The EU Bill is a joke

Cameron's European Union Bill is a total waste of time; regardless of your views on the EU - this bill does nothing at all .. except waste time, money and paper

Waste of parliamentary effort

2010 after the General Election started sensibly for Mr Cameron. He realised that he did not have a majority, and rather than put a debt-burdened and divided country through an unstable 6 month minority (for it wouldn't survive longer) he instead created a coalition. Compromise on both sides saw the poorest benefit from raising the bar on paying tax to £10k, saw electoral reform bill put before the public (if Labour Lords start behaving that is), and market confidence restored. Good end to a tough, and frankly disapointing year. No matter your thoughts on the merits or demerits of coalition, Cameron had shown himself to be grown-up, sensible and rational.

What then has went wrong?

Not long after coming to power, Cameron and Hague realised (as pro-EU Tories had said all along) that they couldn't have a retrospective referendum on a treaty that Brown had already signed us up for. So, instead of moving on; after all the EU is hardly the biggest issue in play right now; he persisted. He introduced what he called a 'referendum lock' - which allegedly would prevent major transfers of power from parliament to Brussels again. Just two problems, firstly the hardcore europhobes on the Tory backbenches saw it for what it was (a total appeasement gimmick) and secondly, the bill itself does nothing. That is right, it does nothing. It does not uphold the sovereignty of parliament, handing over powers to judges to decide what merits the title 'substantial transfer of sovereignty' instead of parliament in the future. It does not bind future parliaments hands on this matter, as no sitting parliament can bind the hands of a future parliament in a way viewed unconstitutional. So ... erm ... the entire effort on the run up to the vote was a waste of time, effort and expense.

What a poor start to a new year

Let us hope that the LibDems can command more influence in one area in particular: Cameron's obsessional appeasement of anti-European extremism on Tory backbenches.

Arab dictators & western 'orientalist' attitudes face change

The Tunisian revolution has spread, as reports of civil unrest spread to Yemen, and Egypt President Hosni Mubarak sends in the army as civilians defy curfew order.

Western 'Orientalist' attitudes have their rude awakening

Mubarak has not faced such unrest in the 30 years he has been leader of the country. Whereas a week ago, most western commentators were complaining that there was not much sign of unrest in Egypt; the people there have proven them wrong. It is highly amusing that as western armchair critics commented; in truly Orientalist-mindsets; about how Egyptians seemed to characterise an "Arabic resignation" to dictatorship - the people there have been acting and proving this wrong.

When Edward Said was propelled to literary fame for his book 'Orientalism' back in the 1970s, one of his chief charges was that western critics, liberals and conservatives alike, do not understand the Arab world. They characterise it, paint an inaccurate - deeply inaccurate - oftentimes moderately racist picture of life and mindsets in the near-romanticised 'orient'. I'd argue that this criticism has just been proven recently in relation to the chaos ongoing in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria. Just as Guardian commentators blogged on endlessly last week of there being a classic 'Arab resignation' in Egypt to continued Mubarak rule; now we see what is really going on.

Egypt, far from being sanguine, has risen up in popular revolution against its dictator - and this is a popular year of revolution for the entire Arab mid-east. Despite the different Arab communities, cultures, countries and religions - they have seized on the spirit of the Tunisians. If anyone needed a practical demonstration of the truth in Said's 'Orientalism', now you have it.

With people setting themselves of fire in Alexandria, and the army now being deployed in running street battles to uphold Mubarak's force of reaction and oppression; let no western critic say anymore that the 'orient' is 'like that' - sanguine, oppressed and used-to-it. Just as this is time for the middle east to experience a change, let those of us in the west who take an interest have our established attitudes face change too.

Who knows, perhaps we may even learn something.

God bless you Phil: An Obituary

Scottish Conservative veteran Phil Gallie, who was respected by all Parties

Tory veteran Phil Gallie has passed on, at 71 years of age. A sad day for Scottish Conservatism everywhere as one of our brightest lights shines its last

Phil Gallie, who still took an active role in Scottish Tory politics since retirement, died suddenly and unexpectedly on Monday. Annabel Goldie led the condolances on behalf of the wider Scottish Tory family:

"Phil was that rare breed of politician - admired by friend and foe alike and a tireless advocate for the people of his beloved Ayr, his party and Scotland. No one who knew Phil will ever forget the passion and enthusiasm he brought to everything he did. He leaves a gap in our lives. I have lost a friend and Scotland has lost a shining example of a true public servant, someone who cared deeply about people and loved his country."

The young Phil started out in life at Dunfermline High School in Fife, going on to serve as Ayr central MP from 1992-1997, and then in Holyrood from 1999. In his political life he came to champion his old hunting grounds of Fife and Ayr, indeed, making a point of standing in Ayr Central for Westminster on principle until 2010 when Maurice Golden took over the job.

His passing is a sad moment, and represents the shifting of the generations within the Party, as Sanderson reforms are due to be implimented.

Swinney must do better

John Swinney has been drawn into the centre of a maelstrom of his own making, as he published dodgy finance figures

Flat cash scenario

John Swinney published numbers showing the challenges facing government and local government departments (exception of health). But the only problem seems is that the numbers aren't reliable. Indeed the way Swinney used an incredibly unlikely flat cash scenario highlights that this is electoral gimmickry from the SNP executive.

