HOW THOUSANDS COULD BE DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE AND NOT KNOW IT: Is it time to change the law?

There are an estimated 1.4 million uninsured drivers on our roads, and they're a menace to law abiding members of the public.

Some years ago, in an attempt to reduce the danger presented by drivers, who on the most part have little consideration for the wellbeing of themselves or other road users, the government introduced the power to seize uninsured motor vehicles known as Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act.

There is a slight issue of this power flying in the face of the Magna Carter - no fine or seizure without Order of the Court -but leaving that rather big issue to one side, I think the vast majority of the law abiding public think it's right this action is taken, and whereas driving without insurance may have been considered quite run of the mill 20 years ago, it's now socially unacceptable and transgressors are dealt with harshly.

Only trouble is... driving without third party insurance is known as a "strict liability" offence, which means you're either guilty of that offence or you're not. However much justification and even proof a driver is able to produce that they had a genuinely held belief that they were insured is irrelevant - and this is where cracks in the system start to appear.

Now none of this affects me since I do not, and cannot drive - but I am a huge believer in the rule of law, which goes hand in hand with the average law abiding person (known in legal circles as the man on the Clapham Omnibus) respecting those laws.

This post was prompted by one of those 'traffic cops' type shows appearing on my TV during a channel hop. Truthfully I really can't stand them for very long - but a driver was featured who had been pulled over due to an activation on the traffic officers' automatic number plate system (ANPR) indicating that he had no insurance. The driver produced a certificate from e-sure.com , which when explored by the police turned out to have been issued legitimately, but cancelled due to bounced direct debit payments - an issue which the driver, quite convincingly said he was unaware of.

Now if we're being sanctimonious, we could give the kind of answer to this issue as given by one of the officers (brought to you through the magic of live rewind on sky digital), "The reason that we didn't feel sorry for him is because legally, in this country you have to have insurance on your car. You cannot take a vehicle on the road without insurance", but in my own view, this kind of attitude toward generally law abiding members of the public leaves that member of the public with a bitter taste in their mouth - and for what it's worth, is probably partly responsible for a general fall in respect levels for police, the majority of whom, I honestly believe are doing the best they can, but all should remember that police officers are not supposed to be judges of law. But the point is that thousands of people could be driving with no insurance without even realising.

Is it time therefore to re-visit the laws surrounding third party insurance in the UK? This writer would never advocate a softening approach to uninsured drivers, but given that there are criminal consequences for missed or confused payments (I'm not going to enter in to argument about criminal consequences here because it is a criminal offence, and a permanent record is kept by the DVLA, and it will therefore show up on any check of the police national computer - a criminal record to all intents and purposes) is it time to change the rules governing partial payments and withdrawal of an insurance policy.

As one possible solution, should any insurer who has accepted a customer on a payment plan be required to serve legal papers on anyone who they wish, for whatever reason to stop insuring before their insurance is invalidated, and their car index number removed from the motor insurance bureaux database? Or perhaps payment plans should be dealt with as a credit arrangement that must be chased through the civil courts if defaulted upon?

I'm not soft on uninsured drivers, but isn't it time to introduce safeguards to prevent law abiding people becoming unwitting criminals? Isn't this the only way to maintain respect in the law?

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This writer neither drives, nor has any criminal conviction of any kind.

Addressing the hysterical attacks on Richard Graham MP's "blind drunk women" comments

Sometimes one just has to say the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

The Tory MP for Gloucester Richard Graham has become the latest to find himself embroiled in controversy for warning that blind drunk women who are wearing tight fitting skirts and high shoes are more vulnerable to sexual predators than those who are not blind drunk and wearing impractical clothing.

Let's clear one thing up.... NO WOMAN or man for that matter deserves to be raped, and there is no mitigating circumstances for foul sexual predators who would exploit any vulnerability. In fact, I would have no problem with real life sentences for rapists.

 

But bluntly, unlike Judge Pickles who was criticised for saying in open Court that women who wear short skirts were "asking for it", Graham has specifically distanced himself from such unfortunate beliefs by stating that it neither encourages or mitigates sexual predators - but should the unthinkable happen, someone's style of clothing and footwear, combined with impaired reactions may leave them more vulnerable to attackers.

His exact words were "If you are blind drunk wearing those clothes (in a park on your own) how able are you to get away?"

Unless we wish to be hysterical, the answer is not very.

The advice is always to get a licensed, pre-booked taxi - it's good advice.

Now back to Richard Graham's sentiment... I am a registered blind guide dog owner - and that in itself makes me more vulnerable to attack by low-life criminals. Indeed I have been the victim of verbal abuse on many occasions, and physical assault on a few occasions. There is no excuse for attacking a blind person yet it can happen despite the best endeavours of police... and frankly, if I consume alcohol, I place myself at a greater risk and I am therefore less able to react and possibly get away than I might otherwise be.

