The other day I came across a great collection of clips on Youtube of PMQ's in 1996. A fag end administration dying and a popular opposition kicking the Government around. Thanks go to ergos645 for putting them up, so if you have a few minutes free have a look at some of these.
 
NHS
 
Tony Blair criticising the amount spent on administration in the NHS. Oh the irony.
 
Party Funding
 
Another classic here. Blair passionately attacks gifts disguised as loans (donations are ok though). Nice mention of trade union funding for Labour by John Major. Twelve years on and....
 
A Lesson for Harriett
 
Michael Heseltine takes questions from Prescott (now middle class) about dumping an unpopular Prime Minister. At least John Major won an election.
 
A couple of things strike me about the videos. As I was 14 at the time and had a life, I hadn't seen them before but it's amazing the difference a proper Speaker makes. There's no doubt the present Speaker has been appalling in comparison. Secondly how calm and measured Tony Blair was at the time, until the subject got on to party funding and he had his rant. Quite remarkable when you consider what happened a decade later. Thirdly how much better and at ease John Major was in comparison to Gordon Brown. At least he maintained some likeability which Brown seems to be failing to achieve.
 
All very interesting, I wonder how today's PMQs debates will look in 10 years.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

One of the biggest lies perpetuated by Gordon Brown and co is that the UK is best placed to withstand the global slowdown. Now I might be being a little simple here but we have an economy where wealth for the majority is based on their house price. This drives their spending power and this consumerism keeps the UK economy going. Now falling house prices = less equity to feel rich through = no more new kitchens, bathrooms, plasma TVs (unless you’re an MP).

With this in mind, how the economy fail to fall into recession? We’re in a bear stock market, people have eye watering personal debts on which their interest rates are going up on, the savings ratio has plunged since Gordon Brown wrecked pensions in his first budget and got rid of tessas and peps. We have a diminished manufacturing industry and a service industry economy which relies on consumerism (and so we’re back to the start).

With Government borrowing billions and the off balance PFI’s and pensions, this country is in a mess and people are only just waking up to it. We’ve had a 10 year boom of house prices fuelled by cheap money and the likes of Kirstie Allsop saying but buy buy property. This could never continue and indeed the realignment is now taking place.

So what are the economic consequences. Well as the impact of the housing crisis starts to feed through, I expect many industries to topple like dominos in a long drawn out slowdown. New house building has come to a virtual halt and can’t just restart overnight. Unless credit markets open up prontish which is not happening, then the house price falls will continue. Therefore I would be surprised if over the next 2-3 years, growth gets above 1% in any year. There will be a contraction in amongst that in late this and early next year.

Politically, a Prime Minister who has boasted about the end of boom and bust for a decade will look a weakened figure every day. This boast has always been ridiculous as there was no way one man could hold make the economic cycle. Brown could well send Labour into total meltdown come election time with these circumstances.

Having always wanted to be Prime Minister, he should have paid attention to the old adage ’be careful what you wish for’.

Andrew Woodman

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

I was going to write something on Thursday about the DD resignation, but I thought I’d wait a few days to see how things are playing out. Three days on, it looks like things are developing ok for DD, and once again the mainstream media have been shown to be out of touch with the rest of the nation.

Like many on Thursday, I was bemused by what was going on. However after listening to DD’s speech outside Parliament, I couldn’t help admiring the principles behind his decision as I simply couldn’t see what he was going to gain by making it. The media took its typical reaction with various political reporters spurting out the lines fed to them by the Labour Party, while looking for splits and bust ups within the Tory Party and labelling the whole thing a stunt.

Friday saw the Sun lay into DD which was no real surprise with the famous guardian of British liberties Rupert Murdoch at the helm. He looked to fund a candidate to fight DD after Labour prepared to bottle out.

The weekend saw a change as the Westminster village started to realise that many people regarded DD’s actions as a noble act in defending civil liberties. Sunday has certainly gone DD’s way after a very effective display on the Andrew Marr show which showed up the robotic David Milliband peddling why the British people have no right to express their opinion on the European Treaty in the way the Irish have.

