ThunderDragon Blog

The Lib Dems have decided who will be their third leader in three years, choosing between two virtually identical candidates. So close were they considered that the Lib Dem membership could barely decide which they wanted:

Nick Clegg: 20,988
Chris Huhne: 20,477

So only 511 more members preferred Clegg to Huhne - out of the 41,465 Lib Dem members who voted. Hardly a resounding victory, with [if my maths is correct] a less than 1% majority. Thus, Clegg will always have Huhne peering over his shoulder, and the perfect leader-in-waiting should Clegg falter even a step.

But the problem Clegg now faces is how to get himself and his party taken seriously. He will be viewed by many as Cameron-lite, especially considering his relatively similar looks. He will also have to produce results, since the Lib Dems will be expecting him to emulate Cameron’s early successes - even if on a reduced scale.

“Calamity” Clegg’s election by such a small margin is a bad result for the Lib Dems. He has been considered the front-runner for the position for so long that for him to end up only just winning must cast doubt over his long-term ability to perform. had Huhne won, however, the opposite would have have been true, and the Lib Dems would have been seen to be on the “up” since Huhne has performed so well.

But Clegg, even though he will never be Prime Minister, may yet be the most powerful man in politics should the outcome of the next general election produce a hung parliament and thus give Clegg the role of king-maker - even the execution of this role could as easily destroy as make him. The Conservatives have already started setting out their stall as the only possible coalition partner for the Lib Dems, should a hung parliament happen - a result which is boosted by Clegg’s election.

Bloody hell, the government really is just crap at looking after our data, isn’t it!

My details were almost certainly among those lost, and I am by no means pacified by Ruth Kelly apologising for “any uncertainty or concern” caused, especially since sorry seems to be the easiest word for Labour minister to say under Brown.

They were lost in May for crying out loud! Why did they not at least tell us that they had lost it? This isn’t however the fault of Ruth Kelly, who was only informed of this on 28th November. Stephen Ladyboyman most certainly can be, however, as he was told of this loss of data on June 4th, and whatever he did didn’t tell people like me whose details are more than likely to have been lost and potentially in the hands of fraudsters. What is staggering , however, is that even though nothing had been done about this loss of data on the government’s behalf, they only told the new Secretary of State after the government had lost the details of 25m other people.

I wonder, if that hadn’t have happened, would she - let alone us - ever have been told?!

What this does is demonstrate categorically that the State cannot be responsible for any more of our personal data than absolutely essential. Even what it currently holds is too much, and certainly even the thought of this incompetent bunch of morons ever getting hold of enough information to make an ID card should make all intelligent people very, very scared.

UPDATE: Ladyboy defends doing bugger-all about this because he “assumed the new minister would’ve been told about it.” Why didn’t you do something about it yourself? Or would that have meant that you would actually have to had earned your pay? Read Mr Eugenides’ comments on this issue.

John Major has accused Labour of being sleazy. But this isn’t quite the pot calling the kettle black, as Labour’s sleaze is systemic of the party and government. There is no denying that even though there was plenty of sleaze during the Major years, it was individuals, rather than the party or government, that was guilty.

After all, there were no accusations of illegal party donations under John Major!

There was sleaze during the Major years - and no-one can deny that - but it wasn’t systemic, unlike that of Labour during the past decade.

It is, however, at least a bit hypocritical of John Major, but not as much as I’m sure Labour bloggers would like it to be, as the Labour Party is more sleazy than the last Conservative government, in little more than half the time they had.

But the question is: how sleazy can they get? Almost certainly much, much, more.

Ordovicius asks whether David Cameron’s overtures towards the Liberal Democrats can be “categorised as a case of unrequited love” and “[w]ill it lead to Dave moping like a spurned lover?” Personally, I can’t see it like that at all. Instead, it seems to me far more like Cameron setting out his stall as the man who is willing to make compromises and the man who cannot be blamed if Britain ends up with a minority government of any party.

