Irresponsibility in 'the most important decision in a generation'.

Photograph: Murdo MacLeod for the Guardian

The first duty of the Government is to afford protection to its citizens.

The political rhetoric is becoming worse by the day. Yasser Arafat is dead. Had he been alive, no doubt his name would have been added to that of Putin and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State, as those being most happy if we were to leave the EU - but it is up to us!

It is our sovereign choice says Cameron while implying that only the stupid could contemplate leaving. So if our "friends" all around the world would like us to stay and the consequences of leaving are so disastrous, why has the Government led its citizens to the position of committing economic suicide?

The first duty of Government is to afford protection to its citizens, something the Government is plainly failing to do if their dire warnings are correct. To hand the fate of the Nation to the 'ignorant' is the height of irresponsibility so could it be that there is more in this for the great and the good, the not so great and the questionable, along with big business whose main aim seems to be to rip off British consumers while paying as little tax as they can get away with?

The Brexit leader, ex-London Mayor Boris Johnson has 'lost it' according to Heseltine, as he accused Boris of "losing his judgement".

That's rich coming from the Mace lifter. 

Postscript [26.05.2016]

After Hestletine cometh Sugar.

I must be honest, I don't like the man. For me he is an overrated chancer, possibly because in my youth, comparatively speaking, I had the misfortune to buy some his Amstrad junk which he later described as "the biggest load of rubbish I've ever seen in my life". His haughty performance on Newsnight [advance to 28 min] last night did nothing to change my mind.

The 'In' campaign becomes more bizarre by the day with more and more dire warnings of the perils of leaving to such an extent that giving people the opportunity to vote is like offering them a revolver.

Please God we can have a more sensible debate in the little time that is left.

Another nice mess

As my friend Barack said to me George, "Well, here's another nice mess we've gotten ourselves into!"

The world and his wife it seems are piling on the pressure to tell us Brits that we should remain in Europe. To leave would be a catastrophe. If that is so, why in the world has Dave 'gotten' us into this mess at enormous cost financially and politically?

'Paddy Pantsdown' wagged his finger throughout BBC Question Time on Thursday as he previewed what President Barack Obama was to say about American blood being shed in Europe in the US's contribution to the 1917 - 1918 and the 1941- 1945 wars fighting for freedom in Europe. As Albert Steptoe once said, it might have been the '17 - '18 and '41 - '45 wars for them but it was the '14 - '18 and '39 - '45 wars for the rest of us. 

All in the 'IN' camp at home and abroad appear to be reading from the same news sheet prepared and circulated by No 10. That is in addition to the £9 million of tax payers money they have spent on circulating propaganda for the 'IN' campaign. So much so that it is difficult to trust anything that is said or written about the consequences of leaving Europe.

Paddy Pantsdown claims that every important world organisation and every world leader "with the exception Vladimir Putin" wants us to remain in Europe. Indeed, the President of the United States has gone so far as to threaten that the UK would be left at the back of the queue when negotiating future trade deals with the US if we left, not that Obama will be President in that eventuality. But so much for friendship and our 'special relationship'. When self-interest rears its head it is OK in the US but not in Great Britain!

For many I suspect the head says IN but the heart says OUT. The decision would be easier if the self-perpetuating bureaucracy in Brussels desisted from regulating everything they can think of plus anything else they had not thought of when it comes to light. If Turkey is allowed in that will allow another flood of economic migrants with all the dangers already apparent as they try to impose their alien ideology on their hosts. The last thing we need is more failed multiculturalism.

My feeling is that the British people have had enough of being told what to think and what to do and are inclined to vote with their hearts, sink or swim.

Radicalisation - Cameron's Conference Speech October 2015

Prime Minister David Cameron at the Conservative Party Conference                       Picture: Getty

The following extract from David Cameron's speech to the Conservative Party conference as reported in the Mirror (here) touches on National security, extremism, radicalisation, terrorism, oppression and integration. Fine words but spoken from a Western, Judeo-Christian perspective with no apparent understanding of the threat posed by Islam.

"My first duty as Prime Minister is to keep people safe. Some of the loneliest moments in this job are when you are reading intelligence reports about plots being planned against the British people.

