Churchill's Boot has now moved!

See Churchill's Boot new webiste here: http://www.churchillsboot.com/

Has the time come to take back control of the streets of London?

I will try to resist the urge to go on a rant about my feelings towards the latest riots (besides many others have eloquently expressed their anger towards such scenes, not least Cranmer's reaction. I also appreciate that this blog has devoted a significant amount of space to the current fall-out about tuition fees, so I will simply concern this post with what to do about the riots going forward.

The editorial in the Sunday Telegraph mused today about how to police these protests going forward, but didn’t come to a certain conclusion. I would suggest that the government refuses to grant permissions for any further protests for an interim period. This would allow there to be a period of consultation between police and protest organisers in which protest organisers should be required to give certain assurances about the conduct of the protests, something that is clearly not occurring at the moment. It would also allow the police and CPS to further pending prosecutions in respect of the criminal violence and damage that has been carried out. These measures are vital, in that potential troublemakers would see the consequences of their actions should they consider taking part in criminal violence at future protests. At the moment, despite various arrests, there is a feeling that you can merely put a hood up and get away with murder. I use that phrase quite intentionally as it is something of a small miracle that on two occasions of complete havoc no one has been killed. There have of course been many injuries, some serious.

I accept that this suggestion is rather controversial. What’s more it could also be a tactical threat, as such a move could risk a further backlash from rioters reacting to a perceived heavy- handed response by the government. I think, however, that it is worth such a risk. The right to protest peacefully is of course of fundamental importance to our liberal democracy, but that right, granted by society, can be taken away if it is abused or misused.

This is entirely the situation here.

These ‘peaceful’ protests are nothing of the sort; they are being hijacked and turned into a gratuitous rampage and terrorisation of the public. On Thursday, the public were indeed caught-up; people going about their daily business (probably to work. Notice the irony of this - creating the wealth that currently subsides students so that they are free to protest on a Thursday afternoon) prevented from accessing Oxford Street, as well as many busy tube stations. Then there was the incident with Charles and Camilla – the climax of the entire debacle. The protestors must have felt that they had momentarily achieved their aim to create total anarchy.

Based on these public disruptions, we must surely use the tools we have available to us to restore order. If that means using them a little more forcefully than we would otherwise like to, then so be it.

The reason why I also believe this will not misfire as a tactic is because of where the public sit on this issue. These riots are not the poll tax riots of the 1990’s which reflected a society that was more generally growing tired of Margret Thatcher’s Britain. While some of the public may have sympathy with the argument against the tuition fee rises, they are most certainly not sympathetic towards the appalling public disorder we have witnessed. In fact, a straw poll of people I have talked to are particularly angry about the rioters. Further, as many commentators have pointed out, this could be the beginning of a long period of social unrest. After all, the savage cuts of which we hear so much about haven’t even really begun in earnest yet. As the saying goes, the worst is yet to come.

When the government has to make policing decisions about protests from those who have lost their jobs because of the cuts, then will be the time to make much more sensitive decisions. In reality, these protests have not been about social unrest, they have simply been an excuse for a young and violent minority to gratuitously rampage and destroy.

I believe the time has come to step in and nip this in the bud. There will be greater battles to come if the government and the police rest on their laurels at this crucial time. They must ensure order now to avoid greater, more bloody demonstrations in the future.

Students need to consider tuition fees issue with a little more sophistication than ‘It’s not fair’

A few weeks ago, I was happy to blog about why tuition fees needed to be raised, however, thanks to the gratuitous rampage that the students went on, we have been a little side tracked about the real issue. So on the eve of the vote today, I will finally address the issue at hand.

The question about whether student fees should rise is not about fairness, per se. Rather, the starting point should be the question that has its basis in reality rather than fantasy. That question is: what can we afford?

Over 45% of the population now goes on to higher education. Can we as a society afford to subsidise that? The answer to this is not in debate. The resounding answer is no. I wish we could afford it. I think the experience of university obtained by graduates is extremely valuable to society and I refer not only to that which can be measured in GDP.

In actual fact, if we were starting again from scratch I would recommend that only 20-25% of the population should go to university; those who have achieved a certain accredited standard. If this were the case, (as was the case not so long ago) we could seriously consider funding this cost. However, the great rush over the last twenty years or so to keep as many people in education for as long as possible at any cost, has meant that that is not the reality we have to deal with.

If you want world-class universities, like Oxford and Cambridge have been since their founding, (although struggling to keep up because of recent under funding), then you have to fund them properly. First-rate education cannot be provided cheaply. If we compare the average yearly fees to go to Havard or Yale, (over $30,000) two of Oxford and Cambridge’s competitors, £3,000 a year to go to university here looks scarcely believable. The reality is that universities have been grossly underfunded for years and that was the situation even before the advent of this new age of public expenditure austerity.

Please don’t interpret this post as a brutal, heartless assessment of this issue. This is not an easy issue. I myself could not afford to go to university without a full loan from the government, and still have a serious amount of debt to my name to this day. No, I am certainly not insensitive to the realities of a potential student considering university, but is put off because he or she happens to come from a poor background. Such an outcome would be highly regrettable and certainly not the type of society we should be seeking to create.

Which is why the Coalition government should be commended for coming up with various ways in which the likelihood of a poor student being dissuaded from applying to university is kept to a minimum. Indeed, a poor student under the current proposals would actually have more grants and bursaries available to them than under the old position, as well as not having to pay back any government loan till later in their working life. This issue is not as simplistic as some of the slogans and chants on the protest would have you believe. It is not about simply putting up fees and the government being nasty. This is a very complex challenge, to balance on the one hand the harsh realities of funding the cost of higher education and on the other ensuring that going to university remains a meritocracy and not simply a reflection on the wealth of your family.

Well done to the government for broadly achieving that delicate balance. It has not been easy. If only the students could stop aimlessly shouting their childlike response ‘It’s not fair’ and give some further thought to this, they might also see that the government have come up with a very reasonable response to a very difficult issue.

Remembrance Sunday should remind the rioters why liberty was fought for

I had hoped to blog this week about why I regretfully accept that tuition fees have to rise. Unfortunatly- at least certainly for those who are strongly opposed to any such rise- events of this week have rather taken over the debate about tuition fees.

This is because some highly misguided, self-obsessed, delusional idiots decided to turn the otherwise peaceful protest on Wednesday into a full-on rampage of destruction. Let's get a myth out of the way right now: this disgraceful action was not about the 'strength of feeling' towards the rise in tuition fees. This was not the sort of revolutionary cause that has driven people to violently protest before- this was not about enslavery, not about persecution of a people, not about women’s rights or any such like. This, in reality, was about tanked-up students and otherwise general layabouts with nothing better to do on a Wednesday afternoon, taking part in an utterly gratuitous rampage of demolition and violence. Indeed, as demonstrated by the fire extinguisher incident, it was a miracle that no-one died. These people were absolutely out of control, not fighting for a just cause, just frivolous violence and destruction.

Some have said (the academics at Goldsmiths, University of London) that the riots were positive because they raised the profile of the cause against tuition fees. The difficulty with this position is that by implication, what they are saying, is that it’s OK to break the law as long as you further your cause. Where do you draw the line with this principal? Would it have still been acceptable if the fire extinguisher hadn't landed a couple of yards from the police woman and she had died? If so, is this not the guiding principal of terrorism?

Ironically, far from furthering their cause, the riots have meant that very little attention has been devoted to actually debating the issue of the rise in tuition fees. Instead, all press coverage has focused on the unforgiveable rampage itself, and in that, the students have lost the sympathies (if they were there to begin with) of the general public.

If you feel passionately about an issue and you are determined to get it changed, I salute you. I myself am passionate about many issues which I feel aggrieved about every day. Many people argue that you can’t get things changed; that your vote doesn’t translate in real-terms to affect you. I can understand and sympathise with your frustration. But you must continue to fight your cause through rational debate and peaceful protest within the bounds of the law, even if success is a distant possibility.

