CentreRight

Ten commandments for MPs

Tweetminster are writing Ten Commandments for MPs.  They want your help in thinning their shortlist of twenty down to ten.  Here are the ten of the twenty that I voted for:

1. Thou shalt never forget that politics is about improving lives. Other peoples', not your own
2. Thou shalt be able to demonstrate independence of mind
3. Do what you promised to do in your manifesto
4. Consider scrutiny to be as important and valid a career path as the executive route
5. MPs must make it their responsibility to simply explain why questions they cannot answer simply cannot be answered simply
6. MPs should publish their expenses online in real time
7. Thou shalt hold the Executive to account, regardless of Party affiliation, On behalf of The people of the United Kingdom
8. Thou shalt not enter the Political arena for personal gain
9. Thou shalt covert your opinions and not the opinions of the establishment
10. MPs shall treat constituents, stakeholders and staff as they themselves would wish to be treated - with genuine respect and good manners.

Take part here.

Taleb to Cameron: Don't repeat Obama's mistakes

Nassim Nicholas Taleb is the author of The Black Swan, the bestseller that not only predicted the banking crisis, but also explains why the mainstream economists and financial experts failed to do so.

His ideas revolve around the amply supported observation that conventional economics cannot cope with what Taleb describes as 'black swan' events:

"What is a Black Swan? It is a low-probability, high-impact event that, because of its rarity and the instability of the environment, cannot be scientifically evaluated in terms of risk and return. Although Black Swans are rarely predicted, they are retrospectively seen as having been anticipated, which makes us overestimate our abilities to see them coming. Black Swans can emerge as a result of our intellectual arrogance and our ignorance of our limitations. Some elements of the future are simply beyond our grasp."

In this week's Observer he writes an open letter to David Cameron, which begins with quite an endorsement:

"Dear David (if I may),

"You and your party may be the only hope we have for a resilient society insulated from negative Black Swans and in which everyone has the opportunity to benefit from positive Black Swans."

But then comes a warning:

"For I despair of the Obama administration's ability to fix this financial crisis and prevent future ones. I am appalled by the dangers it has been creating and its takeover by the same economic establishment responsible for this crisis."

Taleb is no kneejerk Obamaphobe, indeed he says that he had "high hopes" for the new President. Among the various policies he urges Cameron to adopt, the need to reduce debt is top of the list:

"We have known since Babylonian times that debt is treacherous and allows no room for mistakes: felix qui nihil debet goes the Roman proverb ("happy is he who owes nothing"). The combination of debt levels swollen from two decades of over-confidence with modern finance's complex derivatives has been disastrous."

There are those who blithely assume that the only alternative to the asset bubble economics of the pre-crunch era are the post-crunch policies of Barack Obama and Gordon Brown. What Taleb shows is that these aren't alternatives at all, but all of a piece. Furthermore, he sets out a genuine alternative which doesn't easily fit in with lazy preconceptions of 'left' and 'right', but which can be recognised as being deeply conservative.

Anyway, read the whole thing.

For further reading, Bryan Appleyard's interview with Nasim Nicholas Taleb is also well worth a look.

60 minutes of television for political obsessives

If you're looking for a way of occupying your Sunday afternoon, I would strongly recommend catching Clive Anderson's The Funny Side of Politics, which was first shown on Thursday night on BBC2.

It is available on the BBC iPlayer for the next few days and contains loads of archive footage - some of which the politicians involved would probably rather forget.

There's some interesting evidence of the changing nature of political interviews over the decades, as well as some highlights (and lowlights) from the campaign trail, party conferences and election night programmes down the years.

Some of the clips featured are unwittingly amusing, whilst others are just cringeworthy.

 Look out for:

• William Hague's infamous speech to the 1977 conference
• A member of the public snatching back their child after John Prescott tried to her in a publicity stunt
• The male streaker who interrupted Charles Kennedy's speech at a Lib Dem conference
• The future Tory MP calling for young thugs to be birched at the 1993 party conference
• Neil Kinnock falling into the sea on Brighton beach (above)
• Edwina Currie submitting herself to being gunged by Noel Edmonds
• The Prescott punch...

