A little light reading...

Apologies for not blogging for a despicably long time.  I've been rather busy with things.  One of those things has been deciding what to put on my Christmas list, and part of this process has been choosing a few books.  I know this isn't a 'proper' post but I thought I'd share my reading list with you all the same.

1. 'Summer of Blood' by Dan Jones - a great looking history book by one of Britain's new historians that I'm definitely looking forward to reading.
2. '22 Days in May' by David Laws and '5 Days to Power' by Rob Wilson - this seems to be a matter of one for the price of two, but nonetheless it/they should provide a fascinating insight to how the Coalition was formed.
3. 'Boris v Ken: How Boris Johnson won London' - that whole election was gripping, so I thought it would be nice gain a greater understanding of it.
4. 'Cameron: The Rise of the New Conservative' - I've heard great things about this book, which I think will be a great way of learning more about our new(ish) Prime Minister.
5. 'The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain' - likewise for this one, which is full of practical solutions for Britain's problem from a couple of cracking authors.
6. 'Making of Modern Britain' and 'A History of Modern Britain' by Andrew Marr - I loved the audiobooks, so I decided to go the whole hog and get the tangible versions.

So there we have it.  With Christmas only 42 days away, I hope this list gives you a little inspiration.

Will there ever be a British Tea Party?

At this very moment, polls are closing and votes are being counted in the most exciting US midterm elections in years.  The big story, of course, is the Tea Party, a ragtag bunch of conservatives and libertarians (and loonies).


As usual with an American political development, numerous commentators have been conjecturing about whether there will ever be a British Tea Party.


Well, in my humble opinion at least, the answer is simple: no.  For a start we already have political parties that recognise that government spending needs to be reduced, and a government that is doing this.  So immediately that takes away the need for a grassroots movement like the Tea Party, which by definition is formed because people do not feel their views are being heard by politicians.


But the reasons are more practical than that.  British parliamentary candidates are not regularly chosen by primary, as the US Republican nominations have been.  It was these primaries that the Tea Party were able to hijack.  Without them there is no air for an equivalent movement to breathe.


And the other reason is of course quite obvious - we're not Americans.  For whatever reason, we're not constantly looking for a halcyon past, like some Americans seem to be.  Our political outlook is different; we tend to be more willing to wait for change to happen over time, rather than rushing it now with pressure groups and grassroots movements like the Tea Party.


Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe we will soon see a British Tea Party.  But, for the moment at least, I doubt it.

The problem with the UK Youth Parliament

For the second time in as many years, the UK Youth Parliament was allowed to sit on the green benches of the House of Commons yesterday.  All very admirable, I'm sure, for getting young people interested in politics etc.

One problem: surely a real Parliament, which is what they are trying to emulate, would have a range of different views, with no one consensus.

Well, apparently the UKYP disagrees.  A cursory glance at their website reveals their 'manifesto' and various campaigns in which they are involved.

In other words, all the hallmarks of a lobbying group.  And that is what the UKYP is: a lobbying group with a few few bells and whistles added.  Just because they occasionally have elections, it doesn't mean that its members, who style themselves as MYPs, have any right to sit on the green benches.  Trade unions have elections, don't they?  Elections do not make a group a 'Parliament'.

This is the problem with the UKYP: they are not a real Parliament.  So they shouldn't be allowed to pretend that they are.

All we need is optimism!

Forget stimulus, forget quantitative easing, forget it all.  All our economy needs is a good healthy shot of optimism.

Now I'm no economist.  But surely it's common sense that if people are more optimistic about the country's economic prospects, they're more likely to hire that extra worker or buy that new piece of equipment, thus aiding the economy and leading to a spiral of recovery.

Whereas what we have now (from the media in particular) are constant 'coulds' and 'ifs' about where the economy is heading.  Why can't we just accept that the economy is out of intensive care and starting to recover?  Why is that so hard?

Because with that little bit of optimism, we'll get those extra jobs and good growth that we're in danger of losing with our current cynicism and pessimism.

Coalition 2015?

The 2015 election may be a political age away, but predicting what might happen in that election is still a useful way to understand the Coalition.

So what are the options?

1. Conservatives and Lib Dems fight the election as two separate parties.

Problematic, especially for the Lib Dems, as the two parties will be campaigning on the same achievements (and cuts), with an inability to criticise each other.  Will almost guarantee victory for Labour.

2. Conservatives and Lib Dems fight the election in an alliance.

Has the advantage of presenting a united front against Labour and allowing each party to present their own ideas.  But surely a Coalition agreement would have to be prepared before the election, which could create all sorts of trouble.  And what if the Conservatives won enough seats to not need the Lib Dems afterwards?

3. Conservatives and Lib Dems merge and fight election as joint entity.

Eliminates problems withe reponsibility for cuts etc.  Could be very unpopular with MPs such as Nadine Dorries, who has already said that she would rather die than see a full merger with the Lib Dems.  Would some right-wing Tory MPs break away?

Notice the 'coulds' and 'what ifs'.  It's far too early to tell what the future of the Coaltion will be, or even if it will last until 2015.  But rest assured, both Cameron and Clegg will be thinking about where the Coalition is going.

Work, work, work

Is asking people to look for work really that shocking?

The obvious answer is 'No'.  And yet union leaders have spent the day expressing shock and outrage in ever more ridiculous terms about IDS' suggestion on yesterday's Newsnight that if somebody is unemployed they should get on a bus and look for work.

Disgusting!  To think that people should actually have to do something for themselves, rather than sitting around waiting for the work to come to them.

Of course, these unions' accusations reveal that they are more engaging in class warfare and shouting matches with the government than trying to protect working people.

After all, surely the best way to protect working people is to encourage them to get jobs and look after themselves...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11606537

Why are we surprised?

Surely it was obvious that cutting Britain's gargantuan welfare bill was going to hit the poorest hardest?  They are the ones who most rely on benefits, so why is everyone suddenly so surprised that the Spending Review's measures to cut the deficit affect these people the most?

Obviously the truth is that the surprise is somewhat manufactured, predominantly by Labour to extract maximum political advantage from the 'Tory cuts'.

One problem.  The majority of people agree that the cuts have to be made.  And despite the severity of the cuts, Labour still hasn't jumped ahead in the polls as might be expected, even with its shiny new leader.

Labour calls the cuts a 'gamble'.  However, it is Labour who are taking the real gamble.  If the deficit goes down, and growth and jobs go up, then they're going to look like right bananas.

And if IDS' new Universal Benefit, which makes it pay more to work than not to, ends up lifting large numbers of people of Labour's poverty trap, then perhaps the cuts won't hit the poorest hardest after all.