Labour versus business

The Ed Miliband policy platform has been beefed out slightly in the Financial Times, and begins to outline just what Red Ed means by pushing 'beyond' [or more accurately 'past'] New Labour.

FT journalists Jim Pickard and Elizabeth Rigby have done an excellent job in highlighting the Red Ed manifesto for the fight against wealth-creating business.

Red Ed will seek, for example, to unilaterally introduce a new financial transaction tax - which will definitely undermine the City of London's ability to continue to appeal as a major centre for investment. Typical of Labour mindsets, they will with these kinds of policy initiatives strangle the goose which is laying the golden eggs. They will butcher the source of the money they want to spend willy-nilly across the public sector.
.

But he will also be pushing for an increase in the banker bonus tax, in what is obviously an ideological tax plan. Bash bankers all you want [I'd even join you!], but making policy in order to tap into that popular [and transient!] feeling is the high water mark of irresponsibility. Every new tax Red Ed wants to unilaterally clobber the financial sector with, will cost jobs, competitiveness and GDP growth. And like it or lump it, the financial sector has been critical to our economy for over 30 years now. It employs average workers in average office jobs, and Labour's ideological and unilateral taxation plans will act to kick them in what is a transnational market. [As opposed to a national market, subject to single-government action].

Yet under Red Ed there are plans to actually embark on large scale government interventionism, Harold Wilson style. In reference to my last article, Red Ed wants to;

i] re balance the economy by squeezing the financial sector and "industrial intervention" policies [i.e pick a winner Wilson style ... that worked oh-so well with Leland eh?!]

ii] he rejects Tony Blair's call for Labour government interventionism to be only "swift and temporary" It seems Red Ed doesn't want to listen to his party's most successful PM

Like it or lump it, but Labour have now lumbered themselves with a leader woefully ignorant of the globalised nature of our economics. His policies, thought up with a mind to economic vacuums, will hinder UK growth in a transnational marketplace.

Red Ed's white heat of policy

Here are some of Red Ed's Wilsonian policies, which include central economic 'five year' plans, minimum incomes, and discrimination against men in the shadow cabinet

I hope you are ready to take the next left all you Labour supporters out there ... because that is where some of these policies will put you!

• 5 year plan to remodel the British economy by creating a broader industrial base.

What is essentially being proposed by Red Ed is the notion that British government has the capacity to dictate from the centre. In the globalised age, someone ought to tell Ed that rehashing Harold Wilson's 'pick a winner' planning culture is out of time and touch.

Yet, I will applaud the principle that we need to get the UK plc manufacturing again, for too long has this great island nation been too dependent on financial services and high street retail. But a clever use of the tax system, and tax simplification would do this job better than clumsy, bureaucratic Whitehall plans. Top down change is inefficient, maybe someone can let Red Ed know?

• Living Wage; and right to demand flexible working for all workers

This policy is the one which looks, on the face of it, most benign - but the implications are anything but. How will Red Ed propose to issue a centrally guaranteed and dictated 'living wage' in the EU single market? Or indeed in the globalised world markets? Flexible working for all workers? Again, is Red Ed saying that he'd consider pulling the UK out of the EU free movement of people, goods, services in order to achieve this policy aim? Mad, bad and very dangerous.

• 50p tax rate to become permanent under Red Ed

He'll tax you 50p the pound - if you work hard and are successful. This is typical Labour politics, hammer the middle on marginal rates of tax. Ignore the fact that these people paying the 50p in the pound of earnings work hard, generally are honest - and have families of their own to raise in a volatile economy.

• Narrow the gap between rich and poor by putting limits on top earners salaries

Great, say goodbye to our economic competitiveness in London etc with this one! Typical Wilsonian politics; oh-so very populist but fundamentally mistaken. Chasing away the job creators, and again ignorant of the realities of the globalised world marketplace.

• At least a third to a half of all shadow cabinet members to be women

Red Ed doesn't want to judge you on merit, but your sexuality. What utter jot this one is, merit, ability and what you can offer should be the measure of your position, not which sexual organ you happen to be born with.

Bring on the next GE - it is now Cameron's to lose, not Red Ed's to win.

