A View from Middle England

EU laws hold Britain back

2008-05-15T09:55:00.005+01:00

I saw this piece by Mike Nattrass MEP in one of my local papers, the Solihull Times. Under the heading "EU laws hold Britain back" it is in his regular column - 'Another crazy day in Brussels' with UKIP West Midlands MEP Mike Nattrass. This is what he wrote -

If part 1 had you asking why I show venom towards the EU, understand that this parliament in 35 years has created more UK laws than Westminster has made since 1485 and the battle of Bosworth Field.

It holds Britain back from trading with the world, including Europe, and restricts innovation. I love Europe, its people and its diversity. EU harmonisation damages the individuality of its people.

Brussels 2004 confirmed a rewrite of history was being made. The president said "WW1 was a Civil War." I shouted into my microphone "No one told my two grandfathers they were in it." I yelled "What were the Americans, the Indians, the Australians..." and I was switched off. In disbelief we heard that there were "No Germans in WW2".... they were "Nazis!" That night I realised conscripted Germans were insulted, many were not Nazis.

February in Strasbourg confirmed referendum failure, I left the voting chamber still dressed in my yellow "Too chicken for a referendum" shirt.

After an interview with ITV they said "We had better get this away before it is confiscated". "What!" I said. They replied "Yes, they do not allow people to talk like that if they can stop it."

That day Shirin Wheeler of the BBC had been told that she "could not video UKIP in the chamber" as "you cannot video dissent". She replied: "Either we video it all or nothing. Which do you want?"

Good for Shirin and thank goodness for the Solihull Times.

That's the whole trouble with the EU for me. Spin and subterfuge. Deceit and deception. They claim to be of the side of the citizen, but all along they want it their way or no way. Democracy? Of a kind!

Tories out in front in Crewe

2008-05-11T22:05:00.006+01:00

According to an ICM poll for the Mail on Sunday, the Conservative candidate in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election has a good chance of winning the seat. Could the Tories be on target to snatch a win from Labour for the first time since 1982?

The poll puts the Tories on 43%, Labour on 39% and the Liberal Democrats on 16%. Whatever the Labour Party may be telling the electors of Crewe it doesn't seem to be working. Gordon Brown is seen as a tetchy grump who is nowhere near being the Prime Minister he so deftly portrayed himself as being capable of when second-in-line to Blair. The whole sorry pantomime is unravelling. There isn't a chance they could come in tenth is there? Wishful thinking, I know!

Blair scared of Brown says Prescott

2008-05-11T00:44:00.006+01:00

John Prescott apparently urged Tony Blair to sack Gordon Brown but he claims the prime minister was "scared" of his chancellor. This is what Prescott says in his memoirs. Amazing these New Labour people. All making money, or trying to, faster than a one-armed bandit.

The former deputy prime minister said Mr Blair reneged on several promises to resign in favour of Mr Brown. So it was true. No wonder Brown was so moody. He still is. Prescott describes Brown as "annoying, bewildering and prickly". He says Mr Brown would sulk silently in meetings so often they had to be abandoned, while on other occasions, he could “go off like a bloody volcano”. So it takes one volcano to know another volcano, does it?

Prescott adds very neatly that he brokered "hundreds" of reconciliation meetings and phone calls between Brown and Blair. Perhaps a new career at Relate beckons. After all, Pauline (Mrs.Prescott) has given him a few tips. It would appear that, as with quite a few politicians, the wife comes to the rescue.

I shan't be reading Prescott's book, not because of him, but because I don't think it will tell me much more about him. What a sorry lot they all are.

Ron Paul to get more GOP delegates?

2008-05-10T19:27:00.007+01:00

In a possible surprise GOP rule switch in Utah, things could get interesting in the Republican race. State convention might release Romney delegates from voting for Mitt. This means Ron Paul could benefit. It is very evident now that the Ron Paul Revolution will not go quietly, as, of course, it has nowhere to go other than onwards. As they have done in Nevada, Minnesota and elsewhere, a number of Utah Ron Paul backers are trying to get elected today as delegates to the Republican National Convention where, under a proposed rule change, they could be free to vote for whomever they want.

