Gertsamtkunstwerk

The end is nigh?

Ex-PM Thatcher taken to hospital

Runs out to the wine cellar to check on champagne stocks

They say these things come in threes.

And I bet you that just as she dies my website begins a long period of outage. That would be the final to thing to blame on The Bitch.

I'm usually gracious, often to the point of hypocrisy, when it comes to death. But there has to be an exception.

Still, probably a false alarm. They say the criminally insane live for ever.

David who?

Cameron, it is.

I can't say I'd recognise him if I bumped into him in the street.

Need to find out what his policies are. I'd like to know, too. (although he did specifically say on 'Today' during the Tory conference that more money needs to be spent on Public Transport. I don't think he meant it).

Binge drinking

London's 'binge drinking past'

Immoderate quaffing by fools

The Chopper

Blunkett admits 'I made mistake'

No question, he had to go. As Malcolm Rifkind said yesterday on the radio, it's not a hanging offence, it's not even an offence, but it showed misjudgement. And you know when Malcolm Rifkind and I agree, it's probably because it's self-evident.

From the day BLunkett resigned last year, I knew he would be back in Government following the election . I can assure you I do not have a direct line to Tony Blair, so if I knew, surely Blunkett knew, so I don't really understand why he considered it necessary to get involved in the murky business world. The main thing that brought down the Major governemnt, even more so than general incompetence was this underlying sense of sleaze.

There's been a helicopter hovering all morning somewhere over Westminster. Between the Abbey and Trafalgar Square. I saw it just a few minutes ago, then went back inside and saw obviously helicopter-shot footage of Bliunkett's ministerial jag en route to the Palace. I expect that the chopper's there for another reason and the BBC is just hitching a ride. Otherwise it seems a little bit of an unnecessary expense just to show a disgraced soon-to-be former Minister off to hand in the seals of office.

This creates a vacancy in the Cabinet. If I were obliged to place a bet I would wager a modest amount on Hazel Blears. If, however, Yvette Cooper gets it, you know that Gordon Brown's in control. Other names to bandy about are Douglas Alexander, or the longshot, Stephen Timms, current MoS for Pensions.

I reckon. WTF do I know?

Smoking ban unworkable

Cabinet clash derails smoking ban

I still have not yet seen any proposals as to how it will be implemented any better than the exisiting bans on taking Class A drugs in pubs or serving up food poisoning in restaurants are enforced. But that aside, it will be introduced eventually, I have no doubt about that.

I can't say I would want to go into a pub if I'm the only one not taking charlie.

Still, better than an incident I heard of the other day. One of Jimmy's friends went into the gents in a local pub and saw someone washing their syringe and needles in the handwash basin.

This particular pub has been reported many times for tolerating Class A consumption and dealing, but with no apparent consequences. It would be ironic if it tried to enforce a smoking ban; even more ironic if the authorities clamped down on adults smoking there whilst turning a blind eye to the drug dealing, including to minors.

But the British public want smoking to stop and, clearly don't want drug dealing to stop, so the powers-that-be have to prioritise.

shrug not my problem. There's always ways round it.

Become a councillor and hire a cleaner...

Actually, it's not that straightforward. You have to ensure that the cleaner understands about paperwork; one councillor expressed a view that he and his house mate, a branch secretary and general activist needed a cleaner less than a PA. I found the cleaning to be a cinch once I have sorted the paperwork.

More seriously, Featherstone was trying to make a serious point and doing it incredibly clumsily.

The Ham and High reports thus :

Hornsey and Wood Green MP Lynne Featherstone has hit back at critics after saying more women should become councillors - so they could hire a cleaner.

Ms Featherstone made the remarks to an audience of women at the Lib Dem's conference in Blackpool. She told the audience that the allowance of £10,000 allowed female councillors to employ a babysitter and cleaner.

Haringey Labour councillor Richard Milner claimed the remarks showed the millionaire MP was out of touch with struggling households, unable to afford such luxuries.

But Ms Featherstone told Broadway: "Labour has no idea how hard it is for women who get left with domestic responsibilities and children to get out of the house. Out of 57 councillors only 16 are women, which is 19 per cent.

The economics are not straightforward; many councillors on low earnings have found themselves caught in a poverty trap - annual income of £10,000 is enough - I think - to lose various benefits, including cash and the passported benefits such as Housing Benefits, free school meals etc. If someone knows the precise sums better than me I will stand corrected. But there again, £10,000 is an approximation rather than a stipulated amount.

