CentreRight

"Prime Minister, you are no Sir John Major."

This past week I have found myself reflecting on one of the most devastating put-downs in political history was delivered on the 5th October 1988 during the televised US vice-presidential debate in Omaha, Nebraska by Senator Lloyd Bentsen: After his opponent Senator Dan Qualye likened himself to Jack Kennedy, “Senator,” Bentsen remarked, “I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.”

The trigger for the reminiscences were press reports that John Major had become the ‘patron saint of Brown’s inner circle’ as they drew parallels to the problems he faced whilst in government. As someone privileged to serve as a junior minister in John Major’s administration I would suggest contrasts condemn rather than comfort the current incumbent of 10 Downing Street:

• John Major was a deeply loyal Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher and emerged as the strongest candidate from a highly competitive field in the leadership contest which occurred following her untimely removal as leader;
• John Major won a General Election in 1992 with the largest popular vote (14.093 million) ever recorded for political Party in a British General Election;
• John Major initiated The Downing Street Declaration in 1993, which was followed by an IRA ceasefire. At the time he had a shaky majority of only 21 in the House of Commons (Brown has 63) and showed immense political courage in being prepared to jeopardize the 12 Unionist MPs’ support in pursuit of an historic peace settlement;
• John Major committed British forces to the First Gulf War with a clear objective and exit strategy—to liberate Kuwait, and did so with UN Security Council backing and full support of our allies resulting in a swift and decisive victory. John Major developed the idea to establish a no-fly zone in northern Iraq to protect the Kurds refugees against the genocidal attacks by Saddam Hussein an act which to this day ensures Major retains hero status amongst the Kurdish people;
• John Major staunchly defended British interests in the Maastricht Treaty, unlike Gordon Brown's sell-out in the Lisbon Treaty. Major negotiated a series of crucial opt-outs for Britain from the Delors’ plan for Economic & Monetary Union, the social chapter and the retention of our border controls which along with the exit from the ill-fated ERM laid the foundations for a world-beating period of economic growth;
• John Major when faced with plotting about his leadership by the parliamentary Party had the political courage to invite his opponents to step out into the open, to ‘put up or shut up’ and forced a leadership election which he won by 218 votes to 89;
• John Major thought about the long-term strategic advantage of the nation rather than the short-term tactical advantage for his premiership, consider the National Lottery which has raised over £22 billion for good causes, transformed the funding of sport in this country and laid the foundation for Olympic success in Sydney, Beijing and to securing the games for London in 2012;
• John Major left a golden economic legacy in 1997 with strong growth, falling unemployment, a national debt half its current level and a Public Sector Borrowing Requirement which was £2 billion and falling compared to currently £104 billion under Labour and rising. In fact John Major’s administration was the only post-war government to leave office with every economic indicator improving; and
• Finally, people liked John Major. They thought him a decent, honest political leader and still do.

“I knew John Major, I served with John Major. Prime Minister you are no Sir John Major.”

Responding to your comments RE: Section 28

My post the other day about Section 28 has generated some excitement, as this topic is wont to do.  I wanted to come back on a few of the points raised.

Swimming-Pool Pride

To know, know, know him, is to love, love, love him ... I do love that song. And it often pops into my mind when I'm swimming; Zen-like rhythmic splashing is a mental magnet for songs with a hypnotic beat of repetition. What I think about most in the pool is how hard it is to know other people. I do believe this: all we can change is all we can love, and all we can love is all we can know. Which begs the question - how do you know someone?

In scientific experiment, I would answer the related epistemological question How can I know something based on this observation? through a(n unpopular) adherence to logical positivism. But I don't think that gets me very far in understanding how to know another human being.

