No one expects Hazel Blears to win the race to be deputy leader of the Labour Party, or even come second.  She is confidently expected to be an also-ran, merely unnecessarily making up the numbers.  It is a shame that the cards are stacked against her, because unlike some of her rivals, she is not “establishment” and inspite of her abilities and obvious success in her political career, she is still refreshingly “ordinary”, remaining indistinguishable in many respects from those constituents who elected her, an authentic representative of the people.

Why then, has her campaign become so accident prone?  First we had the “T-shirt” spanner and now her special adviser Paul Richards, who has been assisting with her campaign, is alleged to have breached rules by, in effect, working on her campaign using “day job” tools and time.

These “minor distractions” did not fall into the public domain by themselves.  Someone pushed them there, deliberately.  One ponders why, if Hazel Blears’ campaign is so doomed to failure, someone believes that it needs a helping hand down the pan?  Perhaps Miss Blears has more support in the Labour Party than is generally supposed.  I hope so.

The Daily Mirror

Hazel Blears' campaign to be Deputy Leader gains momentum

So, the Conservatives did not achieve any increase in their share of the vote in the 3^rd May 2007 elections as compared to the local elections in May 2006, according to most commentators.

As a matter of fact, they have.  Following last year’s local election results,  when the Conservatives appeared to have garnered the all important 40% of the vote, Professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher showed that in fact the share was 39%.  This was seized upon by the media, immediately. I can still recall clearly a Conservative MP appearing on a television programme where he expressed pleasure that the Conservatives had attained the all important 40% share of the vote, only to be slapped down by the BBC interviewer who pointed out that the share was only 39%.  How quickly the 39% has been forgotten.  Now, the uncorrected 40% figure has been resurrected to prove that the Conservatives have not made any progress since this time last year.  Unfortunately for the mainstream media, some of us have long memories.

It is interesting to note that in The Times of 5^th May 2007, Professors Rallings and Thrasher are reported to have confirmed that the Conservatives did achieve an increase in share of the vote as against last year, but more importantly that Labour did not increase their share by the full percentage point claimed and still languish at 26%.  Is it not strange that a large section of the media has not adjusted down Labour’s share of the vote as they did with the Conservatives last year?  On reflection, not really, I suppose.

Cameron ‘on course’ for No 10

Focus: A real pummelling for bruiser Brown

On 2^nd May 2007 a twenty-nine-year-old married female teacher, Jenine Saville-King, was found not guilty of eight charges involving alleged sex offences against one of her fifteen-year-old male pupils, at the conclusion of her trial at the St Albans Crown Court. Seven of the charges related to alleged sexual activity with a child and one, abuse of trust.

The Crown’s evidence involved not only the “victim’s” evidence, usually the only evidence available in a large number of cases involving sexual offences, but also Mrs Saville-King’s admissions of “having strong feelings for the boy” and of having sent six thousand text messages to him over a six-month period, including one hundred and thirty-one messages in a single day.  The Crown was able to produce records of these text messages as well hundreds of pages of MSN messages between the two.  Mrs Saville-King denied there had been any sexual relationship between her and the boy and claimed there had been only an emotional bond.  In effect, the defence attacked the boy’s character and called him a liar.  The jury duly deliberated upon the evidence and dismissed the charges.  I have no doubt that their decision was right.  Twelve of Mrs Saville-King’s peers weighed the evidence and found it wanting.  Anyone who read the lurid details of the trial published in the national press might raise an eyebrow, but bear in mind that press reports are supposed to entertain and juicy summaries never do justice to what is actually said in the court room. Every day the jury quietly made their notes, digested and balanced the evidence, gave all due consideration to what had been said, used their judgment and did their duty in reaching a just and fair verdict based upon all of the facts. At the end of the day, they preferred the account of Mrs Saville-King over the boy’s.

With good reason, there will not be any cry that justice has not been done, that young boys are being abused by teachers who are getting away with it.  Nor will there be any demand for a change in the law making it easier to convict defendants in cases of this nature.  How very different when the offence is one of rape by a male against a female.

After the trial, Mrs Saville-King described the allegations against her as “boastful fantasies and dishonest, spiteful untruths.”  Judges and juries sitting in Criminal Courts regularly face witnesses who give dishonest and untruthful testimony.  That these witnesses are found out depends upon allowing advocates to vigorously challenge their version of events, including putting to them matters appertaining to their character.  Humans tell lies, sometimes.

A seventeen-year-old teenager who made false allegations of rape against an Asian taxi driver, Aftab Ahmed, told her lies not “out of malice, but naivety and immaturity.”  Mr Ahmed did not suffer the ignominy of charge, remand in custody and the stress of standing trial, but he did lose his home, livelihood, reputation and found his family relationships and marriage under strain in the fourteen months it took for the lies of his accuser to be exposed in Court. The young lady in question received a four-month detention and training order from the Bradford Youth Court after admitting (very belatedly) a charge of perverting the course of justice.

Teacher cleared of having sex with pupil

Girl’s rape lie destroyed taxi driver’s life

The pundits' attempt to put a noose around the neck of the Conservative Party in the months immediately preceding the local elections in May 2006, by "talking up" council seat gains which, according to their analysis, would have to be achieved, were confounded by the Party's success in those elections.  Undeterred, the Media is now having a second bite at the cherry even though on this occasion the cards are even more heavily stacked against the Conservatives, for various reasons.

In the north, particularly in the conurbations, any Conservative advance has to contend with a Liberal Democrat challenge.  An unpopular Labour administration no longer leads to marginal council seats "going" Conservative because of floating voters changing allegiance and/or Labour core support remaining at home.  The Liberal Democrats are ever present to accept votes against which ever of the main parties is the most unpopular. For many years it has been a three horse race in local elections. The Liberal Democrats are going to win sack loads of seats in the north generally and in northern conurbations in particular.  The Conservatives on the other hand, will increase their vote but win few seats. At local level at the very least, the political landscape has changed and the lack of an obvious Conservative advance must be seen in that light.

In the south, the Conservatives already control a majority of the councils and have either reached or nearly reached their high-tide mark. The electorate often votes against incumbent councils.  Since the Conservatives suffered a local election meltdown in 1995, in successive local elections they have been recovering gradually their natural strongholds such that in many areas they are the incumbents. In this way Conservative seats are vulnerable.  The Liberal Democrats' ability to target seats in which they concentrate upon a very "localised" local issue, must not be lost sight of. An example is Woking Borough Council, where the Conservatives polled a significantly higher percentage of the overall vote in May 2006, but lost councillors in certain, targeted wards. The remaining Labour-held wards are now being targeted by the Liberal Democrats, so they will consolidate their control of Woking Borough Council on 3^rd May, with the Conservatives being mere onlookers, unable to affect the outcome.

UKIP's impact on the Conservative vote must not be overlooked either. In numerous councils where the Conservatives are defending against the Liberal Democrats, just a few score votes transferring from the Conservative to UKIP candidate in marginal wards would hand seats to the Liberal Democrats.

Polls indicate that support for the Conservatives nationwide stands at about 38%, the same as the best poll result published immediately before the local elections in May 2006. The actual poll result in 2006 was just short of 40%, underlining the fact that polls tend to underestimate actual support for the Conservatives by between 1% and 2%. On a 38% vote, Rallings and Thrasher calculate that the Conservatives would achieve 300-400 seat gains. I would venture that support for the Conservatives has reached 40% though certainly not the 42% required for a clear election victory.  I would suggest also that factoring in for instance, the manner in which the Liberal Democrat challenge functions "on the ground", the UKIP diversion and the aversion of disaffected, northern Labour voters to switch direct from Labour to Conservative, even with 40% of the vote, the Conservatives will still secure about 400 extra councillors only.  It is reported that privately the aim of the Conservatives is to gain at least 800 seats. One can conjecture the source of this private briefing, which appears mischievous. Whilst nationwide the Conservatives are challenging for more seats than both Labour and the Liberal Democrats and might be hotly contesting thousands of marginal seats, this is not the same as expecting to win all of them.  Even Labour strategists, who are expecting a hiding, calculate that they will lose between 400 to 500 seats. An ineffective showing by UKIP (possible) or the Liberal Democrats (highly implausible) and the Labour core vote remaining at home would hand eight hundred seats to the Conservatives, but the prerequisites for such a result are just not present.

