Hopefully this won't be for too long, but the need to get my various essays and projects done is very much preying on my mind, so I'm taking a short break to get ahead with the workload. For any interested parties, that also includes my blogging project...

So until then, au revoir for now my friends. I'll be back.

Oh dear oh dear. Looks like they may have got me too. I've shopped in that store many many times over the years, so there is a very high chance my details were amongst the millions hacked and stolen, even if so far I've noticed no problems. Perhaps I've just been lucky. You can bet that a lot of people out there haven't been.

It's almost impossible to imagine the scale of this theft. Just think, if the criminals managed to actually get into, say, just one million of the 45 million bank accounts. If they were to take just a pound out of each account - a lot of hassle but unlikely to be noticed - that's an instant million. The scale of this is damning, as is the time it has taken for TX Maxx to notice and actually publicise this.

The focus currently seems to be on who is going to sort out this matter; should it be the police or the banks? To my mind that overlooks the real problem. I have always wondered what business it is of the stores to actually keep people's full credit and debit card details on their systems in the first place. They could just as easily do without.

The banks' computer systems aren't always foolproof either, true, but I'd prefer that they alone be able to keep full card records, since they could potentially have something to lose as well if information were stolen. Surely the solution to this sort of thing is to bypass actual store computers and send authorisation queries straight to the banks and back. Let their computer system handle things instead.

The more technology is allowed to rule our lives, the more incidents we will have of this nature. It's simply inevitable. Therefore, in my opinion, the government should act to restrict how much card information private companies' can store on their computer systems. At the very least, create a legal requirement for stores to utilise software which purges certain parts of the information right after active purchase. It's the only logical thing to do.

Finally, there's some good news regarding this whole debacle of the government attempting to change Freedom of Information rules to stop journalists from getting so much dirt on them (more info on that here).

The Department of Constitutional Affairs this morning announced that it will hold an additional 12-week consultation period on its proposals to amend the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Regulations.

For 12 months, taking the consultation period forwards just into the tenure of the next Prime Minister, when it will likely be the last thing on Gordon's mind. So basically, it's as good as buried.

Hurrah.

You couldn't make it up. You simply could not make this up. It's hysterical.

The European Union has pondered the threat of terrorism again its people and come up with one of those uniquely EU methods of solving the problem... just ban the words.

The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements.

Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers “non-offensive” phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.

Banned terms are said to include “jihad”, “Islamic” or “fundamentalist”.

The word “jihad” is to be avoided altogether, according to some sources, because for Muslims the word can mean a personal struggle to live a moral life.

One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term “Islamic terrorism” to be replaced by “terrorists who abusively invoke Islam”.

This would be funny if it weren't so tragic. So by not allowing officials to call a spade a spade, and having them dance around serious topics like sad little leprechauns on crack, the world will somehow be a safer place. Certainly, people might continue to get blown up, but so long as nobody is offended in the process of catching the perpetrators, then all is right with the world.

And they wonder why the EU is seen by so many as a complete waste of time.

It would be the sum total of all our worst nightmares...

... like a hole in the head.

Although the cover for the protest is a nitpick over placement of the Supercasino, the real message coming from the Lords is pretty clear, as summed up by the Archbishop of Canterbury;

“My objection rather is that the sleight of hand by the whole business of the gambling industry has become coupled with the regeneration theme, in ways which I find quite baffling,” Dr Williams told peers.

For once I agree with the old fellow. Yes, there will be regenerative effects on certain impoverished areas, but since when does Great Britain have such a lack of funds we need to rely on megarich companies coming in and getting us addicted to parting with our money to fill the gap? Oh right, yeah. But surely the hugely negative impact of playing host to such a parasitic industry need to be taken into consideration far more, or is the money just too tempting a prospect for this morally bankrupt government to properly do that?

I'm very glad the Lords have moved to throw out these corrosive proposals (although I do wish more of the Conservative Peers had come off the fence to help with this one). Yes it's unfair to dangle the prospect of a cash cow in front of cities in need of a quick cash infusion and then take it away, that can't be denied. However, in the long run, I really think just scrapping the whole thing would be the most beneficial course of action.

