Alexander Avoided Capital Gains Tax

Next!

You really couldn't make it up if you tried. Now Danny Alexander, bad (very bad) choice of replacement for trougher David Laws at the Treasury, has been caught avoiding Capital Gains Tax - you know, the tax he'll be responsible for ramping up as part of his new job. Sorry, but Cameron has set a precedent, has a principle he must (and I think will) follow, and so has to fire Alexander too. There'll be fewer tears over his loss I imagine than there were for 'rising star' and 'genius', David Laws.

Some will be asking why this is happening. It's very simple really and it has nothing to do with homophobic witch-hunts, Labour sting operations (lol) or right wing, anti-coaltion smear conspiracies. That's loony stuff. The reason is that while they were the no-hoper, hotchpotch third party that generally behaved like weasels in a sack behind the scenes (still do), during the expenses scandal they were basically ignored by the Telegraph in what was a target rich environment. There were only so many pages in the paper each day, and the editors rightly preferred to focus on the major players and the yellows got away with it, even to point where Clegg actually thought he could boast about it in the Commons! This is the hubris. Now that senior Lib Dems, to their huge surprise and thanks to a rare general election outcome, have found themselves doing real government jobs, they are subject to that delayed scrutiny. Moreover, it is all the more intense because they are being picked off one by one instead of en masse, as the Tories and Labour MPs and ministers were. So much the better.

It goes without saying - for me at least - that the Lib Dems fully deserve everything they get, and so the sight of senior MPs and some well known mainstream political bloggers defending one of them, often on the most ridiculous of grounds, is damn well nauseating. One good thing will come out of this new wave of expenses revelations, however: pretty soon, the Conservative government will run out of Lib Dems to put in the vital Treasury Chief Sec. role (they'll be on the Sarah Teather human mouse pretty soon).

Then maybe the country will get the person it really needs in that job - John Redwood - and, I predict, with the coalition still more or less in tact.

Every "cloud" as they say...

Laws Gone

Iain Dale and others are reporting that David Laws has gone. One thing: if true, it is important to establish the precise reason for his 'resignation' (sacking by Cameron). Having said that, it is also important to establish what were not the reasons too. For instance, certainly not the reason would be the one David Blackburn has just supposed in a uncharacteristically shoddy and pretty wrongheaded piece for him:

According to Con Home and several other sources, Laws has resigned. This is hugely regrettable as Laws is a star performer and I feel he has been the victim of a media gay-hunt that belongs to a bygone era. The sums of money involved are slight in comparison to some, and there are arguments that other ministers should resign for having committed similar or worse offences and for having shown markedly less contrition. But it is refreshing that a minister would resign over a personal transgression with haste and dignity.

This is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin. First, Laws has had little or no chance to demonstrate he was a 'star performer'. He was starting to look promising and seemed to be grasping the wisdom of the Tory policy on the debt and structural deficit. Well done for that, but stardom it hardly warrants. Second, to 'feel' that he was the 'victim' of some mythical 'media gay hunt' is arrant nonsense. His sexuality had nothing to do with it, aside from the fact that he was clearly embarrassed about it and this provided him with a motive for being so incautious with his expenses and then concealing this potentially damaging fact from his new boss. There was and is no 'media gay hunt'. Outrage about his public/private hypocrisy, yes - bigotry and prejudice, no. That is in Blackburn's imagination and, I think, was uttered because of some kind of personal disappointment rather than any genuine understanding of the sequence and significance of events [like I have, lol]. Again, I've got to say that I find that surprising from this writer.

Third, and most significantly, Blackburn makes some sort of point about the relative scale of previous incidences of irregular expenses arrangements with a frankly childish 'they didn't so why does he?' argument. Well, if he thinks that that false equivalence will wash with anyone then he hasn't understood idea-one of what's been going on here. Cameron stood on a ticket of cleaning up parliament and being tough with his ministers if they step out of line in principle. The amounts involved (and 40k seems like a lot to me) are not important. The way the money was channeled is. Laws bent the rules in a deeply suspicious way, far more even, if we are to entertain Blackburn's relativist argument for a moment, than your average trougher who simply took advantage of those rules but did so by the book, i.e. without adding their own, personal interpretation that advantaged them, or, indeed, a loved one, even more.

As to his mention of 'other ministers', who, I wonder, does he mean? Cameron? Labour ministers? Cameron can hardly fire Labour ministers who've already lost their jobs, for heaven's sake, so what on earth does he mean? Your guess is as good as mine. Suffice to say, it's the most muddled-up post of his I think I've ever read.