This summer I was told that Reyaad Khan and Junaid Hussain were in Syria planning terrorist attacks on UK soil. Of course, I asked all the proper questions. How do we stop them? Is there another way? Do we have that capability? Is it legal?

I knew that whatever action I took would provoke a big debate. But my job as Prime Minister is quite simple, really: ultimately, it’s not to debate; it’s to decide. And the choice I faced was this: Act – and we could stop them carrying out their plans. Stall – and we could see innocent people murdered on our streets. So I took decisive action to keep Britain safe – and that’s what I will always do...

"We need to confront – and I mean really confront – extremism. When I read what some young people born and brought up in this country are doing, it makes me feel sick to my stomach. Girls not much older than my eldest daughter, swapping loving family homes and straight-A futures for a life of servitude under ISIL, in a land of violence and oppression.

Boys who could do anything they wanted in Britain – who have benefitted from all this country stands for – instead ending up in the desert wielding a knife. This ideology, this diseased view of the world, has become an epidemic – infecting minds from the mosques of Mogadishu to the bedrooms of Birmingham. And here’s what we need to do.

One: tear up the narrative that says Muslims are persecuted and the West deserves what it gets. 
Never mind that it’s Britain and America behind the biggest effort to help the victims of Syria. 
Who is ISIL murdering more than anyone else? Muslims. No-one should get away with this politics of grievance anymore.

Two: take on extremism in all its forms, the violent and non-violent. People don’t become terrorists from a standing start. It begins with preachers telling them that Christians and Muslims can’t live together. It moves to people in their community saying the security services were responsible for 7/7. It progresses to a website telling them how to wage jihad, fight in Syria, and defeat the West. And before you know it, a young British boy, barely 17, is strapping bombs to his body and blowing himself up in Iraq. We have to stop it at the start – stop this seed of hatred even being planted in people’s minds, let alone allowing it to grow.

Three: we need to tackle segregation. There are parts of Britain today where you can get by without ever speaking English or meeting anyone from another culture. Zoom in and you’ll see some institutions that actually help incubate these divisions. Did you know, in our country, there are some children who spend several hours each day at a Madrassa? Let me be clear: there is nothing wrong with children learning about their faith, whether it’s at Madrassas, Sunday Schools or Jewish Yeshivas. But in some Madrassas we’ve got children being taught that they shouldn’t mix with people of other religions; being beaten; swallowing conspiracy theories about Jewish people.

These children should be having their minds opened, their horizons broadened not having their heads filled with poison and their hearts filled with hate. So I can announce this today:

If an institution is teaching children intensively, then whatever its religion, we will, like any other school, make it register so it can be inspected. And be in no doubt: if you are teaching intolerance, we will shut you down.

This goes to a wider truth. For too long, we’ve been so frightened of causing offence that we haven’t looked hard enough at what is going on in our communities. This is passive tolerance. And I’ll tell you where it leads: To children, British children, going to Pakistan in the summer holidays, before they’ve even started their GCSEs, and forced to marry a man they’ve never met…children, British children, having their genitals mutilated, not just in a clinic in Lagos but the backstreets in Britain.

This passive tolerance has turned us into a less integrated country; it’s put our children in danger. It is unforgiveable. So let me say it right here: no more passive tolerance in Britain. We’ve passed the laws – now I want them enforced. People who organise forced marriages – I want them prosecuted.

Parents who take their children for FGM – I want them arrested. And as we do that, we shouldn’t just be saying what’s wrong with these practices; we should be saying what’s right with Britain.

Freedom. Democracy. Equality. These are precious. People fought for them – many died for them…
…in the trenches, a century ago; on the beaches, 30 years later…in the Suffragettes; in Gay Pride.

Half the world is crying out for these freedoms – they see what we’ve achieved with them. Free speech – and the best literature in the world. Freedom of religion – and many faiths living side by side, peacefully."

If Mr Cameron genuinely wants to "confront extremism" he needs to develop a strategy which recognises Islam as the supremacist ideology it is, believing that everyone and everything belongs to Allah who demands to be worshiped and rewards believers for their good works which includes killing non-believers. If not willfully blind, talking with 'friendly'  Muslims and their sympathizers is pointless. They will explain that Islam is a religion of peace despite all the evidence to the contrary.

