The best so far I think. Short, sweet and not too much politicking. Very cheerful and upbeat.
Hadn't heard about the free transport on New Year's eve but it's a fantastic idea that will hopefully take a huge burden off the emergency services and help keep people warm and safe on their way home.
Good work Boris!
It seems Labour's one consistent line of attack is falling apart today as the Tories hit back on inheritance tax. They have pointed out that under the current government 4 million people will be expected to pay an average of £60,000 on the death of their friend or relative. Phillip Hammond said this on the subject:"If you aspire to save for your future and pass something on to your children then Labour is no longer the party for you... The Conservatives will restore inheritance tax to what it was designed to be – a tax on the very rich – and ensure that it is only paid by millionaires."
I would love to spend some time questioning what he means by "Labour is NO LONGER the party for you" as I can't remember a time when it ever was but that's not really the point I want to raise today. No instead I'm wondering when they will go further and get rid of the tax altogether. Obviously there is a huge deficit to cover so it can't necessarily be a priority but by not committing to do so they are cutting themselves off from one of the strongest arguments against the tax: reminding people what it actually is.
It is after all, in effect, a tax on people dying. Not only this, there seems to be no justification for taking the money. Throughout your life you earn money. The government takes some of this money and gives you the rest. All but the most anarchistic capitalists would presumably agree that this is necessary to some extent. Then you are free to spend your money on almost anything you like. If you buy things that aren't classed as "essentials" you are taxed again. It gets a bit woolly here but still most accept this. However it is after this point that things get slightly more complicated. Taxing things beyond this point is reserved for certain purposes. They fall generally in to one or both of the following two categories.
1) The product, service or activity you are purchasing will lead to additional costs to the state such as extra healthcare costs or repairs to public infrastructure.
2) It is something that the government wishes to discourage you from doing such as smoking, taking drugs or drinking alcohol.
It is fairly easy to see that most taxes above those taken out of income and by VAT fall in to these categories. However I cannot see that inheritance tax does. Consider the first category: unless the state starts providing incredibly elaborate funerals for everyone I can't really see why they need to tax the event of someone's death and even if they did then they would need to tax everyone not just those above a certain threshold.
We are therefore left with the second option. Tax as a form of discouragement. I suppose you could argue that the government would in a very abstract way want to discourage you from dying but I'm pretty sure punishing you with additional tax on everything you own if you dare to slip off the mortal coil is not the sort of policy they would want to use. We can then conclude that they want to discourage you from passing on wealth.
There are again two justifications for this:
1) They want you to spend as much of it as possible before you die - I suppose it's possible.... it might stimulate the market for goods more typically purchased by the elderly or sick...? somehow I don't think that's it.
2) They don't want people inheriting vast sums - This seems the most likely reason for all this. But then perhaps it should be 100% above a certain threshold if that were really the motive? Start everyone off on a level playing field and allow them to make their own way in the world. Sounds very noble. But it is a very socialist and Marxist ideology and after scrutiny is revealed to be neither noble or in respect to a persons basic freedoms.
What it completely ignores is the freedom of the person giving the money. The person receiving it has no particular fundamental right to it but the person passing it on should be permitted to do what they want with it. They are allowed to spend it how they like when they are alive. Why do they not have the same freedom in death? After all this is money that they could have spent on any number of things and yet instead they chose to save it and give it to their chosen family or friends. Particularly when we are considering cases of parent to child inheritance there is nothing more natural than wanting to provide for one's offspring. It is part of our very evolution to ensure our children are given a fair chance in life to survive, live and potentially have children of their own. How can a government justify attempting to block this sort of behaviour that has been part of humanity for millions of years?
So there you have it: Inheritance tax is against nature and against evolution!
Stepping away from such broad and grand statements however we are left with a much more serious point. At most inheritance tax should be levied at the same level as VAT. There should be no difference between tax on someone using their money in life and tax on them using it in death. Instead it is levied at 40%. That's about 10% more than the duty on beer! Is the government really suggesting that passing on money costs the state more than alcohol related illnesses and crime? Or that it should be more discouraged than excessive alcohol consumption and alcoholism?
