The Last of the Time Lords

And so, last night BBC3 showed The Last of the Time Lords, ending the 29th season of Doctor Who.

I can admit not liking it much when it was first shown, but my appreciation has grown with each time I've seen it.

The episode opens unconventionally, with a voiced warning to an alien passing by that "Sol 3 is facing terminal extinction" and warning any passing to avoid Earth. And the words "One Year Later" appear on screen. Now, I know this has been viewed as a cop-out, with some viewers wanting to see the intervening year, but I think this is simple and effective. Earth is under occupation, under threat, a no-go area.

And on a deserted beach (I think it's Kent) a doctor, Tom Milligan, is waiting for Martha to arrive in a small boat, back from her year walking the Earth. Martha has become the stuff of legend- it is said that she is the only one to get out of Japan alive and she is the only one who can kill the Master. However, her priority is to get inside a labour camp to speak to a professor, Alison Docherty. The whole south coast of England has been turned into a rocket-building site, and slave labour is brought in daily. Martha tells Tom that the Master is planning war against the rest of the universe, who won't expect it.

And on board the Valiant, things have changed, with Francine, Clive and Tish as slaves, Jack being chained up and the Doctor a broken man, reduced to living in a tent and with a dog's bowl labelled "Doctor". The Master taunts the Doctor about how he defeated Axons and Sea Devils, closed the Medusa Cascade single-handedly, and is reduced to this- all thanks to the Master. It is quite disconcerting to see what the Doctor has become. And the Master taunts him with commenting that knowing what the Toclafane are broke the Doctor's hearts. And he will use the Toclafane to build a new Time Lord empire, saying that the Doctor loves the Toclafane very much.

Martha and Tom find Docherty, who has got an old TV working, and the Master is transmitting to Earth, a message for Martha. Using his laser screwdriver, he ages the Doctor to his full 900+ years. At this point, as the Doctor's suit lies empty on the floor, I actually thought the Doctor had been killed off. Really, the only time watching Doctor Who that I have thought that. But a small, wizened creature (which some fans unkindly call "Gollum" emerges).

And the Doctor is humiliated further when he is put in a birdcage.

Martha tells Docherty that she came to see her to "know your enemy" and that a Toclafane was brought down by lightning in South Africa- and Docherty is able to recreate this to capture a Toclafane, which they open up...

Inside is an old, wizened face. My first thought was Davros. Then it speaks to Martha, identifying her, telling her that they made it to Utopia, she helped them get there, and the sky was not made of diamonds. In Utopia, Martha befriended a boy, Creet, who had told her that his mother had said that on Utopia the sky was made of diamonds. And then it dawns that the Toclafane she is speaking to is Creet. When Tom sees her shock and asks her what the Toclafane are, she tells him "They're us." What she learns from Creet is that there was no escape from that future, the cold, the darkness- then the Master came with his time machine.

Docherty has a question- if they come back in time, haven't they altered their future? Isn't this a paradox?

This in interspersed with the Master and Lucy talking to the Doctor about their trip to 100 trillion years in the future. And Lucy talks about it being dark, cold, with the universe collapsing (although, considering that the expansion of the universe is speeding up, rather than slowing down, she must mean it metaphorically) and the Master talks about going to Utopia, finding humanity and coming up with this plan. The Doctor tells him that this is altering the future not just of Earth, but of the whole universe. The Master angrily replies that, as a Time Lord, that is his right, and echoing the Doctor's words to Harriet Jones in The Christmas Invasion, humans are the biggest monsters of them all.

Martha explains her plan to Tom and Docherty, saying that UNIT and Torchwood have been watching the Doctor and the Master for years, and have developed a gun to kill a Time Lord. It has four chemicals in it, and she found three of them so far- in San Diego, Budapest and Beijing. The last one is in an old UNIT base in north London (presumably where the Doctor was based when he was UNIT's Scientific Advisor) and she needs to get there. She and Tom will stay at a workers' place in Bexley that night.

When they go, Docherty contacts the Valiant, saying that she has information for the Master, and also wants to know if her son is safe.

Martha and Tom make it to a terraced house in Bexley, where slave labourers are crammed in. She tells them that she has been walking the Earth, and everywhere she goes she sees people like them, and she tells the about the Doctor. The Master arrives in the street, and she surrenders to him, and Tom is killed by the Master when he goes to her help.

On the Valiant, Martha is brought before the Master to be executed, in the sight of her parents, sister, the Doctor and Jack. The Master makes her hand over her teleport device, and says that she will be killed the moment that the rockets launch, with their black hole converters. Martha starts laughing, and ask the Master whether he seriously believed in a gun in four parts- she knew that Docherty would betray her, and that was part of the Resistance's plan. The Doctor points out that he wouldn't ask Martha to kill, and Martha says that when she walked the Earth, she did one simple thing- she told people the truth. She told them to think and say one word when the missiles are about to launch- "Doctor". The Master scoffs about this tactic- faith, hope, prayer. Then Martha points out that the Archangel network created a low-level telepathic field, controlling humanity, and humanity can use it to take control back. The Master's weapon has been turned against him- a very classic and common way for the Doctor to defeat the bad guys. The Doctor says that under occupation, there were a lot of things the humans couldn't do, but there is one thing that they could do, one thing the Master couldn't prevent- he couldn't stop them thinking. The humans are able to return the Doctor to how he was, and he hugs the Master, telling him he forgives him- the one thing the Master doesn't want to hear. The Master teleports himself and the Doctor to Earth, where they see the rockets about to launch, and the Master threatens to activate the black hole converters- destroying Earth. But the Doctor says that the Master wouldn't kill himself. They teleport back to the Valiant.

Jack gets to the TARDIS, and destroys the Paradox Machine. Time reverses, and UNIT Central, in Geneva, calls the Valiant, saying that they have just seen Arthur Winters assassinated, and want to know what's happening (presumably, Winters' running-mate is the unpopular President whom Henry van Statten wanted replaced in Dalek.)

There is one question- what happens with the Master? Clive, Francine and Tish are clear- he must die, with Francine taking a gun and pointing out that although time has been reversed, all those things happened to them. But the Doctor tells her she's better than the Master, and persuades her not to shoot.

For the Doctor, there is only one solution- the Master is his responsibility, and so he must give up his travels and look after the Master. But, Lucy takes the gun and shoots the Master.

The Doctor pleads with the Master to regenerate, but the Master refuses, saying that the Doctor was wrong- he will choose to die, and this is his winning, as it leaves the Doctor alone, the last of the Time Lords..

Before dying in the Doctor's arms, the Master asks about the drumbeat, the never-ending sound of drums, that he has heard since looking into the Time Vortex when he was an 8-year-old boy; will he be free of it?

There are several codas to this adventure.

The Doctor burns the Master's body. However, after he has gone, someone- who appears to be Lucy- picks up the Master's ring and we hear chuckling, sounding like Anthony Ainley's laughter.

The Doctor, Martha and Jack return to Cardiff. Martha remarks that in the alternative reality they experienced, all these people knew the Doctor, and now they don't. And as far as the Doctor is concerned, that's the way he likes it. He fiddles with Jack's Time Manipulator so it cannot travel in time (whether he can still teleport with it is something that we might get answered in Torchwood).

Jack remarks about how he was thinking of Gwen, Ianto, Toshiko and Owen during "the year that never was" and how he wants to get back to them, turning down the Doctor's offer to come with him. He has learned more about his responsibilities, defending the Earth. Now, the first Torchwood appearance, in The Christmas Invasion, led to the Doctor arguing with Harriet Jones, with Harriet pointing out that the Doctor isn't always there, and the Earth has to defend itself without him there. It seems from now on, Torchwood can do that- with the Doctor's blessing.

Jack is still troubled by his immortality. He wonders what he'll look like when he is millions of years old. He remarks on how he was a poster boy for the Time Agency- he was the first person from the Boeshane Peninsula to join, and got nicknamed "the Face of Boe"!

And the shock was the Martha leaves. She has her family to look after, after all they went through. She leaves the Doctor her mobile phone, telling him that when she rings, he comes running. (Next year, Martha will be in a few episodes of the second season of Torchwood, before rejoining the Doctor later in the thirtieth season of Doctor Who).

So, that's the end of this season. A few thoughts on this:

• if Jack is the Face of Boe, why does he still believe he is immortal, when in Utopia Martha mentions the Face of Boe's death?
• who is to blame for "the year that never was"? At first sight, the Master. But, when the Doctor fused the TARDIS's controls in Utopia, the Master could only go to present-day Earth and set this plan in motion. Moreover, the Master only became Minister for Defence due to Harriet's downfall as Prime Minister- which the Doctor was responsible for.
• the ultimate fate of humanity seems out of place with Doctor Who's optimistic view of humans. If the Daleks were able to build a void ship for Army of Ghosts/Doomsday, then surely humanity would be able to do the same by 100 trillion years hence, and escape to other universes.
• we have seen both the Doctor and the Master become human. Did other Time Lords do the same? What about Romana? Although a lot of fandom assumes that she returned to N-space and became President of the Time Lords, nothing on-screen suggests that she isn't still in E-space. Could the Charged Vacuum Emboitments allow Time Lords to escape the Time War? Could they provide an escape route for humanity?
• what was the drumming all about? Although it seems to be associated with the Toclafane, the Master has heard it since he looked into the Time Vortex. The drumbeat was in his head from before Terror of the Autons and past Survival. Just what did he see? The Toclafane as far back as an 8-year-old? Is something going on that has only been hinted at?
• what was all that stuff about the Master's ring towards the end? Did he survive?

The Sound of Drums

Continuing with the BBC3 repeats of Doctor Who, this evening saw The Sound of Drums.

Firstly, the resolution of Utopia was a cop-out. The Doctor is able to use his sonic screwdriver to repair Jack's Time Manipulator to take them all back to the present day. And they have to track down the Master...

And a tramp is knocking a coin against a mug, making the sound of drums, the same as Yana had heard in his mind. And Martha realises that the Master is Harold Saxon, and then on a TV they see Saxon, and his wife, Lucy, returning from Buckingham Palace after Saxon has agreed to be Prime Minister. The Doctor's shock at the Master being Prime Minister is overshadowed by his shock at the Master being married.

And Martha's sister, Tish, is at Downing Street, working for the Master.

The Master's first Cabinet meeting isn't what the Cabinet expected. Now, he mentions that the Cabinet is finally in session in the Cabinet room- the room was, of course, the only part of Downing Street to survive the missile launch back in Aliens of London/World War Three, but it seems that Number 10 has been restored to the state it was in then.

One of his Cabinet points out that they have no policies, whilst the Master calls them "snivelling, rat-faced traitors", accusing them of leaping on the Saxon bandwagon once it appeared that things were going his way, and then puts on a gas mask. A few minutes later, he is the only one alive, and he is tapping the table, that same drumbeat that is always cropping up.

The Doctor, Martha and Jack go to Martha's flat, and Martha mentions that she had planned to vote Saxon, but when asked by the Doctor, neither she nor Jack can remember anything much, and Martha just tells him that Saxon just sounded nice, someone you can trust- and while she's doing that, she's tapping her fingers, making that drumbeat.


The Doctor does explain that he fused the TARDIS controls, so it can only go to two time periods- the present day and 100 trillion years in the future.

Jack is trying to get hold of his Torchwood colleagues, while not telling the Doctor who they are.

Saxon addresses the nation on TV, talking about all the alien encounters of the past years- the Slitheen in Aliens of London/World War Three, the Sycorax in The Christmas Invasion, the Cybermen and Daleks in Army of Ghosts/Doomsday and the Racnoss in The Runaway Bride- and that the Government has kept the truth hidden. But, he will be different, and introduces the Toclafane, basically spheres which are promising loads of wonderful things- all too good to be true- and just want friendship in return.

The Doctor sees through this, as the Toclafane are simply a nursery story for Time Lords. And then he and his companions have to flee before Martha's flat is blown up. Martha realises they are after her, worries about her family, and phones Francine, her mum. Francine urges her to come round, saying that she and Martha's dad, Clive, are having another attempt with their marriage. Clive tells Martha that there are others there, and he is taken away by police. As is Francine. And in Downing Street, Tish is taken.

Vivian Rook, of Sunday Mirror, tries to tell Lucy that Saxon is a fraud, that all the things in his history- parents, Cambridge etc.- are inventions, but that people simply aren't seeing through it. Saxon turns up, confirms that he isn't real, tells Rook that he is the Master, and introduces her to the Toclafane, who kill her (off-screen). What makes the Toclafane creepy is that they treat killing her as a joke- "The lady doesn't like us. Silly lady. Dead lady."

The Doctor, Martha and Jack get to the Jones' road as Clive and Francine are being kidnapped, and flee by car, while being shot at by police. As Martha phones her brother, Leo, to warn him, the Master butts in on the conversation, and when the Doctor realises, he speaks to the Master.

This is one of the most moving parts of the adventure. The Master saw the Dalek Emperor take control of the Cruciform (whatever that is about), and from the Doctor's reaction, it seems that this is a very important event. The Master says that he just ran and ran, and became human to hide from "them"- not sure if he means the Daleks or the Time Lords.

