Letters From A Tory Daily views on British politics and the Conservative Party from a centre-right thinker who writes letters on his blog to politicians, journalists and many others.

Welcome to 'Letters From A Tory', covering British politics from a conservative perspective. Please leave a comment if you have any thoughts about today's letter, and don't forget that you can CLICK HERE to get my letters sent to you by RSS every morning.

1. Burning Our Money explains why going to hospital could be very bad for your health.

2. The Appalling Strangeness doesn’t want to be ‘denormalised’ by Labour.

3. Dave’s Part tries to give ‘Red Toryism’ a good kicking.

4. A Very British Dude discusses Section 28, dirty tricks and the gay vote.

5. Ambush Predator explains how suncream can land you in court.

“An unsavoury character could have come in and we just can’t put the children in the event or the students at the host school at risk like that.  The ultimate fear is that a child is hurt or abuducted, and we must take all measures possible to prevent that.”

- Paul Blunt, development manager at the East Beds School Sports Partnership, explaining why parents were banned from attending their children’s school sports day to protect pupils from potential child abductors and paedophiles.  More than 270 pupils from four primary schools in Bedfordshire took part in the East Beds School Sports Partnership Athletics Day, but there were no spectators present because the organisers said allowing them would make it impossible to prevent “unsavoury” characters from attending.  A risk assessment concluded that the host school, Sandy Upper School in Biggleswade, could not “guarantee the children’s safety”. Parents have condemned the ban.  Mother-of-three Emma Collett, 33, of Biggleswade, has a child at St Andrews Lower School in the town. “I would have taken time off work to support my child. It would have meant a lot to me,” she said. “I’m all for measures to protect the safety of children but lines must be drawn and common sense must prevail.” (fat chance – Ed.)

Dear Chris Bryant,

Obviously you’re feeling a bit left out as Foreign Office Minister these days, so you’ve decided to cause a stir in the newspapers this morning with your comments about civil partnerships and homosexuality.  Personally, I think your views are vindictive for the most part, even though you might have inadvertently stumbled across some issues that would be worth discussing.

First came the accusation that “if gays vote Tory they will rue the day very soon.” Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw also chipped in by saying ”a deep strain of homophobia still exists on the Conservative benches”.  However, you weren’t done there.  Apparently, as an openly gay minister you think it is your place to decide that homosexual “weddings” should be celebrated in churches.  You want clergy to be “much more open” to the idea of treating civil partnership ceremonies like traditional marriages.  Having trained as an Anglican priest yourself, you declared that: “All my friends who have entered into a civil partnership refer to it as their ‘marriage’ or their ‘wedding’ so the most important issue is that nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexuality. I would like to see churches be much more open to the idea of gay relationships or partnerships being celebrated in church.”  Not unsurprisingly, this goes directly against the rules of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, which state that only the union of a man and a woman can be celebrated by a priest in church.   The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, said: “Of course all citizens must have equal rights without discrimination. But marriage is the basis of the family, and the stability of the family is grounded in the sameness in difference between men and women. Those who make public law have to realise that people of faith have consciences that need to be respected.”  A spokesman for the Church of England said: “The Church of England’s approach has always been clear: marriage is the lifelong union between a man and a woman, and that is what the liturgy of the C of E Marriage Service is exclusively intended for. …Some who register civil partnerships seek recognition of their new situation and pastoral support by asking members of the clergy to provide a blessing for them in the context of an act of worship. The Church expresses what it believes through the liturgy of its worship. As there is no theological consensus about same sex unions, no such liturgy is authorised.”

Let’s start with your comments about the Conservative Party.  What kind of politics is this?  How on earth do you know how David Cameron, who has very liberal views on homosexuality, will behave as Prime Minister on these issues?  What gives you the right to make blanket generalisations that many Conservative MPs will find deeply offensive?  You’re talking as if all Labour MPs are somehow whiter-than-white and fully support homosexuality and recent legislation in this area, in which case you are clearly living in some fantasy land because many Labour and Lib Dem MPs are religious and are therefore highly unlikely to support gay marriages.  Aside from your borderline slanderous remarks about the Conservative Party, your remarks about gay marriages are even more shameful.  All your ‘friends’ can call a civil partnership whatever the hell they like - I couldn’t care less.  Marriage is a religious institution, whether you like it or not.  As such, religions set the rules, not you.  Civil partnerships should afford homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples (bar child-related issues, I suppose) but it should never ever ever become a ‘marriage’ because religions explicitly forbid marriages between people of the same gender.  What is so complicated about this?  We also had Peter Tatchell saying this morning that the civil partnerships introduced by Labour for same-sex couples were “a form of sexual apartheid” because they institutionalised different marriage laws for heterosexual and homosexual people.  If there are any differences in terms of the legal status between civil partnerships and marriage then I’m more than happy to listen and discuss, but this aggressive and wholly disrespectful anti-religious agenda is appalling. 

