Iraq Debate

How does having an inquiry into the Iraq war undermine the troops?
William Hague has just made an excellent point about demanding an inquiry within a year, but not now.
Over half the troops will be out by next February, he says. Why can't preparatory work start now on a report to be released in 2008?

God, William Hague is good at the dispatch box.

This debate should be interesting!

Village People

Tonight I am off to villagedrinks

It is a networking event for professional London homosexualists. By which I do not mean people who are professionally from London, or people that are professionally gay. I mean people who work in the professions (law, politics, the City) and are gay. And are in London.

Basically its like just an event that is chav free, and no-one is under 18 or over 60! Which makes it quite unusual for a gay night in London.

The organisers also are careful to price it out of the reach of students, with a 6 pounds door charge. On a Tuesday night.

Last time I spotted Alan Duncan, surrounded by a posse of posh Tory boys. The time before that I spotted Plaid MP Adam Price.

I figure if I am going to find a proper boyfriend who isn't either a slut, mental or stupid, this might be the place to do it.

Politics - showbiz for ugly people

When David Mililband made his statement on the Stern report to the House of Commons yesterday, my friend had just emailed me with a challenge. How is it that there are no good looking MPs?

Well in the "Britain's Next Top Model" sense he is absolutely right. There are not any lookers - a situation that might change after the next election if Tory A-listers Zac Goldsmith and Adam Rickett get elected.

Personally I have a bit of a soft spot for James Purnell, the pretty boy MP for Stalybridge & Hyde.

Some girl I met at a party on Saturday night mention that her MP, James Clappinson, is a cutie. Shows you doesn't it, women have no taste.

As I was not really paying attention to what Miliband was saying, I did envisage a situation where I would sleep with him - well he is in the cabinet.

It was the opposition bench that caught my eye - there was "Cameron's gay guru," Greg Barker. He really does not look like the type of guy to have an affair. This led me to muse on that old saying that power is sexy.

Looking at most of the powerful people in Westminster, it seems that the aphrodisiac of power would explain the affairs of Blunkett, Prescott and Robin Cook. None of them are lookers, all of them have serious personality flaws, yet women swoon over them.

No, it must be power. Though I have to admit that when I met Nick Clegg, he knocked me for six with his sheer charisma. But I didnt want to shag him!

Do you think an MP is dishy? Do let me know.

Humfrey Malins - top speech

During the discussion of Lords amendments to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, Nick Herbert gave a bit of a nervous performance from the opposition front bench. He lost his place several times, and I felt very sorry for him. It must be intimidating with John Reid staring at you as if he is about to take a bite out of your leg.

Not to mention the jargon that Herbert has to recite as if it is poetry:

"Amendments Nos. 42 to 45 are aimed at clarifying the defence for museums and galleries using realistic imitation weapons as outlined in clause 33. As drafted, the exemption applies only to public museums and galleries that do not distribute any profits. Amendment No. 42 removes those words, ensuring that private museums can also benefit from the exemption..."

Speaking for the government, Tony McNulty was fluid, focused and even found time for a bit of humour. Though it is hard not to be amused when Michael Fabricant's mane of hair is being wiggled in your direction:


John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative) Might I extract from the hon. Gentleman a confirmation that in pursuit of that objective, he will be at least deploying one of his usual charm offensives?

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)
And he has plenty!

Tony McNulty (Minister of State, Home Office)
Someone else once said in this place that when he and a colleague undertook a charm offensive, he was the charm and our colleague was the offensive.

Lynne Featherstone was mostly good, speaking for the LibDems. Bob Marshall-Andrews made some sensible points about imitation firearms:

"Sales of airsoft machines are predicated on the machines being exact replicas of deadly firearms. The website of the main organisation involved suggests that it now has 22,000 members. If exemptions are going to be made to allow a group of that size to trade in imitation firearms on the internet or otherwise, a huge part of this Bill will be wrecked before it is enacted.

"If that happens, hundreds of thousands of people—perhaps millions—who have campaigned or supported campaigns will have to return to the campaigning ground, and an enormous advantage for this Government, which they thoroughly deserve, will be lost. In congratulating the Minister and the Department on the Bill, I ask my hon. Friend to take on board, as I know he will, the real concerns that exist throughout the country about these potential exemptions."

The best speech though, one with real passion and anger, came from Humfrey Malins. The veteran MP for Woking serves as a crown court Recorder and district judge in London. He explained the perspective from the bench:

"The single most prevalent crime, which is growing and growing and growing, is that of carrying a bladed article in a public place.

"In Committee, just over a year ago, I quoted some horrifying statistics from a Youth Justice Board survey carried out in 2004, which showed that 1 per cent. of pupils in England and Wales aged between 11 and 16 had at some time in the last year carried a knife in school for offensive reasons, and 2 per cent. for "defensive" reasons.

"That means that 60,000 of our children had carried a knife in school at some stage during the previous 12 months, which is horrific."

Malins spoke passionately in the defence of victims rights, and mocked the liberal attitudes of the LibDems:

"If Members went to the courts where I sit they would realise the prevalence of the offence of carrying a bladed article in public. They should listen to the witness who says that he or she was so terrified by the glint of the steel thrust at them in the street late at night that they had nightmares for months on end, and dared not go out into the streets for fear of coming across a possible attacker.

"The House has not got properly to grips with the issue of carrying knives. I say to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) that it is all very well to focus on help, guidance and education, but tell that to the person whose life has been ruined by being threatened in the street with a nasty looking knife."

Malins was not impressed with government plans to increase sentences for carrying a knife:

"The number of people sent to prison for carrying a bladed article in public is extremely low. In the last year for which figures are available, of the 5,000 to 6,000 people convicted for that offence, a paltry10 per cent. went to prison. Almost 90 per cent. of people who carry knives in public know that, if they go to court, they will not lose their liberty.

"Furthermore, many of that paltry 10 per cent. probably received a sentence of about two, three or four months.

"So why is changing the maximum sentence from two years to four years suddenly considered to be a piece of magic that is the answer to the problem? It is not the answer; the answer to the problem is to enforce the existing law much more thoroughly, and, respectfully, in my view this Government have failed to do that."

Malins also had strong words for his fellow MPs:

"Much of our criminal law would be improved if we in this House legislated and spoke less, and saw to it that the police enforced the current law more strictly and forcefully.

"I have one final message for the Minister. He is a man of the world and a reasonable man, and he knows about the world outside—I know that he does—so he understands that knife crime is a terrible threat. Therefore, he must also understand that we cannot cure this great evil by simply having a little education here, and a little help there, and a doubling of the sentence as well.

"He must understand that the real way to deal with this problem is to get the police and the schools to operate a zero-tolerance approach to knives. There must be a tough, harsh attitude. We must make it clear to people that knives are wrong, and that if knives are present, they will be punished. Anything less than that simply will not do."

A quality speech for an MP who has been round long enough to know what he is talking about.

thanks to theyworkforyou.com

The Benn Dynasty and Labour

I am pleased that Hilary Benn is a serious contender for the deputy leadership. Although everyone bangs on about his father Tony Benn all the time, I have always had more time for the quieter Hilary.

Although the race to succeed John Prescott appears to be a crowded field, in reality none of the declared candidates have got the backing of 44 Labour MPs required to run for the deputy leader.

Jon Cruddas announced himself as a left wing candidate at party conference. He might get the backing of 44 socialist MPs, who might also throw away their votes in the leadership by supporting John McDonnell against big Gordon Broon.

Harriet Harman, bless her, is also a candidate. She thinks that Labour needs a female deputy leader, which I think is a bit defeatist - Labour needs a female leader. In any case, much as I love Harriet I don't see her as leadership material. She couldn't even handle Social Security - she lasted one year as a cabinet minister. She is a good lawyer, good enough to perhaps be Lord Chancellor. Bung her in the House of Lords!

The next four years are going to be the most difficult Labour have faced since the 1970s, because holding onto power is much more tricky than being in opposition, no matter how depressing not being in power might be.

It is certain that Brown will succeed as PM, probably elected in time for the party spring conference. His first PR disaster will be Labour meltdown in Scottish and Welsh elections. He is going to need a visible, super-loyal deputy who can rally the party in and out of parliament.

One of the great skills of John Prescott was his ability to reach out to ordinary people and talk like a human. Put simply, people like him.

Hilary Benn does have a good way with people and he and his family are loved in the Labour party. Although only in Parliament since 1999, and only in a minor cabinet post, all that lack of exposure to running (and of course buggering up) a major department could work in his favour.

As Alan Johnson is discovering, having a large and vital department to run can start to hurt your chances of the top jobs. Johnson was a favourite for the deputy job among the bookies and Westminster watchers - until his U turn over forcing faith schools to accept a quota of non-believers.

The only serious rival to Benn is Peter Hain. Miliband has ruled himself out - no doubt got his eye on the leadership. Jack Straw? Not after the veil fiasco. Tessa? Lovely women and quite a competent minister - imagine how well Tessa could have done the job Blair gave to that Ruth Kelly person - but I can't see her being deputy.

Hain, Jowell, Straw, Harman. All these faces should be gone by the next election. They are old New Labour.

Johnson might well come back as a strong candidate. I do hope so, because the idea of Gordon Brown and any of the above old faces trying to present a 'new' image to the electorate will fail to shine in the shadow of Cameron.

Everyone on the Tory front bench seems new. Brown will be committing electoral suicide unless he gets rid of most of the 50somethings in his cabinet and starts from scratch.

