It seems as if news of the knife amnesty has gone further than many expected. One day into the amnesty, a Klingon bat'leth was handed into a police station. Only time will tell if the Klingon race are committed to disarmament but it is undeniable that this is a large step in Klingon, earth relations.

... according to the Church of England, at least. Its laughable new Faithful Cities report suggests the government adopt soft marxist economic policies that anyone aside from the odd bumbling old labour backbencher will have dismissed decades ago.

A leader in the telegraph is right on point:

[The reports] overall analysis is socialism tinged with piety. Attacking "market-driven capitalism", sententiously proposing "a living wage rather than a minimum wage" and suggesting that any illegal immigrant who makes it to these shores should be entitled to work and welfare - this is not Christian compassion, but economic and moral childishness.

Exactly right. The intent, the presentation, and the sheer ideas themselves make the church seem childish in the extreme. This is just another story in the Church's swing leftward that will make me for one ever more proud to be celebrating my religion in a catholic church every sunday

In relation to my previous post, I think it is important to note that today the BBC have picked up on the story along with fellow members of the Press. Talksport and ITV have also all run the story in one way or another. With an early day motion tabled, it is only a matter of time until we get some sort of response from the Labour Party but as people have mentioned on other blogs, is it worth bringing up more pain for the family of Doctor David Kelly? Hopefully the Labour Party will cut their losses and donate the money to charity before this gets even more out of hand.

I cannot put into words the anger and total disbelief that I currently feel after reading this article on the Ian Dale blog. After everything that this government and the security services put David Kelly through, he has now become a fund raiser for the Labour Party and it is not a one off either.

This is sick and how Cherie Blair is going to get away with this is utterly incomprehensible. Any sign of this on the BBC website, no I thought not, its about time people like this are hounded and given the treatment they deserve, unfortunately most of the media continue to side with New Labour out of fear that they might miss the govenment leaks.

Cherie Blair and the Labour Party in general, you are a disgrace

David Cameron - its no secret I haven't fallen head over heels for the guy - and have always been something of a skeptic (I didn't vote for him). Part of the reason is because of small incidents like this, which although are probably insignificant, do tend to grate when they pile up.

Tory leader David Cameron says there is more to life than making money, arguing that improving people's happiness is a key challenge for politicians.

In a speech to the Google Zeitgeist Europe conference, he said the focus should not just be on financial wealth.

Under a Tory government, the public sector will become "the world leader in progressive employment practice".

This must surely represent a change in traditional conservative ideas that even DC acknowledges, as the BBC then feels the need to add:

But he conceded that some on the right will believe people's well-being is nothing to do with politics.

A child of the Right, this is exactly what struck me when I first saw the headline: What right does David Cameron have to try and make people happy? Even if we conceed this point for arguments sake, other questions arise - what does happiness involve, and what can government practically do to achieve it?

So what makes people happy? The obvious conclusion is... it depends on the person. Everyone responds differently. It is not legislation, nor "advocacy" from government, as Cameron puts it, that will make people happy. They must do this themselves, as only they can. Freedom to achieve and pursue ones own goals is what happiness surely involves.

But government can do two things to greatly aid people in their efforts: First, is to encourage and help produce a social and cultural environment where people can be free from fear and molestation to make themselves happy - law and order, respect for others and for life, etc. Second, after this, is for government to stand back and.. leave well alone. Lower taxes, lower regulation and reduction of the great tentacles of the state enhance peoples ability to do their own thing - make and spend their own money, run their own businesses, and run their own lives. I'm not aware New Labour style nannying ever made someone happy.

You won't be surprised this is what conservatism is meant to be about anyway. Perhaps Cameron has forgotten, because as far as I know, neither of these two things have been touched on by his flying circus of spin yet.

Prominent American writer Charles Murray had this to say in one of his books, summing up the argument better than I ever could:

Why seek limited government? Not just because freedom is our birthright, but because limited government leaves people with the freedom and responsibility they need to mold satisfying lives both as individuals and as members of families and communities..... limited government enables people to pursue happiness

David Cameron may wish to separate himself from the "anti-government right", whatever that is meant to mean, but lets hear him argue against what Murray correctly indentifies as the way toward happiness. The simple truth is, people would likely be much happier if... politicians stopped telling us what we need to get there?

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others.

Today is the 200th aniversary of the birth of the liberal thinker John Stuart Mill - a person whose philosophy has had a great and irreversable impact on the political culture of the UK.

The question is - what should conservatives make of this character? Roger Scruton's piece in the Opinion Journal is definately worth a read on this subject

Peter Hitchens blog on the Mail on Sunday website is quickly becoming one of my favourites - and this post on British liberty and the Human Rights Act is no exception:

Many sixties leftists chose to enter the law rather than politics, precisely because they realised that these [European] conventions were a limitless mine, into which they could dig for excuses to push through radical social change. They could never have got these measures past the electorate. And all these things were going on long before Labour passed the Human Rights Act. The Strasbourg Human Rights Court had for years been providing an excuse for British governments of both parties to do liberal things. they wanted to do them anyway, but could claim Strasbourg had forced them to.

Mr Clair and Mr Blameron are both currently squeaking to the 'Sun' newspaper that they have got it in for the Human Rights Act. Don't you believe it. Neither of these elite liberal public schoolboys would ever dare withdraw from the European Human Rights Convention, the only way to free ourselves from this rubbish. Why, if they did that, they would have to leave the EU, Britain would go back to governing itself, and politicians would once more become directly responsible for the actions of their government.

That would never do, would it?

