Time For MPs to Follow the Same Rules As Me & You

It's not been a good few days for the reputation of parliament or parliamentarians. First the brouhaha over the publishing of MPs' expenses and in the past couple of days the whole Derek Conway debacle.

Immediately the calls have come in for expenses to be slashed and for MPs to be barred from employing family members. As usual the reaction is an over-reaction. There is no need to bring in draconian measures, just treat MPs the same as the rest of us.

When I claim expenses from work I'm expected to hand in receipts. So don't slash MPs' expenses, just make them hand in receipts. Seems reasonable.

And there's no need to stop MPs employing family members, it's actually understandable wanting to have staff that you know you can trust 100%, but perhaps there should be less variation in the salary scales and an independent review and appraisal process in Parliament.

As with most things there's little need for new rules, just a little better enforcement of current ones.

The Gallery

Testimony by Barbara Stimler

Hush Little Baby

Is 2 Years 2 Years Too Long?

I'm really heartened by the announcement that the Conservative Party will take a tough line on getting people to move from welfare into work. There are plenty of people who know that claiming benefits is a much easier ride than getting up at 7 every day and working for 8 hours. Anything that can be done to get as many people back into the workplace is a good thing. And pointing out that state benefits are not a right is a great place to start.

I've been properly unemployed once in my life and it was a horrible time. It took about 6/7 weeks to get an appointment at the Job Centre and when I finally did make it I was astonished by what I saw. I was sitting at a communal table, happily filling out my little forms, listening to one ned say to his pal "Just tell them if they don't give you money today you'll rob someone - that's what I do". When I handed my completed booklet to the advisor (and I do use that word under caution) it was clearly the first time in a long time anyone had done so.

Change really does have to come from the bottom up from ensuring that threats from thugs aren't taken as an excuse to ensuring that the advisors act as such.

But the one thing I did learn is how easy it is to become depressed and fall into a rut. Weeks of looking through newspapers and finding nothing you like the look of, failing to even get a job at the local supermarket all take their toll very quickly. It's far too easy (and understandable) to become unwilling to get out of bed for yet another day of being disappointed and depressed by your situation. That's why I think 2 years before instigating some form of community work is too long. After 2 years people have lost key skills and the energy for returning to work. A programme of community and voluntary work beginning after 6 months would be a much more suitable option. Perhaps with some sort of "bonus" scheme added and of course part-time to allow job-hunting to continue. Of course the 2 year limit should remain so that this doesn't become a substitute for work.

Photo Album

Blair's Final Betrayal

So Blair has done what most people expected and converted to Catholicism. As to the conversion itself and anyone's personal beliefs I really don't care. I do, as a Catholic myself, feel deeply betrayed by this conversion and the timing of it.

This was not a decision made lightly or even in the few months since he left office. His wife is Catholic as are his children. He has attended Catholic mass for years. The conversion was really always on the cards. And again - a personal decision for him to make and act on himself.

But why in his years as Prime Minister, particularly the final year and a half when we all knew he was stepping down soon, did he never speak out against the institutionalised anti-Catholic legislation in Britain? Why did he never say that the Act of Succession which prevents a future monarch marrying a Catholic is wrong? Why didn't he say that the rule which prevents a Catholic being First Lord of the Treasury is an insult to the millions of Catholics in the country? Catholicism is the only religion that these rules apply to. Blair knew he was going to become a Catholic, why did he not speak out in defence of the religion he respects so much?

As usual with Blair it was a case of making sure his power trip came above everything else. He knew that by following his beliefs he would never have been PM, and that position mattered more to him than anything else. He's a hypocrite.

Tory Survey Benefits Cancer Charity - Yuck.....

The political blogs are in a bit of a tizz over the Caroline Nokes cancer survey. Conservative PPC Caroline Nokes branded one of her surveys (with permission, perhaps erronously given but given none the less) with the logo of Breast Cancer Care prominently branded and a promise to the electorate of a donation to charity for every survey returned. It wasn't a survey about health and it was made clear that it was a political survey from a political candidate.