So what is wrong with people who are trying to suggest Richard Graham, whom I do not know personally by the way, nor have I ever exchanged more than a passing hello to in the corridors of Westminster, is some kind of apologist for attackers, or retractor from the basic right of every woman not to be attacked or molested?

Sometimes you just have to stand up for someone who is under hysterical and illogical attack from band-wagonists, and I for one must say:

The Emperor is not wearing any clothes

My chat with a megaphone protester

I did something today that I've not really done before... well not when I'm not working anyway.

A chap was shouting through a megaphone about everyone acting suspiciously by doing the same thing... commuting and dong commuter type things.

Using my audioboo app, I decided to record some of his protest and popped up for a chat. If you look down my twitter timelines, you'll find a link to the audio recording.

Long story short - usual words on people being mind controlled - but when I asked him what his protest was about, the chap told me he doesn't really believe what he was saying - he was attention seeking so to speak and views it as a sort of art.

Different stokes for different folks.

Reforms to #UK #Gun #Control

Gun control is a subject everyone seems to have an opinion on - and as the Home Secretary Theresa May has shown today - it's an issue that affects us in the UK too.

Responding to concerns over recent issues such as the Cumbria and Durham shootings, the Government feel it's time to look at our "licensing process", and in line with this, the Home Office are considering a couple of key changes.

 

All certificates, as they are correctly called, are issued by the Chief of Police in the area where applicants reside - save for authorities to possess Section 5 Prohibited Weapons, which are granted by the Home Secretary and or the Defence Council.

The first area for consideration, and debatably the most controversial is that of medical checks for those wishing to gain authority to possess firearms. Currently, applicants are asked on Firearms and Shotgun certificate applications whether they have any illness or disability, including history of depression, drug use, alcohol abuse or epilepsy. If they tick yes, or the Chief Officer (through his or her appointed colleague) has other reason to doubt an applicant's medical fitness to be granted a certificate, the force in question will write to your GP, using the permission you must give the police on your application form to request factual details on your medical history. This isn't a fishing operation - it's an important measure to ensure that people are medically fit to possess firearms. I believe medical records also have a note attached to advise practitioners that a patient holds firearms in case that doctor feels the patient is a danger to themselves or anyone else... trouble is, there are ethical concerns about doctors sharing confidential medical information, even in the interests of public safety because of the principle that your doctor acts for you, not the state.

Medical bodies and the Association of Chief Police Officers have been involved in a number of pilot schemes to address these concerns - including doctors being asked to try and convince a patient to surrender their firearms and certificate of their own accord - and if they really won't, as a last resort, writing to the Chief Officer of police to share their concerns. On the face of it, this sounds common sense - but confidentiality definitely presents ethical concerns. It is also accepted that some certificate holders who should really be seeing their doctor may choose not to in case their certificate(s) is revoked - and the dangers of this kind of thinking are obvious. one thing is clear however, the current system is considered by many to be unsuitable - and one possible course of action is to insist police approach doctors to discuss ALL applications - something which might have saved the life of barrister Mark Saunders who falsely declared he had no history of alcohol abuse or depression. He did, and the consequences of the current policy debatably cost him his life and endangered the public.

The second issue that the Home Secretary is concerned with is granting certificates to those who have or do domestically abuse their partners. There is clearly a link between domestic violence and certificated gun crime around the world - and currently police firearms licensing offices do take reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that there is no history of domestic violence. But the Home Secretary is looking at mirroring the Canadian system of requiring current or most recent partners to countersign an application - and if they refuse to do so, extra checks follow. There are of course likely dangers to domestically abused partners that they will be physically or mentally enticed in to signing an application - and needless to say, if two people split from a relationship in less than agreeable circumstances (as many do), a partner could maliciously refuse to sign, or even deceive police. So this measure too is controversial.

The third, and possibly least contentious issue the Home Office are looking in to is whether to Legislate to change the "prohibited person" criteria. Currently, anyone sentenced to more than 3 months, but less than 3 years custody, (regardless of actual time served) is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition for a period of 5 years. Anyone sentenced to a period of 3 years or more in prison is prohibited for life, unless the Crown Court lifts that prohibition - and even then, I'm not an expert in whether they practically can do this.

The Home Secretary is suggesting that those given suspended sentences also be covered by legal prohibition... and in case any foreign visitors are not up on the term, a suspended sentence is where someone is sentenced to a term of custody, but that the sentence is literally held for a certain period on condition of good conduct. For instance, someone could be sentenced to 18 months in prison, suspended for 2 years and if they behave for those 2 years, the sentence (though not the conviction) is never enforced. The Government feel that if an offence is so serious that someone was handed a suspended sentence, this should be reflected in the application process. The fact of the matter however is that any conviction and sentence is always taken in to consideration at the moment. yes, if someone receives a 2 year prison sentence, suspended for 2 years, it's highly unlikely they would be successful in any application to own firearms until at least the period of time elapses (5 years) . This last point then is one that may end up being a point of administration rather than genuine use... but comments please.