So much for the Blackburn gay witch-hunt theory. The real reason why Laws had to go is because Cameron is keeping his word. He has always understood the scale of anger at the expenses scandal. He also realised that Laws could not be talking about painful cuts in public spending one second and defending his own venality another. That's called an 'untenable position'.

In other words, the only thing Laws' sacking has demonstrated to me is not that he is dignified - I'm sure he is - but that David Cameron really does mean what he has says and that, dear readers, is the really 'refreshing' thing about this new government and about this incident.

But what follows is crucial. A sound, imaginative replacement must be found. Blackburn says, alarmingly, that it might be the lunatic Huhne. That would be a disaster not just for this government but for the entire country and Cameron must intervene to stop it instantly.

The only man with the gravity and intellect for a job like CST in a time of economic trauma and dislocation is John Redwood. Whether the Prime Minister likes it or not, Redwood is the right man for the needs of this country at this parlous point in its history.

What the Libdems want simply doesn't matter.

Update:

Well, they've got it badly wrong and given Danny Alexander the job according to ConHome. That is a disastrous decision and it will come back to haunt this coalition. You cannot compromise on the economy for the sake of the coalition and certainly not with someone as wet behind the ears, untested and lightweight as 37 year-old Alexander (yes, I know, he's been bigged up over the past few weeks because of the negotiations. Big deal).

Too many Tories are going to be too pissed off too quickly with any more appointments like this one. This may even be the one that tips them over. I think this is the first real sign that this coaltion cannot and will not last long. For one thing, unlike the corrupt Labourists, as amply demonstrated by Brown, Conservatives do not believe in the idea of clinging on to power at any price. The coalition could soon be toast.

Quite frankly, after the promotion of another Libdem lightweight to a cabinet role for which he is most certainly not qualified, especially at such a crucial moment for the British economy, I'm not sure how I feel about that prospect yet. Maybe, after all, it wouldn't be such a bad thing.

News Flash: This Coalition Is A Joke

I'm absorbing Question Time reluctantly and all it's (predictably, these days) generating in me is an intensifying mood of futility, especially after the pathetic Clegg/Cameron long grass double act earlier today. This 'strong and stable government' nonsense is a dangerous misunderstanding on the part, particularly, of the Tories of what the general election result really meant.

People have had a bellyful of 'strong and stable governments' that are basically all mendacious mouth and no trousers, having had 13 years of a catastrophic version of 'strong and stable' Labour government. We're through with elected dictatorships when they're actually elected. But this increasingly disconnected, disingenuous, dysfunctional Libdum/Tory stitch-up version of a 'strong and stable government' certainly wasn't voted for - by anyone! It's the wittiest form of 'strong and stable government' I think I've ever seen. And the joke's on us.

People, if anything can be read into the outcome of the general election (and not a lot can), did not vote for a 'strong and stable government' that would carry on for five years as if Cameron's and Clegg's convenient interpretation was the only one that mattered. What people actually 'voted for' (if a mass ballot really can have a mind and character of its own, which itself borders on insulting inanity) is a weak and unstable government that would have to make policy according to principle, be answerable to the people every day of its existence, and would have to rely on pure guts and political nous just to get through one parliament.

A minority Tory government would have delivered that, and would have shown the country that the party still had a soul and some real courage. It would have earned them a proper victory down the line, too, possibly with a new leader who genuinely represented those erstwhile traits of the Conservative institution.

As it is, forget what I've said before, (although I've been pretty consistent in the post-election propaganda landscape), the middle class Richmond/Notting Hill shits are in charge again (this time with a bluish-yellow hue rather than a red one). They've welded Parliament's doors shut to the likes of me and you, and are now talking to themselves while really, honestly imagining, laughably, that they are running the country.

It did not take long, but the consequences, as the world economy tanks - this time for real - will be awe-inspiring and devastating. We could have had a weak but principled and determined government. Instead, we don't even have a 'strong and stable government'. All we really have is weakness, fudge, paralysis and hot air.

Not impressed. Plus ca change, right?

Clegg: Unpatriotic And Unfit For Office

Whatever Nick Clegg's chancer's instincts are telling him about whether he can go in for what, for him, would be the 'big win' of a ministerial role in either a Tory or (God forbid) a Labour government after this general election, all evidence thus far, in terms of his infantile campaign conduct and his hideously ignorant, arrogant attitude towards the country he thinks really desires his leadership in some form or another, points to the absolute certainty that this individual (just like the party that installed him as its leader) is totally unfit for any form of office.

