Les Miserable

I don't like turncoats - remind me too much of the double-sided rugby tops of Grammar school - but in certain circumstances I'm willing to welcome those travelling the Damascan path. Not so Leslie T. Byrom CBE FRICS. As reported today, Cllr B has resigned from Cameron's Conservatives - ostensibly over the 42 day detention policy - and Labour (split over the issue) wants him on board HMS Habeas Corpus. This is a political free-jumper (nearly put free-loader but remembered he wasn't called Den Dover) who had 30 years in politics as a Tory. When Thatcher began to destroy Merseyside, Byrom was a member of the welcoming committee; moreover he was a member of the host party.

As his dreadful home page points out:

• Joined Sefton Council 6th June 1985, Conservative Leader 1991 to 2005


• Merseyside Fire & Rescue Authority Conservative Group Leader
  Chairman, LGA Fire Services Management Committee, LGA and Conservative spokesman for the Fire Service, Chairman of the Fire Forum, Member Safer Communities Board, DCLG Centre of Excellence and Equalities and Diversity project boards. Fire Practitioners Forum. Chairman Employers side, National Joint Council (NJC) Fire service negotiating body for the UK.


• Euro Parliamentary Candidate,
  European Elections 1999, Conservative North West 8th position
  European Elections 2004, 8th position
  Parliamentary Candidate Westminster
  Knowsley South Parliamentary By Election 29th September 1991 and General Election 1992. Wirral South Parliamentary By Election 28th February 1997 and General Election 1997.

Byrom lost the epochal Wirral South by-election with a swing to Labour in excess of 17%.

Well, one thing we do know is that whilst Les The Surveyor (Chartered) is popular in his Sefton ward, he seems to come unstuck when putting himself up for higher things. The 1997 By-election defeat in a Tory seat paved the way for the election of Comrade Blair. I didn't keep hold of Les's election addresses during that ill-fated campaign, but I don't remember it being too complimentary towards his new New Labour chums.

Many of us had high hopes in 1997, and perhaps such defections come as no surprise these days as the Labour Government, rather than being feared by its natural opponents, is actually welcomed.

Coming as it does on a day when figures suggest that the elderly and children are worse off, the fact that an establishment figure such as Byrom should feel comfortable in Labour circles. Iain Dale, whose diary long ceased to be of interest has a take on why Les has taken the trip to the dark side at this particular time here. He might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

The Labour Party - happy to deflect criticism of Brown - is as ever, ready to lay out the not-so-red carpet:

• Hazel Blears MP, Labour's Communities and Local Government Secretary, said:"Les Byrom is a big player in North West politics and I am pleased that he has made this decision. "Here is another top Tory who has seen through David Cameron's shallow salesmanship and said 'enough is enough'. "We look forward to welcoming Les into the Labour Party."

Les has a valid point in his resignation letter:

• No matter where Lady Thatcher stood in the polls, she always sought to do what was right rather than what was politically expedient, and this is a lesson you would be well advised to learn.

And this is the great problem. I was reminded of the above when watching Thatcher in Andrew Marr's history programme. In trying to woo Mail voters and so-called Middle England, Labour has been the architect of its own misfortune. You don't have to be Les The Surveyor to know when you've neglected your foundations.

The Nasty Party Rallies

Following one from the recent posts on Auschwitz, we see that Cameron's true colours come to the fore with his comments on the proposal to have Sixth Formers from every school visit the camp.