The core assumption that the not-so-honest John used was an assumption that the lump-sum money handed out to each department would remain the same from 2011-2014. However, given the reductions Scotland shall have to make due to Labours debt legacy, this assumption is not likely. More directly, it is incredibly unlikely. And forgive this cynic for betting that John Swinney knows this too.

So why do it? Why publish numbers which, due to their unreliability, means that they cannot prepare anyone for the future cuts over the next four years?

Electioneering. Plain and simple; and deeply regrettable. The SNP should know better than to play games with the national finances, especially since they are so keen to see fiscal devolution.

Given that the administrations Holyrood budget shall be falling from £228.5 to £208.6m it is surely deliberate that Swinney would publish financial numbers which are based on a totally discredited 'flat cash' scenario. Unless John has news for parliament where he has found £19.9m to fund such an unlikely scenario ... one can only conclude that he was engaged in taking us all for fools. I do not appreciate the attempted manipulation, worthy of Ed Miliband and Iain Gray.

Spotlight Holyrood

First you had the expenses scandal at Westminster, now it seems Scotland has one budding here at home

According to the Daily Telegraph, a series of "high profile" MSPs (are there really that many of those?) will be in line of a major cash windfall bonanza at the taxpayers expense; as they sell their second homes -- which they bought with taxpayers money.

You thought it was all over? It ain't yet.

It all runs from the Edinburgh Accommodation Allowance, and it seems John Swinney, incumbent finance minister is implicated in profiteering from his expenses. But be under no illusions, every single political Party in Scotland is fingered in this outrage. From Lord Nicol Stephen through to Alex Neil, a number of MSPs have been caught profiteering from the EAA.

It seems that the SNP Housing Minister Alex Neil has already sold his two-bedroom apartment for £200,000, making a pre-tax profit of £105,000. Purchased originally using EAA, taxpayer money. Of course none of that £105,000 profit the minister made has been returned to the public purse, the trotters are well and truly in the troff.

However Lord Nicol Stephen owns a second home in Edinburgh’s most prestigious areas, which he bought for £193,333 and helped fund using the EAA. It is now estimated to be worth £345,000, meaning he would pocket a £151,667 profit should be sell.

I hadn't realised that the taxpayers money was there to pay for MSPs profiteering; for the profits which have already been made; or eventually will be; certainly do NOT aid them in the conduct of their duty. Lord Stephen isn't even an MSP anymore, having taken a seat in the Upper House.

More scandals which could break, or have already broken also include other MSPs such as John Swinney, the SNP Finance Minister, who could expect to make a £100,000 profit on his taxpayer-funded second home. But most worrying of all, the LibDem current leader Tavish Scott is sitting on an £80,000 windfall.

As Patrick Harvie of the Greens said "For some MSPs this has been little better than a gravy train". Yes, and the taxpayers are being taken as the mugs who will pony up the cash.

Holyrood needs to have a spotlight shone on its dark underbelly sharpish.

"We was robbed"

The critics of the Chilcot inquiry were out in force again yesterday, playing the now familiar mood music of "we was robbed". But just how much of this widely held sentiment is actually based on reality?

A lady called Deirdre appeared on Newsnight following the Chilcot Inquiry second blair marathon. In her contribution she came out with the now familiar guff about the Inquiry being a whitewash, or those on the Inquiry "going easy" on the former PM. Indeed she even accused Blair of lieing when he spoke of his deep regret about all the loss of life. Isn't it time that we all stopped beating the man who was in the room, who took the decisions, or at least stop looking for the non-existent smoking gun?

It really is a pure and simple case of "we was robbed". Blair, and the cross-Party supporters on the Iraq issue can say, indeed prove, anything, to the anti-war critics. They have moved on, the mob has condemned those who took the decision to go to war. And four inquiries later, with the vast bulk of 'secret' evidence now out, and still no smoking gun has been found. Deirdre and people like her may choose to believe that is because the inquires were either fixed or incompetent, but the more rational must conclude that there simply isn't any evidence that proves Blair took the UK to war knowing there were no WMDs.

However, let us also disregard the nonsensical attitude that Chilcot was run by people who were more furry than frenzied in their interviewing of those who went before it. For to my mind there can surely be little more dangerous to anyone with something to hide than an independent, former civil servant, who has comfortably supplied in retirement. Yes Minister among other less politically heavy stories can tell us how those with a desire to cover the truth up operate; and they do not hire for their Inquiry someone like Sir Roderic Lyne.

So really, what case have the 'he is a lier' brigade actually got? After four Inquires, millions of taxpayers money spent? They still haven't found that mystical smoking gun which would prove guilt. They still haven't proved their (numerous) accusations that it is "all a cover up". In short, they have nothing to back up their case. Facts to emerge:

1. Blair did not have forward knowledge before Iraq invasion that WMDs were really absent (thus, there is no case to say on this point he lied).

2. The Chilcot Inquiry revealed most of the 'secret' information into the public domain which critics claimed would prove Blair signed up the UK to invasion without popular or parliamentary consent; but the evidence has shown that even those 'secret' memos show nothing of the sort.

3. No smoking gun exists - at all. Therefore, there is no Agatha Christie-like grand-reveal to be had. In short, the masterpiece of evidence to prove Blairs guilt DOES NOT EXIST.

Now. Having wasted all that taxpayers money on the whims of the anti-war brigade, can we finally move on. This is 2011 after all. And there are no more grounds for us to have anymore circling over this now familiar grounds - Iraq.

