On the resignation of Tim Farron as Leader of the Liberal Democrats

This is my brief "editorial" ['pretentious' - Ed.] on the resignation earlier this evening of Tim Farron as Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party:

If religion hadn't historically tried to impose its will on society, often by physical force and often by social pressure (very often even more powerful in controlling a gullible population), sceptics wouldn't be so fearful of the menace it has too often represented when it gains the upper hand.

Tim Farron [may feel he] has been harshly treated or at least "misunderstood", and to a certain limited extent even I, as a gay man, would tend to agree that he has, but one cannot divorce what has happened from the historical context of how religious dogmas have always behaved if they thought they could. It's not so long ago that one of the country's greatest heroes (Turing) was chemically castrated, because at that time merely being homosexual was a crime, largely based I would argue on the influence of the Christian religion in framing the country's laws then, and now another of these wacko religions (Islam, lest there be the merest scintilla of doubt to what I refer), because it can, is throwing gay men off of buildings, and consigning women to slavery.

To be clear, I don't think Tim Farron is any kind of danger as an individual, but the kind of thinking his beliefs represent, if they had the upper hand, petrifies me.

So Tim Farron has taken the, in my view, somewhat petulant decision to stand down from the Leadership of the Liberal Democrat Party and ended with the jibe that this is because the country is not truly 'democratic', nor 'liberal'. This is nonsense. The harsh reality is that a significant proportion of the population in many of what are self-described as "advanced societies" no longer 'believe in' nor are prepared to be dictated to by religion. If he had clearly said what his own personal views/beliefs are, when asked about it, but that this would not be used to influence his views on public policy, I think that would have defused the matter completely, indeed his own voting record in Parliament is pretty "respectable" in this regard. Instead however he repeatedly shied away from simply stating what his views are. So he has been somewhat harshly treated, but his own reaction to the pressures he has felt he has faced have been "sub-optimal", to put it mildly. And so he "exits stage left" from the political stage of party leadership.

NB/ I have deliberately avoided touching on his views on 'Brexit', by the way (about which he never stopped speaking); if he had been similarly open about his views on certain aspects of his religious beliefs, I do not think he would have landed up in this dilemma of his own making.

In Scotland? Vote tactically in May 2015 General Election - Keep SNP Out!

As I indicated in an article here posted during February 2015 (link here), I indicated that it is my intention to vote "tactically" at the forthcoming general election in May 2015 and that in the context of my own constituency this means I shall in all probability vote for the Liberal Democrat candidate, based on my own assessment of the political dynamics of this area, with the aim of trying to ensure that the SNP does not win here.

Recently I have 'liked' a Facebook group called Scotland's Big Voice ("SBV" for short), which like me has the aim of thwarting the disaster that too many (or any) SNP MPs at Westminster would represent, plus the aim of removing the SNP as Scotland's government at next year's Scottish Parliament election and obviously I would be happy to see that happen too. There's an interesting analysis of the SBV here in the politics.co.uk website.

For the General Election in May 2015, SBV have drawn up a 'wheel' of all Scottish constituencies with suggestions of how people should vote tactically to minimise the number of SNP MPs elected and I am happy to say their assessment of my constituency (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey) tallies with my own. Below is the full chart:

- obviously to make this work effectively, people will to a greater or lesser extent have to vote "through gritted teeth" for a Party they might not normally choose to vote for; in many constituencies this will obviously involve a vote for Labour, anathema for me of course, or indeed for the Conservative or Liberal Democrat candidate, which for some natural Labour supporters would be similarly unpalatable under normal circumstances. But we are not in normal circumstances - if you want to maintain the long-term integrity of the United Kingdom and retain Scotland's position within it, some discomfort for a good cause will be essential if we are to prevent the SNP continuing its machinations to tear our country apart. Once the SNP is consigned to the trash-heap of history where it belongs, normal political business can be resumed.

Who ya gonna vote for? (GE May 2015)

For some months the pace has gradually been accelerating with the pieces being moved on the political chess board and for the next now slightly less than three months we are all likely to be bombarded with claim and counter-claim by the different parties for our votes.