Red Ed wins Labour leadership

Red Ed has won the Labour leadership election on the backs of the trade union barons - does this put the writing on the wall for progressive Labour?

Upon winning the vote Red Ed Miliband declared that "We must never again lose touch with the mainstream of our country"; and one small look into this election platform and you can quickly see the huge gulf between words and actions.

Red Ed has, among other things, expressed his support for the 50% rate of tax on average earners to remain. Ed Miliband may therefore talk a good game about 'never losing touch', but his platform of policy would harness a marginal rate squeeze on the most vulnerable in the UK.

Over and above his curious tax and spend views however Red Ed also is public with his support for redistribution of wealth through the tax system. Now I don't know about you, but I find that history informs that the tax system, when treated as a means of maximising social equality so crudely that it undermines growth. Red Ed, the new face of old Labour, the next Roy Hattersley.
.

Ironic that the new Labour leader could only squeeze past his brother in the leadership race thanks to Bob Crowe and the anti-democratic TUC fatcats. Not only therefore does Red Ed owe his leadership to the TUC, but financially his leadership shall be dependent on their support.

Labour - tax and spend, Labour - the voice piece of the TUC.

.

Meanwhile the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will continue to govern in the national interest...

177 'doomed quangos'

A leaked policy document from within the coalition reveals that up to 177 public funded quangos created under the previous New Labour regime could go

Some 177 quangos, or taxpayer-funded public bodies, could be scrapped by the government, a leaked document suggests. The Daily Telegraph, which received the leaked material, says it shows the Health Protection Agency and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority are two due to be abolished - confirmed.

Furthermore an additional four bodies are said to be facing privatisation, with an additional 129 set to be merged. And given their lack of public accountability within the current quango-status, this will be welcomed by all but the most ideologically bitter.

Yet according to a Cabinet Office spokesperson, the official position is one of regret. Apparently the leak was "irresponsible" and they regretted the extra uncertainty for employees it caused. Now, I don't know about you - but I rather think the best way of ending the uncertainty is to tell them openly: get a new job. Time to cut away all bloated, incompetent quango-empires. The taxpayer has been taken for an unaccountable public ride for too long. Time for Conservative-led action in a drive for value for the taxpayers buck.

'I never entered politics to make a difference' - a day in the life of a LibDem conference-goer

With the LibDems voting to boycott the coalition education policy, despite Sarah Teather's pleas; the question has to be asked: do the LibDems have what it takes to be a party of power?

The LibDem conference has exposed just how unprepared the junior coalition partner was going into the Government. Despite the years of talk in opposition of the need for compromise, consensus and partnerships across Party political boundaries-they are finding it hard to live up to this themselves.

LibDem thought concerning the vote to boycott the coalition education policy [yes, their own government's education policy!] is staggering. Now there are calls to reopen standing policy over drugs...it smacks of something worse than naivety, or teething troubles. Indeed it appears to this coalition supporting Tory that all too many LibDems consider themselves a pressure-group rather than a serious political party for power. The conference vote to boycott their own government's education policy highlights their failure to appreciate that they aren't in perpetual opposition any longer.

They need to decide, are they in politics to attain power - the power to actually change things - or not. And if they answer 'yes', for political relevance in power then they urgently need to teach their conferences what the reality of political relevance, meaning and power translates into. COMPROMISE ON IDEOLOGICAL BAGGAGE. Rigidity is the privilege of oppositions, not those serious about government, change, reform and authority.

I hope, really hope, as a pro-coalition Tory, that the LibDem folk listen to their leader Nick Clegg, and perhaps focus on his speech statement: "The truth is I never expected the Conservatives to embrace negotiation, compromise. But they did, and now so must we"

They talk about 'New Politics', of changed times, with consensus and One Nation faith. But can our LibDem allies live up to this? Or do their supporters consider themselves a pressure-group, party of protest against 'the man'?

King warns Unions

Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, has warned the TUC that any attempt to 'short change' the tackling of the record budget deficit would "fail a generation"

"Vague promises are not enough", tells Mervyn King. And a quick gander at the shocking state of national deficits, debts and red ink you'd forgive him for understating the true scale of Labour's legacy: Bankrupt Britain.