From WikiIslam: "According to Islamic laws, non-Muslims in Islamic lands should be subdued and be treated as dhimmis (second class citizens). They should be coerced and intimidated to convert to Islam, through special humiliating taxes like Jizyah imposed on them. Following Prophet Muhammad's example, this has been taking place throughout Islam's history. While Muslims demand for concessions in non-Muslim countries, non-Muslims are systematically persecuted, terrorized and ethnically cleansed from Islamic lands".

Islam is spreading through Europe. Immigration on a colossal scale and a much higher birthrate have led to estimates that Muslims to will outnumber Christians worldwide by 2070 while in 10 years Islam could be the dominant religion in the United Kingdom.

Mr Cameron expressed surprise at girls not much older than his eldest daughter "swapping loving family homes and straight-A futures for a life of servitude under ISIL, in a land of violence and oppression". - It's the ideology, stupid! - "The root of the problem lies in a radical ideology that drives individuals to join the jihadists...The minds of Islamic State group militants and those who are recruited have a deep and twisted ideology where absolute power in the name of Allah and the elimination of infidels are their main drivers". Grasp this and we can make some progress.

The Murdoch Cameron show

Look where you will, despite the enormity of the famine in Africa and the tragedy in Norway, the Murdoch stories will not go away illustrating the seriousness of the problem for the Tories, the top two, Cameron and Osborne, in particular.

Every stone upturned produces further revelations about the extent of Murdoch's influence and the power wielded by his organisation in British politics but amongst all the stories emerging there can be few as devastating for the Prime Minister as the account from across the pond of 'The Cameron Collapse'.

Update
There's more and more and yet more - money this time. Did I hear bankers mentioned?

"We are all in this together" (17)

The communications industry

Cameron accepts Thatcher's advice

Not the grocer's but a grocer's daughter, the then plain Mrs Thatcher offered some advice to her opponents, "You turn if you want to, the lady is not for turning".

Mr Cameron clearly took that hilariously received advice to heart. Today we have yet another U-turn as the Government reprieves the BBC World Service. And sensibly so!

Do you smell a rat?

Voters are lurching one way or the other over which system, AV or FPTP, is better for the country rather than simply considering which system is 'fairer'. Politicians I respect have come down on both sides, as do the arguments. To take the easy way out is not to abstain but simply let things be and vote 'No' but that is beginning to have a bit of a whiff about it.

There are increasing accusations of untruths and unfair funding. Despite being a free vote, it has been revealed that the 'No' campaign has been funded mainly by Tory party donors and that the 'No' campaign has received 100% support from the Conservative party, the party that is already set to gain from boundary changes. So a 'No' vote could result in the unfair possibility of one party dominance, possibly with a minority vote which would serve no-one's best interests. 

Some voters have already lost sight of what the referendum is all about using the campaign simply to attack the Deputy Prime Minister over what they regard as broken promises yet there are reports that the Prime Minister has broken his promise to Nick Clegg that he would not campaign vigorously for a 'No' vote as part of the coalition deal.

The Jenkins Report suggested a change from the first past the post system back in 1998 but the Conservative response was to pledge a fight against any moves to reform. While the Labour party is split on the issue the party most likely to benefit must be the Liberal Democrats who for years have suffered badly form disproportionate representation based on the number of votes received.

To vote 'No' on the basis of perceived experience of the coalition goes against expert opinion so in fairness the vote should be 'Yes'. 

Cameron goes Merkel on Multiculturalism

Not before time, David Cameron has echoed Angela Merkel's claim that "State multiculturalism has failed." In his speech at a security conference in Munich today, the Prime Minister accepted that multiculturalism has left some members of the white community feeling unfairly treated. He said that racism and intolerance are rightly condemned “but when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly too fearful, to stand up to them.” 


Predictably Muslim organisations are already playing the victim with ridiculous cries of Islamophobia and racism which are designed to silence critics of abhorrent practices. Whether or not their complaints are genuine we cannot tell because their religion encourages deception to further its cause. This highlights the essential problem which Cameron glosses over. At the heart of Islam is a totally alien creed which not only condones violence but actively encourages it to extend its influence to the detriment of other religions. Under Islamic regimes Christian churches are burnt often with worshippers inside them while we allow mosques and so called Islamic centres to expand producing more and more Islamic communities within, rather than integrated with British society. This is a well tried religious strategy, particularly in deprived areas. The local population is drawn into a culture which provides recreational facilities people might not otherwise enjoy. People are thereby encouraged to become Muslims, a simple procedure but once in, the way out is punishable by prison or death under Sharia law. 


