Diary

ConHome Diary: Will Col Bob Stewart Resign His Seat?

6 Mar 2015 at 14:31

On Wednesday afternoon I wondered if my eyes and ears had deceived me. I had watched Prime Minister’s Question Time and thought that Ed Miliband had trounced David Cameron. On both immigration and the TV debates Cameron didn’t seem to have any answers and for once Ed Miliband piled home his advantage. So that’s what I tweeted. But many lobby journos thought the opposite. James Chapman of the Mail and Jim Pickard of the FT both felt that Cameron had played a bad hand well. They were in the press gallery but I watched it on TV. But they were not alone. I’ve always marvelled at how different people can watch the same event and draw completely different conclusions.
*
It’s not often an MP threatens to resign his seat in the middle of a live radio interview, but that’s what Col Bob Stewart did when I interviewed him on Wednesday afternoon. He’s very angry at defence cuts and had told leading Generals it would make a huge impact if they resigned their positions in protest. I put it to him that it was politicians, not Generals, who make defence policy and as a member of the Defence Select Committee, maybe it would be better if he took the lead and led by example. Much to my surprise he took up the cudgels and said that not only might he resign from the committee but he was thinking of resigning his seat too. But not now. Of course the last MP to resign his seat on a point of principle won it back, and David Davis will believe till his dying day that he did the right thing. But he ruined his prospects of holding top political office in the process. Will Bob Stewart carry out his threat? I doubt it, but it is indicative of how strongly many Conservative MPs feel about defence spending at the moment.
*

I’ve always thought that Gus O’Donnell was a bit of a dick. This week he’s proved it. He’s made an outspoken attack on politicians, calling them out of touch and much more besides. He attacks them for having chauffeur driven cars, saying they don’t “get” public services. Someone remind me how the former Head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus O’Donnell, got to work every day? Yes, that’s right. In a chauffeur driven car. Effing hypocrite.
*
I went out for dinner on Wednesday night with two members of the South African band Mango Groove. They’re over here to do a concert at the Hammersmith Apollo tomorrow night. I decided to take them to Joe Allen’s in Covent Garden. We placed our orders and I asked the waiter for some bread to tide us over until the main food arrived. A few minutes later he came back and rather shame-facedly told us that they had run out of bread. At 8.30 in the evening! Perhaps he should have let us eat cake instead.
*

Share:

2 comments

Sign up via Facebook or Twitter to comment.

Small_lbclogo

Iain talks to Patsy Palmer about being ginger

Patsy Palmer unexpectedly rings Iain's show to share her experiences of being ginger.

Listen now

UK Politics

Counterfactual: Ed Miliband Refuses to Debate with Cameron in Election Campaign

5 Mar 2015 at 12:37

It has just been reported by the BBC that Ed Miliband has refused to take part in any election debates with the Prime Minister during the election campaign. The Leader of the Opposition said that in 2010 the election debates had sucked the life out of the campaign and that he was only willing to take part in one single debate prior to the start of the election campaign proper. Miliband’s decision has drawn ridicule and derision from the other political parties. A spokesman for the Prime Minister accused the Leader of the Opposition of being “frightened, frit and unable to stand up the scrutiny of an election campaign”. Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps said Miliband was “taking the electorate for granted and behaving in a high-handed fashion.” He continued: “If he can’t stand up to the rigours of an election debate, how could he possibly think he’s qualified to run the country.”

Obviously, that is all complete fiction. But imagine if it weren’t. Does anyone seriously think David Cameron wouldn’t be making political hay? Now I don’t think Cameron is “frit” of taking on Miliband. His advisers have conducted a risk assessment and decided that it is more advantageous to them politically not to take part in a head to head, or indeed multiple other debates. Cameron often stands accused of not having a strategy and talking decisions for short term political tactical advantage. This is one of those occasions. It’s also an occasion when he should have looked Craig Oliver squarely in the eye and said:

“Advisers advise, ministers decide. I don’t care what your advice is, I’m going to look a hypocrite and a coward if I don’t do these debates. Make them happen.”

Share:

0 comments

Sign up via Facebook or Twitter to comment.

Small_watch

Video: 18 Doughty Street's Greatest Hits

18 Doughty Street's final programme with Iain Dale & Zoe Anne Phillips

Listen now

UK Politics

Will the Broadcasters Blink?

