Letters From A Tory

Like this one, for example:

…and this one, showing the 2005 result in Glasgow East…

…and this one showing the 2008 result…

There are three subsets of the population who will enjoy looking at these pictures:

1. The SNP

2. Anyone who hates Labour

3. The Conservative Party, who managed to maintain their share of the vote while Labour lost almost 20% of theirs and the Lib Dems lost just under 10% of theirs.

“The court is profoundly concerned about the very poor judgment which this child’s parents have shown in choosing this name”

- a judge in New Zealand, after declaring that the 9-year-old girl in question should be allowed to change her name from Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii (CLICK HERE for the full story and enjoy the other unbelievable names that parents in New Zealand have given their children)

Dear Chris Leslie,

What a clever little cover.  Instead of Gordon Brown attacking MPs for having second jobs, he leaves it to you instead - a former minister who ran his leadership campaign last year.  That amazing coincidence aside, the argument is still a valid one.  I remain undecided as to whether MPs should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts of their time and effort on pursuits that are clearly not related to working in their constituency, although the arguments supporting such practices are easy to understand.

Your point is that because ”ordinary people have such low expectations of the behaviour of elected representatives”, MPs should focus solely on their constituents and that ”excessive outside earnings from consultancies and directorships [lead people to] perceive that they are diverted from the public interest – or worse, that they are exploiting their public status.”  This seems a perfectly logical argument, in my opinion.  MPs are elected to represent their constituents and serve their party.  If, however, they put a considerable amount of their time into lines of work that are clearly not related to either of these pursuits, surely we should feel aggrieved.  The heading of ’second jobs’ covers a huge range of activities from writing books, after-dinner speeches, company directorships etc so it’s difficult to generalise.  Nevertheless, I wouldn’t want my MP to spend two or three days a week away from Parliament earning extra cash on the side.  If they have so much free time, shouldn’t their constituents be the first to benefit?  Critics of MPs with second jobs also point out that their voting record is typically very poor.

But it’s not as simple as that.  One can’t help feeling that Gordon Brown taking up your recommendations would be reigniting a bit of class warfare, seeing as the stereotype that all Conservative MPs use extra cash to pay for expensive second homes, while all Labour MPs are less well-off and need to spend the money on food and water seems alive and well.  It probably didn’t escape your attention that 66% of Conservative MPs, 37% of Lib Dems but only 19% of Labour MPs have other jobs - so your plans would obviously hurt the Conservatives more.  Some MPs argue that outside work makes them ‘better politicians’ by giving them experience outside Westminster (although personally I would prefer them to get this experience before becoming an MP).  And, of course, another argument in favour of second jobs is that if MPs want second jobs, let the electorate decide at the ballot box whether they still want them as their MP.

The options for addressing second jobs remain quite fluid.  There could be a total ban, a US-style earnings limit of, say, 15% on top of an MP’s salary, or a partial ban under which more time-consuming second jobs would be outlawed but others such as a newspaper column would be allowed.  In all honesty, I think this is a perfectly valid debate to have in front of the media.  Having said that, I would have been a lot happier if this debate had taken place when Labour weren’t being crushed in the polls and looking for cynical ways to undermine the Conservative Party.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

To all those men out there who think that women’s obsession with shopping is utterly ridiculous, it may be time to reassess your attitudes - especially when you consider that one day, her ridiculous shopping habits might help to keep you out of jail.

Dear Simon Milton,

I think that a reality check is in order.  As Chairman of the Local Government Association, I was hoping that you would be as angered as I am about the news that local authorities abused anti-terror laws to launch almost 10,000 spying campaigns last year and also lodged over half a million requests for personal communication data.  To say that I was ‘disappointed’ by your response has got to be the biggest understatement I have ever produced in a letter.

Far from criticising the councils, you have insisted that the powers were necessary to deal with legitimate concerns from local people, and that ”without these powers, councils would not be able to provide the level of reassurance and protection local people demand and deserve.”  Reassurance? REASSURANCE? Are you out of your mind?  Who on earth is going to be “reassured” that you are spying on our telephone calls and emails to investigate crimes as petty as underage smoking and dog poo?  Well?!  Needless to say, our pathetic Prime Minister has bottled it again and launched a review of the situation (to be completed in the Autumn, when he hopes everyone will have forgotten about this) instead of going in front of the media and immediately repealing the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) until such time as the powers given to deal with terrorism and serious crime are restricted to precisely those areas and nothing else.