Don't believe me? Nile Gardener, on his Telegraph blog, explains why:

Nick Clegg’s sickening disdain for both the military and intelligence communities was openly on display yet again earlier today in an interview on GMTV. In reply to a critique of his foreign and defence policy in The Times by three former senior national security officials, Clegg responded in typically condescending tones:

“I am not going to take lectures from a bunch of retired establishment figures about the security of this country.”

“Some of them actually made the biggest mistakes in the run-up to the Iraq War. I am not going to apologise for calling, for example, for a proper inquiry into the allegations that somehow the British security services made us complicit in torture.”

There is something breathtakingly arrogant about a party leader who feels he can sneer with impunity at highly distinguished figures that have served their country and dedicated much of their lives to keeping Britain safe, including a former chief of defence staff, Lord Guthrie, who fought as a squadron commander in the SAS. He can disagree with their views all he likes, but to mock them in derisive terms is highly insulting. At the same time Clegg seems obsessed with dredging up the spectre of the Iraq War, which has barely featured in this election despite his best efforts, and accusing Britain’s intelligence services of complicity in torture, which only serves the interests of Britain’s enemies.

As I wrote in my op-ed piece earlier today, Nick Clegg is the first major party leader to run for Prime Minister on an anti-British ticket. He is filled with a self-loathing for his nation and its institutions, which came across in spades in his response to The Times letter. I cannot think of a candidate for Prime Minister in recent memory who has accused his own country of involvement in torture. That is a damning indictment of both Nick Clegg’s leadership and his vision for the future of Britain.

Forget tactical voting. If you vote Lib Dem, maybe you'll get Lib Dem! That's strong enough reason on its own for any wavering voters tempted to turn to the Yellows to think again and do the right thing. If you want Brown out, you have to vote Cameron.

But if, for some peculiar reason, you honestly want five more years of Brown, then vote Brown - if you really have to. So be it - you are who you are and it's a free election.

But to vote for any years of the unutterable faker and Labour-lite cypher, Nick Clegg, is to betray your ideals and beliefs and to betray, if the evidence of Clegg's own spiteful, anti-democratic, anti-British words are anything to go by, your own country too. Who the hell does this idiot think he is?

So do not vote for a man like Clegg just because you still doubt David Cameron or because you've been told it's somehow a smart tactic. It isn't.

Whatever your political inclinations either way, you'd never forgive yourself if your actions resulted in any form of a Clegg-tainted government.

I wouldn't.

Where's Darling?

I was surprised to learn from Sky News this morning that the latest general election economics debate, if I heard right, will be between George Osborne, Vince Cable and...er...Peter Mandelson.

Hang on a minute, do they mean Lord Peter "We're all fighting to get re-elected" Mandelson, Business Secretary (among many other hats)? He's not Chancellor of the Exchequer as well these days is he? That's Alistair Darling, isn't it?

Have I missed something? Has Darling come down with an inexplicable stomach complaint (soon after having tea and crumpets with the Evil One yesterday afternoon, no doubt)?

If I haven't missed something, however, but there's no highly suspicious sudden sickness involved (it'd have to be a pretty serious affliction to force you to miss your own debate seven days before the election, wouldn't it?), then we are all entitled to ask a grave question about this very fishy affair: where the hell is Ali?

I think we should be told.

PS: If someone knows, by the way, why Darling has been elbowed, do let me know in the comments.

I wonder if George knows...

==Update==

Not entirely my fault because this wasn't made clear on the news - or I was half asleep - but the three mentioned above are all giving speeches to the Institute of Directors today, not debating, according to Sky.com.

Even so, the question remains: where's Darling!

Or, looking at it another way, why not send Clarke into bat against Mandelson instead of Osborne whose eyes, let's face it, are probably still watering after being on the receiving end of a couple of severe spankings in the past administered with thinly disguised fetishistic relish by the Lord of the Lies.

Ken Clarke, in contrast, owns Mandy's ass.

The Liberal Mystery Tour

Cleggmania grips Britain!



Far out man! Scrap the Bomb! LSD rules! "Liberal Sychedelic (sic) Democrats". Clegg's bigger than Jesus, man! Gotta grow a beard, dude. And get some sandals. Free love!

(Good effort from one of Guido's imaginative minions.)

BBC Over-Exposure of Clegg?

Deja Vu

Today, like every other weekday, began with the usual routine for me: up at around 6.30; ablutions; cup of coffee; quick spin of the hound; 7.30am sharp, Liberal Democrat News conference on three BBC channels....