5 Mar 2015 at 10:43

Frit. Coward. Hypocrite. Just three of the words being thrown at the Prime Minister over his refusal to debate head to head with the Leader of the Opposition. He’s offered to take part in a single, eight-way, debate but only if it takes place before the election campaign starts at the end of this month. At the time of writing the broadcasters have yet to respond. The question is: will they blink? Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me. If they have any balls they will tell Cameron it’s not for him to veto the rules of engagement, and they’ll say the debates will go ahead with or without the Prime Minister’s participation.

Political expediency shouldn’t come in to the equation here. If you look at David Cameron’s comments in 2009 on the pros and cons of leaders’ debates and compare them to what has happened now, the only conclusion you can draw is that Number 10’s tactics in these negotiations are determined solely by party advantage. That’s no way for a statesman to behave. Bear in mind he said: “These debates will now be a fundamental part of the political process”. He was right then, and he should stick to that now. Elections campaigns are there for politicians to debate each other, whether it be on a constituency level or nationally.

In 2009 it was perfectly possible to argue against leaders’ debates on the basis that we don’t have a presidential system, but that’s not what David Cameron did. The genie is out of the bottle and can’t be put back. Tim Montgomerie has consistently argued that these debates can never advantage a Tory leader. He may well have a point, but I’d like to think we could all rise above narrow party political advantage from time to time. This whole issue is yet another example of blundering by Number 10. It’s all very well for Craig Oliver, the Director of Communications, to send a truculent letter to the broadcasters blaming them for handling the issue very badly. He’d be better off looking in a mirror.

Channel 4 political editor Gary Gibbon disagrees. He writes: “Abandoning consistency and deploying ruthless determination and guile, David Cameron has got his way or something close to it. Some will think that could be an omen for the election itself.” Well, he may be right, but there will be some who will think twice about voting for a prime minister who won’t debate his opponents. But then again, if Ed Miliband fails to make hay out of this, that will be very telling too.

Share:

3 comments

Sign up via Facebook or Twitter to comment.

Small_lbclogo

LBC 97.3: Iain talks to GQ editor Dylan Jones

Dylan Jones talks about his new book about the 1980s and what it's like editing GQ

Listen now

Personal

Attitude Column: Cucumber Plays Into Far Too Many Gay Stereotypes & Is a Bit Bananas

4 Mar 2015 at 15:23

I wanted to enjoy Cucumber. I really did. I was a massive fan of Queer as Folk back in the late 1990s and expected great things from Cucumber. As someone in his early 50s I thought it would be a really good thing for a new drama to look at life for the slightly older gay man. It would be a risky thing to do bearing in mind our obsessions with youth, but if Cucumber was half as riveting as Queer as Folk we’d all be happy.

But I’m not happy. It’s not that I have found Cucumber boring or totally without its moments. In fact, despite the drab nature of the first episode, I’ve stuck with it and have even enjoyed it. There has even been the odd laugh out loud moment, although these have been far more infrequent than in the often hilarious Queer as Folk.

So why has Cucumber disappointed? People who don’t interact with gay men often have very stereotypical thoughts about them. They’re promiscuous. Obsessed with sex. Older gay men constantly prey on younger models. Penis size is all important. Gay relationships never last. They are never monogamous. I could go on, but you get the picture.

Sadly, Cucumber has fallen into the trap of portraying these stereotypes as if they are truths, and then throw in a few more for good measure. Black men all have large penises, obviously. Well that was a revelation to us all, I’m sure. The storyline where Freddy blackmails his schoolteacher who he happens to bump into after a few years was like something out of the 1950s. Henry filming videos involving his 15 year old nephew wasn’t just weird and uncomfortable, but also something a real life Henry would have run a mile from. Yet people in straightworld were nodding in condemnation, no doubt saying “See Mavis, I told you, they’re all like that – all wanting a bit of underage boy booty”.

Now, I appreciate this is a drama, and that sex sells, but I don’t know anyone in gayworld who is obsessed with sex to the extent that virtually every character in Cucumber is. More or less every storyline within the somewhat shaky plot has some sort of sexual element to it. Life’s not like that, is it?

The only genuinely interesting subplot I can think of is the debate about anal sex. Henry doesn’t like it, and refuses to do it. It lies at the centre of his breakup with Lance who is desperate for a bit of arse action. Henry prefers to stay on the vanilla side of sex. I am sure most non gay men imagine that gay sex has to involve anal sex, and who’s top or bottom. Does it really?

