It is time to abolish Collective Bargaining

Even Ronald Regan failed to control the US Unions!

Ohio has passed fresh legislation limiting Union collective bargaining in the USA.

I argue that this is a positive change.

For years now, the USA has been undermined by over-powerful trades unions. For example, I read in Time Magazine that in Wisconsin teaching unions have recently prevented reforms to empower school rectors to have more ability to suspend or sack their own staff. The union objection? 'School heads shouldn't have that kind of power' Really?

To my mind, having grown up in post-Thatcher Britain, I can see the dangerous influence of mass-trades unionism undermining US economic and industrial reform. The key to the UK economic recovery after being at the IMF in the late 1970s was to empower job creators, and limit the influence of trade unions.

It is in this context that I argue that Ohio is the example to follow.

I am amazed to find that numerous states of the USA actually by law make collective bargaining compulsory?! This is unsustainable. If the USA wishes to restore the growth and personal and national wealth of the 1950s-1970s you have to control your over-powerful trade unions. It isn't like they aren't politically partisan either, the trade unions all support Democrat politicians. Don't believe me? Take a look at Chicago. You tell me if a city mayor will EVER get elected if he doesn't have trade union support.

Ending collective bargaining is a positive development. And I say it is to be welcomed!

Anyone who believes in low tax economies, with strong private sectors and entrepreneurial rewards must surely see sense in ending collective bargaining.

Any market sell-off after the Japan disaster is a nonevent

We must realise that any market sell-off away from Japan after the Tsunami and nuclear crisis is likely to be short-lived and a non-event
.
A little context
.
I read with much irritation yesterday in the Guardian that anti-market activists are capitalising upon the Japan disaster to attack the free market and globalist system. But, pushing beyond any moral or ethical criticism of their timing and priorities in saying that, the purpose of this blog is to explain to all why their argument is still factually wrong.

Markets can be merciless, of course they can. Any gander through the annals of history can teach you that. But it is becoming a bit too fashionable to say that the 14% drop in the Tokyo stock exchange is adding another financial dimension to the unprecedented triple catastrophe.
Just stop and take a look at history, following the September 11th terrorist attacks the S&P 500 fell by more than 5%. Yet less than 6 months on, it had gained it all back again (and some). So my point is that historically market reactions to these type of sudden 'events' tend to have a relatively short half-life. Chernobyl's 3% first week loss was equally short lived; unlike the environmental damage that will last for hundred-odd years.

Yes, investors do often hit the exists when disasters hit, and not always out of fear. But they readily return gain - and in greater numbers.

So please folks, let us stop attacking the free market and global system by pointing to short-term index falls. Let us instead take politics OUT of what is fundamentally an unprecedented human catastrophe.

The Oil Argument

Even globally there are plentiful signs that investors, with their money and job-creating business are returning; aided by the falling oil prices. Yes, I did type falling oil prices. Despite Libya, the oil threat has receded. Since the earthquake in Japan and the Libyan civil war broke out, oil prices have slid away from $100 per barrel. Why? Let us be honest, Japan's crisis cuts global demand, and therefore any Libyan crisis won't push up oil prices.

So again, let us hit this nail on the head of anti-marketists and anti-globalists.

Can't we all rather than play these political games instead focus on what ought to be our real topic of conversation? THE PEOPLE? Why is the Guardian talking shop about how these events 'are killing the free market'? Not only is it totally untrue, but it is totally the wrong priority at such a time as this.

Budget passes muster

The public sooner trust him than Ed Balls

The Osborne Budget passes muster with the electorate, with some warm findings
.
'A fair budget'
.
Overall 44% of people thought the budget was a fair one, with 31% thinking it unfair. This is less positive than the emergency budget back in June 2010 (which 50% saw as fair). George Osborne’s approval rating as Chancellor is up – 34% now think he is doing a good job, 40% a bad job (compared to 27% good, 46% bad before the budget).

On the specific measures in the budget, 81% supported the 1p cut in fuel tax, 78% the increase in the personal tax allowance, 71% the fuel stabilizer and 63% retaining the 50p as a temporary measure. Least popular were the 10% reduction in inheritance tax for those leaving 10% to charity (supported by 51%) and the announcement 

that future rises in the state pension age should be linked to rises in life expectancy (supported by 47%).

