Watch Cameron Squirm

I did enjoy today's Andew Marr show, a week on from asking ridiculous questions of Brown, he has asked the right questions of Cameron and got the Tory leader to squirm uncomfortably

After he tied him up in knots over Europe and the proposed Lisbon Treaty Refurendum, the question of economic policy came up and Cameron got himself into a circular argument over how many jobs he would cut in the public sector, he seemed to propose cutting public sector jobs, to reduce the deficit, improve the economy and create more jobs. In the meantime, all these people would need unemployment benefit, so Marr asked: Have you factored in the cost of unemployment benefit for all the people you will put out of work? It seemed he hadn't and it seems he doesn't care one jot about the human cost.

Later on Marr pulled out a quote from 2006, relating to the financial crisis. Cameron had revelled in criticising Brown for deregulating the banks and the part this played in the financial crisis. I always found this funny, coming from a conservative leader, and this quotes shows that in the years before he had been calling for even less regulation.

"Too often regulation is the first resort. The message from the city is that they should have less regulation and that the centre right should stand aside and let business get on with it"


"Government claims that all this regulation is necessary, they seem to believe that without it the banks could steal our money"

 To end, a  quote from the show that sums up Cameron's approach to politics

"What did you hear last week in terms of specifics about deficit reduction, nothing, from us you will hear specific points, I'm not going to go into them today, because I belive George Osbourne is the right person to set them out" 

Startling hypocrisy.

It's so easy to make the BNP look stupid

Almost every time they are quoted there is a chance to expose the racism, hypocrisy, and downright idiocy that the party was founded on.


Lancaster Unity does this better than most, scurrying information from all corners of the internet to expose this foul group of people. Most of what is found will make you want to cry, but some of it just make you laugh.


Take this quote from a story about BNP members trying to break an unwritten rule about getting on a school board of governers:

"I attended a Mitchell High School governors' meeting where we were told there are now over 104 languages spoken in Stoke-on-Trent schools. This has caused chaos, cost a vast amount of money and it needs someone with the backbone to tackle it."

Where to start? Maybe with the fact that they don't teach or specifically cater for all those languages, the vast majority of those pupils will speak English as well to a pretty good standard, with many speaking other languages as secondary languages with English as their mother tounge. I could continue... what chaos has it caused? The cost can't be calculated as schools don't calculate specific costs relating to language, it will get put in with the schools entire SEN budget. 


So in conclustion, Mr Batkin, you're completely wrong.  

Debunking all the tories promises

Starting, as is customary, from the beginning, with pledge number one:

We will work with councils to freeze council tax for two years - saving £200 for the typical family

Firstly, this has already been promised by all Labour's London councils and secondly, some brilliant calculations by Unity at Liberal Conspiracy have shown that Cameron's idea of the typical family is one earning in excess of £67,000 and with a house valued at over £260,000. Given that typical is synonymous with average, this is way above the national average of £35,000 and £155,000.

Next, moving onto their pledge about reassessing 2.6 million people on incapacity benefit, good idea, shame the incumbent government is currently doing it. Did Cameron not watch Benefit Busters on C4?
Replacing the universal human rights act with a British bill of rights can be described as, at best pointless and at worst downright dangerous. How would this 'strengthen traditional British liberties'? What are these liberties? Traditionally British law was stacked against homosexual people, homosexuality was only decriminalised in 1967. Doesn't this mean that this new bill of rights would re-criminalise homosexuality? Who's to say they won't? Section 28 was only introduced in the 80s and the current Tory party associate with some extreme homophobes in Europe. The tories can't call themselves the true progressives then bleat on about 'traditional British liberties.'

Cutting the number of MPs by 10% would surely increase the workload on those left, leaving some MPs having to sit on more than one select committee without saving a huge amount of money. Purely a populist vote winning idea, with little real benefits.

Cutting ministers pay by 5% will again, not save too much money but is an obvious populist policy, after the expenses scandal.

Cutting Quangos, a policy for Littlejohn to spunk over, but I'm sure one that will have little implications, considering all they will do (and have to do) is move the quangos functions to another department. Also Cameron is going to set up 17 new quangos anyway, just to give the Mail something to moan about.

The Military Covenent, as far as I can see... actually... A GOOD IDEA. Pity it was thought up by Labour MP John Cruddas. It's astonishing that Labour doesn't listen to the left of the party more often.

