The Big Beasts Return

One interesting news item recently is that readers of Conservative Home (and therefore hard-core Conservatives) would like to see Ken Clarke and David Davis back in the Shadow Cabinet.

At some point, David Cameron, the Leader of the Opposition, will have to make the last major Shadow Cabinet reshuffle of his career. There might, of course, be minor changes afterwards, but to all intents and purposes, when he next reshuffles the pack, politicians will be in the posts that they will shadow until the general election, and which they will take after the next election.

There have been minor reshuffles in the past few months. In June, Davis resigned as Shadow Home Secretary (and as MP for Haltemprice & Howden) in order to fight a by-election on the principle of the Government's erosion of freedom. He was replaced as Shadow Home Secretary by Dominic Grieve, who comes from the same libertarian mould as Davis, although Cameron had to be quick to emphasise that Grieve was not simply keeping the post warm until Davis returned. It is interesting to note that Grieve remains Shadow Attorney-General.

The other reshuffle was in October, after Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, recreated the post of Energy Secretary, and Cameron appointed Greg Clark as Shadow Energy Secretary.

The idea that Clarke could return to front-bench politics is an interesting one. He served continually in the Cabinet from September 1985 until the Conservatives lost office in May 1997, and stood for leader three times (1997, 2001 and 2005). But, he had a certain level of unpopularity among Conservatives due to his enthusiastic support for the euro.

The fact that a return for him is seriously being talked about among hard-core Conservatives means one thing- we are now serious about power. It's OK for a party to seek ideological purity if it wishes to enjoy the luxury of Opposition and be an inward-looking talking shop. No, I'm not saying that we should welcome potential ministers who hold views completely at odds with conservatism, but that the Conservative party has been a broad church round a set of common principles which Conservatives agree on.

I need to make one side comment here. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister, he got into the habit of recycling ministers- someone might be in the Cabinet, then be moved to a Government position outside of the Cabinet, and later return to the Cabinet. In the current Government, there are several former Cabinet members holding Government posts outside the Cabinet- Margaret Beckett (Minister for Housing), Tessa Jowell (Paymaster-General and Minister for the Olympics), Ann Taylor (Minister for International Defence & Security) and Stephen Timms (Financial Secretary to the Treasury).

These days, it seems, instead of a political career being a series of promotions until you either get to the top or fall off the ladder into political oblivion, there is no shame in a former Cabinet minister returning to a lower job than they used to have.

The media speculation is that Clarke would be Shadow Business & Enterprise Secretary, based on his extensive economic experience. Once, the idea of someone who had been Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer taking up a middle-ranking Cabinet post such as Business & Enterprise Secretary would seem ridiculous- but times have now changed.

One benefit of Clarke's return is that Labour would find it hard to portray him as an "Eton toff." He would also be able to remind people that it was his work as Chancellor of the Exchequer which led to an economy so strong that it took Labour 11 years of economic incompetence and mismanagement to bring the economy to the disaster it is now.

OK, we can blame Clarke for Labour winning three elections in a row. If he had been worse at his job when Chancellor, then Labour would have inherited a worse economy than it did, and by the end of its second term would have brought the economy to the state it is now, and the Conservatives would have returned to power in 2005!

What about a return for Davis? The most senior Government post he has held is as Minister for Europe. To bring him back as Shadow Home Secretary would imply that Grieve was simply a stand-in. The other logical post, Shadow Foreign Secretary, would involve moving William Hague, the current holder- and where would Hague go, considering he is number two in the Shadow Cabinet? Yes, Cameron could formalise Hague's senior status by making him Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and then- after the election- First Secretary of State, but what would Hague be doing?

There is another name talked about in the media- the possibility of former leader, Iain Duncan-Smith, becoming Shadow Work & Pensions Secretary. While this seemed odd the first time I read it, there is a certain logic to it. Duncan-Smith has, particularly through his Centre for Social Justice, done a lot of work on "Breakdown Britain", its causes, its consequences and what action needs to be taken. Being Work & Pensions Secretary seems a fairly logical place to put the CSJ work into action.

Two Shadow Cabinet members talked about having question marks over their futures are George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Caroline Spelman, the Conservative Party Chairman. This is unfair, as they have both been targeted by Labour smear campaigns when Labour wants to divert media attention from its own failings.

As Osborne is in charge of co-ordinating the general election campaign, then Chairman is the obvious job for him. On the other hand, Spelman's background was shadowing local government while Eric Pickles, the Shadow Communities & Local Government Secretary, has effectively run by-election campaigns, so a straight job swap between Spelman and Pickles would be sensible.

Surely it is time for a promotion for Chris Grayling, the Shadow Work & Pensions Secretary. But if he were moved to the most obvious promotion- being Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer- then this would mean a move for Osborne...

But we should find out in the next few weeks.

The Flying Bishops And Why The Compromise Won't Work

One debate which has been around in the Church of England for the past few years is the question of whether women should be consecrated as bishops.

And I read yesterday that a "compromise" has been sorted out.

When the original decision was made to ordain women to the presbyterate, one of the protections was Resolution C, which a church's PCC (Parochial Church Council) could use to call in a Provincial Episcopal Visitor (PEV, although often termed a "flying bishop") to exercise episcopal oversight if their own diocesan bishop was one of those who ordained women as priests.

There are three PEVs- in the Province of Canterbury there are the Bishops of Ebbsfleet and of Richborough, and in the Province of York the Bishop of Beverley. Their status is as suffragan bishops in the Diocese of Canterbury or the Diocese of York. When they go in to a church, it is effectively as an assistant to the diocesan bishop.

In a way, the PEVs are a misleading fudge. The parish technically is still under the episcopal oversight of the diocesan bishop.

And a very similar scheme has been proposed for women bishops. The PEVs would be "complementary bishops"- a misleading term. "Complementary" to something else implies equality.

No, if there is a woman diocesan bishop, the PEV who is called in by a parish would be under her authority, rather than being her equal. The parish could pretend and convince itself that it was under the oversight of the PEV rather than the diocesan bishop, but this would not reflect the reality. A PEV in this situation would be dishonest.