It is a ridiculous claim to make and a brutally unfair tax to levy.
Emily Thornberry (Labour MP for Islington South) is on LabourList this morning attacking Boris Johnson for increasing the travel fares in London. The main cause of her disgruntlement is the increase of a single bus fare from £1 to £1.20. It's followed up by the usual "Tories only care about the rich", "hitting the poor to help their toff friends", "look they went to Eton and have lots of money!" rubbish. Still what really concerned me is the new fare. I recognise that in percentage terms it is a large increase but still £1.20!I'm sure I will be attacked for not understanding the plight of the poor but seriously. Any readers outside of London would surely be jealous of that? I don't think I'm that far off the mark when I say that that is pretty low in a national comparison. I did a quick bit of digging and struggled to come up with any city where it is lower:
Please do add to or correct any of these fares in the comments section.
Anyway as I was saying it is a big increase but it's still a pretty low cost comparatively. There is still reduced or free travel for jobseekers, pensioners and children meaning 4/10 passengers are travelling for free.
The prices need to go up to cover a £3.2bn gap in the transport budget following a fall in passenger numbers and the MetroNet collapse and unless the money is raised tube upgrades and the Crossrail scheme will suffer or have to be shelved. It may be difficult initially but considering these are busses in a major capital city (and one of the most congested) they are still remarkably low. I generally find myself walking or cycling around York or Birmingham with the fares noticeably higher than £1.20. Methinks Ms Thornberry needs to get out of the London bubble.
Update: Newport, Lancaster and Nottingham added to the table. Any more?
It seems to have been decided that fox hunting will be the subject of the day and possibly a few more after it. Hillary Benn has launched the "Back the Ban" campaign today and encouraged opponents of fox hunting to sign a petition on the campaign's website.Personally I do not feel strongly in either direction. I am notionally in favour of allowing fox hunting simply because it seems both an infringement of people's liberties and an abandonment of centuries of tradition to ban it. Still that's not what I intend to debate here (although I am quite happy to do so). No what tickles my interest today is the numerous inaccuracies and deliberate misrepresentations in the campaign as well as the bizarre disingenuousness and hypocrisy of it.
Let us start with the "The Facts" section on the website. One might presume that at least this would contain nothing but the truth. Technically this would be correct. It contains this statement:
"In 2001, Labour went into the General Election with a manifesto pledge to give Parliament a free vote on the issue of fox hunting"
I can't fault that. It is as I said, technically true. However what it fails to mention is much more telling. While the votes in both Houses of Parliament were free only one of the results was respected. The Lords rejected the ban resulting in the incredibly unprofessional use of the Parliament act to overrule their decision. Still what they say is true even if it is only half the story.The statement in the top right of the website however is less certain. It is the supposed mission statement for the campaign and states that:
The next parliament may see legislation introduced which specifically allows foxes to be ripped apart at the teeth of hounds. Will you join us in fighting this barbarity?
Barbarity is a pretty weighted term. I personally would read inhumanity or excessive suffering from such a term. Unless I am gravely mistaken there then this is a very contentious claim and is in direct contradiction to what Lord Burns (chairman of the Inquiry into Hunting with dogs which Labour set up in 1999) said:"People ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel ... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty ... There is some scientific evidence about the impact on welfare of hunting deer ... With the fox, there is an almost total lack of similar scientific evidence about the effect on welfare of being hunted ... the evidence we collected in the form of post mortems convinced us that death is not always the result of a single bite to the back of the neck or shoulders by the leading hound as has sometimes been claimed. The post mortems indicated that death resulted from quite massive injuries to the chest and vital organs. Even so, we concluded that insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught"
So essentially it's not cruel, there is very little evidence to suggest that it is and even when death doesn't come from a single bite (although it implies that this is usually the case) it is still a very swift death. Not an ideal solution but not what I would describe as "barbaric". As Lord Burns goes on to point out, farmers will still need to control the population and snaring or shooting cannot be conclusively proved to be any better.Even rejecting this still ignores the other obvious discrepancy in the mission statement. The claim that they are "fighting" this supposedly barbaric practice. This is a pretty bold claim considering the act has been widely dismissed as ineffective, has only produced a handful of prosecutions (some of which have been overturned) and the police have effectively given up enforcing it.
