Martin Cullip: to thine own self be true

Last Saturday I drew attention to the fact that Martin Cullip, a face if not a name familiar to some readers of this blog, is standing in Sutton & Cheam on behalf of the Libertarian party. Martin writes a column for The Free Society and today he explains why he is standing.

As ever, it's very well written and I urge you to read it. Here's a taste:

We are three leaders’ debates down and acres of column inches have been dedicated to the election, yet still there is barely a word from politicians about the restoration of civil liberties and personal freedoms which are much lamented by vast swathes of the public who feel they have no way of protest.

In fact, even protest itself has been restricted as part of nearly 4,000 new laws created since 1997. From selling a goldfish to a minor, through ID cards, at pain of imprisonment, for Shetland ponies (I kid you not), to arrest for photographers, and prohibiting anyone from looking at a cigarette packet, we are increasingly terrorised into meek submission.

Common law, which used to underpin our society through the court system, has been replaced by a regime of legislative micro-management of every aspect of our lives.

The answer to every problem – and every unintended consequence of previous legislation – is not repeal or amendment, but a blinkered belief that the only way forward is more regulation, more laws, more bureaucracy, more bans and more infantilising state intervention.

Full article HERE.

Cameron set for No 10

Well, that was interesting - the best of the three debates, by far. For the first time I didn't zap to another channel after 30 minutes of turgid "debate". It helped that Have I Got News For You wasn't on, but I even forgot about the football.

The setting - in the Great Hall of the University of Birmingham - was impressive, and that helped as well. It added a sense of grandeur, which made it more of an event. I don't know if it's a question of budget, but the BBC always stages this sort of thing better than its rivals.

By comparison, last week's debate on Sky News looked like it was held a broom cupboard. The ITV set wasn't much better. I have read that the backstage facilities in Birmingham weren't as good as Bristol or Manchester but, as a viewer, I'd rather see the money on screen, as it were.

Anyway, back to the debate. There is no doubt that Cameron won, and I say that as someone who is not the Conservative leader's greatest fan. He seemed far more relaxed than in previous weeks, and got stronger as the debate wore on. I still think that much of what he said was bland and over-rehearsed but, overall, he was calm and polished and his final statement was the best of the bunch.

Clegg started strongly, I thought. As before, he used his hands to add some urgency to what he was saying, and he sounded more passionate than his rivals. After a while, though, these mannerisms began to annoy me. I began to think, "This is an act".

Slowly, as Lib Dem policies on immigration and the euro unravelled before our eyes, so too did Clegg's man-of-the-people act. He started to sweat and "err". When he tried to bully Cameron to answer a question ("Yes or no? Yes or no?") he came across as petulant and un-prime ministerial. His concluding speech - emphasising the word "YOU" over and over again - was sheer ham.

What can one say about Gordon Brown? He looked terrible, for a start, exuding a ghostly pallor. At times he sounded quite authoritive (as you should if you've occupied the two most important offices of state for 13 years). But as Cameron pointed out, there was a desperation to his words.

The quicker Brown is put out of his misery the better - for us, and for him. Seriously, I wish the soon-to-be ex-prime minister a long hot summer on the beach with Sarah and the boys - somewhere a long, long way from here (Mauritius, perhaps) where he can grieve quietly for the end of his political career.

So, where do we go from here? I don't think last night's debate will make a huge difference (the first debate was the "game changer") but there are six days to go until polling day and that is enough, I think, for the Conservatives to consolidate their lead and get a slim majority. (A few weeks ago I predicted a majority of 20-30 seats and although it seems unlikely now, I am sticking with it.)

I suspect that between now and May 6 the Tories' popularity (if that's the right word) will increase slightly, and the Lib Dems' will fall back a bit.

Labour? There will always be millions of hard core Labour supporters who cannot, for all manner of reasons, bring themselves to vote for anyone else. We saw it the other day with Gillian Duffy. Mrs Duffy, a lifelong Labour voter, had just been insulted by a Labour prime minister but, when asked, she said she wouldn't vote for anyone else. If push comes to shove, she just won't vote.