1 in every 4 currently spent in the UK is borrowed cash, owed and a future inflationary burden on the taxpayer. When King explains that cuts are therefore unavoidable, he is correct. The key issue, and one the Governor of the BoE only touched on is how we tackle the Labour legacy of debt, borrowing and fiscal incompetence.

King argued that the cuts currently being planned in the spending review will be "a more gradual fiscal tightening than in some countries". But is this accurate?

With the record-bursting peacetime deficit of £149bn, thanks to Labour economic failure, the cuts must be substantial and not petty. The forecast cuts expected in the MoD is 25%, in the Arts rumours are maybe 20-25% [optimistically, it may be worse]; but nothing in health. Indeed the NHS, and the health care industry in the UK is being ring fenced, reorganised it shall be but investment shall continue. The key question I want to ask you lot reading is this: if protecting the NHS, and the Health care budget means deeper cuts elsewhere, like MoD, like Arts Council - is it worth doing?

King tells that the cuts will be sustainable if the NHS is protected, as it won't be 25% overnight; but a gradual shift into cuts. A five year plan ... sounds very ... well ... un-Conservative! I remain to be convinced that the cuts will be as gradual as King tells TUC members, but I do think a solid case for; a] the need to begin cuts can be made, and b] for protecting the NHS.

Interesting times ahead, and it is very unusual for a BoE governor to come out fighting a government corner, throughout the Labour years the Brown-BoE feuds were a fixture of political life. Now its all smiles and 'on message' speeches, its either political interference or the BoE thinking things are just that bad. Given that I have no faith in Labour to run a pub, never mind my country, I rather think it is the latter.

Pope grants boy's prayers

His Holiness, Benedict XVI, is to meet and give blessing to young Anton McManus - nine - who asked him in a letter if he could help him "keep the cancer away", following remission from a spinal tumour

The wee guy wrote: "I was really ill and now I am feeling better, even though I can't do a lot of things my friends can do. I am writing this letter to ask if you could bless me when you come to Glasgow to help keep my cancer away.

"I really hope I will be lucky enough to meet you as it would mean the world to me.

"I will keep praying to see if they get answered."

Apparently Pope Benedict, upon reading his handwritten letter, decided to grant it - and will bless young Anton ahead of his Glasgow rally to the faithful. Upon hearing that her son's request had been granted by the Pontiff, Tammi broke down crying. She told the Sun [in a rare, happy news piece] that;

"It's an achievement for the wee man and it's very special that he's been picked out. It's the chance of a lifetime, one in a million. Anton thinks that getting blessed by the Pope means his cancer will carry on sleeping."

Tammi, who is a full-time carer, told how her world fell apart when Anton was first diagnosed with the aggressive form of bone cancer - rare in kids his age.

"When he was diagnosed I found myself on the ward at night planning my son's funeral. It sounds terrible to say but you just can't see the light at the end of the tunnel sometimes. We were always honest with Anton, despite him being so young, and he knew how ill he was. He also knows what it will mean for him if the cancer does come back, and that's why he wrote this letter to the Pope, to ask for help. This means the world to him.Our faith has sustained us as a family through this."

The Papal visit can make a real difference to the lives of many people in Scotland, and let us never forget that faith, and Christianity - like the Roman Catholic variety can and does regularly inspire, and sustain people from all walks of life. If Benedict's visit can make a difference to even just young Anton & his family - then it was worth the trouble in my book. Call me a sentimental fool if you wish ...

'Public Sector interest' not always the 'public interest'

Public sector workers are paid more on average than those in the private sector, according to the first comprehensive analysis of the pay divide by Britain's national statistician.

The Office for National Statistics found that full-time public sector staff earned an average of £74 a week more than those in the private sector. Once employer pension contributions were included, the gap rose to £136, illustrating the generous pay-and-perks deals enjoyed by local and central government workers in the public sector.

The revelations from the National Statistics Office couldn't come at a worse time for the Trades Union Congress, as the findings threaten to undermine their calls at its conference in Manchester this week for "civil disobedience" and co-ordinated strike action in protest against the Government's planned public sector spending cuts.

.