Also I don't want Peter Hain to win. His big orange face upsets me.

The Politics of a Personal Life

The free paper LondonLite made much of yesterday's revelation that a leading Tory MP has left his wife and three children and embarked on an affair.

Given that the paper often talks about sexual liaisons in a knockabout fashion, runs speed dating competitions and sex tips, it seems strange that it took such a straight-laced tone when reporting what would appear to be a marriage breakdown. After all, the majority of marriages end in divorce.

The headline says it all. For anyone who thinks that the battle against prejudice has been won, consider this:

"Cameron stands by his gay green guru."

The 'gay' in question is Bexhill & Battle MP Gregory Barker. He was elected in 2001, your classic Tory, pretty wife proudly sporting a blue rosette, three adorable children aged 11, six and seven. A multi-millionaire who made his money in recruitment, not inheritance.

LondonLite reports that Barker 'left his wife and children for another man.' The facts are slightly different. The couple split in July, it is alleged that Barker has been having an affair with a male interior designer, but no proof of that is offered for that.

There are a few concerns this story raises. The first is the matter of sexuality. Gay and straight media alike are guilty of calling people gay or lesbian, merely because they have had a gay experience.

Bisexual people exist, and it is interesting that the gay community are considerably more bi-phobic than most straight people. A lot of gay men and lesbians regard others who say they are bisexual as liars.

Lesbians in particular seem somehow threatened by women who swing both ways. While it is true that a lot of gay men identify as bisexual as a way of easing themselves into their gay identity, that does not mean bisexuality is a myth.

Gay and lesbian biphobia makes it easy for the tabloids and the broadsheets to use the word gay out of context, to create lurid headlines that are factually incorrect.

Mr Barker has yet to make a public statement about how he identifies himself sexually, and it is up to him to decide if he is gay or bi or just pansexual. There are differences between those identities and gay and lesbian people need to confront their own prejudices.

This leads neatly to the second issue - is it really any of our business what MP Gregory Barker does in his private life?

The Tatchells of this world will jibber nonsense about his "anti-gay" agenda, an argument I shall deal with and ridicule in a moment.

But are politicians allowed a private life? The so-called public interest for this story is that Barker did not vote for some gay rights legislation. That is why journalists think it is acceptable for them to print a long rambling statement from his mother-in-law and wild speculation about whether Barker will be sacked.

To his credit, David Cameron has not so much stood by his shadow environment minister as treated the whole matter with the contempt it deserves. In a short statement to the press, Barker said, "I am entitled to a private life."

Is he? This is a profound question, as it will decide the sort of politicians and politics we will have in the future. I speak as someone with the passion, drive and intelligence to want to hold office. Whenever friends ask me why I do not, the answer is simple.

The press are homophobic, and I have done so many things in my life that would make headlines, I would not want them exposed. I would not want my mother to have to read lurid tales of drugs, group sex and other bad behaviour.

As political correspondent for PinkNews.co.uk, I speak regularly to gay and lesbian MPs, councillors and prospective candidates. All of them have to be so careful with how they act. All have to be aware that any accusation of immorality against them will get a lot more coverage in the tabloids.

What you do when you are in office is another matter, I accept that. But if we want representation we have to go easier on our MPs, otherwise all we will end up with are party automatons, never done a day's work in their lives, never got so drunk they vomited, essentially acted the politician from the day they were born.

Mr Cameron is right to just ignore sniping at his trusted colleague over his personal affairs.

The more hsyterical gays in our broad community were quick to try to portray the unfortunate Barker as some sort of homophobe.

Their "evidence" for this was that he had voted against some gay rights legislation, such as allowing gay couples to adopt.

Let me explain why he did. It is the same explanation of why he voted for the civil partnerships bill in 2004.

It's called being a party politician. For those of you too busy highlighting homophobia that does not exist, let me explain how that works.

MPs represent a particular party. The leader of that party decides, through a system called whipping, what the party thinks about issues. The MPs are then directed how to vote by the party leadership.

From 2001 - 2003, that leader was Iain Duncan-Smith. It was the Quiet Man who ordered his MPs to oppose gay rights legislation. Some did defy him - notably Michael Portillo crossed the floor of the House to vote with Labour.

I would not expect a new MP, gay, bi, lesbian or anything else, to defy their party and ruin their career by voting for a bill that, given the huge majority Labour have, would certainly have passed anyway.

Gay moaners need to try and gain some understanding of how politics actually works. David Cameron, also a new MP, voted against something he believed in.

He did not get a reputation as a rebel. He got himself up the ladder to the extent that as party leader he can say sorry for the previous homophobic position of the party. His genuine desire to make the Tories more inclusive means a lot more than what way he was instructed to vote at the start of the last Parliament.

Finally, Greg Barker was elected to represent the people of Bexhill & Battle. They voted for a Tory MP, not a gay activist. Surely his job is to honestly represent the views of his constituents, many of whom no doubt do oppose gay adoption.

It is nonsensical to demand that gay MPs only represent what the gay community thinks. They are party and constituency representatives first and foremost. The good thing about having gay and lesbian voices in parliament is that those voices are heard.

It is naive and dangerous for activists to expect MPs to vote against the wishes of their constituents and their party just because they prefer boys to girls.

Just like it would be ridiculous for Ruth Kelly to be a Catholic first, a Labour party member and constituency MP second.

PMQ - Back to Normal!

After the boredom of last week, the opposition leaders returned to form at this week's PMQ.

Tony Blair gave his customary confident, comfortable performance, David Cameron had some good jokes and Ming asked a principled question that the PM failed to answer.

There is a strong sense that everyone is just waiting for the change of leader, which is frustrating for Blair, the only person who knows when that new leader will start.

Young Tory boy Stephen Crabb had the first question, and used it to very good effect, asking the PM to close a loophole that allows British companies to invest in the repressive Burmese regime.

The PM made the right noises but promised nothing. The next question was so clearly planted it was almost funny to watch. Natascha Engel. Something about tax credits helping thousands of people in her constituency. So Tony Blair got to make a dig about "uncosted and uncostable commitments" from the Tories before the Opposition Leader had even got to his feet.

Cameron used up his first four supplementary questions on the Youth Justice System, currently "in crisis." No, its much better than it was in 1997, replied the PM. Also, we send people to jail for breaching ASBOs.

Cameron accused Blair of living on another planet - adult prisons had run out of places and police are being diverted to act as jailers.

The PM pointed again to the National Audit Office report, which gave Youth Justice a nice shiny gold star, and said that there are a further 8000 places being built. Strange how no one bats an eyelid at a Labour leader boasting about putting more people behind bars and expanding the penal system.

Or a Tory leader sticking up for the NHS. "If he wants to talk about cuts, let's talk about the 20,000 jobs he is cutting in the NHS.

"Now, Prime Mininster, back to prison. That has a certain ring to it!"

The opposition MPs lapped this all up as the PM responded that Tory tax proposals mean cuts, and that since 1997 there are 300,000 extra staff in the NHS.

Cameron built up to his big soundbite, and it seems his original pledge to avoid Punch & Judy politics seemed to have been firmly forgotten:

"It doesn't matter who is in charge, Blair/Brown, Brown/Blair, this country isn't safe under Labour!"

The thing about Punch & Judy is that Blair is clearly the puppetmaster. He dismissed Cameron's soundbite by casually remarking that the boyish Tory leader sounded as if he spent time rehearsing his line, then returned to a bit of "under the Tories crim doubled" and finished with the classic, "he talks tough but votes soft."

Beat that, Gordon Brown.

Claire Curtis-Thomas asked a strange question about Anthony Gormley statues in her constituency. She is a very odd woman, but the PM made another joke, and the Labour MPs were in a happy mood.

Ming Campbell has improved muchly at PMQ, apparently since he stopped taking advice and writes his own questions. Today he wanted to know if the shiny new US/UK extradition treaty
would be used to extradite the American soldiers who killed ITN journalist Terry Lloyd.

The PM expressed his sympathy to Lloyd's family and then completely fudged his answer, ending up with a rousing defence of the bravery of American soldiers.

Ming was on top QC form. "Not much comfort there. As recently as last night the government assured us that the extradition treaty would facilitate justice. It is a fast track process that only goes one way."

David Cameron used his last two questions to "demand" that a climate change bill be introduced in the Queens Speech. Labour MPs laughed uproariously at Cameron's assertion that the Tory party have been pushing for a tough climate bill:

"If you want to get something to happen in this country, get the leader of the Opposition to suggest it!" he told them, as his own side went bananas. The PM pointed out that the Tories voted against the climate change levy. Cameron wanted a straight answer about whether we will get a new climate bill.

Blair said he can't talk about what is in the Queens Speech, as the poor lamb spends hours writing it all herself. The PM took the opportunity to mock the recent tax proposals from the oppposition. The Speaker for once did not intervene as Blair expertly lampooned Cameron and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne as flip-flopping on the key issue of green taxes. "If that is an example of his policy making we certainly won't follow him."

Blair batted away questions on Post Offices, breast cancer, trade unions in Iraq, the CSA, expansion of the EU, but did get a bit lippy with a cheeky SNP MP.

"When he is interviewed by the Metropolitan police, what innocent explanation will he give for the fact that 80p of every pound donated to Labour comes from someone who has been honoured?"

Most people had forgotten about Mr Blair and the local bobbies, and the PM deftly ignored the question and attacked the SNP instead.

"He doesn't dare ask a question about Scotland ... his policy of ripping Scotland out of the UK would be a disaster."