David Cameron makes a distinction between "Islam [which] is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people" and political Islam. The problem for non-believers is that there is no difference. A majority of Muslims may worship peacefully but non-believers are still regarded as inferior in their own land because Muslims regard all land as belonging to Allah. That view leads to the Islamification of communities. Integration should not be an optional extra. To avoid further expansion there should be no more mosques, no exceptions for state support of multiple wives and their families (which would give rise to charges of bigamy in other circumstances) and a change in our education system which currently favours non-English speakers at the expense of indigenous families by soaking up scarce resources in our schools.

Today also saw what turned out to be a peaceful protest by the English Defence League. Whatever one's views about the EDL, apart from lone voices worried about their children and grandchildren, this is one organisation that takes the threat of Islamisation seriously. Rather late in the day our politicians are catching up but Cameron has already been criticised. He must now maintain the lead encouraging other parties to join him in a united front in defence of our Christian values and not bow to the sort of intimidation he referred to in his speech.


Postscript


There is an excellent response 07 February 2011 at 02:13 by 'Kate' in reply to comments on a New Statesman article here.


Still not convinced? try this video.

Take you pick

From Dictionary.com, a few definitions that may appear relevant

pledge:

–noun

1. a solemn promise or agreement to do or refrain from doing something

5. something given or regarded as a security.

8. Obsolete: a hostage. [Hmmm!]

–verb (used with object)

10. to promise solemnly: to pledge one's support.

12. to stake, as one's honour.

13. to secure by a pledge; give a pledge for.

No suggestion of lying there but in future the electorate should remember that a pledge is as worthless as the piece of paper it is written on. That apart, the Lib Dems in the coalition have decided they must do the honourable thing and support the Government measure they are jointly responsible for.

But Mr Cameron is not out of the woods. What of his Big Society Agenda?

"It's about liberation -the biggest, most dramatic redistribution of power from elites in Whitehall to the man and woman on the street."

The students demonstrating on the streets would like to think so.

"We are all in this together." (3)

"David Cameron launched his "happiness index" yesterday as he announced that the Government would measure people's quality of life as well as economic growth."

It's all relative!

"We are all in this together." (2)

"Never had it so good!"

Macmillan's (in)famous words have been repeated by the Prime Minister's enterprise advisor, Lord Young, who has claimed that most Britons "never had it so good". The Prime Minister has rebuked Lord Young saying that the remarks were "insensitive and inaccurate". Rather like the Government saying that we are all in it together when some are, and many others soon will be, much deeper in it than others.

An interesting Christian perspective is available here.

Postscript

Lord Young pays the price.

Order, Order

Reuter photo of a demonstrator leaving Millbank through a shatterd window

As Lib Dem Deputy PM Clegg rose to justify his party's shabby treatment of their student supporters during Question Time in the House today, his Con Chief, the ex-Carlton Communications PM Cameron was busy explaining to his Chinese audience that British students would be picking up the tab for their tertiary education. While not defending lying to the electorate, the disciplined Lab MP Phil Woolas must be reflecting on the difference.

Two Faces

Oliver Letwin’s face was a picture when William Hague announced that the Tories had ‘gone the extra mile’ to promise an Alternative Vote referendum. Written all over it was the sense that government was slipping from their grasp and Lord Ashcroft might ask for his money back. No surprise that the Tories made their concession only after Gordon Brown fell on his sword in the public interest to pave the way for the so-called ‘rainbow’ progressive alliance if the Tory/Lib Dem talks fail.

It has been reported that in order to make this concession David Cameron had to agree that the Tory Right would be represented in any cabinet probably with three seats. One of the names mentioned was that of their former primo uomo, Michael Howard, famously described by the great Tory diva, Ann Widdecombe, as having ‘something of the night about him’. An odd choice given the Tories frequently expressed views in this campaign about rejected politicians.