Moreover, there would simply be a "Code of Conduct", which would not be legally binding on a diocesan bishop, who could simply decide that PEVs could not operate within her diocese.

Another Part Of Heritage Dies

As the old Joni Mitchell song put it, you don't know what you've got until it's gone.

And one of those is Woolworths. I will miss those shops.

Of course, there are the closing down, everything must go sales. I have gone along to these, but try to avoid the eagerness which people display when buying bargains. This is not a normal January sale, but the final farewell to part of the landscape. So familiar to us that when I was 11 and in our tutor group we discussed which of the local places were towns or villages, our tutor gave us the definition that if it had a "Woolies" it was a town, if not it was a village.

When shopping there recently, what is uppermost in my mind is that I feel like a vulture feeding off a dying shop. These are no ordinary January sales.

Although, I did manage to get 3 Doctor Who DVDs cheaply- The War Machines, The Brain of Morbius and Four To Doomsday.

The Star of Bethlehem

On BBC2 on Christmas Eve, I caught the last half-an-hour or so of a documentary about the Star of Bethlehem, asking the obvious question of what it was.

The first suggestion was that it was a "triple conjunction" of Jupiter and Saturn in May, September and November 7BC, so these two planets appeared close to each other on three occasions. At first sight you might think that Jupiter- moving faster- would simply overtake Saturn in the sky and that would be that.

However, both Jupiter and Saturn would have been at opposition (directly opposite the Sun, so rising around sunset, being highest at midnight, and setting around sunrise) about August that year, so something called retrograde motion comes into account:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Retrograde+and+direct+motion

(scroll down to "Apparent retrograde motion" for the explanation)

So, a rough timetable would be:

• May- with Jupiter moving faster, it overtakes Saturn and is then to the east of Saturn
• June- Jupiter and Saturn start retrograde motion (moving westwards)
• September- Jupiter overtakes Saturn, and is then to the west of Saturn
• October- Jupiter and Saturn end retrograde motion and so start moving eastwards again
• November- Jupiter overtakes Saturn for the third time, and is then to the east of Saturn and the two planets are moving further apart.

To see this sort of thing in action, go to http://www.heavens-above.com/countries.aspx and then click on your country and choose your location.

When you click on your location name, you will end up at the main page, and click on "Whole sky chart", which is about half-way down the page.

You then get a chart which shows what the sky looks like at that moment. However, you can alter the date and time. Choose 1 January 2020, and set the time to be about 12h 0m.

What you should see is the Sun to the south. To the left of the Sun, you will have Saturn. As it's to the left of the Sun, this means it is still technically an evening object, but would be very low in the south-west just after sunset. To the right of the Sun, there is Jupiter, close to Mercury, which would be low in the south-east just before sunrise. These are all in Sagittarius.

Now step forward a month, to 1 February, and bring the time to 10h 0m. The stars will be in the same place, but the Sun, moon and planets have moved. Jupiter and Saturn are closing in on each other slightly.

Keep stepping forward and bringing the time earlier- if you step forward a week, bring the time half an hour earlier; a fortnight, bring the time an hour earlier; a month, bring the time 2 hours earlier. If you find that the planets are getting too low, simply add an hour or so to give them time to rise higher.

In March and early April you will note Mars overtake Jupiter and then Saturn. For British observers these conjunctions happen low down before sunrise.

By August, both Jupiter and Saturn are moving retrograde, but as Jupiter is moving faster, they are getting further apart. However, by November, the retrograde motion is over, and Jupiter is now catching up on Saturn. And it is in December 2020, between the stars of Sagittarius and Capricornus, that Jupiter finally overtakes Saturn (the actual date is 21 December).

While 2020 sees Jupiter and Saturn close for most of the year, it falls short of a triple conjunction. For the next triple conjunction, put these dates in your diary- 7 September 2238, 13 January 2239 and 22 March 2239.

If you use the sky chart around those dates, you will see this in action in the Taurus/Gemini area of the sky. The evening sky around the March one would be amazing, as not only are Jupiter and Saturn near to each other, but over in Aries, you have Venus and Mars close together.

The 7BC triple conjunction happened in Pisces, which was supposed to astrologically signify the Jews.

-------------------

The second theory presented rested on a coin from Antioch, which showed a ram looking backwards at a bright star. The ram, of course, is Aries, and it was suggested that the "star" was a lunar occultation of Jupiter, which occurred in Aries in April 6BC.

The point was that Jupiter represented kings, so this was something to do with a king.

----------------

The third theory was quite complicated, but rested on Jupiter having a conjunction with the star Regulus (astrologically connected with royalty) in September 3BC.

Now, there might be an obvious objection, namely that Jesus was born when Herod was king, and Herod died in 4BC. But this date traditionally comes from the Jewish historian Josephus, and in pre-1544 copies of his history, Herod dies in 1BC. It appears that in the mid-16th century, a copying error was born, killing Herod off early.

In June 2BC, Jupiter was in conjunction with Venus- nine months after the Jupiter/Regulus conjunction- and in this theory, Jupiter represents kingship and Venus motherhood, indicating that a king was about to be born.

-----------------

Now, there is one obvious objection to all this, in that there are simply too many explanations. As someone from the European Space Agency interviewed on the programme noted, the Magi would be using up many "camel miles" rushing from Persia to Judea and back again three times in the space of 5 years.

But then he came up with an interesting point- what if the Magi were noticing events in the sky which pointed to the birth of a king, a set of three (or more) events in the space of a few years which together were astrologically significant, and then there was the Big Event which saw them leave for Bethlehem? Such as a supernova or a bright nova.

In one respect, I feel, a supernova- which by its death brings creation- is quite appropriate to mark Jesus' birth.

But I do have a problem with God speaking through astrology.

----------------

One question is when was Jesus born? A former vicar of mine had a go at answering this, and started from what, at first glance, might seem an odd part of the Bible to start from- I Chronicles.