I get the impression most city slickers, TV pundits and politico pollsters haven't bothered to follow the Republican race in detail, so these things are not publicised to any great extent. Lowell Nelson, a Paul supporter running for national delegate, said he doesn't anticipate chaos erupting today, or going to St. Paul to vote for Paul. He just wants to see the rules stay the same and bind the delegates to vote for Romney, at least on the first round of balloting. “For us, as a Republican Party, to consider unbinding the delegation from that obligation, from that expectation, is a bit inappropriate, very inappropriate, like changing the rules in the middle of the game,” said Nelson. “I believe we ought to honor the will of the state of Utah by casting those 36 votes for Mitt Romney.” But, if McCain is unable to lock up the nomination on the first ballot, the delegates would be free to support anyone. That could open the door for Romney, says Nelson, although he would likely vote for Paul.

Does anyone think John McCain couldn't lock up the nomination? Probably not. But all this rule changing and back-room dealing leads to uncertainty. Whatever else, this whole process has shed some light on the rather dubious methods used in the selection of candidates through caucuses and primaries.

BA chief Willie Walsh to get £700,000 bonus!

2008-05-10T17:50:00.009+01:00

After the chaos of the Terminal 5 opening, the British Airways chief is in line for a £700,000 bonus. You couldn't make it up if you tried. His airline loses bags, doesn't train staff properly and thinks things will all work out on their own. This week, he admitted to MPs that he was ultimately responsible for the farcical scenes shown around the world on TV. He told the Travel Select Committee that he had been aware of problems with the £4.3billion terminal before it opened, and had discussed delaying its first day. Mr Walsh said, "It was a calculated risk and one I decided to take. You can't point the finger at anyone else."

It'll be alright on the night? Is Willie Walsh running British Airways or Denis Norden? Come off it Willie, you fouled up. How can you, hand on your heart, take this cash? It's ON TOP OF YOUR SALARY!!

Surely a bonus is for doing something good, making the company better placed in the market. This is just a bad joke. It's not the free enterprise I support. It's just free greed. We should all say no to it.

Man spends 18 hours in police cell and has his DNA taken for 'dropping an apple core'

2008-05-10T15:41:00.006+01:00

The Daily Mail has a really horrendous story about how a man got into trouble from meeting an over-zealous PCSO with a stubby pen and a wad of tickets. Keith Hirst was banged up in jail simply because he protested at how he was treated. He said yesterday he would fight to clear his name in a case which could leave him with a criminal record and cost taxpayers thousands of pounds. "The way I was treated you would have thought I had robbed a bank," he said. "My family are law-abiding people and I would help if I saw a gang of yobs attacking a police officer. This kind of incident does not help in improving relations between the community and police." I agree entirely.

I cannot understand why the police seem totally oblivious to certain crimes and testosteronely crazy about others. Is it because they have gone from being a police force to a police service? A service which has to make money? There's not much income to be made from catching petty thieves but being petty about other things is a bit of a money-spinner.

Superintendent Ian Palmer, of Greater Manchester Police, said, "Littering is an offence. We work tirelessly to ensure the streets are not only safe but also clean." I agree with clean streets, but Mr.Palmer, give your brain an MOT, because picking on people without a shred of common sense being used is going to alienate the community not make them want to help you.

And Mr.Palmer, remember we pay your wages. It's not the other way round!

Gordon Brown is no class act!

2008-05-10T13:24:00.006+01:00

Gordon Brown obviously thinks its funny to bring up the old class war stuff. There are plenty in the Labour Party who can't stand "gents". They have an abiding hatred of public schools and "anything proper". So, because David Cameron went to Eton, they think it fair game to have a go at him. Just like they got rid of hereditary peers, or most of them, from the House of Lords, they try to sneer and jape at someone's background.