Whilst our 'first past the post' (FPTP) electoral system for UK general elections does usually provide a clear result, the last time in 2010 it did not and the polling information recently seems to indicate that it may provide a similarly inconclusive result this time too. A bid by coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, to have a form of proportional representation ('Alternative Vote') put into law was decisively rejected in a referendum held during 2011. Personally I am very pleased that it was rejected, because I think the introduction of an Alternative Vote for general elections would have institutionalised coalitions, which I think would have been retrograde for our politics - I prefer to see the governing party, whichever it is, given a reasonably free hand to pursue its policies so that the results, good or bad, and who was responsible for them, can be more clearly seen and attributed.

In my particular constituency (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey) our current MP is a Liberal Democrat, the quite prominent cabinet minister in the coalition government, Danny Alexander MP. Anyone who has been reading my blog over the years will know that I am definitely not a Liberal Democrat, nor am I a supporter of this political party, but I am happy to acknowledge that the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition has been a moderate success and that Danny Alexander MP has played a fairly prominent role in this success, being No.2 in the Treasury and generally supportive of government policy. More recently he, and other Liberal Democrat MPs, have been keen to differentiate themselves from their Conservative colleagues and I think this is perfectly understandable ahead of the 2015 general election. I am, at the very least, grateful that we have had at least a partially-Conservative government these past almost five years, so that more rational policies have been implemented when compared with the many idiocies and plain incompetence of the previous awful Labour government. However, it is possible that a heavy electoral price may be exacted of the Liberal Democrats, according to the opinion polls, for their participation in the coalition government. I think this is grossly unfair, because at least they have helped save us from the disaster of another Labour government, something I am very happy about.

Nominations for the May 2015 general election have of course not yet closed, but so far (as at the time of writing) the 3 major UK national parties, Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats, plus the SNP and and the Green Party have chosen their candidates, but there may well be more candidates declared before nominations close. You can see the currently-known candidates in the YourNextMP website here:
- Alexander, Danny (Liberal Democrats);
- Hendry, Drew (Scottish National Party [SNP]);
- Mountain, Edward (Conservative Party);
- O'Reilly, Isla Macleod (Scottish Green Party);
- Robb, Mike (Labour Party).

Normally my voting decision would be pretty straightforward, I would vote for Edward Mountain for the Conservatives or perhaps abstain; basically I am a Conservative, but am no longer a member as a result of earlier anti-gay policies during the leadership of William Hague MP and his successor Iain Duncan Smith MP and, to a lesser extent during the leadership of the Scottish Conservatives of the late David McLetchie. However, although I have not rejoined the Conservatives as a member, their earlier anti-gay policies have been abandoned and replaced by an altogether more positive range of policies and actions, even if some of their MPs and MSPs remain as anti-gay as ever they were; within Scotland (the area that obviously concerns me most directly) there are a number of similarly and notoriously anti-gay SNP MSPs, a fact that the SNP doesn't really like to talk about and whenever the topic has been raised by me in the past I have been howled down by irate SNP supporters (aka 'dupes' and/or 'shameless apologists)'. Their are fewer similar Labour and no or almost no Liberal Democrats, to the best of my knowledge. Of course, there are other issues beyond 'gay rights', I readily accept, but this is a matter of such fundamental importance for basic human rights that I make no apology for awarding it a certain prominence - tough if anyone reading this takes issue!

Beyond that of course, I am for free enterprise and against any form of 'socialism' or 'collectivism' because 'socialism' and similar philosophies have produced such abysmal results wherever in the world they have been tried, it really is the archetypal 'dead parrot' of political philosophies so far as I am concerned! (with acknowledgement to 'Monty Python').

