Almost all MPs hire interns. Hundreds, probably thousands, go through Parliament each year. This is a fact we have highlighted on these pages many times over the past year.

We have heard from interns feeling exploited and abused and those who had great experiences and managed to progress from being an intern to a researcher or a caseworker.

We don’t often highlight particular adverts here… but occasionally… just occasionally… something stands out as beyond the pale.

Let me introduce you to David Lidington MP. He is looking for an intern.

The successful candidate will require excellent interpersonal and customer service skills, a basic knowledge of welfare legislation, exceptional organisational skills, a good ability with Word/Outlook, computer literate, and a methodical approach to record keeping.

- A basic knowledge of welfare legislation? Who has that? But anyway, pretty standard so far.

Preference will be given to those candidates with previous experience working in Parliament and/or those currently with a Parliamentary pass.

- Hold on a minute David! This unpaid internship is being advertised to… current interns?! Where is the career progression! MPs claim they are offering opportunities to unpaid interns, but where do you go from here?! Another internship? People have to get paid at some point.

Applications will be considered from those already working in a similar part time role within Parliament.

- Ahh the perpetual intern!

The role is based in David’s Westminster office for 4 days a week from January, and will include a number of tasks including:

– Hmm you could get into a little difficulty with NMW wage legislation here. Set tasks are what constitutes a worker!

Provide the full range of secretarial and administrative support

- Photocopying?

To provide information, advice and support for individuals on a range of financial, health, housing and other social issues

Liaising with government agencies, the voluntary sector and others to resolve problems

- You mean a caseworker, right? That’s a job is it not?

To correspond with constituents on a range of issues

Keeping records of client contact

Other work as directed by his/her line manager.

- You have a line manager? Are they paid?

Crucially, the candidate will be willing to be a key member of a small team and able to work well and independently to strict deadlines.

- “work as directed by his/her line manager”, “a key member of a small team”, “strict deadlines” – how many other ways can he actually describe the circumstances that cover a worker?!

David Lidington is an equal opportunities employer and the intern will be appointed on merit only.

- Or if they can afford to live in London without pay for months on end!

We look at a lot of MPs adverts for unpaid interns… but to describe a position in this way is incredibly rare! Not even one mention of the word “opportunity”.

David Lidington MP, Interns Anonymous calls on you to advertise this position properly with the salary it deserves!

.

The Times reports that David Cameron’s Tories are to lobby Republicans in the US to support a climate bill. And Mr Cameron promised that he would continue to try to find a legally binding climate change agreement. He said:

“We should be thankful for the small things that have been achieved like the 2C limit on temperature rises and the good work on rainforests. But it’s disappointing overall because there are no carbon reduction targets, the details on help for poorer countries to tackle global warming is vague and it’s not a legally binding treaty. We need now to step up the work to get that done.”

Carbon reduction targets? I thought Mr Cameron was against meaningless targets from government. Legally binding? What does that mean in an international context? It probably means Britain keeps to the agreement and other countries sign up and then ignore it.

And what does the 2C limit on temperature rises mean? About as much as King Canute ordering the tide not to come in.

The Times says:

Tory sources made clear that the Conservatives would have approached Copenhagen in broadly similar ways to Gordon Brown. “There isn’t a clear feeling that we would have done anything different,” said the source. They said that Mr Cameron was prepared to invest considerable personal energy in combating global climate change. “Cameron will come to the issue with a clear idea of what he wants to achieve and how.”

So, despite Gordon Brown’s utterly useless performance at Copenhagen, the Tories wouldn’t have done anything different. And Mr Cameron is clear what he wants to achieve on climate change. We plebs should just shut up and do as we’re told.

Mr Cameron previously made much of his “Vote Blue Go Green” slogan. It seems that his position now is “Vote Blue Go Red. But a Very Nice shade of red. Quite light red actually. Not horrid glaring red like Mr Brown. A very Conservative pastel greeny-red.”

Cameron, you actually do still need us in order to win the election. Try listening for a change.

Cheryl Cole has slammed Conservative party leader David Cameron, calling him ’slippery’.

In an interview with the latest issue of Q magazine, the singer and X Factor judge made it clear where her political allegiances lie.

She said: “David Cameron. Brrrrr. Slippery isn’t he? We’ve always been Labour in our family, it just feels wrong not to be. Better the devil you know.”

The Girls Aloud star also admitted that she’s not nearly as concerned about cracking America as everyone thinks.

She said: “There’s a rumble about going over but I don’t want to put myself out there to fail.

“I’m not at that point of going solo [full time] yet. The other day I was like, oh god, why would you even do this when you’ve got for four friends as a security blanket?”

She also revealed that she had turned down now hubby Ashley Cole several times before they got together.

“I had a preconceived idea of what footballers were like. Ashley is ridiculously, painfully shy. You can’t tar everyone with the same brush.”

Source

Cheryl Cole takes a walk on the wild side in her latest sizzling photoshoot.