That attempts will be made to extrapolate the results of the May 2007 local elections to show that the Conservative advance has stalled and that David Cameron will not win the 2009/10 election, should not trouble the Conseravtives.  Following the defeat at the General election of 1997, most commentators agreed that the Conservatives would not be able to overturn the Labour majority in just one election. The Party could not even start to do so whilst its deep unpopularity remained, as evidenced by the result of the 2001 General Election.  Whilst being still unpopular in some quarters, the 2005 election result was further distorted by the Liberal Democrats still being on a roll (largely achieved by the injection of funds from the now disgraced Michael Brown) which meant the Conservatives were often watching their backs whilst at the same time trying to attack Labour.  The General Election in 2009/10 will be the first when Conservative fortunes are in the ascendency but yet commentators now seek to convince us that only spectacular success in the forecoming local elections and outright success at the next general Election will do, otherwise (it will be argued) the Conservatives are in a desperate position where, goes the inference, recovery becomes less and less likely.  It is not so.  It took four consecutive election defeats before the Labour Party rejuvenated. During that rejuvenation it did not have to contend with the Liberal Democrats bleeding a part of its core vote.  Whilst it is correct that for a brief period the Social Democratic Party purported to be an alternative to Labour, the SDP realised quickly that there were more votes to be had from instinctively Conservative electors, hence the merger with the Liberal Party and the splitting of the non-Labour vote in every General Election since.

The Conservatives will not achieve any breakthrough until the Liberal Democrats are seen to be patently receding as a political force.  The Conservatives, through eighteen years of Government and eight years of drift in opposition, enabled the Liberal Democrats to thrive and entrench themselves.  In consequence the Liberal Democrats will not be dislodged in just one or two local elections. That the Liberal Democrats failed to make any impact during the local elections in 2006 was significant, but that lack of success could be (and was) brushed under the carpet before the Public absorbed what had happened.  On 4^th May 2007, after taking many Labour councillors' scalps (and a few from the Conservatives too) the Liberal Democrats will be crowing from the roof tops.  The Media will echo the Liberal Democrat triumph.  Commentators will burble and chatter about the Conservatives' lack of serious progress in "the north", the cities and elsewhere.  Whatever is said, the Conservatives will possess a significant number of new councillors following the May 2007 local elections. Their advance will not have stalled.  For their part, the Liberal Democrats still have to reap the whirlwind that they sowed by accepting the donation from Michael Brown, the donation that enabled them to so inflate their prospects in the 2005 General Election.  The future is bright - and still blue.

New Labour’s local election plans are going pear shaped

Labour strolling to "victory" in the local elections in May 2006

The Sunday Times

Seen by Labour's "intellectual" and "old" left as a joke candidate and provoking disdain amongst those on the Conservative right, Hazel Blears' mildly self-depreciating campaign for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party is gradually gaining support, nevertheless.

Miss Blears understands the vital importance of continuing to be relevant and attractive to so-called "middle class" voters and holding the political centre-ground.  This insight appears to be rapidly vanishing amongst a large section of the ascendant Labour hierarchy who do no more than pay it lip service.

If elected, Hazel Blears promises to ensure that the voice of the Labour Party membership is heard in cabinet.  She will do as she says. She is not a politician who deigns to acquaint herself with her constituents only once every four or five years. She listens to what people have to say and is described by supporters as "both considerate and tough" and as having an "ability to connect with voters like few other politicians." She has been politically astute by highlighting that it does not follow that the Prime Minister should automatically appoint the deputy leader as the deputy prime minister.

It is overlooked that Tony Blair's ability to appeal to a wide swathe of voters leading to the 1997 General Election and beyond was not the only reason for his historic election victories. A tired Government that after eighteen years had overstayed its welcome was always going to lose badly an election against an invigorated Official Opposition Party led by a popular new leader. More importantly, by 1997 and until 2005 the prospect of a Labour Government had ceased to frighten core supporters comprising the liberal, progressive wing of the Conservative Party. A significant minority of these supporters ceased their political activitism, thereby contributing to the loss of marginal constituencies.

Hazel Blears is popular with ordinary people.  She does not frighten the horses.  She is liked even though she is a Labour politician and a ready apologist for the nightmare that this Labour Government has become.  Whilst support from certain quarters of the centre-right might be tongue in cheek, the affection and respect for Miss Blears generally is genuine.  Labour activists ignore that at their peril.  Election of the current favourites for the leadership and deputy leadership can only assist the Labour Party's opponents' cause.

Hazel Blears for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party

The Chief Constable of North Wales, Richard Brunstrom's most irritating fault is that he almost always overstates his case, thereby undermining it.  Excessive speed is a killer, but there is inadvertent speeding and there is deliberate (often reckless) speeding. In failing to differentiate between the two he alienates those very citizens whose support he needs, just as with his beloved speed cameras.

It was unacceptable that he had not sought the permission of the families whose sons had been killed before showing photographs of their mutilated bodies to journalists and local authority representatives at a meeting to promote his Force's road safety work. Nevertheless, it is right that we be reminded of the consequences of irresponsible speeding and substandard driving, combined.  It is so easy to forget that in a collision, even when protected by seatbelts, airbags, collapsing bonnets and safety bars, the human body can suffer serious injury.  At high speeds it can simply disintegrate.

Shock tactics such as these should not be used too often lest their impact be weakened and relatives' permission for publication should be sought, always.  Had Mr Brunstrom not had the reputation of being the  "Mad Mullah of the Traffic Taliban" and with the permission of the relatives, perhaps he would not have caused such a furore.

Richard Brunstrom: Chief Constable and now humble Blogger

It should not be necessary for me to point out that the former Roxy Music star and singer Brian Ferry is not and never has been, a Nazi sympathiser.  It was with some bemusement on my part therefore when I read that he had apologised yesterday for saying Nazi imagery was “amazing”.

It seems that Mr Ferry had said in an interview with a German newspaper that the Nazis “knew how to put themselves in the limelight and present themselves” and that Helene Bertha Amalie Riefenstahl’s movies, Albert Speer's buildings, the mass parades and the flags were “just amazing. Really beautiful.”

Mr Ferry explained that he was “deeply upset” by the negative publicity his remarks had caused and added,

“I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused by my comments on Nazi iconography, which were solely made from an art history perspective. I, like every right-minded individual, find the Nazi regime, and all it stood for, evil and abhorrent.”

Given the death and destruction caused by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945 it is difficult to credit Germany with creating anything worthwhile during that period. The despatch of eight and a half million people in murder camps (everyone forgets about the two and a half million gypsies, two hundred and fifty thousands communists/trade unionists and two hundred thousand homosexuals) gives rise to an instinctive, overwhelming revulsion to the whole concept of Nazism and everything and everyone associated with it. Helene Riefenstahl is intimately and forever associated with the Nazis having directed Der Sieg des Glaubens (Victory of Faith) about the Nuremberg rally in 1933 and Triumph of the Will, the notorious documentary glorifying Adolf Hitler. As Riefenstahl was steadfastly unapologetic about her close collaboration with the Nazis, praise for her was always going to raise eyebrows.  Nevertheless, though critics have agreed that it is difficult to "separate the subject from the artist behind it", Riefenstahl’s work during that period is generally regarded as masterful, epic, and innovative. She is renowned for developing new aesthetics in film, especially in relation to nude bodies.  Anyone who has seen those Nazi propaganda documentaries, though repelled in significant measure, cannot deny that they are impressive.  Similarly some of Albert Speer’s architecture and designs were little short of magnificent.

No one can suggest reasonably that Brian Ferry did not make his comments in good faith from an “art history perspective”.  It is highly questionable whether he had anything for which to apologise.  That there was a suggestion that Marks & Spencer, for whom Mr Ferry models, should “reconsider [his] contract”, is wholly unacceptable. 

Mr Ferry’s opinions were unremarkable and did not merit censure.

Martin Beckford

Karen McVeigh

Much has been made of Gordon Brown’s incredible decision to sell a substantial part of the United Kingdom’s gold reserves at a time when the value of gold had fallen to rock bottom.  This has been brought to our attention again in an article by Holly Watt and Robert Winnett in The Sunday Times.

More importantly, this episode has gone to show how corrupt Government has become under the New Labour regime and how the Labour spin machine involves the use not only of its own apparatchiks but also supposedly impartial arms of government (in this case HM Treasury) and the misuse of laws and rules that should be applied even-handedly and without favour.

Watt reports,

“The Sunday Times has been battling the Treasury for 18 months to obtain documents revealing the advice it received on the sale of gold.  Under freedom of information laws, the paper has asked for statistical information relating to the decision to sell gold; minutes of ministerial meetings; official correspondence and studies into the aftermath of the decision.