From The Guardian: 22/02/08

Cameron branded 'sick and ignorant' in Auschwitz row

David Cameron was branded "sick and ignorant" today and urged to apologise for describing school trips to Auschwitz as a headline-grabbing "gimmick".
The Tory leader sparked a major political row when he condemned educational visits to the concentration camp to teach pupils about the Holocaust.
Cameron told a Conservative "North West Conference" in Bolton that Gordon Brown's government was obsessed with gimmicks that "grabbed the headlines but amounted to nothing".
Number four on the list of 26 government gimmicks he cited was "trips to Auschwitz".
The schools secretary, Ed Balls, called on the Conservative leader to apologise.
"This is a truly disgraceful remark by David Cameron and he should apologise immediately for the offence he has caused," Balls said. "Anyone who has seen the horrors of Auschwitz at first hand knows what a life-changing experience it is."
Earlier this month, the government announced a £4.65m payment of funds to the Holocaust Educational Trust to extend their programme of sending two sixth-formers from every school and college in the country to Auschwitz to learn about the Holocaust.
Balls added: "To call the announcement I made … a 'gimmick' just beggars belief. In trying to make this issue into a matter of party politics, David Cameron has shown once again that he not only lacks judgement but also a basic sense of decency."
Government minister Jim Murphy, who has organised school trips to Auschwitz for more than 450 Scottish teenagers since 2004, also rounded on the Tory leader's comments.
He told guardian.co.uk: "I have organised trips from Scotland for to Auschwitz for Scottish teenagers for the past three years.
"They have a lasting impact and are a poignant and moving reminder of the horrors of the Holocaust. To describe it as a gimmick is sick, ignorant and an insult to those who have perished and those who still live today with the memories of the darkest moments in human history."
The Tory party claimed that schools would have to find £100 to fund every sixth-former's trip.
"We've never known a government that is so obsessed with short-term gimmicks, with top-down control, with endless meddling and interfering in every part of everyone's life," Cameron said."Yet we've also never known a government that is so incapable of even the most basic level of competence.
"We've had a gimmick for every week that Gordon Brown has been prime minister. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious."
But the Labour party insisted today that since it began taking schoolchildren to Auschwitz in 1998, at an average cost of £350 per pupil, the Holocaust Educational Trust has always asked schools to contribute £100 towards the cost of each trip.
Karen Pollock, the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said: "Since we have received government funding, we have been able to offer two students from every secondary and sixth-form college in the country, the opportunity to visit the former Nazi camps of Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland.
"Often participants describe the experience as life-changing. We have already taken over 5000 students on this project and the renewed government funding announced this year will enable us to take over 15,000 pupils nationwide up to 2011."She added: "This is such a worthwhile project and we are very grateful for the government's support."
Henry Grunwald, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said: "The Board of Deputies does not get involved in party politics but we are surprised and disappointed that David Cameron should in any way have used the word gimmick in connection with visits to Auschwitz.
"MPs of all parties have supported these visits and understand their importance and we are grateful to the government for having made funding available to enable two sixth formers from every secondary school to participate in them."
The Tories insisted that the party was a firm believer in the trips' education value.
A spokeswoman for David Cameron said: "We are not saying trips to Auschwitz are a gimmick. The government was trying to suggest in a press release earlier this month they were going to fund two children from every school. The problem is they said they would pay for it in full.
"But when you look at the analysis the schools have to pay £1.9m. So what exactly is the government paying for?"
The spokeswoman added that a Tory government would pay for the trip in full, without asking schools and colleges to contribute.
When pressed, she said this would be paid for from lottery funding.

The Real Vote Volume 2

Well, at least Dave Cameron will keep his job for another couple of years. He should be raising a glass or two to Gordon. Press speculation has been the prime mover of this story for weeks, but Gordon and team are guilty of errors too. I always thought it was an outside chance that there would be an election called; even Littlejohn predicted that he wouldn't take the risk. There were arguments to be had for going early but they were outweighed by the following:

1. The cautious Brown has waited 10 years for his destiny. Why jeopardise this by seeking an early mandate?


2. The constant calls for an election by opponents on the basis of his unopposed accession and coronation were historically dishonest. Major did not go to the nation after Thatcher was unceremoniously stabbed in the back; Callaghan clung on from 1976 until his Commons majority vanished.


3. Furthermore, our system (rightly or wrongly) is not a Presidential one. We elect individual MPs from parties that in turn select a leader. Subject to the Queen's (largely formal) prerogative, the leader of the party with the greatest number of seats is (usually) asked to form a Government.


4. Although nobody knows what is round the country (some economic problems seem likely) an extension gives GB the chance to show his political acumen in running the country, in the same way as he was instrumental in running the economy during the Blair tenure. Cameron looks weak here. His lack of experience (he doesn't show sign of ever having shaved!) should count against him.


5. It may be apocryphal but Labour does not like to fight winter elections. It was always felt that the core vote would not get out. Now that party allegiances have broken down somewhat this may be less of a problem. However, perception is important. Party activists do not like to canvass on dark nights as fewer people answer the door. in our hi-tec world, tub thumping and door stepping may be less crucial, but perception is again the key here.


6. After the Brown Bounce we had the baffling Cameron Comeback in the polls. This will not last. Brown is an experienced campaigner. He may lack the pulpit prose of his predecessor but he outdoes DC in terms of conviction. Just what does DC stand for? It changes with the wind. Quite how the Inheritance Tax issue has become important is a mystery. Johann Hari quite rightly pointed out on BBC News 24 today that it affects only 6% of the population. How has the other 94% suddenly become the great dispossessed. Labour's failure here has been to go onto the back foot instead of turning the argument on its head.

Indeed, prospective Tory candidate Debi Jones (ex-shrill shouty person from Radio Merseyside) said it was the biggest issue for people she spoke to! I intend to cover the Inheritance tax non-issue later. The thought of her and her mate Esther McVey being MPs in this area is enough to make me pack my bags (and take a holiday!). McVey, one of the trustees of the Fund Kate.... I mean Find Madeleine McCann appeal, is candidate in Wirral West and would be certain to win if an election were called now.

