Cancel, and come to the Christmas Party…

               

As quickly as it came, the year two thousand and seven is coming to an end. The sun falls at four in the afternoon, and trees are bare of life. What strikes me is that although humans are able to survive this downturn, we are still, very much, affected by it.

This is because nature is the most basic regulator of time. Unlike the text on a calendar, changes in nature are the most powerful indication that the Earth has orbited the sun once more.

As the world approaches the same position it occupied twelve months ago, there is a pervasive feeling that another year is falling away, out of our grasp. And so the panic begins to make the final weeks of the year count.

Nature conspires to bring us closer to home and to the people we care about. To make us realise what is important.

And third years, take note. As the Earth reaches its orbit this year, it is the last time it will do so while we’re at University. Then nature will conspire to pull us away from each other, away from familiar faces, from friends, from lovers, from Birmingham.

And so whatever you plan to do over the next few weeks, or whoever you plan to spend it with, make it count. Come to the CF Christmas Party.

The Teacher and the Teddy

I am delighted to see that the Sudanese legal system is finally working effectively and that the real criminals, teachers who allow children to name teddies, are brought to justice whilst other upstanding people such as the butchers of Darfur are given a pat on the back. Please. When a friend first told me on Tuesday that a British teacher had been arrested for allowing her children to name a teddy “Mohammed” I assumed it was a joke. And to be frank it IS a joke.

 

A woman who clearly wishes to help and educate others is to be punished for allowing her children to name a teddy!? A teddy? The thing that children like to play with? …Big and brown? Sorry for all the silly descriptions but they were the thoughts that were flowing through my mind as I tried to digest the absurdity of the situation! A country and a legal system that turned a blind eye to genocide is now calling for the punishment and imprisonment of a teacher who did nothing wrong other than allowing her children to name a toy!?

 

Frankly she is a British citizen and if Gordon Brown had any sense left what so ever he would kick the Sudanese in to touch and demand her immediate and unconditional release. The Sudanese authorities have the right to deport a foreign national in their country… granted. What they do not have the right to do is charge a British citizen with a crime that isn’t even recognisable by British law. And a crime that is to be quite frank preposterous in this day and age. One does wonder where the authorities are when there are hooligans on Khartoum’s streets inciting hatred and calling for Gillian Gibbon’s execution. I’m sure they have more pressing matters to attend to… they’re probably interviewing the teddy.

A Step Too Far?

Source: Guardian Unlimited 

After examining the current state of the United States, one could be forgiven for concluding that human rights are, well, so last year. So the 1990s. I refer, of course, to the self-styled American axis-of-evil: Guantanamo Bay, and the practice of extraordinary rendition.

Simultaneously, one could equally be forgiven for, upon an examination of the current state of the United Kingdom, concluding that liberty is, well, so last year. So the 1990s. I refer, of course, to the issue of detention without charge (although the issue of unprecedented and unmatched surveillance of society is certainly another).

Whatever the specifics of the American dilemma, I suppose some hope can be drawn from the fact that the atrocities mentioned above do not occur on American soil. Not so in the UK case. Oh, and let us be under no illusion, as the Guardian columnist Henry Porter writes, “at stake is nothing less than the rule of law and the honour of the nation.” The fact that the battle line is unusually placed – with the Guardian, the New Statesman, the Daily Telegraph, and the two main opposition parties on the one side, and the government, the police, MI5, and the Daily Mail on the other – perhaps supports this assessment.

The government is currently considering proposals to raise the limit for detention without charge to between 50 and 60 days – No need to skip back, you read correctly. It was 24 hours in 1997, by the way. This is in response to the threat posed by terrorism. Those that quiver at these figures are apparently naïve in the face of this ‘unique’ threat. Nonsense. What is naive is the seeming conviction of our government (under Brown and Blair) that incremental raises in this limit – from 24 hours, to 48, to 7 days, to 14, to 28 – somehow amounts to a comprehensive and intelligent counter-terrorism strategy!

Or, recognising the threat, am I just naïve and soft to believe that these measures aren’t necessary? The answer: no. The evidence (a sensitive issue for the government when it comes to detention without charge): the above chart. Just to highlight a few points: the US has an equivalent limit of 2days; France and Germany have limits of 6 and 2 days; Turkey are at 7.5; indeed, the closest, Australia, only allows up to 12 days! So, perhaps another argument is that the threat posed to the United Kingdom is so extraordinary, so special, so demanding (dare I say, exaggerated), that a 50-60day limit is required. I don’t even need evidence to convince readers of the untenable nature of this claim.

