Whilst the Government proceeds with its plans to further rig the trial process against (almost exclusively male) defendants in cases involving rape and serious sexual offences, the press continues to report cases where false allegations involving such offences have been made.

The Times reported two cases yesterday (28^th April 2006.) One case involved a male who was framed by his girlfriend  (and her mother) after he had sought to bring their relationship to an end. The mother and daughter received prison sentences of six and three month's, respectively.  The male was likely to have received a prison sentence measured in years, had he been prosecuted and convicted.

In another case, a fourteen-year-old boy admitted that he had lied when claiming that a church deacon had had sex with him and indecently assaulted him on several occasions. In court the boy confessed to lying to police and jurors, and accepted that he had previously made false allegations of a similar nature.

Only last year a wife admitted making a false claim to cover her infidelity.  These cases are legion and yet the Government still follows the politically correct consensus that it is the trial system that is defective rather than the jury having a healthy regard for the principle that it should be sure beyond doubt of a defendant's guilt.  The Government and women's groups are all of the same mind: "If she said it happened, it did!"  So juries are stupid, defence lawyers insensitive, male chauvinist/gender traitor, apologist, silver-tongued thugs and the defendants all guilty to a man.

The point that the Government just cannot or will not grasp is that a significant number of rape/serious sexual assault complainants tell lies.  The reasons for these lies are varied.  Very often it is a case of a woman scorned.  Sometimes it is a "cover up" for a sexual infidelity or an embarrassing (after the event) sexual liaison.  Occasionally it is for the purpose of being the centre of attention.  In the main, the "victims" are very convincing.  Bending the rules of evidence to make convictions easier to secure is not just dangerous, it is criminal.

I am given to understand that the Liberal Democrats have about 73,000 members.  As it appears likely that Michael Brown's £2.4 million donation might have to be repaid sooner or later, plans should be made to meet this liability, now.  Might I suggest that each and every party member contribute the sum of  £32.88 to party funds without delay?  That is all it takes to preserve a great party.  You know it is worth it.

Analysts seem to agree that the Conservatives face an uphill task in the forthcoming local elections, though “targets” are still being set that might make it difficult for them to avoid what their opponents will describe as an indifferent performance.

Writing in The Daily Telegraph Dr Robert Waller declares, 

“David Cameron's “modern and liberal” leadership will clearly be assessed in the light of the Conservative performance.”

 

“Prospects of [the Conservatives] gaining councils are relatively limited in the areas last contested in 2004, when the [their] showing was equivalent to a national share of around 37 per cent.” 

Dr Waller believes that there are few realistic chances of the Conservatives gaining control in town halls outside London though in London they have better prospects; as in 2002 they won an overall majority in only eight of the thirty-two boroughs.

Dr Waller concludes, 

“Overall, for the Tories, a net gain of 100 council seats across the country would be disappointing, anything over 300 very good progress, and 500-plus would raise hopes of an overall majority in the next general election….” 

whilst, 

“The Lib Dems will perform stronger than in the general election (as usual), and may finish second in national vote share, reinforcing optimism under Sir Menzies Campbell” 

and that, 

“The biggest question is whether the Conservatives can gain enough seats and councils to look as if they are once more credible contenders for national government.” 

In The Sunday Times Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher explained the problems that will be encountered by the Conservatives in that they must “overcome the handicap of the UK electoral system, both nationally and locally”, reminding us that in the May 2005 General Election the Conservatives won 3% less of the vote than Labour, but acquired 150 fewer seats.

In the London borough elections in 2002, when the seats were last contested, the Conservatives secured a similar number of votes to Labour, but won 654 seats to Labour’s 866.  As Messrs Rallings and Thrasher say, 

“It took nearly 900 votes to elect every Tory councillor but only 680 to elect a Labour one. And the boundaries had been reviewed immediately before the elections” 

and,

“Many Tory votes were “wasted” as big majorities were built up in wards where the party was safe. Labour, by contrast, won many of its own safe wards with very low numbers of votes. The average turnout in London in wards won by the Tories (35%) was above that for Labour (28%). The legacy of 2002 is that the Tories will need to be about seven points ahead of Labour in the popular vote to win more seats in the capital. This equates to a swing of 3.5% from Labour to the Tories. Anything less and Labour will be able to disguise the likely slump in its own vote by claiming it is still the leading party in London in terms of seats.”

This analysis puts the Conservatives’ task into perspective and to quote Mr Rallings and Mr Thrasher again, 

“It may therefore be unfair to judge Cameron’s impact as leader by seats alone. But he does need to demonstrate the Tories are attracting new support, rather than simply picking up the crumbs from standing still as former Labour voters desert their party for the Liberal Democrats or other smaller parties.”  

Prior to the revelations of this week, I had thought that Conservative success would be limited to a very modest gain in the share of votes cast (which was unlikely to translate into many, if any, new seats) and Labour support would continue its gradual downward drift with a few more seats lost (mainly to the Liberal Democrats) but not on an embarrassing scale.  As such, the Labour defeat could be spun into an “indifferent result”; the Liberal Democrats would claim victory and the Conservatives would be put to a lot of explaining.  Even a few days can be a long time in politics. There is now good reason to expect that support for Labour will significantly ebb.  As  Peter Riddell  said in The Times today, 

“The Blair Government’s luck may, at last, have run out: not primarily because of policies, but because of the appearance of incompetence…..

What really damages a Government is the appearance of not being in charge of prisoners, asylum-seekers or events.” 

Provided their vote holds firm, it is just possible for the Conservatives to secure sufficient gains in the forthcoming local elections to avoid being cast as the losers by New Labour, its media and the Liberal Democrats.

The last time I read the Daily Mirror, my fish and chips were wrapped in it.  That was a very long time ago.  Since the practise of wrapping chips in newspaper was banned, The Mirror has not had any real, useful purpose.  I was reminded of this this morning when my attention was drawn to the article by Kevin Maguire.

In brief, Mr Maguire was giving his considered, erudite opinion concerning the Conservative leader, David Cameron: - 

"I can think of many words beginning with C that describe David Cameron better than chameleon.  A list in a family newspaper cannot include the short, pithy, abusive word that accurately captures the dislike so many people feel for his type.  After all, we know Cameron is a Conservative so should leave it at that...."

He continues,

"Old Etonian Cameron's a prisoner of his class, the upper class, and condescension comes easily to Tory toffs though plays badly with voters who see straight through synthetic charm..."

and,

"...Cameron's honeymoon is over and he's flailing in the polls around the level he inherited from predecessor Michael "Dracula" Howard. That leaves Cameron resembling yet another Conservative Corpse, a leader destined to join Howard, Iain Duncan Smith, William Hague and John Major in the political graveyard.  The impression yesterday was of a pale, stale version of the young Tony Blair who captured Westminster just over a decade ago. If Cameron's all the Conservatives have to offer, Gordon Brown and Labour have little to worry about."

Finally,

".....I'd put £20 on voters seeing through his Crass strategy before the next general election."

No, Mr Maguire.  If you had the courage of your convictions, you would bet far, far more than that.

The purpose of Bryan Appleyard’s article in The Sunday Times on April 23, 2006 was to argue that British television news is dull and lacks substance, whilst in America, anchors have “authority and zest”.

Interestingly, in passing he had this to say as well: -  

[The BBC’s] primary news shows are now unwatchable. Of course, they have long been unwatchable if you object to political bias. The BBC won’t listen, but I’m afraid that the case is unarguable. The corporation is suffused with soft left and hard anti-American prejudices that seep into almost all the news coverage. By the time one gets to Newsnight and sees Gavin Esler treating any old hoodlum or crook with extravagant respect before turning to sneer at some decent American congressman, one can find oneself indulging in that awful, crazed habit of shouting at the TV.  Looking down at the vast BBC newsroom, I once made this point to an executive, who just looked blankly back as if I had unaccountably lapsed into Hungarian. To get her attention, I asked her to tell me which newspapers she could see on the desks. Amid that sea of reporters, only one title was visible — the eccentrically left-leaning Independent. 

