Just an aid ship?

Following the tragic loss of life, the blame rests with the Hamas terrorists and their anti-blockade conspirators who tried to break a military embargo. Netanyahu should not have apologised for the IDF; they were doing their duty.

Just an aid ship?

According to anti-Israeli sources, the ships which attempted to run the blockade were aid ships. However this does not bare up under proper scrutiny.

Not least for the fact that if these ships where just transporting aid to Hamas terrorised Gaza; why could they not go through the proper channels? What is more, the vessel refused to stop despite realising that it was attacking an Israeli blockade zone. What therefore did these 'humanitarians' have to hide?

Indeed according to the BBC website the Israeli soldiers not only did not engage first in combat, but were forced to defend themselves from a brutal terrorising campaign as soon as they intervened aboard the illegal blockade runner. The BBC reports that "Israeli soldiers had been defending themselves after they were "clubbed, beaten and stabbed"

Therefore on what basis does the anti-Semitic Hamas allies base their condemnation of young IDF soldiers doing their duty, to defend themselves and their country? Is it not more likely that given the vessel refused to go through legal channels for aid convoy, and refused to respect Israeli naval restrictions that they had ulterior motives? If something barks like a dog, looks like a dog and walks like a dog the chances are it is a dog.

The reality is that the six-ship convoy had set out to allegedly carry 10,000 tonnes of aid from Cyprus to Gaza, despite repeated Israeli warnings that it would not be allowed to reach the territory.

In a statement, Mr Netanyahu defended the Israeli operation, saying troops were attacked when they landed on the largest of the six ships in the flotilla. What else can Israel and the Jewish people do? Are they to simply to endure murder and hate from Palestinian terrorists?

Natanyahu had nothing to apologise for; however his regrets over the loss of life are naturally meritworthy.

Another successful Eurovision

Eurovision 2010 was a musical success with a winner who actually deserved it in Lena and 'Satellite' for Germany. And as for Britain, don't worry, we get what we deserve- 'nil point'.

Diversity

If we talk about Eurovision in the past it was for the negative impact of tactical voting on the outcome. This year however with a number of good songs and the impact of the European wide-recession it was a display of Euro-solidarity. Germany had an excellent young new talent in Lena; who is a cross between Lilly Allan and Bjork [who I adore, musically]. The Irish and Israeli baleds where powerful stuff too. Yet on the other hand there was only a handful of euro-pop cases.

Don't get me wrong, euro-pop has its place in the competition, it is just nice to know that some of the talent contributors this year shall have post-eurovision careers.

The 2010 musical diversity was made a fait-accompli with the Turkish entry satisfying the rock and head bashing types. Thus it is with a considerable delight that I say it was an excellent competition this year, with only the residual hint of political voting left over. Oh, and Britain? 10 points, but given the pathetic effort the BBC goes to to find and sell our contributors do not be surprised. After all Azerbaijan spent £3m on their contribution, and Germany even more...

Viewing figure strength

The Eurovision competition continues to be a major ratings success in the UK, with a very high 7.9m families, individuals and pensioners tuning in. It just begs the question: why don't we take it more seriously? Germany, Belgium, Russia, France among others usually do and the tourist boost to an economy and capital if winning shouldn't be underestimated! Beeb: make more effort! Europe and Britain expects!

But Eurovision has definitely changed this year. With a 19 year old winner singing in a Bjorkesque style the competition has changed. It has moved generations, so the future of the competition seems assured.

Indeed if any of my University Eurovision mocktail/cocktail/vino parties are to go by, the competition is always a success [on one level at least]...but don't let my euro-lovins get influencing your view of the whole affair...

Dean's top 5:

1. Israel: 'Milm' by Harel Skaat
2. Germany: 'Satellite' by Lena

3. Ireland: 'It's for you' by Niamh Kavanagh

4. Greece: 'Opa' by Giorgos Alkaios and Friends [Euro-pop]

5. Armendia: 'Apricot Stone' by Eva Rivas

But before signing off- I just have to say a thumbs up too for Belgium, they went a very refreshingly different direction. One man and his guitar makes a lovely song...its just not eurovision-y enough for me; though goodness knows the simplicity did very well on the night.

Oh, and Graham Norton has now earned his chair replacing the legend that is Sir Terry Wogan.

A question of royal funding

A review over funding mechanisms for our head of state is due, and it is time the government stopped seeing the Queen as an additional source of funding.

No Inflation link

The Crown Estate has been running at approximately £7.9m for 20 years. There has been no link to inflation, so the 80% increase on the RPI has not been reflected in a equal rise in the royal budget. According to Sir Alan Reid, the Queen's treasurer, the royal budget runs at £7m over the Civil List fix. Naturally this ought not be considered extravagance on the part of the Queen- it represents the increased costs for providing the same services, and the rising costs of security and so forth on a budget that is proportionately decreasing in value.

The lack of an inflationary link, to at least maintain a consistent value of income has resulted in a number of Royal Palaces turning into states of disrepair. According to the Telegraph;

"The annual Civil List figure is negotiated every decade and the last increase was agreed under John Major's government in 1990.

Since then, not only has the Queen had a revenue freeze, but a number of royal palaces are now in a state of disrepair and need millions of pounds spent on them."

And before anyone jumps in and shouts 'who cares?', we all ought to. Not least the fact that these properties still represent our history, heritage and past. It is complacency with English, British and Scottish culture to allow these important properties to wither on the vine just because government is too scared to maintain consistent royal budgets.

Watchdog for royal costings backs more money

Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough and who, until the election, was the chairman of the Commons' Public Accounts Committee (PAC) the Parliamentary watchdog on royal finances, said:

"The Queen, without any shadow of a doubt, needs substantially more money to carry out her duties and responsibilities.

"There is a lot of catching up to do. The Queen and the royal family do a fantastic job considering their very small resources.

"The boost to tourism, to tradition and to the country is enormous. They should be given a lot more money so they can do their job properly.

"The Queen's [financial] operations and the royal palaces are – compared with the rest of the public sector – exceptionally well run.

"The fact is that we, the PAC, did a report on the royal palaces which concluded that Buckingham Palace is falling apart while Frogmore [Windsor] – the last resting place of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert – is in a pitiful state.

"It's a national monument which is just falling to pieces. It's a scandal that the government has starved Buckingham Palace of the resources to maintain this infrastructure."

Prudent Palace

Indeed the backdrop to how the Queen is balancing her budgets makes this even more shocking. For example, the eight years until 2008 saw the royal family decrease its overall costs to the taxpayer by approximately 1.3% in real terms. - year on year.

This prudent, careful management has not been rewarded with any kind of respect from parliament however. Indeed Labour's very own 'comedian' Denis Skinner has criticised the Queen for being an "ever rising burden" on the taxpayer. Now as I have demonstrated this is absurd, untrue and lies.

-

Yet, being fair as I am, I will acknowledge that since 2008-2009 year the cost of the Queen and her husband did increase by 1.5% for the first time in over eight years. But given the recession in the latter half of that period, and the chronic underfunding of the Palace, I think its a miracle its only a 1.5% increase.

Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism

The Royal Society is Britain's premier scientific institution and it is being forced by its academics to review its official statements on climate change with a view to accepting climate change scepticism.

Review is welcome

This has all occurred following a rebellion by members who question mankind's contribution to rising temperatures. The 350 year-old institution's official position on global warming. It is to publish a new "guide to science of climate change" due for this summer.
.

With 43 of its senior members however arguing that the organisation is refusing to accept dissenting voices on the issue of man-made global warming theory it has been forced to back down. And so it should, not least because climate change scepticism is just as scientifically valid as climate alarmists and their man-made theory. The sole measurement ought to be the pure and unpoliticised science of the thing.

The Royal Society's previous president however has been caught on record declaring "the debate on climate change is over". Well my Lord, maybe in your mind, yet the science is telling us something else. Perhaps your lordship may be so kind as to allow a scientific organisation to focus on the science and not any agendas?

