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. 

To Play the King

I decided to run with a theme on this. House of Cards fans will no doubt appreciate it, or at least I hope they will. Anyway, the results dripped through on Wednesday and so I can give them to you more or less in full. Here goes. 

Justice Secretary: Ken Clarke is out at last. In comes Chris Grayling in the first of the right wingers to enter the Cabinet since the reshuffle. He might give a good account of himself at Justice, although how sad IDS will be to lose him at the DWP we will see. Ken, meanwhile, has been given a role in economic affairs, so he's back to what he knows. 

Health Secretary: Out with Andrew Lansley and in with Jeremy Hunt (cue sharp intake of breath). So far another speculation proven right. This should now be Hunt's chance to atone for his bad record over BSkyB at Culture. Sad for Andrew Lansley, who is now Leader of the House. I don't see him making any kind of comeback from this now. 

Environment Secretary: Caroline Spelman is in the long grass as Owen Paterson comes up from the Northern Ireland Office, to be replaced by Theresa Villiers, former Minister of State at Transport. Environment is a good bet for a long run to Foreign Secretary (probably past the DfID, but more of that in a moment).  He seems competent, so we could get something to run with green-wise until 2015. He may well want more later, but he has until 2015 to see if he deserves it. 

Culture Secretary: With Jeremy Hunt at Health, Maria Miller was appointed (albeit with raised eyebrows) to the Culture Department. There have already been raised voices over her voting record, in similar tones to the appointment of Chris Grayling. To the nay-sayers I respond thus: I don't care about previous voting records, especially when certain votes contained large numbers of Labour MP's. She needs to prove that she's competent. 

International Development: We wave goodbye to Andrew Mitchell and welcome Justine Greening, formerly Transport Secretary. Justine, you may well remember, being responsible for tacking the controversial issue of a third Heathrow runway. She has already promised a tougher stance on aid and abut time, given that we pledged 0.7% of GDP to go overseas in the next few years. Andrew Mtichell gets Chief Whip, replacing Patrick McLoughlin who gets...

Transport Secretary: Patrick is already hitting the ground running with Boris sounding off on Government policy over the proposed Heathrow expansion. He is also now responsible for overseeing HS2, the highly necessary (although no less controversial) rail provision we need. 

Party Chairman: One of the first revelations was that Sayeeda Warsi is finally out, to be replaced by Grant Shapps, former Housing Minister at DWP. She goes to the Foreign Office to bother William Hague while Grant is left to begin the mammoth task of putting together the election strategy for 2015 and rallying the beleaguered association network across the UK. His role is now crucial as we begin to look at the endgame in the run-up to the next general election. He will need to be continually active and hopefully be involved in major decisions, as it will be his task to present policy in an electoral context. 

All in all a strong-looking team. None of the Great Offices have been moved and Vince is still at Business. Surisingly David Laws was given a semi-formal role at Education but attached to a roving brief. It's good to have him back though, we need another set of brains in Whitehall. 

House of Cards

Sadly this isn't a review of the much-acclaimed serialisation of Michael Dobbs' magnum opus. However it does bear some relevance on the current goings-on in the Westminster village, for finally we get a big reshuffle. It's been two years in coming, but hopefully by this time tomorrow we'll have a Cabinet hopefully more refreshed and energetic in tackling the challenges ahead. 

Here, then, I hope to give a personal account of those involved and whether or not I believe they would be best suited to the job they've been tipped for. I shall start with: 

The Great Offices of State: these being the PM, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary. Obviously we cannot afford to lose George Osborne at the Treasury, but he really must get a grip on the economy. It has started to run away with him and he must now reveal a more bold and robust growth plan in order to get Britain going again. Build a runway by all means, but do it at a regional airport for God's sake. Birmingham would be perfect for this; central location, good access to all parts of England and Wales as well as onward travel by air and rail to Scotland and of course as one of the termini for High Speed 2. 

Foreign Secretary: William Hague has been stellar these past two years. British foreign policy has never been in better shape with him at the helm and we are being listened to again. No more gaffes, mistaken handshakes or anything like that. He's been right on the money, such a shame he won't move and take on the chairmanship role. He would add the political clout needed while being popular and well-known to help galvanise our tired association network. He might have paved the way for...

Home Secretary: Theresa May. She's had a bad innings at the Home Office one way or another, although not too much of her own making. Scandals with UKBA and G4S, the Police Federation conference to name but three. She has the tenacity to turn that round and the intelligence to provide innovative policy. She has, however, grown into her role nicely and could probably survive another year. 

Health Secretary: Andrew Lansley may or may not be for the chop. I hope he stays, it was just horrible how the NHS reforms were presented. Trusting GP's with money is not a good idea, but ensuring more competition within the Health Service is. Letting him go now looks like admitting defeat and that cannot happen. That is not to ignore his long record on Conservative health policy, but some people do need a gentle push. We shall see. 

