Sweet Nothings

Eight months, ladies & gentlemen. Eight months until we decide who governs us next; will anyone form a majority? Will there be another coalition? Who would form such a government? From my analysis below, it hopefully won't be the Labour party. Their conference finished yesterday, ours starts on Sunday (can't remember when the Lib Dems have theirs. Oh well). Here's what Ed said (or didn't say) this year and what he's also promising you all come May 2015.

He seems to have caught Michael Foot syndrome rather badly. The main theme was his big tax on housing. The "mansion tax" he wants is clearly not just aimed at those lucky enough to have a £2 million (and upwards) valuation on their house in the capital. No, it's going to be rolled out piecemeal in the provinces to the extent that, if the rumours are true, houses valued at roughly £500K in the north will be hit as well. He's also looking to France to base his socialist utopia; let us not forget that the flight of the rich in France was due to taxation increases; this could send our own moneyed classes running for the airports. So that's a kick to aspiration isn't it; don't live in a house in London and don't earn enough to be able to afford a £500K house north of Gloucester. Build high-rises wherever possible and value them accordingly. Brilliant. 

He wants this tax to fund the NHS. Not a bad idea, really, it could always do with the extra...Wait! Wait a moment! No it doesn't need any extra money than has already been ring-fenced. Why has the debt gone up? Well aside from the state pension bill growing again, NHS spending has been going up in real terms for four years. Yes the Chancellor hasn't quite got that bit of the public debt down, but that shows the effort being made to keep the NHS public. Quite where the money is going is a matter for the CCG's and Trust managers, but we won't go there. What, therefore, will the extra £2.5 bn raised by the new tax, cover? Sadly it was just part of a long diatribe of sop, delivered to the apparatchiks in the hope that a sound-bite or two might make the evening headlines. I suppose some did, when the journos woke up and remembered where they were. 

Ed likes meeting people, so we hear. Whether or not they like meeting him is for another time, but bear with me. The people he meets seem to be in favour of a hike in the minimum wage to £8 an hour. That's fine, but it won't help people like me much, who are already on an inflated hourly rate. I am insulted by the idea that my time will be worth less than a shelf-stacker or cleaner. If it sounds snobby I don't care, I am a skilled worker and will not be priced out of the market on some socialist whim. Of course it's state intervention by the back door, because Balls will have a real job on his hands explaining to companies why it's in their interest to lose profits in order to help their workers. It'll only push prices up further in any case over time and won't encourage much aspiration either. Some businesses may just decide they won't invest as much in Britain in future if it's too expensive in terms of human resources. Thankfully it's nowhere near as bad as the Greens' proposal of £10 an hour. 

Then we come to the matter of devolution and here there was absolute silence from him. In his lengthy monologue, Ed completely failed to mention how England would fare in the new constitutional arrangements being drawn up by William Hague. Whether he doesn't like any non-Marxist history or believes history only truly began in May 1945 on the day when Attlee kissed hands is anybody's guess. The idea that he could just ignore how English people don't like being pushed around by anybody and then completely ignored when it comes to their governance is beyond me. There is always a backlash and he ignores the semi-nationalist sentiment running through England at the moment at his peril. He and his ilk may be contemptuously dismissive, safe in their metropolitan ivory towers; but the memory of 1381 is long embedded in our muscles, the faintest hum of memory lingers from events in the 17th century. He'd better watch it. 

That is, of course, what he remembered to say. He forgot to talk about deficit and immigration, two vital components if he is to win over the electorate. He mentioned tax loopholes, but not much beyond current Treasury policy. He is still committed to energy price freezes (see my post A Man of the People) among other disastrous policies. Over the course of 80 minutes what the British public were given was a series of what looked like unworkable or unwieldy policies all linked by the word "together". I cannot identify at all with Ed Miliband in the same way I cannot entirely identify with the Prime Minister. Cameron gives voice to what I largely hold to be true despite his privileged background, but Miliband baffles me entirely. Millionaire son of a Marxist just does not equate in my head, largely because he also believes what he says. 