The chart-topping singer and X Factor judge ditches her normally laid-back style for a sexy rock chick look, complete with skin-tight leathers.

And feisty Cheryl, 26, also delivers a biker-style bashing to David Cameron.

The Tory leader has described her as the “most fanciable” member of Girls Aloud. But asked what she thought of HIM, Cheryl shivered and said: “David Cameron. Brrrrr. Slippery isn’t he?” She added: “We’ve always been Labour in our family, it just feels wrong not to be. Better the devil you know.”

In an interview with Q magazine, Cheryl also gave a glimpse of what it’s like to live with her ultra-competitive husband, Chelsea and England star Ashley, 29. She says: “He hates losing. He talks to me about football, but I don’t really understand the tactical side of it.” And she revealed that deep down Ashley is “ridiculously, painfully shy”.

Cheryl confirmed she got a 100 per cent pay rise after her first series on X Factor, saying: “Can’t complain about that.”

She also hit out at rumours that she’s all set to turn her back on her Girls Aloud bandmates to go solo full-time.

She said: “I can’t be out there alone. I’m not at that point yet. The other day I was like, ‘Oh God, why would you even do this when you’ve got four friends as a security blanket?”

Q Magazine is out December 27

Source

I offer no comment, but I’ve covered it before, the Indy says it all:

“Kaschke, complaints and kirschtorte

*Alex Hilton, star of the Labour blogosphere and Labour candidate for Kensington & Chelsea, won a minor victory in the High Court this week, in a case which illustrates how easy it is to get sued for libel in the UK. He owns the website Labourhome, on which another Labour blogger, John Gray, wrote about a political activist named Johanna Kaschke, who left the Labour Party in 2007, to join George Galloway’s Respect Party, then joined a communist party of some description, and since autumn 2007 has been an active Conservative. In 1975, Kaschke was falsely suspected by the German police of links to the Baader Meinhof terrorist gang. She was arrested, but eventually released and awarded compensation.
She objected to having this old story dug up on LabourHome. Hilton removed the post and offered right of reply, but she decided to go to court. She lodged five complaints, but this week, the court struck out four. One point m’learned friends may yet have to deliberate, seriously, is whether it is actionable to describe someone as “one cherry short of a Schwarzwalderkirschtorte”.

(Thanks to John Gray.)

.

David Cameron has promised that the Tories’ new home insulation scheme will begin on Day 1 of the next Conservative government.

Under the scheme, households will be able to get up to £6,500 of home insulation. The cost would be repaid over up to 25 years through their fuel bills. The improvements could include energy efficient lighting, modern boilers, and cavity wall and loft insulation. The scheme would be promoted through retailers like Marks and Spencer and Tesco.

The amount of insulation required would be determined by an independent assessor. The installation would be financed by energy companies, but underwritten by the government.

Good grief. It’s hard to know where to start with this.

First, one of the biggest criticisms made of the current government, and Gordon Brown in particular, is that he has hidden a great deal of government borrowing off balance sheet. But this scheme is basically about more off balance sheet financing. The money will be borrowed by energy companies – but underwritten by the government and therefore a taxpayer liability. It will not, however, appear in the government’s official borrowing figures.

Mr Cameron has claimed that the money will be repaid by householders through their fuel bills over 15-25 years. Because of the energy savings resulting from the insulation, the householders’ fuel bills will overall still be lower. The maths is questionable – more of that in a moment.

What happens when the house is sold? Hardly anyone stays in a house 15-25 years. People move on average after 5 years, I believe. Presumably the debt will stay with the house. That means that particular house will come with an “insulation repayment” attached for years afterwards. There will need to be records kept of the amount owed for each individual property (up to 25 million of them, according to the Conservatives). Householders selling properties will need to provide information about the repayment outstanding to house buyers. More complexity in the home selling process. The utility companies will need to add this complexity to the fuel bills they issue – and they struggle sometimes to get the bills right even today without all this.

Modern houses are built with these insulations already included. So a householder in a modern house whose boiler is worn out after a few years, will not be eligible for the scheme and will need to borrow from a bank or use savings to pay for a new boiler. His neighbour, in an older house, with a clapped out old boiler can have a new one financed by the scheme.

The rich owner of an 18th century period cottage worth £1 million will be able to get it insulated under the scheme. His neighbour in a modest modern house worth £150,000 will not. Or perhaps the scheme will be means tested, although there’s been no mention of that in the Conservative proposals. If they means test, expect lots more forms and bureaucracy – and an “agency” to run the scheme. If they don’t means test, expect stories in the Guardian about poor pensioners freezing because their boiler’s broken and they can’t afford to fix it, while their rich neighbours get a new boiler paid for by the scheme.

Perversely, there could even be increases in the value of old uninsulated homes and reductions in the value of modern insulated ones – because the scheme would effectively pay for some refurbishment of the older homes. The home refurbishment and flog it on brigade must be salivating, along with boiler manufacturers, who stand to make a killing. Obviously insulation installers will be even bigger winners – they will put up their prices to take account of this new largesse.