A typical councillor, especially in London, Metropolitan and other Unitary authorities, has very many evening engagements. These include formal and semi-formal council meetings, including area committees, housing forums etc. Additionally, Residents Associations, Management Committees, User Groups expect regular councillor attendance. Many councillors are also school governors or nominated representatives to or trustees of council-funded bodies. It's reasonable to assume that every Monday to Thursday evening in term time is booked, often double or triple booked. A conscientious councillor will use weekends to visit sites and small informal groups to see the issues for themselves. Additionally, there are phonecalls to be made: it's no good returning a call to a working person during weekdays. But also, no point calling most people late in the evening. Add to that casework, reading Committee papers and the incessant information and publicity from local groups, funded or not, being a thoroughly effective councillor is a fulltime job.

Because the majority have to combine it with paid work and/or family responsibilities they are less than fully effective. Sorry, but that's why, nationally, the average of councillors is so high - when I started blogging, I was a 34-year old councillor at a time when the average age nationally was 57; 86% over 45; a third over retirement age.

I firmly believe that Local Government needs seriously to rethink the status of councillors. When I started I was almost a voluntary worker, getting paid sometimes -- but not often - nearly £100 a month. In my second term, this was raised to a whopping £5000 a year, which just led to local residents' expectations rising and complaining that it was money for old rope. During both terms, my fellow ward councillors also worked fulltime, in high-powered jobs.

I don't know the national statistics for the proportion of women councillors. I don't even know the London statistics. Lambeth has 63 councillors - currently 62 and one vacancy. Of the 62, 22 are women. You do the sums.

There is an argument that the best person for the job should get the job, regardless of age or ethnicity. Trouble is, politics doesn't work like that. The entire atmosphere of Party Politics is very masculine oriented. As it happens, this has rarely bothered me, personally, but I can empathise as to how it's a real issue for many women. In my experience the women that do progress are generally ladettes, or ruthlessly ambitious, or both. In general, men create a better impression at Selection meetings, having already honed their reputation by oratory at ward and constituency meetings. On the whole, generalising, women with children are less likely to be able or inclined to do the alcohol fuelled-networking in the after-meeting pun sojourn and less likely to be able to sacrifice every evening during a live election and three hours on a Sunday afternoon during the off-season. I generalise and people behave as individuals not statistics. But a man who can network and orate won't make a better councillor than the woman who can empathise and represent.

If you attend a councillor's surgery, or a community meeting, or read a councillor's mailbag, you soon realise that Local Government is overwhelmingly a female concern. When a typical couple divides up the household responsibilities and tasks, it's usual for the woman to take on the education issues, the health (not an LA responsibility) and other dealings with bureaucracy. 90% of single parent households are headed by a woman. It's often, although again not exclusively, the middle aged or older daughter who is managing the domiciliary or residential care of elderly parent or in-law.

Many issues within a Council's remit affect men and women equally, but are seen as more women's issues. Take street lighting. I'm not sure of the statistics about unprovoked random street attacks on men. They happen and they happen a lot, but it is, in my experience, more likely to be women who complain about the lack of (working) street lights; also it's more likely to be women who complain about rat-running cars and demand traffic calming (and more likely to be men who complain with their mates about speed bumps). Again, I stress, I'm generalising. Just because you, as a man, do X,Y,Z does not mean anything statistically.

In my first term, in particular, when there were very few women councillors I used to get casework from all over the Borough. Women would travel by two buses there and two buses back to get me to help them with matters that were well outside my ward. Housing matters, in particular, especially where a problem had arisen because of relationship breakdown, especially due to Domestic Violence. Perhaps they thought that as a young woman I would understand their circumstances better. Honestly, I don't know why. The Lib Dem in my next ward, a retired teacher, told me once she got a lot of cases about HRT, not that she could do a great deal about it. She also felt confident visiting elderly women in their homes, when her young male fellow councillors would have been correct to feel reluctant. I tried to avoid home visits, except to the very housebound; even then, I preferred to go with a fellow councillor  or with a housing officer etc.

The role of a councillor is to represent. I have sat in meetings filled with thrusting young ambitious types like me, thinking up grand plans that look great in theory, only for the lone black single Mum to say "Hold on! That won't work on my estate, in my ward, because..." And anyone with half a brain has thought "Aggh! Yes, good point. Bloody hell, good thing you said that." Without that black single mum we might have charged ahead making plans that were unrepresentative and not fit for purpose.

I shall conclude with a massive generalisation through which anyone can drive a Coach and Four. If you were to attempt to separate out male and female politicians, I would say, in general, men want to run the council well and deliver good services. Women want the council to be responsive to the needs of the local people in the local area. It's sweeping - I find the strategic and quasi-judicial much more interesting, some men have come up from the grassroots and have a fabulous instinct there that I lack. And there are those of either gender driven solely by Parliamentary ambition. But we'll gloss over them...

