Torypartiet har i hemlighet påbörjat planerna på att ta över efter Gordon Brown och Labour. Och enligt Nelson kommer en eventuell konservativ regering att vara uttalat familjevänlig och sikta in sig på att minska beroendet av välfärdsstaten.

Conservative kommer att ha en mer "holistic" inställning och hävda att fattigdomen bästa bekämpas, och att progressiva mål snabbast uppnås med konservativa medel.

Mer makt kommer att överföras till lokala beslutande organ som exempelvis val av lokala polischefer. Och skatter kommer att sänkas om möjligheter yppar sig.

Detta är något som Cameron har framför i sina tal en längre tid men frågan är vad som kommer att prioriteras och i vilken ordning.

Enligt Fraser Nelson kommer en skolreform och en översyn av välfärdssystemet att prioriteras. Målet är bl.a. att skapa en "a new breed boutique state schools" som skall konkurrera om elevernas intresse.

Detta är en idé som Cameron har hämtat från den svenska friskolereformen som man uppfattar som så framgångsrik att man i Sverige inte längre skulle kunna rulla tillbaka den.

De konservativa har också satt upp en "Implementation Unit" bestående av ett team av f.d. chefstjänstemän som agerar mentorer för skuggkabinettets ledamöter.

Till skillnad från Allians för Sveriges förberedelser innan valet 2006 försöker de konservativa hålla så tyst som möjligt om sina förberedelser för att kunna ta över makten. Detta eftersom man inte vill framstå som alltför självsäkra och redan har börjat ta mått på gardinerna på 10 Downing Street - "measuring the curtains".

Torypartiet är oroliga att Gordon Brown skall köra ekonomin i botten om man misstänker att de negativa opinionssiffrorna för Labour kommer att hålla i sig. Av denna anledning är man restriktiva i skuggkabinettet när det gäller kommande budgetutgifter.

Men en del reformer tänker Cameron att genomföra omedelbart eftersom dessa uppfattas som förhållandevis billiga. Bland annat kommer man att införa en årlig kvot när det gäller immigration. Även den omstridda lagen som säger att terroristmisstänkta kan kvarhållas i 42 dagar kommer att avskaffas om ingen terroristmässtänkt - innan valet - har varit kvarhållen mer än 28 dagar.

En välfärdsreform kommer att bli dyr. Department of Work and Pensions har t.ex. 5,1 miljoner medborgare som är beroende av staten. En reform kommer att kosta, inte bara skattepengar, utan också politiskt kapital och dyrbar tid.

Optimismen inom Tory beror bl.a. på att Tony Blairs reformer trots allt har lyckats få ner bidragsberoendet i både Glasgow och Liverpool från en tredjedel till en fjärdedel bland alla i arbetsför ålder p.g.a. privatiseringsåtgärder på välfärdsområdet.

Problemen inom hälso- och sjukvårdsområdet kommer - enligt Nelson - att hållas stången genom att ge National Health Service en självständig roll med stora egna möjligheter att utvecklas enligt egna önskningar. Detta skulle i sin tur ge Torypartiet möjlighet att angripa Labour från vänster och utmåla sig som hälso- och sjukvårdens naturliga parti.

Risken är bara att man då också blir NHS byråkratins parti. Men eftersom man inte kan slås på alla fronter samtidigt har Cameron valt att i sitt första Queen´s Speech inrikta sig på en skol- och välfärdsreform.

För att inte utmana ödet har David Cameron beslutat att offentligt inte framstå som alltför självsäker trots de goda opinionssiffrorna. Mantrat är därför "Radicalism in private, reassurance in public".

"I sometimes worry that the rhetoric, at least, is all about trying to look tough to Middle England, if you like, about the benefit system rather than really helping the people who need the help."

Well said Nick Clegg.

The Lib Dem leader made this comment when talking to BBC Scotland about the Glasgow East by election. And he's right.

Because all the posturing about this by election. All the "bribes," "gimmicks" and nonsense that has been spoken about this vote has been aimed at a very different audience than the majority of people who'll be voting.

You can talk about a broken society. You can tell fathers to take more responsibility. But what are you actually going to do to help people who have already been deserted by their fathers and who look out their window and see a broken society in full technicolour outside their front door?

What are you actually going to do about people who were skint before the credit crunch and will be skint after it? How are you going to encourage people to change their diets and their lifestyles when it's cheaper to eat rubbish, and rubbish is all that's available in your community?

David Cameron is going to do absolutely nothing. Gordon Brown has done a little but needs to do a lot more.

Well done, Nick Clegg. An honest assement of the hollowness of our politics. If only the others would listen.

To me his use of the term 'deep clean', first heard popularly (at least by me) when Gordon Brown announced a deep clean of all hospitals to reduce infection (which worked for MRSA which has nearly been cut in half).

Of course at the time Brown was savaged for it by the Tories saying it was a waste of time and money and wouldn't reduce infections. Regardless of the effectiveness of the measure when compared to other possible measures the fact Cameron is using the term now suggests an admission that as a political 'phrase' it carries some wait.