In chapter 23, King David organises the Levites, and then in chapter 24, lots are drawn to decide the order in which the Levites served. In verse 10, we read that the eighth lot went to Abijah.

As there were 24 lots in all, and a year of 12 months, what it seems is that these served for half a month at a time.

Although these days the Jewish year starts with Tishri, in September or early October, it is likely that the Jews of Jesus' era would have still used Nisan as the first month:

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, "This month shall be for you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year for you." (Ex. 12:1-2)

The middle of Nisan sees the Passover. Nisan will start in March or April.

So, when would it have been Abijah's turn to serve? The eighth lot implies the second half of the fourth month, Tammuz. We are looking at late July or early August.

In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. (Luke 1:5)

Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord to burn incense. (Luke 1:8-9).

So, when was Zechariah on the temple? It must have been in the second half of Tammuz, and an angel then appears and tells him that he and his wife, Elizabeth, will have a son (who will be John the Baptist).

The next significant event is Gabriel visiting the Virgin Mary, and telling her that she too will have a son. This is in Elizabeth's "sixth month", so she is between 5 and 6 months pregnant. This puts us anywhere between late December and early February.

And Jesus was born 9 months later- between late September and early November.

The Incoming President Gets Tough With Russia

I doubt that Mirek Topolanek has instant name recognition. But tomorrow he becomes Europe's senior politician.

The current system is for the Presidency of the European Council to rotate around the member nations, and so France's Presidency ends today, with the Czech Republic taking over tomorrow.

Of course, if the Lisbon Treaty had been passed, then tomorrow would have seen the start of a system whereby there would be one individual who would serve as President of the European Council for two-and-a-half years. And we would have faced the terrible prospect of Tony Blair serving as "President of Europe".

The strongest argument against the Lisbon Treaty? Just two words- "President Blair".

Topolanek is the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic. He leads a centre-right Government, composed of his own party, the Civic Democrats, along with the Christian Democrats and the Greens.

What can we expect to see as the European Union's priorities under "President Topolanek"? The main priority has been outlined by Karel Schwarzenberg (formally, His Serene Highness Prince Karl VII of Schwarzenberg), the Czech Foreign Minister.

Schwarzenberg emphasises that the EU has a duty to help our neighbours to the east- singling out Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia- and Russia condemns this "Eastern Partnership" as the EU moving into Russia's sphere of influence.

Schwarzenberg's stance to Russian sabre-rattling is to simply point out that the EU can form whatever relationships it wants with whatever nations it wants, and it is none of Russia's business.

There is one other important aspect to the next six months. June, of course, sees the next elections to the European Parliament, and Topolanek wants his Civic Democrats to form a new grouping with the British Conservatives after the election.

Why Aren't The Palintologists Picking Over The Bones Of This Scandal?

Over the late summer and autumn and there is one thing I learned that is never said in polite company. Whenever asked who do you want to win the American election, the polite answer is never "John McCain."

If you say that, the conversation quickly turns to the left's current favourite hate figure, Sarah Palin. There are plenty of palintologists ready to be absolutely nasty about her.

One question you'll find yourself asked is why is Palin passing off her grandson as her son, as "everyone knows" that Trig Palin is "really" Bristol Palin's son. Really? And the "proof" that Bristol is Trig's mother is what, precisely?

Another thing you will come across is the argument that Palin broke all rules of political conduct by drawing attention to some of the figures involved in Barack Obama's early political career. However, personal attacks about Bristol and Trig (see above) and the "lipstick on a pig" comments are, curiously, within the acceptable boundaries of political conduct.

Another argument given to me was that Palin was constitutionally ineligible to be President, and therefore could not be Vice-President. This argument goes that she was born in Alaska, and Alaska is "not technically" part of the USA, hence she is ineligible.

Hmm, considering that on Saturday Alaska will mark the fiftieth anniversary of statehood, what is it "technically" part of? Russia? Canada?

Moreover, Palin was born in Idaho, which- last time I checked- is "technically" part of the USA.

But there is another argument I was given, which becomes relevant with events in Illinois over the past few weeks.

On Saturday, Ted Stevens, who has been one of Alaska's Senators since December 1968, leaves the Senate, having been defeated at the November elections. And the final few months of his career have been tinged with scandal.

Hence the argument goes:

• Stevens behaved in a corrupt and unethical way
• He is a Republican from Alaska
• Palin is Alaska's most senior Republican
• How could Palin not have known?
• How could Palin not have been up to her eyeballs in the scandal?
• Picture the scene- the FBI having to go into the Oval Office to arrest Madam President for corruption.

When confronted with that you can argue until you're blue in the face that Palin built her career on challenging corruption- and indeed, corruption and ethics violations within Alaska's Republicans. And the route she took to Governorship was by challenging a sitting Republican Governor for the Republican's gubernatorial candidacy.

But try pointing this out, and you'll simply get again, that Stevens is an Alaska Republican and Palin is an Alaskan Republican. And for eager palintologists, this is sufficient proof that Palin is corrupt.

One consequence of Obama's election is that he has to leave the Senate. And the decision as to who replaces him (until a special election in November 2010) is solely that of Rod Blagojevich, the Governor of Illinois. And there is now a scandal as to whether Blagojevich tried to sell the Senate seat.

The first thing I ought to point out is that I am not saying that Obama is corrupt, or was in any way involved in the selection of his successor.

But why aren't the palintologists being consistent? Why aren't they saying that Blagojevich is a Chicago Democrat, and Obama is a Chicago Democrat and play the "unsuitable to be President due to guilt by association" card?

---------

I want to add something to this. Traditionally, the people were not directly involved in choosing Senators. They would, of course, elect their state legislature, which would, when the time came, elect a Senator.

In case this sounds odd, remember that the first direct elections to the European Parliament were in June 1979, and prior to that MEPs were elected by- and drawn from- the national legislatures. And when a new nation joins, its first batch of MEPs are elected by its legislature rather than by the people.

Indirect election is fairly common for upper houses.