According to the Daily Telegraph;

"In its September Economic and Labour Market Review, published yesterday, the national statistician reported that the average weekly salary for public sector workers in April last year was £539, compared with £465 in the private sector.

The difference was more stark when pensions were included because fewer than half of the private sector workforce were enrolled in a retirement scheme, compared with nearly all in the public sector – many of which are taxpayer-subsidised final salary schemes paying two thirds of working income for life. Including employer pension contributions, the total average remuneration package for the public sector was worth £615 a week and £479 for a private sector worker. Mark Littlewood, the director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs think tank, said the report illustrated "just how preposterous" the TUC's claims were."
.

Indeed the question must now be asked why the general public should be asked by the TUC to 'rally round' these 'oppressed' workers. Surely if the ONS revelations are copper-bottomed it reduces TUC claims to little more than ludicrous?

Why should public sector workers higher salaries be paid for by waitresses and hairdressers earning substantially less? An attack on public sector pay is not an attack on the poor but the privileged. Occasionally it is time to remind the TUC that their public sector interest does not always automatically follow the wider public interest. What serves the vested interests of the public sector isn't, perhaps, in the interest of the taxpaying public - their employer.

Equality laws a rude hangover

Harriet Harperson's 'equality' laws represent a rude hangover, a not-even-veiled assault on religious liberty

The battle between our faith and the secularist demands of the state, and the exercises of power has often served to cause problems. And for those like Sir Thomas Cranmer, fatal. Today, maybe the reformation has passed, but with an ever more bold-as-brass liberal secularist movement, and the decline of the Church of England, there is a real crisis for the practising Christian. Thanks to the 'visionary' Harriet Harperson - workers cannot wear their crucifixes at work, even if they are hidden beneath uniform - Roman Catholic charitable works like orphanages are forced to shut due to laws forcing them to give-away kids to Gay couples. No room for religious conscience, no room for faith.

As my fellow blog contributor put; "I am against the undermining of religious freedom and against the erosion of the clergy's right to preach against that which they disapprove."

Yet this is precisely where our society is heading - under the auspices of Labour's Harriet and her definition of 'equality'. And specifically of that legislation, at the fag-end of a dying Labour government;

"Labour only introduced duplicated legislation merely to appear tough on radical preachers. It might win votes, but it is bad legislation"

Liberal-Tory, concise and precise. And duplication there was in the New Labour years. The posturing to be 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' led to some rather poor duplication of existing law. For example, as Liberal-Tory dug out for me, David Blunkett; where he demanded a law on carjacking- even though the Robbery Act covers carjacking and prescribes a sentence (life imprisonment). Such media-driven approaches to law making are dangerous at best. Indeed the Labour era ID cards are another fine example of replication of previous laws, ideas and notions, Peter Lilly summed the Labour drive for ID cards [an ID scheme taken from Howard in the early 90s] "a solution looking for a problem"

But, Harperson's equality legislation wasn't poor law targeting criminals, but badly written law assaulting one of Britain's core values - religious liberty.

The Harperson laws are a direct challenge to religious conscience, raising the awkward question: does the UK still allow for the liberal freedom of religious conscience? I think not...

.

In the United States, there is equality, and equality-ensuring law. Yet they also ensure the fundamental right to religious conscience, and in a Christian society the rights of those of faith cannot and should not be eroded by the militant secularist lobby. It cuts through the very heart of a truly civilised society, tolerance, liberty and freedom of conscience. The United States leads the way by example - where so long as sermons do not incite violence or disorder the state must have no problem.

Turkish constitutional reform vote must be passed

Turks head to the polls to vote on a plebiscite on constitutional reforms, vital if Turkey is to become an official EU candidate country. A 'no' is totally unacceptable

The Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development party (AKP) has to secure a 'yes' vote if he is to continue along his ambition for Turkey to align itself firmly into the European community. According to the PM, the reforms are only what is required to secure official EU candidate accession status; joining Macedonia and Croatia;
"Mr Erdogan says the reforms - criticised by human rights groups for not going further on the protection of free speech, religious freedom and ethnic identity - are simply what is required to meet EU membership criteria. The country officially became an EU candidate in 2005."