There's a glimpse of an answer to the human problem in a swimming pool. I don't know the name of a single fellow swimmer in the London Fields Lido, though most mornings I see more of their bodies than their close friends ever will. The strange contradiction, once you're immersed, and moving up and down the lane, is that despite the near-naked bodies all around you - the flash of a torso you catch as you turn your head to suck in air, the sliver of water falling from an outstretched arm, the flippering feet five seconds in front of your face - despite all this naked humanity, there's very little of the individual to be discerned. It's quite hard even to tell the difference between the men and the women, until you stop for a breather at one end or the other. In the quasi-religious hush which blankets the splashing lanes we are not Graeme, the introspective statistician who posts on CentreRight, or Mary, the green-voting bookseller with worries about her mortgage, or Dave, the carpet-fitter with his daughter enrolled at QMU - we are just early morning swimmers. All other identities shed, along with our clothing, I know nothing of the others save that we share this early morning passion. And I love them for it. Seriously. I feel a warmth of fellow-feeling which goes quite beyond a desire to discuss how to enact a tumble-turn. And after, when we're dressed and outside, fumbling over bike locks or peering at mobile phones, a residual warmth carries over, we nod and smile in that gentle English way, before parting to get on with the rest of the day (and not much else will be as good as that first hour).

Bill Cash receives overwhelming support

Bill Cash, MP for Stone, received overwhelming support in a vote of confidence at an Extraordinary General Meeting last night. The meeting gave him a truly overwhelming majority - and a standing ovation. Bill said that he was utterly delighted with the results. He received a personal letter of support from David Cameron (see below).

That morning, in the European Scrutiny Committee, Bill had cross-examined David Miliband on the Irish guarantees and the Lisbon Treaty. He pointed out that the Minister for Europe, Baroness Kinnock, had stated the previous day that the British Parliament had “agreed” the Irish guarantees, which was simply not true. Bill challenged the Foreign Secretary to either agree with her or to tell the truth. The Foreign Secretary completely failed to give a satisfactory explanation of the legal and political situation regarding the Irish question and Cash demanded a referendum in line with the wishes of 88% of the British people.

Letter from David Cameron to Bill Cash

2nd July

Dear Bill,

Further to my letter to you on 4th June, I understand that you will be meeting your Association at an Extraordinary General Meeting later today.

My earlier letter made clear that you did not have further questions to answer, and that I hoped very much that you would be able to put this matter behind you. However, in the light of the subsequent press coverage you and your family have had, I would like to reaffirm what I said and to thank you personally for the tireless contribution you make to the work of Parliament. You have a long record of serving your constituents with commitment and integrity.

I wish you well in the outcome of your Extraordinary General Meeting, and look forward to working with you to make sure a Conservative Government is elected at the next General Election.

Yours ever,

David Cameron

Funding future care requires individual responsibility

by Dr Patrick Nolan, Chief Economist, Reform

A widely anticipated Government green paper is planned for release next week on funding long-term care such as medical and non-medical services for people with chronic illnesses or disability. This issue of funding long-term care is only going to grow in importance. By 2050 there will be twice as many people aged over 85 and the overall costs of long term care will increase fourfold. Some estimates are that in 20 years there will be a £6 billion funding shortfall for these services.

A number of concerns have been expressed over the current system of long-term care funding. It has been argued that without change older people will have to pay more from their own pockets. There is also a boundary between medical treatments provided ‘free’ to the elderly in the NHS – although, of course, at a cost to taxpayers – and social care which is not.

It is sometimes suggested that long-term care should be free and universally available – as has been the case in Scotland since early 2001. Audit Scotland reviewed this policy in early 2008 and noted that the cost to taxpayers of long-term care was a third higher than if universal provision had not been introduced. This was reflected in a sizeable shortfall in central funding which is only going to get worse over time. In an era where there are already serious questions over funding other health and pension commitments, introducing free and universal long-term care across the United Kingdom is clearly unaffordable.

Road to hell in the public finances

As Matt Sinclair pointed out yesterday, the current Government's wrecking of the public finances looks set to result in a slashing of transport investment. By some £30Bn over ten years.

In our small island after 12 years of Labour Government, we find our roads are hopelessly congested, our railways are still very poor and our only air transport policy is "more Heathrow".  All these things are loathed with a passion by the vast majority of our countrymen. Yet what can be done? The public finances will take at least five years to put back together and we know deep down that Government spending will have to be slashed in many areas.  Transport investment is clearly going to take a hit whether we like it or not. And let's be honest, it may well mean that Crossrail and motorway improvement schemes are lost as Matthew points out. The depressing consequence of Labour's economic incompetence.