 

Before the 2005 election the Treasury rushed out comparable information about the Conservatives’ darkest economic hour, Black Wednesday, but it took it five months to turn down this request, although it is required by law to respond within 20 working days [my italics and emphasis.]

 

Among five exemptions it has claimed to block publication is that “such information relates to the location (past or present) of the UK’s gold holdings, which, if made known, could increase risks to security”. This information is on the Bank’s official website.”

The conclusion that must be drawn is that this Government will readily accede to a Freedom of Information request that damages its opponents but obfuscates and seeks to bury anything that shows its own bad faith, venality or incompetence.

There has been considerable exaggeration concerning our so called “humiliation” at the hands of the Iranians by way of their seizure of fifteen Royal Navy personnel on 23^rd March 2007 and the alleged consequential loss of our military prestige.  That the abduction was allowed to occur reeks of incompetence on somebody’s part, but once it had taken place, we were left twisting in the wind until events took their course.

During the course of the past one thousand years the English, and latterly the British, have suffered numerous such “humiliations”.  There have always been steady supplies of tin-pot rulers and sometimes extremely powerful enemies who have seized our citizens or military personnel and subjected them to ritual, personal humiliation and sometimes even death.  It is the furore in the aftermath of such incidents that reveals our true mettle. These enemies always assumed the ease in which they inflicted the humiliation, was a sign of our weakness.  It was never so.  Retribution always followed by one means or another, even though the score being settled might be years in the coming.  These little embarrassments do no more than to strengthen our resolve to ensure that they do not happen again, so easily.

The seized personnel were pilloried for allowing themselves to be used for propaganda purposes by the Iranian Regime.  Regimes that pay no attention to the conventions of war have oft used captured soldiers for propaganda purposes.  The Chinese and North Koreans did so in the Korean War and likewise the North Vietnamese almost two decades later.  As we are not at war with Iran, it is not clear what proportionate response could have been made to ensure the earlier release of the hostages.  Besides, our military personnel cannot be expected to behave in a heroic situation on each and every occasion demanded of them, particularly when they are not at war with those who ambush them.  Not every imprisoned serviceman will behave like the prisoners of Colditz.  Even in Wellington’s Peninsula Army, arguably one of the best ever fielded by this country, seasoned soldiers ran away from time to time.  The Duke knew that most of them would return and fight another day.  Sometimes it is just not a good day to die.

Any argument that the abduction occurred because of our military weakness or lack of moral fibre is fatuous.  In many situations it is not militarily possible to rescue hostages, unless you are willing to spark the Third World War.  The mighty United States was forced to negotiate the return of their embassy staff seized by the Iranians on 4^th November 1979 and held for a little over fourteen months. Negotiation was the means of release for the crew of USS Pueblo, held for eleven months after being attacked and seized in international waters by the North Koreans on 23^rd January 1968. North Korea has never paid the price for that act of piracy.

Now it is only our pride that is hurt.  Only three centuries ago Arab slave traders regularly raided villages on the southwest coast of England, snatching thousands of free born Englishmen and women into slavery.  In July 1625, when as now, England possessed one of the most formidable navies in the World; these Islamic corsairs of Barbary sailed up the Bristol Channel, captured Lundy Island and raised the standard of Islam.  Now that was really embarrassing.

You can forget Alan Johnson the Education Secretary and Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland Secretary. Hilary Benn might be considered as “leading the race” for deputy by a wide margin and  Harriet Harman,  the Constitutional Affairs Minister described as “Gordon Brown's feminine conscience, on a crusade for women” because when it comes to overall suitability for the position of Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Hazel Blears walks it by a mile.

Miss Blears is a feisty woman who has never lost touch with her roots, “traditional working class” as she would describe them.  She had achieved the lofty position of Minister of the Crown (and now Labour Party Chairman) through her own efforts alone without benefit of privilege or favour.  What you see is what you get, a plain speaking Mancunian.  She is popular with the grass roots membership of her party and rightly so – she is one of the people.  Her effervescent optimism, ability to defend with full conviction an impossible position and infectious enthusiasm prove her to be a very capable individual as well as an endearing personality.

In the difficult times ahead for the Labour Party, Hazel Blear’s presence near the helm is in prudence, something it cannot forego.

Hazel for Deputy

I have never felt challenged by anyone possessed of opinions differing or even diametrical to my own, though upon occasion, the manner in which those opinions might be held or expressed, concomitant as they so often are with a presumption of intellectual and moral inferiority on my part, is more than a little wearisome.  Such conceit is a common vice (though not the exclusive domain) of the so-called “liberal left”, those self-appointed guardians of the moral high ground.  In the circumstances I should be forgiven a wry smile when reading recently an article by AA Gill in The Sunday Times where he wrote briefly about the sanctimonious George Monbiot and the insufferable Peter Hitchens,

“But don’t for a moment imagine that the bicycle-riding, organic-hedgerow-grazing, self-denying, 40-watt miserablists are in fact selfless crusaders for the common good. Never underestimate the sustaining pleasure in a hair shirt. Just look at George Monbiot, and witness a man who couldn’t be happier about the imminent demise of life as we know it. It’s given him purpose, prestige and celebrity: without global warming he’d be a geography teacher.”

For Peter Hitchens, no punches were pulled,

“Among journalists, Hitchens is fondly known by the nickname Bonkers. He’s called Bonkers Hitchens because he is raving bonkers, in a way that sells papers but makes him very annoying to sit next to on long flights. I’ve covered elections with him and seen him chase cars like an incensed border collie….[T]he great thing about Hitchens is that he never disappoints. Blissfully, he is utterly bereft of self-irony. For Bonkers there was nothing remotely odd or absurdly hilarious about hating the Conservative party for having Eton-educated, upper-class boys in it. Hitchens should be encouraged to do more. He’s like a lost biblical character from The Life of Brian.”

With Gordon Brown’s popularity declining by the day, seemingly ever quicker since the Budget debacle and now the revelation that he was fully aware of the damage that would be caused by his raid on pension funds, Conservative supporters can be forgiven for beginning to take for granted the prospect of a clear election victory within the course of the next two years.  The Government's flagship policies have failed and it is bereft of new ideas.  It is seen as (and is) incompetent and venal.  It has lost the trust of large swathes of the electorate.  It is inconceivable that, barring some serious political misfortune befalling David Cameron, the Conservatives will not win a majority at the next General Election.  Commentators such as Michael Portillo and Charles Moore are right to warn against over optimism on the part of the Conservatives, given that we are as much as two years away from the next General Election. Nevertheless it is unlikely that a Gordon Brown administration can pull anything out of the hat.  The smell of decay and sense of decline is too strong.

There is a danger that many Conservatives overlook at their peril.  Matthew Parris has alluded to it in his column in The Times.  Gordon Brown will lose the next General Election, but the Conservatives will secure but a tiny majority – a majority that evaporates after only a handful of by-election defeats.  It will be a weak Conservative administration that is at the mercy of the elements and will fall at the very next General Election.

In 2009/2010 there will be too many factors that militate against a handsome majority for the Conservatives - a majority that is so important for strong leadership and Government and the essential foundation of a second consecutive Conservative term.  Labour might well be embarrassed in the elections that are to take place in May 2007 but do not expect those deserting Labour supporters to do the same in a General Election.  Disappointed with their Government they might be, but desirous of a Conservative administration they are not.  Neither should it be forgotten that many electors employed in the public sector depend upon Gordon Brown’s largesse.  They are hardly likely to vote for an administration that is never going to be so generous.   Then there is the current bias in the electoral system which might hand at least a dozen seats to Labour which strictly speaking on a vote for vote basis should belong to the Conservatives.  Neither should the Liberal Democrats be underestimated.  Whilst they will not enjoy a fillip such as that generated by Michael Brown’s considerable donation immediately prior to the General Election in 2005 the membership will be fighting hard to return their sitting MPs.  Many of their seats might only have majorities of a few hundred but few will fall.  Sandra Gidley (Romsey) and Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) will still be there after the next General Election.  It is still not fully appreciated that the “anyone but a Tory” tactical voting campaign that developed following Labour’s 1992 election defeat is still practised amongst many voters opposed to the Conservatives.  Then there is UKIP which so many Europhobic Conservatives are promising to support rather than the Cameron led Conservatives.  Commentators are agreed that these Conservatives could not bear to contribute to an historic fourth consecutive Labour election victory, but yes they could and yes they will.  The inability to make any great inroads in Scotland and Wales, or significant gains in Labour heartlands and recovery of seats lost to the Liberal Democrats in the south will deny the Conservatives a landslide.  Labour has to be well and truly broken for that.  It isn’t, yet.

