Yesterday afternoon Brown once again bottled giving a decision on the Sky TV debate. With Cameron and Clegg already signed up and an empty chair waiting for Brown I began to wonder if any other party's should be represented. Rather predictably my first thought was UKIP.

And why not? After all it is a debate between all those people wanting to be the next Prime Minister. As far as I am aware UKIP are the only other party with enough candidates standing for this to be a possibility. According to this article they have 500 standing; more than enough to form a majority.

Equally they have proved their mettle in the European elections when they beat both Labour and the Lib Dems. Surely if anyone deserves a debate against Cameron it is the party that came second in the most recent major elections in this country?

Now obviously the odds are against UKIP forming the next government but they are also against the Lib Dems. How do we decide where the arbitrary cut off is in this matter? The Lib Dems seem to be around the 100/1 mark for forming the next government. That's a very very long shot. If we go that far why not go further?

It follows from this that either UKIP are represented or the Lib Dems aren't. Mind you if we take the latter course should Labour be there? At 6 or 7 to one they are much more likely to form a government than the Lib Dems but still fairly unlikely. Perhaps Cameron should just stand on the platform on his own and debate with himself?

The only sensible course of action seems to be to have no arbitrary cut off and consequently allow the leader of any party with enough candidates standing to participate in the debate (if they so wish). At the moment I think this would only be Lib/Lab/Con and UKIP but if the Greens or the BNP or any other party were to have enough candidates standing then they too would deserve a place.

Alternatively keep the debate to just those with any realistic shot of winning (i.e. Brown and Cameron). It seems patently clear however that Clegg is only there so there is some power in the threat to "empty-chair" Brown.

Find Day 1 here

First he borrowed "British jobs for British workers" from them and now this:


Do they know how to use google?

There has been a fair bit of excitement in the blogosphere over the launch of YouGov's new daily polling. YouGov have said that it will only last until the end of the conference season but as Tim Montgommerie among others have already speculated it may well last much beyond that. While it is essentially a gimmick I'm not sure it is necessarily a good thing.




Joking aside there is a danger here. We have had twelve years of Governments chasing popularity and opinion polls rather than pursuing what is in the best interests of the country. Daily polls can surely only increase that tendency as politicians can estimate almost exactly how popular each policy or action is.


YouGov will presumably continue this polling as long as there is a demand for it. I just hope Cameron and the next generation of MPs are strong enough to ignore them and do what they know is best for the country and the people in it.

Tory Bear has pointed out the irony in Labour conference playing "Fill my little world right up" by The Feeling in this half empty auditorium.

However I was more entertained by the next song they played. It was "Dancing in the moonlight" by TopLoader. Not particularly funny in itself but when they cut it off just before the following lyric I couldn't help but smile:

"we like our fun and we never fight"

Not playing that lyric just seems to ironic to miss in this week when the party seems more fractured than ever:

• Prescott attacking the Leadership and telling Harman to stop going on about Women's rights.
  
  
• Malcolm Wicks, and Hugh Bayley describing the party as "intellectually exhausted"
  
  
•  Sue Nye leaving Downing street.
  
  
• David Miliband again posturing for leadership.
  
  
• Speculation growing over Mandy being the one who will "push Gordon off a cliff" after he said he would work for the Tories.
  
  
• and Charles Clarke calling for Gordon's head.
  

Polly Toynbee has today suggested that "Gordon Brown can at last emerge a hero, by giving a resignation speech at the party conference". She was even kind enough to write it for him. As good as it is I don't think it quite covers all the points so I've taken the liberty of editing it. The original piece is here. Tory Outcast edits in red.

Have set up a Facebook fan page for Tory Outcast (mainly so I can post only to those who are interested as opposed to my entire friends list).

Become a fan here

A couple of weeks ago I posed the question "Does John Bercow know anything about the job he is supposed to be doing?"

It seems he still does not.

Last time it was his hiring of a "special adviser" at the cost of £107,000 which made me question whether he knew what he was doing. At the time the spin doctor's job was described as "to raise Mr Bercow's personal profile".

As I pointed out he should in no way have a political profile. He should be an anonymous servant of the house. I will not repeat my arguments (although I do encourage you to read the first piece) but it is worth pointing out that he still crucially misunderstands the role. Two stories stand out this morning:

1. He insists that MP's holiday breaks should be shortened. Not a bad idea, 82 days does seem a little excessive, but not his job.
2. He will "drag Mandelson from the Lords" and "increase the role and influence of backbench MPs" according to this article. Again these may be reforms worth considering but they are for the Government to propose not the speaker.

What particularly  angered me however was that he described it as "his personal agenda". That is an outrageous claim. He is supposed to be an utterly impartial person. Less than that he is simply the office, just the Speaker. He cannot have a "personal agenda" of any sort.

I had originally intended not to repeat my last piece on the subject but I can think of no better way of expressing it:

"The person behind the robes, under the wig, in the shoes and addressed in the House is irrelevant. They are the office. They are Mr Speaker not John Bercow. They are there as the servant of the House, of the people and of the Monarch. Who they are is not important it is what they represent and the job they do. Anything else is fatuous at best, a failure of duty at worst."

The issue of Scottish independence has once more appeared on the agenda with the SNP attempting to fulfil their manifesto promise to provide a referendum on the issue. Aside from it being incredibly refreshing to see a government in the UK actually attempting to fulfil one of their election pledges it has also sparked quite a bit of debate. At the present time however all 3 main parties have come down in opposition to the referendum meaning the minority SNP government is unlikely to pass the necessary bills to allow a referendum.

However I would suggest that the Conservatives should allow the referendum to pass (their 16 MSPs added to the 47 SNP members, 2 Greens and an Independent would provide more than the necessary 50%).

