Responses of the the main political parties to buy-one-get-one-free deals and the waste they produce:

Labour: It's wrong!

Conservatives: Labour are going about it wrong. Vote for us and we'll do it better!

Lib Dems: If they don't do it, we'd force them do it!

Characterisations and parodies they are, of course. But all too true.

What's in a politicians name? More than one might think, on occasion:

Pro-Life: "Marvin Richardson, a strawberry farmer from Idaho, has changed his name to Pro-Life and is running for governor. He tried this stunt in 2006, but Pro-Life was then just a middle name, and officials left it off the ballot on the grounds of it being a slogan; now it's his only name, and they can't stop him campaigning for murder charges to be levelled against women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them."

Mr Haddock: "In 2002, Austin Mitchell, Labour MP for Great Grimsby, temporarily changed his name to Austin Haddock in order to persuade more people to eat the fish that provide a livelihood for so many of his constituents."

Harry Potter: "[I]n 2003 a 32-year-old who had made several unsuccessful attempts to become governor of Sverdlovsk, Russia, changed his name to Harry Ivanovich Potter before he had another go."

But politicians aren't the only ones who change their name, and not always just to make a political point, but also to raise money for a good cause:
Names are important, but many of these are just taking it way too far.

The loser today is Nick Clegg, as about a fifth of his party vote against his orders with the Conservatives and for democracy, and three frontbenchers resign.

But, of course, the real loser today is Britain, who has pretty much just had the Lisbon Treaty ratified without the people being asked.

Margaret Hodge, Labour minister for culture and MP for Barking, says that the Proms aren't inclusive.

At least she isn't completely stupid, and at least claims to believe that every audience shouldn't be "completely representative" - whatever that means. But even suggesting that the Proms could make people "deeply offended" is sheer absurdity. How can anyone in Britain be offended by the British patriotism displayed at the Proms?

Of course, as usual, the government is already backtracking from Margaret Hodge's with Gordon Brown now praising the Proms, in marked contrast to what Hodge said. But no word from Hodge's boss, Culture Secretary Andy Burnham, yet.

Isn't it remarkable how quickly these U-turns have come recently? At least under Tony Blair, he stood beside his minister when they said something stupid, rather than just saying "erm, well, what they really meant to say was..." in a blatant slap-down.

Ruth Kelly has a deeper voice than Alan Duncan.

There's no real point to this post, it's just an observation.

But it is actually extremely disturbing to listen to and watch.

Especially since Ruth Kelly has grown her hair and actually looks slightly feminine. Well, until you hear her talk anyway.

This is a question being asked by Mike Ion. He concludes his post with:

Mike is right that there is almost certainly never going to be a Tory manifesto that talks about "the strength of out common endeavour" or "ensuring wealth... [is] in the hands of the many and not the few". And that is a bloody good thing too, because that is all a load of utter bollocks. The only "common endeavour" we all have is to live. Wealth should be in the hands of those who go out and work hard to earn it, not those who sit at home on their arse all day watching the TV and farting. The opportunity is there for everyone to do that, or certainly would be under a Conservative government. The difference is that some take it, and some don't.

He is wrong that "the history of the Tory party is centred on the core belief that politics can't change people’s lives." Rather, it is centred on the core belief that it shouldn't more than necessary. It knows and accepts that it can, but believes that people as individuals are adults and as such should be allowed to make their own choices in life, not just take a State-directed route from cradle to grave.

Cameron's Conservatives will bring change and hope, because it will rid us of this interminable governemnt with its ridiculous and overbearing love of "targets" and "initiatives" and constant production of gimmicks.

Cameron's Conservatives are for the future. And I am proud to one of them.

Two words: No thanks.

A Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government would not work. Just Like a Labour-Lib Dem coalition wouldn’t. Or Labour-Conservative coalition. Coalitions, just in general, simply don’t work. Not in our political system.

Name any coalition in Britain that has not existed during a world war. Stuck? That would be because there hasn’t been any. There have been minority governments, but never any coalition government. And for good reason.

The first-past-the-post electoral system encourages oppositional politics. It certainly doesn’t encourage coalition government. The reason for this is the coalitions require a great amount of compromise and consensus – something not encouraged in the tribal world of British politics.