So, Lynne Featherstone should have said, "We need more women councillors; at present Haringey Council is unrepresentative of the community in Haringey. If you do become a councillor, it isn't something you do unpaid..." If I was making that speech, at Labour, not Liberal, conference, I would have directed interested people to an appropriate stall in the conference - perhpas the Association of Labour Councillors - blimey, if I had known all that in 1993 I would never had stood for election in 1994!

Fourth Estate

I've just been catching up with the first in the new series of Have I Got News for You. guest panellists, a pair of nobodies, who it seems, have achieved nothing in their lives, except fifteen minutes of fame on the TV.

Different people have different views of Blunkett the man, Blunkett the politician. Not the point of this post.

Apaprently, lacking the intellectual capacity to analyse the man's politics, it's fair game to take cheap potshots at his disability. And that of Stephen Hawking, too. Well done, Paul Merton, you fell in my estimation by quite a way.

One assumes that these vile little self-obsessed creatures have never had any difficulties in their sex lives. If that piece of shit alongside Hislop ever suffers any disablement remind me to send him a congratulations card full of gloating. Except that he was so singularly inept I really couldn't be bothered to note his name. I understand he was from some downmarket tabloid. Star, I think. Vile piece of shit.

So, the audience thought it appropriate to laugh at his jokes about Blunkett's guide dogs, and yet hissed Hislop when he called that estate agent a Slapper. Well done, children, for operating in amoral vacuum.

Can I ask a question, honest answers? If you have ever had a sexual relationship with anyone famous, infamous, C-list famous or not even that obscure, have you ever publicised that for money? Sure, I've read allusions on blogs to people and their passing fling with someone who went onto be famous. But, have you ever gone straight to Max Clifford for the sole purpose of money and, er, publicising one's singing career?

Jimmy says that someone was on the Andrew Marr show this morning. I was still in bed, obviously. According to Jimmy, this person said that everyone between twenty and sixty takes drugs. They weren't talking alcohol, nicotine, cigarettes but drugs that are, rightly or wrongly but factually, illegal.

Does this just confirm that the entire media is entirely up is own arse in a coke-induced stupour and is just further evidence that we should, as a nation, resolve entirely to pay them no attention whatsoever, whilst getting on with our useful lives and letting them screw up their overpaid futile existence?

I mean come on, what the fuck do these tossposts actually know. Most people I know between twenty and sixty are either carefully balancing
a budgetthat will enable four or five people on one-and-half incomes to pay the bils, buy food and clothes, run a car or two, have a holiday or two etc; or are fitness fanatics preparing for a half-marathon; or so scared of losing control they won't even go on a roller coaster; or health freaks who will barely touch alcohol and eat only salad as part of their fad diets; or religious nuts who regard drugs as immoral; or world-weary people who've witnessed too many other people's lives destroyed by drugs.

Thinking about it, it's suddently occurred to me that I'm a heavy coke user. Or at least, a typical coke user. I'm sixteen months younger than David Cameron, but unlike him, I have no children. I am statistically a high earner. I'm urban, living in an area so synonymous with drug use that the spoilt brats of Surrey and North London come here as Drugs Tourists. I'm a former high-achiever who's slipped into easy complacency. I know exactly who to phone in order to get an evening or weekend's supply of coke, nod and a wink, no questions asked. My own personal Dealer, you might say. I'm far from being a health freak, caring little about my diet and less about exercise, a heavy user of legal drugs.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to announce: I am a typical cocaine addict.

With just one detail worth noting. I've never taken cocaine in my life. But, otherwise, you may as well assume I spend every Saturday night snorting a good few lines...

Cameron and Drugs

Keep quiet on drugs, Portillo tells Cameron

As a member of the Labour Party, any utterings of mine on the Tory Leadership campaign should be taken in that context.

I will say that I am virulently anti-Class A Drugs, and have never taken any. I suspect that makes me relatively unusual. It just wasn't done - too expensive - in my circle, at the age when I might have been tempted. Subsequently, I have seen too many lives fucked up - people who thought that the occasional Saturday night dabbling wouldn't do them any harm.

David Cameron has not admitted to taking drugs. The fact that he appears not to have issued a categorical denial has led commentators to assume and speculate that he probably has.

I can't help thinking: what's the big deal? Granted, it won't go down too well with the Blue-rinse matrons in the Shires. But for the Tory Party to succeed electorally, they have to appeal to a demographic of under-45s who were brought up to be Conservatives, and are reasonably prosperous, although anxious about housing costs, education and pensions. Many of them have not been voting Tory. Many of them will have been, or may well still be, occasional Saturday night cocaine dabblers. They are exactly the sort of people who would vote for a Cameron-led Conservative Party. Not because of a drugs history, or even despite it. I suspect, for many of them, it would be of no more consequence than learning that he had pre-marital sex. (Whether he did or not I don't know and don't care, and obviously the media knows it would be a laughing stock if it even asked that question.)