In some respects then, it could be considered a sort of tacit compliment to Brown that Cameron is using a phrase he coined.

I do hope that 'deep clean' doesn't join 'fit for purpose' and 'root and branch' as nonsense political terms that people use constantly to imply constant, tough and wide reaching action. The amount of times I've heard 'fit for purpose' bandied about makes me want to scream. And 'root and branch' reviews aren't much better. Think about it, what sort of review would it be if it didn't review everything, i.e. the roots and branches. You could just say 'we'll be holding a complete review' or 'we'll be holding an exhaustive review' but no, people (like Nick Clegg when he became leader of the Lib Dems) have to cling to nonsense terms to convince the public of the seriousness of their intent. Yawn!

Iain Dale has got behind Lib-Dem Leader Nick Clegg and his quest to cut the overall tax burden, it's a great Conservative ideal and many people in South Shields would welcome some relief. However, it is so easy for Clegg to sound so macho about taxes, he's not likely to be the next Prime Minister, and neither is Dale. Unfortunately, as I illustrated in my last post, David Cameron's government after the next election is going to face a very tough time indeed. The country will be broke, stuck in a recession, with sky high government debts and a silly commitment to stand by Gordon Brown's spending growth plans.

Don't expect George Osborne to pull a rabbit from the hat in his first budget!

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Fraser Nelson writes a damning assessment of the Treasury's attempt at rewriting the fiscal rules as outlined in the Financial Times this morning, in The Spectator.

He reckons it's the start of a "scorched earth" policy agreed between Brown and Darling and that they know the game is up, the next election is already lost, and therefore they may as well borrow to the hilt and screw over the economy (and the British public) leaving the Tories a hefty bill when they take over.

Brown has realised that if the Tories win the next election the he is
now spending with Cameron’s Gold Card – every by-election bribe, every
union sellout will be funded by borrowing with the bill sent to D.
Cameron Esq. Cameron will have to tax us to pay for what Brown is today
spending.

My take is that Brown doesn’t care, not any more. Like a retreating
army, he doesn’t want the advancing Cameroons to have any advantage at
all. Debt is a boring subject, but it means we’ll all pay more taxes
for longer.

With the whole country tightening it's belt one might have thought that the government would set an example and lead from the front by reducing it's spending. Countless billions of pounds could be trimmed from UK Ltd's. budget without having any meaningful affect on services, government has once again become bloated, over large, fat, and wasteful. Spending your way out of a recession is fine, if you've managed to put some cash away in the good years, trouble is Gordon Brown failed to build any reserves or pay off enough debt when he was Chancellor, the cupboard is now bare. He is now faced with three stark choices - raise taxes (which would be highly unpopular), cut spending (goes against the NuLabour ethos), or increase borrowing (something he is familiar with).

Increasing borrowing is likely to have a further damaging affect on interest rates, which the Bank of England will struggle to keep from rising, but why worry, it will only be people's mortgages, companies' investments, and the housing market that will suffer! Homelessness, repossessions, and rising unemployment can all be blamed eighteen months later on the wicked Tories (probably by David Miliband by then)!

Yes, Brown appears to be screwing us all over.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

It seems to me that, for large swathes of the public, the two "fiscal rules" that govern economic expenditure are, if not totally incomprehensible, at least too shatteringly dull to care about. One states that borrowing should not exceed the bracket of 40% of GDP whilst the other, the 'golden rule', refers to the balancing of the budget over the economic cycle. It's not exactly Bad Boys II is it? Still, when we start talking about changing the rules for our own benefit these things tend to take on a certain ethical and even symbolic quality all of their own don't they? What is certain is that, for the past 11 years, these Brownite commandments have largely gone undisturbed. However, with financial storm clouds gathering overhead, it looks like they might not be as perennial as people thought.   

The problem with this, naturally, is that if someone starts moving the goalposts, it somewhat throws the match into disrepute. The Conservatives, as one might expect, are practically queuing up to attack the Treasury over the issue. "The Last nail in the coffin for Brown's reputation for prudence" they're calling it. The shadow chancellor George Osbourne, for example, rather sniffly referred to Brown "giving the prisoner the keys to their own cell"

A couple of rather adroit analogies aren't they? Well, yes, until you read what Cameron said about these 'fiscal rules' at his party's economic summit only two days previously: 

"I don’t believe it’s impossible to try to get some political consensus [with the government]...about tight rules on fiscal policy” 

That's how he decided to phrase his intentions for steadying up the economy. Elsewhere he claimed that he wanted to "Reform the fiscal architecture" Which sounds remarkably like the way Kevin McCloud might describe Labour's policy of 'relaxing the fiscal rules'

Of course, as the old saying goes, the duty of the opposition is to oppose, but to describe Brown (and invariably it is Brown and not the Treasury or Alistair Darling... I wonder why?) as some prodigal cad and then hint at proposing the exact same measures is pretty rich isn't it?

