Thursday, 20 March 2008

Treatment of the Gurkhas a national scandal

It’s not often that I have cause to agree with Nick Clegg, but this is one issue where Conservatives and Lib Dems (plus I daresay, more than a sprinkling of Labour supporters) can most certainly concur. The Lib Dem leader raised the treatment of the Nepalese Gurkhas on the floor of the Commons to the Prime Minister at yesterday’s PMQs.

The Ghurkhas, one of the most famous and distinctive regiments within the British Army, have fought for Britain since the Napoleonic wars, including in the Falklands, Afghanistan and Iraq. However, current rules do not provide the Gurkhas any right to remain in the UK if they retired from the Armed Forces after 1997.

Unsurprisingly, Brown dismissed any change to the status quo for the veterans, with the Government arguing that such a retrospective change would be too difficult to enforce. However, Communities Secretary Hazel Blears did promise to look “very carefully” at the issue. Some comfort. Frankly, it is a sad day for Britain when fifty retired servicemen feel the need to hand back their military honours to a Government they fought for, yet one which will not recognise and reward that sacrifice.

Several Conservatives have raised this as an example of where Britain is prepared to let in benefit migrants from EU countries, yet will refuse leave to remain for those who have put their lives on the line for the sake of British values. As Clegg himself has argued "I think this is a simply scandalous way to treat some of the most modest, brave and courageous individuals I have ever met". I can only agree.

A Bill has now been tabled in the House of Lords to give the Gurkhas the right to remain, and parity of pension rights as British soldiers. This is a Bill which I hope will receive genuine cross-party support, and that Britain is seen to treat her friends and allies better than Brown and Co. would have it.

Tuesday, 18 March 2008

The Prime Minister’s lost his brain – again

Spencer Livermore, Gordon Brown’s closest adviser for over a decade, has confirmed his departure from Number Ten. Livermore, once hailed by Pink Times as the most powerful gay man in Britain, will take up a post at Saatchi and Saatchi managing Labour’s PR activities in the build-up to the next election.

The departure of such a key lieutenant in the Brownite machine could hardly have come at a worse time for the ailing Prime Minister, still reeling from the Bad News Budget and a newly published Guardian/ICM poll which gives the Conservatives a thirteen point lead.

While both Brown and Chancellor-in-Waiting Ed Balls are said to have attempted to persuade Livermore to stay, Brown just doesn’t seem to have that motivating touch – unlike his predecessor Tony Blair, who famously persuaded spin supremo Alistair Campbell to remain for two years beyond his initial departure date.

The blogosphere has been buzzing with rumours that Livermore’s departure was hastened by Stephen Carter, Brown’s new head of political strategy. Yet whether Livermore’s decision was more influenced by Carter’s behind the scenes machinations, or if he still has not forgiven Brown for the famous explosion following October’s election fiasco – which according to sources, reduced the thirty-two year-old Livermore to tears – is currently unclear.

Whether this will be the first of several political “disappearances” from Number 10, or merely the beginning of the rats leaving New Labour’s sinking ship is also a matter fro debate. Either way, this author has little sympathy for Brown, whose legendary mood swings are hardly likely to build deep loyalty in his closest aides.

Once again, a lesson sorely ignored from Number Ten’s previous incumbent – but not, it may appear from yesterday’s post, its next one…

Monday, 17 March 2008

Behind every great leader, there's a Gove

Shadow Children, Schools and Families Secretary Michael Gove has long been viewed as a rising star in Conservative circles, but BBC Newsnight reports that the former Times correspondent has impressed many in his briefing of David Cameron prior to the leader’s speech at least week’s Conservative Spring Forum.

“He was really cracking the whip” reported one onlooker, advising the young party leader to refer to “mothers and fathers” as opposed to “parents”, and that dated phrases such as “creeds and colours” were best avoided. While Steve Hilton, Head of Media and Communications at Conservative Central Office, was in attendance, it is understood that he made few comments other than to endorse Mr. Gove’s suggestions.

That it was Michael Gove who persuaded Cameron to run for the party leadership following the 2005 election is common knowledge amongst Cameroonies. Now seen as an arch-Cameronite and party moderniser, it comes as little surprise to us Goveites to hear that the man tipped as a possible successor to Mr. Cameron is playing an increasing role in passing on the benefits of his journalistic background.

From the hammering he has regularly been handing out to Brown’s boy Ed Balls (Brown’s Balls?), this commentator anticipates an ever-higher trajectory for the Shadow Education Secretary just as his Labour opposite number’s star is beginning to wane. In the meantime, there could be worse appointments for the Conservatives to make than to give the Surrey Heath MP an increased role in the formulation of policy and election strategy.

Come on Dave, give us a Gove!

Tuesday, 4 March 2008

Just how "highly thought of" is Harman?

