conservativehomo

Apologies for bad blogging

2007-02-11T06:52:00.000-08:00

Aargh! I've been dreadful at keeping this up to date lately - partially due to the fact that I've been busy and I've just not had the urge.

So I thought I'd post some links to look like I'm still doing stuff and think about what I should be writing about...

Dinosaur Comics! Not actually political but well worth it...

Nadine Dorries MP has the best blog of any MP I've seen.

Daily Mail-o-matic and other fun things on this guy's site.

I would comment on the David Cameron smoking cannabis as a teenager but it's such a non-stroy I'm not going to. Most of my friends tried it at school, I didn't, it's pretty ordinary either way.

Crystal Balls

2007-02-06T05:13:00.000-08:00

Not Ed's sister, I hasten to point out.

An awful lot of people have started frothing about what might happen at the next general election, in part prompted by this article on ConservativeHome. It is true that all polling now suggests a hung parliament, and it is by no means impossible, but there is little point getting worked up about it possibly three years in advance. The polls are bound to move when Brown takes over (whether up or down, or probably both over time) and, crucially, the distribution of the swing is more unpredictable. I was stuck by the high number of Lib Dem MPs predicted by Smithson, suggesting that we are not going to making many gains on them. While it has proved hard over recent elections to take seats from the Lib Dems we have put on 5% or so and, it seems, kept it. Combined with Ming's flatlining I can't imagine we won't take more seats back from them.

Quibbling aside, there probably is enough of a legislatvie programme to get us through six months with Lib Dem co-operation on a case-by-case basis before fresh elections. Better get fundraising!

Me and the mystery A-lister

2007-02-01T10:10:00.000-08:00

Not that mystery, actually. Someone asked if we were a couple at a fundraiser last night, prompting alarmed laughter! The fact that I'm (just) closer to her daughter's age than hers made it seem a little unlikley (regardless of the fact that she is of course not my type)....

The evening did get me thinking about some things - what do I want to do for a career (I'm at the early stages of going for the candidates' list but I do want a career outside politics beforehand). Also it was an interesting insight into how tough it is to become an MP (and how expensive). I also gave away my first business card! The plan for world domination inches nearer...

Bringing out the worst in the blogosphere...

2007-01-25T13:25:00.000-08:00

A pretty poisonous thread yesterday on ConservativeHome about the Catholic church's attempts to get an opt out from the Sexual Orientation Regulations with regards to adoption agencies. Of course, it rapidly got off subject, with such gems as

"I presume all there homosexual/pr0-homosexual whingers come from London or somewhere of the sort. There would be little sympathy for them in my Conservative branch and although we're all very much members of the older generation we are part of an ageing population anyway, many of whom can remember when these people would simply have been jailed."

While people do have the right of opinion I think this sort of bile is either a) trolling ofa very crude sort or b) alarming. Not only does it display the very worst that people think of the party (which has certainly not been the case in Sheffield, hardly Notting-Hill-on-Peak) it suggests that whichever branch this chap is from is deeply unwelcoming to Conservatives who live in the modern world.

Allegations of a "gay mafia" always remind me of the idea of "promoting homosexuality" - I have no idea how to join the former or to do the latter, possibly because both are impossible! I suspect the "Catholic mafia" has rather stronger organisation and power but I would refrain from condemning people simply because of their faith however much I disagree with them. A pity that the more extreme (and vocal) religious types are not so decent.

On Christians and Gays...

2007-01-24T04:58:00.000-08:00

The hullaballoo over Catholic adoption agencies has been raging for a couple of days now, and it's interesting (for me at least) to see just how much hate there can be on both sides. On ConservativeHome there is talk of a "gay mafia" (only from one poster, the original post is about Dave's silence on the issue) while on thingbox, a gay network site I'm on there is so much bile directed towards Catholics and Christianity in general that you might think the twain would never meet.

You'd be wrong.

There are loads of gay Christians (and Catholics) and even many who have children. Seeing the two groups as diametrically opposed is deeply unhelpful becuase it makesit falsely antagonistic. There are lots of churches, mainly Methodist or similar, who hapily bless civil partnerships and are really welcoming, just as much as there are gays who stand up to Christian-bashing (although they rarely defend the (usually) elderly bigots).

On Catholic adoption agencies, I think it's sad that good parents would be turned away, but there are plenty of public or other charitable agencies which welcome same-sex applicants. If the Catholic church and the Labour Party want to froth in mutual recrimination and division let them, but I can't see why a relatively small provider of adoption services shouldn't come to an agreement with an alternative provider who will welcome prospective gay adopters.

Live and let live, and the world will be a much happier place.

Devolution Dogs' Dinner

2007-01-16T12:20:00.000-08:00

Labour really are losing it. Having set up devolved assemblies to (in part) ensure they will be in government most of the time in both Cardiff and Edinburgh they have managed to endanger the union and potentially lose office in both. Blair's dismissal of an English Parliament has no real argument behind it other than that England is already heavily represented in Westminster.