And then we come on to last week’s episode. It came as somewhat of a shock. I’m not going to write about the details as I don’t want to ruin it for those that haven’t seen it. I watched it on my own in our house in Norfolk at about 1am in the morning. I was somewhat traumatised by it. As soon as it had finished I rang my partner who was elsewhere. “Whatever you do, don’t watch Cucumber before you go to bed,” I said.

Naturally,he ignored me and watched it anyway. He has an ability to compartmentalise TV soaps and dramas and tell himself that none of it is real and they are only actors. I am different. I replay things in my mind time and again and then relate them to events in my life and imagine how things might have been different. And not in a good way.
I suppose the fact that I made that phone-call proves that Cucumber has had an impact, and what more do you want from a drama?

One thing Cucumber does achieve, though, is to make young gay men realise that one day, they too will get older. Reaching your thirties, forties, or dare I say it, even your fifties does not mean that your life has come to an end. When you’re 22 you cannot really contemplate being 52. I couldn’t. But as sure as eggs is eggs, one day it will happen. And you know what? It may not be Cucumber, but it’s certainly Bananas.

This article first appeared on the Attitude Website today

Share:

1 comment

Sign up via Facebook or Twitter to comment.

Small_jonathan-dimbleby-pic-bbc-920550514

LBC Book Club: Iain Dale talks to Jonathan Dimbleby

Jonathan Dimbleby talks about his new book DESTINY IN THE DESERT

Listen now

Books

The Why Vote Books Sales Update: UKIP Voters Are More Computer Friendly & Green Voters Kill More Trees

3 Mar 2015 at 11:40

Back in the autumn Biteback published a series of books called “Why Vote…” covering the four main political parties. In January we added ‘Why Vote Green’ to the list. I’ve calculated sales up until the end of February, and these are the figures.

UKIP 26.7%
Labour 23.5%
Conservative 17.6%
Green 17.5%
LibDem 14.7%

It’s a very good performance for the ‘Why Vote Green’ book as it’s only been on the shelves for a little over a month.

Interestingly, UKIP voters are the most eBook friendly, with 13% of the ‘Why Vote UKIP’ book being downloaded on the Kindle or via iBooks or the Nook. By way of contrast only 2% of the ‘Why Vote Green’ book are eBook sales. How ironic that the Greens kill more trees than their counterparts. However, Green purchasers are more likely to buy direct from the Biteback or Politicos websites than Amazon, so good for them!

I’ll update the figures again at the end of March.

You can buy each of the books at Biteback Publishing’s website or the whole series is available for £37.50 (normal price £50) HERE

Share:

0 comments

Sign up via Facebook or Twitter to comment.

Small_alg

LBC 97.3: Iain Dale Interviews Lord Owen, Col Richard Kemp and Lord Malloch Brown about Mali & Algeria

Three interviews on the current situation in North Africa.

Listen now

Diary

ConHome Diary: No Dave, I Won't Stand for Kensington (Not That You've Asked!)

27 Feb 2015 at 14:30

My interview with Ed Balls on Wednesday seems to have created a bit of a stir. According to the Huffington Post it was “the most cringeworthy LBC interview in, well, recent days.” Personally, I thought it was a hoot. You see Ed Balls had come top of a Mumsnet survey of sexy MPs. They described him as a “sexy beast”. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. Anyway, we sent our reporter Tom Swarbrick out to see what the good citizens of London thought and then played this out to him. As the Mirror’s Owen Bennett put it, “The Shadow Chancellor was appearing on LBC radio when host Iain Dale surprised him with a small package”. Er, I can honestly say I have never surprised anyone with a small package, but perhaps that’s a story for my column in Attitude Magazine, rather than on ConservativeHome. Anyway, to cut a long story short, Ed Balls waxed lyrical about his sexual prowess – he’s a “long, slow burn” in case you’re at all interested – and it was all good fun, at the end of an hour long phone in which covered heavy economic subjects. Naturally the Daily Mail wrote this up as “excruciating”. In truth, it was nothing of the sort. It was a good laugh which showed Ed Balls has a great sense of humour and in reality is a thoroughly nice guy – far away from the stereotype image that I am sure most of the readers of this column have of him. If we want our politicians to be robots and never show a sense of humour then that’s fine, but I’d rather have politicians like Ed Balls who aren’t afraid to stray off the political path once in a while and be entertaining.
*
All of which brings us to Natalie Bennett and her car crash on LBC. It was an interview when Nick Ferrari appeared to hand her a silver revolver and asked her if she’d like to shoot herself. And the duly did. Ferrari can be quite an aggressive interviewer if he thinks a politician is not on their game, but in this interview he just let Natalie climb on the chair, put the rope around her neck and jump. Now, there’s no doubt that she wasn’t feeling her best and had a massive cold. I have sympathy with her on that score as I too had a massive cold at the beginning of the week, and believe me, presenting a four hour phone in show when you’re not feeling your best is quite a challenge. I wasn’t at the top of my game but I got through it on the basis that the show had to go on. The fact is that Natalie Bennett should never have got out of bed that morning, but as a party leader it’s quite difficult to pull a sickie on the day of your general election campaign launch. But she needed her media adviser to tell her not to do the interviews and just to appear at the launch, then go home and take a hot toddie.