According to Sir Alan Rudge, a society fellow, and member of the global warming think-tank 'Global Warming policy foundation', the Royal Society has been riddled with Greenist political agendas for years. It is clear how these such agendas can fatally undermine the pursuit of pure science. He went on, "I think the Royal Society should be more neutral and welcome credible contributions from both sceptics and alarmists alike."

Here here, indeed isn't that meant to be what science is about? Maybe someone ought to send a little memo to Lord May?

Capital Gains Tax hike is a mistake

60 Tory MPs plan to vote to block the coalition tax hike, and the Daily Telegaph has launched a campaign to undermine any future CGT increase; maybe it is time for the coalition to listen before it is too late?

Punishes savers

According to the details held within the Queens Speech, the coalition plans to increase Capital Gains Tax from the current 18% on non-business assets "closer to income tax levels". For those still unsure why this is a dangerous proposal, let me spell out exactly what that disingenous language means: CGT at 40-50%.

Naturally this has sowed the ground in Westminster for the first Tory backbench potential rebellion [potential, as Cameron hasn't 'officially' launched the plans yet]. John Redwood has come out explaining that this proposed change would if anything reduce total governmental income. Indeed he also correctly pointed out that not only would it reduce total government revenues, but it would fail to fulfil its intended function. That intended function being to deter wealthy financiers from moving their private equity assets into savings to avoid paying the new higher rates there. The only problem is that this disasterous potential proposal shall if anything punish prudent middle class savers; who have saved sensibly for retirement.

The Daily Telegraph outlined this;

"However it is feared that the brunt of the increase in CGT will be borne by middle class Britons who have been saving over the long term for their retirement, rather, than such high-earners"

Fidelity International

The outlined potential plans for CGT has been so explosive that the otherwise silent yet lobbying interests like Fidelity International have come out resolutely against. The firm which manages nothing less than £150bn in individual and company savings alone explains that the coalition government must "listen before it is too late".

The firm indeed is not alone in protesting at these plans, other expert parties which would be caught up have begun a strong reargaurd action in the hopes of blocking CGT hikes. The support indeed for Fidelity Internationals intervention has been so strongly welcomed apparently by its competitors and customers that its UK manager has conducted an interview with the Telegraph. This all ups the pressure on the coalition to stop, and think again.

Thankfully John Redwood has proposed a sensible alternative action plan for government consideration. It would see the sensible plans and asperations from the Liberals and Tories to be met, and avoid relentless punishment for Britons savers. Cameron must listen.

100 days

The coalition government has announced that the Identity Card Scheme is to be scrapped by Home Secretary Theresa May "in 100 days"

Liberty

This news is a major step forward in rolling back the dark spectres of the former New Labour regime. With the abolition of ID Cards, there is no longer a concern that all of our DNA, and personal information need be compulsorily stored on a bit of biometric plastic card.

At just eight years old, the scrappage plan cannot come too soon, not least due to the fact that it represents nothing short of a waste of taxpayers money.

The original argument was that it would help in the war against terrorism, and when that argument failed to hold water naturally the reasoning switched tac. The Home Secretary explained that scrapping this one unnecessary scheme alone shall save an estimated "£1bn over ten years". This is a worthwhile saving, that can go a way in pushing down Labours debt bombshell.

The Home Secretary confirmed that there would be no refunds to 15,000 people who paid £30 to purchase the card. Ms May told a press conference at the Home Office they would at least have a souvenir of the scheme. Not least because it was made clear that any future Conservative administration would be cancelling the scheme. At least the sceme shall be a momento and reminder of the dangers to our liberty, and taxpayers pockets posed by future Liebour Party governments. According to the Times, the coalition government intends to have the Bill passed and enacted before the next August parliamentary recess.

Credit where credit is due

Shami Chakrabarti, of the human rights group Liberty, said: “Liberty thanks the Government for the bonfire of the ID cards and the junking of the National Identity Register. We have spent many years arguing that this grand folly would cost our freedom, privacy and race relations dearly and the public agreed. We hope that scrapping ID cards for foreign nationals will soon follow.”

The no-less smaller or important issue of ID cards for foreign nationals needs to be resolved too, Liberty is correct in this assertion. However, it may prove expensive for the government to break the terms of the contracts for the private sector companies already producing such ID Cards for the foreign national population. Thus it may require some clever thinking from government first, as the best fiscal interests of the taxpayer must be top of the agenda.

A matter of solidarity

"We have to help the Greeks. We have a duty of solidarity"

Integration or disintegration

The Germans are furious over the Greek bailout, Merkel is engaged in a war of words with President Barosso of the Commission, and it is down to French to remind everyone of what the choice is.

In the Franco-German border town of Mulhouse a French hotel manager informs Times reporter that the reality is simple, "If we consider Europe a serious matter we have to help the Greeks". Going further, the French hotel manager, by the name of Jacques Wertz explained further, "We have a duty of solidarity and have to help."

It is about solidarity, and our common responsibility to our fellow Europeans. As former French Prime Minister Edouard Balladur outlined, "It's either disintegration or integration for Europe now"

To sum up Europe is at the cross roads of history, where on road leads to division, nation-statist rivalry and war. The other is the continued European ideal, of integration, cooperation and mutual interdependence. For evidence that these constitute more than just words look to Mulhouse! Look to Alsace-Lorraine! This frontier territory was occupied by the German Empire from 1871-1919, and today it is a model of European unity and peace. Today over 20,000 French citizens of Alsace-Lorraine regularly travel and work in Germany, and Switzerland. Gone are the days of hostility, hatred and suspicion, now just mutual respect, solidarity and interdependence; a delicate blanket of security and community which cannot be allowed to be shattered due to fear, and anti-European sentiments.

"Each country was looking out for itself", said the former French Prime Minister- and we cannot allow a lack of coordinated response over the Greek crisis spell a return to those dark times. "There has to be common strategy", this is a European problem after all- and if Greece falls, and the Eurozone falls, peace through our EU forged stability falls. It is simply not an option.

The solution

A new EU treaty as Chancellor Merkel calls for, with new powers for the EU commission over member-state budgets. Furthermore, there must be the creation of an common European Monetary Fund to replace our dependence on Washington based IMF. Looking forward, the new EU treaty must also create the conditions through new institutions and mechanisms for an orderly Eurozone member-state bankruptcy.

The choice is simple enough, disintegration of Europe or integration. New-Right supports stability, security and harmony, New-Right calls for relentless further integration.
.

Barroso needs to stand up to Cameron

Yet despite all of that common sense and logic, our president Barroso seems hellbent on cowering down to Camerons militantly anti-European agenda. In a high profile interview with Times reporters he explained that there was no possibility of a new EU Treaty. When pushed for an answer to why, he informed us all that "the Chancellor [Merkel] is naive for thinking that countries such as Britain would go along with her plan to reopen the Lisbon Treaty."

But surely our Commission President ought to realise that our common European solidarity means that the erstwhile British government ought to be convinced tow the EU line? Barroso is easily the best states person in all Europe; but he needs to face down Camerons British blackmail, we cannot have our European destiny held to random by any Europhobes. Face them down, Europe demands it.

Queen Speech and Scotland: the long and short of it

New powers, promises kept, but a 1.3% cut in devolved assemblies funding from Westminster. Where does the coalition agenda towards Scotland leave us?

1.3% Reduction and cuts

The Times accurately explained that "the Dave is in the detail", and when looking at the package it does seem a mixed bag. Indeed the 1.3% cut in devolved administration funding is a tough decision that the SNP executive [or government depending on your preference] shall have to make up the shortfall. That said however, Cameron has seemingly given Salmond extra tools to do his job with the new tax powers being devolved.

But let us not forget that beyond the 1.3% cut in devolved funding across the UK there is also the little matter of the £1bn Scottish share of the £6.2bn UK cuts to be settled.

Regarding this matter Cameron has granted Salmond the election saving referral option which he naturally has seized upon; not altogether unfairly. According to the new relationship post Queen speech Scotland's governing body, however it is to be, must start to make the £1bn in Scottish cuts 'within 12 months' of taking office post 2011 GE. This is bold, perhaps a little tough, but like me I welcome the chance to have Scotland make its share of tough decisions- we are all in this together.