So-called New Labour have socialised the British economy at least as effectively as so-called Old Labour

During the Brown/Blair years the private sector has not grown at all but the public sector has grown by 63%.  That is the conclusion of research by former CentreRight contributor Andrew Lilico - now of Policy Exchange - and reported in The Sunday Telegraph:

"The economic output of the private sector next fiscal year will be around £706.1bn – lower than the inflation-adjusted £708.9bn it amounted to in 1998/99, the first full fiscal year of the Blair government. The figures, calculated by the Policy Exchange think tank, show that in that same period the size of the public sector ballooned by some 63pc."

Devastating.  So-called New Labour have socialised the British economy at least as effectively as so-called Old Labour.  Debt and dependency are at levels that should make every Bennite smile.

On the debt front... congratulations are also owed to another 'CentreRightie', Charlie Elphicke - the Tory candidate in Dover - who has been trying to turn the national debt figures into easily understandable amounts.  His efforts are rewarded with a big story in the News of the World:

"A BLACK hole in the taxes collected from British businesses means the nation’s debt is growing by £5,700 A SECOND... Tax expert Charlie Elphicke, of the Centre for Policy Studies think tank, said: “Borrowing like this is totally bonkers. It’s not just mortgaging our kids’ future it’s going to hold back our chances of a job or a pay rise. The Government is wrecking things for everyone.”  The debt run up by the Government this year would pay for an Emirates Stadium in every town in the UK. And the mind-boggling sums are enough to feed every single family in the country for the next three years."

Obama attacked by American College of Surgeons

Amidst the ongoing furore re President Obama's healthcare plans, here is a remarkably blunt attack from the august American College of Surgeons.  They say, inter alia, that

The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make...

And that's just the beginning of their release.

Our American readers can tell me if I misjudge this, but I from what I gather this is about on a par (i.e. very ususual and serious) as it would be if the Royal College of Surgeons bashed the government in this country.

Putting aside the issues in the instant problem between the College and the Preisdent, it is also worth noting that thus far in his relatively short incumbency, the President has made ill-judged remarks that have alienated law enforcement and the largest organisation of surgeons in the world.

Not exactly making things easy for himself, is he?

Labour can win the next general election

Over the last few months, amongst the chattering classes at any rate, it has become taken for granted that the Conservatives will win the next election. There has been some discussion about the size of the majority and, amongst Tory supporters, a considerable amount of schadenfreude as they list the Labour cabinet ministers who will lose their seats. But no one entertains the prospect that Labour might pull off an astonishing fourth victory.

It is strangely reminiscent of the run up to the general election of 1992. No one considered the possibility of a Conservative win. John Major had been written off. Robert Harris wrote an entertaining piece in the Sunday Times which started, “Right, that’s it. Unless Colonel Gaddafi kidnaps Dame Vera Lynn, Labour will win the election.”  Then came John Smith’s fully staged, misjudged, faux budget in which he promised swinging tax rises. John Major meanwhile eschewed technology and spin and went out on his soap-box. It seemed mawkish, but it struck a note. Finally, there was Kinnock’s cringe-making performance on Sheffield Wednesday and John Major scraped home for another five years in office.

Seventeen years later, Dame Vera is safely at home, Colonel Gaddafi dines at top table and the outcome of the next election is, once again, thought to be certain. But a Sheffield Wednesday size disaster is approaching. 

I cannot love the NHS

Forget swine flu. Forget bird flu. Forget SARS. Forget salmonela in your eggs and every other Daily Mail panic you can think of. A new highly contagous syndrome is spreading fast. Symptoms are distinct. Patients become convinced to the point of dellusion at times that they, their family, their friends and many others "owe" their lives to a body they refer to with the anacronym "N-H-S", which they believe is the "envy of the World", and that anyone who does not share their unquestioning "love" of this "N-H-S" by Tweeting #welovethenhs and praising its every last action is a dangerous heretic bent on denying healthcare to millions.

Every kind action of a nurse or doctor is not attributed to that individual as a human being but instead to the all mighty NHS, and every criticism of the NHS spun as a personal attack upon those same good staff who's kindness, caring and human goodness the monolithic institution hides behind and claims as its own. The NHS is the national religion, as I believe Lawson called it, and all who complain in any way, or propose improvement, or offer constructive critique, or don't profess their "love" of this particular anacronym, are branded heretics. I guess I'm a heretic.