In the meantime, it's worth pointing out that certificated firearms owners are among the most law abiding people. Any criminal record puts an applicant at a major disadvantage - and any history of violence, particularly recent violence makes it virtually impossible for an applicant. Sadly, Derek Bird, Hamilton and Michael Ryan have shown that lawfully authorised firearms owners do commit crimes, but any viewing of gun crime figures in the UK will certainly show that the percentage of gun crimes carried out by lawful owners is a minute percentage. Gun crime generally however (among criminals) is on the rise, and has been on the rise each year since tougher controls were introduced. Handguns for instance have affectively been banned since 1997, but in each year since the ban, handgun crime in the UK has rise, and risen, and risen.

I would put it to any absolute gun nut that gun crime would be as high today without tighter restrictions - and so for me, I don't follow the argument that banning certain firearms in the UK has caused higher gun crime... but the figures seem to show that gun crime has little or nothing to do with legal gun ownership in the UK.

Example - in 2010, there were 3,105 firearms offences recorded involving the use of handguns which cannot be, and in these cases were not held by legal gun owners. This compares with 402 with the use of shotguns, 202 sawn off shotguns. This is not meant to be a pro gun ownership blog, but rather an accurate picture for readers. Don't believe me, check for yourself - the figures are all out there.

 

Discuss.

EXCLUSIVE Col Bob Stewart MP "My party is failing on defence"

 

Col Bob Stewart is the Conservative MP for Beckenham in Kent. He is the former Commander of British Forces in Bosnia, and the proud recipient of the Distinguished Service Order.

The following interview was conducted after PMQs last Wednesday.

SD - Col. Bob, I wrote recently about Britain's readiness for another Falklands type conflict. In that piece, I compared defence spending in 1982, nearly 6% of GDP, to now, which is significantly under half, and circa 2.4%. If we had another 'Falklands' would we be able to deal with it?

BS - I think an actual Falklands is unlikely in the form that we had it before. The fact of the matter is that circumstances have changed, and the circumstances are that we wouldn't be caught quite as unprepared as before, and actually we would have sufficient force on the Falkland Islands to deter now. We didn't before. Equally we would do things differently, and the answer to whether we could deal with another Falklands, is yes, but differently. We couldn't do an amphibious landing for example - we've no longer got amphibious capabilities.

SD - Yes, clearly we can all accept that an actual ground invasion of the Falkland Islands themselves is unlikely, so how then would you compare our overall resilience now to then? Is it as good?

BS - Definitely not. We used to have a full capability, just about in 1982. We haven't got full capability. We cannot launch a seaborne assault from a carrier force because we haven't got a carrier... and we haven't got aircraft that can do it either because you need a carrier to facilitate the aircraft. Now we haven't got the forces we had in 1982, but what we have got is far more capability with the equipment we have and equally, we are less likely than in 1982 to be caught by surprise. By that I mean we have a fairly substantial foothold on the Falkland Islands, and the Argentineans would be 1, foolish to try it, and 2, we could reinforce very quickly.

SD - Forgive the loaded question, but would you say then that you feel let down by cuts to our military, and the respect the army is held in today?

BS - I won't say let down - I feel devastated. I'm a right wing tory, and defence is the first duty of government. In my view, we are woefully defended at the moment.

SD - So is your party failing in that duty?

BS - yes, in a way. All governments are failing. My government is failing... All governments are failing on defence. We don't seem to have the resources to actually carry out defence as we could. We are an island, and as an island, we are required to have strong maritime forces. We don't have. The Navy is woeful, woeful at the moment. We haven't got an aircraft carrier, we haven't got the ability to look below the water line much off our shores because we've actually lost maritime surveillance capability. We haven't got the aircraft in the Royal Air Force. We haven't got all round capability in the Royal Air Force and of course, the army is woefully small. Frankly, I remain to be convinced that we will even have 30,000 army reservists in time, and anyway 82,000 plus 30,000, assuming they were there, is pretty small beer as an army. So all round, of course I'm totally gutted by defence.

SD - So then, what would you say to people, to politicians who say that cuts simply have to be made?

BS - Well the point is, I would say that too. So it's a heart and head problem here. I know it's a dichotomous argument. Look, I don't blame Philip Hammond for making the decisions he's made, but I'm not in his situation. So I feel on the one hand I'm saying this is disgraceful, yet on the other hand, you know, I'm really split in half.

SD - So it's fair to say that you think your government is failing... but you don't blame them?

