Time for a Reality Check

OK so it was not a good idea for David Davis to become Tory party chairman as I suggested a day or two ago. Apparently even his best friends recognise that the man is no where near to being a shrinking violet and as chairman would cause the party all sorts of problems by trying to stamp his authority on the Tory brand. The reason for suggesting him was because the Tories need to do something to persuade people that even though the 'quad' are 'toffs' they understand what needs to be done to help everyone and will do all in their power to achieve it. The 'quad' need to dispel the idea that they are bunch of chancers like Blair. The Tories also need to carry out a damage limitation exercise on their relationship with the Murdoch press. The unnecessary Leveson inquiry has irreparably damaged Cameron's standing with Murdoch but in order to mitigate such damage and at the same time to demonstrate to the voters that he will do all he can for the hard pressed, Cameron needs to undertake some bold moves like sorting out the Human Rights problem, the European Arrest Warrant problem, the extradition to the US problem, the spiralling numbers and cost of EU regulation, membership of the EU and not least the economy. Charles Moore has a good article on the fiasco of the last few days in the Telegraph today which you can read here. The other hot potato which must be handled and on which Cameron can be sure of Murdoch support is the BBC. It simply cannot be right that John Humphreys can be allowed to continue to get way with the kind of remarks he uttered at the beginning of the Today programme this morning about the threatened petrol delivery strike. His whole perspective is anti the Coalition with not even a nod to impartiality. The Murdochs or anyone else interested in presenting a different point of view must be allowed to compete head on with the BBC. As I never cease saying if the BBC won't abide by its impartiality obligation it must be privatised and cut into bits. No doubt someone will pay a lot for some of the bits which will be a bonus for all of us.     

Galloway's Win Leads To Sectarianism

George Galloway's win is not so surprising considering the blatantly Muslim friendly campaign he ran but it is horrifying to think that on the mainland of the UK it does not seem to be the policies that matter but the religion of the voters. We know all about this in Northern Ireland where sectarianism is still the most important factor in who wins. We now see how sectarianism is going to play out here. Thanks Labour for allowing in so many immigrants and thereby completely changing the demographics of our country. One has to laugh though because these immigrants were all supposed to vote for Labour and yet the odious George Galloway has managed to win the by-election in what has hitherto been a safe Labour seat. The name of his party is Respect which as he shows scant respect for anyone else in this country must mean respect specifically for Muslims. Anyone can follow whatever faith he wants to but not in such a way as to upset the mores of those who think differently. The trouble with politicians elected on a sectarian basis is that they will try and ensure that the legislature passes laws that impose their religion on others. Unless the immigrants are integrated into our culture I see the kind of troubles we have had in Northern Ireland and by extension in Liverpool and Glasgow surfacing here. If ever there were a time to abolish multiculturalism in all its forms now is the time to do it. It is urgent that a programme of integration is pursued vigorously. We must start with the children. To begin with all religious schools should be banned.    

Mess, Muddle and Pasties

I have eaten any number of pasties in my lifetime and though for the most part they look appetising when on the shelf they have never done anything other than disappoint when bitten into. They are truly awful indigestible things and why anyone should care whether or not they should be sold subject to VAT is beyond me. I agree though that if until now they've been VAT free it is pointless and petty for them suddenly to be subject to VAT. It would surprise me if more than 100 pasties were eaten in a week worldwide so the tax raised by charging VAT on sales of them in this country is not worth the cost of collection. The Tories have got themselves in a bit of a pickle this week what with Peter Cruddas, the Budget, pasties and the advice to stock up with petrol in jerry cans. The Cruddas affair will blow over with the decision to reveal the names of all donors and other hopeful pedlars of influence Cameron has dinner with as eventually will the drop in the top tier of tax to 45p and the granny tax which of course is not a tax at all but a reduction in the age allowance as a result of the increase in the personal allowance. The pasty tax though is different as it indicates an indifference that will stick in the back of the minds of many voters. What will also affect the views of voters is the double dip recession the OECD says we have suffered as a result of the contraction in the last quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year although how they can say that about the first quarter of this year is difficult to understand since March has not yet finished. The double dip recession will not make too much difference if for the rest of this Parliament there are no other negative growth quarters but it is a tall order and just goes to emphasise the need for growth through spending cuts. The Tories have got to start acting like Tories and not like the deceitful, preachy, works gumming up New Labour model they so admired. Furthermore Osborne has got to concentrate full time on the economy.        

