Euro 2008: Your team?

MR J. Arthur MacNumpty has a post on what football team he's going to be cheering for next month.

Having witnessed Scotland being humbled out the tournament thanks to some shocking refereeing (and performance) in Georgia, and some shoddy refereeing in Italy, this is somewhat of a dilemma for me.

In the last tournament I had a £20 bet on the Czech Republic to win at 15-1, only for a last minute Greek header to end my dream of what would have been months worth of gloating. I would usually back the French, but since Zidane quit, I've rarely watched their games although I do like the look of Nasri.

I think I'll back Croatia. Nothing to do with their thrashing from England in October 06 and November 07, I just think they play some cracking football.

Europe United: The EU goes Soviet

I'VE JUST witnessed the 'Europe United' video. Like Mr Matthew Sinclair and the DK I was spitting blood.

This may be a stupid question, but does the EU funding this?

Note to the Independent

WHEN CITING examples of the abuse of international law, could you please be that little bit more consistent?

"When three British residents were finally released from the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay last December, it was assumed by many that that marked the end, if not of the affront the Cuban camp presents to civilised values, then at least of Britain's direct moral responsibilities to its inmates. Not so. One UK resident remains interned in Cuba.

Binyam Mohamed came to Britain as a refugee from Ethiopia in 1994 and was given leave to remain here. But then came the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington and America's lamentable decision, in response, to ignore the conventions of international law in pursuit of its enemies."

What conventions are we talking about? The invasion of Afghanistan (UN mandate)? The invasion of Iraq (Iraq repeatedly broke the armistice)?

I don't recall the Independent voicing their concerns over the legality of NATO's bombardment of Yugoslavia when Madeline Albright and Bill Clinton were pursuing their enemies? I also don't recall the Independent regularly voicing their disapproval over the Kangaroo court that had Slobodon Milosevic on trial? Hell, I even recall the Independent rejoicing Kosovo's declaration of Independence, which violated international law.

Matthew Norman on McCain's dilemma

IN TODAY'S Independent, Matthew Norman asks whether Scott McClellan's book will hand victory to Barack Obama.

In a poorly articulated article, Norman notes that:

"The real killer for the Senator from Arizona, however, will surely be the incumbent. To have any chance of becoming the 44th President, Mr McCain must find a way to distance himself from the 43rd. Given his support for 95 per cent of Bush proposals in the Senate and the lack of economic policy distinction between the two, this was never going to be easy. Now it's a great deal harder."

Sorry to disappoint you Mr Norman, but as a Republican, is it really that surprising that McCain has supported the President on various issues? However, what Norman doesn't seem to recognise is that McCain has won himself a reputation as an independent thinker, a maverick. I know this only too well having had to deal with hour-long diatribes from disgruntled Republicans during my time as an intern at the Republican National Committee. Although I don't doubt that Bush has damaged the Republican brand, McCain has regularly disagreed with the President on several issues: ANWR, Iraq, the deficit, trade, torture, Guantanamo Bay.

This raises the question about whether he actually faces a challenge of distancing himself from the President because he already has a reputation for doing so! In addition, McCain has a record for working on bipartisan Bills and reaching across to his Democratic counterparts in the Senate. Obama on the other hand has nothing.

I also think that Norman is overblowing McClellan's influence on the Presidential race. McClellan - one of the worst press secretary's to ever take on the press corps - is merely after a quick buck. The allegations in his book have been thrown around before, and unless he has directly attacked McCain, there is absolutely nothing in the book that will surprise your average voter. As a journalist I'm somewhat disappointed at the fact that Norman and so many of his colleagues have lapped everything that McClelland has said. What was he going to say? Had he written a memoir about enjoying working for Bush it would have been pulped within days and panned by Norman and his comrades alike. Why are we still so surprised about 'revelations' into what has been a disastrous Presidency?

"The Senator paints me as babyishly hopeful that everything will come up roses, he'll say, so tell me who's the guy who bought the promise that US troops would have rose petals showered over them as they marched into Baghdad? Aren't you just sick of all the scarifying mendacity laid bare in that former press secretary's book?

It was fearmongering that persuaded the American people to support the war, and fearmongering that conned them into re-electing George Bush. Fool me once, shame on you, as Dubya once so hilariously struggled to articulate. Fool me twice, shame on me. But fool me thrice? Are you kidding?"