I am not even vaguely religious and neither are my family, yet even I can see how unnecessary and inflammatory your comments are.  Ironically enough, your barbed remarks about Conservative MPs come on the same day as Gordon Brown has criticised “crude” personal attacks in politics, saying that people should “think twice” before making accusations.  Sadly, it is quite clear to me that even if homosexual and heterosexual couples still had exactly the same financial and legal existence, you were still be attacking the institution of marriage for what I can only assume to be punitive and selfish reasons, and I find that very sad.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

1. Sharpe’s Opinion thinks that Guido might need lessons in how to avoid plagiarism.

2. The Last Ditch explains why Britain is the ‘political lies’ capital of Europe.

3. Mark Wadsworth dissects some dodgy statistics on housing for immigrants.

4. Ranting Stan has a good rant about hypersensitivity in society.

5. Dick Puddlecote says that the BNP and ExxonMobil are not really that different.

“We will never know if the (future) decision of the constitutional court was the fruit of a total independent evaluation or was rather the fruit of a carbonara dinner.”

- Antonio Di Pietro, a former anti-corruption prosecutor and the head of the Italy of Values opposition party, speaking after it emerged that Silvio Berlusconi had dinner with a judge who will rule on whether the law that gives the prime minister immunity from criminal prosecution should be allowed.  Mr Berlusconi pushed the controversial law through parliament shortly after being elected prime minister for a third time in general elections last year. It guarantees immunity from prosecution for Italy’s four most senior office holders while they are in power — himself as prime minister, the Italian president and the speakers of both parliamentary chambers.  It has now emerged that Mr Berlusconi was entertained to dinner at the home of a constitutional court judge, Luigi Mazzella, last month. The court is deliberating the legality of the law and is expected to deliver its decision in the autumn. Also at the dinner was a colleague of Mr Mazzella, Paolo Maria Napolitano, as well as the Justice Minister Angelino Alfano, who pushed the bill through parliament. Mr Di Pietro has demanded the resignation of both judges and the justice minister.

Dear Darryn Walker,

Although it didn’t cause much of a ripple in the mainstream media, the end of your court case this week concluded a rather uncomfortable saga for bloggers around the country.  You were cleared of breaching the Obscene Publications Act with a story that you wrote about Girls Aloud on an internet site, which described in graphic detail the kidnap, torture, murder and mutilation of the five band members.  The implications of a successful prosecution would have huge, but even though the case against you withered away it still leaves behind a slightly sour taste.

1. A View From Middle England laughs at Labour’s latest favourite euphemism.

2. Leg Iron enjoys watching (Ed) Balls get bounced on TV.

3. Hatfield Girl says Germany may have given Cameron a glimmer of hope on the Lisbon Treaty.

4. Constantly Furious gives Peter Mandelson’s latest moan a good fisking.

5. Raedwald explains how the Labour killjoys are ruining music in the UK.

“Keep the river flowing.”

- Dr David Greening from Sydney IVF, delicately describing his new advice that men should have sex every day to improve sperm quality and boost the chance of getting a partner pregnant.  In his study of men with fertility problems, daily ejaculation for a week cut the amount of DNA damage seen in sperm samples.  Although there was a big drop in sperm numbers from 180 million to 70 million over the week, men were still within the normal “fertile” range and sperm also became more active with a small rise in motility.  Sadly, he warned that having daily sex for too long – say a fortnight – would probably cut sperm numbers too much but nevertheless recommended “lots of sex daily” around the time the woman is ovulating.  “We are designed to breed in our youth. Perhaps we have been blaming the women as couples get older but perhaps there’s a contribution from the male because we’re not behaving as we should be, ” he said.

Dear Jack Straw,

It seems that a fairly large portion of humble pie is in order today after Labour were forced to drop plans for a legally-binding code of conduct for MPs after fears it would prompt legal challenges.  The idea had been a key part of your plans to “clean-up” politics after the expenses scandal, but former standards watchdog Sir Philip Mawer warned it was a recipe for “delay, cost and confusion”, but your desire to introduce jail sentences for MPs who break the rules might still see the light of day.