Anyway, where does this leave me and my voting decision for the forthcoming general election? I could vote for the Conservative Edward Mountain quite happily, but being realistic he is likely to garner only between 13 and 16% of the vote (worst and best case scenarios based on recent history) and is 'highly unlikely' to be elected as our next MP, even if he manages to increase the vote somewhat; that is the harsh reality, sadly; here is the result at the 2010 general election to illustrate this. So under an FPTP system those 6 to 7 or 8,000 votes are effectively wasted. The two likely realistic alternativea to the Liberal Democrats in this constituency are Labour or the SNP (formerly we had a Labour MP and our current MSP is from the SNP, for example); I would find either very unpalatable, but based on recent opinion polls the main 'danger' seems to come from the SNP and I certainly wish to avoid that outcome at all costs - so my present intention would be, through somewhat gritted teeth, to vote for Danny Alexander of the Liberal Democrats. The question that those who would normally vote Conservative need to ask themselves is - do you really want to see the SNP (or potentially Labour) win in this constituency? Given that it is highly unlikely (i.e. next to impossible) that a Conservative can realistically have any hope of winning here, would you rather have one of the unholy duo of the SNP or Labour win or would it not be less unpalatable to have a Liberal Democrat instead? Honestly? I know some will find my arguments anathema - but don't come complaining to me on the morning of Friday 8th May 2015 if instead we have an SNP or Labour MP, when some of the usual 6 or 7,000 Conservative votes could have been more usefully directed to the Liberal Democrats. I have never met Edward Mountain and if I thought he had a realistic chance of winning would happily vote for him, so I hope he will forgive me for writing so candidly about my feelings.

"Hypocrisy" from Danny Alexander, who just happens to be my MP

I've previously given our local MP, Danny Alexander, now a member of the Coalition government (from the LibDem wing of course), a fairly easy ride when commenting on his expenses at the time of the Telegraph revelations two and a half years ago, but rank hypocrisy and 'jumping on bandwagons' makes me heave! Here we have our Danny jumping on yet another bandwagon criticising those who make perfectly legal arrangements to minimise their tax liabilities:



- when, as Guido Fawkes has helpfully reminded us, he 'flipped' his properties, using what what can only be described as quite imaginative arguments, prior to the eruption of the expenses scandal in order to save himself rather a lot of tax.

As I wrote in 2009 (first link above) I expect he is no worse than very many other MPs, of all politcal parties, not to mention other well-known figures or obscure citizens for that matter, but it sticks in my throat to see him (and indeed David Cameron, the Prime Minister, last week) taking to the airwaves to lambast people like Jimmie Carr (horrible left-wing hyposite that he is, too) exploiting perfectly legal - for the moment at least - loopholes in the law to minimise his tax liability.

It is NOT moral, or in any way sensible, to maximise voluntarily one's tax liability to the State, merely so that it can squander it - this is NOT (surprisingly enough from me - Ed) a political rant against any particular political party. What it is, though, is a very clear statement of my view that one is obliged to pay only what the law prescribes as being due in tax, not a penny more nor a penny less. There is no question of 'morality' being involved - we are a country governed by the rule of law, not the moral prejudices of partisan individuals or newspapers.

So, Mr Alexander (and Mr Cameron or any Labour [or SNP] politician for that matter), I think you should think more carefully before taking yourself to television studios to try and profit from the 'tabloid-style' prejudices being whipped up just now. Your own tax affairs and those of quite a few other politicians are by no means clear-cut, depending upon who is doing the interpreting of what is 'moral' or 'immoral'.

For myself, I prefer to look at what the law says. Period.

Vince Cable is a very silly man - even if I share his views on Murdoch

Vince Cable MP, Business Secretary in the current Coalition government, has got himself into a 'spot of bother' as a result, fundamentally, of his own vanity and by revealing that he is, despite impressing the gullible as some kind of economic and business 'sage' [when he is neither of those things - a polite way of putting it], really rather a foolish man, rather too obsessed by his decidedly left-wing views as well as being too easily flattered, it would seem from the embedded recording below, by what sounds to be a young female, perhaps pretty (I have no way of knowing, not having seen a photograph of the lady in question as yet), but certainly giggling and probably putting herself across as a simpering admirer of the 'great man', casting his pearls of wisdom in her eager direction:



- that would have been embarrassing enough even if the lady was what she was purporting to be, a LibDem member and supporter, although one whom Cable had apparently not met before, and to whom he nevertheless felt free to unburden himself of indiscrete comments (given his specific role in government). It turns out that she is a Telegraph reporter, who very probably is not a LibDem supporter and/or member, playing a part to flatter an elderly gentleman. One can just imagine the fluttering eyelashes which accompanied that simpering giggling we hear in the recording, with her pretending to be only vaguely aware of moves by Murdoch's interests to increase their BSkyB shareholding. It is cringe-worthy and one is tempted to feel sympathy for the predicament Cable got himself into. He was well and truly had! But he has only himself to blame.