Many of us no longer watch or listen to BBC News because of this bias and those of us who still do take what we are told with a pinch of salt.  For a public broadcasting service this is unacceptable. We demand more balance.  A significant proportion of the Licence Fee paying public (almost certainly the majority) is not Soft Left or anti-American or very pro-European Union.  Perhaps the BBC should, before dismissing criticism out of hand, bear in mind that he who pays the piper, calls the tune.

It is curious how certain hypotheses gain currency and quickly become accepted as an established fact, sometimes against the weight of evidence.

In the mid nineteen eighties I happened upon a BBC television programme examining the matter of heart disease.  The earnest presenter, a doctor, adamantly asserted that the “fatty heart hypothesis” was not a hypothesis, but a proven fact.  If you eat a fatty diet and don’t do any exercise, your arteries clog up and you die of a heart attack - plain and simple. It seemed a fairly sound argument to me. On the other hand I found his stridency jarring.  Other experts thought they were possessed of evidence undermining the fatty heart “fact” and this irritated the presenter, who saw them as heretics.

A few years later, I happened upon another programme about a body that had been discovered in a glacier in the Alps.  The body had been frozen intact, with the remains of clothes and some belongings. After examination by an assortment of experts, it was established that the individual had died about four thousand years ago.  He had been almost certainly a nomadic shepherd.  Forensic examination showed that he had not died of any illness nor had he been killed.  It was believed that he had been caught in a sudden blizzard and died of exposure. Examination of his bones suggested that he was aged about forty years or so old. 

It was possible to make a number of assumptions about his life style.  The glacier in which his body was frozen and transported down to the lowlands over the course of four thousand years, started life high in the Alps, where until the last century there had still been a tradition of shepherds moving livestock up and down the mountains through the passing of the seasons.  Thus he had not enjoyed a sedentary life style – it was not possible for him to have done so.  He had never eaten processed or fatty foods.  He had not been afflicted by any of the vices of soft, lazy, easy late-twentieth century living.  Yet examination showed that his arteries had fatty deposits just like your average, overweight, unfit company executive.  Oh well, it's back to the drawing board.

I was reminded of this when a number of scientists[1], who had been routinely ignored for years, published an open letter challenging the orthodoxy of “global warming”.  It was then disclosed elsewhere that the purportedly inevitable, inexorable increase in global temperature had fizzled out in 1998.[2]  The global warming theorists may yet be proved to be right. Then again, they might be shown to be as misguided as flat earthers. 
 

[1]   Sixty-one experts, as it happens.  The letter was dated 6^th April 2006.

[2] Professor Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland.  For a full report see The Daily Telegraph 9^th April 2006.

I have a shocking admission to make.  I have always had a soft spot for Cherie Blair.  My prejudices in that respect were reinforced when a very good friend of mine, who had met Mrs Blair in a professional capacity, confided that she was a very pleasant, likeable individual.  It should not surprise anyone therefore when I declare that charging the Labour Party for her hairdressing was reasonable.  In these “presidential” times, the First Lady has to look the part and I have little doubt that the effort she applied to Labour’s election campaign was worth thousands of votes.

The disparity in cost between Sandra Howard’s hairdressing expenses (£65) and those of Mrs Blair (£7,700) however, is symptomatic of the difference between Labour and the Conservatives in matters concerning money. A high proportion of Conservative MPs and Councillors, by virtue of having been or being engaged in business, know the value of money. They have learned to watch the bottom line.  They have learned to be prudent.  They know what they can and cannot afford. They hate waste.  They want their money’s worth.

This fiscal responsibility on the part of the Conservatives has always been portrayed by its political opponents as a vice, whereas it is a virtue.  It is so readily forgotten that the sound economy about which we hear so much by way of Gordon Brown’s boasts, was created by the Conservatives, not Labour. 

The extent of the Labour Government’s wastefulness is truly shocking.  Recent examples include the more than £2 billion in overpaid benefits received by the unemployed and people on low incomes, since Labour came to power.  Ministers limply claim that there was nothing they could do to recoup the cash other than ask people to repay it voluntarily.  As much as £500 million [1] may have been wasted by the NHS overpaying for just three prescription drugs over the last three years.  What an extraordinary state of affairs. In spite of the many extra billions spent on the NHS by Labour, staff are being sacked and numerous hospitals threatened with closure, something that never happened under the Conservatives.

Labour was able to evict the Conservatives from power in 1997 because the electorate believed that the old spend, spend, spend Labour Party was a thing of the past.  Tony Blair admitted openly that a problem cannot be solved by simply throwing money at it. Since 1997, Labour has done nothing but.

Following Iain Dale’s scoop yesterday about Michael Brown, the Liberal Democrats' benefactor to the tune of £2.4 million[1], today it is reported by Rajeev Syal, Dominic Kennedy and James Doran of  The Times that: - 

 “The Lib Dems, already risking bankruptcy if the donation is ruled ineligible by the Electoral Commission[2], sought to distance themselves yesterday from the latest events. The Lib Dems issued a statement yesterday saying:

 

 “We are not aware that this has any connection with the Liberal Democrats. Any further action is a matter for the police and for the relevant authorities.” ”

“Distance themselves from their biggest donor”?  They are not going to manage that until they have distanced themselves from the £2.4 million he donated - by giving it back.

It is perhaps surprising that no one saw Employment Minister Margaret Hodge confiding her “fears” about the BNP to The Sunday Telegraph for what it really was - a clever but cynical ploy to bolster the ethnic Labour vote in wards assessed as liable to fall to the main opposition parties.  At the same time it is calculated that now, the protest vote will drift away from mainstream opposition parties in the best position to challenge Labour, diverting to the BNP candidate who in spite of the hype, is not likely to win.  The anti-Labour vote is further divided and potential advances by the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives,  stymied. 

The ploy is well worth the risk because though it might hand no more a dozen or so seats to the BNP, it will deny scores to the mainstream opposition. This masterly tactic on the part of New Labour has ensured also that the BNP has now enjoyed its fifteen minutes of fame and peaked too early.  The message by Labour candidates to the traditional (but disgruntled) Labour voter is clear.  “We hear you! We feel for you!  We are really on your side!”

Since I posted an article challenging the emerging orthodoxy that Labour were going to lose “big” and the Conservatives should win “hundreds of seats”, wiser heads, armed with more detailed analysis and the latest opinion polls, are now creating a consensus that the election results are most likely to be capable of being spun by each major party as a success of sorts. The Liberal Democrats are still going to have the most to cheer about, at the expense of Labour and the Conservatives.  The sheer determination of Liberal Democrat activists can never be underestimated. It is going to be the Conservatives who suffer what will appear to be an indifferent result.  The rise in popularity of the Conservative party appears to have stalled again according to the latest YouGov poll, though nevertheless positive trends are emerging.  The poll sample seemed to believe that in some respects the Conservatives were thinking along the right lines and that “the Tories under their new leader deserve another year or two to work out their policies”.  For these reasons alone, purportedly indifferent results for the Conservatives will not represent a setback.

One of the many reasons the results of these forthcoming local elections are too close to call is that it is not clear that the electorate is ready to use them as a referendum against the Government. If local issues remain largely to the fore, Labour cannot be punished much more than it has been already.  It follows that those calling for a tactical vote against Labour for the purpose of causing Tony Blair to be deposed in a night of the long knives, are going to be sorely disappointed.  By there not being a landslide against Mr Blair, ironically he can claim victory, come 5^th May 2006. 

For Mr Blair, it might not be that he remains Premier “to infinity and beyond” but at the very least until 2008.

President John Prescott.

“Tony Blair has revealed the huge funding pressures on Labour in private remarks to party workers, saying that they need to find four or five times more cash to fight the next election.  Mr Blair told senior party figures that the extra cash was desperately needed to match expected Conservative spending in target seats from now until the next election”

reported David Charter of The Times on 17^th April 2006.  Mr Charter continued,

 “His verdict came after an analysis of Tory spending in the two years before last year’s election, which showed that Labour was outspent by a factor of 2.4 to 1 in 93 target seats. In three seats that Labour lost, the Tories spent more than ten times as much in the months before the election was called.

