To "celebrate" Tony Blair's 9th anniversary of power, Iain Dale is putting together this book. It will be a chronicle of Labours 100 sleaziest moments over the course of their tenure.

What's exciting about this book is, it's going to be written by BLOGGERS (or big-blog-readers, you don't have to own a blog)! This is a world publishing first apparently. 

Yep, we can all take part and do our bit to celebrate this occasion. You don't have to be an expert; there's a list of topics on offer. You pick one, let him know which one you want and if he says it isn't taken, write to his word count (between 200-400 words) and send it to him by 7pm Sunday 7th May. The book needs to go into print next week.

PLEASE DO YOUR BIT TO EXPOSE THIS SLEAZE-RIDDEN NANNYING GOVERNMENT! If you don't want to write in it, at least write about it, everywhere you can. Post links to get others involved.

LINK: [The Little Red Book of New Labour Sleaze, GET INVOLVED]

 

Dave the Chameleon the star of Labour's first televised election broadcast of the campaign

Well now here was I wondering how local issues and *cough cough* important stuff were going to be wired in around the Dave the Chameleon Party Political Extravaganza from New Labour. Apparently however, they just plain forgot that bit. Oh well, their loss.

I think maybe it would have been more funny if he danced around a bit, in the manner of his forebear the Crazy Frog, but sadly no. Just a bunch of stuff about how Dave the Chameleon seems to have something to offer for everybody, whilst remaining a true blue at heart. Actually, you watch it with the sound off, it's just like watching an episode of Pocoyo. Instead of mugs they should really have focused on cuddly toys and merchandise for kids; the mentality level it's operating at. They missed a trick there.



In the meantime, I like this version of the ad far better: http://www.backingblair.co.uk/dave/ 


Now THAT'S funny.

UK CONSERVATIVES APRIL NEWSLETTER

I think this is very interesting as it shows the new direction the party is going in superbly. Watch the "Change" Music Video, it's quite uplifting. You get the feeling that whatever the changes in the Conservative Party are, they really are actually happening at least and that its more than just talk. There is a sense of freshness and almost of achievement which is somewhat new.

We all know that the local elections are coming up very soon, and it will be an important time for testing David Cameron's leadership. I must say, the "personal political broadcast" is an excellent one. I think it will be quite a success. Top marks to whoever thought of that. We've certainly never seen this level of care in communities from the Conservative Party for an extremely long time so all of this can only be a good thing.

Francis Maude, Party Chairman, reports back on Spring Forum Personal Political Broadcast  Francis Maude, Party Chairman, reports back on Spring Forum www.conservatives.com We had a fantastic Spring Forum in Manchester, both inside and outside the MICC conference centre. We heard from a wide range of experienced and talented individuals, who are on the frontline of a fight-back into our urban centres. And we actually started to deliver some of the things we’ve been discussing - over 200 delegates went out campaigning, in some of our most hotly contested wards - showing Manchester that there is a strong Conservative presence and that we are dedicated to bringing the Conservative Party back to the mainstream. We wanted to show not only how we can fight campaigns and win elections, but how we can make a practical difference in our communities – taking social responsibility seriously. So, with the help of around 50 volunteers, we did what we could, in our own small way, towards making a local community a little bit better. You can watch a video of what we did by clicking on the link in this email. We also heard from some of the new members who have joined our Party recently, and we discussed the Built to Last statement of values, which we will be talking some more about over the summer. David Cameron’s speech was centred on the need for our Party to keep up the changes we are making; I’ve copied an extract below, and you can read the whole speech here. “We’ll never be in a position to make the changes the country needs until we, as a party, have shown that we have changed. We lost three elections in a row. The British people are looking to see if the Conservative Party has learned the lessons of defeat. This Party has been around for a long time. You could say we’re Built To Last. “In recent years Britain has changed faster than ever. Much of that change, the direct result of our own actions in government. So true to our traditions, we are changing once again. “Changing our priorities. Changing our attitudes. Changing the face of our party with action to select more women and ethnic minority candidates. But don’t think it’s enough to change the leader. This change I’m leading has got to get faster, wider, deeper. “We all have to change. We must show that the change is real, that it is lasting. That means every aspect of how we behave. We all have a role in the change that must take place. “We’ve made a good start. “We’re once more the place to go for the exciting ideas in British politics. There’s so much we need to change in our country - we can’t afford to waste time going slow on changing our Party. So now is not the time to put our foot on the brake. Now is the time to press on the accelerator. “We must fast forward to the new Conservative Party.”        Personal Political Broadcast The local elections are coming up on May 4th and you can expect the usual leaflets, door-knocking and campaigning as the parties try to win votes. But this year, we thought we’d try something different. As well as explaining how voting Conservative will help improve your local environment, we want to give everyone the chance to tell the nation what changes you want to see. So we’re introducing a first for British television: the Personal Political Broadcast. Go to Conservatives.com for more information.