When the Master asks about Gallifrey, the Doctor tells him it burnt, and the Time Lords and Daleks are gone. And the Master works that the Doctor brought it all to an end- and, as the Master seems to like destruction on a huge scale, he wants to know what it felt like, to destroy two great civilisations; that the Doctor must have been like a god doing that.

When the Doctor suggests that they can carry on their battle away from Earth, the Master says he can't. Now, it implied to me that this would turn out to be something like the days when Jon Pertwee was the Doctor and Roger Delgado the Master, and the Master would often team up with some alien race, and be out of his depth, and have to work with the Doctor. And the Master talks of the never ending drumbeat in his head, coming closer.

We are treated to the Doctor and his companions with no TARDIS, no-one to turn to, identified, as the Master describes it as "Public Enemies Number One, Two and Three", although he does praise them for "ticking every demographic box"! Going on the run, eating chips (which crop up in many stories!).

And the Doctor tells his companions more of the back story than we have seen before. Gallifrey does look suitably impressive, as I have imagined it, and the Time Lord images are consistent with what has been in older adventures set on Gallifrey. And we learn of how children were taken from their families at age 8, to enter the Academy, and looked into the Untempered Schism, a rift in the fabric of reality, where they look into the Time Vortex (odd, as the Doctor has warned before of the dangers of doing that). Some are inspired, some (like the Doctor) run, and others (the Master?) go mad. Interesting reaction when Martha jokes that she thought the Master could be the Doctor's secret brother.

And Jack shares a set of files Rook emailed him, and reveals he works for Torchwood, which the Doctor is not particularly pleased with, after all they've done. But Jack mollifies the Doctor by saying he took Torchwood after the Battle of Canary Wharf, and rebuilt it in the Doctor's honour. Rook's files concentrate on the Archangel network, 15 satellites dealing with the mobile phone signals- and when the Doctor amplifies the signal that Martha's phone gets from Archangel, there is the drumbeat.

Archangel was launched 18 months earlier (which means between May and July 2007- for reasons I'll come to in a moment), and this was when Saxon first became known and became Defence Minister. This was, apparently, just after the downfall of Harriet Jones, which meant she remained as Prime Minister for a few months after the incident with the Sycorax (December 2006). Now, the Battle of Canary Wharf must have been summer 2007, so the Master was there, plotting, while the Daleks and Cybermen invaded. So, why did he ask the Doctor what happened to the Daleks, when he knew they survived?

The Master becomes Prime Minister in the wake of a General Election. Now, this means that there has been a change of Government, which implies that the Master must have gone from Government to Opposition and back to Government in the space of 18 months. This is Britain, not Italy! The way round this is to assume that after the Battle of Canary Wharf, a National Government was formed to deal with the aftermath, and the Master was able to build his political party in that context.

There is an amusing interlude, where the Master is watching the Teletubbies, and when a Toclafane appears, he remarks on how incredible the Teletubbies are, having TV in their stomachs. This is, of course, an in-joke, harking back at the Master watching the Clangers on TV in The Sea Devlis, and jokingly talking about them as if they are real. The Toclafane say that they must run from the darkness and the cold- now, this should have been a clear giveaway to their real identity, which I have to say I missed.

The Doctor plans how to avoid capture. Traditionally, the TARDIS was described as having a chamaeleon circuit to disguise itself. But the Doctor mentions that there is an extra defence- it has a perception filter, which means that people don't notice it. In Torchwood's first episode, Everything Changes, Jack explains the "invisible lift" to Gwen by referring to the TARDIS having landed there in Boom Town when the rift opened, and that its perception filter properties were welded to that spot.

The Doctor, Martha and Jack each have a TARDIS key, and the Doctor is able to link the perception filter effect in them to the Archangel network. So, effectively, this combines the perception filter with the low-level telepathic field that Archangel sends out, so people will see the Doctor and his companions but not notice them.

Using this, they get to an airbase, where Air Force One is arriving. Arthur Winters, President-Elect of the USA (hence this is set between November 2008 and January 2009), wants to see the Master as the plans to meet the Toclafane breach United Nations policy, as First Contact cannot take place on any nation's sovereign territory, and so, Winters insists that it's held on neutral territory, on the UNIT aircraft carrier, the Valiant.

Once Winters has gone, Francine, Clive and Tish are bundled out of a police van and then taken elsewhere. Martha is torn between going to their aid, and sticking to whatever plan the Doctor has. Jack suggests breaking the Master's neck, but the Doctor tells him that they're there to save the Master, not kill him. Jack is able to get the Valiant's co-ordinates, and they teleport there.

It is in the atmosphere, above the North Sea. The Doctor tracks down the TARDIS, but when they go inside, it looks radically different- the Master has created a Paradox Machine. Whatever that is.

And, the world waits for First Contact. The Toclafane appear and Winters welcomes them to Earth. They say they want "Mr Master" and the Master reveals his real identity, ordering them to kill Winters. Which they do. And then the Master temporarily kills Jack with his laser screwdriver ("Who'd have sonic?") and has Francine, Clive and Tish brought in as prisoners.

And part of the plot in The Lazarus Experiment is revealed. Why did the Master fund Lazarus' work on the Genetic Manipulation Device. He explains that he has put all the GMD technology into the laser screwdriver. All he needs is the Doctor's biological code- and he has the Doctor's hand. So, he ages the Doctor by 100 years.

Then, he activates the Paradox Machine, and a rift opens, with billions of Toclafane descending, obeying his instructions to kill 10% of humans. And Martha takes the Doctor's and Jack's advice, and teleports out, ending in a field, watching the Toclafane and promising she'll be back....

I thought this was an impressive episode, quite full of drama. I had various ideas as to how it would end:

• the Toclafane came through a rift. Is this the rift in the fabric of reality that the Master looked into when he was 8?
• are the Toclafane an old enemy of the Time Lords? Simply reduced to children's fairy tales over the aeons?
• what is the darkness and the cold that they are running from?

Chan, Utopia, Tho

The BBC3 repeats of Doctor Who tonight saw Utopia, the first part of the three-part season finale, which tries to tie up a lot of threads from the last three seasons.

The episode follows straight on from the ending of End of Days, the final episode of the first season of Torchwood. The TARDIS is in Roald Dahl Plaza, drawing in energy from the Rift. And Jack Harkness is running towards it, and the Doctor sees him, so dematerialises the TARDIS, but it races 100 trillion years into the future, with Jack hanging on to it.

They have ended up on Malcassairo, where a group of humans are waiting for a rocket to fly, to take them to Utopia. They face the danger from the Futurekind, a race of primitive savages who simply want to eat humans. And inside the Silo, Professor Yana and his assistant Chanto are trying to develop the system which enables the rocker to fly.

Chanto is the last of the Malmooth, the civilisation that lived on Malcassairo. She has to begin everything she says with "Chan" and end it with "Tho".

As the Doctor tells Martha, what has killed the Malmooth is time. On current theories of stellar evolution, the vast majority of even the feeblest, weakest stars have gone. The darkness isn't night, but a cold, empty, abandoned universe. All the great civilisations (except one) have gone. He is quite affected when realising that Yana and Chantho have not even heard of the Time Lords, not even as mythical creatures. This far in the future, even the Time Lords have been forgotten. The furthest in the future that the Doctor has gone before is in Gridlock, and this is 20,000 times as far.

But, as the Doctor points out, there is one civilisation that has survived- humanity.

But don't get too optimistic- as in a couple of episodes time, we find out the ultimate fate of humanity, and it isn't nice...

Yana is a sympathetic character, the kindly scientist trying to save the humans- thousands of years earlier the Science Foundation created the Utopia Project, with the aim of saving humanity, and now a message has come to the humans of Malcassairo, calling across the Dark Matter Reefs, across the stellar wilderness, beckoning them to Utopia.

But Yana has a secret- so secret, that not even he knows it.

A major focus of the episode is the Doctor and Jack, as well as the Doctor's hand. Now, in The Christmas Invasion, the Sycorax leader cut the Doctor's hand off, but as he was only recently regenerated, he was able to grow it again since he had enough residual energy (which I suppose explains Romana's changes in the first few minutes of Destiny of the Daleks). In Torchwood, Jack had the hand, in a jar, and this was so important to him, that in Day One he was willing to let Carys go on the run, placing saving the hand above stopping her. For Jack, this is his "Doctor- detector".

And, so much about Jack comes to light. When he was brought back to life by Rose in The Parting of the Ways, she had too much power as a result of absorbing the Time Vortex, and so overdid it- as well as giving him life, she gave him immortality. The Doctor says that if a Time Lord absorbed the Vortex, then he would become a god, and a vengeful one at that (now, the Doctor did absorb the Time Vortex from Rose in The Parting of the Ways), but Rose was so human, and the final act of the Time War was an act of giving life (Hmm, as we know from Army of Ghosts/Doomsday that the Daleks in Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways were not the only survivors of the Time War, does Rose saving Jack count as the final act?)

The Doctor, despite having recently regenerated, knew that Jack had been brought back to life and was immortal, and that is why he abandoned Jack on the Game Station. Now, this is remarkably compos mentis for a recently-regenerated Time Lord!

As a former Time Agent, Jack still had his Time Manipulator (the other interesting thing about this is that the Family in Human Nature/The Family of Blood had a Time Agent's Time Manipulator- I'm sure there's a back story in there somewhere!) and tried to get to the 21st century, but went too far, and the Manipulator stopped working when he was in 1869 (incidentally, when the Doctor and Rose were in Cardiff in The Unquiet Dead, and when all the trouble with the Rift started), and so he had to wait for the Doctor, realising (presumably from Boom Town) that one day the TARDIS would have to land in Cardiff to refuel from the Rift.

Rose has a great emphasis in this episode, to Martha's obvious jealousy. Jack saw her name on the list of the dead of the Battle of Canary Wharf, but the Doctor has to tell him that she's in a parallel universe. Later the Doctor has to tell him that the walls are closed, and it is not possible to cross over to her universe. Jack does tell him that he went to the Powell Estate a few times when Rose was young, to see her growing up. I have a sneaking suspicion that if Jack is willing to wait 5 billion years, he'll see her again....

While the Doctor and Jack talk, Yana has the sound of drums in his head- he has had them as long as he can remember, and they are getting louder and closer. He gets them when he sees the TARDIS; when Martha mentions that she and the Doctor travel in time; when Jack mentions the Doctor regenerating; when Jack talks about the Daleks...

And then the story shifts dramatically, as Yana tells Martha that he always had a problem with time and gets out a fob watch, which he says is broken. And it is identical to the one John Smith had in Human Nature/The Family of Blood.

When Martha tells the Doctor and Jack this, she has already worked out what this means- Yana is a Time Lord, and the watch is part of his TARDIS's Chamaeleon Arch, having rewritten his biology so he is human. And Jack says that this far in the future is the perfect place to hide from the Time War.

And she reminds the Doctor of the Face of Boe's dying message- "You are not alone."

You
Are
Not
Alone

Y.A.N.A.

Yana.

Now, with hindsight, I find it odd that Jack doesn't react when Martha mentions the Face of Boe. I think he would be interested- especially as it's the Face of Boe's dying message.

Events have moved too quickly, as Yana has opened the watch, uttered the words "I...Am....The...Master" to Chantho before mortally wounding her, she has shot him, he takes the Doctor's hand into the TARDIS, regenerates, speaks to the Doctor, with Martha recognising the voice, and escapes in the TARDIS.

While the Doctor, Martha and Jack are trapped 100 trillion years in the future, with the Futurekind trying to break in to get some nice human meat...

It's Better To Travel

Today an old university friend emailed me and said I could come and visit him in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Now, I won't be able to do it this year, he's coming over early next year, so I am thinking of doing it late next year or the spring/summer of 2009.

I was surprised to learn that there are direct flights from London Gatwick to Minneapolis. However, yesterday London's Evening Standard was looking at how chaotic, inefficient and stressful London's aiports are and one alternative it suggested was going from Amsterdam to New York. Interesting idea to look into nearer the time.

About 15 to 20 years ago, a couple of relatives visited the USA on a radio station-organised tour. Their list of places were New York, Boston and the Niagara Falls, plus a cross-border trip to Toronto. These are all on my list, although Boston is the lowest priority of these. Although Southampton County, Virginia, sounds interesting (just the name does it!)

Toronto has shot up the list as I read a recent article about the Irish President, Mary McAleese, visiting there to open some monument to do with the Irish disapora who went to Toronto in the 19th century. I know that there were relatives who went to Canada and the USA- one of my prized possessions when I was young was a baseball cap with Township of Sullivan on it, which was a present from a distant relative when I was 6. I wore it at school, and was the first child at my school to have a baseball cap. It went with me nearly everywhere, and I lost it. If you were in Traun (in Austria) and one day in August 1996 you found a black and yellow baseball cap with Township of Sullivan on it, and wondered the story behind it, then the mystery that has been bugging you for 11 years is solved.

Back from that digression, I noticed that one of the people McAleese met, descended from the Irish who went to Toronto, had a unusual and rare surname. Now, I know that there is Irish ancestry in my family tree, and that surname crops up not all that far back. I'm not going to go to Toronto, go through the phone book, and knock on doors, saying "Hello. I'm your long-lost relative from England." It would just be interesting to visit a place where it seems likely that relatives emigrated to.