Let’s go back to that questionable maths. A modern (condensing) boiler might be 90% efficient, while an old (non-condensing) one might only be 75% efficient. A great improvement! And yet do the maths – the new boiler will only save 17% of the fuel bill. For a household that pays £60 a month for gas that would be a saving of £10 a month or £120 per year. With the cost of a new boiler at around £1500-£2000, the payback period without interest is at least 12 years – and the cost, remember, will be financed over 15-25 years. A modern boiler certainly cannot be expected to last more than 10 years. So expect many cases in a decade’s time where a house has an insulation repayment attached for a boiler that long since ended up on the refuse tip.

This is utter stupidity and not a serious proposal. I could also add that it is a profoundly un-Conservative proposal – Conservatives should not be proposing such State interference and meddling in people’s lives. If Mr Cameron wants more people to invest in insulation, he should have the guts to charge the standard rate of VAT on fuel. He won’t do that, of course – those poor pensioners would be in the Guardian again.

In fact, this whole scheme is almost as silly as the government’s own “boiler scrappage” scheme, which has many of the same faults.

Mr Cameron needs to get his act together pretty fast if he’s to be ready to be Prime Minister in just a few months.

Once the Labour Party became home for careerist Tory MPs then anything is possible, but in the past could you imagine Labour MP with a stately home? Or better still a bell tower?

That charming Oxbridge chappie, Quentin Davies is the culprit.

More frivolous claims (or genuine mistakes if you believe comrade Davies) from MPs can be found here.

I wonder if comrade Davies even knows the words to the Red Flag?

Chancellor Of The Exchequer Alistair Darling has delivered his final Pre-Budget Report before the General Election in 2010. But trying to ascertain exactly what it all amounts to is proving about as easy as licking one’s elbow.

Outlining the state of the nation’s finances and the Government’s spending plans for the year ahead are vitally important tenets of our Democracy; yet for most people, Wednesday’s theatrics in Westminster will have passed them by, save for a glance at the front page headline of Thursday’s Sun.

The average person on the street will want to know how it affects them, and will rely on the news media to provide a concise explanation as to whether or not they will be worse-off in a year’s time; and, to a large extent, the mainstream bulletins meet this need. However, trying to delve deeper into the quagmire that is Fiscal Policymaking represents a far more tortuous challenge.

TGT can barely tell it’s Macro-Economics from its Macro-Biotics, let alone make head nor tail of the Government’s strategy for combating the exorbitant deficit we appear to be running up.

And what exactly does that mean anyway, deficit? Is it like Great Britain having one giant credit card bill it can’t afford to pay? If so, why do we need to pay it off at all? If MasterCard allows cardholders to pay off a minimum amount, why can’t the Country pay it off in long-term, refinanced, consolidated installments?

Ok, so let’s ignore the intricate financial details and rely on the ‘experts’ (the Media) to guide us through the implications:

Apparently, we owe a lot of  money. We owe a lot of money because, as a nation, we became gluttonous on debt-powered wealth creation, substantially driven by self-delusional elements of the Banking industry, and by a Government who thought the rainbow would never end.

In order to pay back the money that we owe, the ordinary member of the public is going to have to foot the bill. This will be felt by tax rises, public spending cuts and lots and lots of piggy-bank smashing & Banker-Bashing.

Great. So when does this all take effect? Tomorrow? January?

No, 2011 apparently.

And there we have it folks; politics in action.

It’s not enough just to struggle to understand whose judgement to trust when it comes to assessing the seriousness of the circumstances we find ourselves in; we then have to try to assess who we trust to tell us what needs to be done in order to sort it all out.

And who do you believe? The man with the eyebrows, the pipsqueak or the doddery one?

Watching their mini-mes on Newsnight was no help either.

The younger, over-media-trained Minister told us everything will be fine as long as the people who got us into this mess (i.e. them) are left to sort it out (from 2011).

The (unfortunately stereotypically) slightly smarmy looking Tory (though I’m sure he’s very nice) told us that the only way for everything to work out fine is to make everything much worse much quicker.

The doddery (but seemingly sensible) Lib Dem told us that things will be fine eventually, but that we need to make things worse in order to get better, but just not yet.

Clear as frickin’ mud.

And so, to whom does the humble viewer once again turn, in order to make sense of it all? Yes, you’ve guessed it- the Media.

Considering all the criticisms levelled against the Media (and the studying there of) it’s amazing to think just how vitally important its role is in terms of functioning our Democratic process.