BS - Yes. My government is failing to put as much in to defence as is required, but I don't blame them, and I understand why it can't happen. I am absolutely bereft. I am devastated that our Armed Forces are in the state they are, and they will continue to be.

Ohio caretakers to get guns in schools

Actually, that is all I want to say. Comments?

Interesting facts about you

Good morning,

Here's an interesting fact.... 24% of site visitors access this site from the US. 71% from the UK.

Thanks for visiting. Come back soon for a full interview with Tory MP Bob Stewart on his party's failure on defence.

Also, Nick Clegg is attending a lunch for journalists in Westminster tomorrow. Live tweets @seandilley

And if you haven't already, check out my audioboo with Communities Secretary Eric Pickles on his real thoughts on John Prescott. Apparently he loves him really. Www.audioboo.fm/seandilley


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

STRANGE MUST WATCH VIDEO - Who said Americans were nuts about guns?

Not sure whether this is supposed to be ironic or not - but have a watch and let me know what you think.

APOLOGIES - it won't embed - but click this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU

By the way, I apologise to the many Americans who don't love guns for stereotyping for the sake of upping traffic on this here blog.

UPDATE - Erm.. yeah - and now I've got egg on my face. He's an Ozzie :) Whatever happened to just tying your kangaroo down, sport? SORRY, SORRY, look where stereotyping got me on my last post. Anyway, don't think he's being ironic http://ilikeguns.com.au

WATCH the showdown between @piersmorgan & @therealalexjones here.

Mention guns or gun control and you're sure to meet extreme reactions on both sides of the fence.

My own very personal view is that it's not for me, as a Brit to go to another country and tell them what they should be doing, but Piers Morgan takes a different view,. A view that he is rightly entitled to under the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. So while I can see his actions being perceived as interfering in the affairs of another Sovereign Nation, I certainly hope any 2nd Amendment supporter would back his 1st Amendment right to free speech.

Now I've interviewed both gentlemen for talkSPORT Radio (obviously not on sport :) and both are very strong willed people. Piers Morgan is clearlyl a media genius, transforming from Editor of the Mirror at a time when the paper's credibility was shot to pieces, to media superstar. I very much doubt that Piers Morgan is proselytising anything other than his true opinions on fully automatic weapons, but I think it would be fair to conclude that he's also a man to spot an opportunity for notoriety - and he's clearly got the globe talking about him.

Alex Jones is a highly successful broadcaster, and host of a nationally syndicated talk show. You can read his views at www.infowars.com . And Alex is a man I have also enjoyed interviewing on many occasions. He is often branded "a conspiracy theorist", a term I actually don't like, because the premise of a "conspiracy theorist" is that someone theorises that conspiracies exist. Watergate for one example shows that they do. Please check his site out and at the very least you'll be entertained - and whatever one might conclude about his take on life, it's apparent he clearly believes every word he says.

Defence cuts, redundancies and the possibility of another Falklands invasion

Nearly 31 years after the Argentine ground invasion of the Falkland Islands, and the political rhetoric that preceded the conflict is back again, with Britain being compared to a colonial force by the Argentine President.

History repeats itself!

But, it's hard to imagine that anyone could, with a straight face suggest that Britain could now deal comfortably with another ground invasion of the Falklands - despite plans to reduce the number of regular army soldiers to 82,000 by 2020.

Last night, Downing Street denied reports in today's Times that the government were trying to speed up the number of redundancies - despite documents seen by the News International publication, which suggest up to 10,000 could be nudged toward taking voluntary redundancy. The implication, and likely inference is that such measures could save a few blushes for government.

And it is very difficult for anyone to please even some of the people most of the time when the deficit is as high as it is - but let's put some meat on the bone.

In 1982, our total strength was 327,60.
In 2011 (18 months ago) our total strength was 186,000

In 1982, we spent 5.95% of GDP on defence
In 2011, we spent just 2.98% of GDP on defence
In 2012, that reduced to 2.6% and it's on the fall.

31 years ago, we spent well over double the amount of money as a share of Gross Domestic Product on defence - and we had a little short of double the strength.

Now I'm no mathematician, but if you have ten apples in 1982, and the Treasury eats 6 of them by 2013, it's impossible to solve as many people's quenching for apples.

Politicians then have an impossible job to claw back money to reduce the national debt and our rather large deficit... and only a fool would really believe you can achieve more militarily for less.

So what's the solution? Well the Ministry of Defence rightly recognise the dedication, training and ability of the TA - and actually, with Afghanistan foremost in my thoughts in making this point (but Iraq and other conflicts also apply) the TA have been such a crutch to cover numbers that many reservists have built up the type of infantry experience most new private soldiers could only dream about... but the Times, in it's excellent report on Britain's military capability says it's seen evidence that Britain's TA may not be ready to take on the vast responsibilities planned for them.