Rather than unrequited love, it more about setting the Lib Dems up. By suggesting that he is willing to compromise should the occasion demand it, Cameron is giving the Lib Dems no choice about whom to select as coalition partner should the results demand it. It is about setting the Conservatives up as the non-partisan politician, as the leader who will compromise and lead a coalition government if that is what the electorate decide.

In stead of unrequited love, it’s more about stitching the Lib Dems up, and giving them no choice but to select the Conservatives as coalition partners should the situation arise.

The EU has already appointed an EU Ambassador to Africa more than a year before the EU Treaty comes into force, and before it has been ratified by any member state [even though it shouldn't even be signed before it has been ratified].

Just disgusting, and technically illegal since the position and the power to give the job does not yet exist.

The EU are running roughshod over the people, with no regards even for their own rules.

Any world leader who does not object and publicly condemn this abuse of power is betraying the people of their country. The EU cannot and must not be allowed to take and use powers that they do not even possess.

Source: The Telegraph

It has now been reached, with YouGov giving the Conservatives 45% and a 13-point lead, the largest lead that YouGov have ever given them. If this poll was to be replicated at a general election, the Conservatives would get a 96 seat majority in the Commons.

45% is the target that Cameron set for the Conservatives and the level of support that is widely regarded as necessary to ensure a working majority of MPs. They have now reached it, which is fantastic news.

But let’s not get over-excited - this is just one poll, and the new Lib Dem leader has yet to be announced which is bound to increase their poll rating at least in the short-term. And Gordon Brown has had a very bad time of late, which is bound to impact on Labour’s poll rating, and it is thus likely if not inevitable that it will rise at some point.

Even so, it is very good news for the Conservatives. And we can all just hope that 45% becomes the standard rating the Tories get in future polls!

Rather than the educational conscription proposed by the government that myself and the others [such as Fabian Tassano, Surreptitious Evil, and Devil's Kitchen] who write the Educational Conscription group blog are constantly arguing against, it has now been suggested that children should have the opportunity to leave school at 14 - by the head of the UK’s biggest education authority, no less.

His point is that, very simply, some children are not academically gifted and are not suited to classroom teaching and learning - and as such would benefit far more from apprenticeships.

The response of the NUT that the earnings of those who stay on and get qualifications is “much higher” than those who have “simply left school very early and gone on to do some very specific training.” Yes, it may well be. But those who leave school at 14 will not be the kind of people who benefit from classroom learning or those who are likely to be suited to do the jobs that require high qualifications. They are the people essential to our society - plumbers, electricians, builders etc. - without whom our modern society is screwed. That the NUT believe that qualifications are essential and required in order to live a useful and productive life betrays their love of the testing regime.

Not everyone can have high qualifications and great high paid jobs. And not everyone is suited to them. It’s a simple fact of life.

However, at the very least, children shouldn’t be allowed to leave school at 14 unless they have an apprenticeship to go to. I’m not entirely convinced by the idea that children should be able to leave school so early, but it is certainly far better than forcing them to stay there for longer. At least they then have the choice to make, the choice which this government seems determined to take away from 16-18 year olds.

Cross-posted at Educational Conscription. Please go there to comment on this post.

Christmas shopping, the busiest time of the year for retail outlets and the most expensive time of year for customers. And luckily I have very nearly completed my Christmas shopping, with all bar one of the presents I need to buy bought. And, unlike many other young people, I am spending more than last year [only a bit more, though, and simply because I am actually earning now, rather than being student like I have been for the last four Christmases].

That many young people are reducing their expenditure on presents isn’t really much of a surprise. Everything is so expensive nowadays! And the great and growing possibility of a credit crunch, coupled with the reducing availability of credit, is preying on minds - what happens if something goes wrong with the economy? Those who are very much in debt won’t have it easy then. Also, I think that many are now understanding the implications of having lots of debt, and the issues with credit, with the collapse and effective nationalisation of Northern Rock proving a case in point - even banks are vulnerable.

Elderly people are increasing their spending because this credit crunch matters little to them. They have few debts and usually own their houses outright, so they can afford to splash out a bit more.

Young people are also suffering from debts forced upon them by labour - Student Loans. It’s not nice to have that much debt hanging over you, believe you me.