All the regular YouGov trackers have moved in the direction of the government, but by relatively small amounts. The proportion of people thinking the cuts are good for government is up 4, thinking it is fair is up 5, necessary is up 4. The proportion of people thinking the cuts are too deep is down 5, too fast is down 4.

The changes are positive for the government… but aren’t enough to change the bigger picture. Overall the majority of people still think the cuts are unfair (56%), and being done too fast (53%). 46% of people think they are bad for the economy. On the scale of the cuts, 44% think they are too deep, 39% that they are about right or too shallow.

However, 59% still think they are necessary, and people are still more likely to blame Labour than the coalition for the cuts. Asked who they most trust to make the right decisions about dealing with the deficit, the coalition continues to lead Labour by 38% to 24%.

The contrast between this last figure and voting intention is itself interesting – the overwhelming majority (92%) of Conservative voters trust the coalition to make the right decisions on the deficit. However, amongst Labour voters only 69% say they trust Labour to make the right decisions on the deficit, with 21% saying they trust neither.

Le Pen is riding high: has her Party changed?

Her father's daughter?

The Guardian carried an article interview with Marine Le Pen, and it raises some interesting questions about the state of the Republic

"A new Revolution"

Wanting to change her party image, cleanse it, and push for a new revolution. That is the substance of the Guardian article and what Marine explained was her mission with her father's party. But what exactly has she done, will she do and push toward?

Strikingly, this woman is capable - dangerously so. When she announced that she would "crusade against the overtones of racism and anti-Semitism" in her father's Party she wasn't messing about. However, the core of that vile brand of nationalism remains the same. Isolationist, and now quietly extreme.

In terms of what this is all supposed to achieve, it would theoretically enable the National Front to better appeal to the legions of blue-collar white working class men across France. They feel isolated by President Bling Bling, and the Socialists are incredibly elitist - thus she spots an opening. Don't underestimate this woman's potential for achieving her goals either. When she said this was her objective she did it. In the local elections across France, she led the National Front passed the historic and psychological barrier of 15%. This 42 -twice divorced mother of three simply seems to hold more relevance, more appeal - more empathy to this section of the electorate. Fear must be pulsing through the wrists and coronaries of  left and right now.

Real or tonal change?

Marine, alongside her other two sisters, have lived and breathed in this vile Party. At school she was teased that "papa was a fascist" (so she tells the Guardian), the family survived a bomb attack as they slept in bed, and has married (and divorced) Party workers. This is a woman who has been brought up, reared, in the nationalist extremism of her father. Any change, I would wager to bet, shall be artificial. 

Yet this doesn't change any of the underlying facts does it?

1. Since she took over, the National Front DOES have more appeal

2. It has made electoral advances, real and threatening

3. Is led for the first time by someone who seems more relevant and relatible to ordinary French lives than the two established forces of left and right

This tonal change can play on the feelings riddling a very sick French Republic. People are crushed by the flop of President Bling Bling, they are apathetic about elitism in the socialists (who are less relevant than ever before), and feel angry and moved by the social injustices and double standards throughout national life. Marine is betting that the social cleavages in France may enable her to launch a new revolution - though she is careful to say "a democratic one"

What does France's future hold? Unknown. If Sarky can't win back some voters drifting to Le Pen's far right with his hardline policies (ie. gypsy deportations), then frankly what can? Marine simply seems to be more able to relate to ordinary French lives. The problem here are the potential UMP and Socialist candidates for Presidency. 

CAN THIS REPUBLIC MUSTER A NEW WOLDECK-ROUSSEAU?

Commons supports PM

The HoC has overwhelmingly backed the decisions of Prime Minister David Cameron to intervene in Libya; to help the UN end the human rights atrocities ongoing

 Major session

The government won the backing of 544 in favour of their plans for Libya, with 13 opposing. PM has promised that this would not become another Iraq. Given the facts this seems obvious and true.