I gave thought earlier to adapting a quote from House of Cards, in which Francis Urquhart described Henry Collingridge's morality. I believe I now have the words for Miliband, for this speech was nothing more than backstreet Marxist bookshop hypocritical cant; picked up in Angel, or Islington, or some other such god-awful place. 

Scotland

Another late one, but as with much of the Better Together campaign, it's one more last-ditch and incredibly heartfelt plea to the voters of Scotland to keep this kingdom united. I am finally adding my voice to the calls for unity. Here we go. 

Much has been made of the shared history we have lived as the United Kingdom, though the systems used by its constituent nations are almost as old as each other and therefore this 307 years we've had together are but the blinking of an eye. Yet we must remind ourselves that union at all between Scotland and England was merely personal for a century before that; being the line of Stuart monarchs from James VI to Anne. The circumstances surrounding political union were sadly not desirable, but were borne of necessity. Almost the same mindset has now pervaded the SNP & therefore Yes campaign modus operandi "Get rich, or die trying". 

Sadly, Scotland will surely die trying. The oil wealth which is a large supposition on which to base income for the coming decades will shrink. Scotland will have to diversify much quicker than Alex Salmond suggests if it is to break the surly bonds of fossil fuel dependence. That is not to denigrate the native ingenuity of Scots, the people who gave us John Logie Baird (more about him later), James Watt (without whom Baird's invention would be as nought) and Alexander Graham Bell (without whom I wouldn't have the means to publish this blog). These three alone are behind the great technological revolutions of the past century. 

What, then, for the Scottish economy? Well, as well as oil drying up, financial institutions are running to register their operations in the City, presumably to avoid the punitive corporation tax which will follow independence in 2016. Other corporations are also looking to relocate, presumably for the same reasons. Another great reason, therefore, to vote No; the jobs market will clearly suffer. That is to say nothing of the currency which Scotland is expected to use; they cannot have sterling, it's as simple as that. They wish to leave the political union, the currency union would be radically affected to the extent that it would have to be severed. The Bank of England regulates all interests rates and values centred on sterling; as the European Central Bank does with the Euro, the US Federal Reserve on the dollar and so on. Can anyone imagine Alex Salmond standing up in Holyrood to deliver an economic statement basically advising the chamber that Scotland would have to reintroduce the groat on 1 January 2017? 

That is to say nothing of the political implications. Aside from the immediate identity crisis which would plague the rest of the UK which would need to be solved on the formal date of severance (1 March 2016), all sorts of other issues will have to be addressed. We already know that the Queen will still be head of state in Scotland, which is a sensible move. What of those Scottish MP's elected in 2015, during the transition period? Will there be another general election in May 2016 in order to decide the make-up of a new House of Commons, possibly with a view to electing a new government? Of course, Scotland's place in the world would immediately be thrown into question. Unable to join the EU immediately and with a doubtful NATO membership on the cards, added to which it would need permission (should it apply) to enter the Commonwealth and be a UN member; Scotland would be outside things for a little while. In the meantime, rUK (rest of UK) would be thrown from the UN Security Council, probably have its NATO membership downgraded and have its votes in the EU reduced. Scotland has 1% of the EU's total population; when the qualified majority votes happen, Scotland will probably only get one or two votes. 

It could also come to pass that Scotland loses its stake in the BBC. Of course the Beeb would broadcast in Scotland on the invention created by a Scot, but how much would it charge to do so? Would there be a separate Scottish license fee, or would it be reflected in taxation? Obviously Scottish actors and performers would still be contracted to the BBC, so we'd get to keep the likes of Billy Connolly, Bill Paterson, David Tennant, Lindsay Duncan, Michelle Gomez and Phyllida Law. 

There are, of course, more sentimental reasons to keep the UK together than merely economic might, political clout and how the BBC spends the cash it saves on commissioning in Scotland. We went out and built an empire together; though the English may have run the Colonial Office, the Scots were the gophers on the ground in Africa and India. Scots regiments helped contain the Indian Mutiny and helped Britain keep up her commitments to her allies. Scotland contributed to the sacrifices made in World War I and in World War II endured bombing on the Clyde. Scotland underpinned the great British shipbuilding reputation. Scotland ensures that the UK remains as a middleweight power punching so far above its weight. The soft power of English diplomacy backed up by Scottish muscle. To remove Scotland from the UK is to throw that all away. We did so much together to shape human history in three short centuries and can do just as much if not more in another three. 

