Tories set to unveil tax cut plan (BBC News)

I don’t think we, in our wildest dreams, thought that the Conservatives would drop the ball to the extent that they have done

The words of Matthew Taylor. I do wish the Lib Dems would get control of their language – you can drop a ball or not drop it. You cannot have an ‘extent’ of ball-dropping. It’s this kind of silly slip and bad writing that makes them look amateurish, and not like a future government.

I’m just about to watch Mr Howard’s speech about Tax Cuts. I hope he doesn’t go as far as the headlines seem to be suggesting, because it will make people think that he’s going to cut services in a big way, which will play right into slimy Milburn’s slimy hands.

Milburn looks to radical third term (Epolitix)

Every time I see Alan Milburn speak, it makes me want to vote anything but Labour. I’m sure that’s not the intention, but I’m equally sure I’m not the only one who cannot stand this man. So why do they insist on using him in an election campaign? He can only be damaging. He is the most obivously slimy, smarmy politician I’ve ever seen wheeled out to try and win people’s votes.

Conservative MP defects to Labour (BBC News)

I do think that it’s rather unfortunate that MPs are allowed to do this. They get elected with the backing of one party, using their policies to convince the electorate to vote for them, and once they’ve got their seat they defect to another party with (theorectically) opposing views. It really isn’t on.

Surely Mr Jackson knew back in 2001 that the Conservatives were dirfting further rightwards – so why did he stand as their candidate? Perhaps because the local electorate are likely to vote Conservative? Since he’s standing down at the next election, this seems a likely reason.

Perhaps there’s a tactic for some of the minor parties here – get their supporters to join one of the big parties for which people are likely to vote, and once elected, switch to the minority party, thereby getting them seats in the Commons that they probably would not otherwise have gained.

Therefore, I feel that the most honest thing for Mr Jackson to do in these circumstances would be to resign as a Conservative MP, triggering a by-election in which he should restand as a Labour MP, giving the electorate a representative with whose party line they agree. But he wouldn’t want to do that, because he might be defeated.

He believes students should pay tuition fees, that Tony Blair should not be criticised over his handling of the Iraq war and that more powers should be given to Europe

And how long has he been believing all this? If he’s believed it since before 2001, then I hope he didn’t campaign against his beliefs, as this would make him a very dishonorable and dishonest Member. Perfect for the Labour party, then.

MPs’ fury at Blair and Brown (Guardian)

Well, it appears I’ve been misjudging this story. It would appear that a rivalry far more bitter than that which I had imagined does indeed exist between these two, and that they really are employing the most puerile tactics to attack each other, and helping to destroy the party in the process.

I thought they were more intelligent than that.

This certainly cannot be good for the country. United leadership is effective leaadership. Of course, how you define effective is open to opinion (I am certainly no fan of the New Labour agenda), but one reaches one’s goals most effectively when one’s team is united against a common enemy. The lack of a strong enemy is probably what has brought about the infighting in the first place: With no-one in particular to attack, Brown and Blair attack each other.

With the Conservative Party’s history, it is a little difficult for them to launch a sustained moral attack on a warring leadship, which leaves the door open for Charlie Kennedy. If he can make big enough gains in the forthcoming (we assume) election, then he could easily hold the balance of power. And that would be a lovely situation in which to find himself.

Of course, the other possibility in all of this (though I accept that the chances are practically zero) is that Mr Brown launches an all-out assault on the Prime Minister now, delaying a General Election until much later in the year, or even into next year, with him leading the party. Or, possibly, somebody else altogether leading them.

Whatever’s going on here, it’s damaging to Labour. And if Michael Howard doesn’t give a convincing and strong performance at this week’s PMQs, then he’s not worth his salt. Mr Blair should be looking pretty silly come Wednesday afternoon.

But there’s a silver lining here for Mr Brown: He has clearly shown himself to be in touch with the majority of the electorate… He doesn’t believe a word Mr Blair says.

Blair ‘said he would stand down’

Right now, very little could make me happier than to find out for sure that this extended speculation, as well as the attacks from the Tories, are as a result of Tony Blair’s misjudged attempts to manipulate the press. It still seems much more likely to me than the speech timing being a coincidence, particularly under Alistair Campbell’s grid system… And I was disgusted to read that Alistair Campbell is being rehired to play a role in the election campaigning. How can anyone vote for such a dirty party? There’s hardly anyone left who hasn’t spent at least some time on the scrap heap.

