tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37375437892504252992024-02-08T04:03:11.232-08:00Mr Smith goes to WestminsterConserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-89024545325666517292010-01-10T02:13:00.001-08:002010-01-10T02:13:29.007-08:00What do the Tories actually stand for<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-66117320335940165972010-01-07T00:41:00.000-08:002010-01-07T01:30:08.456-08:00If ever a plot was doomed to fail...Yes, I know I am very late to the party on the 'Snowstorm Plot' against Gordon Brown launched by Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon yesterday. But frankly, in my opinion there was never any chance of this plot resulting in a change of leader. Why? Well, firstly Gordon Brown had just had probably his best performance in PMQ's in a long time, effectively swatting away questions from both Tories and Lib Dems, and even getting in a few very good lines (Cameron did too, especially his line on the relationship between PM and Chancellor after Brown teased him on the Tory marriage policy "At least when I lean in and say 'I love you, darling', I really mean it!" Oh how they rolled in the aisles in the Commons!). After a performance like that, many Labour MP's might be forgiven for thinking that PM Brown will perform better on the hustings than some people believe - especially after a rash of op-ed articles wondering if people will prefer a disliked but 'tried and tested' option over Cameron. S<br />o there was none of the immediacy for a change that there might have been if the PM had been destroyed by Cameron at the Dispatch Box. Secondly is the improvement in some economic figures, which Labour will be spinning for all they are worth as being a vindication of Labour policy.<br />And finally there is still no-one in a position to take over the party without a divisive leadership contest. Alan Johnson perhaps could, although his credentials have been burned a little from his firing of a Government scientific advisor last year. One of the Milliband's could, but neither of them are really well known enough. But the most important fact that because there is not one clear challenger, none of the senior cabinet figures want to bring Brown down, based on the old proverb that 'he who wields the knife never wears the crown' - just ask Michael Hesseltine!<br /><br />All the plotters have done is to undermine the good work the party has done putting the boot into the Tories since the Christmas break. Far from putting the issue to rest, the plotters have managed to make sure the leadership story continues for another week. Stupid.<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-87628081457176285802010-01-05T02:07:00.002-08:002010-01-05T03:32:17.072-08:00I'm back - with predictions!Well, the new year has arrived, and with it has arrived a new resolution to dedicate myself a little more to updating this blog. Apologies for falling off the radar... winter does not agree with me!<br /><br />Anyway, we are in the first week of the new year, and with it comes the usual 'predictions for a new year'. I've been cruising the blogosphere for predictions and some of them (especially from non-Tory bloggers) are often somewhat overly optimistic. For example, the prediction that the Scottish Nationalists will hold the balance of power in Westminster after the election are pretty unlikely.<br /><br />So, the inevitable predictions for 2010:<br /><br />1) David Cameron will be Prime Minister after the General Election<br /><br />2) The election will see the North/South split continue, with Conservatives winning overwhelmingly in the South, London, and the Midlands, while failing to make a major breakthrough in the North (although winning more seats) or Scotland.<br /><br />3) Gordon Brown will be Labour party leader until the General Election<br /><br />4) The election will result in a Tory majority government<br /><br />Moving to international affairs:<br /><br />5) The Australian Liberal Party will defeat Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme bill a third time, which will result in Rudd calling a General Election - which will result in another Labor victory (although with a reduced majority)<br /><br />6) The US healthcare bill will not pass before February, and the final bill will not contain a public insurance option<br /><br />7) The Republicans will gain between 3 and 5 seats in the Senate<br /><br />8) Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives<br /><br />9) The Mexico City climate change meeting will still not result in binding commitments, mostly due to continued Chinese intransigence<br /><br />10) The cap and trade bill will not pass the United States Senate<br /><br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-60884433156757157122009-12-09T05:30:00.000-08:002009-12-09T05:44:52.314-08:00Pre-budget reportThe Shadow Chancellor (George Osbourne) just sat down after giving his response to the Chancellor's budget. The highlights of Darling's budget:<br />Economy has done significantly worse this year than expected - contracted by 4.75% rather than the 3.5% expected.<br />A raft of tax changes - an increase in National Insurance tax by 0.5%, a 50% levy on bank bonuses over 25,000 pounds, threshold for high tax rate is frozen (rather than increasing due to inflation) at 43,000 pounds - meaning more people will be in the higher bracket.<br />Public pay increases capped at 1% for two years<br />Deferred the increase of corporation tax for small business<br />Cutting the corporation tax to 10% for those companies who can prove they are using a British patent<br />Increase in pension by 2.5%<br />Child and disability benefit increased by 1.5%<br />Inheritance tax allowance frozen (a big political move to hit the Conservative position on inheritance tax)<br /><br />The Chancellor has identified approximately 5 billion pounds worth of savings in the economy. That is about a sixth of the savings that he claims will be made. There are obviously a lot of dreadful spending cuts still to be announced...<br /><br />Although he is trying to ringfence money for hospitals, schools and police (although note that he is not ringfencing the money for Education, Health or the Home Office!), there will be savage cuts to many government departments (more so to those he isn't ringfencing). According to the BBC, the cuts that will be made will undo 3/4 of the increases in spending that has occurred since 1997.<br /><br />George Obsourne came straight back on the attack in his speech, calling it a total failure and a political budget (who'd have thought?). A very good, robust speech.