This is one for the Tories.

When the expenses crisis broke (and let’s gloss over the completely biased handling of it by The Telegraph – which published day after day after day of Labour expenses so that it was firmly established in the public’s and the media’s minds as a Labour problem, before going on to finally release details of the far more risible Tory claims), Cameron, no doubt fore-warned by his pals at The Torygraph, acted swiftly and decisively.

In fact, he acted entirely properly. His party came out as one which won’t tolerate those in a position of privilege abusing it for personal gain, even if they are doing so within the letter of the law. A slew of resignations followed, and all was well within the Tory Party.

But what is strange is how some of his inner-sanctum were protected from the  hammer blows dealt out to the rest of the party. We’ve already mentioned how Osbourne escaped. Alan Duncan, despite his comments (again, see previous post), was not sacked – perhaps because it would harm Cameron’s bid to open up the party to gays, to sack the first openly gay Tory MP?

It’s instructive to look at DC’s response to the whole Ashcroft palaver this year. I will be writing more on Ashcroft later, and  I’m sure you’ve all read the ins-and-outs, the who-said-what’s of the matter.  But it remains that Cameron has not acted on Ashcroft, paid back the money, or promised anything more than the same vague assurances over Ashcroft changing his status than Hague had given years ago, when he knew this was not the case.

Reason #16: So my concern, if I were a Tory, would be about a leader who is happy to hang members out to dry to look good to the electorate, while hypocritically defending the apparently indefensible acts of those who he wishes to protect.

On the day that the front pages are rightly dominated by Gordon’s bigot gaffe, I can only come back with a sense of balance on this. Gordon was wrong to respond as he did, although in his defence, Mrs Duffy had asked questions and then repeatedly talked over him while he was trying to answer, and she also said “you can’t say anything about the immigrants, because you’re saying that you’re ra… all these Eastern Europeans what are coming in, where are they flocking from?”, which would put my personal bigot radar up. He also didn’t realise he was still being recorded, and if I were called to account, every time I blew off steam inappropriately after a difficult phone call or encounter, I would probably be equally embarassed.

But what I want to remind readers of today is Alan Duncan – the Tory’s own inappropriate comment generator.

After the expenses scandal, Mr Duncan (who had wrongly claimed thousands for gardening, and also claimed mortgage interest on a second home even though he owned several homes in London already), being filmed without realising it, said that MPs (who earn roughly £64,000 per year, a salary in the top 4% of the population) were being forced to “to live on rations and are treated like shit.”

So again, I repeat what I used to excuse Brown. He didn’t realise he was being recorded, he was just sounding off, it is entirely excusable.  Not the same his comments on Have I Got News For You, when surely he couldn’t claim he didn’t know he was being recorded?  On the show, he boasted about his mortgage claims, and said that he wouldn’t pay the money back, and that it was a “great system”.

When asked on another recording of the show his opinion of Miss California USA 2009, who publicly opposes gay marriage, he said “If you read that Miss California has been murdered, you will know it was me, won’t you?”

Again, I can see the intended humour, and don’t really blame Duncan for his comments.  I just thought they might help give some balance to the news today.

Reason #15: Alan Duncan betrayed an entitetlement in his recorded comments for which he was not removed from his position as an MP.

No deep analysis on this one, I’m afraid, but then again, none really needed. Caught out in the expenses scandal (he flipped his second home, and is thought to owe around £55,000 to the common purse), his inability to get his expenses right raise concerns over his ability to run the finances of a country. But many many MPs (from all the parties) did this, and it is rather his inexperience, and his completely innaccurate analysis of the recssion and how to deal with it, that make him such a poor choice for chancellor.

Approach to women’s rights. Part 2

This is one that we all need reminding of. Back in 2008 there was a lot of legislation discussed in parliament surrounding Human Fertilisation and Embryology. One of them was a piece of legislation proposed by Iain Duncan Smith which would require IVF clinics to consider the babies’ “need for a father” (an approach which would have limited lesbian couple’s rights when trying to conceive). How did Dave vote? In favour.

At the same time, equally controversial discussions took place on changing the time limit for late abortions.

Cameron has recently repeated his call for a reduction in the abortion time limit, prompting criticism that he is just trying to appeal to the religious vote, and that the science available for consideration has not changed in the less than two year time period which has elapsed since the law was upheld.

It is a salutary reminder that of the neo-nasties present back then, only 2 voted to keep the existing time limit of 24 weeks.  This limit was supported  by the following institutions: theBritish Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The following, from a Guardian article at the time, shows once more how the true tenor of the Tory’s thinking on women’s rights surfaces when legislation is being passed.

“Eighteen shadow cabinet ministers voted to reduce the limit to 22 weeks. Cameron actually voted to bring the limit down to 20 weeks, and while an amendment to reduce it to 16 weeks was trounced – rejected by 303 votes – of the 84 MPs who voted for it, 61% were Tories. The mood was summed up in a comment by Tory MP Edward Leigh, who proposed a 12-week limit, that “in modern Britain the most dangerous place to be is in your mother’s womb”. The majority of Conservative MPs voted for a reduction in the time limit and the majority of Labour MPs voted against, which means that, if the Tories get in at the next election, women’s rights will face a battering. A progressive, modern party, fit for the 21st century? On this evidence, most definitely not.”

Reason #13: By  denying us the right to choose what happens to our bodies, the Tories betray their contempt for women.

This one is a little bit late – I meant to write about it on the day it was in the news, but there’s just been so many reasons jostling for my intention that it got sidelined. But really, DC, what were you thinking when you hit the campaign trail with Gary Barlow, promising a national schools singing competition to promote musical talent?

A desperate attempt to gain the “X-Factor” vote? Or those of the young adults who were teeny boppers when Barlow et al were asking us all to relight their fire? However I look at it, it seems like a hollow bid to widen their appeal without having any substance behind their policies.

And the funny thing is that Barlow himself was pretty equivocal about his support. When asked if he was supporting Cameron, he avoided a direct answer, instead making do with “I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t”, saying further that he didn’t want to talk about politics, as the day was to launch “School Stars” and was about music, not politics.

Reason #12: In the middle of a general election, Cameron managed to come out with a “policy” so fatuous it makes Simon Cowell look sophisticated and intelligent.