It is terrifying to think that these “directed surveillance authorisations” can be approved by a junior town hall official instead of a judge.  In effect, unqualified idiotic bureaucrats determine whether your stupid local authorities can spy on people.  It’s not often I find myself agreeing with the Lib Dems, but Chris Huhne got it spot on when he said that this was another example of “the creeping Orwellian state” introduced by Labour, and “measures that were intended to be used to fight terrorism and organised crime have instead been used to snoop on ordinary people’s children, dogs and bins.”  For you to also expect sympathy towards local councils is absolutely unbelievable.  I don’t see you can defend local councils by saying that they are “between a rock and a hard place” when they are so openly abusing powers that were never intended for them in the first place.

Honestly, the dismissive approach of this government towards civil liberties is getting too much to bear.  Bring back David Davis.

Yours contemptfully,

A.Tory

“There may have been something sticky on his hands but it was only for a few seconds that he touched the prime minister.”

- (I’ll leave this completely genuine quote to your imagination)

Dear readers,

As you may remember, it was only a few days ago that I asked/begged for your support in the Witanagemot Blog Awards.  Today, I find myself in the slightly embarrassing position of asking/begging for your support for the second time within a week.  Iain Dale has just started collecting votes for the Guide to Political Blogs 2008-2009, which requires you to vote for your top ten political blogs from across the political spectrum.  I must therefore engage in yet more shameless self-plugging, as I would be very grateful for your support.  If you think this blog deserves a mention, CLICK HERE.

Dear Barack Obama,

The last 24 hours must have given you a nice warm fuzzy feeling, having got the better of John McCain on two occasions.  In my opinion, the military and international relations are two areas where McCain must be desperate to score points over you due to his experience in this area, but it is you who has been backed by the Iraqi government with regard to your plans for the withdrawal of US troops.

The suggestion that all US combat troops will leave Iraq by the end of 2010 is a bold statement of intent.  Interestingly, there was no official statement from the Iraqi government about the clear similarity in your plans and their plans for troop withdrawals because you still have to wait until November to be able to dictate events rather than pass judgement on them.  McCain was quick to strike back, saying that he would only withdraw troops when the situation allowed - emphasising how precarious your position is when confirming a withdrawal by 2010.  Even so, it looks like you scored a points victory over him in this round.  You have probably noticed that the Labour Party in the UK is desperate to avoid talking about Iraq as their poll ratings are already abysmal, making it even more refreshing to hear such a candid discussion of the topic.

Then, somewhat unexpectedly, the New York Times embarrassed McCain by rejecting an article he penned for the famous newspaper and told him to rewrite it.  It seems as though this story follows many other indications in the media about your ability to push McCain out of the headlines.  In terms of media personality, you clearly have a significant advantage over him as his style is less refined and less amiable.  Even though question marks still remain about many policy issues, there is no doubt who is winning the media battle.

The momentum is certainly with you, and if McCain is unable to build on his enormous military credentials then you could be moving into an even stronger position.  We are still over three months away from election day.  However, your support base and your electoral appeal certainly seems to be doing the business.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

They are no longer suspects and the investigation has been shelved, but does anyone else still have that lingering feeling that there was something about the disappearance of Madeleine that just doesn’t feel right?

Dear James Purnell,

It was very instructive to read your plans to make benefit claimants pick up litter and clean graffiti.  In principle, I’m happy to admit that it makes sense for people to engage in meaningful activities should they be unable to find work.  People often forget that the benefits of work go way beyond merely earning money in terms of routine, purpose, psychological needs etc, which means that your plans are a welcome step forward.  Well, I say your plans, but we both know that’s not technically true.

Under your plans, benefit claimants will have to do four weeks’ community work if they have been unemployed for more than a year, and after two years they will have to work full-time.  You described the move as “revolutionary” and said that it will “transform lives”.  Perhaps it will, but that’s probably why the Conservatives put forward these proposals in January of this year.  In case you’ve forgotten this, hop onto the BBC website today and click on the story relating to your proposals (or just click on the thumbnail below).

