This man represents all that is wrong with British politics today. He was embroiled in the expenses saga and he presides over a Parliament that virtually does nothing. He is not a Conservative and yet he is sitting in one of the safest Conservative seats in the country. It means the people of Buckingham cannot vote for a Conservative even if they want to. This is a part of England where we did very well in the European elections and local elections. We are very well organised and strong and I intend to fight this very hard to become the MP.”

This makes it a whole new ball game.  Labour and Lib Dems will now have to consider their response and whether to field candidates.

This makes it hard for us Conservatives.  I am sure the Conservative Leadership would value the chance for fresh Speakership elections in the new Parliament, hence having more say in the role, than the mockery of a Bercow, elected by pure Labour vindictiveness to elect a Speaker they knew us Conservatives would not want. 

So, Bercow is now in effect an Independent candidate.  Whilst he came from the Conservative Party, he no longer speaks with a Conservative tongue.  He cannot as he has to remain neutral.  Therefore, as Farage is standing, the people of Buckingham now have the beginning of choice.  Other parties may follow.  If Labour and the Lib Dems follow suit and decide to field candidates, then the only Party with no voice is the Conservatives.  How bizarre is that?   Bercow is technically Conservative but will not be representing the Party as he has to now remain neutral.  So perhaps we have to consider fielding a true Conservative candidate.  This will undermine Bercow and may be in danger of splitting the Conservative vote.  But that is a decision for Cameron to take.

Oh how I wish Dan Hannan could throw his hat into the ring.

If you were a voter in Buckingham, and the choice boiled purely down to Bercow and Farage, which way would you go?  Whilst I am Conservative to the core, (voted Conservative all my life)…I can see why people will be mightily tempted to vote Farage.  If they do, should we see that as disloyalty? 

2010’s MP’s may not hold a candle to 2015’s ‘People’s intake’!

25% of MP’s after the next election are likely to be career politicians with little experience of business, public service or the professions according to the Think Tank New Local Government Network .  Does that concern you?  Is democracy going to be weakened or is this a storm in a tea cup?  And is this a fair representation of the Conservative PPC’s?  Voices are starting to speak out, none least Anne Widdecombe in the latest edition of Total Politics magazine who worries about a ‘third rate Parliament’ in 2010.   Whilst 2010’s intake may cause concern, Cameron’s Candidate Selection revolution gives great hope for the 2015 ‘People’s Intake’ of MP’s!

Covered in the Daily Telegraph today, (http://tiny.cc/KEgFf), analysis of the backgrounds of 782 candidates selected by the three main parties to fight seats at the general election, (within 10 months), shows that only a third have had any experience of business. One in four can be described as a “career politician,” having had paid employment working in Parliament, or worked as an adviser to a senior politician whether as an employee or volunteer.  The research by the New Local Government Network think tank using biographical information provided by the candidates and their parties shows that only 11.7 per cent of candidates have worked in the public services, including 2.6 per cent in health care. In addition, the figures show that fewer than three in 10 prospective parliamentary candidates (PPCs) are female.  The analysis shows that nearly one in three Tory candidates have worked in Parliament or for a political party in the past. 

This is something that should hugely concern all of us.  Candidates divorced from real life experiences, certainly wont add value to the rich debates of the House of Commons.  Recently, I attended a Party event, which included a new PPC in a winnable seat, (I won’t name names).   It was fascinating.  I was sharing a pint with a local businessman who has successfully set up a start up business, which has grown into a huge employer, with offices across the country.  By any definition he is successful and merits being listened to for his experience.  What followed made me embarrassed.  The PPC went on to explain their views on small businesses and their blueprint for being successful.  It was rather like listening to a University Graduate tell Alex Ferguson how to build a winning team and win the Premiership!  This was from a PPC, with no commercial experience, young, who sounded like he was reciting a press release from Central office.  The successful businessman, with 30 years plus commercial experience, stood there aghast as he was being advised by this upstart who so obviously not attune with the really tough decisions being made in the real economy.  That lack of political antenna from the PPC concerned and was commented on as you can imagine by the businessman!  Credibility whithered….

I have nothing against career politicians but a House of Commons full of MP’s with real life experience and an understanding of life wins for me every time, than the career politician with a degree in Politics and a text book of answers. 

Candidate selection is a controversial area and generates much heated debate.  It is for many people a very personal area and sensitivities always seem to arise.  When I raised this issue previously, I was flooded with emails on the subject.  Whilst current facts on candidates choices are hard to argue against, candidate selection has changed forever in the Conservative Party, and the intake of Conservative MP’s in 2010, does not represent the revolution that Central Office has introduced ready for the next Parliament in 2015, (latest).  The debate on candidate selection has become too simplistic in many many ways and should be seen in two phases.

Pre the expenses scandal, many of the Conservative PPC’s, (like those of any Party), possessed a background with mostly some form of political influence.  Be it they were career politicians, (ie worked for a Politician/MP/think tank etc), or went the traditional route, ie worked their way through the local Conservative Party, eg Association Chairman and then became a Councillor, and then applied to be a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate.   The so called, ‘traditional route’.  The 2010 Parliament is set to intake many of these sorts of candidates as noted above.

However, as we all know, post the expenses scandal, post the backlash against MP’s and politicians in general, David Cameron has revolutionized Candidate Selection firstly by encouraging applications from people with non political backgrounds.  Hence over 4,000 applications from diverse people like nurses, ex soldiers, teachers, doctors, charity workers, flooded Central office with their applications and enthusiasm.  Candidate Assessment Centres, (PAB’s…Parliamentary Assessment Boards), have been busily assessing these applications over the past few months and word is, that there are some phenomenal candidates entering onto the books.  One assessor of talent on these PAB’s, (and reads this site regularly), is really motivated and inspired by the new talent emerging.

