Ahead of next month’s local elections Ed Miliband today gave a speech in Derby promoting Labour’s campaign.
Outlining what he thinks is wrong in the country, Miliband claimed that “we have a political system that too many people believe can’t change it. It makes people believe that things can’t be any better than they are. That it doesn’t matter who is in charge.” Read the rest of this entry
I am seriously in danger of agreeing with some of what David Cameron is doing. Notwithstanding the fact that he presides over a party that espouses an impossible and unrealistic moral code that they themselves can’t adhere to, he has actually done some good things in the past few months.
The first noticeable improvement in policy was the acceptance that Israel is the main obstacle to a two state solution in the middle east. Then he came out in support of gay marriage, despite puerile whining from the rest of the Conservative Party. Then he even backs the Forfeiture committee’s investigation into making Sir Fred Goodwin back into Mr. Fred Goodwin.
The simple ‘vote for us to pay less tax’ slogan has always been a feature, and often a very effective one, of Conservative campaigning. In 1992 I remember being told by a lifelong Labour supporter on Tyneside that, with a heavy heart, they would be voting Conservative as they couldn’t afford to find £1250 extra tax a year (the Labour tax bombshell poster had been prominently displayed at the rundown shopping centre between boarded up shops). Click here to keep reading
Britain’s ‘special relationship’ with the US has always been hailed and grew during Mr. Obama’s recent State visit to the UK, but how far is too far? We have recently ‘upgraded’ from our traditional Judicial Committee of the House of Lords to an all new singing and dancing Supreme Court. Additionally, you cannot now escape the debate on the potential reform of the House of Lords which some have proposed may even become a Senate. The Liberal Democrats are viewing it as a way to show their backbone whilst Labour and Conservative MPs are torn. On the one hand, democracy should always rule and hereditary peers are becoming figures of the past, adding to the meritocratic status of Britain. However, those against an elected chamber are constantly citing the expertise they bring us and their broad interests and knowledge on subjects that politicians know little. Would people of the arts, the sciences and leading technological minds put themselves forward for these new positions? If not, are we willing to sacrifice the scrutinising of legislation by those who actually have life experience in the area?