I share what seem to be Cable's views of Rupert Murdoch and News International, the media conglomerate which he dominates and which various of his children now help to run on his behalf. Some people feel, and I am amongst them, that Murdoch and his commercial interests dominate too much of the UK media already, although it has to be said that the immediate subject exercising Cable (the precise shareholdings in BSkyB) is not really, in my view, terribly critical. I understand Murdoch's interests already control something like 61 per cent of the shares, which already gives him effective control, so increasing that is not likely to change massively his ability to influence how the satellite broadcaster operates, even if full control will presumably mean that the views of [the current] minority shareholders would no longer have to be taken into account. However, whatever I or Cable (more relevantly) may think of Murdoch and his organisation, it is imperative that the matter be dealt with by the regulatory authorities and government in an impartial, objective way. Vince Cable has plainly fallen very far short of what his job as Business Secretary requires - so it was inevitable that responsibility for this decision, at least, be removed from him.

Now we come onto some of the issues flowing from this:
- should Cable [have been allowed by Prime Minister Cameron to] remain in the Government and the Cabinet;
- the difference in 'punishment' meted out to Cable (from the LibDem wing of the coalition) and that meted out to Lord Young (a Conservative Peer and adviser to the Government) for his indiscrete [but true] comments a few weeks ago;
- the motives of the Telegraph for mounting this kind of 'sting' operation.

It seems clear that the only reason Cable has been allowed to 'survive' in Government, albeit with curtailed responsibilities, is because to eject him would badly destabilise the Coalition (perhaps even cause it to collapse) and risk making a martyr of him on the Coalition back-benches, with less constraint upon his ability to express his own [pretty well-known and strongly-held] views from outside the Cabinet. I can't say I'm exactly in favour of the Coalition, but have accepted it was a necessary and desirable alternative to the risk of the LibDems forming a similar arrangement with the Labour party; however, if strategically the collapse of the Coalition led to another election sooner than might otherwise be the case and it was thought the Conservatives might increase their representation as a result, then it would be worth it to get rid of Cable. It would be a risky option, though, and it is not even certain that this would be desired by David Cameron, although I have no real way of knowing what his views on this [or any other] matter might be. No such risk to the Coalition was posed by jettisoning Lord Young in a humiliatingly-public way. Raw politics is a ruthless business and whatever else one may think of David Cameron it is clear he possesses the ability to be ruthless when required (there have been earlier examples and there will probably be more).

The motives of the Telegraph are not entirely clear to me, however. The newspaper was behind the earlier 'scoop' involving MPs' expenses and this was much more clear-cut; they were correctly exposing MPs who had abused their position to take public money to which they were not entitled in whole or in part so they performed a genuine public service. In this case, however, little in what Cable was revealed to have said could come as any surprise - his views are pretty well-known on a variety of topics. Moreover the Telegraph in this instance did not simply report on a story, it created it by conducting a 'sting' operation. Admittedly it did expose the potential for partiality in the way business decisions might be made by Cable, but I think the possibility that Murdoch might be thwarted in his desire to increase his shareholding in BSkyB has been lessened, not increased, as a result of this incident. One is forced to consider the possiblity that the whole driver of the Telegraph's actions is designed to desatbilise either Mr Cable's position within the Coalition, or the Coalition itself. It is no secret that many Conservatives (some of whom are MPs, plus a significant proportion of grass-roots Conservatives) remain deeply-opposed to the Coalition with the LibDems and believe too much was given away, in terms of policy direction, to achieve it.

As I've already written above, I'm not particularly happy with having a Coalition either, but I do recognise that it was a [and perhaps the only realistic] response to the election results in May 2010. We have only just managed to get rid of a hated (and that is not too strong a word) Labour government and I would be horrified if anything were done which might increase the possibility of an early return of these incompetents to power. Surely this cannot be what the Telegraph is aiming for? Or is it really just a cynical journalistic ploy to get a story, at any cost, and perhaps increase circulation a little?

I doubt if we've seen the last of this story or further 'sting' operations of this kind. I hope the Telegraph has not contributed to the weakening of the free exchange of views in this country, which depends on mutual trust between individuals, whether they are politicians, or journalists or just ordinary people, all of whom must have a right to be able to express their private feelings, however explosive, free of the fear that they will be plastered across the media the next day.