Whilst it is very good that the Lib Dems are making these sort of noises, the sort of thing they will want is to going to be things that a Conservative government could, or would, give. PR for Commons elections, for example, would be a very bad idea – although a cause close to the heart of many Lib Dems. It would be far better for the Conservatives to work with the Lib Dems on certain issues. But a formal government coalition? No thanks.

Is this really the speech that all politicians would like to make?

I'm sure that more than a few MPs will be reading that and agreeing with it - but just as many are likely to be disagreeing with it. Whilst some of the claims make so sort of sense, others are misleading or just plain wrong:
It's perfectly possible to fund political parties without either taxpayer's money or taking dodgy donations! If they really think it isn't, they need to try looking in other places - like, maybe, ordinary members rather than rich individuals. And they knew about the possibility of getting voted out just like that when they signed up for the job. I have no sympathy for them.

The core point of this satirical column is that the people aren't pulling their weight in the democratic system. But the whole point of the democratic system is that the people decide - even if they decide not to vote. If people aren't voting, that is something that our elected representatives have to think about - how to get people to the ballot box.

The electorate may not be perfect, but certainly neither are our elected representatives or our political system. But to call any of them specifically not "fit for purpose" is to go too far.

Hat-tip: Kerron Cross
Image: The Coloring Spot

This is a truly brilliant idea. Sarkozy is issue his ministers with an "end of term report card" which will be based on 30 indicators specific to their portfolio for Cabinet ministers, and results in 15 areas for junior ministers. Such a brilliant idea!

If a government is truly be accountable to citizens, it must be possible to know precisely how they are performing - and this is an utterly brilliant way to do it.

Now, has anyone got any ideas about the sort of marks that should be given to our government ministers...? I doubt that anyone of them would score very high.

That's what David Cameron wants the Conservatives to be:

Quite an ambition. But an achievable one, since Labour have failed to improve the the NHS despite pumping billions of pounds of our money into it. Instead, they have destroyed it in many ways, changing it into a service that worries more about meeting targets than making people better.

That there is also little ideological difference between the two parties over the idea of the NHS, making it hard for Labour to claim as unassailable territory. Whether the Conservatives can really manage to become the "party of the NHS", I don't know - but if they can, it will be a substantial victory. I'm not convinced that it will be easy, or even possible, to do so. But it is certainly traditional Labour territory [much like the North] that the Conservatives certainly can and are making substantial inroads into.

Even though it's slightly out of date with Tony Blair no longer being Prime Minister, watch this video for the view of two doctors on the last decade of Labour NHS policy:

The Centre for Policy Studies has produced a lexicon of contemporary "Newspeak", telling us what politicians really mean. Some of the best are below:

Also included are a few which are immensely reminiscent of yes, Minister:

Open Government: letting people see the bits of government of which the Government is not ashamed
Under consideration (the matter is under consideration): we have lost the file.

Required reading, I think! Download it here.

This speech, made by Hugh Grant in the film Love Actually [which was on TV last night, hence this post], is one which the British people would love to hear - but that would never be made by any Prime Minister of any party. Nevertheless, it is a fantastic speech.

Of course I'm not anti-American - but this speech isn't anti-American, but rather pro an equal relationship. It is about Britain not being America's poodle.

Not only are his closest allies telling Brown that he time is very nearly up, but so is the electorate.

So 48% agree that the next government should be a Conservative one. Also, 51% to 31% regard David Cameron as the more likeable of the party leaders, and that Cameron "has a big lead in every demographic and region except Scotland, where Mr Brown is narrowly ahead (by 46 per cent to 43 per cent)." That's a big lead in every demographic and region except Scotland.

This surely is very bad news for the future of Gordon Brown and this Labour government. But a very very good news for the Conservatives.

Image nicked from Guido

It seems that Labour's fortress is under siege:

That's so not good news for Brown. If even Labour's heartlands of "the North", where most of Labour's Cabinet ministers have their seats, is under serious threat, then the possibility of a meltdown must seem all too likely.

And to a Conservative, this news just brings on a smile.

The future's bright, the future's blue.