<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-30925525589153858602009-12-07T05:37:00.000-08:002009-12-07T06:59:47.340-08:00Has Labour given up on winning the election?At PMQ's last week (and subsequently on TV) we have seen some members of the Government (although some are <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233773/Class-war-Tories-splits-Labour-chiefs.html">reportedly very concerned about the strategy</a>) using class warfare language to attack the Tories (particularly David Cameron). The Prime Minister, to laughter and applause from his own benches, hit Cameron with the line that the Conservative economic policy had been 'dreamed up on the playing fields of Eton', while another Labour MP described the Tory policy as 'an Eton Mess' (I admit, I find that one significantly more amusing).<br /><br />However, what does this mean politically? Well, it appears to show that, consciously or not, Labour have written off this election. Why? Because class warfare, by definition, energises working class Labour stalwarts, while angering middle class southern and middle England. So by engaging in these kinds of attacks, Labour will probably energise their voters in the north and Scotland, and by bringing them out significantly reduce the losses in some of those areas (for example, we may well see far fewer seats north of the Watford Gap going blue than the nationwide swing ought to indicate). However, by doing so, they are turning off exactly the kind of middle class voters in the Midlands and South that they would need to win an election. If it is a conscious decision (and if it is, it is actually a very reasonable one), then Labour strategists have written off the election, and want to make sure their voters come out in the north in order to stop the kind of wipeout that happened to the Conservatives in 1997 - hopefully (in their minds) holding on to 250-odd seats, meaning that Labour can seriously challenge a Conservative Government in the following election.<br /><br />Will it work? Who knows! In Scotland Labour has been beset by the Scottish Nationalists (although the SNP being in 'government' in Holyrood seems to have reduced their popularity), and the Liberal Democrats seem keen to try to pinch northern seats of Labour (which they will probably fail at). Also there have been comments from more than one commentator that it is a bit rich for Labour to drape itself in the mantle of the working class when they have been a middle class party for the last twelve years (not forgetting as well that conditions for working class Britain have declined and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/08/poverty-equality-britain-incomes-poor">income inequality is worse today than since the 1960's</a>). So whether low-income Britons will 'come home' to Labour on election day is yet to be seen.<br /><br />One interesting little tit-bit on this point, is to look at polling on who minor party voters want to form the next government. BNP voters (who are predominantly disgruntled ex-Labour voters in safe Labour areas) <a href="http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/12/07/how-are-others-likely-to-split-at-the-race-gets-tighter/">overwhelmingly want David Cameron</a> to form a government after the election.<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-92109661350710546552009-12-03T08:39:00.000-08:002009-12-03T08:56:43.650-08:00Sigh, this is the reason Labour is so unpopularLabour is unpopular. There is the obvious reason of why this is; that their policies have caused many of the problems in society - whether the lack of trust between citizens and the government, the enormous deficit and the deterioration of health, police and education services. But there is another reason - one that often plays worse with the public than the policy failures. Arrogance.<br /><br />At Prime Ministers Questions yesterday, Gordon Brown had a very good day. He got a few good whacks on the Conservatives, disdainfully put down the Lib Dems, and cheered his own side considerably. Cameron also had a very poor day, which further helped. However, because of the arrogance of the government this has already been forgotten in yet another stupid own-goal. During an answer to David Cameron, Gordon Brown claimed Britain was not the only country in the G-20 to still be in recession - Spain was still in recession. The only problem is that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20">Spain is not a direct member of the G-20</a>. Now, in PMQ's a Prime Minister does not know what the Leader of the Opposition will ask him, so it is forgiveable that he might get one fact wrong sometimes. I mean, Spain is not a direct member of the G-20, but it IS a member of the EU (which is a member), and is also an observer. Gordon could be forgiven for getting that wrong in the middle of unscripted debate in the bearpit of the House of Commons. Most politics watchers (and members of the public) would willingly accept this explanation.<br /><br />However, in an absolutely breath-taking display of hubris, the government has argued today that Brown was completely correct. There is no real justification for this claim. It is pretty obvious that any claim to the PM being correct is disingenuous. So now, after putting some runs on the board yesterday, the Government has stupidly hit its own wicket and now the story around the papers and the blogs isn't "Didn't Gordon do well yesterday", which played nicely into a general story of Labour recovery after a couple of improving polls. Nope, now that story is "Is Spain a member of the G-20, and was Gordon being disingenuous or just ignorant when he claimed they were?" For the love of anything, just suck it up, accept you made a mistake, and move on - it shouldn't be this big a deal!<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-37983507479416985332009-12-03T03:18:00.001-08:002009-12-03T03:37:17.397-08:00What the hell is wrong with the Cameroons?I've said this before - I am not a scientist. When it comes to the science of climate change I am willing to be influenced by any scientist who puts up a robust and peer reviewed (<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/">for what that process is now worth</a>) work on the subject. Some say it is (mostly) natural, some say it is (mostly) man made. I'd love to actually hear pro-climate change people contradict the sceptics with data, rather than waving their arms and yelling 'deniers!', but I guess I'll have to just muddle through.<br /><br />However, I also know enough to see that there is a large chunk of scientific opinion, and an even larger chunk of public opinion, that either does not believe that climate change is predominantly man-made, or are not overly concerned with the consequences of it. And I know enough about politics to know that when that is the case it is unwise for Conservative Party MP's and supporters to <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100018706/cameroons-say-climate-change-deniers-are-old-and-dying/">publicly attack members of their own party</a> who do not agree with their position on climate change. In a previous post I mentioned what has happened in Australia. Now, David Cameron is safe. But he would do well to remember that it is likely that, at best, he will have a narrow overall majority, and the last thing he needs is to have a major split inside his caucus room even before he gets into Downing Street! And his minions should remember something else. Much like people who have honest disagreements on immigration do not like to be called racists, people who have honest disagreements on climate change do not like being being referred to as 'the dying gasps of the deniers'. Not least, because if we hark back to the first time climate change scepticism was declared as being 'in its death gasps', we are witnessing a medical miracle!