We must not break this butterfly on a wheel

William Rees-Mogg once wrote of Mike Jagger and Keith Richards, "Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel?" - reflect on this when dealing with young Amir in the cricket scandal

If the allegations are proven, he must be punished, but not crushed - international cricket would lose a bright star

The scale of the allegations engulfing the Pakistani cricket team is said to have shocked even the experts. Precisely who these 'experts' are, where they come from and what they have done to earn such a title is never unknown. Naturally. Yet it can only be expected, given the severity of the accusations. If proven true then the game has been infected by large scale, widespread grooming of young and rising stars - by shady dealers. The kind of men who promise riches beyond their means to young adolescent kids from all-too poor backgrounds.
.

Mohammad Amir is potentially one of these youngsters. Let us say that the allegations of spot-fixing are proven. Then the 18 year old from a impoverished village in Pakistan has been doubly manipulated. He has to be punished, but not crushed.

On the one hand he was faced by the "apparent loathsome fixer"; one of those promising wealth beyond his means. Now, while morals and ethics are not the exclusive preserve of those with education; let no one tell me he was not manipulated; his innocence stolen. On this count alone, he merits a second chance. But remember the second source of his manipulation.

His team captain Salman Butt, the new ball partner Mohammad Asif - with five years test match experience. These heroes of his Pakistani domestic cricketing game let him astray, heroes corrupting one of the brightest future stars of the game.

Derek Pringle, Telegraph Cricket correspondent echoes sentiment close to my own, also picking up on the fact that this young boy [younger than even me] has been manipulated by his heroes;

"Surely his seniors should have been assuring him that his talent is a thousand times greater than any loathsome parasite who grooms young players for a role in a murky trade. Instead, it might turn out, if indeed the allegations are proved, that they merely allowed him to be exploited as grotesquely as if he were a serf chained to a medieval overlord"

I personally think that he must be punished if found guilty of this misdemeanour. Yet if this 18 year old cricketing talent does show enough contrition in the eyes; in the body language - I say he deserves a second chance. At least one shot at redemption, lest cricket loses an all-too bright star of the game. And lets face it, there aren't thousands awaiting to take his place at the moment ...

Rethink the reform

While the overall impact of the Osborne budget has been progressive and fair, the coalition has punished the poor by linking benefits to CPI inflation

The first Osborne budget restored the link between pensions and inflation; RPI or CPI [whatever was highest], it has abolished middle class welfare and instituted a bankers levy. Under no stretches of the imagination could any of that be condemned as assaulting the least well off - indeed the restoration of the pensions to inflation link it has reversed a misjudgement of the Thatcher era that Labour failed to do for 13 years. Yet despite being a Tory blog; I choose to exert independence and concede ground on some of the benefits reform.

The coalition has declared [in ultra-small print] that as part of the largely benign and paternalist benefit reforms; benefit uprating shall be linked to the CPI. Why is this important? I contend that this shall directly, and immediately punish those who have least. It is counter to the New-Right aspiration of promoting One Nation values and policies.

Measuring inflation

When measuring inflation we naturally must consider two things; first we need to get a sense of what people spend their money on - what is bought when "living". And second, we need to find a means of packaging up the costs of individual items in an index which can show the change.

Given this, the two predominant ways of measuring inflation relating specifically to benefit handouts governments have historically opted for either the RPI, or more recently the CPI.

There is a critical difference in the two.

Retail Price Index [RPI] seeks to work out the weighted arithmetical average of the prices of a survey constructed basket of typical goods. Yet it also takes into account other costs to the daily living, such as housing costs. The CPI does not.

Andrew Lilico argues that while "the assumption that people spend the same amount of money is better than people buying the same amount of goods...this is not correct of benefit recipients"

It is by the very nature of these benefits that those on them are unable to change with the prices by buying less. The net effect of the new measurement is that those living at the bottom of the benefits pile; actually depending on them and nothing else; will be confronted with a reality that it can buy less and less. Despite the fact that the benefits are already supposedly set at subsistence levels; to discourage fraud; this is remarkably regressive.

My view is the reform should be rethought. The alteration that I recommend would be to calculate those living at the top of the threshold be calculated in line with CPI, as planned - this is sensible enough. But those at the bottom and lower ends of the benefits thresholds should have their benefit upratings calculated linked to the RPI.

Come on, you know it makes sense. Reducing the cost of welfare can be achieved, it must be. But crippling those already on subsistence level incomes is mad, bad and dangerous.

Labour in the balance

The voting is due to start soon, the paper slips are heading out and we shall by the end of September be confronted by a new Labour leader. But what do the two lead candidates, David and Ed Miliband offer Britain, Labour and the future?

The Labour leadership contest is currently eluding a feeling of being a family drama. David versus Ed has; let us be frank; hardly set the Labour philosophy debate ablaze. Perhaps the Sunday Telegraph was being a tad generous when its editorial concluded that the whole contest "has been characterised by a ... lack of philosophical depth".

Yet due to the absurdities of the Labour electoral college system for selecting new Leaders [where some votes are more equal than others] the race remains too tight to call. However David remains the favourite - but has his brothers ultra-metrosexual character assassinations hurt his chances with those all important second preference votes? I wonder.

One thing is however clear: Labour will definitely not win under the younger Miliband.

When Ed Miliband speaks about Labour 'values' and 'idealism'; what he really means is old Labour income equality, coupled with a dangerous disregard for deficits, added an urge for more regulation and big-statism. Let me be frank; I have serious and sincere doubts that old Labour repackaged for the 21st Century can win. But the problem with a Labour Party led by Ed Miliband for me runs deeper than Labour harking back to the ole-days of 60s statist socialism. Ed's failure to realise the importance of the centre ground race means he wont just fail to beat the coalition [which commands the centre ground]. If anything the Labour movement under him wont function as an effective opposition.

He believes in his Party's historic idealism, the alleged resurgence of old fashioned egalitarianism and his own personal abilities cam do the electoral trick. Let me quote Matthew D'Ancona;

"Asked in yesterday's Independent if New Labour was dead he answered, "yes". If Ed becomes leader Labour will certainly lose again."

It could be out of power for a generation, but what worries a Tory like me; it would constitute a weak, feeble and ineffective opposition.
Like my Party in the 00's it would be a Party so shell-shocked by defeat, it would be unable to mount a rigorous and creditable enough opposition. I believe this would be tragic for the country. .
Yet my big problem with David, the elder brother is his complete lack of fire. Of any grit and determination to go and win. To me David comes across as the very character of political aristocracy. Of the smooth-handed New Labour Fauntleroy, sheltered from the character-building experiences of political defeats, humiliations and electoral failures. He after all is an apparatchik of Blarites.

First the junior office apparatchik, working for the Party. Then an MP, who became a minister, who became foreign secretary. To me his current campaign and personal style eludes a dangerous political detachment which only comes from growing up in the politics of success.

Concluding for me, this race has so far been characterised by a total lack of philosophical debate and depth about what Labour broadly stands for, means. What those lovely platitudes and 'values' means now, and ought to mean in the future.

One stands for New Labour continued, the other for old Labour renewed. Both have failed to realise what New Labour really was; not a movement but a mindset and approach for Labour. One which was supposed to be constant and perpetual revolution, always adapting and changing. Thus while Ed would be a disaster for Labour and the country, his elder brother is a woeful heir to Blair.

Labour and the unions

If ever anyone needed proof that Labour is in hoc to the union movement, GMB blackmail warning is evidence enough

The GMB trade union has warned the Labour Party that it will withhold its funding if either David Miliband or Ed Balls is elected leader.