But like many people branded as heretics, I have its best interests at heart, that's why I criticise. I believe in universal healthcare. I believe everyone should get the treatment they need. I believe in high quality healthcare for all. I believe only the best is good enough. I believe these things strongly, but the NHS isn't these things, and I do not love it.

Sky News's Peter Spencer has it right on Daniel Hannan, David Cameron and the NHS

Tim wrote this post earlier to voice his concern about the blog post from Adam Boulton of Sky News about Daniel Hannan.

But his colleague, Peter Spencer, has just posted on the Sky News blog himself and sensibly sums up the ludicrousness of the situation whereby the whole day's news has been dominated by a disagreement on policy between a party leader and a backbench MEP.

In a post titled "Silly... silly... silly", Peter Spencer writes:

"The suggestion that David Cameron agrees with Mr Hannan's long held and oft-expressed view [about the NHS]... is palpably absurd."

Exactly. So how the media can justify having spent a whole news cycle on the issue, I do not know.

Adam Rant

Sky's Political Editor Adam Boulton has blogged that Dan Hannan is "an arrogant right-winger in love with the sound of his own voice."

That's not fair comment (and it's not helped by the unflattering photo of Dan Hannan used to accompany the blog).

Dan is certainly a brilliant orator but that doesn't mean he's in love with his own voice.

He's certainly a conviction politician but why does that make him arrogant?

On Wednesday I made it clear that Dan's intervention was a very personal intervention that had z.e.r.o. relevance to Tory health policy.  The attack on him by the Labour machine and Adam Boulton is getting ridiculous.  A politician is entitled to express an opinion without being accused of arrogance and self-obsession. Adam Boulton is in a position of responsibility as a regulated broadcaster. If he wants to become a pundit who makes judgments on people's character he should resign from Sky and join a newspaper.

Timothy Kirkhope's new constitutional rule

It is no secret that the Conservative MEP Dan Hannan does not much like his colleague Tim Kirkhope and Tim Kirkhope does not much like Dan Hannan.

One is a better off out man and Timothy is not. They have disagreed for years.

Kirkhope was consequently no slouch in rushing to the World @ One radio studio to attack Dan Hannan's NHS interview. Mr Hannan will be called in to the Tory Whip he said.

Kirkhope added that it was wrong for Hannan to have talked about the NHS because the European Parliament does not have a role in healthcare.

Where does this new Kirkhope rule end?

Are MPs forbidden to talk about issues that have been surrendered to Europe? That won't leave them with much to say.

Janet Daley: You don't see this female Right-wing pundit on TV every other day because I refuse to drop everything to discuss subjects about which I have little knowledge or interest

By Janet Daley

I’m sure that Iain Dale’s lament for the absence of female pundits on the Right from broadcast current affairs is kindly meant. I’m afraid that it is also rather naïve. There is a perfectly understandable reason why the same handful of male commentators appears repeatedly on the air: because they are the ones who are willing to do it.

Like most political columnists, I receive an average of two to three requests a week for broadcast interviews or discussions, about three quarters of which I turn down (or, I’m sorry to say, ignore, as they generally come in the form of voicemail messages).

Sometimes this is because they are on subjects in which I have little interest or specialised knowledge (the current week’s crop included a request from Newsnight to debate Ronnie Biggs' release from prison, and Radio 4’s PM wanting me to talk about Hillary Clinton’s outburst). But very often it is simply that I am not prepared to push aside professional or domestic responsibilities at short notice for a six-minute spot on the air, which will involve roughly two hours of travelling and waiting-around-in-a-green-room time.

And I know that I am not alone among female journalists for taking this attitude. Whereas many (if not most) of our male equivalents will abandon absolutely anything – including their hapless colleagues at the office who must cope in their absence, or their own dinner guests – in order to appear on any television or radio programme that chances to invite them, women will not.

Those ubiquitous male pundits may have earned a reputation among the desperate programme researchers who spend their entire lives on the phone running down the list of possible participants, as being always available at a moment’s notice. Good luck to them. But remember that the person you are seeing on the screen was not necessarily the first one who was asked.