It wasn't until the Seventeenth Amendment, which was ratified in April 1913, and hence first used in November 1914, that the people directly elected the Senate.

As we have seen, one consequence of the "loans for peerages" scandal has been attempts to change how the House of Lords is chosen, with the votes in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords on this taking part with the police investigation in the background.

What will be interesting is whether the whole saga of the Illinois Senate seat will lead to attempts to alter how casual vacancies which arise in the Senate are filled.

We Can Work(s) It Out

As I was going away, I did not have time to expand on my last post, and what amused me about a Works & Pensions Secretary.

Irwin Stelzer is not the only American commentator regularly in Daily Telegraph. There is also Janet Daley, who can be very critical of aspects of British politics. The difference is that Daley makes the effort to ensure that she knows what she's talking about.

It's not being nit-picking to note Stelzer's, well, they could be called "schoolboy errors" or "howlers." It's just that if he were sitting an exam, and had to write an essay about British politics, then the examiner would start reading it, and not simply mark it as "Fail", but give up and throw the essay in the "round filing cabinet".

The thing is here that there is a world of difference between a Minister for Work and a Minister of Works.

In the 19th century, there was an old Government post called the First Commissioner of Works. Sometimes he would be in the Cabinet (e.g. George Lansbury- the grandfather of Murder, She Wrote actress Angela- from June 1929 to August 1931), so it was an important position. But this post went through a few name changes:

• October 1940- Minister of Works & Buildings
• February 1942- Minister of Works & Planning
• February 1942- Minister of Works
• July 1962- Minister of Public Building & Works

In October 1970 the post of Environment Secretary was created, and the post of Minister of Public Building & Works was replaced by the Minister for Housing & Construction, who worked for the Environment Secretary.

The nearest equivalent to a "Works Secretary" would be Margaret Beckett, the Minister for Housing, who is responsible to Hazel Blears, the Communities & Local Government Secretary, not to James Purnell, the Work & Pensions Secretary.

I am sure that Stelzer has a lot to say about the British social security situation. But, before he does say anything, please drop the belief that housing and social security are the responsibility of the same member of the Cabinet.

Although It's Christmas Eve, It's Still Wednesday..

..and Wednesday is the day for the weekly anti-British rant in Daily Telegraph from Irwin Stelzer.

I will not describe Stelzer as "pig ignorant"- just in case I have any porcine readers, who would be, quite properly, offended at being compared to him.

For starters, there is his crowing about British troops "cower in their barracks" in Iraq, and "scurrying out" of Iraq.

Please tell us Stelzer- those heroes brought back in coffins, do you believe they were cowards who "cowered" and "scurried out"?

For quite some time now, Stelzer has done his best to maintain that British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are cowards. I suggest a New Years Resolution for him- to visit every British soldier who is, or has been, in Iraq and/or Afghanistan (and, yes, that would involve going to the Middle East) and giving each one a personal apology, on his knees, saying "I am sorry. I told lies about British soldiers and was paid for misrepresenting you as cowards. Please, let me clean out your latrines with my toothbrush."

And, as Stelzer clearly considers himself more of a hero than them, maybe he should be sent to the frontline with inadequate equipment.

Every last cent that Stelzer owns should be confiscated and put towards a fund for injured soldiers- those he likes to mock and ridicule and portray as cowards. Every possession in the world that he has should simply be taken from him, sold off and used for that purpose.

Stelzer also bangs on about James Purnell, who is, apparently the Secretary of State for "Works and Pensions."

Works & Pensions? Er, hello? Has Stelzer ever considered getting his facts right?

Not really, for whenever you read one of Stelzer's anti-British tirades, the first thing you note is how most of his "facts" are simply wrong.

Twelve Days Of Numerology

It is not actually Christmas yet- a point I will return to.

I recently saw one of these "explanations" for the song The Twelve Days of Christmas, in which it was "created" as a "code" by Puritans to catechise:

• 1 God
• 2 Testaments
• 3 Virtues (Faith, Hope & Charity)
• 4 Gospels
• 5 Books in the Pentateuch
• 6 Days of Creation
• 7 Sacraments
• 8 "Blessed are thou" in the Beatitudes
• 9 "Fruits" of the Holy Spirit
• 10 Commandments
• 11 Faithful Apostles
• 12 Pieces of Doctrine in the Creed

I think this is more a scratching around trying to find an explanation- i.e. "here are the numbers from 1 to 12. Try and find something they could match."

Which creed do they mean? Apostles'? Nicene? Athanasian?

7 Sacraments? There are only 2- Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The Puritans would have had no time for the idea that there were others.

And one thing the Puritans certainly had no time for was Christmas! Would they really have drawn up a Christmas song?

--------------------------

One thing that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has been quite right about (he's only wrong most of the time) is that Advent, which we are still in, gets squeezed out. In part, this is the Church of England's fault though.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer was quite clear on the matter. There was the 1st Sunday in Advent (which was between 27 November and 3 December), and before that was the Last Sunday after Trinity (20 to 26 November), and only when Advent was over did Christmas begin.

The 2000 Common Worship takes a similar line, but upgrades Advent a bit. You have the Last Sunday after Trinity (23 to 29 October), followed by All Saints Sunday (30 October to 5 November- so not necessarily the Sunday nearest to All Saints' Day) and then it's counting down to Advent, with Christ The King on the day which is the BCP's Last Sunday after Trinity. In the companion volume, Times & Seasons, it is clear that All Saints' to Advent is a church season in itself.

However, there was also the 1980 Alternative Service Book. Liturgically, this was what I grew up on (I became a Christian in October 1990), so was not really aware of all the controversy about it, and ignorant when people started reminiscing about "Series 1" to "Series 3". But, the ASB decided to have Last Sunday after Pentecost (16 to 22 October), and the following Sunday it was 9th Sunday before Christmas! So, the Church of England had, for a while, bought into the commercialisation of Christmas, and you would have the countdown to Christmas which could be as early as 23 October (if Christmas was a Sunday). There are shops which consider that premature!