Perhaps I've not searched enough, but I don't ever recalling McCain saying that US troops would be showered with rose petals. I do admit though, that I could be wrong. Nevertheless, this nonsense about "fear mongering" and the role it played in Bush's re-election? Give me a break! When will the left admit that John Kerry was the worst Democratic candidate since McGovern?

Despite a plethora of shortcomings (mainly his stance on the First Amendment), any serious commentators (and journalist for that matter) will never claim that McCain represents a third term for Bush. As I've stated, McCain has been a thorn in Bush's side. It's almost like claiming that Margaret Thatcher was a continuation of Ted Heath!

The price at the pump: How can Brown pass the buck on this one?

GREAT POST by Guido on how it's the Prime Minister - and not the markets - who bears responsibility for the price of petrol at the pump.

As I stated yesterday, under Brown, Britain has gone from being a net exporter of oil, to a net importer of oil - in sum, the industry has been choked by the "big clunking fist" of the Prime Minister.

Finally, here's what Guido posted:

Petrol is now nearly £6 a gallon, or some £1.15 a litre, of which 67p or some 57% goes to the Treasury. But that is only the beginning of how the Treasury makes more out of high petrol costs than OPEC and the oil companies combined.

The price differential between Britain and America is almost entirely due to taxation. Americans are enraged that they are paying $4 a gallon, they would probably have another revolution if they had to pay the equivalent of $12 a gallon as the British do. Even Europeans pay lower fuel taxes than the British, in some cases dramatically lower tax rates.

In the 2005 budget Gordon doubled the tax levy from 10% to 20% on oil explorers. At the time the Offshore Operators Association said it was "shocked" by the chancellor's decision. "At a single stroke, the Treasury has rewritten the industry's future. It will severely undermine business confidence," warned the OOA chief executive, Malcolm Webb, "This has been done not once but twice in the space of just three years and we fear that this time the North Sea will not be as resilient." And so it has proved.

Former oil trader Alan Duncan, the Tory Business Shadow, says Brown‘s actions over oil production are "not just laughable, but pitiful... he has completely lost the plot." The government has belatedly today exempted 30 unprofitable oil fields from Petroleum Revenue Tax and granted licenses to two new sites. It was Gordon himself who doubled the Petroleum Revenue Tax three years ago.

What bemuses Guido most is that in the midst of all these difficulties, Alistair Darling is still dithering and doesn't know if he wants to delay adding 2p a litre to fuel costs. He doesn't know? He really doesn't have a clue does he?

As noted, George Osborne identified this over a year ago.

It's not like the oil industry has never warned the Prime Minister about the consequences of his tax grab. It's now up to him to make the appropriate changes - unless it's already too late.

I thought this article in the Daily Telegraph was fantastic.

"According to lobby group Oil & Gas UK, the cost of production per barrel has doubled since 2003 to $10. Meanwhile, the few promising areas for new discoveries - tellingly nicknamed "puddles" by those in the industry - are more remote and therefore more expensive in which to operate.

However, the Government is culpable for its management of the tax regime. Some years ago Mr Brown switched the system to a more modern scheme, charging oil companies a supplement to corporation tax for their North Sea profits, but allowing them to offset the investment they poured in.

It was a sensible change, designed to encourage companies to spend more on finding new fields. However, in 2005, the Treasury suddenly and unexpectedly raised this supplementary tax rate."

I think Ronald Reagan perfectly summed up people like the Prime Minister:

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

'Great Conservative Quotations'

OVER AT ConservativeHome, Tim Montgomerie is invited readers to post their favourite 'Conservative' quotation.

Not too surprisingly, I've gone with Goldwater: "Extremism in defence of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Goldwater quote on the religious right

BRILLIANT. NOBODY like him...

"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout withwisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "

Guido beats me to it...

LOOKS LIKE Guido Fawkes beat me to it this morning. Apparently Gordon Brown is meeting with oil companies today to discuss the oil price. Did he not do the exact same thing with the banks? I'm not trying to say the Prime Minister shouldn't be meeting with industry, but he's only doing this to show the public that he's "taking action".