The principles of the NHS are not followed now and are plain wrong

When UK politicians and commentators used to criticize the NHS, its supporters would proclaim that those critics lacked an international perspective for, they said, the NHS was the "envy of the world".  Now that the NHS faces international criticism we all pull together against Jonny Foreigner.

I've never heard a foreigner who wasn't a hard-left Socialist laud the NHS.  I have heard lots of foreign bureaucrats express amazement that we have what they regard as such an absurd way of organising our healthcare. Indeed, I doubt very much whether, outside of Somalia, Brazil, and the like, the NHS has been the "envy of the world" for decades, if it ever was.  Most foreigners know very little about UK healthcare and it certainly isn't held up as a model of how to to things.  Indeed, internationally the most famous thing about British health is how bad our teeth are.

Daniel Kawczynski MP: An open letter to the Scottish Justice Secretary

By Daniel Kawczynski MP, Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Libya 

Dear Mr MacAskill,

By potentially handing over Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to the Libyans without the UK Government getting the murderer of PC Yvonne Fletcher in return, our country is being made to look weak and ineffective. For you alone to make this decision without ensuring a fair exchange take place is deeply concerning. We cannot just look at Lockerbie as a separate issue, but as part of an overall package of outstanding issues between the UK and Libya which includes PC Fletcher and Libyan funding for the IRA and the need to get compensation for those families affected by IRA atrocities from the Libyans. I am taking a delegation of DUP MPs to Libya shortly to discuss this issue about which they feel so strongly.

We have a prisoner exchange programme signed between the UK and Libya. Why have you not asked the UK Government to ensure that this is implemented so that an exchange can take place? Failure here will mean that the killer of PC Yvonne Fletcher will go unpunished. Please understand that the parents of PC Yvonne Fletcher desperately want the killer of their daughter to be brought to justice. This series of issues can only be negotiated at government-to-government level between the UK and Libya. By making a decision on Al-Megrahi now you are in effect throwing away a major bargaining chip for us in these protracted negotiations. Met Police officers have been to Tripoli on three occasions and have identified the killer of PC Yvonne Fletcher.

I am writing to you to ask you to ensure that a release of Al-Megrahi is part of a prisoner exchange programme and that you work with Westminster to ensure this happens.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Kawczynski MP

Head of Politics within the BBC's Editorial Unit advises less need for labelling the BNP

A little while ago I emailed the BBC about the BNP being described as "Far Right" by Today's John Humphys.

My full post is here but this was the thrust of my argument:

"In some ways their professed patriotism might put them on the traditional right of the political spectrum although it is, of course, true that many on the Left also love their country.  I would argue, however, that many of their policies come from a Left-wing, big state mindset.  This partly explains their success in traditionally Labour areas.  I think, for example, of the BNP's support for high rates of taxation on higher income earners, their support for nationalising strategically important economic assets and also their protectionist policies on trade."

Ric Bailey, Chief Adviser on Politics within the Editorial Policy and Standards unit, replied to me earlier this week:

"I don't think this is something on which the BBC has a single public stance - descriptions of political parties will always depend on context.  From my perspective, I advise programmes on the whole to avoid such descriptions if they might be seen as subjective.  Increasingly, there's less need to attach a label to the BNP, as they are sufficiently familiar now to most people. On the other hand, it would be too proscriptive to ban such descriptions, where they help the audience.  We could, of course, have an interesting discussion about if and where the far right and the far left meet. But I think there is common acceptance that the BNP is a party of the right, not of the left and although the left-right spectrum may have less meaning than it used to in British politics, we would be subject to ridicule if we pretended otherwise. I happen to think that there is no connotation at all here for parties which are given the label "centre right" or "centre left" - not least because those are not labels that we need to use for the main UK parties in normal coverage.  Insofaras people may have a pejorative view of those closer to the extremes, the relevant part of the phrase for most is "far" - not "right" or "left".   So I fear I must disappoint you,  if what you want is for me to ask John Humphrys  to mind his adjectives - "far right" is a phrase which I think is well understood by our audience."

I'm grateful to Ric for replying but I'm not entirely happy with what he wrote.