 

Labour insiders believe that extra Tory spending power cost the party at least a dozen seats in the general election last year and they will push for annual constituency spending limits. Spending is now strictly capped only from when the election is called. Senior Labour figures are alarmed at the pace of the “arms race” in party funding, which some fear is driving the dash for cash behind the “cash for honours” scandal.

 

Peter Bradley, who lost his seat of The Wrekin after the Tories spent 10.9 times as much as Labour, has compiled an analysis of targeted funding from Electoral Commission figures. Mr Bradley said: “My research identifies a strong correlation between a party’s capacity to outspend its rivals and the swing in its favour in key marginal seats.”

It might be recalled that I have a fondness for Mr Bradley and have posted about him before.  To recap, I consider that Mr Bradley is a sore loser.  The Tories weren't playing fair by spending more during their campaign to “take” his marginal[1], he bleats.  It has escaped his consciousness entirely, that his arguably odious comment made during the passage of the Hunting Bill through Parliament galvanised against him specifically, political opposition of all hues (including the associated funding.)  He made the Hunting Bill personal and he paid the price.  In any event, I digress.  My argument is that it is perfectly acceptable for political parties to target the seats they have assessed to be “for the taking” (or for that matter, defending.)  The Liberal Democrats would suffer in particular, if they were prevented from targetting, after all, it is what they are so good at.

Notwithstanding New Labour’s attempt to spin the Conservatives’ targeted spending as being “underhand”, of course, our Mr Blair’s New Labour does  the same thing.  Fast forward one day, and we are embroiled in the BNP story reported by David Aaronovitch of The Times.  As everyone will recall,  allegedly Minister Margaret Hodge had told The Sunday Telegraph that her white, working-class constituents in Barking are contemplating a serious electoral flirtation with Nick Griffin’s British National Party.  Mrs Hodge’ parliamentary neighbour Jon Cruddas, Labour MP for Dagenham, let the cat out of the bag when giving his opinion concerning the rise in popularity of the BNP. Mr Aaronovitch reports (though the emphasis is mine),

 “[Mr Cruddas’] assertion is that the BNP phenomenon is caused by a failure of mainstream, especially Labour, politicians to appeal to “traditional” voters. Instead, the parties try to maximise their appeal to middle-class swing voters in marginal constituencies. Labour’s project has ceased to be the “emancipation” of the still large working class.”

Well there you have it.  Labour targets marginals too.  This leaves me with one last thing to say.  Shut it, Bradley.

So, Brian Galvin, the new president of the National Union of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) would have us believe that Baroness Thatcher is to blame for our current social ills.  Unfortunately, he did not prepare his homework; I mean speech, quite as well as he should.  In addressing his union’s annual conference in Birmingham last week he confided that “over liberalised attitudes in the 1960s and 1970s had also contributed to social ills.”

Now, bearing in mind that the Milk Snatcher did not have “over liberalised” tendencies and that those over liberal attitudes complained of pre-dated her Government by up to twenty years, doesn’t Mr Galvin’s argument contain the seeds of its own destruction?

Oh, and by the way, which profession was at the vanguard of introducing “liberalised” ideas into our schools during the 1960’s and 1970’s and making them orthodoxy during the 1980’s and 1990’s?

Three out of ten, Mr Galvin.

In the great scheme of things, on the Bad Legislation Richter Scale, the Housing Act 2004 does not approach the severity of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.  However, whilst the weighty issues involving the abolition of Parliament and identity cards have largely by-passed the consciousness of the general public, ironically it is this seemingly innocuous Act that is likely to hurt the public in a way that the public comprehends, that is to say, through the pocket.  It is likely therefore to inflict more damage upon the popularity of this Government than either the imposition of identity cards or an Act granting unnaturally wide and extensive powers to the Executive.  So far the Government has been able to plough ahead with its plans to introduce the so-called Home Information Packs (HIPs) by virtue of the said Act.

HIPs will do nothing for improving or smoothing the sale and purchase of residential property.  It will assist the Government (at the public's sole cost) in creating a data base regarding the state of its housing stock (as required by EU law.)  It will add unnecessary and substantial cost to the transaction of buying and selling a home and cause delay.

Many firms involved in the residential property market are so concerned at the effect of the HIPs that an action group SPLINTA (Sellers Pack Law Is Not The Answer) has been formed for the purpose of seeking to convince the Government of the error of its ways. It is not only "vested interests" (that is to say, the professionals who know what they are talking about) who are concerned.  For more details concerning HIPs, view this page comprising a Fact Sheet prepared by SPLINTA and a message from Kirstie Allsopp & Phil Spencer, presenters of the Channel 4 programme Location, Location, Location.

I have touched upon this issue before.  I find it curious that Labour thinks it can fool us into believing that there will be a substantial change for the better when Gordon Brown takes over the premiership.  Mr Brown has been one half of the terrible twins these past nine years and has been involved in every decision made by the Labour Government.  Mr Brown is a very big player in Labour’s team and is tainted with every mistake and wrongdoing.  Peas in pod, says Martin Samuel.

It is only right that a person who incurs an expense in performing a duty, contractual or otherwise on behalf of another, is reimbursed for that expense; not a penny less, not a penny more.  Parliamentary rules might not have been breached by various Ministers or ordinary MPs in claiming such allowances, but nevertheless it is very clear that the “reimbursement” is extremely generous. These gravy trains are not appreciated by the General Public.   We are being ripped off.   It has to stop, now.[1]

Much has been made of Francis Maude’s comment that the Conservatives might not win the next General Election. Why? Commentators have been saying as much since before David Cameron was elected as leader.  We are informed repeatedly that the Conservatives require a percentage “swing” in their favour well beyond anything they have ever achieved against Labour in any General Election since 1945.  Commentators have been talking down the Conservative Party’s prospects of winning an election ever since doubts began to surface about Tony Blair’s Government.  That the Conservatives cannot achieve such a swing is not an immutable law. It is the result of a number of factors, not least of which is that the psephologists seem to miss the point that until 1997, all Labour administrations since 1945 seemed to expire after about six years, whilst save for that of Edward Heath, Conservative ones lasted thirteen and eighteen years, respectively.  By the next General Election the New Labour administration will have reached that longevity where if it has not turned substantially from its current course, it will be punished at the polls in a fashion that had been reserved previously for Conservative Governments that had overstayed their welcome.

David Cameron has been in charge of the Conservative party for just four months.  He has a lot of work still to do.  For the Labour Government, everything is just hunky-dory.  No matter what it does wrong, it does not appear to be prejudiced unduly in the opinion polls, at least not for long.  For the Liberal Democrats, though in truth their tide is ebbing, they shall shortly enjoy the euphoria of success against both Labour and the Conservatives in the forthcoming local elections.[1]

The Conservatives should not look to achieve short-term success or popularity.  They are working for sustainable success in the long-term.  The Conservatives’ policy review must be given time to correctly identify the electorate’s real concerns and effectively address them.  It matters not that David Cameron’s project to reform his party appears to stall, because in truth, it has not.  Indifferent opinion poll results mean nothing.  To a great extent they are a collective, self-fulfilling prophecy.  The largely pro Labour media must be expected to focus relentlessly upon the Conservatives’ “failure” to effect a break through in popular support, whilst correspondingly ignoring or playing down Government waste, incompetence, venality and/or sheer deceit.  With the dice so heavily loaded against the Conservatives, it is hardly surprising that the going is tough.

The electorate is not going to be convinced overnight.  The Labour Party’s success in rebuilding itself after spending years in the political wilderness was not achieved during Mr Blair’s brief few years as Leader of the Opposition; the process had started years earlier under Neil Kinnock.  It cannot be any different for the Conservatives, no matter what the legion of pro Labour political commentators and journalists say or infer to the contrary.