It was also interesting to see Brown's comments on the soaring price of oil. The Prime Minister stated that there was "no easy answer to the global problem". Interesting? Does the Prime Minister not mean solution? After all, he's had plenty of "answers" about the problem with his blame OPEC crusade. Number 10 claims that the Prime Minister will ask that oil industry what they need from government to increase production. I imagine the answer will be something along the lines of... "Can you turn the clock back a decade and get rid of all the regulations and tax that has left the industry with such a bleak future?"

The answer will probably be something along the lines of... "due to the credit crunch that has come from America finances are tight..." etc etc

Brown to OPEC: "Increase production"

IT LOOKS like we've discovered yet another phrase to add to the New Labour lexicon of excuses: "Fuel prices are high because OPEC is a cartel and therefore we must force them to increase production."

Guess what? OPEC's been a cartel for, well, since its inception. Raising production is unlikely to solve our problems due to the volatility in the market.

As we all know, there is far more to oil markets than cartels. There is the fear of supply (demands from emerging markets), the volatility of the Middle East, terrorism, Chavez style nationalisation... etc... etc...

In the Guardian, Brown states that his government will be "examining how we can maximise the recovery of oil from the North Sea oilfields, so all oil producers should re-examine whether the barriers that exist to strategic investment should be broken down."

Well guess what Mr Brown? Who's responsible for falling production in the North Sea? Could it be you, the Iron Chancellor who has sought to loot the riches from the North Sea, thus destroying vital skills and resources? Who created these "barriers" to strategic investment? You! Yes - you're at fault for falling production.

By demanding OPEC increase production, the Prime Minister is demonstrating the worst sort of political posturing. He is well aware that they won't increase production, but at least it gets the voters off his back. It's the same with the banks. He calls on banks to pass on cuts in interest rates knowing that there's little room for the Bank of England to do so without risking exacerbating inflation. He can therefore say that he tried to ask the evil private sector politely, but "external factors beyond my control" prohibited him from making life better for all of the hardworking folks of the UK.

Raising production will not solve our problems - OPEC's output is at a record high. If Brown wants to increase production he could cut the red tape that's already destroying the North Sea Oil. This would allow smaller companies to operate in a profitable environment. It's also worth noting that up until four years ago, Britain was a net exporter of oil, with the industry providing £10bn a year to the Exchequer.

From now on, I'm going to list every excuse from the government in a New Labour phrase book. My first two will be

"... the economy is suffering due to the credit crunch that stems from America"
"... oil prices are at a record high due to OPEC, which clearly has consequences for fuel and household energy bills. However, we plan to take action."

Simon Hughes and Hazel Blears on Question Time

JUST WHEN Simon Hughes was making some sound points on Question Time last night he had to go and contradict himself.

With increasing fuel prices hurting people who live in rural areas, Hughes made the point that the government should look to ease the burden on families who have no option but to use their cars in rural areas. However, he then goes on to say that we should hike up taxes on heavily polluting cars. My problem?

Does he ever think that people who live in rural areas drive heavily polluting cars? Does he really believe that people drive a Prius in the rural areas?

On a side issue, I'm convinced that Hazel Blears is one of the most inept members of the cabinet. I loved her rant about how to bring down the price of oil - breaking up OPEC. Yes Hazel, what a great idea. And what will we do when the members of OPEC refuse to break up their monopoly? Bring in sanctions? She also forgets that this government has made ten billion pounds from North Sea Oil this year. Despite all her rhetoric about opening up more exploration in the North Sea she should be well aware that her government is choking the industry to death with taxes - why else does she think that exploration is expected to plummet? It's no longer profitable for smaller companies to explore oil fields or "scoop up the dregs" left by larger firms.

What a load of nonsense.

Obama: Leave my wife alone

I FOUND Barack Obama's latest outburst rather interesting: "These folks should lay off my wife."

This raises an interesting point: Should a woman who is effectively running to become the next First Lady of the United States be scrutinised?

Personally, I believe so.

As First Lady, Michelle Obama acts as an Ambassador on behalf of her husband and is allowed to employ staff at the expense of the taxpayer. Unlike Justin Webb, I see absolutely no reason why her statements and background shouldn't be open to scrutiny, especially if this is true. Obviously the Left and Obama's supporters will attempt to paint Mrs Obama's critics as racists and bigots (or as 'right-wing bloggers'), the same goes for Cindy McCain. If she's been involved in some shady dealings, she should be open to scrutiny. I know that my wife was taken aback by Mrs Obama's statement that only this year was she "proud to be an American." Why on earth should statements like these not be open to scrutiny - even if they do damage her husband's chances.

