Pride

I suppose I should begin at the beginning with this. It has been some time since I deigned to post here at all, however I am using the account as a launchpad for something interesting. I realise I could easily have posted something lengthy on Twitter, however I don't believe I would do myself much justice. 

The amateur sleuths among you may have already worked out what I intend to write about and I shall do so with great celerity. It is something to which I have given some thought recently and as tomorrow is the start of Pride Month, I believed the timing of this article to be apposite. 

In the past few years, Pride Month has had me scuttling for the duvet in alarm. I must confess to receiving the 1st of June with some dread and indeed irritation. I had come to associate Pride Month and all it entails with me simply being reduced to one facet of my personality. I realise that for some having a spoon in the alphabet soup is the only thing that defines them and that further increased my feelings of alienation. I am not that sort of person at all, my sexuality does not define me exclusively and I do not expect it to govern every facet of my life. 

I am aware of the immense privilege being a gay man in the UK carries. I live in a fairly tolerant society, I am married to the person of my choosing and have few restrictions on my career advancement. This is probably why I have given so little thought to Pride Month and indeed can be contributing factor to my revulsion for it. I am entirely aware of the upheaval underway in the section of society I partly inhabit; namely how to continue to ensure that our trans brothers and sisters remain valued and included. I know this is a highly controversial subject and not one on which I intend to dwell in this post much longer. 

It is of that privilege I wish to talk further. Many of us will have had some sort of negative reaction to the present legislation passed earlier this year in Uganda. Homosexuality continues to be repressed in many parts of the world through various means. In Uganda the crime of simply loving another person of the same sex has been wrongly conflated with other social evils on which we still frown in the West. To be locked up merely for being helplessly attracted to another person of the same sex is anathema to us and I cannot imagine being in that situation. I know I have mentioned Uganda, however The Human Dignity Trust have published a map of many other nations across the globe in which to be LGBT remains a criminal offence. It is true there are other countries in which it is still culturally unacceptable to be LGBT and they too deserve to have a spotlight shone on them. One name which one can invariably reach for with some accuracy is Russia. It is interesting to see that while Russia has not outlawed homosexuality at the federal level, it has placed many limitations on LGBT+ people and in using Equaldex one can see how it compares to other European nations. 

How can we help, therefore? What exactly can we do? I think that the Pride marches which take place around the globe do serve an important purpose in reminding all people that LGBT+ people exist, however more can and should be done. We have social media and that is a useful platform, however I would also urge each and every one of you to write to your representatives to continue to raise questions and issues in your legislative houses. Many political parties have an LGBT+ group active within them; some of us in the UK may have an MP who is either a member or patron of these organisations. We can write to the embassies of those nations who restrict or criminalise their LGBT+ citizens and ask them to consider the harmful nature of their laws. We are productive members of society and deserve the respect that brings. We can research those companies whose owners/founders (if they are still currently in control of the organisation) who may have anti-LGBT views and boycott them. I realise some may already do this daily regardless of what month it is. However, it is still worth highlighting. 

We can all make a difference, no matter how small. We need to remind ourselves that human progress can only be effective if we live in open, tolerant societies. Changing cultures is difficult, but in doing so it is far easier to help change minds. 

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. 

A Man of the People

As the slogan for the Nationwide Building Society goes, "On Your Side". So those who do their daily dealings of a financial nature can assume that their money is secure, isn't going to be drained to any nasty shareholders and that for the savers, returns will be relatively healthy. Laudable. 

Let's expand the word "nationwide" metaphorically and then split it into two almost as big words "One Nation". That's the idea pervading the (alleged) thinking in the Labour Party, particularly after that rousing speech given by their apparent leader, Ed Miliband. One nation, where come 2015 under a Labour government, there will be blackouts. Land seizures. Even more borrowing and unworkable schemes because the  money will have gone. We are Britain, we certainly can do better than that. 

Be under no illusions here, folks, allowing Labour back in will do us irreparable damage. Our fragile growth, albeit growing more robust by the day, will be squandered in a year and by 2017 the country will be at the polling stations once again. Is that what we want? Ed asked his party conference and by wider dint anyone who was remotely interested not in Brighton, if people were better off than they were four years ago? Well four years ago there was still a Labour government and people were miserable. Some will have certainly answered the question in their heads with a tentative "Well, actually...". 