And that, I predict, is what will happen. Many Labour voters will simply stay at home.

So, if he avoids any serious gaffes (and he will because Cameron's campaign has been a model of, er, conservatism), Call Me Dave will be in No 10 this time next week. And Gordon will be gone.

Lib Dems hit by attack ads

Seen on an ad van outside Lib Dem HQ in London this morning. Guido Fawkes has a picture of the van HERE.

It's one of six posters being unveiled by a group of businessmen who are concerned at the thought of a hung parliament and a Lib/Lab government. A second ad van is currently outside the University of Birmingham where tonight's leadership debate is being held.

How do I know this? Well, one of the businessmen is an old friend. More to follow.

Update on Thursday, April 29, 2010 by Simon Clark

For you, Brown, ze election is over

The BBC reports that Gordon Brown has been caught on microphone describing a Labour voter he had just spoken to as a "bigoted woman". Not sure that she will be voting Labour again. Full story HERE.

Brown apologies for "bigot" blunder (Sky News)
The gaffe that could kill off Gordon Brown (Benedict Brogan)

What was really creepy was not that the PM called Gillian Duffy "bigoted", it was the fact that he had earlier told the 66-year-old widow, "You’re a very good woman". Then, as he left to walk back to the car, he said, "Very nice to meet you, very nice to meet you." Only when he was back in the car did he call her a "bigoted woman". Classy.

Note too how quick Brown was to blame someone else:

Brown to aide: "You should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?"
Aide: "I don't know, I didn't see her."
Brown: "Sue's I think. It's just ridiculous."

Ugh.

Update on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 by Simon Clark

It gets worse. Following his grovelling apology, delivered in person, Brown emerged from Mrs Duffy's house to say: "I misunderstood what she said. She has accepted that there was a misunderstanding and she has accepted my apology."

Misunderstanding? What was there to misunderstand?

"That was a disaster," Brown was heard to mutter after his original conversation with mild mannered Gillian Duffy.

No, Gordon, that was a very average meeting with a member of the general public. (Remember them?) A real disaster would be to find you still in No 10 after May 6.

Surely, after today's events, even hard core Labour voters will find it difficult to stomach that thought.

(Excuse me while I open a bottle of bubbly.)

No time to 'no platform' election candidates

The BBC reports that candidates from the three main parties have withdrawn from a public meeting in West Sussex after the Labour candidate refused to share a platform with the BNP and the other candidates pulled out in his wake. Story HERE.

Writing for The Free Society today, journalist and writer Suzy Dean argues that their refusal to debate with the BNP "demeans us, the public, and the democratic election process".

So far freedom has failed to become a hot issue in the general election despite numerous curtailments to individual and collective liberties over the past five years from anti-terror laws to the ban on smoking in pubs. In fact, the election itself is appearing to damage another one of our most fundamental freedoms, our freedom of speech ...

The assumption seems to be that if we are allowed to see and hear the BNP, we will listen and agree. But in fact, the majority of us do not, and will not, constitute a racist mob. Anybody should be able to run with their views in an election, whatever they are, in a bid to canvass some support. It is then down to us to decide if we want to give them our vote ...

No platform for the BNP is a crude attempt to show moral and political superiority of the mainstream parties over the BNP ... For politicians to simply censor the BNP is to say that they don’t believe in democracy and their own powers of persuasion - they don’t believe they need to win the argument.

Full article HERE.

Note: this thread is about freedom of speech not the BNP!

Is tobacco dependence a disability?

I am giving a speech to the Nutrition and Health conference in London today (the venue, the Soho Theatre, is just around the corner from my office) so while I am otherwise detained here is an email that we have just received:

My wife [a 40 a day smoker] and l recently had to endure a journey back from the Algarve which consisted of a 4 hour train journey, followed by a 14 hr train journey, followed by a 7 hour train journey, followed by a 3 hour train journey, followed by a 19 hr ferry journey followed by a 3 hour coach journey. The total journey time of 50 hours was 'squeezed' into a total of 60 hours. For most of the journey my wife was unable to smoke - the only exception being the few minutes between trains or going out on deck on the ferry. To say this denial of nicotine caused her inconvenience is an understatement!