Anyway, as poor Mail readers have been prevented from having a chance to cast their votes, the paper allows them to do it online.

Labour Promotes Sin

For some time now it has become apparent that more people are shunning marriage in favour of (to use the vernacular) 'living over the brush'. This is something we have all known. There are various reasons so one would expect them to be explored in today's Mail article. Well, of course, nobody expects. You just imply that it is the fault of the Labour Government. Hence the headline:

• Number of co-habiting couples soars by two thirds under Labour

The article merely quotes a lengthy series of stats to add weight (padding) to the story. It is hard to know what is actually being said.

• Between 1996 and 2006 cohabitation soared by 65 per cent to 2.3 million couples while the number of married couples fell 4 per cent to 12.1 million.

Obviously the Mail has had to rely upon figures for the decade commencing 2006 as they will probably be the ones available. This does lead one to suspect that the trend had already started as John Major's Boycottesque innings was coming to a close. Still, we get the general gist - everything that is bad only happens when the Commies are in power.

Leaving aside the notion as to whether being married actually makes one a better person, or the relationship more valid, the Mail then turns on one of its favourites:

• Lone parent families, including those with non-dependent children, increased eight per cent to 2.6 million over the same period, according to the Office for National Statistics' (ONS) Focus on Families report.

Of course lone parents include those who have divorced, separated or widowed. The trick is to lump them all together (in itself quite correct) and let the minds of the DM crowd translate into depictions of single mothers on benefit. Ordinarily, that would seem to be stretching it and I could be criticised for over egging the tiramisu. In the context of Planet Mail, however, it is one small step for Mailkind; one giant leap for imagination.

Then we have the startling revelation that actually:

• Lone parent families, the majority of them single mothers, account for 24 per cent of households with dependent children. This figure has risen only slightly from 1996 when it was 21 per cent, the ONS said.

Furthermore, the DM, to be fair, tells us more of the report's contents:

• "The fact that cohabitation is more prevalent at younger ages reflects both the fact that cohabitation is often a precursor to marriage and a greater acceptance of cohabitation among younger generations," the report says.

This is as I expected. What I would have liked was an analysis of the reasons for the change. The above point is obviously a major one as a lot of us will have grandparents ho could tell of the stigma of being born out of wedlock or pre-marital sex (I always thought that was a quick one with the chief bridesmaid before the ceremony but that's just my filthy mind!). Indeed, anyone that watched the BBC's excellent Who Do You Think You Are? where celebrities trace their ancestry, will have noticed the 'skeletons in the cupboard' and in some cases, illegitimate children and mothers were banished. (see also Angela's Ashes set in Limerick, Ireland).

Is the Mail suggesting we should return to this situation? It constantly bemoans the fact that young girls get pregnant to get benefits and council housing, claims which are way off the mark.

I was surprised that no mention was made of the tax implications of being married as opposed to cohabiting. I'm no accountant (I wanted to be a lion tamer but graduated to the legal profession by way of a Pythonesque step) so over to BBC contributor Chas Roy-Chowdhury Head of Taxation, Association of Chartered Certified Accountants:

• If you are thinking of getting married do it for love, not for any tax benefit - you would have to really scratch your head to try and find any big tax advantages to being married.
  The problem is that governments, of whichever party, decided many years ago that we should have all taxpayers treated separately for tax purposes.
  Hence the principle which existed in the past, that the husband and wife were a single taxable entity, has been systematically dismantled.

The Tories ("Party of the Family" Registered TM) have recently looked at a vote winning package of tax concessions for those willing to say, "I do vote Conservative". Here's Dave Boy Cameron in July this year,

• "If we get the family right, we can fix our broken society.
  Britain is almost the only country in Europe that doesn't recognise marriage in the tax system and the benefits system actively discourages parents from living together.
  We have the highest rate of family breakdown in Europe and we have the worst social problems in Europe. Don't tell me these things aren't connected."

And at the Party Conference, the Quiet Man himself, called for tax breaks for married couples. His speech (together with IDS's customary frog in the throat can be seen here.

There is an argument for a return of some form of allowance for partners in the tax system; most financial responsibilities are joint, for example, mortgages. However, the Mail passes up the opportunity. The article,I think, is very poor. It merely prints a few figures in a cut-and-paste job (as I do ahem! but I don't get paid for it because I am arguing in my spare time!)

The article ends with the alarming claim that,

• Between 1976 and 2004 the proportion of women aged 18 to 49 who were not married and were cohabiting trebled from nine per cent to 23 per cent, the report says.

Ah, 1976. That'll be Jim Callaghan's fault then.

5pm Update

Here's Jacqui............

• Like everything else with this Government.- Jacqui Weems, Southampton

Jacqui, you really are a whining old moron. Your one-liners are on a par with Syd Little. Read the sodding article before showng your ignorance.