This Muslim Weekly piece by Mike O’Brien is absolutely dispicable. Can you imagine the furore if this kind of thing had been published in the mainstream press:

Can anyone seriously imagine that Michael Howard or Charles Kennedy would be able to significantly influence George W. Bush? If they do, then they need to join the real world.

Worse is to come:

let‚s [sic] compare Tony Blair with previous Prime Ministers. He is the first Prime Minister to have ever read the Qur‚an [sic], to quote from it and to talk about it. Can anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher or John Major doing the same?

How can a Government minister possibly get away with this sort of thing?

The public is to challenge Tony Blair on the country’s key political issues during a gloves-off televised debate.

This is what my long conversation last week alluded to: I was asked to take part in this programme. Unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately for the PM), things didn’t work out, and so I don’t feature. But it should be worth watching nonetheless – you never know, it might include Mr Blair’s Iraq homologue of Mrs Thatcher’s “Nationwide” moment about the sinking of the Belgrano. Five, 7pm.

I am, somewhat unfortunately for them, against Tory plans to test the health of migrants.

On the one hand, it would clearly reduce the burden on the NHS, which is largely a good thing. But at what cost?

Combined with the other proposals put forward by the Conservatives, it risks creating an immigrant under-class. If we are only to take a given quota of the best skilled and most healthy specimens, it begins to sound like these people are being treated as nothing more than commodities. This can’t really do much to help social integration.

A later story on the Labour response to the proposal claims:

Labour rubbished Michael Howard’s plans for HIV checks on immigrants this morning, calling them “untested, uncosted and chaotic”.

This just makes the government look silly. Clearly, any proposal when it is first put forward is untested. So that’s an unfair allegation. It’s only uncosted because the government have failed to keep an accurate check on the health of immigrants to this point in time. And how can anybody claim that the system, which has yet to be implemented, will be ‘chaotic’? I think Des Browne must just have been a bit desperate for a word to finish his pattern of three, there.

The Lib Dems, in the form of Mark Oaten, have come flying to the rescue with some sensible and wise words:

Their shadow home secretary, Mark Oaten, said: “This is another worrying step in the war of words over asylum and immigration between Labour and the Conservatives.

“They are in danger of pandering to prejudice rather than challenging it.”

It’s beginning to become a consistent pattern here that I’m favouring Lib Dem policies. But I don’t particuarly want to be taxed to death once I’m earning, and I should (hopefully) qualify under the next government.

It’s an interesting puzzle, but if I were judging purely on today’s annoucements, I’d have to vote Lib Dem, as they are the only party who have spoken with any degree of common sense.

From today’s Society Guardian:

The publication of the mortality rates of individual surgeons could have a “devastating effect” on the quality of care, leading some to refuse to perform risky operations, senior doctors warned today.

Is this not obvious? The surgeons who want the best figures will choose the patients least likely to die. Those that take on the difficult cases will be demonised by the media.

Common sense can see that – unfortunately, the Labour government can’t. Which is yet another reason why they have to go.

This piece by David Aaronovitch in today’s Grauniad is (as usual for him) fantastic, comparing the relationship between the Great British Public and Tony Blair to a marriage. Just as Mr Blair himself almost suggested:

And it’s not a bad idea to think of it in terms of it being like any relationship: you, the British people, and me, the person you chose as your Prime Minister

Though it does conjure up some thoroughly disturbing images of our PM:

When I first became leader of the Labour party, everywhere I went, I could feel the warmth growing, the expectations rising.
At first the sex was great, wasn’t it? Remember that night in 1997? You always moist, me always (let’s be blunt) totally rampant.

Oh, and I also wanted an excuse to post that brilliant picture of Mr Blair.

It’s very strange that Mr Blair should suddenly realise that he has many flaws in the weeks coming up to a general election. And, of course, this leopard’s going to change his spots.

I don’t think anyone in the country would begin to believe Mr Blair’s new found humbleness, especially since

he offered no apology on Iraq, saying it may be best to disagree, though he believed that the eight million people voting in the Iraq elections might change minds

He won’t apologise because he still thinks he was right to take the country to war based on a false prospectus, and thinks that the moderate successes in that country will outweigh the heavy losses in the minds of voters. Whether or not he knew that prospectus was flawed (and don’t think he did) is irrelevant – If he makes such huge errors of judgement, logic says he has to go. So it’s something of a shame that he probably won’t (not that I’m going to stop trying…)

This is a fascinating look at the questionable success of Alistair Campbell as an electioneer.

I don’t agree with every detail of what it says, but the overarching conclusion is something I’d like to believe:

Alastair Campbell … is a worthless turd.

Unfortunately, despite Chris’s detailed analysis of the figures showing that he has been of questionable success, I still think that he’s a big part of New Labour, and so certainly not ‘worthless’ to the party. Unsucessful, possibly, but not worthless. Why else would they risk asking such a publically hated figure to join the campaign? Unless, I guess, they’ve deceived themselves into believeing that he’s more successful that he actually is.

This blogger points to an Independent article claiming that the Lib Dems could win the next General Election. Well, of course they could win. But they won’t.

The key here:

If people voted along these lines in winnable constituencies

If only it was that easy…

As promised, I’m now going to compare how I would’ve voted in what are considered to be the twenty-one key votes of the Labour government with how the Liberal Democrat Leader voted. For full explanations of why I would’ve voted the way I have stated, refer to the earlier post. Remember, Mr Blair matched my opinions on a pathetic three occasions, and Mr Howard on a poor ten. So that’s what Charlie has to beat.

Cutting Lone Parent Benefit (10th Dec 1997)
This motion was an attempt to block the government’s plans to cut lone parent benefit.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Military Action against Iraq (17th March 1998)
This was a motion to allow military action to be taken against Iraq should peace attempts fail.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Cuts in Student Funding (8th June 1998)
This was a motion to oppose the government’s plans to cut student funding.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted AGAINST this motion.