1. Counting Cats explains why Ed Balls is a warp-factor 9 giga-c***.

2. A Tangled Web finds that being gay trumps paedophilia in the eyes of the media.

3. Longrider is busy watching watermelons and getting angry at fake charities.

4. Mark Reckons that anti-scientific nonsense should be taken off the airwaves.

5. Capitalists at Work says Alistair Darling will resign on 21st July.

“The impact of the scheme is accelerating.”

- Ian Austin MP, the government’s housing minister, trying to put a nice gloss on the news that just six families in England have been helped by the government’s £200m mortgage rescue scheme – up from two families in the previous month.  The initiative, launched at the start of 2009, aimed to help vulnerable families who are at risk of repossession to stay in their homes.  Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said that the time it took to access assistance was “extraordinary”. The scheme allows not-for-profit housing associations to buy homes from people struggling to pay their mortgage and then allows them to continue living there by paying “affordable rent”. The government had said the scheme – introduced across England – could help up to 6,000 households which might otherwise face repossession.

Dear Nick Griffin,

My goodness me, you must be loving all this.  Talk about free publicity.  As if ‘Unite Against Fascism’ didn’t stimulate enough of a sympathy vote for your perfectly legitimate party, we now have the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) trying to change the law on race hate crimes just to make it easier to prosecute you – not anyone else, just you.

According to the Guardian, the threshold for securing a conviction is so high that evil far-right activists such as yourself (NB: we’ll ignore the ‘are they right-wing or left-wing’ debate for now) are able to evade prosecution for material that many people would consider to be threatening and racist.  Prosecutors blame the lack of convictions on the strict legal test, which requires showing an intention to “stir up racial hatred” or a likelihood that racial tension would be stirred up.  The offence, created under the Public Order Act, only applies to acts that take place or are witnessed in public so it does not cover leaflets that are pushed through letter boxes. It also offers no protection against the publication of inaccurate or false information.  Several BNP leaflets have been referred to the CPS over the last five years by senior police officers and a judge but no further action has been taken.  Peter Herbert, the chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers and a part-time judge, submitted a complaint last year over the following leaflet called The Changing Face of London:

“Under the law, it has been extremely difficult to mount a prosecution against extremism and hate speech,” said Herbert. “But with the rise of the BNP, and the subsequent rise in racist attacks and the fear the party’s leaflets can provoke, it is essential we are given the tools to deal effectively with this threat.” Herbert said the law should protect people from material that creates a fear of racist attacks as well as those that are deemed to incite racial hatred. “All the evidence suggests that it is people from minority communities and the faith communities that are put in fear of violence when racist leaflets are delivered in town centres or on estates. If someone handed out the same thing in the workplace, most employers would consider that gross misconduct; if someone does the same thing in the street, there is very little we can do.”  Another complaint was submitted to the CPS by Lancashire police who expressed concern about a BNP leaflet which blamed Muslims for the heroin trade. Four people were arrested and released on police bail last year but detectives are still waiting to hear from the CPS about whether they have grounds to prosecute for “incitement to stir up racial hatred”.  In another incident, Derbyshire police alerted the CPS about a BNP election leaflet claiming three asylum seekers had raped a woman. The police said the rape claims were “unfounded”, but the CPS said there were no grounds to prosecute under existing law. “Whilst those details in the leaflet regarding the alleged rape are factually incorrect, this in itself does not constitute a criminal offence,” said a CPS spokesman at the time.

You must be rolling about laughing when you hear this stuff.  Last week, we had the Equality and Human Rights Commission giving you one month to remedy three alleged breaches of the Race Relations Act, including your whites-only membership policy, and now we have the CPS considering changing the law just to persecute your democratically elected party.  Unbelievable.  But, far more disturbingly, the CPS are claiming that having a high threshold of evidence to secure a conviction is somehow a bad thing!!!  Actually, if they look closely at the last, say, few hundred years they will find that having a high threshold is a fundamental tenet of the entire British legal system – and thank god for that.  Stirring up hatred should indeed be illegal, but how does the above poster meet this criteria?  Yes, it’s clearly a biased representation but it’s hardly calling people to arms against Muslims.  The fact that the law on hatred doesn’t apply to leaflets might need remedying, but the high threshold for proving that hatred was the objective is essential.  If the BNP produce factually inaccurate material then your opponents are welcome to put out contradictory leaflets, call the local or national media or even take legal action if they wish – but it’s not the job of the CPS to start tampering with the law to make it easier to attack you.  And this creating ‘fear’  in town centres by delivering leaflets is without doubt the most pathetic ruse I have heard of from the anti-BNP brigade in recent months.  There are absolutely no grounds for them to be afraid of you in terms of personal safety, but yet again people claim to be offended or upset so Labour jump to the rescue of their core voters.