The results of the local elections on 4^th  May 2006 will be used as much as the electorate’s purported verdict on David Cameron’s leadership as a referendum on Mr Blair’s continued premiership.  Already the “hurdles” that the Conservatives are being required to clear before being able to claim success have been raised ominously.

“Overall, election analysts believe the Tories should be looking for an extra 300 councillors in England to be able to claim victory,”

we are told and,

“In London, the Tories did relatively well in last year's general election and so Mr Cameron cannot have any excuses if he fails to make real progress.”

However, for the Liberal Democrats,

 “According to the analysts, 100 overall gains would make it a good night for Sir Menzies while net losses would be seen as a bad performance.”

The problem for the Conservatives is that at a local election level, Labour has been unpopular for a few years now. Conservative seats that fell to other parties during the last years of  John Major's Conservative Government have been recovered, more or less. Furthermore, the most vulnerable Labour seats have already fallen to the opposition parties.  A protest vote against Labour councillors is more likely to benefit the Liberal Democrats than the Conservatives.  Thus, though the Conservatives will make steady progress, it will be the Liberal Democrats who will appear to be the winners of the forthcoming local elections.  Even “election experts”,

 “admit it will not be easy for [David Cameron] to make sweeping gains because the Tories are already the largest party in local government,”

and,

 “Far from shooting at an open goal, David Cameron's first nationwide electoral test in May [2006] sees him having to defend something of a Conservative high water mark,”

according to Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher, directors of the Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre at Plymouth University.

The Conservatives will not achieve 300 gains.  It is nonsense to suggest they should, while holding the Liberal Democrats to a mere 100.[1]  At this point, is important to bear in mind that as far as local politics are concerned, this is a three horse race.  After all, the Liberal Democrats have 4,300 councillors and control 34 authorities.

For the opposition parties to achieve their gains, Labour will have to suffer 400 net losses.[2]  Unless the Labour vote collapses, this is a tall order.  Whilst the English blogosphere has taken largely against Labour, opinion polls indicate that the general public has not.  Labour has already lost most of its vulnerable seats.  Votes for the opposition might pile up in seats already lost, but Labour is not going to lose many hundreds more seats.

 The Conservatives must be careful not to accept or have foisted upon them a “consensus” as to how many gains they must achieve before they are considered successful, particularly when the Liberal Democrats are being allowed such a modest target by “the experts”. Unless the Conservatives  inject some realism into the projections currently being broached, they will hand a “victory” to the Liberal Democrats, let Labour off the hook and provoke unending speculation about David Cameron's leadership and the Party’s future prospects.[3]

The answer is nothing, save that it does not allow Mr Blair to get on with the important job he has in hand.  In The Daily Telegraph today, Simon Heffer addresses some questions to the Labour MPs who will grant Mr Blair the new powers he desires.  I should like to hear the answers.

An elected House of Lords might prove to be an unmitigated disaster.  In the unlikely event that its political composition was significantly different from the Commons, it should claim to have a mandate to balk any legislation with which it disagreed.  This could result in either deadlock or an unseemly, prolonged scrabble for a compromise that satisfies no one and accords with neither party’s manifesto commitments.  More likely, is that the upper house would more often than not reflect the political composition of its sister house, thereby ensuring that any Government of the day could simply ramrod through its entire legislative programme with little resistance.

The idea that members of the new upper house should be appointed also raises fears, particularly if any political organisation is able to influence the making of any appointment even to the slightest degree. However, if that risk can be eliminated, an appointed House of Lords comprising of the great and the good would be viable, though it would suffer two fatal weaknesses.  Without being elected, it could never possess the authority to stop dead bad or deeply unpopular legislation.  Should it seriously offend the Commons, it could find itself reformed into oblivion. An unelected upper house must be possessed of a weapon by which the Commons can be made to listen, even against its will.  Perhaps that power could be the right to call for a referendum upon the contentious issue at hand.[1]

What we must not forget is that Mr Blair is a man with a mission; a mission to get his way and ensure that his New Labour “legacy” lasts.  What better method than by creating an upper chamber that not only assists him to ramrod through his pet legislation but can balk any attempt to repeal the same by an incoming Government of differing political persuasion?  The current House of Lords and opposition parties must deal with Mr Blair and his plans to re-reform the upper chamber, robustly.

In his article in The Sunday Times today, Rod Liddle rightly rails against The Labour Government’s new proposals concerning rape law.  I have already made my views know regarding this matter in a recent post and previously.  The article deserves to be read in its entirety but Mr Liddle concludes: -

"Now the government wants to have it both ways: it wishes the legal system to assume that actions undertaken by a person who is drunk are in one case the responsibility of the individual who is drunk and in another case — the extremely serious charge of rape — they are not. This makes no sense, either moral, logical or legal.

 

Further, O’Brien’s [Mike O’Brien, the Solicitor General - the Government's second most senior Law Officer] proposed change to the law ignores the probability that people drink alcohol precisely in order to loosen their inhibitions and to enjoy the consequences that come from being in such a state. In other words, the state of dereliction or abandon in which they later find themselves was planned at the beginning of the evening. If this were not the case, why would people drink alcohol? Are we to assume that they drink not realising what is to become of them?

 

Not so long ago Amnesty International carried out a survey which revealed that a substantial minority of the British people thought that in some rape cases women were partially “responsible” for the crime. Again, this strikes me as not entirely stupid — and yet the poll results were greeted with unmitigated horror by Amnesty and indeed the media. The British public needs educating about rape, they all howled. But it does not. People live in the real world, rather than the political world: they know what rape is and the actions which might be taken by women to avoid it.

 

My guess is that they also know that when a woman drunkenly consents to sex it is not the same as rape, and that any later sense of culpability or shame rests in equal proportions upon the shoulders of the man and the woman, however “immoral” either party might consider the act to have been."

These new rape proposals are just the latest evidence of a wider malaise,[1]  but my real concern is how these imbalanced and so often clearly flawed ideas and opinions are fed to us by our “free” pro-Labour media.  We are softened up routinely by a creeping barrage of sympathetic, uncritical media reporting in support of the “new establishment” view.  Opponents of the new “consensus” are given short shrift or disparaged.[2]

A confederacy of disparate single issue pressure groups, united by their belief in the absolute righteousness of their cause, now have the ear of like minded individuals in the Government, the media and beyond.  Unable to forge a society in their image through the ballot box,  they use the media to manipulate the public by misinformation.  Their views are right and ours are wrong: so we need re-education.

The public perceives that it is not being told the truth and distrusts both journalists and politicians alike.  So long as this manipulation continues, politics will continue to be an irrelevance to the majority of people, television viewing figures will continue to fragment in favour of the entertainment channels and newspaper circulations will continue to fall.

There is an opportunity for the Conservatives here.  Over the course of the past ten years or more they have struggled to speak the same language as the electorate.  That language is very simple.  It is based upon common sense and the truth.  It is a language no longer spoken by either the Labour Government or the pro Labour media.  No amount of spin can hide that.

"New blood ends decades of Tory power!" declares the Surrey Guardian (aka Surrey Advertiser) this week as it reports the victory of an Independent candidate Diane James in a by election for the vacant Waverley Borough Council seat for Ewhurst.

The former incumbent of the seat, the Conservative Richard Warby had resigned and the Conservative candidate Richard Cleaves failed to retain it. The result was close, with Mr Cleaves losing by just twelve votes.  The election result was curious for a number of reasons. The Labour vote did not just collapse - it almost ceased to exist.  Labour's Richard Chaundy received just six votes.  The Liberal Democrats, who had almost snatched the seat from the Conservatives at the previous election, saw their vote fall by nearly a hundred votes, even though there was an increased (and rather impressive) turnout of 58.6% of the electorate.[1]

The point that puzzles me is this.  Prior to the election, the Liberal Democrats held 29 seats, the Conservatives 28 and the Independents 2.  Now the ratio is 29:27:3.  I recollect that Waverley Borough Council had "gone" Lib Dem quite a few local elections ago anyway, in which case "decades of Tory power" ended then, not now.  Quite obviously I am not possessed of all the facts and no doubt someone will enlighten me.[2]

This is one of those factual reports that are likely to prove very useful to refer to from time to time when listening to Labour's NewSpeak and particularly when Gordon Brown starts spitting "facts" in all directions.