The GMB union, which gave the party almost £1.5 million in the first half of the year and has given financial backing to Ed Miliband's personal campaign, said other unions could take similar action, and refuse to finance Labour, if the younger Miliband brother is not elected next month.

The context of this blackmail-come-threat follows comments made by Lord Prescott [you remember him? The one that said he'd never accept a title] . Last week Johnny-two-Jags said that Labour was "on the verge of bankruptcy" and was dependant on trade unions and other donations for survival. Perhaps this turns the GMB threat into something more than bluff; but a more concerted attempt to restore trade union and militant control over the Labour movement.

Paul Kenny, GMB general secretary, said: "If the new leader offers us more of the same, many unions — including our own — would have to consider where we are at.

"Ed Balls and David Miliband represent where we’ve been. They are not without talent. I would not rubbish them. But if the direction of the party went off chasing some right-of-centre ground ..."

He finished; "Ed Miliband is not ashamed of Labour’s core values. It’s not about a big society. It’s about a fair society".

Now, putting aside the sheer bone-chilling and stomach churning hypocrisy of that final statement, it is clear that a vote for the Labour Party is a vote for the trade union dominated; militancy of the 1970s - which brought Britain to her knees.

Babies to foreign mothers at all-time high

The proportion of new babies born to foreign mothers is now at record levels, with migrant mothers accounting for three quarters of all births in some areas

One of the worst aspects of the former New Labour regime was its [deliberate] failure to control immigration till as late as 2008/9. As a result the accelerated pace of change has exasperated inter-community tensions; and placed extreme burdens on public service infrastructure.

Now latest figures show that migrant mothers account for a whopping 24.7% of the 706,248 new arrivals from last year. And while one has an obligation to stress that migrant mothers play a vital role in sustaining a growing population [UK & Scotland]; the numbers do represent a concerning pace of change. Since the figures for mothers nationalities started being taken in 1969; 2009 is the highest on record, of foreign mothers. And is a doubling in the last 20 years alone.

More worrying still is that the trend is likely to continue. According to the Telegraph proportion of babies born to migrant mothers is likely to continue to rise;

"The trend is also likely to continue growing because birth rates are higher among foreign mothers while the actual number of births to British mothers, while still the major proportion, fell by 2,463 last year.

In Newham, east London, foreign-born mothers accounted for 75.7 per cent of births last year, followed closely by Brent, north London, where they made up 73.4 per cent.

Migrant mothers also account for more births the older they get. Of the 1,619 children born to a woman aged 45 or over last year, some 30 per cent was made up by foreign mothers."

The chief problem this casts up is the total failure of most parties to even acknowledge the problem. The problem being ever greater pressures on social housing, essential services, welfare and employment. However even political Parties which do directly engage with the issue; like Conservative and LibDem, they are hopelessly behind the public.

For example the Tory policy is totally engaged with dealing with economic migration of skilled labour. Yet it isn't skilled migration which represents the chief problem - but the unskilled migrants from the EU; who work for substandard wages at huge cost to themselves and UK employment wage averages. And the LibDems, well they just want to fling open the doors even wider than New Labour did with their wacko amnesty junket.

Until the issue of immigration is dealt with, and all aspects of the diverse and top-rated public concern is addressed fascists and loony leftists shall continue to monopolise the issue [and votes] on the doorsteps.

The graduate tax: an idea whose time has come

The 'graduate tax' is a long standing Tory idea, and its time has arrived.

Everyone loves the idea of free university education, but with more younger people opting for a future in academia it is a luxury outwith our national resources.

It is time to face facts, with Scottish Universities suffering from diminishing income, higher demand from would-be students; and now a jobs cull; they need extra help. The Times on Monday carried a front page spread drawing attention to the worsening state of many higher institutions budgets. In the excellently researched report it highlighted that while the recession has damaged University private and public income streams, they are expected to deal with a record intake of new undergraduates. It is patently obvious that long term voluntary staffing redundancies will prove insufficient, so it is time to face facts. Lets empower our higher institutions by providing them with a fair source of revenue.

Fair, I can hear howls of protest already! 'How can any tax on students possibly be considered fair?'

Indeed graduate tax is to my view fair. Surely it is preferable to see students making a contribution upon graduation than during their study? I for one do not see any problem with asking graduating students [like myself] to make a modest contribution towards the costs of their education. And it doesn't even need to be all in one block payment; repayment of the graduate fee could be staggered depending on resources and ability to pay. So it needn't even prevent anyone from actually graduating.

However a graduate tax is not only the most fair form of student contribution; it is also the most morally justifiable.

.

Morally justifiable because why should students who go to university not be expected to repay society for the benefits which goes with it? The facts show that a student who goes into academic institutes is predicted to earn many times more than younger people of the same age who didn't. I personally don't want those on average earnings to be subsidising my leg-up. That is not justifiable in any fairness handbook.

Global warming alarmists take note

New evidence from the University of Colorado indicates that far from melting, Antarctic ice has never been larger



Antarctic Sea Ice: for March 1980 and 2010

Extent Concentration

2010: 4.0 million sq km 2.6 million sq km
1980: 3.5 million sq km 2.o million sq km

Sea Ice extent is 14% greater in March 2010 than it was in March 1980. And Sea Ice concentration is 30% greater than in 1980! [source]

Measurements began in 1979, the evidence has shown that antarctic sea ice has continued to expand, contrary to what the news media would have you believe. It is surprising that there is little sign of the main stream media picking up on the story. Yet they continue to discuss the relatively small areas of the Western Antarctic Peninsula; which are melting due to changes in ocean currents. Not evidence of man-made global warming alarmism.

You may have heard that some of the “computer models” predicted increases in antarctic ice, but they predicted increased “interior ice” due to increased snow fall. None of the models predicted increased sea ice around the antarctic. Yet that is what we have, more sea ice in March 2010 than what we had in March of 1980. This is highly significant yet hardly anyone in the main stream media (MSM) is talking about it. Surprising, and yet another example of climate change alarmists ignoring evidence.

Lord Lawson would seem to have a point about the evidential case not being made regarding global warming theory. Instead we see scare tactics deployed; if you entertain the possibility of global warming being a mere theory, you are labelled a 'denier'.

Military debt another scandal

Labour didn't just leave the UK with a huge structural deficit; there is also the military debts. News out reveal that £72bn of unpaid debts hang over the MoD

The loss of the big-boy toys which that armed forces have had signed off regularly during the foreign engagements will be ending. Fox reveals that his ministry is struggling with the £72bn 'war debt', put frankly "now that the bills are coming in we can see we cannot pay them"

A smaller, leaner, more agile armed services now seems inevitable given the cuts and heavy war debt. The reality could well mean a decade post-Afghanistan paying off the creditors and software providers; US style after they fled Vietnam.

Thus it is time for the British public to realise that we are on the cusp of becoming a medium-scale player. An end to unilateral military interventions, but don't worry; the Telegraph reports that at a push we might still stomach another Falklands...

On the back of this rather dire news, is it right for the coalition to ask Dr Fox to institute cuts in his department? I know many Tories [some elected officials] who bitterly oppose any notion of ring fencing overseas aid but not defence. I rather sympathise with that view, however we must realise there is scope for plenty 'backroom cuts' in the MoD. Backroom cuts which could well enable the services to become more lean, and less archaic.