Cameron's 'Rap' in the national interest

I thought the Prime Minister's conference speech was excellent and it is nice to see that someone has turned salient parts of it into a 'rap' song:



No doubt sad left-wingers mocked the speech and will ridicule this 'rap', but they're the ones sadly out of touch with the public's determination to repair the damage done to the country by Labour's thirteen years of mismanagement.

The Conservative-LiberalDemocrat agreement

The agreement signed yesterday between the Conservative and LiberalDemocrat parties to frame their relationship in the new ruling coalition has now been published and can be downloaded here.

This initial agreement document is not very long and is worth reading in full. Of particular interest to me (although other parts of the document are of great importance, too) is point 10., which covers the broad issue of Civil iberties and I quote this section below in full:

Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition negotiations Agreements reached 11 May 2010 - 10. Civil liberties The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion. This will include: A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill. The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database. Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission. The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency. Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database. The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury. The restoration of rights to non-violent protest. The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech. Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation. Further regulation of CCTV. Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason. A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

If these plans are carried through, and I hope they are implemented fully and rapidly, it will be nothing less than the destruction of the 'Police State' the previous Labour government has been busy implementing these part 13 years.

Quite apart from all the other sensible and pragmatic matters touched upon in the Coalition agreement, the section on 'Civil Liberties' does it seems to me justify a special celebration!

Her Majesty the Queen invites David Cameron to form a government

David Cameron visited Buckingham Palace yesterday, where Her Majesty the Queen invited him to form a new government, appointing him as Her Prime Minister to succeed Gordon Brown who had just tendered his resignation:



Whilst I am tremenduously pleased that the period of uncertainty seems to be over, the task ahead of David Cameron, the Conservative Party and their coalition LiberalDemocrat partners is daunting. Recovering from 13 years of Labour government and its mismanagement and squandering of the nation's resources will take many years, clear thinking and determination. I wish the new Government luck - their limited initial popularity is likely to take a severe beating in coming months as the austerity measures they are likely to announce become clear and start to take effect.

LibDems - the clean political party? Yeah, right!

Watch 'saint' Vince Cable wriggle and squirm, unconvincingly, when asked by Jon Sopel why the LibDems won't hand back the donation of GBP 2.4 million to they received from convicted fraudster Michael Brown:



- the true face of the LibDems. Keen to preach to others, but always unwilling to mend their own glaring deficiencies. Don't forget also about the recently-discovered 'anomalies' regarding donations to Nick Clegg - and incompetent with it; it is observed that another 'clean' politician, the Lord Mandelson, rushed to his defence. Is this a case of 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'?.

(Refresh your memory about the background to this case and the poor moral judgement of the LibDems in accepting, and now insisting they 'have done nothing wrong' by keeping, this money. Are these the kind of politicians we want to have a hand in running the country?)

LibDem's Cable 'skewered' - and not before time!

Today's 'Daily Politics Debate' dealt with the three men who might aspire to be Chancellor of the Exchequer after the election (although, as an aside, most seem to accept that Alistair Darling will not remain in that post if by some miracle/disaster Labour win the election).

Darling is not a 'bad man', I think, but he has the misfortune to be saddled with socialist tendencies and, much worse, he has Gordon Brown as his boss. Osborne showed why he will be a good Chancellor - he is normally far too civilised and polite to force his views upon others in debate, but today I'm glad to say he showed some 'teeth' (and his mettle).

Cable - what to say about 'Saint' Vince Cable? I've thought for quite some time (the last few years at least) that Vince Cable is that archetypal LibDeb - duplicitious, lying and generally a pretty deplorable sort. His claims to financial sagacity are pretty laughable, but he is plausible and he has the knack of coming across as a 'serious player', something which he most certainly is not. I'm pleased today that his bumptiouness was exposed rather nicely, brutally even. It was a pleasure to watch! Read an article in today's Spectator 'Coffee House' which encapsulates neatly just how much of a 'blowhard' Cable is, as does this excellent video-clip (courtesy of Guido Fawkes) of Cable floundering and spluttering that anyone should have the lèse majesté to examine LibDem policies forensically:

Coroners and Justice Bill - a letter from my MP

(Please see UPDATE at end)

I wrote an article here 10 days ago about the Second Reading last Monday in the House of Commons of the Coroners and Justice Bill and that because of what is proposed in Part 8 of the Bill it was imperative to try and mobilise support from MPs to ensure that this part of the Bill never passes into law, at least in the form it currently takes.