Nevertheless, everything he writes is well worth reading, particularly this.

This is old news, but I missed it.  Laurie Pycroft of Pro-Test fame, did not.

Geoff Hoon is very cross with the media, it appears.  He believes it is partly to blame for the political disengagement of the electorate.  The BBC reports him as saying, 

"There is not a media in the developed Western world that is as dismissive or as aggressive or as intrusive as ours." 

He added:

"Increasingly politicians don't trust the media to provide a fair account of what we do."

and,

"The biggest spinners in our society are journalists. You only have to look at any day's newspapers to see that.... From the experience of dealing with a lot of specialists, the specialists are by far the worst."

Oh dear, he is not serious is he?  I think a reality check is well overdue.

I am going to enjoy reading the blogger and press responses to this latest piece of complete nonsense from Mr Hoon.

We have known that it was coming for some time.  Pronouncements about "having to do something about the problem" have been given prominence by both press and television in recent months.  Now it is confirmed that,

"Ministers [are] today publishing proposals to boost the number of people convicted of rape."

Legislation will no doubt quickly follow, after a brief period of "consultation". The statistics quoted by the Government "proving" the need for new measures, mislead more than inform.[1]  The whole edifice constructed by the Government is built upon sand.  Sooner or later, it must surely fall.

The problem with proposals of this nature is that any opposition or criticism is always presented as being "pro-criminal" or "soft on crime" even though the issue is really one of ensuring that whilst presenting all available, probative evidence before the jury, a defendant still has a fair trial.

At one moment we are being told to be more careful when weighing expert evidence. Indeed, a recent, disturbing piece of research somewhere suggested that experts tended to try to support the case of the party on behalf of whom they were instructed. The next we hear, psychologists are going to called routinely to help us (the jury) understand the "irrational reasons" why we have taken to not believing a complainant and why we should give his or her inconsistent evidence "the benefit of the doubt".  One presumes that the Defence will be allowed to vigorously cross-examine these experts, or even call their own to refute the generalised, inappropriate or even silly opinions professed.

We are told,

" The proportion of rape allegations which lead to someone being punished has sunk to an all-time low, despite long-running Government efforts to boost results."

Juries are not so stupid as the Government wants to believe.  It is a myth that juries are institutionally biased against rape victims. Juries will continue to acquit defendants so long as there is any doubt in their minds as to the strength of the Crown's case.  If they perceive the law is being twisted to secure a conviction for instance, by way of psychologists seeking to persuade them that if they are minded not to believe the complainant, that judgment on their part is perverse, they will not be cowed.  Juries will continue to do the right thing, no matter how hard the Government tries to load the trial system against the defendant.[2]

Mark Stephen’s article in The Times last week that was commented upon by me here, has provoked responses from the claimant in the libel proceedings, Mike Keith-Smith and a Times reader Kristen Roy, which were published in The Times today.

I republish their correspondence here: -

"Sir,

 

As the successful claimant in Keith-Smith v Williams, I strongly object to Mark Stephens’s assertion that the decision by Judge Alistair MacDuff, QC, marks “a dark day for freedom of speech” (news comment, Mar 22).

 

Since when did the right to free speech imply the right of an anonymous malefactor to engage in a long-term campaign of vile and obscene abuse against an innocent individual? This disgusting conduct is not “the democratisation of knowledge”. A far better analogy would lie with the facility, common in Nazi Germany and other totalitarian dictatorships, for malicious individuals to bear false witness against their neighbours from behind a cloak of secrecy.

 

If I have made a stand that in any way assists in the plight of other victims of internet abuse – and I know that they are legion – then I am very proud to have done so."

 

Mark Keith-Smith

and,

"Sir,

 

The High Court ruling in the case of Keith-Smith v Williams demonstrates the application of common sense to legal treatment of speech over the internet.

 

The internet is a technologically unprecedented medium and certainly presents conceptual difficulties for the law where jurisdictional questions arise. However, there is little justification for creating a new set of libel laws for the World Wide Web or, rather, taking them away altogether. A libellous allegation remains exactly that, whether read from a paper in hand or on a screen before the eyes.

 

Are people really so adept at distinguishing “ranters” on the internet from those making viable claims? Should we be? And, if we are, then why are we deemed unable to make these distinctions when the claim appears in hard copy?

 

The characteristic of the internet which sets it apart from others is quite simply its potential for dissemination at mind-boggling speeds, in mind-boggling volumes. The internet is a legitimate mode of communication and to place it in a legal vacuum undermines the very real place it now occupies in today’s society."

 

Kristen Roy

Let me start by saying that I do not think the opinions they profess are either misguided or wrong.  I just do not agree.  I have a different perspective.

Mr Keith-Smith has a political persona to protect.  The palpably false insults made by his nemesis, an obviously malicious woman, could have been used by unscrupulous opponents who were willing to smear his good name behind the scenes, though I am unconvinced of the likely success of this tactic on the part of such miscreants.

As I have already said in my earlier post on the subject, the danger of litigating against small time "slanderers" is that the legal action publishes the libel to a larger audience that will contain even more people who will believe, irrationally, that the falsehoods are true, because for one reason or another they need to believe they are true.

In some cases (though clearly not in the instant case) a libel action is used as a gagging device to suppress a truth (Liberace, Jeffrey Archer.) This is not lost on the public. Thus very often, only the most popular litigants of uncontroversial occupations or pursuits truly escape unscathed.  So often, even successful libel actions do not have the desired result.

I fear this victory is likely to give succour to those who wish to silence critics on the net.  Bloggers have a limited audience and their shelf life is relatively short.  A blogger or owner of a website who is clearly bitter and twisted about something will lose an audience fast and nothing they say will carry any weight, anyway. We are not discussing mass audience newspapers or television media whose utterances have far more weight (and thereby cause more damage) because they try to verify their facts and have lawyers to ensure that so far as is possible, there is not any overstepping of the mark. Only a handful of blogs have a very large audience and the reason for their popularity is that they are amongst other things, interesting, authoritative in their chosen subject and in the main avoid gratuitous offence.

It is the possibility of gagging actions that most bloggers could not hope to afford to defend, which bothers me.  Pitfalls for the claimants, do not.  If they wish to risk doing a Gillian Taylforth, then so be it.

It had to happen of course, as night follows day.  Terrorist elements amongst the Animal Rights fraternity have shown already that harassing and threatening opponents is an effective means of controlling and forcing them to submit to its will.  The tactic is catching on amongst other single issue groups, the most recent example being  anti abortionists, as is reported today by Sandra Laville.  As yet, our home grown hard-line anti abortionists have yet to blow up an abortion clinic as happened in the United States but, no doubt, from now on we can expect little acts of harassment and intimidation here and there against anyone who is seen or suspected to support, legal abortion.

In the case reported today in The Guardian, the miscreant anti abortion group is UK Life League which is run by a James Dowson.  Like Animal Rights groups, it also appears to rely upon doctored photographic evidence as part of its case in drumming up support and finance.

"Life League, which is a registered company, raises money through donations, and stalls on streets across England and Scotland, a tactic successfully employed by animal rights groups."

Remember that name and next time you pass a Life League stall in the high street, please give it a wide berth.

“Labour isn’t wicked…” says Danny Kruger.  However, it is seeking to pass legislation similar to that passed by the National Socialists in Germany following Adolf Hitler’s electoral success in 1933.[1]

The problem is that just like the Nazis, Labour too has a vision.  It believes fervently in the justice of what it does and will not be diverted from its chosen course.  It does not believe that its opponents act in good faith when criticising the measures it proposes.  It is not open to reasonable compromise.  It neither listens nor wants to listen.  It has a mission that will be fulfilled.

Unlike the Nazis, Labour does not want to intimidate, terrorise, imprison or murder a significant part of the population or wage war against its European neighbours, though it does seem to need to micro-manage the activities of the citizenry.  This Labour Government’s crime is that it cannot conceive that any British Government should ever wish to abuse the powers it is currently seeking to create.  Its arrogance is breathtaking.