My wife basically is unable to function properly unless she gets a regular 'hit' of her drug of addiction. In other words her dependency on nicotine "has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities" such as undertake a long train journey.

The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as "someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities" so to all intents and purposes my wife is disabled. As a disabled person none of the trains or airlines we have travelled on recently have made 'reasonable adjustments' , as required under the DDA, to ensure she is not discriminated against as a result of her disability.

Some airports - Rome and Frankfurt - do offer enclosed smoking cabins [usually sponsored, and presumably built by, tobacco companies] at the departures areas unlike most UK airports [Bristol is the only one I know with access to a smoking area beyond the security barriers]. We even had a situation recently where, during a 3 hour concert, there was no smoking area provided in the venue we were told that if she left the area for a smoke there was no re-admission to the concert hall as this would be 'administratively difficult' ie we couldn't be ar*ed to put someone on a door to issue pass outs and let smokers back in again.

Maybe it is time for Forest to seek to define nicotine dependence as a disability [cocaine addicts after all get free needles and coke substitutes supplied by the state to 'support' them in their addiction] and have it included in the scope of the DDA to force organisations to provide facilities for smokers where feasible.

It may not be a political winner for most parties but perhaps the likes of UKIP might be prepared to take on the EU on this matter on behalf of the large numbers of disabled people who are discriminated against on a daily basis and for whom their normal day to day life [and that of their partners/families] is impacted upon.

I'd like to comment but I haven't got time. (Not sure that I'd want to define "nicotine dependence" as a disability, though.) I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Let us eat cake (and anything else we want)

Wearing my Free Society hat, I am spending the afternoon writing a speech for the Nutrition and Health conference at the Soho Theatre in London tomorrow. Supported by the British Sandwich Association and the Pizza, Pasta and Italian Food Association, the blurb reads:

Over recent years the food industry has been the target of increasing pressure from Government and the media to substantially reduce salt and fat levels in ready-to-eat foods. The same pressures are now starting to be applied to foodservice operations.

But just how far can retailers and food makers go before consumers start to reject products or the cost to industry becomes greater than the savings being sought in health care? Is the ‘nanny state’ approach really in the interests of consumers or is it eating into their rights of freedom of choice? Indeed, are we even correct to assume that everyone should conform to a fixed nutritional standard?

My session is entitled "Is freedom of choice not a consumer right?". I have to speak for 20 minutes and then answer questions.

I am told that "the conference has been designed to allow the food industry to hear the arguments from all sides and to debate some of the issues it faces in this context". If there are any specific points you want me to make, feel free to add a comment here. You have until midday Tuesday.

Update on Monday, April 26, 2010 by Simon Clark

Writing on The Free Society website today, Karen McTigue comments:

The decision-making of the individual in what we may or may not eat is slowly being eroded, and we are barely aware of it ... We are being taught that food is to be feared. Too much salt, too much fat, carbs are bad, alcohol is bad. And, for goodness sake don’t even go near that soya bean – not that any sane person would, of course.

All foodstuffs are potential killers, carcinogens, obesity-creators, destructors of the planet in some way ... Perhaps a question for your local electoral candidate on your doorstep should be: which of our future leaders are most likely to instruct “Let them eat cake”?

Full article HERE.

Tobacco companies challenge display ban

Three of the world's leading tobacco companies are fighting government plans to ban the display of tobacco in shops. This morning Imperial, JTI and British American Tobacco have each announced plans to seek a judicial review of the proposed legislation.

Gareth Davis, chief executive of Imperial Tobacco, said: "Banning the display of tobacco products is a further example of the Government's unreasonable and disproportionate approach to regulating tobacco. There is no credible evidence to support the idea that children start smoking or that adult smokers continue to smoke as a result of the display of tobacco products.

"If this misguided legislation is implemented it will simply fuel the growth in the illicit trade of tobacco and create a huge cost burden for retailers who are already under considerable pressure as a result of the difficult economic climate."