Cuts of between 10-25% are manageable in the MoD, and could well be desirable. Not merely forcing our forces to adapt to its new, and reduced, war roles and capacity; it may also aid the strategic debate about what our military services ought to be doing. Strategic change is inevitable, our army is basically on the cusp of being purely defensive; rather than aggressive. Or as the Telegraph puts it, we will have to enter the longer term era of deciding if we want a new fleet of tanks, or new hospitals...one thing is for sure we cannot afford both anymore.

And if this means fewer 'exquisite technology' and more practical weaponry then all the better. The taxpayer needs to stop footing the bill for unnecessary military extravagances. We can start to be less 'cold war' and more practical and imaginative with our MoD, and if the MoD cuts can help this mood and perception change happen to the senior staffers [and joe-public], then perhaps not ring fencing the MoD isn't such a bad thing after all?

Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi

Were the SNP right to release him? What does Scotland think?

Just realised I’ve missed an Ipsos MORI poll of Scottish voting intentions here, MORI’s first Scottish voting figures since the general election.

Westminster: CON 14%, LAB 40%, LDEM 13%, SNP 29%
Holyrood Constituency: CON 11%, LAB 37%, LDEM 13%, SNP 34%
Holyrood Regional: CON 12%, LAB 38%, LDEM 12%, SNP 29%

The poll also asked if people in Scotland supported the release of Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi one year on. 35% think it was right, 54% wrong. This compares to 42% right and 45% wrong when MORI orginally asked back in 2008.

Kenneth Williams had a point

The late, and great, Kenneth Williams at his serious best

The reason for this is both for levity, but also for the serious content. The arguments are real and relevant - about the role and actions of Trades Unions, if and when they ought to strike, their responsibilities.

Kids are great: but please spawn less of them

Overpopulation is one of the greatest dangers threatening humankind, but is Janice Turner of the Times correct to argue for the West to implement "something similar"?

Overpopulation is an enormous danger, and this has been understood for decades. It was in 1960s that Huxley warned of its darkening spectre, and back then the global population was only beginning to climb above the 1950 3bn mark.

Yet can Turner, of the Times be correct in her argument that the best way to combat this is to encourage the West to copy Chinese one-child policy? According to her the policy has brought China "prosperity, and space"

Overcrowding, or the absence of it certainly impressed Turner in Peking. She compares China to India, asserting that "In India...solitude is almost impossible. In the most remote, empty place, an empty horizon is soon filled with a figure, then a cluster."

There is no denying that the Indian subcontinent faces an enormous challenge due to exponential population growth; it is expected to surpass China's population size in less than 20 years. And there is do denying that state sanctioned population control does indeed seriously aid the fight back against overcrowding, and the social, aesthetic problems which follow it.

But the rigid population controls of China also equates to higher living standards, coupled with a stronger economic performance. Turner does have a point to draw attention to the reality that thanks to only having one child per family, less needs be forked out on child raising; more money is available for consumer spending.

The fourth, and last, significant factor Turner points out as a plus in the population control-China-style box would be ecological. Again, hard to argue against this. After all you could be a regular China frequent flyer for the rest of your natural life, but still leave a smaller carbon footprint than if you spawned a four-headed brood. Face facts, the human desire to reproduce is the leading cause of global warming [if you believe in man-made theory]. But isn't there even more to this? Middle class status, according to Turner means people crave more than one or even two kids for status, as a statement;

"Two children is too cornflake packet. Four is dynastic ambition"

In the face of ever more stretched global resources, can anyone, least of all the West, afford to be complacent? Could it be argued that China is "facing up to its responsibilities" by one-child controls?

But here is a problem, one that Turner avoids entirely. Those unforeseen consequences. China for example has a demographic crisis, with too many boys and increasingly few girls; and why? That is because of one-child. Face it, in traditional Chinese culture boys are more valuable than daughters- so a morass of female-focused abortionist infanticide is developed. My point here is any Western attempt to reciprocate Chinese one-child polity runs the risk of springing fresh leaks by clumsily plugging the overpopulation hole.

Then of course there are the moral grey areas. In a society like ours, when euthanasia is still so taboo and mistrusted; are we seriously going to agree with Turner that it is time to hand government control over breeding?

Finally however, population projections are invariably never accurate. As an example the projection Turner relies heavily on is one predicting nine billion humans by 2050. I will need more than a flimsy population guesstimate before I agree to trust future; possibly Labour; governments with my ability to reproduce.

No denying however, overpopulation does remain a huge problem, and the benefits of remedying it are obvious from housing to ecological benefits. Only problem is I remain unconvinced the Chinese only-child polity is the best solution.

Imagination is key

By next April the coalition cuts will begin to bite, the key to residual unemployment won't be expenditure, but tax imagination

Government expenditure expansion? Oh, that is just so 1999! Mark my words, greater government spending to remedy unemployment troubles is gone. A different, and more golden New Labour era where any problem could be solved by writing taxpayer backed blank cheques.

By next year however the coalition must find newer, and more economical methods to combat the single greatest determining factor of economic health - unemployment.

Simplification

One thing which could be done to reduce running costs for business, and generate more employment opportunities is a major upheaval of the UK tax code. Standing at a ridiculous five times the size of Germany, it is the longest in the world. Simplification could be a real difference to small to medium size business; who constitute the mainstay of employment in our services driven economy.

And currently the Labour-era tax system the coalition has inherited adversely hurts those very businesses. According to the institute of economic affairs [i.e.a] thanks to Gordon Brown and Labour's tax and spend obsessions, "the costs of regulation are difficult to calculate and estimates tend not to reveal how the regulatory burden disproportionately penalises small firms."

Thus, coalition priority No.1 to attack the scourge of unemployment must be simplifying the tax code. This not only increases small-medium size business chances of higher more people, but makes the whole UK more competitive. Osborne has already announced that this will be top of his agenda, and the Tory-led government is staking its reputation in succeeding in simplification. One way we Tories aim at achieving this is Osborne's Office for Tax Simplification - which is charged with reducing the 11,000 page tax code.

Imagination

Yet the smart among you will have already spotted a problem. Okay, we make the UK more competitive for business, okay we reduce the costs on business caused by tax over-regulation. But won't this worsen the north-south investment divide?

One of the worst aspects of the 13 New Labour years was the total failure to close the investment gap between North and South. Despite all of the taxpayers 'investment' they poured into the regions; no private capital followed suit. And now that they ran out of our money, the regions potentially worst hit by cutbacks are left high and dry.

Cameron has already accepted that regions like North-East England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland will be hurt by reducing the size of the public sector; due to its regional size and employment centrality. So what have we Tories proposed to solve this, and generate fresh jobs?

Imagination with the tax system. That's what. David Cameron and George Osborne have implemented major business tax cuts only for the worst hit regions. This effectively provides a major stimulus for private capital to draw away from the South and move up north.

This can make a massive difference, so much so that most G20 states have long-run regional tax policies in place for decades. Frankly New Labour ought to have done this during the boom years so that the greater focus of private investment and job expansion was located in the regions that needed them most.

They failed, we Conservatives cannot afford to. No amount of success in economic recovery can be relied upon if we do not make sure the growth and recovery is focused on the poorest, the vulnerable and the regions of greater need. Thankfully Osborne seems to have grasped this, and has begun solving this through simplification and tax-imagination.

Surrealism in art

I fancied doing something less political, more art.

This one is "Female Cyclops: New female portrait", found at the Kazuya Akimoto Art Museum.

It can be seen to touch on a number of things, but most obviously it reflects surrealism's early beginnings; with the desire to create the 'opposite of beauty'.

I see a lot of Dali here, it reflects his tag line "Dali destroys everything". It represents the very best in the rebelliousness of his stuff - after all in a society capable of producing war; does it deserve 'beauty' and 'art'?