There are a wide range of reasons why I think this would be a good move but before that I should quickly make clear that I am a Unionist and do want Scotland to continue to be part of the UK. Obviously therefore I would not want such a referendum to pass. Still for the following reasons I think it is certainly worth considering.

The first and most obvious reason is that there is a lot of political capital to be made. No matter what the party has tried they have been incapable of making more than notional gains in Scotland since the Thatcher government. An act of trust and sign of change on this level could be the only thing that can change the contempt that so many Scots hold for the Conservatives. Obviously this might become irrelevant if the referendum were to pass but hopefully as I will attempt to explain that wouldn't happen.

If the Conservatives were the ones to grant the referendum then there is a much decreased chance that it would actually pass. There is a fair chance that when the referendum would take place the Tories would be in Number 10. This poll suggests that a UK Conservative government be enough to persuade 50% of Scots to vote for independence. Restoring some trust in the Conservatives by granting a referendum could reduce this figure enough to maintain the Union.

Obviously it seems like an easier answer to just block the referendum but this is a very Nu Labour solution. It fails to look to the longer term and acts simply for present advantage. If Cameron really wants to undo the damage of 12 years of mismanagement then he can't afford to take the expedient route and instead has to do what is right for the future of the country. Considering this here are a few reasons why it is best that he and his Scottish counterparts act now:

1. If he doesn't someone else might. There have been mutterings at the Lib Dem conference this week that they might support a referendum (they also have enough MSPs to allow it). If they do then we are still facing a referendum but from the back foot. The initiative is there to be taken while the Lib Dems dither.
   
   
2. Even if this bill fails there will be a referendum at some point. There is another round of Scottish elections in 2011 and a Tory government combined with a Scottish Conservative party that refused a referendum might be enough to give the SNP a majority. Even if this does not happen I still believe that at some point there will be a referendum. It might take years but it will happen.
   
   
3. Being the party that allows the bill to pass or fail gives a great deal of power. The SNP are desperate following the Lockerbie affair and would take a referendum at almost any cost at the moment just so they can regroup and claim they fulfilled one of their promises. From this position the Conservatives could negotiate a more favourable referendum. If public support is for independence they could include a third option of more federal powers which would split the independence vote and probably lead to more devolved power . Not an ideal solution I know but better than a fully Independent Scotland. Alternatively if public support seems to be with maintaining the Union then they could insist on only a yes/no referendum so as to maintain the status quo when it failed.
   
   
4. Equally being the powerful party in a referendum vote would give the Tories the chance to frame the debate. At the moment it is the pro-referendum & pro-independence parties against the anti-referendum & anti-independence parties. There is an obvious gap for a pro-referendum & anti-independence party to dominate the agenda and the middle ground. From there they could decide how the debate was to proceed. At the moment it is being made almost entirely about National pride and patriotism. There is an economic and political case to be made for the Union but no one is making it and consequently the advantages are being ignored.
   
   
5. It could be combined with an EU referendum. There is a great deal of hypocrisy in letting the UK have it's say on the Lisbon treaty or even (fingers crossed) the EU itself without letting the Scottish people decide whether or not they still want to be part of the UK. Holding the two at the same time could easily be portrayed as a totally new start. If both  votes went the right way then Cameron would find himself leading a freer (or even independent) UK that was stronger than ever. In one swoop he would have completed massive reform, hopefully gained a widespread mandate and go down in history as one of the greatest Conservative Prime Ministers this country has ever had.

So there you have it Dave. Grant the referendum that will inevitably come anyway and you regain Scottish support, steal the initiative from other parties, hopefully get the result you want, frame the debate and the referendum in the manner that most suits the case for the Union, free the country from the EU stranglehold and put your name in the history books. Over to you.

Have got rid of my twitter feed temporarily as it was malfunctioning. It will return once the blogger people have fixed it. In the meantime you can still see updates here.

As I said yesterday there a few stories at the moment which are aggravating my libertarian tendencies. That almost sounds like it's a disease... anyway the first was Barrack Obama's attack on blogging. The second is the CBI's suggestion that students should be paying more for tuition.



Like the blogging piece yesterday it is a suggestion that could negatively affect me. I am a political blogger but I am also a student. Granted any proposals are unlikely to be instituted in time to affect me (I am about to start my final year) but I think it is still fair to say that I have a vested interest. However unlike the attack on blogging this is one suggestion I actually agree with. Tuition fees need to rise.

As has been pointed out in several places there is a large and growing hole in funding for higher education. The only sensible way to proceed is to charge students a higher percentage if not the entire cost of their education beyond A level. This will require a shift in the way we think about university. For a start it will mean the ridiculous government target of 50% will have to be dropped. Not only is this a necessary step it would also in itself reduce the cost for those who did chose to go.

Still what really needs to change is the way we view a university education. It is not a right available to all. It is not an excuse to put off work for 3-7 years. It is not a convenient way to hide the true extent of a government's failure to adress youth unemployment. What it is is an investment. It is an investment in the student's future. It is a risk in that sense but so is any investment.

Before you decide to go to uni you need to make a few educated guesses (if you are hoping to spend at least 3 years at university presumably you should at least be capable of this). You should first estimate how much it is going to cost you. At the moment it is roughly £20-30,000 but this could quite easily rise to over £50,000 or even £100,000 if tuition fees rise. Then you have to estimate whether it is worthwhile. Whether the degree you want to do, at the University you wish to attend will add at least that amount to your earning potential over your lifetime. Hopefully it will add a lot more but if you don't think it will cover the cost of the degree then it is time to look at other options.

After doing this if you think it will be worthwhile and decide to take the risk then it is your own responsibility. At 18 you should be more than capable of taking that responsibility and if you are not then you should probably not be going to university. You can then look at how you are going to pay for it.

