Letters From A Tory

Dear Allan Mallinson,

Your perspective on Prince Harry’s deployment in Afghanistan was very welcome.  Most newspapers have been too busy swooning about Matt Drudge to look at the whole situation from Harry’s point of view.

When the question of Prince Harry serving in Iraq first came to light, it seemed utterly ridiculous that he could be sent there amid a blaze of media attention because he would endanger other people’s lives.  Sadly, this robbed him of fulfilling his ambition that he has held for years simply because of his position in the Royal Family, not because he didn’t want to serve his country.  I think you summed it up nicely by saying “every soldier thinks meanly of himself until he has heard the sound of the guns” because Harry must have become extremely frustrated with not being allowed to serve in the British Army.  The fact that his cover has been blown means that he must come home immediately, but the last two and a half months serving alongside fellow British troops will have meant the world to him and gives some idea of how committed he is to his duty and his country.  Serving in Afghanistan would only have come about through his insistence on being deployed alongside other British troops.

Good on you, Harry.

A.Tory

“According to my American intern, if it had been the White House, they would have been shot with rubber bullets, tear-gassed but definitely removed instantly. We don’t shoot here, we just let people walk all over democracy”

- Nadine Dorries MP, on the protesters on the roof of the Palace of Westminster.

First we had the ‘Guildford Four’.

Then we had the ‘Birmingham Six’

Then we had the ‘Bridgwater Four’.

And now we have the evil, treacherous and terrifying ‘Seaside five’.

Dear Andrew Lansley,

As Shadow Health Secretary, you have remained vigilant without making a spectacular impact thus far.  Admittedly Alan Johnson hasn’t been making the headlines either, save for the occasional pointless initiative on obesity or smoking.  Unfortunately, your front page headline in The Times proclaiming that you will spend an extra £28 billion on the NHS should the Conservatives come to power is not what I wanted to hear.

The UK is going to be flat broke by 2010.  The PFI burden, decommissioning of nuclear power stations, the Northern Rock crisis, unfunded public sector pensions - all of these are going to start draining more money from the government over the next decade or so (and no doubt there will be more financial disasters to come).  For you to then proclaim that you can find an extra £28 billion is confusing because this can only be achieved by two means: raising taxes, or cutting expenditure elsewhere.  Raising taxes would be the most un-Conservative policy imaginable, while cutting expenditure elsewhere would be untenable seeing as most public services are already at breaking point (especially the Armed Forces).

To cut a short story slightly shorter, the NHS already has enough funding but the inefficiency and wastage of a publicly owned monopoly is what causes such poor outcomes.  £28 billion will be needed to repair the financial damage that Labour have done, so don’t waste it on an already bloated healthcare system when you should be concentrating on structural reform instead.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

“We have a Scottish Prime Minister who is a control freak, a hapless Scottish Chancellor and a Scottish Speaker of the Commons who is unsackable. God help the English”

- Richard Mays, of East Grinstead, in a letter to The Daily Telegraph.

Dear Andy Burnham,

I have no doubt that many campaigners breathed a collective sigh of relief after you announced that the planned super-casino in Manchester is to be scrapped.  Having said this, Labour is still more than happy to let gambling destroy the lives of millions of people just to get their hands on more corporation tax.

The fact that the super-casino will not be built is irrelevant, seeing as you are still happy for 16 large casinos to be built around the country.  To say there are “important differences” between one super-casino and 16 large ones is a ridiculous argument, seeing as the total amount of gambling that will be encouraged is far greater with 16 separate casinos and will do more damage to British society over a larger area.  I bet the casino owners will be quaking in their boots at the pathetic ’safeguards’ you have outlined.  Forcing casinos to shut for six hours a day limits the public to a mere 18 hours of solid gambling a day, which is hardly going to protect anyone.  Banning credit card use is also ridiculous as many people on low incomes don’t have credit cards or will just pop to the hole-in-the-wall beforehand or receive benefit payments in cash - all of which will sidestep the ban, and banning free drink promotions is such a token gesture that I don’t even know where to begin criticising it.

Gambling destroys careers, families and lives.  You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.  Labour’s obsession with trying to get more corporation tax through gambling just to fill the black holes in the public purse is preying on the weak and is completely wrong.