The End of Holy Impotency?

 

 

Both our Archbishop and senior Cardinal this week have revealed their political colours in some form.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has made it clear that he is opposed to the embryo research bill. I disagree I think it is needed for medical advancement, but I like the fact that the church is starting to take stand.

Dr Rowan Williams this week has criticised US foreign policy and talked at how it is concerned that its means of achieving its policy aims have little regard for humanity or for the welfare of a nation state.On this I think I agree with the Archbishop as I have since the beginning rejected the need for a war in Iraq. 

These comments have significance, it shows how the church is once again starting to dip its toes back into mainstream politics and it is about time too.Whilst I can agree and disagree with certain comments religious men make, they are often very learned and have considered fully their opinions. I see no reason why a church should not be able to engage in debate and try and persuade people of its reasoning, surely that is one of the purposes of religion to persuade others of God’s teachings and love.

Furthermore I think that religious groups can add a unique line of thinking to policy. On the embryo research bill there are some issues about allowing men to be put on the birth certificate of a child. The church opposes this and rightly so.Obviously if this does signal a renaissance in outspoken clergy we will have to fight those who hold extreme views stronger. However with 70% of the population claiming to be Anglicans surely the church has a right to voice opinions.This won’t lead to theocracy or dogmatic rule, what we get is a plethora of arguments and one that can be defeated legitimately by majority.I would like to see a more confident church in this country, one that can properly engage with the population and one that is not afraid to speak out. The CofE is a long way off engaging actively with people, which is a shame. This country lacks the morality and love for others taught to us by the church. 

Do not get me wrong, I am fully aware of the perils of religion and politics mixing, we have to go no further than our own doorstep to see what extremist religion can do, notably 7/7 and the Mohamed cartoon protests. I reject this toxic mix of supremacist thought and religious violence it is deluded.However both the Catholic and Anglican faiths in this country are liberal and tolerant and it is with these religious people proper debate can be held. An outspoken and politically aware Christian opinion can only add to democratic debate.

In our liberal tolerant society religion does not bring dogma but debate and the church can and should raise issues more to increase awareness and to add new ideas and to help those and remind us to help those most in need in our society and the world.

We can’t lose to the Lib Dems

    

Through no achievement of their own, the Lib Dems command support which would otherwise give the Conservatives a whopping lead in the polls. As such, we should view the Lib Dems as an open treasure chest.

I’m of the school that changes in Lib Dem support say more about the two main parties than they do about the Lib Dems themselves.

What makes Lib Dem fortunes interesting is their cause and effect, which almost always have nothing to do with the Lib Dems. When their support rises, the question is, to whose expense? When their support falls, the question is, to whose credit?

They gain support when people can’t or can’t be bothered to decide between the two main parties. They lose support when people can and do decide.

Therefore if the Lib Dems are gaining support, as is the case now, it’s because the two main parties are either doing badly or not well enough.

In the current cycle, it’s Labour who are doing badly. After a bad week and a bad month, their support has fallen to rock bottom. Although it could, it shouldn’t fall any lower.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, are not doing well enough. After an okay week, and an okay month, their support is static. Yet it could and should be higher.

As a result, the Lib Dems have gained support from Labour but not lost any to the Conservatives, resulting in a net increase for the third party.

This, as I maintain, says nothing about the Lib Dems. But it does suggest that the Conservatives are not quite breaking through.

But face it Lib Dummies, you’re just keeping our support warm. Just watch it.

Diary

  

As is becoming customary on this site, I should like to add my voice to the chorus of heartfelt sentiment in congratulating the Queen and the Duke of Phillip on their Diamond Wedding Anniversary. I should also take this opportunity to congratulate the Queen on her long, successful reign over the British Isles. Though, if any of you feel the need to elaborate, would you mind doing so here.

However, there is one dissenter. Gary comments:

“They are a lovely couple yet I am hugely indifferent to their lives. What would I loose if they vanished?“

erm… I don’t know Gaz, maybe that chip on your shoulder?

     

How unfortunate for Alistair Darling. My housemate said to me that someone should really tell Darling that he looks like a rabbit. Not that he can do much about it. He can’t bleach his eye-brows, imagine the fuss. Unless he did it very slowly, perhaps (?)