You will see that on the right hand side of the screen, there is a link to a story relating to Conservative plans for reforming benefits from January 2008, and the opening section is as follows:

“The long term unemployed would be forced to work for their benefits under plans outlined by the Conservatives. People claiming Jobseekers’ Allowance for more than two years would have to do 12 months community work. Tory leader David Cameron said he wanted to help people into work and end the “something for nothing culture”.  PM Gordon Brown said the government was already getting tough with the long-term jobless and the Tory plans were out of date and would not work.”

So, to recap, you have not only stolen Conservative plans for welfare reform - you have stolen Conservative plans for welfare reform that the Prime Minister himself said would not work and were out of date.  Yet again, the Labour government have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that they have run out of ideas while happily and shamelessly lifting other party’s policies and claiming them as their own.  Honesty and integrity are a myth within the Labour Party and I am truly ashamed to have such a bunch of deceitful and incompetent morons running this country.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

“He has, as so many who have met him readily testify, the sort of charm that curdles milk”

- Simon Heffer on Schools Secretary Ed Balls

If you enjoy reading this blog (which hopefully someone out there does) then I would be very grateful for your votes in the Witanagemot Blog Awards 2008.  There are lots of categories to vote in but you don’t have to vote in all of them.  CLICK HERE if you think this blog is worth a mention.

Dear Michael Gove,

I know that this furore over SATs is easy pickings for the Conservatives, but I am still dumbstruck by the sheer stupidity of the Labour Party (and that’s saying something).  Even though thousands of SATs results are delayed and teachers are saying that there are huge numbers of mistakes and inconsistencies in the grades given by markers hired by ETS, the government’s response has been clear enough - it’s not our problem.

Like just about everyone else in the UK, I want to see education testing reduced - preferably to almost nothing other than internal assessments and school-leaving exams at the end of secondary school.  I am sick and tired of putting children and parents through these mindnumbing and uninformative exams that distort the curriculum and make children believe that education and intelligence is all about exam scores.  That aside, the way that the government reacted to this appalling state of affairs is appalling in itself, and this is where you have rightly stepped in.  ETS hold a five-year, £154 million contract to mark SAT papers taken by 11- and 13-year-olds, but it seems as though even gross incompetence is not enough to boot out ETS.  Just like PFI contracts, the government evidently thinks it is appropriate to go into business with private companies when the contract guarantees massive levels of compensation should it be terminated.  The private sector has no incentive to perform well and will aim to cut costs at every corner safe in the knowledge that they will either keep their job (and get richer) or get compensation for losing their job (and get even richer).  Gordon Brown and the Labour Party simply do not understand the concept of markets and incentives.  Brown in particular loves private money in the public sector but doesn’t understand that you can’t just hand things over to the private sector without putting the necessary incentives in place - and this is where the Conservatives need to sort themselves out because they cannot afford to go down the same road.

Last night, the QCA (who hired ETS) declined to answer questions on whether ending the contract with ETS could cost taxpayers money, while ETS declined to answer questions about the contract (which is secret, naturally).   In typical Labour fashion, Jim Knight, the schools minister said: “I hold QCA accountable for the contract, for the delivery of the contract and it’s up to them to come back to me with what they’re going to do to re-establish the reputation of the SATs in the future.” So, an incompetent and costly quango has screwed up but we are now going to pretend that neither the quango nor the failure of the private sector to deliver is anything to do with us.  Don’t hold back Michael - this is too good an opportunity to miss.

Yours respectfully,

A.Tory

“Look into my eyes, Mr Journalist, and you will soon see that the Treasury cannot start relaxing any fiscal rules because there were never any fiscal rules, it was all a dream, all a dream, all a dream…”

Dear Nick Clegg,

It never fails to amaze me how lightly the Lib Dems get away with their lack of respectable policies.  People say that the Conservatives need to focus more on policy, yet the Lib Dems have been so quiet that no-one ever seems sure what their purpose is as a party.  Your pledges on cutting taxes are the first attempt in a long while to get some press coverage but no-one really gave a toss apart from the Independent this morning, and the policies themselves further emphasise how bereft of ideas the Lib Dems are.