Yet another deceit can be found in Hillary Benn's statement at the launch. In it he directly attacks Cameron for talking "about fox hunting in his first ever speech to Parliament". Again this is technically true but nothing even remotely close to representative. In an MPs maiden speech they traditionally discuss the features and issues of their constituency. In respect to this he says:
There is a long tradition of hunting in west Oxfordshire, originally based in the royal forest of Wychwood, where Ethelred II established the first royal hunting lodge more than nine centuries ago. I will always stand up for the freedom of people in the countryside to take part in country sports, and, in the light of today's debate, would always be concerned about any limits set on a debate on a hunting Bill that could curtail that freedom.
Even when taken out of context all he says is that he personally supports hunting for it's history, centrality to some communities and because it would infringe on a person's freedom to ban it. Even in these early years (June 2001)however, his main concern is that the debate be free and without restriction.Still as I suggested that is when one takes it out of context. Consider the speech as a whole and it makes up barely 5% of his comments on that day. He devotes longer passages to the RAF, centralisation in the NHS, National identity and the Luddites. By Mr Benn's logic we can therefore conclude that Cameron is also a military aircraft and cottage hospital enthusiast as well as being a fiercely nationalistic socialist. It is a completely ridiculous argument as I'm sure Mr Benn is well aware in which case I can see no other conclusion than that it was a deliberate attempt to deceive the public and misrepresent Mr Cameron.
Even if one ignores all of this one still has to question why it is on the agenda. Hillary Benn said when launching the campaign that "for David Cameron, getting the act repealed is a priority". I'd love to refute this claim but I can't for the life of me find what he is basing this on. Almost every Labour supporter seems convinced it is a Tory priority despite the general apathy from the party itself. It is something that has been discussed before but I can find no justification for calling it "a priority".
What becomes rapidly obvious is that this is simply another part of the class-war campaign Labour is determined to use for this election. As Barry Sheerman pointed out in 2004 the ban was purely class driven and "revenge for Thatcher's defeat of the miners". If it was true then it certainly is today. The Campaign has "Labour" plastered all over it and, at its launch, Hillary Benn directly attacks Cameron. If this were anything other than an election strategy it would not alienate Lib Dem or Tory sympathisers and it would recognise that all Cameron has agreed to do is to hold a free vote on the bill, almost an identical promise to that issued by Labour in 1997 and 2001.
1) Tory Bear posts 5 great clips from US Presidential debates as a teaser for what is to come in this country next year.
2) Jeremy hunt ponders "One of the biggest paradoxes of the internet...that it is simultaneously a force for globalisation and localisation" when considering how MPs need to regain our trust.
3) Quentin Letts is shocked by the prospect of MEPs sitting in Westminster.
4) The chaps at Complete and Utter Zebu are even more shocked by the cost of EU regulations.
And, as it's Christmas, a funny one from the Telegraph's City Diary:
5) Gordon Brown's letter to Father Christmas.
2) Jeremy hunt ponders "One of the biggest paradoxes of the internet...that it is simultaneously a force for globalisation and localisation" when considering how MPs need to regain our trust.
3) Quentin Letts is shocked by the prospect of MEPs sitting in Westminster.
4) The chaps at Complete and Utter Zebu are even more shocked by the cost of EU regulations.
And, as it's Christmas, a funny one from the Telegraph's City Diary:
5) Gordon Brown's letter to Father Christmas.
It's Christmas Eve and the drinking is about to begin so no posting today or tomorrow. There are a fair few comments I intend to respond to but I'm afraid you'll have to wait till Boxing day. In the meantime please enjoy this card my mother sent me. Not sure how much I should read into this:
Have a very Merry Christmas
Iain Dale is doing his annual awards again. Thought I'd share a few of my picks and reasoning. You can vote here.