Yours angrily,

A.Tory

THE GUARDIAN: Following 11 straight primary wins for Obama, tonight’s debate was seen as critical to Clinton’s chances of reviving her campaign for the Democratic nomination and she came out swinging. However, her attacks at times seemed more flailing than focused [and]  tonight’s attack seemed somewhat desperate. Amid raising substantive points on such issues as healthcare, the Nafta free trade agreement and mastery of world events, she betrayed peevishness and self-pity.

THE INDEPENDENT: The rush to negativity that we have seen in recent days… is widely seen as highly risky. As Steve McMahon, a Democratic strategist, told The New York Times: “There’s a general rule in politics: a legitimate distinction which could be effective when drawn early in the campaign often backfires and could seem desperate when it happens in the final hours of a campaign.”

THE TELEGRAPH: In several combative exchanges, Mrs Clinton failed to lay the knock-out blow she needed to slow his momentum ahead of next week’s primaries in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.  At one stage she sounded distinctly peevish as she objected – with some justification - to always being asked the difficult questions first. “In the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time? And I don’t mind. You know, I’ll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious,” she said.  She went on to accuse her opponent of campaign leaflets about her policies that could have been “written by Republicans and special interests”.

“How did he get that far ahead in the polls?!?!”

With all this talk about the Lisbon Treaty and an EU Referendum, I would think that now is a good time for people to make their feelings about our relationship with other European nations perfectly clear - like this guy did.

Dear David Aaronovitch,

Your article in The Times today was certainly a very brave argument.  As with many issues in British society, the ’surveillance society’ is a classic you’re-going-to-get-your-head-bitten-off-if-you-support-it topic for journalists and politicians alike.  I think you came close to a rational perspective that promotes freedom and safety at the same time.

The high profile murder cases over the past week have got the pro-DNA database lobby jumping up and down, saying how vindicated they have been by the use of DNA evidence collected from previous offences that helped gain a conviction.  In my opinion, regardless of how much one believes in civil liberties, these convictions provide a compelling case for a DNA database.  Even Shami Chakrabarti believes that a database for violent and sexual crimes is acceptable.  However, this is where you and I both take issue with the civil liberties movement.  Saying that a violent and sex crime database is ok is simply a value judgement.  There is a whole spectrum of viewpoints from no database to a full national database, but suggesting that a partial database for a few types of offences is acceptable seems ridiculous.

Balancing civil liberties with the right of society to security is difficult, but I get really sick and tired of people complaining about the rights of convicted criminals, especially when they are in prison.  As soon as you represent a danger to other people to some degree and get convicted of a criminal offence, I have no problem with the Government keeping you on the DNA database.  However, I strongly disagree with you that a national DNA database should be made standard as holding the DNA of people who have not been convicted is totally wrong, but a criminal deserves no such leniency.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

“I believed every word Mohamed al Fayed said, until he mentioned that Fulham would stay up in the Premier League”

- John Fulcher, of Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, in a letter to the Daily Mail.

17th December 2007: former Glasgow MSP Tommy Sheridan claimed he was the victim of a “political witch hunt” after being charged with perjury following his court victory over the News of the World.

Paul Flynn MP (Labour), 25th January 2008:  “I believe this is the result of a nasty, vindictive witch-hunt against a decent, honourable politician”, said in response to Peter Hain’s resignation.

15th February 2008: the wife and father-in-law of Tommy Sheridan are expected to be charged with perjury.  Mr Monaghan, spokesman for the Solidarity Socialist Party said: “We consider this to be nothing more than a political witch-hunt.”

25th February 2008: senior Labour figures have been rallying behind Commons Speaker Michael Martin, saying there has been a campaign to oust him. Former Home Secretary David Blunkett described stories about him as a “witch-hunt”.

—-

These witch-hunts are awfully accurate, aren’t they!  Would anyone join me in advocating a wider use of witch-hunts in the criminal justice system, due to their efficiency and cost-saving potential?

Dear William Hague,

As you have been doing some excellent work on the lack of an EU Referendum,  the Government are clearly backed into a corner.  Now is your chance to ram home your advantage and humiliate Nick Clegg as well.