The debate focused on Resolution 1973, passed by the United Nations Security Council last week. This authorises "all necessary measures", short of bringing in an occupying force, to protect Libyan citizens from the Gaddafi regime, which has been fighting rebel forces.

The Commons motion - which was backed by 557 MPs and opposed by 13 - followed a second night of US-led action in Libya, with Col Gaddafi's sprawling Bab al-Aziziya complex in Tripoli among the locations hit.

Fighting continues, with anti-aircraft fire heard in Tripoli late on Monday.

SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson asked about the "potential for mission creep", with Mr Cameron replying that the UN resolution was about protecting civilians: "I've been clear. I think Libya needs to get rid of Gaddafi. But in the end we are responsible for trying to enforce this Security Council resolution. The Libyans must choose their own future."

Defence Secretary Liam Fox has suggested targeting the Libyan leader could "potentially be a possibility" for UN coalition forces, but the head of the UK armed forces, General Sir David Richards, said on Monday that Col Gaddafi was "absolutely not" a target under the terms of the UN resolution.

Mr Cameron appeared to back Gen Richards, saying that "the UN resolution is limited in its scope. It explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi's removal from power by military means."

 p.s. I haven't had a proper night sleep in over 30 hours due to Conference and Student elections in Stirling - so please folks forgive this rather lacklustre posting! 

Conference in Focus

An excellent Scottish Tory Conference 2011, but the highlight of the Conference was to be found at the fringe
.
Forsyth vs Murdo

On Friday, Alan Cochrane of the DT chaired a conference fringe debate, between Lord Michael Forsyth on the one hand and Murdo Fraser on the other. The topic? Fiscal autonomy and the Scotland bill.

Murdo was defending the Scotland bill, and outlining the need for fiscal autonomy for Scotland. Forsyth (completely unsurprisingly) was arguing against any kind of further devolution.

In what ended up an extremely lively, hard-hitting clash of two very different concepts of what Scottish Toryism ought to feel, the audience proved fascinating. When the time came to vote, two-thirds of the conference audience backed Forsyth, and one third supporting Murdo (and Goldie btw, its her policy too!) and the need for fiscal devolution. But the fascinating; and reassuring; thing about it all was the fact that almost every young person in the room (i.e. under 30s) voted FOR MURDO ... Forsyth and the hostility agenda relied heavily on the older generation.
So an interesting debate, one which should have been held in the main conference hall, reveals a stark age related issue cleavage within the Party. It reinforces what I already theorised - that the younger the Scottish Conservative, the more pro-devolution the attitudes become. But more than that, the more favourable the attitudes and mindsets become vis-a-vis fiscal autonomy.

TRG Fringe
.
Equally worth mentioning was the Scottish TRG fringe event on the Saturday afternoon. The topic was renewables, green economy and energy security. Having went along, not expecting much from what on the face of it may have been incredibly dull, it captured my interest. We saw Derek Brownlie speak, arguing that the UK national government MUST (yep, must) start a major investment program aimed at enhancing the national grid.

It was a valid point to make frankly. As it is clear that with the rapidly expanding renewable energy sector in Scotland the national grid is not fit for purpose. New connecting lines must be constructed to carry the energy produced away from the coastal areas and into the Central Belt. Brownlie was right to highlight that this whole potential sector isn't simply about building new wind farms; rather there needs to be a strategic agenda behind it. Part of that strategic agenda should be grid expansion.

But he did make a further point, one I hadn't thought about before myself. Brownlie said that part of the problem right now for this growing energy sector was the planning laws. Apparently the planning process as it stands is geared toward finding and selecting that which constitutes the 'best value for money' (i.e. cheapest) sites for these new wind farms etc. One problem with that: wind farm construction has ended up to a large degree being a whilly-nilly and haphazard process. The planning process needs to take more into account than just value for money (though obviously that is vitally important).

Cameron's speech
.
Excellent speech - and not the one he originally planned to make. The speech was changed, to deal with Libya. Personally, I would like to thank the PM for taking the time out to still come to Scotland and make his conference address. Frankly, that in itself was more than one dared hope at this difficult time.

But the speech was made, the PM did join us. And it was well worth it.