Politician of the year:
Doug Carswell for getting rid of Michael Martin (although he probably didn't see Bercow coming) and for his private member's bill to give us our EU referendum.
Worst Minister of the Year:
Ed Balls. Just because (although Sion Simon did come in a close second only pipped because he'd probably take victory as a badge of honour).
Shadow Cabinet Minister of the Year
George Osborne. He has had a great year and really come into his own, shrugged off all the taunts thrown at him and shown, with his conference speech and response to the PBR, that he is truly ready to be Chancellor.
Conservative Frontbencher of the Year:
Damian Green. His name cleared, charges against him dropped and DNA destroyed he's still campaigning hard.
Best MEP of 2009
Dan Hannan. Do you have to ask?
Most irritating soundbite/slogan of the year
Labour investment versus Tory cuts
Political Campaigner of the Year
Matthew Elliott. It's been a stellar year for the Tax Payers Alliance in no small part due to the efforts of their chief exec.
Political Speech of the Year
Dan Hannan in the European Parliament criticising Gordon Brown. Again do you really have to ask?
Pressure Group of the Year
Centre for Social Justice. It seems like almost all Tory policy these days comes from either the TPA or the CSJ (not that that's in anyway a bad thing). The TPA have had the better of it during the recession but credit has to go to the CSJ for getting their voice heard at a time when it would be so easy to be ignored.
Peer of the Year
Lord (Malcolm) Pearson of Rannoch. It would have been so easy for UKIP's new leader to either crash and burn or just allow Farage to still run the show. Lord Pearson has done neither and has managed already to crack the idea that UKIP is simply Farage's party. Plus he has an awesome name.
Political moment of the year
James Purnell's resignation. The tension. Will Brown fall? What happens next? Will he defect? Excitement abound
Political Gaffe of the Year
Gordon Brown saying "I saved the world". Was there ever any doubt?
Political Hate Figure of 2009
John Bercow. Regular readers and pyschiatrists will understand
At the end of September I proposed that UKIP should be included in the leadership debates. Now they are confirmed it seems UKIP's leader, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, agrees. Iain Dale had this exclusive last night when he got hold of Lord Pearson's letter to the three broadcasters involved. Click below to take a look:
As well as arguing that UKIP's policies are wildly different to the other three parties on certain issues he also makes a couple of similar argument to those I made a few months ago (perhaps he's a reader?) Firstly he points out that in the last major test of public opinion UKIP came second. Therefore if there are only three chairs, the Lib Dems should be excluded.
Secondly he points out that, while UKIP are unlikely to win, the same could be said for the Lib Dems. While this may seem, at first glance a weak argument there is a very important point here.
The obvious counter is that the Lib Dems are more likely. However is this really a fair argument? Nick Clegg is at best a 50/1 outsider at being the next Prime Minister. I'm sure the odds are much longer on UKIP providing the next PM but surely it is completely arbitrary to insert a cut off point somewhere between the two?
The other obvious argument, and the one Iain Dale offers, is that if UKIP are included then why not the Greens? Or the SNP? Or Plaid? Or even the BNP? The answer to this is, as I said last time, that UKIP are the only other party running in enough seats that they physically could form a government. Unless anyone can provide evidence to the contrary, no other party is running in enough seats that they could form a majority or even working government.
We are therefore left with a choice if we want to ensure these debates avoid arbitrary exemptions and inclusions on the basis of a bookies best guess (for political theory geeks I am drawing on Hayek's concept of the rule of law here). Either keep the debate between the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition or allow the Leader of any party which is standing in enough seats to form a government a place on the platform. As far as I can see there is no other justified choice.
As well as arguing that UKIP's policies are wildly different to the other three parties on certain issues he also makes a couple of similar argument to those I made a few months ago (perhaps he's a reader?) Firstly he points out that in the last major test of public opinion UKIP came second. Therefore if there are only three chairs, the Lib Dems should be excluded.
Secondly he points out that, while UKIP are unlikely to win, the same could be said for the Lib Dems. While this may seem, at first glance a weak argument there is a very important point here.