<br /><br />Cameron does need to be very careful that he does not (between climate change and Europe) turn off his supporters - or send them to UKIP. Capturing the centre is important, but will count for nothing if he can't get the base out as well - especially when there is campaigning to be done!<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-52428280080737433912009-12-02T01:58:00.001-08:002009-12-02T02:26:31.383-08:00Australian Liberals - when ideology is a bad thingPolitical people often decry that political parties do not stand for anything any more. They (often myself included) hark back to a happier time when parties took strong positions on issues and offered voters a real choice. All too often now we see parties becoming mushy groups who offer the barest differences between them as a 'choice', and often ignore issues that seem too hard or too controversial.<br /><br />However, there comes a time when pragmatism must win. Major political parties are by definition big tents. First Past the Post governments are as much coalitions as proportional representation governments - except the coalition is within the party, rather than between them. And as such there will be issues that will fundamentally divide parties and risk major splits and the flight of support from one party to another. This appears to be happening in Australia to the conservative Liberal Party.<br /><br />The party has been rent asunder by the Rudd Labor Government's Emissions Trading Scheme, that has already destroyed one leader, as well as a challenger for the leadership. Malcolm Turnbull, the former leader, was rolled after (perhaps imprudently) committing the party to vote for an amended Emissions Trading Scheme, after a very fractious party meeting, and a vote that was, by all accounts, decided by a single member while leading sceptics were out of the room. This is perfectly reasonable. A party leader does not have the right to commit a party to a course of action if the majority of members are opposed to it (are you listening, Mr Cameron?). However, this is where things start to break down.<br /><br />Mr Hockey, shadow chancellor and the man expected to carry the leadership, decided on a pragmatic policy on the ETS. He said he would offer every Liberal MP and Senator a conscience vote on the issue - meaning there would be no party whip and they could vote however they chose. This was the best solution. There were obviously a large number of MP's who opposed the ETS, and a large number of supporters. With a party so evenly split, the best solution was let each MP and Senator make their own decision, and justify it to their own constituents and local party organisations. However, climate sceptics announced this was unacceptable and backed hard-right candidate Tony Abbott (by a single vote).<br /><br />Abbott has committed the Liberals to oppose the ETS. It was voted down in the Senate yesterday (where the Government does not have a majority). The Government has announced the bill shall be voted on again in February. Assuming Abbott still has control of his party room, the bill will be defeated again. Under the Australian constitution, multiple defeats in the Senate gives the Prime Minister the right to dissolve both Houses of Parliament and call what is known as a 'double dissolution' election. Which Rudd probably will. The Liberals then risk not only losing more seats in the House (where they are already reduced to a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1997">1997</a>-like rump), but will almost certainly lose seats in the Senate, and probably hand control of the chamber to Labor, ending the ability of the Liberals to at least delay laws in the Senate.<br /><br />Abbott will certainly not become Prime Minister. Rudd has been handed a second term - and for once, maybe, pragmatism should have trumped ideology...<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-41941161323359285872009-11-26T02:16:00.000-08:002009-11-26T03:35:36.051-08:00What are the chances of a hung Parliament? And what would it mean?There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth (or, alternatively, cheering and... not gnashing of teeth) over the Ipsos/Mori poll released on Sunday in the Observer claiming that there has been a six-point swing back to Labour, and they now are only six points behind the Tories. If those results were repeated on election day (with a uniform swing), then the Conservatives would have the most seats (16 seats over Labour), but would be 30 seats short of a majority.<br /><br />There are a number of reasons why I believe this prediction is wrong:<br />1) The poll appears to be an outlier. There is no reason to doubt Mori's fieldwork - they have been a respected pollster for years - but the poll has been contradicted by polls before and after it was released. A ComRes poll had the Tories up by 14, and an Angus Reid poll released on Monday had the Conservatives leading by 17 (and Labour and the Lib Dems fighting for second place).<br />2) There has been some anecdotal evidence that the a part of the increase in Labour's support has come from an increase in their supporters likelihood to vote, rather than a swing from the Tories. Mori, unlike other polling companies, only use people who are 100% certain they will vote. Previously Labour voters have been much less inclined to vote than supporters of other parties. In the aftermath of the Tory refusal to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, there are likely to be a number of Eurosceptic Tories who will tell the pollster they are not sure if they will vote, or that they will vote UKIP, but will vote Tory on election day. Also, the financial crisis has made Labour voters more inclined to vote than previously. However (and this is a BIG however), a lot of this support is in safe Labour seats, rather than marginals. Gordon Brown's government is more popular in Labour heartlands than in the marginal districts in the South and Midlands. Therefore it is very likely that an increase of support would increase majorities in the North and Scotland, while not helping them hold seats in the South and Midlands.