On a personal note, I have seen first hand how professional and able our military are to this day. We still have the finest soldiers in the world, and the best training going... but what we don't have is the numbers - and what senior serving army soldiers will tell you privately is that they simply don't have the money they need, for instance, to purchase enough new style pixelated greens that are proven to save lives - that example given to me five months back.

What successive governments, of all political persuasions have done is to rely on Europe to some extent, but America more heavily in the same, and frankly probably correct knowledge that the Americans would "save our asses" as they might say... but it's this kind of view that irritates Americans. one mid-ranking US Officer told me at an official Christmas bash that the high command feel as if we, the borrowers as we are known are relying too much on US resources and expecting the US taxpayer to pick up our tab. "So just how special is that relationship?" he asked.

It's food for thought - so what do you think?

Guest Blog: Lembit Opik writes off today's 5 year #coalition pledge

Lembit Öpik, former Lib Dem MP and co-author of the seminal book on the Lib Dems – ‘The Alternative View’ - reviews David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s self assessment of the performance of the coalition, and their plans for the future.  He suggests that the economy remains the coalition’s weakest link and that without an ‘exit strategy’ the Lib Dems in particular are heading for a political catastrophe at the next election.

In 2010, two parties made history by forming the first UK Government peacetime coalition in British political history.  Back then, party leaders Nick Clegg and David Cameron claimed this was primarily to serve the national interest by getting the economy and national debt sorted out.  I - and many others - went along with this compelling case, even though I’ve always been suspicious of Tory Governments.  Subsequently, the Chancellor has repeatedly underlined that this Government is to be judged on its economic performance above anything else. 

Two years later, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister decided to repeat their ‘marriage vows.’  Cameron began his statement, on the grey afternoon of 7^th January 2013, reiterating exactly this same point. He made a ‘serious five year commitment,’ and that at its heart the hour of reckoning was here for ‘countries like ours.’  He said we need to fix the nation’s finances and back the aspirations of hard working families and businesses who want to do the right thing.  We were then treated to a list of achievements relating to a reduction in the deficit, more private new jobs, improved exports to India, Brazil and China and improvements in the NHS budget in real terms.  He also said there was an end to ‘chronic short termism.’  We heard about high hopes for our railways and stronger regulation of banks. 

However, when it came to the economy, there were excuses.  There had been ‘difficulties along the way.  With public finances as broken as ours I think that was inevitable.’  The promises about childcare and mortgages were vague.  For pensioners no pernicious means testing was promised - but little more.

Then it was Clegg’s turn.  He spent a great deal of his speech repeating his commitment to a shared purpose ‘for a stronger economy’ and to work across party lines – and ‘the need to act boldly.’  ‘It is a source of immense pride to me that we have put party differences aside.’  Pupil premium and a higher tax thresholds for the poorest earners were cited as particular wins.  The nearest there was to an acknowledgement of errors was that he had ‘learned a lot’ and that the damage done to UK ‘economy was worse than anyone predicted at the time.’

Crucially, in response to press questioning, Cameron said he was absolutely committed to a five year plan for a five year Government.  Nick Clegg added that the evidence for this was that they’d legislated for fixed term parliaments – ‘what more evidence do you need?’

So how did they do?  In my judgement, the two men performed competently, but the United Kingdom will not be dancing in the streets thanks to these statements.  For a start, people are more influnced by what they see around them rather than by what they’re told by party leaders.  And the public don’t feel things are getting better – in fact, quite the opposite.  Perhaps this is the cost of ‘long termism -’ but I predict there will be no lift in Tory or Lib Dem electoral fortunes in the weeks ahead as a result of the joint statement.

Secondly, there is a great weakness in the coalition’s delivery on the economy versus its promises.  Whatever is said now, there was an unconditional commitment to be judged on the economy, and there is a very good chance that, just now, we’re in – or close to - a triple dip recession.  That’s terrible news for the credibility of the coalition, regardless of whether or not the Labour Party could have done better. 

Thirdly, and most importantly, the absolute commitment to a full five year coalition Government was contradicted within the press conference itself.  The contradiction was subtle - but clearly there.  In response to a press question about boundary changes, Nick Clegg commented ‘if one part of the deal isn’t met then we’re going to tweak the package as a whole.’  Bang!  Game over!  Clegg was saying he has the right to walk away from parts of the deal if Tories don’t play ball.  You don’t have to be a political genius to see that if there’s any possibility of this - then there’s also a possibility that a ‘deal breaker’ will come along – or be deliberately orchestrated for political gain.  It cannot be the case that one is possible but not the other.  And so we have our answer.  The coalition can indeed be brought down early – and as I’ve explained in my book on the subject (‘The Alternative View’) the fixed term legislation does not prevent an early election if certain conditions are met.  I predict that the coalition will be made to fall, probably by a proposal created by the Tories which is so objectionable to Lib Dems that they walk away – to be subsequently accused of being ‘splitters.’  Then Cameron backfills all the vacated Lib Dem ministerial positions with his own Tories - and governs alone to prove he can do it, as the Lib Dems stand condemned of walking away from ‘the national interest.’ 