Ok, so here goes…

Apparently, dear old Darling did little more than shuffle the pack today. To his credit, he did set out some tax increases, but nothing particularly long-term. In terms of the major decisions and hard choices needed for our future, he wrapped all of them in a box and buried them in a time capsule not to be opened until after the General Election. Whilst (cynics might say) conveniently, some benefits (like the state pension) will go up in April, most of those will probably be reduced again a year later. Anyone earning over £20,000 is now considered ‘well-off’ and National Insurance contributions will go up. Public sector workers will see their pay freeze. It’s a great time to play Bingo.

In conclusion; the future is grim, it’s all downhill from here and the question facing the voter is who do we want driving the Bobsleigh of Monetary Doom?

At least we can all sleep soundly; comforted in the knowledge that our politicians are coming together and building a strong consensus in order to take a thoughtful, considered and straightforward, non-rhetorical approach to expediting Britain’s swift emergence from Recessional Oblivion…

Last week the old class antagonisms resurfaced when the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested that the policies of conservative leader David Cameron were dreamed up on the playing fields of Eton. Mr Cameron later responded with “If they want to fight a class war, fine, go for it. It doesn’t work”.

Though the Labour party of Gordon Brown (and his predecessor Tony Blair) is far removed from its socialist origins the question of the relevance of class is still valid.

Surprisingly (to myself) the general consensus of a BBC News “Have Your Say” debate sides with “call me Dave” Cameron. Peoples train of thought tends to lean towards that it’s better to have more highly educated people in positions of power or that as long as they are competent at their job then their background is of no importance. A small minority stated that those who have only lived a privileged life will be unable to relate to real world problems that the majority of people have to go through thus if elected would put the interests of the working class at the bottom of the pile. This can be backed up by Dave’s inheritance tax plans that would favour only the top 2% of the UK as well as lowering corporation tax to 20 per cent. To cover this deficit income must be generated from somewhere and like the bank bailout no doubt it will be the working class picking up the tab.

The chances are that after the next election the UK citizens will have a chance to see first hand Tory policies in practice but this should in no way be an indication of a class effect on politics, after all neither Labour or Conservatives have the working class as their priority, maybe it’s time for a truly working class political party to come to the fore.

So maybe it wasn’t quite as disastrous as some thought? 

Tonight’s Populus poll for The Times, the first to put the Tory lead in single digits in 2009 (according to the ever-forensic Peter Riddell) also shows the Lib Dems adding climbing two points to 20 per cent.

Nick Clegg’s party often struggles to be heard above the artillery fire of the Labour/Tory battle, but their recent re-alignment on the mansion tax saw them nearer the top of the political news agenda than they’ve been for a while.

Cowley Street strategists will argue that although much of the coverage focussed on Nick Clegg’s retreat from a £1m to £2m tax band, the policy is a popular one, especially outside of the traditionally overheated property market of the south-east.

Questions remain about how popular the measures will be in this part of the world, but although the policy might be a hindrance against the Tories, it will play well with the sort of disaffected Labour voters who won’t bring themselves to vote Conservative.

Riddell also reveals that the percentage of people expecting a Tory victory next year has fallen from to 47, down from 57 in October. This will please Labour HQ, who know that getting their vote out is vital if the party are prevent an overall Tory majority – something which is easier when the polls are tighter, and the inevitability of a Tory win seems to be receding.

Opinion polls haven’t been this fun in ages, and we could be in for more to come. If Alistair Darling is able to take advantage of government’s ability ‘to do’ and not just ’to say’  during Wednesday’s PBR (no mean feat given the public finances) then expect those polls to tighten further.

**UPDATE** The Times this morning seems to confirm the above assertion that Labour strategists are looking at motivating their base to turn out rather than worrying too much about swing voters.

Very interesting article concerning our Council Leader David Pugh. Thought we would share it with you, as it gives an insight into why we should not trust David about his vision of the ‘Isle of Wight’ becoming an Eco Island .

Daily Mirror, 11/9/03, p.20 - The Tory party’s youth wing is in crisis after allegations of vote rigging led to chaos at its conference. Eight candidates for top posts resigned as outraged rivals called each other “cheating bastards” on stage. A BBC documentary crew was asked to leave the floor in a bid to stop news of Sunday’s row getting out…One who those who quit, Andre Walker , said in an angry speech “We can now prove head of youth policy David Pugh is a cheating bastard. The system is so corrupt we must act.” Members of the Tory youth – known as Conservative Future – now plan a breakaway organisation. Last night Central Office said: “We have faith in our senior officials who oversee internal elections”. David Pugh said yesterday he had no comment on claims he was a “cheating bastard”. He added: “I’m not going to respond to that”.

ARTICLE FOUND HERE

Following extensive lobbying by Brent Labour councillors and local Labour MPs Dawn Butler and Barry Gardiner, the Labour government has agreed to provide an additional £80 million under its ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme. This means that secondary schools in the borough will be rebuilt or expanded as part of the government’s programme to modernise all secondary schools. Those programmed in the first phase are Alperton, Cardinal Hinsley in Harlesden, Queen’s Park Community School (which is to be expanded) and Copland School in Wembley.