I am pleased to report that I have this morning received a letter back from my own MP confirming that his Party (the Liberal Democrats) opposes this legislation and that their shadow Justice Secretary, David Howarth, spoke in the debate last Monday saying that the proposals were "outrageous and should be withdrawn. They alone jusstify rejecting this bill". Danny Alexander MP (my MP) also confirms that this vociferous opposition will continue in coming weeks as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament.

Although I am not a supporter of the Liberal Democrats, I wish to record that on this as on a number of other issues relating to civil liberties they have consistently been on the correct side of the argument (for example their opposition to the introduction if ID Cards).

UPDATE: (Tuesday 3FEB09 18.10 GMT) I noticed through my visitor statistics that this post has been viewed today from the Christian Institute server. My 'default attitude' toward this group is that the people behind it have vile ideas; however, they are just as entitled as anyone else not to have their confidentiality violated as clauses 151-154 of the Coroners and Justice Bill would potentially give rise to if it passes into law, so if this is why they were looking at my site, then fair enough. Otherwise, stay away!

What passes for 'excitement' amongst Scottish LibDems

The words 'excitement' and LibDem don't really go together of course - oxymoronic almost. Anyway, the Leader of the Scottish LibDems, Nicol Stephen, has resigned to 'spend more time with his family'; good luck to them all. There will now be an 'absolutely riveting' leadership contest.

Mr Eugenides puts it best:

"As for the Lib Dems, well... oh, really, who cares? I hereby pledge to write nothing more about it."

I hereby sign that pledge, too.

Highland Council edging toward a new coalition?

I haven't yet seen this story online, or indeed in any other printed media than in the Nairn 'journal of record' The Nairnshire Telegraph (no online presence), but they report in their issue of Tuesday 1st July that a new coalition between the largest Independent 'grouping' and two of the other political groupings, the LibDems and Labour, may replace the collapsed Independent/SNP coalition.

A novel idea, apparently, is that the present Convener, Councillor Sandy Park, will more or less retain his title, but will hold the position jointly with local LibDem 'leader' Dr Michael Foxley.

The naivete of Sandy Park never ceases to amaze me; he is quoted several times in the article, but the most surreal quote attributed to him, out of a number of somewhat 'off the wall' remarks is certainly this one:

There was a question of who would be Convener. I was not prepared to give it up. Cllr Foxley will be the political administrative leader. I will chair the meetings and I will still be the face of the council. The only difference will be the political leader.

- although this one is probably at least as startling:

The independent group is now a solid group which will take the administration forward. I am now quite relaxed that we have the blend of people who can move forward.

In an editorial in the same issue, The Nairnshire Telegraph opines thus:

... And while Cllr Park may claim that his independents are now a more cohesive bunch, that boast is only as good as the next political test. Will their new partners find the independents as awkward and uncertain as the SNP appeared to have? And have the independents, in taking on the LibDems and Labour, not just leaped from the frying pan into the fire? The whole business of party politics via proportional representation was a LibDem wheeze to gain power and look how they made their play at the start of this council. Will this lot not be just as demanding as the outgoing Nationalists? ...

I think that is a pretty fair summing-up of the whole notion that a grouping of nominally-united Independents can ever form a cohesive force when confronted with a group with genuine political interests (however misguided, in my view) in common. I expect there will be more turbulence to come in the affairs of Highland Council!

The seedy underside of British political life

A local election in Waltham Forest, east London, may be long over, but allegations about the conduct of the winning candidate rumble on long after.

Labour councillor Miranda Grell is alleged to have spread rumours about her Liberal Democrat opponent, Barry Smith, that he is gay (which seems to have been widely known, anyway), but that he claimed to be married and more importantly had a 14-year old Thai boyfriend; obviously this would be illegal, if true. However, she has admitted telling one voter that he is gay and had a "19-year-old Thai boyfriend", not in itself illegal but undoubtedly designed to alienate any potential voters for Mr Smith. Ms Grell said she believed in hindsight her remarks were indiscreet. Reports indicate that Mr Smith has a long-term 39 year old Malaysian boyfriend; Barry Smith is 56 years old.