The two Eds



Ed Balls, Orwellian Big Brother?

 Ed Miliband and Ed Balls aren't really all that different, they are both united in their attachment to Gordon Brown insane economic policies

"Hurt", "aggrieved", "compelled" and "forced". These are the words of some of the leading political editors across the establishment mainstream media. However, can they really say this? I for one doubt strongly that Ed Miliband does feel any of those descriptive when he appointed Ed Balls.

In order to understand the relationship these two men already have regarding policy, it is vital to fully appreciate their common guilt under Brown - put straight up: these two men designed the financial system of regulation that New Labour introduced after 1997, which so spectacularly exploded.

Ed Balls is one of the guilty men of the previous 13 years. Back then, it was Balls who supported the enormous expansion of capital spending from the all-powerful state. The heavy deregulation, the upsurge in public and private debt levels, the playground tax & spend Labouromics (for it isn't real economics) - Ed Balls more than anyone is guilty. Yet the worst thing, Red Ed is exactly the same, implicated in exactly the same way, with exactly the same failures as Balls. So, just how much policy difference over the future course for Labour economic plans is there? I'd contend not much; indeed I fully expect to see Labour drift leftward on economic matters. And having already surrendered their economic credibility, this shall prove disastrous for them at the next GE, in four years time after recovery has been restored.

The problem is that these two men cannot U-turn on their public statements on Labours economic legacy; as this would raise some worrying questions about their ability to exercise judgement. But, if they do not show they appreciate the economic mess is largely Labours fault - then the little credibility they still possess shall dissipate.

Polling already shows that Labour have completely failed to recover their shot-through economic credibility; the public remain deeply mistrustful of Labours ability to be trusted with the UK economy.

In September 2010 in a major poll, "69% agreed that “Labour need to make major changes to their policies and beliefs to be fit for government again”, 60% agreed “Labour still haven’t faced up to the damage they did to the British economy”, 47% thought that “If Labour returned to government they would put the country into even more debt"

Now the same questions were put to the public earlier this month, and frankly, the evidence is dire for any Labourite: "65% still think Labour need to make major changes to their policies (including 45% of Labour voters!), 58% still think Labour haven’t faced up to the damage they did to the economy, 47% still think they would put the country back into debt were they to return to government."

Now, with Ed Balls in place as Shadow Chancellor (completely unsackable too), is anyone seriously going to contend that Ed Balls can turn these publicly held views around? Yes he has economic knowledge (one up from Postman Pat), but Balls has form. Form as a true old Labour tax and spender. Form as a deficit denier.

No, in this case, for any Coalition supporter out there - two Eds are better than one.

Prisoners and the vote

Despite earlier concerns, it is clear that the ECHR ruling is not so bad after all, nor is it the European 'dictat' many in the Straw-Davis coalition maintain

Lack of clarity

The ECHR ruling, which it seems has provoked the current crisis over prisoners and the vote is really nothing of the sort, if we stop and reflect. According to the ECHR, the UK parliaments lack of clarity on the matter of the prisoners and the right to vote presented a case for fresh clarification. In short, the ECHR is merely requesting UK clarification concerning this area; which in itself is hardly all that controversial.

Indeed, all that needs to be done is see a motion tabled in the Commons to clarify the position of the UK House of Commons. However, it must be recognised that the Straw-Davis proposals are not offering this.

Rather than see a government motion tabled before the Commons, for first reading and subsequent committee stage edits, these two men seek to preempt the coalition on the matter. Their angle? To prevent a change to the current statutes regarding prisoners, the right to vote. This is not desirable, to put it straight there is no 'happiness of the status quo' in this matter.

Empower the judiciary

As has been proposed by senior Coalition politicians Clarke and Cameron, the best course seems to be to let the sitting judge at a trial arbitrate over a prisoners right to vote. And in many ways it would be an improvement on the status quo; where prisoners automatically get the right to vote restored upon leaving prison. Why not enable our impartial, expert judges decide the length of term where a prisoner found guilty loses the right to vote? It can function as a real weapon which our law courts could utilise during trial.

For there is little point in approaching the issue in blanket terms; as Straw-Davis seem to do. Their view is that all prisoners should have the vote stripped from them ... but only while they are serving an actual sentence, they it seems do not mind prisoners voting after finishing their sentence.

Letting a judge decide if the vote should be stripped, and for how long would allow for this loss to be better measured against the crime committed, the seriousness and in relation to particular merits.

Any prisoner serving a sentence less than 24 months for example really should only have the right to vote stripped if the particular seriousness of their crime merits it; after all; allowing them to retain it may actually improve their rehabilitative process - which the coalition seems to be renewing after 12 New Labour years of a failed lock 'em up logic.

In short, I welcome the coalition proposals (informal) as they are; and shall stand resolutely opposed to the Straw-Davis pursuit of a failed status quo.

Iraq remains morally and legally justified



End of Saddam, pulling away the stones of terror and dictatorship



Despite any inquiry findings, I remain convinced of the legal justification for the intervention, and am proud of the moral case for removing the despot.