Overall, before moving on the cuts agenda seems an odd mix. The referral is obviously welcome [the Scots economy is still to enter recovery and see a drop in unemployment], and the 1.3% cuts in the long term for all devolved institutions is doable and the smallest of the departmental cuts across the board. Indeed when comparing the devolved administrations funding cut to any other department facing cuts it constitutes the smallest reduction of all. Thus we can say we got off lightly over the long term compared to what may have been.

Barnett formula changes

It is vital to highlight that while Scotland will see more tax powers, this is coupled with a reduction in our Barnett formula handout. Now, putting aside the not-so-small matter of whether that is right or not, what this means in cold numbers is "a £332 million reduction in the devolved Budget north of the Border in 2011/12".

Again, the Dave is in the detail! Yet in a positive note, this so far isn't nearly as bad as the £600 million forecast by John Swinney. I trust you SNP supporters shall forgive me for saying that I am pleased he was wrong with that.

Brownlee out of touch

The young Turk of the Scottish Tory force in Holyrood however has made a fool of himself by his call for Scotland to cut this year rather than next. Indeed it places the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party in direct contradiction with Chancellor Osborne; who agrees with FM Salmond that Scotland's economy is too fragile to see cuts this year.

What can I say, currently the Scots Tory Party is an unfunny joke. Cochrane accurately described whoever designed our internal organisation as "either a sadist or an imbecile".

Andy Kerr is just as bad

What can I say, Kerr is still going on about Scotland's budget as best for a long time. What a twit of a man. The Times has quoted his reaction as follows;

"Even after this announcement, the Scottish government still has a bigger budget than any of its predecessors,"

Has this man ever heard of one little word called -proportionate - I give up.

The new tax raising powers

Income tax, or 20% of it at least, shall no be governed by our MSPs. A welcome step down the path leading to full fiscal autonomy. In short, this 20% control over Scottish based income tax is not a little, but very substantial. It also sees Cameron match his promise to implement Calman recommendation's with actual legislation, as the Times explains "The commission backed increasing Holyrood’s accountability to Scottish voters by giving MSPs control over about 20 per cent of the income tax raised in Scotland"

And in a personal note to you fellow bloggers - a moment of smugness - I told you so. I told you all that Cameron would devolve powers to Scotland as a priority, all you doubting Thomas chappies need to give this PM more credit!

The other new powers includes control over airguns, speed limits and the like. All welcome and frankly sensible matters for our parliament in Holyrood to be dealing with.

High speed rail and boundary changes

In a less talked about side issue is the Tory-Liberal plans to make constituencies hold a 77,000 person standard. This would see Scotland go from 59 MPs to just 50 MPs. But not only that, it would see impossible constituencies vis-a-vis the highlands and islands. To be blunt, this aspect of the Queens Speech is silly, and they all need to consider Scottish geographical exceptionalism [for want of a better term].

Yet lets end on another positive- high speed rail. Glad to see the Tory led coalition honour another manifesto commitment. Our pledges included high speed rail not just to Birmingham [as Liebour wanted to do], but all the way up to Scotland. Indeed this pledge means Cameron is ignoring the experts who warn that the link from Manchester to Glasgow would not be financially profit making. It is good to see Cameron put the national interest of Scotland before these profit-hungry 'experts'. This high speed rail pledge shall prove vital for Scotland's long term economic competitiveness.

Queen Speech outlines new Scots powers

Her Majesty's speech to parliament has outlined fresh wave of powers for Scotland, including the full implementation of Calman.

New Powers

The new powers to be devolved to the Holyrood parliament includes tax raising powers, speeding limits, airgun control and drink driving. All are included in the new and enhanced devolutionary settlement announced by the Queen.

However there were 20 bills in total, several of which relate to Scotland, including the high speed rail link, and the Tory commitment to see it go all the way to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Given a lack of details currently [I have still to watch the Queen speech myself] I shall leave this update here, suffice to say as a supporter of Scottish fiscal autonomy, it is pleasing to see the devolved settlement heading in that direction at least. These new tax raising powers ought to further enable the Scottish executive to deal with the cuts which they have a responsibility to make. It adds another tool to the Scots arsenal including the cuts deferral.

The respect agenda seems to be functioning extremely well so far.

Overpopulation and the road to totalitarianism

Recent reports on the rate of global population growth makes worrying reading. Maybe it is time to revisit the tasteless issue of overpopulation, and the negative impacts that it is/will have on our society, planet and communities.

A new age?

October 4th 1957, it was supposed to be the beginning of a new age, but all too quickly that Sputnik intellectual enthusiasm died away in light of the cold realities of the new dawn. The almost Utopian hope was dashed by the socio-political realities of cold war, unemployment and economic sluggishness. Then came a rebirth of that older hope for a new dawn, a new age. We had 1989, the fall of the wall, Communism collapsed, as did the eastern block. And the net result was totalitarian oppression of the Orwellian variety seemed to die a death. We saw our intelligentsia declare 'the death of history' as we all raised our hopes up.

It was all nonsense, there was not a new hope at any point, juncture or moment.

The real danger lurking

The real danger to stability, the maximisation of happiness [of the Mustafa Mond variety] and security in the world system was never ever challenged. Being direct, the ever rising danger of overpopulation was present throughout the period; ever since the rise of DDT, penicillin and health standardisation. Aldous Huxley catches the reality of our future situation, "So far as the masses of mankind are concerned, the coming time will not be the Space Age; it will be the Age of Overpopulation."

He wrote that back in 1966, and when we actually cast aside our political, ideological and emotive prejudices and parameters he can be seen to be correct. But not merely in the assertion of an Age of Overpopulation, many a fool and knave has boldly predicted this 'fact', it is more on the processes resulting from this which he identified.

Overpopulation leads to economic insecurity and social unrest. Unrest and insecurity lead to more control by governments and an increase of their power. That is the Huxley message, and it is one which is why we need to urgently return to the issue of population growth, and birth control technology. After all do we not now see the rapidly diminishing water access in the developing world, especially in Africa- the decline in the water aggregate for Lake Victoria for example? Such lack of resources shall yield to great instability in the developing world, and in some ways already has. And what when the rise of totalitarian regimes sparks up across these regions - as a net impact from overpopulation and the decline of living standards and mineral access? Direct crisis to the west. Suddenly, through a shortfall in food surpluses we in the West shall be compelled to live on our own mineral and raw material worth. We now enter the reality of our own overpopulation.

"Permanent crisis creates permanent control", let us be warned. Thus I conclude the greatest threat to our democracy, liberty and freedom is not necessarily only the terrorist figure, or the impact of creeping 'Big Brother' surveillance, no- it is that longer term issue we all love to ignore: overpopulation and the insecurity that it yields.

This leaking must stop

Leaking important documentation to the press is not only a headache for the government of the day, but a potential security risk. However, in this case, to leak the Queens speech in full is disrespect to our democratic legislature.

A matter of respect

Frankly it boils down to a matter of respect, on the part of government, civil servants, and the mainstream media press organisations. Indeed the worst part of all this is that it is a damning statement on the current health of our governing institutions, and the media watchdogs.

Look at 1996, when the budget report was leaked ahead of parliament being informed by the then Chancellor Kenneth Clarke, the Mirror actually returned it to the government. Today that kind of respect for the authority of our democratic representatives has gone. In today's Guardian newspaper it is revealed that the Queens speech has been leaked, in effect the final draft. This is to be plain, very serious, and much more serious than the usual run of the mill leaks on minor documents, and half-statements.

Who governs the country?

Heath last asked the great British public this question, and was shown the door- but it is time to ask again. Who is it that governs Britain? Our Executive and Legislature or the 24 hour media moguls and their irrepressible appetites?

It will not come as a surprise to anyone that personally I object to the idea that the likes of the Mail, Times, Sun, Guardian, Independent, BBC and Sky can find out about this parliaments great bills, reforms and changes before either the public or their democratically elected representatives.

It is thus on this basis that I would like to welcome the news from the Palace and the speakers office that there is to be pressure for an official leak inquiry. The Guardian reporter Allegra Station writes that "The Palace is unlikely to be wildly impressed", and I should think not! Her Majesty is a notorious stickler for protocol, and parliamentary proceedure. She will obviously object to her parliamentarians being made a mockery of by some leaker, with an eye on a fly chance at feeling like a big shot.