That is the way it is done in this country; a country which has a hard-earned liberal democracy. Today of all days, we remember just how hard-earned this freedom was. Millions of young men of a not-so-distant generation lost their lives fighting for the liberty we now have, but it wasn’t so that today’s ignorant youths could go on a rampage every time they disagree with a decision made by their government. Perhaps when some of the perpatrators of Wednesday’s despicable acts are sentenced (as I sincerly hope they are, with the full force of the law) they may do well to have some quiet reflection about that point.

Congratulations to the Tea Party! Roll on its influence in Britain!

How very encouraging to see the Tea Party movement having such a successful night at the mid-term elections in America. It really is a remarkable achievement: from something that only sprang up a few years ago, to become such a highly influential force in American politics. It will be fascinating to see whether the successful Tea Party candidates can keep their promises now they are in Washington.

Watching their success made me hope that we might have a similar movement over here. I’m not referring to the wacko right-wing of American politics, which has tried to associate with the Tea Party, but rather the Tea Party in its purest form- that of a movement for truly small government and a significant reinterpretation of the relationship between the state and the individual. This clarification is explained well by James Delingpole here.

From a British point of view, there is something you have to admire about the Tea Party movement’s brashness. In Britain, despite our tax and spend binge of our previous government, to come up with a name that is short for Taxed Enough Already, would be seen as highly politically incorrect. Here, to announce in public that you are taxed too much is to invite derision. The lefty media have influenced the public psyche so that to complain about tax is somehow equated with immorality. It means you do not want to help the poor and must be extremely selfish. It means you must be anti-nurses and teachers. It means you don’t care about schools or hospitals. It probably means you also eat babies for breakfast…

The debate about small government and less tax is only now beginning to tentatively shift in Britain. But we need to get past the overly simplistic view that to ask for less tax is selfish. Given the public deficit, this is a wonderful opportunity to start persuading people of the benefits of small government, but like I have previously argued here, even now the Conservative party are desperate to avoid arguing ideologically about the reduction of the state. God forbid, we might try to argue that asking for less tax and small government, far from being selfish, would actually improve our society as a whole; would give us greater freedom, happiness and prosperity.

The other day, I became particularly agitated as I tried to read my paper in a coffee shop. At the table beside me there was, perhaps, the quintessential caricature of an American; one who talks so loudly that the whole street can hear them! While we polite British might wince when we hear an American with a volume control problem, we should also admire their candidness. The Tea Party’s openness about small government would be a welcome addition to the political debate e over here.

Cameron’ s best attempts merely underline how much Brussels really is in charge

Poor old Cameron. He has been off this week in Europe for his first real challenge as Prime Minister, standing up for Britain in Europe. He talked a very tough game before he went, claiming that he would seek a budget freeze rather than the absurdly high 6% increase that had been mooted. He thinks he has agreement on a 2.9% rise (although mutterings this weekend suggest it might be a bit premature to say it is agreed) and Downing Street proudly announced this as an important victory, amongst other agreements which Cameron claims he has made. Cameron is right that 2.9% is not a bad result, given the 6% where negotiations started. I am sure it was a hard earned victory to get the tentative agreement on that. But this only goes to underline how inferior we have become next to Europe.

As we know, our own country will face unprecedented cuts in public expenditure over the next few years, and while we face the often unwelcome decisions this will result in, we are told that the European Union is raising its budget by 2.9% and we have to pay for it.

How, then, in this context can 2.9% be announced as a victory?

The fact that it has been touted as such merely emphasises the real relationship we have with Europe. In many respects, we are a mere state in a federal union. The federal government has just told us that their budget needs to increase. We have tried to explain that we are trying to deal with the biggest public deficit since the Second World War, but their decision is final. We simply do not have a say.

Of course, not having a say is something the British public have become used to, particularly on the subject of Europe. Indeed, since the last and only referendum on Europe took place in 1975, you would have to be 53 or older to be a person who actually has had a say on Europe. The European project has changed irrevocably since then, with a great deal of British sovereignty signed away to Brussels.

It remains an unjustifiable disgrace that the country has never been consulted.

Tomorrow, let us see the opportunity and not the difficulty

Cuts, cuts, cuts. Deep, savage - whatever their description, the cuts are coming and they’re going to be damn right nasty. That is all I seem to hear at the moment.

Well, tomorrow the long wait is finally over, and we shall at last see where the government’s nasty cuts will fall. It has undoubtedly been one hell of a job, not least because of the absurd ring fencing of health expenditure and overseas aid. The Tories might well consider that not to ring-fence these two areas would be to break a core manifesto promise. Given that many of their manifesto commitments have been put to one side in the ‘national interest’ of forming the coalition (as is quite understandable) it is a wonder why they cannot also ditch this under the same reasoning. Why on earth should these areas be considered untouchable in the current climate? We will continue to provide aid to foreign countries while policeman and serviceman lose their jobs here. That is a crazy net result of this policy. But of course, the Tories chose these areas specifically as crucial to the strategy of detoxifying the brand- attempting to make people believe that the Tories are the caring and compassionate sort.

Rather than be downcast and cynical on the eve of what will surely be a day of relatively bad news, let us try and see the positives of what will come from tomorrow’s spending review. What grates when the government talks of the cuts is their insistence that these cuts are not ideological. They argue that these cuts are simply necessary because of the current appalling state of the public finances. They say this because it much more palatable for the coalition, while also appealing to the ‘modern conservative’ strategy of dissociating itself with the Tory party of the eighties. In fairness, it is also because it is an easier message to deliver. It conveys the message that ‘I am only doing this because I have to, not because I want to’. The trouble is that this misses a key opportunity to present the cuts in a more positive light. The refusal to accept anything ideological about the cuts is a tacit admission that if they did not have to cut, they would carry on with the spending binge of Labour over the last 13 years. How can that be right? Surely the reality is that these cuts are ideologically the right thing as well as a necessity?

The state is too big, we are taxed too much, the public sector is highly inefficient, bloated and consists of countless layers of utter waste. The argument should be put forward that the cuts, while painful, are the right thing to do. They will reduce the size of the state and the inflated public sector, which in the long run will reduce our tax burden, make our public services more efficient, responsive and local, and ultimately improve our society. This argument needs to be made and reinforced at every opportunity. It needs to achieve the substantial task of drowning out the relentless, one-dimensional media coverage of the cuts - that being, that cuts are bad, simple as that.

To paraphrase the words of Winston Churchill: tomorrow , let’s need not be the pessimist that sees difficulty in every opportunity, but rather the optimist that sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

Labour have duly accepted Red Ed’s invitation to join his wild dream

Labour have done their very best to put a brave face on the result of their leadership race this week, but no matter how much they protest that they all love Ed and he is great, they all know they have made a dreadful mistake.

Ed gave a reasonable speech today in the circumstances. But was this a speech of a future prime minister? Even the most hardened of Labour supporters would have their doubts. Ed lacks gravitas, and while youthful looks can be a good thing, Ed recalls too much of a precocious child who has been promoted through the school years too quickly. In the speech there were some cringe-worthy moments where the conference simply failed to respond. This awkwardness was reminiscent of the Tory conference feigning their support of the ‘quiet man turning up the volume’.

This was certainly not the same feeling when David Cameron made his pulse-racing speech to the Conservative party conference in the Tory leadership race, nor was it the feeling when Tony Blair came on to the scene. Already, both of these men could be seen as future Prime Ministers.