Finest traditions

Sierra Leone may remain poor, but ask anyone and they will praise Britain and the then PM Tony Blair. Gradually foreign investment is reconstructing the country, the civil wars and genocides are banished - thanks to Blair and the doctrine of liberal internationalism, commonly nicknamed the 'Chicago doctrine'.
In short, the morality of engaging in war to liberate a populace from despotic rule, and terror of vile dictatorship has worked here. It was never about oil, or commerce, Sierra Leone was about the moral principle, that we have a moral obligation to directly help these peoples. But even then, boiling it down still further one can also see the practical moral justifications for a doctrine of liberal internationalism. In this increasingly small world, where globalisation has economically integrated our lives in a global pattern whether to unimagined - it is surely foolhardy to seriously pretend that the troubles in countries like Sierra Leone do no matter or effect us. 9/11 happened, 7/7 happened, in this brave new world, we cannot afford to take such complacent risks. Thus, morally both in principle and in practice one can easily build a moral case for liberal interventionism.

How would Iraq be seen any differently? Sierra Leone happened again where the UN as asleep at the helm. As in Iraq, a nation stifled under a long term dictator which history of genocide; and corrupt oil-for-food trade-offs between Russia, France and the incumbent regime. I would suggest the morality of intervention is clear, as it was over Sierra Leone; where no one criticises - not least because it does not fit the pattern those opposed the the intervention in Iraq seeks to put forward.

When blogging on this aspect of Iraq, as an issue, I am reminded of my support for Blair on this issue at the time. I remain convinced that he, and his direction of foreign policy doctrine is fundamentally moral, justified. Copper bottomed. After all, if we engage in a moral debate on Iraq, how was doing nothing any less morally hazardous?

Leaving Saddam in power, with corrupt oil-for-food sapping UN global credibility. Where chemical Ali and the regimes children were still being prepared for future power by practicing their creed of violence on the nations citizens. No, doing nothing would have been appeasement, cowardly balking at action. Besides, it would certainly not have been the soft option those opposed to Iraq prefer to pretend that it would have been.

Legal spotlight

Now, pushing beyond the moral debate, what are the legal questions?

Again, to my mind the legal case for Iraq is valid, sensible and actually supported by the separate point about moral justification too (nice little aside that).

On the eve of the intervention, Bush stated that:

"to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

Now, the use of force under international law is justified under two circumstances, either in individual or collective self defence. I put it from the outset that Saddam, with his history of constructing and using WMDs, chemical and biological was a real and present danger; and as Bush stated then, meant that we of the coalition acted strictly legally.

Oil for food was discredited, sapping UN, French and Russian credibility; Saddam lived comfortably while his people starved and lived in terror. In short, oil for food was not a long term option, indeed by the eve of intervention; one thing was clear- sanctions had failed, and would probably have to be ended as it was creating a humanitarian catastrophe. Does anyone seriously think for a moment that Saddam, free from sanctions, with UN totally discredited; would not have resumed his WMD programme; a programme where Saddam remained in possession of the technical knowledge to resume production (as per the Hans Blix report)? This qualifies as a real and present danger, collectively to our allies and our interests in the region; and in a post 9/11 world, where the worst possible case CAN happen, the scale of risk and acceptability has changed - this very real scenario does constitute a real and present danger to ourselves individually as a global middle-range power.

Additionally, pushing past self-defence justification; according to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, nations have an obligation to intervene to protect civilians from the devastation of war. I put it to you that Iraq, under the discredited oil-for-food programme constituted a war zone, where under UN aegis; we were internationally ignoring the suffering of the civilians (importantly to note, not the regime however, who carried on much as before).

Now we come to Resolution 1441. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of potential legal justification.

In another prong of legal argument in support of the intervention; the interpretation of Resolution 1441 can add additional strength to the legal side of the case for liberating Iraq.

The U.S. administration argued that it had enough legal support for its subsequent military action, based on resolution 1441 as well as two previous Security Council resolutions: 678, which in 1990 authorized the U.N. to take military action against Iraq, and 687, which set the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Administration lawyers said that because Iraq never lived up to the terms of the cease-fire, the use force was now valid.

For me, the intervention remains legal and moral, the evidence is there - and with so many inquries already having vindicated the Blair decision; I care little for the findings of this one.

Can the Republican House reign in a broken US foreign policy?

Obama may have been busy fighting the Health care battle domestically, but Hillary Clinton has been struggling to deal the poor hand that 'no drama' has given her to deal abroad. Isn't it time for a new year, and a new US foreign policy which doesn't seek to alienate her core allies?

The loss of the House has ended Democrat domination, but it failed to usher in a real Republican renewal. Suddenly the Democrat-domination of the legislative process has ended, and we return to an era where the US, with its high unemployment and struggling economy, needs to rapidly find consensus. And while domestically there are huge ideological and political challenges; the real divisive issue shall be US foreign policy over the coming year.

Soft option

Will the Republicans seek to block every and all Democrat White house legislation? No, because any roadblocking will scream of the dark days of Clinton-era shutdown; and besides, the Republicans are desperate to appease the mountain of tea-party instigated expectation. In short, on most of the key domestic challenges, I fully expect and anticipate (so far as one really can) some kind of consensus legislation. The price for both sides of failing to reach agreements on the big issues are too great; and besides the cooperation over tax cuts and economic stimulation has proved both sides realise: they need each other.

So, hitting hard at Democrat home legislation shall largely really only take the form of hard hitting language, and lofty rhetoric. In policy terms, such restive rhetoric will not materialise; as neither side can really afford it when facing down the barrel of a $13.4 trillion deficit (due to have the Fed debt ceiling risen AGAIN!!). Not to mention all that unemployment and repossessions (still to really thump down hard).

What does that leave? That great ignored issue in most US domestic political cycles: foreign policy.