I suspect, however, that there won’t be too many long lasting effects from this “brain fade”. The Greens, like UKIP, has a slight Teflon quality, where bad news bounces off them – a bit like it used to be for the LibDems.

The final thing I would say about this is that this type of Brain Fade happens to Boris Johnson rather often, yet interviews let me get away with it. In future, we should all be far more damning of Boris and not let his bluster and general bon homie mask the fact that on many issues he can appear just as ill-informed as Natalie Bennett. Admittedly, it happens less and less nowadays, but if his political ambitions really are as high as we are led to believe, he will need to be much more on top of complicated policies than he sometimes appears to be.
*
Back in the 1990s there was a great series on ITV starring David Jason called A BIT OF A DO. Every episode revolved around some sort of family “do” like a wedding or funeral and the disasters and rows that happened. Whenever something bad happened David Jason would frown and utter the words “today, of all days…”. I wonder if Nigel Farage had those words on his mind when he woke up in Washington DC to hear the UK’s immigration figures announced. He and his diary planners (not that he has any, as he keeps his own diary) must have been kicking themselves that they were 3,000 miles away when it was announced that the net immigration figure for last year was 298,000, higher than any year under Labour. Talk about an open goal for Farage to score. But he couldn’t. Because he wasn’t here. Instead he had been persuaded by his trusty adviser Matthew Richardson to show his face and speak at the CPAC Conference, which takes place every February in Washington. The Conservative Political Action Conference really is a gathering of the ‘faith, flag and family’ wing of the Republican Party. I don’t mind admitting that my definition of the word ‘conservative’ differs somewhat from theirs. And I suspect that even Nigel Farage might be left feeling a little queasy by it all. I remember one anecdote from my last visit to CPAC in 2008. One afternoon I got talking to a young girl from Alabama at CPAC and was explaining to her the differences between British and American Conservatives. I mentioned that neither abortion or gay rights were big issues in British politics. “Oh,” she said, “I’ve never met anyone who’s gay.” I then offered my hand and said, “well now you have!” She roared with laughter and then added: “We don’t have any gay people in Alabama.” I told her the horrible truth and we then joked that they had all probably left or been driven out of the state.
*

It’s been reported that Sol Campbell is now the official CCHQ choice for the next Conservative Candidate for Mayor of London. I may be accused of partisanship here because of the nasty things he says about West Ham in his recent book, and call me old-fashioned, but exactly what qualities does Sol Campbell possess to make him the standout candidate? Apart from being black, of course. And a pseudo-celebrity. Do we know his views on anything apart from the Mansion Tax? Has he ever shown any aptitude for the cut and thrust of political life? Or an ability to run anything? Now to be fair, Boris Johnson wasn’t actually the ideal candidate back in 2007 when he was selected, and he hasn’t done a bad job, but are we really reduced to choosing a candidate just because of their celebrity or the fact they happen not to be white? The three declared Tory candidates so far are Stephen Greenhalgh, Andrew Boff and the appalling Ivan Massow. How anyone can take Massow seriously is quite beyond me. He’s announced several policies so far, none of which could remotely be called Conservative – hardly a surprise, I suppose bearing in mind his history of political flip-flopping. No doubt when he is rejected, as he surely will be, it will time for another defection. No doubt he will question ‘Is it coz I is gay?’ It’s his habitual excuse for political failure. I may have failed to get elected, but I’ve never trotted out that excuse and never will.
*
Moving on to Kensington, where Sir Malcom Rifkind saw the political writing on the wall and quit before he was pushed, it will be interesting to see how the selection develops. Victoria Borwick has already declared her hand and according to Guido Fawkes has hired Nick Wood’s Media Intelligence Partners to boost her profile.

