Always win when you’re singing

Today I recei mulled wine, mince piesved an invitation to the re-opening of the ‘fitness studio’ at one of the council’s leisure centres. It’s headed ‘VIP Invitation’. I wondered why. Had the Leisure department seen my increasing girth and decided that I was more in need than most?

Then I re-read the invitation and realised that the invitation was not to use the gym facilities. Spelt out in the centre of the invitation were the words, ‘For mince pies and mulled wine‘. So just an excellent way of increasing the clientele for a few pounds in Tesco ….

Wasilla to Washington now seems an even longer journey than it did a month ago, after Alaska’s Republican Senator Ted Stevens lost his Senate seat to Democrat candidate and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. 

Uncle Ted, as six-times elected Senator Stevens is known in Alaska, was found guilty of corruption charges by a federal jury last month. If had won a seventh term, his Senate colleagues would almost certainly have thrown him out of the chamber, if he hadn’t had the decency to resign first. This would have left a vacancy, in which Governor Palin would have been the front-runner.

Senator Palin would have gained political, promotional and logistical advantages over Governor Palin. Firstly, it would place her in Washington DC, giving her easy contact with the national and international media and four years to rehabilitate her image. A Washington role would also enable her to court the Republican Party’s movers and shakers - and maybe more importantly, its money men.

Geographically, as well as culturally, Alaska is a long way from most of the rest of the USA. A DC base would make running for President much easier, certainly closer to the key early contests in New Hampshire and Iowa. Not having the responsibility of running a state would also be helpful - such a dual role hindered California Governor Pete Wilson in 1996. Being absent from the Senate whilst on the campaign trail is much easier than absenting yourself from the Governor’s chair.

Most importantly,  being a Senator would give Palin the opportunity to deal with the belief of a significant number of those who rejected her earlier this month that she lacks knowledge and experience of national and international issues.

There is an opposing viewpoint that Palin is better off staying in Juneau. Even if the Democrats do not gain their filibuster-proof Senate majority, life as a Republican Senator will be frustrating and tedious for the next few years. Chat shows and a national newspaper of magazine column would keep her in the public eye. She would have the chance to address privately some of the failings that brought ridicule upon her during the Presidential campaign. She could even visit Africa - or at least a few parts of it.

Becoming a Senator would also remove one of Palin’s best cards - that of a Washington insider. But four years of maintaining national exposure and campaigning all around the GOP will dilute that anyway. And Americans usually prefer to elect Governors, rather than Senators to the White House. But on balance, Begich’s victory is a good thing for those who find a Palin Presidential campaign just too scary to contemplate.

In a post-election interview with Fox News, Palin said if God showed her ‘the open door’ to the presidency, she would go through it. Looks like the Almighty’s just slammed the door in your face, Mrs Palin. Praise the Lord!

P.S. If on 7th November 2012 we are waking up to a Palin presidency, reminding me of this post will not really be much of a problem in the scheme of things :-)

Does John Sergeant read my blog?

Yet again, the Conservatives are tying themselves in knots over the issue of ensuring the election of more female MPs. Conservative Central Office are cross that so few women have been selected in winnable seats. Now I am not bolting for the moral high ground, as the LibDems’ record on this is hardly wonderful. But whilst my party approaches this matter as one for liberalism and civil rights, only at ConservativeHome can you get such comments as:

“Oh deary me, is this because Association’s are picking who they think will be the best person to be MP. Who’d have thought that in the 21st century there were still people being selected because of their ability not because of the gender.”

and

“The Conservative Party must select candidates who will do a good job. I’m not saying women and ethnic minorities cannot do a good job [but]“

and

“I would suggest from my experience of ‘women’ on the candidates list that their average age would be lower than that of the male candidates. Maturity, experience, knowledge etc all increases with age and could be a reason why more men are getting selected.”

And then I heard Justine Greening (apparently Shadow Treasury Minister) having what could best be described as a Sarah Palin moment on Radio 5Live yesterday afternoon (it’s 1 hour, 11 minutes and 20 seconds into the broadcast) … making Peter Allen sound like Paxman at his best (or worst).