Hang on. What was that last one again? A Liberal Democrat News Conference. Every damn morning I'm faced not with the latest news about scary ash clouds not damaging 747s at all but still closing down the country, but with Nick "My Dad's Richer Than Dave's Dad" Clegg banging on about hopeless Libdum 'policies' (today it was the turn of the bankers. Vince wasn't there, though. Curious, that). He gets a full half hour of free airtime from the BBC every morning just when most people will be checking out the news, too.

I did what I usually do, seeing as I haven't heard anything fresh, or worthwhile, from the Libdums for months, and switched back to the Murdoch channel. They don't carry it - usually. But shock horror! There he was again! Trotting out his endless, codified claptrap once more, relentlessly. To be fair, though, Sky only aired the first bit (praise the Lord).

But the BBC. Sheesh! They've got a nerve. If you only watched the BBC's news coverage, and only in the mornings, you would be forgiven for thinking the Libdums were the only party in the country. So why is the Beeb blatantly backing the yellows now? Well, not only are they biased, but they're not even that bothered about hiding it any more - perhaps as this latest scandal about a now-suspended BBC 'complaints' manager (and Labour candidate) partly demonstrates. It seems their tiresomely - and tirelessly - left wing editors and managers have finally decided that Labour can't win, so, with brazen cynicism, they're going to try to make sure that if they can't have their beloved party, they'll make it as hard as possible for the Tories to form a government by splitting the vote.

Sound crazy? Just remember who we're dealing with here. They despise the Tories quite a lot more than they despise the Liberals, half of whom are 'social democrats' (socialists) as it is. Whatever the ins and outs of it, and I doubt it's a conspiracy, but it is undoubtedly an attitude, the BBC is now buying into the hung parliament trope (or 'balanced' parliament, as it was referred to on the Today programme by one of the presenters this morning, no doubt in deference to Alex Salmond), and buying in big style.

This only annoys me slightly less than shutting down the entire UK's aviation industry because the Met Office and the EU says we have to. I put the BBC into the same category as those two menaces to a free and productive society.

But before we put all the BBC chiefs up against the wall, can't we just have a little less of the Libdums? Pretty please? It's getting beyond a joke.

Or is there an argument for letting Clegg get overexposed, so everyone can eventually see him for the pseudo-socialist, public school-educated airhead that he really is? And how utterly shallow and confused the party he leads is in reality, too? Interesting conundrum to me, that.

EUseless!

Not Iceland - This ash is dangerous

So the Telegraph is reporting what quite a number of stranded holiday makers have no doubt suspected for quite a while, namely that the EU organisation that plunged the entire continent into the pre-Wright brothers era so emphatically was basing its decision on yet another dodgy Met Office computer model. As the chairman of the International Air Transport Association, Giovanni Bisignani, told Radio Four earlier on, "This is a European Embarrassment and European Mess".

Only, he didn't mean that exactly. What he meant, precisely, is that this is an EU embarrassment and an EU mess that is rapidly developing into a full-blown EU disaster. Why, then, exactly, is our equally useless, soon-to-be-booted-out government sitting on its backside listening to this horse manure about engine-devouring ash, which has now pretty much been proved as just that, equine effluent, and not simply saying, "Up yours, Delores, our planes go up!"?

Answer? Obvious. Aside from being useless, they couldn't even do it if they wanted to. The ban was made possible by treaty and as such is legally binding, meaning that anyone breaching it, from any nation, could be fined by the EU to the tune of millions and without any democratically elected national government being able to stop it short of dropping out of the EU or going to war.

The EU, in its infinite stupidity has, thanks to its epic bureaucratic blundering, turned a minor volcanic eruption in a peripheral European nation into a crisis the scale of which can scarcely be conceived. Remember, closing Europe down directly affects the lives of 400 million people 'home' and indirectly the entire globe, one way or another. "Monumental" doesn't begin to describe it. But it certainly doesn't auger well for Britain's future if we permit a repetition. But how do we avoid a repetition, I hear you ask, when Gordon Brown has signed away our right to object without even consulting us, probably at the behest of the most dishonest man in the entire world, Peter "Lord" Mandelson?

Hmm, well now, I would imagine we could avoid a repetition, at least in Britain, by reclaiming control of our own government, regulatory systems, businesses or, at the very least, next time there's a lunatic, suicidal order from the EU, to, say, shut down the entire electricity grid of Europe because a lousy CICO computer model from the bloody Met Office has told them that there's a 34% probability that all the pylons are about to come alive and eat us all, they just say NO!