Is Gordon Brown so great? He was recently telling us his family was "ordinary". Do we care? Not really. I am much more concerned about him saying he made "a mistake" over the 10p tax fiasco, when in fact he knew at the time he was deliberately causing the poor to suffer. It was no mistake Gordon. Personally, I prefer toffs to liars!

In the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, the Labour Party has been finding it fun to poke fun at people they think posh. The word hypocrite comes to mind. As if they've never had a toff on their side of the House. One minister said, "Voters simply aren't concerned if someone went to a posh school and a good number are actually turned off by these sorts of attacks. Frankly they make us look puerile. The mayoral elections should have demonstrated to everybody that they don't work." Exactly! Boris Johnson is an Old Etonian. Londoners preferred him to the product of a "local school".

Richard Dawkins - Deity denigrater and general grump!

2008-05-09T12:47:00.007+01:00

I heard Richard Dawkins on the Today Programme this morning. He's a million-dollar book seller and all-round serious atheist. Nothing wrong with that. We can all be what we want to be. But does he have to be so petty, so denigrating of others, and generally so mean-spirited when he talks about believers? It sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder about this. He wants Britain to be a "God Free" zone. Well, to use a phrase "a snowball's got a better chance in Hell".

He appears to want to be nasty rather than nice in discussion. There is a real venom behind his words. He trivialises peoples' belief by referring to God as "an imaginary friend". He tries to suggest that believers should not be taken seriously.

Personally I think it a bit of a waste of time Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor debating with him. I'd rather just "let all grow until the harvest". I'm not worried by Dawkins and his ideas, but I am perturbed by his bullying nature.

I have this theory that if people like Dawkins were on the Titantic, they'd rather everyone drowned than a few were saved. I bet he'd rather think we all go out in a puff of smoke rather than some get celestial benefits. Better to denounce God as an imaginary friend than to believe in a Friend who could lead to Paradise.

Ron Paul Republicans on the rise in NC

2008-05-08T17:30:00.014+01:00

An interesting post from Conservative Heritage Times. If you thought that Ron Paul's campaign had bitten the dust think again. All over the USA little pockets of Pauline political power are stirring the loins of Americans who want change. The CHT says "Kudos last night to North Carolina voters for nominating B.J. Lawson, a bonified Ron Paul Republican to the nomination for the 4th Congressional District and re-electing Walter Jones Jr. to the sixth CD. Jones was the only GOP member of Congress to endorse Paul for President".

Jones’ election is important as it shows Republicans that oppose the war in Iraq, even in a district filled with military bases, do not have to face a political death sentence. Something that John McCain could well reflect on.

Lawson says "Big government inevitably becomes a tool for corporate and special interests instead of a guardian of individual liberty. Today, big government has given us significant problems: rising food prices, jobs going overseas, illegal immigration, porous borders, failing education, war and occupation, foreign oil addiction, unsustainable entitlement spending, and a crushing debt burden. It's time for us to come together as free Americans and restore prosperity and liberty." Isn't it funny that when Americans here this message they vote for it. How come the media and powers-that-be try to stop it? Simple! Because they are the problem and have a vested interest in stifling the message.

Good on you B J! As you put it so well "Freedom isn't free — it requires a lot of hard work. But liberty is priceless." I bet the people of Burma would wish they could vote for such freedom!

A blogger's life!

2008-05-08T10:20:00.006+01:00

A blogger's life indeed. One of the joys of modern blogging (as opposed to a couple of years ago, that is) is the number of interesting widgets that you can get. I was keen on Spotplex and thought they were very good. So it is with some sadness that I find today that they have gone offline, closed down. Maybe they were just too good and got big before their time. That can happen. I don't know, but the message has gone out that they have gone. It's a pity as we need all the good ones to survive.