This is where David Miliband could prove to be the Conservatives' saviour.  Should he become the next Prime Minister rather than Gordon Brown he would achieve what John Major managed in 1992.  The Conservative lead in the opinion polls would evaporate temporarily and in the hastily called General Election in late 2008/early 2009 Labour would be returned for its fourth consecutive term but with a small, even tiny majority.  It is at this point that Labour’s wheel will truly fall off and the Party will be broken.  Miliband cannot create a Cabinet full of fresh new faces.  It would have to include some of the old timers with form.  There will be those in the Party whose political ambitions are thwarted by the young upstart, including Gordon Brown.  The fault lines in this new Labour administration will be present from day one.  The administration will be racked by internal feuding.  The “Old Labour” MPs will seethe that a Blairite has stolen the Crown.  It will not be a strong, united administration.  For the first time in over twelve years the Government will be opposed by an invigorated opposition, led by David Cameron, an opposition only a handful of by-election victories away from bringing it down.  The Country will expect.  The Government will fail to deliver.  The Conservatives will romp to decisive victory.

Of course, the Conservative high command has worked out all of this by itself, hence the misinformation being leaked to the press concerning their fearing a Miliband Premiership and the setting up of an anti-Miliband unit.

Then again, and this is the beauty of politics, it could all be bluff and double bluff.

A Government with a small majority is vulnerable only if the opposition is strong.  The Labour Party consigned to opposition in 2009/2010 will not be strong.  It will be demoralised and disunited just as it was following its election defeat in 1979.  It will bear little resemblance to the Labour Party that unexpectedly lost the 1970 General Election but which reversed that result only three and a half years later in 1974.  There will be recriminations and disunity.  The Labour opposition will not look like a Government in waiting.  Mr Cameron could still win his second term. 

Clunking Fist he might be, but being able to land a heavy blow is no good if your opponent can hit you much harder, twice, first.

It has been commented upon on countless occasions that Gordon Brown is nowhere to be seen when the Government has been embroiled in a spot of bother. Whilst just about every other Minister of the Crown had taken a count or even kissed the canvass upon at least one occasion, Mr Brown did not have a mark on him. This was not as a result of any skill on his part, rather the ability not to be in the ring when the fists were flying. When Premier, this ring dodging will have to stop. Those of us who have always suspected Gordon Brown of having a clay jaw eagerly anticipate his exchanges as Prime Minister, with the Witneyville Lip.

Since 1990, three hundred and six level crossings, approved by an arm of Government that did not have the legal power to do so, have as a consequence been erected illegally. Drivers who have been fined and had their licences endorsed with penalty points after being caught going through red lights at these crossings will now be able to challenge their convictions as they had not in fact committed any offence.

The Government is unlikely to disclose the location of these illegal rail crossings.  According to Dipesh Gadher of The Sunday Times, a Government source has said:

“We will try to make it as difficult and as expensive as possible for anyone to challenge us in the courts. Even though these drivers might have been wrongly penalised due to a technicality, we would use the moral argument that they were potentially endangering lives by ignoring a red light.”

Government has bungled.  It has not acted within the Law.  No matter how undeserving the appellants, they were not breaking the Law.  The Government should come clean and publish details of the "illegal" crossings so that the motorists involved can lodge appeals against their convictions.  In applying laws, rules and regulations approved by Parliament, Government owes us a duty to comply itself with those very prescriptions - to comply with the Rule of Law.  Relying upon "moral argument" when the Law is against you is a slippery slope.  The Government should do the right thing.

"Are my fellow Muslims so weak in their faith that they think God needs their violence to defend His eternal truth? I believe that their weakness and ignorance of Islam is the reason that they fear honest debate."

Yahya Merchant

The BBC has highlighted a report prepared by Rob Allen on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies that claims that too many children are prosecuted and criminalised.  Previously Mr Allen had been engaged for eight years as a member of the Youth Justice Board and as such it is safe to assume that he is well versed in the realities of child offending.  He considers that there should be greater emphasis on the educational, social and mental health needs of younger offenders. Mr Allen believes that we have become preoccupied with protecting the public from young people and that there is a growing intolerance of teenage misbehaviour of all kinds.

It is easy to dismiss Mr Allen's views as typically air-headed, left-wing liberal and soft on crime, but I happen to agree with him. More children are badly behaved, or allowed to be badly behaved than when I was a child.  Similarly, a growing number of young adults no longer appear to know how to conduct themselves responsibly in public.  The rule and convention abiding public have come to feel besieged and the howls of the tabloid press purporting to speak on their behalf has bullied successive administrations Labour and Conservative into "doing something about it".  The "something" has borne all the hallmarks of being knee-jerk, rather than being calmly and coolly considered whilst in possession of all the material facts.  It was inevitable that once the age of criminal responsibility was lowered, an increasing number of younger children would be sucked into the criminal justice system and most unnecessarily.

There are offences so bad that even a child should know that they are wrong, but nuisance and silly offending should not be the subject of criminal sanction.  "Pecking order fights" in the school playground now result in prosecution.  That should not be so.  Such behaviour represents a phase of male development.  It is ridiculous and wrong-headed to apply the same opprobrium or a criminal sanction to a playground scrap between two thirteen year-old boys as to a bar room brawl involving two men.  Hormones or whatever, it is a phase boys "grown out of" as they mature.  Only males with serious problems still fight by the time they reach their late teens and early twenties.  It is those individuals with whom the State ought to concern itself.

The BBC, in its usual impartial and helpful way, reminds us in its report of the age of various offenders who committed very serious crimes, children such as Jon Venables and Robert Thomson, Danny and Rickie Preddie and Mary Bell. However, these children were the exception to the rule.  It is important to point out that crimes of that  gravity committed by children occur very rarely. The murder committed by Mary Bell took place in 1968.  James Bulger's murder by Venables and Thomson took place twenty-five years later in 1993 and Damilola Taylor's in 2000.

In essence, most child crime is very small beer and is committed largely for reasons other than just plain "badness" or "poor upbringing".  Children can be immature and silly, behave irrationally, empathise with others to a limited degree only or not at all.  They possess all manner of "flaws" caused by their lack of life experiences which can limit their being able to behave well or responsibly in each and every social situation.

The truth is that in most cases "kids" just grow up.  "Special intervention" by the Court system is more likely to do harm than good.  The Nanny State should heed this research and just butt out.  The Shadow Home Affairs minister Edward Garnier should take note.

In Brighton yesterday Sir Menzies Campbell used his first conference to proclaim that,

“the country was crying out for a political party with firm principles, but gave warning that the Liberal Democrats needed to grow up and “act as a party of government” if they wanted to advance in Parliament.”

This is an unequivocal admission that the Liberal Democrats currently are neither a party of principle or “grown up”.  Can a leopard change its spots?

A Government Man doing the Government’s business

New Labour has set its heart upon imprisoning more motorists

Bending rules to ensure higher conviction rates is fraught with danger

The NHS: It is time to return to basics

Is this the thin end of the wedge?

Valerie Elliott reports in The Times today about the cancellation of a planned chase involving an artificial scent[1] in Central London by members of the  “Connaught Square Squirrel Hunt”.  Threats had been made by animal rights activists against the event such that the Police feared that they would create a public order incident.

Once again angry, resentful fanatics threatening violence have  successfully curtailed a lawful activity.

Whilst the Police seem to be very willing to protect our rights when a lawful pursuit is followed by the majority or a pet minority, when a pursuit by the unfavoured is involved, it is just too much trouble to police.  I can well imagine that the drag hunt organisers were warned darkly that if the event proceeded and any trouble erupted, everyone would be arrested, including the riders, for “public disorder.”

The animal rights activists have shown their true colours.  This was nothing to do with animal welfare.  They don’t like the sort of people comprising the Connaught Square Squirrel Hunt and they are going to stop them doing anything they do, just because. I shall leave the last word to Duncan Macpherson, joint master of the hunt, who is reported to have said:

“These activists are clearly even more absurd than I thought if they were going to protest about huntsmen and dogs chasing a smelly sock.”

“It will no longer be credible for Liberal Democrats to appeal for votes, as so often we do, on the basis that we would be better managers. It will no longer be credible to campaign, as sometimes we do, on a disparate series of populist gimmicks… Our party has been guilty of such populism at all levels of government. Other parties can repair cracked paving stones or improve local eyesores as well as we can, and campaign on a platform of doing so just as effectively.”