Meanwhile, I watch with increasing suspicion as our airline industry is made to implode as a result of bad science and even worse supranational, unelected government, the reaction of the alarmist lobby. You have Plane Stupid, the watermelon, single issue fanatics and misfit band of dropouts, layabouts, anarchists and other assorted activist oddballs who want to send us all back into the 14th century - not that I have anything against the 14th Century, I just don't want to live there - starting with the abolition of flight. As you might imagine, they're loving this:

So, Eyjafjallajokull, you may have an unpronounceable name and an odd smell, but nonetheless we thank you for giving us a brief glimpse of life without planes. And for demonstrating that, despite what the aviation industry would like to have us believe, a world without air travel could well be a very happy place indeed.

For you maybe. But then you're a weirdo so forgive me if I ignore you from now on. Ordinary people like to use aeroplanes and they like to travel. Air travel does not harm the environment (although poorly located airports, like Heathrow, certainly do). It's all in your imagination, hairy man, stirred up into a fever by that self-same, God awful menace of a Met Office, with its useless modelling and man made warmist obsessions. Hang on a minute, Met Office gives a warning based on dodgy science to unanswerable EU body with power to shut down every airport and ground every plane on the entire continent. All aircraft are grounded. Enviro-fascists everywhere united in common approval for the Met Office's and the EU's responsible opportunism in taking full advantage of a little volcanic ash and enabling what Copenhagen could never do, bring the aviation industry, already weakened by Brown's bust, to its knees. Good heavens, I never thought they had it in them.

Well, that's the point, they don't. Between them, the EU, the Met Office and AGW nutjobs who now infest them all, couldn't organise a conspiracy of that complexity in the space of a couple of days. No, all the Met Office was, as usual, is incompetent. All that Brown did, as usual, was dither.

And all the EU is, always and forever, is completely useless - catastrophically and expensively so.

Anyone who wants five more years of Brown so he can complete the process of transforming this country into the arse end of the EU donkey wants his head examining. But this is exactly what you'll get, and more, if you vote for the Labourists or, for that matter, the Libdums. I suppose these losers all have one thing in common: all they're interested in is their own, pathetic political agendas, not the interests or the desires of the people, whether of the UK or of "Europe".

Oh Dave, Dave, if only you'd promised that referendum. The election would be over by now, and you'd be in Downing St sticking two fingers up to the EU and getting our planes flying. I trust. Why, oh why? I'll always be pondering that one right up until the day I pass on through the great ash cloud in the sky to the heavens beyond (go on holiday to Thailand, in other words, assuming we still have an aviation industry left by then).

Er, that's enough. (I'm just putting off doing some real work ;)

Hometime, I think!

Blindsided

I have to admit it, and I don't like having to do it, but I've been blindsided by the anti-politics surge the Libdums have enjoyed. I didn't see it coming and it caught me by surprise. But I can't just dismiss it as a freak - it's too significant, too important to write off as a mere coincidence and too ominous for the Conservative-minded, like me, to ignore. What's more, if I'm being honest (for a change), Cameron was surprisingly disappointing in that debate thing, and he shows no signs of recovering his momentum - yet. (I reckon he will, though.)

So what's the problem? Well, it ain't the Libdums. They're still a pack of political mongrels as far as I'm concerned and, in that, about as appealing as Monster Raving Loonies. Mind you, at least the Loonies know they're nutters and do it for the fun. They know who they are, the Libdums don't.

On the one hand, the Libdums (especially their ex-Labourist grandees, like that grammar school destroying, arrogant bitch Shirley Williams) are a party of the Left, who believe that stealing people's money can always be justified because society (which they confuse with 'body politic', as all socialists do) always comes first, and taxation is the means by which society's 'behaviour' can be 'modified' (they really use those terms - them and the BNP. Sinister, ain't it?).

On the other hand, they are what Margaret Thatcher might regard as Tory ultra-wets, or, in less colourful terms, old-style 'radicals' (in the revolutionary American sense), but who believe in the post-war consensus, managed decline, the intrinsic desirability of European transnationalism, country-not-court and beard growth. Believe me, electoral reform comes last on their list of priorities, whatever they say to the contrary, especially if they annihilate Labour in the general election - which always should have been their aim in the first place (duh!). Count the younger members of that party among the 'radical' number, including the leader, Vince Clegg (whatever).

In other words, it's a bizarre pushmepullyou party of Heathites and Bennites, of bleeding heart, self-banished, auto-flagellating young Tories and superannuated, pseudo-intellectual, old Labour defectors whose pomposity is ony trumped by their vanity.

The problem is not the Libdums. They'll take care of themselves, eventually. The problem is the amount of damage their antipolitics surge is going to do to the outcome of this general election in that there is a distinct possibility that Cameron is dead right - vote Libdum and get Crash Gordon. The only consensus I can discern in Britain at the moment, not only from reading the internet tealeaves, but from every one of my friends, acquaintances and colleagues, is that five more years of Brown would be an intolerable imposition on a country that never wanted him, never voted for him and never liked him. A split vote letting him in would be a total catastrophe, after the damage he's already inflicted on it, for a nation that is just about getting through the year in tact, and is seriously worried about the next few.