EUObserver also outlines how the campaign has been marred by bitterness as the legacy of the last military coup - in 1980 - is openly debated. Questions are now being asked by Turkey's military is still allowed to view itself as the defender of secularism; when there is a constitutional court able to do just that.

And the constitutional court has flexed its muscles regarding secularism, by slapping down the prime minister's law which had attempted to repeal the ban on wearing the Muslim headscarves on university campus.

It is clear that the future of European enlargement, growth and growing power depends on securing Turkish membership - the strategic imperative is simply too much to ignore. The Turkish people must vote 'yes', to make this happen. And according to the latest opinion poll there, over 56.2% of people are ready to do just that.

SNP bills ... but one is missing

Alex Salmond unveiled a rather tawdry list of tidying-up bills in Holyrood, but he skipped on his raison de etre

Resevoir Safety, Public Records, Long Leases, Scottish Water, Local Electoral Administration, Certification of Death, Forced Marriage, Private Rented Housing, Double Jeopardy, Budget. Does it sound like a list which smacks of a Party anticipating being returned to power in 2011? No? Well that's probably because it doesn't.

In what could optimistically be called a glorified tidying-up exercise, nothing much gets the blood racing and the heart thumping for another, perhaps final, year of Nationalist rule. So much of it is simply routine, like the Forced Marriage bill - which serves to merely bring us into line with England. Or the Public Records bill - which isn't a brave new crusade bent on shining fresh light of open government on the inner workings of Scotland's executive. Nope, it is nothing more than to 'improve record keeping' - laudable but hardly Mr Salmonds' white rabbit the nation was holding its breath for.

The Mail labelled it 'Weary Salmond going out with a whimper', and while the Mail isn't exactly the SNP blood-pal, it does surmise my own - disappointed - feelings.

No Independence Bill for parliament, instead the £2m of taxpayers cash, Salmond and the SNP have spent on the now-abandoned parliamentary vote - will go on their election campaign. Shocking, dodgy and out of order.

What a disappointing way to see the Nationalist insurgency go out - not with a bang, but a rather pitiful whimper.

Boundary changes in Holyrood benefit Tory and Nats ... well everyone except Labour

The substantial boundary changes for the coming Holyrood General Election will benefit the Tories, perhaps substantially. Had it been used last election, the SNP lead over Labour would have been larger ...

"Professor David Denver's study [Lancaster University] said that if the new constituencies had been in place at the 2007 poll, the Tories might have won three extra seats. Yet the Scottish National Party would have remained the largest party."

This is important, in that while it is a prediction for what would have happened last election on the new boundaries - these are the new boundaries. If they alter the demographics enough then we have to take this into account this coming vote. Put simply next year's Holyrood elections will be fought on re-drawn boundaries designed to even out seat sizes.

The net result has seen almost all first-past-the-post constituencies are changing, many of them significantly. According to David Denver,

"it is calculated that one in six electors in Scotland will now be in a different seat as a result of the re-drawn boundaries.

There are also smaller changes to the top-up regional seats as a result of constituencies being moved to different regions.

If the new boundaries had been in place last time the Tories might have taken 20 seats rather than 17. The Liberal Democrats would have been up one, on 17 rather than 16.

Labour would have been two down, winning 44 seats in total rather than 46 and the SNP would have been one down, with 46 seats rather than 47.

Overall, that implies a slightly improved net lead for the SNP over Labour.

Professor Denver, who is an acknowledged expert in this field, reckoned the Greens would have had one seat, instead of two and the Independent MSP Margo MacDonald would still have won."

However, as the academic stressed, caution must be taken in interpreting the results. It must be pointed out that constituencies were now built from much larger, more diverse council wards, making it very difficult to offer projections accurately. Especially given many seats and regional lists will be very tight to call.

As a further note, any boundary changes do not in themselves alter the outcomes in local contests, as that ignores important factors like the incumbancy factor. And this is important, just look at Labour MP for Ochil at westminster!

Prof Denver estimated seats which might have had a different political colour by contrast with comparable previous constituencies.

Seat changes

He calculated that the Tories might have taken both Eastwood and Dumfriesshire ahead of Labour.

He suggested that Aberdeen Central might have been won by the SNP rather than Labour while Stirling could have been Labour, not SNP.