Obviously, many on the left of the media have tried to make the best of Ed’s victory. Indeed, for the idealist left there is no doubt that this is good news. Ed can now truly represent the traditional left that New Labour neglected. This will hopefully mark a welcome return to the old dividing lines of British politics. The Tories were shoved off the middle ground for the best part of the last 15 years of politics by New Labour. Now at last, perhaps the Tories can start talking confidently about genuinely right wing policies without fearing that the electorate will run off to New Labour, who characteristically offered a conservative policy with better packaging (whether they delivered the product is quite another matter). The trouble is, for all its failings New Labour was very successful and appealing to the electorate.

Of course, Labour’s leadership result reflects a split between MPs and members in one camp, and the unions in the other. The difficulty for Ed is leading a party where the majority of his own MPs didn’t want him. Encapsulating his predicament today, he tried to neutralise the unions by denouncing ‘irresponsible strikes’ to which one union member leader shouted ‘rubbish!’. Presumably, he was in favour of strikes whether they are irresponsible or not.

It is widely accepted that this is a good result for Cameron; Matthew d’Ancona even led his Sunday Telegraph column with “Labour has handed David Cameron the next election.” However, this is perhaps a little presumptuous. British politics, compared to a few years ago, is wide open, and as a coalition with the Lib Dems a second time round is unlikely, the Tories still have a lot to do to win a majority. Still, even with all this there is no getting away from the feeling that Ed will not be the man to lead Labour to victory.

In his speech on Saturday evening, Ed said never in his wildest dreams had he imagined being leader of his party. I fear that this is precisely the trouble. He lacks credibility as a leader because he didn’t really believe he was going to be. The sad reality for Labour is that they are now in a wild dream of the idealist left, with no prospect of electability.

After my long journey with Tony Blair, I am left wondering was Tony simply a modern day Machiavelli?

I have finally arrived at the 691st page of Tony Blair’s ‘Journey’. Now the dust has settled on the press’s quick fire review of small snippets, I thought I would make a few comments on the former Prime Minister’s fascinating memoirs.

It is true that at times, Tony comes across as annoyingly arrogant and almost abnormally self-assured, but then is it possible to be as successful as he has been without being so? It is also true that there are some cringe-worthy descriptions where he tries too hard to please, with Charles Moore of the Telegraph commenting on his irritating habit of warning you that he is about to tell you something funny , and thereby taking away from the humour.

There are also many issues which I and Tony will never see eye to eye on. One of which that particularly annoys is his surrender stance on Europe. ‘Live with it’ he says - it is a reality. However, my belief is that it is only a reality if we choose to do nothing about it: Tony, some of us do not want to ‘live with it’!
Yet notwithstanding this, reading the book in the main makes you recall just what a truly incredible operator Tony Blair was. Throughout the book he gives a remarkably persuasive sale of the New Labour project and you are reminded of the genius of the New Labour idea and why it was so appealing.

Not surprisingly, a significant part of the book deals with Iraq. You are reminded of Tony’s training as a barrister when he gives an impassioned defence of his decision to go to war, and I for one can’t help feeling a great deal of sympathy with his argument (although I was somewhat already persuaded on this issue).

And yet, for all his persuasiveness and appeal, as I winded through Northern Ireland, the war on terror, Gordon Brown and public services reform, and I drew to the journey’s end, I could not help wondering whether Tony Blair was actually a modern day Machiavelli. His advice and candidness on how to conduct negotiations or create policy cannot help but to bring to mind the famous Florentine philosopher, albeit perhaps with not quite the ruthlessness cynicism. As every successful politician must be, Tony shows real pragmatism to policy. But this must always be balanced with a sense of principle, whatever that principle may be, otherwise what is it all for? Although, Tony argues that by the end of his journey all he cares about is doing the right thing, I can’t help feeling that when you strip away the fantastic pragmatic operator there is not much left. In a sense the pragmatism is the guiding principal.

I am sure his supporters (if there are any left) would argue that this is a great injustice to him. If nothing else he is a fascinating and exceptional historical figure who has been at the heart of politics for over a decade, shaping the political landscape which we now inhabit. For that reason alone it is well worth embarking with Tony on this Journey.

Pope’s refreshing message drowns out the hypocrisy of the protestors

Organisers of the ‘Protest the Pope’ event yesterday in London estimated that 20,000 people came out on to the streets of London to protest. 20,000!? You must be joking!? I was in attendance myself in central London yesterday to give the Pontiff a warm welcome and 20,000 to me seems to be a gross over estimation of the actual number. A few thousand perhaps, but no more than that. It is telling that the police did not confirm the protestors’ estimate. The overestimate seems to me to summarise the underwhelming effect of the pope protest.

As I read some of their placards like ‘---- the Pope…but wear a condom’ and listened to the ‘firmly militant atheist’, Richard Dawkins (his own description) telling the crowd that Hitler was actually a Catholic, I was struck by the venom and furiousness with which they were attacking Catholicism. Why did they feel so strongly to protest? If it is for gay rights or the rights of women to choose abortion then it seems to me a rather redundant protest. Were these rights not won in the 1960’s? The Pope is not stopping people carrying out these rights; the Catholic Church simply believes that allowing gay people to marry and women to have abortions is wrong. They may not like these views, indeed they clearly find them abhorrent, but is that something worth protesting against so viciously - attempting to ruin the visit of a leader of a religion that represents one sixth of the planets population?

And why in particular the Pope? Another religion, which is the fastest-growing in the world, and responsible for the brutal treatment of women and gay people throughout the world, seems not to bother these people in the same way. Fundamental Islam seems the abundantly obvious threat to what I assume these protestors hold dear: a tolerant, free and democratic society. Yet, can you imagine Peter Tatchell and co organising a protest in a similar vein against Islam? No of course not. But then we should expect double standards and hypocrisy from this lot. So often they invoke the importance of tolerance. But I fear, the real reason why they protest is not because they feel they are still in the throes of a struggle for the rights of gay people and women (as I said, surely this struggle has already been won in modern western society), but rather they want to stamp out dissenting voices that dare suggest a view of the world that is different from theirs.

As the Pope reminded us, Christianity is under attack from ‘aggressive secularism’. There is nothing tolerant about preventing employees from wearing a crucifix, nor requesting council workers that they should not discuss biblical teachings. It is the height of irony that the same people who protested against the Pope’s visit cry tolerance when all they seem to practice is fierce intolerance.

To many in the modern day world, the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality, marriage, sex and women does seem hopelessly old fashioned and out dated. But wrongly or rightly, the Church does not care about fashion, and nor does it care about the date. It deals in absolutes not relativism. In a way, even though you may not agree with all the Pope has to say (and some of it is very difficult to agree with), in a world that is dominated by moral relativism and popularity, the Pope’s message is refreshing and at the very least thought-provoking. Religion still has a part to play in modern society, and the Pope’s visit managed to remind us of that, while thankfully drowning out the spiteful and hypocritical protestors.

As soon as we play at the enemy’s game of mindless intolerance we have lost the battle

Belgium has already banned it and France is looking to follow suit. Last week banning the burka was even proposed in Britain. I watched the MP, Philip Hollobone trying to defend his motion on the Daily Politics the other day. I afraid to say his defence was pathetic. The crucial moment was when he started ‘we in Britain don’t cover our faces’. At this statement he lost the argument. The point is we in Britain can do whatever we like, as long as it is not a crime and is not inciting others to commit crimes. Usually crimes are defined by the harm they cause to others and hence why the justification for the laws' intervention.

If we are seriously arguing that we want the law to intervene and make a crime of wearing a particular piece of clothing, we wholly turn our back on our sacred liberal, tolerant and free society that we hold dear in Britain. In Britain this has only been achieved through the cost of many lives whose sacrifice was made so that we can enjoy a free society. Indeed, it is those values of freedom and tolerance that we should use to guide us in trying to defend against the culture that the burka originates, in general terms: Islamic fundamentalism. An ideology that does not believe in freedom and tolerance, an ideology that in its darkest and evident form, is so intolerant that it murders innocent lives on a mass scale simply because society does not accept its view of the world.

