... then CCHQ does have the right to impose candidates on constituencies who have not yet chosen. As much as local associations may wish to retain their independence, this is one instance in which they really have no choice.

Threatening to "revolt" over this is absurd. If a snap election is called, all constituencies will need to have a candidate. There must be a Conservative candidate for election in every constituency, and if this has to be ensured by the imposition of an "A-list" candidate, so be it. I'm not a great fan of the idea of the A-list, I think it is pretty much unnecessary, and that potential MPs should be selected on their abilities, not their race, gender, or sexuality. But every constituency will need to have a candidate.

This does not need to be a long-term commitment for either candidate or association. It could be simply for the duration of this campaign - so long as they don't win, of course [which is unlikely considering that nearly all of the target seats have already been selected for]. The A-list are the perfect people for this role - even if it no more than just putting bums on seats. They are presumably some of the best candidates that the party has to offer. For both it also could well prove beneficial, allowing them to see each other in real action before a real selection.

As much as the associations are right to guard their local independence from central interference, in the case of a snap election, it is the role of the central party to organise and respond to these things. Unless an association is willing to agree on a short-term potential candidate until the threat of a snap election is either gone or actualised, this is the only alternative. And on the side of CCHQ, it must be made clear that any imposition of candidates is only for the duration of the campaign and election, after which it is back to "business as normal," with associations again able to select their own candidates. Independence is all well and good, but it is the greater good of the party as a whole that must come first in these situations.

Source: The Telegraph

Yet another load of interfering rubbish from this government:

"Muslim or Christian guest house owners who refuse to accept homosexual couples must impose a "sleeping together ban" on all other guests, the Government says.
As the holiday season gets under way, Meg Munn, a junior minister, has emphasised that it is illegal to allow married couples to share a room at a guest house or hotel while not allowing homosexuals the same right.
If gays are turned away, the only way a Christian or Muslim guest house owner can lawfully stay in business is if he or she offers single bedrooms to all guests - straight or gay." (The Telegraph)

To start with, I don't think that hotels or guest houses are at all right to refuse their services to gay couples. But this is a really stupid idea. To say that you won't let a gay couple share a room is as bad to refuse to let a black couple do the same. It is bigotry. But for the government to say that "either you let gay couples share a room, or no-one" is just absurd.

Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney and a leading Church of England liberal, said:

"It is nonsense for the Government to allow any loopholes for religious homophobia... Bigotry is bigotry whether it's dressed up in the language of faith or not."

This is indeed true - bigotry is bigotry, whether or not based on religion. But I think the demand for what amounts to a sex ban is ridiculous, and taking government interfering to yet another level.

Note: I'm not supporting hotels who refuse to rent rooms to gay couples, but I don't think that it is the government's job to force them to do so or go out of business. Society can, and should, do that by avoiding such hotels and guest houses.

Source: The Telegraph

Why is it that certain groups always want to raise the age at which something is legal? Now some doctors want to raise the age at which alcohol can be bought in off-licences and supermarkets to 21 - but leave the current age restriction of 18 in pubs.

This is based on the idea that there is an "alarming rise in teenage binge drinking" and that this would prevent it. Well, I'm sorry, but it wouldn't, and won't. Besides from the confusing and mixed signals that such a policy would send out, there is also the impracticality of enforcing it. Would it be illegal for an under-21 to drink alcohol bought from an off-licence or supermarket, for example? How could you tell whether an eighteen ear old had bought alcohol themselves, or had it bought for them?

Beyond the fact that it is none of any doctor's business whether or not people binge drink - we know it can be bad, you don't need to keep telling us - it is a stupid idea. It just pisses me off when anyone wants to extend the control over what people can do to themselves. If someone wants to cause themselves liver damage through drinking way too much, or lung cancer through smoking too much, fine. That's their prerogative.

Quite frankly, anyone who supports this sort of thing is as think as two short planks - and that's being generous.