I sort of new something was up when my posts were reacting rather erratically to the visitor counts. Oh well, it's a blogger's life indeed. I genuinely wish them well in the future.

Ten green bottles hanging on the......

2008-05-07T23:33:00.006+01:00

The Crewe and Nantwich By-election has managed to interest ten candidates to stand for election. As we know, only one will be hired, the others will be fired.

They are:-

Tamsin Dunwoody - Labour
Edward Timpson - Conservatives
Elizabeth Shenton - Liberal Democrats
Mike Nattrass - UK Independence Party
Robert Smith - Green Party
David Roberts - English Democrats
The Flying Brick - The Official Monster Raving Loony Party
Paul Thorogood - Cut Tax on Diesel and Petrol
Gemma Garrett - Independent
Mark Walklate - Independent

UKIP in Crewe and Nantwich

2008-05-07T16:44:00.004+01:00

UKIP are getting more professional and they have just launched a by-election site for Mike Nattrass MEP who is the UKIP candidate in Crewe and Nantwich. They have a battle bus too, so this should add to the fun as well as the publicity!

Only us criminals!

2008-05-07T12:37:00.004+01:00

In order for me to be a Junior Church helper, I've had to undergo the "robust" checking of the Criminal Records Bureau. Thankfully they did not get me mixed up with somebody else with a similar name who has a string of convictions. On BBC's Watchdog there were a number of people that were not so lucky.

I am now the proud owner of an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate. It all sounds so Orwellian, but then that's par for the course in New Labour Britain. Anybody coming into the country for the first time and being shown such a document would think that we are all potential crooks and miscreants. I've passed OK on all five categories. The first category is the "Police Records of Convictions, Cautions, Reprimands and Final Warnings". It is all a bit reminiscent of school. "This is your final warning, I won't tell you again!".

Doesn't it all some up the sorry pass we've come to. The assumption is that we have to prove we are innocent of a crime, and then get a certificate that makes us feel as if we actually were a wrongdoer and we begin to doubt are own being. It does seem to me all a bit cart-before-the-horse but I readily appreciate the need for caution and care in matters regarding children and vulnerable people.

I just think they could call the certificate something else!

Republican Race goes round in circles

2008-05-07T10:42:00.005+01:00

According to the Daily Telegraph, the Republican race is really over. Click on to their "Republican Nomination Race" link and you go straight to the Democratic one. Ron Paul is still in with the desire to get as many delegates as possible, but there is no desire to show it from the Telegraph's point of view. Ron Paul got 8% in North Carolina, and Mike Huckabee did even better on 12%! In Indiana, Mitt Romney was on the ticket as well and managed 5%. These guys are out of the race apparently, but that doesn't stop some people wanting to vote for them!

The press is very "sided", so the maxim "don't always believe what you read in the papers" is very true.

It's all over for Hillary

2008-05-07T10:12:00.006+01:00

I felt that Barack Obama had the Democratic nomination in his grasp weeks ago. I still think he will be the nominee and that Hillary Clinton has missed the boat this time. She needs to decide whether she folds her tent now, at the end of the month or in June. Fold it she will have to.

This particular race is not about her being a woman and him being from an ethnic minority background. This is all about change. Obama has sensed that, as did Ron Paul for the Republicans. Americans are fed up with having to do two or three jobs to make ends meet. They are at the end of their tethers over fickle financiers and corrupt corporations. The war in Iraq has stretched their patriotic hearts to bleeding point and they see their jobs exported in return for cheap Chinese merchandise.

Is it any wonder that they want change? It wouldn't matter what colour Barack Obama was, he'd still come through. It is his message that resonates not his skin tones. He will be in the White House not for who he is but for what he has promised to do. Make lasting change happen!

New Labour Joke of the Week!

2008-05-06T12:46:00.004+01:00

"Labour sources in Crewe last night claimed voters were not raising the 10p issue with them."

From the Daily Mail.

John Edwards - damned if he does, damned if he doesn't!