Age of Consent (22nd June 1998 and 10th Feb 2000)
This was a motion to lower the age of consent for homosexual sex to sixteen.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Incapacity Benefits Means Test (10th May 1999)
This was a motion to oppose the government’s plans to introduce means testing for incapacity benefit.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Freedom of Information Legislation (5th April 2000)
This was an ammendment to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information bill.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Ban on Hunting with Dogs (17th Jan 2001)
This was a motion to ban hunting with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Afghanistan Airstrikes (11th Nov 2001)
This was a motion against the government’s backing for airstrikes on Afghanistan.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted AGAINST this motion.

Anti-terrorism Legislation (21st Nov 2001)
This was a motion to give the government the right to detain foreign terrorists without trial.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted AGAINST this motion

Single Faith Schools (6th Feb 2002)
This was a motion to require faith schools to take 25% of pupils from other backgrounds.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (18th Mar 2002)
This was a motion to completely ban hunting wild animals with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Licensing of Hunting (18th Mar 2002)
This was a compromise measure to allow foxhunting under licence.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted AGAINST this motion.

Adoption (4th Nov 2002)
This was a motion to allow unmarried and gay couples to adopt children.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

UN Resolution 1441 (25st Nov 2002)
This was a motion to limit the justification for war with Iraq without UN sancation.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

House of Lords (4th Feb 2003)
This was a motion to introduce a fully elected House of Lords.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

House of Lords (4th Feb 2003)
This was a motion to introduce a fully appointed House of Lords.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted AGAINST this motion.

Foundation Hospitals (7th May 2003)
This was a motion opposing the introduction of Foundation Hospitals.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (30th June 2003)
This was a motion to completely ban hunting with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

Top-up Fees (27th January 2004)
This was the bill which included plans for variable student tutition fees.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted AGAINST this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (15th Sep 2004)
This was a bill to bane foxhunting and hare coursing.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted FOR this motion.

ID Cards (20th Dec 2004)
This was the bill introducing ID cards.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Charles Kennedy voted AGAINST this motion.

Out of a possible twenty-one, Charles Kennedy scores twelve – easily the best score out of the three major political party leaders. Not only that, he also managed to vote on every single one of my top issues, and where we disagreed it tended to be on issues of conscience (such as hunting) rather than those of policy.

So, if I judged purely on history, I would clearly be voting for the Liberal Democrats at the next General Election. But there’s a long way to go yet (I expect), and there’s plenty of opportunity for me to change my mind…

As promised, I’m now going to compare how I would’ve voted in what are considered to be the twenty-one key votes of the Labour government with how the Conservative Leader voted. For full explanations of why I would’ve voted the way I have stated, refer to the earlier post.

Cutting Lone Parent Benefit (10th Dec 1997)
This motion was an attempt to block the government’s plans to cut lone parent benefit.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

Military Action against Iraq (17th March 1998)
This was a motion to allow military action to be taken against Iraq should peace attempts fail.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard voted FOR this motion.

Cuts in Student Funding (8th June 1998)
This was a motion to oppose the government’s plans to cut student funding.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard voted FOR this motion.

Age of Consent (22nd June 1998 and 10th Feb 2000)
This was a motion to lower the age of consent for homosexual sex to sixteen.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Incapacity Benefits Means Test (10th May 1999)
This was a motion to oppose the government’s plans to introduce means testing for incapacity benefit.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard voted FOR this motion.

Freedom of Information Legislation (5th April 2000)
This was an ammendment to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information bill.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard voted FOR this motion.

Ban on Hunting with Dogs (17th Jan 2001)
This was a motion to ban hunting with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

Afghanistan Airstrikes (11th Nov 2001)
This was a motion against the government’s backing for airstrikes on Afghanistan.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Anti-terrorism Legislation (21st Nov 2001)
This was a motion to give the government the right to detain foreign terrorists without trial.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard DID NOT VOTE on this motion

Single Faith Schools (6th Feb 2002)
This was a motion to require faith schools to take 25% of pupils from other backgrounds.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (18th Mar 2002)
This was a motion to completely ban hunting wild animals with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

Licensing of Hunting (18th Mar 2002)
This was a compromise measure to allow foxhunting under licence.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Adoption (4th Nov 2002)
This was a motion to allow unmarried and gay couples to adopt children.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

UN Resolution 1441 (25st Nov 2002)
This was a motion to limit the justification for war with Iraq without UN sancation.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

House of Lords (4th Feb 2003)
This was a motion to introduce a fully elected House of Lords.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted FOR this motion.

House of Lords (4th Feb 2003)
This was a motion to introduce a fully appointed House of Lords.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

Foundation Hospitals (7th May 2003)
This was a motion opposing the introduction of Foundation Hospitals.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Michael Howard DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (30th June 2003)
This was a motion to completely ban hunting with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

Top-up Fees (27th January 2004)
This was the bill which included plans for variable student tutition fees.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (15th Sep 2004)
This was a bill to bane foxhunting and hare coursing.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted AGAINST this motion.

ID Cards (20th Dec 2004)
This was the bill introducing ID cards.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Michael Howard voted FOR this motion.

So, out of a possible score of 21, Michael Howard gets 10. This is considerably better than Tony Blair’s score of 3, but it still means that he disagreed with my course of action more than he agreed. There’s also the worry that he didn’t bother to vote on seven of what I consider to be very important occasions.

This puts the Conservative Party in the lead by a mile, but there’s plenty of scope for the Lib Dems to pull ahead when I review how Charles Kennedy voted. Keep watching for that.