The Telegraph is leading with the story that legal advice given to Tony Blair prior to the invasion of Iraq was fundamentally ‘flawed’, former senior law lord Lord Bingham has said. Lord Bingham, who stepped down in September, described the action by the UK and US as a ’serious violation of international law’.

The UN had stated out that force must not be used except in self-defence or to avert a humanitarian catastrophe – unless authorised by the United Nations’ Security Council.

Lord Bingham believed that Lord Goldsmith’s reliance on three Security Council resolutions as authorising the Iraq invasion was ‘flawed‘ because ‘it was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had’.

Lord Bingham noted that Lord Goldsmith’s argument for the invasion had been described as ‘unconvincing’, a ‘bad argument’ and ‘fatuous’ by three other leading QCs.

Lord Goldsmith said: “I stand by my advice of March 2003 that it was legal for Britain to take military action in Iraq. I would not have given that advice if it were not genuinely my view. Lord Bingham is entitled to his own legal perspective five years after the event, but at the time and since then many nations other than ours took part in the action and did so believing that they were acting lawfully.”

Former LibDem London Mayoral candidate Brian Paddick has apparently been banned from talking politics in the Aussie jungle. So he had to find other things to talk about on the set of I’m a Celebrity.

According to the Daily Mail, after former Eastenders star Joe Swash revealed that he called his penis ‘Alfie’, Brian was quick to reassure everyone that he didn’t have a pet name for his private parts.

He later insisted: ‘I do not have a name for my penis. Lovely as it is, it does not have a name.’

It seems that The Sun have already named it for him.

More of a shock for me was that the Mail published photos of a gay man naked - and even made approving comments!

One of the irritating things about living in and representing a non-geographically named local authority like Three Rivers is that no-one outside the area ever knows where it is. Some people ask you which three rivers are included, but the reply ‘Gade, Colne and Chess’ seldom seem to inform further. The easiest way to describe the District is to say it is the communities to the north, west and south of Watford, but NOT Watford. Not glamorous, but geographically accurate.

The best part of living in and representing Three Rivers is that it is full of small towns and villages, each with their own identity. The best of those is of course Abbots Langley (the first place to be ‘north of Watford’), but Rickmansworth, Chorleywood, Croxley Green, Carpenders Park, Oxhey Hall, South Oxhey, Sarratt, Bedmond, Hunton Bridge - the list could go on - are all thriving and distinctive communities.

As smaller communities than our larger neighbour Watford, we are used to not getting much publicity, which on the whole suits us fine. But even the civil parish of Abbots Langley has a few claims to fame. Vinnie Jones was born here, as was the only English Pope - Adrian IV. The village has a beautiful Grade 1 listed church and a world-renowned Gilbert & Sullivan Society. And the Harry Potter films were all made here at Leavesden Studios, the site previously being home to the Rolls-Royce factory that manufactured Mosquito and Halifax aircraft.

Two of the more famous buildings in Three Rivers are the HQ of lottery operators Camelot and The Grove, a luxury hotel complex used by many celebrities including the England football team and home to the World Matchplay Golf in 2006, at which Tiger Woods was the main attraction. Both are often represented as being in Watford, when they are not. I once had an argument with the Camelot stand at a LibDem conference when they refused to admit that the company was located neither in Watford Borough nor constituency. And I know that The Grove is likewise located, as I was Chair of the planning committee that granted planning permission!

Today it was The Grove’s time in the limelight again, with the G20 conference, bringing with it the new messiah American President Barack Obama, possibly being located here next year. True to form, the media get it wrong. The Times and Guardian both got it wrong, as did ITN news, who interviewed Watford’s LibDem Mayor Dorothy Thornhill, before admitting that The Grove is located ‘outside Watford’,

Strangest of all was the local paper, who took a little prompting to admit that The Grove is not in Watford, now stating that the hotel is

in Chandler’s Cross on the outskirts of Watford

Hurrah!