Is anyone else feeling rather impressed with new Tory leader David Cameron at the moment? I know I am.

Check out the Daily Mail report on his NHS policy: [LINK]

There are so many things I admire about the stance he's taking. First of all, it puts Labour in a real quandary as they are no longer the self-styled "champions" of the NHS and they can't just throw out all their old repetoire of insults any more. He's willing to go up against the hardline right-wingers in his party and frankly, phew. He's doing this not just as a political vehicle, but because he feels strongly about it; something so rare in today's politics. And lastly, it reconnects the party with a lot of voters who find the idea of helping people with the money to do so to  "opt-out" ridiculous. I mean, being poor as a church mouse as I am, I can certainly see their point.

I myself think the NHS is eminently salvagable from the mess Labour has plunged it into. They have doubled the number of beaurocrats, thrown cash at them rather than frontline services, allowed private pharmaceutical companies to overcharge the NHS for drugs, and now they're wondering why the camel's back is well and truly breaking. People are actually being turned away from the service now! Labour can claim it's because more people need care now due to unhealthy lifestyles all they want. The rate at which school sports grounds and swimming pools have been bulldozed and closed under them is nothing short of scandelous, so their excuses are empty. They've been causing this mess at every possible turn. Certainly, the NHS has a long history of underfunding, that can't be denied. But they aren't underfunding it, they're mismanaging it, and as we're now seeing, that's turned out to be far far worse.

So although many old Tories may be disgruntled, I say well done to David Cameron. A vote winner if ever I heard one. And shame on you to those MPs who aren't being loyal and publically disagreeing. It's eminently clear that Cameron knows how to be loyal, having compiled the last election manifesto for Michael Howard, despite it being filled with things he obviously didn't believe in. So take a lesson from him. Tow the line for once!

 

Well, though I like the Daily Mail, and it tends to be my main read of the day, today it really disturbed me.

....

An article was reported about a Christian couple prevented from putting anti-gay literature next to gay-rights literature today, and I was frankly shocked by the tone taken. They made the front page, with a picture of them looking sadly at the camera as if to say "pity us, we have been wronged! Look at our puppydog eyes, aren't we saaaaaaad!", with the story all about how they had been traumatised by the police for non-existant crimes created by the"PC brigade".

[LINK to the online version]

Yes, we know our civil liberties of free speech are being eroded by the New Labour government; the incident where Maya Evans was dragged away by 14 policemen for reading out the names of the soldiers who died in Iraq too close to Westminster, and the incident where Walter Wolfgang was ejected from the Labour conference, were terrible. They should not have happened. But therein lies the BIG DIFFERENCE.

These are freedoms of political expression and must be safeguarded to ensure a fair and accountable government.

What happened with these two, Joe and Helen Roberts, was on a whole other spectrum. There is a world of difference between the right to political free speech and the right to boycot a campaign promoting awareness of gay issues based on religious views.

YES, Christians must have the right to promote their religion and print literature like anybody else. But not to specifically print something to put it next to homosexual-awareness literature with the aim of undermining an anti-discrimation campaign. The couple seemed to believe the council was "promoting" homosexuality, which offended them. But the literature was not "La la la, being gay is great, wheeee!", it was about stimulating awareness of the issues this minority faces, in the hopes of creating a more understanding and tollerant attitude in the community. How is that offensive?