The obvious counter is that the Lib Dems are more likely. However is this really a fair argument? Nick Clegg is at best a 50/1 outsider at being the next Prime Minister. I'm sure the odds are much longer on UKIP providing the next PM but surely it is completely arbitrary to insert a cut off point somewhere between the two?
The other obvious argument, and the one Iain Dale offers, is that if UKIP are included then why not the Greens? Or the SNP? Or Plaid? Or even the BNP? The answer to this is, as I said last time, that UKIP are the only other party running in enough seats that they physically could form a government. Unless anyone can provide evidence to the contrary, no other party is running in enough seats that they could form a majority or even working government.
We are therefore left with a choice if we want to ensure these debates avoid arbitrary exemptions and inclusions on the basis of a bookies best guess (for political theory geeks I am drawing on Hayek's concept of the rule of law here). Either keep the debate between the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition or allow the Leader of any party which is standing in enough seats to form a government a place on the platform. As far as I can see there is no other justified choice.
If you want to see UKIP on the platform why not join this Facebook group and show your support. Set up by UKIP's London Chairman Paul Wiffen it aims to emulate the success of the Rage Against the Machine for No. 1 campaign. While you're over there why not become a fan of this humble Outcast here.
Now that a "consensus" of failure has been reached about Copenhagen the blame game is in full swing. Here's what I've got so far:
That's what I have so far although I'm sure there is much more out there which I shall endeavour to find and add as the pressure builds. If you have any suggestions for inclusion please feel free to post them in the comments section.
Update: Self styled fly on the wall Mark Lynas is very much certain that it was, without a doubt, conclusively, definitely all China's fault.
- * Gordon blamed a non-descript group of Countries who "held the treaty to ransom".
- * Ed Miliband expands on that slightly to include China who are apparently guilty of both "hijacking" and "vetoing".
- * Obama comes in for a lot of criticism with Naomi Klein and the Cuban foreign minister both suggesting it's his fault.
- * George Monbiot went down a similar road of thinking but swerved round Obama to attack the American Senate.
- * Meanwhile Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva decided to avoid any such confusion and just fault the U.S. generally.
- * Thom Yorke just expressed general disgust at the UN summit...
- * While South Africa's environment minister said poor handling of the negotiations by their host culpable.
That's what I have so far although I'm sure there is much more out there which I shall endeavour to find and add as the pressure builds. If you have any suggestions for inclusion please feel free to post them in the comments section.
Update: Self styled fly on the wall Mark Lynas is very much certain that it was, without a doubt, conclusively, definitely all China's fault.
Regular readers will know I'm a Top Gear fan and so unsurprisingly I was watching last night. As they usually do at this time of year they ran through some car themed presents and generally conclude how rubbish they are. Still I was interested to spot, at the bottom of the screen, a present that looked very familiar:
It looks familiar because I was the happy recipient of this present on my last Birthday (thanks to my charming Brother). Unless I am very much mistaken it is this Maggie Thatcher nutcracker:
Quite simply it is, as the name suggests a Maggie Thatcher figurine which can be used to, well, crush nuts between the Iron Lady's Iron thighs:
As a proud owner I can quite happily say that it is neither rubbish nor, as far as I can make out, anything to do with cars. Could any readers shed any light? Have I incorrectly identified this present or is there some secret car message I'm missing? You can see it 11 and a half minutes into the programme. Suggestions on the comments board.
In the meantime why not treat yourself or a Tory favouring (or hating) loved one to this splendid gift
In the meantime why not treat yourself or a Tory favouring (or hating) loved one to this splendid gift
I often find myself discussing the vast differences between British and American politics. Still the following clip has gone some way in convincing me that the divide is not as wide as I thought.