Yet Bercow raised another concern: money. A source close to Mr Speaker revealled that his office shall be demanding a full public inquiry, not least in order to establish "whether any money changed hands".

It is time that Mr Speaker and his office gets tough and clamps down on this government by press release culture. The leaking must stop, or at least the press ought to regain their respectability, and like the Dailly Mirror, refuse to use stolen property.

Another step towards Huxley's dystopia

Aldous Huxley when he put down his dystopian vision for our future in 1931 could hardly have realised just how accurate his 'Brave New World' [BNW] prediction was to evolving into real life. And with the NHS secret DNA database, it seems this is another reminder of that slippery slope..

NHS secret DNA database

The Sunday Times has revealed that the NHS in England, Wales and Scotland has been quietly building up a complex DNA database system of newborn babies blood, without any proper parental consent.

The worrisome element with this is that it may never have come to light had it not been for the Conservative-Liberal coalitions 'Great Repeal Act' which shall either abolish or greatly reduce the size and scope of these BNW devices. But before anyone jumps to blaming the New Labour former police state, no- this has been going on secretly since 1983. Therein lies the rub.

Indeed, without the official freedom of information requests submitted by ordinary citizens it seems that this massive covert DNA database would have been secretly constructed by politicians, and secretly demolished again -without any of us ever realising it. What a scandal.

According the the Sunday Times own freedom of information request, it seems that this database information have been open to police, coroner and hospital staff access since it first began in 1983. Thus, people like myself have potentially been placed onto this DNA system - and this information taken was so advanced that these aforementioned enquirers could actually identify me from blood sample DNA. There are naturally massive legal, moral and ethical concerns which flows from this revelation.

But the most worrying issue of all is that the new Conservative-Liberal government minister Andrew Lansley had apparently planned to quietly decommission any stored information on this NHS database which had been taken and stored without proper consent. Now however he is facing a barrage of demands; all calling for an official inquiry as to why such secret NHS practises could ever have been allowed to happen in the first place. Especially given the absence of parental consent.

Lack of official standards

Yet one must recognise the importance for hospitals to be able to screen newborn infants, with parental consent, in order to ensure best possible health care in future years. Now according to current official government advice on the taking and storage of 'blood spots' [i.e. blood samples taken from newborns], hospital trusts should "be kept for at least five years". But the practice varies depending upon hospital trust, and in the case of Central Manchester University Hospitals Trust they are much more ambitious. Indeed they still have well over 1m blood samples from 1983 alone; and from every year since, and they plan to keep them in storage potentially infinitely. And in the absence of more rigorous government standardised legal norms in this field of medical practice; the cost is on you babe! The taxpayer!

Adapt or Die

The Sunday Times carries a story which explains that there is now active consideration in Scottish Tory circles to break away from the London based Conservative Party. Therefore New-Right asks: "Is it time for Scottish Tories to assume full autonomy from the London Party?"

Adapt or die

The Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party is now discussing plans officially with the aim being a formal split from the British Party. The aim, to become an autonomous and independent Scottish centre-right political force again.

The working titles being pushed around in advance of the Scottish Tory council meeting are as follows:

• Scottish Reform Party,


• Scottish Unionists,


• Scottish Progressive & Unionist Party

Senior Scottish Tory leaders informed the Sunday Times anonymously that the current situation is "damaged beyond repair". And only through taking back our autonomy from the British Party can a centre-right breakthrough save Scotland from the cold grip of Socialism.
.

"This is a classic adapt or die situation we are facing here." Indeed it is! We have now had three Scottish Parliament elections, and three Westminster elections from which to make our breakthrough- and we haven't. New-Right for one is joining the call for autonomy to be taken back for our Party, and a new name, brand and more importantly more SCOTTISH ORIENTATED policies be adopted forthwith. In short I am arguing that the 'Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party' has to die, and perish so that a rebirth can take place.

Am I alone in calling for this new change? A Scottish Party, with its own candidates, its own policy agenda- only agreeing to take a Tory whip in London as with the DUP and UUP in Northern Ireland.

Cameron's diplomatic gaffe

Cameron's footwork looked impeccable - until he used the v word..

In Berlin

David Cameron paid a visit to Europe's most powerful leader Angela Merkel. During the visit Merkel must be left confused, baffled and a little offended by the erstwhile Conservative leader. Not only does Mr Cameron use every opportunity to slap our conservative allies in Europe in the face; but he now refuses to contribute to the safety fund for the euro - "even though the currency's collapse would be a disaster for Britain"

While the red carpets were rolled out, the honour guard was pristine, and Mr Cameron succeeded in bowing at the right moments he was not so quietly committing a serious public diplomatic gaffe. The gaffe itself occurred once Cameron and Merkel had disappeared into the "washing machine" [German nickname for the white concrete construction housing the Chancellor]. Now Cameron informed Ms Merkel during a press conference that "The United Kingdom has a veto. I think those are very important points to understand". What?!

.

His timing could hardly be worse! His first, disastrous, foray into the continent comes at a time when European countries have never been more frail. The euro is currently on German life support, its leaders are squabbling and Cameron decides to drop this bombshell. Merkel, to her credit, allowed herself an enigmatic smile. For this Cameron threat gaffe was not just a tad premature, but it represents his very first steps on the European stage: confrontational, divisive, anti-European. Disgusting.

Great potential wasted

The EU3 are now all led by 'conservative' leaders, but Cameron seems hellbent on cow-towing to the europhobic loonies on the backbenches in this matter. Britain demands a closer, more warm and diplomatic relationship between this menage-a-trois.

Cameron ought to step up the plate, do the vital thing and stabilise British export markets. Rather than letting 54% of our export consumers go under, Cameron ought to move to sure up British strategic trading interests on the continent. Thus he ought to contribute to the Euro recovery package- and agree to have national-budgets for all member-states scrutinised and approved by Brussels before domestic ratification.

Civil Liberties matter

Foreign Secretary William Hague has ordered an inquiry to investigate the torture claims which developed under the New Labour regime

Complicity in abuse

Britain does not torture. This moral code and standard is one of the reasons why we in the UK cite our concerns about others on the world stage. British politicians talk of Turkish domestic human rights records in the enlargement debate, but is this a case of hypocrisy?

The only way to answer is to investigate. Naturally this independent inquiry will decide whether Britain has a recent history of moral double standards. Ironically however intelligence service spokespersons were very careful in their wording in response to this news; they reiterated their assertion that "nobody has ever been tortured in the UK". Ironic not least because our intelligence services track record on being quite so word-accurate isn't all that good [Iraq & the dodgy dossier].

But look more carefully. In particular I highlight the words "in the UK". For there is very real risk that this investigation shall find evidence of a New Labour policy of 'outsourced torture', which is equally unacceptable.

For the moment however, it must be said that there is not a proven judicial case of British complicity in torture...yet.

David Miliband

With Miliband the elder standing for the Labour leadership, his personal role as previous foreign secretary must be explored. Mr Hague had in opposition accused David Miliband of having "something to hide" over British involvement in torture. Is it worrying then that Mr David Miliband informed the Guardian that, in reiteration of what he said at the time, that he and his officials "have been mislead by foreign intelligence agencies about the scope of British involvement".

However there is concern that Hague has moved quickly to deliberately upset the Foreign Office & security services apple cart. The Guardian explains that Hague's announcement caught them all completely by surprise- that no one had even been briefed to plan for it. Perhaps Hague did this intentionally, and if so, why? Otherwise he is guilty of a failure to run his department professionally; somehow however I doubt this to be the case. There is reason in Hague's boldness.
.

This Inquiry is still to have much of the detail surrounding it clarified; for example is it to be a closed session inquiry or open to public scrutiny? Yet one thing is pleasing, it represents yet another Conservative & LibDem manifesto pledge fulfilled.

A matter of survival, nothing less

On his first foreign trip, the Prime Minister meets the German Chancellor for talks that diplomats have suggested will be “chilly or even frosty”. Cameron will warn Merkel that he has promised Britons a referendum on a new EU treaty.