I'm not in favour of a separate English parliament - there really is no need for more elected politicians. But it seems totally illogical to suggest that it is possible to decide that some matters are devolved to Scotland or Wales but parliament is incapable of deciding that those same matters can not be reserved for MPs representing constituencies affected. English Votes on English Laws (EVoEL) is fundamentally democratic when there are Scottish and Welsh votes on laws which only affect those parts of the union.

So, if EVoEL were to come in, what would the effects be? It might produce messy parliamentary arithmetic, with Labour holding a Union-level majority but Conservatives having one in England. Would this produce some sort of hybrid government? It might not be a disaster to have one party holding undevolved ministries and the other holding the devolved ones. Messy yes, democratic, also yes.

Another opportunity for the EU to fail?

2007-01-09T08:03:00.000-08:00

I was alarmed to see here Javier Solana raising the possibility of EU involvement in peacekeeping in Somalia. While I can not for a moment imagine the British army finding soldiers or, more pertinently, equipment to join in, this is exactly why we should resist all attempts at EU foreign and security policy. There is no more likelihood of European or American troops bringing order to Somalia now than twelve years ago, so a deployment would be an invitation for Al Qaeda to attack our troops.

Somalia is clearly a country in distress, and if a government emerges which is capable of holding it together we should support it. Air strikes against Al Qaeda strongholds are fine, but committing troops on the ground would be a catastrophe.

MArgaret Beckett is a source of shame

2006-12-20T12:55:00.000-08:00

Hearing the clip of Margaret Beckett on the Today Programme a couple of days ago had me squirming with embarrassment in bed as I listened. I know most New Labour ministers are awful, and (with apologies for sounding sexist) the female ones have perfected the most patronising tone in the history of speech but I think hers may well be the worst cabinet appointment ever. She is totally out of her depth and sounds like an irritated french teacher dealing with naughty 11 year olds, and I just can not imagine her in Washington, New York or Brussels without being ashamed that she is representing our country.

If Blair really had to move Jack Straw there were many candidates better suited to the job: John Reid, Lord Robertson or Hillary Benn I could stomach. But, with the nonentity that is Des Browne at Defence and Blair daydreaming his way through international affairs I fear we are currently under the weakest foreign policy team of the modern era.

Peers queers and bishops

2006-10-24T06:13:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about the House of Lords, as it seems has everyone else. The reform proposals outlined by Jack Straw left me rather cold - if the House of Lords is undemocratic now, why only make it slightly less so? If we need to change it to bring it up to date (a not unreasonable objective) surely a powerful, directly and wholly elected Senate is the obvious answer. Prime Ministers shoulod not be able to appoint anyone to a role in the legislative process.

I would argue that we need outstanding individuals with as little party whipping as possible. This pretty much rules out a list PR system, which would produce the most uninspiring senators possible, with party managers packing the lists with people unable to win a seat in the Commons. What would be exciting would be a Senate of 100 people elected as individuals on a single nationwide constitutency for a single term of reasonable length (say 8 years). Assuming that each party would promote about fifty or so, and that high-profile individuals would also enter, it would make for exciting and demanding campaigns, and result in no party having overall control. The strategic entry of smaller parties would also be encouraged, and we would almost certainly see Green, UKIP and other small parties gain entry. This could be healthy for democracy and reinforce the First Past the Post system in the Commons, by lancing the boil of electoral reform.

Could strong government, checked by a democratic Seante be the best possible solution to the current debate?

In reference to Bishops, I was horrified by the idea that a reformed upper chamber would retain their places. Instead of equalising the privileges of the Church of england for other faiths (the government's preferred option, as in faith schools) just remove them. Religion has no place in politics, and politics should stay out of religion. Simple.

Tax cut wishlist

2006-10-18T15:13:00.000-07:00

So Tories like tax cuts. That's good, but how do we sell it? Dave Dave SuperDave has, probably rightly, avoided giving any firm commitments on tax cuts this far out from a Tory government. But surely it would be a good idea if we to say maybe how would prioritise the various taxes we would cut with the "proceeds of growth" (and cutting back waste).

I would suggest that a Tory government should seek to embrace opportunity and reward by giving those who earn the least the most - I'd love to see us fight the next election under the slogan "the most redistributive taxcut in history," promising to raise the personal allowance to such a point that it couldn't be in anyone's interests to be on benefits.

How about a promise to link the minimum wage with the personal allowance? If someone works a 35 hour week for 51 weeks a year on the minimum wage they earn about £9,500 before tax. It's just insane to tax someone working hard to avoid dependence on the state when they earn just enough to live on, especially when you add in council tax and national insurance. Making work work must be a priority for getting under-employed or people thrown on the scrapheap back into work.