Just when it looked like the Speaker wouldn't get a chance to say anything at all, Labour MP Andrew MacKinlay started bellowing across the chamber at Tory MP Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. Something about Iran and nuclear weapons, but it was a startling and completely bonkers moment that made everyone laugh.

A beaming Speaker told MacKinlay that "the Prime Minister is doing alright on his own." He certainly is.

For all David Cameron's smart comebacks, Tony Blair is still the master at PMQ.

Maverick Clare Short resigns from Labour

Former cabinet minister Clare Short has announced that she has resigned as a Labour MP. She will sit as an independent for the rest of this parliament and will not vote with the government.

In a letter to the Chief Whip, Ms Short said she could no longer remain in the Parliamentary Labour Party.

The 60-year-old political veteran had previously announced that she will not contest the next election.

She has been the MP for Birmingham Ladywood since 1983.

Short recently said that it would be better for the Labour party to lose the next election, which led the Chief Whip to censure her.

In her letter of resignation to Chief Whip Jacqui Smith, she said: "It is my view that our political system is in trouble and that the exaggerated majorities in the House of Commons have led to an abject parliament and a concentration of power in Number 10 that has produced arrogant, error-prone government.

"Given that the next election might well produce a hung parliament, I want to be free to argue that this creates a valuable opportunity to reform our voting system so that the House of Commons more accurately reflects public opinion, and we have a parliament more able to hold the government to account and to ensure that policy is well considered."

In her 23-year parliamentary career, the maverick MP has resigned from Labour's front bench on three occasions, twice over the Gulf Wars and once over prevention of terrorism legislation.

Her final resignation, in 2003, lost her much of her credibility with the left of the party, as she had remained as International Development Secretary during the initial stages of military action in Iraq.

She once accused Alan Clark of being drunk at the dispatch box, and tried to have Page 3 topless photos banned.

Ms Short remains a member of the Labour party, but will not take the whip on any votes. A Conservative party spokesman said: "The Labour Party is divided and paralysed, and it is no surprise that Clare Short has decided to jump ship."

Gay priest denies Foley abuse allegations

A 72-year-old Roman Catholic priest has admitted to a series of sexual encounters with a teenage Mark Foley, but denied the relationship was abusive.

The Daily Telegraph reports that Fr Anthony Mercieca became close to Foley while he was working as a priest at the Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Lake Worth, Florida, in the late 1960s.

Disgraced Republican Congressman Foley was forced to resign after his lurid email and instant message contacts with teenage Congressional pages came to light last month.

Foley claimed that he had been molested by a clergyman between the ages of 13 and 15, and claimed to have an alcohol problem which caused him to act in an inappropriate manner towards the teenage pages.

He is now the subject of criminal and congressional investigations. Fr Mercieca was named by Foley’s lawyers as the clergyman in question.

But the priest has hit back at claims he is a predatory paedophile. He told CNN: "Molestation can be many things, it depends how you take it. Once maybe I touched him but it's not anything you'd call rape."

The priest, who now lives in Malta, said that he had a two-year relationship with Foley, who was a teenage altar boy at the time. Fr Mercieca admitted that he massaged Foley, that they went skinny-dipping together, visited saunas and shared hotel rooms.

But he claims they never had sex. "We trusted each other as brothers, and loved each other as brothers," the priest said.

The Foley scandal has been a major embarrassment for the Republicans in the run-up to the November 7th elections.

The party are expected to lose seats, as Americans register their displeasure at the conduct of the war in Iraq.

Kelly grilled over gay rights delay

Two MPs have challenged Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly about the delay in implementing new guidelines protecting gay people from discrimination.

At Communities questions yesterday, the Conservative MP for Buckingham, John Bercow, demanded that the government set out when the new rules would be laid before Parliament.

Kelly replied that the new regulations would be presented to the House of Commons in good time for them to be introduced by April 2007. The new rules will outlaw discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Mr Bercow was not satisfied with Kelly’s answer:

"Does the right honourable Lady agree that, subject only to the very limited doctrinal exemption that the Government already propose, the sexual orientation regulations must apply in full to all organisations, religious or otherwise, including adoption agencies, charities, general practitioners, housing trusts, nurseries and youth groups, because the principle of equality before the law must take precedence over the views of a vociferous religious minority which, however sincere, is fundamentally opposed to that important principle?"

Ms Kelly has been heavily criticised for delaying implementation of the regulations, and she once again tried to strike a balance in what she called a "complex issue."

She said there were passionate views "on each side," and said there had to be a balance between protection from discrimination and the religious views and beliefs of some people.She was attacked from her own side for this equivocal stance by the Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown, Des Turner.

Speaking up for his numerous gay and lesbian constituents, he said: "I reiterate the call for the orders to be published in draft form before they are laid in Parliament. That could lead to a much more sensible and rational debate when the time comes.

"I cannot emphasise too strongly my agreement with the words of my colleague the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). Any excessive exemptions granted in the orders would undermine the principle that Parliament has adopted."

Kelly responded that the regulations will be in place by April, and that MPs would have ample time to discuss the proposals - despite the fact that Parliament have already approved them.

Kelly's response to Mr Turner betrayed her own views on the issue: "In the consultation, passionate views were expressed on both sides, some of which, I fear, are completely misleading—for instance, the thought that the regulations would in any sense force Churches to marry gay people or schools to promote a homosexual lifestyle."

Tory Tax Plans Revealed

It is interesting that the media seem to regard the 'accidental' release of Tory proposals on tax as some horrible mistake.

The proposals were posted on a website ahead of their official unveiling. The reaction from the other parties has been what one would expect.

Ed Balls has been wheeled out from the Treasury to say the plans would mean cuts in schools and hospitals. The LibDems say the Tories are confused - that really is the pot calling the kettle black.

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne has said they are only proposals, and that anyway any tax cuts will depend on what state the economy is in after the next election.

What is clear is that this goverment has hiked up direct and indirect taxes in the last decade. For all the sound and fury from Balls, it might just be that large sections of the middle class think it is time they paid less tax.

Best of all, the Tories get to float these proposals and if they get a negative reaction can just dismiss them as a policy paper they commissioned but have no intention of actually putting into practice.

Bit of a win-win situation for the Conservatives then, for all the talk of 'mistaken' publication. Just the words tax cuts will warm the cockles of Tory hearts.

Labour may have doubled investment in the NHS and education, but its clear the voters do not think the money has been well spent.

21bn in tax cuts sounds a huge amount, but the Tories are also thinking about lifting 2.5m people out of income tax. Isn't that a LibDem policy?

Abolishing inheritance tax is another eye-catching proposal. Lower business taxes will also hearten Tory activists.

Poor Labour. All that money spent and the voters don't seem to care.

It seems that the Tories are the new masters of spin, for all the Balls Ed comes out with.

PMQ was boring.

David Cameron and Ming Campbell tried to trip up Tony Blair over current stategy in Iraq at this week's Prime Minister's Questions.

Both failed to pressure the PM in what was a muted PMQ that failed to get off the ground.

It was a good session for Blair, as he made a robust defence of the current policy in Iraq.

The PM sugggested that there had always been a policy of withdrawl from that country as and when the Iraqi army was able to take control of the situation.

Both opposition leaders failed to pick up that Mr Blair's timetable for withdrawl has changed constantly, and his use of the phrase "when the job is done" was dangerously open-ended.

David Cameron decided to split up the six supplementary questions he is entitled to as Opposition Leader, giving the PM breathing space to state again and again that all is well in Iraq.
Cameron began by quoting the comments from the Chief of the Defence Staff last week, that the British presence was exacerbating the violence in Iraq.

The PM responded that "we have a democracy in Iraq for the first time in that country's history," hardly something the Conservatives could disagree with. Indeed Mr Cameron had to state his party supports the governement of Iraq.

Cameron could have attacked the lack of a clear timetable for withdrawl, but instead chose to ask again about the role of our troops. Mr Blair said that progressive withdrawl was the policy of the government and that some provinces were already under the control of the Iraqi armed forces. Talk of leaving immediately merely brought "dismay to our allies and heartens our enemies."

The Tory leader was forced to reiterate his party's support for the mission British troops are undertaking in Iraq, thereby backing the government. He was left to ask for "frank and candid answers from the Prime Minister," but in a textbook PMQ performance Mr Blair appeared both frank and candid.

20 countries were involved in the mission, all willing to stand and fight for democracy. There was nowhere for Cameron to go with this line of questioning, so he sat down and allowed Ming Campbell to continue the theme, with even less success. The UN reports that 3000 Iraqi civilians are dying a week, the LibDem leader told MPs.

"Innocent civilians are not being killed by British soldiers but by terrorists" was the PM's reasonable response to that weak point. The troops are there on a UN mandate. Next Ming stated we should change our strategy or get out of the country.

"Leaving would be a mistake and a gross dereliction of duty," replied the PM. What good would come of deserting the Iraqi government, he asked.

Blair was unscathed by these attacks, and both opposition parties wasted opportunities to attack the PM on the serious problems faced by British troops. All of this added to the sense of a gloomy PMQ, with little progress or enlightenment in the entire 30 minutes.

It took a backbench Tory, Peter Viggers, to raise a serious failing of the government, namely that troops wounded in Iraq are dumped on the NHS rather than treated at military hospitals. Again, the PM was well briefed, saying that neither the patients nor the NHS staff treating them had complained about the current arrangements.