So says Graham Watson MEP, the leader of Liberal Democrats and allied groups in the European Parliament.  He mentioned also that the Liberal Democrats, “had relied upon populist gimmicks for too long and failed to put forward a coherent policy agenda.”

I should remark that had the Liberal Democrats not said one thing to one set of voters and something completely different to others elsewhere, their party could not have been anywhere near as successful during the course of the past fifteen years. How else are Lib Dem candidates going to appeal to Labour voters in the north and Conservative voters in the south?

‘Out of touch’ Campbell attacked by senior Lib Dems -  Sam Coates

“The tragedy of the episode is that the Pope was arguing against the idea that violence can be justified in any religion. He was making the case for the compatibility of reason with religion at a time when fundamentalism is gaining terrifying ground across the religious spectrum.

The irony is that the Islamic response illustrates how desperately the world needs to hear his message.”

Ruth Gledhill

The sight of violent Muslim-hothead reaction to the ill-chosen words of the Pope is galvanising further anti-Islamic sentiment in the West.  It is time for moderate Islam to make its voice heard.

Michael Horsnell reports in The Times today about the case of Warren Blackwell who was convicted in October 1999 of indecent assault after a woman claimed that she had been attacked by him in the early hours of New Year’s Day, 1999. Initially Mr Blackwell had been sentenced to a three-year term of imprisonment. In March 2002 the Court of Appeal refused him permission to appeal and upon a cross-application by the Attorney-General arguing that that sentence was “unduly lenient”, increased the sentence to one of five years’ imprisonment. Following the involvement of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and fresh evidence coming to light, the case was referred back the Court of Appeal and yesterday Mr Blackwell’s conviction was declared unsafe.  The new evidence disclosed that the complainant had made “strikingly similar allegations” about other sex attacks, had an ability to lie and a possible propensity to self-harm.

The Government is very likely to change the law to make it easier to convict a defendant in cases of this nature.  In effect, the new rules that are being proposed will make it more difficult for defence lawyers to test an alleged victim’s veracity.

Better for ten innocent men to be convicted, than for one guilty man to go free.

Professor Jennifer Temkin rides again: devious barristers and ignorant judges

Bending rules to ensure higher conviction rates is fraught with danger

ContraTory rides again (or the case of a woman scorned?)

The Daily Telegraph

You have to hand it to the Liberal Democrats.  They are never more self-righteous or sanctimonious than when they themselves have something they would prefer to be swept under the carpet.  The next few weeks and months are going to prove very embarrassing for them as the tsunami proportioned ripples caused by their erstwhile donor Michael Brown inexorably spread ever wider, and in their direction. After being exposed recently for having concealed their leader's alcoholism from the electorate for years, you might have thought they would keep their heads down for a respectable period.  Alas (for them) it is not their way.

Robert Watts and Melissa Kite report today in The Sunday Telegraph about a story which is an attempt by the Liberal Democrats to divert attention away from themselves, onto the Conservatives.  The Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman, Lord Oakeshott, claims that a Westminster office block was sold to the Tories for millions less than it was worth.  The Conservatives bought Tufton Street in March for £15.6 million. Lord Oakeshott, who manages a property investment company, says the true market value would be at least £25m (but then of course, he would say that, wouldn't he?)  According to Lord Oakeshott the acquisition of the office block “looks like a purchase on very favourable terms, so that it could be in effect be a concealed donation.”  However a spokesman for the Conservatives has clarified that the party had not bought the property for substantially less than its market value and explained that the two properties acquired are situated next door to each other and are worth jointly more than if they belonged to separate owners.

It is only a few weeks since the Conservatives were "reported"  for a deal involving the sale of their former headquarters at Smith Square.  In that case, being sitting tenants, quite legitimately they had been able to purchase the freehold of the property for a lower significantly sum than the price at which they could sell it.  Foul! shouted cash strapped Labour and Liberal Democrats.

Of course, this is all pure politics and the moral of the story is not to let the Liberal Democrats (or anyone else for that matter) get away with diverting attention from the mote in their own eye.

Just make a note of this somewhere…

“But I really dislike both their smugness and the way they tailor their electoral appeal to smugness. The Liberal Democrats are far too self-satisfied. They don't just think they may be right. They know they're right. They look down on other parties as ignorant, corrupt or both. They believe without question that they alone occupy the moral high ground. There is nothing they like more than to sneer at Labour or the Tories.  At times it can be insufferable. They are the dinner party party.”

Martin Kettle

Jonathan Leake reports that the American mink, a lethal predator blamed for driving water voles to the brink of extinction, is being forced back by the resurgence of the native otter. 

“For thirty years mink, the descendants of escapees from fur farms, have been devastating Britain’s fish, aquatic birds and mammals, with conservationists losing hope they could ever be eradicated.”

A report from the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit at Oxford University, suggests that when otters return to an area they seem to be attacking the American mink and driving them out.

I loved the bit about “mink, the descendants of escapees from fur farms.”  This conjured a mental picture of mink cleverly building tunnels and gliders Colditz style, to escape their captors.  It is true that some mink escaped from fur farms, but not in such numbers as to have enabled them to inflict such carnage upon our native wildlife.  In truth, these vicious predators gained a hold in this country only by reason of Animal Rights activists “liberating” tens of thousands of them during raids upon fur farms over a number of years. Eight thousand were released from one farm alone in September 1998.  It curious that none of the news reports I heard or read today made that point. I am sure that angry finger pointing at the moment we learn that our native vole population is not (as had been thought) heading for extinction, was thought inappropriate. It is a point that has to be made, however. Animal rights activists don't know a lot about animals.  They don't know much about the environment either, for that matter.  They do know a lot about hating, threatening and hurting humans, on the other hand.

According to Greg Hurst in The Times today,

“Sir Menzies Campbell signalled a shift in strategy to target disaffected Labour voters yesterday ….taking votes and seats from Labour will now form the overwhelming thrust of the Lib Dems’ election planning as the party positions itself to gain from bitterness and divisions over Tony Blair’s departure plans.”

It was not so long ago that the Liberal Democrats were seeking to convince us that the Conservative Party was finished and that they were the only viable opposition to New Labour. It was upon this platform that they wrested successfully from Conservative control numerous seats in the south of England and elsewhere.  It is now conceded by the Liberal Democrats that they might lose a handful of seats to the Conservatives led by David Cameron in the next general election.

We can rest assured that the Liberal Democrats will seek to retain as many formerly Conservative seats in the south as possible, but it will not be “a handful” lost if they represent themselves as the alternative to Labour.  A slight of hand will be necessary; otherwise that handful might have to be counted not only upon the fingers of both hands, but the toes of each foot, too.  As has happened so often in the past, the Lib Dems are going to have to present themselves as being “all things to all men”. This is completely unprincipled. Such chicanery must not go unpunished. It is incumbent upon Labour and the Conservatives henceforth to spotlight  Liberal Democrat duplicity and question what the “third party” party really stands for.

Today, in a speech to be given in Edinburgh, the Chancellor Gordon Brown will accuse the Conservatives of wishing to break up the United Kingdom by pressing for a policy of “English votes for English laws”, whereby Scottish MPs would be excluded on voting on certain issues south of the Border.

Nobody mention the Scotland Act 1998.

Chancellor scotches idea he's not British

Two sisters, Joyce Burden 88, and her sister Sybil 81, are liable for a large bill in respect of inheritance tax when the first dies.  They have brought a test case against the Government before the European Court of Human Rights, claiming discrimination against heterosexuals.  The case is the first of its kind since the law was changed to allow gay and lesbian partners the same inheritance rights as married couples.

Property left by one spouse to the other or inherited by a married or civil partner is exempt from the tax. Close relatives, such as siblings and descendants, are not eligible to register as civil partners.  The sisters  claim that the inheritance tax laws breach their right to enjoy their property under the first protocol to the Human Rights Convention and the anti-discrimination provisions of Article 14.

The Government claims that,

“Couples enjoy a relationship of choice.  Siblings however, enjoy a relationship of consanguinity. Further, the relationship between siblings is for ever, whereas couples may part.”

Adding,

 “... a couple made a financial commitment by making a personal commitment to each other.  This was not the case with siblings.”

For political reasons, the European Court will find against the sisters but the Government's arguments are nonsense.  When the inheritance tax “breaks” applied only to the special relationship of marriage, there was a clear and obvious difference between “marrieds” and “the rest”. The only real difference between a married or civil partnership and that of the sisters is that it is presumed that there is or was a sexual element to the former.  Consanguinity is an irrelevance.  Here, the sisters chose to live together (initially to care for their parents) and have made a de facto personal commitment, including a financial commitment, to each other. As with all partners they could, if they wished, separate. Thus, there is no significant, material difference between them and any gay or lesbian couple living together.   In principle, they should win the case.   Once again this Government, in pursuit of its political agenda, has not thought through the blatantly obvious consequences of its legislation and caused considerable injustice.