The front runners for Kensington mostly seem to be a pot pourri of sporting celebs – Andrew Strauss, James Cracknell and Frank Lampard (yes, really). I know nothing about Strauss’s
political ambitions but I do know that James Cracknell has been serious in pursuing a political career and was a Euro candidate. But in Kensington we are told that Number Ten are determined to have a woman selected. The finger is being pointed at Cameron adviser Laura Trott, who has tried for various seats with no luck so far. I’ve no idea how good she is, but isn’t it rather sickening that in virtually every final at the moment, the same nine or ten people are appearing? No one can seriously tell me that this is all down to local decision making.
One name I was very pleased to see on the betting odds for Kensington was that of Tim Montgomerie, late of this parish. Tim and I may not agree on anything but I think he’d make a superb parliamentarian. Thoughtful, passionate and with a strong set of ideological beliefs. Trouble is, he’s having none of it. It’s a sad indictment on our politics that someone like Tim isn’t at all interested in pursuing a career in elected politics. I’d like to think that at some point he might indeed still appear in Parliament. In ermine.

And just for the record, even though my name has appeared at 33/1 on the betting odds for Kensington, I have absolutely no interest either. Not even a flicker. Not a twinge. Just as well seeing as it’s nearly five years since I have been on the candidates list. One of my LBC colleagues reckoned he could make a quick buck by putting some money on me to win and I kept protesting I didn’t want to do it (was he trying to get rid of me?!) and he then said: “What if David Cameron rang you up and told you he wanted you to stand?” I didn’t even need to think. “No, Dave,” I’d say, in the style of a sketch show character whose name I have now forgotten, “It’s not a maverick radio presenter you need in Kensington, it’s a future Prime Minister. I bid you farewell, now get on with running the country.”

His next call would probably be to Katy Hopkins.

Now there’s a thought. I really shouldn’t put these thoughts into people’s heads, should I?

But I am serious. Whoever wins Kensington should be someone who you could imagine in ten years’ time leading the Conservative Party and then the country. If I had a vote there, I wouldn’t even consider shortlisting anyone who didn’t meet that criteria.

Share:

0 comments

Sign up via Facebook or Twitter to comment.

Small_steph

LBC 97.3: Iain Dale talks to Stefanie Powers

Hart to Hart star Stefanie Powers talks about her autobiography ONE FROM THE HART

Listen now

Media

EXCLUSIVE: Bruno Waterfield to Leave the Telegraph

21 Feb 2015 at 16:54

Yesterday we learned that top investigative reporter Holly Watts is to leave the Telegraph for The Guardian.

Another day, another journalist departs Telegraph Towers. I can exclusively reveal that highly respected Brussels Editor Bruno Waterfield is the next one to leave. He is off to The Times. It’s a very big loss for the Telegraph as he is a genuine story-breaker and will be hugely difficult to replace.

UPDATE: I should point out that I’m given to understand Bruno’s decision was made some time ago and was not as a result of the events of this week.

Share:

1 comment

Sign up via Facebook or Twitter to comment.

Small_watch

Video: Iain & Jag Singh debate early electioneering

Sky News

Listen now

UK Politics

Why the Public & Private Sectors Can And Must Work Together in Healthcare

21 Feb 2015 at 10:03

THE private versus public sector debate has bedevilled health policy for some time. It lies at the very core of the failure of politicians to provide the leadership the NHS needs. The ‘public good, private bad’ mindset which is held by many politicians on the left is equally matched by the ‘private good, public bad’ attitudes often prevalent on the right. Only in this country could this happen.

Even in these days of supposed consensus, these attitudes still prevail. Do any of these politicians think people care if they are treated privately or in an NHS hospital, if they get the treatment they want, where they want, when they want it?

Of course not. Yet people who use Bupa or other private health providers are made to feel as if they are somehow being elitist, rather than being praised for taking responsibility for their own healthcare and not burdening the NHS with their demands.

A ComRes poll in July 2014 showed that two in three people (67 per cent) say that they do not mind if health services are provided by a private company or the NHS as long as they remain free of charge.

Beveridge and Bevan never meant for the NHS to have to meet every single demand ever made of it. Two systems can work happily together as long as each respects the other.

For too long in this country, Labour politicians have seen private medicine as a class enemy and Tory politicians have viewed the NHS as something for other people to use, not them.

