The Pope's Position Represents True Liberty

An issue has arisen regarding a confliction of liberties but on what side can we truly say that autonomy of the individual rests? I speak of course, of the Equality Bill which would have allowed homosexuals to apply and, more importantly, be considered for positions in Catholic faith schools.

Both Catholics and homosexuals are minority groups within their own rights and each has an undeniable right to practice their lifestyle choice. We therefore have to consider which lifestyle is truly being impinged upon here.

True liberty encompasses a right to choose. To choose what you think, to choose what you do and to choose how to live your life. A free-market capitalist society is the best example of this right to choose as it is often forgotten that taxes are an affront to liberty and laissez-faire capitalism almost entirely removes this burden. In fact the only taxes which would be paid would go towards the police/army...to defend liberty.

In such a society the right to choose extends to businesses and thus it becomes clear on which side of the fence I fall. If I run a business, be it a school or a multi-national firm, I retain the right to choose who I employ and as it is my business it is my prerogative. Similarly the man on the street has a right to choose to apply for a job, or not as the case may be.

However I cannot force him to work for me in the same way that he cannot force me to employ him (or in this case force me to consider his application). Why should the gay community, or anyone for that matter, be allowed to enforce themselves upon the job market?

I'm not quite sure why the mainstream media has come out (excuse the pun) against the CAtholic community so much. As far as I can see it is because the gay rights movement has come so far so fast in the last 40 years and this is seen as a natural continuation. Frankly they are wrong and I am glad that Harman has backtracked.

REVIEW: What Difference does Political Blogging make?

I got to the Monk's Exchange last night at around 7.15 but there was already a decent crowd ready for the Westminster Skeptics panel discussion. At the bar I got talking to Amanjit Jhund (Labour PPC for Windsor) who introduced me to some of his friends on the left including Shamik Das, assistant editor of 'Left Foot Forward'. I also met Karen Lee, editor of BBC 2's Culture Show.

The Panel Discussion began with Nick Cohen (Observer journalist and author of 'What's Left?') stating the case for journalism. I wanted to try and see his point of view so as to get a balance and not be so automatically predisposed towards blogging but I found his argument somewhat disjointed and non-effective. Of all the panel responses it was Slugger O'Toole (Mick Fealty) who gave the best account for the bloggers with a sensible speech about the important role played by such blogs as his own in opening discussion of stories up.

The Q&A session was slightly more disappointing with both questions and answers being rather prolonged. Nevertheless some important points were raised about the hostile nature of a lot of blogs and also about the possible future of journaslism. Particular insight was from Jonathan Isaby who famously moved from working at the Daily Telegraph to become editor of Conservative Home.

The evening came to a close with conversations with both @WhosLobbying and the legendary Thomas Byrne who will be relieved to hear I won't be revealing details from our slightly drunken conversation!

Are You 'AV-ing a Laugh?

In what can only be described as a pathetic election ploy and nothing more, Gordon Brown has announced his desire for a national referendum on replacing the British first past the post (FPTP) electoral system with the alternative vote (AV) system used in places such as Australia.

It seems to be a continual tactic of the Labour party to try and back the Tories into a corner by trying to announce another fix-all policy and when the opposition sensibly point out the pitfalls of such crackpot ideas they are accused of regaling on their promise to be the 'party of change'. This time Brown has gone too far and his attempt at electioneering is plain for all to see. Labour have had nearly 13 years to instigate such radical change with more commanding majorities (thanks to FPTP) so why wait till now? Well as I was taught in A-Level politics, this is the classic sign of a dying government.

I mean, just think what AV would mean electorally for Labour. They would undoubtedly pick up a lot of '2nd' votes from Lib Dem supporters as well as from the Greens and other parties on the left. Meanwhile the Tories would most likely only pick up such 'sloppy seconds' from parties on the right such as UKIP.

I'm not here to necessarily defend FPTP and I'll admit it has disadvantages but, then again, so does AV and all electoral systems. If there was a 'perfect formula' then all democracies would be using it by now.

I do believe though that the advantages of FPTP will become prevalent in 2010. If David Cameron achieves a healthy majority come May then the Conservatives will be able to lead Britain back to growth unencumbered by the desperate politics of New Labour.

Cricket in the Empire

It's no secret that the reason cricket is so popular in places such as Australia, India and South Africa is because of the influence of the British Empire. In fact it's hard to think of a nation with test match status that hasn't had a British influence.

This looks set to continue into the modern day with Afghanistan becoming a real force on the cricket pitch. Only nine years ago the team consisted almost entirely of refugees and were struggling in the second tier of Pakistan's domestic league but now have full one-day international status and only missed out on a place in the 2011 World Cup by a narrow margin.