The first option is a loan. If you are doing a degree that will almost certainly pay for itself (e.g. medicine, law or practically anything from Oxbridge) then you should have very little trouble securing a loan. If you are doing a more risky degree that may pay highly but may pay very little then you will probably have to pay a higher interest rate but this is all part of the investment as it would be with any other business proposition.

The second possibility is a firm sponsoring your education on the agreement you then work for them for an agreed period of time. This is not dissimilar to the armed forces paying for graduates in exchange for a period of service. The only difference is the commercial aspect which could result in an increasing percentage of students being funded this way as it is easier for a firm to judge whether it is worth the investment. Equally this is likely to encourage more people into education as they have a definite job for several years after graduation without the risk serving in the forces includes.

A third possibility and one that has not been explored to any great extent is the idea of professional sponsors. People who make a living purely out of sponsoring students through higher education. They would meet with applicants, make a much more informed assessment of that person's earning potential and make an offer. It would be something along the lines of "I will pay x% of your costs in exchange for y% of your income for z number of years". The student can then once again decide whether they think this is a worthwhile proposition and, once again, make a decision as one does with any other investment proposition. Some may baulk at this idea at first glance but it is essentially very similar to the idea of a graduate tax only provided by the free market with all the efficiency savings that creates. Equally it will correct the thinking of those who got their educated guesswork wrong. These people will have a far better idea of what your degree will do for your earning potential. If they want half your income for life then there is a fair chance your degree is not worth it.

Those are just three suggestions and no doubt the market would provide many more. Perhaps the best solution will be a combination of several or all options. Perhaps the three I have listed will not even be included in a future list of options. What is clear is that perceptions need to change. Education is an investment of time but also money. In many cases it will be a very risky investment. However there is one thing that is certain; taxpayers cannot and should not continue to subsidise students, especially those doing worthless degrees who will not repay what has been spent on them through taxes.

What I have proposed is controversial and hard but I fail to see any other option. I believe that this suggestion would not only solve the spiralling funding crisis but it would also improve the standard of education and training in this country and consequently it's economy in the long term. Those that shouldn't be at university would be encouraged directly in to work or alternative training. Those that should will benefit from smaller class sizes, more determined and driven classmates and a higher standard of teaching. Taxpayers will no longer fund unnecessary training and wasteful degrees. Governments will no longer be able to hide swathes of unemployment in higher education.

Most importantly however this scheme would get people doing degrees that were needed. It would add much more targetting in education. It would mean that people did not just drift from school to university without really considering how they got there. Instead they would really consider what they want to do with their lives and look at all the options not just the easiest one.

A few updates to posts from the last week or so:

1. My attack on Ed McMillan Scott was followed a few days later by another very similar piece from Roger Helmer MEP. I wont ruin the whole think but this closing broadside is particularly fantastic:
   
   
   

   "Face it, Edward.  You have comprehensively lost the debate in the Party about EU integration, and about the EPP.  You are exposed as one of those MEPs who sought, and obtained, re-selection by making mildly euro-sceptic speeches at home, while promoting the cause of Greater Europe in Brussels.  You have finally been rumbled.  You might at least accept defeat with a better grace"
   

   
   
   
2. Further support has been added to my suggestion that now is the time for Cameron to take a stronger stance against the EU by this poll result which reveals that 70% of voters want him to offer a referendum on the Lisbon treaty even if it has been passed.
   
   In the same piece I suggested that concerns are growing over the EU's stability if it continues to move further and further away from free market principles. If rumours of it's attempts to break up HBOS and Lloyds are true then it seems that these concerns will only get stronger.
   
   
3. The suggestion that Mandelson may not be so strong in his support of Brown now that there is no advantage to the EU and the passage of the Lisbon treaty has been bandied around recently. In my piece on the next Labour leadership coup I mentioned that this is one unique factor that could mean this is the one to oust Brown (point 5). Now it seems to have come true. The Mail has the story here.
   

I'm back and have already spotted two stories that infuriate my libertarian tendencies. The first is Obama's attack on political blogging. If you haven't seen this yet the President said the following in an interview:

"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding,"

Tim Montgomerie over at ConservativeHome has already provided a fairly sterling response so I won't labour the point too much but as he points out; if anything, blogging improves fact checking. It allows anyone to call out newspapers when they get it wrong and anyone to comment on blogs and call them out when they miss something deliberately or unintentionally.

Tim uses the example of the forged papers that seemed to show George Bush had dodged military service as one example of the blogosphere "democratising fact checking" but there are millions of examples. If I may blow my own trumpet here temporarily there was the ridiculously over-hyped article from the Independent last week that was riddled with errors which many, including myself, were swift to point out.

It is difficult to see Obama's point about the blogosphere when you consider how just about anyone can respond and retort to anything anyone has written. How often will a newspaper genuinely take the concerns or complaints of their readers to heart? The best case scenario is a newspaper printing an apology but this only happens if there is a proven factual error. In the case of the Independent article mentioned above it was what wasn't said, not what was, that made it so misleading.

There are some problems with the blogosphere but it is not the job of Government to fix them. It is such an over saturated market that any blogger who consistently publishes inaccuracies and refuses to acknowledge or allow comments and criticism will struggle to gain any sort of readership base or will rapidly lose what they already have.

A bit more own trumpet blowing: My comments board is entirely open and I will only delete spam and overly abusive messages. Equally I attempt to respond to all commenters. This is not only because I enjoy debate but also because it hopefully improves my future writing and seems like the least I can do for those people who read my ramblings and click my adverts. Please take advantage below-

Apologies for lack of posting. Have been slightly busy and taking a short summer break. In the meantime please enjoy this holiday pic of Tory Outcast in 2007:

The now ex-Tory MEP Edward McMillan Scott has described the decision to expel him from the party as "vengeful and fruitless". Is he serious?