Now, Saint Paul is 30 hours by train from New York (change at Detroit). I am thinking of doing the trip between the two by train. This might seem an odd reason- but if I go, I won't have all the time I want, and I want to make the most of it.

My point with this logic is to reflect on the times I have gone up to Scotland, taking 7 or 8 hours by train, when I could fly from Southampton to either Edinburgh or Glasgow. By train you see more. You see the countryside change. You see so much of England and the southern parts of Scotland, and where you go through is all part of the interest. The New York to Saint Paul route just sounds like it goes through many interesting areas- I think you get to see some of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. By plane- quicker, yes; but you see less. Why look at cloud formations when you can look at the Great Lakes? And a similar logic applies to the 13 hour New York to Toronto train journey.

This is of course, at least over a year off, but best to look into plans now..

An Unwelcome House Guest

Yesterday it rained a lot. I had the fanlight in my kitchen window open, and before going to bed, I went to put it on the latch. As I did so, something fell with a clunk onto my inside windowsill. At first I assumed that I had accidentally pulled the handle off. But no, it was much worse.

A snail.

I am squeamish when it comes to molluscs of any type. And there was one in my kitchen. I was not going to pick it up, even by its shell. Putting a piece of kitchen roll in fron of it, in the hope it would crawl onto it and be thrown outside, simply made it go back into its shell.

But, after a few minutes it decided to slither up the window, got to the fanlight and was on its way out. But no, it wanted to come back inside. But with another piece of kitchen roll, I was able to flick it onto the grass outside.

Last night I had unpleasant dreams involving giant slugs and snails.

Blink

The BBC3 repeats of Doctor Who continued this evening with Blink, a story which I can admit gave me nightmares when I first watched it.

Now, there is one school of thought that says that in a Doctor Who adventure, then the Doctor should be the main character around which everything revolves. Yes, but this doesn't mean that he should be the character with the most screen time. During William Hartnell's tenure as the first Doctor, there were several episodes where he would be absent. Like last year's Love & Monsters, this is an adventure with the emphasis on the Doctor, although he is reduced to being a guest character with only a few scenes.

This isn't the only sci-fi show to use this effect. One of my favourite Star Trek: Voyager episodes is Pathfinder. With the two main characters in it being Deanna Troi and Reg Barclay, one might believe that this is a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, and- although holographic forms of the Voyager crew are in Barclays' holodeck scenario- the real Kathryn Janeway et. al. only appear in the last few minutes. Yet, that episode is about the crew, about the impact their disappearance has had, the efforts to find them, etc.

In Blink, the lead character is Sally Sparrow, who is investigating a deserted house, Wester Drumlins, and finds a message to her, from the Doctor, in 1969, warning of the Weeping Angels. In the garden there is a statue of a angel, with its hands covering its face. The following day, she and one of her friends, Kathy Nightingale, to investigate the house, and notices that the angel has moved. Then a man rings the doorbell, who tells Sally that he has a letter from his grandmother- Kathy- to deliver to Sally at that time and place, and it is a letter from Kathy telling her about ending up in Hull in 1920. And when Sally looks for Kathy, she has gone. Sally finds three other angels and sees the TARDIS key in the hands of one of them, and takes it.

She tells Kathy's brother, Larry, at his place of work, which appears to specialise in DVDs, and ses a DVD with the Doctor on it, saying apparently random things, which Larry suggests are one half of a conversation. This is an "Easter egg" on 17 DVDs.

When Kathy goes to the police, she speaks to a detective, Billy Shipton, who tells her about people going to Wester Drumlins and vanishing. One thing they have taken from the house is the TARDIS. After Kathy leaves, Billy sees the Weeping Angels outside the TARDIS. And he blinks... and then he is talking to the Doctor and Martha in 1969- the angels remove people from their place in time with just a touch, and take the "time energy" from the days in the present that their victim would have lived through. One touch from an angel sent all 3 of them to 1969. And the Doctor needs the TARDIS sent back to him from 2007, and he needs Sally to do that. So, Billy had to wait 38 years to pass a message from the Doctor to Sally. When Sally and Billy meet again, it is the day that Billy vanished, and the day he dies, but in hospital he tells Sally to look at the list of DVDs- Billy ended up working in DVD publishing and put the Easter egg on those DVDs.

Sally realises that they are the DVDs she owns, and she and Larry go to Wester Drumlins with a portable DVD player. Then it all falls into place- the Doctor had a transcript of what he and Sally say, and he reads out from his bits; Larry had written the Doctor's words from watching the DVDs. The angels are "quantum-locked", so when they are observed, they are inert, simply statues. If no-one is looking at them, then they can act- even a blink of the eye gives them time. They cannot even look at each other, which is why they cover their eyes. And if they get the TARDIS, then they can have unlimited power. Sally and Larry have to send the TARDIS back to the Doctor, and he has a warning for them- not to turn their back, not to look away, and not to blink.

Sally and Larry do, of course, manage to get inside the TARDIS, and the four angels are each on one side, shaking it. A recorded message from the Doctor makes them realise that the DVD should be put in the console, and then the TARDIS dematerialises around Sally and Larry, who by this stage are terrified as they are going to be stuck in the middle of four angels- but, as Larry quickly works out, with the TARDIS dematerialised, the angels are facing each other, and so can never move again..

One year on, Sally and Larry run the shop, and Sally is still wondering how the Doctor knew what was going to happen and how to leave the clues for her. She has a plastic folder with loads of things connected to the events in, and then a taxi draws up and the Doctor and Martha turn up, and Sally talks to the Doctor and gives him the folder, realising that she is the one who gave him the information to leave the clues..

I found this a genuinely creepy adventure, with interesting plot twists. Like the previous adventure, Human Nature/ The Family of Blood, this is one where the Doctor is the focus of the adventure but hardly appears (if you count John Smith and the Doctor as separate people).

This is yet another predestination paradox- the Doctor is able to leave the clues as he knows from Sally what clues he is going to leave for her; similar to the Bad Wolf's clues in Season 27.

And for the next three days, it's the season finale- Utopia/ The Sound of Drums/ Last of the Time Lords.

The Family of Blood

Continuing BBC3's repeats of Doctor Who, this evening saw The Family of Blood, concluding the events of Human Nature.

A lot of this episode hangs on the Doctor's humanity, and the choice that John Smith has to make- he would rather remain who he is, than return to being the Doctor- and his questions about his existence and identity.

When he suggests to Martha that he could remain John, she tells him that they need the Doctor, and he asks her who he, as John, is- just a story? Does he really exist? The choice to become human was the Doctor's, not John's, so why should John, with no recollection of being the Doctor, have to be bound by what the Doctor wanted to do?

In addition, when John asks her about his relationship with Joan, and what will happen if he becomes the Doctor, and Martha replies that falling in love with a human wasn't something that the Doctor had considered when he became human, then what sort of man doesn't even consider being in love?

Another key player is Latimer, the boy who stole the fob watch with the Doctor's Time Lord consciousness in, and who can communicate with this. This leads John to suggest that he could simply give the Family of Blood the watch and then he and Joan can get on with life together (no thought there that Martha would be trapped in 1913 and forced to live through the 20th century- unless of course she took the TARDIS and left on her own travels). And indeed when he does hand over the watch, the Family and the viewers are led to believe that this is John, and he has not changed back to the Doctor.

War remains the backdrop of the story. There is the battle within the school. And Joan's question to the Doctor after the Family's soldiers (the scarecrows) have slaughtered villagers- would these people have died if the Doctor had not fled to there?

The watch has given Latimer a vision of him and Hutchinson on the trenches of the First World War, and from this Latimer knows when a shell is due to hit them, so he can get himself and Hutchinson out of the way. And at the end, there is a nearly-modern-day Remembrance Sunday service, with the Doctor and Martha looking on, and an elderly Latimer holding the watch.

The Family's motives for wanting a Time Lord are not entirely clear- they say they want immortality. Now, ignoring the case of Jack Harkness, which will become important later on this week, immortality has cropped up- as far as I can remember- a couple of times, both in the 20th season, back in 1983. In Mawdryn Undead (also set in an English public school), Mawdryn and his compatriots have ended up immortal, and want the fifth Doctor to sacrifice his remaining 8 lives to enable the eight of them to die. In The Five Doctors, Borusa, the Time Lord President, is seeking immortality- and gets it, an eternity frozen in stone in the Dark Tower.

They want "the lives of a Time Lord". As there's four of them, and only 3 more actors can play the Doctor, it would appear that one of them will have to make do with mortality!

The Doctor is, somehow, able to give them immortality. The father chained in unbreakable chains forged in the heart of a dwarf star. The mother sent into the event horizon of a collapsing galaxy. The son suspended in time as a scarecrow. The daughter trapped in every mirror.

The thing is that these are so out of character- and ability- for the Doctor, and were the let down in this adventure.

He's like fire; and ice; and rage.
He's the night and the storm in the heart of the Sun.
He is ancient and forever.
He burns at the centre of time.
And he can see the turn of the universe.

Human Nature

I had been writing short reviews of the 29th season of Doctor Who, but, for some reason, stopped at 42. I was surprised to turn on BBC3 this evening to find the following episode, Human Nature being repeated. In fact, I caught it just as it had started.

When I was young, we didn't have videos, DVDs or digital TV. You simply had to watch the programme once, and if you missed it, tough. Target Books did a series of novelisations of Doctor Who stories, and I ended up with nearly all of these. Of course, they weren't actually faithful to the programme.

Recently, I have been making frequent trips to WHSmith and they are used to me going in there and buying DVDs of the "classic" Doctor Who. Over the past few days I have watched The Visitation and the Doctor Who TV Movie.

The Visitation was from March 1982, and is from Season 19. This was Peter Davison's first season, and I remember the controversy as the programme was moved from its traditional Saturday evening to twice-weekly, on Monday and Tuesday. The controversy about this was that children would have other things to do when it was on. I had Cubs on Monday evenings, so missed the first and third episodes of every adventure that season. The odd thing is that I felt I could remember the first and third episodes of The Visitation as I had read the book so many times (it was the first Doctor Who book I'd read) but what I thought I remembered was just my imagination picturing scenes in the book. Now Tegan is going to say "Tell that to Aunt Vanessa", I clearly remembered her saying that to Nyssa, it was in the book, and when I watch it on DVD and wait for her to say it, but they just walk into the console room.

I remember the fuss over the TV Movie, about whether it was really Doctor Who. I had always treated it as simply a speculative adaptation, someone's idea of it. I had my concerns about things like the Doctor being half-human, the Master's over the top performance and above all, the Doctor kissing Grace Holloway. I had decided that Paul McGann wasn't really the Doctor, and that Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant were the eighth and ninth Doctors really, rather than the "official" ninth and tenth.

Yes, I had my concerns about the TV Movie, but when I had originally watched it, back in 1996, the last adventure had been 1989's Survival. Now, with hindsight, in some ways Survival feels like a modern Doctor Who adventure that had fallen into the Sylvester McCoy era, and there is the irony that what was designed as the final adventure has hints of what the programme would be like when it returned 16 years later.

However, watching the TV Movie again, with the hindsight of there having been 3 seasons of Doctor Who since then, it seems more like a "missing link" between the two. The console room seems closer to the modern one, with the old time rotor replaced by that column going from the console to the ceiling, and with the things in the middle going up and down and meeting; Eric Roberts' portrayal of the Master seems more restrained- now that we have seen both Derek Jacobi and John Simm playing the Master, I realise that part of my objection to Roberts was that he didn't look like the Master, as I was so used to the Anthony Ainley portrayal. The controversial Doctor-snogs-Grace scenes don't seem a big deal after the Doctor's romance with Reinette in Season 28's The Girl In The Fireplace and after his relationship with Joan Redfern in Human Nature/The Family of Blood.

The episode opens with the Doctor and Martha escaping onto the TARDIS, and the Doctor giving Martha some instructions about a watch, which is him. Then John Smith, a teacher in a public school wakes up, and Martha, his maid, brings him his breakfast and he tells her about the dreams he has. She tells him that it's 10 November 1913 and he is completely human.

They are on the run from a group called the Family of Blood, who, for some reason need a Time Lord. The Family have a good sense of smell, and can will be able to track him down, as long as he is a Time Lord. Hence, he uses the TARDIS's chamaeleon arch to rewrite his biology so he is human, and the disguise will be so good that he will quickly forget that he is a Time Lord. Part of the technology is a fob watch, which will store his, well, Time Lord essence, and this will have a perception filter on it, so he doesn't think it's unusual. One warning to Martha- if they are tracked down, she must open the watch, but if it's open, the Family will be able to find him.

John Smith is in some ways recognisable as the Doctor, but there is an emphasis on how he is different. Yes, he is a good man, but he has absorbed what the culture he's in has told him is right and wrong. Part of his duties is to teach the boys gun-firing, and there is a shooting range. One of the boys, Latimer, is not comfortable about this, and is told by the Headmaster to imagine that the targets are "savages from the Dark Continent"- the Doctor would have objected to such an attitude, John doesn't. When one of the boys, Hutchinson asks for permission to beat Latimer, you know that the Doctor would be appalled and would say no. John simply gives permission. When Martha realises they have been found and tries to explain that the dreams that he has written about in his book are real events, he tells Joan that it's a cultural difference and patronisingly tries to tell Martha the difference between a story and reality.