Miliband's Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is the second name of every politician of whatever hue. Thus Murdoch's attempt to get back at Cameron for the Leveson Inquiry by getting the Scottish Sun to support independence and the Sunday Times sting on Peter Cruddas have been used well by Labour to exploit the Tories embarrassment at the revelations about payments for access. Frankly though Labour should watch out as the Cruddas affair has nothing on the Ecclestone one and neither does the Tory party have any donor like the Unions who expect to dictate policies they're interested in, in exchange for the huge sums of money they give to Labour. The Labour party is, always has been and is likely to continue to be the creature to a smaller or greater extent of the Unions. Frankly if I was a big donor to the Tory party I would be upset if some heavy hitter didn't thank me personally and if I was prohibited from putting forward my view on this or that subject during the conversation. There are undoubtedly exceptions but donors would not expect that the Tories would necessarily agree to carry out any policy they might suggest or indeed give it the slightest bit of notice but would be chuffed if they did so. Donations are generally made for no other reason than that donors happen to believe deeply that this country is always better off with a Tory government and they want to do as much as they can to ensure that the party is in the best possible financial position to put its policies forward. Policies do not come out of a vacuum but out of discussion and it is not necessarily politicians who have the ideas but think tanks and individuals sympathetic to their party's cause. Of course in those circumstances those at the top of the Tory party must meet with those with ideas and discuss them. We would all be much worse off if the leadership did not have contact with people with ideas whether or not they are donors. That there should be transparency is right. It is a pity that there wasn't the transparency beforehand but there is now. Why hasn't Miliband come clean about those present at the dinner Roland Rudd set up for him? Guido has a take on this here! What did I say about hypocrisy? 

What Some Others Think of the Budget

The media members of the Saturday morning golf group I meet in the bar for a coffee first thing before we then proceed out on to the course, both thought that Osborne let himself down in his presentation of the 'granny tax'. Indeed this was the feeling of the eight of us. There was also almost a consensus that if he were going to reduce the top rate of tax he should have gone for a cut to 40p rather than 45p. Otherwise most seemed to feel the budget wasn't bad but fairly anodyne probably because the impact it could have had had been taken out of it by all the leaks. Charles Moore has written an excellent piece on the budget and slaughters those who having been bitching about the 'granny tax'. You can read it here. Fraser Nelson  seemed to think Osborne needs to speed up and I think he's right too. You can see his argument here. Whether you agree with Charles Moore or Fraser Nelson or not you must admire the serious thought they have put into their articles. The same cannot be said of the darling of the left Owen Jones who shows  here just what a lightweight he is. Why anyone pays him the slightest attention goodness knows but his 'performance' in this clip confirms what I thought about him the first time I heard him spouting on television. Where do they get these nonentities from and why are we subjected to their nostrums. Only on the BBC.

Put the WWF in Liquidation

I fail to understand why the taxpayer is expected to pay anything to any organisation like the World Wildlife Fund. Those that support this nasty little fascist NGO or whatever it is can do so privately. Apparently the government on our behalf has paid this excrescence £12million over the period 2008-2011. Our previous government were complete suckers for paying anything to this and all sorts of other so called charities and NGOs to piss on the rest of us but I do not understand why the current government  should continue this folly. This government has recognised that it is inimical to good governance to allow  employees to spend all or part of their time on trade union affairs while being paid at the same time by the taxpayer and is starting to clear up this scandal (although it is taking its time). It must also stop the payment of any contribution to NGOs and charities, whatever they do. Anyone who believes such charities and NGOs are worth supporting can do so out of their own pocket, not out of the pockets of the rest of us who rather than support an organisation like the World Wildlife Fund would gladly see it go bust. The reason for this diatribe is a post on The Commentator blog which you can read here. The WWF can say what it likes about the budget but it is distinctly bad manners to do so when it is in receipt of funding from the organisation that produced the budget.