Islamic fundamentalism is a very real and tangible threat to our society and way of life. We must take our responsibility to fight it very seriously. Once we try to defeat it with intolerance and at the cost of our values, then we forget the reason why we are fighting in the first place. We may as well be two sides fighting for equally meaningless causes.

My personal view of the burka is that I am not particularly keen on it, in fact if I am honest I find it rather sinister. I also believe that it provides a powerful image of Islamic fundamentalism’s inequality in respect of its treatment of women, and I struggle to understand why any women would like to wear one. But that is simply my view. A view, which I am sure some may find offensive, but that is not the point and nor is it that some people find the wearing of the burka offensive. In Britain that it is my right to state my view and it is the Islamic woman's right to wear the burka.

So please Hollobone and co, stop speaking nonsense! Banning the burka is an embarrassingly self-defeating idea. As soon as we play at the enemy’s game of mindless intolerance we have lost the battle.

Apologies to readers for lack of posts over the last couple of weeks, I have been away on holiday. A new post on a non-political subject to appear soon.

Capello should have gone for proving the fallacy that football is a business

In a departure from this blog’s normal focus of arena, perhaps to show I am not only a political geek, I will devote this weeks post to a subject while not political in nature has dominated the news over the last couple of weeks following England’s exit from the World Cup.

The FA in a typical wait-and-see rather than decisive action have belatedly decided that the grossly over paid England manager Fabio Capello shall remain in his post despite England’s under whelming performance at the World Cup. Many football fans I have spoken to have found this a disappointing decision. They wanted Capello to take responsibility for what was a disastrous campaign. However, I think this analysis misses the point. Is Capello the reason for the poor performance of England at the World Cup? The answer is that he is probably partly responsible and as manager it is difficult to see how he in not in part some way culpable. However, the crucial question is to what extent? Let us not forget Capello has one of the best managerial records in the game and the media has been telling us for the last couple of years that he is the man who has master-minded England’s rejuvenation in qualifying for the World Cup including two impressive wins over Croatia. To use a favorite football phrase – you do not become a bad manager over night. Before Capello, we had McLaren. While, he did not have the glittering managerial CV that Capello has, he has since gone on to win the league in the Netherlands. Before that we had Eriksson, another who’s managerial CV is the envy of most top flight managers. All have been and gone, taking the buck for under performance. But what is the common denominator here? Surely, it is the players not the managers.

It is difficult to pin point exactly the reason for such under performance from England. As mentioned, Capello is to blame to some extent, but to a greater extent, it must be other reasons, perhaps England’s innate style of play which continually gets found wanting at internationally level, perhaps player fatigue, perhaps hyper-pressure (as was so apparent by the stage fright performance against Algeria), perhaps it will remain a mystery why this current crop of players, a so called ‘golden generation’ has under performed. At least at the next World Cup, when most of these set would have retired, we can stop wondering why they do not achieve the sum of their parts. And yet it is that mystery which provides for such wonder which must be investigated if we are to ever to learn the lessons of failure. Any such lessons would have been swept under the carpet if the FA had chosen to sack Capello.

A successful businessman and keen football fan argued to me the other evening that he has to hit certain targets in his job and if missed them by a long way then he would have to resign and if he would not resign then he would face the sack anyway. On this basis Capello must go, he continued. This gets to the heart of the problem in football and the mistakes that the FA have made through recent decades. Football cannot be fairly compared to the business world and yet in a way this analysis is absolutely correct. Of course, football is a business in many respects, but in many others it is not a business. Football’s forgetfulness of this most imperative principle has lead to much of its ruin over recent years. Ironically, rather than any other reason, this is why I think Capello should have been sacked. The FA took Capello on, in fantasy- based business terms. He was paid an incredibly inflated salary in the aftermath of the McLaren embarrassment. (No other salary in international management comes anywhere close to that of Capello’s). The FA thought that Capello would buy them success. Capello should have been sacked to prove the fallacy that football is a business and success can be brought effortlessly with simply a big contract.

Why was he not sacked? The real reason is because someone had released a break clause in his contract before the World Cup meaning to sack him now would cost a fortune which the FA did not have. The FA, continue in their long line of form of derogation of duty to protect the game (the two towers of which are their 1983 decision to allow Tottenham Hotspur to float on the stock exchange and their 1992 decision to allow the creation of the Premiership), which confirms that disappointment for England fans will continue for some time to come yet. Politics to return next week…

Flying your flag is not racist, it is a celebration of nationhood

I showed a photo to a few of my friends the other day, which pictured a giant red ribbon crossed over a white garage at the front of somebody’s house, completing a delightful St George’s flag (above). The reaction to this picture was immediately a chorus of shock and horror, with half jest, half-serious suggestions that the owners must be paid up members of the BNP. This is a typical response of the leftist, self-righteous, usually middling-class who consider such expressions of patriotism to be tantamount to racism.

They often squirm at the idea that these flags might be flying in a neighbour’s home- the idea that this would bring shame on the neighbourhood. The reaction seems to be embarrassment about waving a flag; almost apologetic for being English. Of course, in true leftist double standards, the flag-flying of other nations in England is to be praised as sign of the success of multiculturalism. It seems it is only their own flag that they have an issue with.

I have always argued that there was something reassuring about England’s lack of expressiveness of its nationality (exemplified by our almost unmarked passing of St George’s Day). I had always thought that we did not need to fly our flag from every building or go crazy on our national day, like the French, Irish or Americans, as we did not feel insecure about our nationality. Unlike the aforementioned countries, our ‘independence’ has been assured for nearly 1000 years (although the EU project threatens like never before) and we need not over-celebrate what is not under threat. I still like this argument, but I fear the reality is our mooted celebration of nationality is linked to the left’s apologetic embarrassment about expressive patriotism. Indeed, there have been a few cases of the dark side of political correctness where England flags have been removed for fear of offence. Offence!? To who!?

In fairness, the whole issue has not been helped by the far-right’s hi-jacking of the St George’s flag which has unfortunately resulted in unwelcome connotations for the flag.

But I say, don’t let the far-right, or the left, or the snooty middle-class worried about the look of the neighbourhood, put you off. Fly the flag! Flags are a wonderful symbol of the individual characters of nations; their enchanting designs are often sub-consciously embedded in our perceptions with that particular country. The wonderful selection of flags currently adorning public houses up and down the land are a colourful, celebratory symbol of a tournament- the World Cup- who’s very existence underlines the success, not of racism or nationalism, but of a world of distinctive and patriotic nation states. Be not ashamed or apologetic. Fly the flag for England and celebrate nationhood!

Palestine gets its PR coup as Israel blunders, but we all have a stake in seeking a long-term solution

The Israel-Palestine conflict is perhaps the most sensitive and divisive issue in the world that can ever be discussed. With this in mind, I hope to tread carefully into this topic, while also appreciating I am sure to upset some with the following thoughts.

I re-iterate my initial feelings that I tweeted yesterday, that Israel have been a little hard done by to the extent that they have been vilified in the mainstream media. Granted, there were some well-balanced editorials in the Times and the Evening Standard yesterday, but the BBC and Channel 4’s coverage yesterday evening (with a more-than-normal partisan performance from John Snow) were extremely disparaging of Israel’s position.