But I see more in this particular one. The female, with an all-seeing eye could hold overtones to Greek mythology perhaps. They do say eyes are the doors to the soul after all.

But I am no expert!

It is hard to analyse them all, but here there is more of the chaotic of surrealism.

What does this suggest to anyone else? The human existence if people like myself are wrong in rejecting man-made global warming theory?

Or is this just typical surrealist visual imagery from the subconscious?

I love this one. Bold, challenging our perception of what constitutes beauty, love and acceptability.

Woman embracing death? Embracing and loving what? The monstrosity which constitutes mankind?

Well if mankind is capable of producing war, infanticide, Hitler and Nick Griffin perhaps the surrealists and Dali aren't far off the mark.

Other surrealist stuff worth visiting is probably 'The persistence of memory' by Dali or Medative Rose. But by all means enjoy some of Leonora Carrington's stuff, she is the last of the original inter-war surrealists still alive! [and painting too].

Adoption agency closures? Thanks Labour!

A dark hangover from the former New Labour regime is their twisted 'equality laws', the last Roman Catholic adoption agency has announced it shall close

Following a ruling by the charity watchdog, the last Roman Catholic adoption agency has announced its intention to close. They cite that the New Labour laws which force them to hand kids over to same-sex couples is contrary to their religious conscience.

I can hear the questions by the far left lobby now. Through their cutting insightful lens [lol] they will question; 'But why care? So what if there are a few less around if the prize is same-sex couples winning the right to have kids?'

Yet for the rational thinkers out there, they will seek to ask [and answer] a far more important question: 'what impact has the closure of Roman Catholic adoption agencies having on child adoption?' And the answer is bad. Indeed Roman Catholic adoption institutions had the best performing records on actually getting kids adopted, one which was formerly the envy of state adoption agencies - no longer. For the kids who will inevitably suffer I feel strongly, particularly strongly that New Labour approached this complicated issue like a populist-what-does-the-Guardian-say bunch of groupies.

And it is complicated, for it is the task of balancing the 'rights' of same-sex couples up against the competing rights for Roman Catholic [or indeed many other] religious groups to enjoy their 'right' to religious conscience. A tough task. So what I'd say is the determining factor in this case ought to be balancing those rights; in concert with the needs of the children. This is important to my mind, for adoption is far from a right, it is a privilege and the needs of children must always come first in adoption debates.

Frankly I fail to see how New Labours 'equality laws' could be considered to have performed well on that latter score. How can it be in the interests of the orphans to fewer adoption agencies available to them? Especially some of the best performing ones at actually getting them adopted into loving families. Answer: it cannot possibly be. I find that in this case we have two rights against one. The right to religious conscience and the right of the orphans against the rights of same-sex couples. Children come first.

I call for these New Labour era 'equality laws' to be relegated to its proper place in the 'Great Repeal Bill' for the orphans, for the nations neediest kids. They desperately need the return of these orphanages. What about their rights?

Blairs donation

Trying to turn a fresh page, former PM Tony Blair's donation to the Royal British legion will do much good; regardless of motivation

It may or may not be a selfless act, but the proposed donation by the former British PM will prove to be the single largest donation in the organisation's history. At £5m the money will help fund the construction of the £25m Battle Back Challenge Centre; due to open in 2012.

Many have already commented on the Blair donation. Some condemn the act as seeking to buy redemption with blood money, others welcome it as an act which will make an enormous difference. And there is no denying it is controversial, but the question must be asked why?

Tom Harris raises the same question on his blog;

"Only in Britain could a multi-million pounds donation to charity by a former prime minister be regarded with such suspicion and immersed in such controversy."

Is it just that it is Blair doing the giving? Or is it all about Iraq? Maybe, but the moment £5m donation to our war heroes is condemned just because of the character doing the giving is depressing. Tom Harris puts it excellently, "But the sneering and sheer nastiness in the response to this gesture is nauseating and shines a glaring light on a side of the British character of which we should not be proud."

Be not proud indeed. His personal motivations are neither here nor there. You all just ask one of the soldiers who are in line to benefit from the Battle Back Challenge Centre if they object to Blair doing the giving. What they want is a £25m newly built centre, not suspicion and self-righteous condemnation from anti-war protesters.

This is not about Iraq, it is about Blair offering £5m to people that need it most. As Mr Blair's spokesperson explains, this donation is his way of "marking the enormous sacrifice they make for the security of our people, and the rest of the world". Would anyone seriously prefer that Blair didn't mark these heroes bravery? What would the boys who need that centre do then?

As Harris said, BE NOT PROUD.

An important lesson

The final speech from Charlie Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator' [1940]

One of the best pieces of film ever made, and certainly one of the highlights of Chaplin's career. Yet, in the current turbulent times, with economic and social problems mounting - and the threat of the far right ever present; perhaps this little clip is important...

IDS secures £3bn

Iain Duncan Smith has secured £3bn in ring fenced funding, following threats to resign

IDS and the treasury have shown signs that an agreement has been reached, with Osborne relenting from his cuts agenda. Of the savings to be made in the welfare department, of around £3bn, it is all to be recycled into IDS hands for the delivery of his reforms package.

The package itself will involve major up-front costs focused on ensuring work can pay, as people begin to re-emerge into employment progressively over the coming five years. IDS insists that in order to make work pay, for some claimants who find jobs, it will be important that they are allowed to keep a significant chunk of their benefits so that work is clearly seen to pay. After all, not all jobs ensure living wages, there isn't a guaranteed minimum income in the UK unfortunately.

Other aspects of the reforms will be to simplify the maize of benefits left by New Labour. Of 51 Labour-era tax credits, means tested benefits and so forth; they will all be merged into a single universal benefit. Naturally this is an expensive administrative process in the short term; however it is vital to see it done. All too often the current welfare and benefit system is too complicated, and the genuinely vulnerable often fail to realise their entitlements, benefit simplification shall improve accessibility for the vulnerable to welfare support. Not only that, the reduced bureaucratic running costs; of no longer trying to means test 51 separate benefits; can reduce headline long term costs of providing government welfare. Best of all, it won't compromise welfare provision, but improve it.

IDS however will have to water down some of his welfare ambitions, as he cannot simply hand over his proposed programme for change as a fait accompli. IDS and Frank Field must figure out how to take cabinet support with them.

Yet we can now begin to see the broad focus of the reforms to be introduced by IDS and his Labour colleague Frank Field;

a] Welfare simplification,

b] ensuring work can pay

c] ending the 'poverty trap'

,

What the 'poverty trap' involves can be explained simply - improving social mobility in the UK. Under Labour it collapsed, and it has never been harder to be what you can be, rather what you were born into. The lack of equality of opportunity is central to IDS Centre for Social Justice proposals; and its not a moment too soon frankly.

First 100 Days

The New-Right round-up and ratings of the first 100 days of the coalition government. A breakdown of individual ministerial performances, from a 'C'entre-right perspective [upper case intended]

The honeymoon is well and truly over for the coalition government, at the end of the opening 100 days. There have been high and low moments, to reflect the speed of the arrival of our 'new politics'.

Yet the summer is over for team 'Cleggaroon', with a Sunday Telegraph poll showing 57% "disappointed" by the coalition. There is a risk that the new politics of consensus and coalition may not be what the people actually wanted after all - with 31% preferring "one Party" government with just 23% opting for "coalition".

But David Cameron remains very popular in the opinion polls, easily towering over the rest of the cabinet, and the shadow cabinet too.