As Hillary Clinton has claimed, Presidencies tend to be partnerships, with often the wife (Edith Wilson effectively ran her husband's second term) playing an integral role in the administration. "Leave her alone" appears to be the rhetoric of someone who either has something to hide, or believes that his wife's statements and actions (even if they're conducted on the campaign trail) should be kept private. Unfortunately, the Presidency is a public not a private office.

Perhaps Mr Obama has some thinking to do.

Teddy Kennedy: "unswerving opposition to violence and human rights abuses in Northern Ireland"

I'VE JUST seen this EDM:

1632

SENATOR EDWARD KENNEDY

22:5:08

	Mark Durkan
	Harry Cohen
	Mr Nigel Evans
	Jon Cruddas
	Dr Alasdair McDonnell
	Richard Younger-Ross

* 39

	Mr Alan Meale	Mr Eric Martlew	Mr Don Touhig
	Mr George Howarth	Frank Cook	Hywel Williams
	Linda Gilroy	Dr Rudi Vis	Mr Peter Bone
	Phil Wilson	Mr Eddie McGrady	Ms Diane Abbott
	Dr Richard Taylor	Andrew Mackinlay	Mr David S. Borrow
	Lynne Featherstone	Mr Neil Turner	Mr Kevan Jones
	Geraldine Smith	Paul Flynn	Ian Stewart
	Julie Morgan	Mr Michael Clapham	Mr Gordon Prentice
	Mr Mike Weir	Pete Wishart	Martin Linton
	Frank Dobson	Andrew Miller	Tony Lloyd
	Mr Wayne David	Tony Cunningham	Lembit Öpik<o:p>

That this House expresses its best wishes to Senator Edward M. Kennedy on the news of his illness; joins all his Congressional colleagues in saluting him as a towering legislator; commends his tireless ability which has earned him such regard across the aisle and across the Atlantic; applauds him as a powerful orator of the time; appreciates his unswerving opposition to violence and human rights abuses in Northern Ireland, from any quarter; recognises that the resolve, energy and fighting determination he has brought to so many causes will now be called upon again; and looks forward to his political passion and articulate compassion offering inspiration and enlightenment throughout the elections in the United States.

What a load of nonsense.

How can Kennedy's calls for a United Ireland and the removal of British troops be seen as his "opposition to violence" when it was against the wishes of the majority of people in the province and completely in line with the demands of the IRA? And what of his support for the IRA? Did the Senator ever stick his neck out on the line to halt fundraising for terrorism during the Troubles?

Long may it last...

DESPITE NOT being affiliated to any political party, I was please to see Edward Timson win the Crewe and Nantwich by-election yesterday.

I hate nothing more than people playing the victims, especially when it comes down to class. Not only does this demonstrate that the Labour Party have seized the mantle as "the nasty party", but it shows terrible judgement, especially when your candidate - who claims to be a single mother merely looking for a job - lives on a large gentry estate.

Entrenched grievances can only go so far. However, Labour have long been predictable. In Scotland they try scare tactics - this failed. In the Labour parts of England they attempts to stir up class grievances - this too has failed.

I guess this is New Labour's 'Special Order 191' - everyone knows their strategy. What's worse is Brown's role in the campaign's strategy.

Stand free!

JUST WANTED to congratulate my Dons for their cracking result last night. Many of my Rangers friends and colleagues have been bombarding me with texts and BlackBerry messages accusing me of being a "Celtic sympathiser".

Quite.

Unless Rangers fans actually wanted to win the league, they should be aware that you have to win games, rather than relying on other sides losing. I would also like to remind them about Mike McCurry's appaling performance against Dundee United, and if Ian Brines had awarded our goal against Celtic and Craig Thompson done likewise against Motherwell, Rangers would be champions and we'd be in Europe.

Alas, it was not to be.

Can this get any worse?

I POSTED yesterday on the SNP's plans to force retailers to stop displaying cigarettes. It just gets worse.

"A medical chief and health campaigners backed the measures, which they said would move Scotland closer to a “smoke-free future”.