Labour’s Education Spokesperson, Councillor Mary Arnold, said:

“Once again our Labour government has put its money where its mouth is and invested in education. In recent years, the Labour government has given Brent the second highest increase school budgets in the entire country and now they are giving us this huge additional capital investment to improve the fabric of our schools. Before Labour came to power, Brent school students were taught in overcrowded classrooms sometimes with leaking roofs and in some cases in corridors. That situation has massively improved under Labour and this new money gives us the chance to ensure that every Brent child receives a first class education in modern schools with state of the art facilities”.

The ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme allows for expansion as well as modernisation and Labour fears that the Lib Dem/Tory council may use the money merely to expand schools rather than modernise them. They have so far failed to rebuild primary schools despite receiving the money from the government to do so and their failure to take urgent action when they came to power four years ago has resulted in a critical shortage of school places.

Well. It was an early start to the day. Had to get up and get ready for the trek toward Portsmouth! Roads were slightly busy. We dropped Mr and Mrs Jarrett off at the airport for their journey to the States to help their daughter with her newborn.

On the way to Tamsyn and Alex’s house, we were going to pass Stonehenge. I couldn’t resist and begged Demelza to stop. And she did. Oh yeah! It would be a sin to just drive by Stonehenge and not stop. I mean this is something that has been around for ages. Something I’ve seen on TV, in books, heard about at school. It was fantastic to see. The weather was quite appropriate too. Misty and cold. It was fascinating to see just how big those rocks are in real life.

After a quick run through the historic site, we hopped back in the car and continued our journey north. It was Tamsyn and Alex’s oldest son’s birthday that day. It was a pirate theme. Very fitting for that part of England. Alex did an excellent job making a peg leg and walking around with it on. Very impressive.

I read in the book of Matthew tonight that those who follow Christ know not where they will lay their head. I really felt this verse tonight as I lay on a blow up bed in the middle of my friend’s living room. You never know where God may have you go when you decide to follow Him and do what He desires for you. But you know, I wouldn’t have it any other way!

Demelza and I got up early and headed toward Heathrow. Love that airport. Terminal 5 is beautiful. After waiting forever to check in and board my flight, we were finally off…well not really. We waited over an hour on the plane for someone who was missing. Felt bad for Jeremy and Vance who were going to be picking me up in Atlanta. When all was said and done, we were only 2 hours late into ATL. The drive home was fun. Enjoyed catching up with Vance and Jeremy.

I’m looking forward to what God has planned for Off The Coast and England in the future.

Following on from:

Do You Fit the Tory Perfect Family Mold?
Cash for Marriage… A Cameron Incentive.

Cameron has managed to annoy several people today, myself included, with his promotion of married family life over any other kind of family unit. Many good responses and counter arguments to Cameron’s highly offensive plans to basically treat any couple that haven’t sauntered down the aisle and remain together in harmony as second class citizens have already appeared and I will be covering a few of them when I take a closer look at this blog post from Nadine Dorries Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, who waded in clumsily to back up her dear leader today.

Nadine posts a lot of things I would like to argue with but I have avoided the process of ‘fisking’ any of her posts until now but I thought that her latest effort was just too easy to pull apart, also it gives me a chance to talk more about some of the many, many reasons why Cameron and his party are wrong on this one. Rather than a fisking I think we’ll call this one a point-by-point rebuttal with added analysis…

Nadine starts off her post with the empathising with the regular (read ‘poor’) people tactic ‘I am one of you donchaknow’ about how expensive Christmas can be and what a struggle it can be for the single parent.

I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that Christmas just landed on top of me this year with a mighty thump. One minute I was saying ‘it’s ages away’, the next I was being reminded by my ever hopeful daughters that it is in fact only three weekends away and I had better get shopping!

Christmas is a tough time for parents. Many cross their fingers and hope that they can survive until the end of January to cushion the blow of the additional expense Christmas has incurred.

It’s even worse for single parents who take that responsibility on their own shoulders with no support financially or emotionally. As a single parent myself, I know how tough ‘going it alone’ is and I know only too well how many sleepless nights come with that package.

So far, not too bad, although the ‘I am just like you’ reminder is slightly annoying and I can’t help wondering how spoiled her daughters are if the are reminding their mother about buying them Christmas presents since these are grown up daughters, not 5 year olds as you might believe from the way Nadine talks about them, they are also very well paid daughters I do hear. At least Nadine seems to be trying to convey some sort of sympathy towards single parents as she knows just how tough it is (that £64,766 MPs salary just isn’t enough to cover the cost of Christmas…) and it seems like there is a sense of solidarity with other single mothers and a sense that it’s tough but we do OK.

Nadine then goes on to completely rubbish her own empathy and contradict her own opening points.

I doubt there are many single parents who would say that they much prefer that option to having someone by their side, to share both the responsibility, the work load and the pleasure of family life.