So what’s going on, why has DD done this? Well I can only come to the conclusion that it’s a real genuine belief in Civil Liberties. That this endorsement of DD will ensure the Conservatives become real champions of liberty and it will bounce the leadership in accepting it as the thinking behind all of its policy. If that happens, then DD could go down in history as the man who stopped 1984 becoming a reality.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

The media in the last few days has been full of talk of fuel duty. People are at last beginning to realise just how much the Government is taking off them in duty at the pump and no doubt that’s another reason for Labour’s current unpopularity.
 
So it was no surprise on Question Time last night when the first question was about the soaring cost of fuel. Unfortunately, Eric Pickles was unable to give a clear answer about what the Conservatives would do about this, because he desperately wanted to stick to the green agenda and so talked about the replacement taxes policy in a rather confused and convoluted manner.
 
I don’t blame Eric Pickles for this. The whole idea of these replacement taxes has become convoluted and needs dropping. It’s become apparent that tax will be a big issue at the next election with the public reaching the tipping point of their tax toleration. Do we really want to be going into the election saying we want to put more tax on cars and flights. Trust in politicians has been so eroded that the public won’t believe in the tax savings elsewhere.
 
Also, I can't believe there are all these people (especially those on lower incomes) who are all driving and flying for the hell of it. Most driving especially in rural areas in essential to get to work, kids to school ect. In the village I grew up in, a bus come through 4 times a day. For a family to holiday closer to home and not fly abroad, that will surely involve driving as well won‘t it!
 
In practical terms, I don't see these green taxes having a major effect in behaviour, and will only succeed in punishing the worse off. The policy must be dumped.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Being rather sad, I forewent a Friday night out to see Boris confirmed as London Mayor. Before the result was announced, I watched a very funny edition of Have I got news for you hosting by Brian Blessed in maniac mood. It was quite fitting really as had it not been for Boris’s appearances on this programme, Ken Livingstone could well still be Mayor. For it was this programme that launched Boris on the national stage. You could argue he would have been famous due to his work at the Telegraph and Spectator but it was HIGNFY which put him in the public consciousness.
 
It was also this programme which helped the public rehabilitation of William Hague of course with a series of hilarious and very professional guest appearances which made the general public release this man isn’t a sad political loser but a clever funny normal bloke.
 
Add in the regular appearances of the likes of Bob Marshall Andrews giving New Labour a slating, and you could say the Conservative Party have a lot to thank the producers of this show for in the last few year. Whether that lasts into a new Conservative government of course remains the subject of debate.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

I'm not referring to the Zimbabwean elections, but the election for MEP candidates for the Conservative Party. Never before have I seen such an arse covering undemocratic election.
 
Let's start at the beginning. Currently we have a majority of MEP's whose view on Europe is largely at odds with the membership. A quick perusal of those guilty of this shows that many of these are MP retreads who were kicked out of the UK Parliament in 97. They then found sanctury in Europe a couple of years later, and it is questionable what they are actually achieving out there. Whatever it is, it's certainly what the membership and indeed the country wants with a step back from federalism. Their determination to remain in the federalist European Peoples Party shows that.
 
Realising they are out of tune with the membership, it would appear some of our MEP's lobbied the Party to remove members from voting to rank them within the whole list, but instead rank the sitting MEP's so they are guaranteed their place and don't have to face the membership. This is the sort of election system Mugabe would dream of. No accountability and no risk of losing your seat of power.  
 
The other unfair factor in this election is the fact that after incumbents, the next place is guaranteed to a women no matter how far they placed behind the highest ranked men. Another self explanatory unfairness, which has rendered this selection process virtually impossible for a man to get into the European Parliament next year no matter how talented. Indeed it's surprised any man applied given how the odds are so stacked against them.
 
The Party has done this for short term benefit. No European arguments and more women. However in the longer term, it may well live to regret this. There are many well qualified men who would have added some real talent to our MEP delegation, and would have been far more in tune with the direction of the party. They have effectively no chance of election. We also have kept in place a lot of MEP's who rather enjoy the status quo in Europe and have no wish for reform or change. While they may keep their head down and say nothing of the EPP withdrawal proposal at the moment, once set free for a 5 year term, they will be very difficult to control and may well prove an obstacle to us when in Government when we step away from the federalist programme some of them appear to endorse.