Coupled with this is Cameron’s revolutionary idea, (Hannan would point to it coming from ‘The Plan’), that candidates should be elected by Open Primaries, hence adding further legitimacy to the selection process. Totnes is a leading example, where the whole constituency was polled to select the local candidate.

Hence then, the 2015 Parliament will be the Parliament of the people, the ‘People’s intake’, the ‘People’s Parliament’, with the new revolutionary candidates emerging.

CCHQ gets a rough ride at times but on Candidate Selection it now has it spot on.  We Conservatives have a superb process now in place.  The PAB’s will sort out / filter strong candidates, based on thorough assessments, and then these candidates will go into Open Primaries and the people will then decide the best candidate.  No doubt, some of those candidates will be ‘career politicians’ and some will be the new intake of candidates eg the nurses, doctors, social workers etc.  The people will then decide who is the best candidate.  Who can argue with democracy?  We are all about ‘letting the people’ decide.

I have had emails complaining that the local Association should be left to select candidates and not CCHQ, (via PAB’s).   But this is pure bunkem.  Central Office are using professional Assessors who can help weed out the wheat from the chaff.  Modern businesses will either employ in house recruiter’s to help assess great candidates for their company or outsource candidate assessment to a professional body. Recruitment is an art and cannot be left to those not attuned to best selection methods.  This is no different than what the Conservatives are doing by using a team of professional assessors to screen best candidates.  These candidates, (passing PAB’s), at the end of the day will be then free to present themselves to Associations and then Primaries for election.  Associations cannot complain at this and particularly some of the ones that are have selected some shocking candidates in the past should zip it up.  Good on CCHQ for professionalising Candidate Selection.  Three loud cheers.  The public will certainly notice the difference moving forward in candidate quality.

Some emails to me have questioned the merits of being a card carrying member of the Conservative Party.  They question this because of previous benefits and perceived links to being a member was the THE route to local / Parliamentary Office.  Arguing that some of the candidates being assessed today don’t possess a political bone in their body and no affliations with the Conservatives in the past…..hence why belong to the Party as it matters not when seeking Office!  If these new candidates get elected, then there is no point in membership of the Party, they argue.  Wow.  I always thought membership of the Conservatives was because someone believed in their principles and what they were trying to achieve not because they only joined to seek office and hold power. 

Let’s also be clear, when people complain that the new candidates are not political ie the nurses, social workers, army officers etc, that does not mean that the CCHQ PAB’s will be selecting people who are left wing!  They are being thoroughly assessed and these people’s political judgement and gut feel naturally resides with the Conservatives. 

The proof is in the pudding of course, but I would argue that Conservative MP’s with real life experience are preferable to  ‘career politicians’ with no commercial or reality experience. 

Key to this is to attract the best candidates, remuneration has to be an incentive.  £65,000 basic is not a salary that will incentivize the best candidates in society.  Many of my friends would make brilliant MP’s but they are on salaries that are secure and far higher than £65,000.  Anyone who argues that £65k is a fair salary is frankly out of touch.  Take a look at the appointments section of the Sunday Times and you will see salaries of £100,000 for public sector roles that carry far less responsibility than an MP!  So I do align that an MP’s salary should be pegged at £100k to start and that MP’s should be allowed 2nd Roles eg Consulting a local business.  Again a reality check as they keep in touch with real life business issues.

Not everyone agrees with Cameron’s Candidate Revolutuion.  Anne Widdecombe warns, “I came into this place as a Member of Parliament, I leave it as an employee of the House of Commons… I think we’re going to have a third rate parliament.”  Anne’s full interview is here…take a look: http://tiny.cc/9qd6V  Two paragraphs I would loved to draw to your attention from the interview:

Iain Dale: What did you make of David Cameron’s plea for anybody to come forward who wants to be a Conservative candidate? Apparently 4,000 have.

Anne Widdecombe:  I think he’s wrong. It’s been well known for a long time that David and I have not agreed on candidate selection. I think he’s a fantastic leader, he’s winning. But all leaders get some things wrong and I think our approach – which hasn’t just been David’s – to candidate selection over the last few years has been completely misguided. We have gone for category rather than ability. We’re looking for more women. I’m all for more women, I’m all for more members of the ethnic communities, I’m all for more anythings as long as they get there on merit. I believe, as a woman, that every woman in Parliament should be able to look every man from the Prime Minister downwards in the eye and to think she got there on exactly the same basis that he got there. And if she can’t she’s a second class citizen. We’re going to have a Conservative Party full of second-class citizens.

Iain Dale: You are calling your successor in Maidstone a second-class citizen.

Anne Widdecombe: No. I think – and she would say – she wished there were no A-list. That she wished she’d been allowed to compete on merit because the fact is she’d have got through anyway. But what was happening was that we were told – and that moment in the selection process stands out in my memory -that we had to have, in the final, two men and two women regardless of the assessments we’d made. Helen [Grant, Conservative PPC for Maidstone and The Weald] was going to go through anyway. And one of our association said to the Central Office agent “are you telling us that we may not select on merit?” And with admirable honesty the Central Office agent said “yes”. Now that is lunatic: it is putting cart before horse. First you look at merit, then you look at category. I think we’ve actually insulted a lot of women who would have got there on their own merit. Instead we’ve insisted on equal numbers on the shortlist, fast tracking on A-lists. I’m very glad it didn’t happen in my day.

So where do you stand on the whole candidate selection debate? Is Widdecombe right that the 2010 Parliament will be a ‘third rate Parliamanet’?  Do you agree that Cameron’s Candidate Revolution will produce a Parliament to be proud of in 2015?