David Cameron used his second set of questions to try and paint the PM as the Angel of Death, about to swoop down on the Post Office network.

Blair hit back, saying that the government had already spent 2bn on propping up post offices, and that people preferred to use bank accounts for benefits payments. 98% of pensioners preferred to use their bank accounts. Were the Tories offering to spend even more money on post offices?

Another really weak set of questions from Cameron. And the rest of the questions? Not one had any impact on the PM at all. Everyone asked for meetings on various subjects. Everyone was told the PM would be happy to meet, to discuss and to consider. Yawn.

Air ambulances are wonderful. School results are better than ever. More people don't die of cancer under Labour. The NHS is fabulous. The DUP have done a great job at the talks on Northern Ireland last week. Violent video games are a bad thing, but the industry have been terribly co-operative with the government. DNA testing has caught hundreds of murderers and rapists. Britain attracted more foreign investment last year than China and the US put together. Teaching citizenship is important. The goverment is sorry about delays in payments to farmers, but it is all sorted now.

It was as if everyone had been drugged, while Blair rattled on and on about the shiny new Britain he had created.

A zinger from LibDem MP Greg Mulholland looked like it could excite some interest. Pakistan is scheduled to execute a British citizen, after a very dodgy trial, at exactly the same time that Prince Charles and Camilla will be making a royal visit. Shouldn't the trip be cancelled?

Blair got out of this one too - he had personally talked to President Musharraf about the case, and was still hopeful that a reprieve could be granted. Charles and Camilla still get to go on their trip.

No one asked about the shambles of two men under control orders just disappearing. No one asked about murders being committed by criminals out on licence, supposedly tagged and monitored.

No one even bloody mentioned North Korea. Remember that? Little issue of World War Three? Anyone?

Jack Straw outraging sections of the Muslim community? Not a word.

Job losses in the NHS? May as well be happening in a different country.

Let us hope by next week Cameron, Campbell and the rest of the House can think up some proper questions.

PMQ is about holding the Prime Minister to account. It is a sorry state of affairs when his monthly press conference is more taxing than thirty minutes at the dispatch box.

President Bartlett on gays!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5-zhNiGlogQ

In the light of the Ruth Kelly stuff, I just wanted all of you check out this outstanding moment from the West Wing!

If only the real President had this level of intellgence!

Ruth Kelly - Bad Influence

When Alastair Campbell, Director of Communications at Number 10, was asked about Tony Blair’s religious faith, he famously replied, “We don’t do God.”

Since Campbell’s departure from Downing St in 2003, the Prime Minister has shown an alarming tendency to refer to his religious beliefs more frequently. He recently told Michael Parkinson that he had used prayer as part of his decision-making process when deciding to take the country to war in Iraq.

The Observer revealed on Sunday that the Prime Minister is backing a delay in introducing new guidelines to protect gay and lesbian people from discrimination in the provision of goods and services.

The new rules to prevent schools, companies and other agencies refusing services to people because of their sexuality, due to be introduced this month, have been the subject of criticism from religious groups, most prominent among them the Roman Catholic Church.

The Communities Secretary, Ruth Kelly, is responsible for delaying the new guidelines. Her stated reason is the large amount of objections the government has received.

Kelly’s stance has the backing of Tony Blair, and there is an open split in Cabinet between liberal members and the “Catholic tendency.”

The fact that there is a religious tendency at the very top of government is something new in British politics. At no other time in recent history has a human rights issue been delayed by the personal religious views of ministers.

Britain has traditionally kept a strict separation between religion and politics. While most, if not all, Cabinet members have been church-going Christians, it was always seen as dangerous for their religious views to affect policy.

In a country where the head of state is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Prime Minister appoints bishops and those bishops have seats in the House of Lords, religious leaders actually have very little direct influence on the government.

Contrast that to America, where no one has a chance of becoming President without constantly presenting their religious beliefs to the voters. Or the vice-like grip the Roman Catholic Church had on politics in countries like Ireland, Spain and Italy.

The unique nature of the British system has meant that the UK has managed to avoid religious control over politics. Abortion, divorce and homosexuality were legalised over the objections of the churches.

Matters of social policy have rightly been seen as a conversation between politicians and the voters, not the churches.

The Roman Catholic Church is a very different institution from the Church of England. It is instinctively repressive, it has always actively interfered with democratic politics, and the fact that it has its own cheerleader, Ruth Kelly, at the heart of the British government is a matter of serious concern.

In Ireland, priests would instruct their parishioners who to vote for from the pulpit. Referendums to legalise divorce were constantly frustrated by overt political campaigns run by the Roman Catholic Church. The Cardinal of Ireland was more influential that the Taoiseach (Prime Minister).

Only the revelation that the Church was a paedophile ring broke their grip on the country. There was no divorce in Ireland until 1996.

In Spain, Cardinals and priests who had no fear of directly meddling in the political process fought the concept of legalised homosexuality. They openly threatened any politician considering opposing them with excommunication and isolation and held the fairytale of an eternity in Hell over their heads as punishment for daring to be socially liberal.

Ruth Kelly says that her deep devotion to the Pope and her membership of shady ultra-Catholic sect Opus Dei are personal matters. That they do not interfere with her ability to do her job. That anyone who questions her about her personal religious views is subtly indulging in Catholic bashing.

Anyone with an understanding of how the Roman Catholic Church wields its influence and directs its followers will know that her position is nonsense.

Only last month, Pope Benedict took the opportunity to castigate Roman Catholic politicians in Canada for voting for gay rights.

The meddling Pontiff feels that the views of their constituents should be subservient to the views of the Vatican on matters of social policy.

In the 2004 US Presidential election, the Catholic Church refused Kerry communion and said he was not welcome at Mass because he supported abortion, effectively sabotaging John Kerry’s campaign. This created in the minds of religious voters the idea that Kerry was somehow less of a Christian than the evangelist Bush.

Indeed, during the 1960 Presidential election, many Americans openly questioned whether a Catholic such as John F Kennedy should be allowed to lead the country. Wouldn’t he be taking orders from Rome? Wouldn’t the Catholic Church attempt to influence him, as they did the leaders of every Catholic European country?

At the time that sentiment was dismissed as anti-Catholic prejudice. In 21st century Britain that question seems pertinent once again.

Who does Ruth Kelly represent? Who does she work for? And why has Tony Blair allowed this conflict of interests to occur?

This is not an attack on Kelly’s right to her religious views. But she is not a private citizen, a Bolton housewife with a tendency towards self-flagellation and medieval social attitudes.

She is the Cabinet minister charged with delivering equality. Tony Blair has appointed her as the guardian of gay rights. For her to refuse to tell us whether she thinks gayness is a sin is completely unsustainable.

Blair himself is backing the Church, which should come as a shock to no one. Cherie is a devout Catholic, and three of the Blair children attended Catholic schools.

The Prime Minister has always showed an alarming interest in the Catholic Church. Like drugs, Catholicism has an appeal to those who have never tried it.

As one educated by that Church for 14 years, I have a deep understanding of their modus operandi, and we should all be worried about its creeping influence in British politics.

There is a reason why Roman Catholics are excluded from the line of succession in the Royal Family. There is a reason why we have never had a Catholic Prime Minister.

It is not a prejudice against Catholics as individuals, but against the way in which the Roman Church seeks to influence its members.

Those of us who believe in a secular state should be deeply concerned that the Church has managed to get Kelly and Blair to listen to their argument over the new guidelines. The Catholic Church seems to be saying that as they believe homosexuals are deviants, that their bigotry should be respected.

The Roman Church demands that the Church alone educate Catholic children. It runs faith schools that are paid for by British taxpayers, including gay and lesbian taxpayers. It is contracted by the government to run adoption agencies, again paid for by all taxpayers.

If they feel that providing those services is incompatible with what the voters elected New Labour to deliver, namely equality, then they should withdraw from providing them.

They should not be mollified and allowed to hold up their prejudice against gay and lesbians as a moral position. No school should be allowed to teach hatred and prejudice.

No adoption agency should be allowed to make choices that are based not on the interests of the child but the flawed judgements of a religious group.

It strikes me as ironic that the world’s largest paedophile ring pontificates on matters of child welfare. The Catholic Church has threatened to close its adoption agencies rather than let gay or lesbian couples adopt though them. We should call their bluff and welcome those closures, as it will ensure that adoption is just about the interests of the child and not the Church.

The creeping influence of Catholicism into British politics should be opposed. Kelly should be forced to respond to questions about her views on human sexuality. At present she appears to be working directly in the interests of the Vatican and not the Labour party or her constituents.

Perhaps Kelly would like to publicly distance herself from Pope Benedict’s explicitly expressed view that Muslims have brought only evil to the world.

It is bewildering that Tony Blair picked this religious zealot to engage with the Muslim community at this critical time.

Unlike Presidential candidate John Kerry and President Kennedy, Kelly has not publicly reassured voters that she takes her cue from the electorate and not the Pope.

PinkNews.co.uk recently highlighted Gordon Brown’s absence from votes on gay rights legislation. While it may just be possible that Brown did not personally feel gay people should be granted those rights, it is certain he would not try to influence policy to reflect his religious views. When challenged about his record, the Treasury angrily denied he was homophobic.

If Ruth Kelly were to vote for gay adoption, she would be voting against her beliefs. So she sidestepped the issue by abstaining. When asked to clarify her position, she hides behind the right to privacy.

Tony Blair, heavily influenced by his wife, takes Kelly’s side in this vital point of principle.