Pundits are saying that the next election will focus largely on the cost of living. Certainly that will be uppermost in the minds of many and rightly so. Prices have risen almost every month since May 2010 and the horrible Tories, along with their Lib Dem lackeys have done nothing to abate it. Yet the inflation rate went down recently. The Chancellor froze fuel duty in the Budget and now the supermarkets are cutting their prices at the pump. We agreed an increase in the personal allowance, set to rise again in 2014. That'll help with the cost of living; paying less tax will mean more to spend on the everyday items. Council tax has either been frozen or raised (by most authorities) below inflation and no authority can raise it above 2% without a mandate from local residents. 

But to return to Red Ed and his fun-loving band. As I touched upon, he wants to regulate energy prices. An excellent idea, the greedy energy company shareholders fill their pockets and the consumers face a heat-or-eat crisis. So heroic, crusading, on-my-side Ed comes in and says that Labour will pass legislation in 2015 to freeze energy price rises for 20 months. Great! An extra £120 to each bill payer per year, equating to £10 a month or so. For some this will be a drop in the ocean, to others a lifeline. But it comes at a price: government interference. The Government will tell private companies what to do in terms of the prices they set, in a nutshell, price controls. This will extend to the supermarkets and railways as well. Commuters and consumers will cheer initially; policies coming from a compassionate government at last! Of course, but for the supermarkets this will mean a limit on profit being made. Limits on profits mean that their staff and services will start to suffer. The less a company makes, the less it can afford to pay its staff. Less money for the lower-paid = less immediate consumption in the market. Labour will make lower-paid workers worse off in the long term. 

Ed claims to be on the side of small businesses. Again, something I could get behind, it's what we do best as a nation. He wants to freeze a business rates hike and reverse a 1% corporation tax cut to fund it. Doing so would be suicide, particularly in terms of the latter. Not cutting the corporation tax will mean that the larger business won't be able to hire any more workers, invest in their operations or just give their staff a pay boost. We also won't be attractive to future investors from overseas wanting a decent place for European operations. If we want to stay ahead in the global race, then we must be able to demonstrate that we're competitive. Labour will price us out of the global market. 

Then came the pronouncements on social issues; housing and childcare. An extra 25 hours a week for care-givers in order to accommodate parental working hours. Because recognising marriage in the tax system is just plain wrong, as are any tax cuts. Then there's the land-grab I mentioned earlier. One Nation Ed will ensure that there isn't much nation left to look at not covered by concrete and tarmac. The "new towns" he wishes to build to solve the housing crisis (presumably funded by the repeal of the hated Bedroom "Tax"). Where will they go, please? The Cotswolds? The Chilterns? How about the Yorkshire Dales? How affordable are we talking for the new housing? Will everyone have the right to buy, or is it just renting? Who will be allowed to apply for the new houses; those in employment, or those who only receive housing benefit? Maybe they'll just be for show. Labour will re-entrench socialism. 

This is to say nothing of the other hare-brained schemes cooked up at conference. I have given a taste of what could happen in 2015 should we, as a nation, make the wrong choice and elect the wrong man. We all remember how in 13 years Labour ruined us through high-tax, mega-spend policies and the same looks set to happen again. 

So on that, I shall finish on another slogan, borrowed from a far-distant General Election campaign OLD LABOUR, OLD DANGER. 

Blood and Honey

I think I've been silent long enough and while this is still current, I am minded to write something on the events of the past few days, culminating in the disgraceful display on the floor of the House of Commons on Thursday night. As usual, a little context, just in case anyone has missed anything, although I suspect that only applies to that nice family from Croydon to whom I'm renting my Tahitian cave. Anyway. 

Syria. Five letters, one country and now a myriad of problems. Once a great centre in the entire Middle East; Damascus, centre of learning and culture for Muslims, Christians and Jews. A gateway to Turkey and the Mediterranean, it has stood proud and strong for millennia. Until the Assad regime came. Firstly, the family were good enough not to go off half-cock shooting innocent people and terrorising the populace at large. A dictatorship yes, but largely benevolent and decent in its treatment of the large Christian and Jewish minorities resident in Damascus, Aleppo and elsewhere. That was until the events of the Arab Spring, when the Syrian members of Generation Y took to the streets in the big cities and demanded, as their Tunisian, Egyptian and Yemeni counterparts, greater freedoms and change. Events were quick to escalate and now we've had nothing but two long years of Syrian internal strife, culminating on Wednesday 21st August this year with the first use of chemical weapons this century. I have to say I'm impressed that mankind managed to hold off that long before doing something so stupid or dangerous. 

Now what do we have? A frightened population and 1,429 people whose lungs were filled with toxins and allegations of napalm used at a playground only a couple of days ago. The reaction from much of the world was righteous indignation; who would do such a thing and to so many women and children? A frightened and paranoid despot who will stop at nothing to ensure the re-enslavement of his people. Nations both large and small registered their disgust and anguish at such a diabolical atrocity. The UN sent in weapons inspectors, who are now safely back in New York having completed their investigation and who will report to the Secretary-General. We know they won't lay any blame, but my hope is that the provenance of the weapons used will do that for them. 