Scottish independence will mean many wilderness years before the tree finally bears fruit. It could be a decade before the books properly balance, hopefully without a massive sell-off of the NHS north of Berwick. While I don't doubt that the Scots will be prepared to buckle down in order to weather the storm, the pain will be keenly felt across all sections of Scottish society. In five years' time, when prices are still inflated and the Scottish Royal Mail has finally been sold to UPS, will it all still be worth it? When the nuclear submarines have been relocated to Carlisle and Southampton, taking the jobs away from Faslane and the new defence centre is still under construction, will it still have been the right thing to do? When Salmond has to share power with Labour again in 2019 and EU membership is still a dream, will the pro's still outweigh the con's? 

I am not Scottish, but I am British before I am English. I don't understand why we have to label ourselves so pettily when we can all be proud of belonging to one British identity. Not enough has been done to explore that and there is fault on both sides when exploring the reasons for such. We have great reason to celebrate all that binds us and so must mourn our separation. Scots have enriched our culture and our history immeasurably and to yank it all away to simply chase an ideal which could prove catastrophic but meantime hoping to prove a point seems to me nothing short of peevish. I have never liked Alex Salmond and therefore cannot abide the thought of waking up on Friday morning to hear the terrible news that our United Kingdom will have but eighteen short months of union before irrevocable separation. To subject Scotland to his half-baked proposals would be madness and I refuse to believe the Scots, always a sensible people, would allow him to wreck their country so badly. 

Please, Scotland, please don't leave us. Don't abandon the union so readily. Don't put yourselves through the torture of all I described. Stay and help continue forging a better world. Stay and help us all prosper. Please. 

This Business Called Show

Greetings, one and all. It's been another little while, I know, and I'm coming in slightly behind the times, but after thinking about the matter and in light of further recent events, I believe something must be said about how the state of youth involvement in politics can be improved. 

In recent weeks, Conservative Future (CF) held its annual elections to decide the national executive and regional bodies as well. The balloting had improved upon its previous record and so the number of votes returned was rather higher than in recent years. Yet, there seemed to be a pervasive pessimism about certain candidates and practices, all of which have been aired and bear no repetition. However, CCHQ and parliamentary party managers seem to be following a similar line. I shall expand. 

It seems that both in Westminster and the wider country, party managers have decided that backbench MPs, activists and associations cannot now be trusted. MPs are whipped to within an inch of their careers to simply march through the right side of the division lobby. The appearance is now that of a hive, with the drones being given their usual pre-programmed orders to obey. This is not, of course, endemic of the Conservative Party in Parliament; it is almost taken for granted that MPs with their eyes fixed on the greasy pole must give up much of their independent thought and do as they are bid if they are to even have a sniff of becoming a PPS. This is not made any easier in coalition of course, where some jobs apparently have to be given to the Lib Dems; but there we are. 

How, then, does this translate into activists and associations, with particular reference to youth? CCHQ give the outward appearance of willingness to listen, but conspiracy theorists and cynics would tell you (with some accuracy) that it still cannot bear to lift its eyes north of the Watford Gap. The much-vaunted RoadTrip2015 movement has, along with its sister organisation TubeTrip, barely left the southeast. Logical for TubeTrip of course, but the only place anywhere remotely near any northern constituencies for RoadTrip is Birmingham for Conference in two weeks' time. How can CCHQ be so blind to the fact that it is the 40:40 seats (three of which I live near) which need this movement? Or are the safe seats the only focus? When will the Party Chairman get a grip on his runaways and bring them back into line? Associations are frustrated because they are wantonly ignored by the centre which, interestingly, seems engaged in a land grab for more power. 

Now we come to the activists, many of whom are members of CF like me. I may, in fact, make CF the sole focus of this part. I joined the organisation back in 2006 as a wide-eyed first-year at Keele. I met like-minded-people and over the years went on a few campaigns. I still campaign and have held both branch and Area office. Sadly I relinquished the latter along with other officers post recent events. I wanted to make a difference and still do. I believe in the Conservative Party and its leader but not its current management at national level. I have my own mind, thoughts and opinions, which is probably when this goes public I have just scuppered a candidacy. I do hope that things can get better, but for now I'm keeping my activism purely to my council campaign and supporting others in theirs, inclusive of the local 40:40 seats. 

