Cllr. Gavin Ayling

It’s political TV for those who hate the BBC’s bias in both directions!

This is the future of TV… It really is.

But the Devil’s Kitchen has some alternate observations.

As probably many other Councillors have, I today received a manifesto from The New Party.

The UK has a major problem with new political parties. Inertia amongst the membership of the other parties (and those who are not members of a party) means that new parties must have some major backing to make any headway at all. UKIP is the only recent new party to have gained any sort of significant political power and the last party to start and gain power from the incumbent two is the Labour Party.

So it is interesting that The New Party is offering free membership; it is interesting that The New Party introduction letter is written by a former Labour Councillor; and when you read the detail you can see a bizarre mix of Labour’s social ideals alongside genuine free market economics to reform, positively, the NHS, welfare, pensions and education. In truth, the economic section shines.

But there are problems:
1) Their policy on drugs is out of date and will, inevitably, fail as badly as the other parties’ policies have. Cameron’s hinted at a more relaxed drugs policy and this is right.
2) The Party notes the ideological and practical problems that Planning regulations introduce. But their solution is odd — very odd. They would allow local Councils to set up Planning-free zones. I don’t think I can say anything helpful about this policy but it strikes me as a half-measure. It would be better to limit planning authorities’ powers in some areas (and strengthen in others)? Actually, in my opinion, the single most important area of planning reform needed is a reduction in the number of appeals processes available to people — it should be simpler and much, much quicker.
3) The lovely glossy manifesto completely ignores devolution and the fundamental constitutional problems that it has created.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some great policies in there — some that Cameron would do well to incorporate into a radical first term’s manifesto — but there doesn’t seem to be a single message. I may be wrong here, but I suspect each section was written by different people completely independently of the other sections. The “wills” and “woulds” are particularly jarring.

If you agree with the Manifesto of The New Party you should join it — inertia is a result of people not doing what they should. But you may want to wait for Cameron’s policies to know whether that party reflects your opinions more closely than do the Conservatives. I strongly suspect the Conservatives policies will be excellent with only a very few mistakes (like the Barnet formula’s continuation etc).

Peter Luff makes himself seem daft when he says “When you go over the top like this, you bring all of us in politics into disrepute.”

It’s a bit of light-hearted fun… just not very funny:

I thought about using the Comedy category but changed my mind!

Terror raid receives no news headlines shock: West Brom Blog has more.

The argument for secret courts was dealt a blow today.

I understand the need to protect intelligence sources etc, but if MI5 et al cannot be trusted, as is clearly the case, then they must not be allowed without some form of citizen oversight.

It has previously been shown that if the obvious cause (Joseph) can be discounted, the child born must be the son of God: And so it is in Vietnam.