Ministerial performances

• Prime Minister: David Cameron

He demonstrated decisiveness by forming the coalition, against the bookie's odds. Perhaps even copying Baldwins decisiveness by doing something similar at the turn of the last century; Cameron's greatest legacy could be another century of Tory preeminence, as the threat of progressive left unity is dissolved.

His Queen Speech lived up to its radical billing, with its 23 proposed bills aiming to revolutionise English education, and expand Holyrood devolved powers. Indeed the 'Great Repeal Bill' will be hugely important in turning back the clock on New Labour's anti-democratic police-statist legacy.

Yet he has showed signs of inexperience in high office, with failed attempt to stymie his backbench 1922 committee. And his 'straight talking' has opened up rifts with Israel and Pakistan. The key question is this; will his MacMillanite consensual approach grate or tickle the right-wing parliamentary party?

New-Right Rating: 9/10

• Deputy Prime Minister: Nick Clegg

Despite being the first Liberal leader in government since the WW2 national-government, he has struggled to hit the ground running.

Given responsibility over the potentially time-tying duties of minister for constitutional reform, Clegg has pledged the biggest constitutional shake-up since 1832. It would very well be his make or break personally, and for his Party.

But the boldness may indicate rash-judgement with the controversy over the proposed date for the AV referendum. He hasn't helped himself escape difficulties when in PMQs [taking over from Cameron] he brandished the Iraq intervention "illegal".

New-Right rating: 6/10

• Chancellor of the Exchequer: George Osborne

Dismissed in opposition as a light-weight, and 'school boy', he has bore no resemblance in government, with his no-hesitation economic policy.

Unveiling the deepest cuts in living memory, he risks public sector backlash in his correct push to balance the books. His £40bn cuts added to the Labour-proposed £73bn will be another potential fault-line making or breaking the coalition.

Yet he has shown worrying signs of questionable judgement with the Capital Gains Tax hike and the decision to ring fence overseas aid over defence spending.

He was even rumoured to have supported in private Cleggs push for a 55% threshold for a no-confidence vote; which had to be abandoned due to backbench Tory opposition.

Worrying signs, but the broad strategy he pushes is necessary.

New-Right rating: 7/10

• Business Secretary: Vince-the-Cable

Often seen as the malcontent-in-chief, Vince Cable is easily the most reluctant member of the government. He has been privately rumoured to have brandished the coalition immigration cap as "crazy", but then he is the man who publicly backed an illegal-immigrant amnesty ...

Often controversial over the 100 days, he has caused chaos in backbench Tory circles with his proposal for a Graduate Tax to help fund higher education. The subsequent review [or kick into the long-grass] into the proposals have angered an already anxious Tory right; who worry he may be being listened to.

But Cable has proven to be a tough negotiator, commanding significant influence over the coalition; and the many leftist policy initiatives are testimony to the power he continues to yield.

His clout means he is another potential break-point for the coalition further afield.

New-Right rating: 6/10

• Home Secretary: Theresa May

In a department notorious for killing ministerial careers she has the dual tough-tasks of commanding a disfunctional department under Labour, but also representing the feminist hopes in the coalition.

She has not disappointed, with her refusal to knee-jerk react to the Cumbria shootings. Her determination to wait policy-decisions surrounding gun-law has marked her as thoughtful and statesperson-like.

A driving force behind the 'Great Repeal Bill' which will restore our civil liberties New Labour stole in the name of counter-terror; she also represents an important aspect of the government civil liberties platform. She also won plaudits from the left after intervening to suspend the extradition to the US of Garry McKinnon.

The temporary cap on EU immigration however may harm the economy, as the LibDems suggest and risks forming yet another flame-point to divide the coalition.

New-Right rating: 9/10

• Justice Secretary: Kenneth Clarke

Rejecting the twisted logic espoused by the 1990s Tories; Ken Clarke aims to undo the Major tag line of our law enforcement needing "less understanding and more condemnation". In the spirit of injecting some common sense super-Ken has revoked the 'prison works' approach of yesterdays Tories and New Labour.

His prison reforms are one of the critical progressive platforms which the coalition rests on, with the emphasis on rehabilitation and and end to sentencing under 6 months. But he has provoked a strong counter-response with 1990s Tory Home Sec Michael Howard coming out against Kens plans for prisons.

Might he inflame an already factitious Cameronite team relationship with the Tory right?

He is one of the most thoughtful and intelligent of the cabinet members, and New-Right has long called for him to replace Osborne as chancellor. Indeed his 'touchy-feely' tone will be one of the vital links which will endear LibDems to the coalition.

He has one of the toughest briefs, commanding a bankrupted department, with the massive prison population; the testament to the New Labour failure to be tough on the causes of crime.

New-Right rating: 10/10

• Education Secretary: Michael Gove

Made an impressive start unveiling radical new approach to education, and is central to delivering key elements to our Big Society vision.

His common sense personal political philosophy is reflected in his renaming the department 'Education', instead of Ed Balls preferred 'Children, Schools and Families'. But he needs to do more than re branding, and outlining a thoroughly correct political philosophy. He must deliver, and it his here he as run into major difficulties with large amounts of inexperience showing.

The revised lists scandal over the schools rebuilding farce hurt the implementation of an eminently sensible policy: after all New Labours PFI/PPP addiction threatens to undermine our future generations chances, who have to pay back Labours debt addiction.

He needs to push the academies vision even after he pushes it through the Commons, because the education interest groups will fight him and our parent-friendly reforms. Despite being one of my personal favourite cabinet ministers - the jury is still out.

New-Right rating: 6/10

• Foreign Secretary: William Hague

Putting aside his euro scepticism, he has pledged to work constructively with Europe; and has made a good impression alongside Clegg on Angela Merkel. And his leadership in pushing for a new 'strategic partnership' with India can help break from the Blair and New Labour era where every foreign policy decision orientated around Washington.

He has proven to be another unifying figure, with Tory rightists loving his euro scepticism and LibDem internationalists addicted to his foreign policy aspirations.

More rumours on the vine tells that Hillary thinks he is more than a match for his predecessor David Miliband...

New-Right rating: 9/10

• Welfare Secretary: Iain Duncan Smith

The sell professed quiet man of politics may have thought his career over after his failed period in charge of the Tory movement. Yet he has more than found his calling with the Centre for Social Justice. He is the coalitions leading voice on social issues, poverty, joblessness, welfare. He is working with Labours Frank Field and another Labourite John Hutton to deliver radical [cross-Party] reforms on the issues at the heart of his personal mission.

His policies outlined nearly all have proven progressive and correct. Increasing the pension age, simplifying the benefit system so that 51 separate benefits can become one universal benefit, and his fight-back against middle-class welfare will prove vital in tackling poverty.

Friends say the the Telegraph that he will sooner resign than see his plans watered down or blocked by the treasury. Therefore he will be a man of principle in government, there to do things, not to occupy power. But his one mis-step would be his proposals for ending life-long council house tenure. New-Right strongly opposes turning council estates into transit camps for the poor and vulnerable.

New-Right rating: 9/10

• Defence Secretary Liam Fox

The right wing hero, and former challenger is easily a major voice in cabinet. Perhaps he may even restore the Defence portfolio to some of its former political clout after the Labour years of neglect.

But he has been anything but predictable, proving to be too-hot-to handle. Having begun by brandishing Afghanistan a "broken 13th Century country" while in Kabul [nothing like being polite when on a civilising mission, eh?] he has since added to coalition troubles. He fought and lost a briefings war with the treasury, and isn't getting his budget ring-fenced, despite good arguments in its favour instead of overseas aid.