I do find it profoundly sad that Portillo says that his acknowledgement of a homosexual past was the beginning of a media witch-hunt. I am not a fan of Cameron or Portillo, but I am appalled at the media coverage of their (pre-politics) private life. It was clear from the Kate Moss business that large swathes of the national Press regard drug taking as 'normal'. The hypocrisy is staggering. What the British public needs is a robust examination of David Cameron's philosophy, policies and track record as an MP, not scandalmongering about the night he had one pint too many and walked back to his student digs with a traffic cone on his head, or whatever.

And of course, many of those blue-rinse matrons of the Shires are the mothers of the prosperous cocaine-dabbling urbanites who 'ought' to be voting Tory and are not.

It's not an issue that will go away. At the moment the spotlight is on Cameron. I would guess that it probably won't yet fall on Labour Politicians of the same age group - Milliband, Kelly etc - because they would probably have been like me at Uni, not mixing with the super-rich, not being able to afford cocaine in those days, when it was expensive. But it will fall on the next tranche, including many not yet even on the candidates list.

Despite what Portillo says, I think, if Cameron has taken hard drugs, he should say so, and move on. My issue about Portillo and the homosexuality was the years he spent denying it (his business) and the years as Defence Secretary he spent refusing to legalise homosexuality in the Armed Forces (many people's lives ruined). When a friend was PVd for MoD work, her Vetter asked me one question about her drugs use and asked me in a dozen different ways, verging on pervyness, whether there was any hint whatsoever that she might at any time have harboured the slightest passing eensy-weensy homosexual urge. She got the PV despite admitting to occasional pot smoking. I suspect one drunken same-sex snog would have been the kybosh. This was when Portillo was Defence Secretary.

PS Am I getting old or is Norman Tebbitt getting old. For the first time, ever, I agree wholeheartedly what he has to say

I think it matters very little if it's merely a question of having tried the odd bit of cannabis at university 20 or 30 years ago. If it's any deeper than that, then the public should know, because that might affect their attitude towards drug control. A prolonged time using a Class A drug is a matter that might reflect on the individual in a way that isn't the case with someone who experimented at university.You can't make a general rule on whether it makes them unfit for office. A friend of mine received treatment for cocaine addiction some years ago and is now a model citizen. People have been down the road and dug themselves out of it. Were that to be true of someone in public life, people tend to admire rather despise them.

Or is it that Tebbitt and I have not changed, but the answer is so self-evident that people as disparate as he and I can agree on it?

News snippets

I just walked past a TV screen. Tony Blair was on it.

The caption said "Taliban Visit"

This surprised me somewhat. I just can't quite see Tone doing a joint Press Conference with the Taliban.

Then I realised that it was Talibani, President of Iraq.

Slightly unfortunate name, all things considered...

Then I flick onto the BBC Front Page and notice that a picture of Sale is lead story, as police storm IRA properties throughout Sale, Stretford and Bowdon. In some ways it seems a bit bizarre; in other ways perhaps unsurprising.

I don't think my mother would appreciate a phonecall instructing her to be blogger's assistant on the spot. I just hope that today's not an adult education class or else I shall be told all about the road closures in complete detail.

What the Sun said...

asks Scaryduck

...I really can't remember, because I was boycotting Murdoch newspapers at the time, so couldn't bring myself to buy a copy for the archives. Various copies were pinned up on the JCR door, in the bar - a Willobite and an ex-Willobite being slagged off in a Sun editorial! Didn't happen every day in Willoughby Hall. In fact, it only happened once in my entire time at Nott'm.

It was something about "irresponsibility" and how, unlike those Nottingham University students, Mr Powell was in favour of free speech. They also accused us of setting off the fire alarms as well as shouting; it's only just occurred to me that, as well as not being true, it was logistically unfeasible.

It was a big day on campus. Perhaps the biggest ever. But, rather than try to rely on memory of half a lifetime ago, I have gone back to the Paper Diary of the time. November 1986

Me in November 1986

For a few days I was very famous, and  for the remainder of my University career I had a residual fame, and did not need to prove my credentials - which was not altogether a good thing...

And yet, the next week, it was the great Willoughby Food Poisoning and your intrepid Campus Reporter was reduced to phoning the Health Centre to determine how many had been kept in overnight.

Company policy

I just walked past Conservative Central Office.

There's a sign at the front saying "Please use revolving door."

I assume that's aimed at their Leaders.

Spongers

I notice that the Public Accounts Committee have a report out about the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall

A spokesman for Prince Charles said

It seems that the Public Accounts Committee may have misunderstood what the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are.