It's not just me that's been blindsided by this Liberal surge, though, it looks to me like the country has, too, especially the people seriously entertaining the notion that the way to punish politicians is by voting for the underdogs, thus letting the worst offenders of all of them back into power. Confused? I am. And so are, I imagine, the Tories.

However, and this is a big rider, if this really is one of those earthquake moments in British politics; if Labour are about to be (rightly) smashed down to third-party status by the Liberals, after their 90 long years in the wilderness, then so be it. It's an outcome I suppose I can live with, as long as Brown is gone and Labour do receive the massive kicking at the polls that they so richly deserve. (It's already happening in a slightly different way in my town, where Plaid look like they almost certainly will oust the sitting Labourist MP for the first time in the town's history ever.)

Guido Fawkes has kindly provided us with a thought experiment illustrating how this "Change Coalition" narrative might flow. It's well worth the read. Personally, I don't think a government like that would last six weeks. The Libdums' severe internal ideological contradictions would destablise everything within days. But, nevertheless, it does sort of look like a grownup solution that would satisfy apparently shifting public political appetites - and it would tick my top two boxes, too:
1) No more Brown
2) Labour crushed

It seems that some clouds might have two silver linings.

It all depends on Clegg, though. But I don't think he can be trusted because I don't think he's got much authority over the party we are supposed to believe he leads for the reasons I've already given.

So, ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, it's business as usual for us Conservatives, despite the blindsiding: Cameron has got to come out fighting and go in for the big win.

There is no alternative.

Morning Rant: Libdums, Hague on Schools and The BBC (Again)

Dad examines little Nick's report card

It was less than I'd hoped for but no more than I expected. The sight of wall to wall BBC coverage of the father-son Libdum, Clegg-Cable double act droning on and on about bad policies that will never be enacted (thankfully) or attacking other politicians from a position of, well, what? Total, unconvincing inexperience I would say. The sight of those two, with Clegg looking over at his dad every time he needed approval for something he said about banks or tax or bonuses or shares or whatever, was pathetic. The main point, though, is about the BBC (naturally). Why, exactly, has the BBC decided that every Libdum press conference and Q/A session has to be covered without interruption? They are the third party. What is more, this is the second day in a row our senses have been assaulted by the luminous, fried-egg colour wall and this pair of twits. For a third party, they get a heck of a lot of coverage from the Beeb. And none of the scrutiny (Paxman going easy on Clegg, for instance).

A little later, by contrast, I then had the sound of John Humphreys laying into William Hague about the Tories' excellent and intelligent, proven schools policy. Preferring the sound of his own voice to that of his guest's, especially if he's a Conservative, Humphreys repeated a phrase that I am sure I have heard Ed Ballsup, among other Labourists, use before, namely "a counsel of despair". How making it far easier for parents collectively to intervene in the education of their own children, and perhaps set up a legendary new institution for posterity as well, is quite beyond me, I'm afraid. Seems like the state grant they would receive to do it, in addition to the charitable donations and private funding, amounts to an absolute bargain. Everyone's a potential winner, most of all the children.

Yet Humphrey's pushed it for all he was worth, right up until Hague came up with his hilarious put-down that if state control of anything and everything, which is the position Humphreys appeared to have chosen to adopt - the Labour position - was such a perfect thing, then the Soviet Union would have been a spectacular success instead of the mother(land) of all trainwrecks, which clearly rattled the Humph judging by his response, which was blustery and weak.

I think this policy will resonate very widely and even excite a lot of people in this country, especially if people as good as Hague are making the philosophical case for it, but mainly because it's a damn good idea that, as Hague pointed out at the end, has a proven track record of success in the USA.

The Tories are winning the argument on education. The Libdums don't have an education policy. The BBC has just lost it.

Revealed: Cardiff City Council's New State-of-the-Art Cycle Lane Network

Enjoyed this one from the Daily Mail today. This is Cardiff City Council's idea of a cycle lane:

According to the Mail, the council explained to baffled cyclists that the red box with a picture of a bicycle in it had been painted there to

'highlight the interface between the eastbound carriageway and the beginning of a new contraflow facility' in Cardiff city centre and to encourage green transport.