More importantly, Darling has lost a third of the population’s addresses, national insurance numbers, bank details, etc…

Regardless of who’s fault this is, the Conservatives are right to be pointing fingers at the Chancellor. This comes only a few days after the real cost of Northern Rock was revealed, and both incidents should be used as an opportunity to dent the government’s economic credibility.

But really the damage has already been done. Brown and Darling have been humiliated, embarrassed and undermined by their junior officials. They were made to look incompetent, and now everyone, the politicians, the tabloids, and the public, are waiting on the edge of their seats for the next mistake.

Cameron was accurate, and summed-up the situation well when he said that the government is coasting from one crisis to the next. It does feel a bit like that.

UPDATE: Seems that the officials implicated were not so junior.

Fear of real choice- educational reform

 

 

 

Competition in education? Teachers having to persuade pupils to attend? Accountable standards? What is this nonsense! Well this is the future of successful education in this country.

 

I see no problem in people having the right to choose where to educate their children. Surely that is one of the most important decisions a parent will make? The new Conservative education policy is successful at doing this, empowering people.

The system would allow any organisation to set up a school and run it how they want, so if 1950s style uniform was wanted let them have it (random example I know). The schools would be judged by their popularity with money following the student.

There are of course some very necessary caveats. The schools would have to basic requirements of educational standards but those that do not achieve good standards would not attract pupils. Furthermore the school would have to promote liberalism, tolerance the importance of democracy and in specific reference to religion it would have to be moderate and not supremacist or violent in its teachings.

This system would inject into education dynamism and flexibility that would see an almost educational revolution in this country. Competition would drive up standards as it has done in the private sector. Just look at the sport and music facilities a lot of private schools have, this has been in response to competition. Good schools would be able to expand, or create foundation schools spreading the successful and popular ethos to other areas.

There would be initial problems such as a surplus of places in areas until the system has bedded it. There could also be potential for wasted facilities as those bad schools close. However the outcome is worth it. It would give people in the state sector the same power as those in the private to dictate where there children are educated and how they are educated. Schools for too long have been allowed to languish in the “satisfactory” category with no real motivation to become good or excel.

 This is not a Popular move among teachers however, with NASUWT claiming it would cause social segregation and chaos. This is not true what do all parents want for their children? A good education, a school providing one would attract all sections of the community.  There will be a need to help those in disadvantaged areas exercise real choice, through proper literature on the choices available and a proper transport system to give those who cannot afford to travel the ability to have a reasonable choice in their area. People are already voting with their feet with many children being educated outside of their LEA because the parents have deemed the local schools not good enough. At the moment only the rich can exercise this choice, but it is a choice everyone should have. The liberals have criticised saying that this policy gives the green light for yet more grammar schools, but if the funding follows the pupils’ grammar schools are going to want to attract more pupils so selection could in fact be reduced. If selection wasn’t reduced their expansion of a successful school would give more people the opportunity at getting one. Selection and competition do not sit well together though so I would suggest this would reduce selection. 

Furthermore this system would allow greater specialism in schools, so a school could target those interested in engineering and electronics for example it could then provide a really hands on engaging curriculum based on the needs of its pupils. This perhaps would go some way to reigniting NEETS interest in working and learning because school wouldn’t be so prescriptive.

 Finally there is a policy that is truly radical and promises real change and improvement in education.

The Record Breaking Queen and her devoted Duke.

Today Her Majesty the Queen will add another accolade to her ever growing record breaking credentials, that of being the first monarch to celebrate a Diamond Wedding. On November 20th 1947 Princess Elizabeth, daughter of the ailing King George VI, married Lt. Philip Mountbatten in a glittering ceremony at Westminster Abbey. It was the first major state occasion since the end of World War II and was exactly what a war weary country needed to lift its spirits.

Much time has passed since that day and the country no longer looks to its monarchy in the same deferential fashion of 1947. However for me this doesn’t represent a failure on the part of the Queen and Duke but rather an inevitable characteristic of the age in which we live. An age when respect and tradition seems all but forgotten. What is interesting and commendable however is how the Queen and the Duke have managed to remain without allowing the monarchy to loose its soul.

The truth is that the Queen and the Duke shouldn’t be criticised for the decline in deference… they should be praised for their ability to have weathered a great many disastrous storms for the Royal family and presided over the development of a thoroughly “modern monarchy”.

Perhaps their greatest legacy has been their ability to refrain from engaging in a war of words with the often intrusive and savage media. Their marriage has come under immense media scrutiny yet they have never complained and have continued their duty in a self sacrificing manner. In a rapidly changing and socially diminished world it is impressive to see a strong marriage based on the admirable principles of 1940s Britain.