<br />3) The belief that the Tories couldn't win an overall majority on these numbers is based on previous election results that appeared to show an inbuilt advantage for Labour. However, while there is an inbuilt advantage to Labour, it has been exaggerated by tactical voting during the past three elections. Why? Because people in a lot of constituencies were not voting for Labour, but AGAINST the Tories. Therefore, tactical voting meant that Liberal Democrats voted Labour in some seats, and Labour supporters voted Lib Dem in others, in order to keep the Conservatives out. For example, exit polling showed that one in ten Labour voters in the 2005 election voted Labour as a second choice. Next election it is Labour that is the disliked party. Most tactical voting will be based on keeping out a Labour candidate, rather than a Tory. This could see some big swings in some unexpected seats - and maybe some surprising Liberal Democrat victories.<br /><br />However, it is of course possible that the polls could narrow to the point that a hung parliament occurs. What then? There have been some commentators who have claimed this would be a disaster for democracy. I am not so sure. In the aftermath of the expenses scandal, a hung parliament that meant power lay less in the hands of the government and more in the hands of backbenchers would be beneficial for Parliament as an institution. Each individual MP would have a lot more power in a closely divided House than one with a huge majority either way.<br /><br />Others have said that a hung parliament would lead to a coalition government and a lot of cabinet seats for either Liberal Democrats or Nationalist parties (and the Northern Ireland parties). Well, looking at Canada, which has had hung Parliaments for the past five years. we have seen minority governments, rather than coalitions. While I certainly do not want to see the same results as Canada (three elections in five years, and probably another one in the next 18 months), it does show that a hung parliament can lead to a minority government.<br /><br />But, a hung parliament would also be a disaster for government in Britain. A hung parliament, while handing more power to Parliament, would prevent any party from being able to introduce the necessary measures to deal with the financial crisis. Large necessary budget cuts would be opposed. Therefore, while I expect and hope for a Conservative victory, I agree with Ken Clarke that 'a Labour majority would be better than a hung parliament'.<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-63638281908220343412009-11-24T06:06:00.001-08:002009-11-24T06:28:19.960-08:00Obama is risking the war in Afghanistan with his delayObama came into office with a policy of leaving Iraq, in order to fight 'the good war' in Afghanistan. Earlier this year he agreed to a 'surge' strategy. However, he has now been sitting on a decision on the number of troops he will commit for a dangerously long time. Why? Because as he dithers over the decision Americas allies are falling away. Without America's leadership more and more countries are finding it difficult to keep public support for the war - and more and more difficult to support the Afghan campaign in the face of that lack of support. In Britain a spate of casualties and a sense of lethargy from government (caused, mostly, from Washington) has seen support for the campaign fall, and the numbers calling for an immediate withdrawal rising precipitously. While the three main parties are still committed to the campaign, the Liberal Democrats have already backed away from wholehearted support - there is a chance they will move to a withdrawal position before the General Election.<br /><br />Gordon Brown, whatever his faults (and heaven knows there are no shortage of those) has been a strong supporter of the campaign. But even he may be unable to fight public opinion without more obvious and loud support from Washington. If Obama wants to continue the Afghan campaign and continue to have wide support from America's allies in that campaign then for the love of mercy, Mr President, make a decision!<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-69647371571412691682009-11-24T05:09:00.000-08:002009-11-24T05:22:18.358-08:00Climate change supporters need to debate scienceI am not a scientist. I do not know, or understand, any of the science of climate change well enough to say what is going on. But I do know something. The era of climate change supporters saying 'the science is settled' is over. Why? Because the climate change sceptics are starting to make some damn good points, and if the supporters of climate change aren't willing to debate them on the merits of the argument then it just makes them sound like they do not have any answers. What has led me to this point?<br /><br />Last night I went to a fascinating debate on climate change, with a for and against speaker on the science, and a for and against speaker on the economics.<br /><br />The 'for' scientist stood up and spoke about policy, rather than science. The sceptic scientist spoke well, giving a number of clear examples of where (he claims) the science shows that climate change is a mostly naturally occurring phenomenon. Then in the rebuttal speeches I fully expected an argument to be made as to why these claims were wrong, or alternative evidence presented. Not at all. Which, naturally, led many in the audience to wonder whether this was because there was no counter-argument.<br /><br />With polls showing that well under 50% of Britons believe in human-caused climate change, and an economic crisis that has made many think of global warming policy as far less important, I think the pro-climate lobby needs to get off their high horses and have the debate. If they are right, they should easily defeat sceptics. If they won't, it starts to look like they can't.<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-67258216856987482222009-11-15T02:46:00.000-08:002009-11-15T03:04:16.504-08:00The law is an assWell, it is official. The law has completely lost it's sense of justice. Paul Clarke, an ex-soldier, has been <a href="http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html">convicted of possessing an illegal firearm</a> - after picking up a discarded weapon and taking it to the Police station! When I first came across this story, I thought "oh, there must be more to it". But no, there isn't. He found a shotgun at the bottom of his garden (which backs on to a public park), took it to the police and handed it in. By touching the weapon, he was in possession of it, and as the offence is strict liability (ie, his intention does not matter, only his actions - so the fact he only possessed it to hand it in has no bearing on the case) he was convicted this week. The minimum sentence is five years imprisonment.<br /><br />Believe it or not, as a rule I am strongly in favour of strict liability offences. But only when you can rely on the discretion of officers to identify dangers to society and act accordingly. For the love of all things, when you have Police handing out caution notices for assault and sexual assault, I would have thought the officer in question would have been smart enough to recognise that Clarke was not a risk to society and acted accordingly. Apparently I am wrong about that - and that is very concerning!