The new Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale seat, he reckoned, would have been SNP, not Liberal Democrat.

The study classed certain constituencies as "new" in that they have experienced the greatest change.

Among these, he concluded that Glasgow Southside would have been Labour, not SNP. That seat includes a large part of the Govan seat presently held by Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP deputy leader.

In this category, the professor also calculates that Edinburgh Central might have been won by the Liberal Democrats, over Labour.

If you want to read the Professor's work, you can find a reader link to the full report on the BBC website here.

Don't blame Europe for this mess ...

Don't blame Europe or the Working Time Directive for this one, no one wants to go back to when their doctors were so tired they couldn't think straight ...

The European Working Time Directive [EWTD] requires that doctors don't work more than an average of 48 hours a week over a 26-week period; excluding leave and holidays. But this directive is not concerned with pay or with the drafting up of rotas for junior doctors - which is at the heart of current NHS problems.

It is all too easy for politicians, left and right, to blame Europe for what is essentially their own failings - in this case Labour wants to avoid the realisation that the real problem is their New Deal.

A first example of how New Deal is directly detrimental to health care is the excessive penalties of trusts. If a junior doctor breach their hours, the financial penalty is crippling; Llora Finlay of the Times explains an example where the Labour-instigated penalties pushed a Trusts costs up from £200,000 to £750,000. What that kind of financial penalising does is that senior doctors and Trust administrators clock watch, instead of focusing on patient care, and junior doctor development.

The effect on clinical care, by New Deal financial penalties? Training of junior doctors takes a massive hit. They enter the profession full of enthusiasm, and visionary ambition - yet due to New Deal [NOT EWTD] the rules mean they never work alongside a more experienced counterpart long enough to learn the tricks of the medical trade. Without the close team work - due to the crippling penalties if you stay longer to learn about an interesting diagnosis problem- patient care suffers. And my friends, this is New Deal - not the EU. Don't be taken in by these self-serving New Labour-era historical revisionists.

Consultants actually fear that they cannot teach junior doctors to go that extra mile, to stay the extra half-hour to see that interesting clinical problem. No extra half hour over their shift time, because if the Trust gets slapped by the Department of Health by a massive -New Deal penalty they have to sack doctors and nurses to cover the cost. If I were a senior doctor, I'd be horrified that I am being asked to tell juniors to walk out on clinical problems. But that is exactly what the New Labour contracts tell them to do.

The current mess cannot continue - but politicians deliberately misdiagnosing the problem as being the EWTD doesn't help. Maybe the coalition is calculating that they can use this health problem to bat back a EU piece of legislation they [ideologically] dislike? I hope not, that would be despicable.

How the troops were betrayed

"This sad episode led me to the conclusion that if war is too important to be left to Generals, then the funding of war is too important to be left to politicians"

Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt speaks out in the serialisation of his new book in the Sunday Telegraph; and he reserves some damning criticisms for the two top men in the former New Labour government

The chronic under funding of our boys in the front lines - during the last Labour regime - has never been a secret, but little can prepare one to hear it from the former Chief of the General Staff 2006-2009. General Dannatt reinforces many of the concessions made public by Geoff Hoon at the Iraq Inquiry, when he explained he was unable to make the preparations on the run up to war. But Dannatt goes further, accusing the chancellor in even more refreshingly blunt fashion than Hoon did;

"Gordon Brown's malign influence as chancellor, on the Strategic Defence Review by refusing to fund what his own government had agreed, fatally flawed the entire process from the outset"

Unlike Hoon, Dannatt doesn't attack Brown under coded 'senior treasury figures' talk; he calls it straight up - Brown was a fiscal malign influence - one which cost lives.

Now, regardless of ones position on the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions - the fact remains that the Chancellor and former PM Gordon Brown failed in his duty to fund the troopers. But, keeping a tight rein of public spending is natural for chancellors; and keeping a grimly tight hand over MoD funding all the more so for a Labour chancellor. Where was his boss, where was the PM?

Dannatt answers this too - Mr Blair "lacked the moral courage to impose his will over his chancellor". This is a serious accusation, and one which seems to be reinforced by facts.