Let’s quickly run through your list of proposals.  You want to cut Whitehall spending?  Well done for catching up with the Conservatives on that issue.  You’re going to cut the basic rate of income tax to 16p by hiking up ‘green taxes’?  Everyone has now seen through green taxes as they are a complete sham used by the government to raise revenue as opposed to saving the environment.  I know it, you know it.  You’re going to scrap the entire Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR)?  Oh great, because everyone really wants another renaming of government departments and shifting of responsibilities at a cost of millions to the taxpayer.  You want to move parts of the Civil Service to cheaper locations outside London?  They’ve been doing that for years, which is why departments such as the DVLA ended up in Swansea.  On that point, I’ve spoken to lots of civil servants about the possibility of moving parts of the Civil Service and they said it’s a bad idea in general because departments must be represented in and around Westminster by their most senior people because Westminster is where all the important decisions are made by government - so actually your idea could be seriously counterproductive.

Poor Cleggy.  No-one really cares what you say as we all know that you won’t get close to being in government.  Even when Labour are in complete freefall you find it almost impossible to even break 20% in the polls.  If this ‘back of a beermat’ calculation is the best you’ve got, the Lib Dems will continue to drift towards irrelevance.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

“What is the world coming to when anyone seen with a camera is assumed to be doing things that they should not? This parental paranoia is getting completely out of hand. I was shocked”

- Gary Crutchley, of Walsall, who was stopped from taking photographs of his own children playing on a slide in a public park

Dear Sandra Gidley,

As Joint Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Mental Health, I am not surprised to hear you calling for us to be nicer to MPs who are suffering from some form of mental health problem.  However, I think you’re rather missing the point.  You’ve even gone as far as criticising the law that forces MPs to give up their seats for life if they are sectioned for six months under the Mental Health Act.  Looks like you need my assistance in understanding this issue!

As a human being, I hope that I could find some compassion for MPs who develop a common mental illness such as anxiety, depression or stress.  As a voter, however, I’m not sure that I want somebody suffering from anxiety, depression or stress voting on the future of this country or being given the role of representing their constituents - and I sure as hell wouldn’t want somebody voting in the Commons when their mental illness is serious enough for them to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act for more than six months!  Seriously, some perspective would be helpful here.  We’re not talking about somebody feeling a bit run down or overworked - you can surely only be sectioned for disorders such as clinical depression, schizophrenia, manic disorders etc.  You might still argue that it’s unfair to ban them for life once they have been sectioned, but it is highly contentious to suggest that people ever fully recover from conditions such as clinical depression so I still support the ban. 

Aside from serious mental disorders, your report also found that 86% of MPs were stressed.  Well, boo hoo.  Most MPs don’t even know what stress means.  How about working in an A&E department and having to watch patients bleed to death in front of you?  How about being in charge of an overcrowded classroom with 35 teenagers, many of whom have Special Educational Needs or can’t speak English, and trying to teach them GCSE Maths while worrying about whether any of them are carrying knives?  How about saving people from burning buildings every day of your life?  MPs sit in an office surrounded by lots of paper most of the day, which is the lamest excuse for stress I can think of.  Obviously some MPs have held ‘real jobs’ at some point in the past, which I applaud, but those who have lived in the Westminster bubble ever since university have got no right to complain.  Besides, they could always spend taxpayers money on a new plasma screen or a spa day if things get too overbearing.

I know that your report discusses other issues such as stigma towards mental illness and possibly hostile media reactions after disclosing mental health problems, but when all is said and done the law is designed to protect voters from MPs who are not able to carry out their duties and once you’ve been sectioned under the Mental Health act, I’d rather the individual in question was kept away from Parliament.  Harsh, but fair.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

Ooops.  My mistake.  There I was thinking that Nicolas Sarkozy and the EU might be willing to give Ireland the time they promised them to decide on their next step with regard to the Lisbon Treaty.  Looks like Sarkozy has other ideas….

“I voted for an elected second chamber but I’m struggling to remember why”

- Conservative MP Desmond Swayne on Lords reform

Dear Jacqui Smith,

How unbelievably arrogant of you.  Labour’s ability to communicate even the most simple message is embarrassingly poor at the moment, but rather than blame yourself you’ve decided to blame the media for making errors in reporting the government’s plans to make perpetrators of knife crime visit hospitals.  I would feel a lot happier if the Home Secretary took responsibility for her own mistakes instead.