New integration

At the Brussels meeting today the German financial representative is to up the tempo over the Greek crisis. A nine point German paper is to be tabled at the Brussels meeting. Included in the proposals will be a new requirement for the government and Treasury to submit budgets to EU scrutiny before they are discussed in the House of Commons.

"We should discuss the proposals with an open mind and speak candidly about the different options. If our goal is to create a strong and lasting framework for Monetary Union, we must also take the possibility of amendments to the Treaty into consideration," the paper states.

It is clear that if the eurozone fails, then the entire European ideal fails. Given then that if the instability spills across the entire Eurozone area British exporters shall be pummelled, it is important that Osborne and Cameron consider these proposals for fresh integration and economic harmonisation.

.

I can practically already here the europhobes shouting and banging at the gates, but if handing such scrutiny powers to Brussels is the price of market stability, a secure British export market and the survival of the European Ideal then I say so be it.

.

Hand the powers over.

"The Euro is in danger"

Angela Merkel stunned EU capitals by warning that the euro was in danger, and triggered fears of a fresh financial meltdown by announcing a surprise ban on risky trading practices by market speculators. It is time for unity for if the Euro fails, Europe fails.

-24 cents, and just wait till Asia hits

The Euro fell -24 cents against the dollar since the Greek crisis began for Europe. And the sum total of the Greek bailout will cost Germany a huge £19.2bn over the next three years. This, combined with the risk of an Italian crisis, Spanish and Portuguese crises all looming has compelled the German chancellor, Ms Merkel to introduce a shock measure. The surprise ban on risky trading practices by market speculators shall be enforced till March next year, and is designed to calm the Asian markets which open tomorrow. It is extremely likely that the Euro will suffer a mass crisis with Asian investors begin to suddenly dump the euros.

It has resulted in the need for a new solution to the crisis falling across the entire EU, for if the eurozone fails, Europe itself fails.

German demands must be satisfied

Ms Merkel and the German government is correct in its demand for a meeting tomorrow to discuss transferring emergency powers to Brussels, in order to enable the better coordination of national budgets. For the problem here is not the supranational element, it is the nation-state.

Germany is right, and this transfer can serve to establish the necessary conditions for future "orderly insolvencies". Ms Merkel warned yesterday that Europe as a whole faces an "existential crisis, and we need to rise to it. If we do not deal with this danger, then the consequences for us in Europe will be incalculable...if the euro fails, then Europe fails"

Indeed given that 54% of entire British trade is with European Union member-states it would only be a foolish person who concluded that a eurozone-crisis doesn't hurt us here. Our export market needs, depends and craves a stable European consumer market. Britain must therefore agree to step up to the plate.

When Mr Cameron meets our French and German comrades leaders it is vital that he agrees to commit more British funds to the EU bailout programmes. Mr Cameron will meet the President of France first, tonight, and the German Chancellor tomorrow- and he must step up to the plate and do his bit to protect British export markets from disintegration. In this globalised and transnational world in which we inhabit, we must think supranationally

Time to resume privatisation

Vince Cable is to sell off the Royal Mail. This is at last a sign of the return to privatisation, popular capitalism and the crusade to enfranchise the many in the economic life of the nation.

Privatisation is the answer

When it comes to the Royal Mail, only a radical, proven solution will do. With a pension deficit expected to be revalued to a whopping £10bn; it is time to privatise. After all why not? From France to the Philippines, from Jamaica to Japan, from Malaysia to Mexico, from Sri Lanka to Singapore, privatisation is on the move once again. All those banks need privatising, few nationalised assets ought be considered out of bounds.

This is bold, radical, and the most ethical solution to the Royal Mail problem. For by privatising the enterprise we can at last embark back on the revolutionary path of popular capitalism.

And popular capitalism is nothing less than a crusade to enfranchise the many in the economic life of the nation. By privatising the Royal Mail we Conservatives can return power to the people! This is the way to one nation, one people.

Time to face down the CWU

Lord Mandelson, and the previous New Labour government failed to initiate this bold privatisation agenda due to the aggression of the CWU. However it is intolerable, surely, for the democratic voice of the people - parliament and government - to be held hostage by an interest group. It is time for Vince Cable to lead the way, and return power to the people- to privatise the Royal Mail.

It is beyond doubt that, at the very least some percentage of the Royal Mail must be privatised. With the state owned enterprise trying [and failing] to compete in a liberalised free market industry this is the only realistic solution. Indeed privatisation is a manifesto pledge by both Parties. While the LibDems pledged to privatise 49%, the Conservative manifesto also backed privatisation- however outright.
.

New-Right favours a simple, bold, clean swipe at getting this vital public service back on its feet.

I call for the immediate, straightforward, total and complete privatisation of this currently nationalised enterprise.
.

And why not? Should the representatives of the people be afraid to take on the CWU, and its vested interests; which are served by 'no change' logic? Of course not, it is time to negotiate with the CWU for the inevitable privatisation of the Royal Mail. Part of the negotiation ought to be to offer the workers of the CWU some deals, such as agreeing to meet workers retirement benefits.

Either way, privatisation is a vital necessity- and one which both Conservative and Liberal Democrat can agree is vital in saving the failing service. And failing it is, as this quarters projected profits are expected to be severely depleted due to the strike action last year.

David Davis leading the rebellion

David Davis has warned David Cameron that he faces defeat in the Commons over the requirement for 55 per cent of MPs to call an early election.

A matter of constitutionality

David Davis said that a “very large number” of Tory MPs were prepared to defy the Prime Minister to prevent “crippled government”. The main objection remains the 55% requirement, as much as the symbolic surrender of the ability to dissolve parliament and hold elections.

I personally wish to align New-Right with David Davis rebellion, this dangerous piece of anti-democratic legislation must be stopped at all costs. Not least because the rules seem to be purely self serving; aiming to prevent either coalition partner forcing an election without the consent of the other. Yet more importantly, it is entirely wrong for the PM to seek to surrender the ability to call GE's at a time of his choosing; for it is not his powers to surrender. It is Her Majesty's authority loaned to her prime minister.

Mr Cameron must learn to respect the traditions of our democratic chamber, which can only function in accordance with convention. Sadly Mr Cameron seems to be gerrymandering with our constitutional frameworks in much the same way as the previous Liebour government.

The first serious challenge

Getting the legislation passed will be the coalition’s first serious test as Labour MPs and rebel Tories challenge what some have called a “constitutional outrage”. Mr Davis seems to have now become the most senior Tory to break cover on the issue yesterday, and condemned the proposal as a “very serious mistake”.

“It could end up with a sort of crippled government,” he said. “Thirteen years ago, a new government swept to power and they changed the banking regulations; ten years later you had a load of crippled banks. Here you could have something — the Government comes to power, this helps them come to power, and yet in ten years’ time you end up with a crippled government. It is very, very serious.”

Mr Davis would not be drawn on the number of potential rebels but he warned said that the numbers were significant.“A very large number are worried. How many end up voting it down, I don’t know. But a very large number are worried,” As they ought to be, for this does represent the greatest threat to parliamentary and royal authority since the disastrous abolition of the hereditaries following the 1997 landslide defeat.

Another issue is the position of Speaker. A number of Tories have made clear they will force a division, or vote, on the re-election of John Bercow. As they should, given that Mr Bercow betrayed the Party to get into the speakership. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former Foreign Secretary, will propose Mr Bercow and Mr Cameron and Nick Clegg are expected to vote for him. The choice of a Tory grandee to replace Bercow reflects the fact that most of the Buckingham MP’s opponents are Conservative MPs.

Labour MPs, many of whom were responsible for his initial election are also expected to support Mr Bercow. If MPs vote against his re-election, a contest with other candidates will be held this week. Hopefully we shall see the back of this Speaker shortly.

Daveolution

Successive Conservative leaders have struggled in Scotland since Margaret Thatcher was in power, while Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had Scottish credentials

At first glace

At first glace, as Prime Minister Cameron entered Holyrood [his first visit anywhere as PM] he could still hear the faint noise of a protest. "Tories, Tories, Tories, out, out, out," was the familiar cry. Out pumped the traditional battle cries, out flew the red banner- socialism invoked and the elderly Ms Thatcher still treated as the Great Satan.