I hope that with the BCP and Common Worship being our service books, there will be a swing back to the idea that Advent is a season in its own right, rather than the "run up to Christmas".

--------------

And 12 days of Christmas starts tomorrow. It is odd that these days Christmas is taken as the end of something, rather than the beginning.

Radio adverts reflect this. There was one I heard a lot last month which begins with "on the first day of Christmas" and then tells us to start shopping on 1 December. Sorry, that is not the first day of Christmas.

And I could scream when hearing a radio competition for the "12 days of Christmas"- starting 12 days before Christmas.

-------------------

A final comment on this matter. The idea that it's "unlucky" to leave Christmas decorations up after Epiphany (6 January). What annoys me is when superstitions arise around and feed off Christianity. Where in the Bible does it say you have to take down decorations then? Who decided that it was "unlucky"?

Who He?

One thing which is exciting media interest is the question of who will be the next Doctor Who.

What is interesting is that journalists who saw the preview of The Next Doctor are also those asking the question- either they are throwing us a red herring or something in the episode shows that David Morrissey is not really the next Doctor. Note that we have already seen a future Doctor, namely Michael Jayston's portrayal in Trial of a Time Lord, and no-one is seriously puttting forward Jayston's name as a future Doctor.

Presumably Morrissey, like Jayston, is a possible future Doctor if the Doctor's life takes a certain route.

One name that is emerging in the speculation is Tom Ellis. He has already appeared in the show, as Tom Millington in The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords, and when next mentioned, in The Sontaran Stratagem/The Poison Sky he is Martha's fiance.

However, there have been parallels between him and the Doctor in the programme. When he and Martha set out to find Alison Docherty, Martha notes that she is travelling with a doctor again. And when she tells the Doctor and Donna that she and Tom are engaged, then there are comparisons made between him and the Doctor. The message is clear- Martha is attracted to Tom as he reminds her of the Doctor, and the Doctor is the man she can never have.

To have Tom and the Doctor played by the same person would be an ironic twist. And Martha would end up confused. How would she respond if the Doctor took the appearance of her fiance? Ditch Tom and go back to travelling with the Doctor?

----

Another thing I am thinking about- when the new Doctor takes over for Season 31 in 2010, he will need a new companion. As Steve Moffat will be in charge of the show then, how about one of his creations, Sally Sparrow, as companion?

It's Just A Song

There are some people with too much time on their hands. One of these is Peter Kearney, a spokesman for Keith O'Brien, the Cardinal-Archbishop of St Andrews & Edinburgh.

Kearney's target is the children's song, Hokey Cokey.

People with common sense recognise that it is a fun song for children. Kearney, looking for something to ban, warns that by singing it you are breaking the incitement to religious hatred laws!! Which can carry a prison sentence of 7 years.

The Roman Catholic Church in Scotland has ruled that the title of the song comes from the phrase "hocus pocus"- a phrase used by stage magicians who find "abracadabra" too long to say. And apparently, "hocus pocus" comes from hoc est enim corpus meum, the Latin for "this is my body"

[By the way, what's Latin for "grow up and get a life"?]

I am suddenly reminded of those achingly politically correct people who try and find racist overtones in "ship shape and Bristol fashion". People who make links in chains which aren't there.

Barack The Brit?

One news story which caught my eye recently was the case brought before the US Supreme Court, which argued that Barack Obama was ineligble to be President as he was born a British citizen.

Now, this so bizarre that it seemed like one of those things which would appear in newspapers in the August "silly season."

One point I ought to make here is that seems to be a certain level of nastiness after a Presidential election. When, for example, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton were elected, their opponents accepted they had won by the rules. There seemed to have been no attempts to say, for example, that Reagan had stolen a state or that Clinton was ineligble.

And, I have to add that the nastiness can be on both sides. I would not have been surprised if after a John McCain victory there had been court challenges based on the word "Panama".

What Obama, and before him George Bush, have both faced in the run-up to taking office is the accusation that they were not properly and lawfully elected. Once can be a one-off. Twice is turning in a trend. Three times will make it a tradition.

So, what about the claim? It rests on the idea that Obama would have been, at birth a "British citizen."

Technically, under the British Nationality Act 1948, there was "United Kingdom & Colonies" citizenship, and Obama's father, from Kenya (at the time a British colony) would therefore have been a UKC citizen and this would have been passed on to his son.

End of story? Well, Kenya became independent in December 1963 (when Obama was 2) and so Obama would have become a Kenyan citizen at that point, although he would have lost Kenyan citizenship in August 1982 (when he turned 21).

OK, in Kenyan law Obama became a Kenyan citizen, but what about British law? Did he lose UKC citizenship?

The British Nationality Act 1981 created the modern idea of British citizenship. If you were a UKC citizen with the right to live in the United Kingdom (not all did) then in January 1983 you became a British citizen.

There was another category- the "British Dependant Territories" citizenship. And this included those who were UKC citizens by birth.

Taken at face value, it appears that Obama is a British Dependant Territories citizen.

One thing needs to be said about dual citizenship, which is that it is up to an individual country to draw up the rules about who is, and who isn't, a citizen, so you can end up with more than one citizenship, e.g. if you're born in Northern Ireland you are given both British and Irish citizenship. When it comes to things like elections, sitting in Parliament, employment, social security etc. no distinction is drawn between being a British citizen and being an Irish one. One consequence is that people from Northern Ireland who do not want to be British can take part in the electoral process as a result of being Irish citizens.

There was one thing which concerned me about the challenge to Obama's eligibility. If the case had been asking the Supreme Court to look at whether, according to American law, Obama was born an American citizen, then that's fine- that would be an internal matter.

But what it was asking the Supreme Court to do was more than that- it was asking the Court to assume sovereignty over the United Kingdom and deliver a binding verdict as to what the rules are for someone to be considered a British citizen.

Wisely, the Court refused to go down that trap. If it had decided that being born a UKC citizen made one ineligble to be President, it would then have been faced with the issue of how to define being born a UKC citizen.