David Cameron makes great play out of the fact that he is a regular user of the NHS. He had a disabled son whose seizures made regular overnight stays in a local hospital a normal occurrence for him. His view was shaped by his experience. He put the NHS at the top of his agenda. He says his three priorities can be summed up in three letters: N.H.S.

One of Cameron’s first acts was to abolish the Tory policy of encouraging private sector healthcare. George Osborne said in opposition: “We are having no truck with ideas for some alternative funding mechanism like social insurance. Nor are we looking to help fund escape routes from public services for the few who can afford it, which is why we have moved away from the idea of the patients’ passport.”

All very well, but where are we going to get the extra capacity that the NHS needs if the private sector is not embraced in a way it hasn’t been before? Ministers in the last Labour government would freely admit they would not have been able to reduce waiting lists without utilising private sector capacity.

Let’s not pretend that private sector involvement in the provision of healthcare is anything new.

Most people use private sector dentists. GPs are effectively in the private sector, as are most osteopaths and physiotherapists. A lot of primary care is provided by the private sector – the out of hours service and 111 to name but two examples. Drugs are provided by private sector suppliers. Chemists and dispensaries have never been in the public sector and no one has ever suggested they should be.

It was recently reported with some horror in the Guardian that 70 per cent of NHS contracts are with the private sector. They put this down to the Lansley reforms, omitting to say that the private sector has always played a major role in health provision.

Opponents of the private sector also raise the spectre of the NHS introducing charges, conveniently forgetting that patients already pay prescription charges.

From time to time, the issues of charging for hospital food or GP visits are floated, but quickly ditched until the howl of public outrage subsides.

However, on radio phone-ins such as my own, the idea of charging for NHS services is quite popular in some areas. For example, people ask why the taxpayer should pay for the treatment of people who bring their own misfortune on themselves.

People who binge drink on a Friday night often end up in A&E. Why shouldn’t they be charged? People who regret getting a tattoo can apparently have it removed courtesy of the NHS. But where do you draw the line? Charge smokers for lung cancer treatment? Charge obese people for diabetes drugs? Another one for the too difficult box, I suspect.

Very few people have anything nice to say about the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. And let me be no exception. It was set up by the Labour government with the best of intentions. Part of its mission was to end the variation in medical treatment across the country and ensure that if a drug was found to be effective, patients should not have to fight to get it.

Clearly there needs to be a body which licenses drugs, but there is a huge suspicion that too many drugs are still licensed through budgetary consideration rather than clinical need. And drugs which are available in some parts of the country are not in others – for much the same reason. And if a cancer patient should have the temerity to decide to use their life savings to fund their treatment using a drug which for budgetary reasons is not available via the NHS, what does the NHS do?

Instead of saying ‘thank you very much for helping us out and paying for your own drugs’, it refuses to continue any treatment for that patient. See? Public good, private bad. It’s the politics of socialist envy and says that just because everyone can’t have it, you can’t either. So people die. Is that really what should be happening? I don’t think so. It’s an example of the kind of dogma which has bedevilled our public-sector thinking over many decades.

I am surprised that no one has yet taken the NHS, or NICE, to the European Court of Human Rights over issues like this. I suspect it is a matter of time. Perhaps then the postcode lottery may be brought to an end.

No other country’s health system operates in such a bigoted and uncaring way. The sooner we eradicate this sort of thinking, the better. If we are to get anywhere in improving standards of healthcare and quality of outcomes, surely it is obvious that the public and private sector healthcare systems need to operate side by side and help each other where possible.

This article was the Saturday Essay in the Yorkshire Post. It is taken from “The NHS: Things That Need To Be Said” which has been published by LBC Books, price £8.99. Buy it HERE. Or download the eBook HERE=

Share:

2 comments

Sign up via Facebook or Twitter to comment.

Small_simon_jordan

LBC Book Club: Iain Dale talks to Simon Jordan

Former Crystal Palace owner Simon Jordan discusses his book BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

Listen now

Diary

ConHome Diary: Fancy Talking About Male Genital Mutilation?