For all the fanfare of 1997, there are currently no gay or lesbian cabinet ministers. Chris Smith, Nick Brown and Peter Mandelson are all out of government. There is no gay or lesbian voice at those meetings.

We should be grateful that Education Secretary Alan Johnson is willing to stand up to Blair and Kelly and demand that the gay rights agenda move forward without religious interference.

There are members of the LGBT community in both the LibDem and Conservative shadow cabinets.

As for Ruth Kelly, while she was once talked about as a future Prime Minister, it is now doubtful if she will even have a job in a Brown administration. Indeed, her parliamentary seat, Bolton West, is reasonably marginal.

In 2005 she won with a majority of 2016, just 5% ahead of the Conservatives. The Boundary Commission is altering the seat in time for the 2009/10 election.

If the Tories really want to show real commitment to the gay community, they should pick a candidate to contest Bolton West who can show Kelly the door. That would get my vote.

Ruth Kelly - It's War!!

The Observer reported today on the Cabinet split over gay rights. It seems that Ruth Kelly, who Blair, with a highly defined sense of irony, appointed as minister with responsibility for equality, has been doing the bidding of her masters in the Vatican.

Rabid fundamentalist Catholic Ruth is famously a member of shadowy Opus Dei, a sect within Catholicism that takes a very hard line view on people like gays.

New regulations to tackle discrimination in the provision of goods and services were due to come into effect this month.

Kelly has now delayed their implementation, giving the homophobes in the Catholic Church more time to bitch about the fact that they may be legally required to treat gay people the same as everyone else.

The Catholic Church is threatening to throw their toys out of the pram over gay rights, threatening to close down Catholic adoption agencies if they are forced to allow kids to be adopted by gay or lesbian couples.

Damn right. Don't want these kids going to a good home when there are gays around. As you know, no one poses a greater danger to kids than lesbians. Apart from possibly Catholic priests.

While Kelly's hardline position in defence of homophobia on religious grounds is to be expected, the split in the Cabinet is being caused by Tony "39 steps" Blair actually supporting his Communities Secretary.

Mrs Blair is also a strong believer in the fairy tales that constitute Catholic teaching. She is well known as a devout believer, and three of the Blair children attended Catholic schools. Good ones, obviously, not some local comprehensive for little Euan and Nicky.

So Blair, drifting and out of touch with the hard political realities, willing to be swayed by sentiment and his wife, has outraged Cabinet colleagues like Alan Johnson.

The official line is that because of the number of 'representations' about the new regulations, they will be postponed and reconsidered.

The Catholic Church has managed to argue that as it is intrinsically homophobic, it should be allowed to flout the law and the concept of equality. Hey, maybe I will start my own religion and make it explicitly racist and Islamophobic. Then I can claim as it is my religious belief that non white people are inferior, that I should have one of these exemptions.

Or perhaps the government should get some balls and tell the Catholic Church that if it really feels that strongly, we will take away the millions of pounds we pour into Catholic schools. The church is a service provider to the government in the fields of education and adoption. I would question whether that is a good situation for us or them.

Maybe the Catholic church should stop educating kids altogether and leave it to the professionals. To people who will not fill children full of fear, guilt and hatred for other people.

And perhaps now is the time for Tony Blair to go away and spend more time with his Bible.

Sion Simon is a girl

Sion Simon finally caved in and took down his David Cameron piss take after lots of complaints from the usual suspects. What a total poof.

That is what is wrong with politics in this country. No one has any conviction. Any balls. He should have taken the abuse about his behaviour and stood his ground. But no.

He even bloody apologised to Cameron for any offence he might have caused. Boo hoo. Did the nasty man say something horrid about your wife? Aww bless.

Sion Simon. He just looks like an even bigger arse now.

Oh and he needs a haircut.

Cameron satire 2

Actually this 'out take' from Cameron's first weblog is a lot funnier than Sion Simon's effort. Check it out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU0QtvWKgx0

Webcameron satire

I think Labour MP Sion Simon's pisstake of the webcameron broadcast is quite funny. What is all the fuss about?

The link is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9DYULkAhWI&NR

If Cameron is going to go on the net and 'use new technology to get in touch with people' then he has to expect the opposition to respond in kind.

And it is a searing critique of the whole Dave C style. He does talk about his kids all the time. He does try to mask his Old Etonian roots by pretending to be just like one of the people.

It also shows that perhaps some in the Labour party are worried that the public will warm to Cameron. He may be a toff, but he comes across as a lot more human than many Labour MPs.

Among them Sion Simon. You ever actually heard him talk? He comes across like an alien.

Dave's problem is not his own image. It is the rest of his party. I watched an interminable debate about climate change this afternoon in the House of Commons. And while the Tory front bench may well be new green Tories, many of the dinosaurs sitting behind them are still clearly more interested in business interests.

Let us hope the A-list will sweep all those old fogies out of the Commons.

PMQ - Cameron sizzles!

David Cameron harried Tony Blair about health service cuts, prisoner releases and Gordon Brown in the first PMQ of the new parliamentary session. We also learned that one MP is pregnant and another is on crutches - how things have changed since July.

The House was in a bouyant mood after the long break. Labour MP Michael Foster had the first question, and while talking up the massive boost in the NHS in his Hastings constituency, the Tory MPs opposite chorused "but but but!" in anticipation of the point of his question. Foster blamed cuts on "bureaucrats," and the PM took the opportunity to reel off a list of his governments achivements.

"No buts just cuts," was Cameron's response. There was an exchange about moving high risk prisoners to low security jails, as the Opposition Leader claimed that the public are at risk.

"I know you only have a few goes left" he taunted Blair, then accused the government of paying foreign criminals to go home.

"Making sure that all these foreign secretaries ..." Blair stumbled, and at least admitted he would not be recovering from that one.

Cameron was on excellent form, and told the House that since Particia Hewitt announced that this is the best year ever for the NHS, 20,000 jobs had been cut and 80 community hospitals are under threat. The PM said his figures were wrong, and criticised Tory proposals for an independent commissioning board in the NHS.

David rounded on the relationship between No 10 and No 11. "I know the PM and the Chancellor do not talk anymore," and claimed Gordon Brown was in favour of the independent board. Would the Chancellor succeed him?

Mr Blair did not want to answer that, he wanted to return to the Tory proposals. The Speaker was not having it: "ORDER! ORDER! The Prime Mininster is going on too much about the campaigning document of the Conservative party. I give the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition elbow room. I ask the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to take my advice before it becomes my instruction."

This is not the first time the Speaker has taken the PM to task for not talking about his own record and instead banging on about what the Tories may or may not do.

David Cameron returned to his straight question does the PM back the Chancellor. "I do - do you?" he said to cheers from his own MPs.

The PM tried to return to policy, but David Cameron was on his last supplementary question, so he kept with the personal.

"This government is divided and paralysed. The Chancellor is accused of blackmail, the latest Home Secretary wants the Prime Minister's job while the Deputy Prime Minister doesn't have a job but is still being paid."

It was an excellent performance from Cameron, and Blair did indeed appear to be on his last few PMQs.

The mood was lightened by the next question, from a very heavily pregnant Jessica Morden. MPs on all sides cheered her as she asked the PM to put in a good word with the whips about her maternity leave. Mr Blair promised to see what he could do.

Ming Campbell basically wasted his two questions asking about Northern Ireland. It was a very muted performance from the LibDem pensioner.

The tallest MP ever rose on crutches. At over 6' 8" Daniel Kawczynski's crutches were wooden and no doubt custom made. He asked a nice question about plans to build a Charles Darwin museum in his constituency. Can the PM help? Yes, and get better soon, was Mr Blair's response.

There was a question from Labour MP Ben Chapman about why troops serving overseas still have to pay council tax. The troops were on the minds of many MPs and the PM. Mr Blair said the MoD were giving our service men and women a tax free bonus.

LibDem Bob Russell wanted to know why our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan fighting terrorism while other NATO countries were not sending their troops.

Mr Blair pointed out that Canadian, American, Italian, French and German troops, even Finnish troops, had lost their lives in Afghanistan, but conceded that NATO need to do more. He also said it is important to remind the voters why we are there.

"Support our troops and have pride in the success of that they are doing there," he told the House.

Gordon at PMQ? Oh dear

The first PMQ of the session is about to start. Can't wait. After a good party conference for all three leaders, it will be interesting to see who emerges the victor this afternoon.

What IS going on with Gordon Brown? Chatting it up to the BBC like he is the PM, announcing things and backing Jack Straw over the veil?

I for one cannot wait to see the grumpy Scot at PMQ. He barely answers a question at Treasury Qs and as for the Budget well that is hardly Punch & Judy. He basically gets to bang on for hours with no interruptions. He has never filled in for TB at PMQ.

My point is I cannot remember what Brown is actually like in a combative Question Time scenario. He has not experienced it as Chancellor, not sure if he even did much of it in opposition.

I think by the time he becomes PM, Cameron will be an old hand at PMQ and will make mincemeat of him.

Time will tell.

Amazing Mrs Pritchard & Huw Edwards

It was the second episode of political fantasy drama The Amazing Mrs Pritchard tonight. I know I shouldn't, but I really like it.

Of course there are glaring errors in it, and they seem to think the Queen is actually Alan Bennett in drag, but the hopeful premise that people can change things through politics appeals to me.

They do portray David Cameron as a bit of a shit, which is interesting. Jane Horrocks is of course fab as the supermarket manager who thinks she can do better than politicians, and gets her Purple Alliance elected in a landslide.