Throughout the campaign I have thought that David Milliband had a knowing look about him, like the King in waiting. He may yet be but for how long with such an assortment of minor parties needed to maintain a majority. Concessions required by them may be unrealistic leaving us in a worse mess. If the Tory party can satisfy Lib Dem anxieties and the threat of gerrymandering has been completely removed it seems reasonable that they should have their chance to form a government. What a disaster for their leader if that does not happen. So close to the ultimate prize of Prime Minister yet he could, as Ann Robinson might put it before she winks off to the news, “Mr Cameron, you go away with nothing. Goodbye!”

Postscript

With a decision expected it is interesting to see on the BBC News another change of face by Oliver Letwin resuming his previous broad grin. Deal done?

Voting Dilemma

I thought David Cameron’s claim to power amusing. He has constantly preached change with little attention to detail. His message was the same after the results were published suggesting that the Labour Government had no mandate to govern. An interesting observation looking at the votes in percentage terms with almost two thirds of the votes cast against the Conservatives.

His party has the greatest number of seats but calculated simply on the basis of share of the vote, the number of seats would be 234 rather than 306 while the Lib Dems shoot up from 57 to 149.

Gordon Brown was quick to offer Nick Clegg a referendum on electoral reform which must be tempting for the Lib Dems, far more so than the suggestion of yet another committee of MPs offered by David Cameron.

Back in March The Constitution Society published an article on the Tory proposals for electoral reform. It makes interesting reading:

http://www.re-constitution.org.uk/news/articles/16/ .

Postscript

Far more graphic view on the share of the vote:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/05/electoral-reform-stay-table#reader-comments

Have a look at the John Cleese video for a good titter.

What They Won’t Tell Us

Unlike the previous ‘Leaders’ debates I found this evening’s Election Uncovered: What They Won’t Tell Us programme on Channel 4 very illuminating and didn’t drop off once this time. I was initially concerned about an unexplained empty chair and the absence of Shirley Williams, one of my long time favourite politicians regardless of party (she was one of the SDP’s ‘Gang of Four’). Seeing her name as a participant was one of my reasons for watching. The other being that, as usual, there was nothing else worth viewing despite the myriad channels we appear to have on NTL plus Freesat, but that is another story. Fortunately the Baroness turned up half way through the programme having been caught up in a traffic accident.

Unlike the personality contest that the ‘Leaders’ debates had become, this programme looked at the hard choices that have to be made by the next Government. Four polls were conducted for the programme: Economic Recovery where 58% thought that we were on the road to recovery; Honesty in Politics where 60% thought politicians less honest than they used to be. On the question of believing the Party leaders telling the truth about the tough decisions about cuts, 38% trusted Gordon Brown, 36% trusted David Cameron and 53% trusted Nick Clegg.

On Pensions people were offered the choice between working for longer or having a higher standard of living. Of those polled 61 % opted to work longer and 23 % lower standard of living.

In what was perhaps the most surprising poll, 70% thought it perfectly possible to make cuts without harming Front line services. This was the most illuminating part of the programme clearly demonstrating that tough choices have to be made and how the parties have been reluctant to be honest with the electorate, hence the high vote.

Some people, including the Governor of the Bank of England, have suggested that whoever forms the next government will be so unpopular that they will not be re-electable. That would serve the best interests of no-one. A possible solution, ironically mentioned by Shirley Williams after her late arrival, was that there should be an inter-party unity team to agree a consensus for dealing with the financial crisis. The final show of hands vote was for a hung parliament which could be the best chance of achieving such a consensus.

What is clear is that the ‘Something for nothing’ mentality of many Britons, ancient and modern, is unsustainable. Services have to be paid for. Even with the planned efficiency savings tax rises are inevitable. For the sake of unity these must applied equitably to avoid a greater burden on the poor.

Leaders Debate, Round 3

The third debate was a disappointing anticlimax.

Perhaps my expectations had been too high giving way to an overwhelming feeling of boredom. Regardless of the questions asked the session became a re-run of the same over-worked lines, the main variations coming from the party leaders’ deliveries.