So muses Jackie Ashley, and I tend to agree.

I have always seen Gordon Brown as a faithful, reliable sidekick to the “dashing” Tony Blair, a kind of Tonto character.  I have never believed that he could cut the mustard as either as leader of the Labour Party or as Prime Minister.  Should he show that he has not the mettle to claim his inheritance now and require Mr Blair to stand aside sooner rather than later, he does not deserve the highest office.

I do not read either the Guardian or Observer to be informed, but rather to be amused.  In the aftermath of New Labour being exposed as not so frank, transparent and whiter than white in relation to the awarding of honours, these Labour-sympathetic titles are desperate to make a story about sleaze that sticks to the Conservatives.  I should not suggest that you need to read this report in the Observer today by Antony Barnett, Gaby Hinsliff and Ned Temko. Having whispered in dark conspiratorial tones about the manner in which the Conservatives have raised funds (whilst being strangely silent about new revelations involving Labour reported elsewhere) their report concludes,

“There is no evidence to suggest either the loans or donations to the Tories broke the law.”

Well then, that’s a damp squib of a story.

This part of the report did make an impression, however:

“…Downing Street has been closely studying the Bradley report which shows how Labour was financially outgunned in the marginal seats.

 

Of the Tories' 36 gains at the last election, 24 were funded by donations from at least one of the trio of Lord Ashcroft, Lord Steinberg and Bob Edmiston in a separate initiative from the party's official campaign: in 20 of them, they got bigger swings than the national average. Blair will now push for a cap on spending in each constituency, to stop money being poured into a handful of critical seats which could skew the next election.”

It should not surprise anyone that political parties target those seats of their opponents that they believe are vulnerable. Leaving aside the issue as to whether it is right that a party should not be allowed to target marginal seats, “skewing the next election” is an interesting concept. This is the Government, let us remember, that delayed implementing constituency boundary changes before the last General Election, changes which would have, surprise surprise, handed the Conservatives up to a dozen extra seats in the Commons; the same Government that allows Scotland and Wales to be over represented in the Commons by, you’ve guessed it, predominantly Labour MPs.

Oh, and finally a word about the author of the “Bradley Report”, namely the former MP for The Wrekin, Peter Bradley.  As you might expect, he has had rather a lot of time on his hands since the General Election last year. I perceive that Mr Bradley feels himself wronged by being one of those Labour MPs on the receiving end of these naughty Conservative tactics.

It was Mr Bradley, the private secretary to Alun Michael, the Rural Affairs Minister, who admitted that the hunting ban was part of the class struggle thereby ensuring that the anti-ban Conservatives would have scores of extra voluntary helpers to canvass and deliver their leaflets.

Mr Bradley, the Conservatives did not have to out-spend you in your election campaign, through your sheer, unabashed arrogance, you made yourself vulnerable.

It was in Scotland that opposition to the Community Charge first exploded.  I should not suggest for one moment that the anti-smoking ban in Scotland will lead to so much violent protest, but quiet, large scale disobedience is assured.  No matter how softly softly the authorities seek to enforce the ban, it will just cause more hard feeling and generate the political opposition to the measure that was so singularly missing when it was first proposed.

As someone who does not smoke, it suits me not to inhale others’ cigarette smoke or have the dubious honour of my clothes smelling as if I had polished off a pack of twenty, personally.  Nevertheless, I feel that smokers are being victimised.  Many non-smokers I have spoken to feel the same way.  Beyond our politicians and persons involved in the provision of medical or health care, amongst non-smokers the support for a ban is soft  or non-existent.  Smokers are currently resentful but compliant.  This resignation to their fate will not last long once the inconvenience of their being unable to smoke in their favoured pub or club has sunk it.  The sheer unfairness of it all will rankle.

Many hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters will be directly touched by this ban in a way that Iraq and Sleaze did not.  Iraq did no more than reduce Labour’s Commons majority  from epic landslide proportions to a “pathetic” thumping one of sixty plus. Sleaze, taken on its own, is not likely to lose many seats for Labour, particularly if Honest Gordon takes over at No.10. The smoking ban will irritate many natural supporters and the Government should bear in mind that it is not only bad weather on Polling Day that can keep away Labour supporters.[1]

Andrew Sullivan reports today in The Sunday Times concerning the row that has erupted in relation to an episode of the cartoon series South Park being “pulled” from a television schedule because it appears to have offended Scientologists.  Now others seem to be jumping on the “cartoons” bandwagon, the willingness to kow-tow to the complainers is unsettling.  There may be solid commercial reasons for this particular example of self censorship, but nevertheless more people with super sensitivities about their beliefs might to be encouraged to chance their arm.  Should this trend continue, a line will have to drawn. 

Mr Sullivan argues,

“…it’s this artful ability to say in cartoon form what you cannot say in any other without a libel writ that makes cartoons irreplaceable…

 

Cartoons and puppetry, as the classic series Spitting Image proved, can convey truths and explore fantasies no other form can.

 

We need those truths and benefit from those fantasies. A free society survives partly because the powerful are mocked, and their pretensions undermined. Religions, which guard their own illusions carefully, are particularly ripe for satire.  And they should be.

 

Whenever one human being is claiming to tell the truth about the meaning of life he is making a very powerful claim — and in a free society he also runs the risk of getting a raspberry. Laughter matters because piety begets power.

 

Orwell once remarked that one reason fascism never took off in Britain was because the sight of a goose-stepping soldier would prompt your average Englishman to giggle. Someone is now silencing the giggles.  And our world is a lot creepier because of it.”

Yes, quite.

Perhaps it should be expected that the usual suspects criticize and make fun of Gordon Brown, but I detect that he is being left exposed in a way that the New Labour Spin machine never allowed in relation to Tony Blair.  The explanation might be that Mr Blair was all style and no substance so it was easy to create a slick media image against which nothing unpleasant could stick, initially.  Mr Brown does stand for certain things and so you have to take him for what he is.  As such, a make-over will just not work and some criticism will find its mark.  To that extent, he is vulnerable in a way that Mr Blair was not.  I suspect that certain New Labour heavyweights are  aware of this and are prepared to brief against Mr Brown, albeit quietly at first.  Even those outside the party who until now have been natural allies of New Labour are voicing some disquiet about his qualities.  Should Tony Blair leave No.10 soon, I have no doubt that its new occupant will be Mr Brown.  If, as is being counselled, it is to be next year, Mr Brown might find his dreams shattered.

You should really read the whole article published by Alice Miles in The Times today, but this little snippet interested me: -

“Incidentally, while I was researching this I came across this fact: that the median level of full-time earnings in the public sector (£476 a week in April 2005) is £64 higher than in the private sector (£412 a week), and the gap is widening. That is an extra £3,328 a year, along with generous pensions. I didn’t know that. Bear it in mind when you hear the moans of public-sector workers next week over their pay rises.”

At least we now know that the money Gordon Brown has ram-raided from the middle classes, particularly from their private pensions, is being well spent.

I see that the predominantly New Labour press has been seeking to divert attention from New Labour’s funding shenanigans by pointing to similar fund raising devices by the Conservative Party. This tactic will not work because a little thought reminds us quickly of the real reason for the furore. Gongs appear to be being sold for cash, by “we’ll clean up the sleaze/whiter-than-white” New Labour.  This is not the point of my post, however.   The holier-than-thou Liberal Democrats, in the guise of Lord Oakeshott of Seagrave Bay, their Treasury spokesman, have now stepped into the fray in their usual opportunistic manner. I did not anticipate having to refer to this so soon, but for the record let us remind ourselves of this.

The Court of Appeal's decision in the Shabina Begum case was disturbing for a number of reasons and happily the House of Lords has reversed it. I suspect that Boris Johnson echoes the thoughts of many of us when expressing his opinions on the matter in his article in The Daily Telegraph, today.