<br /><br />Police officers aren't thoughtless automatons. You often see officers using their discretion - especially with the young (the number of times one hears about drunk university students being given a warning or other summary punishment rather than spend a night in the cells). This discretion helps the justice system work fairly and justly. The police officer in question appears to have forgotten that, and his actions will make other less inclined to help the police serve and protect the people of Britain.<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-57654436833886066382009-11-13T02:53:00.001-08:002009-11-13T03:08:51.360-08:00Result in GlasgowWhat will almost certainly be the last by-election of this Parliament was held last night in Glasgow North-East, the seat of former Speaker Michael (now Lord) Martin. Labour held the seat, which was expected, but they also won it with a surprisingly large majority. Labour ended up with a majority of 8000 over the Scottish National Party on a turnout of 32%. The Conservatives came third another 3000 votes back, closely followed by the British National Party. In a very disappointing result for the Liberal Democrats, their candidate came 6th with 2.3% of the vote.<br /><br />So what does this mean? Does it mean anything? Well... yes and no. Glasgow North-East is one of the safest Labour seats in the country. Anything other than a massive victory would have been truly shocking. Coupled with the Glenrothes result from last year, it appears that the Scottish vote will hold up for Labour in the General Election, which might stymie some expected gains for the Tories, Lib Dems and SNP. It could also mean less of a defeat for Labour in a General Election, since they will have a strong base of Scottish seats to fall back on.<br /><br />However(!!!), there are other readings of this result. This result, coupled with Norwich North and Crewe & Nantwich, may well prove that Gordon Brown is successful in getting hardcore Labour partisans out to vote - but is disproportionally bad at keeping swing voters and casual Labour supporters to the ballot box to vote Labour. This may mean an unexpectedly bad result for Labour - since rather than a uniform fall in their support (so marginal and safe seats lose approximately the same number of votes), Labour is still winning the same number of votes in safe seats, and losing disproportionally more votes in marginal seats, which would see more of these marginal seats fall to the Tories. More importantly, most of these marginal constituencies are held by those on the right of the party. A clear out of these members could see Labour fall into the same position as they did in the early 1980's.<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-73422748095815743462009-11-06T01:32:00.000-08:002009-11-06T01:49:37.360-08:00Expenses criminal Julie Kirkbride trying to stand againI'm not usually someone who rushes to anger, but in this case I am most certainly angry. Julie Kirkbride, for those of you who do not know, was one of the worst expenses fiddlers. She, along with her MP husband Andrew McKay, set up an elaborate con where they both claimed second home allowances - she claiming for their flat in London, and he claiming for their home in the constituency.<br /><br />At the time Judy did the honourable thing and announced she would not seek re-election for her seat. But today she has announced that <a href="http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2009/11/julie-kirkbride-tells-bromsgrove-conservatives-she-wishes-to-be-their-candidate-at-the-general-elect.html">she will seek reselection</a>. Congratulations, Judy. In one foul swoop you have undone the hard line David Cameron took on the expenses saga and also risk becoming a local news story that will lessen the chances of up to eight Conservative gains in seats around the Birmingham area - not to mention risking a safe seat.<br /><br />And precisely what is your reasoning? Surely you cannot think Mr Cameron can trust you with a ministerial job now? Please, pack up what is left of your dignity and say that it was a misunderstanding and you will not seek or accept nomination for the seat<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-5552646009462584642009-11-02T03:36:00.000-08:002009-11-02T04:04:05.910-08:00Defending Alan JohnsonI really need to stop defending Labour Ministers (and possible leadership contenders), or they will take away my party membership card!<br /><br />However, Alan Johnson is a special case - particularly regarding the current snafu about drugs. Basically, he sacked a scientific advisor who publicly argued against the policy the Home Office put out on the reclassification of drugs (reclassifying cannabis from class C to class B). Professor Nutt argued that cannabis was less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, and said the government's decision was based on politics rather than science.<br /><br />Now, whatever the arguments for or against the reclassification (and I happen to believe the government is wrong), what is clear is that a government advisor cannot both be both a government advisor and an active campaigner against government policy. It strikes me as being like being in cabinet - if you disagree with something strongly enough you must resign, but if you remain within the government 'team', you must support whatever policy is decided upon.<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-85257751410460807082009-10-29T02:30:00.000-07:002009-10-29T03:54:56.235-07:00Bureaucracy creep and ID cardsID cards have been in the news frequently in Britain in recent months - the Government was for them, then said only migrants needed them, then said people in Manchester could get them if they wanted. Another example of dither and delay that has been a hallmark of this government since the 'election that never was'. However, I was listening to an old podcast of 'Today in Parliament' (one has to do something on the tube), where Alan Johnson (Home Secretary) was talking about how little ID cards would actually be used - only for travel within the EU.<br /><br />This got me thinking about the equivalent in the United States of America - the Social Security Card, and how the things you needed it for had increased since it's introduction. Originally the Social Security card was just that - it was the card one used to access social security. However in the years since the number of things one needs to present either a social security card or a social security number has sky-rocketed. It is now a de fact ID card in the United States.<br /><br />Let me give you an example. I lived in Washington DC for six months. During that time I never actually got a social security card (although I got a number). But I had to present this number in order to get paid, in order to pay tax, and to be able to get a membership at Blockbuster videos.