And what of Clegg?  Despite all the evidence that he ought to stand down from the leadership of the Lib Dems, he carries on clinging to it – even though it is the opinion of this commentator that this helps the Conservatives and Labour, while materially harming the fortunes of the party Clegg’s supposed to be serving.  However, I hazard a guess that Clegg’s plan is to resign when the coalition collapses, perhaps around Summer 2014 after the European Elections.  These will probably be won by UKIP and ‘lost’ by Lib Dems, who will suffer heavy losses at that time.  Clegg can then use this as an excuse to leave, though in all probability he won’t be permitted to stay anyway – assuming he has even made it that far.

Finally, I believe we now have an indication of the longest time Clegg himself intends us to believe he’ll be there.  In answer to another question – and this is a point missed by all other observers – Clegg said the coalition has admitted that balancing the economic books is going to take longer than originally planned.  Then he added: ‘the next government will need to complete job that we’ve initiated.’  Those don’t sound to me like the words of a man who expects to be in the next government.   If I’m wrong, I invite Mr Clegg to put me right…

Nick Clegg's regular #LBC973 slot: a metaphor for the coalition?

Congratulations to LBC and Nick Farrari for bagging a weekly phone in slot with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. And may I also congratulate Mr Clegg for his very courageous decision.

For LBC, this is clearly an amazing coup - and I speak not only as a political journalist, but as a former talk radio genre manager, editor and once upon a time, producer.

For 'London's Biggest Conversation', the slot will deliver bags of publicity, hours of content and further cement their already excellent reputation in Westminster and in the media more generally.

For Mr Clegg, this partnership is a bit of a mixed bag - a little like the coalition itself perhaps. Yes, it will certainly give him a great deal of contact with the public and exposure in the media. I predict that each week, some story or another will come from his time behind the mic. If he's ill one day - which frankly can happen to any of us, he'll be branded a coward by some, and when he mis-speaks, which again, I suppose any of us can, he'll hear about it more than he does even now.

That's why, in true Yes Minister / Yes Prime Minister terms, this decision is indeed "a ver courageous" one. But who among us in the real world wants to knock the Deputy Prime Minister for that?

The weekly phone-ins will give Nick Clegg personally, and the government more generally a greater sense of accessibility and more of a grounding in people's views. Ok, the vast majority of those views will be London centric. that's the elephant in the room, but LBC is increasingly listened to online and on digital platforms all over the place - and again, I predict the geographical spread, and listener reach (the latter being a rajar, audience monitoring reference) will grow.

It's brave - some might say stupid, but I for one pat Nick Clegg on the back, and congratulate LBC for getting him drunk enough to agree to it in the first place :).

Mid-Term Review: "A brave new world of undemocratic processes"?

It's hard to believe that we are nearly three years on from the creation of the Lib-Con coalition - or "pact" as it might have been called in the 70's - but unlike the Lib-Lab "Pact" of 1974, this partnership continues.

If you're puzzled by the reference to " brave new world of undemocratic processes" scroll down and watch the hung parliament party broadcast.

The question many will now ask is whether the partnership is blossoming like the roses in Number 10's garden in May 2010, or whether our two government leaders are tolerating each other for the sake of the kids... sorry, the country.

Here's my talkSPORT report from May 11th 2010 to remind ourselves (in very talkSPORT, pacey terms) of the beautiful moment of "unity"



Part of me really misses that election period -- but no time for sentimentalism, either for me or the Country. later, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister will publish their mid-term review when we're sure to hear how fantastic things have been.

And yes, it's likely that colleagues will attack the likely cringing language and presentation. In defence of the government however, they will be right when they say that coalitions are ALWAYS going to fall out with each other - and it's actually pretty impressive that they've stayed as tight as they have in the face of student protests and boundary changes... erm, yes, and I suppose Lords reform and mansion tax - but who's counting the Lib Dem's much larger policy casualty rate.

... Ahem - time quickly for a bit of light relief... let us remind ourselves of the tory party election broadcast - much of which, was in fact pretty bang on the mark.



"Under the table deals", "secret committees"? "We, the hung Parliament Party promise to provide indecision, inaction and half measures". now to be fair, it's not exactly accurate to say no decisions have been made - but if you haven't watched the video above - watch it now!