Andrew Woodman

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Pro-life, pro-choice. A controversial subject at the best of times, but when Emily's List was recently reported to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner for 'buying votes', it opened up a whole new debate. So what is Emily's List, and why do pro-lifers think that the grants used to help women become elected are buying pro-abortion votes?
 
Let's start with what Emily's List is. It was founded in 1993 by Barbara Follett, the Labour Minister for women's rights. Emily is an acronym for 'Early Money Is Like Yeast' (it helps the dough rise) and it serves to offer grants to women who are seeking selection in the Labour Party. The grants awarded are for £250 per candidate and are offered for assistance in elections for Westminster, the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and in fact any political election. They are meant to assist with expenses such as travel and child / dependency care during a selection process.
 
So why are pro-life supporters trying to stop the grants? Well to qualify for the grant, candidates must sign a declaration saying they support the aims of the pro-choice campaign. The pro-life lobby argue that by signing the declaration and accepting the grant, the women are being undemocratic (essentially they are being accused of 'selling' their vote), unreasonable and also insinuate that these women are signing their lifetime approval to pro-abortion votes.
 
Partisan issues aside, these accusations are a fallacy.
 
Firstly, what Emily's List does is support women who have the same views and beliefs as the organisation. Nothing unusual there. If a grant is to be given by an organisation, there are usually restrictions placed on it.
 
Secondly, Emily's List does not 'buy votes'. At the time of receiving the grant, the women must sign a declaration identifying themselves as pro-choice - however, there is nothing which ties them into voting that way when actually called upon. Indeed, Claire Curtis-Thomas MP who was voted in with the help of an Emily's List grant has since changed her opinion and now votes in favour of reducing the abortion limit.
 
And finally, and let's make this very clear, Emily's List is not pro-abortion. Yes, you read that right. I repeat, it is not pro-abortion. It is pro-choice. There is a difference.
 
Promotion of pro-choice attitudes is one of the organisations aims, but it is not the only aim; and the promotion of pro-abortion attitudes is not an aim at all. Essentially, the organisation seeks to promote and support women's rights, for example, the right to run for election to be a political representative. As such, it also promotes and supports a woman's right to choice. This extends to the right to choose as to whether she wants an abortion or not. To have a right to an abortion as an option among many options; it does not represent it as the only option, nor necessarily as the right option. It simply forms part of the right for a woman to choose. This is the pivotal thing the pro-lifers both fail to understand and fail to endorse themselves. Unlike the pro-lifers, Emily's List does not pick and choose what rights women should and shouldn't have, it believes in endorsing women's rights totally. No ifs and no buts.
 
So next time you read an article condemning Emily's List, stop and consider: when it comes down to it, the argument is perhaps not simply pro-life or pro-choice, but anti-women's rights vs pro-women's rights. Which side of the fence are you on?

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

I really am getting bored with all this talk of MP's expenses. The press have the bit between their teeth and unless there's a royal scandal or a war, we can look forward to it continuing for a while yet. What amazes me is we've known MP's abuse their expenses for years. Instances such as Margaret Beckett claiming £19,722 in 2002/2003 for a London housing allowance when she owns a house in her Derbyshire constituency which is free of mortgage, had a grace and favour flat in Admiralty House, funded by the taxpayer, and rented out her Westminster house. This has been widely known for years but no one's really concerned themselves,
 
Suddenly Derek Conway is caught red handed and the press are portraying every MP as a crook. There is a reason why they do this, and a pretty easy solution to ending it as an issue.
 
Firstly there is the reason. Sixty thousand pounds isn't really enough money to attract a decent calibre of MP. You either end up with incompetents, or people of independent wealth who can afford to pursue a parliamentary career.
 
Secondly there is the solution. Get rid of the housing and additional costs allowances and bung the wages up to £100k a year to end the fiddling. Have a historical guide for travel expenses and postage costs and make MP's who go over this justify their expenses or pay for it themselves, and of course scrap the communications allowance.
 