<br /><br />So don't be contented when a politicians tells you that an ID card won't be used for much - as time progresses they can always find new and interested things to require you to present an ID card for...<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-11592658890403899212009-10-22T06:35:00.000-07:002009-10-22T07:58:23.602-07:00Is Baroness Warsi the best spokeswoman for the Conservatives against the BNP?I think Baroness Warsi is a very good Shadow Minister. Despite this, I am not sure she is the best candidate for the Conservatives to put on Question Time with Nick Griffin. Why? Well, before I get to that, let me accept there are some very good reasons to put her on.<br />1) She is a Muslim woman, and as such can more personally speak against Griffin's prejudices.<br />2) She is a non-white Conservative, and so on a purely political level will make Cameron look like he is really presiding over a multi-racial party, and can also counterpoint the white faces of the politicians on the rest of the Question Time panel (although one of the panellists is Bonnie Greer, a black American writer) .<br />3) She is the Shadow Minister of Community Cohesion and Social Action, so more likely than not much of what comes up on the show will be within her Shadow Ministerial remit.<br /><br />However, there are also some very good reasons why she is not the right person for the job:<br />1) She is (as Nick Griffin would argue) a perfect example of the ethnic minority affirmative action that the BNP bangs on about. She is the youngest member of the House of Lords, having been elevated when she was 36. She had never been an MP, and when she ran for Parliament in 2005, she actually gained a lower share of the vote than the Conservative candidate in 2001 or 1997 (although more absolute votes). None of this means that she is unfit for the job, but it is merely a very easy point for Nick Griffin to make hay on.<br />2) She doesn't speak to the constituency that the BNP is contesting. The constituency in play here is the white working class, some of whom truly believe immigrants and non-white people are coming to this country and stealing their jobs. I am not certain that Baroness Warsi will be able to sooth these concerns the way someone like David Davis or William Hague could have done (David Davis especially).<br />3) Again unlike Davis or Hague, I have no idea how she will perform against Griffin. Warsi's previous experiences on Question Time have generally elicited a less than enthusiastic response from political watchers (especially Conservative ones). While I have never seen her on it myself and so cannot judge, the number of negative reviews I hear from others makes me concerned about whether she will be able to go toe to toe with Griffin.<br /><br />Anyway in a few short hours we will know the result. Will today see the BNP exposed for what it is? Or will Griffin hold his own and make the party look like a real alternative to Labour in some of Labour's inner-city bastions? And more importantly, will the anti-BNP protesters be able to shut the hell up and let a real debate take place. If they heckle and barrack Griffin (especially if Griffin looks reasonable when he tries to deal with them, as has happened on occasion) they will give him the best outcome of all - make him the centre of attention and do not force him to explain his policy.<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-88320634749222582502009-10-21T02:53:00.000-07:002009-10-21T03:29:34.365-07:00All-women shortlists stupid ideaIt is decisions <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8314322.stm">like these</a> that make me wonder about David Cameron. Wonder especially at whether he truly believes what he says, or whether he is merely saying it in order to try to make himself appear more electable.<br /><br />Conservative Home have an excellent <a href="http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2009/10/all-women-shortlists-are-fundamentally-unconservative-and-they-have-no-place-in-a-party-pledged-to-m.html">editorial </a>on this, but I must stick my own two cents (or pence) in. This is another example of CHQ trying to further centralise candidate selection. And this does not work well. Labour has discovered with all-female shortlists that spurned men will pop up as independent candidates (and in some cases have won!), and if local members feel that a candidate has been forced upon them they will be less likely to go out and campaign for them. And Labour has a far more centralised candidate selection than the Conservative Party!<br /><br />The Conservatives discovered in the Bedford Mayoralty election (where a candidate was forced on the local association) the negative effects of not having local associations onside (the mayoralty was won by the Liberal Democrats with 54% of the vote). One local activist in Bedford claimed "I have never known such anger and disillusionment in the party in all my years. Local members have been kicked in the teeth."<br /><br />This is only a taste of the disillusionment that some Conservative candidates could find if they are imposed on local associations and then discover no-one particularly wants to go out and campaign for them.<br /><br />Leaving aside the implications for local associations, all-women shortlists are simply a bad idea. The way to make Parliament better is not to force more less able women into seats they couldn't win themselves. The way to make Parliament better is to have more people of any sex, race or creed who are up to the job. More often than not the best people to decide this are local associations, rather than a central office that will be looking to fill quotas for the number of women or minority candidates. Margaret Thatcher did not need an all-women shortlist to become an MP (let alone leader). Barack Obama did not need an all-black shortlist to become Senator of Illinois (or President of the United States). While Conservatives need to guard against racism and sexism in local associations that would prevent a minority or woman candidate who is the best candidate from winning, the solution is not a shortlist that imposes a candidate on those associations.<br /><br />Finally, there is no reason to think that imposing a woman candidate on a constituency will help the Conservatives with women voters. For that they must concentrate on policy issues, rather than throwing lesser candidates at the electorate as a sop to political correctness.<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-11359370113165448662009-10-20T06:06:00.002-07:002009-10-21T02:53:39.893-07:00Obama's decision on blasphemy very disappointingPresident Obama - presumably in order to help rehabilitate the image of the United States in the Muslim world - has signed up the United States to a resolution on free speech at the UN Human Rights Council that specifically excludes 'any negative racial or religious stereotyping'.