In his final remark, Herbert said a number of anti-racism and human rights bodies would back a change in the law.  “I expect a strong coalition will form around this idea and put pressure on the government to instigate a change in primary legislation as soon as possible,” he said.  He’s probably right.  That said, for the first time ever, the anti-fascist organisation Searchlight said something useful on this issue:  ”…the way we will defeat Nick Griffin and his party is street by street and estate by estate, not lawyer by lawyer and courtroom by courtroom.”  He’s figured it out, but sadly no-one else has - so you’re safe for now.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

1. Moments of Clarity can hear large groans of despair from the Labour ranks.

2. Himmelgarten Cafe catches weight-loss surgeons giving dodgy advice.

3. Nanny Knows Best is unamused by Labour’s ‘heatwave’ scaremongering.

4. Tim Worstall is considering a sex change.

5. Man In A Shed explains why Labour are now ‘The Evil Party’.

“This is not a matter of eating halal meat or seeking God’s blessing on one’s marriage. It is a challenge to what we believe to be the rights and freedoms of the individual, to our concept of a legal system based on what parliament enacts, and to the right of all of us to live in a society as free as possible from ethnic-religious division or communal claims to superiority and a special status that puts them in some respects above the law to which we are all bound.”

- Denis MacEoin, in the latest report by the ‘Civitas’ think-tank that investigated sharia courts in the UK.  The report claims that at least 85 sharia courts are currently in operation as a result of scores of unofficial courts sitting in mosques in which imams make judgments on day-to-day disputes and it argued that they are unlikely to treat women as equals and could even be against human rights law. Civitas have called for a change in the law to stop the decisions of such bodies being legally enforceable. (full story HERE)

Dear readers,

Having just visited Iain Dale’s blog, I must sadly report that he has suddenly decided to make it a personal mission to encourage his readers to convert to Islam.  His recent post on banning the burka sparked a huge debate in his comments section, much as it did when I addressed the issue on this blog.  However, the adverts now appearing on his blog seem to be some form of subliminal messaging aimed at enticing his readers into becoming Muslims.  The evidence is as follows:

EXHIBIT A:  When scrolling down the sidebar on Iain’s blog after reading his post on burkas, I was horrified to see that – contrary to the line that he took in his blogpost – he wants his readers to buy hijabs for themselves!! Outrageous!!  The low prices available on eBay are clearly an attempt by Iain to promote these garments to his readers on a national, if not international scale.

EXHIBIT B: As if trying to get his readers to buy hijabs wasn’t bad enough, he is also pushing his readers towards Muslim dating agencies.  Just above his original blogpost rallying against the burka, Iain Dale has the cheek to advertise an agency for single Muslims using a picture of a woman with her face covered!!  Outrageous!!

EXHIBIT C: Then, would you believe it, I log back onto Iain’s blog a short while later, only to see this new advert instead:

I shall be contacting Mr Dale as a matter of urgency to express my disgust at these shameless antics that rely on psychological manipulation and covert advertising techniques.  He should know better.

Regards

A.Tory

————-

P.S. Let this be a warning to all those who use contextual advertising…..

Dear Rob Davies,

As a spokesman for Canterbury council, I’m sure you were delighted with the ruling of Local Government Ombudsman last week.  After a complaint from local gay rights activists that sparked a two-month investigation costing thousands of pounds, the council were told that it is ’sufficiently gay’ as it does enough to promote homosexual culture.  While I am very glad that you did not find yourself in any great trouble over this, I find it deeply disturbing that the situation arose in the first place.

“The welfare state is meant to be a safety net, but in some areas it seems to be growing into an extremely comfortable armchair.”

- Matthew Elliot from the Taxpayers’ Alliance, reacting to the news that a family living on benefits in London is being housed in a seven-bedroom home at a cost to taxpayers of £147,000 a year. Until last year, adults who were unemployed or on very low incomes were able to claim means-tested Housing Benefit (HB) to cover their rent in either council-owned or privately-rented properties. Last year a new benefit, Local Housing Allowance (LHA), replaced HB for tenants in privately-rented properties. In the current financial year, a total of £2.6 billion is expected to be paid out in LHA. The two benefits together support 4.4 million tenants and their dependents. This year the total sum handed out in welfare benefits is expected to reach £165 billion – significantly more than the £140 billion that the state will raise from workers in income tax. (full story HERE)

From the BBC, over the last two days:

“Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne said there was the need for a “power shift” away from civil servants and towards the public. The Guardian reports that the shake-up in public services will include entitlements to personal tuition in schools, minimum GP waiting times and access to police working in their neighbourhoods. Mr Byrne told the BBC the top-down, targets-led approach was good for transforming services from poor to good, but now a new strategy is required.”