Sisters go to court over 'gay bias' in tax laws

“When we were all younger, we knew who the pillars of our local community were: professional men and women such as doctors, teachers, bank managers and solicitors. Now, though, the cracks start to appear. A firm of solicitors in Wiltshire has decided to tout for business by asking local traders to recommend them when they hear about marital break-ups that might lead to the parties concerned requiring the services of a lawyer. Happily, one dignified local tradesman — a hairdresser — has pointed out that the integrity of his bond with his customers includes not betraying the confidences relayed in the sanctity of the salon, least of all in return for a commission — or should we say kick-back? — from a firm of ambulance-chasers. What is even more appalling is that the firm protests, and I have no doubt it is correct, that all this is being done in accordance with Law Society rules. Doesn't the Law Society appreciate how a majority of decent solicitors are having their reputations dragged down by such spivvery? And does it care?”

 

Simon Heffer

No, it does not care.  It is all part of The Law Society’s Brave New World.

“Yet public policy in this country likes to treat with Muslim citizens through self-appointed religious leaders, does little to encourage the use of English, stands aside at the oppression of women in many Muslim families, and allows preachers of hate to incite violence. Remarkably little thought is given to what it is like to be a Hindu or a Sikh or a Jew or a Muslim who resents clerical power or, increasingly, a Christian in a heavily Muslim area, in Britain today.”

Charles Moore

“No man but a fool ever wrote, except for money.”

Dr. Johnson

What does that make bloggers, then?

Julia Langdon reports in The Daily Telegraph today of the scandalous waste of public funds on the part of the Labour Government by virtue of there now being 3,259 "experts" employed in the Government's PR business, a figure swollen from the few hundred employed when the Conservatives left power in 1997.  The cost to the public purse of these 3,259 salaries, pensions, benefits and provisions has not been publicly quantified.

Furthermore,

"there is the stunning threefold rise in the cost of the marketing exercise run under the name of the Central Office of Information (COI), which was £322 million last year as opposed to £111 million in the year Tony Blair's Labour broom swept into power."

Then,

"[these] press officers have been raised in a culture that does not seek to enlighten public opinion about the processes of government.

 

On the contrary, their job is to present the Labour Government and all its policies in the most favourable light possible. A press officer is more likely to telephone to dispute a published article — and to do so more quickly (under orders, of course) — than he or she will return an urgent request for information."

Finally,

"They tell you as little as possible and their words are meaningless. They use words with a literal accuracy that obfuscates the truth and does not allow for any suggestion of original thought or imagination."

For his part Graeme Wilson reports that the Labour Government spent £154 million on advertising over the past 12 months, more than Tesco and Sainsbury's combined, and that Government spending on advertising has almost quadrupled since Labour came to power nine years ago when it inherited a budget of only £39.5 million.

The Conservatives say (but wouldn't they just) the huge increase in the advertising budget proved that Labour was more interested in spin than delivering better services for the public.

It does seem a bit like that though, doesn't it?

On 29^th August 2006 The Law Society published a report entitled "Career experiences of gay and lesbian solicitors."

The report explained,

"There is a large body of work, including a growing body of research undertaken by the Law Society, which explores how social divisions of ethnicity, race and gender impact on workplace experiences and career choices. To date there has been a gap in consideration of sexual orientation in this equation — something that this research begins to address with the encouragement and support of the Law Society Equality and Diversity Committee."

Under the heading "Sample" we are informed,

"Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with a sample of fifteen gay men and ten lesbians [my emphasis], who were working as solicitors in private practice or the employed sector, through regions of the South-West, London and the North-West."

This report came to be mentioned in the Guardian earlier in the week and had prompted me to post an article about one of its sillier recommendations.  Having now read the report, I am even less impressed.

The common weakness of much "research" these days is that it is just assumed there is a problem that has to be resolved, in this instance sexual orientation discrimination, and the researcher goes looking for it.  If the Law Society is going to undertake this sort of research, it must do it properly, with carefully chosen, representative samples.  It would have been helpful to establish for instance, what heterosexual respondents thought.  If, as was likely, they had thought the atmosphere at work was not particularly accepting and inclusive, that finding would have had considerable weight.  It is very foolish to create policy in reliance upon a survey involving such a small unrepresentative sample.

The Law Society research was interesting in one respect in that when discussing the factors that determined whether a gay would "out" at work, those factors seemed to comprise self-imposed constraints.  These included; the age of the solicitor; self-confidence; and the desire or ability to maintain a double life.

Too often individuals who perceive that they are significantly different to the majority[1] ascribe to that majority a viewpoint which in fact mirrors their own doubts and negative feelings about themselves.  What is not understood by many who consider themselves to be part of a minority group, any minority group, is that the "homogenous, unsympathetic majority" are mostly possessed of a complete indifference to their dissimilarity and accordingly cannot discriminate against them on that basis.

I can say without any fear of contradiction that nothing is more likely to drive a wedge between people of differing preferences than for one group to claim to be discriminated against merely by members of the other group being themselves.  Those who wish to transform and mould Society into their own image should dwell upon that fact long and hard.

Career experiences of gay and lesbian solicitors

If a deception of  this magnitude can be inflicted so casually upon the electorate by the Liberal Democrats, to what chicanery would they not be prepared to stoop in order to secure votes?

You are an alcoholic, aren't you? Yes, he finally replied

This report could only have been published in The Guardian.[1]

In its first report on the career experiences of gay and lesbian lawyers The Law Society, the professional body for solicitors, accused City law firms of having "undertones of homophobia" because of their emphasis on out-of-hours hard drinking and visits to lap dancing clubs.  It found most gay lawyers surveyed were reluctant to "come out" at work because they feared it would seriously hinder their career.

When I was an enthusiastic young lawyer[2], it seemed to be strip clubs, all-hours hard drinking and compulsory membership of the department football team who were expected to kick the hell out of the opposition early on a Sunday morning. I wasn’t having any of it.  I have little doubt that to a few of my contemporaries I was being a spoilsport. I was obviously a loner, a loser and the kind of person who would find himself alone in the kitchen at parties.  I could not have cared less.

We are told that the Law Society’s report did note that,

“…others[3] accepted this sort of behaviour as part of the “work hard, play hard” ethos.”

How very sensible, reasonable and mature of them. The Law Society sees it slightly differently, according to Law Society president, Fiona Woolf,

“These findings highlight the concerns of gay and lesbian solicitors and should alert firms of the need to review their policies to tackle discrimination based on sexual orientation and ensure a climate of acceptance and inclusiveness.”

The problem with this approach is that (in this instance) heterosexuals are causing social discomfort to a small number of gays simply by being themselves during out of work hours.  There is no evidence that the “straight” majority are being deliberately exclusive. In any event, “out of hours hard drinking and visits to lap dancing clubs” is hardly the leisure policy of any firm of solicitors, let alone a City Firm. The solution can never be that the majority must change its chosen, lawful behaviour to accommodate the oversensitive feelings of (here) a small number of gays, or whoever else might be the minority group.

[1] OK, so the story was probably lifted from The Law Society’s Gazette, but that’s no excuse for its wider dissemination, even by a low circulation national newspaper.  In fact, the Law Society’s report mainly focuses upon avoidance of “concrete” discrimination, for instance employee benefits being equal as between heterosexual married couples and same sex partnerships, and not “hurt feelings” arising from perceived exclusion.

[2] A condition that did not last long.

[3] In other words, a majority of gay lawyers.

This could have come from the mouth of Tony Blair himself or any one of his Home Secretaries.

Draw attention to an “injustice” to a “victim” or against the “law abiding majority" and then drum up ill-informed public support for a change in the Law or procedure – change that never had been necessary until this incompetent, mindlessly tinkering  New Labour Government assumed power.

Before slamming (to use a word much beloved of the Press) judges or the criminal justice system, just bear in mind which Government enacted the “soft” sentencing laws and some of the procedures that  have to be applied.

Everything this New Labour Government touches turns eventually to dust.