"They are not public bodies. They are well-run private estates, specifically created to provide private income for the sovereign and the heir to the throne."

Asked whether the NAO would be allowed to audit the books, Prince Charles' spokesman said: "This is a private estate. It's not a public estate...private estates are not looked at by the NAO."

He would say that, wouldn't he. He would not be doing his job as spokes-for-Charlie if he said anything else.

I find it anomalous that these Duchies are permitted to behave like private estates. Note the use of passive voice - (they were) "specifically created".

These are historic arrangements that go back centuries. But I cannot understand how these anomalies are permitted to perpetuate today. I am not prepared to accept that the assets were accumulated by fair means. As the monarch, and therefore the heir, are only in position because of the indulgence, or the inertia, of the public, I would argue that these estates are in fact publicly owned. I suppose they carry on because the alternative would be confiscating them and then paying the monarch a salary.

But would that be so awful? Republics pay their Presidents salaries. When they leave office they - like Prime Ministers in Britain in other countries, monarchies and republics - put themselves at the disposal of market forces and generally make a significant fortune.

Is it really acceptable that such National Assets do not generate income for the Nation? Not being a tax-expert, I will accept the taxation arguments, although I think it's a liberty that we are constantly told that Prince Charles 'voluntarily' pays Income Tax.

I cannot understand how something created to provide an income for public office-holders can be deemed to be privately owned.

Ted Heath 'getting weaker'

according to the BBC.

Good innings. Remembered most for the 3-Day Week and taking us into Europe.

Tributes will follow in the Dead Tree Media. Not here. As Jimmy said, "Not a bad man". What more is there to say.

Meanwhile, do remember, Jim Callaghan died earlier this year. That will leave us with three living PMs. Blair and Major are young men.

Who's next, I ask myself...?

Update The link is now saying 'he's gone'. I'll stick with Jimmy's summary. Tributes will be in all the newspapers tomorrow. He was Tory Prime Minister. I was barely politically aware then. He stopped being PM when I was six.

So, I'll just repeat "Who's next?" in the dead Prime Minister stakes...?

Freedom of Information

In a transparent democratic society, citizens and taxpayers have a fundamental right to know what the government is doing in our name. I would also argue that this applies just as much to commercial organisations, especially, but not solely, those that are publicly-listed.

Yet, in almost every organisation there is a proper degree of confidentiality. For example, when I worked at the NAO, I was very aware of the tortuous clearance process for VFM reports. I was never involved in VFM audit, but they are the retrospective reviews of the Economy, Effectiveness and Efficiency of Government policies, projects, and programmes, many of which are published and laid before Parliament. Clearance can take months. Of course, some of the difficulties lie in the fact that Senior Officials are uncomfortable with the findings, but also, it is important for the NAO to ensure that everything is factually accurate, to the point that not a phrase is ambiguous or open to disingenuous twisting. Lay aside cynicism, the truth is that this scrupulous desire for total accuracy is one of the reasons why NAO Reports (which eventually morph into Public Accounts Committee Reports) are taken so very seriously. It would be easy to argue that the public has a right to know 'the facts' as soon as possible, but I don't think that immediacy always serves the public interest best.

Then there are issues, of which I know nothing, because I'm disinclined to submit to a higher level of security clearance. Issues of National Security, for example, where it would be a disservice to the public to make facts known - if the security forces are closing in on a major organised crime gang, no purpose is served by letting us the public know, especially if that could jeopardise the outcome.

And the convention is that it is not the responsibility of officials to inform the public - that responsibility lies with the politicians. I am perfectly content that if I found something important being suppressed that there are various routes I could take - Whistleblowing, my Union, approaching a minister direct, approaching my own MP, approaching a stroppy Labour backbencher, approaching relevant people in other parties. If all of them refused to accept, or act upon, what I was saying, I would have to conclude that I had probably misjudged.

There must be numerous examples in history where extremely senior politicians have had to lie: sometimes to enable the effective execution of the policy or action, sometimes just because it would be premature to state the facts boldly, perhaps because there is still some doubt about the accuracy about the facts.

Context matters a lot. It is expedient for Ministers to time the release of information, but again, I would argue that they owe us the courtesy of being accurate, too. All politicians - and all journalists - attempt to control the agenda, or to decide the emphasis of the discussion. For example, if you were a politician discussing Education, you would probably want to discuss matters such as attainment in the core subjects, and peripheral but important issues such as discipline, school dinners. A journalist might want to make a big deal out of, for example, the proportion of school children studying two or more foreign languages. This is not unimportant, but to judge any Government's Education policy disproportionately on this issue would be silly.