Foreign policy differences

While obviously Iraq and 9/11 has placed foreign policy to the forefront of some aspects of US daily political dietary life; this is not typical and shall not remain with such high profile over the years ahead. For most Americans what goes on outwith the American dream isn't of interest, especially when they are sitting jobless and subject to unremittingly negative national and state economic news.

Thus, drawing attention away from the domestic challenges (which the Republicans are not only unable to alter and change, but have such huge expectations) will seem like the ticket. An area of politics where the politicos can spin, manipulate and rivet up the agenda knowing full-well that there shall be minimal media scrutiny of motive and meaning...

Israel. That is the single biggest polarising difference which can and will cripple any legislative consensus-building. For Democrats, Obama's appeasement strategy for Palestinians and the Arab world has been welcome change from Bush era support for Israel. But in Republican politics (as with UK Conservative politics) support for the relatively young Middle East democracy is a fundamental right of passage.

Thus, when I hear Hillary, no fault of her own - it is Obama's agenda frankly, going on about 'Palestinian East Jerusalem' and attacking Israeli construction processes .. all I can see is tremendous disruption in the House. This kind of stuff does matter in the US, a lot more than it does here in the UK. Israeli lobbies hold huge amounts of cash, favours and push tough agendas. Republicans besides can see this as something, an issue of faith and core value that can unite all factions internal to their new House team. Teaparty, Party high guard and even the Rockerfeller Republicans can all unite on this: USA must support Israel (her closest ally), and more than that change tack from a failed Obama foreign policy.

As for my view? While I like the idea of consensus, Obama's hostility to Israel, as well as wider US close allies has been a source of deep resentment. I for one have not forgotten his anti-Britishness during the BP oil spill, and therefore pray the Republicans can indeed use his foreign policy weakness to institute a genuine conservative recovery.

Upcycling in the fashion industry

It was once bold, fresh and new, but now has become an industrial process within the fashion industry - and quite frankly has lost not a little of the zest and flair for the original; I speak naturally of 'upcycling' in the industry

From waste

The whole point of 'upcycling' has been to effectively recycle disposed of waste, and 'up' it into the fashion scene. Indeed this process has seen some remarkable successes, proving the line between what he in our lives throw out as junk can also be reused and transmorphed into objects of sheer admiration.

'Upcycling' therefore was bold and fresh at first - new to the scene as civic society began the environmental obsession in the last decade. But now with Sri Lankan upcycling being undertaken on an industrial scale - Orslo de Castro is committing the penultimate fashion fopa as he upcycles waste into 'fashion' on an epic - and consumer driven scale.

One little word

And that is rather my problem frankly. It is not that you do not get some wonderfully original, imaginative creations when upcycling waste and junk, it is more that de Castro has turned it into a consumer-orientated process. Thus, I rather fail to see what remains fashionable about it. The problem in most aspects of the highstreet life is that the objects of 'fashion retail' (otherwise known as mass-market crap) is soulless. Boiled down to simple spivish calculations about the 'average female' and the 'median size'.

When de Castro starts to take a simple idea and process used occasionally in parts of the higher fashion and style scene and 'bring it to the masses' it becomes apart of the mass-market calculations. There is precious little room for style originality or designer specifics - everything in the items of clothing suddenly become simple, dull replicas of themselves. All available to that mysterious female shopper: the 'size 12, 10' etc. Suddenly through these clothes, through the consumer-orientated mass marketisation of what we ought to wear we become more focused on the banal, like our weight, or height, our girth or cup size.

This man, de Castro, has turned what were singular objects of interest and imagination into products which socialise our society to think along particular ways, to act along specific ways. After all how many girls have I known you have become obsessed about altering their bodies to 'fit' that much-desired dress or trouser?

But more deeply, there are other problems of 'industrialising' what should be items of originality restricted to the fashion parades and catwalks. I want to move beyond the failures of consumer politics (where we become obsessed about matching and adhering to the items criteria, rather than it being the other way round!).

Young girls, young boys and the disorders

This society has become struck, seriously hurt, by the plethora of threats facing our young. Some, indeed most, of these threats are residual, have always been. But let me propose something - this industrialisation of 'fashion'; taking it to the mass-market consumer, has introduced some worrying threats to the healthy growth and development of kids.

Your kids (those that have them) are more exposed to body-shape expectations, sexualisation through clothing and appearance-related expectation than ever before. Lets face it, the media tells us that there are paedophiles on every street corner, so we cannot let them go and play in the street like my parents did. No, we taken them out shopping instead, keeping them in eye check. We plop them down in front of newer and more imaginative gaming consuls (which specialise in being able to take out outside ... from the safety of the livingroom!!).

At the end of all these processes and more? Rising eating disorders in the under 12s. It has been revealed that in the five to 12 year old bracket 3.5 kids in every 100,000 will have a 'serious' eating disorder. Growing depression rates among children, where between 1997 and 2007 the levels of childhood depression rates more than quadrupled (bet our NHS childhood depression provision didn't, we had other priorities like bombing Iraq). Today it is said that one in ten kids under the age of 16 will have some kind of mental health issue, from very minor to very serious.

Mass market 'industrialised' fashion de Castro? No, thank you. I shall decline praising you for this one; as you bastardize true fashion on the alter of this consumer dystopia.