FACT - In the same bit where homosexuality is prohibited by the Bible (Leviticus), terrible crimes such as shaving, eating shrimp, eating pork or mixing fabrics are cited on an equal basis. And yet for some reason, we never see Christians putting vegetarian literature in butcher's shops, or pictures of big bushy beards in barber's shops. And as one wise reader of the Daily Mail commented (good on you David Elliot from Cheshire), you wouldn't condone someone putting Nazi literature in a synagogue. Equally, you wouldn't let the Ku Klux Klan write up literature on their beliefs specifically to put it next to the leaflets of an anti-racism campaign. The principle is no different.

Thus, as usual this is a case of people using the Good Book to justify their own bigotry, just as many white people in the 19th century fought against the abolition of slavery on the basis of the fact that the Bible condones slavery many times right the way through it (even offering handy tips on how to beat your slaves to the point of death now and then). Even Jesus condoned it without a second thought. Yet nowadays this argument would be ridiculous and we all know it.

These people are jumping on the erosion-of-free-speech bandwagon and it's a shame the Daily Mail fell for it.

I'd just like to say some congratulations to Reginald Dwight (aka Elton John) and his long-standing partner David Furnish who will be getting married today in the same venue Prince Charles and Camilla wedded in. I say married because, although no one seems to dare use the word without quotation marks on either side for fear of offending religious people, I am of the opinion that marriage existed long before the church made a monopoly out of it, and as such it has no claims to that word. Civil partnership is a PC term for marriage, as it basically confers the exact same rights without the ceremony aspect, which could be included by choice if so desired. Whatever. I'm going to call a spade a spade, and call it marriage.

If that idea makes you squirm and start chanting "civil partnership!" over and over whilst kneeling or rubbing rosaries, then fair enough. But this is the first step towards an equality that is long overdue because of the church. Finally we're are managing to disentangle its stickly little fingers from our political system and thus give the government room to get out of people's bedrooms, where they have no business legislating anything.

Anyway, here's the happy couple. I wish them a life as happy as the one they've already been leading together. And if they want to adopt kids, they are welcome to adopt me any day of the week... okay, I'm a tad too old for that, but still, I wouldn't object.

Other famous people getting married soon, after the initial scramble has calmed down a little, will include George Michael and his long-standing somewhat dreamy boyfriend Kenny Ross:

And though there are no pictures of them to be found, millionaire tycoon and friend to the royals (his daughter nearly married Prince Edward) David May, will be marrying his boyfriend of 20 years, Nick Amor.

 

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL THE GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES ABLE TO MAKE VOWS NOW! I hope this is the first step towards eroding the last bastion of acceptable bigotry in this country. But I won't be holding my breath just yet, sadly...

With nothing whatsoever given in return, Blair has given even more of the rebate than requested with no reform of the CAP in sight. What a plonker.

What on earth is going on in Brussels?!

Has Blair's spine finally liquified? Has it at long last simply dribbled out and pooled on the carpet? Someone give that man a spine, STAT! Or even better...

A HANDBAG

Everyone knows that France's public finances are in quite a shambles, and that the Common Agricultural Policy is being used to plug the hole. So of course Chirac is going to do everything he can to keep all the other countries of the EU paying into the ridiculously bloated policy, which accounts for a staggering 40% of the EU's budget. He's a shrewd one, and he's not afraid to bite. I can't blame him - if I were in his position I'd be just as stubborn.

Now, if only Blair wasn't running scared... He just keeps giving more and more and more of the rebate away and he's getting precisely nothing in return, exept the "promise" of a "review"... of ALL EU spending, not even just the ridiculous CAP. Oh heavens.

Chirac already secured a deal in 2002 which means his farmers will continue rolling around in money until at least 2014. So whatever Blair does the CAP isn't going to be altered. He could jump up and down and scream blue murder but it wouldn't make any difference. The EU's Senior Agricultural Official has been French for the last 30 years and the CAP was entirely tailormade to throw cash at French farmers.

Chirac is happily playing hardball and not budging an inch. He's on very firm ground and who can blame him? So why is Blair crumbling??? He should be standing firm and not budging an inch. The rebate and the CAP are inextricable, and if the CAP is already a done deal, then so is the rebate. Period. (Oh wait, I should probably find another word, as that one apparently means nothing - bitter, moi?).