More Budget Reaction and the BBC

Andrew Lilico's review of the budget is the best one I've read so far. Here it is if you haven't already read it. The Taxpayers' Alliance comments on the old age allowance is also worth reading here. Osborne may not have presented his case well but I suspect that when the flak dies down and calmer counsels prevail he will be seen not to have done too badly after all and it is that which will remain in the minds of the voters even those of us who will be disadvantaged by his cap on the age allowance. Of more importance though is the way the BBC reports anything done by the Tories. The tone of every programme I have listened to today has been less shrill than the fake blatherings of the two Eds but not by much. They have been about as accurate with their reporting as Paxman's programme on Gordon and the Sudan. It is becoming increasingly more urgent that the BBC is either put back in its box and forced to become impartial or is broken up and sold off. How is it that the three candidates to replace Mark Thompson are all left of centre? It is not only the breach of the impartiality rule on political issues on virtually every programme you either listen to or see but on climate change and religion. The BBC should not be allowed to get away with denigrating Israel and extolling the Muslims in the way that they do. Why is there no reporting on the demand of the Mufti of Saudi Arabia to destroy all churches in the region? Why are attacks on Christians not reported, of which there are sadly many instances in the Middle East, Africa and Asia? Why does the BBC try to excuse the murders carried out by Mohammed Merah in Toulouse by saying he was acting to avenge Palestinian children and to protest against French military intervention overseas? There is no excuse for murdering people and the BBC should make that very clear. Would the BBC make a big thing of the reason given by the suspect of murdering a few of their left leaning journalists that he was acting to protest against BBC bias? Of course not. They'd say that such a person was undoubtedly from the extreme right as they did before it became apparent that the Toulouse killer was a Muslim.    

Budget Result in a Nutshell

Osborne's budget did not go far enough on the spending cuts side nor in reducing the destructively high rate of fuel duty. He did not go far enough either in cutting the 50p rate but if the stories are true he wanted to reduce the rate to 40p and would have accepted a Mansion Tax in order to get LibDem approval to do so but Cameron vetoed the Mansion Tax and so Osborne agreed to limit the cut to 5p instead. Cameron was right to veto the Mansion Tax leaving the Tories to shave a further 5p off the rate another day. Osborne also reduced Corporation Tax by 1p now and 1p again both next year and the year after. Pensioners will be worse off as will banks, those who buy houses of more than £2million and those who buy houses through offshore companies. Osborne says the government will do something to improve our transport infrastructure and broadband, something to help our science facilities, something by providing enterprise loans to students who want to set up new businesses rather than go to university, something by improving planning regulation and something by introducing four new enterprise zones. The one cut he should have announced was to our contribution to that unelected organisation which holds us back at every turn by introducing more and more regulation without ever having worked out the consequences. You have no doubt guessed which organisation I'm talking about, yes, it's the EU. Apparently when the leader of the recent Chinese delegation to Germany, France and the UK was asked why they had not extended their trip to other countries in the EU he responded by saying that they could learn all they wanted to know about engineering projects in Germany, culture in France and new ideas in the UK. It is good that we are still thought good for new ideas but a pity we are no longer regarded as of the highest calibre in engineering. As to culture I would say that we were the equal of France and that Italy is of equal value too.        