Supposing it had taken that path. Then it would have been faced with one of two choices.

The first would have been to look at the whole system of British law defining citizenship, and make an attempt to interpret it, being aware that it could end up with a definition which differs from Britain's! This would not be atrivial issue- for example, there is still, at the moment, a Visa Waiver Program which applies for British citizens travelling to the USA. In theory, if the Supreme Court had fallen into the trap of defining British citizenship, then a Briton could apply through the Waiver Program, and turn up to find that, sorry, it says "British citizen" on the passport, but using the Supreme Court definition, they are not a British citizen.

The second choice would be for the Court to decide that, yes, if Obama was born a UKC citizen then he is ineligble to be President, but it is a matter for the British legal system to decide whether or not he was born a UKC citizen. The outcome of that would be a British court having to rule whether Obama could be President or not, which I doubt would be uncontroversial.

Before London

One programme I have been watching has been After Rome, a documentary by Boris Johnson, the Conservative Mayor of London. Although, the BBC is keen to point out at every available opportunity that it was made before the London elections!

Johnson often plays the archetypal buffoon, but really this is so that his political enemies can misunderestimate him. Here we see Johnson the classicist talking at length on a subject that interests him- the "clash of civilisations" between Christianity and Islam.

Having watched the first episode (I videoed the second and will watch it at some point) there are some things I noticed.

Firstly, he notes that Arabia was between areas dominated by two monotheistic religions- Christianity to the west and Zoroastrianism to the east.

Secondly, he also notes that even the "Barbarians" were under the Roman sphere of influence, often using Roman coins (I was mentally daring him to utter the phrase "single European currency"!), and that a common culture existed even after the fall of the Roman Empire- and it was the rapid territorial expansion of Islam that destroyed this.

Thirdly, he spent a lot of time talking about the era when the Iberian peninsula was under Islamic control- at a time when England was only just being united. But, what is important is that Christianity and Judaism were only tolerated- no formal persecution in the sense of Christians being martyred, but more a discrimination, with many important positions only open to Muslims.

And then there were things which really pulled me up with a start. At one point he is discussing how in the Eastern (Byzantine) area, Islam was attractive to heretical semi-Christian groups (such as those who denied the Trinity)- the reason given by one Islamic scholar being that in Islam there was no clergy, and anyone could, for example, lead prayers.

What is interesting about this is- whatever happened to the "priesthood of all believers"? Why did "the Church" start giving out the message that one could only approach God via a man in a dog collar?

What got really interesting was when Johnson got on to the Crusades, noting how the word has become devalued (e.g. when a politician talks about "a crusade against rubbish", they are not talking about putting people to the sword if they put their rubbish out on the wrong day!). When he sees a graphic artwork about Hell, he notes that this is not taught in sermons in mainline churches. OK, people will, of course, believe in the existence of Hell, but when did you last hear a sermon about it? Johnson says there is a Church of England report which concludes that Hell might exist, but if it does, there are probably very few people in it.

And then he notes the reason that the then-Pope, Urban II, gave to encourage people to go to the Holy Land on the Crusades, viz. that this would "clean the slate" of all your sins.

Watching that episode, I think what struck me the most was that this rise of Islam was happening when "the Church" was teaching things against the Gospel- such as "priestcraft" or salvation by works.

No Such Thing As A Free Swim

This morning there was a leaflet pushed through my door from Labour. Much of it- no, all of it- was utter twaddle.

The big thing they were harping on about is how those nasty Conservatives have cancelled free swimming for children.

Is that the real story? Recently, John Denham, the Innovation & Universities Secretary, who is also (when he remembers) MP for Southampton Itchen, has condemned Southampton City Council's "appalling" stance on this. As Denham says, there is "Government money" which can "help pay" for this.

Ah, "Government money." I had an image of this- Denham saying that Government money is needed for children in Southampton to swim; out come Cabinet member's purses and wallets; someone saying "Yvette, can you change a tenner?"; someone else saying "Harriet, can you put twenty quid in for me? I'll pay you back tomorrow."

No, what Denham calls "Government money" isn't money that appears from thin air. It comes out of our taxes. Or by the Government borrowing money with no thought of the day when it has to be repaid- with interest.

There are many laudable things that money could be spent on. But what socialists never grasp is that a person, a city, or a nation, needs to live within their means. It means budgetting. It means deciding how much should be spent on X rather than on Y.

Denham spins it as "Government money" being available by a nice Labour Government for free swimming, and those nasty Conservatives turning it down.

But, note he says "helps pay" not "pays". There is a subtle difference, which, of course, Denham is ignoring. The "Government money" is only about 25% of the cost. The other 75%? Well, Southampton City Council would have to find this out of its own budget. It could do this by raising Council Tax or cutting other services.

It is interesting to note that when there was a Liberal Democrat/Labour coalition administration, their solution was to plan to close a swimming pool to pay for this. Hence, in order that some people could have free swimming, others would see their local swimming pool close. Hardly a way of encouraging swimming, which is supposed to be the raison d'etre of this initiative.

Labour have got Duncan Goodhew speaking out against the Conservative plans. Well, although he is a good swimmer, I would like to see how he stands on economics. Where would he like to see the Council make cuts to pay for free swimming? Sack a few teachers? Reduce care for the elderly? Fewer rubbish collections? Or would he like to see our Council Tax rocket, in which case he could go round a few hard-working families feeling the pinch and tell them what essentials they need to go without.

Labour are harping on about the reduced hours that pensioners can use free bus travel. But, the point is, that again, the money has to come from somewhere. Some time back, one local bus company pointed out that it has to either increase bus fares for non-pensioners or cut the number of bus services.

Labour also try to argue that they are the party of economic competence (!!!). The example is that interest rates are low, whereas under the Conservatives they were 15%.

But, there are a few things that need to be said. Interest rates were 15% during the Labour Government of March 1974 to May 1979. Under the Conservatives, they did briefly hit 15%. This was due to being in the Exchange Rate Mechanism- ERM membership was something Labour supported. So, yes, under the Conservatives there was a brief period when interest rates were 15%, but this was due to a policy which Labour fully supported the Conservatives on.