It is perhaps wise for me next to condemn Israel; they have been responsible for a pathetic blunder of an operation which has culminated in the unnecessary tragic loss of innocent lives. For that they should immediately apologise. However, a few things need to be said in their defence. The flotilla was undoubtedly a deliberately provocative PR stunt. They were repeatedly warned that they would be intercepted yet continued nonetheless. There does not seem to be anything unreasonable about asking a ship to be searched for weapons before it is allowed to reach Gaza. If it were a peaceful aid mission, why would it refuse such a request? If they would rather not deal with Israel, Egypt provided an alternative for the ships to be checked first. It should be noted also that there was no violence on the other ships in the flotilla that adhered with the warnings. It also seems from the footage- as neatly documented by Monday’s article by Melanie Phillips- in the Spectator that the Israeli soldiers were indeed under attack. If it is true that pistols were taken by the protestors, then there is a compelling argument of self defence. I fear that all these facts seem to be lost in a collective, knee-jerk, even a somewhat ‘fashionable’ leftist reaction to automatically impugn Israel.

However, all this does not excuse a shabby and woeful operation that ended with the loss of lives. There were many ways that Israel could have dealt with the situation without the deadly consequences that resulted. The irony of the situation is that they played into the hands of the organisers of the flotilla. They wanted a PR coup, and they certainly achieved that. Israel has shown, too often of late, a disregard for international opinion as well as international law. Whether their response to the criticism that they are simply defending their citizens is valid or not is neither here nor there. This is because their continued strategy at the moment is only a form of futile short-term containment.

Therefore, I hope the international community, particularly Britain, take this disaster as an opportunity to re-focus minds on bringing a practical solution to the blockade situation, and ultimately re-take the long path to the two state solution. If you think this is a far-away conflict that does not affect you, you are gravely mistaken. One only has to look at the widespread protests that occurred all over the world including in London. The next Islamic terrorist attack in this country will have its seeds in this conflict. We therefore all have a stake in seeing this conflict escape from the low it has reached this week.

Schools reform is welcomed but is there a simpler way than this?

Putting aside the deeply depressing budget deficit reduction programme (although it was absolutely necessary), the Queen’s speech this week was very exciting indeed. Its general thrust pointed towards the rolling back of the bloated state and the implementation of choice and power to the people. The government have also decided that education will be one of their priorities. Largely, their proposals were based on the principle of allowing more choice for parents of where to send their children to school. Choice, as we know from our experience with restaurants, mobile phone operators or supermarkets, tends to raises standards. All of this is greatly welcome.

And yet, I can’t help thinking ... Was there not a system that existed not so long ago in this country where the standard in schools was better than it is now, and alternatives existed for parents who could not afford to send their children to a private school? Does anyone remember ‘grammar schools’? As I have mentioned before, the detoxification of the Conservative brand means that the Tories can no longer talk of things that they used to believe in, for fear of being associated with the ‘Nasty Tories’ of old. The trouble, of course, with this is that sensible ideas are dismissed even before the debate has begun.

We should now be honest with ourselves and admit the comprehensive schooling system in this country has utterly failed our children. All evidence suggests that since the eradication of the majority of grammar schools, social mobility has declined. The comprehensive system has ended meritocracy and, at the height of irony, now selects pupils to go to the best schools depending on the wealth of their parents. This is because, as everyone knows, the best schools are in the catchment areas where house prices are the highest.

The Left insisted that grammar schools were unfair because they were elitist and harsh for the ones who missed out. Their response to this perceived unfairness? Instead of supporting a system that gave hope to poor children who are bright, they advocated a system where the poor could only be losers. The winners were the rich who could afford private schools, or at the least an expensive house in a good catchment area. But of course, this is secretly very enticing for the Left; better to all be equal and all losers than be unequal and have winners.

They have persisted with this warped ideology with great vigour, carrying it through the educational system to university. You only need to look at Labour’s obsession with getting half the population to university to see what I mean. The righteous left believe that it is unfair for only a few people to go to university because- dare we say it- they worked hard or deserved to go on the basis of their academic ability! No – this, to them, is an outrage. Instead, everybody should go to university irrelevant of merit. What better way to ensure this than creating an endless number of nonsense universities, with worthless courses, and (worst of all) handing them a fortune of debt for the pleasure?

It is a great lie that we have been telling our children for far too long.

The reality is that grammar schools did need reform, not least in the perception that if you didn’t get in you were loser. I have always thought this to be utter tosh. When I look around at my contemporaries and indeed the generation that went before us, there are countless numbers of people who have made a great success of their lives without any academic ability. That was because you don’t necessarily need academic brilliance to get on in the world. I fear for the generation of children that have been told stay in education at any cost, even if they are not right for it. It’s this group of people that the great lie will hurt the most.

So yes, I do welcome the choice reforms, but it is still not clear how these will affect things in real, practical terms. The grammar school system, albeit with reform, could be easily re-implemented and would improve our children’s prospects over night. But alas nobody seems to mention them anymore...

Let us make the best of a bad situation

Politics in Britain feels peculiar at the moment. Those of us who follow it closely suddenly have no terms of reference. We all feel a bit lost. Therefore, more now than ever it is advisable to follow our instincts. Instincts for some, if you are staunchly of the right and voted Conservative, or perhaps if you are staunchly of the left and voted Liberal Democrat, are telling people that they have been sold out; that this coalition government is a farce and should not be trusted. A view, which was put forward by Peter Hitchens today in the Mail on Sunday.

I believe this view to be grossly unfair.

Nobody has been sold out. If you voted Conservative you were voting for a Conservative government. If you voted Liberal Democrat you were voting for a Liberal Democrat government (or at least perhaps more realistically a Liberal Democrat MP). Each party wanted a majority, nobody actively wanted a hung parliament that would result in a coalition government. It is only since the election result concluded that no one party had achieved a majority, that one had to make the best of a bad situation.

Cameron had to make a decision between a minority Conservative government which would undoubtedly be weak and extremely fragile, or a majority government in coalition with the Lib Dems which would fair a much greater chance of being a stronger and more stable government. What came about was a highly regrettable situation, of course he wanted a majority, but it was nevertheless a reality and he had to make a tough call. Ultimately I believe he has made the right one. There are a minority of Conservative and Liberal Democrat voters who are crying ‘betrayal’ and ‘treachery’ as Hitchens has been (although I doubt he voted Conservative). Let's get real, no one has been betrayed. One is left with a decision either to be slavishly devoted to your principles and values or compromise part of your principles to deal practically with the reality at hand. Please do not interpret this as choosing practicality over principle. It is not. It is simply a balance of the two as nearly every decision in life has to be.

Indeed, there are some reasons to be very positive about the coalition. Not least the point raised by Matthew D’ancona in the Sunday Telegraph today. That being that the country faces some very tough times ahead and that there will be fierce cuts in public spending. If the Tories alone were responsible for this, it would leave open the easy and predictable attack from the left that it was the same old Tories who care nothing for the poor and only for the rich. Now the Lib Dems are on board, they are culpable too, that argument is utterly negated. I think it is also important that the government has broad support while it makes these uncomfortable decisions. A poll this morning reported 64% approve that the coalition government is the right way ahead.

I myself am still very uneasy about the whole thing. I worry that much could be at risk with this coalition. Rest assured I shall continue to highlight those concerns and criticise the government in the weeks ahead. As a blogger it would be very easy and perhaps more entertaining for me to take the radical and blindly principled view of Hitchens with regard to the coalition. But as I began this post, I reiterate that now is a time for instincts. They tell me that the coalition is making the best of a bad situation. Its own destiny may indeed be rather shorter than the five years mooted, but for the moment lets get behind it. The challenges facing the country demand such a response.

Historic day for Britain

A truly extraordinary day for British politics. One gets the real sense of witnessing history today. While, it was certainly dissapointing that the Conservatives were unable to secure a majority on Thursday, there is now a sense of hope and tentative optimisim tonight that a Conservative-Liberal Democrat government will be a strong and stable one. It might even be capable of some important acheivements in certain areas. All this is perhaps a little premature, for now I am very happy that the Queen has invited David Cameron to form a government. A more thorough analysis to follow later in the week...