They went on, in a similarly pompous, meaningless tone:

'The purpose of the new facility is to enable cyclists to ride safely and legally in the opposite direction to the flow of traffic.
'The marking helps to highlight the point at which cyclists can turn left off the carriageway to join the contraflow facility.'

Yeah, right. The reality is, as we all know, that it serves no other purpose than to give the impression that the council gives a toss about cyclists, and that it's 'green', laughably. And the cost of this totally pointless waste of money to Cardiff Council Tax payers? A cool £2000.

We shouldn't be surprised, of course. That council's controlled by a beardy weirdy Liberal Democrat coalition (ed: yes, with Plaid. But that's hardly Plaid's fault, is it), which explains just about everything you need to know. Of course, that also puts it in the same category as the equally useless, LibDum-controlled Swansea City Council: hopeless.

Before government waste can be cut, folks, we have to cut the wasters, locally and nationally. Another reason to vote Tory whenever the opportunity presents itself, then. Simple as.

Mash On Cable

Enjoyed this one from the superlatively non prisoner-taking Daily Mash:

IF THE ANSWER IS VINCE CABLE THEN I'M MOVING TO FRANCE, SAYS EVERYONE

IF the answer to Britain's economic problems is Vince Cable then what are the schools like in the Dordogne, it was claimed last night. You could grow your own vegetables while Vince is in the Treasury turning out to be shit As the Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman once again made it perfectly clear that he thinks he is much, much better than you, people across the country were surprised at how much house you can get for your money south of the Loire. Mr Cable lined up alongside rivals George Osborne and Alistair Darling in a Channel Four debate on Britain's economic future while millions of viewers stressed that French social security contributions are comparatively high but you do get what you pay for. Julian Cook, from Finsbury Park, said: "Give him his credit, he did correctly predict that Ricky Martin is a gay man, but apart from that all he seems to do is tell people what's in the Financial Times." He added: "Four bedrooms, an acre of land and a pool for £250,000. And it's near a village with a twice weekly open air market and a bistro. Yeah... sure... Vince Campbell would be a terrific thingumy of the whatever..." Joanna Kramer, from Grantham, said: "Bearing in mind that politicians are the unfunniest bastards in the history of the universe then I suppose Vince Cable is relatively amusing when compared to, say Anne Widdecombe or Adolf Hitler. Unfortunately I don't think there is a huge export market for pithy metaphors and self-satisfied put-downs." She added: "Did you know that the TGV travels at an average speed of 174mph and has a 98% punctuality rate? But I'm sure Vic Claypole will be super at whatever it is you would like him to do." Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the debate the Tories said that expectations on George Osborne were so low that he had won simply by not boasting about how rich he is, using the word 'piccaninny' or urinating in his underpants. It is not known how chancellor Alistair Darling performed as everyone had made sure they had something else to do while he was speaking.

Lol.

National Care Service? Not In My Lifetime

Listening to Andy Burnham on the way to work this rainy Tuesday morning was one of the less pleasant experiences of my life. What a load of tosh that idiot spouts, and in that ridiculous yob voice of his. I've never heard such a giant stream of steaming waffle, hissing piffle and stalling widdle in my entire life!
Life! Ah, life. Yes, indeed - life. As in 'long life' - and getting longer. My five year-old nephew, so we are told, can reasonably expect to live to the age of 100+. However, I think that figure could be even higher. The generation of my family born at the turn of the last century almost all died in their 80s. What is more, we read today that a horny old goat (who is 75) has just impregnated a woman.

It wouldn't be unfair to imagine, therefore, that with medical technology advancing at the rate it is, my nephew, who will hit the royal telegram age in the year 2104, can 'reasonably expect' artificial organ replacements, bionic limbs and eyes, anti-aging gene therapy and, above all, a cure for cancer. And every bit of it will be available on the NHS (honest). With all that intervention, he can 'reasonably expect' to live until he's 200 - and actively, too. He could be the first centurion daddy.

So what, I hear you scream, is the point of all this? I will tell you. The point is that the problem of care for the elderly is a problem we are facing now. It's my parents who very soon will need the kind of care that only children and expensive professional 'carers' can provide. There are elderly people now who are on their own and struggling to cope, or have lost their life savings and equity to pay for the privilege of being neglected in some dump of a care home. (This was the result of one of the most iniquitous laws ever passed, in my view. But that's another story).

It seems to me that all I heard from Burnham was a piece of pisspoor procrastination on a social issue that he doesn't seem to get (well, he's only young himself). Let's set up a commission and see what they say in five year's time, he suggested. Thank the Lord for the Big Ideas, eh readers? So, after his Death Tax suggestion was rightly rubbished, and ruled out by Darling, this whole thing appears to have been kicked into the very long grass by Labour, simply because it's too big a challenge for them to confront.