It saddens me when the tattling starts and stories are put about on the gossip site TheBlueGuerilla. As if politicians' activities weren't bad enough, but I believe that the activists and associations must always be above the Westminster hi-jinks. We're the ones who keep things together, attend association fundraisers, go out in all weathers armed with bagfuls of leaflets. We think of our reward as being either our candidate's election or the chance to give another side to the issues of the day, be they local or national. Yet this is not the story told enough to young people, who are vital in keeping the machinery at all levels well-oiled. 

We are better than this and if we are to assure a Conservative victory then we must demonstrate so. 

Swords and Ploughshares

Right. I have had just about enough of everyone on my news feed condemning Israel in the latest round of conflict in the Middle East. Let me tell you all something and right now I am addressing every single one of those friends and acquaintances of mine that solely support the Palestinians regardless of your politics/general global viewpoint. 

I support Israel. It's been difficult enough these 66 years for them and no I don't condone their initial method of establishment; nevertheless here we are. The fact they have made significant sceintific and technological leaps in that timescale should not be cited as a factor. The very fact that Jews are by nature an inquisitive and industrious people has, in recent times, been their downfall; although the consequences were not of their own making. 

Nobody bothers to report the fact that Israel has agreed to the suggested ceasefires and cessations of hostilities put forward by the UN and the Red Cross. It's all about how big bully Israel shells the hell out of innocent Arab settlements. Nothing about how Hamas insists on human shields. Or that they target civilians indiscriminately. Convenient for the spirit of supporting the underdog for which the British are so well-known. 

I wish to make it clear that I am not trivialising the scale of the humanitarian cost being met by both sides. I simply refuse to accept that Hamas are blameless and that each Arab living in the contested areas is free of anti-Israeli feeling. I pray for a good solution to the problem which will be accepted by both sides. It's not right that two generations on Israel is still trying to justify its existence at gunpoint and by missiles fired into Gaza. 

But nobody should be complacent and totally blame Israel which is what the Left want to do. It's not as black and white as that. So remember when the likes of the BBC, Guardian and Independent report on the problem that they are doing so from their unique standpoint. There are times in this blog where I urge readers to be objective. This is one of them; form an opinion by all means but please keep in mind all the facts as well. 

The Old Order Shuffleth Round a Bit

We all knew it was coming. The clouds had gathered since the European elections; the only question was when the storm would make landfall. We even had a good idea (or so we thought) of the casualties. Nothing, however, could have prepared many of us outside the Westminster bubble for what transpired yesterday and today. I have often believed that a return to Macmillan would not be an entirely bad thing for the party, but even I was slightly astounded as to how near I came to getting my wish. I will expand. 

Last time round, I predicted Ken Clarke would be an early scalp in the reshuffle and thought he'd be out of government for good. He was only halfway out, but yesterday was given the final heave-ho from the Ministry without Portfolio. A former minister with a parliamentary career spanning back for the large part of many of his former colleagues' lifetimes, I would not be surprised if he finally left Parliament after being in it for over four decades. 

The big surprise, although it probably shouldn't have been on reflection, was the departure of William Hague from the Foreign Office. An absolute tragedy and waste, particularly given that he is also to leave Parliament next year. The dismay on my social media feed was palpable and he is certainly deserving of all plaudits and praise paid him. Such a fabulously intricate brain and grand oratorical skill, he has kept Labour deputy leaders on their toes for nearly a decade. As I say it was rumoured he could leave Parliament and go at the next election and certainly now can make himself a very lucrative future on the after-dinner circuit. However we ought to be thankful that he is to remain on the Treasury bench as Leader of the House and therefore within decent proximity to the Prime Minister. 