Joan has worked out that there is something different about John, something forgetful, telling Martha that it's like he's left the kettle on, that there's something important that he has to get back to, but can't remember. She realises that he knows little about his past. He tells her that he learned to draw in Gallifrey, but can't remember where that is, so Joan suggests it's in Ireland (I'm sure someone before on Doctor Who has suggested that Gallifrey is in Ireland). In a reference to the programme's creators, Sydney Newman and Verity Lambert, he tells Joan his parents were called Sydney and Verity.

War overshadows this story. The village dance which John and Joan go to, and which Martha attends to try and explain what's happening- before the Family invade it, is on 11 November. The Headmaster hopes that the boys will have a war in which to prove themselves. When Jenny, one of the maids, tells Martha that the boys at the school will be running the country soon, Martha remarks that it's 1913, so they might not be. Joan tells John that his book of dreams talk about a war commencing in 1914.

This story concludes tomorrow evening with The Family of Blood.

Kinnock Three Times

The party had voted, and the leadership result in a two-horse race was announced. The thirtysomething Shadow Education Secretary, who had never served in a government, had convincingly defeated the more experienced Shadow Home Secretary.

Am I talking about...

• Neil Kinnock defeating Roy Hattersley in Labour's October 1983 leadership election, or
• David Cameron defeating David Davis in the Conservatives' December 2005 leadership election?

It has suddenly become fashionable to describe Cameron as the Conservatives' Kinnock. However, by this stage, 19 months after becoming leader, Cameron is in a stronger position than Kinnock was at the same point- May 1985.

What is on the charge sheet against Cameron?

We are not succeeding electorally- look at the by-elections.

By May 1985 there had been the following by-elections:

• Chesterfield in March 1984. Labour held on to this seat, with Tony Benn returning to Parliament. However, this cannot count as a Kinnock victory, as there was an 8.4% swing from Labour to the Liberals, pushing the Conservatives into third place. Indeed, upon Benn's retirement at the June 2001 election, this seat fell to the Liberal Democrats' Paul Holmes. One early criticism of Cameron was that in the Bromley & Chislehurst by-election of June 2006, the Conservatives came close to losing the seat to the Liberal Democrats coming from third place. Not much difference to Labour's Chesterfield experience, then. The difference being that in Chesterfield the government party was pushed from second to third- in Bromley & Chislehurst the government party was pushed from second to fourth.
• Stafford in May 1984. Bill Cash held this seat for the Conservatives. The order at the June 1983 election, Conservative-Social Democrat-Labour remained the same, but it was the Social Democrats who were the beneficiaries of the fall in Conservative support. Again, looking at Stafford, it is incorrect for Cameron's critics to assume that in a seat where the order at the previous general election was Labour-Liberal Democrat-Conservative that we have failed by remaining in third place.
• Surrey South West in May 1984. Virginia Bottomley holds this seat for the Conservatives with a 10.9% swing to the Liberals. The Labour support falls. Not Kinnock's finest hour.
• Cynon Valley in May 1984. Ann Clwyd holds this safe Labour seat.
• Portsmouth South in June 1984. Labour have always been borderline in Portsmouth- you expect them to win or come close in at least one seat there. In both Portsmouth North and Portsmouth South, the June 1983 general election saw these seats held by the Conservatives, with the Social Democrats pushing Labour into third place. This is the only seat to change hands in Kinnock's first 19 months as leader- as the Social Democrats' Mike Hancock wins it from the Conservatives. The decline in Labour support continues at the June 1987 general election, as this becomes a narrow Conservative/Social Democrat marginal. Losing the seat is not the end for Hancock- he tries again in April 1992 as a Liberal Democrat, making the seat even more marginal for the Conservatives, and of course, since the May 1997 election, Hancock has been the Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South (he is one of only 3 former Social Democrat MPs left in the House of Commons, the others being Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat MP for Ross, Skye & Lochaber, and John Horam, the Conservative MP for Orpington).
• Enfield Southgate in December 1984- one of the tragic by-elections caused by political assassination as terrorists murdered its MP Anthony Berry in the Brighton Grand Hotel bombing in an attempt to kill Margaret Thatcher. The third of four MPs to have been murdered by terrorists in recent times (Airey Neave, Conservative MP for Abingdon, in March 1979; Robert Bradford, Ulster Unionist Party MP for Belfast South, in November 1981; Ian Gow, Conservative MP for Eastbourne, in July 1990). One of the most galling sights is of politicians on Capitol Hill who smugly say "Of course, Britain hasn't experienced terrorism"- when in the past 30 years, 4 MPs (as well as one member of the Royal Family) have been murdered by terrorists. Even worse when it's one of the Capitol Hill people who have consistently been apologists, and even fundraisers, for terrorists who have killed over 1,000 people in Britain. However, with that point out of the way, the Conservatives' Michael Portillo held the seat, despite a surge in Liberal support, and Labour had a disastrous third place. Ironically, when Portillo lost the seat in May 1997, it was to Labour.

So, by the 19-month stage of Kinnock's leadership, only one seat had changed hands- and that was from the Conservatives to the Social Democrats! Was there any joy for Kinnock on the horizon?

• Brecon & Radnor in July 1985. Now Kinnock's fortunes are turning. In the June 1983 election it had been a Conservative seat, with the Liberals second, and Labour third. This order is reversed, as the Liberals' Richard Livsey winning. It's not just the Liberals who do well- the Labour vote increases, and indeed, Labour come very close to winning the seat. Livsey narrowly holds on in June 1987 (his majority is the smallest one at that election) as the seat becomes a close Liberal/Conservative/Labour three-way marginal. He loses in April 1992 as it becomes a close Conservative/Liberal Democrat/Labour three-way marginal. However, in May 1997 Livsey wins back the seat- renamed Brecon & Radnorshire- for the Liberal Democrats.
• Tyne Bridge in December 1985. Labour's David Clelland holds on to a safe seat.
• 15 seats in January 1986. 15 MPs resigned en masse from the House of Commons in December 1985 and stood for re-election on a ticket of opposing the Hillsborough Agreement. 14 were successful. No Labour candidates.
• Fulham in April 1986. After 30 months as leader, Kinnock sees Labour gain a seat at a by-election, as this Conservative seat falls on a 10.8% swing, and Nick Raynsford becomes the MP. Raynsford loses it in the June 1987 election to the Conservatives' Matthew Carrington. Raynsford won Greenwich in April 1992 (more of this later on) and has been MP for Greenwich & Woolwich since May 1997. Carrington retained Fulham in April 1992, but lost Hammersmith & Fulham to Labour's Iain Coleman in May 1997. Carrington made an attempt to unseat Coleman in June 2001, but failed.

So, it took 21 months as leader for Kinnock to see any progress (for Cameron the 21-month stage is September 2007) and 30 months for a by-election gain (for Cameron the 30-month stage is June 2008).

Was Kinnock on a roll at this point? No.

• Derbyshire West in May 1986. On a 14.3% swing, the Liberals come close to winning this seat from the Conservatives, but it is won by Patrick McLoughlin- now the Conservative Chief Whip. Labour remain in third place.
• Ryedale in May 1986. On an 18.9% swing, the Liberals' Elizabeth Shields wins this seat from the Conservatives- again a poor third place for Labour. Just one month after Fulham, it looks like that was a flash in the pan success. Shields turns out to be the political equivalent of a one-hit wonder, as she loses it to the Conservatives' John Greenway in June 1987, and in April 1992 contests it as the Liberal Democrat candidate- but Greenway increases his lead.
• Newcastle-under-Lyme in July 1986. Only 3 months after Fulham, it seems to be going into reverse for Labour. Llin Golding narrowly holds this seat for Labour, with the 9.2% swing to the Liberals just not enough for a Liberal gain. In June 1983 this had been a Labour/Conservative marginal!
• Knowsley North in November 1986. George Howarth comfortably holds this safe Labour seat.
• Greenwich in February 1987. Less than a year after Fulham, Labour loses a seat, as the Social Democrats' Rosie Barnes becomes the MP. She is one of only 3 Social Democrat MPs not to join the Liberal Democrats when they are formed in March 1988 (the others being David Owen, MP for Plymouth Devonport and John Cartwright, MP for Woolwich). Although she holds Greenwich at the June 1987 election, she is defeated by Raynsford in April 1992- the end of the Social Democrats in the House of Commons, as Owen retires and Cartwright loses to Labour.
• Truro in March 1987. Safe Liberal seat.

So, using Kinnock's early years as leader as an example, what would be reasonable for Conservatives to expect?

• We should expect to win an occasional seat from Labour
• We should not be surprised if we have close shaves due to the Liberal Democrats, or indeed if we lose an odd seat or two to the Liberal Democrats
• In seats where the Liberal Democrats are the main challengers to Labour, we should not be surprised if our vote falls.
• We should not expect to lose seats to Labour.

We are not on course to win the next election- Labour are not losing support.

Compared to June 1983, the June 1987 election (just looking at Great Britain) saw the Conservative share of the vote fall by only 0.24%, the Labour increase by 3.26% and the Liberal/Social Democrat Alliance fall by 2.93%. So, Labour did increase their vote under Kinnock, but nationally this was by cutting into the Liberal/Social Democrat vote. The Conservative vote hardly shifted. This saw Labour gain 22 seats from the Conservatives, 1 from the Liberals and 1 from the Social Democrats, while losing 5 to the Conservatives and 1 to the Social Democrats.

Taking the May 2005 result, increasing the Conservative vote by 3.26%, and decreasing the Labour vote by 0.24% and the Liberal Democrat vote by 2.93% gives:

• the Conservatives gain 22 seats from Labour
• the Conservatives gain 11 seats from the Liberal Democrats
• Labour gain 2 seats from the Liberal Democrats
• Plaid Cymru gain 1 seat from the Liberal Democrats

which would give Labour 328 seats, the Conservatives 243 and the Liberal Democrats 48. This is a Labour majority of 6.

Hence, it would be possible for Cameron to do better than Kinnock and still see Labour win a fourth term as a majority Government.

Some are tempted to judge Cameron by his progress so far, and want him to go now. I would say, wait till the election. And even then, if there is a Labour majority Government, hold fire.

Kinnock had to wait until the Vale of Glamorgan by-election of May 1989 to have a run of by-election successes. That was 5 years 7 months after becoming leader- a point which Cameron reaches in June 2011!

We're not doing well in the opinion polls.

We have had a consistent pattern of opinion poll leads from Cameron becoming leader. There has been a wobble. By the 19-month stage Kinnock had not has a consistent run of opinion poll leads.

The Cameron experiment has failed. We must keep our traditional supporters happy. We must remain ideologically pure.

We cannot win with just our traditional supporters. We could be ideologically pure and that would be the path to losing. We will betray our traditional supporters if we go along a path which means that their principles and stances will only ever be heard on the Opposition benches of the House of Commons.

Is It Just Me, Or Has The World Gone Ban(d)anas?

Curious incident in Lancashire, as interfering busybodies with too much time and not enough to do go bananas over bandanas.

Pendle Borough Council are getting worked up over a refuse collector (or "dustman" as they used to be known) wearing a bandana with the English flag on. Their penpushers have decided this is offensive to black people. The refuse collector cannot wear it now.

The refuse collector is a black Englishman. But now politically correct busybodies have made clear that he is offended by what he is wearing.

Now, black people are perfectly capable of deciding what they do and do not find offensive. For the politically correct brigade to decide what black people are, and are not, offended by, is the height of colonialism.

Walk Safely

After my encounter with the selfish oik cycling on the pavement, I wondered whether there was a petition to Downing Street for a crackdown on this.

There is indeed, at

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Walk-Safely/#detail

The Real Winner

So, Labour's Virenda Sharma was elected by the people of Ealing Southall, and can now legitimately put the initials "MP" after his name (despite Labour putting them after his name in some election leaflets when he was not entitled to it).

The Liberal Democrats second, and the Conservatives third. A bad result for the Conservatives? Not at all.

Firstly, Prime Minister Gordon Brown is in his "honeymoon period" when a governing party would expect to hold on safely to seats in by-elections. Despite this, Labour's vote plummeted- indeed, if the same drop in vote was repeated in a general election across the nation as a whole, Labour would be swept from office.

One reason Labour held on was a divided opposition. The people of Ealing Southall wanted to be rid of Labour, but couldn't decide between the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. Now, this is significant, as often in by-elections there is a "third party squeeze."

Imagine you have three (or more) parties in a by-election. At the last election, A won the seat and is now forming the Government. B came second, C third. In a by-election, you would expect voters opposed to A to want to send a "bloody nose" message, and so C's support will fall as people turn to B as the party to oust A.

Instead, both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives saw their vote rise. In the days before David Cameron became leader, one would expect Ealing Southall to follow the path of other urban Labour seats such as Brent East in September 2003, Leicester South in July 2004 and Dunfermline & West Fife in February 2006- where the Conservative support drops, people turn to the Liberal Democrats, who then win from Labour.

Indeed, it can be said that the Conservatives did well enough to bring an end to the Liberal Democrats' by-election-winning machine. A poor Conservative result would have seen the Liberal Democrats winning Ealing Southall. In that sense, Labour holding the seat shows that we are back as a serious by-election party. Gone are the days where a by-election sees us lose ground.