Budget Demands and Shame

If Osborne is going to cut the 50p tax rate he should cut it out altogether rather than reduce it to 45p. Better to be hung as a sheep than a lamb and the reduction to 45p will be seen as an irritating halfway house arrived at in part through fear rather than as a clearcut statement against Brown's purely political increase in the tax rate at the end of his term - something to stuff the Tories with. Labour know that this was the reason for the Brown increase and that its usefulness in raising revenue is nil and possibly a factor in revenue falling as I'm sure Osborne's commissioned research into the 50p effectiveness will show. With  Labour vacillating about whether they would oppose the reduction or reverse it Osborne should go for the jugular. Osborne, despite Tim Montgomerie's desire for a Mansion Tax, should have nothing to do with it.  Where is someone without the income going to find the money to pay for this tax on his/her mansion? They would be forced either to borrow to pay it or to sell their house. That is an outrageous outcome making the tax confiscation or theft rather than a supportable proposition. Osborne should have nothing to do with a Tycoon tax either, nor should he increase the Non-Dom tax both of which would see many of our successful entrepreneurs and Non-Doms leave these shores for less tax greedy ones. There has already been a flight of Non-Doms following the introduction of the Non-Dom tax. We want as many Tycoons and Non-Doms living here since they not only pay taxes but more importantly spend their money in our shops, employ people directly and indirectly and are otherwise a Good Thing. Osborne should though increase the amount at which individuals pay tax and reduce the fuel duty. To pay for these he should withdraw the subsidy paid to windfarms and for solar panels, confirm he is going to stop national pay settlements, reform the planning laws and cut all manner of regulation. There should be an attack on EU regulation as well. Let's show some backbone and stick up for ourselves and let's get rid of the awful Ashton and replace her with someone who will think a little more before opening her mouth about the tragedy in Toulouse. The Israelis have every right to be upset by the statement she made. As Downing Street well knows she made no reference to Israeli children killed by Palestinians. She mentions the murdered Jewish children in Toulouse, the Belgian children killed in the bus accident and children killed in Gaza as a result of retaliatory action taken by Israel but not the Israeli children murdered by Palestinians. Shame on her and on us for supporting her.

UPDATE: Apologies to Ashton. Apparently in her speech she did also refer to the deaths of Israeli children as well as those of Palestinian children in Gaza. The transcript of her speech however omits the reference to the Israeli children and for that she must take the blame.        

Capitalism in Tooth and Claw or not

James Delingpole, in my view, is on the more hysterical right side of arguments about capitalism and the environment but I have to say his blog on The Commentator today is absolutely spot on and a must read. His criticism of Shell in supporting green 'solutions' cannot be faulted. It is a pity though he doesn't mention BP and its production of biofuel. Biofuel is the ultimate mad scientist's solution to a perceived problem which in reality is not a problem at all. It is like a cure that can be said to succeed because eventually you no longer need it as it's killed you. You can catch up with Delingpole's essential piece here. There is some glimmer of hope on the fuel front though as I see that the company with a licence to explore for shale gas in the North West has been allowed to continue its assessment of its find. This must mean that it will be allowed to extract the gas in the not too distant future. If Osborne is clever he will say something about this in his budget. The mere mention by Cameron that he is considering releasing some of the oil held in reserve for strategic reasons has had a downward pressure on crude prices so the mention by Osborne that we are going to exploit the shale gas reserves under Blackpool should have a similar effect. I hope the rumours that Osborne is going to lower the 50% tax rate back down to 40% are correct and I hope the rumours about the introduction of the jealousy mansion tax are incorrect. The government still needs to cut expenditure, cut regulation as well as repeal such absurdities as the Child Poverty Act which is an expensive folly as so ably argued here by Fraser Nelson in his article in the Telegraph today.      