So what happened otherwise? Well, the UK tried to get the Security Council to agree to some sort of action plan but Russia as usual proved intractable and China non-committal. Quelle surprise, but surprisingly France is on board for military intervention. Which brings me to the nub of why I've written this. 

In Opposition, David Cameron promised that the UK would only be involved in military action if Parliament deemed it worthy to do so. He promised to consult Parliament every step of the way, in a bid to avoid doing another Blair and riding roughshod over Parliament's absolute sovereign right to keep the executive in check. He was given assurances by Ed Miliband that Labour would support the motion tabled on Thursday night to involve the UK in some form of military action, provided that the UN route had been exhausted, the case was built and Parliament was given two votes. 

285-272. That was the result and the government's motion was defeated. Our hands are now tied and we can only sit idly and watch as the rest of the world, including Australia, France and Turkey back the US in going up against Assad et al. Dan Hodges wrote in his Telegraph blog that he felt so ashamed by the duplicity showed by Miliband that he has now left the Labour Party. I do hope that The Telegraph keep him on, I don't believe he'll renege and join the Tories or even the Lib Dems any time soon. 

Even at time of writing, my Facebook feed is showing me articles from The Political Writer and other sources arguing that Britain shouldn't be following the US into every conflict and even suggesting Obama may not be too eager to wade on in just yet. Putting that aside, I do wonder what went through the minds of those MPs voting "No" on Thursday night. Some will have done so in the hope of being seen as good MPs who were concerned and listening to the voters. Others will have of course been politicking, although I won't be uncharitable and entirely blame the Opposition. 

I know Ed Miliband won't be ashamed of himself in what he's done. He'll doubtlessly think he's done the country and enormous favour that it'll play well in the national memory in 2015 and indeed at his party's conference in a few weeks. Big rubber balls. He's proven that he's totally unworthy of the burdens of the office to which he aspires (or believes should be his because he's entitled to it). I do hope that those Tory MPs who voted against aren't all in the crucial 40/40 seats we're targeting. I know some of them will have wanted to "stick it" to Cameron on some other issue because they just don't like him. I am comforted, however, that now Miliband has soured relations with the Democrats in the US; their memories are long and I know that even if we lose in 2015 and the Republicans win in 2016, the words Prime Minister Miliband will not be met with any great enthusiasm in Washington. 

I do feel sorry for the PM, no good deed goes unpunished and the pundits may be right about his authority being diminished. He's spent so long, along with William Hague, re-building British foreign policy and increasing our standing abroad. Now that all lies in tatters and the Britain that once stood up twice to an over-mighty Germany twice in a century, as well as halting atrocities in Africa and the Balkans not less than twenty years ago is no more. While I applaud that Parliament was able to rightly assert its will, the choice was the wrong one. There may yet be an opportunity to re-frame the question once the weapons inspectors' report is published. For now, I shall simply let my rage subside and grieve quietly for a period in our history which has ended so abruptly. 

Gibraltar

Egad! Another post so soon, hot on the heels of the last? Yes, indeed, but on another theme about which I feel very strongly; British sovereignty. A brief context; much has been made over the past few days of the story concerning Spain's apparently aggravating policies of wanting to instigate border charges at the point of entry from mainland Spain to the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar. The Spanish government wishes to charge each vehicle €50 (£43) to enter and exit the territory. That is a cost of roughly £96 per day to those who have to work there, estimated at 4,000 or so. While that would be a very nice little earner for the blighted Spanish economy, which currently suffers at 25% unemployment, this is an entirely unworkable solution, when considering what else they wish to impose, namely the closure of Spanish airspace to all inbound and outbound flights to Gibraltar. That would be far more damaging to the Spanish economy as a whole. Yet what is the reasoning for this dispute in the first place? Simple: a fishing dispute. The Spanish government claims that the building of a reef by the Gibraltarian is harming the Spanish fishing trade. 

Regardless of whether or not this is true (and I suspect is isn't); the imposition of a fine in contravention to various schedules and sections in all EU treaties to which both Spain and the UK are signatories is a violation. Without wishing to sound too much like a Little Englander or, God forbid, a UKIP candidate (I am not, by the way), why has Brussels chosen to let Spain and the UK fight it out? These are EU member states and as I said, the fines are in contravention of what is ostensibly EU law. The EU would be perfectly within its rights to act as a mediator, yet it chooses to ignore the dispute. I guess part of the reason is that both countries' heads of government have managed to take some of the heat out of the argument by talking directly. 

