Instant Opinion is the surprisingly popular sjhoward.co.uk spin-off book of political opinion available from all good bookshops, including sjhoward.co.uk/shop (£5.65), Tesco (£7.05), and Waterstones (£7.42).

The contents of the book are also available as a PDF document, usually selling for £3.49. However, for a very limited time, I am able to offer the eBook version for just 79p. That’s the same price as a single song on iTunes, yet provides over 200 pages of quality political content in easy-to-read PDF format.

This bargain price represents a massive 77% off the usual retail price of the eBook, or 89% off the usual retail price of the print edition.

The idea is that if you particularly enjoy the eBook edition, you may be more tempted to treat yourself to the print edition – yet there is absolutely no obligation to make any further purchases. If you don’t like it, you’ve wasted 79p. If you love it and go on to buy a print copy, you’ll have made me a little more happy.

For this very special offer, payment can only be made by PayPal, and only through the special (subtle) link at the bottom of this post. Thank you for your support!

Update: The offer has now expired, but the eBook is still available at the original price of £3.49.

Photo provided by the Lib Dems Nick Clegg made a complete prat of himself today, wandering around a huge stage in a quite nauseating way, speaking without a script but most clearly not off-the-cuff, in a pale imitation of something David Cameron might have attempted. He made bad jokes, he attempted audience participation with lacklustre consequences, and the whole thing looked – at best – amateurish.

In short, Nick Clegg is a complete electoral turn off, and takes himself far too seriously to attempt the tactics he tried today.

It’s bizarre, in a way. Clegg is trying to argue that he wants a ‘different kind of politics’, yet is trying to communicate that message through endless hackneyed political stunts carried out badly. A walkout isn’t a walkout if it’s obviously planned, a prompt-free speech isn’t off-the-cuff when it’s over-rehearsed, and conscientiously abstaining doesn’t work under a three-line-whip.

The most successful Liberal Democrat leader was Charles Kennedy, not because he was a great political operator, but because he engaged his own target audience. He pretty much shunned the traditional political ways of Westminster, and engaged in a pretty unique chat-show style that looked different, sounded more civilised, and genuinely engaged an ever-growing section of the population.

Much of David Cameron’s style, such as his attempt at manufacturing a personality, comes from imitation of Kennedy, not of Blair. And yet, just as these tactics are working, the Lib Dems have abandoned them.

Nick Clegg is not a good Party Leader, but he could become one. He clearly needs time to grow into his new role, but there surely must be mutterings within the Party today about quite how long he should be given. Charles Kennedy, returning in a shower of glory having conquered his drink problem, may be exactly what the Lib Dems need right now.

Ronnie Campbell plays protagonist in the funniest story I’ve read in ages.

Shortly, MPs are to vote on how big a pay increase they should give themselves. Even asking such a question of MPs – essentially, how much money do you want – seems crazy enough, but this is British politics, and so craziness is par for the course.

So, happily, that’s not where the craziness ends.

See, Gordon Brown wants MPs to limit their pay increases to 1.9%, since that’s what other public sector workers are getting.

This totally ignores the fact that MPs are currently earning £60,675 – or more than double that for cabinet ministers – compared to £22,000 for a nurse, £20,000 for a police officer, or £15,000 for a soldier. Limiting the increase to the same relative value as these people has no real meaning. Perhaps limiting their salary to the public sector average would have some meaning, and may focus minds a little more – although still, with the number of perks received by MPs, the figures would not be truly comparable.

Where is the justification in paying MPs so much more than other public sector workers? Their job is to represent the views of their constituents – something few of them actually seem to do these days – and such a position should be seen as a privilege, not an arduous task for which financial recompense needs to be comparatively extreme.

Looking at things this way makes Daniel Kawczynski comments seem loopy:

I can’t look into the eyes of my constituents who are police officers and say ‘you will stick at 1.9% but I, as an MP, should have more than that’.

…but apparently he can look them in the eyes and say ‘Hey, I sit in a cosy office all day, you risk your life on the streets, I deserve thrice your pay!’

This decision over one’s own body is for the conscience – the conscience of individual citizens in this country. It is not for this Parliament, by free vote or other vote, to impose upon them a requisition of their bodies after death for the state.

So said John Reid, a little over three years ago. It would appear that Gordon Brown now disagrees. And, for once, I agree with Reid.

I have no moral, religious, or ideological issues with organ donation, and have been a registered organ donor for several years. I do, however, have a strong objection to the proposed suspension of the idea of informed consent – a guiding principle of modern medical practice.

There are so many deep practical problems with the idea of presumed ‘consent’ – not least of all that presumed consent in such a context is realistically no consent at all, and that once a mistake has been made, it cannot be undone.

But, most of all, we’re skipping steps. We’re going from a situation of maintaining a relatively little-known and little-promoted organ donor register to presumed consent, without trying anything in between.

For appropriate candidates, it should be made a legal requirement that relatives are asked about organ donation as part of the death certification. This would immediately increase the number of donations, as doctors are poor at asking such questions for fear of embarrassment, insensitivity, and upset. As a standard legal question it would be unavoidable.

This would be a simple, non-controversial measure that could be put in place very quickly and would increase the number of viable organs available for transplant.

Why don’t we give it a go?

Surely Peter Hain can’t keep both his ministerial posts for much longer?

‘Forgetting’ to declare over £100,000 twice – once to the Electoral Commission and once to the register of Members’ Interests – is stretching the boundaries of belief, but forgetting even when already hiding where the money is coming from by setting up dodgy think tanks which have never actually met is simply unbelievable.

And then seemingly publicly endorsing donors… Surely he’s pushed this too far.

Besides, it seems a rare thing for a minister to publicly say they won’t resign and then manage to keep their job – see Blunkett, Clarke, et al.

I know I’m weeks late – that’s life, I guess – but may I remind you of what I said after Iowa:

I’m no expert on US politics, but I don’t see how you can write off a candidate who is nationally polling at 41%, versus a nearest rival at 24% … Perhaps the results from Iowa mean less than many pundits suggest

I just felt the need to gloat, there – I know it’s not pretty.

Is the US President really ‘Leader of the Free World’? It seems that some people think not – and they’ve got a petition going. It’s an interesting point, I think.

Hillary Clinton: Shapeshift, modified under licenceSuggestions abound in the blogosphere that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is ‘toast’ after coming third in the Iowa caucus.

I’m no expert on US politics, but I don’t see how you can write off a candidate who is nationally polling at 41%, versus a nearest rival at 24%. Clinton’s even leading by 6% over Obama in New Hampshire, so perhaps the results from Iowa mean less than many pundits suggests.

It’s mildly amusing that here in the UK, no-one really cares about the Republican candidates, to the extent that they weren’t even mentioned on one of the country’s biggest news bulletins last night. It’s hard to tell whether it’s because the nation is only interested in Clinton or because Bush has left us so disillusioned with the Republicans that we want to hear no more about the party…

I think either Clinton and Obama, as the two most likely Democratic candidates, would make a welcome change from Bush, who seems to have redefined the presidential role to achieve his own ends. Either would seem to provide a relatively level head in the White House – something that appears to have been missing for a while.

As for the Republicans… Meh, I have no idea… Who the hell is Huckabee?

But watching such a close race between seemingly good Democratic candidates is very exciting, and now I’ve started reading more about it, I’m becoming more and more addicted. It’s like The West Wing – but in real life! Well, almost.

The Iowa Caucuses seem truly nailbitingly exciting tonight. Does that say more about me or about politics?