Today: release yourself from the shackles of dogmatic choices

It will perhaps be unsurprising to regular readers of this blog that Churchill’s Boot officially urges you to vote Conservative today. Off the top of my head, here are some positive reasons to vote Tory that are chosen in particular as differentials against the other alternatives:

• If you want the state to intervene less in your lives and feel it is there to serve you and not the other way round.

• If you have been anxious by the rise of immigration in recent years and think the level of net 200,000 people coming here a year should be reduced significantly.

• If you want to give a chance to a radical localist agenda that puts people at the heart of the decisions rather than a distant central state.

• If you think standards in education have slipped and want an education system that provides choice for parents and real opportunities for their children.

• If you would like a more euro-sceptic government that would not sign away further sovereignty to Brussels.

• If you think it is too simplistic an argument that the government must spend more to improve public services.

• If you want a government that will try to genuinely break the culture of welfare dependency.

Further still, if these positive reasons didn’t really do it for you, then here are some unforgivable errors of Labour’s government and reasons why you can’t possibly vote for them:

• Immigration has increased at an unprecedented level since 1997.

• The UK has one of the worst budget deficits in the western world (roughly equal to that of tragic Greece) due to unprecedented increases in pubic spending before the recession.

• Signing away a further significant part of British sovereignty in a shameless broken promise to not have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

• Increase in the public sector to a critical, unsustainable level.

• Countless tax rises including national insurance, council tax and the eradication of the lower band for tax free earnings.

If not all of the above work for you or you still have reservations about Cameron or the Conservatives generally, remember that democracy is far from a perfect system. As Churchill said, it is the least worst system. You may not get everything you want and sometimes you might only be able to choose the lesser of two bad options. I myself do not whole-heartedly agree with every Conservative position as I have made clear in the past, but as Labour have every reason to be kicked out and the Lib Dems cannot form a government, then the Conservatives are the only viable option.

However, I am guessing that if you are already voting Tory, this post is perhaps a waste of time. Alternatively, if you are intending not to vote Tory then the above reasons have probably only scratched the surface in getting you to change your mind- if at all. Therefore, this is a plea to some of the latter group to which I refer.

Some of you are thinking that the above reasons do chime a chord with you but you are cynical about the Tories and perhaps have deeply held class and cultural feelings about why you should not be voting Tory. I urge you to drop your cynicism for the Tories: this is not the same Conservative party of the 80’s and neither is it the same moment in history. Release yourself from the dogmatic shackles that say you have to vote Labour because of your ‘working-class roots’ or ‘you can’t vote Tory because they only care for the rich and toffs’. Be true to yourself and give the Conservatives a chance. If you are one of these people, I understand it will be quite a thing to put a cross next to the Conservative box today. Be brave. Make a decision that will give this country the chance it needs.

Brown the bigot reveals the problem with the immigration debate

Reality transcended satire last week when dear old Gordon messed up with his ‘bigot’ comment. Surely the writers of ‘The Thick of It’ would not have come up with a better idea for an episode than this? We were treated to an extended episode as well, when Gordon decided he would descend the whole thing to farce by visiting Gillian Duffy’s home in Rochdale to try and rectify his mishap. It only made things worse, when his 40-minute effort to persuade her to come outside and have a photo failed. Instead he came out on his own, grinning inappropriately, and gave one of the most farcical statements I have ever heard. It was quite simply hilarious. I had to watch the clip on the Sky News website three or four times, I was enjoying it so much. For this then, I heartily thank our Prime Minister for providing such entertainment.

But on a serious note, the bigot comment revealed the whole problem with the immigration debate. As most commentators admitted, if you read the transcript of what Mrs Duffy said, there is nothing she said which could have been justifiably described as bigoted. Of course most people associate the ‘bigot’ label with those that hold views on immigrants which can be said to be prejudiced or perhaps racist. Usually the left dismisses any discussion on immigration by simply retorting that anyone who raises a concern as to levels of immigration is a racist or a bigot. The issue was nicely encapsulated by the Conservative posters of their 2005 election campaign: ‘It’s not racist to put a cap on immigration’. And now we know where Brown sits in this debate. Rather than acknowledge Mrs Duffy’s acceptable concerns, the real Gordon, recorded by the Sky microphone, dismissed those concerns as ‘bigoted’. In so doing, he also dismissed millions of peoples concerns in this county that echo exactly the anxiety that Mrs Duffy has about immigration.

It is very easy to hold Brown’s view on immigration if you (like so many of the political establishment and the righteous left) live in a nice house in a leafy suburb of West London. But when you actually live somewhere like for example, Rochdale, or any other place that has witnessed the unprecedented growth in immigration under Labour, it is not so easy. What is deplorable is that Brown and the like refuse to have the debate, and simply dismiss any alternative views.

Many have commented that they felt a little sorry for Gordon Brown. There was an element to the episode that we can all empathise with. But the mistake would have attracted much greater sympathy had he been recorded saying something like ‘yes she is right we have had a right problem with those eastern Europeans’. The trouble is he didn’t. His slip up revealed the true Gordon. He does not want to listen to the every day worries of the people. He simply views those worries as bigoted and so proceeds with a policy that has resulted in a net average of 200,000 people settling here every year.

A ‘bigot’ according the dictionary definition I looked up is a person ‘who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own’. How very ironic, that Gordon Brown’s view of Mrs Duffy and the left’s response to the immigration debate seem to fit this definition perfectly.

Brown can only cry ‘free eye tests’ as Cameron sets his sights on success

Has it really come to this? The most entertaining moment of the debate tonight was Gordon Brown’s fixation with eye tests! Not cutting the deficit quickly, not reducing immigration, not succeeding in Afghanistan or discussing the future of the NHS. No, Gordon Brown seems to think that free eye tests are the most prominent issue of the day! Lest we think this was just an issue for Brown, David Milliband assured us that it was key for the whole party, when he was interviewed by Sky News immediately after the debate, shouting out ‘free eye tests’ again! Of course, this is part of a desperate Labour policy to scare the public about voting for a Conservative government.

Last week, there was no doubt that Cameron underperformed and left the public wondering about a Tory victory. But tonight he was almost back to his best and went some way to truly alleviating the doubts about a Tory government. He spoke with much greater passion and conviction tonight: on Europe he gave an answer which probably struck a cord with many of the public who are naturally euro-sceptic, unlike the other two who appeared blindly supportive of the European Union. There was at last also reference to the Big Society idea; one that he should have hammered home last week. This tied in nicely with the notion he repeated throughout the debate: that people who do the right thing ought to be supported. On the contrary, Brown constantly repeated his mantras about trying to solve society’s problems through state intervention.

It should be said that it was not a faultless performance by Cameron. There were a couple of times where he sounded a little awkward. There were also times where I still think he would have done better to hammer Brown. Every answer Brown gave which started with the words ‘we would do this’ or the like, did not have a shred of credibility. If Labour hasn’t done it by now, then what have they been doing for the last 13 years!?

For Cameron, there were still remnants of last week’s strategy of not attacking Brown or Clegg for fear of appearing like an Eton bully. However, he did attack a little more tonight, so the balance of that strategy was better. Has he done enough to make a Conservative majority a real possibility? The initial polls suggest not. Tonight was a huge step in the right direction. Cameron needs another big performance next week. I fear it may still, however, be a matter of too little, too late.

Local hustings prove to be a microcosm of the national election battle

Last night, I decided to attend the local hustings evening for the prospective parliamentary candidates for the constituency in which I live, Hackney South and Shoreditch. I must admit I was a little apprehensive as to what this evening would be like. I guessed it might be a rather low key event, with not much in the way of interesting political debate, particularly in a constituency which such a safe Labour majority. It was with a pleasant surprise then that I found a hall packed with young and old, all politically charged and buzzing with a keenness for political debate. Indeed, there were some startlingly brave and impassioned speeches from the audience. It was an encouraging reminder to me that there are still very many people who are politically engaged. The trouble is that this is not reflected in turnout (turnout at the 2005 election for Hackney South and Shoreditch was less than 50%) or perhaps more pertinently, what seems the likely failure of any of the main political parties to achieve a majority on 6th May

Indeed, what was striking amongst the audience was not their passionate support for any political party; rather their cynical distrust of them. the passion not of their support for any political party or policy but their cynicism and distrust of them.