Gove deserves credit

Michael Gove deserves credit for revealing the secret scam behind supposedly rising and improving exam results table

In each of the last 23 years, the GCSE results have supposedly continually improved, a fact which the last governments (of both Parties) made much out of. However, education secretary has allowed new information to be published, to compliment the traditional exam results tables; and the net result has been to reveal a shocking truth.

Last year the tables showed that 7 out of 10 papers where awarded a C grade or higher. Good right? Not if we take a look at the detailed breakdown that Gove has pushed for public publication!

According to the new information, showing attainment levels in serious subjects – the so-called English Baccalaureate core disciplines of English, maths, a science, a language and a humanity, which will in future form the nucleus of the syllabus - the real results here are shocking.

"While the proportion of pupils achieving A* to C grades in five subjects including English and maths rose to 53.4 per cent, the percentage achieving those grades in the Baccalaureate subjects was just 15.6 per cent. In other words, just one pupil in six achieved decent grades in worthwhile subjects. The yawning gap between those two percentages is filled by soft subjects requiring minimal academic ability."

It seems to me that this is a real and present long term danger to the UK economy and to the students themselves. Poorer performances in the core baccalaureate subjects will potentially seriously undermine their future chances at entry into the increasingly competitive university market, and jobs markets. Isn't it good that Gove has been the first education secretary to actually publish this detailed subject-by-subject breakdown in 23 years? Credit goes out to him, for now he has just added even more pressure to his brief.

Now we know what to look for in the coming new year, and future years. Spot light for performance and educational improvement is now on Gove and the free-schools programme.

This evidence shows nothing short of educational policy failure at government levels for more than two decades, and it must be to Michael Gove's credit that he has showed us all the reality behind our current situation. Well done, and long may this kind of open government continue!

.

New politics? I rather think the optimist in me hopes it has just come a little step closer.

GOTCHA!

The mad thug who tried to murder police officers during the Millbank riots has been found guilty, and prisoned - I only wish he got an even longer prison sentence

GOTCHA!

Dangerous thug Edward Woollard, 18, was filmed throwing an empty metal fire extinguisher from a seventh-floor rooftop into a courtyard below - aiming to seriously injure police forces below.

Woollard, of Dibden Purlieu, Hampshire, will serve at least half of his sentence for violent disorder in a young offenders institution. If only we didn't have early release, the odious little thug may have actually had to serve his full actual sentence. But that is a different issue.

Basically the long and short of it is simple: the public had a right to protection from violence conducted by this little NED, and all those like him.

At least an example has been made of him - hopefully this shall also end any chances he may have had of going onto University; we don't need the taxpayers to subsidise criminals like this thug.

Cuts are necessary - but not at this pace

Extensive opinion polling has been conducted in Oldham ahead of the byelection, following Phil Woolas removal by court order - and the polls indicate what I for one have been privately thinking for all too long now

Private doubts ... held by many

From the streets of Oldham ahead of the byelection voters seem to have come to a remarkably mature, and welcome view of our current economic plight.

While they are suspicious enough to keep an eye out for wrongful ideological cuts (voters are split 47%/47% on whether these cuts are ideological), they also recognise who is to blame for the economic crisis in the UK (70% say the last Labour Govt must take a 'large part' of the blame for the need for such cuts). But at the same time, they realise that the coalition's cuts; as much as they may be needed in the future, are rushing things (74% say things are moving 'too fast' regarding cuts).

What does all this mean then? Well, I rather think that for once I; often accused of being elitist in my attitudes; am in total and complete chime and rhythm with the man and woman on the high street. Thus, I shall describe my views on the matter, which seem to also represent the majority of the Oldham voting electorate regarding the cuts, the coalition and a not-so-small matter of timing.

The role of government

What then should the UK government be doing? For a start, the large cuts; which I concede are necessary; should not be implemented this coming financial year beginning April.

Rather, it comes down to basic economic sense what the government ought to be doing right now - maintaining demand when consumers are not spending. Evidence of the success of utilising the power of the state to support the economy was brilliantly represented by Lord Mandelson's car scrappage scheme; which has played no small part in the car industries amazing financial bounce back. In short, for the first half of 2011 the coalition should be holding off on the (necessary) expenditure cuts, and using state spending to uphold demand.

Do not get me wrong, the cuts are needed, and at the rate the coalition describes - but not now, not when the economy is unready. And unready our UK economy is -just for example look at the havoc wreaked to our service-dependent economy when a tough weather condition destroyed X'mas highstreet retail sales! Indeed HMV has announced the need to close another 60 outlets due to a 13.4% drop in sales over this festive period!

I wish to echo the views from Oldham ... some of them anyway, that while the cuts are necessary at the scale advocated - the timing is rushed, and too soon to do any good. Economic state-side stimulation is required to maintain demand, and keep people in their jobs.

Eyes to the skies

As Southern Sudan votes this month on whether or not to become independent of Khartoum, George Clooney has organized and raised funds for anti-genocide groups to monitor via satellites the region; in an attempt to prevent any relapse into violence

Under the microscope

The basic idea is an excellent one, after all who would incite violence, murder, rape and civil or ethnic war if many of the worlds independent owned satellites are constantly in low-earth orbit photographing any potential trouble spot? George Clooney human rights groups such as the 'Enough Project' have decided to take Clooney up on this radical idea, where you simply "spin a satellite" up over head constantly, so that no matter the diplomatic events - the entire world could see what was happening. All via the Internet and modern low-orbit satellite technology.