One thing that really does bug me about this series, and others, is this trend to have newsreaders and journalists play themselves. For a start, because it is a BBC programme, only BBC news staff appear.

More importantly, don't Huw Edwards and Nick Robinson have better things to do with their time than ponce about 'acting' themselves? Are the BBC saying there are no actors out there that can adequately portray a news reader or a political reporter?

This trend has been increasing - Edwards was doing some shocking over acting in an episode of Doctor Who set in the 2012 Olympics. Nick Robinson will be needing a bloody Equity card given the amount of fictional TV he appears in. Don't even talk to me about Andrew Marr 'acting' in Doctor Who. Again. Not like they are short on the budget for actors. Fucking hire one then.

BBC News should put a stop to all. It devalues their staff. It makes them look less serious and makes news look like a branch of entertainment.

New Measures to help kids in care

After nine years in power, Labour have finally brought forward a Green Paper on children in care.

The new focus on kids who look to the state to provide protection was trailed by Education Secretary Alan Johnson at the Labour party conference last month.

Proposals include properly paying foster parents and minimising the amount of times children in care are moved from home to home.

The future prospects for kids in care make for grim reading.

"Children in care are five times less likely to achieve five good GCSE's and nine times more likely to be expelled from school. One quarter of people in prison today have spent some time in our care system. This Government have introduced a number of measures to try to address the complex problems of children in care.

"Since 1997, we have invested almost £1 billion in the quality protects initiative to improve outcomes for children in care. We have taken steps to encourage adoption instead of care, and we have placed a duty on local authorities to improve educational outcomes for this specific group of children. However, this has clearly not been enough."

The plight of children cared for by the state is a national disgrace. Hopefully MPs will take this opportunity to deliver real change for the kids who need it most.

Jack Straw and the veil

Some months ago, the media were taken with the story that the BNP were going to capture lots of council seats across the country.
Junior minister Margaret Hodge made some hysterical comments about 90% of her constituents in Barking considering voting for the rightwing racists.

In the event, the BNP did capture some more seats, primarily in the North. Their limited success seemed to indicate that Labour were ignoring the concerns of their white working-class base, and that unless something was done the BNP would grow stronger.

In the light of Jack Straw's remarks yesterday, it seems that someone at the Labour top table has taken note. As MP for Blackburn, Straw has a huge Muslim community in his constituency.

He has excellent relations with Muslims, he is a respected member of the government, and he does not make comments on a subject as sensitive as this without giving it some serious thought.

Straw's comments speak directly to the white working class Labour supporters across the North and beyond. Many do feel that wearing a full veil does build barriers between communities. It is just that no-one in the Labour party has had the balls to say so.

Labour have seemed afraid to question the attitudes and behavior of a small minority of Muslim in Britain for fear of upsetting the wider community.

While John Reid's call on Muslim parents to 'watch' their children for signs they might be radicalised sounded more like a threat than an encouragement, Straw's comments are more sophisticated.

When I fly to Dubai, I am expected to show respect for their culture by dressing appropriately. Why do a small minority of Muslims not show any respect for the European cultural discomfort with people that do not show their face?

If I was to walk around a shopping centre wearing a balaclava that covered my face, it would almost cause suspicion and alarm to my fellow shoppers. There is even a good chance that I would be asked to remove the headgear or leave.

You cannot go into a bank wearing a crash helmet. Jack Straw has raised one of the fundamental problems facing the Muslim community in Britain - their desire to close themselves off from the rest of the population.

John Reid's comments were rightly derided as more tough talk. Straw has hit upon something deeper, something he has a deep understanding of. Muslims feel isolated, but by wearing veils on the streets of Blackburn they isolate everyone else around them.

The way to beat the BNP is to show that their policies are unworkable and their election literature full of lies.

We also need to tackle radical Muslims head on, and make them understand that they have rights in this country but also responsibilities. If they honestly feel that their religious beliefs are being discriminated against by being asked to show their face in public, then they should find another country to live in. To pretend that everything is ok and everyone his happy and content with things exactly as they are plays straight into the hands of the BNP.

Jack Straw understands his constituents very well. He understands that the 75% of his voters who are not Muslim are made uncomfortable by the sight of women covered from head to foot. On the streets of London, I feel a similar discomfort.

In a small town like Burnley, where two communities do not mix at school or socially, it is easy to imagine how resentment builds to violence.

The Tories are also making the right noises. David Cameron urged all faith schools to follow the example of the Church of England and admit 25% of pupils from other faiths.

Cameron also said anyone wanting to live in the UK must learn English. Why would that be regarded as contentious, except by the most zealous proponent of separatism?

Indeed, Gordon Brown called for exactly the same thing, and his new Citizenship tests also try to reinforce the fact that moving to Britain means accepting British values.

For many years phrases like 'British Values' were code for racist, BNP views.

It is encouraging to see that all parties have grasped the scale of the challenge ahead. Muslims must be puller closer into British society if we are to ensure no more horrific events like the London bombings.

Jack Straw is to be applauded for his brave stance on veils. He is continuing the fight to stop extremism in the Muslim community, while at the same time reassuring white Britons that the government understands their concerns.

Best Conference Cartoon

copyright: The Guardian

The last three weeks have been a busy time for cartoonists. Although all papers were considered, as usual it is The Guardian that has the outstanding cartoonists. The best of the conference season is this one by Martin Rowson, published on Monday 2nd October.

Special mention also to Steve Bell. He is a genius. You can check out more cartoons by Steve and Martin by following this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/

Tory conference - a blagger's guide

Too busy to spend hours watching the Tory party conference?

Don't worry, you didn't miss much. The conference was quite boring compared to the LibDem and Labour conference fights about leadership.

It started on Sunday, with a speech by David Cameron. He talked about the need for social responsibility, and said the state should give power back to communities. As part of his social responsibility theme, the new Tory leader strongly attacked record companies that profit from violent and homophobic lyrics, branding them "morally wrong and socially unacceptable."

The conference appluaded this statement warmly, and perhaps that was the most striking thing about this conference - the delegates.

They all appeared to be under 40, as if all the WI ladies and retired colonels that actually form the bulk of the Tory party had been told to stay at home this year.

The other change was the range of speakers, with the likes of lesbian novelist Jeanette Winterson taking to the podium to appeal to the Tories to become the party of the land. The Miami Chief of Police and some bird off Dragons Den also addressed delegates.

Human rights campaigner Shamk Chakrabati, who in previous years would probably have been lynched if she showed her face at a Tory conference, was recieved warmly, and lambasting John Reid for being too right wing went down very well.

The most eye-catching guest speaker was Ecology magazine editor Zac Goldsmith, who is also on Cameron's A-list of candidates.

Goldsmith made probably the best speech of the conference, in which he passionately appealed for a new approach towards climate change.

Designer Stephen Bayley spoke about the need for social responsibility in air travel, pointing to the experience of drink-driving, that social stigma is a stronger factor than taxation or legislation in changing behaviour.

The focus of this conference is, er, well not very much. "An overall vision for Britain," William Hague said. Whatever that is.

As the party were short of any policies, there were a series of "Hot Topic Debates" on nebulous issues such as advertising aimed at children. They had snappy titles like "cheap flights are a false economy" and show just how little the party have to really talk about.

They did provide another opportunity for young party activists to make their presence known, but the debates themselves were just like Question Time but without the MPs. Members of the public talking about things they know little about. Utimately unenlightening.

The only real policy announcement came from Cameron, when he confirmed that the Tories would vote against ID cards.

The main 'news' came from the Tory leadership's repeated refusal to promise tax cuts.

The 'highlight' of day two was a speech by Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, in which he warmed Tory hearts by saying he wants tax cuts, but is not sure when it will be economically viable.

The "row" over tax at this conference has mostly involved old dinosaurs like Norman Tebbit saying the party should promise tax cuts. Everyone else points out that just offering cuts didn't work in 1997, 2001 and 2005, that its nonsense to offer tax relief three years away from an election. As Osborne put it, a Shadow Chancellor cannot deliver tax cuts, only a Chancellor can.

Win the election first.

There was a keynote speech from David Davis, who lost the leadership election last December, but remained as Shadow Home Secretary. He gave a crowd-pleasing turn, with a good joke about his SAS hard man image: "The papers claim David Cameron wants us to hug a hoodie. Well I support that. The only difference between David and me is that I might just hug a little harder. And a little longer."

It was not all good news - a screw-up with security left hundreds of delegates stranded outside the conference as the local Plods tried to process their pass applications. Some party activists had to wait two days before being allowed into the conference centre.

The local police blame Conservative Central Office for not submitting the paperwork in good time. Conservative Central Office imply that the police are to blame.

Whatever. Still makes the party look like they can't organise a party conference in Bournemouth, which is even easier than a piss-up in a brewery.

George Osborne got into a bit of bother over some throwaway remarks he made at a fringe meeting. It seems calling Gordon Brown 'a bit autistic' was big news at this conference.

Perhaps if the Shadow Chancellor had anything meaningful to say about the economy, the press would have been less interested in this trivial story.

The press were so bored that they seized on some commments from Boris Johnson. Apparently the MP for Henley indicated he did not think Jamie Oliver was a saint, and declared himself a member of the pie-eating fraternity.

"I say let people eat what they like. Why shouldn't they push pies through the railings?," he told a meeting, and the media, smelling an actual story from this conference, went mad for it. Boris had to hide in the press office.