That concludes Part 1, I haven't got time to debunk all the policies at once...

Startling Naivety

When you look back over your life, most people are bound to recall moments of startling naivety, usually from several years before. Looking back over the first two months of this blog I can recall some brilliant moments of naivety from this young blogger.

1) My endorsement of Mike Gapes for Ilford South, before even checking his voting record (not good)
2) My idea that Labour and the Lib Dems being equal in the polls would gain them equal seats in Parliament (not with FPTP)
3) The idea that the Daily Mail could ever change (this blogger doesn't have any influence)

Still, onwards and upwards... you've got to be able to laugh at yourself

Tough on children, tough on the causes of children

In the Guardian today, a story about a possible vote winner for Gordon Brown has emerged from the party conference. The story is prefaced with the byline 'Attempt to woo Middle Britain with tough line on anti-social behaviour' and is about a return to the Blairite plan of stealing the Tory crime rhetoric.

Yet here Brown has gone further, the policy of parents of poorly behaved children having to submit to parenting classes or risk losing their benefits is plainly drafted to appeal to the traditional Tory heartland of 'Middle England.' This is evidence that the Labour party, not only want to take the rhetoric but the policies of the Tories too.

This policy, quite apart from not delving deeper into anti-social behaviour and the actual reasons behind it rather just blaming the parents, seems to be an indication that Labour are trying even harder to alienate their traditional support from the working classes and in the north in the push for middle england. The Lib Dems should be very pleased with this, yet again there is evidence of space on the centre left for a party that really does prioritise the needs of the working classes.

This is the perfect time for the Lib Dems to fill the gap on the centre left as Labour continue to slide to the right, on a collision course with the Tories. By the election you won't be able to tell them apart.

Tories and Lib Dems, a cigarette paper between

Or it seems not, after David Cameron has spent the last couple of days trying to woo Lib Dem voters and activists by claiming that there’s ‘a cigarette paper’ between the two parties, Chris Huhne on the Today programme brutally rebuffed these claims.
His discussion with Tory chairman Eric Pickles picked up on all the important points why you shouldn’t vote Conservative and why the Lib Dems are a much fairer, more progressive party. One is the fact that Tory tax cuts only benefit the rich – from his figures only 3,500 estates will be positively affected by their idea to raise the inheritance tax threshold on properties worth over £1million. Another is the fact that, despite what Cameron says, a lot of the party is institutionally racist and homophobic, as displayed by their willingness to ally with extreme right wing parties in Europe.

Also in the media, Nick Clegg has denounced the Tories as ‘the party of crime’ in the Guardian, and the attack on the Tories is beginning to get the Lib Dems some more exposure and showing that overall their policies are quite sensible and closer to Labour than the Tories. And after a poll showed that 36% of voters don’t know who he is he needs that a lot.

The fact that few people know much about him and his position on key issues may yet prove to be an advantage, as he has a lot of people who have no opinion on him available to be convinced into voting Lib Dem.


Who knows whether this will work? Only the election results will show, but if Gordon Brown manages to regain some ground too, the Lib Dems may gain enough seats for a hung parliament. Wishful thinking?

Who's the best of a bad bunch?

In the blogsphere recently there have been lots of posts about who people are voting for when the general election rolls around. Most people seem fairly sure of where their vote is going. Me? I really have no idea which party to vote for (providing the election is held after I turn 18).

Tories: Still the nasty party, nothing could make me vote Tory. Sorry Dave.

Labour: If they moved a bit further to the left they would be an automatic choice, but at the moment their handling of the financial crisis could have been better... or they could have not caused it in the first place. Also the policies section of their website just tells me what they've done so far in power not what the stand for or want to do in the future. Smacks of either arrogance or defeatism. But if I am indeed in the Ilford South constituency I will probably vote Labour as Mike Gapes seems to be doing a good job.

Lib Dems: An interesting proposition, their flagship policy of abolishing tuition fees entices me, but the prospect of it being ditched doesn't. Clegg's taxation policies seem quite left wing from what he said on the Andrew Marr show, but I can't see myself voting for them as they seem unlikely to get in.

So despite their flaws, it seems I'll be voting Labour. I just wish it was a better labour.