There is quite a lot I find wrong about the above sentence. First of all Nadine is deciding to speak for a large section of the population without so much as a preliminary poll. If she had asked a few single parents I know she might have found out that finding that perfect husband is not high on their agenda, looking after the kids comes higher than dolling up and hitting the town looking for a new man to snare. This sentence, to me, leads us into the world of the poor, passive female who must have and clearly desires a man by her side to make her life and family complete. Consider the possibility that many people are happy to be single, many people are happy to be single parents (some people actually choose it would you believe Nadine!), especially in some cases where the alternative is to stay with an abusive partner or in any sort of unhappy marital situation. Some people do not want to remarry after a first failed marriage, some people are happy to ‘go it alone’. They don’t feel the need or pressure to be in a relationship.

I am proud that David Cameron and my party are the strongest supporters of marriage in Parliament today. The speech given yesterday by the Government-funded Family and Parenting Institute head, Dr Rake, sounded a strong death knell for the traditional family – in fact, she went even further and used her speech to warn politicians against encouraging traditional families and marriage.

Maybe encouraging “traditional families” (whatever they are) and marriage is a bad thing because you automatically make everybody who isn’t married or in one of these traditional families feel like a second class citizen? You are proud that Cameron and your party support marriage but your own seems to have fallen apart? Surely then you should know that these idyllic, happy, Tory-imagined, pie-in-the-sky, upper-middle-class, stereotypes of marriage and traditional families are not always the case? Are you teaching your own daughters that they are second class because they come from a single parent family and not a nice, traditional, still married family?

What is wrong with these pictures of the traditional family with the married parents is that it is a false image. The Conservatives are basically stating that this is the kind of family that is right and works. Anybody who lives outside the Tory bubble will know that this is not the case and is like to to be friends with or part of a non-traditional family set up that works just fine. What’s better the married couple who constantly drink, row and hit the kids or the unmarried couple who get along great and are doing a fantastic job bringing up those (bastard) children? The married couple will have more money for drink with the Tory relief plans, good news for them! The unmarried couple suffer because they didn’t choose one day in their, long, happy relationship to have a party, sign a paper and eat some cake. Their kids miss out on the extra money their parents would have if they had done this. Really fair.

It may be the case that many children today are born outside of marriage and are cared for by relatives. If we were living in a strong, communal, neighbourly society and the country had strength, purpose and direction with few problems, then I agree, it would be very hard indeed to fight the marriage corner when the erosion of the family appeared to be having little if any impact. As we all know, however, it’s just not like that.

Now we begin to come onto the big Tory thing of the ‘broken society’, caused of course by the erosion of the traditional, married family life. For those who did not know apparently society is on it’s knees with drug dealers on every street corner, all kids carrying guns and knifes and 9 year olds getting pregnant and this is YOUR fault if you are an unmarried couple or you are a product of a single-parent family, so SHAME on you.

Actually maybe not shame on you because when the Tories complain about broken families causing broken Britain what they really mean is you awful poor people with your non-traditional families are causing this breakdown in society. As Hadleigh Roberts rightly points out when commenting on my last post,

The difference is class rather than marriage. When Cameron talks of “married couples in happy families” he uses the imagery of his own “solid as a rock” clan. (Tory sex scandals of the 80s are so passé.)

Conversely, when it comes to unmarried couples, we are supposed to imagine a teenage skank benefit fraudster ASBO hoodie, not the middle class people (like my parents) who just never bothered with the ceremony or even the other kind of middle class people who break up or divorce because they can’t stand each other anymore and would rather be quietly apart than rowing in front of the kids

Back to Nadine’s little point about the child who gets cared for by family members and the support of the community, is it just me or is this sounding a bit more Communist than Conservative?

Nadine carries on telling us just how bad our society is,

Our society is, in many parts of the country, completely broken, to the extent that many of you reading this would not think possible.

Is it? Give us some examples then. Maybe many of us can’t imagine how bad this broken society is because the terrible doom and gloom picture of broken Britain is not actually accurate. Of course, there are social problems, always hyped up by the media but we are not in the terrible crime-stricken state the Tories like to tell us that we are. The media and Tories would have us believe that every teenager in the nation runs around beating up old people, stabbing their mates and chasing the dragon, all whilst wearing a hoodie. I wonder how Nadine knows all about these terrible, broken places anyway, living in Bedfordshire?

Back to Nadine,

Marriage as an institution has worked well for thousands of years; it is the bedrock of a strong society. It provides the ideal framework in which to raise children, as evidence shows, and it’s not about politics.

A link to the evidence would be nice but never mind. Also, if marriage is not about politics then why are the Conservatives making it a massive political issue with this Broken Britain, marriage is the cure nonsense?

If we are going to talk about the history of marriage, as Nadine does here, it is worth pointing out that for most of European history marriage was considered a business agreement, brokered by the families of those to be betrothed, basically what we would now call an “arranged marriage” and we all know the problems and heartache that they can cause.