But it is other comments that Boris made about the West Lothian question that provide more insight into the party's thinking about Gordon Brown.

In the conference hall the debate was all about fairness and making sure that English people are properly represented, and to stop Scottish MPs voting on matters that only affect England. This is a bit of a winner for the Tories, but Boris laid it all out on the table:

"I have no wish to be disrespectful to the Scots. But it is outrageous that I as an English MP can be outvoted on issues such as Oxfordshire's NHS without corresponding powers the other way.

"The Scots should not get free university education subsidised by us in England. They shouldn't get free nursing care.

"As a Scot Gordon Brown will find it hard to convince people in England he should be prime minister."

Oh dear. The conference closed on Wednesday with an hour-long speech by David Cameron. He attacked the notion that he is all style and no substance, and said something slightly suprising about gay and lesbians. Talking about the importance of marriage, he said:

"And by the way, I think it matters, and I think it means something, whether you are a man or a woman, or a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. I am proud that we supported civil partnerships."

At a fringe meeting arranged by Stonewall earlier in the week, gay Tory activists appeared unaware that Mr Cameron had once voted against allowing gay couples to adopt and repealing Section 28.

The leader also told conference how hard it is to be a single mother, and affirmed his commitment to the NHS. He did not promise to cut taxes.

He brought to a close an upbeat, positive conference. If the Tories are trying to change their image, it is working.

Cameron welcomes gay marriage

http://pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-2643.html

Theresa Villiers Interview

No one could accuse Theresa Villiers of being cuddly. When I met the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury in her Westminster office, she was brisk, businesslike and didn’t crack a smile once, though she did accuse me of libelling the Conservative party.

I have to admit that at our meeting just before the parliamentary recess I found her slightly intimidating, a feeling that some of the MPs opposite might have experienced during her strong appearances at Treasury questions. She was yet another surprise choice for David Cameron’s team, taking on the number two role under the 35-year-old boy wonder and Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne. Villiers is 38.

Neither of them was even in Parliament when Gordon Brown presented his fourth budget. At Treasury questions they face the longest-serving and most successful Chancellor in history, and his experienced team of ministers.

To make the slightest impact would be quite an achievement, but both Villiers and Osborne have scored some palpable hits against the Treasury in the last session.

If the economy continues to stall we can expect to see the Chancellor, or whomever he eventually appoints to replace him, facing some lacerating questioning from Osborne and the stern, forensic Villiers.

Her training as a barrister comes across strongly in conversation, and she confesses that she had parliamentary aspirations: “from quite far back, I wouldn’t say always but yes, quite early.”

Villiers grew up in north London, and took the well-established path of the law as a good grounding for politics. A First from Bristol University led on to BCL from Jesus College, Oxford.

By the age of 26, she was lecturing in Law at Kings College, London and working as a barrister. She gave up teaching to run for the European Parliament. Villiers was elected as MEP for the London constituency in 1999, and was re-elected in 2004.

In Brussels, she was a well-regarded member of the conservative EPP grouping, and campaigned successfully for Cypriot entry into the EU, a matter of considerable importance to many of her north London constituents, many of them refugees from that troubled island. She also campaigned on animal welfare issues, with support from like-minded mainstream conservatives from across Europe.

Why then does David Cameron want to rip the Tories out of the EPP group?

“When we form our new group we will be even more influential in the parliament.” Villiers responds.

“We shall sit with others who share our view of Europe, which is a free market, free trading nations, rather than a federalist United States of Europe, which the majority of the parties in the EPP want to see.”

Although the policy of withdrawl has now been postponed until 2008, William Hague had a series of meetings with fringe parties, many of them ‘extremist’ in Western terms. Villiers reacted passionately to the charge that her party was courting bigots and homophobes:

“We are proposing to link up with the Polish Law and Justice Party, which is quite different to the Polish League of Families.

“I deny the libel that we are going to link up with parties that are homophobic. I can assure you that I wouldn’t support a move which had that effect.”

Her high regard for the Polish Law and Justice Party is misplaced.

Party leader Lech Kaczynski repeatedly banned gay rights marches while mayor of Warsaw, and called homosexuals deviants.

He was elected president in July, and his twin brother, Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski, is in coalition with the Polish League of Families, an openly and viciously homophobic party, who organise a youth wing, reminiscent of the Hitler Youth, who regularly attack gay people and gay events.

No less a figure than the EU Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, raised his concerns about gay rights in Poland at his first meeting with PM Kaczynski.

Villiers draws a lawyer’s distinction between the two parties. Others judge the Law and Justice party by who they get into bed with, and the Tories should be cautious of being judged the same way.

Villiers is insistent that disquiet about the Conservatives leaving the EPP is all the work of those working towards a federal Europe:

“The reason why the federalists are deeply resisting what we want to do is because if we form this group there will be for the first time a real opposition in the European Parliament.”

The formation of an informal group, called the European Demorcrats, led by the Tories, has been a PR disaster.

The ED still sit within the EPP group and have no staff or funding. Apart from the 26 Conservative MEPs there are a mere 12 Czech MEPs from one party and four further MEPs from three other parties.

Despite her opposition to closer integration, and a trenchant dismissal of the introduction of the Euro to Britain no matter what, Villiers is upbeat about EU expansion:

“I think it’s possible that the EU will expand further. It is already under discussion to extent the borders beyond Europe with negotiations with Turkey. With countries like Belarus and the Ukraine, which are European countries, the question of EU membership will arise.”

In an attempt to lighten the atmosphere, with the threat of libel hanging in the air, I asked if perhaps we might look to the European Broadcasting Union to decide who is and is not in Europe? Villiers seems taken with the idea:

“That is the question, can Israel join the EU because they are in the Eurovision Song Contest? I have wondered about that but I don’t think there is an appetite either in Israel or the EU to go that far! But you never know.”

Theresa Villiers’ appointment to the shadow cabinet is a sign of the regard she is held in by the new leader, and also a symbolic elevation of that rarest of Tory creatures, a female MP.

Villiers was elected to represent Chipping Barnet, a safe Tory seat, in 2005, one of only five women elected for the party in that general election. The party now have 17 women MPs. They had around the same number in the 1920’s.

The other noticeable difference with the five new Tory women is their age. While the LibDems have female MPs yet to reach their thirties, and the Labour party is dominated by thirtysomethings with ten years in government under their belt, the new Tory women are aged between 37 and 49.

David Cameron has taken the controversial decision of asking constituencies to choose two male and two female candidates for their shortlist. Although it falls short of the women-only list imposed upon Labour CLPs, it is still an unpopular move in some sections of the party.

While a supporter of the A-list, Villiers is sceptical about the value of positive discrimination: “I think there are all sorts of other methods available to increase the participation of women in the Conservative party, which don’t involve all-women shortlists.

“I think they give rise to a number of concerns and problems. It is very difficult to say to someone who may have lived in a particular area all his life, and worked hard for the party for many years, you can’t stand as a candidate because you are a man. My view is that we have to deal with every other option first.”

It can be hard when talking to her to remember that Villiers has only been an MP for 18 months. It is a welcome change of pace from Brussels:

“It’s a completely different political culture, I enjoy it more. It’s a challenging environment in which to operate, so I have been trying hard to live up to the responsibility that I have been given.

“On the floor of the House its very adversarial but when you work in committee it’s a lot more consensual. It has been interesting to work with Treasury ministers.”

Most of the time, however, she is picking them apart. The Chancellor’s reputation is built on the strength of the British economy. The longest period of uninterrupted growth since the Industrial Revolution. Low unemployment. Increased investment in public services. Millions of pensioners lifted out of poverty. Where is the problem?

“We are worried about the level of borrowing – 139 million over five years is very significant. Taxes have gone up considerably and we are concerned about the impact on business competitiveness.

“We are concerned also about the complexity of the tax system as that has imposed significant challenges and expenses on British businesses, which again effects competitiveness.

“As the economy becomes more globalised, it is more and more important that we are able to compete with economies like India and China that we have a streamlined tax system that is easy to operate.

“Red tape and regulation has increased significantly under the Chancellor’s stewardship of the economy. We think he has failed to deal sensibly with our pensions system.

“We had one of the healthiest private pension sectors in Europe in 1997, not it is the weakest. There are significant problems with public sector pensions. All of this provides a lot of uncertainty about the long-term competitiveness of the UK economy.”

That uncertainly may be behind the party’s steadfast refusal to promise tax cuts, even when Tory grandees like Lord Tebbit make noises about being the natural party of low taxes, and party conference delegates cheer every mention of tax cuts:

“We believe very strongly that we should only cut taxes when this would not jeopardise stability. Looking at the numbers now, we are concerned about whether the country would be able to afford it in three years time.

“We feel that it might well be very difficult for us to offer up-front tax cuts at a general election given the current fiscal position, the level of borrowing. We believe it is absolutely important that stability is our watchword and the first priority.

“We may therefore find that the country can’t afford to cut taxes at that point because we have to focus on repairing the public finances and repaying some of the debts that the current Chancellor is incurring now.”

It has been a good conference for David Cameron, and for Theresa Villiers. She got a mention in George Osborne’s speech. She was seated directly behind the Leader in many TV shots of him listening to speeches. She moderated a “meet the candidates” session with Boris Johnson, and managed not to be completely over-shadowed by the blond bombshell. She looked relaxed and approachable. The most prominent woman to join the parliamentary party in well over a decade, she has high praise for her fellow new MPs

“I think Michael Gove is brilliant, I think that Maria Miller is also really really good, in fact all the women elected with me, Justine Greening, Nadine Dorries, Anne Milton and Anne Main are outstanding Commons performers.”