Once the big casinos have planted themselves here, there will be no removing them and no stopping them - just look at Australia - therefore it is imperative that we make an informed choice. The way Tessa Jowell has plastered over the obvious cracks in the proposals and virtually refused to acknowledge the negative effects, instead peddling the regeneration line to death, certainly ring alarms bells for me.

The Lords vote does not necessarily mean the end of Manchester’s chances of hosting a supercasino. Ms Jowell said ministers would want to reflect on the vote and come back to the “elected” Commons in due course with proposals on how “we will take this policy forward”.

I love the emphasis there on "elected". Not an argument for primacy she'd be able to use much longer if she got her way on the Lords Reform (she voted for 100% elected, in case anybody is wondering)!

Everybody at the moment seems to be trying to prescribe a reason for the deteriorating faith in politics in this country. The media blames politicians. Politicians blame the media. Some people blame the EU. Some blame Tesco. Peter Hitchens blamed David Cameron on his Toff at the Top programme last night, for some reason. The truth is it's probably a mix of all kinds of reasons. As for me, I happen to think there is no greater culprit than the present Prime Minister and his cronies, for the precise reasons outlined today by Kenneth Clarke and his democracy policy group.

These are the suggestions that they have made, along with the reasons I agree with them completely:

~ New ministerial code to clarify main responsibilities of the prime minister and secretaries of state
In the past such a code has never been a requirement, but Tony Blair's Presidential style of leadership and his armchair politics have really highlighted the dangers of having someone with no respect for procedure in charge. For example, Blair's meetings are so informal, there weren't even minutes for his meeting over the Iraq War, which is ludicrous.

~ Legislation committee to scrutinise all proposed bills
Scrutiny is absolutely paramount, especially if we're to lose our scrutinising chamber in the future. I'm surprised this doesn't happen already actually.

~ Code of conduct for government publications and advertising campaigns
Generally, in the UK advertising campaigns have been alright, if a little pointless at times. But I should think having clearer guidelines can do more good than harm.

~ Independence for Office of National Statistics
Of all the proposals, this one is absolutely the most important, for reasons I outlined last July.

~ Halve number of special advisers
Blair isn't entirely to blame for this one, since the numbers began to rise under Thatcher. However, under him they have tripled and their wages have soared. They're simply not needed and they can have an effect of perverting democracy in large numbers, since it concentrates power out of the hands of elected officials.

~ Restore 'objectivity' of Civil Service
Another one which began under Thatcher, but their lack of objectivity has certainly been encouraged under Blair.

~ Parliamentary approval required before sending troops to war
The reasoning for this one must be obvious. Without Parliamentary approval we start to travel down some very dangerous paths.

~ Parliamentary approval required before ratification of treaties with financial, legal or territorial implications for UK
Again, I can't disagree, since the more power for Parliament the better, especially if it comes at the expense of the EU, as seems possible.

I hope David Cameron takes these recommendations up wholeheartedly. Since he has promised before to put an end to Blair's Presidential style to end the ghastly informal armchair decision making he employs, I have a feeling he will take it into consideration.

It's coming from that rag, the National Enquirer (website unavailable at the moment), so it's probably all an exaggeration. Certainly interesting stuff though if true. Apparently, the First Lady of America is none too happy with the close relationship of her husband to the Secretary of State. Some extracts from the article:

Laura, 60, demanded the four-week trial separation so she can have time alone to decide the fate of their crumbling 29-year marriage.

Says the insider, "Sadly, Laura's... still stinging from the whispers and rumors concerning George's close relationship with [Condi] Rice - rumors that have only been fed by George's public coolness toward the first lady."

The infuriated first lady spent at least one night at the famed Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., "after a confrontation with President Bush over his ongoing affair with Rice," said respected author and national security expert Wayne Madsen.

"And a person in the State Department told me there's definitely something romantic going on between George and Condi."