Daniel Torras, MD of JTI UK, commented: “Despite the fact that public policy must be based upon clear evidence and sound research, the UK Government has failed to provide such support to justify the display ban.

“Whilst JTI agrees with the key rationale that children and young people should not smoke and should not be able to buy tobacco products, there is no credible evidence that hiding cigarette packs from view at retail outlets will achieve the objective of further reducing youth smoking.

He added: “The proposals will have serious unintended consequences such as a negative impact on small business and risk increasing the trade in illicit products supplied by criminals who sell to children and encourage law-abiding people to break the law.”

Likewise British American Tobacco has announced that its UK subsidiary, two retailers and a German cigarette manufacturer are seeking a judicial review.

General manager Michelle Healy said: “The display ban will damage both competition and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of small businesses by imposing high compliance costs on them. Driving the legal trade from public view will also play into the hands of illegal traders.

“These unwelcome effects are unjustified as there is no credible evidence that it will reduce smoking rates in the UK.”

Update on Tuesday, April 27, 2010 by Simon Clark

Tories back cigarette companies' effort to turn over ban on display of tobacco products (Daily Telegraph)

Update: in an interview with Retail Newsagent (April 24, 2010) Penning confirms that, if elected, the Conservatives will bring the proposals to ban the display of tobacco in shops back before Parliament, giving MPs the chance of a "freer" vote:

"I do not think it can be right to impose additional burdens on shops to introduce a measure for which evidence is lacking. My belief is that a dispassionate analysis would conclude there is insufficient evidence to press ahead. In the first Canadian province to introduce a PoS [point of sale] ban, the proportion of smokers initially increased from 21 per cent in 2002 to 24 per cent the following year."

Politics, potatoes and petrol

My son, 15, is on work experience this week. He applied to the local Conservative association and was accepted following an interview. This morning, at nine o'clock, I drove him to their office in town. He looked very smart in his new shirt and tie.

On Saturday he insisted on getting his hair cut and last night he even polished his shoes (which wasn't a first but it was unusual).

All his friends are on work experience this week. Many, apparently, have been placed in schools and nurseries. I think it's a great idea. In my day (here we go) there was no such thing as organised work experience.

Outside school none of my friends worked. It never crossed our minds. We were all lazy as hell. Spoilt too, I suppose.

I remember, as an eight-year-old, doing Bob-a-Job Week as a member of the Cubs. We lived in Maidenhead in Berkshire and I would walk around in my Cub uniform, knocking on the doors of complete strangers, asking for work. I was usually pointed towards the garden and given some menial task such as sweeping up leaves, mowing the grass with a manual lawn mower, weeding or dead-heading old flowers.

It took years to recover from all that hard labour. Eventually, when I was 16, I took the plunge and stood in for someone who had a newspaper round but was on a two-week holiday. I absolutely loved it. It was the summer and - as I recall (through blue-tinted spectacles) - it was warm (but not too warm) and the sun shone without fail every single morning.

By then we were living in Wormit (yes, Wormit), across the river from Dundee. The round took me to the new houses up the hill where there was a fantastic view of Wormit Bay, the silvery Tay and the city beyond.

In those days newspapers were nothing like as bulky as they are today (I can't imagine how anyone can carry a large number of weekend papers from door to door) and it was possible to read every one as I walked from house to house. Bliss.

I was sorry to give up the round when the regular newspaper boy returned, but not sorry when I thought of having to do the same job in the depths of a cold and windy winter.

As a student I made a point of working each summer. Not because I wanted to, but I needed the money. In 1976, aged 17, I went on a two-week course at Elmwood College in Cupar to lean how to become a potato roguer. (As far as I know, this is a job peculiar to Scotland, for reasons, I believe, of climate.)

According to the Elmwood website:

Roguing is an essential practice in the production of healthy seed potatoes. It is the process of identifying and disposing of abnormal plants, including tubers and seed pieces. The affected plants may be diseased, another variety or simply different. The course includes instruction on:

* The identification of varieties of potatoes
* The identification of virus diseases and variations of potatoes
* General roguing practice

I did the course with two friends and once we had our certificates we hitched up with a ridiculously charismatic art teacher from Ellon. Bill Smith was ten years older than us. He had been roguing for years and knew lots of potato farmers north of Dundee so there was never a shortage of work.