2008-05-06T10:10:00.007+01:00

Senator John Edwards isn't exactly sitting on the fence. That would put him slightly above the fray. No, I put him in the corner of the stockade with a fiesty filly on one side and a charasmatic steer on the other. Whichever way Edwards goes, he's bound to get kicked!

In a People Magazine exclusive (as they say!) John and Elizabeth Edwards have been waxing in a fairly lyrical way about what they like (and dislike) about Clinton and Obama. All very good, but it's more that just curate's egg philosophy. It's really just saying they aren't telling us who they support. At least Jimmy Carter said everyone in his family was backing Obama, but he couldn't go that far (nudge, nudge; wink, wink) as he was a Super Delegate.

So what is the bottom line? They can't say. After all North Carolina is John Edwards territory and it may be the spark that sets off a second revolution, so he's staying mute. The couple said they will not endorse either remaining candidate, saving their political capital for their own causes – his, fighting poverty; hers, fighting for universal health care.

I have a hunch Elizabeth Edwards is more astute politically than her husband. Achieving the goal of universal health care will help alleviate poverty but fighting poverty, although laudable, is fairly nebulous and does not guarantee a more healthy population. My guess is that the pair of them will need to find a compromise over the symbolism of electing the first woman as president or the first first-generation African-(Kenyan)-American as president.

It really is make-your-mind-up time in the Edwards' kitchen. Anymore dithering and it will be a touch of the Harry Trumans. Heat of the kitchen, and all that!

All change at Crewe - Oh, and Nantwich too!

2008-05-05T11:24:00.010+01:00

The Crewe and Nantwich By-election will be upon us very soon. An unseemly rush to hold the election, an unseemly scramble for candidates to be nominated. All very unseemly in the unseemly world of New Labour.

The election will be on the 22nd May and Labour have announced that Gwyneth Dunwoody's daughter Tamsin will fight the seat. There has been a long tradition in British politics for spouses or other relatives to take over the party cause in by-elections. Some would say this is a way to keep the electorate on side with a sympathy vote, others think it gives a natural feeling of dynastic continuity. After all, an MP in the Westminster model of democracy is very much wedded to a constituency. In fact, constituents are known to get the hump on occasions as with Mark Woodnutt in the Isle of Wight or the Leyton by-election of 1965 when Harold Wilson thought it a good idea to drop Patrick Gordon Walker onto the constituency. Leyton voters thought otherwise, and gave him a big raspberry at the ballot box.

On the matter of raspberries, Gordon Brown's been getting the pick of the crop recently. However, he will be looking to the voters in Crewe and Nantwich to give him a juicy plum instead. The Conservatives will be wanting to stem a particular tide of historical political by-election fact. The fact that the last Conservative by-election gain from Labour was Mitcham & Morden, in June 1982. And that was only because the sitting MP decided to test the electorate after defecting to the SDP. He was advised not to do it, but did it anyway. So it is little wonder that no defector has done it since, the last being Bob Spink to UKIP.

All eyes will be on the Conservatives here. Can they beat a 26-year gap in by-election success? David Cameron should say loud and clear what the Tories will do on taxation, helping the poor, about local democracy, cleaning up Westminster politics, and tackling abuses in immigration and employment. He should lay out a proper set of policies on penal reform (not just building more prisons) and he should tackle the abuses that the minority of businesses use in helping create a perception of rip-off Britain. We've seen the corporate cowboys telling us that they have "robust business models" in place, when they have nothing of the kind. Firmer regulation not more regulation, that should be the way forward.

A Conservative Party that has policies that are properly understood and agreed with by the electorate will be a winner. Ones that give the impression of spin and deception won't.

Rumsfeld in the frame

2008-05-04T18:31:00.009+01:00

I always had a feeling that Donald Rumsfeld was a dodgy character. To men like Rumsfeld, the political skullduggery comes easily. Ken Livingstone, the defeated Labour candidate for London mayor, said that he preferred political intrigue and committee "work" to the actual managerial activity his post required. Rumsfeld's certainly no Livingstone, but in this they have a certain kinship.

Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq in 2003-2004, has written a new memoir, Wiser in Battle - A Soldier's Story, an account of his life and his service in Iraq. Sanchez basically blows the lid off Rumsfeld's rotten barrel of political poison. Remember, Rumsfeld was the man who gladhanded it with Saddam Hussein. That was before Saddam fell out with the Americans and started selling Iraqi oil in euros.

Sanchez had a run-in with the devious Rumsfeld. Interestingly, in this excerpt from Time Magazine, it is Sanchez's wife who gets the point, commenting on the "offer" Sanchez was given by Rumsfeld. "Ricardo, they are just trying to buy you off and keep you silent," said Maria Elena. "I don't think we should mess with them anymore."

But for me the telling piece is this. From that, my belief was that Rumsfeld's intent appeared to be to minimize and control further exposure within the Pentagon and to specifically keep this information from the American public. The very things I detest most in political hierarchies - spin and deception. Rumsfeld had both in bucketloads.

The Time extract ends with this -

That decision set up the United States for a failed first year in Iraq. There is no question about it. And I was supposed to believe that neither the Secretary of Defense nor anybody above him knew anything about it? Impossible! Rumsfeld knew about it. Everybody on the NSC knew about it, including Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Colin Powell. Vice President Cheney knew about it. And President Bush knew about it.

There's not a doubt in my mind that they all embraced this decision to some degree. And if it had not been for the moral courage of Gen. John Abizaid to stand up to them all and reverse Franks's troop drawdown order, there's no telling how much more damage would have been done.

In the meantime, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were unnecessarily spent, and worse yet, too many of our most precious military resource, our American soldiers, were unnecessarily wounded, maimed, and killed as a result. In my mind, this action by the Bush administration amounts to gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.

Those that blindly follow the Bush administration and praise "our boys out there" should sit back and think that it is American soldiers being unnecessarily wounded, maimed, and killed as a result of lies and deception. Such action as described by Sanchez that the Bush administration was involved in does amount to gross incompetence and dereliction of duty. It borders on the unforgiveable!

BNP's Barnbrook shunned as a pariah

2008-05-04T16:47:00.005+01:00

The wonders of democracy work well with some people. In a free vote it's up to the people to choose whom they want to represent them. If you don't like the result, well, you've probably lost the argument. Labour lost much of the argument in London and elsewhere due to the 10p tax fiasco. Now we are getting crodocile tears mixed up with cupboard love. I've seen Harriet Harman dishing out this mawkish monotone today and it is unconvincing.

In London, Richard Barnes, the Conservative leader on the 25-member assembly, has said, "The BNP will have problems finding secretaries and getting support from the staff here, and I will totally support people's right to say they don't want to serve them. They may have a foot in the door but they won't get anywhere near the levers of power." Mr.Barnes may think he's being clever, but I think it just shows a lack of judgement and a denial of the democratic process. The lack of judgement is that this poncy behaviour, much beloved of New Labour, just plays into the hands of the BNP. In fact, they are now threatening legal action if Barnes and others prevent Barnbrook from getting the support he is entitled to. It shows also a lack of imagination in dealing with the BNP. If Barnes and the Conservative group have no real policies to counter those of the BNP, then that's a loss to the democratic process. We've had all sorts of mixed messages on immigration, policing, and multi-cultural funding from the Conservatives, so it is little wonder that Barnbrook was able to capitalise on this.

But it is also a denial of the democratic process. Richard Barnes is basically saying the same as Brigadier Terence Clarke did 40-odd years ago in Portsmouth. Clarke lost to Labour and he promptly denounced the voters (including his own, it seemed) as "You're all bloody fools!". I'm sure Barnes thinks similar things about BNP voters. However, denouncing the electorate and getting into high dudgeon does little good.