Yet there are options open to a Conservative Government to keep transport investment moving forward even in difficult times. The first is that it is possible to build new motorways. How? Through tolls for infrastructure. It's not something any of us like, yet it is an option and it may be the only game in town when the Government has no money. Second, any public sector subsidy required for the High Speed Rail network could be structured so it is provided at a later point - e.g. once it is built. And you never know, high speed rail might actually pay for itself more than people currently think. That sort of finance structure may be what is required to save the Crossrail project. Third, just because the Conservatives say no to yet more Heathrow does not mean we cannot have an expansion and renaissance in regional airports.  Those expansion projects should be self funding and should help drive regional economic expansion.

I don't know about you, but I really, really hate traffic jams. They drive me mad. There is an amazing amount of really boring stuff that can be done to cut congestion. Better road planning, traffic light management, more overnight maintenance and stamping out this wretched business of utility companies digging up roads every five seconds - which they still do! Often the smaller things make a bigger difference than the grand schemes. Years of anti motorist policies have weighed heavily in these areas. There is the potential here to make quite a few fairly quick and inexpensive changes. Changes that would impact positively on quality of life.

Conservative transport policy goes up in fiscal smoke

The nationalisation of the National Express route from Kings Cross to Edinburgh has rightly been getting a lot of attention.  The taxpayer has just lost out to the tune of over £1 billion as a big company uses dodgy accounting practices to avoid paying the price for making a far too optimistic bid for the route.  Hopefully Iain Murray, who has some experience in this area, will have the time to give us his thoughts on how similar problems might be avoided in the future.

This week's other transport story is arguably going to be far more important to far more people though.  The news that £29 billion is going to be cut from the transport budget over a 10-year period has huge implications, arguably even more serious for the Conservatives than for the Government.  I've opposed the policy of stopping the growth of Heathrow for some time on the grounds that international travel shouldn't be put beyond the reach of ordinary people and is economically vital.  The proposed high speed line would be an inadequate replacement and phenomenally expensive.

That policy now needs to be reassessed, even if you didn't find my earlier arguments persuasive, as it is simply unaffordable.

City AM describes the potential consequences of a £29 billion cut over ten years:

"The £16bn Crossrail scheme linking Heathrow to Canary Wharf and Essex could be delayed; a £6bn motorway improvement scheme could be cut; a mooted high-speed rail route may be delayed; and train fares could rise substantially, with the current one per cent plus inflation cap on fares lifted."

The argument that Theresa Villiers used to make, that the £15.6 billion (in public subsidy alone) high speed line could be funded from the Transport budget without compromising other projects, is clearly untenable.  Other projects are already being compromised even without another big new commitment.

"You literally can’t find a journalist to say that Brown isn’t lying when he says spending will rise."

Quote from Fraser Nelson.

How long does Brown intend to carry on digging?

Lower, simpler business taxes are a good idea

The Telegraph is wrong to be critical of of the Conservatives considering a plan to lower business taxes. Lower and simpler business taxes are a good idea and will do much to spur the attractiveness of Britain as a place to do business. Reducing Britain's debt mountain is really important for all of us too.

The business tax system allows a lot of reliefs - notably for capital allowances and debt interest. Some of these reliefs could be reduced and the tax rate cut.  A "Lawsonian" approach. This means you get a lower tax rate and a simpler tax system. Discourage excessive debt by treating interest more like dividends and you encourage more equity investment. Can't pay a dividend? Well, the business passes on the dividend and can keep going until better times. Can't pay the interest? The business cuts investment or, worse, goes bust. Debt financing seems great on the way up - it is terrible on the way down. This is exactly what we are seeing. It has made the recession tougher than it needed to be.

So why then are some business interests so keen on debt being so tax attractive? Well a culture has grown up where interest is basically used to avoid UK tax. On an industrial scale. Large multinationals and private equity barons use this relief to reduce UK profits and get the money offshore to places where there is no tax - like the Channel Islands. Great for them, bad for the taxpayer, bad for all of us and our jobs in making the recession harder than it needs to be.

Now, debt is not always a "bad thing". It has its place. It is also entirely understandable that big business interests will hate any change in this area as it would put a stop to mass tax avoidance and stamp out much tax haven planning.Yet it is not right it should be tax preferred over equity financing as it is. As we can see from the effects of the recession, it would be better and fairer to enable a more level playing field between equity investment and debt, attractive to reduce the country's debt mountain at all levels and desirable to have lower, simpler business taxes.