It goes on to quotes friends as saying that Laura felt emotionally adandoned last November when she underwent treatment for skin cancer and he apparently showed no concern for her health, and that they spend most of their time apart nowadays. The one month break is apparently Laura testing the water for divorce... if this is all to be believed.

As for the thought of Bush and Condi... I hate to say it, I really do, but I always did wonder how she got so high in the ranks. She has always seemed so lightweight to me. I hope it's just a nasty rumour, for Laura and her family's sake, and for the sake of all womankind (I'm tired of hearing how women in power slept their way up the ranks). Then again, wasn't adultery highlighted somewhere in the 10 Commandments? I'm pretty sure George's flock wouldn't like it if he turned out to be doing the dirty on his wife.

One from the wingbat files, which might give some of us pause for thought here in the UK (well, you never know):

A HUNDRED residents of a Russian village have refused to switch to new passports because they believe the documents' bar codes contain satanic symbols.

"We believe these new passports are sinful," Valentina Yepifanova, an elderly resident of the village Bogolyubovo, told Rossiya television as she clutched an old, tattered passport she said she wanted to keep.

"They have these bar codes and people say they contain three sixes. We are against that."

The urban legend that all UPC barcodes have three sixes hidden them is hardly a new one. Not that it would bother me at all if it were true. I was just wondering if we'd be able to use the same argument here in the UK, against these newfangled biometric passports. Could we cry foul on some made-up religious reasons? A clause of the Jedi faith perhaps? No? Damn.

Oh well. You've got to love stories like this one though.

I'm purposefully a bit late with this rather obvious manip to avoid jumping on the huge inevitable bandwagon of Stalin-Brown gags, but here's a little commemorative artwork to the week that was. Quite a memorable one it was too.
The original quote by Lord Turnbull is on it, just to make the distinction that it's illustrative of that, and not actually meant to misrepresent the Chancellor as some kind of mass-murdering dictatorial psychopath. That would be just a tad over the mark, I feel, much as I dislike the man.

There's something wonderfully artless about the proposed Blogosphere gestapo Regulatory Panel (UK Daily Pundit has been following this one for a while, and you can sign his petition about about it here), which is supposedly about to be set up by the Press Complaints Commission. It really does betray a total lack of understanding about blogs and the blogosphere in general, to a rather risable level.

Actually, in a funny sort of way I rather relish this silly attempt at regulation. It will be a failed exercise, there's no doubt about that. Even if they tried to shut down any blogs they took exception to, us bloggers would win. In fact, we'd win especially if they tried to shut people down.

The fact is, political bloggers love to have a good cause to fight for; we need something to stand up to. We thrive in times of persecution and only ever mulitply with the perception of illiberalism or corruption on the part of those in power. Should censorship actually be applied to British blogs, then the argument that this government has morphed into a Soviet-style dictatorship with Orwellian undertones would be pretty much won. And you could bet that people will find a way around anything thrown at them by this shady panel anyway.

It's a pointless exercise, but it's one which I'm pretty sure will do the political blogosphere a favour in the end. So, bring it on I say.

But not for lack of encouragement, apparently.

Sources close to Mr Miliband say he is still under pressure from Tony Blair and his allies to take on the Chancellor in spite of warnings by Labour MPs that it could be political suicide for him.

"We have received a clear signal that the PM wants David to have a shot at it," said one.

"David has not ruled it out completely but realises that it is a huge gamble. If he lost badly, it could be ruinous and if he won, it could cause such a violent backlash from Brown that it may not be worth it."

If I was David Miliband, I would run a mile from the prospect of taking on Gordon Brown for the Premiership. No really. It might seem like he has a lot to gain but I have a feeling he'll have a hell of a lot more to lose should he go for it.

The fact is, Gordon's poll ratings are a symptom of something much larger than the Chancellor's creep factor. They're a mere symptom of the fact that New Labour is stale, ridden with scandal and has failed in a lot of important areas. Whether Miliband won the race or not, he'd lose.