But all this is sensational really. Not the blog per say, but the wedges many will try to put between the PM and Nick Clegg. Real wedges most definitely exist - but the fact that we are this far in to the Coalition says something for the resolve of politicians "however so you voted" as Margaret Thatcher might say.

Whoever sits in number 10 - whatever party they happen to represent - the business of government must go on - and according to Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg - there will be choppy waters ahead, but this ship WILL make it to New York.


THE FOREWARD TO THE MID-TERM REVIEW

Two and a half years ago, our parties came together in the national interest and formed a coalition at a time of real economic danger. The deficit was spiralling out of control, confidence was plummeting, and the world was looking to Britain with growing anxiety about our ability to service our debts.

This Government’s most urgent job was to restore stability in our public finances and confidence in the British economy. In just two years we have cut the deficit by a quarter and have set out a credible path towards our goal to balance the current budget over the economic cycle.

Dealing with the deficit may have been our first task, but our most important task is to build a stronger, more balanced economy capable of delivering lasting growth and widely shared prosperity. In essence, this involves two things: growing the private sector, and reforming the public sector so that what the Government does – and the money it spends – boosts, rather than undermines, Britain’s competitiveness.

Meeting this challenge is imperative if Britain isn’t to fall behind in the global race, for while the Western economies have stalled in recent years, the emerging economies such as India, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, Mexico and Turkey have been surging forward. In the coming years, some countries in the developed world will respond to this shift in economic power; but some will not. Those that do will prosper. Those that do not will decline. It is that simple.

That is why we have not baulked at the tough decisions needed to secure Britain’s future. Whether it is reducing the deficit, rebalancing the economy, regulating the banks, tackling climate change, modernising our energy and transport infrastructure, putting our universities on a sustainable financial footing or dealing with the challenges of an ageing population and reforming public sector pensions, we have consistently chosen to do what is right over what is easy or popular; what is in our country’s long-term interest over our parties’ short-term interest.

Ultimately, however, Britain will only prosper in an increasingly competitive global economy if we can realise the full potential of each and every person in our country. That is why our plans for economic recovery are accompanied by a radical agenda of social renewal, to build not only a strong economy, but a fair society in which everyone, no matter what their background, can rise just as high as their aspirations and talents can take them.

Above all, that means having a welfare system that works and schools that teach our children properly. Since we came to office, more than 1 million jobs have been created in the private sector. We are fundamentally changing our welfare system to make work pay. And we have injected new ambition into our education system: making exams and testing more rigorous; backing teachers on discipline; allowing people who are passionate about education to open new schools in the state sector; and, crucially, supporting the poorest pupils through our Pupil Premium.

We fully recognise that the changes needed to get Britain fit for the global race, combined with the strong economic headwinds we are still facing, have put many families’ budgets under strain. That is why we are doing everything we can to help those who are working so hard to help themselves: moving rapidly towards a £10,000 personal income tax allowance, freezing council tax, helping with energy bills and cutting fuel duty.

So we are dealing with the deficit, rebuilding the economy, reforming welfare and education and supporting hard-working families through tough times. And on all of these key aims, our parties, after 32 months of coalition, remain steadfast and united. Of course there have been some issues on which we have not seen eye to eye, and no doubt there will be more. That is the nature of coalition. But on the things that matter most – the big structural reforms needed to secure our country’s long-term future – our resolve and sense of shared purpose have, if anything, grown over time.

We came to office at a difficult time for our country. An economy still in shock. The Eurozone facing crisis. The inevitability that difficult cuts would have to be made. Worry, uncertainty and worse for many families and businesses. We have been determined to work in a way that keeps our country together through these times. That is why we have protected the NHS from spending cuts and protected schools, while other departments have faced significant spending reductions. That is why we have made sure that the richest have paid the most towards reducing the deficit. We have protected pensions, with the largest increase in the basic state pension. And we have kept our promises to the poorest in the world – meeting the pledges made about overseas aid.

Today, at the half-way point in this Parliament, we are taking stock of the progress we have made in implementing the Coalition Agreement that we signed in May 2010. But we are also initiating a new set of reforms, building on those already under way, to secure our country’s future and help people realise their ambitions.

We will support working families with their childcare costs. We will build more houses and make the dream of home ownership a reality for more people. We will set out plans for long-term investment in Britain’s transport infrastructure. We will set out two big reforms to provide dignity in old age: an improved state pension that rewards saving, and more help with the costs of long-term care. And as we take these steps to reshape the British state for the 21st century, we will take further steps to limit its scope and extend our freedoms. We will be making announcements about each of these policy initiatives in due course.

Our mission is clear: to get Britain living within its means and earning its way in the world once again.

Our approach is consistent: to help hard-working families get by and get on, so that everyone can reach their full potential.

And our resolve is unwavering: we will continue to put political partisanship to one side to govern in the long-term interests of the country.