He made an excellent case for UN and Arab League backed and resourced no-fly zone operation. This, he said, would help stop Gadaffi bombing the cities in free Libya. I totally agree with him, the UN cannot sit back and let another srebrenica to happen in Europe's back yard. The no-fly must (and is) being led by the UN, as the international community asserting itself against a vile dictator. There must be no tolerance for this vile madman and his bombing campaign against houses, schools, hospitals. From recent statistics, taken from the Red Crescent, potentially 3000 civilians have already died due to Gadaffi and his bombing offensive over Cyrenica. Cameron was right to argue that the UN must take action, and the UK has a moral and ethical duty to contribute in enforcing human rights.

All in all, a thoroughly decent conference, with some excellent speeches made on Education by Liz Smith (brilliant woman, top of her class on her brief) and Law and Order by John Lamont. It may be my last Scottish Tory Conference for the next couple of years mind you, given my applications for Masters and PhD are all outside of Scotland.

What can I say then? Jamie McGreggor is one demon with that guitar after hours - he can knock out a tune like Caledonia with the best of them!

Scottish Tory Conference: NOTICE

Just a heads up guys, I will be heading off later today up to Perth (not that far, frankly from Stirling). I will take my laptop up with me, and conduct a daily blog series on what is going on and is being said ... hopefully. But due to heightened security at this years conference (Cameron is now PM don't you know), this may complicate things. 


Hopefully I shall have some kind of Internet access to achieve this!


So if you see blogs tomorrow about Conference - good. If not? You know why, and will have to wait till Saturday to read a full blown report.


Cheers and Dean out!

Ed Balls has no credibility

Ed Balls has made a number of economic demands on the coalition government, the only problem is his short-term memory loss
.
Fuel escalator

Ed Balls has demanded the Government abandons the planned escalator rise. While I would actually support proposals to reduce the burden of tax on motorists; Balls has no credibility. There was absolutely no mention that during the 13 Labour years, the fuel escalator rate was raised to 6% above inflation; by the department Balls was inside. He was there during the last decade shafting the voters with the fuel duty increases, yet now he is out of power he calls for tax reductions? If the fuel escalator was necessary for Gordon Brown's government - to deal with the deficit - why is it different now Labour aren't the ones in power?

Sorry if I find it more than a little opportunistic of Ed Balls to now to be posing as the motorists friend, and as a tax cutter given his personal ministerial record from the 13 Labour years.

Banks bonus tax


In a further streak of blatant populism Balls has called for the bank bonus tax they conducted last year to be repeated. Here again, the Labour economic line has become confused, and frankly paradoxical. 9 months ago, Balls was saying - as was Darling - that this tax had to be a one-off due to the nature of the tax itself. They argued then that if it were to be repeated, it would pull in significantly less than it had the first time round, as financial institutions developed ways of avoiding paying. So, why has Balls and Labour suddenly reversed this position 9 months on? Could it be that they are in opposition, and there are regional elections coming up in May?

Labour where correct 9 months ago, you cannot repeat the same one-off tax again. The clue is in its description, one-off. Instead new ways of ensuring bankers pay their share has been found - and it is raising more than a repeat of the banks bonus tax would have had it been repeated.

According to the latest results, the Coalition bankers levy has managed to pull in £800m more than would have been got at, had the banks bonus tax simply been repeated. Balls seemed to know this 9 months ago ... but seems to have regressed into a classic Labour opposition mode involving opposing everything. Just look at their shower in Holyrood, the classic Labour tactic is to oppose and to use every event opportunistically to try to regain power; so they can continue where they left off: which was bankrupting Britain.

There is a good argument for cutting the tax burden, to stimulate economic growth and to reduce the hardship of Labours recession. But trusting Ed Balls with delivering that message is requires too much faith in an already discredited man.

No retreat Lansley

Lansley has a heavy responsibility to see Health reforms through

Andrew Lansley must not retreat from the vitally necessary Healthcare reforms, even if the LibDems don't like it. Coalition means sacrifice, and we've had to put up with more than enough of their bleeding-heart Liberal views

How the NHS is organised is central to the battle of reform in healthcare provision in this country. For too long Labour and the left have been happy to defend vested Union interests; at the expense of value-for-money services. When the taxpayer pays their national insurance, or income tax dues, it is for a well-funded, efficiently organised and managed healthcare provision (among other things). So when Conservatives propose to introduce more power to patients, more freedom for GPs over how money is spent - this is our proposal in this battle of ideas. And if we stop, pause for a momentary consideration, and look around us; the forces of the left are really only able to oppose. They have nothing to offer except more of the same.