Besides, I think we all know that Gordon isn't the type to go quietly into the night after waiting in the shadows for so long, like some political Phantom of the Opera. Miliband has the choice of holding back and maybe having some sort of career, or standing as a serious contender and losing everything whatever the outcome, whilst simultaneously making a pretty dangerous political enemy.

I know what I'd do.

"He must ensure that they are ready to leave behind the baggage of Europhobia, homophobia, and xenophobia. Not just in policy, but in language and instinct too. The evidence suggests that he has some way to go to achieve that."

So says Menzies Campbell.

As current polls trends show, the Liberal Democrats are an utter irrelevance. Indeed some are cheerfully predicting that the number of MPs in their camp may even be reduced to single figures at the next GE. So why, when their leader so happily uses such insults, should we be offering any sort of olive branch? Stuff them.

Normally I'm not so dismissive of the Liberal Democrats. We do share some common ground in certain areas. But the fact remains that the Conservatives have no reason to cow tow. Menzies Campbell is not a position to play the part of power-broker. Not just yet at any rate.

Today David Cameron has been playing upon our common ground, sending out letters to 140,000 former Liberal Democrat voters. While I can't fault the strategy, I think it's important that it is not taken as some sort of precursor to a future pact in the event of a hung parliament. As Ming has just highlighted so well, we need to be sure the party is ready to leave behind the baggage of blind Europhilia, a focus on minority groups at the expense of majority groups and a hatred of British culture. The evidence suggest that they have some way to go to achieve that.

Isn't it always the way? You wait and you wait and you wait for the government to do something about the pensions' crisis, and you gripe and you moan that nothing is ever done and that they're obviously not listening, and then all of a sudden they do something. And it's not what you expected.

For yes, although Gordon Brown has finally done something to help the pensioners of our country, it appears he's bungled it slightly. Are we really surprised?

Wealthy pensioners are set for generous tax cuts worth almost £1,500 a year as a result of this week’s Budget tax changes.

People with pension incomes of £43,000 or more stand to benefit from the biggest reductions in their tax bills, while those living off other income from £1m-plus share portfolios and building society savings could gain as much £1,000 annually.

So, paradoxically, the very richest pensioners are going get the most by a huge margin. Those in the lowest bracket may gain a few hundred pounds and those in the middle ground get nothing.

It's good he's finally done something for the pensioners, yes, even if nothing in the world could possibly make up for his £100billion smash and grab on the pensions' fund, but wouldn't it have made more sense to rebalance tax in favour of the poorest pensioners?

I don't tend to follow the celebrities much but this is a bit of an amusing story, if it's true.

Tom Cruise allegedly called David and Victoria Beckham 18 times in one hour in an attempt to convert them to Scientology.

A source told US Weekly magazine: "Victoria is tired of Tom being on her back about Scientology. "Victoria is an old-fashioned British woman who believes in God. She finds it quite annoying that Tom is bugging her so much.

Not too long ago, Tom left 18 messages in one hour to get them to join the church. But when Victoria says no, she means no."

Not that her beliefs are more valid, but at least she isn't rabidly pushing them on anybody. As for Tom, well, I suppose this means we have to assume he's checked out of the sanity department for good.

Since many years ago, I do happen to think the European Union did have a positive effect in certain ways in the democratisation of the continent, I won't be coy and avoid wishing it a Happy Birthday. Being a Eurosceptic, based on the undemocratic insanity of the last twenty or so years, I won't be coy in saying I wish it was its last.

The "celebrations" going on today are very telling. Originally we were promised all kinds of big events, including Europe-wide dancing in the streets. Things are now far more low key. The reason given for this, by the Times, does strike a certain chord, don't you think?

Plans for simultaneous dance festivals in every country were dropped because states said it reminded them of Soviet-style mass participation “fun”.

I can't think why.