I’ve never been a drug addict. I’ve never owed money to a loan shark. I’ve never been abandoned with a couple of small children and no means of support. I’ve never felt under the control of a man, who might physically or mentally abuse me.  I don’t know her life story, but I’d bet Jacqui Smith has never been in any of those situations either. So maybe neither she nor I are the best people to comment on what some women see as their way out of such a crisis - sex - or rather, sex for money.

I should also add that I’ve never lived in or near a red-light district, so I also haven’t had to suffer the quite legitimate concerns of those who find that their residential streets have become full of scantily dressed ladies, kerb crawlers, and the criminals who can be associated with the sex trade. I’ve also never been a poor woman from a developing country ’sold’ in one way or another into the trade and trafficked to the UK to be used and abused.

So having established that the issues surrounding prostitution aren’t simple, it was strange to see the Home Secretary simplify them to one potential new criminal offence: paying for sex with a woman ‘controlled for another person’s gain’. Ignorance of the woman’s situation will be no defence, thereby effectively criminalising anyone who pays for sex through recognised channels. I say ‘recognised channels’ because there will still be the option for the rich, powerful or attractive man of simply picking up a woman in a club or bar, having a good evening out - followed by a good night in. And no-one seems to have mentioned male prostitution.

Having over-simplified the subject of why women become prostitutes, Ms Smith then goes on to complicate matters by apparently confusing or correlating it with lap-dancing. Over the past couple of years, lap-dancing clubs have become the new enemy of middle-class Britain, as their licencing requirements are not those of a sex establishment, but the same as a wine bar. Now I do not approve of lap-dancing clubs in residential areas, any more than I approve of any other establishment which makes residents feel uncomfortable, unwelcome or unsafe on their own streets. I would not support a prostitution ‘toleration area’ on the same basis. I don’t want my soon-to-be teenaged daughter and her friends propositioned by a leering Mondeo Man as they walk back from the bus stop. But is lap-dancing or prostitution per se wrong?

The terribly middle-class voice of the Fawcett Society has thrown itself behind the campaign to limit lap-dancing clubs. Now whilst I can support the campaign to remove such establishments from residential areas, I am not quite sure how this fits into the Fawcett’s equality’ portfolio of campaigns. The society seems to follow others in believing that all those employed in the sex industry are there because they are forced, either physically, or by circumstances. They think that women should be prevented from being forced into such degrading work and freed to do the more glamorous and rewarding work of cleaning toilets or being dependent on a man. Wasn’t that what we were trying to get away from in the first place?
The Enflish Collective of Prostitutes are predictably opposed to criminalising their clients. But they make some good points. One of their case studies is of a young woman who can make £250 for 4 hours lap-dancing - about the same as 35 hours cleaning mornings and evenings. And if she can make that money from waving her attractive body at some gullible men, who is nearer being exploited here?

The same will undoubtedly be true for many prostitutes. Of course we should stop women being forced into prostitution, just as we should prevent them being forced into other jobs and situations against their will. If we dislike drug addicts turning to the sex industry, let’s make sure there are plenty of places for them to get clean of drugs. But to say to a woman who is acting of her own free will ‘You may want to earn a very good wage by selling your body, but we think it would be more ‘dignified’ for you to clean a factory or be a shelf-stacker‘ seems to me to be as far opposed to feminism as you can get. What right has anyone, even other women, to tell women what they can and can’t do for a living, just because we disapprove of it? As my old friend Costigan Quist states: ’This “feminist” message betrays a remarkably low opinion of women’. There are many ways in which women (and men) are exploited in 21st century Britain, so why not seek ways to address those by ensuring everyone has a safe and secure place to live and enough money to live a decent life? If people then want to sell their bodies for sex rather than manual labour, should morals be a reason to stop them? If a woman truly makes a free decision and the effects on residential areas are removed, what is the harm?