Arguably their biggest success to date came last Sunday when they beat the Irish (who are no pushovers themselves) by 7 wickets in a multi-day game. This will undoubtedly set them up nicely for next week's ICC World Twenty20 game qualifiers in the UAE.

I'm not sure if there is any political metaphor to make here but good luck to the Afghans. I believe it was Julius Nicholson in a Thick of It Special who said that 'cricket makes the troubles of the world seem so far away'.

My Day Alongside Alastair Campbell

At 7.20am Tuesday morning most of you were probably still in bed but I became the 8th person to be queueing outside the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, waiting to register to attend the Iraq Inquiry. Before long your standard media outfits began to arrive and made reports to their respective channels.

Once in and registered we eagerly anticipated Campbell's arrival and I have to admit to being surprised at just how tired and older he looked. I know it was 6 and a half years since Campbell was last part of government but the large sigh at the first interlude was telling.

The former director of Communications and Strategy started off a bit shaky and when questioned about the nature of his role tried to fob off the question by saying that if Tony Blair asked him to jump off a building then he wouldn't have. Hmm, Sir Roderic Lyne soon told him to "be serious".

Once into the questions about Iraq, Alastair Campbell soon became more comfortable and answered questions more freely; providing clear and detailed responses to the panel's robust questioning. Campbell often got into a good tussle with Sir Lawrence Freedman that was only stopped because the stenographer couldn't keep up!

In my opinion, the biggest thing to come out of the day was heading into the very final session when Campbell implied that Clare Short was both incompetent and difficult to work with. The reason this came up was because Lyne pointed out that Short's ministerial department (International Development) was often excluded from key meetings about Iraq. With Campbell making such a strong case for the moral argument for war just before this break, surely he must have realised the importance of the department in the aftermath of any invasion?

All in all a good day to experience politics first hand and I certainly think the panel's line of questioning already lends it more legitimacy than the Hutton Report. Role on Tony Blair!

Labour attacks UK Charities

You know that a government is desperate once it starts to attack the most vulnerable in society and this is exactly what Labour seems to be doing as they seek to remove the exemption that charities currently enjoy from music royalties. Despite being in force since 1988, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act will be amended so that all charities must, from April 2010, obtain a license from Phonographic Performance Ltd if they wish to play copyrighted music to the public. Clearly this covers nearly every charity that seeks to advertise on either the radio or on television and some smaller charities may fail to notice that the law has even changed. Will we therefore possibly see a legal case where a music producer takes a charity to court?! Simon Cowell v. NSPCC could create a few headlines in itself!

The amendment to the law will simplify the framework within which charges are applied and the payment is only £81 annually, but this is £81 that could otherwise be better spent, particularly in the case of non-profit organisations and such an amount could be a significant dent in the finances of some smaller charities. The government’s apparent justification for the amendment is that it is necessary remove the exemption to achieve a proper balance between owners of the rights to the music and the users in accordance with EC and international law. Such a claim seems, in reality, hard to substantiate. For example, use of music for weddings, hospital wards and medical therapy are still exempt; is there no balance to be redressed here?

Overall the advantages of the amendment are hard to find with regard to charities. The overall system may be simplified but it was probably a whole lot simpler when they paid nothing at all.

The Tories are the Only Party Left with a Shred of Decency

I apologise for the lack of blogging in the past month and extend the apology for the next few weeks potentially as well. Unfortunately a law degree doesn't let up and a series of recent coursework, exams and even a presentation are stoppping me from having any sort of life. You'll be pleased to know that I'm having a short break for Christmas upto New Year but will then be back to the grind until around the 18th Jan.

Anyway, the reaction to David Cameron's New Year Message has unsurprisingly been hostile but for different reasons to what we might expect. After calling for much of the fakery and unnerving party loyalty to be removed from politics this has been thrown back by the Lib Dems in particular, who seem determined to build a wall around their small corner of Parliament.

With a hung Parliament a realistic possibility after the next general election we need to start thinking about how our country can realistically hope to make progress; especially in the current economic climate. However, quotes from Lib Dems like Danny Alexander who state "The Conservatives cannot be trusted where fairness is concerned" are petty attempts to create hostility. I mean on what basis is this assumption made exactly?!

As a Tory I wouldn't mind working with the next Lib Dems after the next election, in fact it may even have some advantages in relation to policy areas such as the environment. However, if this is the attitude the party is going to show towards Cameron's olive branch then perhaps we need to think again about associating ourselves with the Lib Dems.