The proposed legislation would outlaw the display of cigarettes in shops.

Public Health Minister Shona Robison said a ban on the sale of cigarettes in packets of 10 would also be considered."

I'm sure "medical chiefs" think banning several vices would be a panacea to all of our ills, however, I would hope that we have a think called individual choice? Also, this ludicrous plan for banning the sale of packs of 10? What's that going to do? If the SNP learn anything it's that New Labour went out of their way to ban things, only to see an explosion in criminality. Just wait for Scotland to become one of the global hubs for cigarette smuggling!

The statistics being rolled out by the Government as a rationale for such move are also infuriating.

"Smoking is responsible for about 13,000 deaths and 33,500 hospital admissions in Scotland each year."

Well guess what? In 2006, 314 people were killed in road accidents in Scotland, 2,625 were serious injuries, and 17,267 were "reported casualties". In addition, Scotland's rural roads are described as "Scotland's biggest killers", whilst there has been a 30% rise in the number of drivers under-25.

What does the Government plan to do? Ban the car? Only allow over 25s to get their licence? If driving a car causes death and injury then why not implement some "preventative legislation?" Seeing that we're the sick man of Europe because of our appalling diet, why not ban fish and chips shops?

Of course I'm being sarcastic. However, this is a worrying trend. There's nothing worse than a government with good intentions.

Could the Presidential race be a tie?

HIGHLY UNLIKELY, but a colleague of mine in American has just sent me this:

Sen. Barack Obama’s victory in the Oregon primary last night all but mathematically ends the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. Though Hillary Clinton - her impressive win in yesterday’s Kentucky primary notwithstanding - is likely to continue her campaign, expect more Super Delegates to soon announce for Obama, thus allowing him to officially eliminate the former First Lady even before the final Montana and South Dakota primaries commence on June 3rd. Going into Oregon and Kentucky, Obama was just 109 votes from reaching the magic 2,026 number in committed delegates necessary to clinch total victory. Tonight’s results should leave him within 63 votes of that apex. With more than 200 Super Delegates alone still uncommitted, Obama should have little trouble in soon reaching presumptive nominee status.

The Illinoisan took 58% of the vote in Oregon, meaning he won approximately 30 committed delegates. Clinton scored a 65-30% win in Kentucky, but it is apparently too little, too late. Her only hope is to claim enough delegates to get inside the range where adding the sanctioned states of Michigan and Florida actually changes the outcome. With only three primaries remaining (Puerto Rico votes June 1st, in addition to Montana and South Dakota), she now has little chance of gaining the 78 committed delegate votes needed to make the penalized states count.

Turning to a general election forecast of an Obama-John McCain race, based upon the latest available public polls from each of the 50 states, McCain has a slight 249-242 Electoral Vote lead, with three places, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin (47 aggregate Electoral Votes) all rated as dead heats. Comparing the data to the 2004 presidential election map, Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico would switch from Republican to Democrat, while New Hampshire returns to the GOP column after voting for John Kerry four years ago. It takes 270 Electoral Votes to win the Presidency. Under this scenario, should Ohio vote McCain and Michigan and Wisconsin choose Obama, the election would end in a 269-269 tie. A presumed Democratic House of Representatives would then serve as the tie-breaker (each state casting one vote) and elect Obama as the 44th President.

Alex Massie on "cigarette permits"

GOOD TO see Alex Massie having a go at the SNP for their ludicrous attempts to "denormalise" smoking.

However, as Massie points out, the Scottish Parliament have also voted to ban coin-operated sun beds.

The rationale?

"The aim is to provide protective legislation - legislation that protects young people and the public, that makes it clear there is a risk associated with these machines." - Ken MacIntosh MSP

Protective legislation? What next - a government Bill preventing you from going outside on a hot day? Massie asks the obvious questions: what next?

I shudder to think.

Karl Rove on Obama's foreign policy rhetoric

YES, MANY of you may snigger at the thought of a Bush administration lackey offering advice on foreign policy, but I thought this was an excellent article.

Obama has regularly called for a dialogue with several countries hostile to the United States, particularly Iran. The apparent Democratic Presidential nominee claims that what he's advocating is nothing new, adding that "Nixon went to China" etc etc. Not only is this one of the most overused phrases in politics, but Obama is bang wrong on the circumstances surrounding rapprochement with China - as Rove points out.