I do not smoke, so the recent legislation that will soon ban people from smoking in certain public places does not concern me to any material degree.  I do not hunt, so I have not been deprived of my sport by that means.  I do not shoot, so when that is banned, I shall not suffer, nor shall I when the time comes for angling to be outlawed.  I am astute enough to realise that sooner or later however, one of my little freedoms will be the subject of Government interference.  It is for this reason, that when the smokers or hunters or any other minority whose little freedoms have been trampled under foot finally revolt, I shall be there alongside them at the barricades.[1]

I have little doubt that Tracy Williams went too far when insulting Keith Smith, a UKIP parliamentary candidate, in a chat room in April 2004.  Whether he should have issued proceedings for libel is another matter.  Ms Williams’ insults were palpably false and were merely intended to insult.  No reasonable person was likely to take them seriously.  Mr Smith’s victory has done no more than broadcast the nature of the insults to millions of people rather than the few hundred who might have visited the website in question.

My concern is that Ms Williams’ insults were very tame when compared to much of the criticism directed towards other, more powerful politicians, individuals and corporations which routinely appears on UK blogs.  I hope a precedent has not been set.  Many political blogs, though full of invective and bile (and almost certainly libellous) are highly entertaining, very much in the tradition of James Gillray.  It would be a shame to see them gagged, particularly as the media in general now seems to be so feeble in its criticism of big business and big Government.  We shall have to wait and see.[1]

Of course, as a lawyer involved in criminal defence work from time to time, I should be expected to be biased in favour of the English legal system.  I do happen to think that it is sound and works relatively successfully, notwithstanding HM Government’s numerous attempts to sabotage it.  Other legal systems work as well though differently, but in my opinion, none can be described as being better.  Unlike our illustrious Home Secretary, at least I have considerable experience of the English legal system.  I have also more than a nodding acquaintance with other legal systems.  Accordingly, I think I am entitled to say that I am able to make an informed judgment about the relative merit of our own system.  It is true that I am not convinced by the efficacy of an inquisitorial system because I believe that our adversarial tradition is better at eliciting the truth.  I prefer our Common Law over the Roman Law systems of continental Europe but these beliefs on my part would not lead me inexorably to the conclusion that Johnny Foreigner’s system is inferior.

In his lecture to the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday, Charles Clarke glibly pronounced upon the inferiority of the English legal system as compared to that of the French. In the light of recent events, it is hard to resist the suspicion that Mr Clarke’s sudden conversion to the charms of the French criminal justice system is generated more by a malevolent petulance arising from his inability to convince either Parliament or the Public of the wisdom of New Labour inspired “reforms” supported by his department, in the face of vociferous but principled, learned criticism.  I do not have any confidence that Mr Clarke understands any of the issues involved concerning the subject matter of his current outburst.  I am left with an irresistible impression that he is a man who knows very little and understands even less.  If my assessment is right, that makes him very dangerous.

Some weeks ago, in anticipation of the tenth anniversary of the Dunblane tragedy, I started work on a long article documenting successive Governments’ attempts to control gun crime by bearing down hard on lawful gun ownership, and pointing out the futility and unfairness of it all.  It is enough to say that the article was not completed.  This article by Ross Clark in The Times today says much the same thing, is shorter, better written and far more interesting.

Politicos are masters at one particular manoeuvre.  When faced with an irresistible argument that they cannot answer, they create an argument they think they can defeat and then attribute that argument to their opponents.

It is depressing to see that this tactic is already gaining momentum amongst those who wish to smother the “English votes on English-only matters” issue.  It was to be expected that the overwhelmingly pro-New Labour media would help to obfuscate the issues but it is even more depressing to see individuals who acknowledge the iniquity of the present situation, accept the argument of those who wish to preserve the current status quo.

We have already suffered Lord Falconer’s attempt to present those wishing the West Lothian Anomaly to be dealt with as pressing for an English Parliament (for which, he correctly pointed out, there is not great support.)[1]  He was unsuccessful not only because he tried to pull his “fast one” whilst being interviewed by John Humphrys, but also because too many bloggers are on his case.

Now we have Peter Riddell in an article in The Times, today:

“The stumbling block to all solutions (that is to say, English votes on English-only matters) is the relative size of England, which has more than four fifths of the UK’s population and of the total number of MPs.  Creating a separate English parliament would risk undermining the Union…”

Well, there they go again…

I should have realised that that was coming when earlier in the article he commented,

“'English votes on English laws' has an appealing ring.  Now that the Scots and Welsh have devolution, it only seems fair that English MPs alone should be able to vote on Bills affecting just England….The more you look at the idea, the more flawed it looks.”

Being extremely slow-witted, I did not see the fallacy of the argument until I read further about “stumbling blocks”.  The argument presupposes that the answer to the West Lothian Anomaly is a parliament for England but of course, that is not necessarily so.  It is for that reason that I could not see the “flaws” in the justice of English votes on English laws.

It is becoming clear that once we have been manoeuvred onto ground of their choosing, we shall then be bombarded with “facts” which mitigate against the creation of the English parliament we so crave.  For instance, we are told that the Scottish Centre for Social Research shows that, while a majority agree that Scottish MPs should not vote on English laws, there is no appetite for an English parliament or for English regional devolution.  The point is that a majority agree that Scottish MPs should not vote.  That is our argument and it is why the issue must be resolved.  That “there is no appetite for an English parliament…” is the red herring.  Once the issue has been raised in the English public’s mind, the Scottish Centre for Social Research might discover a seismic change in opinion, but as I have said, that is not what the current argument is about.

Other, equally fatuous arguments are rolled out, such as “the technical problems of identifying English only laws…” and “…creating a separate English parliament would risk undermining the union…”  Well, I’ll repeat myself for clarity. We are not demanding an English parliament as the answer to the Anomaly.  However, even if we were, “technical problems” and “undermining of the Union” have come about because of Scottish and Welsh devolution not because of calls for the resolution of the Anomaly.

Finally, we have the sop of there being a case for reducing the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs.  The Scots and Welsh are over-represented in the Commons but that is another issue, not directly related to the Anomaly. Even one Scottish or Welsh MP voting for an English only law is one too many.

The pro-Anomaly politicos should be assured of one thing.  No matter how effective they are in stifling the debate or spinning the argument, if the English electorate believe that England is not receiving a fair deal, they will reap the whirlwind.

[1] At the moment.

I have made my views plain already concerning successive Governments seeking to rig the trial process to ensure more convictions.

I had heard of the Government's proposed advertising campaign to warn men against indulging in sexual intercourse with inebriated females because it would be treated as rape if the partner complained later of there not having been any real consent.  My immediate reaction was to think, "yes, very sensible, but what about advice to young females to avoid drinking too much alcohol in the first place?"

I learn now that the Government is minded to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 so that an inebriated female is deemed to be incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse.  New Labour's feminist agenda will skew the law heavily against the defendant, if such an amendment is enacted.  It is a matter of fairness, pure and simple.  Whether or not there was consent is an important issue that should be left to the jury to decide.

If the Government thinks that amending the law in this fashion will result in more men being convicted of rape, it is wrong.  Unless the Crown is allowed to rely on some strict formula by which the young lady in question is deemed to have been "drunk" and thereby did not consent,[1] juries, trying to be fair and "do justice" to the case, will continue to make findings of fact that enable them to acquit defendants against whom they feel the prosecution case (in all other respects) had not been proved.[2]

Lord Falconer rules out an “English Parliament” because it would “destabilise the Union”.  Perhaps New Labour should have thought about that when creating assemblies for Scotland and Wales.  However, to bring the subject back to point, I need do no more than quote Oliver Heald, the shadow constitutional secretary, who retorted,

“Having English only votes on English only-laws in the Commons is not tantamount to creating an English Parliament.  The Government knows that there is a problem with the current settlement, but it seems to hope that the West Lothian problem will somehow disappear.  It is not sustainable to have measures imposed upon England on the back of votes of Scottish MPs, when the same measures in Scotland are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.”