“The government is to dismantle one of its most significant education policies in primary schools in England. From 2011 schools will no longer have to rely on centralised national strategies for support in teaching literacy and numeracy. Instead they will have money to choose from other suppliers or work together to improve pupils’ basic skills. The strategies had been needed to get school leaders to focus on improving standards – but they could now choose for themselves how best to spend the money these were costing.”

So, let’s get this straight – running the NHS through targets and running our schools through top-down, centralised teaching programmes was the right approach from 1997-2009, but now it’s not the right approach.  Hmmm.  So the Government expect us to believe that Whitehall dictating and distorting our health service and education system was ever a good thing, and they also expect us to believe that Gordon Brown’s fight for political survival just happens to coincide with the supposedly natural end of two policies that were always doomed to fail since they were created over ten years ago? 

When David Cameron says at PMQs that the Prime Minister is taking us all for fools, he really isn’t kidding.

1. Prodicus says Labour’s new ‘winds of change’ are in fact just a bad case of wind.

2. Croydonian takes a look at the French view of anonymous blogging.

3. John Ward wishes Gordon Brown a happy two-year Prime Ministerial birthday.

4. Pub Philosopher is annoyed that the bankers really have got away with it.

5. Devil’s Kitchen finds change that he really can’t believe in, courtesy of Obama.

Seeing as the MP expenses scandal has gripped the nation and throttled Westminster in a way that has rarely been seen before in British politics, I thought it was appropriate to select a book written before the scandal broke that claims to detail how politicians from all parties have made a mockery of Parliament and our democracy.  I remember Guido writing a post during ‘Smeargate’ that heralded the work of three journalists who had made it their mission to crack the Westminster shell and expose what lies beneath when every other hack was busy kissing the Government’s rear end: Fraser Nelson, Martin Bright and Peter Oborne.  Fully in the knowledge that Peter Oborne – who writes for the Daily Mail in addition to writing books - has always been seen as a bit eccentric (having met him briefly, I can assure you that ‘eccentric’ is the right description), I thought it would be fascinating to see what he has been rallying against for so many years.   When Peter refers to the ‘The Political Class’, he is not just describing the current Labour government or their predecessors.  The Political Class is a reference to politicians and those around them involved in running the country who are set apart from the rest of society by possessing their own customs, habits, codes and - dare I say - superiority complex that distinguishes them from others, in addition to them doing everything possible to maintain the status quo along with all the perks that come with it.  While the recent MP expenses saga is certainly a damning symptom of the Political Class, the sad truth is that this is the tip of the political iceberg, and the way that these individuals have distorted democracy itself is absolutely shocking. 

In order to demonstrate the scale of corruption that the Political Class has implanted into our political system, Peter Oborne split this book, written in 2007, into four sections.  First comes ‘The Anatomy of the Political Class’ that describes their defining traits.  This includes some of the previous expenses scandals, the appalling behaviour that accompanies membership of the Political Class (e.g. John Prescott using his Parliamentary office to continue his affair), the arrogance and dismissive attitude towards anyone who complains about their behaviour and the undesirable outcomes of ‘professionalising’ politics and ‘modernising’ the parties (e.g. dodgy party funding).  Second comes ‘The Attack on British Institutions’, which I found particularly disturbing.  The Civil Service being robbed of its independence, the Foreign Office being undermined (particularly in the period before Blair declared war on Iraq), the politicisation of MI6, attacks on the Judiciary and the monarchy, and the systematic crippling of Parliamentary supremacy are all laid out in horrific detail.  The brutal and coordinated attack mounted by the Political Class on Elizabeth Filkin, the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, when she was on the verge of exposing their greed, bullying, deception and corruption in 1999 was a truly disturbing tale.  The recent campaign by the Daily Telegraph to expose similar behaviour, and indeed ‘Smeargate’ itself, are rather put into perspective when one reads about how vicious the Political Class can be when they feel threatened.  The third section, ‘The Capture of the Media’, is perhaps the least shocking yet the most unexpectedly revealing part of the whole book.  ‘Client Journalism’ – the way that journalists rely almost exclusively on the Government for their stories and do not challenge their version of events – is something that Guido, Peter Oborne and many others (myself included) find grotesque.  Given the choice of attacking the Government or sticking to the ‘official line’, even when the latter flatly contradicts what they know to be true, journalists crumble in the face of political pressure all too easily.  The public are without doubt the biggest losers of this submissive behaviour.  The way that the media failed to stand up to Blair in the lead-up to the Iraq War is given particular attention and, on the basis of what Peter uncovered, deservedly so.  The final section of the book, ‘A New System of Government’ draws together the main threads of the book and explains the fundamental reasons why the Political Class continue to distort and dictate whatever they choose in order to preserve their position of power, and also goes some way to explaining how we could solve such a deep-rooted problem.