It is a matter of record that Brown had avoided a face-to-face meeting with Dannatt for the six months of 2009 when the Afghan casualties were at their highest, Brown is McCavity cat. And Blair concedes it himself by 2005 he had surrendered all authority over economics of government. It doesn't surprise me that while Rome burned these two men played out their own little Caesar-Brutus play. Yet that very self indulgence over legacies, succession and power-play left brave lions dead in the poppy fields; so goats could 'lead' from their political armchairs.

Did these men learn nothing from history? Blair should have appreciated a particular lesson by Maggie Thatcher; during the Falklands , her War Cabinet did not include a single treasury figure. Perhaps, and I could be wrong, but because this was a Labour government; they just couldn't ideologically accept that during war the armed forces need money. It is after all an open secret that all Labour ideologues hold a dislike for our armed forces - Diane Abbot has made it central to her campaign for Labour leadership to 'cut the MoD' rather than education or welfare.

Mind you, the current coalition government hasn't exactly ring-fenced defence spending either...though that is a tad more defensible given that they plan to pull our troops out. Ultimately it is a straight judgement call: stay and fight, but fund the already expensive war properly [as Labour failed to do], or pull them out by a certain date, regardless of circumstances, and cut MoD funding. They have decided to cut, but at least they have set the date for our boys to come home. No lives shall be risked by chronic underfunding like New Labour did.

The final, bottom, line in all of this sorry news is this: Our armed forces were left underfunded and under pressure as power struggle at the heart of the New Labour government was played out.

Am I the only one who finds this monstrous news of a failed Labour regime disgusting? From the defence chief no less ... the fly on the wall

Alan Duncan is on the money

Mr Duncan, a long standing friend of William Hague has called into question the behaviour of the unjustified rumours, lies and myths put about on the Internet; and mainstream left wing media

"We are dealing with a very special politician and I think the way he has been pilloried this week has been contemptible. Leave them alone now. Back off and let's get on with watching a very, very competent Foreign Secretary and a serious figure in our politics get on with his job."

One thing is true, the day a senior politician cannot share a bedroom with a colleague, without sparking McCarthyesque witch-hunt , is a bad day for politics, and the media. Indeed it is often due to his University friendships with the likes of Alan Duncan and so forth that the bulk of the 'closet gay' rumours began. They have always been shameful, that myths and lies about a man's sexuality can derive from his mere friendship with openly gay mates.

Yet the BBC, among other left wing media sources has judgement calls of their own to answer over this. Alan Duncan is entirely right to call into question BBC Radio 4 Today programme's handling of the affair. Duncan described Radio 4 handling as "ill-advised and tasteless" for inviting Speaker's wife Sally Bercow to discuss it. Obviously he is right, and this isn't a newsworthy story, except in the sours and dens of the left wing briefers', and their Daily Record ally

Indeed the backlash against the filth peddlers has become so strong that even some left wing politicians are being forced to distance themselves from the briefing's and lies;

"Labour leadership candidate Ed Miliband told Any Questions: "I'm no friend of William Hague, but I am a strong defender of him and Ffion Hague in this case, because it makes politics profoundly depressing.

"He and his wife are being subject to a whole series of unfounded rumours. I don't think they go to his fitness as Foreign Secretary. I don't think there are any allegations that I have seen that speak to his ability to do the job."

I mean it really is extraordinary that the BBC, Daily Record, Herald, Scotsman all believe that it is acceptable to report this filthy tittle tattle. They are there to report the news, not relay lies, myths and rumours; but then, none of those publications are impartial, responsible publications.

Indeed Allan, a reader of mine sums up the behaviour and history of the left wing media very well to me;

"In Scotland we have a bent corrupt left winged socialist media slugging out its dire ideology against a more progressive right winged media down south. The Scotsman, Herald,Record and Mirror, all pro Labour. The Scottish Sun could not bring itself to saying it supported the Tories in case it lost its core benefit couch potato Labour readership in West central Scotland

You see the lefties are the worse of the worse when it comes to slander" - Allan Christie, and dead right he is too.