As I have said before, this man is one of the primary reasons I felt I was unable to fully endorse the Conservatives in my article on the European elections last May. This article led to my own expulsion so I am not exactly sad to see him go and if anything feel slightly vindicated. Still when I was expelled I accepted the decision. I felt perhaps the punishment may have been harsh and could have been handled better but I recognised I had broken the rules of membership and it was their decision to expel me (you can read a full response here). It seems Ed does not share the same feelings.

Still it is difficult to see where he is coming from. He stood against the official party candidate for one of the Vice-President spots and won. What was he expecting? A pat on the back?

Since then he has done little else except criticise and undermine the new grouping. Fortunately I voted against him but if I had trusted him with my vote I would be feeling fairly let down. I said at the time that he was hardly a Conservative and now it's official.

I have previously, at the very least, applauded his strong principles but that only stretches to a point. He did after all know when he was running for election that the Conservatives were going to leave the EPP and form a new group. As he was at the highest level of the decision making he will have had a very good idea who this group was likely to be formed with. If he didn't like it he should not have duped the people of Yorkshire and Humberside, including many of my friends, into voting for him. He should have resigned there and then.

By all means feel let down by the party for the direction they took but look at your actions. Can you really feel hard done by? Take the punishment like a man and think about where you will go from here.

The time has now surely come for Cameron to take a firm stand and tell us exactly what he intends to do concerning the EU if elected. Not only is it one of if not the most important issue facing British politics (although the Conservative's silence on the issue might have you thinking otherwise) the timing is also perfect.

1. First of all there is the incredible level of public support surrounding the issue at the moment. The below YouGov poll from the Telegraph shows just how easy it would be to win this debate. It has long been clear that the majority of Conservative members would prefer at least a tougher stance. Now that the public are also asking for the same thing it is difficult to see why they should not at least be given a say on the Constitution Lisbon treaty.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. We are barely two weeks away from the Irish vote. The yes campaign has thrown all it's efforts into campaigning including the frankly despicable scaremongering tactic of warning that Ireland would "sink without trace" if it voted NO again. It currently looks like the Yes camp may get their way. If they do then the full ratification of the treaty will follow swiftly after it. Pressure would then immediately be put on Cameron to make clear what he intends to do from there. This could potentially put him on the back foot. If he announces his stance now or at least before the Irish vote then he can continue to set the set the agenda and appear strong and ready for leadership.
   
   
3. There is potential to make a case for withdrawing partially or entirely on the basis of the EU being unstable. The EU's former competition tsar has already warned that the "EU faces 'existential' danger from economic crisis" but his concerns are falling on deaf ears. He has warned several times that the abandonment of free market principles pose a huge threat to future stability but there seems to be very little change in direction, especially from the French. Boris has already started the attack. The case is there to be made and, if Britain were to withdraw, there is an even greater chance the EU monstrosity may actually fall.
   
   
4. In the same vein as the second point there is a great deal of political capital to be gained here. Brown yesterday made a serious attempt at a relaunch. The cuts battle has already been won by the Conservatives. If it is to continue to dominate the political agenda there is little for Cameron to gain and a lot to lose. Already this Summer the NHS, education, military spending and cuts have been discussed and for the most part won by the Tories. The time is ripe to tackle another issue and the impending Irish vote gives the perfect opportunity to move debate onto the EU. All Summer Cameron has managed to take the initiative and leave Brown looking like a mouse in the corner just reacting to whatever Cameron throws at him. It would be a shame to lose that now and the EU would be a fantastic topic to end the Summer on as all the balls are potentially in Cameron's court if he chooses to use them.
   
   
5. Taking a much stronger stance could also bury two other stories that could damage the Tories. The first is yesterday's expulsion of MEP Edward McMillan Scott. He said on Radio 4 that Cameron was ready to change tack on Europe, to not do so would further disappoint those watching hopefully, to do so would bury this potentially negative story. The same can be said of  the potential victory of a former Tory peer in the UKIP leadership race. If this were to happen and Cameron was still dithering UKIP and the media could make a lot of noise and damage the Conservative's current popularity. If Cameron had taken a much tougher stance before hand UKIP could find itself losing a lot of support.
   

So the members want it, the public want it and the timing has never been better. Over to you Dave.

Thank you again to all those that voted for me in the Total Politics Blog Awards 2009 and got me in the top 300 political blogs (only just :P).



As I said when I was voted 55th conservative blogger it is great to be on the list at all, especially as I had only been doing this for about 2-3 months when voting took place.

You can see the full top 300 list here, here and here (it's in 3 installments).

Thank you for voting and for reading.

TO

It has become a fairly familiar formula now:

1. Government propose pointlessly expensive, authoritarian scheme citing our protection in a "we know best" tone.
   
   
2. Civil liberties groups, public figures and those directly affected complain.
   
   
3. Revelation of true cost and the fact that it benefits constituents in a key Labour marginal seat.
   
   
4. Taxpayers and opposition complain.
   
   
5. Labour push out some junior minister to defend scheme.
   
   
6. Labour climbdown and claim they never really meant any of it.

On this occasion I am referring to the so called "vetting database" but the same basic outline could have been applied to so many schemes over the past 12 years with probably the most high profile example being ID cards.

Still what has surprised me this time is the speed with which the Government has moved from step 5 to step 6. While we are used to Brown and co's U-turns and climb downs and pleas of "it was never a definite plan" it usually takes them at least a week. Yesterday I was reading a defence of the scheme, this morning my paper has Ed Balls ordering a "review" of the scheme. No doubt in a few weeks it will be downgraded to a voluntary process which will be phased in over 10 years.

On Wednesday a story on the front page of the Telegraph caught my eye and invoked my anger. Today it is the Independent's leading story that has infuriated me.