More of the same? More post-code lotteries (all the while blaming lack of resources). Blaming individual doctors, or healthcare trusts when services are lost to centralisation's (which always start from the Labour Westminster machine). It must strike any right thinking person that more of the same is simply not an option. All Red Ed can offer on the opposition benches is his "blank sheet of paper", with the attache of 'no mistakes'. Britain and our healthcare sector deserves better than that, it deserves bold, radical new thinking. And a clear agenda for comprehensive and wholesale reform.

Worrying noises

Thus when one reads the Daily Telegraph reports that Andrew Lansley is signaling a retreat from his bold and exceptional healthcare proposals, it is not without alarm that I read on.

It seems that Lansley said that if the government could "clarify and amend to reassure people" then "it would". Since when did good government become about reassuring people? Since when did strong and decisive Conservative leadership give way to a desperate (and pathetic) need to be liked? The fact is, the only governments which survive, which soldier on, which make a damn piece of difference are the ones who strike out and hold the line. Consensus may be the name of the coalition game, but giving way just to reassure a bunch of bleeding-heart LibDems (who seem to be without any real public powerbase themselves anyway, given the polls) ... no this is not on.

This Scottish Conservative fully expects the government, and Mr Lansley in particular, to be strong and not give-way to the weak-assed forces of leftism. They are bereft of any new ideas, they are losing the battle for ideas. We have the electoral mandate, we are the democratically elected Conservative government. We owe the vanquished forces of the left absolutely nothing.

Totally uncosted Holyrood freebies

Holyrood 2011 has kicked off, the freebie-promises are flying already

First Minister Alex Salmond has announced to the Saturday papers that he will rule out introducing any kind of graduate fee to fund Scotland's universities


Uncosted


As a student, I'd love this to be true. But we students have been burnt by freebie pledges quite recently; the SNP in 2007 pledged to abolish student debt (still waiting), the LibDems pledged to vote against raising tuition fees in England & Wales (they did the opposite). So in this context, I hope you all shall understand my extreme scepticism as a Scottish student when I hear Salmond proclaiming a promise that he will never introduce graduate contributions to the system.

But let us take his pledge at face value: I naturally welcome it, and so will the Scottish National Union of Students - no doubt. Yet how would it be costed? The SNP FM has failed to answer this key question.

Number crunch

It goes something like this. Salmond proposes to fill any gap in University funding which may arise from tuition fees being upped in England through the public purse. However the SNP base this promise on the estimate of the funding gap being £93m. But if we listen to University Principals, they say the real estimate should be £202m. This is a hell of a gap to fill from the public purse Mr Salmond. And given the Holyrood budgets are shrinking by £1bn, where would the money for a gap between £93 and £202m be found?

Education, health, police? What would be cut to raise the revenues for this pledge to be kept to? He doesn't answer, which makes me think that this is just another freebie tossed at us students; as if we were draft.

Labour are no better

But I will not be too hard on the SNP for this, to a large extent they make the promise because Iain Gray was making it himself. Anything he does Salmond must match; this is the battle of the freebie after all. Mssers Salmond and Gray are travelling the country splashing out spending promises as if there were no cuts heading our way, as if there were still an aspiring arc of prosperity - as if boom and bust had been abolished.

I blogged two days ago that Iain Gray was caught out when he made exactly this promise himself. He argued that the funding gap could be covered from the public purse. When pushed Gray said the figure was estimated at £93m. But the very next day, the Labour Education shadow in England & Wales pointed out the more realistic figure of $203m was in play. So, Labour have been playing games with potential student voters - why? Why all of these uncosted, unaffordable promises, built on false estimates? Politics.