Loss of confidence in courts taking legal system into dangerous terrain

Poacher who turned gamekeeper

Just as Charles Kennedy had started to rebuild his political career, apparently his erstwhile friends (“senior party insiders”) have briefed Greg Hurst a reporter from The Times, who has written a book about him.  Not only does the book helpfully flesh out those damaging rumours that leaked and led to Mr Kennedy’s resignation, young Turks such as Heather Teather[1], Edward Davey[2] and Norman Lamb[3] who had been tipped as future leaders and high flyers of the Party, are stitched up to look like Brutus and the Gang.  Implausibly, Sir Menzies Campbell is cleared of any complicity in Charles Kennedy's political assassination.

The Sunday Times reports today that,

“A string of senior Liberal Democrats have provided material for the book, which is expected to reveal embarrassing details of Kennedy’s long battle with alcoholism...”

Well, I suppose that whilst you are ensuring that Charlie Boy’s comeback stalls, you might as well stymie some of your future leadership-challenge opponents as well. This is not going to be taken well by those who are “done down”.  In a parliamentary party as small as that of the Liberal Democrats, by a process of elimination it will not be difficult to deduce the members of the cabal who have been plotting since before the fall of Charles Kennedy. When Sir Menzies is unceremoniously ditched as party leader in a year or two’s time, the next Liberal Democrat leadership contest is not going to be a teddy bears’ picnic.

Twenty years ago, Mr Ray Honeyford now 72, played the part of the little boy who pointed out that the Emperor was not wearing any clothes.  For his trouble, he was "retired" from his position as the headmaster of Drummond Middle School in Bradford. He was vilified by politically correct "race experts", sent death threats, and condemned as a racist. He was never allowed to teach again.  Mr Honeyford's crime was that he suggested that children of immigrants should be integrated into British Society.  He had challenged the accepted orthodoxy of the Left and had to punished, severely.

Times change, of course. Now the chickens have come home to roost and multiculturism has been exposed as being the dangerous, socially divisive mumbo-jumbo that many of us suspected but were too timid to say publicly.   Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary has now publicly questioned the multiculturalist orthodoxies. Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, had already challenged whether the nostrums of multiculturalism had done more harm than good.  Just as there was not a single Nazi to be found  in Germany after 9th May 1945, soon no one will admit to ever having been a multiculturalist.
 
Mr Honeyford is not triumphant however. Asked whether he was impressed by Miss Kelly's recent speech, he said that,

"[Ruth Kelly] was only a politician, a bird of passage, minister of education one day and minister of communities the next, and like all politicians liable to say whatever was fashionable or useful to her career at the moment. "

Ouch! That was on par with Sir Robin Day's "mere, transient politician" jibe  addressed to (then just plain) John Nott, the UK Secretary of State for Defence during the Falklands War in 1982.

Rod Liddle delivers his denunciation of the multiculturalists with all the delicacy of a punch in the teeth, but given the manner in which the multiculturalists conducted their campaign against perceived opponents during the course of the past thirty years, this is nothing less than they deserve.

See the detailed article of Karyn Miller, Melissa Kite, James Orr, Nina Goswami and Roya Nikkhah in the The Sunday Telegraph.

So, Celtic goalkeeper Artur Boruc has been cautioned because he made a religious gesture, crossing himself, in front of Ranger's fans at Ibrox Park on 12^th February 2006. According to the Police (a view supported by the Procurator Fiscal):

"On this occasion, the actions included a combination of behaviour before a crowd in the charged atmosphere of an "Old Firm" match which provoked alarm and crowd trouble and as such constituted a breach of the peace."

My word, those Rangers fans must be extraordinarily over-sensitive fellows.

In response, a spokesman for the Catholic Church, Peter Kearney, is reported to have said that the Procurator Fiscal's [decision that a caution was warranted] was "alarming" and that, 

"It is extremely regrettable that Scotland seems to have made itself one of the few countries in the world where this simply religious gesture is considered an offence."

Of course, we have been here before.   In January 1998 Paul Gascoigne, then a Rangers player, was given a warning by the Scottish FA after miming playing the flute during a game against Celtic.  One might deduce that Celtic supporters, like their Rangers brethren, are also exceptionally sensitive.

A thin skin is not just the preserve of the clearly very over-sensitive Scots, however.  People south of the border have become upset over the smallest thing too.  The sight of a "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirt has been known to make some tearful, so much so that they have felt constrained to report the matter to the local constabulary, who true to their oath, have felt the offender's collar.  Signs suggesting that the dog of the household might consume calling Jehovah's Witnesses has turned the stomach of others.

Unlike Artur Boruc, previous offenders have not had Scottish Nationalist leader Alex Salmond or the Roman Catholic Church on their side.  Perhaps this particular piece of nonsense can be nipped in the bud, but I suspect not. 

Over the course of the past twenty years or more, the ever-widening concept of "causing offence" has become too ingrained. Those legislators who were so anxious to prescribe for instance racial abuse, never foresaw the unintended consequences of their actions, that is to say, that all people come to believe that they have a right not to be insulted.  Legislation in favour of one group raises a legitimate expectation in another that they are entitled to protection as well.  Our political leaders and judiciary readily accept that calling a person of Asian extraction a "Paki" is unacceptable, reprehensible, wrong and worthy of prescription by the Law.  On the other hand for example, an insult delivered against someone who is not a member of an acknowledged minority group, is considered unacceptable, reprehensible, wrong, but otherwise just one of those things.  It is not "just one of those things".  An insult, is an insult, is an insult.

If the Law protects one group against insult, then arguably it must protect us all.  A mindset has developed that those who feel offended can and should have those who insult them at the very least "spoken to" by the Police and with luck, prosecuted.  It is all very immature. Insulting behaviour has always said more about the person delivering it than the person receiving it.  Only a few years ago a black male was convicted of threatening and abusive behaviour by virtue of having called a conductress a "black bitch".  On the Law as it stands, the case was correctly decided, but the whole situation has become absurd.  We have lost a sense of proportion.

"DNA test can detect Picts' descendants"  reports The Daily Telegraph, today.  So far, so good.

 “A geneticist has created a DNA test for “Scottishness” that will tell people whether they are direct descendants of the Picts.”

Uh-oh.  I think the journalist added that middle bit about “Scottishness” himself.  It is not wrong in the widest sense, but it is not accurate either.  You see, the Picti were the real McCoy, a real native tribe like the Iceni and not the Johnny-come-lately, immigrant, warrior Scots and English who were Irish and German, respectively.[1]  The Scots were in fact invaders from Ireland and were distinct from the Picts and Gaels much as the Anglo-Saxons were distinct from the Celtic, British  tribes they displaced.  You will note that Dr Jim Wilson, of Edinburgh University, does not actually say that his DNA tests can determine “Scottishness”. The test is for “Pictishness” not “Scottishness”.

By the 11^th Century AD “Scot” appears to have become a description for everyone living in that area now known as Scotland, in the same way that "English" came to mean more than just Angle and/or Saxon. However, a descendant of the Picts can claim to have lived in these islands since time immemorial, whilst true Scots, like the English, a mere fifteen centuries.[2]

[1] Wikipedia reckons that the Picti and Gaels became the Scots, which is correct, but the Scots were a distinct tribe who hailed from Ireland and who colonised a significant part of what became Scotland.  Strictly speaking, therefore “Scots” are Scots, Gaels and Picts but the Scots were the politically dominant ethnic group who forged a nation in their image, in much the same way as did the English, south of the border.

[2] Examples of other jarring historical inexactitudes guaranteed to cause a fistfight if blurted in the presence of any descendant of  Hengest and Horsa during the course of an otherwise civilised conversation:

“When the English painted themselves from head to toe in woad, lived in mud huts and rode around in chariots, the civilised Romans lived in centrally heated villas.”

“Hadrian's Wall was built by the Romans to protect the English from the Scots.”

“The Legions of Emperor Claudius conquered England in 43 AD.”

Earlier this week Alice Miles took David Cameron to task for being a little less than firm with local Conservative Associations that do not modernise.  In once sense, her criticism is unfair in that it expected too much of David Cameron's candidate selection process reform too early.  Much of the impetus for change will come from the “new blood” that has joined the Party and is joining the Party as a consequence of Mr Cameron’s leadership.  She fails also to understand one very important characteristic of Conservative Associations – no one can order them about, not by reason of there being any rule that says so, but because it would be un-Conservative to do so. They have to be changed from within and there lies the real problem.  New members will take time to “bed down” and are not likely to rock the boat too soon by pointing out some home truths to the established hierarchy.  As yet, there might not even be enough of them.  However, much of what Ms Miles said was justified.

Whilst rigging a selection process to positively discriminate in favour of say, women or ethnic minorities is not the way forward, for reasons rehearsed elsewhere upon numerous occasions in the past, the current “system” positively discriminates in favour of right-leaning, white, middle-class, middle-aged men.

