David Cameron has recently announced his intention of replacing the Human Rights Act with a new 'British Bill of Rights' - while staying in the European Convention of Human Rights.

Personally, I remain unconvinced. The current HRA has obvious problems, but it is not clear how a new bill, which would drastically alter the British Constitution, would solve them. While I don't know if the pros outweigh the cons quite yet, it is clear that this is a very complicated but important issue which deserves the time and debate it is surely now going to get.

What isn't the slightest bit helpful are the kind of remarks uttered by Ken Clarke, in which he calls the new bill "xenophobic" and "legal nonsense". Huh? One suspects through the prism of Clarke's own Euro-fetishist world view, where the existance of an independent British nation is "anti-foreigner", that this kind of comment might make sense. But back in reality - or at least back in the reality we feel on this side of the floor - it is insulting.

Clarke should resign.

Having watched the Jonathon Ross show I am sure we have a leader who will reach out to the parts previous leaders have failed to do so. He was assurred to Jonathon Ross questions and hit the right note that Thatchers reforms though painful yielded results for the country but these now needed rectifying.

In Conservative Home today Adam Rickett has outlined his case that the Rural Payments Agency has become a farce.

Yet as you read you get to feel that this is somewhat ‘pre-packaged’ as one commentator put it and you start to question if he really wrote it. But giving him the benefit of the doubt as I should do – I feel he has touched on the right issue and has demonstrated his ‘grasp of knowledge’.

Only thing is: has he got his mind set on become the Agricultural minister – if so, I’m not so sure that will go down well with the local farming community. Simply because he has never picked up a spade in his life.

Many now think that subsidies should go? But I have to disagree – our people come first and if a leg of lamb costs £5 in New Zealand but £10 in Britain, many consumers (for obvious reasons) would buy the cheaper produce. Thus, British farming industry would crumble and without subsidies they would fall into bankruptcy. But what Adam correctly noted out was that “finally we should ensure that as a country we always have the ability to feed ourselves should the worst happen and external sources be cut off.” We don’t know what’s coming around the corner and I believe passionately that our men and women who work extremely hard day in, day out deserve a better reward than what the current government is ‘delivering’.

BBC report calls for parity in devolved settlement


So The Scots are twigging that Wales wants to be equal with Scotland and the English don't like the didea of top up fees coming in thanks to Scottish and welsh MPs voting for them while their devolved level let their own constituents off.

If that continues unchecked, its not a backlash but a Labour defeat that would ensue. Right report and right for us to welcome it.

The time has come for the Tory grassroots to shell out on an expensive new campaign logo for the Conservative Party. Apparently the "ice cream cone" has had its day



I tend to get slighly paranoid at things like this. This is after all the freedom torch. Is it possible a rejection of this logo is something much more than just a change of image?

Regardless, take a look at some logo ideas Conservative Home have posted. Who knows? If I ever figure out how to use photoshop I could design my own.

If I were to seek selection for London Mayor on the new list what would be my chances? Serious question here as if noow even non previous members can join and stand, the London Mayorality is now open to anyone who lives in London.

I'll publish my manifesto on the site next week

Now, we all know that the "Liberal Democrats" are irrelevant, but one can still gain immense pleasure from them when their latest ridiculous policies are announced.

Here is the latest mindless idea from Ming Campbell: a 2p cut in the basic rate of income tax - creating a cut cost of £20 billion - which apparently will be met by £7 billion of new "green taxes" and an extra £13 billion to come from the "very wealthy" via capital gains tax changes on second homes and shares.

Where to start? First is the way this stinks of the usual 'back-of-the-envelope' style plan we are accustomed to getting from the "Liberal Democrats". How in the world can one predict how much tax will be raised from green taxes, which depend almost entirely on how much they affect the way people behave? Thats not to mention the horrible way these taxes are designed to discourage activities of which INGSOC disapproves. People should be worried about the way their personal choice and liberty is being eroded by our benevolent Big Brother - whether in the name of aiding the environment in this case, or stopping terrorism in Blair's case, or whatever the latest fad happens to be.