Many financial commentators have described Brown's cabinet as standing at a crossroads with this issue. Either, they tighten their belts, raise taxes and feel the brunt of public unrest, or they slacken their belts, throw caution to the wind and indulge in a little more borrowed cash. The choice, clearly, is a tricky one:

ROCK: Oi! Brownie! How can you justify sticking to a set of outdated rules that will unnecessarily burden the public? 

HARD PLACE: Oi! Gordon! Where the hell do you get off talking about borrowing more money when the financial situation is in such trouble?     

Still, I suppose either of the two main positions are better than what Nick Clegg's thrown into the mix. His 'fair tax' party has done somewhat of a u-turn of late and are now saying that they can solve the sticky economic climate by... lowering taxes. Mmmm...? Well, we'd all like to see how that plans out wouldn't we Nick? Sure you've thought this one through? Because I find it very hard to believe that every other economic advisor has dropped the proverbial clanger and forgot to add up these huge sums of money that are secreted around the different nooks and crannies of public spending. Brown doesn't keep a penny jar does he?

So what have we learnt? That the government is in trouble, that the opposition will belligerently scratch and claw at everything the cabinet say, and that Nick Clegg could feel the benefit of a nice sit down. Well what's new? Of course, detractors will rally around to call this the 'end of the Brown era of economics' but that only matters if you believed in such short-sighted spin in the first place.        

South Tyneside Council is busy running out a programme of consultations over it's Permit Parking Policy. This essentially to deal with those small areas where locals are demanding a residents only parking scheme because they cannot get their own car (or visitor's) anywhere near their own front door. In line with many other councils residents will be charged an annual fee for their parking permit and permits for visitors will also attract a charge, with a limit of 25 visitors per quarter! The matter is being discussed next Tuesday by the Riverside Community Area Forum in South Shields Town Hall.

I've got no big problem with the main thrust of the policy, and it isn't way out of line with other local authorities, although one is not yet applying any charges at all, what worries me though is the small tract of text in the policy document which invites councillors to consider a system of charges based upon the CO2 emissions of the resident's vehicles.

There are alternative methods for the introduction of charges, such as number of vehicles in the household or based on engine size and emission levels (in line with the road fund licence). The latter method could be seen as an incentive for encouraging residents to improve their carbon footprint.

Excuse me?

Haven't motorists been attacked enough already by NuLabour?

Don't they already have the pleasure of paying Road Fund Tax, and Vehicle Excise Duty, hasn't this already led to a revolt in the House of Commons led by Blyth's MP Ronnie Campbell? It's not a "green tax" it's a stealth tax" claimed Conservative Leader David Cameron, because it is applied retrospectively. In other words it cannot possibly encourage people to change the type of car they drive, particularly when the car was bought three, four, or five years ago and repayments are still being made. Such a charge would be no incentive at all.

Hit once by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling and hammered again by Iain Malcolm and Michael Clare, residents who opt for these parking permit schemes will be left baffled, confused, angry, and annoyed that so called "green taxes" on their vehicle could possibly be levied twice by different bodies.

Raise a charge to cover the costs of the scheme by all means, but please keep it simple and don't base it on the emissions of the vehicle, it's already been taxed for that!

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Scotland-side, there's the view that devolution, rather than being merely a nationalistic movement for greater political autonomy, if not full independence, was a reaction to the experience of the Thatcher years, when an essentially English-elected Tory government rode rough-shod over the social consensus in Scottish politics, and isolated Scotland economically and politically from the rest of the UK and, indeed, the EU.

All of which may well be true. From the party-political perspective, however, the manner in which New Labour implemented devolution was a self-serving dirty trick. By separating off the governance of Scotland and Wales with respect to traditional public-sector areas such as education, health, social care and transport, Labour thought it could pretty well guarantee that it would remain in power in Scotland and Wales in perpetuity. No more unpopular English Conservative government driving through Tory social policies against the will of the Scottish and Welsh people meant permanent Labour power, or so the thinking went. The Barnett Formula – the fiscal mechanism that ensures that per-capita public expenditure is significantly higher in Scotland and Wales than in England – was the means by which Labour could ensure that its puppet regimes in Holyrood and Cardiff Bay would always have a margin of latitude to pursue more traditional, Old Labour, public expenditure-dependent social policies regardless of the political hue of the Westminster government.

I say that this is regardless of the party in power in Westminster because, at the same time as seeking to perpetuate its grip on power in the Celtic nations through devolution, New Labour was intent on consolidating its ultimate power base – England – by pursuing neo-Thatcherite market reforms of the economy and the public sector, which it believed to be necessary to ensure it continued to enjoy the support of the more Conservative-inclined English electorate. Indeed, it had been vital that a sufficiently large minority of the English electorate should swing from the Tories to New Labour in order for it to secure its landslide election victory of 1997; and a failure to hold on to that support could leave the party vulnerable to being swept away by a large minority vote in favour of the Tories in subsequent elections.