Another shock was the departure of Michael Gove from Education. He has done sterling work there in driving through the education reforms desperately needed in this country. His departure was met with spiteful cheers by many left-wing friends and acquaintances of mine. He needed to be brutal and forceful in shaking up the system in which so many vested interests had entrenched themselves. Thankfully his forceful nature will still be felt as Chief Whip (props to Sir George Young by the way). He is also a foremost Tory intellectual and his tenure as Chief Whip will be invaluable next year as a government is formed (we hope consisting of a single party). It is also hoped he will, along with Hague, help shape the campaign. 

I don't know much about the switching round of the Law Officers, sadly; all I know is Dominic Grieve is out and replaced by Jeremy Wright. However it is not that sort of tinkering which interests me much, I shall now throw open the floodgates and switch on the lights for the main theme. 

Replacing William Hague is the grey non-entity of Philip Hammond, formerly Secretary for Defence and Secretary for Transport. Hammond came to Defence after the controversial departure of Liam Fox, who was not chosen for office this time. Liam Fox was at one time a Shadow Foreign Secretary under Michael Howard and would have been my first choice to succeed Hague. A silver lining in Hammond's appointment is that he is at least a Eurosceptic, which will please many on the Tory Right. He will hopefully find himself shuffled out again next year. 

Hammond is replaced by Michael Fallon, a former minister at the Department for Energy. Hopefully he'll have a better idea about how to do things and will doubtless be glad to be in charge of his own department away from Ed Davey. 

Coming up to the big table to replace Gove at Education is Nicky Morgan, a former Treasury minister. She is among the first of the high-profile women elected since 2010 to be promoted to Cabinet. Many are predicting that she will at least be more conciliatory in her tone when dealing with teaching unions and local authorities, but nonetheless I certainly hope that she will not have lost sight of the central theme of Gove's aims during his time at Education. 

Morgan's promotion to Education I found slightly odd, considering the new Environment Secretary, Liz Truss, was a junior minister in Morgan's new department. Truss replaced Owen Paterson, who has now left government, but hopefully not Parliament. I must also pay tribute to Owen, whom I had the privilege of hearing speak once and who made a lot of sense on taxation and spending. Sadly it was his performance during this year's floods which let down an otherwise steady ministerial career, but certainly I believed he had one more department in him. 

Nicky Morgan and Liz Truss are two of eleven women promoted today. I mustn't forget to mention a former Keele girl; Priti Patel who heads to the Treasury as Exchequer Secretary. Another is Penny Mordaunt, she of Splash! fame. She heads to the Department of Local Government in a junior ministerial position and has been tipped in the past for great things, we must therefore wonder what next year will hold for her. 

Two aspects have overshadowed today's reshuffle. The first is obvious; George Osborne, our esteemed Chancellor, has doubtless had a hand in many of the promotions and sideways moves today. Much has been made in recent weeks of his interest in the Foreign Office next time round, leading many to confirm that he will indeed seek to launch a leadership bid before 2020. Wedded to his proximity to the Prime Minister, thereby enabling him to nudge his favourites (Sajid Javid for one) into position, the writing on the wall grows ever-clearer. 

The second, no less obvious, is that Cameron has been routinely attacked for having too few women in Cabinet or in ministerial positions. The promotion and shuffling of a further eleven may very well look like tokenism and I cannot help but wonder if it all comes as too little too late. A perfect reshuffle opportunity presented itself when Maria Miller was sent packing, even if it was just a small one. I do not wish to imply that any of the ladies promoted today are undeserving or are the unwitting pawns in some equality game we have with the Opposition (we'll always lose, they won't be happy with today's choices). I firmly believe that the Conservative Party does not pander to tokenism a la all-women short-lists (given short shrift when Harriet Halfwit's husband was chosen from one). We have always promoted, selected and praised based on merit and merit alone and that should be enough. 

This Cabinet has been dubbed a campaign Cabinet and indeed that will prove to be the case; two of its finest sent to help Grant Shapps prepare the ground for the upcoming battles we face not just with the Labour Party, but with those whom we largely once considered our own. Giving Gove and Hague the time and space they need to do that was a wise move and again one detects the hand of Osborne. We must not forget that he was also a de facto Party Chairman until two years ago. It will doubtless be all change again in 2015 and sadly the Treasury will never have Hague, whom I believed to be an excellent replacement for Osborne (though it could easily go to Gove or May). They now have the task of seeing out the next nine and a half months before shuffling round again. 