The article by Tony Patterson tells the story of two commercial vessels which have managed to navigate the North East passage and uses their success as irrefutable proof that we are all going to die.

OK so there is slightly more to it than that but if I did have to summarise it in one sentence I am struggling to think of a better one.

The article is riddled with inconsistencies, half truths and misleading statements.

It begins on the front page by describing the route as "fabled". For me fabled puts me in mind of Aesop not a shipping route but that is beside the point. What is worth noting is that this provides the basis for much of the article: the idea that this has never been done before. This is a complete untruth masked by clever wording and deceptive language. The Russians have been exploring and using parts of the passage between northern Siberian ports for centuries although admittedly not navigating the entire passage.

The article mentions several failed attempts from history but all from the 16th Century (hardly surprising). Fast forward to more recent years and we find that Nils Nordenskjold completed the journey in 1878-79 in a steamship! He did get stuck in the ice during Winter but once Spring arrived he continued and completed the journey.

Since then there have been many, much more successful voyages. However the Independent brushes over these as they are not classed as "commercial expeditions". It makes this voyage far more remarkable than it is (with much gratitude from the owner of the vessels) and completely ignores historical fact. With the help of a fleet of ice breakers (which did help the ships in question) the passage is generally navigable between June and October. It is certainly not the case (as the article suggests) that "for nearly 500 years the idea has been dismissed as an impossible dream".

So the story essentially amounts to two ships completing a journey that has been completed before. The only new feature is that the ships are bearing cargo and have made the journey all the way from South Korea to Holland as opposed to just the bit with ice in the way. While a decrease in the amount of ice may have played a small part stronger hulls, larger fuel tanks and better engines deserve more credit. In all honesty, the largest impact has to be the improved meteorological and satellite equipment which allowed the ships to avoid large groupings of pack ice which has been the prominent reason it the North East Passage is not already a major shipping lane. Even Patterson concedes they are still there in huge quantity.

Still the article does not stop there. Even if you ignore the blatant inconsistencies I have outlined above and accept that the journey is a fantastic step forward due entirely to receding ice and climate change there is still a major issue. The journalist in question completely ignores the possibility that if climate change is happening then it could be part of a natural cycle. He jumps immediately to the conclusion that it must be caused by humans without even bothering to consider the fact that if it was achieved in a steam boat 130 years ago then perhaps we do not need to immediately go on a Luddite rampage and wipe out all CO2 emissions.

To be fair I am not even sure why this has made me so angry. It is exactly the sought of tripe I have come to expect from the Independent but it seems like such a blatant example of it that I simply could not let it go by.

If the people at the Independent genuinely believe climate change is a threat and that it is man made then they are welcome to make their case based on cold scientific fact. If I want to be told that we are all going to die over and over again without any explanation or factual backing I will read the Express. Science does not require spin or gloss or intimidation or fear mongering or any other measure to convince people of it's truth. It requires only that it be based on fact. For the moment the climate change debate is wrapped entirely in political squabbling and a culture of fear which is killing millions. This is an answer we can't afford to get wrong and this article has added nothing to the debate.

The Mail today reports that another Gordon must Go campaign is in the pipeline from disgruntled Labour backbenchers.

I realise at this point it barely seems like news. I for one have lost count of the number of "failed coups", "leadership bids" and "backbench uprisings" we have witnessed in the Labour party in the last few months. I am struggling to think of any group of people less deserving of the rebel tag (suggestions on the comment board).

Anyway I digress. The point is there is a reason why I am mentioning this: it might actually work.

I am probably simply being a young, optimistic fool but please do hear me out. There are a few features of this attempt that give me just the slightest inkling of hope

1. "MPs will then be able to vote in secret for Mr Brown to stand down, without needing to go public with their views"
   
   This is a crucial point. If Labour have proved one thing over twelve years it is that the only thing that exceeds their incompetence it is their cowardice. Not actually having to publicly break ranks could make the difference.
   
   
2. This bid will not create "the need for a full-blown leadership election"
   
   Again this is a new and unique feature. While it is impossible to know for sure my suspicions are that dislike of the potential replacements and a disinclination to throw the party into the further chaos and infighting played a large part in many MPs remaining silent during previous attempts.
   
   
3. "those planning the new assault on the Prime Minister's authority are not the Blairite 'usual suspects' who have led previous rebellions"
   
   Again this is key. In the same manner as the previous point my intuition says that a lot of MPs had a better the devil you know attitude and if they were going to replace Brown they neither wanted someone who was going to continue the stagnation nor take the party back to the Blair Golden Years.
   
   
4. Finally I will steal a couple of points from Martin Kettle in the Guardian. The first:
   
   "If Brown had been toppled by the earlier challenges there would have been an irresistible demand for an immediate general election. Fear of that outcome was the main reason those moves lacked wider support among backbenchers. To topple Brown now would be different. There will be an election next spring anyway. No one wants a winter poll. So the public will have its say soon enough. And in the meantime, Labour can begin a long overdue grown-up conversation with the voters again"
   
   Among other things this raises a fairly simple point of historical fact. The last time an election was held in November-January was 1935 when Stanley Baldwin's National Government was elected. Indeed the earliest election in the year since the end of WW1 was the 23rd February in 1950. It would therefore not be difficult for Labour to make the case that once we have got to February the election may as well be in May as is currently expected.
   
   
5. The second point I wish to borrow from the wonderfully named Mr Kettle is another question of timing:
   
   "In June Lord Mandelson scared off some wavering rebels by warning that an early election might allow a Cameron government to call an early autumn referendum on the as yet unratified Lisbon treaty"
   
   The vote on which these rebels are hanging their hopes will occur after the Irish Lisbon vote. If the bid is successful it is highly unlikely a Tory Government could be elected before the treaty is signed into law. After that point Cameron has been woefully silent on what course his potential Government would take leaving the answer to our own assumptions.
   