The Guardian and Channel 4 both gleeful reported the story as a huge scandal. Conservative Home claims it's a non-story. The soon to be defunct Recess Monkey is terribly self-righteous about it all.

I don't think it's either a scam or a non-story. It's a sign of the growing cult of morality that politicians from all parties like to build up around themselves. It's twee, it's sickening, it's cloying. If I want to give money to a cancer charity I will. I don't want some candidate to tell me they're doing it on my behalf.

Giving money to charity used to be something that we did privately. Now politicians love to tell us about their donations, their marathon running, their arctic treks, and whatever else they do. It is demanded of MPs that they take part in sleepouts for homeless charities or give up their Christmas days to help in a hospital. If this is something that a particular politician feels strongly about then that's well and good. But leave the digital camera at home eh?

Why Not Tell People Not To Be Criminals?

I've become increasingly wound up in the past few days by the amount of crime-prevention warnings around. On a bus stop poster near my office are about three or four threats of your house being burgled if you don't lock up, hide your presents, throw empty boxes away immediately, buy Christmas presents. We're told not to talk on our mobile phones in the street, listen to MP3 players or drink more than a small sherry for fear of being mugged. Catholic churches are even moving midnight mass for fear of them being upset by drunks.

I'm all for protecting yourself and your property and it's right that people should be reminded of their responsibilities. But why don't these posters say things like "If you break into someone's house you'll be jailed you little shit" or "A short skirt doesn't mean you can be all rapey" or "Get a job and buy your own MP3 player"?

A huge amount of money is spent on these crime prevention advertising campaigns.

Here's another way to use the money - more police and longer prison sentences.

Desperately Seeking Susan to Close

There are some things that you can see coming a mile off.

When will theatre producers realise we want to see either new and original musicals like Avenue Q or the classics, not just rehashed nonsense based on films/pop music. I blame Mamma Mia and We Will Rock You, their success has led every faded pop star to believe that the audiences want to hear their songs in a "new" way. We don't - now bugger off and leave us singing about Porn.

A Pointless Rule - But Your Rule

I've never been a fan of PPERA (the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act). You know the one that made the simple process of elections and donations to political parties a whole lot more complicated. And doesn't know the correct word is actually referenda. And established that idiotically useless body The Electoral Commission.

I never saw a reason to have to report donations to parties. The vast majority of which have always been open, honest and done with no intention other than helping parties out. But the Labour Party in their infinite wisdom brought in PPERA and established the Electoral Commission. So despite me not really seeing a reason to it all I obeyed the law on reporting donations. And it was generally really simple to understand and comply with.

Which makes the Labour Party's knowing acceptance of donations via a third party from David Abrahams incomprehensible. There is no room for doubt in the law. No wiggle room.

The Act states that a donation is (among many other thing):

"any reference to anything being given or transferred to a party or any person is a reference to its being so given or transferred either directly or indirectly through any third person;"

OK - a bit wordy, but you get the gist.

When Peter Watt says he didn't know he couldn't take a donation through a third party he is either lying or so utterly incompetent he should never have been in his position. Either way he was quite right to resign.

The Labour Party has to realise that when it brings in these annoying and pointless laws they don't just apply to the evil Tories (who they were doubtless introduced to trip up) but to themselves too.

Oxford Union Debate

This story about BNP leader Nick Griffin and Holocaust denier David Irving speaking at the Oxford Union has troubled me. It gets to the very heart of the limitations of free speech. Just because people's views are abhorrent - and blatantly wrong - does this mean they shouldn't be allowed to express them?

Generally I would say I come down on the side of freedom of speech, but I have real mixed emotions with this one. Partly because while I think anyone should be able to express an opinion I think there has to be limitations on being able to insult other people. Holocaust denial, for example, is not a matter of opinion. The Holocaust happened and to deny it is not simply to challenge historical wisdom but is a form of particularly nasty anti-semitism. We shouldn't stand by and allow people to be blatantly racist or offensive.