Without the rebate, Britain would reputedly be paying something around 14 times as much as France. We already pay well over twice the amount they do and the rebate is not even the same amount of the CAP!

How hilarious. Britain is officially is the kid with the piece of paper reading "kick me" stuck on its back.

 

• On a not-entirely-unrelated note, for those wishing the UK could leave the EU, yet doubting it would be economically possible, I direct you here: [link]. Oh and here [link]. (But as with all things, I suggest taking it with a pinch of salt and making up your own mind).

 

LORD IRVING: (paraphrased) The best way to answer the English Question is to stop asking.

WILLIAM HAGUE: (paraphrased) The best way to find an answer to the Question is to stop asking Lord Irvine.

Well some kindly anonymous soul sent me a link to a very interesting blog about EVoEM, and as it peaked my interest... okay, made a challenge, I thought I'd take a look and try to offer up a take on what's going on. Here's a link to the blog/challenge at the Campaign for an English Parliament: [Calling All Conservative Bloggers].

So what does EVoEM really mean? And I'm not just talking the fact that it's a slightly heady acronym that makes you want to blink in confusion and give up all dreams of ever going on Countdown. For those not in the hip acro-know, that stands for "English Votes on English Matters".

 

EVoEM - A very brief history

• It was first adopted as a Tory policy by William Hague in 1999
• Ian Duncan Smith dropped the policy, but no one noticed
• It was retained as a policy under Michael Howard, and was a part of the 2005 Conservative Party Manifesto
• The policy has apparently survived under Cameron. Check out his website for his views on it - [English Votes for English Laws] (about halfway down the page).

 

CONSERVATIVE PARTY MANIFESTO 2005

"Conservatives believe that the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland brings benefits to all parts of our United Kingdom. We remain strongly committed to making a success of devolution in Scotland, so that it delivers for the Scottish people. In Wales we will work with the Assembly and give the Welsh people a referendum on whether to keep the Assembly in its current form, increase its powers or abolish it.

But devolution has brought problems of accountability at Westminster.

Now that exclusively Scottish matters are decided by the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, exclusively English matters should be decided in Westminster without the votes of MPs sitting for Scottish constituencies who are not accountable to English voters. We will act to ensure that English laws are decided by English votes."

 

Anyone else think this is more about strategy than English nationalism? After all, Scotland and Wales are traditionally hugely Labour-heavy. By chopping them off at the source, the Tory party will have a huge advantage in passing legislations and indeed retaining governance in England if they get into power. Crafy buggers!

I am still Cameronite, but this might just prove to be his Kryptonite in long run(onite). The idea of a purely English Parliament disturbs me. Not just because of the ramifications of dissolution it has to eventually lead to in breaking up the union, but the fact that it is yet another loss of power for Parliament to bear. I mean, I'd certainly never consider myself to be someone suffering from empire hangover, but with Parliament already spending half of its time passing through EU legislations it doesn't even have powers to reject or overrule, to break completely away from Scotland and Wales would be the biggest haemorhage yet in terms of influence. You wonder how much more it can take before it turns around and find there's other institutions governing everything, and its just a glorified post office, passing pieces of paper between hands.

On the plus side, it would make a nice roomy retirement home. 

Anyway, what are the solutions that are being put forwards to this elusive question? Well, the one thing that has been done has been to reduce the number of MSPs from 72 and 59. This is so that Scottish MPs have roughly the same number of constituents as English MPs, and in theory should cut down the risk that the Scottish vote is the carrier.

 

Possible Solutions (Including EVoEM):

1. Create a brand new institution in England which is exactly parallel to the Scottish Parliament, which deals with the same matters, and simaltaneously restricting the voting rights of the MSPs in Westminster. As a huge amount of policy is still defaulted to Westminster, it might be feasible to have a "regional assembly" for England. This was proposed by in July 1999 by Lord Baker but rejected by William Hague, who said he "wasn't convinced". 

PROBLEMS: If ever more powers of governance were ever demanded by the Scottish Parliament, or at the very least more powers needed to be delegated to them, then the English correspondent would need the same powers being given to it, and if you go too far you could seriously damage an already fairly stripped-down looking Westminster.