The Greeks and Romans considered marriage as simply a mutual agreement between people who chose to be together. Much like two people living together and having children without the ceremony no? By choosing to be together they were considered married, no big white dress involved. Same thing in the early Christian era, no formal ceremony or agreement required, simply a matter of private agreement.

Not until the Marriage Act 1753 was any formal ceremony, recognised by the state required. Prior to that couples simply ‘co-habited’ with a private agreement that they would stay together so actually Nadine, hate to break it to you, marriage as you and your party view it has not worked as an institution for thousands of years, co-habiting without ceremony, the thing you claim to be ruining society, is the thing that worked for all those thousands of years.

It’s about two people setting off on a journey together, to share and enjoy the future trials and tribulations of family life, providing the boundaries of security within which children thrive.

Sickening, yes, also confusing the terms ‘married life’ and ‘family life’. Marriage is not a necessity when it comes to sharing a life with somebody and bringing up children in a secure, loving environment. To suggest that a married family is the only right family where children can be brought up properly is frankly insulting.

As I began, Christmas is a tough time or families, It’s tougher still when you are on your own. The Government need to examine why it is that so many marriages are breaking down and, as David Cameron is doing, look at ways to support and encourage marriage. That’s the difficult and challenging option. Gordon Brown has chosen the easy way out, appointing a quango head to announce the end of the family as we know it which, if believed, removes the problem from his shoulders and distances Labour from twelve years of policies which have systematically undermined the family. No 10 may look upon yesterday’s speech as a tribute to a job well done.

Is David Cameron looking at the reasons “families are breaking down” or is he just doing all he can to force people into marriages because this is the only narrow-minded answer he can see to a perceived social problem? I only see evidence of the latter. The Conservatives are clinging on to a myth, to a tradition of a ceremony that is less than 300 years old. The tradition of couples choosing to live and raise families together without a ceremony or state recognition is the real long standing tradition. Labour have not undermined the family, Labour have strived to support every type of family and every child, no matter what family background. The Conservatives are undermining every family but the one with married parents.

Following on from my blog post in July, where that quiet man, Iain Duncan Smith, was extolling the virtues of married life in his ‘Every Family Matters’ report and pretty much downgrading all unmarried couples to second class citizens, David Cameron has now jumped in singing much the same tune, praising marriage and offering to throw tax relief at those who exchange vows.

Cameron also accuses Labour of a ‘pathological inability to recognise that marriage is a good thing’ and Ed Balls of viewing marriage as ‘irrelevant’. I’m pretty sure this is not actually the case and sense seems to prevail here:

The Department for Children, Schools and Families believes children’s welfare can be protected through stable and lasting relationships not just marriage.

Which is much better than constantly insisting that a married relationship is the only right, good and stable relationship and the only way to live a family life. I won’t repeat the arguments I made in my previous post, suffice to say this kind of talk from Cameron and the Conservatives is simply ridiculous and completely unfair, penalising people who do not deserve it because they have chosen to live their lives a different way to the way David Cameron wants them to do so, or in some cases have not even chosen and are victims of circumstance.

Every homeowner in Nantwich could have the right to home energy efficiency work worth £6,500 under a Tory government.

That was the claim made by the party which plans to help households protect the environment and save money.

The idea, backed by Nantwich MP Edward Timpson, suggests there would be no upfront cost as the work will be paid for by savings on energy bills from improved insulation.
 
It will save families money and make Crewe and Nantwich’s homes warmer in winter, Mr Timpson said.

And he claimed that a typical home could see £30 a month knocked off its final bill.
 
The plan also includes working with councils like Cheshire East to promote a ‘points for recycling’ scheme.

Points are converted into vouchers for shops including Marks & Spencer and Costcutter, or into donations to charities. Households could earn up to £175 a year in vouchers.
 
Mr Timpson said: “The new plans to insulate people’s homes for no upfront cost and rewarding people for recycling will not only protect the environment, but also help families and pensioners in Crewe and Nantwich who are struggling to make ends meet.”

Today in the commons David Cameron made the following statement:

“While the two Islamic schools I mentioned got government money while being run by people linked to the extremist group Hizb ut Tahrir, and while they did receive that money under a pathfinder scheme, it was not the pathfinder scheme concerned with combating extremism.

I am sorry for the error.

I believe when you get a fact wrong, you should put it right.

But I continue to believe that it is wrong that taxpayers’ money goes to schools run by extremists.”

As reported on here last week the Tory leader of Bradford council, and Conservative PPC for Keighley, Kris Hopkins believes this kind of language “risks discriminating against a particular faith”.

Wonder what he thinks to Cameron’s ongoing attacks?

It was revealed today in the Sunday Times that Zac Goldsmith, prospective Tory parliamentary candidate for Richmond, has non-domicile tax status, meaning he’s not paying huge UK income tax on his £200m fortune.

He is planning to change his tax status in 2010, which is conveniently when the next General Election will be. I wonder if he’d change his situation if he wasn’t running for parliament???