If, on the other hand, a Minister stated that every child has the opportunity to learn at least one modern language throughout their schooldays, the issue would become one of - exactly how well informed is that Minister, what is their hidden agenda etc, which then becomes not a discussion about Education, but about the personality, competence, trustworthiness of that Minister.

I do not think that the journalist is serving the public well by concentrating on that issue to the detriment of a grown-up discussion of what we, the taxpayer, should expect from our schools. On the other hand, it is a legitimate matter through which to question the ability of schools to deliver a proper education eg lack of suitably qualified teachers; shortage of time in the curriculum; inability of swathes of children to cope with one, let alone two, foreign languages; the fact that we don't have a culture of teaching languages until it's really too late. All of which can be keys to a wider yet focused discussion.

It never ceases to amaze me the level of candour of discussion one can overhear in a lift...

Banish homophobia from CofE

Archbishop vows to ban homophobia

I was delighted to see John Sentamu appointed as Archbishop of York.

He wanted people to stop using "ghastly" language that implied people were "not human beings" because of their sexual orientation."I want to say to people, 'Please, please, please don't use such ghastly words,' because every human being regardless of their sexual orientation are standing in for God, each one of them is actually loved of God.

"And when you use language which implies they were not human beings who are you to do that because you did not create them?'"

I find that very profound because there is a great deal of hatred spouted in the name of religion. Here is a highly intelligent man going back to the absolute fundamental basics of Christianity.

Here is a profile of Archbishop Sentamu

Tory Leadership

The Tory's best chance of winning the next election is Clarke: back me as leader

I think it can be safe to say they will not elect as leader a man who is liked and respected by those crucial floating/soft Tory voters who have withheld their support for three or four elections.

Tony Blair to stand down (eventually)

I awoke in the middle of the night with one of those Eureka! moments.

Post-election, the clamour was, and remains, for TB to yield the reigns of power sooner rather than later, presumably to GB.

The question is asked - why doesn't he do so now, since, in the view of some, he is in danger of becoming a lameduck. Michael Howard, for example, has announced that he will stand down from the Tory Party in December.

And it struck me.

In less than a year, the Queen will be Eighty. Last month, the Prince of Wales finally married the future Queen Camilla.

In the wee sma' hours I felt utterly convinced that the Queen's Abdication is a foregone conclusion.

Of course, no monarch has ever retired: all previous Abdications have been in much less serene circumstances. But the genius of the House of Windsor and they multifarious nefarious flunkies is to invent a modus operandi from scratch and manipulate the gullible into believing it is a piece of long-established protocol whose origins are lost in the mist of time.

She will announce her Abdication at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Malta in November

I do not believe that Queenie can abdicate on her actual 80th birthday, because this will be just two weeks before the Local Elections, which, taking in London, one third of Mets, many unitaries, and a disportionate number of shire districts is the biggest election outside of a General (bigger even than the Euros). There may be similar considerations in other nations of which she is Head of State.

The Commonwealth Games next March in Melbourne, so it would be inappropriate to abdicate before these.

However, she will abdicate, and there are as we speak high-level negotiations between Buckingham Palace, Downing Street and Soho Square to ensure that the Abdication of the Queen, of Tony Blair and of Sven Goran Eriksson are timed either to coincide perfectly, or to be sufficiently staggered so as not to appear haphazard.

Rumours that the BBC will cease to make Last of the Summer Wine have, however, been strongly denied.

More election results

Ignore what I wrote yesterday. I've gone back and checked that Spreadsheet, and made quite a number of corrections.

Acccording to the Spreadsheet, Kenneth Haigh, the Veritas candidate in City of Chester got no votes. Catherine Taylor-Dawson, Vote for Yourself Rainbow Dream Ticket, got one vote in Cardiff North. Let's hope she voted for herself. aLthough she also stood in two other Cardiff constituencies. Martin Kyslun, Independent picked up a stunning five votes in Derbyshire West.

Strange party names include Build Duddon and Morecambe Bridges - in Barrow and Furness; Death, Dungeons & Taxes, in City of York and Edinburgh East; New Millennium Bean Party in Cardiff Central; Publican Party - Free to Smoke (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch Strathspey and Sally Magnusson's Ceilidh); Removal Of Tetramasts In Cornwall (Falmouth and Cambourne; S O S! Voters Against Overdevelopment of Northampton (North and South); Save Bristol North Baths Party (Bristol West shome mishtake surely, Ed; Telepathic Partnership (Wokingham); Tiger's Eye - the Party for Kids (Wimbledon) - presumably advertising; Virtue Currency Cognitive Appraisal Party
(Skipton and Ripon) and Xtraordinary People Party in Bolton West.

The most votes (32,717) were got by Andrew Turner, once a boss's boss's boss of mine in that overlarge constituency, Isle of Wight. Norman Lamb in Norfolk North got 31,515.