2. Get the MSPs to agree to abstain from voting on purely English matters. This is the a core part of the EVoEM idea. (However, funnily enough, Tam Dalyell (the Labour MP who first raised the West Lothian Question in the 1970s) has said that he doesn't think the Tory solution would work [source].)

PROBLEMS: What constitutes "English Matters" really? Like Gareth said in his blog/challenge, who decides? And if it's the Speaker of the British Parliament, as suggested, what makes him right - and what about the fact that he's currently a Scot (oh delicious irony!)?

3. Break the Union Settlement, and seperate the MSPs from the Westminster Commons altogether.

PROBLEMS: That would be a strident step in kickstarting the dissolution of the Union and frankly just isn't going to happen.

4. Give the Westminster MPs a say in Scottish bills. Tit for tat and all that.

PROBLEMS: This pretty much defeats the purpose of devolution, and the Scottish nationalists would be furious. It would do wonders for the lagging SNP ranks though.

5. Take it all back again and make Scotland have a regional assembly instead of a parliament, like Wales. Oh and, just for a laugh, get them mad enough to start a SVoSM policy - Scotish Votes on Scottish Matters.

PROBLEMS: Yeah right. That's certainly never going to happen!

 

OK, THERE'S CURRENTLY NO SOLUTION...

Well, there are always the Sewel Motions. You could argue that, with those in place, there is actually no need to do anything to solve the West Lothian problem.

These have been used at least 50 times since 1998, to the teeth-grinding of Scottish nationists the world over. When the Scottish Parliament comes across anything that will possibly be controversial or damaging for them, they send it south and Westminster deals with it "on their behalf". The best example would be the farcical issue of Section 28 (preventing homosexuality from brainwashing unsuspecting children in schools by being mentioned).

 

RIGHT. Where do I stand on this now?

If I were heading the party (run!), I'd drop the EVoEM policy like a heavy stone and start from scratch in thinking this one out really carefully. Personally, I can see a case for somehow removing the Scottish vote from purely "English matters" so that would probably be part of a new idea. I definitely do think that, whatever happens, we should definitely do everything possible keep Westminster's sovereignty as a UK Parliament, not merely an English one. I think devolution has been a great way to reassert the Scottish and Welsh national cultures most of all, which has been very important and long overdue, but I do fear the path of disolution very much. We need to be very wary of that.

 

Finally, 'owz about this...

Silly side question: What would happen if, theoretically, we followed the EU's example, and used Qualified Majority Voting, whereby the bigger country has more points and thus always wins ? Anyone think that might work???

 

RELATED TOPICS:

• This is all connected to my blog [Gordon Brown and the West Lothian Question] about the ramifications of having a Scottish PM if nothing was done to answer the dreaded question.

 

Back to the UK now. I stumbled on this fantastic site for British quizes. It's a bit out of date now, but I think it'll keep getting updating with interesting new stuff. I took the two quizzes available though. Link: [WSUVF Website]

What Tory Leadership candidate should you vote for?

Your expected outcome:

Cameron

Your actual outcome:

Davis -6
	Cameron 6

You should support: DAVID CAMERON

How uncanny, HEH!

 

 Who should I vote for?

Your expected outcome:

Conservative

Your actual outcome:

Labour -33
	Conservative 28
	Liberal Democrat 10
	UKIP 46
	Green 31

You should vote: UK Independence Party

UKIP's primary focus is on Europe, where the party is strongly against joining both the EU constitution and the Euro. UKIP is also firmly in favour of limiting immigration. The party does not take a clear line on some other policy issues, but supports scrapping university tuition fees; it is strongly against income tax rises and favour reducing fuel duty.

Veeery interesting *eyebrow wiggling* - actually a lot of those policies don't particularly match up with me in any major way, but I guess my current anti-EU stance swayed it. Oh well. But at least no one could ever accuse me of being Labour sympathetic... wow.

...what Party would I be a part of? In a valiant display of procrastination, I've gone a bit quiz mad today. I thought it would be interesting to see where I would be on the political spectrum on the other side of the pond. Unsurprisingly, in America I'd probably be a Democrat, just because the Republicans are so far to the right they scare the pants off me.