He has also provoked another debate over who is to pay for Trident, his defence department or the treasury. He lost that argument too. He is devoted to the troops however, and has cut the number of civil servants back home to enable resource priority for the front lines.

New-Right rating: 6/10

SNP expediency harming Scots children

New figures reveal the SNP over-supply of Scottish teachers is harming pupils and teachers; with 90% of newbies unable to find a permanent job

Oversupply

In line with a policy which seems to be more about political expediency than reforming Scottish education, the SNP executive's oversupply of new teachers is actively harming the profession. Indeed, the only beneficiary seems to be England, where increasing numbers are drifting off to.

The original concept was to combine the laudable class-size reduction plan with more teachers. Together, these plans would make perfect sense...except the SNP executive has abandoned smaller class sizes. Net impact equals more teachers entering a profession with fewer retirees, and without the class size pledge, councils are downsizing teacher numbers; not increasing them.

Given the realities that 90% of new teachers are completely unable to find any semblance of permanent work in Scotland, never mind their local council training area - we must realise we have a problem. Just how moral or ethical is it for this Nationalist executive to deliberately oversupply teacher numbers, given the facts? Maybe it is so their leader Alex Salmond can go on about 'more teachers than Labour' etc...

Mike Russel [easily my favourite Nat] has been forced to defend the dire state of affairs in education; by arguing that the adrift teachers will "probably find work" as the "new term progresses". Really? Why then are the teaching unions openly disagreeing to the Herald?

The public backlash is growing more vicious; "All of this is fundamentally wrong, and disastrous for both the education of children and the maintenance of a teaching profession (to say nothing of the effect upon the health and well-being of individual teachers). Shame on all who conceived and maintain this wicked system." -Grant McKechnie, Rutherglen

But as a Brit, the SNP are indeed doing a very noble thing, in producing excess teachers; it will ease problems in London and the SE, where they are chronically short. Surprised at the SNP maintaining such a British perspective. Maybe abandoning the independence referendum is part of a wider-'U-turn'? ...

Guest Post: Eurotaxes; a retrograde step

Out of a desire for a rest from Blogging, here is a return to the guestposts. This one is from a Tory mate Frank Webster, on the other end of the Party from me. You can visit his blog here.

Janusz Lewandowski, the EU’s Budget Commissioner, has proposed an EU-wide tax to finance the European Union’s budget. A tax on financial transactions, a tax on air travel, and a tax on energy consumption have all been mooted as a possibility. Although I am mildly pro-European, I can see no sense in imposing an EU-wide tax: such a move is undemocratic and self-defeating.

I have always believed that a European Union of freely-trading sovereign nation states, which come together to tackle common problems is the kind of European Union that will benefit Britain. The attractions of a single market that spans continental Europe, within which there are no barriers to trade, are overwhelming. However, I do not- and never have favoured a Federal Europe: such a Europe would most probably be protectionist, corporatist, bureaucratic, centralised and inward-looking (a Fortress Europe). My eurosceptic side has no problem with the concept of ‘ever closer union’, so long as it is in the spirit of the Treaty of Rome and an ever closer union between the peoples of Europe, through the strengthening of cultural ties and mutual understanding, as opposed to the idea of ever-more centralisation and interference from the Commission. I am opposed to the imposition of a common external tariff, believing the the EU should set an example to the rest of the world in opening its borders to trade from the rest of the world. A European Union that not only allows free-trade between its members, but also allows for free-trade with the rest of the world would be a richer and more prosperous Europe.

My opposition to the imposition of these taxes, or indeed to any form of tax harmonisation within the EU, is both political and economic. I am a great believer in the Reverend Mayhew’s maxim “No taxation without representation”. The EU Commission, from which this idea has emanated, is not directly accountable to the peoples of Europe. The appointment of EU Commissioners has always been a matter of political patronage, and sometimes a good opportunity to exile political embarrassments (Lord Mandelson, anyone?). It would be an insult to representative democracy to allow an unelected group of officials to impose a tax upon us- we cannot remove EU Commissioners, we have not elected them, and they do not have to listen to us. Because we have not elected these people, and they are not accountable to the peoples of Europe, we should not be forced into paying an EU-wide tax.

On the economic side, I am left wondering why the EU is so afraid of tax competition between its members. It was Chris Patten, a fellow pro-European, who rightly observed that a competitive tax system within the EU would allow for higher growth rates. Mrs Thatcher made equally compelling and correct observations regarding the need to oppose tax harmonisation, stating in her memoirs that “competition between tax regimes is far healthier than ... a single system”. For a start, as Mrs Thatcher points out, and I agree entirely, that tax competition forces governments to reduce the burden of taxation and maintain balanced budgets, thus keeping inflation low. In concluding the analysis of that particular logical plane, it allows companies and individual wealth creators to move to where the tax regime allows them to make the most of their investments. Increased investment leads to job creation and thus increases prosperity. If the EU is to be successful, member states have to be allowed to compete with each other for inward-investment, for it the member-states that set their own budgets and their parliaments are accountable to their own electors.

The imposition of an EU-wide tax, of whatever form, would set an unhealthy precedent- it would give the Commission the belief that they could start imposing other taxes from the centre, and indeed start directing member states as to how to set their budgets. We have already seen from the financial crisis in Greece, and from our own financial crisis here in Britain, that expansionist economic policies do not work, and that balanced-budgets are a political and economic good. Do we want the EU Commission to start running up fiscal deficits in our name? Giving the EU powers over taxation and spending would be like letting Kerry Katona having access to one’s credit card.

In reference to the Euro, the harmonisation of taxes would be a retrograde step. If the Euro is to be a success, that is if it can be a success given recent events, the Commission must allow Eurozone members to set their own budgets. There is no need for EU-wide taxes, or fiscal transfers between member states, if Eurozone members maintain balanced budgets. For many years, I said that I would support Britain’s participation in the European Single Currency if present Euro-members maintained sound financial policies. This is not happened, as we have seen, and I am now of the belief that Britain has benefited from retaining its own currency- and that we should not adopt the Euro any time soon.

I am sure that David Cameron will do what he can to oppose this ridiculous policy and retain our parliament’s right to set its own budgets. The EU is in need of radical reform to compete with emerging economies such as India and China. A lighter-touch European Union based upon a common partnership of European nations, which is more accountable to the peoples of Europe and which welcomes competition and free-trade with the rest of the world is the kind of Europe that would like to see.

Viewpoint: the cuts are necessary

Polly Toynby and her fellow Guardianistas may choose to deny the need to cut the deficit in 2010, but the governor of the Bank of England, and the facts disagree

The current pill is bitter to swallow - there is no point denying that. After more than a decade of market, individual and financial sector profligacy we are being told to accept the need to realise austerity. Definitely not something a political party seeking to exist in a democracy would do willingly. Yet there are very good arguments for implementation of painful cuts to placate the angry Gods of New Labour's markets.

With a £606bn structural deficit gathering interest, and a "choppy recovery" forecast by Mervyn King, the fact is we Brits no longer have the choice. Spending cuts will act to reduce the chances of the UK being hit by a second financial crisis, avoiding markets losing confidence in our national-credit. The cuts in short protect our credit [by preserving our triple A rating], insulate us from another crisis [by reducing our debt exposure globally].