Your beloved Home Office was adamant yesterday that you never suggested taking knife criminals to see their victims in hospital, but when interviewed by Adam Boulton on Sky News you were asked ”One of those proposals is that people caught carrying knives should be taken to see people in hospital that have been stabbed or to meet the families of victims. Is that correct?”, to which you replied: “It is.”  Somehow, in spite of this, you are pointing the finger at the media and crying foul play, yet just like the 42-day detention debate it is YOUR total failure to communicate the few shreds of justification for your plans that caused the wheels to fall off this policy.  As if that wasn’t bad enough, your grand plans follow the classic Labour pattern of dealing with the symptoms rather than dealing with the causes of knife crime.  Unlike some newspaper commentators, I don’t think that the solution to knife crime is a simple one.  However, throwing money at family intervention projects is nothing more than a glorified press release and will achieve little.  What about family breakdown?  What about role models for children? What about parenting skills?  What about the availability of knives for young people?  What about generations of worklessness in certain parts of the country?  What about reforming benefits to encourage families to stay together? 

You don’t have a clue, do you.  Every time Labour is faced with a big challenge, you duck the serious questions and go for the quick press release with a nice headline and a bit of extra funding - and the problem is magically solved.  Just face it - you’re out of your depth, and you don’t have any answers to the big questions facing the Home Office.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

Just a couple of weeks ago, I made the point that the unions are now going to start flexing their muscles with increasing regularity, such is Labour’s financial plight.  In today’s Independent, the head of the biggest public sector union is threatening to withdraw funding from the Labour Party while today’s Telegraph includes the government’s latest appeasement to the unions by making companies increase their union membership if they want to win government contracts.  How very cynical, how very sad.

Barack Obama’s team have called this cover on the New Yorker Magazine “tasteless and offensive”.  The magazine responded by saying that the cover “combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are”.

I know which side I’m on - what about you?

When thinking about the prospect of John McCain becoming President of the USA, it is worth asking yourself this - would you want to give someone access to the most powerful nuclear arsenal on the planet when they don’t even know how to check their email?

Dear Nicola Brewer,

Congratulations on reaching the same conclusion that I reached several years ago.  Better late than never, I suppose.  You have finally noticed that giving mothers more maternity leave and extending their rights to request things such as flexible working is damaging their employment prospects.  Of course, the government has introduced lots of measures to appease working mothers, but as usual with Labour they don’t understand what they are doing and their desire to appease every group of voters in the country is now doing more harm than good.

“The thing I worry about is that the current legislation and regulations have had the unintended consequence of making women a less attractive prospect to employers.” Really?  I’d never has guessed.  I mean, who could have forseen that women would become unattractive as an employment prospect if they were allowed to take a year off work and request flexible working (even when their children are 16 years old) when men only get two weeks paternity leave?  Honestly, this is just embarrassing for everyone concerned.  I was very happy to see David Cameron say that he would allow men and women to divide up 12 months parental leave between them in whatever way they wanted because this will allow both parents to take an active role in raising their children.  Sadly, Labour have actually made things worse for women and their desperation to make employers treat women ‘fairly’ in the workplace in the name of equality is now doing far more damage than good.  It was also interesting to read that under EU employment law, once employment rights have been given they can NEVER be retracted or altered - meaning that Labour have dug a massive hole for this country and it is extremely difficult to see how their current appeasement approach will get us out of it.

As I said in the ‘Why I Write These Letters’ page at the top of this blog, equality is a myth and a pointless objective to pursue.  Men and women should both be involved in bringing up their children and should both be treated fairly in the workplace, but forcing employers to provide more support to either men or women will necessarily drive a wedge between men and women and also damage relations between parents and children.  When discussing parental leave, I find that common sense goes a long way.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

“This discussion of homosexuality we are having in the church is not so significant because of what it says about homosexuality, but because of what it says about God.”

- Rt Rev Gene Robinson, the openly gay Bishop of New Hampshire, who was forced to halt his address in London yesterday after a demonstrator repeatedly called him a heretic