There are, however, some aspects which still need to be addressed and I shall go wider here. Gibraltar is sovereign UK territory, its last referendum was held in 2002 and the popular will was still to remain British. There may be another plebiscite held this century, but I do believe that the Rock will still have the Union Flag flying above it during the rest of my lifetime. Despite the bilateral phone conversation earlier this week between David Cameron and Mariano Rajoy, the Royal Navy has still seen fit to divert one of its fleet to Gibraltar (we are reminded of Lord Palmerston and his effective 'gunboat diplomacy' during the 1860's). We still maintain a small presence in another small, but no less important, territory and they need no name at all here. They too held a vote and in March this year decided to remain British as well. As has been said in other parts as well this week, it is a clear indication of troubled or failing governments which border a BOT and claim British imperialism if they perceive a slight or wish to cause trouble. President de Kirchner of Argentina said she doesn't recognise the Falklanders' vote this year, cries foul and all sorts of nonsense. These places were British territory recognised by treaties signed before either Rajoy's or de Kirchner's great-grandparents ever drew breath and will be so when their great-grandchildren's death rattle will sound. 

I visited the reception given by HM Government Gibraltar at Conference last year and signed the book at the Falkland Islands stall as well. The quiet dignity of the First Minister of Gibraltar when he spoke (although at length) impressed me greatly and is reflective of those resident in the territory. We should not give in to demands made just because they are made. We are backing Gibraltar and should do so until instructed otherwise. No government has the right to tell us otherwise.  

You Do Surprise Me

Following on from the rows about the NHS and the damning reports which have been published about care provision in the last few months, I thought I too would offer my own opinion on the subject. I was moved by the revelation published by online magazine The Commentator that the Guardian had yesterday permitted the publication of a piece on its much-revered Comment is Free page by a Spectator contributor, namely Melissa Kite. The subject being funding for the NHS and why those who have private health insurance are denigrated. 

Ms Kite's motivation came from the revelation by Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director for the NHS, that the organisation ought to be more like PC World in its delivery process. Like many right-wingers, Ms Kite included, I believe that the NHS should reform and perform better. I do share her scepticism that maybe it wouldn't be entirely wise for the NHS to privatise entirely, given the fluctuating ability for the markets to provide universal services (but that's the price we pay for capitalism, eh?). 

Her article quotes from the original Beveridge report, which was the arguable cornerstone for the founding of the NHS in the first place. Sir William himself said, "The state, in organising security, should not stifle incentive, responsibility, opportunity in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family". In other words, the NHS will happily provide you with all the basic stuff you need, but don't expect it to bear the brunt of your bad lifestyle choices. 

I also agree that those who do pay for much of their healthcare ought to be applauded for not adding to the burden of our already overstretched system. If I were fortunate enough to have the money, then I too would pay for my healthcare (albeit with certain strings. Tax break for one). 

This leads me onto another similar argument made by the Telegraph's excellent Janet Daley last month. Being American-born, she is well placed to comment and indeed makes some excellent points in the article, particularly on the topic of health insurance. She contends that having a co-payments system for non-basic procedures would help benefit the provision of basic healthcare from a financial standpoint. Again, this should come with strings attached, preferably in the form of reduced NI contributions for those who do have some form of basic health insurance. 

Both of these combined could see a resurgence in healthcare provision and ensure real demand from those patients who will be particular about the treatment they receive. To be able to better provide basic healthcare is what the NHS ought to be striving for, that is why it is there. Added to this the Friends and Family test which, although shaky right now (and unwittingly mentioned in an earlier post of mine), should add weight to what patients think of their treatment and enable others to choose where they are treated. All this is designed to continue to help raise the NHS's game and ensure that it continues to deserve the epithet of "best in the world", for I am sure neither we or it can stomach another damning report. 

In Memoriam

It is no doubt apparent to you all that something momentous happened today. Sometime this morning, the United Kingdom lost one of its great historical and political figures since the Second World War. I speak, of course, of the Rt Hon Baroness Margaret Thatcher KG OM FRS. She died in her hotel suite at The Ritz at the age of 87.

Hers was an undoubtedly controversial legacy, but I firmly believe that she transformed this country for the better. From her time as a humble backbench MP, she rose through the ranks, intending to become Chancellor of the Exchequer, but ended up holding the highest of the Great Offices of State. I shan't recount her story, that's not why I write this blog. I shall instead give my verdict on the longest postwar premiership served and the remarkable person upon whose shoulders that august burden fell.