Moreover, one has to wonder what the result would have been if Labour had not cheated. I don't mean that they used a vote-rigging scheme similar to the one that saw some Labour members of Birmingham City Council disqualified by a court. I mean the attempt to show that the Conservative candidate Tony Lit had signed a cheque giving money to Labour- when they knew full well that it had been signed by his father. The descriptions of him as a "playboy", with its connotations of drunkeness, excess and immorality that would not have gone done well among the deeply moral communities in Ealing Southall.

And above all, the misrepresentation of Sharma as a Member of Parliament when he was not.

Labour can enjoy their victory. But their behaviour is a nail in the coffin of traditional decency and above-board electioneering.

Not The Best Morning

Yesterday evening, last night and this morning saw very heavy rain- hard to believe now that this evening it's sunny (and fortunately not hot).

Walking down to Southampton Central railway station, I was nearly knocked down by one of these oiks who think that they have the right to cycle on the pavement. When I calmly pointed out to him that you cycle on the road and not the pavement, his reply was "Shut the f**k up". Hmm, two illegal actions by him (cycling on the pavement, and using foul & abusive language). Not that I could expect the police to do anything about it- Southampton police's stance is that they will turn a blind eye to the former type of law-breaking. Now, I can see the logic in the idea often expressed by the Conservatives that there should be directly-elected American-style sherrifs. Different from the current system of promotion based on how well an officer can spout politically-correct left-wing shibboleths.

And outside Basingstoke rail station, I slipped and fell at the steps, so have been hobbling all day. My right leg is quite painful. I ended up going into Boots in Basingstoke to buy a bandage and explained the day so far to the cashier, who told me that Friday the Thirteenth was last week. I just pointed out that I'm a bit behind the times....

A Slight Doctrinal Change

At a recent tribunal, after the Bishop of Hereford, Anthony Priddis, had refused to employ John Reaney, the tribunal ruled that Reaney had been discrimated against on the grounds of sexual orientation. (Can I just emphasise at this point that Reaney is not an ordained minister, and this was a youth worker post).

But, was it so simple? Was it just bigotry?

As Priddis has emphasised, the issue was not orientation, but practice.

Now, on sexuality, I need to draw a distinction between Christian ethics and "respectable middle-class ethics".

Cast your mind back to June 1983, when Margaret Thatcher led the Conservatives to our biggest post-war victory, a campaign masterminded by Cecil Parkinson, then the Conservative Party Chairman. However, he revealed to her that his secretary, Sara Keays, was expecting his baby, and resigned from the Cabinet shortly afterwards.

Now, Thatcher's stance is one of the few things I have to disagree with her on. She rails against the "puritans" in her party who felt that Parkinson's actions had prevented him from holding high office. And she rails against "single mothers" (e.g. Keays).

Often in "respectable middle-class ethics" there is confusion over how babies are made. A woman can't wake up, decide "I want to be a single mother", sit down with a cup of tea, think really, really hard "I want to become pregnant" for a few minutes, nip off to the toilet with a pregnancy testing kit, and hey presto!, it's gone blue and she can go out and prepare for the happy event nine months later.

No, for every single woman who becomes pregnant, there is someone else involved. A man who commits adultery.


There seems to be in "respectable middle-class ethics" a dual standard, with the "Hey, Cecil. Hear you got Sara 'in the pudding club'. Respect! Still got it!" attitude married (oops, unfortunate use of the word there) with the "Cecil got Sara pregnant. What an immoral slapper she must be to get herself pregant."

One famous Biblical story is the woman taken in adultery who, thanks to Jesus, does not get stoned to death. But the Old Testament law that the mob were preparing to stone her under made clear that both committing adultery were to be stoned to death. She couldn't have committed adultery on her own. Where was the man? Had he fled? Was it his mates about to stone her? Was he in the baying mob?

Allied to this is sometimes a "respectable middle-class ethics" approach in which an young unmarried woman from a nice professional family gets herself pregnant and as they think it's only working class women who become unmarried mothers, she's off to the abortion clinic to get rid of the shame of becoming an unmarried mother.

Now, I am not married, and I do not have children. If I did ever have a daughter and she ended up pregnant while not married, I would hope that her choice would be to become an unmarried mother rather than having an abortion.

With that out the way, back to the Reaney case. As Priddis emphasised, his issue was the Church of England stance on sexual ethics. It was not directly to do with Reaney's orientation. The stance is clear- no sexual activity outside of marriage. Whether male/male, female/female or male/female. And he is clear that he had to question Reaney about whether his behaviour was compatible with the Church of England stance on the matter. If a candidate was a heterosexual man having sexual intercourse with a woman whom he was not married to, Priddis would have ruled him unsuitable.

Biblically, one major requirement for a teaching role within the church is that the person lives a life compatible with Christian ethics. If someone fails to make the standards on sex, on alcohol, on gambling, on being an oik, whatever, they are unsuitable. If a candidate came in and swore at someone, then that rules them out!

When it comes to sexual ethics there is also a danger of "respectable middle-class ethics" coming into play when it comes to cohabitation. Now, at church, the people are either married or single, and I know of no cases of unmarried couples. But, sometimes churches assume that as long as a man and woman are living together, they are as near as married as to make no difference. Now, I am not saying that we should necessarily require this of those new to the church, making their first steps as a Christian- but it is not nice when someone who is a "pillar of the church" says that they and their partner have been "happily unmarried" for several years and have two children (I am not talking about my current church, I wish to emphasise that clearly). And, God did make Adam & Eve rather than Adam & Steve, but if Adam and Eve are unmarried and having sex, are they morally any different to Adam and Steve doing the same?

If a man gives up leaping into bed with other men, and starts leaping into bed with different women, has he really morally improved? The only person a man should be leaping into bed with is his wife.

Now, if pressure groups want to change the Church of England policy on anything, the route is to argue the case in the General Synod, get a majority of the House of Laity, the House of Clergy and the House of Bishops supporting it, persuade at least 15 of the 30 members of Parliament's Ecclesiastical Committee and get the House of Commons and the House of Lords to pass a Church Measure authorising the change.

The problem, as this tribunal has made clear, is that there is a quicker route to changing Church of England policy. And that is through the legal system. And the person we have to blame is (and I'm sorry to have to annoy people by pointing this out) the former Prime Minister revered by the American Religious Right as a great Christian political leader- Tony Blair. It was Blair who was responsible for the legislation which led to Priddis being ruled against, and the change in Church of England policy and teaching which will have to follow. The Church of England is, after all, one of the "forces of conservatism" which Blair wanted to "modernise".

Is A Miracle Needed?

A couple of years ago I had a birthday, and one friend of mine sent me a card. Then he mentioned that he was worried that I might, as a Christian, have found it offensive.

On the front cover, the flood waters are rising. A man is clinging to the roof of his house, and a boat passes. He refuses to get in saying "I'm a Christian. The Lord will rescue me."

A bit later on, another boat, and the same thing happens.

Then, a rescue helicopter. "No thank you, I'm a Christian. The Lord will rescue me."

Inside, he has drowned and is in Heaven. He confronts God, asking Him why He didn't intervene to save him. And the reply is- "For crying out loud! I sent you two boats and a helicopter. What more did you expect Me to do?"

One dangerous assumption in parts of Christianity is that when God works, He will only do it in a showy, spectacular, nature-defying way. Two boats, one helicopter? No thanks- God will send a legion of angels flying down to carry me to safety.

I am struck by a recent course case, in which a baby girl is seriously ill, and needs a bone marrow transplant. Her parents are Christians, and refuse this treatment as they believe God will heal her. Now, God does sometimes bring sudden healing to illness. But there is another way than the showy miracle- and that is through conventional medicine.

While I respect the parents' faith that God will heal their daughter, they need to consider whether that healing will be through the tried-and-trusted method of a bone marrow transplant.

How To Become An MP- The Missing Step

Who is currently the Member of Parliament for Ealing Southall? Who represents them in the House of Commons?

No-one. Unless, you believe Labour propaganda.

I read in The Times that Labour has sent out a survey to the residents of Ealing Southall, to be returned to "Virendra Sharma MP".

Now, it seems to have escaped Labour's attention that there is a crucial stage in someone becoming an MP. And that is that they have to be elected by a constituency. It is the height of arrogance for Sharma to put the initials "MP" after his name when he is not entitled to use them.

To clarify things for Labour, that is the whole point of the Ealing Southall by-election tomorrow, to elect someone who can put MP after their name.

The String Theory Approach To Fighting Terrorism

Ever had a task which has a deadline way in the future? You put it off, and put it off, until eventually, at the last minute you do it in a rush.

Now picture no deadline at all- you would find other things, less important things, to get on with.

A couple of years ago, the House of Commons rejected demands by Tony Blair (at the time Prime Minister) and John Reid (at the time Home Secretary) for the police to be able to hold suspected terrorists without charge for 90 days, and raised the limit from 14 to 28 days instead. And earlier this month the Commons voted again for 28 days.

It was also very clear at the time that give them 90 days, and they'd call for 180, then 365 then...

But now the Association of Chief Police Officers have gone much much further than calling for holding people without charge for a year.

How long does ACPO want to be allowed to hold people without charge? How long is a piece of string?

ACPO's stance is now "as long as it takes". Hmm. There is a word for that, a nasty, ugly word, with a nasty, ugly history- internment. It is the most counter-productive device to fight terrorism ever invented, as it turns groups who feel they have been targeted against police, against society and against the state.

Now, one argument sometimes put forward to defend extremely long detentions without charge is that people who will find themselves locked away are clearly "wrong 'uns" anyway, so decent law-abiding citizens have nothing to worry about.

But, there is a problem with this, which the data regarding the people arrested for terrorism between 11 September 2001 and 31 March 2007 show. In all, 1228 were arrested.

So, how many of those were fans of Osama bin Laden? Very few.

• 669 (54.5%) were released without charge
• 221 (18.0%) were found innocent
• 224 (18.2%) were found guilty
• 114 (9.3%) are either being tried at the moment or waiting for trial.

To put it another way, out of those arrested for terrorism, 72.5% have been found completely innocent. Or to put it another way, every year 160 people are wrongly arrested for terrorism- working out at about 3 per week on average.

Homer Sapiens

In Dorset, one of the famous sights is the Cerne Abbas giant, a large chalk drawing of a naked man on the hill near Cerne Abbas.

To the anger of the Pagan Federation, there is a new giant figure drawn on the hill.

A bald, overweight man, wearing just briefs and holding a doughnut...

Need Some Space Here...

The House of Commons Science & Technology Committee has looked into the woeful state of Britain's space industry. Or rather, what passes for a space industry.

Calls by the Royal Society for a dedicated Space Agency have been rejected. But, one interesting point by the Committee is that we should end our opposition to manned spaceflight, an opposition that is so strong that our contribution to any future European Space Agency astronaut corps is €0.

The princely sum of zero euros, zero cents.

To date, Helen Sharman is the only British citizen to go into space (the other 3 sometimes mentioned were born British but had to take American citizenship to work with NASA). It is a sad, sorry state of affairs that if you're British and you want to go up in the Space Shuttle, you have to give up your citizenship first.

Now, at one level, it is clear that there is the innovation and drive from private companies to develop manned spaceflight, e.g. Richard Branson. However, this is an area where Government involvement is needed. It is sad to see that people like Colin Pillinger have to scrabble around for sponsorship. And sadder when there is this part of popular culture that likes to enjoy and joke about "eggheads" seeing their hard work fail.

There is a deeper malaise here. And this is that, as a nation, we have failed to think big. Take the Millennium Dome. Go on. Take it. Please. Was that really the best we can do? All glitter and ersatz. Style over substance.

When I was young I used to go to the London Planetarium. These shows were informative, entertaining and educational- as well as packed. The last time I went, a few years back, it was dumbed down and science fiction took priority over science fact. And now, it's all about "stars"- with the new management working on the principle that people don't want to know about what's up in the sky, they want to know about celebrities. A Beckham is more interesting than a Betelgeuse.

One of the most tedious arguments for cancelling all funding on space research is that "the money should go to the starving children in Africa."

This is flawed. Firstly, there is the socialist mindset that if a social action scheme isn't working then the solution is to throw more money at it. And when that doesn't work, throw even more money. Now, there are economic routes to helping Africa, but the throwing money isn't necessarily the answer. Trade reform would be a start.

Secondly, there is only one sort of person who can use that argument. And that is someone who takes from their salary just all they need to live on, and gives the rest to the starving children in Africa. Have a TV? The money you spent on it could go to the starving children in Africa.

And related to this, there is a tilting at windmills. From space research we have seen huge technological advances that have helped humanity. Now, I don't want to sound like a killjoy here- and I'm not being a killjoy- but what about the money spent on the Olympics? Or on a Hollywood blockbuster? Ultimately, they are "here today, gone tomorrow" with no real impact on the future. Did humanity benefit from the Spiderman films? So, why do the "the money should be spent on the starving children in Africa" lobby get worked up about other people's money being spent on something that benefits humanity, but if you suggest to them (and I've done this) that the money spent on making the film they went to see could go to the starving children in Africa, the most intelligent and thought-out reply is "Well, I enjoyed it." If that's too intellectual an argument for them, it'll be "That's different."