Justice Secretary: Speaking of gentle pushes, Ken Clarke could well find himself gently pushed out and upstairs. Might not be such a bad thing, he's had forty years in and out of governments one way or another. The apparent softness on crime and blatant Europhilia do count against him, he's much better at economics. Had we been in a better position, he could easily have gone to the Treasury as Chief Secretary. His future is very uncertain; I won't be sorry to see him go. A peerage and position at CCHQ might be just the retirement he needs. 

Work and Pensions/Education: I mention these two in the same breath because there is no point in moving either Ian Duncan Smith or Michael Gove. There are those who say that their policies are socially harmful and not the least bit beneficial to those who would use their services most. I forgot that it's wrong to empower people, to show them how they can live their lives without full dependence on the State for everything. If you are capable of work, then you ought to work. If you desire a good education for your child, then your child must have it. Gove has wrested the schools away from the devastatingly toxic grip of the local authorities and allowed dedicated people to help set up free schools. In the same way, IDS is attempting to show people that in fact it is much better to stand on your own two feet and run your life yourself. 

Business and Innovation: Sadly Vince isn't moving either. However he has just put forward proposals for a new investment bank, so he ought to see the project through its initial stages before he's shunted anywhere. Hopefully he might learn a few lessons and actually read the very helpful reports he's given before carrying on regardless. 

Transport: Justine Greening also hangs in the balance, after only a few months in the job thanks to the minor reshuffle caused by Philip Hammond's promotion after Liam Fox's departure. However after her brave intervention over the third runway at Heathrow, she might actually be kept on a little longer. 

Who, then, might be in line for a promotion? Well, firstly, some of the new boys and girls from the 2010 intake are set for higher office in the junior ministries, setting them up for possible promotion a little further down the line. Both Chris Grayling and Grant Shapps are in line to take on more heavyweight roles, with either one of them tipped to be Party Chairman (I have mentioned how awful the Feldman-Warsi-Osborne triad is and would welcome its eventual demise). Owen Paterson could leave the Northern Ireland brief to take on Transport and Patrick Mcloughlin is widely believed to be our next Chief Whip. 

What is needed is a deeper understanding of the voting public. Leave the south-east as it is; it's Tory heartland and nobody will change that any time soon. We need to start winning in other areas, such as the Midlands, the North and Wales. Apart from everyone's chief political concern, which seems to the economy, where are the frequent polls on immigration or crime? I doubt that having an exclusive northerner at CCHQ would make any difference, but it would be a help certainly in rallying the northern associations. Eric Pickles might be good at that, though; leave his job at Communities for someone else while he sets about putting the party on an election footing. We are staring down the barrel at 2013 now and Conference is fast approaching. This is the time when the Chancellor must be bold and deliver on his promise earlier today of increased investment, when the Prime Minister must face down his critics and get tougher on Nick Clegg (bringing David Laws back might just help in that regard, but we shall see) and when the Conservative Party has the leadership it needs to put a majority government in Westminster come 2015. 

Reading Between the Lies

No, it's not a typo or the title of a song. Although anyone wishing to use that will now have to pay. Heavily. Price negotiable, details on request. 

Hello, everyone! It's been ages, how are you all? Isn't the weather funny? Are we all sick of the Olympics yet? Shame about Andy Murray yesterday, but there's time yet. Right, there, we're all caught up. The topics this week, bankers and peers. We should now be aware of the Libor scandal that broke last week and the current row over the House of Lords reform demanded by the Lib Dems in return for letting us have our way with the boundaries. Doubtless Little Nicky wants this because he didn't get his way on AV. What price, then, the boundary changes? And what happens if people don't vote the way he'd like tomorrow? We shall see. 

So, yes, that's the first thing. For those of you reading this from overseas or who wish a little clarification on the Upper House, I shall put that into a brief context. The House of Lords in the United Kingdom acts as a revising chamber to legislation brought before Parliament, with much of the leg-work being done by the House of Commons and the relevant committees. Their Lordships debate the bills and can hold up legislation for up to one year, when it then automatically goes through. They now, thanks to the 1911 Parliament Act, cannot block financial or provision legislation. They are also divided into categories; the main two being the Lords Temporal and Lords Spiritual. The Lords Temporal are those peers who are not bishops in the Church of England who are also privileged to have seats in the Lords (hence Lords Spiritual. There are 26 of them). 92 Lords Temporal are hereditary peers (those whose titles have been passed through the family) and the rest are life peers (those whose peerages expire on their death). All clear? Marvellous. 

The main feature about the Lords is that nobody is fully elected to it. The hereditary peers choose among themselves, the life peers usually are appointed because of some great service done (although most are retired politicians) and the bishops are there because they are among the more important ones. Another little interesting factoid is that there are more peers than there are MP's. Yes, you saw it here first, there are over 700 people entitled to sit in the House of Lords. There are only 650 MP's elected by the people. An anomaly in a democracy such as ours and I'm inclined to agree. In the US, the Senate is made up of two people from each state, so that's 100 people elected there every six years. The House of Representatives is over four times larger, with 425 people elected to it every two years. Most countries with a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature elect both chambers. There is a further anomaly in our constitution; that is if a person is desired to serve in a ministerial capacity without a seat in the Commons (it's part of the framework, each minister of the Crown must be answerable to Parliament), then they can have a life peerage and sit in the Lords. Unfortunately the Lords has been a little bit abused since 1911 in that because nobody needs to be elected to it, governments could pack it with their cronies and get laws through without a hitch. Hence why it has become so bloated and top-heavy. Unable to resist a little dig here; I noticed that Blair found this most useful, although many of the Labour peers created on his watch never bothered to attend the Lords very often, if at all. 