In it the 5'6", self-obsessed man sat in the speaker's chair breaks unwritten rules to enforce a petty and unecessary point against a member opposed to his own personally held viewpoint:
In it the 5'6", self-obsessed man sat in the speaker's chair breaks unwritten rules to enforce a petty and unecessary point against a member opposed to his own personally held viewpoint:
In the Scotsman yesterday David Cameron ruled out granting a referendum:"I am 100 per cent behind preserving the United Kingdom. I will not put it at risk by having a referendum we do not need. If the Scottish Parliament decides it wants a referendum, the UK can't stand in its way, but to preempt it by having a referendum without it coming from the Scottish Parliament would be tricksy and wrong."
It's a sentiment I sadly very much disagree with. I have written before on why I think it should be something for the Conservatives to pursue at the first possible opportunity and so I shall not repeat myself too much. Instead let me just say that I too am "100 per cent behind preserving the United Kingdom" but with this in mind I think granting a referendum is the best way to do so. Denying a referendum is a short term solution to an issue that demands a long term resolution.
Polls show the appetite in Scotland is much higher for a referendum than it is for independence itself. There is great potential there for winning over or at least softening hatred for the Tories North of the border. However it is not political advantage that should really be driving such a policy decision (if it were then granting independence would be much easier). The real reason is, as I suggested above, to preserve the Union. If the Conservatives win next year then it is a fair bet the SNP will get a majority the following year. That being the case they will be able to grant a referendum without help from another party. They can then not only frame the question but also the campaign surrounding the debate. If the Tories are involved or responsible for giving the referendum they can make sure the question is fair and make sure the debate concerns actual advantage to either nation not the nationalist fervour that currently guides it.
If Cameron is really serious about preserving the Union (and I'm not saying he is) then he needs to change his policy here. If it happens against his wishes he risks looking weak in the first year of his premiership. If he is in Number 10 and denies a Scottish referendum only for it to happen anyway then polls and common sense show a great increase in it's chances of passing. It's going to happen Dave. You can brush it under the carpet for a while but it will only make it worse in the long run.
Save the Union, grant a referendum.
Just 5 this week:
- Tory Bear makes an intriguing observation on Boris and Jo Johnson
- Douglas Carswell tables a Private Members Bill for a referendum on EU membership. One to watch.
- A couple of climate change links: Stephen Glover on doomsdayers and James Delingpole on climategate going global.
- Iain Dale turns X-factor political. Not a show I watch but still funny.
- Just for christmas: Harriet Harman dresses up as Santa. The Sun wins the best headline competition with this:
Ho ho no... It's Non-gender Specific Parent Winterval
The Telegraph yesterday had the hilarious story of Gordon Brown fluffing the finances even in his teenage years. When he was at university he paid for accommodation with this cheque for £3 and it bounced:
I know it's an overused phrase but you really couldn't make it up. His excuse? "Oh dear, I must have used the wrong chequebook".
I'm sure with a bit of analysis one could chart the progression from that "the dog ate it" schoolboy line to the rubbish he spouts at Prime Minister's Questions every week. Still I'm not sure the IMF would be so easily palmed off.
Anyway what's really quite entertaining is that the owner of this piece of financial history is selling it on ebay. When the Telegraph went to print it was still at the starting price of £150. However by 8.15am the first bid for £151 had been placed. Since then a flurry of bids (38 in total) pushed the price up and up and in under 12 hours it had reached an impressive £2,500. It has been at that price since then but there are still four and a half days to go on the auction and a few other papers have picked up on it this morning so it could continue to rise.
Still my real question is why would you want it? It'd certainly be a talking point I admit but why would you want a souvenir of this decade of financial incompetence? Surely a cheque that was actually cashed might at least remind us that Brown wasn't always this bad? Although if you have that sort of money maybe you should just plough it into the painful memory erasing drug and have done with it.
Update: Final price: £3101. Seriously!? Who wants it that badly?
I know it's an overused phrase but you really couldn't make it up. His excuse? "Oh dear, I must have used the wrong chequebook".
I'm sure with a bit of analysis one could chart the progression from that "the dog ate it" schoolboy line to the rubbish he spouts at Prime Minister's Questions every week. Still I'm not sure the IMF would be so easily palmed off.