While I don't share Hitchens contempt for David Cameron, I must say his general conclusion seems about right. Even a strong Tory government will never restore British sovereighty and independence to what it should be. Lack of principle or just a reflection that things have changed? You could argue either way, but personally I'd go with the former... and that leaves me with a heavy heart indeed

A must read for anyone with any interest in American politics is David Frum's essay Republicans and the Flight of Opportunity, asking whether the Republican party of George Bush is still committed to limited government in a conservative fashion.

I find this ever more engaging because it also has much relevance with the UK Conservative Party. Has it betrayed its limited government agenda? Did British conservatism ever really have one?

While surfing the BBC News site i found this article. Amazing that while the NHS is suffering a serious funding crisis the Labour goverment still find something to celebrate (and waste money on!). In other news, Blair takes another hit in this weeks PMQ's http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4758055.stm The question on Everyone's lips, Will he quit or is he determined to take the Labour party with him?

Labour is collapsing, we see it on the news everyday and now the polls are reflecting it. A poll for the Times puts Labour on 30% the Lib dems on 20% and the Conservative Party on 38%. Further if Brown was to be in power then the poll put Cameron on 41%. To add to this good news, William Hill has for the fist time since we lost power, made the Conservative Party favourites to win the next General Election.

"William Hill, have cut their odds from Evens to 4/5 favourites. Labour have drifted from 8/11 to 10/11 - the longest odds at which they have been quoted since coming to power in 1997, while the Lib-Dems are 80/1 with Hills, who are offering 7/2 about the next Election producing a Hung Parliament.
'Betting support for Labour has virtually dried up over the past ten days and political punters are only interested in backing the Tories - if we were closer to a General Election they would be even hotter favourites' said Hill's spokesman Graham" Sharpe

!

Taken from the Ian Dale Blog

A good letter in the Telegraph from Ken Baker today...

Sir - The appointment of John Reid, MP for Motherwell North, Lanarkshire, as Home Secretary, and of Douglas Alexander, MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire, as Transport Secretary is an affront to all English voters. Mr Reid will be responsible for the English police, prisons and criminal justice system, but as these matters have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, he will have no say on them in his own constituency. He can tell the Lancashire police force what to do, but not his own in Lanarkshire. An injustice of the same kind led to his being relieved of his post as health secretary. Mr Alexander will be responsible for English roads, railways and airports, but will have no say on those in Scotland. So both Mr Reid and Mr Alexander will have to make controversial decisions in a country no part of which they represent. Tony Blair, in his twilight months, has failed to recognise the inevitable consequences of his devolution of powers to Scotland, which he introduced in his bright dawn.
Lord Baker of Dorking, London SW1

Ian goes onto state that John Reid described the Home Office recently as "the one Department which can't have a Scot in charge". Considering Scots account for almost half the cabinet, is it time we give serious attention to the West Lothian Question?

Does the cabinet re-shuffle have more importance than just reasserting Blair's power or alternatively burying the bad news of the local election results? Ewen MacAskill in yesterday's Guardian thinks so and looks at why Jack Straw who is one of the few cabinet members to avoid the front pages in the past few weeks was demoted to Leader of the Commons. With Patricia Hewitt remaining as Health secretary and Prescott also staying, the decision to remove Straw seems a tad strange.

Ewen MacAskill argues that Jack Straw was replaced as Foreign secretary so as to prepare for a future war with Iran. Jack Straw has come under increasing pressure from both number 10 and the White House for repeatedly stating that a military strike on Iran was inconceivable. Just like Robin Cook, MacAskill argues that Jack Straw has been removed so as to avoid future justifications problems. If this is the case then it will be very interesting to hear the words chosen by Magaret Beckett over Iran and whether she too views military action as inconceivable.

It really is quite incredible. Just a few days since Tony Blair hailed Charles Clarke as the best man to sort out the debacle at the Home Office he is replaced with John Reid. Charles Clarke had to go however lets have some consistency in statements and from listening to the Clarke interview I somehow think he agrees with this.

But the problems do not stop there. Geoff Hoon is appointed as Europe minister, which gives him no major role and just allows him to sit in on meetings (what is the point of that?). The positive is that you would have thought that we would be given a strong and highly skilled politician as Foreign Secretary, no we get Margaret Beckett! Finally why is John Prescott still in the cabinet? His office has been taken away from him yet he still gets to hold onto his nice cabinet pay packet. A total disgrace.

At least things are looking good on our side of the fence. A strong showing in the local elections and room to suggest that we will make inroads into new Conservative areas at the next Geneal Election. Just a shame that Labour have managed to detract from their poor showing through these changes, however from the Brown camps reactions, there may be more bad news on the way from Mr Blair.

Congratulations to all the new Conservative councillors with a net gain of 316! What a wonderful result; gaining over 200 seats from Labour. With Labour experiencing a net loss of 319 seats this proves that the voters are becoming increasingly frustrated with this crumbling government. Also important is that the Lib Dems failed to make any ground, a net gain of only 2!!!

This result has certainly scared Mr. Blair, already this morning he has had a Cabinet reshuffle: goodbye Mr. Clarke and good ridance to you!

Unfortunately there were few gains in the north but this will come; Cameron has only been leader for six months and already, as yesterday's vote has proved, has made a very positive impact on the image of the Conservatives.

And finally, an ICM poll yesterday showed that the voters would have more faith in the Conservatives running the NHS than Labour! The NHS traditionally being Labour's stronghold!!

Although we must certainly not get carried away by these results it undoubtedly shows that, when Blair finally does step down, Cameron and his party will be ready for a real fight for power.

Download the links below and discover conclusive evidence as to why Boris Johnson should be in the England squad.

http://www.stevegrant.co.uk/boris.avi
http://www.stevegrant.co.uk/boris2.avi