Sunday service

One thing with moving to Shirley is that, thanks to the public transport system, I cannot get to church in Bitterne for the 9am service. A shame, as this was a traditional Church of England early morning Communion one.

I know Shirley quite well as my grandmother lived here until her death 6 years ago. And so, on Sunday I went along to a local Anglican church for their early morning traditional-ish communion service, knowing that I would be able to get home in time to catch the bus to Bitterne for the 1/2 past 10 service (which I did). Very similar to what I was used to at Bitterne. The church wasn't the one she would go to, but a church plant from it.

And I walked back on auto-pilot, and found myself walking along her road- a road which I have avoided since I moved here. I was able to walk past her home and picture myself knocking on the door and her answering, and pictured suggesting to her that I call in on the way to church and we go together.

And then realising that this isn't possible. It hasn't hit me for a long time that she has gone.

Odd thing, grief. You think you're over it, and something brings it all back.

North & South, East & West

There have been a couple of significant meetings in Northern Ireland recently. Yesterday it was the British-Irish Council in Belfast, and today the North-South Ministerial Council in Armagh.

These are both organisations set up under the Belfast Agreement of April 1998, which are now up and running. The first brings together the national and regional ministers from the Anglo-Celtic Isles (as it is now politically correct to say. And I feel this is actually more accurate than the old term British Isles). The second brings together the Executives of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Traditionally, the Democratic Unionist Party avoided the NSMC like the plague, seeing it as an embryo all-Ireland government.

It has all happned so fast. Go back just 3 months:

• In London there was a Labour administration
• In Edinburgh there was a Labour/Liberal Democrat administration
• In Cardiff there was a Labour administration
• In Belfast there was a direct rule Labour administration
• In Dublin there was a Fianna Fail/Progressive Democrat administration

Now:

• In London there is a Labour administration under a new Prime Minister
• In Edinburgh there is a Scottish National Party administration
• In Cardiff there is a Labour/Plaid Cymru administration
• In Belfast there is a Democratic Unionist Party/Sinn Fein/Ulster Unionist Party/Social Democratic & Labour Party administration
• In Dublin there is a Fianna Fail/Green/Progressive Democrat administration

Put in those terms, and seeing the BIC, one is suddenly aware of how fast the political landscape has shifted.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have Deputy First Ministers from political parties committed in the long term to pulling out of the United Kingdom:

• In Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon (SNP)
• In Wales, Ieuan Wyn Jones (PC)
• In Northern Ireland, Martin McGuinness (SF)

and of course, Scotland's First Minister is the SNP's Alex Salmond. And with the Welsh First Minister, Labour's Rhodri Morgan, unwell, it was Jones who led the Welsh at the BIC.

The irony is that these parties can simultaneously be opposed to the continuation of the United Kingdom in its present form and be part of the government in parts of the United Kingdom. And this is something so flexible and pragmatic about the British political system, in that parties can be radically anti-system and yet have their mandates recognised and being brought into the system. The SNP won the Scottish mandate, Salmond went ahead with being sworn into office and joining the Privy Council and being welcomed by the Queen, and the sky did not fall in. McGuinness got sworn into office and the world did not come to an end. Things that would have been unthinkable ten years ago are simply accepted and we just get on with it.

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?

Facing the prospect of defeat in the Ealing Southall by-election on Thursday, Labour are trying even more dirty tricks by making a song-and-dance routine that Tony Lit, who will be the Conservative MP for Ealing Southall in a few days, attended a fund-raising dinner for Labour earlier this year.

Firstly, at the time he was not a member of any political party. What he does and where he attends before he was a Conservative is irrelevant.

Secondly, he was there in his professional capacity with Sunrise Radio, not in a personal capacity.

Thirdly, the cheque payable to Labour was from Sunrise Radio and was not signed by him.

What a fuss over nothing!

Instead, a dinner guest that Labour should be getting worked up about is convicted rapist Owen Oyston. £10,000 for a place at a table, hmm.

Left Behind

As I don't have a sense of humour, I tend not to refer to humourous sites.

But I'll make an exception for this one:

http://www.nonraptured.com/index.htm

Southampton swings

In politics, one of the most useful concepts for analysing election results is that of swing.

It dates from the 1950s when most seats would simply have a Labour and a Conservative candidate. If the Conservative share of the vote went up by x%, then the Labour share of the vote would go down by the same amount, and there would be a swing of x%.

With every seat having at least 3 candidates (and often 4 or more) the concept of swing has to be modified a bit:

Party A's share of the vote increases by x%, party B's share of the vote increases by a smaller amount, y%; then the swing from B to A is (x-y)/2%. So, if A's share of the vote increases by 5%, B's by 1%, then there is a swing of 2% from B to A.

Party A's share of the vote increases by x%, party B's share of the vote decreases by y%; then the swing from B to A is (x+y)/2%. So if A's share of the vote increases by 5%, B's decreases by 1%, then there is a swing of 3% from B to A.

In the May 2005 election in England, the Conservative lead over Labour was 0.32%, the first time since the April 1992 election that the Conservatives had more votes in England than Labour did.

The biggest post-war lead was in the June 1983 election, when the Conservative lead was 19.04% over Labour.

To achieve an identical lead at the next election would need a swing of:

(19.04%-0.32%)/2 = 9.36%

from Labour to the Conservatives.

And, something interesting happens if this was a uniform swing across England.

Ealing North has a Labour lead of 18.61% over the Conservatives, and so on a 9.36% swing this lead would be reduced by 18.72% (i.e. twice 9.36%). So, the Conservatives would win Ealing North with a majority of 0.11%.

The next largest lead Labour has over the Conservatives is here, in Southampton Test, where the Labour lead is 19.17%. Reducing this by 18.72% gives a Labour lead of 0.45%. Hence, if there was a uniform swing across England then Southampton Test would be Labour's most marginal seat.

(The current leads are the Rallings & Thrasher notional ones, i.e. the official ones)

Southampton Test has traditionally (and wrongly) been seen as a bellwether seat, one which always returns an MP from the party that forms the Government. However, next election it could be more significant, as winning it means that we are either near or have exceeded the 1983 victory.

A Black Day for the Lords

Yesterday, Conrad Black (who was until yesterday a Conservative member of the House of Lords) was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years. He is now an Independent member of the House of Lords, but I don't think he'll be attending at any point in the next 20 years.

And this has led to one of the nauseous incidents that one gets in British politics- the Liberal Democrats taking the moral high ground; this time by demanding that Black is stripped of his peerage.

Now, if Black had been an MP then this would have led to immediate expulsion from the House of Commons. But, once a peer has served his or her time in prison, then a return to sitting and voting in the House of Lords is a right. Jeffrey Archer can do this now.

The only thing that members of the House of Lords can lose the peerage over is treason. And there have been no cases of life peers being convicted of treason. And for a hereditary peerage, yes the then-holder of the title is stripped of it, but it is put into abeyance- so it can be picked up by someone in the future with the hereditary right to the title.

In theory, the law could be altered so life peers could be stripped of their titles if convicted and imprisoned. But this would be for the future. A basic principle in the European Convention of Human Rights is that not only can you not make laws retrospective, you cannot make punishments retrospective. For example, if on the day you commit a crime the maximum punishment is 10 years in prison, and on the following day a change in the law raises this to 15 years, then when convicted, you cannot be sentenced to more than 10 years as that was the maximum penalty when the crime was committed. The fact that the maximum penalty was increased by the time of the trial is irrelevant.

Even if the law changed, at the time that Black committed the crimes that he was convicted for the punishment was not being stripped of his peerage.

By the way, while the Lib Dems are taking the moral high ground, what happened about those donations? They remember don't they?- that man who gave millions in donations of money which wasn't his and ended up in prison. And they way the Lib Dems bleated that it was accepted in "good faith" so no need to return it to its rightful owners. Hmm- maybe the Lib Dems should try and put their own house in order first.

Sunrise over Southall

Something unusual, and quite wonderful, is happening with the Ealing Southall by-election, to be held on Thursday. A seat which Labour has held since July 1945.

However, holding a seat for 62 years is no guarantee of holding it for the next 62. Or even holding it next week.

The reason for this is that the Conservative candidate, Tony Lit, from Sunrise Radio, is on course for winning. This will be the first by-election victory by the Conservatives from Labour since Angela Rumbold won Mitcham & Morden in June 1982 (although Bruce Douglas-Mann, who had won Mitcham & Morden for Labour at the previous election in May 1979, joined the Social Democratic Party in December 1981 and resigned in May 1982 to be the only SDP MP to fight a by-election under their new party).

Lit's campaigned is buoyed by 7 Labour members of Ealing Borough Council choosing to sit as Conservative councillors. Labour's response is to attack Lit for using "Tony" as his first name, when it isn't, trying to imply that he is deceiving electors. Hmm. Sometimes people with non-English first names will use English ones for convenience. And sometimes people choose not to use their first name- ask the Prime Minister, James Brown (who prefers to be called Gordon). It seems a bit racist on Labour's part.

The Liberal Democrats campaign is laughable, as they are relying on leaflets with pictures of Tony Blair and George Bush.

It might be a surprise for the Lib Dems to learn that Blair is no longer Prime Minister. Indeed, on Thursday there is a by-election to elect a new MP for Sedgefield, which was Blair's constituency between June 1983 and June 2007.

Sometimes political campaigners on the left believe that an electoral shock here would cause a political earthquake in Washington, fondly assuming that a Liberal Democrat win on Thursday will mean that on Friday Bush will say "Well, the people of Ealing Southall have sent me a message. Prepare for my resignation by this evening." And those who vainly think this will have an impact need to sit down and carefully read the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. The Electoral College of November 2004 does not get recalled to vote on a new President to serve until January 2009. The American people do not go to the polls to elect a new Electoral College. Dick Cheney automatically becomes President.

Stool and Covenant

One topic at the Church of England's General Synod is the proposed Anglican Covenant, and it was interesting to see the criticisms of it from the "Modern Churchpeople's Union" in the Church of England Newspaper.

A normal liberal trick is to try and portray themselves as the authentic, original Anglicanism, and evangelicalism as either something alien, or something to be put in its place on the fringes. And this is often done by referring to "Hooker's stool".

Richard Hooker was, like me, a graduate of Corpus Christi College at Oxford University; but was a little bit before my time, being a 16th century theologian.

The MCU line is to refer to "Hooker's stool"- Hooker is seen as having described Anglicanism as a stool with 3 legs, Scripture, tradition, and reason, all in perfect balance, none superior to the other. The MCU was arguing that there is no one Holy Book which gives the theological answers- instead, it seems, the evangelicals can bring their book, the Catholics can bring what the Pope says, and the liberals can bring their brains, and let's all sit down over a cup of tea and decide what stance the Church should take.

And the liberals see this is as just the classic, mainstream Anglicanism- until these pesky evangelicals forgot their place.

And if the evangelicals don't win, they shouldn't be divisive and should accept the decision of the Church as the Will of God. Ignore what God says in the Bible.

If the Catholics don't win, they shouldn't be divisive and should accept the decision of the Church as the Will of God. Ignore what some bloke in Rome says.

And, finally, if the liberals don't win, then clearly their opponents are being schismatic and bigoted, and there is no way that liberals can accept the decision of the Church as the Will of God.

There is a problem when liberals turn to Hooker's stool for aid. And that is that it doesn't exist. Hooker never saw Scripture, tradition and reason as equal.

Instead, Hooker saw Scripture as taking precedence over the others. So, the liberals misrepresent Hooker.

To be faithful to Hooker, the Church takes Scripture first and foremost.

Classic traditional Anglicanism has the 39 Articles, in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Now, we don't see the BCP as a Holy Book, but it is where Anglican doctrine is defined.

So, do the 39 Articles defend this Scripture, reason and tradition all-equal stance.

Scripture first:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. (VI Article)

And the Church:

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. (XIX Article)

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. (XX Article)

So, that is quite clear. The BCP was drawn up after Hooker's death, and if Hooker's stool was established mainstream Anglicanism, then it is odd that the 39 Articles don't back it.

The Articles are clear. The General Synod does have powers and authority, but it can only decree what is in line with Scripture. And so, in classical Anglicanism, it is Scripture that comes first.

Gordon's Gamble

Which is not to gamble.

Yesterday saw Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, announce a review of the plans for a supercasino in Manchester and the 8 "large casinos" (one of which would be in Southampton).

And, as the BBC has made clear, "review" means "dead in the water."

One thing that supporters of the casinos have gone one about is that they bring "regeneration." The logic behind this there will be jobs and then the taxes on gambling will be used by the wise benefactors in Whitehall to make life better for the poor.

The problem with this is that it ignores the advice from the police that large casinos are linked with crime (especially money laundering) and advice from practically every organisation that deals with gambling about the huge social problems that gambling brings.

There seems to be a new principle in Brown's government that was lacking in Tony Blair's. And that is morality. The "m-word" is not popular. While Blair liked talking about God, whilst doing his best to pass legislation that flew in the face of Christian ethics, teaching and morality, Brown is different, knowing that actions speak louder than words, and that a politician cannot separate their religious beliefs from their political actions.