I’m sure that many people will have felt angry, let-down and even betrayed by what we now know our MPs have been doing with their expenses in recent years.  That said, I can guarantee that any anger or sense of betrayal that you feel will be multiplied a thousand times once you’ve read this book.  There are few things more sacred in this country than having a healthy, functioning democracy with accountability and honesty at its core.  Although few would argue that we ever fully realised this ideal, Peter Oborne manages to show that we are even further away from this ideal that you could possibly imagine.  The only minor quibble I had with this book was that some of Peter’s arguments could probably be challenged in terms of their implications.  Even so, I still feel both furious and sullied after reading this book because it shattered so many of the beliefs and principles that I hoped Parliament and indeed politics itself would stand for – and that’s despite my own incredible cynicism towards all things political.  What a book. 

RATING: 9/10

This is the fifth of many reviews that I will be doing on this blog. Every book I review plus the books that I will be reviewing in future are taken from ‘My Political Bookshelf’ that you can see on the right hand side of this blog in the sidebar. Click on the picture at the beginning of this review or click on any of the books in the sidebar to find out more about them.

CLICK HERE TO READ PREVIOUS BOOK REVIEWS ON THIS BLOG

1. Fausty attacks Gordon Brown’s latest plan to undermine Parliament and democracy.

2. Diary of a Geek analyses Greenpeace’s reaction to Michael Jackson’s death.

3. Nourishing Obscurity enjoys some nice fatty food with a big dose of cholesterol.

4. Next Left explains why Michael Jackson will test the Iranian Twitter revolution.

5. The Adam Smith Institute can’t believe Jacqui Smith is still defending her expenses.

“It’s clear that the criminals in this affair are the doctors who treated him throughout his career, who destroyed his face, who gave him medicine to ease his pain.  He was a hypochondriac and one never really knew if he was sick because he had become surrounded by charlatan doctors who were billing him thousands and thousands of dollars worth of drugs, vitamins.”

- Tarak Ben Ammar, Michael Jackson’s former producer and friend

Dear United Synagogue,

Yesterday’s Appeal Court ruling that may force all Jewish Schools to change their admissions rules is to be welcomed.  You might not have agreed with their decision, but your behaviour was clearly out of order and discriminatory, demonstrating yet again why faith schools are so counterproductive when it comes to creating a tolerant, cohesive society.

The case surrounded a London school, the JFS, which rejected a boy whose mother’s conversion to Judaism it did not recognise.  Faith schools may discriminate on religious grounds but the Court of Appeal held that this particular rejection involved a test of ethnicity – which is unlawful.  The state-funded JFS is heavily over-subscribed and gives preference to applicants whose “Jewish status” is confirmed by the United Synagogue which requires that the mother be Jewish.  The boy – named in court only as M – has a Jewish father. His mother converted to the Jewish faith before he was born but had been a Roman Catholic, but the conversion was not recognised because it was conducted in a Progressive not an Orthodox synagogue.  The three judges said it was clear that Jews constituted a racial group defined principally by ethnic origin and additionally by conversion.  To discriminate against a person on the ground that they were or were not Jewish was therefore to discriminate on racial grounds.  “The motive for the discrimination, whether benign or malign, theological or supremacist, makes it no less and no more unlawful. The refusal of JFS to admit M was accordingly, in our judgment, less favourable treatment of him on racial grounds. This does not mean … that no Jewish faith school can ever give preference to Jewish children. It means that, as one would expect, eligibility must depend on faith, however defined, and not on ethnicity.”  You responded to this by saying that the ruling will have “a very serious effect” and added: “In future, all Jewish schools (whether state or independent) will need to adopt a religious practice test, until such time as the Court of Appeal’s ruling is successfully overturned or a legislative amendment is made.”

1. Tory Radio describes some of the appalling abuse of expenses by BBC staff.

2. Ambush Predator adds another nail to Gordon’s coffin.

3. Lobbydog finds a spectacular u-turn by Harriet Harman over Parliamentary reform.

4. Old Holborn enjoys insulting the state, while others sadly disapprove.

5. The Appalling Strangeness wants politicians to do something useful for a change.

“It was a mistake. It demonised millions and was an illiberal move.”