David Cameron says that social action projects will help us fix our broken politics

Yesterday Donata Huggins attended the Conservative Party's Social Action Conference on behalf of ConservativeHome and filed the following despatch:

“I want social action to be as important to candidates as campaigning on the doorstep, and as important to the life of political parties as policy-making.”

That's what David Cameron told yesterday's Conservative Social Action Conference.

He stated that this “new way of doing politics” was a good antidote to the “collective shame” felt over the expenses scandal and that it would attract new people into politics. The Conservative leader added that “the political elite need to take a step down, and the people on the street need to step up”, changing the focus from “condescending” top-down government solutions on social issues to getting people to ask themselves what they can do as individuals.

The conference publicised the 150 Conservative-led projects set up over the last three years, tackling social issues such as the youth club project set up by Charlotte Leslie, the prospective parliamentary candidate for Bristol North West. 

David Cameron insisted that these were not “flash in the pan photo opportunities” and stressed that social action was “a very deep Conservative value” about “getting up off your backside, rolling up your sleeves, and doing something positive to strengthen society."

> Read the full speech.

I don't apologize for Section 28

I am entirely comfortable in the presence of homosexuals.  I'm genuinely pleased for friends of mine who have entered into civil partnerships.  I'm very glad we have equality of the age of consent for homosexuals.  And I wish we could leave Section 28 in the past where it belongs - a measure of its time, which had a purpose in its day but which came to be distorted by both sides into an iconic measure.

As I say, I wish we could leave Section 28 in the past, but some people won't let us so, alas, tedious though it is, I shall be forced to defend Section 28 as the liberal Conservative measure that it was.  I don't know precisely who the "we" is on whose behalf David Cameron thinks he's entitled to say "We got it wrong", but it isn't me.

Rejoice, rejoice

A mere billion quid down the drain, our benighted Government has finally abandoned the absurd compulsory ID cards scheme.

Great work from the NO2ID guys and pleasing for those of us who always thought it a terrible idea.

Whither the IEA?

Tim raises some very good questions surrounding the future of the Institute for Economic Affairs.  As someone heavily involved in running a think tank that is all about free markets over here in Washington DC, I hope that these observations will prove helpful to those who are to decide its future direction.

First, we must recognize that one of the founding principles of the IEA - Hayek's advice to win the war of ideas without engaging in politics - has been rendered moot by technology.  Today, the war of ideas is not fought between dons in Senior Common Rooms, in the lounges of Pall Mall clubs or in the bars of the House of Commons, but between web-based organizations that involve thousands or in some cases millions of people. As a result, the war of ideas and politics have merged together.  This site is a great example, with many people - all experts in their way - contributing ideas on complex aspects of economic policy.  A good guide to the way the web is transforming politics all over the world is available for free at The Webster's Dictionary.  I hope the IEA's Trustees will read it.  None of this is to say that the IEA must merge with the Conservative Party - far from it - but it must recognize that it is part of the conservative movement and act accordingly.

Secondly, this means that the IEA must communicate and advocate.  Its old business model of producing worthy economic papers proved of great value to the conservative movement, but it is no longer enough (although it must continue in some form).  A good free-market think tank must actively proselytise the value of the free market in a political atmosphere that is increasingly hostile to the concept, for various bogus reasons.  That means embracing the tools we now have available - video, chat, social networks, twitter and so on - and finding creative ways to use them that will engage people in realising the value of the free market.  Guido Fawkes and Tory Bear (to take two random examples) between them have probably done more to defend the free market than the IEA over the past two years, and without ever explicitly saying so.  The tools that they use and their messages reinforce the free market (anti-politician = anti-control = pro-market, for instance).  Google shows us 20,000,000 ways to skin a cat.

Did Michael Jackson have a political message?

So far as I can tell there is no solid evidence that Michael Jackson was involved in child abuse. He enjoyed the company of children and sought to compensate for having missed out on a normal childhood of his own. As he was rich others thought they could cash in on this eccentricity. Of course we will never know the truth for certain but surely there should be a presumption of innocence for the dead as well as the living.