I was born in the year of her third and final general election win and indeed was but a toddler when she left Downing Street. By the time she left, Britain was a markedly different country and indeed was left in a much better state than when she found it.

In the 1970's, the United Kingdom was the sick man of Europe, crippled by rising international debt and held to ransom by overmighty unions. Things came to a head in 1979 during the Winter of Discontent when a weak Labour government was forced from office by having to go to the IMF for a loan. All that changed significantly.

The 1980's saw our island go through massive upheavals. Yes, there were riots in Liverpool and London and the miners went on strike for almost a whole year in protest at the closing of the pits. Entire communities were decimated, but there were positives. Her tenacity and sheer force of will ensured that we won the Falklands War, still a sore point for Argentina and the question is trotted out each time a president of theirs is in difficulty. Her determination for people to aspire to home ownership led to the relaxing of controls and restrictions on the City of London and for the possibility for those in council housing to have the right to buy. Of course local authorities became greedy and didn't bother replacing much of the stock (quelle surprise), but it was still the right thing to do.

Further to that, people could buy shares in the privatising nationalised industries, such as British Gas and BT. The state was rolled back and people were left to spend their money on what they wanted. With the lines of easy credit stretching far toward a golden horizon, this was of course rather easy.

Unfortunately this came at a price. First, she has been demonised for crushing the unions. The unions needed putting back in their place; they had stalked the land for far too long, creating mayhem and misrule wherever they could, just to show force. We are not to be cowed by such people, nor such people as the IRA. Gerry Adams' comments today were not particularly welcome and he knows he ought to be ashamed of himself. Terrorists are brutes and deserve brutalising. Last, was the poll tax. The riots that caused were unnecessary and marked the beginning of a startling trend, which culminated two years ago in the horrific scenes in our large cities.

Of course, she was also unswervingly patriotic on the world stage. I have mentioned the Falklands, but foreign policy was conducted with a single view in mind; how greatly will Britain benefit? In Europe she won us back a rebate on our contribution (squandered by a so-called admirer of hers who shall remain nameless). Elsewhere she helped win the Cold War, bridging the gap for the Soviet Union and the United States.

It is therefore with a full heart that I say how sorry I am that such a figure has now departed from us. Margaret Thatcher will be as loved by many as she is reviled by others. However there can be no doubt that she was a remarkable person and the world shall never be the same for lack of her in it. I was surprised equally by the positive comments on my social media feed as I was appalled by others. Before I go to press with this, I will add that anyone who comments negatively out of pure spite and malice on Facebook will have their comments deleted. Such people ought to know better; remember a family tonight lost a mother and grandmother.

Once again, ladies and gentleman, Margaret Hilda Thatcher. Such will never be seen again and a chapter in our island story is ended.

It's Not Fair

So at least the headlines will run today as the new NHS reforms and the Health and Social Care Bill come into effect. Goodbye NHS, farewell to the welfare state; the Coalition has sunk us all and just so that the rich can get richer and the vile Tories can once and for all eradicate the poor from our land. Utter tripe.

Let's take a look at how Britain came to this position, shall we? Starting with the creation of the welfare state, under a postwar Labour government, which saw that there were those in Britain who genuinely required a lot more state support than was available. Already there was some old age provision in the form of the state pension created a generation earlier. This was a laudable idea; a safety net would be created in which those who had genuine needs would be caught. Food would be put on the table and the concurrent NHS, brought online in 1948, would help keep household healthcare bills down. Additionally, new social housing would be built, clearing the slums and thereby reducing the burden on the new healthcare service because the diseases contained therein would be reduced significantly. For a while this seemed to work, until the social housing became unliveable and the baby-boomers began to have children, thereby requiring more welfare to be made available.

What happened next? Well social security payments continued to be made, the state pension went through some increases and universal benefits were made available. This, too, seemed to work, until the advent of child benefit. For struggling people this was again something of a boon, the kids would be clothed and shod and middle-class people had more disposable income to dispose of. This system was largely unchanged, even during the Thatcher and Major years, although social housing was largely sold off and councils never thought to rebuild in order to maintain supply. Then came the real bombshell.

There were already a small but growing number of families who were growing up on welfare; grandparents retiring and parents who were finding it easier simply to claim, claim, claim. After May 1997, this became exacerbated by New Labour. New Labour, which claimed that it would provide for families, which would reform and improve education and the NHS so that the British people would have world-class services began the systematic wholesale growth of those who were rendered totally dependent on the state. Then the stories of the abuse of the system began to become more apparent and more abhorrent. Families who were spending their welfare on luxury items, such as holidays, massive TV screens and top-brand clothes. Stop me if this sounds familiar, but it has now culminated in some being offered custom-built houses by their local authority, with right of refusal if it doesn't match specifications. Is it any wonder the taxpayers are irate? is it any wonder there must be reform? Yet where is the taxpayers' righteous indignation? Where are our protests at these vile parasites, who leech from us?