As for the performances of the respective candidates for the three main parties (there were representatives from all the minor parties also), it was remarkable that they seemed to represent a microcosm of the first leaders debate on Thursday. The sitting Labour MP, Meg Hillier, must have been to the school of Gordon Brown debating as she was very keen on trotting out statistics about crime falling, schools increasing and such like. All very well, but treated with the highest contempt given the experience that all voters have of Labour’s failures in the last 13 years. The Conservative candidate, Simon Nayyar was a polished performer. He spoke articulately and the content of his answers was very agreeable. But he failed to get the audience to warm to him and he came across as sounding not particularly genuine. That is probably an unfair comment as I am sure he is very genuine, but nevertheless it is perception that counts and this is the same major issue that David Cameron has. The Liberal Democrat candidate, Dave Raval, was certainly the best received. He was a little quirky, but he gave succinct answers, never tried to dodge them and often made the audience laugh. Again like the first leaders debate, the content of the Lib Dem’s answers was not really relevant. What was, was the fact that they sounded different and represented change.

As an aside, I should mention who I personally thought the performer of the night was, both in the content of his answers as well as the likability and warmth of his personality. This was the retired police officer, Michael King for UKIP. However, he was always fighting a losing battle in such a left-leaning crowd as I noted to him at the end of the evening.

But back to the Lib Dem surge. As Daniel Finkelstein amusingly commented on Newsnight last night, that although he did not predict their recent marked success, it should have been predictable. For months now the polls have been telling us the people want change; they are just not sure that Cameron has been the man to offer it. While still in this unsure state, the public were introduced last Thursday to a new possible representative of change that they had previously not seriously considered: Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems. Albeit, it was not a particularly useful cross sectional audience, the local hustings I attended suggested that serious consideration of the Lib Dems is taking shape.

I am hoping for a better performance from Cameron tomorrow evening, but I fear that he has left it too late to convince the public that he is the true man to deliver change.

Nothing-to-lose Clegg outshines risk-averse Cameron

As somebody who watched last night’s debate and wanted Cameron to perform well, I feel a little bit like Liverpool fans probably felt following their defeat to Wimbledon in the 1988 FA Cup final. Largely, wondering how an earth they lost to a lowly under dog who should never have been on that stage. I exaggerate of course. I am sure this debate will not have anywhere near the effect that such detailed analysis and reaction (this post included!) would suggest, but nevertheless it must be said this was a disappointing performance from Cameron.

Cameron never seemed to get going; his answers lacked direction, focus and a consistency of theme. This was all the more frustrating, given the strength of theme in the manifesto launch on Tuesday. At times he even looked a little distracted. He was under huge pressure going into the debate as he was the only one with anything to lose and the one with the greatest expectation of performance. Unfortunately, his performance faltered under the weight of pressure.

Don’t get me wrong, his performance was still very good, still very solid; the content of his answers clearly outshone the other two, but it fell short of the Cameron performance we have come to expect. The sort of breathtaking, game-changing speech he gave in the Tory leadership campaign in 2005 ... where was this Cameron?

It must be said, much of Cameron’s performance was due to a strategic decision. The pollsters have told him that the electorate don’t like it when he is aggressive, and therefore time and time again when Brown spouted absolute rubbish, Cameron decided not to hammer him as he would have instinctively done had he been at Prime Ministers question time. We shall see whether this strategy pays off, but my gut feeling is Cameron needs to be a bit more free and less scripted and stage-managed.

As for the supposed winner, Clegg, this rather emphasises the absurdity that he was there at all. Less than 15% of people bothered to vote for his party at the last election, so why does that result justify his appearance at a Prime Ministers debate, when he is never going to be a Prime Minister? Of course he did well- he had absolutely nothing to lose! Given that however, I must be fair to him and give credit where credit is due. Content aside, his performance was slick, confident and engaging (I particularly liked his hand in the pocket stance when the others were speaking- proving his absolute relaxed confidence). In a sense, one moment defined his confidence when he asked for a questioner from the audience to reveal himself as he couldn’t see him properly, and then spoke to him directly. I am afraid Cameron’s less than par performance was summed up when he attempted to copy this a little later and fell flat.

A word on the worst performer of the night. No, not Gordon Brown; he was merely his monotone and shameful self, as expected (I must give him credit for getting the only laugh of the night- although it was an incredibly awkwardly delivered joke). It was, in fact, Alistair Stewart . His interruptions were completely out of context (sometimes it seemed as if he was being controlled by a random machine as he spurted ‘Mr Brown!’ ‘Mr Cameron!’ ‘Mr Clegg!’) and his limitations were sometimes only a few seconds after the speaker had started. His night was summed up when he announced the wrong day for the regional debate. I never thought I would be looking forward to Dimbleby taking the reigns again!

History may one day mark this manifesto as a significant turning point in society

How very refreshing! How very exciting! Thank you Cameron and co for delivering such a bold and potentially revolutionary manifesto. Just seeing the stark difference between the front covers of the Labour and Conservative manifestos promised something original. Labour’s with its slightly Soviet undertone of a family gazing out into the sunset, and the Tory’s with a serious cover and a simple phrase: ‘invitation to join the government of Britain.’ Read on, and within the invitation there are some fantastically (and in some ways radically new) ideas on how our society should be run. It represents power to the people and is fiercely supportive of localism. It is a final public acknowledgement from the establishment of what we all know: that big government produces the worst results; is usually over expensive, inefficient and at worst curtails our liberty. Finally, a mainstream political party has come forth and said this.

But OK, let’s not get carried away. Firstly, there was still a lot of rubbish in there, not least the emphasis upon ‘protecting the NHS’. This seems to run counter to the themes of localism and reducing the state’s involvement in our lives. It was interesting to note that in his blog yesterday, Daniel Hannan reported that the Plan (a reference to his and Douglas Carswell’s revolutionary publication to renew Britain) had been implemented. He must know himself that although the themes are all there, this manifesto does not go anywhere as far as he and Carswell suggest in the Plan. Indeed, regarding the NHS, it could be said the respective views are diametrically opposed. Yet I must be patient; for all their rigour in argument, Hannan and Carswell are wrong. In practical terms, a revolution of this sort does not come in 12 months. Cameron and his strategists know that they cannot say, for example, that they would dismantle the NHS for fear of people saying ‘same old Tories, cutting public services’, (this has been key to the detoxification of the Conservative brand as I wrote a few weeks ago. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Conservatives may not win the election and even if they do there is no guarantee that this revolution of society would actually happen.

But putting these reservations to one side, this was a genuinely exciting and, crucially, bold and risky manifesto. So much so, that there is a risk that the electorate may not go for this. The electorate has become so ultra-cynical about politicians and their promises that they may not buy this new message, perhaps least of all from the Conservative party. A party, that as I have said before, a great many people feel deeply cynical about. We shall see. But no longer can I criticise Cameron for simply regurgitating what he thinks people want him to say. Yesterday we heard distinct new ideas of how to fix the country and the society in which we live. Particularly towards the end of his speech, Cameron showed us that these are ideas of which he truly believes in and passionately wants to deliver on. At the least, for me he made politics exciting again.

I could be entirely wrong, but at the most, (and politics aside) I am hopeful that this manifesto could represent a genuine turning point in the history of how we run our society.