• He's completely right that "there is common acceptance that the BNP is a party of the right" but sometimes conventional wisdom is wrong and I would like an acknowledgment of that.
• I also think there is some (limited) damage to centre right parties of being seen as on a continuum with extreme parties that are labelled as the far right.
• I am, however, happy with his key point that "there's less need to attach a label to the BNP, as they are sufficiently familiar now to most people."  If BBC journalists just call the BNP the BNP rather than the 'far right' BNP I'm happy.

Newsnight or Today?

I had dinner with Neil O'Brien on Tuesday night. I said to him that I turn down a lot of broadcasting but my one exception is that I would never turn down Radio 4's Today programme.  Surely, he said, Newsnight was at least as influential?  You should never turn that down.  Television will always be more impactful.

Both have smaller audiences than Terry Wogan on Radio 2 or Jeremy Vine or the BBC1 Six or Ten'o'clock News.  If you are a politician wanting to reach voters then Radio 2 or GMTV or 'The Six' are bigger prizes.  But if you are wanting to reach opinion formers (journalists, politicians consume both) which of the two matter most?  Newsnight has a much smaller 'reach'.  It gets about one million to one point one million viewers while Today reaches six to seven million in total from 6am to 9am.  At its peak (7.50am NOT 8.10am) it reaches five million.  Even at 6.30am it has twice as many listeners as Newsnight has viewers.

Today also has the advantage of setting the agenda for the day.

Speaking to a BBC journalist who contributes to both, however, he said he is only ever "noticed" when he's been on Newsnight.

So, CentreRighties: I can guarantee you a slot on Today or Newsnight.  Which would you choose?

Life that comes in from outside

Yesterday Twitter erupted, to general Labour delight, with a hashtag trending topic #welovethenhs. Superficially this was a reaction to Dan Hannan's comments on Fox News. (I haven't watched Mr Hannan's interview so I'm not going to refer to it again.) Here was the twittering populace, rising up, to give example after example of the wonderful health provision they had received from the NHS, so stick that up yer social insurance model, Johnny Foreigner. (It's funny, and sorry, this is already an interlude, and I must learn to stick to the topic, but it does strike me: do you remember, in the 80s, whenever the Left wanted us to change tack on any issue, it was Sweden this, Sweden that; but when it comes to the NHS, anyone who so much as examines the operating model in any other country is condemned as some sort of traitor? I think a Labour commenter on the Hannan thread yesterday actually used that word. Anyway it's us with the Sweden this, Sweden that thing now, come to education, and a good thing too).

Now, you know I seek selection for a parliamentary seat, and so I'm already aware that I have to choose my words carefully, because apparently if you deviate by an iota from any agreed script you are gaffe-prone and evidence of a split ('gaffe' is one of those words which is used by no-one except political obsessives; I think regular deployment is a signal to get out a bit more, to where people disagree with each other over a range of matters all the time. I work in scientific research, and I do wonder, sometimes, what would happen at work if we applied Westminster Village rules. A colleague presents a proposed experiment to investigate some therapeutic hypothesis. I don't respond by examining his case, but I jump up and shout: but this is a slightly different theory to any number of other ones published in the peer-reviewed literature! Yet you claim to work with us! This is a gaffe! You are destroying our scientific credibility! Unless we all say exactly the same thing all the time about everything we will be ridiculed as, er, gaffers, and, er...), but as it happens, on this topic, I don't have to choose my words with care, I can deploy them with gay abandon [stop it, Graeme - Ed]: I do love the NHS. I can't imagine Britain without it, and nor would I want to. Lots of us owe it everything.

The NHS debate continues

Over at the Daily Mail (whose website, I understand, has leapfrogged those of numerous hitherto more successful newspapers to become the number 1 paper site in the UK), Claire Ellicott has a story about the numerous US politicians and media outlets opposing Barack Obama's healthcare plans on the basis that, well, it's a lot like our NHS.

Please note that that article is being updated on a pretty much rolling basis (e.g. it now contains a response from Stephen Hawking defending the NHS, which does not appear in the print version) so content is changing rapidly there.