There were days when I wanted to die but overall, for three consecutive summers, we had enormous fun. The great thing was, Bill didn't want to rogue for more than three or four weeks. Other roguers would bust a gut, working 14 hours a day for six weeks or more, and earn more money, but we wanted time to spend the money we had earned and in those days we would make £300-£400 each. Not bad for four weeks' work in the late Seventies.

The best summer job I ever had, though, was working in an Esso petrol station just outside Keswick in Cumbria. (It's still there, although it's a BP station now and the house that the original owner built on site was demolished years ago.)

There was great camerarderie between staff - which helped get us through the quieter periods - but much of the time we were really busy selling fuel, newspapers etc to local people and the hoards of holidaymakers streaming towards the Lake District in their cars and caravans.

Like my son this morning, I was a little nervous on my first day. I thought I would never learn how to use the till or engage the pumps. But I got the hang of it pretty quickly and the summer of '79 simply flew by ... helped, I am sure, by Maggie Thatcher's election victory a few months earlier.

Which brings me back to ...

Election 2010: Philip Davies (Conservative)

Philip Davies is an old friend of Forest. He regularly attends our events and in July 2008, a year after the introduction of the smoking ban (which he continues to oppose), Philip hosted a Forest reception in the House of Commons. (See HERE.)

Philip is the Conservative MP for Shipley in Yorkshire where he was elected with a majority of just 422 in 2005. A few weeks ago one might have assumed that he was reasonably safe. A swing to the Lib Dems, however, could rob us of a genuinely independent MP who sticks to his guns, even if it upsets the party leadership.

On Friday I received an email from Simon Richards, director of the Freedom Association. Philip, Simon wrote, urgently needs YOUR help to retain his seat, adding:

At a time when so many MPs have betrayed the public's trust in them, Philip shines out as a man of principle. The first MP to call for Britain to leave the EU, he has willingly sacrificed any prospect of self-advancement in order to lead the crusade to regain Britain's freedom and independence from Brussels. Now, it's time for us to repay him by helping him in Shipley.

Here's how you can help, says Simon. To join Philip's campaign team in Shipley see HERE or call Shipley Conservatives on 01274 585 830. Or you can make a donation to his campaign HERE.

We cannot afford to lose MPs like Philip Davies. Please help.

Election 2010: Old Holborn (Independent)

Yesterday I was in Cambridge when I spotted a familiar figure handing out flyers and stickers in Market Square. (Teenage girls especially seemed drawn to this masked crusader.) Yes, it was libertarian blogger Old Holborn who is fighting to "put Guy Fawkes back in Parliament".

The last time I saw OH was at Forest Bank prison in Salford last month. He was carrying a suitcase containing £8,500 in £10 notes. That was the amount required to secure the release of jailed landlord Nick Hogan. (Full story HERE.)

Old Holborn set up the appeal fund following a spirited post by fellow blogger Anna Raccoon. Five weeks later he's a prospective parliamentary candidate for Cambridge and Anna is his election agent!

"I want to remind our lords and masters that they are OUR servants, not the other way around," he writes. "Apart from bringing some much needed fun back to politics, I stand for direct democracy where your voice can be heard. I want them to ask us what we want and then do as we say ... Vote Old Holborn and let's give them a May 6th that shall never be forgot."

For more information click HERE.

Election 2010: Martin Cullip (Libertarian)

Neither Forest nor The Free Society can endorse or support any one political party but between now and the election I am going to highlight some of those candidates who are broadly supportive of our position on lifestyle issues such as smoking, eating and drinking.

Martin Cullip is a name that may be familiar to readers of The Free Society website. If you have attended some of our events you may also recognise his face. Martin is standing in Sutton & Cheam on behalf of the fledgling Libertarian party which is fighting the election with a total of, er, two candidates. (The other is Nic Coome in Devizes.)