They are both after the LibDem student voters, who constituted over 40% nationally of how most students voted. So in the end, they are both treating us students as if we were idiots. Throwing reckless promises our way, that they know (and we know) they cannot afford to keep to.

Do these SNP and Labour politicians think we button up the back? I do not like being taken for a fool. And only knaves would dare try it after Cleggs big betrayal.

The Shred gets a gagging order, has case-law moved too far toward 'right to privacy' vs 'right to know'?



Fred enjoys gagging order



There has been a spate of pro-privacy rulings in English and UK Supreme Courts; this has been coupled with the impressive power of gagging orders. Is it time to ask if the freedom of press has died? Has the era of shrouded secrecy arrived for the ruling classes?



Sir Fred the Shred


The courts rulings have always been central to the interpretation of laws, but more importantly, case-law can create new legal frameworks in itself. Until now Scotland has ducked the case-law spreading across English and UK Supreme Courts in favour of privacy. But with the Scots High Court handing Sir Fred a gagging order where he can now prevent any media source reporting information about him. Seriously, you can't publish information about him. Guardian, Telegraph, doesn't matter - he has a right to absolute privacy.

I am in broad-based favour of a re balancing of the relationship between right-to-know and want-to-know (the former being legitimate and the latter, illegitimate). However, such a re balancing does seem in recent years to be shifting wildly into the opposite direction. Press cannot move up to Balmoral estate to seek a photograph of the royals (an individual ruling I do agree with), the press can't publish any information about the Shred (like anything, the colour of his eyes, if he is on holiday, nothing). And let us not forget the case-law implications in England following the Max Mosley case.


Mosley won his court battle



Suddenly I rather doubt if the presses of today would have been able to uncover the sex, financial scandals of the Major years. Suddenly the right to privacy has become a fast-moving legislative steam-train. And while I do think the worst excesses of the press-barons need to be reigned in, equally the implications of yet another pro-privacy case ruling concerns me that the right to know is also being eroded as we fight against the red-top 'want to know'.

Besides, I don't know about you, but the right-to-know sure as hell came in handy over the expenses scandal and the Telegraph didn't get prosecuted for their law-breaking. Give it another decade of these types of ruling and I bet you maybe even the expenses scandal may not have been able to break...

Labour Split over Uni funding ...



Not a clue, not an idea, not a real candidate



Humiliation in 'Scottish' Labour cycles as its education spokesperson is forced to admit its 'no fees' platform is constructed on a "false premise"

No leadership, no unity, no hope



As the Holyrood GE closes up on us all we have seen the SNP (and even the Scots Tories!) increase their share of the projected votes as Liebore support has fallen away. It seems that people suddenly faced with the opportunity for Iain 'Who?' Gray for FM have started saying "erm ... nah". But now, we see their lies, opportunism and internal intercene fighting coming out into the shining lights of public scrutiny.

So what have that crazy lot been saying now? Well, in typical fashion, their UK leadership have ignored their 'Scottish' Holyrood leader completely. Des McNulty (remember him from the corruption scandals?) has been saying that Scottish universities face being “short changed” unless politicians agree to close a £202 million cross-Border funding gap that will open up once higher fees are introduced in England. I.E. he is calling for Scottish student or graduate charges to Uni education. Only one problem ... no one told Iain 'Who?' Gray the very next day he went on air and said that the party ruled out a graduate contribution. Instead claiming the shortfall is only £93 million, a level he said that can be met entirely by the public purse. Erm, is this a clear cut case of wee-Iain lieing to buy votes ahead of Holyrood GE?

After all you cannae claim to oppose graduate contribution while your own leaders down Westminster way are telling you the opposite is true. Either Iain is misleading the voters (and has been caught), Liebore is completely and hopelessly divided (thus not fit for Holyrood Exec), or he is stupid and forgot. Besides, Liebore cannot say one day the gap is £202m then three days later tell us its only £93m. Someone is lieing ... and the voters aren't bloody stupid.

Frankly any and all may be true. As Liz Smith, Tory education spokesperson said of possible Liebore motives: "Iain Gray has decided they have got to match the SNP policy for policy. They are terrified they will lose some of the student vote" Maybe, either way, this is more evidence where Labour have NOT changed since 2007 - they simply don't 'get it'.