That, therefore, is where the contextual stuff ends. How, then, do we solve such a crisis? Easy, elect! Make them mostly or completely dependent on the will of the voters for their seats and then we'll have a more accountable Upper House. Great! Not. More bloody elections? God save us. I know that the Lib Dems want peers in an elected house to serve the length of three Commons terms, but that's too much. Why should they have the opportunity of virtually safe jobs when decent MP's could be kicked out through boundary changes every time? How is that democracy? In addition, we wouldn't be able to have an age qualification, something definitely needed in a revising chamber, where thought and due process are required. The EU would have a fit if we said that nobody in the UK below the age of 40 could stand as a national representative, it's age discrimination. It'd be a second Commons otherwise (not that the Commons isn't entertaining with the barracking, order-paper waving and boisterousness, but one is enough). Even setting something like that up would be a nightmare; how many should we shrink the Lords to? How do we decide on constituency sizes?Should it be fully or partially elected? 

As you've all come to expect, here's my opinion on what should happen. Yes, reform the Lords, but let's be sensible about it. First; enough with the cronyism. If you wish to show a dedicated party apparatchik how much you appreciate their efforts then either throw them on a quango or recommend them for a gong. That should not be what peerages are for. Second, on a similar theme, let's stop using the Lords as a political retirement home. A peerage in terms of retired politicians should be reserved for Cabinet-level ministers, Prime Ministers and Speakers (not Deputy Speakers either). For those in the Civil Service, nobody below the rank of Permanent Secretary. That way we can then open the Upper House up to individuals with more specialist experience; former senior service personnel, university vice chancellors, captains of industry (no bankers, please) etc.  Appoint people like that and we'd get a heady mix of professional people who would be able to provide more objectivity to legislation. Slash the numbers to 500 as well and arrange as appropriate using sets of ten (means dropping six bishops and two hereditaries but hey ho). That leaves 390, which is more than enough to find some of the best and brightest to serve. Bring them in alongside each new electoral intake every five years and it should all work out nicely. Create a separate monitoring committee made up of, say, five people from the previous House's membership, five MP's and an independent chair which would handle appointments and maintain discipline along with the general administration and I see no need why we should have to have an elected Lords. It would save people the bother of electing someone else, maintain the long-held tradition of dignity and debate for which it is known and ensure that we got the best out of our Parliament. 

That's the Lords, then. Speaking of people getting their just desserts, did anyone see the performance by Paul Tucker, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England at today's Select Committee? It seems that it doesn't matter who one is in the City, some scandal somewhere will come and get you. Last week we had Bob Diamond, who gallantly fell on his sword for Barclay's (he deserved to go, though. There's only so much corruption one can deny. Pity he's not old, then he could employ the Murdoch defence). I can smell something definitely fishy on this one; I did wonder if Tucker did actually either lie or at least mislead the committee today. He might not have had word from Ed Balls directly on rate-fixing at Barclay's, but I'm willing to bet that someone from the Treasury was sent over without Mervyn King knowing to lay down the law. No wonder Brown was so eager to set the Bank of England up completely on its own, it meant that the pliable Governor would be easily led and swallow every line fed to him and he wouldn't ask about the goings-on between the Treasury and City bosses. Well that worked out, didn't it? 

I have to do something distasteful as well. I must come out and agree with Ed Miliband on something. He wants more competition in the banking sector and I frankly agree with him, although I think we can go further. As well as the high street becoming more heterogeneous in terms of bank branches, I believe that banking as a whole could diversify. Why do we not have dedicated banks which lend to and invests in industry and agriculture exclusively? While I'm not a specialist in economics and don't pretend to be, I do wonder nonetheless why we cannot be more like Germany, for example, in our approach. There are certain banks in Germany which don't even operate out-of-state branches and indeed act more like building societies. Why can we not do the same? More choice for customers, less risk for commercial and personal banking alike and if one bank goes completely under a la Northern Rock, then there wouldn't be any need for the government to rescue it if it didn't want to. The "too big to fail" idea, now completely defunct, would be laid to rest forever. Surely with a (just about) Tory-led government we can secure some kind of action on this? Ours is the party of business, so let's start as we mean to go on and create some (granted it's the business that got us into this mess, but most vaccines contain a little of the disease under inoculation). If Osborne has any sense he will go away and give this some thought over the summer. 

So that's it for this week. I do notice that my comment boxes seem a little empty. Do feel free to comment, particularly if you're from overseas. I like seeing that people from across the oceans have a particular interest in this. Gives me a warm fuzzy glow. Not that being too warm is particularly welcome in summer, but it'd still be nice.