Amazing, and original. Especially when Southern Sudan shall most likely vote for independence; taking with it most of all of Sudan's oil wealth (which Khartoum depends on to survive international sanctions to the tune of 60% of its entire govt revenues). One does wonder, would the Darfur troubles have happened, Rwanda happened in this troubled continent if the generals, despots, rebels and general murderers knew that every truck convoy, each mass grave was being broadcast live, to the entire world?

Under the microscope, this project, now about to be launched, may just add the extra incentive for both parties in Africa's largest single state to focus on peaceful negotiations ahead of any post-plebiscite vote.

Hollywood does have uses it seems

The reason I blog on this story, not just because of its pioneering use of the Internet and modern satellite technology to help avert war, but because it has challenged one of my deepest held prejudices. Yes, you read that right, even I have prejudices!

Hollywood it seems has, from the various coffers it holds from the celebrity and acting world, raised all the money for the project. Currently the project has $750,000 - but before anyone screams 'that's a lot', when one considers just how expensive taking a satellite photo in the detail required here - this amount shall definitely need topping up.

Times magazine explains the detailed costings of satellite photography being deployed by Clooney and the 'Not on Our Watch' led project:

for a single 272 sq km of land photographed, that is approximately $10,000. And if you want what is called 'a rush shot' of just 115km that is a whopping $70,000. And that is just for starters.

But, it seems our celebs have proven me wrong, and shown me that they are not just a bunch of drug addled, time waisting, speeding, raping, whoring, debauching, list of people paid to pretend to be someone they aren't. These people in Hollywood are perhaps a true example of rich philanthropists, of the wealthy who; thanks to friendly tax rates (that the leftie's wouldn't have), they have spent their money on Sudan.

Now, once this project takes off officially the Northern Sudan leadership dictating peoples lives in Khartoum cannot say that they 'didn't know' about any potential violence if any (Gods forbid) occurs after the plebiscite.

Lord Forsyth conquers Antarctica for charity

Tory peer Lord Forsyth, former SOS for Scotland has successfully raised more than £350,000 for charity in a climb which has seen Antarctica itself conquered and subdued

As the first in I hope many, 'feel good' stories I've made a New Years resolution to introduce to the blog, this is my opening gambit. Lord Michael Forsyth maybe an ardent neoliberal libertarian, however we should not hold that against the man as he raises a truly staggering sum for charity with his rather difficult climb in the antarctic.

At 56 years old, he has managed lead his team up 16,000 feet of snow, ice covered mountain, in temperatures of minus -30. He undertook the mission for Marie Curie and Children in Need in India; setting off just after Christmas.

He managed to tap into the wallets of the British political establishment with large donations from former Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Sir John Major; and other leading politicians such as David Cameron, current PM of the Coalition.

Forsyth thanked his family for giving him the confidence to go, having hat pre-trip fears that he had bitten off more than he could chew. Yet, at January 4th, the Tory Lord succeeded in completing his scale of Mount Vinson, and is now able to add that to the other mountains he has scaled in his lifetime - including Mount Kilimanjaro.

I know that £350,000 + raised shall help many vulnerable people, and is a very generous gesture for those with least as we enter another year. This is the Big Society at work for all you armchair sceptics.

Someone should tell SNP education minister Mike Russell 'They're behind you'

The new SNP education secretary is a man with a reputation as a sharp intellect, but he has many political enemies - but are they really all in front of him on the opposition benches?

An unusual intervention

The intervention of SNP education minister Mike Russell in the Argyle & Bute county school closure programme is; shall we say; extremely unusual. Indeed the contents of a leaked email which he sent to his local government councillors seems to suggest some very questionable personal involvement over decisions that he may, later in his professional capacity as education minister, himself have to become involved in.

Yet, before investigating the main issues surrounding Mike Russell's 'local difficulties' (Cochrane's gleeful description), it seems to be prudent to highlight what this whole affair casts up regarding supposed SNP internal unity.

Unity?

Now I have before questioned the true state of SNP internal Party unity, only to be told by fellow bloggers that I have barked up the completely wrong tree. However, in this affair I seem to have rock-solid evidence that I may be on to something all along (even if I do say so myself).

In the email Russell sent off, where he places pressure on the SNP councillors to oppose local county school closures, the interesting thing is ... it was an SNP internal circular. In short: the leaker who has landed Mike in the brown stuff must have been a local Argyle & Bute SNP Party member or official. And damaging this is, because we all know that Russell created many enemies over the years, not least for being a decent, articulate, moderate (and rare) right wing Nat. Yet this takes things to a whole new level, as this area is also where the South of Scotland list MSP is desperately hoping to get elected FPTP next Holyrood GE...

Is the SNP really so divided at grassroots and official levels that they would endanger; deliberately; one of Alex Salmonds most able lieutenants? And endangered he has now become. Here is what his email said,

"My strong view is that if the council leader will not withdraw these proposals we should vote against them and leave the coalition"

The problem here is NOT that an individual MSP, who is the selected candidate for the FPTP seat is expressing views on local issues. That is all right and proper. But the fact that this is specifically a matter which he himself as education minister is due to become involved in in an official capacity potentially at a later date. Because, if any schools proposed are closed, and there is an appeal, he has to 'impartially' adjudicate over the matter as minister for education.