But just to make sure that the government's real, English power base was doubly protected, New Labour fixed the devolution settlement in such a way that MPs elected from Scottish and Welsh constituencies could still vote on matters which, for their constituencies, had been devolved from Westminster. These were now, therefore, by definition England-only issues. This meant that the government's majority in England – or, in theoretical future parliaments where Labour did not secure a majority among English MPs, its plurality – could be bolstered by Labour's Scottish and Welsh MPs. This was effectively a form of gerrymandering: MPs elected in Scotland and Wales, who were not therefore accountable to English voters, could vote on matters affecting England only, thereby unfairly increasing the likelihood that Labour would secure a parliamentary majority over English matters, even if this was not based on a majority of English MPs.

Ironically, the assistance of the Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs to prop up the government's majority was called upon on only two occasions, when – had the decision been left to English-elected MPs only – the government's market-orientated reforms for England would have been defeated: the votes on Foundation Hospitals and university tuition fees. It's this sort of injustice that has infuriated so many English observers: Scottish and Welsh MPs, electoral support for whom was reliant on Labour regimes in their countries pursuing Old Labour policies, helping to foist New Labour policies on England against the wishes of English-elected MPs, including their own Labour colleagues.

The fact that the Labour-controlled or Labour-coalition administrations elected during the first two terms of the Scottish and Welsh Assembly Governments were somewhat slow in rolling out Old Labour-style, social-democratic policies could be attributed to two factors, among others:

1. The devolved administrations were in fact still subject to the centralised politburo-style control of the national (British) Labour Party, which was determined that Labour should not be seen to be reverting to its old habits of high public expenditure and ideological commitment to the public sector. This was especially the case during New Labour's first term in office, when it had committed itself to adhering to the Tories' previously announced spending plans
2. It is paradoxically in Labour's interest, or perceived interest, that the areas that are its traditional power bases should remain relatively deprived, socially and economically. The poor vote Labour. So long as decisions affecting Labour's core supporters in Scotland and Wales were taken by a geographically remote, predominantly English political elite, Labour could portray itself as the defender of the Scottish and Welsh working classes, battling against the odds – and against the English – to get a better deal for them. But if you get self-confident, politically autonomous governments in Scotland and Wales committed to really tackling the social and economic problems of their countries, and creating opportunity and wealth that is not dependent on Westminster patronage, then it is the parties that drive this sort of change that will win the support of voters.

This is now what has begun to happen during the third governments in Scotland and Wales; and it is the nationalists, who are in minority and coalition government in those countries respectively, that are in the driving seat. Inevitably so, because the interests of the Scottish and Welsh people as they see them are at the heart of their policies; unlike Labour, whose power base in Scotland and Wales was reliant on the relative impoverishment of the people and their dependency on Westminster hand-outs, as I have said.

So devolution has really back-fired on New Labour: hoist by their own petard, so to speak. The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru (the Welsh Nationalists) are taking on the mantle of parties carrying out Old Labour-style social-democratic policies; and, in so doing, they are ironically taking advantage of the higher per-capita spending allowance afforded them by the Barnett Formula that was intended to provide extra leverage for Labour administrations in Scotland and Wales to pursue traditional Labour policies, even if a Tory government was in charge at Westminster. Meanwhile, the really considerable extra benefits that people are enjoying in Scotland and Wales as a result of the Barnett Formula (and good luck to them) – such as free university tuition and cancer drugs in Scotland, and no prescription charges in Wales, among others – have naturally provoked growing envy and outrage on the part of many English people. Apart from these inequalities violating basic principles of fairness (along with the democratic deficit described above), the resentment people feel about these benefits being provided to their Scottish and Welsh brethren but denied to them, merely on the basis of their postcode, could be said to reveal that the English are maybe not quite as enamoured with the Market as New Labour has always thought, and that they feel the public sector should be providing more than it is.

In other words, market-orientated, Conservative England is rejecting New Labour not so much because it has failed to deliver on the promise of economic prosperity that was made, but because people feel that they should have been given some of the fruits of that prosperity while it lasted, in terms of a generous public sector giving back to them some of their hard-earned taxes – which, instead, they feel are being siphoned off to Scotland and Wales. So 'Conservative England' may be moving back over to support for the Conservative Party not because people favour market-orientated economic and social policies traditionally espoused by the Tories, but out of rejection of those same policies, which New Labour has applied so unequally across the different countries of the UK for purely self-serving, political reasons. This is, incidentally, perhaps the real reason for the general impression at the moment that support for the Tories is based more on rejection of Labour, not endorsement of traditional Conservative policies.

In view of which, the Tories might do well to position themselves as so-called 'one-nation' Conservatives: liberal Tories who accept there is an important role for a well but prudently funded public sector. But, thanks to New Labour, that one nation can now be only England. Labour has created autonomous centres of political power in Scotland and Wales which, like the monster Frankenstein, have turned on their creator and former master. In this sense, the Scottish and Welsh governments may have outgrown the party-political objectives that New Labour had in mind when it devised them. But they have answered to the original inspiration behind devolution: the Scottish and Welsh people will now no longer have to bear the full brunt of an unpopular English conservative government – whether that government is Labour or Tory. If a Cameron-led Conservative Westminster government does try to rein in the Scottish and Welsh administrations and limit their room for manoeuvre by, for instance, reducing or eliminating altogether the Barnett differentials, this will only stir up the same sort of rebellious sentiment that inspired devolution in the first place; and the pressure for full independence may then become irresistible.