Finally, when ARE we going to hear some polices, some substance to go with the Cameron style?

“David Cameron set a clear direction of travel for the party. In terms of detailed policy, we are determined to get it right. We feel that one of our weaknesses in opposition has been a tendency to announce policies which had not perhaps been researched thoroughly enough or thought through enough. We are determined not to make that mistake again.”

Cameron's big speech

That nice David Cameron is about to make his keynote speech to conference. Here is an as-live comment on what he says:

14.31 A video montage of DC's best TV appearances. Too long. Way too long.

14.32 Still watching the video presentation. Now it’s showing a montage accompanied by Jamie Cullum-esque tat music, entitled "It's a New Day." All I can think of are D:ream and things only getting better.

14.33 Wow we are hearing the full version of "It's A New Day." Even ads on TV only last 30 seconds ...

14.34 Yep. Still going. Even I will be happy to see DC after this musical torture.

14.35 Will this EVER END?

14.35 Finally. Cameron gets a standing ovation as he approaches the podium. Oh he keeps stopping to greet people. Get to the bloody stage!

14.36 Yep. Still standing ovation. The Tories love em.

14.37 20 second pause from DC - has he lost his speech?

14.37 “It’s been a great week - even Boris got all the way to Tuesday before he put his foot in it! He has been doing an amazing job building up our support. We love it when he goes off message unlike New Labour.

14.38 We are back in the centre ground. The NHS is one of our priorities. 1/3 of candidates are women. They are changing the way we think about politics. We converted a church into a community centre - social action by us.

14.39 We are the party open to new ideas. Joke about Tebbit.

14.40 There is a new job I am after - so I got on my bike and am looking for work. Lets talk about what I believe in. Lets deal with substance. I have lots of it really. It’s not producing a ten-point plan. It’s about knowing what you believe.

14.41 It is social responsibility. Ask what we can do together. Announcing policy is not substance - take time to think things through. It’s about character judgement consistency. Getting it right for the long term.

1442 Oliver Letwin is clever. That is why I asked him to think deeply about things. He is doing a great job.

Lets talk about tax. We all know a low tax economy is strong but some people want some pie-in-the-sky tax cuts. That isn’t substance. The old policies are not coming back and we are not going back

1443 We will not take risks with the economy - we believe in sound money and stability comes first. George Osborne is fab. We need more pensions, deregulation, investment in skills, a modern transport system and more to promote British business. Globalisation. India China Brazil. Get out there and fly the flag for British business.

1445 NHS. Vitally important to every family including mine. Vital. The creation of the NHS is one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century. Noble but simple idea. Expression of our values as a nation, social solidarity. The people proud and attached to it. I relied on them day after day. I know the problems. Waiting. It can be frustrating. Inspiration. The nurses, the doctors, huge army of support staff. For me, it is not a question of saying the NHS will be safe in my hands. My family is so often in the hands of the NHS and I want them to be safe.

1447 TB said his priority was education, education, education. Mine is three letters N H S.
We will always support it but the money must be spent well.

1448 Where has all the Labour money gone in the NHS? 24 hours to save the NHS? More like 24 ways to administer it. They changed loads of stuff. And it was all crap. People working in the NHS are bewildered.

1449 Shambolic. Waste of time and money. Beds and wards closing, nurses and doctors are unhappy.

1450 The waste of money is nothing next to the waste of energy. No more pointless reorganisation of our health service.

1451 Our changes are based on social responsibility. Far greater professional responsibility in our NHS. The world of healthcare is more than GPs and hospitals. As we get older we will need the other services. Carers, occupational therapists. Social services are vital let’s back them.

1452 Next week we launch a campaign on the NHS. Get out on the streets and send the governmentt a message. You have mismanaged the NHS stop the cuts and sort it out.

1453 I believe in the NHS. Standing up for your beliefs is substance. Not everything Labour did was bad, we need to keep good stuff like Bank of England index and minimum wage stays, we might even increase it sometime. That is real substance, putting your country first.

1454 The TB of 12 years ago we all remember, and then he let people down. Let us not think that people will jump from new Labour into our arms it will take long hard patient work. We have to win peoples trust. It will be hard but we can do it

1455 For too long the decisions are made in the wrong place, on the sofa in TB office. We have to end this arrogant style of government in Britain.

1456 I will restore proper cabinet government. I want to be PM of Britain not a President. Progress is never free - always a price. Making it all sound painless is spin we have to be different.

1457 We have got to tell the people the price of progress and before the election, that is substance. I am passionate about the environment. I love the outdoors. I am quite keen on trees but I won’t be hugging them.

1458 We are reaching a tipping point. The tools are within our grasp to deal with this. It is going to be pain and sacrifice. Al Gore’s movie is great. There is a price for progress on climate change.

1459 Windmills can help and save money but they are not enough govt must show leadership create a price for carbon in our economy. things that produce more carbon get more expensive. The point is that climate change is our social responsibility.

1500 In politics is much easier to take the steps that are painful if we work together. We asked TB to put a climate change bill in the Queen’s speech. Come on Tony, do something.

1501 Let us face the tension in the party between aspiration and opportunity, a key part of which is home ownership. Conservation is also important but if we want new homes they have to be built somewhere. Do not pretend there is a pain free solution to suit everyone. We must be on the side of the next generation. Build more homes for young people.

1502 The PM has the ultimate responsibility. I would have to turn my words about climate change into action as PM. But security is the most serious responsibility. I went to meet the troops, some only 18, fighting a ferocious enemy.

1503 Makes me feel humble. Our job in Afghanistan is to keep Britain safe. The armed forces are doing vital work. We are proud.

1504 They are asking for more equipment and for decent treatment of their families at home. Luckily Liam Fox is in their corner fighting for them.

1505 Brize Norton RAF base is in my constituency. Things are bad there, while servicemen pay tax while working overseas. We need to do more for them.

1506 If we win the next election I will be in charge of facing terrorism. It is very different from the IRA. These people are prepared to do anything including suicide. Defeating them is about hearts and minds but it cannot be appeased it must be defeated.

1507 I will always listen to the police and security services and not play politics with terrorism. The govt is getting some things wrong. ID cards won’t stop dangerous people but better border control might.

1509 We need wire tap evidence in court. People who threaten our security should be tried - that is the British way of doing things.

1510 It is all the fault of the human rights act. I want to abolish it and bring in a British bill of rights.

1511 Gun crime and knife crime are up, too much disorder on the streets. All we get from Labour is lots of legislation. We need more prisons, no early release. Last week TB attacked me on hoodies. In that he gave up saying we need to be tough on the causes of crime. We need to tackle broken families and drugs and alcohol we can only solve crime by mending broken lives.

1512 David Davis as shadow Home Secretary makes us the only party to be tough on crime and its causes.

1513 Foreign policy. I don’t need lessons on the special relationship, my grandfather was on the beaches of Normandy. Thatcher and Reagan. I never doubted what side I was on fighting communism.

1514 Steadfast not slavish to America. TB disagrees. I will be a British PM with a British foreign policy.

1515 It is not anti American to question the administration - ask John Mc Cain. I am a liberal conservative. We cannot stand by and watch genocide in Darfur. I am sceptical of grand schemes to remake the world we need to be more humble. Same with stronger society at home.

1516 There are communities where different ethnic backgrounds never meet or talk in this country. It is by contact that we overcome defence and share common values. The most basic contact is talking to eachother that’s why new people must learn English.

1517 Faith schools. I feel strongly like lots of people. I support them. All faiths want them. Islam is one of the great religions and Muslims make a fantastic contribution to our country. A new generation of Muslim faith schools need to be part of society and not separate from it. We think faith schools must admit some kids from other faiths. The Church of England is setting an example by having 25% of pupils from other faiths. All other faiths should do the same.

1518 Every child must know what it means to be British. Our language, history and institutions. Real substance means addressing this openly and frankly. Isn’t David Willetts great?

1519 Labour thinks equality means treating everyone the same. We think it means individual children, what is right for them. That should mean more setting and streaming and clear rules on behaviour. Right and wrong - kids need to know the difference.

1521 Save special schools. It is people not government who create wealth. Our role today is to roll forward the frontiers of society.

1522 Families are really important . All our policies will help families.

1523 Childcare is vital for parents especially single ones. Try and imagine being a single mum all day every day. Then try to imagine getting a job. Britain has got the most expensive childcare in Europe.

1524 Why should you only get help if you use formal childcare? What about grandparents? Time to stop telling people how to use childcare and let them use what they want.

1525 Marriage should be backed it is vital, what really matters is it is about commitment.

1526 I think it means something to everyone I am proud that we supported civil partnerships.

1527 Supporting marriage is more than tax breaks. Flexible working arrangements, childcare and marriage guidance are important, too.

1528 Family, community, society, the environment and quality of life drive me in politics. I want all of us to be optimistic about the future. TB said Britain is a young country as usual he was wrong we are an old country and we have got a proud past but bright future.

1529 We must be the party that says the world is not going to the dogs we must lift people’s sights and raise their hopes.

We are reaching out for what we can achieve and for Britain the best is yet to come.”

1530 Standing ovation

1531 Samantha on stage. He gets a kiss on the cheek. Bit awkward.

Ming-like waving to the crowd.

1534 Still ovating. That is enough for now.

DC used the word substance ten times.