28 policies in just 8 minutes.

You can just think: if they can sum that many up in just eight minutes, they really can't have really put all that much thought into it!

I just feel sorry for the Queen, having to read out that much drivel. Maybe it was so short because she refused to read out any more than that amount of utter rubbish?

This is quite probably the most liberal thing that Labour has done in more than a decade of government:

But the reasoning has nothing to do with liberalism, but rather populism:
But I suppose the right thing done for the wrong reason is still the right thing.

Maybe they will use this new-found liberalism to cut the absurd number of laws that they have passed? Maybe they will use this new-found consideration of the people to decide to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution "Reform Treaty"? Ok, maybe not - but we can dream!

Source: BBC

Labour have already announced that they have stolen the Tories plans on Inheritance Tax and non-doms - and now they're at it again.

This policy that Andy Burnham, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has just announced shows that Labour has no ideas or policies of their own. He claimed in an interview in the Telegraph today that there is a “moral case” for promoting the traditional family through the tax system - despite rejecting the policy in July when it was proposed by IDS, claiming that it would "discriminate" against some families.

So either they have decided that, actually, it doesn't discriminate or they just don't care that it does. Neither scenario is good for Labour.

What this shows is that Labour really do have no unique policies of their own. Brown is not leading the country but following the Conservatives. Osborne hit the nail on the head when he said:

Brown is obviously trying to shoot the foxes of Tory policies by claiming that he has the same. But considering that people are already pissed off at the fact that the two main parties are so close together in all but rhetoric, Brown's attempts to make them even closer again will just disillusion people with him and his so-called "vision" for the country.

Stealing policies is one thing, but at least try and put some time between the policies you steal and longer between when they were first made and when you steal them. Labour just look even more weak, ineffective, and vision-less the more they poach Tory policies. Brown's trying to win over the middle classes - he won't this way. They are cleverer than that.

Image: Andy Burnham
Sources: BBC - article 1, article 2, article 3; The Telegraph

Seems like a good idea...

... but I'm wary of it.

If a company is not paying one woman the same wage as her equal male colleagues, it stands to reason that the same discrimination is likely to exist throughout the rest of the company structure. Whilst under the current system, only that one individual benefits from the tribunal's verdict if the company is deemed to have discriminated based on sex, under the system proposed by the Conservatives every woman in the company is going to be ensured that their pay is not defined by their gender.

In a way, I am a feminist. I believe that women should get treated in precisely the same way as men. If they have the same level of experience, skills, qualifications etc. and doing the same job, then they should the same level of pay, regardless of gender. Being a certain gender in itself should not cause you to get paid more or get paid less. Equality should exist.

I'm just not convinced whether a pay audit if a company lost a wage tribunal would really make that much of a difference to gender pay discrimination. It certainly seems like a logical and intelligent idea, but will it really work?

Image: Theresa May [she actually has a blog as well - but it hasn't been updated since July 6th, despite saying that it "will be updated on a regular basis" on her homepage]
Source: BBC

A Labour policy I agree with!

Excellent. This is what should happen. I blogged about my support for this idea when it was first suggested by the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, and even before that, when the issue was raised by the controversial kidney game show in the Netherlands.

Of course this is subject the various caveats, such as that the opt-out system is very easy and openly available and that the family of the deceased have the right to prevent organs being used unless that person has explicitly expressed the wish that their organs be re-used. That way, anyone who explicitly doesn't want their organs to be used to save another person's life can ensure that they are not.

The proposal makes complete sense - it will save lives and should reduce the cost to the NHS of supporting those who need organ transplants, and then enable them to be productive members of society again. It's a win-win situation.

Source: The Telegraph

Why oh why do some members of the party think that it is a good idea to start in-fighting? It doesn't help anyone except the Labour Party. Michael Ancram is attacking Cameron for "trashing" it's Thatcherite past, and writes a column in the Telegraph under the title "Tories must not be ashamed of their history". Of course we shouldn't. I don't think anyone has ever said that we are, or should be. But neither does that mean that we should copy it now. Every era has it's own politics. Thatcher and her policies were right for her time. But that time ended probably about two decades ago. Not along after I was born, in fact. Iain Dale writes:

That they should. Ancram, and other political dinosaurs like him, should exit stage left. They are stuck in the rut of politics of the past. They don't understand the political realities of modern Britain.