In that way, Scotland and Wales could opt out of an unpopular Conservative, or indeed Labour, government that was inimical to them. Good for them, I say. But what of England? Would even an independent England – after the secession of Scotland and Wales from the Union – still have to put up with minority-elected Labour or Tory governments commanding the full sovereign power of absolute parliamentary majorities? Where do we the English go to get away from unrepresentative governments that pursue their own ideological and party-political agendas with scant respect or concern for the English people? We can't exactly get devolution or independence from ourselves!

The ultimate dirty trick of the Westminster political class could then be to perpetuate its own unrepresentative system of power even after the break up of the UK: same old first-past-the-post voting system, disproportionate majorities, and executive elected dictatorship. Which is why all people who are concerned about democratic fairness for England, and who seek fundamental constitutional reform, need to think ahead about the kind of England they want to create after the imbalanced post-devolution house of cards finally implodes. Let's start pushing, campaigning and thinking about our democratic future; and not mortgage it to the political bets of self-serving parties. After all, New Labour has already tried and failed to gamble English money and goodwill in order to keep winning in Scotland and Wales. What price will the big parties not pay, at our expense, to hold on to the only real power base they have left: England?

Such moralising aside, which I don't doubt will find its way into some talk or essay at Oxford over the course of the next year or so, the rest of my day was ruthlessly inactive (as it generally is on lecture-days) - a spot of Skype, extensive trawling of the political blogs and news, from which I've gathered that the government wants to rewrite the rulebook where borrowing rules are concerned so as to avoid another tax hike, thereby pulverising what little remained of Gordon Brown's integrity and reputation as an economic savant. The Conservatives have called it 'the last nail in the coffin' for Brown - I disagree; he's been a dead man walking since Northern Rock, to be brutally honest. Vince Cable, one of the few Lib Dems who talks sense on a regular basis, and with a sense of humour to boot, has called for an independent body to be set up to scrutinise fiscal policy in the same way that the Bank of England is already independent (at least nominally) for all things monetary. Good idea, at least in theory - let the economists handle what the politicians can't, and eliminate the political business cycle in one fell swoop - but I can see the notional body going to war with the BoE over policy quite a bit, one team of economists against another (let's just hope it doesn't turn into neoclassical vs Keynesian as well, or we'll be here till Ragnarok), with the government impotently caught in the crossfire. I think I might just sit back and relax on that one... with a su doku, no less...

Cameron said: "We talk about people being 'at risk of obesity' instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise. "It's as if these things - obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction - are purely external events, like a plague or bad weather. Social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make."

Or perhaps where they are born David? All this was said whilst out campaigning for the by-election in Glasgow East, one of the most deprived areas of Europe, where life expectancy is 63.

Quite clearly unlike New Labour, the Tory party even with Cameron's charge to the centre of UK politics is still a leopard that can't change its spots. Old Etonian Dave has lead quite a privileged life and simply cannot identify with this underclass of people, how they live, vices and all.

Miranda Richardson reveals the seven Conservative MPs who have failed to follow the rest in publishing their full expense claims for the last three months. No surprise to see the Wintertons on the list.

It's such a shame, the Tory Party is moving the right way, Cameron is showing the correct path, yet their is no unanimity.

You can view the full list here.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

We've heard so much in recent months about the so called "John Lewis List" whereby MPs have been decorating and furnishing their second homes in London with our cash, well now moves are planned to amend the current expenses system. David Cameron's Conservatives want the expenses to cover nothing more than mortgage payments, council tax, and utility bills, whilst Labour wants to keep the goodies, so long as they are audited by an "independent body", the National Audit Office.

Wow, but have you seen the track record of it's top man? Mr. Eugenides has the details and he's fuming mad, and I'm not far behind in the rage stakes!

(Warning - very strong language!)

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

I thought that the last Prime Minister's Questions before the Commons rises for the recess was a belter for Conservative Leader David Cameron, with Gordon Brown struggling to evade the thrusts and determined, once again, not to provide straight honest answers.

Just watch at the end of the video how Gordo slumps down in his seat after Cameron had wiped the floor was finished with him, reminded me of Roberto Duran giving up against "Sugar" Ray Leonard.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

(Though at no point does bellepoq recall ever reading anything about whether Britain will ever have a black Prime Minister - but we've already had a female PM. And now a Scottish one, and blind in one eye too. And we also have a Queen, and that pretty much wins hands down.)

Bellepoq has found a few reasons to cheer up miserable Brits so that they no longer need to live vicariously through their fatter counterparts:

• In Britain, politicians can be openly derogatory about religion and it's ok. Or even have no religion at all! As Boris Johnson says, his religious faith is a bit like the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns: it sort of comes and goes.