So anyway, this is apparently how the 27 countries will now be marking the occasion:

Austria: Young rock bands
Belgium: Veteran pop stars
Britain: Football match
Bulgaria: University debates
Cyprus: EU office open day
Czech Republic: Half marathon
Denmark: Free buns
Estonia: Tree planting
Finland: Public debates
France: Romantic movie
Germany: 27 nightclubs
Greece: Multi- media artwork
Hungary: All-night concert
Irish Republic: Prayer for Europe
Italy: 27 art masterpieces
Latvia: Documentary films
Lithuania: Science symposium
Luxembourg: Circular walk
Malta: Film festival
Netherlands: Church services
Poland: Academic conference
Portugal: Local musicians
Romania: EU internet chat room
Slovakia: Student conference
Slovenia: Parachute jump
Spain: Giant puzzle
Sweden: Europe seminar

My vote goes to Luxembourg for the most ironic manner of celebration.

I stumbled upon this and simply had to share it, even though it's dated by a few weeks. Here's a fascinating insight into the mind of President George W. Bush (courtesy of Historian Andrew Roberts).

The president confided to Roberts that he believes he has an advantage over Churchill ... He has faith in God, Bush explained, but Churchill, an agnostic, did not. Because he believes in God, it is easier for him to make decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill. Bush said he doesn't worry, or feel alone, or care if he is unpopular. He has God.

I'm saying nothing.

A fortnight ago, I wrote about the mystery Congressman set to be revealed as a member of the most hated and mistrusted demographic in America; the athiests.

The outing has gone ahead. Now it can be revealed that Representative Pete Stark of California (a Democrat, sadly) is taking the dubious honour of being the first openly antitheistic member of Congress.

One Representative isn't much but it is an important first step in opening the eyes of America to the fact that athiests aren't some kind of satan-worshipping child-eating monsters. They are just as capable as being upstanding members of their communties and servants of their country as anybody else.

The question now is whether he bears the brunt of his declaration politically or not. That will be the real test of his resolve and of his countrymens' tolerance.

Now the day is past and the natural excitement fading, time to reflect on the events of yesterday. As eventful days go, it was a blinder.

Seated behind a giant Plexiglas screen (installed following the purple condom bomb incident), separating the plebs from the patricians, the impression is overwhelmingly one of looking down upon an arena. I was reminded of a zoo more than anything else. Monkeys, penguins and lions mixing together in one cage. Bizarre.

Tony Blair put in a very good performance, though truth be told I was often more mesmerised by how thin his hair is getting on top. The elevated angle of the public gallery does give somewhat of a unique perspective on the barnets of our representatives, after all. Being there also gives insight into a great deal more than a mere video feed can provide; it was often more telling to watch the Tory front benches' reactions than to concentrate on the Prime Minister or the Chancellor. It was infinitely more satisfying than being restricted to whatever vantage point the BBC deigns to provide.

The Chancellor began well with his budget but it soon grew dull, for all of its seeming promise of this, that and the other - it's difficult to concentrate on figures you just know are going to turn out to be incorrect or exaggerated. The Labour side only seemed to wake up at the last part, with the surprise Income Tax cut.

When David Cameron stood up, I was nervous on his behalf. I do believe he was actually shaking, even if it didn't come through in his voice. He needn't have worried too much. I'm not sure how it came across on television but I found his response utterly barnstorming. The entire Commons seemed to jolt awake (especially the public gallery). While I was watching, I began to understand the comparisons to Blair; from where I was sitting, he put on a performance worthy of the Master himself. Very impressive to watch. When everybody took the cue to leave (Ming stood up) I overheard several people saying good things about Cameron. Only later did I wonder if it had been too much soundbite, not enough substance.

It was truly surreal to casually be coming across so many famous faces all day long. I attended a meeting with Austin Mitchell, Labour MP for Grimsby, who surely has to be a contender for most wonderfully eccentric MP in the House. I attended another one with Bruce George MP, Teresa May MP and Lord Steel of Aikwood. I rubbed shoulders with Nick Robinson, turned around to find Charles Kennedy standing behind me, saw David Willetts wandering around with a big load of books and papers in his arms, almost didn't recognise Betty Boothroyd, chatted with the lovely Baroness Shepherd and watched Lembit Opik sweep in and charm everyone around him. Of course the one MP I had particularly wished to speak to didn't deign to appear, though! Always the way, isn't it?