<br /><br />This is most definitely NOT a good thing. The fear by many free speech advocates is that Islamic countries will use the exception given in the resolution to enact and maintain strict blasphemy laws, as well as prevent the West from using 'free speech' as a reason whenever we get into an argument with the Islamic world over some depiction or discussion of Islam. Obviously there are times when discussions about Islam can become racist or bigoted - or even violent. But these cases should not outweigh the basic and fundamental right to freedom of speech - a right so fundamental that the government should have very limited rights to regulate at all.<br /><br />So, now we have an exception to freedom of speech for any racial or religious stereotyping (a phrase so unbelievably broad that anyone could be caught in it), and an effort by the UK government to repeal the 'freedom of speech' defence from hate speech laws (a law that is illiberal to start with - if someone is inciting to violence they can be charged and convicted under existing incitement legislation!). And now America, the land of the free, has backed off it's support for freedom of speech. How depressing...<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-63964076505693347262009-10-16T03:22:00.000-07:002009-10-16T04:01:29.341-07:00Do some MP's have a fair point on expenses?There have been a lot of anger from MP's regarding the Sir Thomas Legg investigation into expenses. The reason behind this is that Sir Thomas has gone back five years and retrospectively changed the interpretation of the rules. Claims that were looked at by the Fees Office at the time and signed off as being 'within the rules' has been re-examined and, in some cases, reversed. This has caused a number of MP's (including the Prime Minister) who believed they were in the clear, being asked to pay back a lot of money (in Mr Brown's case, he has been asked to pay £12,000).<br /><br />The newspapers and much of the public are, to say the least, unsympathetic. They claim that MP's made the rules and they should have made rules that were stricter.<br /><br />In my opinion this is a little unfair. If claims were signed off as being within the rules at the time, it is a little rough to retrospectively examine the claims with a new set of criteria. Imagine the Government changing a law today (such as raising the retirement age), then writing to every pensioner and telling them they should have know the age was going to go up, and they need to pay back any pension the got for those years. There would be a justifiable outcry. There is little difference to what is now happening to MP's, in some cases to the tune of tens, or even hundreds of thousands of pounds. For all that we can laugh at how much MP's are paid, they are not actually that well off (unless they are well-heeled Tories). Asking them to stump up with that sort of cash is completely unreasonable.<br /><br />By all accounts punish those who broke the rules - even have the Police investigate sorts like Jacqui Smith who appear to have acted corruptly by mis-claiming or those caught 'flipping' houses - but to retrospectively change the rules and demand repayment seems a little rough.<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-28176344960090911412009-10-08T01:36:00.000-07:002009-10-08T01:51:05.296-07:00Could the young only knowing 'good times' derail the Conservatives?An interesting (and potentially worrying) story in today's <a href="http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Britains_floating_voters_hold_key_to_power&in_article_id=749549&in_page_id=34">Metro</a> is that a quarter of young urbanites have not yet made up their mind about who they are voting for. There are two ways of reading this, one of which could lead to Labour holding a lot more seats on election night than current polling indicates.<br /><br />The first option is that this is no big deal - young people are usually the least partisan (or at least the least pro-Conservative), and they also vote much less reliably than older voters. Therefore, a large chunk of that quarter may just not be planning to vote. Think of the USA - where every election the young will drive the Democrats to victory, and every time the young fail to come out in proportion to older voters (even Obama failed to increase young voters as a percentage of voting population, although the absolute number of young voters did increase). So according to this there is no problem - if they haven't made up their mind, they probably won't vote, so the current numbers should remain steady.<br /><br />The second option is possibly a very big deal - That young urbanites have never felt a real economic downturn before - let alone had to deal with falling government spending. And because they have never experienced it, they are less likely to understand what would happen to the country without major cuts in spending. Therefore, this 'don't know' could indicate that a large chunk of young people in urban centres (seats the Tories must win if they are to form a government) are unwilling to sign up to the necessary but unpleasant cuts the Conservatives are advocating - and could cast their vote for Labour as the 'nice' alternative.<br /><br />I have no idea which of these two options is the cause of the number of 'don't knows' amongst young urbanites (although I lean towards the first option). Of course, there is always another option - that despite his efforts to appeal to the young, David Cameron is yet to seal the deal. Hopefully his conference speech today can convince some of these voters, and lay out exactly why people should vote FOR the Conservatives, rather than simply vote against Labour.Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-11224222625740247022009-10-08T01:17:00.000-07:002009-10-08T01:34:35.671-07:00Conference Day 3I don't know if it was the vast quantities of free alcohol that disappeared down thousands of throats on Tuesday night, but Wednesday appeared much quieter in general, and in the morning in particular. But anyway, highlights of Day 3 include:<br /><br />I went to an excellent fringe event on the effects of regulation on the banking industry. The speakers debated the level of desired regulation, and two speakers made excellent points for the industry to take over more of a self-regulatory role. It was a very interesting discussion on the effects of bank regulation, and also the rather worrying new role that the G20 has taken on.<br /><br />Chris Grayling's unfortunate mistake on General Dannatt - Today the Conservatives should be on an even greater high than previous days in the media. General Dannatt, the recently retired British Army Chief, has <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6268915/General-Sir-Richard-Dannatt-to-be-Conservative-defence-adviser.html">agreed to be elevated to the House of Lords as a Tory Peer</a> (see how good the appointed Lords is?) and serve as a Defence advisor to a Conservative Government. Unfortunately no-one advised Mr Grayling of this new development, and when he was asked about it by the BBC he (seemingly on the mistaken belief that Labour had offered General Dannatt a job) said that he hoped 'it wasn't a political gimmick'. Cue laughter and eye-rolling of press gallery.