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.

A man is known by the company he keeps. Part 2.

So, we all know about The Bullingdon Club – the “posh” Oxford drinking society – of which Cameron, Osborne and Boris Johnson were members at the same time. We know that Osborne, having only been to the relatively minor public school of St Paul’s, was named “oik”. We know that they were involved in a drunken fracas in a restaurant, breaking a window.  That when booking their annual meal, they would lie about who they were booking for, as Oxford restaurants would not knowingly serve them.

I have to declare at this point that I went to Oxford, and attended a couple of drinking society events (I wasn’t a member of such a club – women simply weren’t, and I am also nowhere near posh or connected enough). They were both hosted by the Piers Gaveston club, were very debauched, and probably full of wealthy, blue-blooded people. One of the years I went, a News of the World reporter managed to infiltrate the party and the headline the next day “Camilla’s son makes a right charlie of himself” was accompanied by a description of the “live sex show” and the drugs being liberally taken.

Cameron’s membership of the Bullingdon Club casts some interesting light on him. Firstly, this club routinely trashed local restaurants, and then paid for the damage. This posh yobbishness shows they had no sense of reality – of how a small business would suffer from even having one night where they have to close (as they must have done, on the infamous night when Dave et al broke the window), but that they did have a very good  sense of entitlement – it’s fine to kick off, and mummy and daddy will pay for the damage.

The next conclusion I draw from the whole episode is this.  Dave correctly points out that we all made mistakes at University. I know that if I were ever to lose my senses and stand for political office, I would have a whole host of skeletons to push back into the closet. But what is worrying about it is the cronyism that it betrays in him. Far from being a man of the people, he still exists in his bubble of privelege. He moved effortlessly from Eton to Oxford to politics with these friends, who he has surrounded himself with since being leader of the opposition. People who wonder how Osborne has survived in the second most senior shadow cabinet role despite being clearly incapable of performing the office, need only remind themselves of the long friendship which exists between the two.

Recent headlines show the final illuminating point. The FT is carrying an article with information taken from a source who was present on the night of the restaurant being trashed.  He says that a “policy of omerta has descended on the Cameron episode”, but far from having gone to bed early that night, Cameron was involved in the violence, and that he, Osborne, and Boris Johnson ran off down a side-street while their friends were being arrested. Strangely, this account shows that Johnson had also lied about the night, as he has vividly recalled his arrest and night in the cells. The full article makes interesting reading, and I for one would like to know how much honour a man who leaves his friends to take the blame for his own misdemeanours can have.

Reason #11: Cameron is demonstrably dishonest, and dishonourable.

Apart from the raft of personal attacks on Clegg in the papers last week, there were the warning bells that Ken Clarke, a Tory of many many years standing, and an experienced politician, sounded about the economy.  A hung parliament, he said, would be a disaster for the economy.  He quoted acclaimed economist and journalist Hamish McRae.

McRae, an associate editor of The Independent, (which is backing the Lib Dems) wrote in today’s Indy that he was misquoted in the Newsnight interview.

He says that he “had warned that there was a popular perception that this might be bad news for the economy but that actually things might turn out rather differently.”

Unfortunately, the headlines have made their impact now, and of course the public’s understanding of the matter is that the economy will suffer under a coalition.

Reason #10: the Tories will do anything, including lying, to get into power, and specifically, to stop other parties getting into power.