Of course, the argument in favour of English-only votes for English-only matters is irresistible.  Nearly everyone, including the Scots and Welsh, can see that.  The Government sees it too, but it suits it to obfuscate the argument.  It is not currently a question of whether there should be an English Parliament, but should the English part of the electorate consider that their legitimate grievances concerning Scots and Welsh MPs voting on English-only matters are not being heeded, it soon will be.  Then the Union really will go hang, and it will be all New Labour's fault.[1]

Nicola Woolcock reports in The Times today about Oxford University’s successful attempt to secure an injunction against animal rights activists preventing their screaming through megaphones and taking photographs. The earlier injunction had placed no restraints on noise, which enabled the activists to use amongst other things, horns, whistles and tapes of dogs howling. They had also photographed and videoed staff, students and construction staff.

The report continues,

"However, the University’s attitude towards freedom to demonstrate is called into question by its decision to apply for an even more stringent injunction at a full hearing next month. It wants the weekly protest cut from four hours to one and the maximum number of demonstrators reduced from fifty to twelve."

Why is the University’s attitude towards freedom to demonstrate called into question? The animal rights activists are not there to demonstrate, they are there to intimidate. They have not just turned up in their hundreds, had a noisy march, called their opponents a few rude names and having made their point, then gone home. They are there every day, causing a nuisance and making it very clear that if anyone disagrees with them, that person’s property and/or health might suffer. It is arguable that the University should have sought an even more stringent order. The animal rights daily gathering in Oxford is nothing to do with freedom of expression.

Henry Lui is a restaurateur. He is the proprietor of the Chinese restaurant called the Kar Ling Kwong, which is situated in East Street, Farnham, Surrey. For decades Mr Lui has selflessly, tirelessly, successfully but quietly fund-raised for local charities. A couple of years ago he was awarded a well earned MBE. The awarding of an honour in this particular instance shows our Honours system working as it truly should.

Contrast this to the granting of honours to donors of political parties. The gongs handed out to these people are worthless. They are but cheap baubles. The awarding of knighthoods to senior civil servants and their like is not much better. These establishment personnel are paid well for their service to the Country. It is not only a matter of their handsome salaries and perquisites, the power, the kudos, just look at their pension entitlement. There is too much establishment back slapping of this kind. It is unedifying, but Tony Blair just does not “get it”.

The general population understand and applaud a well earned honour. The bravery exhibited by an individual, devotion to duty or selfless hard work for the community or a particular cause for instance, set an example to the rest of us. There should be some element of personal sacrifice suffered or exceptional service before anyone is considered for an award. The handing over of a sack full of dosh for a baronetcy is just cheap.  Substantial reform of the Honours system is needed.[1]

[1] See the article by Andrew Pierce in The Times, “Lords nominees are blocked in Labour loan row”.

She is by all accounts, one very lucky lady.

It would appear that from early in her relationship with her former fiancé Howard Johnston, "they were trying for a baby".  It was when she failed to conceive that she sought medical assistance and then was diagnosed with tumours in her ovaries.  In consequence, she required surgery that would result in her being unable to have children.  What followed has been well documented.

Now, let us just assume for one moment that Miss Evans had not met Mr Johnston nor any other partner who wanted children "from day one" (as she alleges, did Mr Johnston) at that particular point in time. Is it safe to assume her ovarian cancer might then have passed unnoticed for a longer, potentially fatal, period of time?

Too often we overlook or discount our good fortune as ours by right.  Perhaps Miss Evans should reflect upon the fact that she is still possessed of her own life.

Well, William Keegan believes that the people of Britain think so.

I say, yes, we do!

For my part, I hope that Tessa Jowell is not forced out of her ministerial position.  The longer she stays, the more damage she will do to this venal Government.  With the help of the overwhelmingly pro New Labour media, the stench of the sleaze in which this administration has been too frequently drenched, has never stuck.  The Government has come to accept that it is bomb-proof.  Just wait for the hue and cry to die down, and then bring back the minister who had found himself in an unfortunate situation (of his making.)  It will not always be thus.

I suspect that Ms Jowell will be forced out sooner or later.[1]  Nevertheless, she will be back in some other capacity very soon, once “it has all been forgotten.” It will be not forgotten however and neither will any of the other sleazy indiscretions of the Government. 

The Government’s own arrogance will ensure that it is finally, spectacularly, brought to book.[2]

"The problem with the Liberal Democrats is that they promise one thing to one part of the country and another thing to another part."

So says Jenny Hjul in The Sunday Times, today.  I concur.  It is blatant opportunism mixed with political cynicism of the worst kind, yet the Liberal Democrats continue to cast themselves as the guys in white.

A persuasive plea from Rachel from North London.

As ever, Matthew Parris  says all that need be said.

I do not recall it happening before in a Liberal Democrat leadership contest.  Though at one point in the 1976 contest between David Steel and John Pardoe things became a little robust[1] but this time people were left bruised.  I had the distinct impression that the leadership hopefuls were on the receiving end of suspect tactics usually reserved for Labour and Conservative candidates.

I cannot believe that it was a complete coincidence that Simon Hughes’ secret fell out of the cupboard just at the most damaging moment leading up to his campaign.  Nick Clegg was deftly outmanoeuvred into not standing as a candidate.  Then there were those curious bets and the “YouGov polls” that first gave the impression that irresistible momentum had gathered behind Chris Huhne’s campaign and then that Sir Menzies was still on top.[2]  I suspect that once one or more of the candidates suspected foul play, behind the scenes the gloves came off.  Of course, following the announcement of the result this afternoon, it was all smiles, but there will be a reckoning.

Trust between certain members of the party must have been damaged and I do not mean just the participants in the leadership contest itself.[3]  Sir Menzies now has to pull his party together, face a reinvigorated Conservative Party and soon, a temporarily resurgent Labour administration led by a new leader.  He might be able to manage two of these tasks, but the third will prove far more difficult.  When not “getting even” against each other, members of his “shadow cabinet” will be plotting and scheming in readiness for the next Lib Dem leadership contest.

I have yet to read the High Court decision involving Professor Sir Roy Meadows and his successful appeal against the decision of the General Medical Council to strike him off the Register, but in due course, I shall.  All I shall say for now is that the effect of the judgment has, rightly or wrongly, disturbed me.  For the time being, I can do no better than to refer to the article in The Times by Camilla Cavendish, which echoes my concerns.

It is ironic that the BBC, which strives so hard to serve “minorities” has been so roundly condemned by a report by Stonewall, the organisation that campaigns on behalf of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals.

The report cites numerous examples of presenters on the two main BBC channels making negative comments about gays.  The report's researchers, who included heterosexuals, watched one hundred and sixty eight hours of programming between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. over a period of eight weeks.  During that time, it is said, lesbian and gays, references to them, or related issues featured in just thirty-eight minutes of coverage, of which thirty-two minutes were deemed derogatory or offensive and just six minutes were deemed positive.

A number of things struck me about the report.  Whilst I cannot claim to have watched the same one hundred and sixty eight hours of programming as the researchers, I have watched programmes in which the alleged worst offenders, such as the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, Anne Robinson and Chris Moyles happened to be presenting.  None of these individuals are homophobic.  All call a spade, a spade and are vocal about their opinions.  Chris Moyles might be a piss-taker, but very often the butt of his humour is himself.  I accept that gay characters in so many plays, soaps and other programmes seem to be a parody, but then the other characters are clichéd, as well.  I suspect that as the researchers were specifically looking for bias against gays, they found it.  Seek and ye shall find.  Had they been asked to watch the programmes and note down anything they thought to be significant but without being told what they were looking for, the result of the survey might have been very different.

Too often, focus groups and activists from “minorities” are blind to the “robust humour” to which the general population is subjected.  They are too ready to adopt the role of victim and are far too sensitive and perceive slight where there is none.  It is also a sad fact of life, that the World does not perceive any of us as we perceive ourselves, but so often, the World’s perception is right.

The portrayal of homosexuality in the media is very often trite and silly.  The BBC is pro European Union and Tory-Sceptic, but it is not homophobic.[1]