Call-me-Dave requires a stronger stomach

In the Arab world, tyrants rise up in revolt against despotism, dictatorship; while at home the war on the independent judiciary goes on apace

When Cameron stood up before the HoC, following the interpretation of the five-year-old ECHR ruling he decided not to disagree, or to explain disappointment. Rather he decided to outline his "physically sick" feeling at the ruling. May I put it to the wider public that to lead requires a stronger stomach than this?

The idea that the ECHR was calling for the UK to let prisoners vote is a total nonsense anyway. All it called for was the parliament to clarify its position on the issue, so as to tighten up the quality (and capacity) of their court rulings. In no way did the ECHR undermine parliamentary sovereignty.

But the worrying thing was not the motivation for the ECHR ruling, rather the continued coalition response to it. Cameron et al have decided to go to war with the independent judiciary, and treaty law; not just in Strasbourg, but here at home. I am concerned.

Unelected syndrome

If one listens to call-me-Dave and the A-team surrounding him, one would be forgiven for thinking that in their world the only true authority is a directly elected authority. Judges, so says Dave, need to be elected - to be held accountable for the decisions they make. May I put forward a radical notion? Can I say that all I want judges to be accountable to are the individuals involved in their individual decisions, and the wider codex of law? Is this out of touch of me, for me to refuse to accept the idea that one helps civil liberties along by handing a vote of interference to every nutter UKIP, or BNP voter? Or indeed politicise the Judicial process with Daily Mail campaigns.

You can just see it now can't you. All judges stand for election every five years. Daily Mail campaigns select men they "want out". The politicisation, the voter intimidation, the relishing lips of the Murdoch Press Empire.

No, sorry Dave, not on this one. Your attitude to the civil rights legislation is worrying enough. But the way to attack the human rights rulings emanating from Strasbourg and our own home courts is damn-worrying, And any suggestion of direct democracy in the courts is stupid, and a fig leaf to the very press barons and major conglomerates who need kept out of buying up the system. Independent courts need to be just that, independent. Of big money, of politicisation, of newspaper scare-campaigns.

No to elected judges, and for Gods sakes grow stronger stomach and learn to live with ECHR decisions - because if it came down to it, I'd sooner have them than you Mr Cameron.

The problem is poverty, not the Old Firm

After yet more Glasgow chaos following the old-firm match, we have heard a lot of calls to force pubs to close during fixtures; even calls to prosecute the clubs - but let us face it - the problem goes much deeper than any of that

Alcohol, poverty, historic deprivation

Looking back, we often slag off Jack McConnell; 'mr mediocre' is a personal favourite at my Conservative Union Club. However, it would be foolish to ignore the reality that the good work that Jack started has been slipping since he left office. I don't want, or intend, to blame SNP or any single political Party; because it has been a national trend that since the mid 2000s the Scots body politic has become less engaged with the issues which inspire the old-firm darby chaos.

Jack brought the Churches, clubs and local government officials together, he pushed money into Glasgow anti-sectarianism charities. He even made a big push to battle he ingrained poverty in my home city. I may be a Tory, and a Unionist, but I realise the need for politicians to get back onto the anti-sectarian agenda.

What made McConnell so successful was that broad approach. He recognised that the problem wasn't in the football, it wasn't just the behaviour of the clubs, it wasn't even just the issue of mixed or separate schooling. It was poverty, alcohol, worklessness. A historic cycle for the east end of the city.

Lets be honest where, putting affiliations aside; why does domestic abuse rates shoot up 81% in Glasgow following old firm matches? It isn't the clubs, it was those legions of unemployed, desperate young men tanking back the booze in pubs before the game even kicks off. But here let us note that placing the blame on the pubs is to miss the point. These football games are one of the few sources of profit for pubs getting hammered by cheap-to-buy supermarket competition.

Furthermore, to all of the middle class atheists of my own background in the West End; you also are playing into the conflict if you seriously blame religion. Religion has NOTHING to do with the behaviour of the rioters after the games. These kids and old marchers don't go to church, that's a bet I surely will take (not with attendance rates at all-time lows). Nah, religion has its place, the churches need to talk, to overcome the institutional alienation that they suffer from. But, the problem is poverty.