 

"A real choice on Europe": What it "really" means

If UKIP's success in the polls is anything to go by, the first question the public will want an answer to is whether we will get a referendum on our Membership of the EU.

 

The answer to that is no. Chris Grayling is more likely to be reshuffled to Minister for Equality.

The Prime Minister has always vigorously argued that Britain is better off in Europe, at the negotiating table than outside of the Union. Indeed Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg would share that view - so  on this one, Dave agrees with Nick, Ed agrees with Nick, Nick and Ed agree with Dave and Dave agrees with Ed. In other words, they all agree with each other, and they ALL disagree with a large chunk of the voting public.

Reputable polls have consistently shown the public's scepticism towards the EU and a number of polls reveal that half of Tory MP's think we'd be better off out of the EU (Youguv in Oct 2011 for example) - and only 38% trust David Cameron "a lot" or a little (10% & 28% respectively) to look after Britain's interests in Europe, and 54% don't trust him at all in this regard - according to another Youguv poll for the Sunday Times in November 2012.

But there was some good news for Mr Cameron. When asked who people most to look after Britain's interests in Europe, 25% chose him compared with 18% trust in Mr Miliband. All party leaders should be concerned however that 40% distrusted all of them.

Europe then has caused particular headaches for the Prime Minister, with the now infamous rebellion of his own backbenchers and the public's vocalisation of frustrations through the ballot box for action on Europe. And the much anticipated, much put off speech is only going to open up this Pandora's box further... Aspirin on standby Prime Minister!

David Cameron then will talk of offering the public "a real choice" on Britain's relationship with the EU - something the UKIP Leader brands as "begging for breadcrumbs at the top table" or a fantasy wrapped in the Unino Jack according to Nick Clegg. Inspiring language will be used. Promises will be made... a referendum on renegotiating our relationship will be delivered if the Conservatives are re-elected, and nothing will happen. Sorry to seem cynical - but as angrily pointed out by the EU high command, you can't cherry pick the pieces you like. You're either united or divided - in, or out.

But what the Conservative party will hope to do in the PM's speech is use Europe as a springboard for their re-election campaign. Yes, these kinds of tactics really do start to get employed at this stage of a Parliament... but will it work?

It's true to say that the public sometimes have short memories - and as Stephen Pound, Labour MP for Ealing North once said to me, "there's always a disaster in Westminster... and then suddenly there's not" - but all parties promised a referendum on Lisbon at the last election and all parties failed to deliver. Granted, the Prime Minister has often made the point that his "cast iron guarantee" was only ever meant to apply if Lisbon wasn't ratified by the time he was elected... and actually on that point, I believe him. After all, you can't un-sign a treaty, even if it was really a Constitution by another name. But the fact of the matter is the public remember that "guarantee" and they remember the promises made by all political parties on Lisbon. So I predict a sceptical reception and a consequentially escalated amount of rhetoric coming from all.

Incidentally, this writers view on Europe isn't important, and in point of fact, probably quite neutral - but by way of a professional observation and judgement, all politicians are beginning to cop on to the strength of feeling on this matter, but is the time for talking over?

Why we should ALL have windows 8 - a journalist's dream

As a general rule, it's always best to avoid upgrading to the latest version of windows until it's about 18 months old. Previous incarnations have shown it to be very buggy at best and very unstable at worst.

But Windows 8 is the exception to the rule.

As a long time PC user, and the proud owner of a fantastic MacBook Pro laptop, I am fully aware of what different operating systems offer - and actually, VISTA excepted, they're all very good at different things.

The Mac system for instance is great for broadcasters like myself because it handles audio and video editing smoothly, reliably, and it's more than very rare for any form of virus or crashing incident. There's no doubt about it that Mac's are fantastic machines.

Recently I decided I needed to have a good old fashioned PC with Microsoft Word installed - yes you can get Office for the Mac but it's simply not accessible with screen-reading software. So the PC will always be king for document editing until Microsoft do something about their inaccessible Mac software.

So why is Windows 8 a journalist's dream?

It's fast, reliable - so far not buggy or crashy - and the news app on the new "Metro View" desktop is beyond amazing. Like all journalists, a thorough scan of the day's news is a staple part of my day - and I cannot see a day when I don't have to read virtually every publication from the Mail to the Guardian online - but for a quick and informed run-down of the day's biggest news stories - it can't be beaten.

It's like your very own in-depth paper review with all the details you need.

And if you're fortunate enough to be able to see the monitor, you could decide to add a second one and have your note-taking software running on one screen and the news, or twitter and facebook App for instance running in the other.

So for a smooth, reliable system, either upgrade to Windows 8 - or if you really fancy splashing the cash, get yourself a Mac and install Windows on it too - then you've got the best of both worlds- particularly important for multimedia journalists, as all journalists now have to be.