Sutton & Cheam is currently in the hands of the Liberal Democrats. "My support," says Martin, "comes from working class types who wouldn't vote Tory as their families tend to have originally migrated from inner South London. They don't want to vote Labour but Tory is too much of a wrench. That's how Sutton & Cheam became a Lib Dem seat in 1997 after brief flirtations following a solid history of Toryism."

For more information click HERE or see Martin's Facebook page HERE. You can read Martin's articles on The Free Society website HERE.

PS. Martin is writing a piece about his candidacy which will be published by The Free Society in the next few days. Watch this space.

Why we don't want a hung parliament

On an earlier post Rose Whiteley asked what would happen if the Tories get the most seats, followed by the Lib Dems, with Labour third. "Are you saying the Conservatives and Lib Dems would refuse to work together [allowing Labour to remain in power]? Doesn't seem very logical to me."

I was going to add a short comment but it ended up being longer than intended so I'm posting it here instead.

To answer Rose's question, my understanding is that even if the Lib Dems get a higher percentage of the vote than Labour (ie come second to the Conservatives in the popular vote), it is probable that they will still be the third largest party in terms of seats. This is because the Lib Dems are likely to come second rather than first in many constituencies.

Along with most people I'm not entirely sure what will happen in the event of a hung parliament, but if we take 1974 as a model (see THIS article in the Daily Mail), Gordon Brown does not have to resign as PM without first attempting to put together a coalition government with the Lib Dems or other parties.

My suspicion is that the Lib Dems would take this option in preference to a deal with the Tories because Labour are more likely to give them what they want - proportional representation. That is more important to the Lib Dems that anything else because it will guarantee them scores more seats in future elections and the opportunity, even as the third party, to regularly hold the balance of power.

A lot depends, I imagine, on how close Labour are to the Tories in terms of seats. In 1974, although they had four seats fewer than Labour, the Conservatives had a larger number of votes which gave Edward Heath some moral authority to try and forge an alliance with the Liberals. If Labour are far short of the Conservatives in terms of seats and votes, it would take an incredibly thick-skinned, bloody-minded politician (like Gordon Brown!) to remain in No 10.

If Brown was to resign without reaching agreement with the Lib Dems (or even bothering to speak to them), I would expect the Queen to invite David Cameron (as the leader of the party with the most seats) to form the next government.

Again, based on 1974, I would expect Cameron to run a minority government for 6-12 months before calling another election. It is unlikely that the opposition parties would have a vote of no confidence in the government during that period (unless they took exception to an emergency Budget - see below) because the electorate wouldn't take kindly to another election in so short a period and it would play into the government's hands.

(To an extent, this is how the minority SNP government has remained in charge in Scotland, initially at least. There was no public demand for another election in Scotland so Alex Salmond was able to remain as first minister.)

The problem a minority government would create is this: most people anticipate an emergency Budget soon after the elections. The Tories, it is widely felt, want to tackle the budget deficit sooner than either Labour or the Lib Dems. In a hung parliament with a minority government, it will be difficult for the Tories to get such a Budget through for fear of defeat or a vote of no confidence.

And so, instead of governing as they would like, many policies will be diluted in order to appease their opponents and maintain power. Effectively, it will be government by committee and this will have a huge impact on other areas of government too. (There is an argument that says it will also delay lots of unnecessary legislation but I'm not so sure. All three leading parties, it seems to me, are addicted to regulation and this is an area they still have a lot in common.)

The prospect of a neutered government is one reason why, for all its alleged "unfairness", a great many people (including me) still support the first past the post system that has repeatedly given the UK strong majority governments.

Anyway, I'm no expert on this subject so feel free to challenge my observations.

The politics of empathy

Phil Whiteley is an author and journalist. In Meet the New Boss, available online HERE, he discusses cultural influences that make workplaces much worse than they should be. Phil is also a smoker and a (former?) Labour voter. Writing for The Free Society, he says:

Many years ago, when I was working for a social work magazine, I was talking to a social services director in the south of England. He observed that, although a centre-left voter, he always preferred working for moderate Conservative councils than for Labour councils. The reason was that the Tories would just give him a reasonable budget and let him, the expert, run things. A Labour social services chairperson would always be interfering, assuming that he or she could do things better than him.