Forever and Ever

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

So starts the Nicene Creed, the governing text spoken at Eucharist, Mass or common serving at any church in either the Anglican, Catholic or Nonconformist traditions. It goes on to affirm belief in God's son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit, making up the Trinity, which is at the centre of Christian belief regardless of denomination. 

I take very seriously the words of the Nicene Creed, despite having not spoken them aloud for some time. It may seem a touch hypocritical of me to speak up for Christianity when I have in fact not properly entered a church for some months. Nevertheless, there is no getting away from Christianity for me, in particular Anglicanism, which is the faith in which I was raised. At primary school we had prayers and hymns during assembly, I was confirmed at age 11 and this prepared me for life at a Church of England school. I still enjoy the choral works composed by Bach which illustrate aspects of Christian culture, in particular his St Matthew Passion, which is simply beautiful. 

We cannot, as a nation, escape our Christian heritage. From the parish churches in the centre of rural villages to the very seat and heart of government, Her Majesty the Queen, who is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. We exhort God in our national anthem to protect and preserve her (and He's not done too shabbily). Our national flag is made up of three crosses and when taken to using hyperbole, one can often be forgiven for using such words as 'heavenly' and 'divine'. 

So was the Prime Minister, therefore, right to call the UK a Christian country? In my view (and many others', it seems), the answer is a resounding yes. Christianity is embedded in our very bones and has been for nearly 1500 years. Admittedly the messages can seem a bit mixed when bishops in the Middle Ages were living lives of lordly leisure while many people struggled and starved (though that doesn't quite seem to have gone away). Regardless, some of our more magnificent structures are cathedrals and many families would not have come to prominence during the Tudor period had so many monasteries been closed. Even English law, which has some basis in equity, has roots in Christianity. Lord Chancellors were usually bishops until the Stuarts arrived and so were -- supposedly -- good judges of equality (Latin roots, gotta love 'em!). 

So then, Christianity is a massively rich vein that runs through our island story. Its codes of compassion and brotherly love have contributed to British people's famed philanthropic streak. We are regularly generous and will always fight for the underdog. Did Jesus do any less or indeed teach us so in the New Testament? I realise the arguments may be a little simplistic, but I'm no theologian sadly. 

We must therefore ask what the hell gives 50-odd "public figures" (I'd only heard of seven) the right to rain on this magnificent parade? I saw that letter to the Telegraph and was astounded. I was saddened slightly to see Terry Pratchett's name in there, but my respect for him does not diminish. Tim Minchin and Peter Tatchell were also among them, but the crowning glory was that third-rate no-good rich-bashing guilty-as-hell tired hack, the Guardian's answer to Jan Moir -- Polly Toynbee. I will address the lot of them here and now; what a completely shameless (if unsurprising) performance. This lot wish it to be known that secularism ought to be the order of the day; Christianity, indeed any religion for that matter, has no place in a modern progressive society. They will do down any attempt for anything to compete with their own religion, that of multicultural inclusiveness which must be preserved and promoted at all costs. Not one of them saw fit to excoriate Ed Miliband when he dared point out the obvious that the UK is still ostensibly a Christian country, oh no. They are not interested in fair debate, particularly not the hypocrite Toynbee, who has a second home in Tuscany and weeps openly for the poor and destitute while also screaming for the heads of the Royal Family. 

Let us put this into context. A centre-right Prime Minister has the gall to speak his mind on the state of the majority faith in the country he governs. A bunch of the fashionable cause brigade then weigh in and accuse him of fostering division. Just who precisely do they think they are? I realise that among them are equality campaigners, journalists and peers and therefore of course they know better, but I'm willing to bet that many of them are also atheists. Atheists who will of course be offended if anyone tries to "push" a faith on them but think it perfectly proper to foist their faithlessness on everyone else. Well they are the ones who are wrong, the kind of people George Orwell says in The Lion and the Unicorn are ripe for ridicule. In fact to say that David Cameron fosters division is in itself ridiculous. There will be many Christian people in this country who will have risked a small cheer on hearing the PM give the proper position of their faith in the UK. It is a faith which, sadly, does not seem to bear up on the figures. Despite roughly 60% of people saying they are Christian, one must wonder if that is reflected in the pews each Sunday. 