On this topic, I agree completely with Dizzy and Caroline Hunt, who writes:
This sort of in-fighting and semi-defections doesn't help the Conservative Party at all in actually
doing the job we want them to.

As I wrote before, it is fine - and beneficial - to disagree on bits and pieces, such as on particular policies, over political strategies etc. But by in-fighting we harm no-one but ourselves. We all have the same very basic core beliefs and ideas - that is why we are all members of the Conservative Party. There are always going to be differences of opinion within large political parties. It comes from the nature of having lots of opinionated people together. To win, and to be able to enact them, we have to cast aside, or at least not shout about, our differences but stress the things we do agree on and work together to achieve them.

The political dinosaurs need to be asked some very simple questions, with yes or no answers:

Do you support the Conservative Party? Yes/No

Do you want the Conservative Party to win the next general election? Yes/No

If they answer yes to both of the questions above, then this is what they should do: Put a sock in it. Support David Cameron and the Shadow Cabinet in what they do and say. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

Sources: The Telegraph, BBC

This isn't a well thought out idea. There are no cars that are "zero carbon", and even the so-called "green" cars aren't as green as is claimed. £2,000 on "gas guzzlers" will not effect the rich who can afford them. People who buy these cars do so because they want to, and are willing to pay any extra for them.

Just having a 4x4/SUV seems to be enough provocation for some people, as shown in this video:

Really, most of their reactions are just disgusting.

This road tax policy of the Lib Dems is not a good one. There is already a graduated vehicle excise duty, introduced back in 1998, depending on emission levels. What they re proposing amounts to a huge increase - from a maximum of £300 to £2,000! A far better way to encourage people to buy "green", more fuel-efficient, cars would be to abolish road tax entirely and add the tax onto fuel costs.

That way, those who drive more and have less environmentally friendly cars pay more, and those who don't drive much pay substantially less. That way old Mrs Miggins who only drives to the supermarket once a week for her weekly shop doesn't have to pay for the right to have her car, but just for the fuel to drive it. Whilst the mother who drives her little darlings to school every morning in her huge "gas guzzling" SUV pays for it. Thus it's not owning a non-green vehicle that makes you pay, but driving it and thus polluting.

The Liberal Democrats need to drop this bad policy, and that of restricting runway capacity. That would do nothing but hold back, if not actively harm, Britain's economy. Doing that is just giving in to the idiots at the Heathrow eco-camp.

Source: The Times

When the smoking ban was introduced, it was obvious that the next step would be to ban drinking alcohol. It seems that this has already begun. Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Cheshire, wants a ban on drinking outdoors, a reversal from the existing situation where it is legal unless otherwise stated - the same way the law works in all areas in England. He wants to make drinking alcohol in public illegal because seeing alcohol being drunk apparently glamorises it for children.

He also proposes that the age of drinking be raised from 18 to 21 because "[a]lcohol is too cheap and too readily available and is too strong. Young people cannot handle it" - which is an abysmal argument. Alcohol is available because people want it. It isn't exactly cheap, and making it more expensive wouldn't make much of a difference anyway - note the failure to achieve much decline in cigarette sales through the constant price hikes by tax. Raising the legal age at which alcohol can be bought will not accomplish the aims that he wants it to, and will have positive outcomes in any way. All that it will mean is that more people are drinking illegally.

What Fahy is proposing is illiberal, badly thought out, and pointless to boot. Making it illegal to do a legal activity anywhere in public except where designated goes against our entire legal system. Unless it is specifically made illegal, then it is legal - and long may that continue.

The reason that we have a society where "adults feel scared to go out and challenge youngsters up to no good" is because the police have utterly failed in their duties. Far too much time and effort is spent on paperwork and pursuing crimes against political correctness. If the police spent more time on the beat and doing useful work, society would not be in this position. It is you and your ilk who are to blame for that, Mr Fahy, not the availability of alcohol.

What is the next step that will be called for? Making all drinking of alcohol illegal because it can cause health problems, can cause public order problems etc? They just keep on coming with these anti-alcohol proposals. Why can't they just bugger off and leave us in peace?!

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

John Redwood outlines the 'cure' for Britain after the last decade of Labour government:

Rather than a "lurch to the Right", it's more like a lurch to getting things right. From what I have read of the report, the headline figure of £14bn comes from lack of loss through red tape bureaucracy rather than for any loss of income. It may be "tax cut by any other name" but not through a decrease in actual payments to the Treasury.

If you don't get the [attempt at a] joke in the title, go here.