So there you have it. Probably another pipe dream on my part. Certainly Alex smith at Labour list thinks so. However I do not think it can be dismissed out of hand in such a manner. The odds are against it's success and it will probably find itself on the growing scrapheap of failed coups. But this one does have some key features missing from previous attempts and, perhaps most importantly, no one thinks it will work. Normally this would scupper any attempt but when combined with a secret ballot who knows?

Keep those fingers crossed.

The Telegraph's front page today carries the story of the Speaker spending £107,000 on a "special adviser".

I will leave it to Grassroots over at TrueBlueBlood to attack the pointless waste of taxpayers money, the fact that no previous speaker has hired such a spin doctor and the fact that Bercow seems to want public hatred.

However what has angered me is how, for such a "devoted servant of the House", he seems to completely misunderstand the role of Speaker. He speaks widely of his new impartiality and how he has abandoned political opinion but this is not enough. The job effectively requires anonymity and servitude to the House.

I was concerned when he canvassed for the job as a "reform candidate" considering he cannot speak in or stage debates, table questions, or sign Early Day Motions. He can facilitate reform but if the members of the House choose to double their own expenses he would have little choice but to comply or resign. To suggest he would change the political landscape would be similar to the referee claiming to have won the match; it could not have happened without him but if he played any deliberate part in determining the outcome then he has failed in his duty.

Still it was his personality that really bothered me. Not just that he is dislikeable and slimy but that he has a personality at all. There is a reason why Speakers traditionally wore the robes and shoes and wig. There is a reason why his ballot paper will read "The Speaker seeking re-election". There is a reason why he is called Mr Speaker or the First Commoner of the Land or The Presiding Officer or even The Right Honourable Member for Buckingham.

That reason is that the person behind the robes, under the wig, in the shoes and addressed in the House is irrelevant. They are the office. They are Mr Speaker not John Bercow. They are there as the servant of the House, of the people and of the Monarch. Who they are is not important it is what they represent and the job they do. Anything else is fatuous at best, a failure of duty at worst.

It is therefore why I read with particular disgust that one of the Speaker's spin doctor's jobs will be to raise "Mr Bercow's personal profile". If this is indeed the case then serious questions must be asked. It was bad enough when Bercow was "raising his own profile". Now that he is spending our money on it we have to question whether he even knows what he is doing.

I am still unsure whether my support will lie with Nigel Farage in the Buckingham election but I can tell you one thing. It sure as hell will not be with John Bercow.

Today David Cameron made a pretty impressive speech concerning the cuts at the top levels of Government. He claimed he was ushering in a new "age of austerity".

A quick overview of the promises:

1. 5% cut from ministerial salaries
2. Freezing salaries for the next session of Parliament
3. Getting rid of 10% of MPs
4. Cutting a third of the fleet of Ministerial cars
5. Saving £5.5m a year by ending subsidies in the House of Commons bars and restaurants
6. Cutting the £10,000 communications allowance

Many regular readers will know I am not what you might call a committed Cameroon and so will wonder where I am going with this. In order to explain let me borrow a few words from Cameron's speech:

"I know that cutting the cost of politics will in no way solve our debt crisis. Public spending on politics is a pinprick compared to the total amounts of money we are dealing with"

And that is really the nub of it. These promises are not going to change the country but they may change it's attitude.

We are still awaiting any real substance on how Cameron will actually tackle the debt this country is buckling under but these pledges at least give us an idea of the direction he is heading in and, hopefully, the force with which he is going to scrutinise and attack excessive spending at every level of Government from top to bottom.

If you will excuse the blogging faux pas I would like to re-use a quote from my second post on the re-emergence of acceptable cutting in politics to really illustrate the point and finish this post:

"Mrs Thatcher came back from Parliament one day to find a pile of cardboard boxes in the hall of No. 10 Downing Street. What were these, she demanded. They were 32 new electric typewriters, she was told (this was in the days before computers). Why couldn’t they make do with the old ones, she demanded: ‘Send them all back!’ In the end, she grudgingly allowed three typewriters to stay, and 29 were returned. It may well be that the typewriters were genuinely needed, and that her behaviour was therefore, technically, silly. But that is not the point. The point is that everyone got the message"

.

I am a little late coming to this story but when it broke I was in Southport at the UKIP conference (as a non-partisan observer and speaker at the Freedom Association fringe event) and blogging was difficult. Indeed Friday evening I was away from my keyboard and having a drink with the man of the hour (he was the man of the hour then, now he is the man of that hour a few days ago). This is quite a long post but do please read on. I think, with the benefit of a few days to let the dust settle, I have covered all the major points. Anyway I am rambling so let us begin:

I am guessing everyone reading this knows that Nigel Farage is stepping down as UKIP leader and devoting all his energies to defeating John Bercow at the next election. In a slightly prophetic moment 6 weeks ago I did predict that UKIP (or the BNP) might cause some upset in the seat of the speaker but at the time UKIP had only selected a normal candidate. Now they have put their very high-profile leader in place as the challenger there is growing speculation that he might actually make history and unseat Bercow.

However now that the furore has died down somewhat I would like to take a look at his real chances. Odds currently have Mr Farage at 10/3 but keep Mr Bercow as odds on winner with 1/5. The truth is Buckingham has been a Conservative seat for nearly 40 years and Mr Bercow has a majority in excess of 18,000. It would be extraordinary if he did lose.

On the other hand, as I noted in my last post on the constituency, after the last two speakers were selected turnout fell by over 15% in their constituencies. This would almost certainly favour Farage more than Bercow. Would still not do nearly enough however. The real question therefore is whether Conservative voters will stick with Bercow or if they will switch to Farage. A poll on Conservative home suggests 64% will switch while only 25% will stick. These figures are fairly unreliable but if they were replicated Bercow would be left with under 7,000 votes while Farage added another 17,759 to the 1,432 his party gained at the last election resulting in a 12,000 majority.