Anyway what's really quite entertaining is that the owner of this piece of financial history is selling it on ebay. When the Telegraph went to print it was still at the starting price of £150. However by 8.15am the first bid for £151 had been placed. Since then a flurry of bids (38 in total) pushed the price up and up and in under 12 hours it had reached an impressive £2,500. It has been at that price since then but there are still four and a half days to go on the auction and a few other papers have picked up on it this morning so it could continue to rise.
Still my real question is why would you want it? It'd certainly be a talking point I admit but why would you want a souvenir of this decade of financial incompetence? Surely a cheque that was actually cashed might at least remind us that Brown wasn't always this bad? Although if you have that sort of money maybe you should just plough it into the painful memory erasing drug and have done with it.
Update: Final price: £3101. Seriously!? Who wants it that badly?
Ok so I know it's over two weeks old but I only spotted it in the Spectator two days ago and have only just got back to a computer with a keyboard. Anyway I think it is very well put and very much still relevant today:"I do not believe family wealth accords any entitlement whatsoever in democratic politics. But nor do I believe it should be a barrier to my continuing to work for the things we all believe in"
Zac Goldsmith in a letter to constituency activists.
As I said I think it is commendable but I still can't help but be reminded of this quote from Gladiator:
I don't pretend to be a man of the people, Senator...
but I do try to be a man for the people.
but I do try to be a man for the people.
Still I fear Mr Goldsmith's opponents' minds might jump more rapidly jump to this exchange from the same film:
Gracchus: But the Senate IS the people, sire. Chosen from AMONG the people. To speak FOR the people.
Commodus: I doubt if any of the people eat so well as you, Gracchus. Or have such splendid mistresses, Gaius.
Not that I am in anyway suggesting Mr Goldsmith over eats or has any "splendid mistresses" (although if he does - you read it here first folks). Anyway I'm going to stop typing before this becomes libelous. In conclusion: well done Zac (for the quote
I don't think I could ever be described as a fan of Sarah Palin. She was certainly a major factor that led to me favouring Obama in the last election. Still I have to say that the following clip is worthy of respect. In it she gets her own back after Shatner mocked her on the Tonight Show by reading sections of her autobiography with the backing of a full jazz band:
P.S. This is my 200th post. I had hoped it might be something more profound, thoughtful and deeply intellectual but I suppose a cheap political joke might be more appropriate and representative. Anyway thanks for reading this past half year or so and I hope you will continue to do so.
David Cameron talking on Thursday about how deeply dishonest, unprincipled and irresponsible the Pre-Budget Report was including the "joyriders" comparison:
Alan Sugar may have a point when he suggests Cameron should consider whether Jeremy Hunt should still be in his cabinet. I hate to admit it (especially as I have a few quid on Hunt being the next Tory leader) but it may be time to consider whether he can keep his position after the revelations that he claimed £9,500 in expenses for a house where his agent stayed rent-free. I'm always one to give people a chance (especially when I have other political and financial motivations) so he should be given a chance to pay back the money and apologise but any less than this really does warrant a serious reconsideration of his position.Having been selected because he hosts the UK version of The Apprentice (although apparently he wasn't even the first choice for that) he was almost immediately blasted for being "clueless" about actual apprenticeships. He was again attacked for comments he made about hiring women (or not doing so). I am inclined to agree with his prognosis but it is hard to believe that were an ordinary Cabinet member to break party (and Harperson) line so flagrantly there would not have been more repercussions. This is not forgetting the tribunal for allegations of sex discrimination and bullying that threatened to delay his peerage or this gem and current favourite on Have I Got News for You:
Still I think the best summary is this offering from Muriel Gray:
If Sugar's television persona, the pantomime misogynist with an embarrassing and prehistoric approach to business, is the one that New Labour admires and wishes us to emulate, then things are even more depressing than they seem. Of course worse still could be the possibility that they just want him because "he's off the telly". Either way it's excruciating, and, at a time when we so badly need to kick-start British business, pretty much unforgivableSugar may have a point but the hypocrisy is so laughable it is lost almost immediately.