Councillor Grell claims she is the victim of a plot concocted in revenge for her electoral victory.

Stuff and nonsense! She knew precisely what she was doing. Whatever she said was clearly designed to turn people off her opponent and it succeeded. Whether she is a 'homophobe' herself I have no way of knowing, but it seems very clear that her intention was to expoloit anti-gay sentiments amongst some voters.

Other references here and here.

Kennedy speaks in language that is only distantly related to plain English

Charles Kennedy, former LibDem leader, spoke today at something called the "Scottish Parliament's Festival of Politics" on Friday, undoutbedly some new-fangled part of our 'devolution settlement' of which I have previously been unaware. What is a 'festival of politics', though? Am I paying for it?

Anyway, to get back to Charles Kennedy. In response to a question ("Are you going to be the comeback kid?") he responded:

"When you have been the leader of a national political party obviously you know what is involved, you are still of an age where you have got something to contribute, but you don't have the relentless and remorseless demands upon you in quite the same way."

Please let me know what that is supposed to mean. It doesn't seem like a straightforward response to a pretty simple question, to me.

When asked about his health, he responded:

"I'm happy and fulfilled in what I'm doing and it's up to me to keep it that way."

Delphic, or what? I suppose a translation into Englush might be that it is up to him, and no-one else, to ensure he stays off the booze; I can certainly sympathise with him and I hope that he succeeds, whatever his future is in political life.

On his decision to admit that he had a problem with alcohol:

"I think individuals have got a right to a degree of privacy, even if you are in the public eye, where medical situations are concerned. "But if you find that degree of privacy is going to be eroded then you may just as well tell people about it. "The issue for me wasn't so much that, it was obviously the political implications, which became clear fairly soon thereafter. But that's water under the bridge."

Can you make head or tail of this? Honestly?

Look, I don't 'dislike' Charles Kennedy, indeed I think he is basically a pretty decent fellow (for a politician). But I really don't see why anyone should have to put up with this complete nonsense. Surely even the LibDems, whatever their views on the competence and value as an asset/liability of their current Leader (Sir Menzies Campbell), can't be so foolish as to buy this snake-oil? Or is it only just another ephemeral part of the Edinburgh 'fringe'? Let's hope so! Not that it matters much, because who really cares what the LibDems do?

Mis-directed 'hissy fit' from Alan Duncan, gay Tory MP

Alan Duncan is, in my view, one of 'the good guys' - let me be quite clear about that. However, his outburst about the two-facedness of the LibDems is rather amusing and, frankly, a wee bit ridiculous. Look we all know the LibDems are completely shameless in their willingness to get down into the gutter and to say different things in different parts of the country if they think it'll get them a boost electorally; that's not in dispute.

What I find a little (no, a lot!) ridiculous is that Alan Duncan has to go back to the 1983 campaign involving Simon Hughes to find a case of an admittedly pretty unpleasantly homophobic campaign run by a LibDem. One certainly does not need to go back anything like that far to dredge up sickening homophobia from a Conservative - only as far as the last General Election, in fact, when the lady who is now shadow minister for community cohesion, Sayeeda Warsi, ran a pretty unpleasant ant-gay campaign in her [luckily unsuccessful] effort to become an MP. The Shadow Cabinet may present a veneer of tolerance and inclusivity toward the gay community, but I'm afraid that, in this instance, the LibDems are quite correct to highlight the very recent voting record of far too many Conservative MPs in matters affecting homosexuals. The veneer of tolerance does not extend far beyond the parliamentary Conservative Party, in any case - it is only necessary to read the comments any day of the week on ConservativeHome.com to see what a lot of people professing themselves to be Conservatives really think about homosexuality - and the Conservative support for 'the family' is a pretty unsophisticated code phrase for what they really mean; it's really a dog whistle issue to let its homophobic supporters know they won't advance gay rights any further than they are absolutely forced to. I doubt very much whether any Conservative government would ever have proposed to legislate for Civil Partnerships, for example. OK, they now say they support these, but for any further advance in gay equality I don't think one would want to rely on a future Conservative government to push it forward.

As somoeone who is instinctively a Conservative I take no pleasure from writing this, but I grew tired some years ago of having to make excuses for the Conservative Party and of having to make compromises with my conscience in order to support it. It is certainly a lot better than when I left it in disgust in 2001 - but it is still on probation so far as I am concerned when it comes to matters of gender equality.