An invitation to the government

We have just learnt that the above heading will be something like the title for the Tory manifesto to be revealed tomorrow. Given this revelation and a few other snippets released on Newsnight I am very excited indeed. Is this finally the revolutionary small state, power to the people manifesto we have longed for?! We shall see tomorrow, I am sure it wont go as far as I might like but nevertheless I have a tentative feeling of excitement. Can't truly say that about politics for a while. More to follow later in the week...

The Lords can actually help save politics

I found Labour's very cynical plans about reforming the House of Lords, revealed last week, quite frightening. In the eyes of the public, politics could not be viewed with much less regard at the moment. Particularly following the expenses scandal, people are at the end of their tether with politicians and their trust and faith in them to run our country is at an all-time low. So what’s Labour’s answer to a reform of the Lords? Replace it with more politicians!

What a joke! I should not be surprised: Labour have shown an absolute disregard for the constitution in their time as government and have set about destroying as much of it as possible. In actual fact, the Lords represent one of the rare positives about how law is created in this country. It includes all talents, the best minds from their respective professions. That is how I would like a country to be run, with input from every perspective, and crucially not simply from those who have only inhabited the very isolated world of politics. Proposed new laws in the Lords are scrutinised and debated in a way that is not possible in the Commons because of the party whip. This has often resulted in getting a much better thought-out piece of legislation than would have been the case if it had been rushed through by the career-politicians. When it comes down to it, the Lords actually represent the beacon of hope in politics- maintaining standards and keeping a check on politicians. Yes, it does need reform. Hereditary peers should be phased out. But we need to ask ourselves what kind of parliament we want. The answer is not more politicians, but less. We should hold on dearly to the Lords, for we would be a much poorer nation once it has gone.

Of course, we all know Labour have announced this as a cynical tactic to back-foot the Tories. If the Tories were to oppose it then they would look like they are aligning themselves with privilege and an old fashioned view. So in the end, the result is we get nobody standing up for the actual rightful argument, that being, the Lords is a wholly good thing and we lose it at our peril.

Never mind the Tory brand, people’s preconceptions need to be decontaminated

‘The Tories could do almost anything and I would never vote for them’ said a friend of mine the other day. Continuing on a theme from last week’s post, this is a huge problem for the Tories: the fact that there is a significant proportion of the electorate who, no matter what the Conservatives say or do will not bring themselves to vote for them. I have had a number of conversations with like-minded people to my friend that I quote above. Many of them, as is the case with this particular friend, have political views of the right and many of them would agree with the policies of the Conservatives if they did not know they were policies of the Tory party. This supports the research carried out by the Cameroon conservatives during the 2005 election campaign. Which noted that people agreed with the immigration policy of the Conservatives until they realised it was the policy of the Conservatives at which point they disassociated themselves with it, referenced by Daniel Finkelstein’s excellent article in the Times last week.

We all know that this is has been a huge problem for the Tories and therefore they have embarked on a strategy of ‘detoxifying’ or ‘decontaminating’ the Tory brand which means the Tories must do the unexpected. My great frustration is that this results in no serious political party talking about what I am interested in or care about. As part of the decontaminating the brand the Cameroon strategy refuses to focus on European Union membership, immigration, taxation, grammar schools, the break up of the NHS etc. The list goes on. The great irony of this, is that quite often you find, as in my friend above, people are very much interested in these issues. They care about them deeply. They care about immigration of the last 10 years or so that has rocketed. They care about ceding sovereignty to the European Union on which they have not been consulted on (even when they were promised they would be). They care about the fact that grammar schools are off the agenda even though they are the most effective way to aid social mobility.

It is not that I don’t accept the Finkelstein analysis. I absolutely do. The Tories have to continue to change their brand if they are ever to be successful again. But because people have such immovable, entrenched preconceptions about the parties, it is stifling real debate about ironically the issues that a lot of people truly care about! Where does this leave us? When will we ever have an honest debate about these issues without preconceptions playing their part? This is not something we can solely blame politicians for. We have to take responsibility for our hang-ups. Stop being prejudiced. The decontamination of political brands only goes so far, it is the people who must decontaminate their prejudices also.

Cameron must hold firm – it is the only viable option he has

Last week’s YouGov/Channel 4 poll contained good and bad news for the Tories. On the one hand, their lead in the key marginal seats is better than it is nationally against Labour- as many positive Conservatives have been arguing in recent weeks. On the other hand, it is still not enough to secure an outright majority to form a Government. The reality is now sinking in that there were no rogue polls and that a hung parliament looks like a very real possibility. What an earth has gone wrong and what can the Tories do to recover their position?

The answer to what they should do is very simple: not a lot. They should continue with the highly detailed and well thought-out plan they have formulated to fight the election. Should David Cameron change course now, he would risk what I wrote about last week: being seen simply as a man who changes his mind depending on what he thinks people want him to say. In addition, he should be careful of the powerful force of momentum. There is a growing feeling that the Tories are on the back foot and their prospects declining. If Cameron panics and announces grand policies that conflict with previous ones, he risks providing further momentum to the decline. People like to get a call right, so I suspect this is what has been, in-part, behind the polls recently. Some people have been less likely to say they will vote Tory because of the relatively poor showing in the polls- they think voting Tory might be the wrong call, because they might not win.

It is impossible to know whether they will reverse the leaning of the polls at the moment, but holding firm is the only chance Cameron has. He and his team must be feeling, in private, very disillusioned. They ought not to be: the modernisation and detoxification of the Conservative brand were very much required. They would simply not be in contention if they did not carry this out. (This is not to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the Cameron strategy and policy, but more of that to follow I am sure, before polling day). The reality is that there are still great swathes of people out there, many of whom are very intelligent, right leaning and dislike the current government, but cannot bring themselves to cross the box next to the Conservatives. These people will take many more years to persuade, if they will ever be turned at all. Cameron needs to steer the same course and hold on in there. There is an awful lot to play for yet.

The Tragic desperation of Brown reveals the missing ingedient for Cameron

Now that we have had a week to analyse Gordon Brown’s desperate interview with Piers Morgan, it has been confirmed that this rather sad attempt to improve his standing has had no discernible effect on the polls. The Prime Minister of the country should not have done a base interview to improve his popularity, rather he should be (as he ironically used to keep telling us) ‘getting on with the business of running the country’. Regarding the death of his child, of course this was incredibly tragic, but it has absolutely nothing to do with his role as Prime Minister. It is simply a private tragedy that should have remained so. His willingness to discuss it on television reduces that tragedy and makes his efforts all the more lamentable.

The often-cited defence for Brown appearing on the Morgan show is that one has to do that sort of thing nowadays to be successful. People want to know the kind of person you are; they like to know the nitty-gritty. I am not convinced at all that this is the case, and the fact that Brown has faired no better since the interview would support such a view. Is it not on the media’s insistence that we know the deeply personal, not professional, details of our politicians? Yes, the public plays its role; we buy the newspapers and the magazines that detail all the personal titillation of the famous. But it is the media that provides the fuel for the fire.

Yet, just as Brown does not improve in the polls, neither does David Cameron. There are many reasons why the Tories are not improving on their position, but in part it is because of their willingness to submit to the argument I mentioned above. That is, that one has to do something (a particular interview) or act in a certain way (a sequence of photographs with celebrities) to have success in the election. In other words, there is too much analysis and time spent on trying to work out what the people want and then trying to act accordingly.

The new brand of Conservatives of which Cameron is a figurehead have built a significant proportion of their strategy around this premise. Of course, there must be a balance between practical and principle politics, but there is not enough of ‘this is who I am and what I stand for, vote for me if you want it, or if you do not, then don’t’. Instead we have ‘tell me what you would like and I’ll say that I believe that too and stand up for it’.

Piers Morgan is right: we do want to know what kind of person we are voting for, but we want to know their deeply held convictions and principles, not their very personal family tragedies or the trivial details of their everyday lives. David Cameron might do well to remind himself of this.