That byelection
The BBC lists the candidates. Does anyone know who has the best policies on civil liberties?
* Grace Christine Astley - Independent
* David Laurence Bishop - Church of the Militant Elvis Party
* Ronnie Carroll - Make Politicians History
* Mad Cow-Girl - The Official Monster Raving Loony Party
* David Craig - Independent
* Herbert Winford Crossman - Independent
* Tess Culnane - National Front Britain for the British
* Thomas Faithful Darwood - Independent
* David Michael Davis - Conservative
* Tony Farnon - Independent
* Eamonn "Fitzy" Fitzpatrick - Independent
* Christopher Mark Foren - Independent
* Gemma Dawn Garrett - Miss Great Britain Party
* George Hargreaves - Christian Party
* Hamish Howitt - Freedom 4 Choice
* David Icke - No party listed
* John Nicholson - Independent
* Shan Oakes - Green Party
* David Pinder - The New Party
* Joanne Robinson - English Democrats: Putting England First
* Jill Saward - Independent
* Norman Scarth - Independent
* Walter Edward Sweeney - Independent
* Christopher John Talbot - Socialist Equality Party
* John Randle Upex - Independent
* Greg Wood - Independent
Labels: David Cameron
Texting main sign of 'extra martial' affair
declares the
Telegraph. Sounds dangerous.
Labels: Sunday Telegraph
House market lunacy
The six-bedroom home on the market for £1.9m that was worth £3.2m three months ago
screams the Mail. But on reading the
story you learn that some estate agent valued it at that price, and no-one wanted to buy it. It was 'badly overpriced' and no house on the street had ever sold for more than £2m.
UPDATE: This is house is no longer the London house that has 'fallen most in value' and any newspaper reporting it as such is wrong. I put on sale my two-bed garden flat in Kensal Rise last night for £10m, and there were no takers, so I have now reduced the price to £1m, a reduction of 90%.
Labels: Daily Mail
The UK and oil
Why are UK
poiticians so concerned about the price of oil? Britain is no longer an exporter of crude, but it is a tiny importer - 60,000 bpd according to the latest BP survey, which at $100/b equates to $6m a day, or about $2.2bn a year. So an increase of $50/b has only added $1.1bn to our import bill, which isn't much in the grand scheme of things.
Labels: oil
His genes really were superior
Is the conclusion I draw from this Mail
article, which shows what Adolf Hitler would look like today. Not bad for someone aged 119, in fact he looks much like he did when he was 56.
Labels: Daily Mail
The rich
Felix Salmon makes some
good points about the rich v non-rich, something we've discussed here (in response to Nick Cohen's views) before. One should be careful about making too many direct comparisions with the US figures however, the exchange rate to conver should be more like 1.5 than 2, and there are taxation differences.
Labels: middle class
What Davis should do
There are various non-Conservative and anti-42 days people in favour of supporting David Davis's campaign in the forthcoming by-election, for example
Conor Foley over at Liberal Conspiracy.
I think this is misplaced, for the simple reason that Davis is standing as the Conservative candidate, with the same policies, many of which are not particularly friendly to civil liberties, as he did in 2005. Supporting him there will buttress the anti-42 days argument within the Tory party, but at the cost of boosting those views of Davis which are not positive, and indeed on which Cameron seems the better choice, which is partly why he won and Davis didn't, and Davis is doing this.
It would be different if Davis were to resign from the Conservative Party and stand as an anti-42 days and pro-other civil liberties candidate, perhaps as leader of a new political party with that as its core message, and one which would invite other MPs to join them, much like the SDP.
That would show real courage and dedication, and I advise any supporters he has to urge that upon him.
Labels: Odd decisions
David Davis - Stupid yet glorious, or just stupid?
It's difficult to know what to make of David Davis's decision to resign from the Commons only to stand again, and on the issue of civil liberties. The cause seems just, but the idea just plain bonkers. It would make sense if:
1. The Tories had voted for the 42-day measure and he was quitting the party and fighting as an independent, 'Bring back 28/14 days' [1].
or
2. If David Davis has changed his mind of these issues since he was elected in 2005, i.e. back then he had stood on a 'longer detention without trial for suspected terrorists' and now feels he has to seek a new mandate.
But neither of these apply. He seems to be saying it is an attack on Parliament itself, hence the talk about 'until yesterday' being proud of it, but if that was really the case then surely he should just quit, rather than stand again for exactly the same parliament?
So either's it's just a misguided way of making a good point, or there must be something else to it. There might be something in this
story , but Davis has presumably has had other issues on his conscious in serving in David Cameron's cabinet, and he seemed happy enough and in any case he could have just resigned. Perhaps the aim is to show to Cameron that it is not an unpopular meaure.
Will it work? He can't lose, clearly (which rather undermines the above suggestion aspect) and I suppose it gets to make a nice contrast with Gordon Brown's not calling an election. But it might have been more dramatic to set hiself on fire on the Commons terrace, or at least quit the Conservative Party and stood as an independent.
[1] Did Davis support the 28 day extension? [2]
[Update] Actually I think I've worked it out. The idea is that Cameron cannot backtrack on his opposition to 42 days if he has 'Mr 28 days (but not 14)' on his backbenches. Maybe.
[2] Yes he did, and worse, he
argued for it on the same grounds that Labour now argue for 42 days. This makes his whole position ludicrous in my view. I have no idea why 42 days destroys the Magna Carta, but 28 didn't. It's a stunt. The idea that David Davis wil protect your civil liberties is a fantasy. One might argue that's he changed his mind, but to me the issue is this - we can talk about and once every 4/5 years have a 1/40m say about it, but he had a 1/600 odd say and chose an extension - worse he argued in favour of it. The voters of wherever it is in Yorkshire should choose whoever else they get, unless he/she is even stranger which looks possible.
[Update2] The Telegraph suggets it is leadership positioning, which is really odd, as if there is a consituency in Britain that so prefers Davis to Cameron.
Labels: Odd decisions
Urghh
I was given a free copy of GQ today - how many people still buy these magazines? Anyway if you were thinking of buying it, if it is still on sale, it has an alarming article about the 'Class of 2008' in British politics, from Gordon Brown down to Tom Bradby (someone at ITN), all photographed (unpleasantly closely) by David Bailey, and all dressed in designer suits. It does none of them any favours, as it looks like Bailey's instructions were 'look as smug as you can', but I guess they were probably embarassed - why did they agree to it? I can't find many examples of it on the internet, but here's Iain Dale, whose
picture was one of the better ones.
Labels: Thing's that I'm sure used to show Liz Hurley naked
St John's Wood Road
I've cycled down this road, which passes Lord's cricket ground, for five years now. Every year, about now, they've started digging up the section of road directly outside the Lord's entrance, closing one lane of traffic. I was beginning to wonder whether it was in fact an anti-terrorism tactic, givne Lord's entrance is quite exposed, but the New Zealand test was completed without any roadworks, so I abandoned that idea. Anyway yesterday I realised that they are back - EDF again, I think - with an absolutely enormous hole.
ps I should also add that when I did drive past there on the Sunday of the New Zealand test (I think) the crowd behaviour was pretty poor, with very drunk cricket fans delilberately blocking the road and abusing drivers etc.
Labels: Cycling