We are lucky in this country that we can have such a debate. We may never be able to drown out those nay-saying voices, but we can give it a damn good try. So once again, I believe in one God...

The Great Debate

So we've had the two of them (hello and good evening, by the way). Two leaders, two debates and one outcome. Not quite election-level, though we'll be going through the motions in May for some locals and the European Parliamentary elections. Nonetheless, TV airtime was dedicated to the parties which hold the most polar views on the UK's EU membership as it stands. The contenders: 

Nigel Farage MEP. Tory until around 20 years ago, made his money as a commodities broker in the city. Currently MEP for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the European Parliament. Has a leadership position in his group. Fairly amiable chap, so one would think; hailed as an authentic speaker who has few links to the British political class. Rabidly anti-EU, star of many YouTube videos and permanent bane to Martin Schulz, current President of the European Parliament. 

The Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP PC. Former MEP himself, now Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leader of the Liberal Democrat Party. Came to prominence during the 2010 General Election TV debates, when the catchphrase "I agree with Nick" saw the Conservatives go into coalition with him. Known since for not keeping his party to heel and letting Vince Cable run rings round him at will. May see his party's fortunes dip next year over tuition fees, desperately scrambling to rehabilitate his party nationally.

The stakes were, at least to me, slightly unclear. I suppose it helped to maybe push people toward one extreme or the other and one thing which people have said and with which I agree is the noted absence of both Labour and Conservatives. Well Labour don't have much to say on anything that's worth listening to just now, so we can discount them. Conservatives are too busy actually doing things and shaping the country up a bit better. Were the Lib Dems or UKIP able to put anyone else recognisable into the field, then I'd have been all for it, but as UKIP can't quite do that now that Roger Helmer is out of the frame, that could prove somewhat difficult. 

The performances: I only saw snippets of each, I must confess, but it told me all I needed. Farage looked to be in command and was forceful throughout. He told the people what they wanted to hear and they responded back to him positively. Contrast that to Nick, who still wants people to agree with him, but tonight especially sounded desperate, almost whiny and lacked force of personality. Say what you will about Farage (and plenty do) but he has a strength of personality people seem to like. Scratch below the surface and he's another golf club bore, but there we go. 

This is what I mean when I am derogatory about UKIP. Although they are populist in their approach and may have poached many anti-gay marriage Tories off us (they're welcome in my view), they have nothing else to offer. They are now bent on gaining a working-class vote and will use tactics employed by the BNP (a third of their former membership are reported to be in the ranks) to help. Again, they're welcome. Unfortunately this means that their policies will vacillate wildly in order to placate the plethora now in their ranks. To top it off, I cannot honestly name you above three people currently in the ranks who would be of ministerial calibre. Surely they must start to think of this, if they wish to be taken seriously? There are no other names or faces than Nigel Farage, Roger Helmer and Neil & Christine Hamilton who I can recall as notable members of UKIP.

I'd be equally nasty about the Lib Dems, but really, is it worth it? They not only have cake, but they now wish to eat it. Tim Farron being paraded round today going against the Spare Room Subsidy because it might help the party's image and hopefully keep them in double digits at Westminster come next May. They lost voters in 2010 in coalition. They bled them further when the welfare reforms were agreed. They may have stayed some hands on gay marriage, but ultimately the promise was blatantly broken on tuition fees, I do fear for their numbers. 

Neither party has, of course, offered any serious middle ground. UKIP want out and that's it. No negotiation, no attempt at consolidation. Just up, out and leave. OK, but then what? The Lib Dems want in, ever-closer union and one big happy family. No thanks. Labour, well, will want something that will see us edge closer to Brussels but sneakily so nobody suspects and the people won't have a say. Conservatives want a referendum in 2017 when all other avenues have been exhausted and the British people give a full and clear signal as to what should happen next. Not popular with the other three parties and indeed some members (who haven't yet joined Nutty Nigel) would be sceptical. I'm not; 2017 seems to be a sensible date, no election, no foreseeable crisis. A good and clear run starting in 2016, although the question is being debated now, which is good. 