Some critics have argued that men will look for other ‘opportunities’  if prostitution becomes less available.  Jacqui Smith has brushed this aside, saying that it was ‘not mine or the government’s responsibility to ensure that the demand is satisfied‘, adding: ‘Basically, if it means fewer people are able to go out and pay for sex I think that would be a good thing.’ So there you go. A moral judgement from Nanny Jacqui. Let’s go back to the days when women ‘gave’ themselves to a man and where admitting to wanting and enjoying sex, rather than engaging in ‘marital duties’ made you a wild and wanton woman. The right of a worker to move away from wage slavery is ingrained in socialism, but it seems Labour is frightened to give women the freedom that they sought over the years for other workers.

Dr Katherine Rake, Director of the Fawcett Society, said ”We’ve sleepwalked into a situation where sex is bought and sold like a commodity.” Maybe so, but stopping prostitution won’t end that. Whilst The Sun and Sport, together with the lads mags are still making their money from admiring men, sex will still be a commodity, just one that has a thin veneer of respectability and where mainly men pull the strings and make the money. The feminist Bea Campbell, opposing lap-dancing. said, “The problem isn’t sex, it’s sexism.” Too right, but not in the way that you meant it.

Ms Smith said that she had ruled out a universal ban on paid sex because some women argued they did it out of choice ‘and it’s not my job to criminalise the demand for that‘. Really? You could have fooled me.

It’s the issue dividing the nation - should John Sergeant still be in Strictly Come Dancing? Every Sunday evening, I sit relaxing with a glass of something nice, only to be sent into a strop by my fellow members of the public and their desire to rig a dancing competition.

I will admit that at the beginning I found John fun, who could not? But now I think it’s just gone too far. I realise that’s treating some of my peers like small children: ‘We were all enjoying ourselves, but you had to spoil it by going too far!‘, but it has gone beyond a joke - yes, you John!

It won’t be the first time that John Sergeant has played the clown, As occasional chairman of ‘Have I Got News for You’ he is quite amusing. One of the most unintentionally funny moments in news reporting came in 1990, as he waited outside the British embassy in Paris for Margaret Thatcher, to hear her reaction to the first ballot of the party leadership contest. As Thatcher emerged from the building, the eager Sergeant was pushed aside and down the steps by Thatcher’s  press secretary, Bernard Ingham.

I’ve watched every episode of Strictly Come Dancing since it started. Yes I know it’s sad, but along with football, it’s a vital time of relaxation and fun for me in a busy lifestyle. Although it is light entertainment, it is a competition - and a dance competition at that. I don’t want to see it become like a cross between the Eurovision Song Contest and All-Star Family Fortunes.

There’s now apparently resentment brewing from the usually close cast of Strictly. According to The Times;

The frustration directed at the former political correspondent was all too evident at the end of [Sunday's] show. Unseen by those watching at home but witnessed by the studio audience, none of the performers milling on the dance floor to commiserate with and embrace Lunghi would make eye-contact with Sergeant, who wandered aimlessly among them.

But some members of the public seem keen to carry on the joke, even when it has ceased to be funny. And I expect the views of the cast will only serve to make more people think that poor little John is being victimised. So I’m doing my own little protest. Although I’m usually a great fan of the ‘Dave’ channel, I’m boycotting ‘Argumental‘, their new show chaired/compared by John Sergeant. I realise that it won’t make a hole in their viewing figures, but it makes me feel better - which is an improvement for my Sunday evenings!

According to The Sun, LibDem London Mayoral candidate and former Met Police Deputy Commissioner Brian Paddick will be one of the line-up for this year’s ‘I’m a Celebrity … Get Me out of Here’.

Now whilst Brian is a fine man and was a pretty good candidate in many ways in May, is he really a celebrity? Still, compared to others on the list, which includes Carly Zucker (girlfriend of Joe Cole), Dani Behr (former TV presenter), Joe Swash (used to be in Eastenders) and Simon Webbe (used to be in boyband Blue), he’s almost an A-lister!

Others rumoured to be taking part sound more befitting of the title: Martina Navratilova, Esther Rantzen and Robert Kilroy-Silk.

Just a shame that The Sun behaved in character and stressed both Martina and Brian’s sexuality.