However, what offends me most has to be these proposed taxes on the "very wealthy". Of course no one wants to define who this includes, but I'm reasonably confident the people who would fall into this horribily vague category will not be people who are all that worthy of a humongous tax increase. Ask yourself: are you "very wealthy"? Like almost all of us you probably think you aren't, but I fear you may be deluding yourselves.

I had great hopes for the "Liberal Democrats" not so long ago. Hopeless alcoholic Charles Kennedy was booted out, and they had a great opportunity to build upon the good performance of the 2005 election. They could have chosen a new philosophical direction by returning to the classical liberal roots of half the party, but alas with this seem to be sticking with the neo-socialist tendancy of the other half. They also had the chance of choosing a new leader, someone perhaps to challenge the fresh face and youth of David Cameron? Nope, a bumbling old fool way past his prime is elected (part by default as he seemed to be the only candidate not involved in a sex scandal).

Indeed, this policy and this leader display the dire condition the party still finds itself in. One senses we'll be getting a lot more pleasure from this pathetic party for a long time to come.

The not so recent appointment of Bob Neill, the London Assembly Member who has been selected to represent the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election, has sparked a renewed debate within the party that has started to question the emphasis Cameron has put on ‘change’. Although there has been much media hype over the selection of a few candidates that are questionable – most no doubt are there because they have the political forte to lead the party to election victory. While the candidates on the A-list, or if you buy into what conservative rhetoric call ‘priority list’, have been selected because of their merits there are certain flaws that have yet to be addressed. These include principles, such as empowering people to make the decisions for themselves or again to use what Cameron has often called ‘trusting people’. The A-list runs contrary to this which imposes a list of candidates selected by the ‘know it alls’ in CCHQ in London. The problem here is that many of them haven’t left London and don’t really know what the country truly looks like. The second problem centres on the very concept of change. At the present time Cameron wishes to change the party selection process, so he has decided to overrule give guidance to local associations on which candidates to choose. The problem Mr. Cameron is that you are heading down a path which only has sort term fixes. The crux of the problem in selection process is that the older generation tend to choose candidates that are male, and I am afraid white. Why? Because they have been brought up that way and they believe politics at Westminster is a man’s job. So the answer is not to impose produce an A-list that allows local activists to choose from but rather that local activists are the problem. As a CF member I wish not to get into an age debate with the older generation as I know they do a fantastic job. While saying this it is surprising how many of ‘them’ openly argue this case – thus becoming a paradoxical dilemma. The third problem is what I call ‘local produce.’ After campaigning, admittedly in many rural areas, they want a local candidate – something which the A-list still allows. Therefore a real test for the A-list will be how many of the target seats choose a local candidate over one on the list and if so would this not look extremely embarrassing if constituencies hardly delved into the A-list?!

A few interesting observations should be made to this A-list, no least which candidates go first. In other words, are the females and ethnic minority left last for the other target seats to choose – if the answer is yes then the problem stated above still exists. Even though (if I’m right in saying this) the A-list gets topped up when constituencies start choosing, does this mean other target seats will wait for the new candidates?

I understand Cameron and Maude are trying to do their best to change the party, which I wholly endorse, but creating a central system based on selecting candidates that are only in their because to show the party is changing is wrong. And as a conservative I completely disagree with it. What is also interesting is that the Welsh Conservatives have also failed to take this ‘A-list’ on board and I am astonished by the lack of women in target seats, or ranked lower down on the regional list than the men.

My solution is simple, scrap the A-list and replace the original selection process with a more transparent system and the Constituency level rather than at CCHQ. There are no short cuts to equality it takes time for the older generation to change to select modern candidates that best represent Britain. What the Conservative Party is faced with today is a crisis of modernity.

Are Mr Cameron and his team really serious about politics themselves? Is the building of a new image for the party a necessary first stage in making the Conservatives a viable force for genuine political reform, or is the electable image all that there is to the Cameron philosophy?

we're waiting...