Osborne and Oborne

There have been calls for Osborne to clarify his position on tax. Does he believe in low taxes or is he in favour of higher taxes for the wealthy? He was at one time interested in a flat tax, has this interest been discarded and why? There have also been criticisms of the increase in regulation rather than cuts and of course the announcement that Fitch has put us on negative watch is, though understandable, a disappointment. There are supposedly some signs of some very small green shoots, for example amongst the gloom of yesterday's unemployment figures it was shown that there has been a tiny increase in the number in employment and from what I understand Manpower UK to be saying they have indications from employers that they are considering taking on more staff in the next few months. We desperately need a strategy for growth and Osborne would do a lot worse than listen to the Adam Smith Institute on the issue here for advice on what principles such a strategy should be based. Taxation takes money out of the economy and government spending does not result in growth as has been made demonstrably clear by Brown's disastrous economic policies, the policies of a con artist. There is speculation about why Osborne was taken by Cameron on his visit to Obama. Chancellors do not normally get included in these types of visits. Was Osborne there to learn something specific or perhaps to meet the Republican contenders for Presidential Candidate since Cameron couldn't or wouldn't meet them? I suppose it's fair to assume Cameron didn't have the time to see them all and couldn't see only one or two of them for fear of being seen as favouring one contender over another. As to Cameron's meetings with Obama, Peter Oborne in the Telegraph has an interesting take on them here. I have to agree that it is sad Cameron is not taking a different line from Blair with the USA and does not object strongly to US policy on assassinations and the continuance of Guantanamo. Oborne should though be more understanding of the US army's problems with murderers, Koran burners and the like in its ranks. All armies have such people and strong discipline is needed to keep these elements under control. I feel sure the troops concerned will be dealt with in the appropriate manner but if I am wrong then Oborne's strictures will have been well made.       

Ken the Cobra

Ken Livingstone has always been a nasty piece of work. Those of us who are old enough well remember how when Labour won the GLC elections under whichever leader they had at that time, that in a move of which Stalin would have approved, Ken and his cohorts immediately called for a leadership election. He won the election and thus replaced the then Labour London leader to take over as the GLC chairman. Like many politicians he weaves good stories which are to say the very least greatly exaggerated. Factcheck on Channel 4 have found some of the claims he makes to be dubious to a degree but yet he still attracts followers. One wonders how he does it but his whine is somehow fascinating rather like the movement of the cobra that mesmerises its victims before it strikes them dead. This time though his hypocrisy has been exposed as has that of his leader, Ed Miliband. That Ken should be so arranging his affairs like any sane person to pay only that amount of tax he needs to is not only his right but very sensible but his attacks on others for doing just that are of a high order of hypocrisy that has shocked even some members of his party. Not Ed Miliband though who has been defending Ken by saying he is no worse than Boris. Boris though has categorically denied using Ken's tax avoidance scheme as can be seen here. Cameron will be licking his lips and is bound to throw Ed's charge in his face at next week's PMQs.  

Cuts and Taxes

There is a piece on ConservativeHome by Paul Goodman here setting out various cuts that can be made to fund cuts in taxation. I would agree wholeheartedly with the withdrawal of all subsidies for wind farms and solar panels, the capping of maternity leave at £800 per week, cutting NHS staff and reducing the cost of childcare regulation and indeed regulation generally. Matt Ridley wrote a great piece on the uselessness of wind power in the Spectator last week which you can see here. He also produced an interesting statistic about carbon emissions in the USA which fell 9% in 2009 as a result of the switch to shale gas burning power stations. This is something we can do ourselves having had the good fortune to have discovered a considerable quantity of shale gas waiting to be exploited in the North West. It is to be hoped that Osborne will cut spending in order to cut taxes in the budget and promote the exploitation of our shale gas deposits. The use of shale gas will reduce the cost of energy and encourage a virtuous growth cycle. This is exactly what the doctor ordered and frankly what could be better. Matt Ridley calls himself the 'Rational Optimist' and although I hope he's right about the beginning of the end of wind I somehow remain doubtful that Osborne will deliver.          