<br /><br />Last night's international office party - I managed to wangle my way into this rather exciting event which is put on for diplomats and observers from foreign centre-right parties. The President of the Maldives was in attendance, as were a number of MP's from other aligned parties (such as the Canadian Conservatives and New Zealand National Party). William Hague (isn't he wonderful?) gave a magnificent speech and the wine and canapés flowed freely late into the night.<br /><br />This morning is very quiet. The fringe events are over (for the most part), and there are only a few speeches left, of which only two are high profile. William Hague will speak on foreign affairs, and then the big tamale (David Cameron) will speak at about 2pm on the need to end the 'culture of irresponsibility'. And then we all decamp back to London and leave Manchester behind. Next year - Birmingham!Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-16094999312923682622009-10-07T02:01:00.001-07:002009-10-07T02:11:23.789-07:00Three very different views on electoral reformWell, it's official. All three parties now call for electoral reform. The only problem is that all three have VERY different views of what electoral reform should be passed. The Liberal Democrats call for proportional representation (which is nothing new). Labour jumped into the debate calling for alternative votes (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_vote">a similar system to what is used in Australia</a>), and the Tories yesterday said they would drastically cut the number of seats and equalise the number of people within each constituency. Naturally each party has chosen the system that will benefit them best. The Liberal Democrats never get the number of seats that their share of the vote entitles them to (although I would argue that if it did, they would get far fewer votes), Labour believes the Liberal Democrats split the centre-left vote, which would mean that in a ranking system they would benefit from Lib Dem second choices (although once again, I don't think they will benefit as much as they think they will - large chunks of Liberal Democrat voters are actually libertarian and would rank the Tories above Labour), while the Conservatives claim many of Labour's seats are in urban areas with fewer people in each constituency (not to mention the Scottish seats have significantly fewer people per constituency - meaning a Scottish vote counts for a lot more than an English one), so by equalising the number of people per constituency and making them larger, they will improve Conservative chances of electoral victory. Of the three, the Conservative one is the reform most likely to get the results they desire.<br /><br />All this means is that there will be reform of one kind or another after the election - and the people of Britain will be voting not just for a new government, but also what kind of electoral system they want!Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-68825983409408104672009-10-07T01:23:00.000-07:002009-10-07T01:54:26.668-07:00Conference Day 2<div style="text-align: left;">Yesterday was another whirlwind. I do not know how the media manage to keep abreast of what is going on. At any one time there can be up to twenty different fringe events on, plus whatever is on in the main conference hall. Inside the eye of the storm it is impossible to try to work out what is going on...<br /><br />But some highlights nonetheless:<br />The Conservatives were fending off some negative press over their announcement that they will raise the retirement age to 66 in the next seven years (rather than over the next twenty as Labour is intending). Surprisingly most people interviewed on the street by the BBC seemed pretty happy with the changes, most expecting that they would have to work longer than that anyway.<br />Ken Clarke gave a barnstorming speech on the conference floor, writing off the Liberal Democrats as 'dreamers', Labour (and his opposite number Lord Mandelson in particular) as 'schemers', while saying the Conservatives had to roll up their sleeves because there was work to do.<br />A new party group called 'Progressive Conservatives' was launched. This new group is to push for policy from a classical liberal (small government social liberal) point of view. It was a very exciting launch (especially because Dan Hannan MEP spoke - if you ever want to wind up a crowd of Conservatives put Dan Hannan in front of them) and there were a lot of people there considering it was only launched three days before conference started.<br />George Osbourne spoke about the need for spending restraint and laid out some specifics - including a pay freeze for public sector workers (which was naturally immediately attacked by the unions) and removal of some of the middle class welfare that Labour has created.<br /><br />There were also a very large number of receptions last night - which is where most of the fun happens!<br /></div>Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737543789250425299.post-29340757596189850882009-10-06T02:06:00.001-07:002009-10-06T02:17:32.663-07:00Ireland vote 'Yes' on LisbonNow the Conservatives have a real 'Europe' problem. Yesterday I sat in a room with a VERY large number of people who bayed in full-throated approval whenever one of the speakers mentioned leaving the European Union, or demanding a referendum on Lisbon no matter it's status.<br /><br />David Cameron has a real problem. If he were to try to alter the Lisbon Treaty once it came into force (or repeal Britain's acceptance of it), the result for the British economy could be cataclysmic - the loss of confidence in the Sterling and the likely inability of the Government to sell gilts could put the economy into a serious tailspin - and the European Union would be less than keen to help Britain out of the hole it dug itself.<br /><br />However, if Cameron backs off the hard line on Europe he could have some trouble holding some of the more Eurosceptic elements together within the party, which could lead to his having the same troubles that John Major had over Europe. And if Nigel Farage (from UK Independence Party) wins a seat in Westminter, there would be a vehicle for these disaffected Tories to jump to.<br /><br />However, there is still a long way to go before anyone has to worry about that. Warsaw and Prague still have to ratify (which they probably will before a General Election can be held), and much will depend on the election result and the size (if any) of a Conservative majority.Conserva-Colliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17326811122325958132noreply@blogger.com0