"I recommend that he read Henry Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqué worked out over months of careful diplomacy.

The Chinese didn't change because of a presidential visit. In another book, "Diplomacy," Mr. Kissinger writes that "China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union." Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited.

The same is true with other successful negotiations. President Ronald Reagan prepared the ground for his meetings with a series of Soviet leaders by rebuilding the U.S. military, restoring confidence in American intentions, and pressuring the Soviets by raising the specter of a missile defense shield.

Reagan knew rogue states only change when they see there are real consequences of their actions, and when it is in their interest to change. This requires patience, vision, hard work and the use of all the tools, talents and relationships available to the U.S. We saw a recent example when Libya, fearful of American resolve after 9/11, gave up its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. These programs, incidentally, were more advanced than Western intelligence thought.

Reagan knew he must not squander the prestige of the American presidency and the authority of the United States by meaningless meetings that serve only as propaganda victories for our adversaries. Mr. Obama seems to believe charisma and smooth talk can fundamentally alter the behavior of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba."

Although the bulk of America advocates greater diplomacy and engagement with hostile states, I think that this comes with the caveat that negotiations are conducted through strength. I may stand corrected, but I would be surprised if the majority of Americans support Obama's stance for unconditional negotiations. Anyway, if Obama wants to lecture people about Kissingerian foreign policy he should have a read of Diplomacy - it's a cracking book.

George Will and the Polar Bears

I RECOMMEND George Will's article 'March of the Polar Bears'.

Will mentions Nigel Lawson's new book, 'An Appeal to reason: A Cool look at global warming', noting that the New York Times mentioned as far back as 1975, that the world had to prepare for a new ice age.

I thought I'd flag up the last few paragraphs:

What Friedrich Hayek called the "fatal conceit" -- the idea that government can know the future's possibilities and can and should control the future's unfolding -- is the left's agenda. The left exists to enlarge the state's supervision of life, narrowing individual choices in the name of collective goods. Hence the left's hostility to markets. And to automobiles -- people going wherever they want whenever they want.

Today's "green left" is the old "red left" revised. Marx, a short-term pessimist but a long-term optimist, prophesied deepening class conflict, but thought that history's violent dialectic would culminate in a revolution that would usher in material abundance and such spontaneous cooperation that the state would wither away.

The green left preaches pessimism: Ineluctable scarcities (of energy, food, animal habitats, humans' living space) will require a perpetual regime of comprehensive rationing. The green left understands that the direct route to government control of almost everything is to stigmatize, as a planetary menace, something involved in almost everything -- carbon.

Environmentalism is, as Lawson writes, an unlimited "license to intrude." "Eco-fundamentalism," which is "the quasi-religion of green alarmism," promises "global salvationism." Onward, green soldiers, into preventive war on behalf of some bears who are simultaneously flourishing and "threatened."

More violence in South Africa

WITH SUCH barbarity in South Africa, I wonder what the African Union plans to do?

I've found the coverage interesting, especially when observers have stated that "frustration" rather than racism or xenophobia have sparked the riots. That so?

I wonder how long it will be before the colonial legacy is invoked?

Nick Clegg: Why would you?

WHY ON earth would Nick Clegg reveal that he would back a Conservative administration in the event of a hung Parliament?

Seriously.

Perhaps the Liberal Democrats need to be taught a thing or two about negotiations? With an outright Conservative majority looking increasingly likely, I find it astonishing that Clegg would make this statement. Although this has been known for a while amongst the chattering classes, I think this is a poor calculation from Clegg and could seriously damage his hand in the event of a hung Parliament.

It also raises questions about the Liberal Democrats and floating voters. Why would a floating voter back the Liberals if their leader has already pledged to surrender to the Tories in the event of a hung Parliament?

Perhaps Clegg and Danny Alexander have something else in mind, but I always thought in these instances, one should keep their cards close to their chest.

SNP seek to "denormalise" smoking

I'VE BEEN relatively supportive of the SNP and Alex Salmond, but this is just ludicrous.

If I can just release my inner Poujadiste for one second, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to ban the sale of tobacco behind shop counters. The BBC has an interesting snippet about small shop owners and the Scottish Grocers Federation, who are obviously highly critical of the idea. Both claim that the ban will hit small businesses financially, and do absolutely nothing to prevent people from smoking. The Scottish Government claims that such as move will "denormalise" smoking, something that I would have hoped died with New Labour.