This morning’s papers show that Nick Clegg has quite miraculously decided that he thinks we should have a vote on EU membership.  This gives you two angles for attack.  Firstly, why hasn’t he said this before?  Surely he cannot change his mind overnight on such an important issue?  Secondly, is it pure coincidence that this announcement comes at precisely the same time that he is under serious presure from his own front bench about the backtracking of the Lib Dems over the EU Referendum?  Clegg is weak and has completely failed to take control of his party since becoming leader.  Seeing as you are ahead on points against the Government, the Lib Dems are ripe for some charges of flip-flopping and being a party in disarray with such a significant rebellion on the horizon.  Maybe you could challenge Nick Clegg to fire all the Lib Dem front benchers who break the party line over the EU Referendum to put even more pressure on his feeble leadership skills?

Have fun with this!

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

“Secrecy has been the order of the week. Secrecy creates suspicion. At every stage, the Government has insisted on secrecy about the real situation of Northern Rock”

- Lord Rees-Mogg

Dear Jim Murphy,

How dare you make such disgusting remarks about David Cameron and the Conservatives.  It is you who should be apologising for what you have said, not David Cameron.

Let me start by clearing up a few points which you have ‘accidentally’ missed.  Firstly, David Cameron did not say that trips to Auschwitz were a gimmick - he questioned them on the grounds that Labour are making schools pay £100 towards each pupil that goes, rather than paying for the trip in full.  The fact that the government deliberately tried to hide the small print is what makes it a gimmick, not the nature of the visit.  Your deceitful spin is outrageous and you should be ashamed.  For you to say that his remarks are ”sick and an insult to the memory of those who have suffered and to the experience of the survivors who still live with this today” is shocking and shows how completely ignorant you are.

But even though Cameron doesn’t think the trips are a gimmick, I certainly do.  Why should the Government start paying for trips to Auschwitz?  And while we are on the subject, what right did the Government have to introduce a ‘Holocaust Memorial Day’ at a cost of £500,000 a year?  Why don’t we have a day to mark the 2,000,000 that Pol Pot killed in Cambodia, or the slaughter of 1,500,000 Armenians at the hands of Turkey in WWI, or how about commemorating Stalin wiping out around twenty million people through a forced famine in the 1930s, or Japan killing millions of civilians in WWII, or China killing tens of millions over several decades in the second half of the 20th Century in both China and Tibet?  Well? Can you explain this?  Holocaust Memorial Day and sending children to Auschwitz are both gimmicks and the Government has no right to elevate certain atrocities above others and tell me which historical events I should mark and which I should not.  Let schools educate children, not idiotic politicians and bureaucrats.

Get your facts straight before you start accusing others of being sick and insulting - you and Ed Balls are the only guilty parties here.

Yours angrily,

A.Tory

“Oh look, there’s goes another airplane full of terror suspects”

Dear British Gas,

I think a few points of clarification are needed about the enormous profits you announced yesterday.  As a Conservative, it doesn’t bother me that companies are working towards higher profits because that’s what every business in the country is trying to do.  However, I’m a little concerned that there isn’t a level playing field, which is why Ofgem have been called in.

My initial reaction to the story yesterday was ‘who cares?’.  If your customers think you are making too high a profit, they can leave.  If customers of rival companies think you’re making a profit, then can stay put.  There are pretty decent levels of competition in the gas and electricity market, so if anyone really wants to take issue with your profit levels then they can choose a different provider.  However, Ofgem are going to be looking at whether any price-fixing has been taking place between the major suppliers and whether you and other large companies have been keeping small players out of the market in order to push up your own revenues.  Either of these behaviours should be met with extortionate fines if they are found to be true, but of course price-fixing and putting up subtle barriers to entry in markets is always difficult to prove.

Obviously the socialists have gone loopy about your reported profits but I don’t really see where the problem lies.  The Government is already supporting those on lower incomes (in theory) when it comes to heating and electricity, but they must obviously look carefully at how recent price hikes affect them.  I await the findings of Ofgem’s investigation with interest.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

Dear Baroness Warsi,

I don’t think anyone is kidding themselves about the Conservatives staying quiet on some of the major issues, such as immigration, taxation and the EU.  However, there is no need to start digging holes for the party with two years until the election.  Your decision to concentrate on small but significant community issues is no bad thing, and criminalising forced marriages is a step in the right direction.