It would once have been inconceivable that the Labour party would have swept away controls on gambling. There is the saying that the Labour party owes more to Methodism than Marxism (although, despite being a Methodist, I won't be voting Labour!). And the founders of Labour, such as Keir Hardie, cut their political teeth on the great Victorian moral campaigns such as temperance.

Brown is a son of the Manse, having grown up in the Church of Scotland, in which his father was a minister. And it is clear he has inherited John Brown's morality and values.

And Brown's gambling decision represents a turn in politics, following on from the Conservative party's report on poverty and how to tackle it. And that is a U-turn on moral values, a recognition that we have lost our way. And that it's time to get back the values we lost...

agn-Americanism?

Although I quite enjoy reading Daily Telegraph, there are occasionally columnists that simply annoy me. Mark Steyn was the last, and now there's the American neoconservative Irwin Stelzer, who has recently been objecting to three members of the Government:

• Mark Malloch-Brown: Minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations
• John Denham: Innovation, Universities & Skills Secretary
• Alan West: Minister for Security

Stelzer appears as one of those who believes that leaders of every nation need to decide whether they are pro-American or anti-American.

I would suggest (to use a Blairite term) that there is a "Third Way". And so I will invent the term "agn-Americanism". "Agn" as in "agnostic."

And so this is my radical and controversial view:

The primary task of the British Prime Minister is to not to decide whether to be pro-American or anti-American. It is to be pro-British, to put our nation's interests first, whether Washington, Moscow, Berlin, Paris etc. agree or disagree. Policy is to be decided on what is best for us, and what other nations' leaders believe is neither here nor there. The question "What will George Bush/ Vladimir Putin/ Angela Merkel/ Nicolas Sarkozy etc. think about this?" should have no impact, positively or negatively.

Stelzer's first error is to misrepresent Conservative leader David Cameron and Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague, believing that they are wanting to scupper the "special relationship." Now, if he and his neocon colleagues had listened to Cameron, they would know that he looks back warmly to the days of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and emphasises that Thatcher and Reagan would often disagree, that the "special relationship" does not mean that the Prime Minister says "How high, Mr President?" when asked to jump.

There is an irony in the neoncons' support for Thatcher, as one of the big things that led her to being seen as so tough and strong was the desire to liberate the Falklands from occupation. And who did she have to face down and argue with and win over? Reagan. After all, after the occupation of the Falklands and Thatcher's decision to liberate them, one member of Reagan's Cabinet (Jeane Kirkpatrick) invited the Argentinian Ambassador to a dinner as a sign of the Reagan Adminstration's solidarity with Argentina's military attempt to occupy the Falklands.

Thatcher's big achievement there was to get Reagan to completely U-turn his policy.

Hence, ironically, she is revered by the neocons for not abiding by what they think the "special relationship" should be! If she had followed their view of the "special relationship" she would have been a weak Prime Minister, abandoning British citizens when their homes were invaded.

So, none of this nonsense of Cameron and Hague wanting to scupper the "special relationship".

Malloch-Brown is a straw man target, as he is simply disliked for having come from the United Nations.

Denham is more complicated. Now, I have a low view of him. He was my MP for just over 2 years when I lived in his constituency (Southampton Itchen). I was not happy when Gordon Brown appointed him to his Cabinet. But, unlike some of the neocons, I hold this view:

The British Prime Minister can appoint whom he or she wishes to the British Cabinet, without having to get permission from Washington, Moscow, Berlin, Paris or anywhere else.

Why does Stelzer object to Denham serving in the Cabinet? Well, because back in 2003 Denham resigned as Minister for the Police over the decision to send troops into Iraq. I believe Denham was wrong on Iraq, but one has to respect that he stood by his principles.

I have another problem with Stelzer criticising Denham's Iraq stance. Which is that Stelzer recently condemned European troops in Iraq (and yes, we are European) for choosing to avoid the really dangerous areas of Iraq. Now, the idea that "America is fighting alone in Iraq. Sure, there are Europeans there, but they stay away from any danger and let America fight alone" might play well to some in the USA, but when I see headlines about the latest British soldiers getting killed in Iraq, the idea that our troops are simply cowards is offensive.

OK, suppose the Stlezer brand of neoconservatism is right, and the Europeans are contributing nothing to the war in Iraq. Suppose that the American troops are better off, and would "win" (whatever that now means in Iraq) more quickly, without other nations' soldiers there. Then, if our troops are such big cowards, then the best thing for Washington would be for us to pull out of Iraq. Hence, Washington should be applauding those in Britain who want our troops out.

West is the next target. Now, he is one of the most experienced members of the Government. He is an Admiral (indeed was once the senior Admiral in the Royal Navy) and has been knighted for his work in the Navy.

But- and this is a serious sin- he refuses to use the term "War on Terror" and refuses to refer to the "Muslim community" as a homogenous group. And? You cannot have a war on an abstract noun. And, I agree with Thatcher's stance when she was Prime Minister- we don't dignify terrorists by treating them as having a "just cause" or as "paramilitaries"- we treat terrorists as the criminals they are. No special prison rights for terrorists. We are not at "war" with terrorism. We are trying to defeat common criminals. And there are several branches of Islam- Sunni and Shia for starters- and Muslims don't all think alike. This may come to a surprise to some, but there are Muslims who don't back al-Qa'eda.

Brown comes under criticism for ceding power over foreign affairs to the "EU Foreign Minister." Who? Er, maybe the Stelzer brand of neoconservatism can explain how Brown can cede power over foreign affairs to someone who doesn't exist.

Now, the European Union is sensibly and logically merging the jobs of High Representative of the Common Foreign & Security Policy (accountable to the European Council) and the External Affairs Commissioner (accountable to the European Parliament) into a new Vice-President of the European Commission. No transfer of power. Common Foreign & Security Policy procedures remains as they are- and they are not decided by Qualified Majority Voting (as QMV isn't used Brown isn't ceding foreign policy to anyone).

Stelzer calls on Brown to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 to fight terrorism. And? What difference would that make? Well, it would mean that British judges in Britain would not hear human rights cases, but people would still be able to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. So, if terrorists cannot appeal to a British court they can go to Strasbourg. Repealing the Human Rights Act would be gesture politics. And it would forget that it was a British Home Secretary who devised much of the European Convention of Human Rights. Rather than "human rights" being something European forced on Britain, the Convention was the basic traditional British belief in freedom, rights and democracy being exported to the rest of Europe. We invented human rights. The Human Rights Act was simply the Convention finally being incorporated to British domestic law.

I also wonder one thing when I hear neocons calling for us to repeal human rights legislation- when are they going to call for the first ten Amendments to the American constitution to be repealed? If they are condemning a British Prime Minister for not giving up our rights and freedoms for the "war against terrorism" then they should be consistent and demand that the process to repeal those constitutional rights that they enjoy is begun immediately. And any Congressperson or Senator who votes against this would be "weak on terror".

No, of course the neocons will not begin a campaign to repeal the first ten Amendments, so why are British politicans "weak on terror" when they refuse to surrender similar rights?

I hope I do not need to refer to Benjamin Franklin (I think) when he made the comment about those who would trade liberty for security..

A Beastly Case of Mistaken Identity

I managed to write my last post without fainting.

Have I ever made someone faint? I have been told I have- all over a case of mistaken identity.

I did my PhD in St Andrews. Now, one of my friends, Tim, for some reason, decided that I was the Beast of St Andrews, and that I lived in a cave on Castle Sands and would eat people as they went past.

No, I don't know where he got that idea from. I am not a cannibal.

After Tim had left, I went round to see a mutual friend, Stuart, who was leaving St Andrews that day. In his wardrobe, he had a tuxedo, which he said he had borrowed from Tim. Could I return it to him when he was next up?

OK. So a few days later I phone Tim to arrange this.

Me: Hello, is Tim there?
Tim's mum: I'll just get him.
Tim: Hello.
Me: It's Graham.
Tim: Who?
Me (assuming Tim is messing around): You know, the Beast of St Andrews.

I then explain to Tim that Stuart has passed me the tuxedo that Tim lent him. When Tim says he didn't lend Stuart a tuxedo, I suggest that it belonged to one of Tim's housemates, and he says it might do.

Hmm.

A few weeks later a mutual friend of Tim and mine is up. And he mentions to me that he heard that I phoned Tim's dad and said "Hello, this is the Beast of St Andrews" and Tim's dad fainted.

So, I ask Tim this when he's next in St Andrews. It's very simple- his dad is called Jim, and his mum didn't hear me clearly.

And the moral of the story is- well, I'm sure there's a moral somewhere, but I don't have the faintest idea what it is. I suppose if I became a hermit and sat in a cave on Castle Sands I might think of a moral.

First B***d

DO NOT READ THIS POST IF YOU ARE ANYWHERE NEAR AS SQUEAMISH AS ME

I'll see if I can write this without fainting.

You might recall that I might have high blood pressure.

Well, my doctor wrote to me and confirmed that I did. This will be life-long. What he also told me in his letter made me panic.

He said that I would need to have regular blood tests to check my kidney functions. That scared me, as I thought firstly that it meant he was really concerned that my kidneys were going to pack up. But then someone who has high blood pressure told me that this is done every 6 months as the kidneys are one danger area.

But blood tests scare me. It's annoying when people talk loudly and graphically about giving blood or having a blood test done, especially when I'm eating. It's, I don't know. I feel sick thinking about them. I go hot, I breathe rapidly, I feel I am about to throw up, I feel light headed, I get a headache.

And that's just thinking about them. What will I be like when I'm in the room and see The Needle?

My doctor tells me that this is less painful than a dentist's injection in the lower gum. Now, I last had one of those when I was on my PhD, to remove a wisdom tooth. Very painful. It was one of my housemate's birthday party that evening, and I was so drugged up that I simply had to go to bed.

The high blood pressure is putting stress on my heart, and hence my heart problems. The thing that has struck me, and I don't want to come across as a whinging pom here, is that these sort of problems are life-long, and so, as far as current medical knowledge is concerned, my health will never return to the levels it was when I was younger.

I say "current medical knowledge". After all, The Times recently suggested that asthma would be cured within 10 years. When I was young, all you had for asthma was the blue Ventolin inhaler, to take if (and this is such an awful phrase) "you felt a bit puffy after games." My asthma cleared up as a teenager. Then when I was on an Operation Mobilisation's Love Europe team in the Austrian town of Traun (just outside Linz) 11 years ago, I was laid low with bronchitis. That cleared up, and when I returned to Leicester I had a second bout. And my asthma returned. I got a new Ventolin inhaler, and something I hadn't seen before. A brown Becotide inhaler. When I was a child, I was just used to having an inhaler to deal with asthma attacks, and so I was surprised to be given an inhaler which would help prevent them.

So, yes, I have heart problems and high blood pressure. I can do things to alleviate them (once our company gym has been repaired...). But, who knows what advances there'll be by the time I'm old?

The Forgotten Region

It is normal to hear groups like the UK Independence Party talk about the "Euro-regions", saying that "Europe" wants to divide England into "bite-size" chunks that it can then do terrible things to.

This myth was based on the fact that the first most people were aware of the regions was in June 1999 when they were used for the European Parliament elections.

Most national organisation will split into regions- whether a government organisation or non-governmental. For example, we have BBC South for the TV, the National Health Service has its regions etc. It is logical for the government to ensure that all its departments are following the same regions, rather than having a mish-mash for local organisations to deal with.

Here in Hampshire, together with the Isle of Wight, West Sussex, East Sussex, Kent, Surrey, Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, we were put in the South East region by the former Conservative government in the 1990s. It might be large and unwieldy, and far from ideal, but there was a sense in what that Government planned.

When Labour came to power, they hoped to devolve power from Westminster to the regions, and set up regional assemblies, drawn primarily from local councils, with the hope that, in time, these would be directly elected. However, in November 2004, North East England voted against this, and these plans have been dropped.

London has an elected assembly, but the Government considers this to be local government, rather than regional government.

One criticism of an elected regional assembly is that it creates another tier of politicians, another level of government. Yes, and no. In all places where devolution has occured (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, London) there had only been unitary authorities.

In the 8 English regions outside London, local goverment varies between unitary authorities and two-tier local government. So, if, for example, the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) were to be directly elected, then in many places one tier would have to go. Now, this won't affect us as Southampton City Council is a unitary authority. But, what about Hampshire County Council? Do you keep it and abolish the lower-level councils (New Forest District Council, Test Valley Borough Council, Winchester City Council, Eastleigh Borough Council, Fareham Borough Council, Gosport Borough Council, Havant Borough Council, East Hampshire District Council, Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council, Hart District Council, Rushmoor Borough Council)? In which case you have a county council which could be unwieldy, as it would take over all the powers and responsibilities of the lower-level councils, and lose some of its powers to SEERA.

Or do you abolish Hampshire County Council? If so, do you merge lower-tier councils?

I have already hinted at one of the problems with an elected SEERA. Yes, it would draw powers from central government to itself, but it would also take over powers from the council. And so, some things that are dealt with in Winchester by Hampshire County Council would then be dealt with in Guildford by SEERA. Unless you keep all the lower-tier councils, what people will experience with regional devolution is power being transferred up (e.g. if it's Hampshire County Council that remains, then instead of going to Lyndhurst to apply for planning permission from New Forest District Council, you'd make the longer trek to Winchester).