I have a problem with any government attempting to stigmatise any group of society, especially smokers, when there's no evidence that this will lead to a healthier society. As noted in the article, cigarettes are not an impulse buy, and if evidence from Ireland is any thing to go by - sales do not decline. However, we do end up stigmatising smokers. Perhaps that's the point? But my real concern is where this will stop? Will the Scottish Government do the same with fatty foods? What about Irn-Bru? Will your average cornershop end up being a mini version of Argos?

But I guess people had the same idea with pornography when they put it on the top shelf. Has this resulted in a sudden decline in sales of pornography? I would doubt it. However, I guess it allows government to believe that it's doing its job and protecting people. For all the SNP's rhetoric about helping small businesses, this is clearly evidence that they have a lot more work to do.

Brown at PMQs

AFTER HAVING some initial doubts, I am now certain that Matthew Parris is spot on about the Prime Minister - he actually thinks he's right.

I say this having watched PMQs today. Gordon Brown has yet again stated that despite hiking up their taxes, the poor are better off under a Labour government. Why? Because of tax credits.

I don't know about you, but there's something wrong with a man who makes millions of people - who were financially independent - reliant on the state and believes it to be a positive achievement. Of course he criticises Cameron for "opposing tax credits" but I would hope that even those on the far left of the Labour Party oppose tax credits in this instance. Tax credits have - allegedly - been used by this government to help people out of poverty, not to 'compensate' them for tax increases. However, we now know that this is one great big swindle. This is about making people reliant, not aiding their aspiration.

Although I oppose tax credits for obvious reasons (I believe they're a glass ceiling and an obstacle against aspiration), this man never ceases to surprise me. Whilst I struggle to comprehend how some socialist friends of mine still argue about the successes of tax credits, there's nothing more pernicious than taking people who want to lead full, independent lives, then forcing them to rely on the state.

This just goes to show that when Brown is talking about aspiration, he's a liar. He doesn't want you to succeed or be an individual. He wants those individuals and families who aspire to work themselves out of poverty to rely on the state, to be at the mercy of every government threat that "if they vote Tory you'll lose your tax credits".

I hope the 'tax grab' and 'compensation' goes down as one of the most callous acts of any Prime Minister against hard working British people. Who would have thought that a Labour Prime Minister would actually want to destroy the working class?

Some thoughts on Teddy Kennedy

AS ALL of you are probably quite aware, I'm no fan of Ted Kennedy. I'm saddened that a family could lose a father. Being familiar with the anguish of seeing someone suffer from cancer I do hope that Kennedy's ordeal is as painless and that his family stays strong.

However, the outpouring of grief on several blogs and websites has made me baulk.

Being an admirer of his brothers and several other Democrats, I say this without any political prejudices against the man. Yet his legislative record and achievements are hardly glowing and he killed a girl.

I noticed that the Independent completely omitted the entire Chappaquiddick episode in their coverage today. A story about Ted Kennedy without mentioning Chappaquiddick is like Nixon without Watergate. I also thought I'd point out the BBC coverage:

Edward, or Teddy, as he is known, ran against sitting President Jimmy Carter in 1980, but failed, after struggling to put the infamous "Chappaquiddick incident" behind him.

He had, in 1969, crashed a car off a bridge, and while he escaped, his young female passenger drowned in the water below. He fled and did not report the incident to police for more than eight hours.

He later pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and received a suspended two-month sentence.

Would it be worth mentioning that he was drunk at the time as well? What about the $35 fine that Kennedy paid for his crimes? The claim that he "crashed the car off the bridge" makes it appear to be an accident - is that what we call people who are drunk at the wheel nowadays?

I also find it rather vulgar of the BBC to suggest that Kennedy "failed to put the infamous Chappaquiddick incident behind him." The fact that he ran in 1980 shows that he had put the incident behind him. Who elects the President? Ted Kennedy? Of course not. It was the Democratic Party and the American people that saw him as an electoral liability - even when compared to Jimmy Carter!