Of course, freedom of speech and allowing someone to be able to voice their opinions is not the same as inviting them to do so or engaging in debate with them. Nick Griffin and David Irving do have the right of freedom of speech but I have the right not to listen to them or take part in debate with them. This is the right the silly little boys of the Oxford Union should have exercised when considering who to invite to speak at their debate. To invite one Holocaust denier to your debate is bordering on distasteful, to invite two is opening yourself up to queries about the reasons behind your invitations.

Oxford Union should be ashamed of themselves today - as should everyone who legitimises the opinions of these men by taking part in debate with them.

A Silver Lining

The financial data fiasco is a nightmare for everyone involved. We assume, even if we don't like the politics of a particular governing party, that we can trust the "Government" to keep our information safe.

If there is one silver lining to a very dark cloud it will hopefully be that the suggestion of having a National ID card system will be closed off for good.

ID Cards are un-necessary, expensive and an attack on our basic civil liberties. We don't need to put all of our data on a piece of plastic just so that some jumped up oik can demand to know who I am.

So - who still thinks the Government holding all our personal data is ok?

Guto Harri on the Lib Dems

"It is striking - within a party that's generally regarded as nice - how nasty the Liberal Democrats are quietly capable of being."

Know what Guto? Sometimes they're not even quiet about it.

Does The Spectator Know Anything About Scottish Politics?

First of all let me say I am a huge fan of the Spectator. When I was a student and got a cheap subscription I would love it hitting the floor on Friday mornings. And I also think that Alex Salmond did a top-notch job at winning the Scottish elections this year. A brilliant campaign led by a charismatic figure which really changed the face of British, not just Scottish, politics.

Having said that I am at a loss as to why Alex Salmond won Parliamentarian of the Year. And my confusion comes with the comments of the editor of the Spectator. He said:

"Whatever your view on that great question, the judges felt it was right to salute the man whose brilliant tactics in the Scottish Parliament laid the foundations for an extraordinary victory."

Now the first half of the statement, right up until tactics I have no problem with. But I do wonder if Matthew d'Ancona, the editor of the premier political magazine in the country knows that until May Alex Salmond wasn't a member of the Scottish Parliament. His tactics were great, they did lay the foundations of victory, but they weren't laid in Parliament. So is this a snub to Nicola Sturgeon who was brilliant as leader of the opposition in the Scottish Parliament, another snub to Scotland by the English establishment who just don't care enough to know the basics, or (much more likely)shoe-horning recognition of Salmond into some category, no matter what one it was?

Anyway - well done. A richly deserved victory if a little bizarre.

Rehabilition Is A Good Thing - Unless Of Course You're A Tory

I've been a bit knocked back by the response to the news that Iain Duncan Smith has asked Jonathan Aitken to head a working group looking at prison reform. It's as though the sky has fallen in with suggestions that this is the start of his political comeback and that the Tories are looking back to the days of sleaze. Particularly smug and insulting is Tom Watson's take on the issue.

Jonathan Aitken committed a serious crime and it was right that he went to prison - although I'd like to see a breakdown of non Conservative Party members jailed for 18 months for perjury.

Surely the point of prison isn't just to punish, although it is an important part of the process - the most important but. But there is also a huge rehabilitation role to be played. Just because you're rich, or come from a Conservative background doesn't mean you are exempt from being rehabilitated. It seems to me that Jonathan Aitken is actually an ideal person to help with this. He has been in the prison system but because his background is one of privilege he hasn't had to rely on it for his future after jail, therefore he can look at it both from an involved and detached perspective.

Just because someone commits a crime shouldn't mean they are stigmatised for the rest of their lives. If they, like Jonathan Aitken, have served the sentence that they have been given and can make a valuable contribution to society this should be allowed.

Tom Watson and other sneering lefties should remember that when they attack Jonathan Aitken for having a life after jail they're attacking every single former prisoner attempting to move on. Unless of course this only applies to Conservatives.

Ugly Betty Trailer

I'm sure it makes me the most shallow person alive that this makes me quite as happy as it does.

Don't Live Like The Broons

Following my rant last week about chocolate bars comes the news that Maw Broon's cookbook might not be the most nutritionally balanced.