However on closer inspection this mob of socialists, anarchists, and Bolsheviks turned out to be predominantly teenagers and students- members of the fresh faced Scottish Socialist Youth. They chanted, they hated, they protested...but most of them could hardly remember a Conservative government, and they certainly weren't around for the miners strike.

You could sense that this wasn't your traditional anti-Tory protest at all, this crowds opposition, hate and hostility was born from second-hand experience; a borrowed synthetic rage. Borrowed from youtube footage of Ravenscraig, Orgreave and Wapping. Most of it all just names to these student protesters.

However the occasional chant of "Greece as shown the way" displayed, and confirmed the pathetic shallowness of the entire protest event.

Cameron and Scotland

Scots need to start confronting the political realities of today, not yesterday. And a key part of doing this is to answer the question posed thusly: "Is it fair to hang the sins of a previous generation round fresh necks?"

Can Scotland move beyond the cruel and harsh politics of the 1980's and perhaps enter 2010? This question shall become entwined with the fate of the relationship between Scotland and Cameron. David William Donald Cameron, Prime Minister- his very name displays his Highland Scottish roots.

Indeed Scots ought to see beyond mere accent, and they will discover that Mr Cameron has a stronger Scottish streak in him than his perhaps role model Tony Blair. Despite the fact that Blair was born and Schooled in Edinburgh.

This Scottish steak manifests itself on the families regular visits to Jura, where in a very Scottish Tory way, Samantha's stepfather Viscount Astor owns 20,000 Acres.

But Cameron seems to understand Scotland better than any of the political predecessors to Ms T into No.10, including Labour ones. Indeed Margo MacDonald has conceded that "The fact that he is doing these things, shows he understands Scots better than his predecessors in Downingstreet"

And what are these things? Let me tell you..

For a start Cameron has offered himself up to questioning from Holyrood parliament. He will have his cabinet ministers go north with the blueprints to spending reviews, budgets etc every time- thereby lashing in the SNP to the logic of the decisions. Yet as part of the quid-pro-quo of these concessionary changes, Cameron has also managed to get the SNP to agree to have Scottish ministers enjoy the scrutiny of Westminster parliamentary committees. For the first time, a Scottish minister at Holyrood will have to explain and justify complaints about Conservative-Liberal cuts imposed north of Carlisle.

Yet Cameron has also handed the First Minister a lifeline. The SNP will surely be quietly thanking the new Conservative led coalition. For Cameron has said that he will push back; for one year; all proposed spending cuts in Scotland- thus allowing the SNP to avoid the bad news before next years elections. I think this is a case of 'better SNP for fear of something worse' [the worse being the knuckle dragger called Iain Gray]

Yet as the Tory peer Lord Heseltine acknowledged on Question Time, "This is about to become a very unpopular government" Thus it is all the more important that Scotland politically grows beyond the narrow [and irrelevant] confines of the 1980s- and takes its part in the new politics of 2010 and beyond.

Labour leadership

As his younger brother launched his opening bid for the Labour leadership, David Miliband attempted to position himself beyond 'Blairism' and the connotations of the past

Trades Union support

In the Labour Party ordinary members are still of secondary concern when running for the leadership, what matters is still the union block vote. This is surely the obvious motivation for David Miliband to declare "Blairism, and Brownites are things of the past", for he is almost certainly worried that his younger [and more capable] brother Ed may steal the 'renewal' theme. Indeed the Observer today suggested that Mr David Miliband is actively seeking out Jon Cruddas support, perhaps to run as part of a "dream ticket". Yet when all of this positioning is said and done, what really matters is which candidate for the top job in Labour offers a tangible and meaningful renewal.

Renewal of purpose or merely repackaging?

This is where New-Right tends to prefer Ed Miliband. Despite my own blog being an openly Scottish Tory blog, what I do want is a strong and capable opposition Party. A healthy democracy craves an electable opposition- and this will not happen under David Miliband. His younger brother, less contaminated by the 'New Labour' project branding, also seems to better articulate the problems that Labour now faces: a crisis of purpose.

Ed Miliband explained, "We need to face up to the scale of our defeat. We lost the election, we had the second-worst result since universal suffrage. It is time to face up to some hard truths"
Now, can anyone seriously tell me that David Miliband is capable of realising those hard truths? Given that he was foreign secretary under Brown, and is a chief product of New Labour- I sincerely doubt his capacity to reinvent Labour beyond the Blairist tendency to simply repackage.

Ed Miliband hit the nail on the head when he said, "by the time we lost power, we found ourselves politically and ideologically beached" This is the mainstay of current Labour woes, after all- with the Liberal Democrats standing for social liberalism, with hints of social democracy what exactly is Labour for? It was once socialism, but that is a dead political creed, then New Labour was the grand response, but that sunk on the back of its meaningless technocracy. Ed Miliband is the only Labour candidate yet announced who seems to realise that this is the great challenge for the next Labour leader- to identify the fresh Labour ideological creed.

One thing is certain, if David Miliband becomes Labour leader, 10 years of opposition shall be guaranteed.

Scotland expects

Cameron has called for a step up in his 'respect agenda' towards Scotland, and apparently took the First Minister by surprise in his first visit as Prime Minister to Holyrood Parliament

Fresh relations

It is vital that Mr Cameron's vision for a more accountable British government is realised. He must continue on his policy course, as it is important that he delivers when he says "I want to see Scottish ministers able to appear in front of select committees in Westminster and I believe that, if the Scottish Parliament would wish it, I would appear every year at the Scottish Parliament to answer questions."

What this is showing is a greater awareness of Holyrood- as a parliament. Under Labour Holyrood was treated as a colonial instrument of Labour rule. It was ignored on the big issues, and their own colleagues were often side lined, even on issues technically of their control. Cameron is right to call for a more integrated working relationship between the two parliaments, one which can improve the standing and dignity of the Holyrood parliament. But more than standing, dignity and perception, this will also improve general working relationships.

It was a damning feature under the Brown government that the First Minister was ignored and treated with irrelevance by the Liebour government in Westminster. Yet, with Cameron's 'respect agenda' offer- to make it mandatory that the British PM must attend a Holyrood Q&A session at least once a year among other things is a step in a better direction. Indeed the chance to see Holyrood and Westminster ministers and committees forging a closer working relationship by mutually attending and scrutinising each other's work makes the whole devolved processes steam and gel easier together. That can only be to the best interests of Scots folk.

Impressed Salmond

Cameron even took the SNP leader by surprise when moving quickly and more fully on proposals to devolve fiscal authority to Scotland's parliament. Mr Salmond, First Minister of the Executive said he was "impressed by the prime minister's awareness of the issues", and welcomed Cameron honouring his commitment to the Scottish people, "I think it's a good thing that the prime minister fulfilled his commitment to come to the Scottish Parliament and to meet the Scottish government, with the secretary of State for Scotland, in the first week in office."

Salmond seems to suggest that Mr Cameron is fully briefed and ready to negotiate concerning the future of the devolved settlement, with a mind to further empowering Scots authority. Cameron and Osborne during the GE did hint at offering Holyrood some kind of fiscally devolved settlement, eventually over the course of the first government. This visit perhaps strengthens the notion that maybe they meant it when they said it during the election campaign.

Ian Gray speaking out...

But where would we be if we didn't offer our readers a chance to listen to Liebour's hack in Holyrood? The wee-Gray man, whits-his-face apparently informed the BBC that "Mr Cameron must recognise Labour as the "voice of Scotland" if he was sincere about a new spirit of co-operation."

Hm, so Mr Gray, Labour is the voice of Scotland...not the government in Holyrood they elected?

Time to make devolution work, in the Union not outside of it.

Cameron thaw on Europe hostility

Mark Francois, the eurosceptic minister, has made way for pro-European Tory David Lidington- indicating the influence of TRG Tory and Nick Clegg in the new coalition government.