This is not a personal attack on Teddy Kennedy, a man who is revered by many and obviously deserves the love and support of his family at this moment in time. This is merely an attack on the coverage that has followed the tragic news of his illness. You can bet your mortgage (is that a risk anymore?) that if someone like Jonathon Aitken was diagnosed with cancer the coverage would all be about his shady history as a government Minister.

Dale Vs Finkelstein

I MUST say, I've got to agree with Iain Dale here.

I regret the fact that so many Conservatives are so comfortable with spending and increasing the size of the state. I don't think it's at all unrealistic for Dale to call for the government to cut spending. Sure, even government's on the right increase spending, but does that really mean that we just give up?

I especially agree with this point:

The trouble with too many modern day politicians (and commentators) is that they look at government as it is, not how they think it should be. It has become so bloated and thirsty for taxpayers' money that it seems almost impossible to reverse the trend of public spending growth. There are, of course, areas where Conservatives would indeed continue the growth of spending, but equally, there are areas where that savings can be made - either through efficiency savings or outright abolition of wasteful government programmes. In a budget of £617 billion no one could possibly assert that that there are no savings to be made or priorities to be altered.

Again, I'd stress Conservative politicians and commentators.

Allowing the state to expand can often be seen by the government as a tacit approval from its citizens to hike taxes. I think Dale's spot on - the real evil here is the size of the state. The sooner Conservatives address this, the better.

... straight back atcha'

THANKS TO RfS for dropping a link to my site. With blogging being rather time consuming, it's always nice to know that you have readers.

Please visit RfS. Although I do have deep reservations about the Caroline Flint thing.

Simon Heffer on Gordon Brown

LIKE HEFFER I'm disgusted at the extent the Prime Minister refuses to take responsibility for any of Britain's economic problems. However, would I go this far?

Mr Brown is as fit to preside over economic recovery as Harold Shipman would be to chair a conference on medical ethics. We must hope the electors of Crewe and Nantwich make this point forcefully next Thursday, and throw the bribe back in his face. The game's up, Gordon.

Yes, probably.

Matthew Parris on Gordon Brown

I FIND this rather frightening. We all know he's talking nonsense, but does he actually believe what he's saying?

Northern Rock, a range of tax twists and U-turns, the recent notorious abolition of the 10p tax rate (where Brown still fails to use the word “I” when acknowledging mistakes) . . . the instances are various. But they have one feature in common. Study his phraseology as a psychotherapist rather than a student of policy might, and this leaps out at you. What Brown really, really, won’t say is that he has been pressured by anyone else into doing anything he did not want to do in the first place; or that on any central question it is his own judgment that has been wrong.

Pressed, he will allow that circumstances have changed and decisions varied or revisited in light of the new situation. Pressed further he will admit that mistakes “were made” or that “we” made mistakes. Pressed even harder he will even use the “I” word and admit to failures of diplomacy, tact, consultation or explanation. But what he cannot allow is either that he has been pushed around, or that a big decision was wrong at the time he took it.

This twin refusal, like the two arms of a nutcracker, puts a man under intolerable pressure. If you can admit you’re wrong, then you don’t need to admit to being pushed by others, but only by your own intelligence, to alter course. If you can admit to being pushed by others you don’t need to admit you were ever wrong: you’ve altered course for collegiate reasons, against your best judgment. But if you are to insist both that your first decision was right, and that your second thoughts do not arise from arm-twisting, you get into an awful tangle when challenged to explain your change of mind.

It was in just such a tangle that Gordon Brown faced John Humphrys on the Today programme and Adam Boulton on Sky News on Thursday. He will have known he would face questions about Alistair Darling’s Budget U-turn, raising the tax threshold to compensate for pain inflicted by abolishing the 10p rate.

How would he reply? By saying he should never have invented the 10p rate? Or never have abolished it? Or would he say that this week’s policy shift would not have been his preference, but it was affordable, and he was therefore bowing to parliamentary anxiety and national concern?

To my incredulity, he told his interviewers that the £2.7 billion tax cut, financed by borrowing, was a response to the world economic downturn: a measure to stimulate domestic growth by putting extra money in people’s pockets. Brown said he wanted to ease the financial squeeze being faced by hard-working families. Asked why the need for this had only been discovered since the Budget, he could give no answer. It was pitiable.

It was also scary. I’ll tell you what scares me, and scares (I believe) a wider public who may not always be consciously aware why. It’s not the thought that the Prime Minister may be