In summary on this point, I say this. Those of you who are angry about the so-called "Bedroom Tax" (it isn't, it's a benefit reduction to stop under-occupancy of social housing (you know, the ones Labour never really seemed keen to build), direct your anger at Frank Dobson and Bob Crowe, both of whom are paid handsomely and have never moved from their council houses. Council housing was designed to help those who could not find housing in the private sector and thereby meant to be a temporary solution until an individual's circumstances improved. Benefits are being cut because more jobs are being created, so the work is there for those who want it I take with a pinch of salt the figure of the nearly 900,000 who will not undertake a medical in order to prove unfitness for work. I believe this is two-fold; firstly because there will be people who are genuinely in need and are scared the stringency of the tests will be too great for them. There will also be those idlers who have been continually signed off by a lazy GP for years and who may be in danger of finding their so-far "cushy" lifestyle somewhat impugned.

Now to the NHS reforms. I was at first sceptical when the plans were announced, particularly on the commissioning front. One cannot simply allow GP's to take control lock, stock and barrel of NHS service commissioning without the proper controls. Commissioning boards ought to have membership widened to include other healthcare professionals and ensure that there are GPwSI's (GP with Special Interest) sitting on them.

What is clear, particularly from the Francis Report, is that the NHS is in dire need of an overhaul. Management is too complex; certain wards in hospitals are managed differently to others and thereby the messages coming through seem to be incoherent. The problem with the NHS, of course, is that it is now treated as a sacred cow and should not be given to the private sector to run at all. However, the reforms are intended to help give professionals clear guidance on the best treatment and patients better information on each hospital. After all, this is how society operates; word of mouth. People are more likely to listen to their friends and neighbours when it comes to experience of the medical profession. Which would you trust; an impersonal leaflet, or a friend or relative who will have an anecdote to attach about a particular hospital and how it is run?

There is also hype that the NHS will not survive much longer under the Coalition and it will simply be yanked away. In the case of Mid-Staffs, that's surely a good thing. No, don't misunderstand me, I'm not in favour of privatising the NHS entirely; just the bits that don't work. They did it with the Hinchingbrooke in Cambridgeshire and it posts regularly about good patient satisfaction levels. There are now more private healthcare companies advertising their services publicly, so the system is beginning to work. Once you subject the state to market forces, it becomes less bloated and idle and will begin to shape up with the view to keeping its pole position. That is what the reforms are designed to do; provide the taxpayer with a top-quality, value-for-money service. Get them charging for missed clinical appointments and then we'll really see the difference. I'm still going to use the NHS, because it isn't going anywhere.

To summarise in full; I make no apologies for the views herein expressed, I've decided that if people are going to be offended, then good. This is a democracy after all, I'm entitled to say these things without fear of a lawsuit. I believe in the state and I believe in the Conservative Party, the two are not mutually exclusive. The reforms coming into force today are good, they will make Britain fairer. Nobody has the right to live off the state when they've no need or good reason to do so. We must continue to support our most vulnerable and make example of those who shirk responsibility. Do not get caught up in the hype today; make your own judgements with a cool and clear head. Britain is changing and it will be for the better.

It's Been Too Long

Indeed it has been too long and far too much has happened since November. I must admit the ventures I've embarked on recently have al been neglected for one reason or another (none that I can find are particularly good) but I was encouraged to start back here once again and so I am. I cannot make any promises or predictions as to how long I'll be back for, but we'll see how it goes. I hope you've all been well and that life has been treating you accordingly.

I'm going to start with the Eastleigh by-election in which we came third. We trailed UKIP by 1000 or so votes and I'm honestly not surprised. UKIP steal, folks, and do so because of disaffection within the party. Not mine I have to say, I think the PM and Cabinet are doing a decent enough job; but already the warnings are sounding. We have weeks now before the Budget is announced and we need to ensure that within it are contained measures to help us gain back voters and reassure potential ones that the Conservative Party is the true party of government.

So where are these haemorrhages to be found? Well some will point to gay marriage and although I am vocally in favour, as are many both in the party and nationally, there have been doubts. I have discussed this issue in earlier posts, so I won't go into too much detail again, but suffice it to say if you're not familiar with my views on it now, then read my post entitled Now Pay Attention. Nevertheless it is emotive and has caused a small rift within our ranks, a rift which must be healed. We have already ensured caveats to religious organisations, but we cannot be blind to the fact that more has to be done if we are not to alienate the grassroots further.