They are not the most emotional of couples in public… but why should they be? Why do the media have an insatiable desire for false almost theatrical emotion? They are something far more important. They are a team. The Queen has been supported magnificently by Prince Philip throughout her 56 year reign and I’m sure that she couldn’t have done half of what she has without his support. Philip has come under a great deal of personal and savage criticism particularly over his relations with Diana. This is completely unfair and neglectful of his service to the nation over 6 decades.

The Duke has the frailties of any human being and he is indeed a product of his time. Perhaps at times he can be bigoted, perhaps he can be callous, but he is a true statesman and he is devoted to his wife and his country and he should be commended for it. As for Her Majesty she is in my view the greatest monarch in British history and in the words of the national anthem, millions of her loyal subjects hope that she will “defend our laws and give us cause to shout with heartened voice, God Save the Queen” for a long time to come.

I’m sure all Conservatives and countless millions of her subjects and admirers abroad wish the Queen and her husband many more years together.

Benefit Blubber- incapacity benefit.

            

The times has revealed today that 2,000 people in this country are officially to fat to work and claim Incapacity Benefit accordingly. This one statistic is the tip of a huge and expensive problem we have with incapacity benefit; a 7.4 Billion pound problem.

Incapacity Benefit is unarguably an essential those who are unable to work because of genuine illness or disability however there I a problem with the amount that get it. 2.7 million people claim from a range of illnesses that are harder to diagnose such as depression a real and debilitating illness. However there are problems when 518 million pounds is being spent on “unknown and unspecified” diseases.

What concerned me more with this shift from money being spent on “illnesses, which largely defy a clear medical classification” is what is incapacity benefit doing to help these people back into the world of work and to a better level of health. Spending this money on programs which encourage vigorously those to large to loose weight, and those with depression to learnt o manage it so they can function.

Those classes as having dizziness need to stop taking the state for a ride as if it cannot be medically defined I think you probably could go to work with dizziness. This is an essential issue for the conservatives to target because it fits in with our quality life agenda making sure people are feeling better in their lives.

Depression is now one of the top health concerns for the public due to our ever-increasing busy and stressful lives. However free money doesn’t give us a solution. A program of other alternatives to health issues should be offered like time management, advising people how to relax and classes for those who need to learn to manage metal illnesses and for those to fat to work? Perhaps a weight watchers membership.

This issues has much wider consequences if it is no dealt with, with nearly 3 million people of working age on incapacity it raises questions about the need for such high levels of immigration into the country. It should also concern us that there is an increasing culture of state reliance, not state aid but reliance. This breeds in new generations a culture of complaining and laziness. Perhaps this is why we now have a million NEETS because the government has not pushed people to work to their best.

There is a difference between not wanting to go to work and not being able and it is time to assess whether this essential benefit is being severely abused to the detriment of everyone. Perhaps it should be reviewed that incapacity benefit can be £20 higer than job seekers’ allowance and therefore there is an incentive to find any illness you possibly can.

We need to end career benefiters so that benefit is provided for those genuinely in need. More importantly than the money however I the need to get people healthy, we are facing an obesity crisis for the sake of people’s lives we need to change this culture.

                            

Brown’s Kryptonite…

                 

 

In the Superman films, although I should say I’m not an avid fan, Superman, when in the presence of kryptonite, is drained of his powers and reduced to a mere mortal. Bare with me…

Gordon Brown is Labour’s superman. He saved New Labour, and for a while seemed unstoppable. Even now he remains their protector, which is a huge problem for us. But what if we found this superman’s kryptonite? What if we could drain his powers and turn him into a John Prescott?

I think we can.

Firstly, Brown is a Statist. Wednesday’s Queen’s speech is yet more evidence of his State-centric approach to everything.

Take the education proposals. Parents who fail in their duty to ensure their child remains in education till 18 could be prosecuted. The youths themselves, will also be liable. And providers of education will be legally obliged to notify the authorities of non-participation.

Somewhere in Gordon Brown’s head, this will work. Somewhere in his head, 17 and 18 year olds can be coerced. In reality, this will be yet another administrative mess, and the cost will far out-strip the benefit. It is the most recent trace of Brown’s heavy, statist footprint.

David Cameron, on the other hand, is a localist. He is comfortable with admitting the limitations of the state.