Parliament itself, well, I'm not sure what to make of it. I couldn't help come away with the impression that it's going to be quite an unhealthy atmosphere to work in. It is every bit the microcosm it is reputed to be, and I think a year there may just turn out to be more than enough for me. It's no comparison to doing constituency work and being out in communities, doing the groundwork. I felt a little claustrophobic at times. Perhaps that impression will pass with time.

If the last train home had been later, I would have been able to stay to watch Lords debate the Equality Act. I never had any doubt that it would pass but it would have been interesting to listen to the arguments. On the way out I saw a rather sad group of about ten protesters with illegible placards (it was dark), shivering in the cold on the corner outside of Parliament (on the spot previously occupied by a man in costume holding up a "Reid for Leader" banner). According to a friend, they had earlier had a hearse with the slogan "today marks the death of morality" (or words to that effect). Another friend had seen the hearse but not the slogan and thought it was a real funeral procession. I'm not sure it was a particularly effective campaign to be honest!


All in all, it was a good day. Very informative and filled with interest. However there was one big disappointment. I was gutted not to be able to visit Margaret Thatcher's statue - I wasn't allowed into that area for some reason!

I just got back from the Doughty Street studio (now I'm at a friend's house). I don't think it was the most, well, serious show ever produced, though it was immense fun. Although my throat is killing me now. I was sitting too far away to reach my glass of water!

Anyway, to keep you all entertained - because we'll all need that after the Budget tomorrow I think - here's a little light entertainment by the marvellous Adam Buxton.


Pure genius.

Hello all. This weekend has been very busy, and this week is much the same. So sorry for the lack of posts of late - everything should be back to normal by Friday.

Tomorrow, I'm going to London. I'll be dropping by 18 Doughty Street to have a chat with Iain Dale et al between 10 and midnight. Then on Wednesday, I'll be watching PMQT from the gallery, followed by Gordon Brown's Budget, and then meeting with various MPs in search of students to work for them in October.

There is one in particular whom I am hoping to have a chance to chat with, though I think it would be better not to reveal who at this stage...!

All of this means I will be unable to blog until Thursday evening at the soonest, though I'll be sure to give an eyewitness account of Parliament on one of its biggest days when I do. It promises to be quite exciting.

Although I like Senator John McCain, in a lukewarm sort of way, you can't help but get the feeling that he's getting more and more out of his depth of late, missing opportunities and falling behind in the race. While it is far too early to say who is actually going to be nominated for the Presidential run, giant errors like this one are just the sort of thing which could cost him dearly.

This is McCain's stance, or lack therein, on HIV and AIDS prevention (not exactly a small topic):

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

Oops.

Oh well, it doesn't bother me too much. McCain is okay in certain ways, but of course, at this moment in time, I'm behind triply divorce, pro-gay, pro-abortion Rudy Guiliani. Just because he would be a marvellous, if a tad dull, return to sanity.

Everything that is wrong with UCAS and the government's approach to University selection can be summed up in these two sentences:

The first-generationers will remember the struggles, the sense of opening horizons, the delight of their own, less fortunate parents. They will feel bitter indeed that their success will now tend to produce their children's failure.

The tide of political correctness continues to baffle me. This isn't exactly a new trend. Labour have been socially engineering who gets University places for a while now, based on background and minority status. There is course something fundamentally wrong with the idea of basing acceptance on, if I may be crude for a moment, skin shade quotas than on academic merit. But it's not new.

This latest policy marks a new, perhaps more sinister, step up in the policy to backwards rig our society. A defining characteristic of old Labour, and apparently New Labour as well, has been a philosophy which caters to the lowest common denomenator to the detriment of anything above it. This sees bright children consistently relegated downwards in order to make those of less ability feel better about themselves. This is the thinking which breeds non-competitive sports days amongst other things.