I don't want to see the BNP given anything other their legal rights. If it is the considered opinion of the "main parties" that certain political parties are banned, let them do so. Otherwise it is what the electorate chooses and not the self-serving paragons of virtue. I will never vote BNP, but I will also never behave with such schoolboy antics as Richard Barnes is now embarking on.

Like it or not, over 1 million people in Britain are prepared to vote BNP. The London poll showed that over a quarter do not want the three main parties and are prepared to say so in the ballot box. Richard Barnes should grow up politically and realise that support for the BNP is based quite a bit on the fact that sleaze continues in Parliament, lies have been told about Iraq, and generally politicians are held in low esteem. The way forward is for the Conservative Party to address the concerns of the people, clean up their personal expenses act, and deliver meaningful policies. That way lies a successful Conservative Party.

BNP take seat on London Assembly

2008-05-03T09:35:00.008+01:00

For the first time the BNP is represented on a "top tier" level of government. The regional assembly for London is the only one that is elected, all the others being quangos not wanted by the rest of England. So this Assembly allows for a proportional representation element and the BNP got above the 5% threshold. Richard Barnbrook, the mayoral candidate, will be the first BNP AM. He will be hoping this is no false dawn! One thing is for certain. I won't be around long enough to see a BNP PM if ever that eventful day should occur.

London Elects is the body that oversees this marathon adventure. The BBC was getting excited about turnout. Up to 45% - that's why the count took so long. "They were expecting a much lower figure!", they squeaked. Oh, really? So if it went to 60 or 70% would we be in the Zimbabwe realms of electoral counting? "A decision will be made at the end of next week. Will everyone stay calm, please!" Doesn't bear thinking about.

In the Top-up Vote, which is London-wide, the three main parties only got 72.39% of the vote between them. This means 27.61% voted for other parties. This is staggeringly high and shows that a proportional system will deplete the support for the supposed main players. On many occasions, we are told by politicians about opinion polls that the real poll is on the day. This day shows that the Conservatives are on 34.0%, Labour on 27.12%, and the Liberal Democrats on 11.22%. That poses the question - How can the Westminster system of election continue in a multi-party situation?

We have a failing Prime Minister in government on the "successful win" of his predecessor, who himself managed only to secure the support of 20% of the total electorate. The Labour Party has a large majority in the House of Commons, but little support in the country. The London Assembly has only a part elected by PR, but this London election shows that over a quarter of Londoners, in their hearts and minds, do not want the "three main parties".

Food for electoral thought!

Boris is the next Mayor of London

2008-05-02T20:13:00.007+01:00

Boris Johnson is the new Mayor of London, his rivals conceded tonight. The Evening Standard in London is predicting that the Tory MP scored a stunning election victory to end Ken Livingstone's eight-year reign and round off a disastrous 24 hours for the Labour Party. Gordon Brown is sitting in the Downing street flat with his cocoa wondering where it all went wrong. Probably on the day a certain Tony Blair waltzed into his office in the House of Commons for the first time and almost immediately began a cheesy relationship. Gordon's antennae were on the blink that day!

So now it is Boris. The liberally-minded libertine-leaning fellow travellers of New Labour think Boris is a buffoon. Far from it. He is a very clear-headed thinker who will be a great asset for London. A character who can play the international stage. Gone will be the nasal drone of Ken Livingstone, a man who has been barely tolerated by the New Labour hierarchy. In his place will come a man who will be fair-minded but not favourful when it comes to distributing the largesse of London. You won't see many brown paper bags in Boris' office.

A new dawn begins.

Polling day for some of us

2008-05-01T13:16:00.005+01:00

Those living in London get to choose a new Mayor today, plus electing those who ostensibly look after the devolved powers of the "London Region". Whatever else happens, I hope that Ken Livingstone has more time to spend with his newts!