The Conservatives, by contrast, have a plan that can be implemented now. Lansley was excellent on Radio 4. Sure, the insurance plan might not help people who are already in old people's homes today, but it would certainly help my parents, who are heading in the same direction; give it a decade. By the time they need it, the system would be well-established - mature, even - and well-funded. The Labour grand plan for a National Care Service would, by that time, you can guarantee it, have been delayed, would be billions over-budget and just about to be scrapped. The Conservatives are telling us what's do-able, and how to do it.

Labour just gives us pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams that wouldn't work anyway. 'Twas ever thus.

So the Tories had better win the next election - if nothing else, then for my parents' sake! As for my nephew, well, he won't be needing a National Care Service. He'll be taking part in the Olympics when he's 150 (in 2154 - I believe they're being held in Kandahar that year).

Don't get me wrong, care where care is needed is a decent idea. But it should be the duty of children to provide that care. That's the real sign of a healthy society. I would expect, however - demand, even - that that sense of duty finally be recognised, and financially rewarded, by a Tory government. As for the State, well, its duty is clear: where there is no alternative, i.e., where there are no close family members who can provide support for their elderly or infirm loved one(s), or where that family, motivated by some form of perverse selfishness, has abrogated their duty and abandoned the needy member, the State intervenes.

Where the care becomes too difficult for the dutiful family, however, that's when the Conservatives' insurance scheme really will come into its own. It is not merely a step in the right direction - and Labour and Liberal Democrats won't even admit that, remember - it is an excellent solution to a problem confronting Britain now. The Lib Dem spokes-idiot said that a similar scheme in France only had a "20% uptake". What the Lib Dem spokes-idiot probably doesn't know (or would care about if he did) is that the other 80% in France look after their own families. Always have, always will. So the problem of how we mend Britain's broken society, where grown-up children turn their backs on sick or elderly relatives, is a separate, massive problem, you see, and one that no fantasy 'National Care Service' is going to fix.

The National Care Service is, therefore, a red herring (surprise surprise). Rather than opposing it with the expression "over my dead body", however, (which seems to be tempting fate), I'll just make a prediction: "National Care Service", laugh out loud. Not in my lifetime. Not in anyone's lifetime, for that matter. Certainly not my nephew's. He won't need the stupid thing.

And neither do we.

Lib-Lab Stitch-Up

The Telegraph had it this afternoon and ConHome's Tim Montgomerie talked about it about an hour ago. Is it really possible? Can they be contemplating it? Are they mad - or stupid - enough to imagine this will wash with a body politic already being denied its right to make its voice heard over Europe, the economic crisis and reform of parliament? Do they want armed uprisings? Are they that corrupt and desperate for power? Will they betray everything they stand for - and their own constituents?

Yes, folks, these questions are aimed at Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats. They've just overtaken Labour for the first time in 22 years in an historic opinion poll. Clegg and Cameron have far more in common than Clegg has with Brown - which is significant insofar as Brown is more-or-less a toxic substance these days. Cameron is not. It would therefore be a seriously counter-intuitive move on Clegg's part to court a Labour party on its last legs, run by a man he dislikes and which has a track record of betrayal in such circumstances ('78/'97, eg.).

Well, if the practicalities and calculations are wrong, so is the morality. A pact like this would be the final insult to the electorate; it would be the final act of contempt for a public already suspicious that their 'leaders' are interested only in maintaining the status quo for as long as possible so they can line their own pockets for a few more months - or years if the pact causes effectively a 'rigged' general election where a vote for the LibDems becomes a vote for Labour: a stitch-up.

Not least because the stitch-up won't work, Clegg should take a principled stance, in full public view, and tell Brown to his face 'thanks but no thanks'. It would highlight the Labour leader's hideous cynicism in his desperate desire to cling on to power. By doing the right thing in taking a principled, longer view Clegg could nail Brown and his party so badly, the Liberal Democrats might not even need some unholy alliance with a bankrupt regime, or the PR fiddle, to be part of a government.

In the space of a single parliament, they could well be in a strong enough position to challenge Cameron and form one of their own. That's the real prize and it won't be won by alienating the electorate just when it needs to see some statesmen emerging from the Westminster rubble. If I were Nick Clegg, I would be regarding this as a no-brainer. But if he gets it wrong and goes with Brown, if I were David Cameron I would be tap-dancing with glee.

New Expenses Revelations - 3rd Party Theft

"Liberal Demoocrats are just as bad, if not worse than, Liebour and the Tories."

Really? There's a thing.

Ho hum...