20 Feb 2015 at 14:03

It’s always bittersweet for a publisher when you see a book that you turned down being published. You wonder if you made a mistake and if it will in fact turn out to be a bestseller. That’s happened to me this week with the publication of William Waldegrave’s memoir A DIFFERENT KIND OF WEATHER. When I read the manuscript some time ago I felt it was, as you would expect, beautifully written but I wasn’t confident it would attract enough punters to make it commercially viable. Luckily for Lord Waldegrave Constable disagreed. I’m a total sucker for a political memoir. I hate it when one gets away. I was very angry with myself when I saw Baroness Trumpington was writing her autobiography. I had nearly approached her a few years before but I figured that at approaching 90 if she hadn’t written it by now, she never would. Wrong. I’m currently reading Tim Bell’s autobiography – another one I’d have liked to have published. The one I’d really like to get is Ken Clarke’s. Trouble is, he’s been around for so long that there would probably have to be at least three volumes. I’m not being horrible, but I honestly doubt he would have enthusiasm to start it or the application to finish it.
*
Good on Esther McVey. She was asked on LOOSE WOMEN whether she’d like to be Prime Minister and instead of doing what most politicians do and saying “Oh, I’m just concentrating on the job I’ve got now”, she said “Yes, I would, actually”. How refreshing. How Heineken. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with ambition or expressing it. I asked Ed Davey on air the other day if he’d like to lead the LibDems. The politically correct answer would have been to day “There’s no vacancy” but instead he said “yes” and got a lot of credit from listeners for it. Others (are you listening Chuka Umunna?) take note.
*

Readers may remember me taking the Telegraph to task for the fact they have lost so many of their best journalists over the last couple of years. Private Eye carried a story in their last issue that their journalists had been told not to use my name in the paper ever again. So when I did a search on my name on their website I was pleasantly surprised to see all the articles I have written for them over the years were still there. But after what I am about to write below, I suspect it will only be a matter of time before they are deleted.
*
I’ve known Peter Oborne for many years. He’s great company, an original thinker and totally unpredictable. He’s also a fantastic writer and any newspaper he works for is lucky to have him. Why? Because he is thought-provoking and doesn’t follow the prevailing winds. He wrote recently about why Ed Miliband is a fantastic leader of the opposition, something which not even most Labour columnists would ever written. But like most idiosyncratic people he can also be very wrong and misguided, as readers of his book on Iran will testify. His very public resignation from the Telegraph demonstrates how far into the depths a once great newspaper has fallen. I now wonder if it can ever recover its former glories while it stays under its current management and ownership. The Americans have a phrase ‘clean house’ and that’s what the Telegraph needs to do, but the Barclay Brothers and their management team, led by Murdo Maclennan need to depart the scene before that can happen. The problem is, who on earth would buy the Telegraph at the moment? Answers on a postcard, please. Meanwhile speculation continues as to which Telegraph journalist will be next to abandon ship. Brussels correspondent Bruno Waterfield is my tip, and he would be a very big loss indeed.

On his weekly radio show on LBC, which I’m listening to as I write this, Nick Clegg has just said that he would like to extend his free childcare to all parents including rich ones. And yet he has a policy of removing winter fuel allowance and other benefits from rich pensioners. He’s clearly not heard of the word ‘consistency’. But then in politics he’s not alone in that.
*
The West continues to underestimate Vladimir Putin. He made fools out of Merkel and Hollande by agreeing a ceasefire in Ukraine and then failing to prevent it being broken within hours of it starting. Michael Fallon has been talking in the last few days about the Russian threat to the Baltic States. Let’s remember that the three Baltic States are full members of NATO. If NATO is to mean anything it needs to deploy troops to Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania forthwith, and make clear that their borders will be defended from any potential Russian incursion. If that doesn’t happen, Putin will interpret it as a sign of weakness and act accordingly. And it will be entirely NATO’s fault.
*

On Wednesday night I did something I will never do again. Ever. I hosted a phone-in on male circumcision. I know it’s not on a par with FGM, but isn’t it barbaric to do it to babies? Quite a lot of my listeners agreed with me, but there were still plenty who still subscribed to the view that if it was perfectly OK to do it because that’s what people did in ancient times and tradition is important. Perhaps they think adulterous women should still be stoned too.
*
I still cannot understand how Channel 4 got away with showing that so-called drama UKIP: THE FIRST HUNDRED DAYS. It should never have been commissioned, let alone broadcast so near to the election campaign beginning. The worst thing about it wasn’t the overt anti-UKIP propaganda, it was the subliminal stuff. It was reminiscent of the Leni Reifenstahl approach to making films, designed to implant a thought in people’s heads. But what was just as bad was the outright untruths told by the C4 Head of Documentaries Nick Mirsky. He told the world that Nigel Farage had been given the right of reply but had declined it. Total fiction. Channel 4 offered Farage an interview with Paxman, after the show. Farage accepted, but then C4 cancelled it. Farage was then booked into a public, meeting and C4 later re-invited him to an interview with Jon Snow. But by then it was too late, as he had given his word to somebody else. Mirsky failed to mention any of these facts. Apparently more than 1,000 people have complained to OfCom over the broadcasting of this abortion of a programme. I doubt whether it will do much good as OfCom have consistently shown themselves to have little appetite to do anything apart from tap TV companies on the knuckles over issues like this.