On top of that the Broon's carbon footprint must be massive with all those weans, the chance of passive smoking from Paw and Grandpaw's pipes in that wee tenement must be shocking, the amount of animals killed testing the lipstick that Maggie wears will be enormous and it's really not responsible for one couple to have so many children. On the positive side, the bairn has been wearing the same dress for 80 yeard and it won't have come from Gap so child labour isn't an issue.

Aye, the Broons. May every family in Scotland live just like them.

What Politicians Can Learn From Kate Garraway

Image from Strictly Come Dancing website




I am a huge fan of Strictly Come Dancing. The costumes and camp make me very happy - and the judges... Well, I just adore my ickle Bruno and Craig is very tough and manly in a camp sort of way. I gives me fuzzy feelings to watch it, and I'm loving the fact it is now on twice at weekends. It's just a nice way to spend the weekend.

Imagine though the horror at last night's results show. Penny and Gabby in the bottom two. Penny and Gabby? Possibly two of the best dancers in the show. Not the rubbish dancers like Kate Garraway or Kenny Logan or even John Barnes. Frantic text messages went flying about saying little more than "No" "God" and "Are you watching this?" Then after poor Gabby flipped her last flip the vitriol started - Kate Garraway was evil personified. How dare she still be in the show? All thanks to muppet GMTV viewers who blindly voted for her despite the fact that she dances like a rhino on heat. But without the grace and elegance.

Then I started thinking about it and actually Kate is playing a blinder and the exact campaign that politicians should.

Have a simple message - Kate's message for her GMTV viewers is really simple - "I really want to stay in and achieve my potential. There's so much more I can do."

Repeat your message ad nauseum - I watch at most 15 minutes of GMTV in the morning while flicking between SKY, BBC and Everybody Loves Raymond and I've heard Strictly Come Dancing mentioned every day

Third Party Endorsements - not only does she get the message across on a regular basis, but her co-presenters do too. Ben Shepherd is a little star at this.

Know your audience - I could be wrong but Kate hasn't trawled round other shows to sell her message. She has her audience and she is targeting them ruthlessly.

Ability isn't everything - We've all watched election results and thought "But they're useless, how did they win?" Voters don't always care about ability, especially if you minimise how important it is in comparison with trying hard and being likable.

Be nice - There's no point being the best at something if you come across as arrogant, and that was Gabby's downfall. In the end Kate is just more likable.

Be aspirational - Kate focuses on how much can still be achieved. So much better than - oh I did this wrong.

So it might not be fair that Kate is still in and Gabby isn't but that's what happens when democracy is allowed to run riot. An inferior candidate with a good campaign will beat a good candidate with a rubbish campaign. Look and learn politicians - just don't wear the sequinned tops...

Thank God for Aviemore

It's perhaps not been the best few days for Alex Salmond. I would say for the first time since May, even counting the defeats in Parliament, he's had a bad week. And unfortunately for him it's been on good policy issues.

First the nuclear story. It was a sound move to write to countries signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to highlight Scotland's opposition to nuclear weapons and to ask for support in Scotland receiving observer status. It continued well the policy of pushing forward Scotland's position as a nation seperate to England. But for God's sake, check who you're writing to when you send letters. Don't just accept that whatever Excel spits out at you is a good thing. Remove the nasty people like Iran, Burma and Zimbabwe from your database. I can just see it now "Dear Mahmoud, Please, please support us and we'll ignore your views on the Holocaust and women and stuff, yours aye, Eck."

There's some people you just don't do business with. First because you don't want to make a stand at any costs, second - well it's just embarrassing to allow Nicol Stephen to score points off your actions and third - the good policy has been lost.

And the 1000 extra/additional/equivalent police officers. The dangers of making promises in opposition that you can't keep in government bit him in the bum this week. It must have been a right red-neck for both Wendy Alexander and Nicol Stephen to make direct hits in the one week.

Still, it's conference this weekend. And he'll perform brilliantly, the SNP members will love it and there will be a bounce. Which will hopefully allow the focus to start to go back onto the good policies.

But the opposition parties will start to have a glimmer of hope - he can be damaged. He isn't invincible after all. There may even be a light...