An amusing aside for all those who have cause to wonder the level of respect and trust between Gordon Brown and his Labour Party Deputy Harriet Harman (and since her funding difficulties, there are many) passed on by a friend in Camberwell.

Apparently, Ms. Harman was on a routine constituency visit to a local school yesterday and (true to form) giving comments to the local press. When one hack asked how she felt about Prince Harry’s recent return from Afghanistan, following the Prime Minister’s expression of pride in him and the other deployed forces, Harperson was handed a scrap of paper by a party aide, which she quickly glanced at before answering in the affirmative.

What did the note read?

“You are proud too”.

Wednesday, 30 January 2008

Edwards withdraws from Democrat race

Following yesterday’s (nominal) victory for Hillary Clinton in the Florida caucus, John Edwards has announced that he is pulling out of the race of for Democratic Presidential nomination. According to BBC News, this “leaves the Democratic contest a two-horse race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama”.

As opposed to what exactly? Edwards has finished a distant third in all five caucuses so far, even admitting that he got "butt kicked" in both Nevada and his home state of South Carolina where he was expected to do well. On this evidence, the decision by the former North Carolina Senator to retire gracefully prior to the cash-fight of Super Tuesday, where 21 States will cast their vote for their nominations, appears a wise one.

Nevertheless, this author must admit to being surprised at Edwards’ relative lack of success, considering his strong showing during the previous Presidential election where he ran as Vice-Presidential nominee to eventual loser John Kerry – a ticket which several commentators suggested would have been more successful with Edwards headlining.

While Edwards has not yet endorsed either candidate, it would not be surprising to see him link up with either candidate in a second Vice Presidential bid – placing him in a good position to launch a final bid for the Presidency in two elections time (should the Democrats be successful in November).

In the Republicans corner, I expect Rudy Giuliani to withdraw from the race within days following a disastrous showing in the Florida caucus (which unlike the Democrat vote DID count). Florida victor John McCain paid a gracious tribute to the man dubbed "America's Mayor" following his handling of the 9/11 Terrorist attacks, and could yet make further approaches, possibly in return for Giuliani's public endorsement of his candidacy.

What price a potential Republican dream team of McCain-Giuliani?

Tuesday, 29 January 2008

Goodbye Rudy Tuesday?

Things are looking pretty hairy for Rudy Giuliani. After a high-risk campaign strategy of ignoring the supposedly “smaller” states to focus on the Florida ballot, the associated lack of publicity and rusty campaigning may prove his undoing. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, Giuliani is well behind both of the two frontrunners, John McCain and Mitt Romney, who are currently running neck-and-neck:

John McCain: 31
Mitt Romney: 31
Rudy Giuliani: 16
Mike Huckabee: 11
Ron Paul: 4

If the former Mayor of New York fails to win the backing of Floridans, this could effectively take him out of contention altogether, given the electoral college votes of Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina already banked by his rivals. Rumours are also abound that Giuliani is suffering from a lack of funding – a critical handicap in such a high-spend arena as a US Primary – and that senior members of his campaign staff have not been paid for weeks.

Giuliani has even appeared to hint that he could drop out of the race altogether if he doesn’t succeed in winning Florida. "When it's Wednesday morning we'll make the decision," he said yesterday.

This author will be waiting in anticipation…

You REALLY couldn't make it up...

Another one for the “You couldn’t make it up” brigade to masticate on – a children’s story based on the Three Little Pigs has been refused nomination and funding by a Government education agency, on the grounds that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

BECTA, the Government’s Educational Technology Agency, claimed that the digital book “Three Little Cowboy Builders” also offended those in the construction industry – a slight which the book’s creative director Anne Curtis described as being "like a slap in the face".

Like most individuals who basis of opinions is not the front page of the Daily Express, I have never once heard of Muslim, Jew or member of any other faith claim that the recitation of a fairy tale is offensive to their beliefs. Indeed, many have expressed disquiet at the antics of such interfering busybodies in patronisingly declaring what is offensive to religious and/or ethnic minorities for stirring up resentments at what has been manipulated into apparent hectoring on the part of British Muslims (apparently a favourite tactic of the National Secular Society).

Such accusations however are as erroneous as the usual responses are misguided. Take for example the Muslim Council of Great Britain’s speed in condemning the petulance of a Marks and Spencer (Muslim) employee who refused to handle the sale of a copy of a Children’s Bible, claiming this was “unclean”, as being both “very offensive and unacceptable. Many Biblical stories complement the teachings of the Koran. We hope that M&S will investigate this incident."

Swift, accurate, and to the point.

Perhaps if Conservatives spent more time listening to UK Muslims instead of hearing what so many of them seem to want to hear, we would find that they are actually our most natural allies on a whole host of issues which Nu-Labour would be only too happy to brush under the carpet.