The whiff of suspicion has been enough for politicians to exercise restraint in their tributes. But what was Michael Jackson political message, if any? He was honoured by President Ronald Reagan for allowing his song Beat It to be used in a campaign against drug and alcohol addiction.

But really Jackson was focused on providing entertainment. The Earth Song reflected a concern for animal welfare and the environment. There was Ben with emotional theme about a pet rat. Perhaps the most politically significant song was his number hit Black or White. It pounded out the lyrics: "It don't matter if you're black or white" and "I'm not going to spend my life being a colour." A laudable sentiment. Also a far better message for an integrated harmonious country where individual merit counts than the dreary sectional resentments peddled by both the BNP and the Diversity Officers.

How not to be Prime Ministerial on a PM visit

Today, Gordon Brown and Ed Balls visited a school in my constituency, I was told to help launch the Government's new White Paper on schools. With my constituency being the closest marginal to Westminster, we are used to a few ministerial and shadow ministerial visits over the last ten years, but never I have I seen such manouvrings and political jockeying by officials as with today's.

As has become traditional with this Government - and contrary to the Commons Conventions and Courtesies - neither Brown nor Balls notified me of their visit. I found out from the Local Education Authority. When I arrived at the school 10 minutes early, waiting for me was a Ms Izzet from Ed Balls's office, who loudly announced, in front of an ITN camera crew, that I was "not invited". This was a new first - not only not told of a ministerial visit to my constituency, I was actively disinvited. The head Teacher of the excellent Fulham Cross School was being put in a very difficult position. Clearly, nobody had ever heard of a civil servant attempting to ban a Member of Parliament from a public facility in his own constituency. Realising that I wasn't moving, and in front of dozens of children eagerly awaiting the visit, Ms Izzet then tried to entice me to an office for "some refreshments". She was trying anything to get me out of the way, in a way that is outrageous to a Member of Parliament in his own constituency. Ms Izzet told me that I hadn't even myself visited the school, which was a lie, and that I would make the visit "political" - which was a bit rich coming from a Balls adviser.

Stephen Greenhalgh, Leader of the Council arrived, and Ms Izzet was remarkably and improbably even more confrontational towards him, even though the School was Council property and the Council is the Local Education Authority. She then proceeded to try to dupe Stephen and me into believing that Brown and Balls were coming in by a different entrance, and there was even a decoy posse of security people to help do the job.

We eventually got back into our own school, and were then treated to an hour of pure pantomime. The children, mainly 15 or 16 were on great form and were clearly thrilled by the visit. Brown's chatter, however, was embarrassing. Balls asked in the most patronising way he could about the quality of the food and about school sport, and seemed to have limited interest in the educational achievements.

Brown made a number of faux pas. His worst was to meet the same Italian teacher twice in 15 minutes and attempt to have the same conversation with her, forgetting he had already met her. Each time he told her he was looking forward to going to Italy next week (presumably on some official business, hard to imagine he is going on holiday), and he suggested she take the children to Rome "as that is where they have the ancient...." (he didn't finish the sentence, searching for the word monuments or sites, I suppose). Sometimes Balls had to add the words Brown was searching for, like "ambition" at one point.

Brown and Balls learned that the school is a specialist language school. I told them that French, Spanish and Italian were taught. One of the staff added that Arabic is also taught to those for whom it is a home language. "Arabic, that is a difficult langauge" said Brown; er, but not if it is your home language I suggest.

It has been much commented on before, but Brown's chatter at this sort of event is dire. Balls is little better. The school did a fantastic job under some pressure from the officials, but the overriding memory of this Prime Ministerial visit to my constituency is that Brown and Balls surround themselves with officials who might be even more hectoring and bullying than their masters.

State set to spend 50% of UK GDP

So reads the headline of an alarming article in yesterday's City A.M.  The source of the story is some pretty remarkable research from the Centre for Economics and Business Research.  In sum -

While the South East has relatively low public spending, forecast to rise from 32.4 per cent of regional GDP in 2007-08 to 40 per cent next year, Northern Ireland and Wales’ state spending is expected to jump from 59.4 per cent and 57.5 per cent of GDP respectively to more than 69 per cent.