It’s nice to know as the country suffers one of the worst recessions in modern history with tax rises and spending cuts on the horizon, a member of the political and social elite has been looking after his own situation. As George Osborne would say “We’re all in this together”…

Further turmoil for Yorkshire Tories; after revelations of their relationship to Hizb ut-Tahrir, it now turns out their MEPs are no longer on speaking terms.

(Report from BBC Politics Show Yorkshire)

.

done

Are supermarkets bad for our health, social, economic or medical? There’s lots of stuff in this book about how people’s average intake of vegetables has declined in the period when supermarkets came to power (and I say power advisedly).

Add to that the influence supermarkets have on local communities and on pollution (in the form of increased car parking), the quality of goods they provide and the terrible impact they have had on traditional businesses and services over the last 30 years, and you’ve got a well-seasoned recipe for harm. In my opinion.

Now David Cameron’s ideological acquaintance Phillip Blond has picked up on this, as part of his Red Tory serving, and is suggesting that it’s time to break up supermarkets’ power. His idea is to place more faith in local businesses, as I understand it, though there are no indications yet about how this will be done. And when it comes down to it will Cameron have the balls to go down a route that is causing his party’s grandees serious concern?

In the meantime, here’s an enjoyable article about how some farmers are providing food for our tables and fighting back against Blond’s ‘cartels’. Perhaps best to pass over the more stereotypical Torygraph caricaturing of the headline over Jeff Randall’s lead piece in the features section.

This week in London David Cameron and the Tories launched an attack on Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Labour council who fund the Schools they are closely associated with.

But in Yorkshire not only has a Tory MP shared a debating platform with Hizb ut-Tahrir but a Tory council funds one of Hizb ut Tahrir’s favorite schools.

Davies speaking at a Hizb ut-Tahrir event

In Bradford Philip Davies shared a platform with Taji Mustafa of Hizb ut-Tahrir. In a debate titled ‘Has freedom gone too far?’ Mr. Davies appeared to share common ground with Taji Mustafa in decrying attempts to bring “freedom and democracy to the Middle East”. According to a Hizb ut-Tahrir press release “Philip Davies made it clear that he is opposed to the liberal interventionist export of democracy and liberal values by the gun, as supported by some in the West including David Cameron who supported the invasion of Iraq.”

After the debate Taji Mustafa, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, said, “David Cameron spreads lies about Hizb ut-Tahrir – hiding behind parliamentary privilege. However, his colleague Philip Davies MP was willing to share a platform with a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, for the second time, and debate issues.”

Mr. P Davies position seems some what at odds with that of Mr. D Davis and Mr. Cameron’s who have both made it clear that the Conservative Party will not share a platform with Hizb ut-Tahrir, and if in Government would outlaw them. But Mr. P Davies has a majority of only 500 and Hizb ut-Tahrir hold great sway in his constituency of Shipley, so perhaps he’s more forgiving.

Hopkins chair of The Open Madrasah Network

Meanwhile Mr. P Davies’ neighbour and colleague Kris Hopkins, leader of Tory controlled Bradford Council, sits on £550,000 of taxpayers’ money that has been allocated to The Open Madrasah Network.

By funding these Madrassas Mr. Hopkins believes that he is “reaching into the heart of the community and offering more people access to life-changing services.” But what life-changing services? One of these Madrassas, Madrassah Madania Tahfeezul Quran, has had a long and close association with Hizb ut Tahrir and the Hizb ut Tahrir dominated Bradford University Islamic Society and all three organizations have together been campaigning for a number of years for greater Madrasah autonomy and government funding. A campaign that has had little support from national government but recently  found an advocate in Tory Prospective Parliamentary Candidate Kris Hopkins, who was able to secure the £1/2 million funding for the madrassas (one of these madrassas is in Keighley, a Labour marginal Mr. Hopkins is hoping to win at the next election).

When asked about fears that these schools would, in the words of the Express, “groom children for terror” Mr. Hopkins responded “Madrassas are not about indoctrination. What about Anglican and Catholic schools? Talking about religious instruction in that way risks discriminating against a particular faith.”

Talking about religious instruction in that way risks discriminating against a particular faith. A view that is clearly not shared by his party leader down south.

Interesting side note to this bizarre alliance, the majority of money Mr. Hopkins is distributing to these schools comes from Yorkshire Forward, an organization Mr. Hopkins is keen to see dismantled, perhaps he doesn’t want anyone checking on who or what he is spending money on.

This week has raised some interesting questions about the Tory party

• Does Cameron control his northern MPs, PPCs, and Council leaders?
• Do the Tories see Islamic schools as political punching bags; batter them when funded by Labour councils, praise them when funded by Tory ones?
• While the national party publicly calls for the banning of Hizb ut-Tahrir, are Tory MPs/PPCs in marginal seats where Hizb ut-Tahrir have greater influence seeking their support?