- Labour MP Tom Harris on the smoking ban

Dear Barack Obama,

Despite the economic downturn, you are still rightly committed to creating a universal health insurance system in America.  Seeing as it formed the backbone of your election platform, voters would not be particularly impressed if you walked away from such a bold plan.  Even though your reforms could save over one trillion dollars in the long run, implementing your mandatory insurance system won’t come cheap.  Thankfully, the answer to your financial prayers has come in the form of a new tax on soft drinks and alcohol.

The Democrats unveiled a draft of your health care bill last week. It requires all individuals to obtain health insurance and forces employers to offer health care to their workers, with exemptions for small businesses.  You are now considering a 10 cents tax on the price of a can of soft drink to help pay for your reforms as well as higher alcohol taxes and a national sales tax of up to 1.5% or mor. The new federal tax on soft drinks would cover those sweetened with sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and other high-calorie sweeteners, including iced tea and non-carbonated drinks like punch, but exempting diet drinks.  Although this plan has not been finalised, it has the potential to raise about $600 billion over 10 years, which could prove invaluable over the rest of your term as President while you put your plans into action.  Experience suggests that the new taxes will be passed onto consumers rather than being absorbed by the businesses themselves.  Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, but the main beverage lobby that represents Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and other companies said such a tax would unfairly hit lower-income Americans and wouldn’t deter consumption.

‘Sin taxes’ are a brilliant prospect, in my opinion.  As evidenced in yesterday’s discussion of paying for obese people to get treatment courtesy of the taxpayer on the NHS, the issue of personal responsibility is something that many people feel is missing from society.  The sad reality is that it often holds true that the unhealthiest food can be the cheapest – fast food and fizzy drinks being prime examples of this.  That said, taxing an entire range of food is a stupid idea and will end unnecessarily stigmatising individual products that don’t actually damage anyone’s health.  However, foods that are high in saturated fats or ‘trans-fats’ are known to cause serious health problems, while fizzy drinks that are high in particular ingredients such as sweeteners are also widely regarded as leading to all sorts of ailments, both dental and medical.  Sin taxes are therefore an excellent way of ‘rebalancing the scales’ while still allowing each individual the choice over what they eat and drink, which is infinitely preferable to banning things.  The point is that the cost of purchasing the most unhealthy food and drinks does not reflect the costs that they create for healthcare systems, and that is where sin taxes such as a ‘fat tax’ come in. 

Because the need to raise money and lower debt during this economic downturn has become a huge priority not just for you but also for most developed nations, I wholeheartedly support your proposal to start taxing these items.  Higher alcohol taxes and a new national sales tax are much more objectionable because they do not tackle health issues.  Even a tax as small as 10 cents could raise significant sums of money at the same time as deterring people from engaging in behaviour that can incur significant costs to the US taxpayer over many years.  If Gordon Brown in the UK decided to introduce similar measures to help fund the NHS, I would (grudgingly) support him because the principle is absolutely correct. 

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

1. Raedwald is livid with Gordon Brown’s plans for a new parliamentary quango.

2. Man In A Shed says the debates over burkhas and the BNP show the limits of tolerance.

3. Ranting Stan supports David Davis’s call for more grammar schools.

4. The Great Simpleton describes how the state can steal politicians’ houses.

5. A Very British Dude thinks Bercow’s debut at PMQs was not good enough.

“Why hone your skills on punch bags and planks of wood when you can deck some Chavs?  Welcome to the wonderful world of Chav Flighting. A world where Bacardi Breezers are your sword and ASBOs are your trophy.”

- part of an advertisement by ‘Gymbox’, which runs three fitness centres in London, that was investigated by advertising watchdogs after it promoted classes in how to beat up “chavs”. Gymbox offers the courses to train men and women how to defend themselves from street attacks, but the Advertising Standards Authority launched an investigation after people complained that the flier condoned violence against certain members of society. In response, Gymbox said it had named the class “Chav Fighting” to draw attention to the courses in “witty manner”.  In the end, the ASA did not uphold the complaints, stating that references to Bacardi Breezer alcopops and Burberry clothing indicated the concept was “tongue-in-cheek”.  Gymbox’s website still advertises the classes, complete with a video showing a hooded youth attacking a couple in an alleyway, only to be flattened by the man. Its website states: “Don’t give moody grunting Chav’s an ASBO, give them a kicking. Forget stealing candy from a baby. We’ll teach you how to take a Bacardi off a hoodie and turn a grunt into a whine. Welcome to Chav Fighting, a place where the punch bags gather dust and the world is put to rights.”