This is still not the end of the story. Last election 19,000 in Buckingham voted Lib Dem and Labour. Many of these can be expected to stay at home but probably not 7,000 of them meaning they could hand the election back to Bercow. Labour's MPs backed Bercow in the Speaker election. Whether their voters will remains to be seen (as well as how many of them turn to the BNP).

This could mean the result is in the hands of the 9,500 Lib Dems who voted last time. Will they be able to force themselves to "vote for a Tory"? Will their euro-federalism get them down the polling station if only to defeat "nasty UKIP"? Or will they look for another option? Or perhaps they'll just stay at home? If I can make a suggestion (although scared it may again come true) I think most will lend their votes to Bercow. Then again the last time a decision this important was left to the votes of Lib Dems all but 13 abstained and we didn't get our referendum...

That still leaves us with a very tight contest and no obvious answer. So in my ever helpful way lets throw a few more complications into the pot:

1. John Bercow will be campaigning without Conservative support or funding while Farage will get a huge amount of support and funding from the entire national party. In addition there are rumours that Bercow is not popular with his local association which could see them supporting Farage and encouraging others to do so.
   
   
2. Farage may have given up the UKIP leadership but he will still have to be in Brussels or Strasbourg for several days a week right up to the election whereas Bercow would effectively be without a job and therefore able to personally campaign constantly.
   
   
3. The Conservative blogosphere seems to favour Farage with Dizzy supporting and Tory Bear saying he may even campaign for him and Iain Dale (slightly predictably) refusing to comment. However over at Conservative Home, fellow York Tory (although he an alumnus), Jonathon Isaby sticks with Bercow in defiance of his co-editor.
   
   
4. Speculation is difficult at the moment as only two candidates have been anounced. Judging by previous speaker elections and considering how high profile this one will be there may be many smaller parties throwing their hat in the ring. While this is unlikely to change the result if an "Independent Conservative" were to run this could have serious effect. Quentin Letts wonders whether it would "rob the Squeaker of crucial votes? Or would [it] dilute the Farage vote?"
   
   It is not difficult to see a lot of habitual tory voters, upon finding Mr Speaker on their ballot papers instead of Conservative will look for the next best thing. At the moment that would seem to be UKIP but if it were to say "Independent Conservative" next to a name that alone might grab a few more votes not to mention the fact that the campaign literature practically writes itself. The real question therefore is what the name could be.
   
   Dan Hannan has been floated in a few places but aside from the fact that he prefers to stay within a party with a real chance at changing things (indeed that seems at times to be his only reason for not joining UKIP) he is much to friendly with Farage to run against him in an election where they cannot both win (unlike their South-East European constituency). The slightly over-noble Grassroots at TrueBlueBlood has said he will if no-one else does and will also pay the deposit for anyone to do so if they will then take the Conservative whip including his personal favourite (although not mine) Iain Dale.
   
   Still at the moment it seems like "conservatively minded" Patrick Phillips, a former high sheriff of Buckingham will still be challenging and according to Quentin Letts, again, has not yet removed his name from the hat.
   
   
5. Finally one does have to wonder what Bercow's campaigning will look like.
   

• He cannot campaign on policy
• He has been accused of not being a particularly good local MP which can only have suffered further since his appointment
• He is not a particularly personable man
  
• As observed by Gawain Towler (UKIP press officer and author of England Expects) in the bar on Friday night he will find it hard to attack Farage personally as the media have already done their best to portray him as a womanising old soak with seemingly little effect to his popularity.

Another excesively long post there so thanks for reading this far (unless you have skipped to the end).

One final note. Where will my support lie? I have always been adverse to supporting UKIP at a Westminster level but I think in this particular contest I will. While I will wait to make my final decision until all candidates are declared and the direction of campaigns are made clear for the moment my support (for what it is worth) is with Nigel Farage. I have made my dislike for John Bercow clear before and do think that a new Speaker for a new House including a new party would hugely benefit the politics of this country.

Once again if you have just clicked onto this piece it may be worth reading the first and second parts so this makes a bit more sense (again that is no guarantee).

This is the third and (thankfully) final installment. Apologies for its delay but I wanted to briefly comment on Ashley Blake's imprisonment first and I am also making confirmations for an announcement later today.

Anyway having already discussed disastrous or non existent attempts at budget balancing from Labour, the EU and the SNP as well as some (in my opinion) admirable efforts from the Conservatives I shall now turn my attention to those of other parties and persuasions who are deserving of praise.

Having covered Labour and the Tories it seems logical now to move on to the Lib Dems. Not being a particular fan of this party (to put it lightly) I was hoping to say there was nothing of note but that would be unfair. Credit where credit is due:

1. Sarah Teather, their housing spokesman, revealed last month that the Government owns nearly 5,000 hectares of "spare land" ripe for housing development.
   
   
2. Not technically a Lib Dem issue but it is in a council they control: "Council staff have been stopped from using Facebook during office hours after they ran up 572 hours, the equivalent of 71 working days, in one month"
   


3. Nick Clegg has invited "teachers, doctors and other public sector workers to tell him how the next government should save money". While this could turn out to be utter rubbish there is potential here. However a few changes would need to be made. Firstly it seems the majority of savings suggestions will be on a relatively small scale. Therefore reporting them to Mr Clegg (in a hypothetical world where he could do something about them) would result in a ridiculous level of centralised micromanagement. However if combined with Cameron's determination to grant Council's and local authorities more power and autonomy then this could become a hugely beneficial scheme with public workers reporting their ideas to local government not national.
   