The Dead Italian Hostage

It is unsurprising that the Italians are unhappy with us after the death of one of their citizens in a failed rescue attempt by the SBS and the Nigerian Army. According to reports we received intelligence that the hostage takers were about to move the hostages and possibly kill them. A decision had therefore to be taken at great speed to mount a rescue mission and the Italians were only informed after the mission had begun. The Italians had been kept informed of what was going on over the months since the hostages were kidnapped but realistically who was going to expect the Italians to be involved in an operation in which their troops could be killed. After all the Italians were known to have paid the Taliban not to attack them in Afghanistan and who knows what deal they might have been trying to set up to free the Italian hostage in Nigeria. It is also quite clear from an operational point of view that the fewer people who knew about the mission beforehand the better for the prevention of a leak. Unfortunately the Italians do not have a properly elected government and it tells that their Prime Minister is not a politician who, if he were, would have been far more sensitive to the need to be supportive of an operation being undertaken in part on their behalf. An operation moreover that could not have been guaranteed to be successful. The response to the complaints of the Italian bigwigs by both Hammond and Hague has been both measured and diplomatic. We are obviously deeply sorry for the loss of life of the two hostages particularly as one of them was a Brit but as far as any response Cameron makes to the Italian President's demand for an explanation he should make it clear in the politest possible way that the loss of life is regrettable but hostage rescues often fail and it would not have been efficacious to have involved the Italians in the decision knowing their predilection for different methods. Perhaps he should also point out that the Italians have still to resolve their issues with India over the killing by Italian marines of two innocent Indian fisherman and that this trigger happy behaviour was also taken into account in deciding when was the appropriate moment to inform the Italian government of what was going on.    

Chatham House Gets It Wrong

Yesterday evening I went to hear Anna Hashimoto play the clarinet sublimely in the Cadogan Hall. This evening I went to Chatham House to hear an on the record talk on what should be done about far right extremism in Britain. We were all given a report of the findings thus far which I have not yet studied but from what was said by the two authors of the report and the panel of experts it seems the extreme right wing is very dangerous and needs to be studied in greater depth. It was made clear that the authors would like additional funding to enable them to carry out the further study deemed absolutely necessary to understanding the extent of the problem and what needs to be done to sort it out. The report equates the BNP with UKIP, which I suspect will upset 99% of UKIP members. They are both labelled as movements to the Right of the centre-right Conservatives although of course we know that the BNP is a national socialist party and therefore of the extreme left. Why can those on the left never accept that the Nazi party is a socialist party and thus a scion of the left? A significant number of UKIP members share the same concerns apparently of BNP members about immigration and Islam. I wonder how many members of the Labour Party do likewise. Perhaps if the authors of the report get their further funding they will be able to find out. The BNP exists for the same reason all political parties exist but there are very few who vote for their particular policies which it seems to me are born of fear of being made to live in a land of immigrants, in a land with a different culture and in a land with less likelihood of being able to get a traditional job. We have failed these people by giving them no education and allowing the BBC to talk down to them. The wonder is that millions of our fellow citizens are not out on the streets demanding redress for the failure of our politicians for whom the Labour party must bear the greatest blame. There were two questions that it would have been interesting to have heard the answers to (a) did the panel think the BBC could be responsible for a reaction to the stories they put out day after day on the benefits of immigration, multiculturalism and so on and (b) how many others do they think also resent the unbridled immigration and the manner in which they have been forced to adapt in a short space of time to significant  changes in our culture? I do not believe there is a significant risk of violence from the BNP and the idea of any risk if violence from UKIP is risible. I would be more worried about violence from the left of which we saw specific evidence in the recent riots. Chatham House would be much better off investigating the extreme elements of the left, including the trades unions.          

Lies, Sex and Marriage

The Tory modernisers tell us that the party must change to persuade voters that we are not the nasty lot portrayed by the BBC, the Guardian and the rest of the left wing media. The campaign to paint us in the nasty corner was highly effective and one to which the Tories sadly had no answer when it started after we crashed out of the EMU. It seems to me it all began with the lie pushed by Alistair Campbell, he of the piss poor bagpipe playing skills, that John Major tucked his shirts into his underpants. In order to detoxify the party we have had to embrace all sorts of things including, until it became obvious to all that the Labour way of running the economy was batty, Labour's spending plans. Amongst other changes we abandoned our perceived anti homosexual stance by supporting the repeal of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 which had prohibited the intentional promotion of homosexuality in schools. We supported as well the Civil Partnership laws allowing homosexuals to enter into a form of relationship similar in law to marriage. I well remember as a young lawyer being told by one of my partners that homosexuals should be allowed to have the same inheritance rights as married couples. This comment came about because the partner had a barrister friend who lived in a happy and stable relationship with another man who acted in all respects as a wife and had no other occupation and so who on the barrister's sudden death was left impecunious with no right to the barrister's estate, the barrister having died intestate. The Civil Partnership legislation thus makes undoubted sense. We have though now arrived at a point where the modernisers, including Cameron, wish to go further and change the rules of the Established Church so that homosexuals can marry even though the marriage service itself specifically refers to man and woman, husband and wife and procreation. Some of us have a great problem to this day with the way the Church has modernised the beautiful language it inherited from our forebears by making what was poetry mundane and thus diminishing the stature of the Church. To go further and to allow marriage between a couple of the same sex is to my mind a step too far and must be resisted. Although it is probably not an issue which exercises most of those who have an historic connection to the Church of England I sense that there will nonetheless be disquiet at the way that yet another of our traditions is being traduced for no good reason. The idea that all discrimination should be abolished is nonsense since it cannot be achieved. Sensible anti discrimination laws should recognise this and allow us our preferences whilst ensuring that our preferences are transparent and not used to diminish another person. Marriage is for men and women whereas civil partnerships are for same sex couples. What is wrong with that?        