Brown and I united, insists Blair (BBC News)

A very good use of an apparent disadvantage here between Brown and Blair. Without this clash, their speeches (and therefore their agendas) wouldn’t have got nearly such wide coverage. And the clash doesn’t really damage them, it’s always been fairly clear that there’s a rift of some kind between Blair and Brown and this just adds fuel to the speculation. A very Blairite media manipulation, if you ask me.

No election TV debate, says Blair (BBC News)

For a man apparently trying to reinvigorate interest in elections, this would seem a strange decision. Perhaps he’s worried that it would give a boost to the oppostition, and make him look silly in an election which he’s fairly certain to win anyway.

The best move now for the Conservatives would be to arrange a televised debate between Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy, and then point out that Mr Blair cannot be bothered to attend to defend his policies. It could be a primetime Labour-bashing programme, an opportunity surely too good to miss?

Howard concedes Tories may not win election (ThisIsLondon)

Talk about playing the media well – Michael Howard guarantees a high billing in tomorrow’s papers by ‘admitting’ the obvious – that he might not win the next election. And he’s releasing his manifesto in something of a drip-feed manner, releasing the introduction today, so he’ll get coverage for each little bit. Very good idea. Bravo.

No sex is safe sex for teens in America (Guardian)

I was just formulating in my head a fairly complimentary post based on this article, along the lines of “It’s not how I’d go about it, but they’re clearly doing better than us so perhaps their strategy is better.”

Then I got to this bit.

‘What do you also hear will keep you safe?’ [the teacher] asked. ‘Condoms,’ they answered.
‘Do they keep you safe?’ she asked. ‘No,’ they chorused.
She is banned by law from promoting the benefits of correctly used condoms.

Oh deary, deary me. So those students who will inevitably have sex anyway will not be educated in how to protect themselves. I know the Americans are all for Abstinance Only, and I’d be perfectly happy with that if they didn’t take quite as strong an approach to “only”. This is getting dangerously close to misinformation. Though clearly not as close as this:

The Bush administration is funding sexual health projects that teach children that HIV can be contracted through sweat and tears, touching genitals can result in pregnancy, and that a 43-day-old foetus is a thinking person.

George, what are you doing to these young people’s minds?

Whilst I admit that the link is tenuous, I thought I’d tag onto the end of this post the winning entry in this year’s bad sex award, simply because it made me laugh so much.

Hoyt began moving his lips as if he were trying to suck the ice cream off the top of a cone without using his teeth. She tried to make her lips move in sync with his. The next thing she knew, Hoyt had put his hand sort of under her thigh and hoisted her leg up over his thigh. What was she to do? Was this the point she should say, “Stop!”? No, she shouldn’t put it that way. It would be much cooler to say, “No, Hoyt,” in an even voice, the way you would talk to a dog that insists on begging at the table.

Slither slither slither slither went the tongue, but the hand that was what she tried to concentrate on, the hand, since it has the entire terrain of her torso to explore and not just the otorhinolaryngological caverns – oh God, it was not just at the border where the flesh of the breast joins the pectoral sheath of the chest – no, the hand was cupping her entire right – Now! She must say “No, Hoyt” and talk to him like a dog. . .

. . . the fingers went under the elastic of the panties moan moan moan moan moan went Hoyt as he slithered slithered slithered slithered and caress caress caress caress went the fingers until they must be only eighths of inches from the border of her public hair – what’s that! – Her panties were so wet down. . . there – the fingers had definitely reached the outer stand of the field of pubic hair and would soon plunge into the wet mess that was waiting right. . . there-there-

Taken from I am Charlotte Simmons by Tom Wolfe.

Prescott defends quake response (BBC News)

Prescott’s on the defensive. And all because Mr Blair won’t cut his holiday short.

John Prescott is an absolute dream of a politician, at least as far as comedians go. He’s always angry. He desperately tries to sound sympathetic to the poor people in Asia, and yet comes across as livid as the questioner. And despite what he actually said in the interview, his body language and tone really seemed to suggest that he thought Mr Blair should have come home from Egypt. So all-in-all, it was something of a failure of an interview.

Conservative leader Michael Howard said he would have returned had he been in the same position. However, Mr Howard said Mr Blair’s decision was up to the prime minister.

Mr Howard, on the same programme, performed much better than in his rehashed article from this morning, handling the above question rather well, since he criticised the Prime Minister without explictly saying he was wrong. He toed the line, and he did it with great skill. Well done Mr Howard – I think you won this round.