 

MY RESULTS:

You are a Social Liberal (68% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (31% permissive) You are best described as a: Democrat

You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.

 

I rather liked this:

Next to Hilary, and not far from Ghandi. Well that's rather cheering! Very pleased not to be near Darth Vader, Osama and the Pope too, obviously. Very cool quiz, and with some really good tasking questions.

Link: [The Politics Test]

 

Richard Pryor 1940-2005

The comedian responsible for a string of hilrious movies and the influence for a generation of comedians including Eddie Murphy and Robin Williams, has died.

He was taken from us by a sudden heart-attack in his home in the San Fernando Valley, aged only 65.

It's so sad, he was an absolutely amazing actor and I personally have always loved his movies. His comedy partnership with Gene Wilder is practically legendary. And who could forget how great he was in Superman III?

So goodbye Richard. You'll be sorely missed. May Superman fly you home.

"There's a joke in the Scottish Party about our 1918 manifesto. Then we promised Home Rule, proportional representation and the prohibition of alcohol. And in more than seventy years we have managed to secure none of them."

- Gordon Brown 1993

 

 

Well they've definitely achieved Home Rule now anyway, as devolution finally came about as a result of New Labour's landslide ascension in 1997. And all signs show it's worked out just fine for those countries involved.

 

There is one very interesting question that needs to be asked though.

 

If Scotsman Gordon Brown DOES become Prime Minister at the next General Election (which I believe is no certain bet, but let's play to the Labour gallery for a bit), what of the West Lothian Question?

 

Just to be clear, because it's a pretty dull, undescriptive name, (I would have called it the "South Loathe-This-One Question", or perhaps even the "Bright Pink Swaying Muddlefuddle Question", just for sheer fun) the West Lothian Question refers to a loop in law brought about by devolution of power to Scotland. The refers to the fact that, although Scottish MPs are able to vote in the English Parliament, English MPs are not allowed to vote in the Scottish Parliament. As Scotland is absolutely overwhelmingly Labour, the votes of Scottish MPs can in fact make all the difference. For example, Blair wouldn't have got through his Bill on Foundation Hospitals if it weren't for the Scottish vote, which gave him a very narrow victory. The same happened with top-up fees and the ban on hunting; the Scottish vote decided it.

 

Thus the loophole is created. MPs from a seperate Parliament, with no actual stake in any English constituencies or anything are able to vote on really fundamental issues, and be the deciding vote. Yet it's a completely one way street - which poses all kinds of questions with regards to the democracy of this system.

 

Originally, to answer this question Labour pledged to extend devolution to England, thereby solving all those niggling cross-pollination issues in one fell swoop. But they abandoned the idea in 1995 and then just sort of... swept it under the carpet. Well, can you blame them? Seeing as Scotland is still massively Labour-heavy (there is only ONE, sad lonely Tory MP in the entire country, facing off against 40 Labour, 11 LibDem and 6 SNP), it gives the party a huge advantage in Parliament - as shown by the number of times recently that the Scottish vote won it for Tony.

 

Here's a few disturbing figures: [found here]

• 2005 General Election, Labour got a majority of 66. That's less than the combined number of Welsh and Scottish seats.
• A rebellion of 34 Labour MPs can destroy Blair's majority in the Commons, but he can still get his legislations through through the voting of the 41 Scottish MPs, who are not elected by the English people over whom these legislations fall

 

10/10 for stealth corruption. I'd applaud, but my hands are too busy making rude gestures.

 

 

Anyway, the question is this - what if we had a Scottish PM, and the West Lothian Question wasn't addressed?

For the first time, we'll have a premier who be able to pass legislation that doesn't actually affect his own constituents, but affects those he has no connection to (as he has no constituency in England obviously). That throws accountability straight out of the window.

So how on earth would that work?

Clearly it wouldn't... (and would Brown really want to give up an extra 40 or so voting on his side?)

 

I'd love to hear some thoughts on this. Just because it's fascinating, in a really I-shouldn't-find-this-interesting-and-yet-OOooo way.