It pervades all of their social enterprises. The tax credit system, which has conspired to create state dependence and an inability to escape for a generation in a relatively deprived social strata, is a perfect example of this. Giving more to the poor than to the rich, or focusing educational resources more on the less able than the more able, seems to work so well on paper. It is not difficult to see why they espouse it.

How unfortunate it is, then, that it just doesn't work. This latest example is precisely why. We all, by nature, fight to give our offspring the very best. We want them to have what we didn't. Two generations back, parents were proud to see their children go to university for the first time. Now their children are recoiling in horror to find that, the fact that they did make their parents proud by getting a decent education, means that their offspring are now the more disadvantaged.

Labour's social philosophy is a trap. It seeks to empower the poor or the less educated, which is a decent enough aim, yet time and time again all it does is harm both those they seek to help and the rest of society. It's a rotten way to go about things; to punish aspiration. The worst part is, the solution is very simple. Assessment on individual merit, with no reference to personal wealth or parental background, is the key. It always has been and always will be.

A society built on government quotas rather than on individual merit is one that is doomed to mediocracy. As we are now seeing.

"Today, former Vice President Al Gore came to speak to the whole front bench team about climate change and the environment. He was authoritative, engaging and utterly convincing. I think any remaining sceptics would have been persuaded. "
- David Cameron, 15th March 2007

Householders could lose their weekly visit from the binmen as councils come under mounting pressure to switch to fortnightly refuse collections...

Sound familiar anyone?

Are we going to start to have rubbish piling up in the streets, as we did in 1979 under old Labour's rule? It all sounds very ominous to me.

Of all the Labour Ministers, the only one I find myself liking and occasionally even agreeing with is Alan Johnson. Time and time again he has shown himself to have a little more pragmatism than most Labour MPs; for example, helping a child in his constituency into a private school, or standing up to Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly over faith schools.

Now, this:

Although the Education Secretary confined himself to talking about children who are at school now, his remarks will also be seen as a warning to Labour not to make personal attacks on David Cameron and other Tory "toffs" central to their next election campaign.

People on the other side of the tactical argument want to attack the Tory leader for his privileged upbringing. Roy Hattersley, Labour's former deputy leader, has suggested that the photograph of Mr Cameron as a university student, dressed in the £1,000 outfit of a member of the elite Bullingdon Club, should be used in Labour's next election campaign.

But Mr Johnson, the front-runner in the race to succeed John Prescott as deputy leader, warned that "someone's class should neither provide a platinum card into the VIP lounge of life, nor a heavy burden weighing down on their back".

I do believe I was saying something fairly similar one or two weeks ago, on the subject of using the old Tory "toff" jibe on Cameron in the next General Election campaign.

Things are rather hectic at the moment, with work and all sort of things making it tricky to do much on the blog. So I'm going to have a light blogging week in order to get on top of things.

Apologies! There are plenty of interesting places to visit in my sidebar if you're in need of some entertainment, however...

UPDATE: I have also received some bad news, of a death in the family, which I have to admit has taken the wind out of my sails a bit. Thanks to those friends supporting me right now, it's much appreciated.

This is must viewing for anybody with the presence of mind to know that the Global Warming debate is far from over, despite what we are continually told.

"There is no need to register and have fingerprints taken - but you will forgo the ability to have a passport".
- James Hall, chief executive of the Identity and Passport Service
aka, the guy who oversaw the disasterous NHS' IT system that ran overbudget to extreme levels and still doesn't actually work properly

And suddenly it all becomes painfully clear just what we're in for if Labour win the next General Election. Placed under Country Arrest if we don't agree to the government's demands and hand over that which we can never get back, on the basis of some deluded trust that the government knows best. So this is their idea of an "opt-out", is it? Despicable.

I never thought I'd say this, but at least we can be assured of plenty of Human Rights cases being brought to the courts over this, should it all get that far.

Oh come on! This does not look like Jesus in the slightest.
It's just grand this woman is getting some confidence over her pregnancy out of it, but honestly! The human capacity for creating patterns out of nothing and then linking it to some sort of divine power never ceases to amaze me.