And, Labour have not brought down interest rates. That was the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee which has had to slash interest rates in a vain attempt to undo (or at least reduce) the damage that is being done to the economy by Alistair Darling being the most incompetent Chancellor of the Exchequer in history.

Labour were also harping on about free TV licences for the elderly and the extra money for heating for pensioners. All laudable, but part of the socialist nannying idea that it's up to the Government to take your money from you, and give some of it back, telling you what you can spend it on.

Surely, the better route is to cut taxes so people have more income, and they can decide (without asking the Government) what to spend it on. If they want to spend it on swimming, bus travel, TV, heating, or even cigarettes and alcohol, the it's their choice.

Spare Us Your Condescending Claptrap, Rudy

There was a little article in Sunday Times which made my blood boil. Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York, was saying about how London is prepared for dealing with a terrorist attack.

It's called experience. It comes from years of having to deal with major terrorist attacks from the IRA. I'm sure Giuliani knows all about the IRA- after all, he would happily invite terrorists to New York City Hall so he could drool over them and for his office to call them "civic rights leaders."

I was shocked to read that this apologist for terrorists was in London. Maybe in his future visits, he should go on a tour to Harrods, Hyde Park, Balcombe Road, and then a trip to Brighton so he can see where "civic rights leaders" tried to assassinate Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. And then on to Manchester, Warrington, and indeed everywhere where the "civic rights leaders" have killed Britons.

Shutting Up The Speaker

The big political story of the past few days has been the politically-motivated arrest of Damian Green, the Shadow Minister for Immigration, and one of the players in the whole saga is Michael Martin, the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Although Martin's defence appears to be that he was a non-player in the saga!

There have been the voices calling for Martin to resign, but Martin Bell, who was the Independent MP for Tatton between the May 1997 and June 2001 elections, suggests another way..

The Speaker has to be an MP. At a general election, the sitting Speaker contests the election as "Mr/Madam Speaker seeking re-election". By convention, the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats choose not to contest that seat, and encourage their supporters to vote for the Speaker.

When the Speaker has been re-elected as an MP, there is another process to go through. When the House of Commons meets again, there is a session presided over by the Father of the House (the person with the longest continuous service- currently Alan Williams, the Labour MP for Swansea West. After the next election, it would be Peter Tapsell, Conservative MP for Louth & Horncastle, if he is still an MP then. There has never been a Mother of the House- the currently longest serving woman MP, Harriet Harman, the Labour party deputy leader, Labour party chairman, Lord Privy Seal, Leader of the House of Commons, and Minister for Women, is about thirtieth in line!).

And at that session, the House of Commons elects the Speaker. By convention, a sitting Speaker is re-elected unopposed, but there's no rule preventing MPs from choosing someone else.

What would happen if someone else was chosen? Well, the ex-Speaker would still be an MP, but in an anomalous situation. Their constituents would have re-elected them on the assumption that they would remain Speaker. When someone becomes Speaker they are supposed to be above party politics (Martin's predecessor, Betty Boothroyd, for example, sits in the House of Lords as a Crossbencher, following the example of her predecessors), so it would be awkward if a Speaker went back to their old party (or indeed, joined another party). If, in those circumstances, Martin were to sit as a Labour MP, then this would reinforce the idea that while Speaker he was, at heart, a Labour politician first and foremost, rather than an impartial Speaker. It would be a snub to those Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in his constituency (Glasgow North East) who campaigned for him.

Martin could, of course, resign from the House of Commons if MPs don't re-elect him as Speaker. In theory, he could contest the ensuing by-election as Labour's candidate, but this would, again, reinforce the idea that he had been a Labour politician and biased when Speaker.

Alternatively, he could hang around the House of Commons as an Independent MP until the following general election.

The least embarrassing option, both for Martin and for the House of Commons (to avoid having an ex-Speaker there) would be for a life peerage to appear for him in the next available Honours List- thus removing him to the House of Lords and making him ineligible to be an MP. If there is a change of Government at the next election (as seems likely), then one of Gordon Brown's tasks as ex-Prime Minister would be his "Resignation Honours List". There is normally enough of a gap between a general election and this for Martin to appear on Brown's list in these circumstances.

However, back to Bell's idea- where he notes that the Speaker has to be an MP. What if Martin is no longer an MP after the next election? What if the good people of Glasgow North East choose someone else to be their MP?

Bell wonders whether it would be possible for the Conservatives, Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrats to find a non-party person to stand in Glasgow North East.

And when I heard this, the name "Jean Turner" popped into my mind.

Between May 2003 and May 2007, Turner was MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) for Strathkelvin & Bearsden- next door to Glasgow North East. She was elected as an Independent, and was genuinely outside party politics.

A Glasgow-area, neutral, experienced parliamentarian. Who could be better at ousting Martin at the next general election?

No No-Go Areas

Today sees an important event in politics, when David Cameron, the Leader of the Opposition, addresses the Ulster Unionist Party conference.

Cameron has been clear in the past that there should be no no-go areas for Conservatism. However, in the past, there has been one- Northern Ireland.

While, technically, at a general election (or a by-election) you don't elect a Government, simply a constituency representative, it is, of course, based on the election results that a party (or occasionally more than one party) can have a majority in the House of Commons and then form a Government.

The people of Northern Ireland haven't been disenfranchised in the strict sense. They can vote for any candidate standing- although the 5 Sinn Fein MPs choose not to take their seats in the House of Commons, so cannot fully represent their constituents. But, the Conservatives do not contest seats in Northern Ireland, and neither do Labour nor the Liberal Democrats. In Northern Ireland you can only vote for a Belfast-based (or in Sinn Fein's case, Dublin-based) party. The great national issues pass Northern Ireland by in general elections.