So, if SEERA gets elected, it's farewell to Hampshire County Council, West Sussex County Council, East Sussex County Council, Kent County Council, Surrey County Council, Oxfordshire County Council and Buckinghamshire County Council. You notice I've missed out two counties. Well, there is no Berkshire County Council, as Berkshire is all unitary authorities (West Berkshire District Council, Reading Borough Council, Wokingham District Council, Bracknell Forest Borough Council, Windsor & Maidenhead Royal Borough Council, Slough Borough Council) and Isle of Wight County Council is a unitary authority.

One of Gordon Brown's first acts as Prime Minister was to appoint ministers for the regions. 8 of the 9 English regions were given their own minister. 3 regions were luckier in that their minister is allowed to attend the Cabinet- Tessa Jowell (Minister for London), Beverley Hughes (Minister for the North West) and Nick Brown (Minister for the North East).

Of course, the largest region, South East England, England's economic powerhouse, supporting the rest of the nation, was overlooked. Days after the other regions got their own ministers, Brown, as an afterthought, gave us Jonathan Shaw, MP for Chatham & Aylesford, as the Minister for the South East.

Brown's other idea is regional grand committees at the House of Commons. Now, there were traditionally Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Grand Committees, comprised of the MPs from each of those parts, able to question government ministers over things affecting them. The Conservatives have been calling for a English Grand Committee, which Brown won't agree with.

So, all MPs elected in the South East will form the Grand Committee:

Conservative 58
Labour 19
Liberal Democrat 6

While not ideal, the South East Grand Committee will have a clear Conservative majority, enabling our MPs to work together to ensure the Government doesn't take us for granted.

Which senior politicians will be on the Grand Committee? The only Cabinet member will be John Denham (Southampton Itchen), the Innovation & Universities Secretary.

From the Conservative Shadow Cabinet, there'll be:

• David Cameron (Witney)- Leader of the Opposition
• Peter Ainsworth (Surrey East)- Shadow Environment & Rural Affairs Secretary
• Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham)- Shadow Welsh Secretary
• Michael Gove (Surrey Heath)- Shadow Children & Schools Secretary
• Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell)- Shadow Work & Pensions Secretary
• Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)- Shadow Attorney-General
• Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge)- Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury
• Nick Herbert (Arundel & South Downs)- Shadow Justice Secretary
• Jeremy Hunt (Surrey South West)- Shadow Culture Secretary
• Francis Maude (Horsham)- Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office
• Theresa May (Maidenhead)- Shadow Leader of the Commons
• David Willetts (Havant)- Shadow Innovation & Universities Secretary

While from the Liberal Democrat senior spokespersons there's:

• Norman Baker (Lewes)- Cabinet Office & Duchy of Lancaster
• Chris Huhne (Eastleigh)- Environment & Rural Affairs

Although Conservative policy is to oppose regional devolution, I think we need to reconsider this with regards to SEERA.

The first reason is that we would in all likelihood have an overall majority. And, if proportional representation is used then the Liberal Democrats, having got more votes than Labour, would be likely to form the main opposition. Therefore, Labour would have to tread carefully as there would be the two other main parties reminding them no to take the South East for granted.

Secondly, I suggest that all Conservative MPs in the South East (except for Cameron, as it would feel wrong for a party leader to sit in a regional assembly) should stand for elections to SEERA. One problem over the past few years is that we have had no executive power. Well, there would be a Conservative government in South East England, with a Conservative First Minister leading the campaign for the South East. There would be no problem with people serving in the Shadow Cabinet and the South East England Executive at the same time, so when the Conservatives win the next general election, we will be able to produce Cabinet members who have had experience running a region that is bigger than many countries (it's bigger than both Scotland and Wales).

These might sound like selfish, partisan reasons. But they're not. The South East has been taken for granted, treated as no more than a cash cow, by the Government. A Conservative administration in Guildford would ensure that the South East is listened to, as there would be a party outside and separate from the Government with the mandate to speak for the South East.

The South East would not be the only part of Britain to win from this. In Guildford there would be an administration that would form the backbone of a potential alternative Government. People disillusioned with the Government can then vote for an alternative, knowing that the alternative has ministerial experience and competency.

Now, I know that Conservative policy is to strengthen county councils. I can see the logic behind this. But, the old slogan is United We Stand, Divided We Fall.

Can't Get Who Out Of My Head

One of the more suprising announcements this week is that Kylie Minogue will be making her return to acting by starring in this year's Doctor Who Christmas special, Voyage of the Damned.

But the thing that has angered some fans is that the companion for the next season (which will be the 30th) will be Donna Noble from last year's Christmas special, The Runaway Bride. One moment, Donna was walking down the aisle, the next she was in the TARDIS.

One thing to say about Doctor Who fandom is how factional it all is. For too many fans, all that you need for a proper Doctor Who adventure is Tom Baker as the Doctor, Lalla Ward at his side, Douglas Adams writing the scripts, Graham Williams producing, and you get comedy slapstick.

Now, the Baker/Ward partnership did end up with some high-quality stuff. City of Death and, er, that's it. I cannot see how Horns of Nimon or The Nightmare of Eden can be seen as better than anything the last 3 years has seen.

It is amusing when fans who look back to the Baker/Ward era as the high point then attack The Runaway Bride for being comedy slapstick. Sorry, but the last 3 years of Baker's era make me cringe. He should have regenerated after the first 3 years.

Why the hostility to Donna? Well, she was seen as loud and abrasive. To some extent, but then so was Tegan initially. Remember that, like Tegan, Donna did not want to be with the Doctor. But Donna did mellow quickly, and at the end, the Doctor did invite her to travel with him longer-term. So he saw her potential as an assistant.

The other opposition to Donna was that Catherine Tate was playing her. Now, I had heard that Tate was a modern comedienne, and so assumed she would be "alternative comedy", i.e. an alternative to comedy, and assumed that Lauren with her "Does my face look bovvered?" was Tate's only character. So, before Christmas I watched an episode of The Catherine Tate Show, and it had been a long time since I have laughed so much. From Lauren's rap wedding with her version of My Heart Will Go On, to singing Rabbit with Sheila Hancock, the show was hilarious. Many of her characters are shrewdly written, and Tate strikes me as a writer who is very perceptive of people's foibles.

Just because she does comedy, one shouldn't assume that she can't do serious. Those who dismiss her with this logic and argue that she is unsuitable as a result should sit down and watch The Runaway Bride. And throw out all the Jon Pertwee DVD's as well- he was in a lot of the Carry On films before becoming the Doctor. Hmm. A comic actor as Doctor Who. And burn all your Patrick Troughton DVD's as he did bring a touch of humour.

Welcome back Donna!

Schools Out

One thing that the new Conservative administration on Southampton City Council inherited from the Liberal Democrats was a slight reform of the school system, as 4 schools were to be closed and 2 City Academies opened.

The Council has made the final decision, and the Academies will be run by Oasis, the foundation connected with Steve Chalke, with support from the YMCA and the Church of England.

Now, Oasis has a good track record of running schools, and produces high standards. And the Conservatives acted in the best interests of the students by choosing Oasis.

You would assume that people concerned for educational standards would back this. Strong criticism comes from the Labour party and the local newspaper:

The Conservatives are putting political ideology above children's needs.

Thus spake the Labour party. Experts on putting political ideology first- remember when Tony Crosland promise to "close down every f**king grammar school"?- which has been a driver behind Labour education policy. Was a school producing high standards? Then it was elitist and Something Must Be Done. Labour's education policy has been, since Crosland, that people should be equal. Not that people are born equal and then have to work to succeed, but that success is something to be punished, and the good students need to be held back to ensure that they are equal with those who don't work. Success and failure should be equally rewarded.

Left-wing political ideology took precedence over children's needs. Now, one of Tony Blair's few achievements as Prime Minister was to realise that the Conservatives were right on education all along.

Yes, they might keep local teachers for a while. But give it a few years, and American fundamentalists who believe in Intelligent Design will be teaching there.

Work visa issues? Having to study for a PGCE first? As this hasn't happened elsewhere, why would it happen here?

So, after years of trying to find something to believe in, the Conseratives find Christianity.

The Conservatives did lose their way in the 1990s, but we are coming back to our roots and seeing electoral success as a result.

What about children who don't go to church? Why won't they be able to attend these schools? It's discrimination on religious grounds.

Normal admission policies apply.

In Britain, religion has traditionally had no place in schools. This is a dangerous departure.

Obviously, whoever argues this way has never been to school. Education Act 1944 with its requirement for daily collective worship of a Christian nature. Education Act 1988 with its requirement for Religious Education, which must be predominantly (but not exclusively) Christian. Before the Education Act 1870, practically all schools around were Church of England run, and in 1870 all the Government decided to do was fill in the gaps. Between the ages of 5 and 10 I attended a Church of England school.


The new adminstration should be applauded for putting the education of children above political dogma.

Southampton Conservatives Are Back

In May we had elections to Southampton City Council, which saw the then ruling Liberal Democrat administration rejected (more than rejected- kicked into third place), and the Conservatives the largest party.

There was a brief spell where Labour and the Liberal Democrats teamed up to frustrate the democratic will of the Southampton people, but this has collapsed, and, as the people of Southampton voted for, we have a Conservative administration. We don't yet have an overall majority of seats, but this will happen next May when voters see the improvement in services.

Our new council executive is (with the wards they represent):

Leader- Alec Samuels (Bassett)
Adult Social Care & Health- Ivan White (Bitterne Park)
Children's Services & Learning- Peter Baillie (Bitterne Park)
Economic Development & Regeneration- Royston Smith (Harefield)
Environment & Transport- Gavin Dick (Sholing)
Housing & Neighbourhoods- Phil Williams (Bitterne Park)
Leisure & Culture- John Hannides (Bassett)
Resources- Jeremy Moulton (Freemantle)
Workforce Planning- Terry Matthews (Shirley)

Southampton City Council elects in thirds- councils have the choice of this or electing the whole council in one go.

Traditionally, in England (at least outside London), there was a two-tier council system. You had the top-tier county council, and a lower-tier city/borough/district council. The county council was elected in one go every 4 years, and the lower-tier council did not have elections those years.

In 1996 several councils, including Southampton City Council, became unitary authorities, so Southampton City Council took over all of Hampshire County Council's functions within Southampton.

If a council elects in thirds, normally there are small (single-member) or medium (two-member) sized wards, and in any given election year, some of these will have elections, others won't. A two-member ward might elect both its members in the same year, or in different years.

Southampton does it differently. We have 48 councillors, 3 for each of the 16 wards. And so, every election year, each ward elects one councillor.

To get an overall majority (25 seats) next May, we need to win a further 7 seats. The seats that are up for election are:

• Conservative 6 (Freemantle, Harefield, Bassett, Shirley, Millbrook, Bitterne Park)
• Labour 6 (Bevois, Sholing, Redbridge, Bitterne, Bargate, Woolston)
• Liberal Democrat 3 (Coxford, Swaythling, Portswood)
• Independent 1 (Peartree)

Which should be easy enough.

Baptism of Fire

Every new job brings new challenges, new ways of doing things, things to adapt to. For Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, the first few days have given them more than that.

We have had over the past couple of days the potential car bombs in London and the attack on Glasgow Airport. Now, car bombs are nothing new- they were a favoured tactic of the IRA.

It was interesting to see Brown's statement on Friday evening. He looked and sounded like a Prime Minister. Kept it simple, kept it brief. None of the gushing and theatrics which Tony Blair would have done. No Pinteresque pauses for dramatic effect. I found Brown's statement reassuring, and it feels that for the first time since November 1990 we have a Prime Minister. He has made the job his own- indeed on Friday I was watching the BBC Parliament channel, and saw Blair on there, and it took me a few moments to recognise who he was. The Blair era seems so far away and so long ago now. He won't be missed.

And Smith seems to have taken to the Home Office like a duck to water.

Brown, Smith and the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, have hit the nail right on the head. We do not bow to terrorism. We do not surrender. Normal life carries on. Brown made sure that all the political speeches and events that were planned by his Cabinet went ahead anyway. On the news I saw people going to the West End of London, out to have a good time on Friday evening. How could they do that only hours after what could have been a severe terrorist attack? Because life carries on. That was London, bombed night after night for months in the Blitz. And London carried on, it always carries on.

What might have caused this? Well, a few weeks ago it was the Queen's Official Birthday, and the publication of the Birthday Honours List (which is not drawn up by her anyway. The only honours she specifically chooses are the Knight of the Thistle, Knight of the Garter, the Order of Merit and the Royal Victorian Order. The KG and OM are quite exclusive as they are limited to 24 holders. The KT is even more exclusive as it is limited to 16 holders) saw the novellist Salman Rushdie awarded a knighthood. Now, I don't think much of him as a writer, but we honour who we 'll honour, and no other nation has the right to tell us who we should or should not give honours to.

As the Pakistani government has tried to do, with Ejaz ul-Haq, the Religious Affairs Minister, saying that a suicide bombing would be justified. That is inciting terrorism.

In an even sillier statement, Nazir Ahmed, a Labour member of the House of Lords, says that Rushdie has blood on his hands. Er, no, Ahmed. Those who kill have blood on their hands. Rushdie wrote a book. We have freedom of expression. This is a precious freedom that people died for.