  [caption id="" align="alignright" width="149" caption="'To Iran!'"][/caption]

• Prime Minister's Questions is a spectacle of 'gladiatorial rawness' that Americans can only dream of. Dubya would not survive a day in the Colosseum of Commons. Cheney and Rove maybe.
• British politicians are not embarassed to have their mental health checked for the good of the party. Bellepoq can think of a few people in the American political establishment who could do with some psychotherapy. (Worryingly, being mad was actually celebrated under the Nixon administration.)
• In the spirit of Britain's Missing Top Model, we employ Prime Ministers with disabilities, like blindness in one eye. Any disability in an American presidential candidate may only be the consequence of serious torturation in a Vietnamese POW camp.

Con venti adolescenti morti a Londra dall’inizio dell’anno a causa di aggressioni tra bande, il problema della violenza giovanile e dei cosiddetti knife crimes, i crimini del coltello, è ritornato al centro della discussione politica. Lo era già stato nel 2006, quando l’allora ministro degli interni Charles Clarke propose un’amnistia e invitò tutti i giovani del paese a consegnare le proprie armi alla polizia, con il risultato che in una sola settimana circa 20mila tra coltelli, asce, spade e altre armi da taglio furono requisite.

Nonostante, secondo le statistiche ufficiali della polizia, la campagna anticrimine messa in campo allora sembra avere dato i suoi frutti, con un calo del 40 per cento dei delitti più violenti, la percezione diffusa tra la gente è invece che la situazione sia andata peggiorando. E questo, nel maggio scorso, ha giocato un ruolo fondamentale nella sconfitta elettorale di Ken Livingstone a Londra.

È proprio questa percezione, alimentata dalle copertine dei tabloid e dalle cronache dei giornali locali, che ha imposto al governo l’elaborazione di un piano straordinario, che si fonda sui due pilatri della prevenzione e della punizione.

Sulla seconda, che prevede maggiori controlli della polizia e l’inasprimento delle pene per chi commette reati, ma anche per chi viene semplicemente sorpreso nelle strade con un arma da taglio, sembra esserci totale accordo tra le forze politiche e anche il supporto della stampa. Sulle misure di prevenzione, però, il dibattito si è infuocato. Le proposte del governo, presentate da un Gordon Brown stranamente deciso e dalla sua ministra degli interni Jacqui Smith, prevedono di intensificare l’attenzione su una determinata base di famiglie, che sono quelle a maggior rischio: genitori e figli saranno inseriti in un programma governativo per scongiurare i comportamenti criminali dei figli e aumentare la consapevolezza sulla pericolosità di certi atteggiamenti antisociali. Secondo uno studio del ministero degli interni, infatti, la maggior parte dei giovani coinvolti in attività criminali provengono da famiglie precedentemente coinvolte in episodi analoghi. Monitorando e aiutando 20mila famiglie il governo spera di riuscire a diminuire ulteriormente i reati. Altre misure previste, che hanno fatto infuriare l’opposizione e la stampa, rientrano in un pacchetto shock therapy che prevede che agli autori di crimini violenti vengano sbattute in faccia le conseguenze delle loro azioni. Il piano inizialmente prevedeva, secondo quanto detto dalla Smith, che i giovani visitassero obbligatoriamente le loro vittime in ospedale. Ma dopo gli attacchi di David Cameron, che ha definito questa una «trovata irrispettosa delle vittime», il governo è stato costretto a ritrattare e a stabilire che i giovani partecipino a workshop di riabilitazione che possono prevedere anche visite agli ospedali per rendersi conto di persona della gravità delle ingiurie che i coltelli possono provocare. Brown ha anche chiesto alle autorità locali maggiormente interessate dal crimine delle bande giovanili di sperimentare forme di coprifuoco e di pattugliamento delle strade.

Al di là dell’equivoco sulla visita alle vittime, il piano del governo pare però abbastanza convincente, perchè interviene non solo con durezza nel reprimere gli atti criminosi, ma si pone il problema di intervenire socialmente per prevenire che comportamenti derivanti da una situazione sociale degenerata possano diventare eccessivamente rischiosi per la collettività. Ma alcuni critici sottolineano che ancora una volta il governo non fa buon uso di tutte le risorse che ha a disposizione e chiedono che anche le scuole e i centri di formazione, e non solo le comunità locali e le famiglie, siano coinvolti e responsabilizzati per aiutare i giovani a trovare vie di uscita dalla miseria e dalla criminalità.

Except that for a lot of the electorate a week in Benidorm is far more affordable than a fortnight in Britain. They both might like to look around at the £50000 beach huts and the empty second homes. They might like to reflect on where the local residents that can't afford a £400000 fisherman's hut are (as absent from the streets around Richard Curtis' hut as they from his films). They might but they won't.

They both might like to wonder why people feel they can't relate to the sort of politician who allows image gurus to dictate where he takes his family on holiday. They might like to think why not only do a lot of normal people despise politicians but why normal people (you know, the sort of people who have done a real job) couldn't think of anything worse than joining the rabble at Westminster.