A Toast to Derry Irvine

According to a friend of mine Tony Blair is a very nice guy. I knew Blair, albeit when he was at the bar. For reasons which are too tedious to explain I instructed him on some commercial matter, or rather I instructed the urbane and claret loving Derry Irvine but at some point was passed on to Blair whilst Irvine was involved in some industrial tribunal matter. Blair was not a patch on Irvine and came across as somewhat inane. We found ourselves and our respective spouses at a wedding where the champagne flowed like cement. The Blairs knew fewer people than us and try as we did to rid ourselves of them they stuck to us like leeches. We all know why - I had some good clients that Blair epoux and epouse would have liked to have worked for. I can't complain about that but it was rather tedious nonetheless as both of them were as dull as ditch water with no scintilla of fun about them at all. This was way before he became an MP or the PM of a disastrous administration that we are all suffering from and will continue to suffer from for years to come, and I didn't even vote for his party. My view of Tony and Cherie was not altered by the fact that my wife had known Carole Caplin since she was born. Why am I saying all this ? I'm not really sure save that this friend who told me Tony Blair is such a nice chap has made me want to do so. If not in awe of Blair Cameron acts as if he is or did so until recently, that is a big mistake. That Miliband is now trying to ingratiate himself with the Blair supporters in his party by meeting with him and reporting that Blair says he should be himself. Cameron needs no advice from Blair. Despite his weaknesses in my eyes he is worth ten of Blair. He is also worth ten of Clegg and has no need to mollycoddle him. Cameron must now stand up for Conservative policies as they are the only policies that will get this country moving again. Osborne should also be reminded of the need for Tory policies and to stop trying to out-finesse everyone and everything. There is a time for being blunt and that time has now arrived.          

Russia's Western Journey

Putin has won the Russian Presidential election in the first round of voting. It seems that having potential opponents in prison and banning some parties from putting up candidates had the desired effect, presumably because the majority would not have voted for the extreme parties anyway. It seems likely also that there were some irregularities in the way votes were cast and possibly counted but not in sufficient numbers to affect the outcome. Medvedev has now called for a review into the legality and basis of the convictions of Khodorkovsky, Lebedev and others regarded by some as political prisoners. It is difficult understand why Medvedev has decided to ask for this review now. I hope it is because Medvedev, who seems  a straight kind of guy and who I believe, unlike Putin, accepts that Russia should always support the rule of law, wants to do something in the last two months of his Presidency to demonstrate that Russia will right wrongs where they manifest themselves. There is considerable evidence to support the view that Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were found guilty for political reasons but it cannot be certain that that is so. If the review is held entirely in public and the evidence produced to it is also available for all to see and the result follows the evidence then whichever way the verdict goes all parties should welcome this as a further step on Russia's path to a respected place in the world. If this is not the point of Medvedv's intervention but is something more cynical then the 20 years or so on Russia's journey from a communist state to a respected member of the western world is going to take longer.