Yet from the arguments of the Labour ranks in their leadership election, you'd be forgiven for thinking that this isn't true. A good example of the Labour cloud nine syndrome can be found in Ruth Sunderlands comments, where she alleged 'consumer confidence is down' and 'sales are in the doldrums'. The only problem with her narrative of consumer-side ultra-fragility is our stronger than expected second quarter growth figures. Driven by manufacturing export and also retail sales on the highstreet.

Fundamentals however do not preoccupy those on the left however, they maintain despite the factual inaccuracies that cuts this year will create double dip next year. Well we may have to wait and see, though I bet you that we do not re-enter recession next year at all. Once this last vestibule of leftist economic credibility is kicked away, then we can move into the real debate; where and not if; to cut.

Perhaps a clue suggesting that we on the right are winning the economic debate rests in the fact that across Europe the people have elected rightwing leaderships?

Quid pro-quo

The European budget debate has started, and the opening shots have been fired, with boy-George threatening to veto any new budget if the EU budget commission does recommend a new eurotax

The member-states are nearly universal in their joint call for a general reduction in their obligatory contributions to the European commission. Berlin and London indeed have been united in their public aim to reduce their own contributions to Brussels.

It is in the face of this fractured environment the the European Union must attempt to bring the member-states together. Janusz Lewandowski is therefore proposing in the up coming European budget that in return for a large scale reduction in member-state financial contributions per anum, the commission be given the ability to raise funding itself; effectively by-passing the nation-state middle man.

On the surface of this proposal, some may [and will] decry national sovereignty, but the trade off is fair, and the only acceptable way forward. Indeed the commission has even offered major reform of the budget-gobbling CAP, if member-state rebates are included...

Fulfilling the dream

Direct eurotaxes indeed is vital to the fulfilment of the grand vision for Europe distilled in the Treaty of Rome. That treaty envisioned an EU largely self-financing through a network of direct taxes, all aimed at making peace and prosperity not only inevitable, but unbreakable.

At the moment 76% of all EU funds derive from expensive, and bureaucratic mechanism from member-state governments. A reform to remove this unnecessary middleman may even allow the EU to enact some cost cutting exercises of its own, alongside the individual national-governments.

On the long road to peace, prosperity and European unity it requires some tough sacrifices, but this is one which is vital, needed and not negotiable. Hand Brussels the power to enact Eurotaxes now.


*thanks to EUObserver again for another splendid article, and for the picture

Council houses must be homes, not transit camps

The Coalition has unveiled new plans to reform council housing tenures, however it seems to be just the kind of bureaucratic solution which we condemned New Labour for

It can be fully understood why David Cameron made the policy announcement he did. There is an unfairness in the current system which is arguably enabling people to remain in state-subsidy housing when they are now able to afford to move on an purchase their own. Given this problem the coalition has hit on what seems like an obvious solution: end life-tenure council housing agreements. At a stroke they can produce more available housing for those at the bottom of the pile, in the waiting lists.

There is just one problem; it is exactly the kind of bureaucratic solution which looks rosy on paper, but ignores obvious problems.

Yet let us clarify one thing, this new housing policy, for all its weaknesses is not an "attack on the poor"; despite what the left wishes us to think. It is not due to the fact that it is precisely the genuine needy who will be guaranteed not to have their homes threatened.

But what it would be is an incentive to remain poor.

That is to say this policy effectively creates an incentive away from aspiration. If you do too well you may lose your home. As a policy it therefore runs smack against the tide of the Conservative modernisers Big Society concepts. This policy would encourage people to take less pride and personal stake in their lives, not more.

With the coalition trying; rightly; to remove Labour's state-side poverty traps this policy cuts entirely across any good progress to be made.

But this is not the worst of this policy. What Mr Cameron and the coalition are proposing is to turn every housing estate in the UK into transit camps, with families and individuals merely passing through. And while I am one to acknowledge and welcome the sentiment that poverty is a transitory state. People should and ought to seek to continually better themselves, spiritually, educationally, materially - and this is I accept a form of that sentiment. The only problem resting in all of this is it ignores a fundamental dimension. It misses what a home means to people.

It means far far more than the roof that happens to be over your head at any given moment.

This will destroy community. And isn't this not what we Conservatives are all about under the new age of the Red Tory Philip Blonde and communtarianist ideology? Doe Cameron not see the dangers inherent if you are saying to people that they may occupy a home conditionally, and transitorily?

Lets take an example, a family have been assessed as not deserving enough to remain in their council home, so they are told to move out as the lease-agreement will not be renewed with them. So all the upheaval is exposed, the kids need to change school [could be in the middle of GCSE], they leave the community the family had settled down into. The dislocation and disruption would in itself destroy and possible rootedness and community - the very thing we're trying to re inject into this sick old British state.

Building on that example, this policy also goes toward destroying moral ownership of a property. One of the greatest gulfs which has been exposed in the last 30+ years is the state of properties since the Thatcher sell-offs began. Due to the sense of 'moral ownership' those bought under the right-to-buy scheme have well tended gardens, carefully looked after properties. Compare to those which weren't bought and instead of new porches you have gardens growing nothing except old mattresses.

How much desruption, and greater the community dislocation if most of the people they new had no right to stay in their home. It would be a direct attack, nothing less, on the principle of moral ownership which is so vital in communties and individuals, families.

The fact is that this policy is mad, bad, and dangerous. A home is far more than a roof over your head. Where is Cameron's sense of community?

Europe Rebound silences Europhobes

Europe relishes rebound as Jean-ClaudeTrichet rules out rate rise, silencing the Eurosceptics who warned of EMU default

European growth figures for the second quarter have been surprisingly stronger than ECB experts anticipated. Yet, uncertainly remains as to whether this unexpectedly strong performance continues into the second half of the year - Mr Trichet thus maintains Euro interest rates at 1%.

Perhaps the single biggest factor in the strength in the Eurozone recovery has been the dying down of market speculation on the euro. With Greek austerity measures winning praise from the IMF, and Eurozone countries having established an emergency fund for future Greek-style crises in 'club med', markets are relieved.

The latest figures across our European Union has enabled us to once again silence those on the fringes of the ideal. In 1999 one Eurosceptic economist called the euro a "toilet paper currency", and is since proven wrong - OPEC is even considering measuring in euros rather than dollars . Following the 2005 economic hiccup eurosceptics predicted the collapse of the EMU, they were wrong. And now with these economic figures, their prediction that our monetary union would unravel in 2010 is again wrong. Why listen to the Eurosceptics like Redwood, Thatcher, or the Gaitskillites? They have all been proven wrong in every major prediction they have made since EMU came about; listen to the Europeanists instead. Our record about calling it right is a tad better...

Indeed, while the Euro yesterday was holding firm against the dollar as the news of second quarter growth hit the markets, the pound actually slipped downward vis-a-vis the euro!

"The euro was steady against the dollar at $1.3150, while the pound slipped to $1.20 against the single currency" [Times, Friday 6th Aug - would provide a link, but they charge on the internet now, and I refuse to pay Murdoch for the same news twice]

Indeed while the Euro is rallying as Trichet is expected to unveil a new ECB exist strategy from the ultra-loose monetary policy, the US is risking deflation and double dip.

As joblessness in the Eurozone area begins to fall [on ave], in the US it unexpectedly grew by 19,000 [based on jobless benefit claiming]. Bernard Bernanke, chair of the Federal Reserve has even issued a statement that he may be forced to committ to another US stimulus.

Suddenly I'm more hopeful being a European, with prospects waiting us in the Eurozone once we Brits sign up.