Likewise Europe and immigration are both points which are still contentious. UKIP seem to thrive on Tory disaffection where Europe is concerned. Let's not beat about the bush, folks, this is just one aspect of UKIP policy. UKIP and the EU need each other; the EU to appear democratic in letting an opposition party into the Parliament and UKIP because they hate the EU. Their domestic policies fracture and drift like so many ice floes. Alas, unlike these majestic wonders, there is very little below the surface. They rubbed their hands with glee when the PM announced in his speech on having a referendum that it would require a time-frame. Of course it needs a time-frame, things have to be negotiated! We cannot simply wrench ourselves out, we must extract properly. I understand frustration with the EU, I think it's a hatefully pernicious organisation; I am reminded of the busybody neighbour when I think of the Commission. Views are given but rarely sought or wanted and often the advice is bad. I believe that while we are in the EU it is our duty as a member-state not to let the Commission get away with its mismanagement of the member-states and to ensure that policies are regularly interrogated and if necessary opposed.

As for immigration; there are parts of Britain now where the schools require regular interpreters and in London there are schools in which the pupils' second language is English. This is not polemics run mad, this is cold sober fact. Labour had the gall to issue a half-hearted apology through Yvette Cooper but they have no better solution to the problem. Their credibility is fast waning not just on the economy, but now it seems in other policies as well. I am not a racist, but when people come over here they should be able to ensure that they will contribute to the economy and make an effort at integration.

So that takes care of why not to vote for either UKIP or Labour. Not voting for the Lib Dems is a no-brainer (almost like Nick Clegg).

So why vote Tory? I know that there will be frustration over things like the Bedroom Tax and now something people are calling the Mummy Tax. Both are misnomers are neither are actual taxes; they are cuts in benefits. There is no shame in rolling back the welfare state to a point at which it can be properly managed. There is no room in this society for those who do not pull their weight and in fact do not wish to. There are those who have fallen on hard times and must be helped, that is why it was created, under the slogan "All Pay, All Benefit". Some have simply latched on to the latter part it seems. As concerns the Bedroom Tax, it is designed to address the social housing crisis that is prevalent in the UK at the moment. Why does a single person with no dependents require a three-bedroom house over a family of four? There are of course discrepancies, such as the elderly, but they seem to have been accounted for. Additionally social housing ought not to be a permanent solution for anyone; as one becomes more affluent, one should continually look toward ownership. This is one aspect of this government's commitment to empowering the individual.

Another way is education. Michael Gove continues to power through with his highly successful reform programme. Parents will have a better choice of school for their child in the new academies and the schools themselves are now directly funded from Whitehall. Long gone are the days when the local authority had direct control over high school budgets and indeed groups are setting up schools in order to ensure that they provide the education they believe their children deserve. Couple this with the pupil premium payments for those from disadvantaged backgrounds and we can really make a difference, giving British children the chances they deserve.

The NHS has long been a sore point and has been in dire need of real reform. I was sceptical about allowing GP commissioning; with no disrespect to GP's in general, but they are there to refer on to specialist treatment if prescription drugs aren't working. Similarly permitting any qualified provider is equally thorny. However, as with education, standards only improve if there is competition. Patients themselves know what they want from their healthcare providers, although the Francis Report has shown that certain trusts cannot even competently provide that which is required by codes of practice. Mid-Staffs cannot and must not happen again and the only way to be sure of that is to allow greater patient choice and increase accountability.

I would talk about the economy, but it is continually done to death. All I shall say is that despite our losing the AAA rating (downgraded by only one agency I might add), we have still managed to borrow at a reduced rate. The deficit has been reduced by a quarter and more part-time posts are now available, taking more people off welfare dependency. More must be done; I myself would like to see a reduction in VAT for example. The way to raise money is not to tax the rich further and certainly not to impose silly mansion taxes or tax moveable wealth a la Oncle François.

We are still credible. We are the right choice; Labour have no real policies and oppose everything we do for the sake of it. The Lib Dems insist on having caveats and moveable goalposts. UKIP are simply a one-man single-issue party in which disagreeing with Nigel Farage means membership is forfeit. Vote Conservative in your local elections and in 2015. There are miles to go, but we are the ones to stay the course.

The Reason Why

I have had enough. I have seen enough. I have certainly read enough. My strength of feeling is now so great that I do not believe I can contain it any longer. The leftist whining and ineffectual protesting over the internet that has been flung into my consciousness in the past 24 hours has finally pushed me over the edge. Apologies for the lack of post in recent months, but it's time you all got to know me again. Hi, my name is Rob Griffiths, and this is why I am a Conservative. 