My advice is to all of you not to simply let blind populism or unsupported faith be your guides when deciding what our future in relation to the EU should be. I think we should stick with it, but not in its present form and not for the reasons Nick suggested on BBC 2 tonight. It's a trading bloc and it's solid. Politically it's a complete banana republic and that alone should send the BRICs and US running for the hills. A diplomatic corps for a trading union? Preposterous. Its own flag, anthem and presidential system to boot? Ridiculous. It is these things we ought to change. If we can reform the EU for the good (and I mean less Brussels-based interference) of all the member-states, then we will have achieved something. That will not be delivered by UKIP and cannot be left to the Lib Dems or Labour. 

On A Day Like Today

It has been forever, it seems, since I deigned to post anything on here and for that I once again apologise. I was realistic in my expectations that posts would eventually become erratic and so it seems to be. Nevertheless, I have a lot to say in this one, as I've been musing for a while and I'm sorry but I must go back 10 days to last week's Budget. My theme will become clear, I promise. Here goes. 

The Budget last week seemed to have once again set the agenda for the year's economic debate. It was a far cry from that awful debacle in 2012 when nothing that came out of the Chancellor's mouth made much sense. Last year was slightly better, although Conference in September was a little subdued. Then came last Wednesday. 

A rip-roaring roller-coaster which gave people more money in their pockets and more freedom to spend it. It was a general win-win, particularly for me and others like me, who will be paying less tax and will be succeeding someone who will have been able to retire comfortably. Annuities took a bit of a pasting in the markets, but that's to be expected when people are given the freedom to spend their money how they wish. John McTernan (former Labour adviser), however, sneered and said that "you cannot trust people to spend their own money sensibly". I'd beg to differ, but that would mean, well, begging. Such sentiments are wholly immoral in my view, how dare anyone suggest that the government ought to control how my money is spent? I am fully in control of my faculties and if I were coming up to retirement and decided to blow my pension pot on some ridiculous whimsy then that is my decision. The only money of mine the government will ever have any input on are the taxes I surrender to it. That and the state pension I will eventually receive of course. 

It seems to be that the Conservatives are once again championing individual liberty in another spectrum of life. This leads me nicely into my next topic. Today, Saturday 29 March 2014, marks the day when people of the same sex can enter into valid legal marriages in England and Wales. The Scots will have something broadly similar come October so I hear. Personally getting married in Edinburgh would be worth the wait. Here again we as a party are championing the right, and it is a basic one, for people to marry whom they choose with all the rights and entitlements which go with it. Coupled to the tax breaks and all that are coming in for married couples in April, this couldn't have come at a better time. I don't care that people have left the party over this, of course it's sad that they cannot bring themselves to be progressive, but it's their loss. I respect those who object for religious reasons and understand their concerns, but from a Christian perspective, Jesus taught us all to love one another and be egalitarian in our outlook. I take large parts of the Old Testament with a pinch of salt, I make the New Testament my focus and in there do I find little to condemn homosexuality; in fact only three verses in three separate books make any concrete reference to it. If, as a party, we did not wish for progress in this and other aspects of society, then surely we would be called the Preservative & Unionist Party. 

I have been cheering all this on a little too quietly, so here I am on the megaphone making more noise. I was inspired to come back to you all today thanks to an article done for ConservativeHome, in the form of an interview with James Delingpole. This interview, for me, affirms why I am a member of the Conservative Party and why we should never let give Labour the slightest chance in 2015 of re-setting the clocks back to April 2010. We are giving people a say on our membership of the EU, something to which Miliband cannot give even his characteristic vague support. We are championing individual liberty, although Ryan Bourne of the Institute of Economic Affairs believes we can (and I think should) do more on that front. We are now a little over a year away from the general election which will make or break the reforms undertaken thus far. It is for the British people to decide whether or not they want rampant socialism in the form of price controls, enforced regulation and possible re-nationalisation, or the opportunity to give themselves more responsibility and the increased ability to make the important decisions in life for themselves. I know what I'll be voting for.