At last David Cameron delivered as people had expected him to in the previous debates having observed his performance since becoming leader of the Conservative Party. A polished act, far better than before but I thought it weaker on substance. “Change” is all very well and captures the public mood but change to what? Change for change sake could simply result in us being out of the frying pan and into the fire. If he had demonstrated clearly how his vision for change would be for the better, he may have retained his previous higher poll ratings.

Cameron’s lack of clarity has resulted in the momentum for ‘change’ being transferred to Nick Clegg enabling him to offer the electorate a complete change from the two-party system. The Liberal Democrats had been largely ignored until the Clegg bombshell shook the two main parties, and the media, out of their complacency. He had it all to play for last night but failed to deliver a decisive blow and appeared the least confident of the three. Nevertheless he presented a new, clean image which will appeal to many especially the younger voters.

That leaves Labour's Gordon Brown. Once an image of ‘the Joker’ came to mind, probably as a result of his attempts to appear less dour, I was stuck with it despite the fact that he is the Prime Minister and spoke with the authority of experience in office and an obvious passion for what he believes in. But if people have decided they want a change as the polls imply, he has an up-hill struggle even if John Major did manage to surprise the pollsters. So ‘change’ in one form or another appears almost inevitable.

I applaud the BBC for their staging of the final event but illuminating I think not. The TV debate innovation gave Nick Clegg the opportunity to burst the bubble which will no doubt prick the Cameron conscience for ever if he fails to win an outright majority. The irony of it all is that the mood for change that was latched onto by the opposition looks likely to be expressed in a manner none of the leaders could have anticipated.

Don’t forget to vote for the common good.

Campaign castrated

Before dinner I was watching the George Alagiah show at 6 o’clock on BBC1. He referred to today’s Gordon Brown ‘bigot’ gaffe four times. First in his preamble, then in the main story which was again summarised after the mid-show break (during which gesticulating George as the star of the show shuffles and sometimes signs his papers, pretending that he is not reading the idiot board), then finally in his closing summary. This from the BBC which the Right claim has a Left wing bias!

Having dealt reasonably deftly with a chance encounter with a certain Mrs Duffy, she and Mr Brown went their separate ways on good terms. Mr Brown climbed into his official car with his microphone inadvertently switched on and effectively castrated his new ‘communicating with the people’ campaign with a careless aside made in private, so he thought.

One might argue over whether the Prime Minister should have made such comments but leaving that aside, what did broadcasting a private conversation achieve? The effect on Mrs Duffy being forced to listen to hurtful comments eagerly egged on by one of Murdoch’s Sky reporters was devastating judging from her televised reaction. A struggling widow concerned about the future of her grandchildren, she had been justifiably pleased that she had done her best for them by expressing her concerns directly to the Prime Minister. Now she is left dazed at the centre of a media scrum with policemen guarding her door.

As ever The Telegraph has been at the forefront reminding the public of previous gaffs by public figures but let’s face it, many of us make comments which we wouldn’t want broadcast, sometimes in vain attempts at humour, other times out of sheer annoyance just to let off steam. Things said in the heat of the moment rarely add anything meaningful to debate. The issues remain the same and, in this instance, with the same question: Who is best placed to sort out the problems we all face? If it were Gordon Brown (I am not suggesting that he is) what service has been provided by divulging information that should have remained private? We are no wiser, nothing has been solved and a poor widow has been reduced from elation to despair. What a good show!

Round 2

From yesterday's Fabian Society Blog, Next Left:

"The Sun's political editor has been reported saying "It is my job to see that Cameron ****ing well gets into Downing Street”.

Despite earlier rumours, BBC political editor Nick Robinson has suggested tonight that The Sun did not, after discussions, buy the story or any exclusive interview with Mrs Gillian Duffy after today's political storm after Gordon Brown's insult, because they did not think it was "interesting" enough."

Need one say more?

Leaders Debate, Round 2

This time I watched the debate on the TV – until my wife found me dozing and transferred me to the computer. I don’t think I missed much so I was surprised at the result of the first poll for the Sun showing that Cameron was the clear winner with 36% of the votes, a result not sustained in other polls I should add. This time I thought the combatants more evenly matched indicating that there had been much hard work in the background since last week.

Again I thought the debate illuminating, not for what was said, but watching the facial expressions and body language when the leaders were not speaking. I thought Cameron looked the least confident, though much better than last week, while Clegg looked the most assured and Brown rather awkward. Most of the audience looked bored stiff with one member desperately trying to conceal a huge yawn.