Brown does well

It irritates me intensely to write this, but in all fairness I must acknowledge that Gordon Brown performed very well (even if not brilliantly) in his first outing at Prime Minister's Questions - he held his own reasonably well in the face of persistent questionning by David Cameron on the matter of necessary measures to enhance the security of this country (*). I was not entirely convinced by some of Brown's responses (you don't say - Ed.), but he certainly didn't do badly; he managed to avoid (just as Blair used to do) answering certain specific questions. It was certainly correct of David Cameron to use all his 6 questions on security - he too did well, but not not score a direct hit. Generally pretty balanced, although I thought Cameron had it by an edge.

As for Menzies Campbell, speaking for the LidDems, he asked perfectly sensible questions (he managed to slip three questions into one, without being adminished by the Speaker), but Brown easily batted him away. The LibDems, it seems to me, will merely drift whilst he remains Leader - not that this bothers me particularly.

(*) Although as Michael Heseltine, speaking on 'The Daily Politics', pointed out it is clear that Brown's mastery of Security/Defence issues is mediocre at best and that he had to be 'rescued' by former Home Secretary John Reid after a totally nondescript answer. He also (Brown) introduced a rather whiny tone by reminding us he had only been in the job for five days and constantly referring to Treasury matters - his one solid announcement being an increase in spending on ChildLine, a response to a question which was very obviously 'planted' to be asked by a tame Labour MP.

'Police State' Britain - serial liberty-taker strikes again

(Please see UPDATE at end)

Soon to disappear ('ex'-communist) Home Secretary John Reid issues yet another headline-grabbing plan to diminish our liberties, in the name of 'protecting' us. I think the word 'protection' as he uses it has been gleaned from movies about the Mafia!

I hope enough voters will remember what attitude their own MPs have taken toward these attempts at increasing state control over our lives during the past ten years when it comes to the next election, and will react by 'rewarding' them accordingly!

UPDATE: (Sunday 10JUN07 08.30 BST) SpyBlog has launched a new sub-blog to monitor the government's latest controversial Counterterrorism Legislation proposals - this is likely to be another useful resource provided by whoever is behind this blog for those who (like me) are deeply alarmed by the sinister quasi-totalitarian trend of government in the UK.

This is not news! Bribery to get contracts is as old as time!

Yet another 'splash' story carried by the BBC about corruption when getting contracts abroad, spearheaded naturally enough by Labour and LibDem MPs.

Whilst I agree that bribery and corruption is 'wrong', I'm not a fool and I've seen enough in my own life to tell me it is very common. Who amongst us has not felt obliged to give a generous 'tip' to some rascal in order to 'protect' our car when parked in the street? Perhaps not common in the UK, but I can assure you I've done it often in certain places I lived. Or if you are in New York and want a restaurant meal to be served decently and not spat onto then you are obliged to give 17 or 20 percent as a tip if you ever plan to visit the same restaurant again, or if you don't want to have insults hurled at you as you leave. Different in scale, certainly, from the 'bungs' being reported, but there is little difference morally so far as I can see. I have personally had to hand over a large US dollar bill just to ensure I got through a security check at the airport without being beaten up or worse in a country where the government had recently been overthrown in a coup.

I do think some do-gooder holier-than-thou Labour and LibDem MPs really do need to grow up! Do they want jobs in the UK or do they want to drive all successful companies out of business or abroad?

"Tories talk coalition with Plaid" for Welsh Assembly

Politics seems to be moving into even more uncharted territory in Wales than it has already done in Scotland, as the Conservatives there have confirmed they have held coalition talks with Plaid Cymru to consider the possibility of forming an administration there; Nick Bourne, Conservative leader in Wales, said "his party was only interested in a coalition with Plaid and the Lib Dems, ruling out a 'stability' pact" and would insist on places around the cabinet table as the price for their support.

Plaid Cymru leader Ieuan Wyn Jones confirmed talks had taken place, "but stressed that discussions continued with Labour".

As a reminder, the make-up of the new 60-member Welsh Assembly is as follows:
- Labour (26)
- Plaid Cymru (15)
- Conservatives (12)
- Liberal Democrats (6)
- Others (1)

It seems a lot can change in one week!