Can I ask a question? How is this matter any different from Vince Cable? He made supposedly private comments, in a supposedly private conversation with fellow Party members (who turned out were DT journalists). He had to lose control over his brief to adjudicate over the BskyB takeover by Murdoch. How is Russell's comments, equally supposedly private and to Party members, any different? He has compromised his ability to preside over the future of these schools impartially, as his ministerial duty demands. Should he not lose his brief, as Cable did?

One other dirty murky thing though before rounding up - Russell's wife was a teacher in one of the schools proposed for closure...but she has miraculously secured a transfer to a school which is safe and secure. We are told these issues are not linked together, but forgive me for being suspicious. What is the old saying? 'If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, its a fucking duck' ...

I guarantee that Russell shall have to brace himself for a pounding by the official opposition Parties on this matter when Holyrood returns next week. It seems that the SNP may be about to lose yet another education minister, one of Holyroods leading and most able MSPs ... and this time, it seems, they did it themselves - with their silly internal feuding. Now only zanuliebore can benefit from their selfishness in high office...bloody Iain Gray...

A taxing Problem

VAT is set to go up from 17.5% to 20%, with nearly 2/3 of businesses on the highstreet fearing this could damage sales; it is time to consider how necessary this really is

VAT or Income?

With one in every four pounds being spent borrowed from international lenders, it is unarguable that Labour left the UK economy in serious debt, economically hindered from years of overspending by government. But that was then, what are the options to pay this crippling national debt off?

On the one hand you can have a serious spending reduction programme to reduce the headline costs of a state living far outwith her means; but sadly this is not enough if one wants to protect the NHS as Cameron has maintained. And the health budget is where most substantial efficiency savings may have been made. So there has to be a round of tax rises, to plug Labours economic black holes - but which ones are least damaging to the poorest?

On the one had you have VAT, it will hurt every household, but it does not extent to 'vital goods' like food, medicine and so forth - so the net impact of a tax rise by VAT is perhaps proportionately less than say income tax hikes. But income tax hikes can be said to be targeted on only the richest taxpayers; this is what the leftwing constantly parrots on about. Yet there is one problem, if we make life to taxing for the wealthy they take their money, and their job creating activities elsewhere; just at a time we can ill afford. Be under no illusions, squeezing their pips till they squeak may seem appealing to the leftwing minded voters out there, but it would only plunge UK plc into even worse economic problems; notwithstanding our current indebtedness after 13 wasted Labour years places us in an even worse position than 1979.

We could listen to Red Ed or his economically-illiterate sidekick Postman Pat, but all they have to offer is "wrong tax, wrong time". Perhaps they have forgotten their former Chancellor Alistair Darling? Did he not lay out plans for reducing the deficit through tax rises and cuts "faster and deeper than Margaret Thatcher"? Maybe it is time for Labour to stop pretending that they have any alternative to coalition economic proscriptions, when it comes to this field of policy debate; privately they are really just like us coalition Parties -- only a heck lot more opportunistic and populist.

Before any Labour acolyte fires some comment about "wrong cut, wrong time" across my bows, perhaps they could first answer this question: if you won't raise VAT to 20%, generating £13bn, what would you cut? Hospitals, schools, NHS? It is either higher taxes and smaller cuts, or deeper cuts and smaller tax hikes. I prefer the former to the latter myself.

What has happened to the the fashion industry?

House of Lacroix, one of the kings of Haute couture perished last year, now we find yet more signs of commercialisation across an industry which ought to be the personification of imagination, but now descending into the art of the 'possible'. Just how silly can the coalition priority list become?

What next?

Fashion? He is on about fashion is he? Not much else to write about? Well no actually - the current happenings within the French Parisian fashion industry are alarming, not just for fashion but as a wider statement about the death of society.

The death of society, in this context is nothing short of the total and complete bastardisation of culture upon the alter of commerce, profit and celebrity. Today we find that after a major tweet monitoring, more people in Western 'civilisation' listen and follow Justin Beiber than either the Dalai Lhama or President Obama. This is the context, and if we want to realise just how far gone our society is towards morphing irrevocably into a soulless, banal, a-cultural wasteland of business, cheap floosery we must look to the leading lights which shield us from the philistines.

Contrast and compare

France, under Sarkozy, is maintaining its important fashion and arts friendly tax policies, despite the austerity over the channel. They are able to understand and appreciate the important economic and cultural contribution this particular industry has to offer. But in the UK, the coalition is systematically cutting arts budgets, and punishing the arts and fashion institutions on the marginal rates. Why? Because this coalition does not have the balls for putting up the taxes where it is deserved - the bankers and their bonuses. If this shower were serious about stopping the financial sectors excesses, they would be pushing for Europe-wide regulation regimens, and breaking the banks up; but why punish ones mates in the city? Just punish the arts instead.

And let us keep in mind that the arts is a profitable sector of the UK economy, and could be more so if we followed the French example of providing tax relief and lowering the overall tax burden on the industry. But not all is well, even in Paris, as it seems the austerity has touched them, with the falling levels of 'retail items' being purchased, there is a noticeable (I think) decline in quality, extroversion and escapism with new lines.

If we lose the arts, and if our fashion industry is allowed to become just another part of a service-dependent economy, not only does this hurt our economy (it needs to be rebalanced, this means MANUFACTURING!), but it hurts our culture.

The breakneck coalition should be standing up for the arts, not allowing philistines like Jeremy 'C'unt to be master-of-ceremonies. This is the twat who in all likelihood shall allow Murdoch, prince of mass-market consumerist policies, to conquer BSkyB.