A Journey: rewriting history

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair may be donating the money of 'A Journey' to a worthy cause, but it still doesn't make it right

Political memoirs are always enjoyable reads if, like me, you enjoy nothing more than a morass of heavy-duty political tracks on a oppressively hot day. Yet memoirs are not as accurate as diaries - which do fulfil a useful function over and above pleasure. They enable an insight into a particular period of government, policy and action which is important for political historians; and the interested among the electorate. Yet Blair has in his memoir, without shame or modesty, deliberately moved to rewrite history - one of the many problems with political memoirs. Memoirs, unlike diaries, do not represent a carbon-copy of at-the-time decision making and lack historical relevance. All memoirs seem to undertake is a deliberate, concise attempt to write ones own legacy, and Blair's 'A Journey' also imbues all of the worst aspects ego, self-aggrandizement, and trust-violation.

Off the bat, Blair has always been accused of showing precious little regard for traditions, and constitutional niceties whilst in office; but his memoirs prove this charge beyond all doubt. This is a man who doesn't care what conventions of the British state he trodes over, so long as history can remember him smiling, sunny to his 'things can only get better' signatory tune. For example, he briefs us; the lowly reader; about his private conversations with the Queen. Now, if Her Majesty cannot speak to her first minister of state without concern that her every word, tone and facial expression won't appear in some bottom-dollar politico's self serving memoirs; it rather undermines a vital convention of our constitution.

But already some Blairite champions are defending Blair's decision to include private and confidential conversations with the Queen. They tell the Telegraph [anonymously, such brave people] that there is a public interest in revealing the core of such conversations. But I ask you, what public interest can there possibly be in telling us if Her Majesty may have exhibited 'hauteur' towards him? I know I don't blame her, I often want to display a lot worse character traits that that to Anthony Charles Lynton Blair!

It isn't a matter of if one approves of who our head of state is; or how she got there - it is a convention critical to the smooth running and operation of governance. The Constitutional Head of State must be able to discuss matters of state free from the anxiety or trepidation that that conversation may appear in a cheap and cheerful political memoir. A memoir which by its very nature does not carry the same kind of historical, political or public interest import as a diary does.

The former Labour PM James Callaghan was legendary for refusing to ever reveal the substance or anything else of his private meetings with the Head of State. Indeed his refusal to inform Her Majesty's private secretaries in the palace at the time caused great frustration.

Call-me-Tony and his Journey also however begs the reader to ask, 'how can you possibly call yourself a social democrat?'

Throughout the first 105 pages [I'm on page 110] Blair reminisces about the build-up to New Labour, and the final election victory. But he discusses what he means by New Labour, and my friends it is a small 'c' conservatism. He explicitly refers to 'one nationist politics', which last time I checked wasn't renown for its Labour 'values' [i.e socialism]. But more important than that, Blair explains that to him, the individual, and individual aspiration and equality of opportunity are at the 'beating heart' of his project. By dear readers - that is moderate, consensus-era Conservative politics! Nothing Labour in it!

If his political memoirs can tell us nothing else, before we choke on the bile and anger he arouses in us, it is that he is a self serving, politically opportunistic chameleon. And his New Labour project? He all but admits that New Labour was a matter of laying out Labour and Conservative philosophies and splitting the difference.

p.s I bought the book in order to remind myself why I disliked him so much; I feared I was going soft on him in his old age ... plus it was half price [already!] in Waterstones

Nasty Runours

Stephen Myers has resigned as William Hagues special adviser following nasty, vicious, wrong rumours conducted by the leftists

After denying that his appointment was due to an unprofessional personal relationship to the married Foreign Sec; Mr Myers has resigned

Mr Myers, 25, was employed by Mr Hague during the election campaign as a constituency aide and after the election worked for the foreign secretary as a policy adviser. Mr Hague's statement, which was issued in his personal capacity and not as foreign secretary, followed speculation in the media and on the Internet over the pair's relationship.

The statement, frankly, was extraordinary in that its detailed response to the allegations and in the revelations about his marriage were offered. Shame on the media leftists for this needless violation. After all this whole story seemed to stem from the fact they "occasionally" shared hotel rooms during the election. A rather shady episode-example of lefwing briefings culture.

I shall say no more on what frankly was never a story to begin with.