Odd how that conversation should stick in the mind for 20 years. It is now clear, after 13 years in government, that telling people what to do, even if they have much less expertise and information, is a fatal tendency among Labour politicians. They tell us what to eat, how much to drink, not to smoke, how much to exercise, despite having no real expertise on nutrition, health or sport; with the puritan assumption that physical health is the only form of health, and no knowledge or understanding of us as individuals.

Phil makes another point, which applies (I suggest) not just to Labour but to politicians of all parties, including the main party leaders.

The vitriol aimed at smokers is particularly hard-line. There’s no allowance; no empathy; not a scintilla of understanding that, perhaps, the human body is not just a machine, and that palliatives like a ciggie and a gin and tonic can help you through the day.

Empathy. Interesting word. Former health secretary John Reid definitely had it. A former smoker and heavy drinker, he empathised with many of his working class constituents for whom a cigarette is one of the few pleasures available to them (Reid's words, not mine).

You might forgive Gordon Brown and other politicians who don't smoke for having little or no empathy with smokers (although a little tolerance wouldn't go amiss). But what about David Cameron (an ex-smoker) and Nick Clegg (who still smokes)?

OK, perhaps they empathise with those who wish to cut down or quit. But surely they can also empathise with those who enjoy smoking and don't want to give up? They must have enjoyed smoking once so why can't they stand up and express some understanding and tolerance for those who choose to light up - and legislate/regulate accordingly?

Instead, resounding silence. That, to me, says all you need to know about Cameron and Clegg.

Full article HERE.

Election 2010: if this was a horse race

Another disappointing debate for the Conservatives, in my view. Some commentators, including Iain Dale, thought Cameron edged it but I am inclined to agree with the person who commented on Iain's blog:

"As much as I want Cameron to win I have to say his inability to win a debate against a fatally flawed leader and a lightweight is depressing."

Personally, I thought Clegg edged it. He struck me as more confident than Cameron (not surprising, perhaps, given the circumstances). His voice, which used to sound very similar to Cameron's, has developed a richer, more expressive tone. Cameron's voice sounds lightweight, even anonymous, in comparison.

They used to refer to Cameron as Blair Lite. But the former PM was, if nothing else, a great communicator. I have seen no hint of that from Cameron which is amazing, really. Worse, Brown and Clegg made some pretty outrageous comments about the Tories and Cameron said nothing ... The strategy, clearly, is to avoid a scrap but, for me, it makes him look weak. Come on, David, get your fists up and start punching!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not going to vote for Clegg or the Lib Dems. Vote Lib Dem and you'll get five more years of Labour. But Cameron has been a huge disappointment in the two debates to date. I listened to him last night and I can't remember a single thing he said.

OK, I can't remember much of what Clegg said either, but he seemed more assertive, using his hands and arms to emphasise his points. He also seemed to respond intuitively to one or two questions, whereas Cameron, like Brown, appeared to stick to the script in his head.

The less said about Brown the better. I don't agree with those who say he was better than last week. That mouth - stop gurning, man! I know we all do daft things when we're nervous (my habit is to laugh), but I have never seen anyone smirk (smile?) so often at the most inappropriate moments.

Nuclear weapons? Smirk. Al Qaeda? Smile. Does this man have ANY facial control at all?

Despite the polls, I still think the Conservatives will win the election, albeit with a smaller majority than I predicted a few weeks ago. But I'm not as confident as I was. If this was a horse race the Tories would have their noses in front as the leaders approach the final hurdle but there are a number of possible outcomes, including a Devon Loch style fall in the run-in.

I can only conclude that someone at Conservative Central Office is either masterminding a superb, understated campaign in which the party holds the lead and pulls away smoothly in the final furlong ... or there has been a cock-up of monumental proportions and the old nag is about to collapse and expire at the finishing post.