Again I am on borrowed time and so am forced to be brief. Al Gore has gone all poetic on us with this offering:One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun
Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolve
Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly
Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning's celebration
Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups
Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung
The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools
While I'm fairly confident the little girl in the Government scare adverts could have done better that's not really the point. He still doesn't get it. Nobody buys the "Day after tomorrow" doomsday scenario where our tears, weeping over all the dead polar bears only add to the ever rising flood waters that swallow us up in an afternoon and we all die screaming out our own stupidity.
If I didn't know better I'd think he was actually a sceptic gone deep cover determined to discredit the climate change cause. There seems to be no other rational explanation why some one would do so much to put off those who might otherwise be swayed. Stick to the politics Al
The last few days have seen the decline and eventual death of my laptop. As a result I am writing this on borrowed time. There is much I want to comment on, particularly Gordon's resurgence, the new (or returned) hateful spin and personal politics that has accompanied it and the undeniable conclusion that Alistair Campbell is well and truly back on the scene. Sadly there is no time so in lieu of such analysis let this video which I dedicate to the man of the hour suffice:
A pretty accurate summary with the added bonus of being hilarious:
Apologies to regular readers. I realise this blog is getting dangerously close to becoming a John Bercow hate site after the last three times I have attacked him (1, 2, 3). Every time I say "right no more about Bercow" but then a few weeks later he does something infurating once more and I am left with no choice.In the last week or so a string of stories broke about the wife of Speaker John Bercow. Having been announced as a Labour candidate it was then revealed she may have lied on her CV, had a wild streak in her youth and attacked David Cameron as "a merchant of spin". Readers may be surprised to learn that I didn't really care. Lying and personally attacking Cameron is par to the course from this Labour party (the latter is taken with particular relish when you consider Mrs Bercow's PR firm past). I couldn't care less if she used to get drunk a lot and have a series of flings. What I do care about is that I'm reading about it.
She isn't even a councillor yet! In fact looking at the last election results she probably wont be after the election either. This is barely worthy of the local papers.The only reason anybody cares is because she is John Bercow's wife. I would blame the papers but they are only responding to what he has done. He has had a profile. Something that goes against the basic idea of the Speaker. He is, as I have said so many times, meant to be effectively anonymous. He is simply the job and the role. The Speaker doesn't have a wife, John Bercow does.
The blame has to be laid at Bercow's feet as he has done what he can to merge the two. He has spent our money on a spin doctor to "raise his personal profile". He has made every effort to make himself the centre of attention in the House. He has taken every publicity opportunity available to him. The fact that he has a public profile is in absolute defiance to his duty. The fact he has actively encouraged it is a failure of his duty. The fact that it has now grown to the extent where the papers now report every half story his wife happens to throw at them is bordering on sickening.
As returning visitors will hopefully have noticed I am trying a new look for the site. I realise there are still some formatting issues to work out but any general feedback would be appreciated. Please leave any thoughts in the comments section
While I detest Nick Griffin and don't know enough about Paul Nuttall to form a fair opinion of him, what they say is hardly indefensible. When you consider climategate, the latest public polling figures and a natural scepticism it might well even be the sensible option. However that's not really the point. What Ms McCarthy claims is that by not accepting that man is responsible for the changing climate they are somehow "failing to represent" those caught up in the Cumbrian floods.
Let us be clear. Neither of them in anyway denies the climate is changing. In fact they actively acknowledge that it is and has been doing so for thousands of years. All they have done is suggest that maybe, just maybe it is not caused by mankind. To suggest that a differing opinion on the causes of a problem means that they are failing those hurt by the effects is ridiculous. To claim that these two elected representatives (one of whom gained nearly 100,000 more votes than McCarthy to win their seat) don't represent their public is frankly idiotic.
If anything the recent poll for the Times suggests that they are actually more representative and the poll breakdown by region maintains this suggestion for those living in the North. It is therefore impossible to see any justification for what Ms McCarthy says. At best it is ignorant and misinformed. At worst it is deliberately and maliciously incorrect for the purpose of discredititng her opponents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