In a related piece on the same site, Jenny Hope provides some interesting figures:

£1.2 billion the amount spent annually on administrators and clerical staff at NHS PCTs

to which one should add

£139 million the amount spent annually on management consultants by the NHS

which compare unfavourably with

£700 million the amount spent annually by the NHS on anti-cancer drugs, with some patients denied the treatment they need.

Related posts:

Newt Gingrich bashing the NHS

Dan Hannan bashing the NHS

Me ba urm not hugging the NHS very tightly

There's not much for Hillary to do after Bill, Petraeus, Holbrooke, Mitchell, Odierno and other envoys have finished implementing Obama's foreign policy

US commentator Charles Krauthammer on why Hillary Clinton might have reacted so badly to that question about her husband's views:

"She lost it. It was not a real good moment. In part, I'm sure it was because she thought she was being treated as an appendage of her husband.  But I think part of it is also the venue. Here you have Richard Holbrooke running Afghanistan and Pakistan — the heart of our troubles in Asia. You have George Mitchell in the Middle East. You have envoys here and there, and she is the secretary of state, and she's sitting in the Congo, in the Congo?  You've got Petraeus running Afghanistan. You've got Odierno running Iraq. She is totally marginalized, sitting in Kinshasa. I'm sure it is a great city — in fact, it's not — but the Congo?  She was supposed to be the president of the United States at this point. She was going to be queen of the world. Instead, Obama bestrides the world. He gives speeches in the great capitals, in Cairo — and she is in the Congo! You'd be upset, also."

Hat tip to National Review.

What should politics be about for a Conservative?

What is politics about?  Max Weber famously defined politics as a "struggle for power".  Let's take that as our startpoint.  But a struggle between what?  Here are some options:

• representatives of classes or other self-interest-promoting groups
• representatives of cultures
• representatives of political philosophies
• alternative groups of managers
• specific individuals seeking power for its own sake
• representatives of concepts of how, specifically, to address the issues of the day
• specific individuals seeking power so that they could employ it in their own interest

In practice, of course, all of the above (and more) are likely to be found to some degree.  Even in a two party system, it's perfectly plausible that one party consists of representatives of a class interest whilst the other party consists of promoters of a political philosophy.

I don't think there is any one positive answer to this question.  So let us instead ask a normative question: what should politics be about for a Conservative?  I don't mean "what should a Conservative believe?" or any related question.  I mean, what should a Conservative think is the point of politics.

Be afraid, candidates: The YouTube election is coming

By Paul Goodman MP.

Everyone needs to do something that's easy to recognise but hard to describe.  Perhaps the best description is "letting off steam".  Anger and laughter are two ways of doing so, and the one is often close to the other.

Letting off steam is also linked to candour.  Perhaps the funniest line in the famous "Fallty Towers" episode "The Germans" combines anger, candour and laughter - when Basil Fawlty snaps: "Who won the bloody war, then?

My friend Alan Duncan may have been joking when he said that MPs are being treated like "****" and now live "on rations".  But he was also possibly angry and certainly candid - not to mention letting off steam.

The consensus seems to be that doing so in front of an "activist" prone to post videos on the net wasn't Alan's finest hour.  "He should have been more careful," the chorus runs.  "MPs are on duty at all times - especially senior ones. And anyway, what have they got to complain about?"

What indeed?  But regardless of whether or not MPs are treated like ****, this little incident is the wave of the future.  Be afraid, candidates: the next election will be the YouTube election - perhaps, we should say, the Big Brother election, or even the Basil Fawlty election.

The moment of exasperation, the frank admission, the confession of ignorance, the policy blunder, the joke better not made, the verbal slip misrepresented as racist insult, the tie or frock that on the whole is a mistake (especially if the one is worn with the other) the absent-minded removal of ear-wax, the blurting-out of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - all these are set to be immortalised on film and viewed on-line, for as long as human interest lasts.

Yesterday's coverage of the Baby P case

This will be a difficult post to express correctly, and I don't imagine it will be popular. I want to decry the manner of the disclosure of the identity of the killers of Baby P. Their names and detailed histories were all over the media yesterday. I watch C4 news after work, and even there we were taken through their background in what I found to be a prurient level of detail; much to the delight of Lynne Featherstone MP, even as she struggled to explain quite what benefit for anyone was being delivered by the disclosure.