If you wish to credit, I'm the_tory_owl. I'm not overly pedantic about that sort of thing. However I like a comment, I admit :p

(Of course, I'm just making these according to my own views. If you disagree, good - that's necessary in an even halfway sane world. Doesn't mean I want to get into debates over piddling little icons however. So if you like take, if not, shrug and don't.)

FEMINIST
I stumbled on a site of feminist type quotes, which I rather liked. And thus remembering I had some cool female images stored away, I thought I'd try a few.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
(I've searched high and low for whoever made the smoking fingers art pic, but I can't find an artist to credit. If, by startling chance, anyone knows, please lemme know!)


TONY BLAIR/NEW LABOUR
For those of a British persuasion
6. 7. 8.


BUSH/AMERICA/WAR ON IRAQ
9. 10. 11.


GAY RIGHTS
12.

We all know of how meteoric his rise to leadership has been. Quite staggering in fact. I remember when someone first came and told me who the candidates for the Conservative leadership contest were to be. I believe I brushed right over Cameron without a second thought about him.

Invariably, everyone seemed to be begrudgingly backing Kenneth Clarke. The Labourites amongst my fellow politics students especially. Actually the rabid Blairite-Labourites were wetting themselves, which is odd because you would have thought he would provide the biggest challenge to Labour at the next election. When I asked people why, Tories included, most said he'd run so many times before and been in the thick of it so long it was probably time to let him win, the poor old dear.

Well, that turned me right off Kenneth and I was doubting the Conservatives as a whole a little, I admit. If the best a main party can offer is someone who only merits the top job because they've consistently failed to get it before, then that's rather worrying. And personally, though there is sometimes a certain nobility in the U-turn if it is accompanied by an "I'm sorry, I got it wrong", I have to say I never really bought the softened-at-the-edges Europhilia being peddled by his team. So maybe I was never going to be behind old Kenny.

But the stars were obviously gathering around Cameron, like once it may be argued they did for Blair. And the most ironic thing is, if it hadn't have been for David Davis jumping the gun back in May, Cameron would never have found his way into the limelight.

made by grey kid

 

ALIGNED STAR NUMBER ONE: Failed Pre-Emptive Strike

- A few days before the General Election, David Davis' supporters began to collect signatures for a parliamentary vote of no-confidence. This forced Michael Howard's somewhat speedy resignation. BUT, he knew Davis would almost certainly be handed leadership of the party on a silver platter. Hence the devious, yet brilliant 7-month campaign model to create enough breathing space for someone else to have a shot.

ALIGNED STAR NUMBER TWO: Splashing Out

- By chance, Cameron and Davis both picked the Thursday before the party conference to stage their campaign springboard. This should have meant baaaad news for Cameron, as the underdog of the two. However, George Osbourne splashed out a nice, and rather risky, £10,000 to make Cameron's launch a sparkling affair. They pulled out all the stops, as did Cameron to show of his speech skills. So when the Press compared the two, suddenly Davis wasn't looking so hot. And Cameron started to be seen as a perhaps more of a rival.

ALIGNED STAR NUMBER THREE: Blackpool Rock(s the boat)

- The Blackpool speech was the turning point. In fact, it was the first time Cameron got my attention, and after watching David Davis bellyflop and getting oddly creeped out by him for some reason, I was converted. (In fact, I email Cameron a congratulations note, which got put up on his website *grin*). There's something infectious about his enthusiasm, and with Hague persuaded back into the shadow cabinet, at his own great expensethe infection is spreading like birdflu isn't.

ALIGNED STAR NUMBER FOUR: Time to Kill Foxy

- Liam Fox knocked Kenneth Clarke out of the race, prompting a mad dash of his supporters into Cameron's camp. So fast was the stampede in fact, Fox himself got knocked down and run into the ground by it. Bad luck Foxy. Whoever wasn't knocked out first (not counting Malcom, who bowed out ever so gracefully), and got stuck in third, was doomed to failure unless they magically they won over the just-kicked-down opponent's camp. By definition that was a bit of misnomer, seeing as that camp would obviously be pretty bitter towards that person for being seen to knock their candidate on the botty.