Brown and Cameron might think they are fighting for the future of the country. But brickbats, English holidays and policies on the hoof are doing nothing to shift the feeling of disenfranchisment and apathy that a lot of the country feels. The politician who has the guts to solve that is worthy of a vote.

David Cameron joins the bitterly contested argument over family breakdown and race today by praising Barack Obama's warning that too many black fathers have abandoned their responsibilities to their children.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Guardian, the Tory leader says that many black church leaders have expressed the same anxiety to him, and that it is time for a "responsibility revolution" to change patterns of behaviour.

Referring to Obama's speech, in which the US Democratic presidential candidate warned that absent black fathers were behaving like teenagers and shirking their responsibilities to their children, Cameron said: "I think he's absolutely right. I mean I think it's a very brave thing to do. And it will have a huge influence that he has said it. I've had a number of meetings with black church leaders who make the same point. They are concerned about family breakdown and social breakdown, and want to see what I call a responsibility revolution take place."

His comments were broadly welcomed last night by leading British African-Caribbean figures, including the educationalist Tony Sewell and the Reverend Nims Obunge, chief executive of the Peace Alliance, one of London's main organisations working against gang crime.

Cameron insists the appalling discrimination and economic disadvantage black people experience have to be recognised and changed, but at "the same time we will never solve the long term problems unless people also take responsibility for their own lives". He was speaking to the Guardian to mark the end of a parliamentary year in which he has established a poll lead of 20 percentage points over Labour.

Victim blaming is so much easier than social responsibility.  Obama has quickly become an influential man.  Expect to hear more of this drivel coming out of the mouths of conservative leaders of all sorts.

David Cameron joins the bitterly contested argument over family breakdown and race today by praising Barack Obama's warning that too many black fathers have abandoned their responsibilities to their children.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Guardian, the Tory leader says that many black church leaders have expressed the same anxiety to him, and that it is time for a "responsibility revolution" to change patterns of behaviour.

Referring to Obama's speech, in which the US Democratic presidential candidate warned that absent black fathers were behaving like teenagers and shirking their responsibilities to their children, Cameron said: "I think he's absolutely right. I mean I think it's a very brave thing to do. And it will have a huge influence that he has said it. I've had a number of meetings with black church leaders who make the same point. They are concerned about family breakdown and social breakdown, and want to see what I call a responsibility revolution take place."

Is it really all that brave?  It's been said before by Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King, Jr. who also understood the barriers that contributed to the problem.  BIll Cosby set off a firestom of controversy when he revisited the subject back in May 2004. At that time, Cosby was roundly criticized for his comments (NPR report here).  But will Obama get the same treatment?  The same professor who was critical of Cosby in the above NPR report, Michael Eric Dyson, was out again last month, writing a piece for Time magazine, in which he opines that Obama's speech was "calculated to win over socially conservative whites who were turned off by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's tirades against persistent racism." He goes on to say that:

But in his desire to appeal to such voters, Obama may have missed the balance that King maintained. Personal responsibility is a crucial, but only partial, answer to what ails black families. Huge unemployment, racist mortgage practices, weakened child-care support, stunted training programs for blue-collar workers who've been made obsolete by technology, and the gutting of early-childhood learning programs are all forces that must be combated. If we rightly expect more black fathers to stick around to raise their children, we've got to give them a greater opportunity to stay home.

To many, Obama seems to be declaring the civil rights battle over and by diminishing the complexity of the issue, seems to be echoing right wing commentators more than Jackson or King.

Even more interesting is a comment Cameron made about how he views the modern Conservative Party in the UK.

Cameron "appeals to the centre and left 'to recognise that the modern Conservative party is on the brink of a very big and exciting argument that if you want to pursue progressive goals in Britain, whether it is greening the environment, tackling poverty, unlocking social mobility, there is a really good case to say that you can best achieve those by Conservative means.'"

MMMMM. Are Cameron and the Tories following Obama's lead, or is it the other way around?

"Progressive goals achieved by Conservative means." If that isn't a blurring of the political lines...

Keep an eye on that phrase...because it probably describes a lot of what we've heard already from Obama and more of what we might be hearing from him in the future...

• Ajantha Mendis' recent heroics have earned him a promotion to Second Lieutanant in the Sri Lankan Army.

• The Sheffield Shield was named after an Earl and/or Viscount (not sure if you can be both at the same time), and that his sexuality is a matter of some debate.

• Ian Botham has no time for David 'Dave' Cameron.

• Cricket blog readers are both socially maladjusted and have little time for Germans learning English. I will be composing my future posts with this in mind.

Cameron thinks the public want moral crusades. They don't. They want the State to butt out of their personal lives, end wars and improve schools and the NHS. 

Pledges to help pubs are welcome but the real villains are greedy pubcos, not cheap cans of beer for a barbecue.

He started off by saying that we've spent too much on public services in the last decade:

"The tragedy for the country is that we we didn't have such tough public spending in previous years..."

The next obvious question would have been: where would you have cut spending? Alas, it never came.