It horrifies me that the worst punishment for forced marriage at present is a civil law case.  Young girls and boys from the UK are being taken abroad in their hundreds, possibly thousands, and forced to marry against their will.  Your belief that children should be able to put their faith in their parents when organising an arranged marriage seems sensible enough, but it is clear that the system is broken.  The four measures that you advocate (increasing the minimum age for any spouse coming to Britain and their British partner to 21, interviewing the bride and groom, demanding that a foreign spouse can speak English, and making spouses register their intention to marry abroad before leaving the country) will offend no-one but protect many individuals from parental threats and abuse.

It’s always nice to hear politicians talking sense, and I hope that your contribution to the party continues in a similar vein for many years to come.  Your openness and experience in community and minority issues is a breath of fresh air.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

Well, not if THIS STORY is anything to go by.

“Thank you, thank you very much, a great victory in Wisconsin, thanks” (dammit, can someone just pass me my zimmer frame…)

“My doomed enterprise the other day was to try and introduce that bit of perspective. Let that be a warning to you all.”

- Archibishop of Canterbury, referring to his recent comments about Sharia Law.

The anti-smoking lobby must be grinning widely at the proposals for smoking licenses to be introduced across the country, especially after securing a ban on smoking in public places just a few months ago.  Even so, it appears that some people are still struggling to control their feelings about cigarettes.

Dear Jacqui Smith,

Your policies really are a bit naff, aren’t they!  After the fiasco over police pay, you were probably relishing the chance to get into your stride with an announcement for a new immigrant tax to help pay for public services.  Not exactly very Labour-esque, is it!  You and Gordon are obviously a little desperate to appeal to the population’s concerns about immigration, but this policy is truly awful, and to demonstrate why it is so awful I think we need a quick maths lesson:

Your scheme for an extra £20 on visa applications is supposed to raise £15 million a year.

There are around 22,500 state schools and 1,6oo NHS hospitals in this country.

If £15 million is divided equally between those schools and hospitals, schools will receive an extra £14,004,225 a year and hospitals will receive an extra £995,856 a year - £622.41 per school or hospital.  Sounds wonderful.

But hold on a minute. 

If you divide the extra hospital funding by the number of hospital beds in the UK (around 180,000), each bed will receive an extra (drum roll please) £5.38 a year.  That’ll cover some new flowers, I suppose.

And if you divide the extra school funding by the number of pupils in state schools across the UK (about 7.8 million), it works out as (drum roll please) £1.80 per pupil a year.  That will just about cover a pad of A4 paper.

Council chiefs say they need an extra £150 million, and judging by these sums I’m not surprised, but I suppose every little helps!

Better luck next time, eh?

Yours smugly,

A.Tory

“Five hours of ‘culture’ in school? Why not five hours of sport? The last thing we need is thick, fat kids, munching crisps, waddling around our art galleries”

- P Webberley, of Preston, Lancashire, in a letter to the Daily Mail.

I have spoken to many people over recent months who are increasingly concerned about the growth of the ’surveillance society’ in the UK.  But, even with the massive expansion of CCTV, loyalty cards, tax records and the DNA database, people can still take comfort from the fact that they can relax and forget all their worries about being watched by the Government when they arrive at work in the morning - or so they think….

Dear Liz Hunt,

In the aftermath of the Derek Conway expenses scandal, I found it baffling that more MPs weren’t discovered to be playing the system.  Your best efforts to highlight the abuse of expenses by Michael Martin, the Speaker of the House, are certainly appreciated but the rest of the media don’t seem that fussed.

You were right to point out the horrible irony of Michael Martin being in charge of reforming the transparency of MPs’ expenses, seeing as he has been shafting the taxpayer by handing out cheap flights to seven other people by using the accumulated benefits of his expenses which are, naturally, funded by the taxpayer.  This is a flagrant breach of the rules which - like the Derek Conway saga - are not hard to understand.  Like you, I don’t see this as being in the same class as Mr Conway when it comes to the sum of money involved, but the principle of MPs following the rules is again ignored, yet no punishments are administed and other MPs remain very quiet on this issue.

I have an idea - why don’t we all agree that any MP who is caught taking advantage of expenses is stripped on any official title or position in the Commons or Lords and is automatically deselected at the next General Election and banned from Parliamentary proceedings for the remainder of their time in office.  Simple, direct and totally in line with the responsibilities of their position as a Member of Parliament and a representative of the people.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

And there you are, just like me, thinking that surely on a day where the Government nationalises Northern Rock and destroys everything that is sacred in the world of market forces and capitalism, things just couldn’t get any worse.  Well, guess what - they just did.