The Conservative in Taunton got the most of losing candidates. Angus McNeil in Na h-Eileanan an Iar got the least (6,213) of winning candidates followed by Alistair Carmichael (9,138) in Orkney and Shetland and Elfyn Llwyd (10,597) in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. England's smallest winner was Emily Thornberry (12,345) in Islington South & Finsbury.

Joe Benton in Bootle (75.5), Peter Kilfoyle in Liverpool Walton (72.8) and John Cummings (71.4) in Easington got the highest percentage of the vote; Gordon Banks in Ochil and South Perthshire (31.4), Nigel Griffiths Edinburgh South 33.2, and Claire Ward, Watford (33.6) were eelcted on the lowest percentage.

Tim Collins, Westmorland & Lonsdale (44.9) and Caroline Nokes Romsey (44.4 ) failed to get elected depsite getting a goodly share.

David Miliband, Future PM?

I have decided that, as David Miliband has an interesting portfolio, about which I know quite a lot, but not via work, and that he is tipped as a future PM, it might be quite interesting to track him through the news.

He's already in tomorrow's papers - Meteoric Miliband Continues to Rise .

Election results

The Electoral Commission has a downloadable Excel spreadsheet with the election results. OF course, they warn it is interim, and now is not the time to complain if it contains errors or omissions eg having Oona King and Lorna Fitzsimons as 'elected to Parliament' and Barbara Keeley not.

I have however, done what I believe to be a fairly good data clean-up. I have 646 MPs

But what joy for amateur psephologists.

Simple arithmetic suggests 127 women. 97 are Labour, 17 Conservative, 10 LibDim, and interestingly, 3 from Northern Ireland (although 2 are 'wives'...).

The most common name among the women is Ann(7)/Anne(7). There is also an Annette, and 5 Angelas and 4 Joans. 3 Margarets and 2 Megs. 2 out of 3 Helens are in Warrington. There's a Kate, a Katy and Kitty but no Catherine.

In contrast there are 44 Davids 42 Johns, Jons and Jonathans; 24 Michaels and 21 Andrews So there are more Johns, Davids and Michaels and Andrews then there are women... All the Ann(e)s are equallrd or outnumbered as well by Mark, Peter, and Robert.

There's only one Ashok, Boris, Crispin, Elfyn, Eliot, Evan, Fabian, Fraser, Geraldine, Gisela, Glenda, Gwynfor, Kali, Kelvin, Kerry, Khalid, Lembit, Mary, Matthew, Mohammed, Parmjit, Piara, Quentin, Sadiq, Shahid and Wyvil...

UK Election Results looks an extremely rich resource for historical data.

Milliband officially confirmed as Jehovah and Gay icon

If you want to know the zeitgist, examine my site referrals.

Gay icon David Miliband takes new post of communities and local government minister as he joins the Cabinet, thus confirming he is, in fact, Jehovah. (A slightly bizarre Gay Icon. He has a wife; she's an LSO violinist. Not that I've ever spotted him at the Barbican where he's alleged to hang out).

Where did you read it first?

Madmusings of me, pre-empting the news by 36 hours.

Letwin

Sorry if you're eating...

It just hit me when I was elsewhere. Last night, Oliver Letwin made an acceptance speech, where he distinctly referred to 'people' who pay taxes, the schools that 'people' send their children to and the hospitals that 'people' go to, but the police on the streets that 'we ' walk down.

I've done a Google but reports conveniently miss out the schools and hospitals bit. We know he would rather beg on the streets than send his children to a state school. It doesn't surprise me that he shuns the NHS in favour of Private Healthcare. Let's hope his tax management is avoidance rather than evasion...!

But exactly how patronisingly paternalistic can that be? The Tories don't use the public services that most of the population does, so they do not have the slightest fucking idea - still - why we care about them and they don't give a flying fig...

I know it's a longshot, but if anyone has a transcript, can they email me gert.blog at the site url, or blog it and post a link (trackback if you can?)

The Sun Says

Tories by the back door

I am not utterly convinced. I was getting that gut feeling as some of the results were coming through. There again, Putney, for example, was settling down after the intervention by James Goldsmith in 1997 basically took Tory votes from Mellor.

I was very upset to see Stephen Twigg lose; I had not liked him back in the NUS day and my delight at seeing Portillo crumble was tempered by the news it was Twiggy. Everyone knew he stood no chance of winning; he'd taken the job at the Fabian Society on condition he didn't stand for a winnable seat. But, actually, he did impress me greatly as a Minister, and I've grown rather fond of him, even if I did turn down the invite to his birthday party (not the one where he fell over drunk and had to go to Casualty...). So I was gutted to see him lose, but, rationally, Enfield Southgate is not a natural Labour seat.