Next we had his masterplan for easing the current economic difficulties: cutting stamp duty for first-time buyers. In other words, an uncosted spending plan. How would this be paid for? We'll never know, because he wasn't asked.

Next idea? Another tax cut with the introduction of the so-called "fair fuel stabiliser", completely ignoring the fact that tax take doesn't necessarily go up with fuel taxes, because other consumer tax revenue falls. This wasn't pointed out to Dave, so he didn't feel the need to defend it.

Then he came out with: "What the government ought to be doing is cutting taxes to give a fiscal stimulus to the economy."

"They blew it in the good times," continued Dave, unchallenged.

Blew it? By spending money on pensioners and public services? Where would you have cut spending, Dave? Okay, don't bother answering that.

And finally, the Great Leader's gets all technical: "That's what sharing the proceeds of growth is all about - it's about saying, look, when the economy grows, yes, you spend some of the extra revenue coming in but you put some aside either on tax reduction or debt reduction so you have money for a rainy day."

Dave, listen, we need to speak to you... "Tax cuts" isn't the same as saving. In fact, it's the opposite. Tax cuts are government spending. Didn't Norman explain any of this while you worked for him?

So there we have it: Dave's economic masterplan is to cut taxes, and then if that doesn't work, it's to cut taxes. And of course, if neither of those two policies work out, then... oh, you know the rest.

Norman "unemployment is a price well worth paying" Lamont must be so proud.

Should politicians be allowed to tell us what they think is right, and what they think is wrong, about how we behave and how we live our lives?

David Cameron's Conservatives have invested much in their search to mend our "broken society" with former leader Iain Duncan Smith leading from the front, and the Conservative Leader is now taking the view that politicians have been too timid in providing a lead in moral and ethical issues which he contends has contributed to the fragmentation of society and social breakdown. In a wide ranging report in the Sunday Times we read about the experiences in Balsall Heath, Birmingham, where Cameron has spent much time over the past two years, much of the success can be seen to be "bottom up" inspired by local communities themselves, driven by ordinary people, with just a hint of political involvement, an inspiration, perhaps, that illustrates what can be achieved when government gets off peoples' backs!

In talking about rights and wrongs Cameron appears to wish he was able no more than to "nudge" people into taking the right decisions which affect themselves, their families, and their communities, whilst stating that the failure to point out the rights and wrongs, the failure to be judgemental, has allowed social cohesion to dissipate and fall apart. We all need leads, we all sometimes need advice and support, but more often than not we don't look to our politicians to provide those leads. Would it help us if a Prime Minister, or Labour's Leader on South Tyneside Council Iain Malcolm was to tell us to intervene and help reduce crime in South Shields by noting details, phoning the police, and being a credible witness? We know we should, but how many of us walk by on the other side of the street like the parable of the Good Samaritan? How many of us fail to remonstrate with rowdy teenagers on our street corners, fail to find out where they are from and if their parents are aware of where they are? We know we should but.....

Cameron says:

“We as a society have been far too sensitive. In order to avoid injury to people’s feelings, in order to avoid appearing judgemental, we have failed to say what needs to be said. We have seen a decades-long erosion of responsibility, of social virtue, of self-discipline, respect for others.

“Instead we prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgements about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour.”

“We talk about people being ‘at risk of obesity’ instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise. We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it’s as if these things – obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction – are purely external events like a plague or bad weather.”

Cameron is right of course, he's talking the obvious, but obviously we don't expect to hear these messages from our politicians- why? Simply because when the message is delivered in it's most simplistic form, we should be expecting to hear it from someone else, parents! Then teachers, then religious leaders, then politicians, that's the order that we would normally expect to receive moral judgements in, but unfortunately insufficient parents, teachers, and religious leaders are delivering those judgements these days. We would still expect to receive judgements but because they have been missed in some parts for some time it is no surprise that some baulk at the judgements, they are not used to receiving these messages!

As a libertarian one would expect that I should scream and shout that politicians should stay out of my life, but I am old enough and educated enough to understand that whatever decisions I take freely will be followed by consequences, and that I shall be responsible for those consequences. This is the great difference, too many people in society do not consider that they have personal responsibilities related to the consequences of their own decisions and actions, they do not see that as an individual they play a part in our larger society, and that as part of this larger jigsaw they can only fit in an harmonious pattern.

Therefore it is incumbent on someone to take a lead, if only to "nudge" and "judge", be it me, you, your parents, your peers, or your teachers or managers. The most telling point in the whole article comes from Shaun Bailey, a black youth worker and Conservative candidate for Hammersmith;

“I run a job club, and our motto is, ‘We will do nothing for you, but we’ll help you do anything.’ I say you’ve got to ‘self propel’.”

We are all capable of making the right decisions, but with the forces of government and state intervening so much in our lives from birth, through education, in sickness and in health, right through to our death, perhaps we have just forgotten what it is like to decide for ourselves, our families, and our communities. We don't really need the politicians to decide for us, nor to tell us right from wrong, we just need that little support and friendly advice to get things going again.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::