Share:

0 comments

Sign up via Facebook or Twitter to comment.

Small_clare-balding-008

LBC Book Club: Best of 2012 (Part 2)

Bruno Tonioli, Sue Townsend, Clare Balding and Joan Rivers talk about their recently published books.

Listen now

Random Thoughts

Attitude Column: What's Wrong With a Bit of Gratuitous Nudity?

15 Feb 2015 at 21:40

We British have a very strange attitude to the human body and showing it in public. I’ve never quite understood why. Perhaps it’s an innate puritanism that runs through our society, alongside a rather quaint hankering after Victorian times where a woman exposing a bare ankle was enough for her to be branded a brazen hussy. I’ve always wanted to use that phrase in an Attitude column. I can now die happy.

The majority of Britons imagine that you have to wear a swimming costume in a sauna, conveniently ignoring the fact that wearing anything which gets between the heat and the skin completely obviates the whole point of being in a sauna. On the continent everyone lets it all hang out without worrying a jot about what anyone thinks. Indeed, if you walk into a sauna in swimming trunks or a bikini you’d attract some very odd looks and certainly in some countries it’s obligatory to take your clothes off. Neighbours think nothing of taking saunas together completely in the ‘nud’. You’d never get that in this country unless it was all part of the foreplay for a swingers party. Not that I would, ahem, know. Obviously.

There is still a prurience about nudity in Britain. Why is it, after all, that many of the pictures in this magazine and others depict people who are semi-naked, but only semi. In Germany, even some mainstream magazines have no hesitation in showing the full naked human form and most of their readers don’t bad an eyelid.

Recently Rita Ora got into trouble for appearing on The One Show for wearing a dress with a bit of cleavage showing. The fuss that arose was astonishing. This wouldn’t have happened even ten years ago, I don’t think. It wasn’t as if she was flaunting her breasts. There was no nipple in view, but even if there had been, so what? What on earth is wrong with showing a nipple? It’s a part of the human body, just like a kneecap. Everyone has two of them, so why are they considered off limits in the world of newspapers and magazines?

It wasn’t that long ago that an erect penis wasn’t allowed to be shown on screen in this country, even in a pornographic film. A woman’s body could be shown in all its glory. You could have close ups of a gaping vagina, yet a full view of an erect penis was considered too much by the censors. That ridiculous rule was scrapped some time ago, but you’ll still rarely catch of a glimpse of a cock, flaccid or erect, on TV, although full female nudity is considered fair game. It’s a sexist old world.

All this brings me to the latest government initiative to restrict our sexual freedoms. In future, no British porn film will be allowed to depict some sexual practices which are perfectly legal for people to undertake in the privacy of their own homes. I’ve never quite understood the desire of anyone to be pissed on, but some people apparently get off on it. Well, it harms no one, so fair enough, I guess, but you won’t be able to look at a British made film which depicts it any longer. The same goes for inserting non dildo pieces of equipment into various orifices. Fisting is out. Again, not something I’d either want to try out or watch, but there are those that do. This is the Nanny State writ large and I hope there will be enough MPs who will speak out and get this proposal consigned to the big tissue bin of history. Credit to the LibDem MP Julian Huppert for being the first to try to persuade the Home Office to withdraw it.

Essentially, this is a proposal designed to wreck the thriving British porn industry, because if people can’t watch what they want to watch on a British made film, you can rest assured they will find their monkey spanking material elsewhere. Chris Grayling’s role as Justice Secretary is not to be the Mother Superior of the Nation, it is to defend our freedoms and civil liberties. And one of our basic civil liberties is to watch completely harmless porn in the safety of our homes. Not that I do of course. Oh no. No Sireeee! Never let it be said!

This article first appeared in the March edition of Attitude Magazine

Share:

2 comments

Sign up via Facebook or Twitter to comment.

Small_lbclogo

LBC 97.3: Iain finds Sajid Javid Unable to Answer a Question

Iain interviews Treasury Minister Sajid Javid

Listen now