It was very sad to see Oona King lose, especially to that oily arrogant tosser Galloway and his disgraceful victory speech. It was disturbing to hear Tony Banks's views about how he believed Galloway had gone there to capitalise on a distaste in the Moslem community for a mixed-race woman - she's Jewish as well as black. I think that's a statement that's worth scrutinising.

Of course, I feel that I was one of the early people to spot Oona King. Very many years ago I was delegated the job by my then ward of going through the pile of CVs submitted for nomination to our then Euro constituency. I scrutinised them all and recommended Oona King. My choice was scoffed at; the ward nominated Rosie Winterton. Anita Pollock was eventually selected. Which was the most inspired choice?

I see Lorna Fitzsimons lost Rochdale. For someone who was so mouthy before 97 and in the initial few months, she seemed to go quiet for 7 ½ years. That may have meant that she was working assidously in Rochdale, I don't know.

But it's strange to see so many of my generation lose their seats (Lorna was on NUS Exec when I was a hack).

I wonder if Butler and Kavanagh (or some younger successors) will do their Nuffield psephological analysis. I have read most for the last century, although I didn't bother even looking out for it in 2001. 2001 was a non-event psephologically. This one is an absolute treasure for psephologists. Totally fascinating.

Update: I notice that Chris Leslie has lost Shipley. Thisis interesting for two reasons - when he won in '97, Rachel, who was at school with him, was on the phone to her father so I was busy signalling that he had won; she thought I was winding her up, but I managed sufficiently well at charades and sign language to persuade her it was true, so she then had to set about convincing her father.

It also means that Shipley joins Altrincham and Sale West, and Sutton Coldfield as the only non-London, Metropolitan Conservative seats. And the only other significant City where they have a seat is...Milton Keynes. It's a pretty damning indictment of the Conservatives that they managed to take just four seats in the big conurbations and cities - none on Merseyside, none in South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Bristol, Nottingham, Leicester, and just one each on the very outskirts of Manchester, Bradford and Birmingham. London is different, whether you like it or not.

Election posts

Eighteen out of the twenty posts below this one are entirely-(ish) focused on the election.

The last three non-election posts are Silete Vente and Other Handel, Make Gert laugh and Voting Time

Voting Time and Make Gert Laugh are rather adult in nature.

We won the Election...!

When all the analysis and spinning is over and done with Labour has won the 2005 Election.

I tell you, as we sat in the beer garden on 30 April 1997, if someone had said "In eight years and five days time, Labour will win a thrid term with a majority of XX" - where XX is at least 36 40 54 58, I am sure we would have said "Nah, give over, you having us on."

First reaction, a big sigh of relief. First objective, Stop the Tories. Massive sigh of relief that the investment in public services won't be cut off in full flow.

More considered reaction when I am not so sleep deprived. I would go to bed but I'm expecting the gas man between 8 and 1 because the thermostat has gone. Well, if you put the heating on, or even the water, the radiators blast out hot hot hot. Not clever as spring will eventually turn to summer.

Happy birthday Tony

If I were him, next interview I'd give would be "Sod you lot, sod the election, looks like we're winning, innit, I'm off home to open my pressies, stuff my face with cake, have the first of five, and get bladdered. Shove off."

52 today

Burnley

Labour hold Burnley. Does that make Kitty the first Labour niece to follow her Conservative uncle into Parliament? Assuming Peter Bottomley wins Worthing, which I have no doubt he will.

Indeed, how many Uncle-Nieces have their been in Parliament? Of any combination.

Streatham declares

1.59 am on the Beeb, followed immediately by live coverage from Keighley, the next destination in Gert's World Travels (could be termed a city break in Bradford, or a quaint weekend in Bronte Land, within earshot of steam trains, I'm told).

Good to see a Labour victory, although my Keighley source assured me it was never in doubt.

Absolutely needless to say, Labour won Streatham. the numbers aren't up yet. Tomorrow the fight to win back Lambeth Council begins continues.

And I missed Worsley - Labour got in with over 50%

The question is, will we get to 324 before Jimmy gets up? (BTW, you know it's a smaller Parliament this time?)

Well done...

...to Hove Labour, who have been known to comment on this blog. My mad aunt in Hove live sin Hove; voted Labour for the first time in 1997. Even voted Tory in 1945.

Well done Hove

The map...

...is a brilliant idea conceptually artly.

But it is guaranteed to end up blue. Blue seats are hectaragely bigger than red or mustard seats.

In 97 the Torygraph produced a map which showed every constituency as the same size geographically, but managed to make it as accurate as reasonable by region or sub-region. It was interesting, seeing non-blue clusters where you wouldn't expect to see them.

I take it we're all watching the Beeb?