ALIGNED STAR NUMBER FIVE: Davis Plays Nice

- David Davis' past as a bit of a bully with the Media came back to haunt him. They in turn took a lacklustre performance and ensured that, by the end of the same day, it was being written up as an obituary speech. But to David Davis' eternal credit, he chose not to dirty the campaign and by going for Cameron's jugular in a panic response. In that way, the boy did good, as now the well conducted contest is looked on as a credit to the Conservative Party and an indication that maybe we've finally pulled our act together.

Circumstances have elevated Cameron despite all the odds, and it's nothing short of amazing when you think about it. I'm feeling rather energized by all that has taken place, I don't mind saying. A lot of credit goes to him himself of course, it wasn't all about circumstance. For example, I keep finding myself listening to his every word, even in passing, which I admit is fairly unprecedented. He's just got IT. Whatever the heck that is, he's got IT. Whether that IT is political or something to do with his fresh image and charisma, it's too early to say. Though I've been impressed so far by his not-rushing-into-things approach.

 

But enough about Cameron. What of David Davis? Weeeeeell, he got to keep his old position. And he doesn't seem to be too cut up about it all. In fact, he seems to be having a grand old time.

And whadaya know? He really DOES like blondes.

 

• This place is a great source for detailed info related to the same stuff I have listed here. The section on the Leadership contest especially: http://conservativehome.blogs.com
• If you don't get the blonde thing, check out here http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005520287,00.html (but ignore the hysterical feminist shrieking)

Mirror mirror on the wall...

Who's the most powerful of them all?

 

Disclaimer: It's a manip. A complete fake. A total and utter sham. So move along please. Or ya know, make nice comments.

David Cameron's first Prime Minister's Question Time was great fun. The lad did good 'e did. But it was a shame Tony forgot to give him the traditional welcome, possibly because he was being deafened by bonkers Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong - although David Cameron was kind enough to sort that problem out by dressing her down (video coming to a porno store near you). So THAT'S why the Labour side we're cheering for him when he did that. Oohhhhhh.

Top marks for strategy go to Tory Boy. He killed the PM with kindness; and couldn't have done it better had he tickled Blair to death with a feather duster. By offering to back Blair's Educational Reforms Bill, he firmly planted a Tory flag on it. The Labour rebels loooooooooooooooved that. Within minutes of the thing finishing they were actually writing their own version. So either Blair can keep it as it is and have to rely on the Tories to get the Bill through, in which case he'll be screwed, or back down and let the rebels slap him about until they get what they want, in which case he'll be screwed.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Heh.

 

Anyway, as Tony forgot to welcome David, here's an extra one from me:

 (made by just4fun)

Oh well, Tony made up for it at the end by strolling out shoulder to shoulder with David, chattling like old pals. While poor old Gordon had to wander out with a backbencher. OUCH!

Verdict: ROUND 1 goes to....

 (made by That Nikon Fella)

 

Disagree? Tell me why. Always up for debates.

I absolutely love this project. It is in turns funny, emotive, scary and philosophical. One day I might get the nerve to post a secret, but I wouldn't know which one to choose :p

Here's the idea: People sign a postcard with their biggest secret on it and send it to Post Secret anonymously. The things people have sent in are often controversial, but they do tap into a side of humanity people don't share or discuss. It's fascinating.

This is one of my favourites, though I've no idea why:

Heh heh heh. Well I for one feel a little less screwed up now.

 

LINKS:

• The Post Secret Website
• More Secrets - (Some of the More Controversial Ones)

Yep yep, it's happened. Who'd have thought it. The Tory Party finally realised that most of its core vote were OLD and DYING OFF.

Congratulations go to Mr. Howard for finally doing something right, with his 7-month Leadership Contest Roadshow. The circus caused was most entertaining, and if not for that, we would never have got to see that there are actually some dangerous animals amongst the clowns. Who saw David Cameron coming? Talk about zero to hero.

But why did he win it? Well, the answer seems clear to anyone who followed the increasingly joint campaigning of the two Davids...

BBC 4 Women's Hour

What makes a winner:

Question: Boxers or Briefs?

• DAVID CAMERON: Boxers
• DAVID DAVIS: Briefs.

Henceforth follows a warning to all politicians: DO NOT WEAR BRIEFS

Click here for PROOF that briefs are a baaaad idea.