French Expectations

David Cameron has last night issued the strongest signal yet that, after more than a decade of euro-hostility, the Conservative Party under his leadership is thawing the anti-EU views. Lidington has now taken up one of the most influential non-cabinet posts in government; a role not dissimilar to the special advisory role he previously had under pro-EU Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd.

However this move may also be in response not just to the demands of coalition politics, but to French expectations. It, to my mind, is unarguable that following the daft damage inflicted following the Tory split from the EPP-ED Cameron is using Lidington's appointment to sooth relations. It seems to have worked; repairing some of the avoidable damage- with Angela Merkle welcoming the move, calling the swap a "very welcome exchange".

Yet the real issue at stake is the relationship with Sarkozy- who made very clear that he expected Cameron & Clegg to follow "in the French example". And may I suggest it is a fantastic Euro example to pursue! After all, France remains proudly connected with its own independent national identity, while also being at the beating heart of Europe. It is time for the Conservatives to continue in our traditional role in British politics, and fight for the UK to be one of the "big three" in the EU. Sarkozy explained to David Cameron over the phone that "I am keen for Franco-British relations to continue making their contribution to building Europe, in the spirit of trust and friendship spirit which inspires them".

A counter balance

But Lidington is much more than just mood music to the concert of Europe, nor is he just a symbol of a Tory Party leadership determined to resume the path of pro-Euro enthusiasm left by John Major [and Maastricht]. No, he has the difficult job of being a counterbalance to the fiercely anti-European William Hague, a man who is totally mistrusted in EU capitals.

And it is not surprising, being fair, given the extremely nationalistic election campaign of 2001 which he ran; warning that Britain was "turning into a foreign land".

Lidington therefore reinforces the idea that the Tory shift on Europe is more than mood music, but a policy change of which team Cameron are committed to. The Tories have now made clear that they will be adopting a less confrontational approach to the EU, after the Lisbon Treaty referendum debacle. Not a minute to soon in my opinion.

'The King' backs Osborne

Mervyn King has publicly backed George Osborne's spending plans for the coming emergency budget, following an extensive and detail-scratching meeting today.

Mervyn King issues a "ringing endorsement"

Chancellor George Osborne must be bracing himself for a moment that will dictate his entire future political career. The looming emergency budget will have to be a guide to tough love in modern economics, yet at just 34, is Mr Osborne ready to become the most disliked man in Britain?

Apparently the Daily Telegraph would have us believe that he is ready, and furthermore the Bank of England is enthusiastic for the scale of his "vision". The Telegraph reports on their website that "Mervyn King declared that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer’s fiscal plan was “a strong and powerful agreement” that improved Britain’s economic prospects. The commendation was particularly striking since Mr King had established himself in previous years as one of the biggest thorns in the side of the Government, repeatedly warning that its plans for the public finances lacked ambition."

A major coup indeed, as Mr Osborne will come to depend upon the public backing of the King of the BoE once he drops his cuts and spending bombshell on a British folk still out of touch with the sheer dumb scale of the fiscal crisis facing the UK.

Mervyn King also congratulated Osborne on coming up with a plan that would not only keep the markets at bay, but praised his 'new fiscal measures' that are being drafted in concert with St. Vince of Cable. Just what these "additional measures this fiscal year" pertain to is still unknown. However the rumours circling Westminster at the moment talk of a VAT increase to 20% or maybe even as much as [gulp] 24%! Bold indeed Mr Osborne, but economically justifiable given the shocking state of the UK finances after 13 wasted Labour years.

Devil is in the details

The devil is in the details for this coming emergency budget, especially after news that the economy is expected to show sings of stronger growth and recovery, which better enables Osborne to defend the planned £6 bns in public sector reductions [i.e cuts]

The Telegraph explains that, "In a further boost for Mr Osborne, Mr King said that the economy was starting to show strong signs of recovery, which meant the Government could, as planned, afford to cut spending by the £6 billion this year. As part of its plan for the economy, the Government intends a “significantly accelerated” deficit reduction"

These details are vital, for it is undeniable that Mr Osborne would be happier to have stronger growth as a means of financing these cuts, than harder and larger tax increases. So just which taxes will go up is unknown, but we do know that the worst of the disastrous N.I tax increase is to be scrapped. Employers and the recovery can therefore breath a deep sigh of relief.

Mervyn King's support for the emergency budget may well prove vital for the survival of Mr Osborne, when faced with the inevitable public and lobbyist backlash. Yet the King of the BoE has already come out defending the budget to be, before we can know what is in it... "It’s not going to be easy. It’s going to be a difficult few years as we face these adjustments.”

An ill omen indeed- but one a coalition government serving the national interest is best placed to cope with, I am sure.

Getting down to Buisness

The new Con-Lib cabinet met for the first time, with a number of "high priority" policy announcements being made public shortly after; no more ID cards, annual immigration cap, elected Police Chiefs - and a commitment to go beyond Labour's £20 bn of efficiency savings in the NHS over the next three years

Everybody smile..

Naturally the British press seem obsessed by the details of the moment, for example the BBC seem it is important to inform us just precisely where Cameron, and Clegg sat in the cabinet room...

But we were treated to some lovely smiles as they all did the usual press walk for the cabinet meeting, with St. Vince of Cable being lucky enough to be accompanied by some Tories [staged managed you think?]. From the very outset one is immediately struck by the PR operations already swinging into action, aiming to keep the coalition looking 'friendly', 'united' or something else equally meaningless.

However if we try and push past the PR nonsense, we can also cut to some very real politics, which makes a nice change from the New Labour years.

Civil Liberties

Top of the list of areas of mutual agreement was civil liberties, and it has thus become the top priority for coalition politics. It is worthy to see two of our political Parties; which together command a majority of the country behind them; governing with an eye to role back the dark spectre of Labour's big statism.

It was announced to the BBC's Nick Robinson that after "brief discussions" there was "unanimous" agreement to make public an announcement to start legislating with a repeal of the Labour DNA database.

Theresa May, the new Home Secretary, made clear that the priority was first to strip the database of information pertaining to innocent people, "We are absolutely clear we need to make some changes in relation to the DNA database. For example one of the first things we will do is to ensure that all the people who have actually been convicted of a crime and are not present on it are actually on the DNA database.

"The last government did not do that. It focused on retaining the DNA data of people who were innocent. Let's actually make sure that those who have been found guilty are actually on that database."

New-Right is pleased that this new government is already moving quickly to curb the worst aspects of the Orwellian state.

Police reform

Another announcement was a desire to quickly introduce radical police reform, aiming to make them more accountable than under the 13 wasted years of New Labour.

Theresa May made clear that the police reforms are now central to the law & order agenda of the Con - Lib coalition government. "The coalition government is committed to introducing elected police commissioners and cutting police paperwork to give the police more time on the streets,"

Another proud step forward, time for change.

Let the sight of cooperation, consensus delivering radical an real reforms quell and perhaps silence the radical rightists within the Tory Party [I'm thinking of 'Way Forward nutters']

Cameron's daring will change politics forever

A Tory partnership with the Liberal Democrats has wiped out the anti-Conservative majority at a stroke, this is a defining moment in British electoral history.

"Something has to be..."

Danny Finklestein described this coalition government as a "defining moment" in electoral history, and he may well be right. Yet when describing exactly why, he seems to have caught the mood of the British media establishment..."So in the same spirit, let me write something I have always fancied writing without appearing ridiculous. And now I can. This is a defining moment in British political history. Something has to be."

In that phrase, as short as it is, "something has to be" one gets a captured freeze frame of the bewilderment of the media moguls. No longer will they get the quite so confrontation and adversarial politics of which they have learnt to profit from. No, indeed they do not even know just how Prime Ministers Questions is going to work- all around them, their conventions which they have used to their profiteering advantage falls from sight. The unknown becomes the norm, and I for one love it.

But over and above the worries of the media lapdogs, Cameron has done something altogether more audacious than even Blair's clause 4 moment- he has taken his chance to forge a political landscape that he wants to see.