Why Labour Lost [according to the public]

The reasons Labour lost the last election reveal that Party members and the lay public are not on the same page

Any political movement finding itself in opposition following a prolonged period in office will find it difficult to claw a way back in. It took the Conservatives a decade, and the Liberals more than 70 years! But a central plank of recovery and eventual return to high office is identification of why power was lost, and then eventual change or repackaging to meet public requirements.

Only problem seems to be that Labour Party members are on a totally different page than the electorate concerning the main reasons for losing so heavily...

The Party faithful

According to the ever reliable [final word] in UK polling data, UK Polling Report;

"the large majority (71%) thought Labour had been too subservient to the USA over Iraq and Afghanistan, 64% that it became out of touch with ordinary voters and 62% of party members think that Labour did not do enough for working-class supporters"

On other issues the Party members identified included;

"On other criticisms 47% think that Labour didn’t pay enough attention to the trade unions, 41% thought the recession had destroyed Labour’s economic reputation and 33% thought Labour had not been tough enough on immigration. Few (28%) Labour members thought that Gordon Brown had been a poor Prime Minister, and hardly any agreed that Labour had taxed too much (9%) or wasted too much of the money spent on public services (12%)."

From this data we can deduce that Labour members continue to think that they didn't overspend, and that Gordon Brown was not a chief cause for their heavy defeat. Instead they are prefering to identify the reasons as being on an abandonment of 'real' Labour issues and policies [see stats on 'not doing enough' for working class supporters].

But the problem is the public totally disagree's with this analysis. Indeed 43% of the public when asked said Brown was a main cause in Labour defeat, compared to 28% of Labour members who conceded Brown being a poor PM and thus cause - this is a significant gap. And despite Labour Party members viewing a main reason for defeat being a failure to focus on 'working class issues' [62% said this]; only 29% of the public agreed.

But the differences of perception surrounding the Labour landslide defeat only widens as we push further on.

"Asked which three of four of the reasons contributed most to Labour’s defeat, the answers were slightly different. While 71% had thought Labour was too subservient to the USA, only 43% thought it was a major cause of the defeat, rather the economy was seen as a main cause (47%), along with Labour becoming out of touch with ordinary voters (47%) or doing enough for natural working class supporters (44%). Gordon Brown’s own performance was seen as a major factor by only 33% of Labour members, with only 25% thinking that immigration was part of the problem. Hardly any party members (5%) thought money spent on public services being wasted was a factor.

Compare this with the opinions of the general public. There immigration (52%), the recession (43%) and Gordon Brown (43%) are seen as the main reasons Labour lost the general election. Being out of touch (39%) and failing to help working class supporters (29%) were seen as less important factors. Wasteful public spending was only seen as an important factor by a minority (29%) but nevertheless, this was far more important than Labour members perceived it."

Until Labour can accept the reality of why they lost they shall continue to drift into irrelevance in opposition. Until they accept they failed on immigration, and are out of touch with the public [i.e ID cards] they do not deserve to return to power. And given nearly a third of the public also think Labour overspent criminally and irresponsibly, maybe they need to engage with the reality of their £606bn structural deficit legacy? After all, the middle earners of Britain are having to live with the Labour cuts ... why can't they recognise their economic imprudence?

Big Society beats Labour state says Catholic leadership

The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales has come out in the Sunday Telegraph criticising Labour statism; in an unprecedented foray into politics

The Most Reverent Vincent Nicols in the interview "welcomed" the coalitions "clear eyed" approach, compared to the Labour doctrine of a state "which provides everything".

Despite its obvious controversy, Nicols is correct to identify the previous governments confrontational and militantly secularist agenda - and criticise it. Indeed the last Labour government required conformity to its vision and ideas of society; and if faith groups refused or were unable to conform any partnership came to an end.

Nicols said he found the coalition more flexible, more open to compromise and consensus. "He expressed support for David Cameron's Big Society policy which he saw as a step towards building communities based on trust and cooperation", reported the Telegraph.

His comments will have an important impact given the Labour Party has long presumed the Roman Catholic community is its own personal preserve. If David Cameron can establish a "fresh attitude" which engages with rather than dictates to leading faith groups all the better for a healthy society.

And faith groups like the Roman Catholic Church; despite its problems; remains vital to our national makeup. Alongside other Christian denominations they can tap into peoples good will, and provide a sense of fulfilment. This is all the more important given the economic mess and indebtedness Labour left behind. According to Nicols "If we can generate that same sense of volunteering and the sense of fulfillment that comes from our society, then we will be all the better for it. The Big Society is a step in that direction"

Yet the Conservative Big Society vision is not without critics. Many on the Tory right criticise the policy as "Blairite window dressing", but given politicians like David Davis subscribe to the Thatcher school of thought [no such thing as society], it is hardly surprising. Cameron and the coalition must pursue the Big Society concept, as we need to devolve powers to local government, and local communities. And if the Tory right object, all the more reason to push on further. True Tories, the heirs of Disraeli and MacMillan, should not be held hostage by Whigs disguised.

Israel under attack

Israel was attacked by Islamist militants, who fired and injured civilians in the southern town of Eilat and Aqaba in Jordan

Several rockets hit the Israeli holiday resort of Eilat, while four people were injured when further rockets hit the nearby Jordanian port of Aqaba. Currently there was no word of casualties in Eilat, District Port Commander Moshe Cohen said, adding that his forces were still trying to confirm that five explosions heard in the morning had been caused by shelling

Mr Cohen told Israel Radio that two of the suspected rockets or mortar bombs appeared to have landed in the sea, while another struck the nearby Jordanian port of Aqaba. Asked where the salvo was launched, Mr Cohen said: "It's a little early to say, but it is reasonable to assume that it came from the southern area."

He was referring to neighbouring Egypt and the Sinai desert which is known for Islamist militant acitivty.

At least one rocket struck Aqaba on April 22, causing no casualties. Amman said the rocket had been fired from outside Jordan and Israeli media spoke of the Sinai as a possible launch point.

In 2005, rockets were fired at US warships in Aqaba's port but missed their target and killed a Jordanian soldier on land. A group claiming links to al Qaeda said it was behind the attack. Two years later, a Palestinian suicide bomber infiltrated through the Sinai and killed three people at an Eilat bakery.

Israel has a right to respond, in self defence.

Scottish Water

Pressure is growing to privatise Scottish Water, and while I do not object in principle to returning assets to the public, talk of windfalls and one-off budget boosts holds echoes of "selling the family silver" - to avoid tough choices

KPMG Accountants

The accountancy firm, KPMG, have made a call for the review to take place on the future status of SW to consider total privatisation. The main thrust of their argument for this view is the "windfall profit of £3bn". Maybe it is time to bring back Harold MacMillan's advice at this point?

"First of all the Georgian silver goes. And then all that nice furniture that used to be in the salon. Then the Canalettos go.' Profitable parts of the steel industry and the railways had been privatised, along with British Telecom: 'They were like two Rembrandts still left."

- Harold MacMillan, 1985, Tory Reform Group

Naturally I am in favour of returning of the means of production to private ownership and private management all those means of production and distribution which otherwise would be controlled by state capitalism. However, like Harold MacMillan, what I do venture to question is the using of these huge sums as if they were income.

Therefore it is prudent to ask if it is wise to privatise SW, in order to use the windfall to subsidise inefficiency, and stave off inevitable reorganisational decisions.

Given that there is strong public views in favour of keeping SW a public body, that it is performing well under the status quo, and the dangers of privatisation outlined by Harold MacMillan - it seems to this Tory Reform Group Conservative that it is vital to maintain the status quo. The SNP need to stand firm, and avoid buckling as they did over so much of their domestic agenda.