The ‘get Clegg’ campaign fell badly after the Telegraph’s shameful attempted smear with ‘Twitters’ picking up the thread and blaming Clegg for everything from the death of Kennedy to responsibility for Samantha’s pregnancy. The desperation of the press may be explained by David Yelland, a former editor of the Sun, who explained that previously the Liberal Democrats were deliberately ignored by the press.

Yelland said, “Make no mistake, if the Liberal Democrats actually won the election – or held the balance of power – it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics. In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media elite.” Hmmm!

Postscript

More than 100 viewers have complained to the broadcasting regulator (Ofcom) accusing the debate Moderator (Sky News political editor Adam Boulton) of breaking strict impartiality rules by raising newspaper reports about political donations paid directly into the Liberal Democrat leader's bank account. There is no suggestion Clegg broke any rules and bank statements were produced to prove it.

Boulton -> Sky -> Murdoch - Hmmm again!

There's another interesting take on the broadcast in this Blog: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/04/sky_leaders_deb.html

PPS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/04/polling.html

- Hmmm yet again.

Losers

Yesterday evening I struggled through the first live debate between the main party leaders and avoided dropping off by keeping an eye on the ITV1 website watching viewers’ comments and their ever changing score card.

Those who said that David Cameron had most to lose were proved correct. Denied his well rehearsed brief he looked distinctly uncomfortable as he listened to what his opponents had to say. Gordon Brown suffered the ‘Nixon effect’ nervously grinning and laughing uncharacteristically in the wrong places while viewers consistently put Nick Clegg ahead with his assured performance.

More surprising though was the Party reactions afterwards. On the BBC News Vince Cable said it as it had appeared while Alan Johnson gave his considered smart response but the ex-boy-star William Hague actually claimed his man the victor. Back on ITV George Osborne was speaking from the same script, perhaps on the basis that if you say the same thing over and over people will begin to believe it. Not this time. The media have seen to that.

But at the end of the day these ‘X’ factor performances should not be about personalities and their delivery but about policies. One of the ironies following the outcome of the debate is that we should now hear more about them and be better able to make an informed judgement thus making the Great British voter the clear winner.

A Question of Balance

Once again I allowed myself to become irritated by watching Question Time on Thursday. It was like a repeat of the Carol Vorderman show in drag with that offensive little pip-squeak David Starkey ranting from a similar Tory election script. Whilst I welcome a variety of opinions (within reason) such tirades become wearisome especially when formed from a narrow historical perspective. Some will recall his 2009 dismissal of the Scottish, Welsh and Irish nations as ‘feeble’. People in glass houses….

Much was made by most of the panel, and the Chairman of course, of the links between the Labour party and its trade union sponsor Unite as a result of its dispute with British Airways. That was fair game but what are we to make of the report that the Tories have forced the BBC to drop their intensive investigation into the affairs of Lord Ashcroft in the run up to the general election? Can the implication be that they have something to hide? So much for transparency and balance.

Of course funding isn’t a problem for the really high earners in our society. A joke was made on Sport Relief last night that if every footballer donated a week’s wages we could buy Africa. Not being a fan of round ball games I may be biased but I find the astronomically high wages of footballers offensive especially given the bad example many of them set with their aggressive behaviour and disgusting habit of spitting all over the pitch which is then echoed by yobs spitting on the street and spreading diseases. “Spitting spreads germs” is a sign we ancients recall seeing on public transport.

Just as, if not more, offensive is the reported £60m bonanza for the president of Barclays. From the Telegraph: “The package is based on a £384,000 salary, but through a combination of perks including share bonuses, Mr Diamond could earn more than 150 times that amount”. Ignoring the perks, can anyone deservedly earn a salary sixteen times that of the average wage even if he does want to build the biggest investment bank in the world - especially if it is on the back of the tax payer as Vince Cable aptly put it?

David Cameron’s plan to impose a tax on banks to repay the billions used to bail out financial institutions is most welcome as is Alistair Darling’s expected Government support for a global bank tax. Whoever wins the next election and by whatever means, someone needs to do something about these greedy bankers.