Party Funding Talks Break Down

The parties have not found an agreement on campaign spending and political donations, one must say, largely due to Laour obstructionism:

The Conservatives and Labour have been unable to agree on setting limits on campaign spending and on donations.

Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude said Labour had refused to move on union funding. The Lib Dems accused the Conservatives of "walking away".

The Tories said trade union donations should be included within a £50,000 limit on donations from individuals and organisations.

Labour wanted an end to the use of Tory Lord Ashcroft's millions being targeted on marginal Labour/Lib Dem seats.

In other words, Labour wanted Lord Ashcroft to only be allowed to donate £50,000 at a time, while keeping their substantial support from the trade unions exempt from this cap.

Probably because I'm cynical, but instead of a Tory "unwillingness to negotiate," I see that Labour do not really want the position to change, as this means they would lose the union millions. They therefore adopt an untenable position, and when the Tories fail to accept a system obviously benefiting their opponents, blame them for the breakdown.

Labour had two options to make the talks work: exempt Lord Ashcroft, or relinquish union donations. Their failure to do either surely shows their unwillingness to compromise.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing: Two Treaties Are The Same

Perhaps the next thing that the EU should harmonise is politicians statements to the public. On the continent, where the Constitution was popular, people are queueing up to say that the two treaties are the same:

The treaty differs from the abandoned constitution in "approach rather than content", says former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing led a committee drafting the constitution, rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2004.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing says the "proposed institutional reforms" of the rejected constitution can still be found in the new treaty.

The authors of the new treaty, he says, have taken the original draft constitution and "blown it apart into separate elements".

They have then "re-attached them, one by one, to existing treaties".

Changes to the original constitution - such as jettisoning references to a European flag and anthem - were made to "head off any threat of referenda", Mr Giscard d'Estaing says.

Whereas Gordon Brown is continuing to hold the contradictory line that the two treaties are "fundamentally different." Also, on the Continent, they are much more honest. Imagine the likelihood of a British politician admitting that he did something to avoid a referendum.

David Miliband And The Amending Treaty

David Miliband was yesterday questioned by the European Scrutiny Committee. Under questioning, he said that:

The constitution got rid of all previous EU treaties and created a new re-founding document of the EU. The treaty does not do that.

When I saw this, my first reaction was that he has missed the point. The fact that the Constitution re-wrote all of the EU's treaties and this treaty does not, is of course debatable. The Reform Treaty changes the name of one of the previous treaties, and amends the other treaties significantly. But I accept that this treaty does not get rid of all previous treaties.

But instead of squabbling about the mechanisms used in the treaty, which was the whole point of agreeing an Amending Treaty, we should instead look at the substance of the treaty. When the Constitution was agreed there was an Inter Governmental Conference. The Amending Treaty quotes this IGC often, and the exact same passages in the Constitution have made their way into the Amending Treaty. In terms of what the treaties actually contain, therefore, they are fundamentally the same. Therefore, all this arguing about "it is not a constitution" while being technically correct, is an insult to the British people. Flogging a 3-year old car as a brand new one that is completely different would get you in serious trouble with the law. So why can Brown and Miliband flog a 3-year old Constitution as a brand-new Amending Treaty which (according to them) is fundamentally different?

Why Kiss?

Sorry about that title, but bear with me. I have read this article on the BBC website, and it reminded me, insofar as the absorption of foreign cultures go, of when a group of 6 young people, me included, went to Spain and met some young people about a year younger than us.

They were very friendly, but the confusing thing came with the kisses. In Spain, it seems reasonable to kiss the member of the opposite sex twice on greeting, and twice on leaving. So suffice it to say, that as stiff-upper-lip Britons, the first time we were exposed to this was rather awkward. We weren't too sure whether this rule applied to foreigners, how we should carry out the procedure, etc. And do bear in mind that we had spoken via e-mail to one of these people a couple of times, and that was it. And it happened between girls as well. Thankfully, otherwise the embarrassment would really have been completed, the males shook hands. The episode seems more odd the more I look back on it.

During the time we spent there, friends of the Spaniards came, which brought another round of kissing for everyone. I remember the Spanish meeting a girl that they knew, and after kissing everyone, us included, one of the males muttered "son ingleses", "they are English", and this girl looked surprised, almost as if she had somehow offended us.

But on our first departure, we were much more prepared. I cringe less to think about this, although one male Brit did give a Spanish male a bit of a surprise when he went to kiss him! And when I asked about the kissing, they said that every time they met each day, it happened. When they met queuing at school, and when they left to go home. It happens like clockwork. But you did have to be a vague friend to do it. Mutual acquaintances seemed to be enough.

Which is the problem. At first, it was extremely flattering, but by the end, it did seem to be almost a ritual ceremony that you accept happens. The article concentrated on the English absorption of this "ceremony", but in our quaint English way, we have added variations on the theme. I don't think that British youth could ever absorb the Spanish style of greeting, although one must say that it did offer a lot of simplicity. You kissed everyone who offered a cheek and found out their names after.

In short, there was simplicity, but I can imagine monotony setting in. The culture clash didn't help, although we were well prepared when some of them came back from Spain to visit England. I have mentioned the benefits, but I cannot imagine a kissing youth in this country. It is an interesting foreign custom, and I would gladly fulfill it when meeting a Spaniard near my age, but in a country which, comparatively speaking, suffers in silence, the absorption of it would push too many people out of their comfort zones, as we are currently seeing in the workplace scenario imagined by the article.

And yes, we got a week off school to further our Spanish education in this, and other of course, ways.

Well Done Mr. Brown

That completely selfish person that I am. But over the whole affair, perhaps there are some lessons to be learned. Brown did get the hopes up of his own party, as well as those of the opposition. Consequently, they are as disappointed as we are to not have an election.

You cannot really criticise Brown for worrying when the opinion polls don't go his way, as his tenure does have two (at least) years to run before there is an obligation to call an election. Anyway, the Tories should be relishing the chance of Brown choosing to end up in an even greater pickle in a couple of years. Once the tax burden has spiralled even higher, it is possible that people will want change even more than now.

So we shouldn't think that just because a couple of polls have gone the Tory way, that the best opportunity is now.

1 = 2

I recently came across this mathematical "proof", and as it is nearly the weekend, I thought I would share it with you before I go on my bike ride. I hasten to point out that one of the steps is not mathematically allowed. See if you can spot it! It's what the comments section is for, anyway.


If you cannot read that, try clicking on it to enlarge it. If you still cannot decipher my handwriting, do a search for "1 = 2". If you would like to cheat and find out the answer to my problem as well, do it this way.

Why Go To Iraq During Your Opponent's Party Conference?

Is a good question, and one that Gordon Brown should have a good answer to.

During the Tory Party Conference, yesterday, in fact, Brown went to Iraq to announce a withdrawal of troops that has already been announced before. Sound familiar? Such a move appears to be planned to take the wind out of Cameron's sails as he gives his speech today. Brown seems to be hoping that the fallout from his actions will upstage the Tory leader's message (if any) today.

Which is not really fair in terms of politics. In terms of electioneering, it is still barely fair, but I put it to you that Brown appears to be campaigning for an election that he hasn't announced. This could well be the lead in opinion polls that he has. So when will he put this phoney campaign back on a level footing by announcing the election?

My completely selfish preferred option, that he stops campaigning and calls an election at any time after January 18th, looks less likely with every passing day.