We Need More Steve Hiltons

There is a requirement in this country that you have to pay people working on the shop floor in your factory the same amount per hour whether they are experienced or learning their trade. A small or medium sized business and possibly even a large one does not want to pay £90 an hour to someone who has to be taught how to do the job and will take five years before he has the experience to be able to perform the work as it should be done. A friend explained today that his company can only compete by taking on experienced workers and that that is what they do. They would take on the inexperienced if they could pay them at the rate that reflects the fact that they are inexperienced operatives. Indeed my friend said that they could take on youth workers in other jobs if they did not have to pay the minimum wage, which is a real disincentive to doing so. One wonders why the government, which surely knows the effects of this rule, doesn't do something about it. Steve Hilton is said to be leaving Downing Street in part because he has found it so frustrating to get things done with the Civil Service blocking even sensible changes. We all know how the Civil Service blocks or delays policies it does not like for one reason or another but if the stories are true that Steve Hilton is not the only able and ambitious one to have left the government in the last few months to pursue a career outside because of the frustration of getting any change through the Civil Service it is about time the Civil Service were booted out or that at least a clause was inserted in their contracts that to frustrate the stated policy of a minister is grounds for instant dismissal without pension. Apparently despite the need for root and branch reform of for example the monopolistic BBC and the atrophied EU the Civil Service will not allow this to happen. Pray the departure of Steve Hilton does not mean the end of agitators like him. Pray that he will be like the many headed hydra and that his going will sprout many more Steve Hiltons to push through the reforms we so desperately need in this country. We certainly need one to push through the NHS reforms, even of the kind referred to by Charles Moore in his depressing article in the Telegraph this morning which you can read here.

A Horse For Harriet

When you are invited to go riding you must make sure that the horse lent to you is not one that has been involved in illegal activities like being lent by a third party to your friend who has invited you to ride it. Your friend could after all be a crook or someone of dubious reputation and may not be paying for the upkeep of the horse or its stabling and may not even own the saddle and bridle with which the horse is 'dressed'. To be caught riding such a horse is of course a truly serious offence and deserving of not only the equality guru Harriet Harperson's censor if the mount you were lent to ride were a mare or worse still a gelding but also of several column inches of articles and other media reports castigating you for this truly awful offence. In future I would advise Cameron to have every horse he's lent for hunting or hacking to have it hoof printed by the Metropolitan Police with the results put through the special horse hoof digital identification system known by its acronym SHHDIS to make quite sure it's not on the wanted list. Some may say you need never go through this rigmarole as you can always tell a shifty horse by the way it glints at you out of the corner of its eyes, stretches its nostrils, snorts, minces about on the tips of its hooves and generally tries either to nip you or to turn its backside towards you to give you a kick. Such horses should immediately be hobbled, handed over to the police and deprived of all lumps of sugar until they have gone through rehabilitation. Better still to be handed over to Saint Harriet for gender recognition equality programming until her garden has been fully manured.

Why do Climate Warmists Lie?

It is quite flabbergasting but not surprising that with all the money our government and many others are pouring into projects to save us all from so called injurious climate change that anybody has the gall to say that deniers are funded by big business. Bishop Hill has a chart here that gives an example of the amounts spent by warmists and deniers respectively. Since almost the beginning the warmists have taken the view that in order to galvanise governments into action they had to 'shock and awe'. This they have done by lying and cheating on a massive scale. Goebbels is alive and well and proud of his warmest pupils. Apparently though it is alright to lie if you are a warmist. Even James Garvey of the Guardian thinks that lies that benefit the warmist cause are justified which gives the lie itself to the Guardian's claims to be an ethical newspaper free of hypocrisy. Despite the lies and the extraordinary amounts spent on the warmist side it is the arguments of the denier side which are at long last making headway. Not nearly quickly enough to bring in a change of policy to stop the billions of taxpayers' money being spent on pointless, wasteful projects. Hopefully sense will prevail in the end and that all the CO2 targets will be abolished. Osborne should follow his fellow conservatives in Canada and use his budget to stop this nonsense. As for people like James Garvey, ridicule is the best antidote.