To put those figures into context, government spending as a share of GDP in Cuba – a communist country – is set to fall to 60 per cent next year.

Blimey.

The view from Steerage

I'm a huge fan of Nick Cohen's writing and his latest piece, in Standpoint magazine, is well worth a read. He writes about the inchoate and yet civilised anger of the public to the recent sequence of revelations regarding the abuse of our money, in both the City and in Parliament. I think it's the first time I've read a coherent narrative describing my gut response to both events:

When the Titanic sank, it was said that the plebs in steerage watched as first-class passengers hogged the places in the lifeboats. Today's plebs could be forgiven for sharing their astonishment as they watch the executive class hog public money as the country goes down.

Worth reading the whole thing here [updated 11.40am with a fixed link!]

Obama goes to Moscow next week. Will Brown ever make it?

Whatever one thinks about Vladimir Putin/ Dmitri Medvedev's government in Russia, one cannot deny that Russia is an important player in its own right, as well as in current hotspots like Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea, all of which border Russia or its former empire.

President Obama clearly sees this, and is making his first visit to the country next week less than six months after taking office. The talks will cover non-proliferation, disarmament and the key regional issues where Russia is an important player.

This is in stark contrast to Gordon Brown, who, as I blogged here in February, has not visited Russia for years, and hasn't met Vladimir Putin anywhere since he became PM in 2007.

As David Hughes at the Telegraph pointed out last year, in 2000 Blair made sure he was the first Western leader to meet Putin (rather like he was with Obama too, for that matter!). So as British relations with Iran hit an all-time low, Brown has no friends in the region to call on who might help.

The Queen costs us each a mere 69p a year - and she wants all MPs to know it

Today has seen the publication of the annual report of the Royal Public Finances, a summary of which is downloadable here (as a pdf file).

The main conclusion from the figures is that the Queen effectively costs us each just 69p a year, which is pretty good value, I would venture.

But interestingly, she appears to have felt the need for something of a spin operation to promote this fact to Members of Parliament.

Here's the letter the "Keeper of the Privy Purse" has sent this afternoon to all MPs...

Do you really want your MPs to work for you as a job?

Very shortly now, we shall be told in detail all the “second jobs” MPs do, how much they earn, and how many hours a week they spend on them.  Harriet Harman wants to go further and ban “second jobs”.  Gordon Brown suggests a set of minimum requirements for MPs in how they respond to constituent queries and so on, with the possibility mooted of removing MPs that do not meet these minimum requirements.

The assumptions underlying this train of thought are so misconceived that one barely knows where to begin.  Being an MP is not a “job” at all, let alone a “main job”.  And if voters want to elect an MP that never responds to their queries, what business is it of Gordon Brown or anyone else to prevent them from doing so?

But attacking all these points directly would probably clash with so many things that so many of you reading this blog would think obvious that I would test your patience going down that road.  So I shall come at the matter from the other side, as it were.  Instead of telling you what an MP should be, I shall describe for you the creature you are asking for, and ask: Is this really what you want?

Why not hold by-elections a set time after the vacancy occurs?

Ian Gibson resigned as Labour MP for Norwich North on June 5th, yet three weeks later and the writ is yet to be moved in the Commons to cause the by-election, which is now not expected to take place for another four weeks.

Meanwhile, Michael Martin resigned his Glasgow North East seat at the beginning of last week - having announced his intention to do so as long ago as May 19th. Yet there, too, no writ has been moved for a by-election.

Convention states that the departing MP's party gets to decide when to hold the contest, as it is a whip from that party who formally moves the writ for the by-election (and I gather that it would be the Labour whips in the case of the outgoing Speaker too).

But why should they?

Given that the idea of fixed term parliaments is now up for discussion, why not create a rule stating that a by-election automatically happens a fixed time after the vacancy occurs - say, five or six Thursdays later (perhaps allowing for extra grace over Christmas or holiday periods)?

That would leave ample time for a funeral (in the case of an MP's death) and selection meetings before a standard length campaign - and ensure that a constituency is not left unrepresented in Parliament for weeks or even months on end.

As far as I can tell, the only reason the voters of the above two constituencies are without representation in Parliament right now is because of Labour Party tactical games as to which timing will suit it best.