Someone said to me that it was odd I wasn't covering the Mercer sacking story today. I didn't actually think it was all that big a story, to be honest. It seems to me that people are getting hot under the collar over nothing and this will be a barely a footnote for the Guardian to pull out every now and then soon enough.

David Cameron did the only thing he could possibly do in the circumstances and he did it with a speed that certainly puts Tony Blair to shame. By acting so quickly and decisively, the damage caused should be minimised. Those on Mercer's side seem to be arguing that he was only saying what he had seen and that Cameron overreacted or was pandering to the PC crowd. Those on the other side say that party and race relations in general would have been needlessly damaged had he stayed, whether Mercer is actually a racist or not.

I think both sides are missing the point. It's not what Mercer said, it's who he said it to. He had to be sacked because he showed spectacularly poor judgement in making such comments to the Times. He had a Charles Clarke moment (remember this?) only worse. It happens. Aside from in the opinion of the odd hardline Labourite who gets trotted out every few months by Channel 4 news to say "this proves that all Tories are racist b*stards" on air, was it really such a big deal?

Mercer made some downright idiotic comments. He was sacked immediately by the party leader. The party carried on as always. The end.

A poll from the lefty Tribune Magazine;

Is Michael Meacher right to stand for Labour leader?

YES - 7%
NO - 93%

Ouch. According to LabourHome, Meacher had an article in the magazine last week as well. That certainly doesn't bode well for him.

One has to ask, is anybody taking him seriously at all? His announcement that he was standing was a farce, his stances on various issues seem to contradict his actions in formative years and even his own party are portraying him as deluded over his levels of support. You have to feel sorry for the old chap.

At first I thought his standing was probably a Brown ploy to try and take the leftist sail out of McDonnell's campaign in order to give the Chancellor a clear run at the leadership. Now I'm not so sure. Meacher's campaign obviously isn't really going anywhere.

Because it's so, so true.

Ugh. We're doomed.

Okay, not quite. But the best I can say about the result on the free vote today is that it's better to have all of the Lords elected than to end up with some botched halfway house.

Now I'd really like to know how they're going to accomplish this monumental constitutional change. First of all, since we're not a federal state, it isn't as simple as just holding elections; the new Lords will now need to have a constituency base in order to get elected. Second of all, when are they going to have time to stop Parliament in order to sort all of this out? Thirdly, what's the new name going to be?

I'm still behind "House of Straw", even if it didn't quite go Jack Straw's way. Instead of Lords, they will be Strawmen. Yes, this is working out better than I expected.

Apparently, a member of Congress is going to be outed on that date as a member of the most hated community in America, bar none.

No, they're not coming out as gay. They're coming out as non-religious.

That might not seem particularly serious to those of us more used to the ways of secularism, however this is potentially a huge deal for the US. As the Irregular Times puts it:

"For years now, openly gay members of Congress have been elected and re-elected. But I cannot identify one instance in American history in which an open non-believer has been elected to the House or Senate."

To get some idea of the enormity of this, take CNN's February 2007 Gallup poll as a case point example. This was the question asked and the responses given:

"Between now and the 2008 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates -- their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be ______, would you vote for that person?"

	Yes	No	Unsure
Catholic	95%	4%	1%
Black	94%	5%	1%
Jewish	92%	7%	2%
A woman	88%	11%	1%
Hispanic	87%	12%	1%
Mormon	72%	24%	4%
Married for the third time	67%	30%	3%
Seventy-two years of age	57%	42%	1%
A homosexual	55%	43%	2%
Atheist	45%	53%	3%

(table borrowed from here)

And that isn't an isolated study either. The same result comes up time and time again whatever other societal groups atheists are up against. So when this outing occurs, I imagine the response is going to be extremely interesting. Will there be uproar or will it be a hushed response? Will whoever it is be booted out of office at the earliest opportunity? I guess we won't know until the 21st has passed us by.

I really really hope it's a Republican. Just because.

You have to ask, if the Tories aren't willing to stand up for an appointed rather than elected House of Lords, who will?

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have threatened to block the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords unless MPs agree to an elected e