Look at the numbers. 17% of the Scots population is Roman Catholic, yet 28% of Scottish prisoners are Roman Catholic. Might that me more of a reason for Celtic fans committing violence than their religion? It isn't, as one Rangers mate of mine said, "because they're separatists and criminals". Rather it is the fact that so many Irish immigrants made their way to east-end sink estates, where successive Glasgow councils have forgotten about. Protestant poverty too, for poverty doesn't have any particular religion - but historic factors has made life more difficult for Catholic Scots than protestant ones.

Let us not react by punishing clubs, or pubs, or blaming religion. If we ever want to solve the old-firm problem: it is time to get serious about the socio-economic divide in my home city.

Clegg in Perth

Clegg has told us all that he is in "no mood to go dancing round the maypole"

Coalition blues

The trouble in store for Scottish LibDems is huge. And while the Scottish polls have been all over the shop i recent times, the facts are clear about the influence of LibDems however. Every single poll has united on what the public make of Cleggs brigade, 8% sometimes 6% on regional lists. Time for their Party leader to think clearly about what he would tell his conference in Perth you'd have thought. But no, all Clegg gives his lot is tripe about grown-up politics and debt. The tripe not being the very real fiscal crises Liebore has left the UK plc in, but the notion that Clegg gave to hoots about it before he smelt a chance at power.

Lets look at that 2010 LibDem manifesto (stay with me!). I don't remember seeing very much on the need to launch a tough plan for fiscal reduction. Indeed, I clearly remember the formerly Sainted Vince of Cable articulating a plan to tax millionaires more, and aim to half the debt along the lines of the discredited Darling plan. So what is all this 'national interest' that Cleggie is going on about in Perth? Why is his Party operating in the national interest now that he is deputy PM, but the very same plans weren't while he was in opposition?

He seems to think I, you and the nations Grannies button up the back.

I laughed when he observed to the Herald "The unfortunate reality of life is that you can't make good happen if you don't have the money to pay for it". So ... when he pledged to all us students that he wouldn't vote for a tuition fees increase ... while he (obviously, he says) realised the debt legacy was inhibitive ... he was taking us all for mugs?

One simple message this Saturday folks: don't vote for this lier. Or his sidekick Tavish.

Are the idealists now the realists?

What has been labelled the 'Arab Spring' has forced us all to rethink the prevailing attitudes toward the Arab world, and we should use a new approach when dealing with Libya and future dictators

Realpolitik

Since the cold war era up till the present the legions of cynical, self described 'realists' have argued that doing deals with dictators is inevitable. They were the ones with Gaddafi in the tent in the desert; they were the ones encouraging firms to 'do business' in Libya. Much has been made of such types of people, and deals - some argue that Libya doesn't have a bomb because Blair negotiated with Gaddafi. And while, very slightly, this may be true, it doesn't detract from a central fact: any deal, any treaty, any engagement built on an outright lie will come back to haunt you.

And so it is with the Arab spring.

Their polite, rational, but fundamentally racist attitudes have been exposed. The politicians who stood beside Gaddafi in Italy for the G8 Summit at L'Aquila have had their 'deals' exposed for the lies they were built upon. All those cynical 'realists' who long argue that 'Arabs' don't really want secular, democracy have been found wanting. To quote radical leftist philosopher Slavoj Zizec "They freeking get it!"

Let me put it to you all: after the waves of secularist pro-democracy revolts in the Arab world it is the cynics who have been found out of touch. It is the idealists who have now turned out to be realists.

But let us be fair to business. We cannot sit here and expect business to behave more morally, more ethnically than our leaders in high office. If BP, Halliburtnon or any others did business in Libya for example, at least they can honestly claim that they did it for profits and consumers - not to claim that Gaddafi was an upstanding fellow like all those hypocritical cynics at L'Aquila G8.

Should governments deal with dictators? Yes, but now idealists can demand that the new approach should be on our own pro-democracy terms. No half measures, no 'realistically', no more 'L'Aquila's to detoxify Gaddaf-types. Dictators never change, but their people do.