I learned nothing about how to improve social services that wasn't obvious from the original reporting of the case. We did learn that Baby P's mother had had a dysfunctional upbringing, spent time in a care home as a result of her unimaginably vile home-life, that later she repeatedly became pregnant, was a drug abuser and so on. I don't think that knowing her name made the relevant sociological theory (that this form of background and behaviour can lead to a failure of love with regard to parenting, in this case a failure of such inhumane proportions that it sickens us to read about it) any more or less tenable. And what, anyway, does Lynne Featherstone MP plan to do with this information? Will she introduce a private member's bill to make it illegal for women to have children if they were placed in care themselves, as children? No, of course not. The important verb in the last-but-four sentence is 'can'. Not 'does', but 'can'. Knowing the specifics of one case tells us nothing that isn't already blindingly obvious for the general framework of policy.

Pity the Brits

Newt Gingrich goes in for a bit of NHS-bashing over at Human Events which I thought you might enjoy.

UPDATE: related post on ToryDiary: Dan Hannan under attack for for criticising NHS during US visit

Related link: a previous post of mine on the NHS

How I became a Conservative

The photo was kindly taken by Melissa O'Sullivan at a recent private dinner hosted by John O'Sullivan to celebrate Lady Thatcher's coming to power. I was able to tell the great lady how I became a Tory because of her decision to face down the unilateralists of CND.

My teacher had told me that nuclear weapons were evil and that the Tory government was wrong to deploy them. My military dad had already introduced me to the idea of deterrence and armed with his arguments and those of the Iron Lady I was able to argue back in class.  The whole Greenham Common saga was the principal reason why I became a Conservative when I did.  Aged eleven.

How did you become a Conservative?  What is your earliest political memory?

Labour's twenty year rule of appointment-land will mean they'll lose office but not power next year

Former Labour councillor Ben Summerskill and Chief Executive of gay rights charity Stonewall (a major beneficiary of Lottery and taxpayers' money) has launched an attack on Roger Helmer MEP after the latter worried on his blog about people accusing others of homophobia.  Helmer's blog was perfectly reasonable but rather than pursuing a grown up engagement with Roger (as Iain Dale did) Mr Summerskill says Mr Helmer "bares his fangs".  Moving beyond the issue of homosexuality Mr Summerskill attacks him as "twitchingly Europhobic."

One of the problems any Conservative government will inherit is that the British establishment is stuffed full of partisan Labour-ites like Mr Summerskill who are readier to play politics than advance the cause for which they were ostensibly appointed.  Politically dominant for two decades (I'd say charities, corporate affairs companies etc have been preferring Labour appointees since about 1990 when they first decided Labour was about to win power) the Labour Party may lose office next year but their people will still be active throughout the high-spending quangocracy and beyond.  Only yesterday I Twittered how the defeated Labour leader of Lancashire County Council has picked up a £23,000 job - on a four year contract - as Chairman of the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust.

After May next year Labour will (hopefully) be out of elected national office but Harding, Summerskill and thousands more will still be in power.

Eurosceptics can be internationalist

Do the Tories qualify as internationalist asks The Guardian's Andrew Sparrow. His answer: "Given their stance on the EU, not particularly."

In the second of my recent attempts to engage with our friends at The Guardian about the nature of the Conservative Party (first one here) I can't let that stand. Some of the party's best known Eurosceptics are internationalist. Peter Lilley is a serious student of globalisation and chaired David Cameron's task force on global poverty.  Bill Cash was a leading member of the late 1990s campaign to cancel third world debt.  John Redwood is a passionate advocate of free trade.  Iain Duncan Smith became interested in politics because of what he saw in then Rhodesia and has supported overseas intervention ever since.

The idea that EU = internationalism does not stand up to scrutiny.  The EU's aid budget has often been used to further EU nations' commercial interests.  The Common Agricultural Policy hurts third world farners.  Apart from Britain and the Netherlands EU nations have been very slow to meet their promises on Afghanistan.  They've failed to meet Kyoto targets (not that I mind but that's another discussion).

As the Krieg Barrie drawing above (click to enlarge) portrays: the modern EU is a regressively inward-looking affair.