Let me explain, and I go back to Stanley Baldwin. He fought an election that he expected to win, but in 1923 was left with no clear majority for anyone. He took his chance after realising that he could change to mould of British politics for decades to come, and he did. In that moment Baldwin encouraged the rise of the Labour Party, at the expense of the Liberals. Could I suggest that Cameron has just done exactly the same thing now?

A decisive change

Cameron realised that for years now the Tories have been under the threat of a United Left. Tony Blair's advisers such as Lord Mandelson and Lord Adonis have long seen this. They regard the split in the Left between Labour and the Liberals that took place at the beginning of the 20th century as having ushered in a Conservative century. They are probably correct. That split has been a very important reason for the election of Tory governments, particularly in the past 40 years.

If the Conservatives had won a small majority, it isn’t hard to imagine them being swept out in five years’ time by an alliance — either explicit or implied — of Labour and Liberal Democrats. Something like that happened in 1997 and produced the Blair landslide. Now a combination of the new maths of the Commons and Cameron’s boldness has disrupted this.

And in doing so, changed politics for years. The Liberal Democrats have been picked up and put down in a different place, partly by Nick Clegg of course, but largely by a Cameron offer of partnership that they weren’t expecting. The anti-Conservative majority is, in an extraordinary political coup, no longer an anti-Conservative majority. Things are much more complicated now.

The very fact of working with a coalition partner might force Conservatives to sound more moderate and less strident. And Cameron will be Prime Minister, leader of the Conservatives, of course, but more than that. And the Tories will be able to share the political price of the difficult decisions ahead with another political force. Cuts won’t be “Tory cuts”, the Chancellor might be working with Vince Cable, rather than being attacked by Vince Cable.

So Cameron’s extraordinary response to the election has brought him much as well as the keys to No 10. But he has made a huge gamble. Could this move split his party, not now but in the years to come? Might the Liberal Democrats prove not merely prickly partners, but impossible ones? Could the unfamiliar disputes and debates of coalition partners be perceived as weakness and chaos?

Unknown, unknowable. But this can be said with certainty. Politics has changed for ever.

Areas of overlap: Tory - Liberal consensus

Coalition government is a new opportunity to discover the areas where we agree with one another, so just what are the areas which Tory and Liberal can unite around?

Overlapping ambitions

Taxation

While this may not spring immediately to mind as an area of potential overlap in policy scope, there is more ideological consensus that you may be forgiven for realising. You see, in the Liberal Democrat manifesto and the Conservative manifesto spoke of the need to simplify the tax system.

In the 'Why Vote LibDem?' book by Danny Alexander [SoS for Scotland], he spoke of "Today's tax system, is complex and unfair". This analysis is is shared with the Conservative manifesto- which directly criticised the complexities of a tax system after 13 years of Labour.

.

So in terms of taxation, a vital area of consensus already exists- a common desire to simplify the British tax code. This will naturally ring gold for business and all employers- who suffered for years under the burdens of the red-tape society Gordon Brown helped to engineer within Labour big statist tendencies.

Indeed the Liberal Democrats spoke of a desire to introduce "the biggest tax reform Britain has seen in generations", this obviously fits like a glove to traditional Conservative thinking- as the last great tax reform was under Thatcher with the focus shifting from income based punitive taxation to spending orientated alternatives. Such radicalism and boldness of zeal is hardly alien to the Tory Party, which has a record of radical reform in the tax system, and a history to be proud of.

Localism

Another critical area of consensus rests in the common desire to decentralise power.

The LibDem 'Why Vote..?' spoke of a need to "re-balance the British economy" by handing "more power to make key economic decisions to ... cities and towns".

This is hardly alien to the Conservative Party, where the Oliver Letwin manifesto spoke of a need to attack the Thatcher legacy of state centralism. We Conservatives demanded a radical policy of decentralisation to local government- it is time we reformed the Thatcher hangover by empowering local government again. It is pleasing to find that in another key area of policy the LibDems and Conservatives are in consensus it seems.

Equality

A shared concern for the 13 wasted years of Labour rule also seems to rest at the beating heart of both parties in the new coalition government. The LibDem 'Why Vote..?' book spoke of a concern that "Britain is more unequal than at any time since records began", which seemed to echo Conservative manifesto observations. The Conservative manifesto explained a very real concern that under Labour our once big society has diminished under the relentless assault from welfarism, "Despite Labour's massive expansion of the state, many people's quality of life is getting worse, not better. The number of people living in poverty has risen in the last three years, and inequality is at a record high".

These shared concerns help to make the coalition government more, and not less, workable. It is vital that this new government radically tackles our budget deficit, yet also does not undermine the need to fight back against Labour's inequality bombshell.

After all, a society where we help to reduce the divisions between rich and poor, have's and have nots is one which will realise Disraeli's dream- One Nation.

NHS

As surprising as it may seem, there is even significant areas of overlap in terms of the NHS. Both Conservative and LibDem policy documents speak of a need to "open up the system", to radical decentralising, to empowerment of patient choice. Indeed the LibDems seem to side more with the Conservatives regarding the way forward than they do with Labour.

The LibDem manifesto criticises Labour's centralised method of reforming the NHS, "successive governments have tried to control the NHS with a suffocating bureaucracy that blocks innovation, destroys the morale of staff and undermines patient care."

If anything this echoes Tory concerns: "We will decentralise power, so that patients have a real choice. We will make doctors and nurses more accountable to patients, not to endless layers of bureaucracy and management."

The same themes of decentralisation and patient empowerment push through both political ambitions, this is a critical cornerstone of consensus for a healthy coalition government. The LibDem 'Why Vote..?' seemed to acknowledge the same cures for the system. It said that "A Liberal Democrat health service would give people direct input into how their services are run", which perfectly fits with the Tory manifesto commitment; "We cannot go on with an NHS that puts targets before patients."

The more one digs deeper into the manifestos of the two Parties of government, the less it seems that they cannot find consensus to work together on. Today we can discover that both Tory and LibDems stand against Liebour's big statism.

Coalition Government

The first coalition government in 70 years has taken up the governance of this, United Kingdom, but just what are the key policy platforms now?

Key concessions

The key concessions that were made on both sides seem to actually make the new platform more desirable. For example the LibDems have dropped their policy for a 'mansion tax', but equally the Tories have dropped their policy of increasing inheritance tax threashold to £1m.

The main points guiding our new government is;

• There will be a "significant acceleration" of efforts to reduce the budget deficit - including £6bn of spending reductions this year. An emergency Budget will take place within 50 day Plans for five-year, fixed-term parliaments, meaning the next election would not take place until May 2015


• The Lib Dems have agreed to drop plans for a "mansion tax" on properties costing more than £2m, while the Conservatives have ditched their pledge to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1m


• The new administration will scrap part of Labour's planned rise in National Insurance and will work towards raising income tax thresholds for lower earners


• A pledge to have a referendum on any further transfer of powers to the EU and a commitment from the Lib Dems not to adopt the euro for the lifetime of the next Parliament


• The Lib Dems have agreed to Tory proposals for a cap on non-EU migration


• The Conservatives will recognise marriage in the tax system, but Lib Dems will abstain in Commons vote


• The Lib Dems will drop opposition to a replacement for Britain's Trident nuclear missiles but the programme will be scrutinised for value for money


• There will be a referendum on moving to the Alternative Vote system and enhanced "pupil premium" for deprived children as Lib Dems demanded

Coalition positions

The new faces to the cabinet include a couple of significant Tory concessions with;

Prime Minister: David Cameron [the youngest since 1812, six months younger than Blair was when taking office]

Deputy Prime Minister: Nick Clegg

Foreign Secretary: William Hague

Chancellor: George Osborne

Defence Secretary: Liam Fox

Health Secretary; Andrew Lansley

Business / Banking: Vince Cable

Energy & Climate Change; Chris Huhne

SoS for Scotland: Danny Alexander

There are other cabinet positions to be announced, but significantly there is talk of Michael Gove being dropped, and nothing about Kenneth Clarke yet either- though I am sure Clegg will surely want Ken Clarke in cabinet as a potential ally on a number of issues.

A brave new dawn? Perhaps, but this is the first time the Conservatives have been in coalition with the Liberals since Lloyd George governed his 'national government' during the first world war.