Let's be clear, I am more left-leaning than most Tories and this is because of my own beliefs and upbringing. I don't think that parents ought to have any say in their children's political or social views beyond offering an alternative opinion. Biasing them is fundamentally damaging. I have bias because I choose it, not because it was foisted on me. I will therefore lay out, as best I can, my core principles and beliefs and if at the end you don't think I ought to be a member of the Conservative Party, then say so, this is going to press across every means of social media I currently access. Conversely if you're cheering me on, then say so as well, I could do with the support. Here we go. 

Firstly, I am a Conservative because I don't think the State ought to play as big a role as it does. I think that governments have a primary duty of care to their citizens that amounts to providing education, welfare and healthcare. However that is delivered, it is still a fundamental priority. I care not one whit for the whingeing and hand-wringing coming from many on the Left, who say we are destroying the welfare state. Plain fact is that the welfare state must adapt, very little has changed since the war. We are changing it so that it is able to cope with the increased demand of an elderly population which is living even longer. There are more people coming in from the EU who are able to claim our benefits, this must be factored in. I make no comment on immigration (yet), but this is another area where we must adapt. If that means cuts in order to restructure, then we must cut (cuts being another subject I shall mention). Our dearly beloved NHS, which has come under the most appalling attack thanks to Andrew Lansley and his butchery, will never be the same again, although there is one success story to be had from it which I will cite in all cases and that is the Hinchingbrooke hospital in Cambridgeshire. It is the sadly single indication in this country that the private sector can work successfully on a public contract within such a large organisation as the NHS. The public sector should not be a drain on society and if we want the best we must pay for it; the best is not always the State. 

I am a Conservative because I believe in putting Britain first. No, not like UKIP, I mean properly. If we are to have a relationship with the EU then we must have one which is flexible and suits our needs. The EU is a collection of twenty-seven (soon twenty-eight) nations all of which have different agendas which must have a common theme. If an idea comes up for discussion at the Council of Ministers, it is the duty of the relevant UK minister to push British interests as far as possible and damn the consequences. We are not used to surrender or acquiescence, so when did we acquire a taste for such vile narcotics? Foreign policy must also be backed up with force and that means armed forces capable of projecting the power we need to maintain our interests. Long gone are the days when we could have sailed a gunboat or three into the Straits of Hormuz and demanded that Iran halt its nuclear programme Or Else. It's a lamentable loss. We are a small island nation still capable of punching above our weight, which is why we must invest in conventional forces alongside developing new methods of waging war. Re-deploying the TA as the Army Reserve is an excellent start, but it is not a solution. I will be watching developments closely. 

I am a Conservative because I believe in the family. Families are the best support network anyone can have and I am extremely fortunate in mine. My coming out was given support and praise and I cannot thank everyone enough for that. In my family it is the person who is valued, not the choices or commitments. Being gay for me is not a choice, nor is it for the 99.9% of those who identify as such. This is the argument I made at Conference this year, because this is something about which I am passionate. I believe that a child deserves the childhood I had; loving parents wishing to preserve innocence for as long as possible. It doesn't matter what form those parents take, so long as the love and support is there. I realise that there are people who have grown and who are growing up without my great fortune, but this is an area where the State must tread with absolute care; sometimes social workers get it wrong and then things get spectacularly out of hand. That must cease and cease quickly. 

I am a Conservative because I think that capitalism still has a place in our society. I am not an economist (yeah, you all get it now, I know), but we should not persecute those who have become rich by making a profit. They have a responsibility to ensure that what they do is ethical and they treat their employees well. I believe in a symbiotic relationship between the private and public sectors; one picking up where the other falls short. We must encourage enterprising spirit wherever we find it and have those ready to invest on hand to help grow the businesses with a chance of survival. It's all about judgement call and sometimes that doesn't always work, but you pick yourself up and try again. We have somehow become set against entrepreneurial spirit in this country, something which I find unappealing. I am not, nor do I wish to be labelled as, one of the 99%. That is galling and patronising; I tell myself what to think and how to feel. I fundamentally disagree with the Occupy movement (sorry dedicated people in Sheffield I met last year) -- I enjoy buying things and that makes winners of both me and the country. I'll fuel capitalism for as long as I breathe. 

I am a Conservative because I am Robert Douglas Griffiths; son, brother, nephew, cousin, friend, commentator, colleague, employee, part-time party activist, actor and human being. I have laid my beliefs bare and will do so until I can no longer. Disagree with me or not, here I am.