While, of course, all politics is local, in Northern Ireland that is taken to extremes. There is a contrast with Scotland, where you can vote for explicitly Scottish parties (e.g. the Scottish National Party or the Scottish Socialist Party) as well as the main 3 Great Britain parties.

In theory, in a hung Parliament, the Northern Ireland parties could have an influence by "confidence and supply" deals or maybe by becoming a coalition partner. And, in a general election, the Northern Ireland seats start counting on the Friday- a contrast to in Great Britain- so on the day after a general election, you know by lunchtime who will be forming the Government, and on the Friday evening, there will be the final results from Great Britain seats (those which were very close and needed recounts) and then, when only anoraks are watching, the Northern Ireland results will come through.

What Cameron, together with Reg Empey, the UUP leader and Northern Ireland Minister for Employment, want, and appear to have, is a deal where we fight elections together- starting with the European Parliament election in June.

At European level, Northern Ireland is a 3-member constituency (based on its population, it should really only elect 2 Members of the European Parliament, but European law forbids any constituency electing less than 3 MEPs, and there is no obvious way of linking Northern Ireland with anything else in the United Kingdom- although, saying that, Gibraltar has to be linked to South West England for European Parliament elections, so a consituency containing all of Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland would be just as logical!).

From the first elections to the European Parliament in June 1979 until the last ones in June 2004, the results were very much the same. The first place would go to the Democratic Unionist Party's Ian Paisley. The second would go to the Social Democratic & Labour Party's John Hume. And the third would go to the UUP candidate (John Taylor in 1979 and 1984, Jim Nicholson in 1989, 1994 and 1999).

In 2004, everything changed. Paisley and Hume retired. The first place went to the DUP's Jim Allister, and the third place went to Nicholson. The big change was that the second place now went to Sinn Fein rather than the SDLP- with Bairbre de Brun becoming the first Sinn Fein MEP. The unsuccessful SDLP candidate was Martin Morgan- I recall reading that he is now in Fianna Fail, the main party of the Irish Republic.

Things have changed even more! Allister has left the DUP. Obviously, the DUP will need to choose a new candidate- I don't know who they will choose. Although, now MEPs will not be allowed to have "dual mandates" (i.e. be members of another legislature), so it would be impossible for an MEP to be either an MP or MLA. At the March 2007 election to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the only sitting DUP MLA to lose their seat was Diane Dodds in Belfast West, which leaves her as the most experienced DUP politician not to sit at either Westminster or Stormont (and hence, eligible to be an MEP). But, in theory there is nothing to stop an MP or MLA getting elected to Strasbourg/Brussels and then resigning their Westminster or Stormont seat. In the former case, there would be a by-election, and by this stage, the DUP have several safe seats. In the latter case, the DUP could simply appoint a new MLA.

The next European election in Northern Ireland would be fascinating- there would be an Independent Unionist, a Sinn Feiner and a Conservative all seeking re-election. In addition, it is probable that the DUP and SDLP would each run a candidate. And, seeing how close he came to unseating Nicholson in 2004, would we see Morgan contest it again- but under Fianna Fail's banner?

The DUP do not seem all that pleased about the idea of the Conservatives and UUP forming a pact, in particular, as Cameron wants us to contest everywhere in the United Kingdom. It is time we became an all-UK party and gave everyone the chance to vote for us.

There is a common DUP refrain about other Unionists splitting the Unionist vote and letting a Nationalist (SDLP or Sinn Fein in). But, why is it always the other Unionist who splits it? Why when the DUP sees a UUP seat (or one which the UUP came close to winning, and therefore has a greater clain on it), do they go "we'll have that. And if you stand against us, you're splitting the Unionist vote."?

The two seats that the DUP mention are Fermanagh & South Tyrone and Belfast South. In June 2001, the first of these saw Sinn Fein's Michelle Gildernew win the seat from the UUP (who had held it since June 1983) narrowly. Gildernew is now Northern Ireland's Minister for Agriculture & Rural Development.

Now, given that this was a UUP seat for a long time, and that it was a close Sinn Fein/UUP marginal, it might seem that the UUP has the best unionist claim on it. Not in the DUP's eyes, who ran Arlene Foster, now Northern Ireland's Minister for the Environment, as their candidate in May 2005. In the absence of a UUP/DUP pact, Gildernew held on to her seat. But note, it was the UUP who split the unionist vote by contesting a seat that was historically theirs.

Belfast South is one which had been held by the UUP for a long time, and so one would expect the UUP's prior claim to be recognised by the DUP. Instead of backing the UUP's Michael McGimpsey, who is now Northern Ireland's Minister for Health, the DUP ran a candidate of their own- Jimmy Spratt. The seat was won by Alasdair McDonnell, the SDLP's deputy leader.

Yes, the Conservatives and DUP both contesting the same seat could lead to cases where Sinn Fein or the SDLP win. But, if the DUP doesn't want to split the vote, then they could save money and resources by not contesting such seats, and giving Northern Ireland votes that chance to vote for someone who would, if elected, become a Government backbencher, and maybe, go on to be a minister, and (if good) a member of the Cabinet and (potentially) Prime Minister.

To step aside so a seat can be won by the Conservatives- what could be more unionist than that?

Endeavour And The Occultation of Venus

We have been fortunate to have several clear evenings the past week or so, and there have been a couple of real celestial treats.

The first for me was last Friday. I had known that last week, the International Space Station was docked to one of the space shuttles, Endeavour, and I had a set of timings from http://www.heavens-above.com/

So, I went out in the evening, and saw one bright point of light appear over a building. To my suprise, this was followed by a second bright point of light. What I hadn't realised was that by then, the space shuttle had undocked.

This isn't the first time I have seen a space shuttle- I have seen Atlantis earlier in the year, when it was docked to the ISS. But this is the first time I have seen a shuttle on its own.

The second event was on Monday evening. I left work about 5, and could see the thin crescent moon with Jupiter above it. But where was Venus?

Venus was so close to the moon, that it was actually behind the moon as seen from Earth. This is called a lunar occultation. By the time I got home, at 6, Venus was now visible, just to the right of the moon.