Source: The Telegraph

Why is it anything to do with the government, or politics at all, whether or not supermarkets give customers money-off vouchers for wine - or anything else, for that matter? It really isn't. Yet that still just doesn't stop them:

"Tesco's policy of sending money-off vouchers to customers who buy a lot of wine has been questioned during a Commons grilling over loyalty schemes.
Chairman of the influential Commons home affairs committee, John Denham, said the supermarket giant's Clubcard scheme could encourage alcohol abuse.
But Tesco's Nick Eland insisted the firm marketed goods responsibly...
Mr Denham questioned whether this [sending out wine coupons] was a "responsible" approach to marketing, "in view of the government's alcohol strategy this week"." (BBC)

Why does it matter if they send out wine vouchers to those who drink a lot of wine? People tend to buy what they want, so offering them coupons for more of the same is a good thing for the customer and for the company, as then they come back and buy more!

People are not stupid, however much certain people may think that they are. They know that alcohol can be bad for them. They really don't need to be told. The normal customer won't drink more just because they got some money off, but will just mean that they spend less of their own money on what they would otherwise had bought.

No matter how much the state wants to control how much people drink, it is really nothing to do with them. I will drink what I bloody well want to drink. I know it can have bad effects - but so can everything else. I don't drink wine very often anyway, but lager - and unfortunately Tesco's don't seem to send out coupons for that [although that reminds I do have a wine coupon I haven't used yet...].

Source: BBC

Religion, all religions, have no place in modern politics. Especially religions who make calls like Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland. He is attacking politicians who support abortion,. and even threatens them with being barred from taking Holy Communion. In a sermon to mark forty years since abortion was legalised, he will say:

"I urge politicians to have no truck with the evil trade of abortion.
For those at Westminster this means finding means of overthrowing the legislation, which makes the killing possible.
For those at Holyrood that means refusing to allow our health services to participate in the wanton killing of the innocent...
[Catholic politicians face] the barrier such co-operation [with abortion] erects to receiving Holy Communion."

So a member of the Catholic clergy is providing what is pretty much an ultimatum to our elected representatives. Either try and make abortion illegal or you can't be a full member of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church can have whatever belief it likes over abortion, and I couldn't care less. They can believe whatever they like, so long a they don't try and force it on others. He can have his beliefs and preach about them, but this is going way too far. What Cardinal O'Brien is doing is interfering in politics, where he has no place - especially when he is basically blackmailing Catholic MPs.

Britain has not been a Catholic country for the best part of 500 years. We aren't even a truly Christian country any more, as only 53% of the population even call themselves "Christian", let alone actually go to Church. The Catholic Church is stuck in the Middle Ages, whilst society and the world has moved on around it. Whenever it makes statements like this, it just points out how obsolete and out of date it truly is.

Religion and politics should not, and must not, mix. Religion has no place in politics, and politics has no place in religion.

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph, The Times, The Guardian

"A growing number of police forces are pressing for a blanket ban on pubs and clubs serving drinks in wine, spirit or beer glasses, in the hope of reducing injuries caused by people using them as weapons... A ban on the use of glasses in pubs is supported by some surgeons, paramedics and politicians. However, the pub industry accuses the police and local authorities of a "nanny state" mentality." (The Telegraph)

I hate plastic pint glasses. They are horrible to drink from and make the beer taste nasty as well. Certainly some of the types of plastic glasses are absolutely useless - pick them up and you lose half of your drink! Even the solid plastic glasses aren't very good, but compared to the thin ones, they're far superior.

However, I am not opposed to the banning of glass glasses from venues where there has been lots of fights that have involved glasses being used as weapons. That is just common sense. But if you ban glass glasses, you also need to ban the sale of alcohol in glass bottles, which are far easier to use as weapons that glasses anyway!

Certainly, there should be no blanket ban such as proposed Mark Lancaster (Conservative MP for Milton Keynes North East) who has put an EDM forward calling for a blanket ban on glass glasses being used after 11pm. That is patently ridiculous. Most pubs and bars have absolutely no problems with violence and pint glasses being used as weapons, and so applying such a ban to them is absurd in the extreme. Councils already have the power to outlaw glasses, and this power should be used on a venue by venue case.

Glass glasses can be dangerous. But so can pieces of paper. And pencils. The solid plastic pint glasses can also be used as weapons - whilst they are harder to break, once broken they're going to be far superior weapons to glass. There should be no blanket ban of real glasses being used. Such a ban is only of any use where violence is a regular occurrence. That there is even an idea of applying such a blanket ban shows how far the nanny state has intruded and continues to intrude into our lives.

Source: The Telegraph