His latest unveiling, The Conservative Co-operative Movement, is a good example. Social Enterprise Zones are another. They put power in the hands of individuals and their communities to effect change themselves rather than wait for it. By stimulating the charitable and entrepreneurial energies of individuals, the state can, bi-proxy, extend its hand to the hard to reach.

This is grass-roots, organic, one-nation Conservatism. And from Notting Hill to Darfur, it’s on the move, empowering individuals, mending communities, and lifting society.

Brown doesn’t get it, because somewhere in his head, probably in the same place his initiatives work, he alone can solve the countries problems.

This is his kryptonite.

A new low?

       

I watched some of the Queen’s Speech debate yesterday, with the intention of watching it all. Instead, I didn’t. I thought that the increasingly brutal exchanges between Gordon Brown and David Cameron were ugly, and not nice viewing.

Fundamentally I blame Gordon Brown and his cheap-shot politics. I increasingly adhere to the view that Brown is a Prime Minister without a strategy. He resorts to doing everything he can to derail and discredit the opposition, never mind how low he has to stoop, and never mind how undignified he might look.

For instance, to disorientate the opposition he allowed talk of an early election to snowball out of control. Tactically, it was good while it lasted, though he failed to jump off that particular train before it hit the buffers.

Inviting Margaret Thatcher to Number Ten is about the lowest Brown stooped to get one over David Cameron. And it certainly looked low, though not that he cared. It might, after all, win him a few votes.

And then there was the visit to Iraq in the middle of the Conservative conference. Not one of his best, though again, not that he cared. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Cameron should refrain from stooping to Brown’s level. While Brown has enough credibility to play gutter politics, Cameron doesn’t. Yet, he can’t resist teasing the PM at every opportunity.

Yesterday, some serious questions should have been raised about the role of the state. Increasing the education leaving age to 18 is a very serious policy, which requires serious debate.

Instead, the Six O’clock news featured Cameron poking and sniping at Brown for copying Tory inheritance tax proposals, which in truth is debatable, and even if it isn’t, won’t have gone unnoticed by the general public.

The sight of the Tory front bench, red-faced and wriggling with laughter, slapping their knees and jeering at the government bench, looked unattractive. Brown, standing awkwardly at the dispatch box, embarrassing himself again, looked no better.

And what was the Conservative’s non-election day poster about? Surely people have already judged Brown on his election u-turn. The poster looked a bit ‘yesterday’s news’.

Cameron may not have heard of this saying: It goes, “Never fight with a chimney-sweep”, or you yourself get covered in soot.

It strikes me that here are two opponents virtually neck a neck. The polls seem to suggest that while the Conservatives have improved their position since the summer, there’s not much distance between the two parties. If analysts such as Peter Riddell are correct, this could be where the polls finally settle after a period of volatility.

In one sense Brown and Cameron are equals. Cameron is too nimble for Brown to keep up with, but Brown makes Cameron look light-weight. So they chase each other’s tails, in what is an increasingly angry tussle for public opinion, in which both sides will stoop to win a headline.

Brown, being the initiator of this politics, will be judged by the electorate at the next election. Though at this rate, they won’t have much of an alternative.

Let’s face it, we’ve lost…

      

In four months time, the House of Commons will ratify the Lisbon Treaty; A treaty that creates an EU president, a high representative for foreign affairs, and a treaty that pushes majority voting into somewhere between 45 and 70 new policy areas. Then there’s the ‘ratchet clause’, which could see treaties revised and amended without an inter-governmental conference. If, like me, you don’t like the sound of that, tough.

There isn’t going to be a referendum. Brown knows that given the opportunity the public would probably reject the treaty. He also knows that the public are not exactly rioting to make their views heard. Of course, if you ask people whether they want a referendum, the response is yes. But they’re not asking for one without being asked.

And for anyone studying the influence of the tabloid press over public opinion, this is a good example of how little the Sun actually matters.

Having wiggled out of a referendum, Labour’s majority will ensure easy pass through Parliament. The Conservatives are too small in numbers to affect the outcome. So, privately, we admit defeat. Publically, our argument should be confined to the treaty itself, and only expressed when necessary. Our opposition should be put on record and made known so that people can have their say at the next election.

Gordon Brown, very generously, has given Parliament twenty weeks to debate the treaty. He might be hoping that a prolonged debate will give the Tory right the opportunity to sound off, and to question the UK’s whole membership of the EU.

They should shut-up. While some might be content with the party remaining a pressure group, the Lisbon Treaty is a glaring example of how, in the end, it’s a majority that counts.