Certainly I hear mutterings that Labour wants the contests to be fought on separate days - possibly with Norwich in July and Glasgow as far in the future as September - in order that its limited machine doesn't have to be stretched into fighting on two fronts at the same time.

My photograph of a stoopid sign beats Tom Harris MP's photo of a stoopid sign

Over on his blog Tom Harris MP has a photograph of a silly sign from a Virgin train.

I reckon the photo of a sign that I took recently outside London's US Embassy beats his for stupidity...

Apparently you are not allowed to take bombs in with you!

Nihilism and the rise of Islam

The way our society is going, before the end of the century - perhaps well before the end - we will be an Islamic state.

It is conventional to date the decline of the influence of Christianity in Britain to the horror of the Somme.  The Great War led British Christians to doubt their previous creeds about the unique merits of their faith and of a society based upon that faith, and the idea that such merits were worth killing and dying for.  Robbed of the evangelising and civilising impulse (for what Good News was there to tell about the trenches?  And was Ypres really “civilisation”?), and burdened by debts, the intellectual drivers of Empire were also gone.  Amongst the British establishment as a whole, there was a catastrophic loss of self-confidence, and the events of the Depression were a further blow.  After the Second World War we became progressively more and more obsessed with the Nazis as their defeat was the one unambiguous Good we could still believe our Society had done – a brittle straw to hold on to as we sank further and further into the waters of Nihilism. 

Barack Obama shows that moderation of style is more politically potent than moderation in policy

In today's Times Sarah Vine writes that voters want passion from their politics.  I'd agree with that but Barack Obama has shown us the most important quality that a successful and radical politician needs is civility.

It's true that he has passion and charisma and a brilliant campaigning machine but it is his civility that has persuaded Americans to swallow his policy radicalism.

And, make no mistake, Barack Obama is America's most radical President of modern times.  Yesterday, hardly noticed because of Michael Jackson's death, the House of Representatives approved very radical action on climate change.  Next on Obama's 'to do' list is sweeping health care reform.  He's already increased federal spending in the largest ever fiscal stimulus.  He's already made massive changes to American foreign policy by pursuing direct engagement with the country's 'axis of evil' enemies.

Obama has demonstrated that voters are more persuaded by moderation and reasonableness of character than moderation of policy.  Voters, as Sarah Vine suggests, don't take a lot of interest in policy detail.  Obama won over middle America because of his generosity to opponents, his optimism, his image as a family man.  Republicans have hated this and have gotten more and more heated, more and more angry in the process.  Almost shouting now at the American people they cannot understand that Obama is getting away with enacting 'the Europeanisation of America' (which is what it is).  This heated reaction is compounding Obama's advantage.  Voters see the extreme language and temperament as the most offputting thing of all.

David Cameron has this moderation.  Earlier in the week I was struck by Quentin Letts' remark that Cameron is "not one of life's haters".  My hope is that the Conservative leader will use his Obama-style temperament to persuade Britain that he can be trusted with the radical action that will be necessary to put Britain back on track.

The BBC can learn from politicians’ mistakes

By Jeremy Hunt MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Over the last few weeks MPs have learned the hard way that there is no point being half hearted when it comes to transparency over expenses. We’ve made big mistakes and the public have rightly been angry. But with independent scrutiny and more openness things are finally starting to improve.

The BBC needs to take note and avoid the same mistakes. Dragging your feet on transparency does not work. Yesterday’s announcements published the expenses claims of just 10 people in an organisation of 23,000. We are still no closer to unpicking the Beeb's £14m taxi bill or £15m domestic flight bill.

So here are a few things I think the BBC should do:

• Learn from the mistakes of parliament and be forthcoming with information the public wants, and has the right, to know. Transparency means showing the expense and salary details of the many not the few.
• Instigate proper independent scrutiny of expenses to assess whether they were justified. If some are not, then they should be paid back.
• Allow the National Audit Office in at any time to judge whether BBC expenditure, including expense claims, offer value for money. Currently the NAO can only go in on the invitation of the BBC - that is not good enough.
• Be more flexible and open when it comes to Freedom of Information. Requests must not compromise journalist sources but the public does have a right to know how much BBC staff spend on taxis and lunches.