   We have spent far too long in a "politicians know best" society and, judging by the state of the country, the economy and the government it is totally apparent that they don't. Involving those who actually know what they are talking about from experience not from a 6 week government training course is not only a great way to save the taxpayer money it is also a way to return some element of common sense to our governance. Equally it could begin to reinvigorate and involve the public in politics. How empowered would a teacher feel if they were to see their idea not only saving people money but also benefiting hundreds or even thousands of children? Or a nurse who is able to spend more time with their patients and cut their own council tax bill?

Anyway enough of the Lib Dems and, temporarily enough of Britain:

Arnold Schwarzenegger has held the "Great California Garage Sale" to help with their budget deficit. Items from the lost and found offices are being sold off including several cars and numerous items signed by Arnie himself. It is a bit of a quirky idea and would probably sound desperate from one of our politicians who doesn't have the "charisma" of Mr Schwarzenegger but is still a better idea than throwing away or destroying the items.

Finally let us return to Britain for one last cost cutter. In typical suspenseful fashion I have saved the best for last. In part 2 I described Boris Johnson as everyone's favourite Mayor. However it seems he may have a challenger (especially if Boris continues to spend £600,000 on a "logo for London").

This challenger is Mayor of Doncaster Peter Davies who is taking extraordinary measures to save council cash including cutting his own pay by more than half untwinning Doncaster with 5 other towns and giving up his own chauffeured limo. Read more here

Today Ashley Blake (BBC presenter) was jailed for 2 years for wounding a teenager and intending to pervert the course of justice.

I have made my feelings on this fairly clear before and so will not repeat myself other than to say "Justice has been served".

Hopefully while his is serving his sentence he will have a chance to reflect on the damage he caused to a young man's life (who is left with a permanent scar). He would do well to also consider that, despite difficult begginings in life, he managed to shake off a criminal youth and got an opportunity many in his position would never have dreamed of. He threw all that away a few months ago barely a mile from where I am writing this. He has no one to blame but himself.

If you have just clicked on this it might be worth reading "part 1" so this makes slightly more sense (although that is not a guarantee).

I should also point out that this post will once more be split as there are just too many examples, none of which do I feel it would be fair to miss out. In this piece I shall therefore just cover the Tory proposals of interest as they are the most numerous (although not necessarily the most impressive).

Anyway to continue where I left off:

Since Brown's "brave" decision to admit there will be cuts there have been some very bad attempts and some complete non-attempts but there have also been a swathe of very good ideas and, dare I say it, some "fresh thinking".

Here are a few favourites from the Tory camp:

1. Theresa May began the offensive by attacking Labour's benefits reform saying
   
   

   "The proposals are not radical enough. The Tories are committed to reassessing all existing incapacity benefits claimants"

   
   and claimed the Tories would give:
   
   

   "A bigger role for private firms and voluntary organisations to provide advice and support to the long-term unemployed"

   
   
   Still as Michael Portillo points out "it is unclear how brave a Tory government could be". It seems unlikely that they would take his suggestion that the "idle young should be entitled to nothing" but hopefully they can make strong steps to reducing dependency if elected.
   
   
2. Tory controlled Barnett council has adopted the "budget airline model" resulting in it being dubbed "easy council". It plans to make " savings of up to £15m a year by outsourcing services and reducing the size of its 3,500-strong directly employed workforce". The council leader has said:
   
   

   "This is not about rolling back the frontiers of the state, but about targeting our interventions."

   
   Could be one to watch particularly for those who want to see what the reality might be behind David Cameron's talk of "new Conservatism" and "devolving greater power and autonomy to local authorities". We will also have to see whether savings made are passed on in the form of lower council taxes.
   
   
3. Cameron did yesterday however outline one place where he would consider further unbalancing the books and it is one of Brown's failures which I mentioned in the previous piece. It is the issue of our front-line soldiers paying income tax while serving our country. I had been wondering if this might appear as it is something he discussed 3 years ago at his first party conference as leader and since Brown dodged the question last weekend it was an obvious chance to return the debate to one of the last major topics before the recess; Labour failing our troops.
   
   
4. One last note from the Tories and it comes from everyone's favourite Mayor Boris Johnson. He suggests in an opinion piece in the Telegraph that "Cameron's first task should be to get his ministers out of their cars". Public transport, walking and, in desperate times, a taxi are his alternative suggestions.
   
   While it may just sound like the usual bluster from Boris I believe he is on to something here. While saving some of the £20million spent on ministerial cars every year would undoubtedly be a worthwhile saving it is not really the point. Over the coming months and years there will have to be some belt tightening. While we may climb out of this recession we will still have the mountain of unemployed to tackle, taxes may have to rise and oil prices will almost undoubtedly continue to rise.
   
   Any incoming government may very rapidly find themselves grossly unpopular. However giving up the ministerial cars is just one way of trying to bridge the gap between "the political class" and the public. Showing (even symbolically) that politicians are also feeling the strain and knuckling down with the rest of us is a powerful tool and quite Thatcherite in many ways. In order to illustrate the last point I will borrow a few sentences from Charles Moore in the Spectator:
   
   

   "Mrs Thatcher came back from Parliament one day to find a pile of cardboard boxes in the hall of No. 10 Downing Street. What were these, she demanded. They were 32 new electric typewriters, she was told (this was in the days before computers). Why couldn’t they make do with the old ones, she demanded: ‘Send them all back!’ In the end, she grudgingly allowed three typewriters to stay, and 29 were returned. It may well be that the typewriters were genuinely needed, and that her behaviour was therefore, technically, silly. But that is not the point. The point is that everyone got the message"

   
   On that frankly fantastic note I shall end this post as time and space are both conspiring against me. Watch out this afternoon or perhaps tonight for (hopefully) the final part of this saga of cutting.