The solution is very simple.  Mr Cameron must encourage persons of centre-leaning proclivities to join or rejoin the party, take a positive role in the local association and provide support when friction or obstruction arises from the old guard.  In brief, he has to actively court the “wets” who were so effectively marginalised during the Margaret Thatcher years.

I had long ceased to be a member of the Guildford Conservative Association when David Howell MP, now Lord Howell of Guildford, retired but I am well aware of the manner in which the next Conservative parliamentary candidate for Guildford came to be chosen. It is enough to say that the local association was fixated upon choosing another white middle-class male as their candidate. “We’ll have a woman MP over my dead body!” one of the members present at the selection process was overheard to say.  The local association duly ignored two female applicants of high quality and chose the middle class white male, the eminently invisible Nick St Aubyn who promptly lost the seat to the Liberal Democrats’ (female) candidate in the General Election of 2001 after serving just one term as Guildford’s MP.

It was not just a matter of the Association’s pinko-lefties such as myself having been “boiled away” after years of Thatcher worship by the Party generally, it was the fact that the right-winger/fogy alliance had a means of self-propagation ensuring that “their kind” always managed to run the show.

That is the challenge for Mr Cameron, to continue actively enticing Conservatives of a broader political spectrum than currently exists back into the party in such numbers that our opinions can no longer be ignored by the fogies.  We might not be able to increase significantly the number of female or ethnic minority Conservative MPs, but he can rest assured that no candidate will be rejected simply because they are gay or black or Muslim or female.[1]

Notwithstanding my protestations to the contrary, I do read The Guardian and The Observer newspapers, though I should qualify that admission by making it clear that they are not my favourites.  Often infuriating, sometimes plainly wrong-headed they provide an alternative point of view that enables me to redefine or adjust my own.

What has become evident to me over the years, however, is that these titles are the moderate voice of some fairly strange-minded people who hold fairly extreme views, which are not reliant upon evidence, reason or truth.

Today in The Observer, a Leader presents an argument that must have provoked a large part of its readership to foam at the mouth.  In essence, the article seeks to point out that the West has not in the past and does not even now "have it in" for Islam and that "we" should not fall for the lies that suggest that it has or that we are the authors of our own misfortune as regards being the target of disaffected "Muslims" who wish to kill us for our sins.

The Leader pulls no punches:

"It is also a logical and moral absurdity to imply, as some critics of British policy have done, that mass murder is somehow less atrocious when it is motivated by an elaborate narrative of political grievance."

Furthermore,

"But anyone whose alienation leads them to want to kill indiscriminately has crossed a line into psychopathic criminality. Policy cannot be dictated by the need to placate such people."

And,

"But [British Muslim leaders] have a more immediate responsibility to promote the truth: that Britain is not the aggressor in a war against Islam; that no such war exists; that there is no glory in murder dressed as martyrdom and that terrorism is never excused by bogus accounts of historical victimisation."

Reading some of the critical comments recorded upon the Observer's website in response to this Leader, most of which are not made by "disaffected young Muslims", is quite an education.  It is also very depressing.

These ludicrous lies about the West and Islam

According to the BBC News website this morning,  one part of the heightened security arrangements for flights require that,

“Any liquids discovered must be removed from the passenger” 

Does this mean that airport security is going to take the piss?

The Department for Transport’s new advice to air passengers

"And all across the Muslim world, "we" - the West, America, Israel - are fighting not nationalists but Islamists. And watching the martyrdom of Lebanon this week - its slaughtered children in Qana packed into plastic bags until the bags ran out and their corpses had to be wrapped in carpets - a terrible and daunting thought occurs to me, day by day. That there will be another 9/11."

Robert Fisk

Yes Mr Fisk, there will be. It is inevitable, but note this.  The atrocity that was 9/11 occurred before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.  It had been planned when the comparatively peace-loving Democrat Administration of Bill Clinton was in charge of the United States.  Al-Qaeda had already attacked the World Trade Centre on a previous occasion as well as other American targets abroad.  The Israelis had been the victims of numerous rocket attacks, suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks notwithstanding having evacuated southern Lebanon in 2000 (which they had occupied in the first place because terrorists where using the country to launch attacks against them.)

The West might well have handled the "war against terrorism" in an inappropriate, even disastrous manner such that the conflict has now broadened and new recruits attracted to "the cause", but our enemies were always out to kill us anyway.  All we have done is to exacerbate the conflict by seeking to eliminate them, directly or by proxy, before they strike us. There are any number of reasons why it can be argued that the West did "this" or "that" wrong, but the argument that we have brought it upon ourselves does not wash.  Terrorists started the shooting war. Images of Hezbollah's human shield casualties can mask, but not change that.  That we might become civilian casualties ourselves is something that we must bear, otherwise we are not worthy of the servicemen who are prepared to fight and risk their lives on our behalf.

I understand that one of the consequences of Mel Gibson’s outburst against the Jewish Police Officer who arrested him in Malibu for an offence of drink-driving last week was that one of his new projects, a mini series which was to have been entitled “Holocaust”, has now been shelved.[1]  This might prove to be good news.  Given his predilection for starring in epics whose historical accuracy was severely challenged in a very particular respect as evidenced in “Braveheart” and “The Patriot”, there was always the suspicion on this side of the Pond that Mr Gibson’s series might have sought to cast the English as the villains of the piece and the Nazis as poor schmucks who took the rap. Perhaps we should be thankful for small mercies.  In all other respects I wish Mr Gibson a successful and speedy rehabilitation.[2]

The Tết offensive launched by the Vietcong and North Vietnamese Army against US led forces in South Vietnam between 30^th January 1968 and early 1969 was a military failure, with the communist forces failing to achieve any of their military objections, suffering staggering losses in the process and inflicting upon themselves a defeat of a magnitude the US had failed to achieve during the previous three years of “winning the war”.  Nevertheless, the journalists “on the ground” at the time saw things very differently, such that by February 1968 Walter Cronkite, the CBS Evening News anchorman, was able to pronounce that “the Vietnam War was unwinnable” and from that moment, the US had lost the War.

Almost to a man, modern "war correspondents" prefer to focus on the human story, of civilians caught up in a conflict not of their making.  So the lasting image of war becomes one of a naked Vietnamese child, burnt skin peeling from her body, running away from her napalmed village.  The true story of war, that of one sovereign regime resisting another seeking to impose its will through the use of armed might, is lost in emotive scenes of the suffering of non-combatants.  Even when journalists find themselves with nothing else to report but fighting between opposing forces, they misinterpret what they see.  A recent case to point occurred early in the Iraq War in 2003, when journalists were eager to suggest that the US thrust into Iraq had “run out of steam” short of Bagdad and that the war was not “going to plan”.  In fact, having applied successfully classic blitzkrieg tactics, US armour was merely awaiting its planned re-supply and for other ground forces to catch up with the advance.[1]

There is a depressing feeling of déjà vu when watching the television coverage of the latest crisis in the Middle East.  Once again the media concentrates on the human stories,[2]  but constant reports of the latest civilian casualties do not help us to understand or to focus upon what is actually going on.  This manner of reporting does us a disservice; it is manipulative, deliberately playing on our emotions, rather than seeking to inform or providing dispassionate, impartial analysis.  Whilst the media does remind us from time to time, almost as an afterthought, that Hezbollah and its supporters seek nothing less than the total annihilation of the state of Israel, its pictures tell an entirely different story: one of innocents made to suffer by Israeli military action and so called disproportionate retaliation.

I have a simple-minded understanding of the conflict.  This latest crisis in the Middle East has everything to do with Iran's desire for hegemony in the region.  Iran is waging war against Israel through its proxy, Hezbollah. Israel, a sovereign state, fights by internationally accepted rules of war, whilst Hezbollah does not.[3] If Israel, a democracy, does not fight, it will cease to exist. In the fug of the television media's constant broadcasting of the "human story" with its inherent anti-war message, this truth is being lost.

So, how many Divisions has the BBC?  Like the Pope and Walter Cronkite's CBS it does not have any, but nonetheless more than enough to overcome the Israelis in Lebanon.

Save when our national security is at grave and immediate risk (for example, by invasion) the Government should never commit our armed forces to war without providing them with all the tools required for the job.  This New Labour Government, which has such a flair for involving us in military adventures abroad, pays insufficient attention to the finer details of waging war such as providing adequate equipment; routine provision of body armour and armoured personnel carriers being but the most recent examples.  It is abhorrent that "mere, transient politicians" waste our servicemen's lives with so little thought or good purpose.