As for the rest of us in England, some have elections others don't. I have a vote (actually two because I've got a proxy for my wife as Continental Airlines don't provide ballot boxes!) and I will be wandering off later today in the direction of the polling station. Being that this is Solihull, nothing that the hapless Prime Minister does will affect the outcome much as we are a Conservative/Libdem battleground. However, I do hope that he gets a proverbial bloody nose today.

Welsh councils are voting also and they should provide the best territory for giving Mr. Brown a big political raspberry!

Lesbians come out fighting - nominally speaking!

2008-05-01T12:45:00.008+01:00

What's in a name? Sometimes not a lot, other times it is your very identity. If I was a Lesbian I would not be too pleased if everytime I told people I was one it provoked amusement, silly laughter and innuendo. That is apparently the sort of thing that happens to Lesbians every day. They have the good fortune to live on the Greek island of Lesbos. Now, as we know, female homosexuals have appropriated the name. In fact, for most people around the world, it is the latter they think of before considering the people of Lesbos (if they ever do).

A similar fate beheld the people of the French region of Alsace. Alsatians are a people of distinct background with a language and culture. Canine it is not. For some reason, they managed to get dog owners and breeders in England to call the animal a German Shepherd rather than Alsatian, although some do lapse on occasions. Some name identities are confused by association of ideas. Mongolians or Mongols had to endure being likened to Down's Sydrome simply on account of their facial features. Siam (now called Thailand) disliked the term siamese twins preferring to get the world to speak of conjoined twins.

Can the people of Lesbos succeed in protecting their name? Judges in Greece will have to decide whether to grant an injunction against the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece and to order it to change its name. Apparently history is on the side of the campaigners. Sapphos, the Greek goddess whose name is linked with female homosexuality and was a native of Lesbos, was no lover of other women, but a heterosexual female who had a family, and committed suicide for the love of a man. So that puts the record straight, then!

Boston cell phone party - no danger at all!

2008-05-01T09:12:00.007+01:00

In the "I can't be bothered" department of politics, I think Massachussetts Senate President Therese Murray takes the prize for this month's Clutz Award! She says of a bill to ban people from holding cell phones or sending text messages whilst driving (which may die in the state Senate this year), "I haven't given it any thought. No one has asked me for it, so it's not something that is at the top of my radar." Such a casual approach to potential death and injury on the roads. What does she care? Not a lot, because she hasn't given it any thought. Well, she has actually because she's talking about it, but this is arrogant politician speak for "I don't care!".

I know that using a mobile phone whilst driving is a potential hazard. When it was still lawful, or at least not illegal, in England to do so, I found it distracting to say the least. Now with the ban, now four years old, it is quite apparent that it causes accidents leading in some cases to death. In England in August 2006, a lorry driver who caused a woman's death because he was distracted by his mobile phone was jailed for four years. John Payne, 31, had been punching the keypad of his new phone and failed to spot a traffic queue ahead. His lorry crashed into a Peugeot 106 driven by Trinity Taylor, 23, rolling over the top of the car crushing it, and killing her. Outside Winchester crown court, after Payne was sentenced, Ms Taylor's family said motorists caught using mobiles should face as much stigma as drink-drivers.

I wonder what the politically astute Senate President thinks of drunk drivers? At one time they were socially accepted. And that is the trouble. Casual behaviour leading to a superior arrogance behind the wheel is still socially acceptable for mobile phone use. Rep. Joseph F. Wagner, D-Chicopee, a key architect of the House bill, said there's been a proliferation of drivers holding and talking on their cell phones whilst driving in Massachussetts (and presumably the whole country!). Wagner said it's a distraction for drivers to use cell phones, and he's backed up by statistics from the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Wagner said the bill is needed to improve safety on the roads and save lives. All this is lost on the Senate President, as she hasn't "given it any thought".

I'm all for freedom and liberty, but there comes a time when freedom to be stupid, reckless, or just be downright anti-social is to deny others the right to a freedom to enjoy security and safety.

Therese Murray is simply a silly woman!