Dear Georgia Davis,

I suppose congratulations are in order.  At 15 years old and weighing 33 stone (210kg), you were dubbed Britain’s fattest teen. After winning a scholarship to an American weight loss camp last year, you have lost 14 stone (89kg), almost half your body weight. However, at age 16 the funding for your treatment is running out and you want the British taxpayer to pick up the tab, leaving me distinctly unamused.

Your overeating began at a very young age when your dad died.  ”I was letting my emotions control me. I was always upset, so every time I got upset I would comfort eat.”  As well as family pressures, you started to experience problems at school where you were bullied, and your comfort eating continued. “I would eat pretty much all day. I would eat everything, any kind of food.” Bread – up to three-quarters of a loaf a day – milk, cola, crisps, chocolate biscuits and cakes were particular favourites.  “It made me feel better for a minute or two, but then I’d feel down again, so I’d eat again, and it would just continue on and on.”  Your mother found your habits impossible to control. By the time you were 15, you had reached 33 stone (210kg), and you were a UK size 38.  At 5′6, you were morbidly obese.  But after nine months at the Wellspring Academy, an American fitness school which awarded you a scholarship, you weigh under 19 stone (121kg) and are a size 20.  Your calorie consumption has gone down from around 13,000 a day to around 1,200 thanks to your new routine.  ”It’s a structured day. It helps you control your life accordingly. Basically, you wake up around 6.30 and you go to morning activity for about an hour. Once you’ve done that, you go to breakfast and then you have school and basic classes. Then you have lunch in between classes, and then more activity and then dinner, free time and then more activity before you go to bed.”  You credit cognitive behavioural therapy with helping you understand the reasons for overeating and learning how to control it.  The school says you need to complete another year to lose weight and keep it off, but that it can only fund her until Christmas.  Mike Davidson of the Wellspring Academy said: “Georgia is still about 8 stone from her healthy weight and has not dealt with all of her emotional needs or unlocked the habits around her eating yet that could cause her to relapse. She needs more time.”  The NHS, after initially refusing to provide the estimated £23,000 needed, is now reviewing its decision.  “I want to help as many people as I can, because during this time I’ve been doing this academy, I’ve realised that there are so many people out there with the same problem that I have. And I think that if I can do this with the NHS, if they fund me, then the NHS will help fund others… so that other people will be happy and normal too.”

Hmmm.  There are three issues running around my head: personal responsibility, opportunity cost and value-for-money.  On the subject of personal responsibility, you’re asking the taxpayer to stump up £23,000 because you eat too much.  Wellspring Academy has already given you an effective rountine and helped you understand why you are overeating, so surely the argument in favour of you needing this money is weakened by the existence of the scholarship?  And how long do you expect the taxpayer to fork out for your treatment?  What if another £23,000 isn’t enough and you still want more treatment once the next course runs out?  At what point is it your responsibility to tackle this issue (assuming that it isn’t your responsibility right now, which is debatable)?  The opportunity cost of what you are asking is also staggering.  How many heart bypass operations could £23,000 fund?  How many Intensive Care beds could be supported with that amount of money?  You are asking for a staggering sum, all because your willpower isn’t strong enough. Finally, value for money is a double-edged sword.  There is a part of me that thinks handing over £23,000 because you cannot control your eating is outrageous, but then I wonder whether an investment now might save the taxpayer money in the long run relative to other treatments that your excessive weight might demand in future.  Then again, even if it might prevent future expenditure on your obesity, there are still major objections purely on the grounds that eating is a choice whereas so many of the other illnesses that the NHS treats are not the responsibility of the patient in any way.

If this ‘test case’ does indeed find in your favour, the NHS is going to have a seriously big problem on its hands.  For every obese person to be entitled to massive sums of taxpayers’ money just because they are unable to resist stuffing their faces would be deeply concerning on both financial and moral grounds.  The message would be broadcast loud and clear: destroy your body through excessive eating as much as you want, but don’t worry – the taxpayer will pay for whatever you need to bring your weight down again.  Personally, I’d much rather see the money put into bereavement counselling and other preventative measures than giving it to fatties who fail to show the willpower that most of us manage to draw on every day of our lives.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

1. Heresy Corner says John Bercow’s election shows politics at its worst.

2. Blue Eyes is very confused about the latest strikes in the oil industry.

3. Dick Puddlecote catches a rare outbreak of common sense among politicians.

4. Daniel1979 explains why spit and bile from the public can be quite handy.

5. Not A Sheep is not impressed by weather propoganda from the Met Office.