In addition to this, reduce the number of MP's. Bumping a constituency up to 95000-100000 over the next decade should be on the agenda. That way MP's will have a workload which will mean they couldn't cope without a proper staff, and the cost of Government will be going down. If we pursue a localism agenda, there will be less for them to do anyway.
 
I wonder if the speakers three wise men who are investigating this will have the guts to do this though!

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Yes, that's right - the wrong choice.

Why? Well let's not forget that essentially by 2009, Obama could not only be President, but Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces for the single most powerful country in the world.

With the US in the middle of a war that has no end in sight, is it wise to be considering a man with little to no foreign policy experience at a time when foreign policy experience is exactly what is needed? You just need to look at Bush to see what type of a foreign policy President a stint in the National Guard will produce - can the US really now gamble on a President with no military or foreign policy experience of any kind?

If his Presidential foreign policy were to follow an anti Pakistan rhetoric (as some of his early speeches have already touched upon), he could not only unnecessarily rile a military regime that is actually more liberal than its democratic opposition, but would also divert US military forces away from a battle ground which has not yet militarily, democratically, nor in hearts and minds been won. It would surely not have UN support, nor that of the public at home or abroad either. A foreign policy faux pas.

Despite the fact that votes are won and lost on domestic policies, the war in Iraq is still a contentious voting issue - so why are the Democrats considering a contender who has no foreign policy experience? Sure, he has been and still is a rising star in the Democratic party, and Newsweek were already giving him several page spreads a few years back, but that by no means proves his suitability for Presidency. Nor is it a military or academic foreign policy background which provides his credibility. Perhaps the reason instead lies in the colour of his skin.

Of course the US needs to progress and accept a black President at some point - so they should, and when they finally do, it will be a defining moment in US history; but that does not equate to choosing Obama for the wrong reasons. There is a certain danger in pushing the inevitable forward ahead of its time and causing unnecessary consequences. To push for Obama on race grounds at the expense of failing to recognise and acknowledge his downfalls as well at this important time would demean his election. It is what the US has been waiting for and indeed needs, but importantly, an ultimately poor Presidency rooted in naïve and inexperienced foreign policy choices would over-shadow what should be a glorious and defining moment in US history.

The US at the next election needs a strong, experienced, military and domestic President, regardless of race, who can lead a country, its people and its troops like a true Commander-In-Chief through these war torn times. That person cannot play a game of trial and error, they need to have played before and know how to win.

Burning out one of its brightest stars too early would be a colossal mistake for the US. There will be a time, and a place for Obama in US history - that time is just not now.

Eds Note - blog post written prior to Super Tuesday

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

It's that time of year again where the oil companies report their profits. It's a time of year that winds me up with such lazy and ill informed media reporting designed to whip up public hostility to the idea of companies doing well.
 
Today it's Shell. They've reported a profit of about £14 billion or billions as Gordon Brown might say. This is wonderful. A British company competing and winning in a highly competitive global market, providing thousands of jobs, helping to keep the country running with new oil finds, helping our balance of payments and paying billions of pounds in tax. It also helps the upkeep of our pensions funds as they hold a significant portion of the shares.
 
How do the media choose to report it. Well for every news report I saw this morning, there was a reporter on a Shell forecourt asking motorists if they're being ripped off in view of these obscene profits. It's the same every year and perpetuates this myth that profits are wrong, and they all go to one or two fat cats while everyone suffers. It's so lazy of the media. What do they expect, oil companies to subsidize the British motorist so only the Government makes money out of them? We have some of the cheapest petrol in Europe, it's only when the Government takes its 70% that it becomes the most expensive.
 
Of course the unions have to have their say. Unite's joint general secretary Tony Woodley said the profits were "quite frankly obscene" and "Shell shareholders are doing very nicely whilst the rest of us, the stakeholders, are paying the price and struggling." He also wants a windfall tax on oil companies. What a good idea!! Let's take legitimate profits from a company so it has less to invest in finding and producing the petrol, make it a target for a takeover and lose another British company(well at least part British). That way we can lose billions of future tax revenues, a few thousand British jobs and do a bit more damage to our pension funds.
 
So how about praising a British success story that's funding a significant part of our public services, instead of lazy ranting about a tax driven petrol price. Expect the same when BP reports.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •