Queen’s Speech
I have written about the Queen’s Speech HERE, on the Guardian’s Comment is Free. I was mentioned by Gordon Brown in his speech, and I haven’t been so excited since the Big Man turned to me in the Division Lobby in July and said “Hey, How Ya Doin’” (this was during his Big Tent phase). He mentioned me by recycling a joke first used by Yvette Cooper during this year’s Labour Party Conference, which is always dangerous, as she has even less of a sense of humour than he does. Anyway, the gist of the joke is that I don’t want any extra housing in my constituency, and I want it in Andrew Smith’s seat next door. The trouble with the joke is that I am getting loads of housing but absolutely no money to upgrade infrastructure such as the A34, so I am opposing it, and Andrew Smith is getting no housing even though he actively wants it, because he has the infrastructure. Funny old world.
If you’re wondering why I haven’t blogged for a few days it is because so few people leave comments, so I assume nobody reads it. In fact, I had to leave it 8 days before Tim Montgomerie from Conservative Home noticed, and I am still not one of his recommended blogs.
Sue said on November 6th, 2007 at 11:37 pm:
I read your blog every day, but I wish you’d write about more local matters - these are the things that concern your constituents after all. Although I do love your descriptions of what goes on in the House during PMQs etc.
Back to today’s blog - everytime I hear mention of extra housing in this area, I see my house flooding again; especially as it’s been proven that my road, and adjoining roads, were flooded as a direct result of the water pouring off the air field, which is where the new housing is supposed to go. So, thanks Gordon Brown, but we really do not want any more housing in this area. Maybe you’d like to invite him to see what state we’re still living in, nearly 4 months after the flood. I have a feeling he’ll turn down any invite, but you’re always welcome to pop in for a cuppa, Ed, and see how miserable/challenging life is for all the flood victims who are still suffering the consequences of one heavy rainfall on July 20th.
Sue said on November 6th, 2007 at 11:54 pm:
p.s. your clock’s wrong
steve said on November 7th, 2007 at 7:53 am:
Ed - I read every post but have not commented for ages. I wish Nick Herbert would start a blog.
Political party funding - I am still amazed that you do not push the union funding link with Labour more so. How the Labour party can bang on about Ashcroft’s money and not take any flak for their union linked funding is amazing. I think for the first time yesterday I saw the Sun newspaper in the Sun says section linking union funding of the labour party with the government giving the same amount back as a union modernisation fund and then linking reforms of public service with the union back hander.
If I was an MP I would quip back all the time to Labour about not upsetting the union leaders or they might stop funding you etc.
canvas said on November 7th, 2007 at 8:14 am:
I read your blog. You probably get less comments than say… ohhh… Iain Dale - because you are far more sensible than he is! haha.
Iain Dale is always causing chaos by his ‘emotional’ and ‘reactionary’ commenting. But I do love reading his blog too.
Why don’t you make a guest appearance on Webcameron? It needs some action. It’s getting pretty dreary since David Cameron hasn’t commented on the forum in over a month! Shocking. The regulars will give him a hard time.
The only good thing that was in the Queens Speech was raising the school leaving age to 18. Education for all til 18, whether vocational or academic, is a good thing. Letting children leave school at 16 with no plans and no qualifications is Dickensian.
Gordon Brown and Labour really are going to make the next two/three years a bit of nightmare.
IRJM said on November 7th, 2007 at 4:19 pm:
Regarding the last comment: what use is education up to age 16 if you do not provide a suitable education for these people newly hauled back into the system, if you do not have an appropriate educational framework.
Even the Tories oppose giving different people different sorts of education based upon their abilities and inclinations (a system of grammar schools for the academic and technical schools for the practical is obviously not a fair system, is it? Clearly it is a plot to opress the proletariat. Vive Marx!)
Labour’s plan looks like a cynical ploy to create more education sector public service jobs, and artificially reduce unemployment stats. Having spent five years being harassed by the antics of workshy peers, at the grammar school I attended, I am loathe to inflict the company of larger numbers of such people upon similairly academically-inclined 6th formers.
It’s a good idea in theory, but since it doesn’t come with any substantial educational reforms, it won’t work, and will merely waste two years of the time of large numbers of 16-18 year olds. You write that it is “Dickensian” to let people leave at 16 without qualifications - why is it better to let people leave at 18, just as unqualified and more p***ed off than before? Reform education, then increase the age, not the other way round. The thing is, increasing the age sounds better, is easier, and cheaper. Who’s going to fix education? Not Ed Balls at any rate, and I am sceptical that Mr Gove will (although I hope he will).
ABCE said on November 7th, 2007 at 5:41 pm:
Ed, this is proof that I do indeed read your website, I just very rarely comment!
Graeme Archer said on November 7th, 2007 at 6:19 pm:
I read your blog! I think it’s great!
Evan Price said on November 7th, 2007 at 7:29 pm:
I’ve been writing a blog for months and get very few comments. I suspect that what I write is not very interesting anyway … good luck in getting more responses and in getting onto ConHome’s favoured list.
canvas said on November 7th, 2007 at 8:55 pm:
IRJM makes some interesting points - but the UK needs to move into the 21st century regarding education.
IMO, children in the UK start school too early and many children leave school too early.
Education for all til 18, whether academic or vocational, makes total sense. It’s really about which party can make it work best. We cannot allow children to leave school at 16 with a poor education, no job lined up (unless it’s a dead end McJob) , no skills, no qualifications, no future… that is Dickensian!
PS> David Cameron managed to get back to normal today regarding responses on his forum on Webcameron! About time too!
IRJM said on November 7th, 2007 at 11:04 pm:
“We cannot allow children to leave school at 16 with a poor education, no job lined up (unless it’s a dead end McJob) , no skills, no qualifications, no future… that is Dickensian!”
I do, in fact, agree: but to illustrate my view with an analogy, Labour are claiming the plaudits for the cherry on the cake, without bothering to bake the cake itself in the first place. Without the cake, the cherry is more or less pointless, except as a good, quick (sound-)bite.
canvas said on November 7th, 2007 at 11:18 pm:
IRJM, I think Labour are half baked! LoL
At least Labour started the ‘action’ - and action does need to be taken.
Maybe DC can refine this policy and make it a real vote winner?
I think the modern Conservative Party are progressive enough to do it…
It makes me sad to see all these young people being ignored and abandoned…Labour let them down - so Labour now have a moral obligation to help them out (but not with benefits).
Phyz said on November 8th, 2007 at 12:26 am:
Yeah this sites cool,
An I dont think 18 is sensible.I started work (parttime)at 14 it was brill.School till 16 ,college, various night schools an courses through my 20s.these days (im in my late 40s)
I do OU courses.the point is I love education and working early gave me a contrast to compliment it.IF I was stuck it school untill 18 without the work contrast Im shure I would hate it.
National service would be more fun than this.
canvas ;Nursing Yes education No
Richard Hamilton said on November 8th, 2007 at 1:09 am:
Ed, I hope the flurry of comments here shows that you have quite a few daily devotees even if we don’t leave comments. The honesty and candour with which you write about what you see, hear and do in the political world, both in Westminster and in Wantage and Didcot, marks you out. You don’t pontificate, you don’t go in for ad hominem attacks on others, and you don’t go in for tittle-tattle. That’s why we read it, but don’t necessarily comment. In any case, the number of comments is a poor metric for judging the success of a blog. My comment for the day is in praise of the Arts Task Force report and I hope you’ll share your perspective on that shortly.
Tizzy said on November 8th, 2007 at 1:19 am:
I’ve been recruited by Canvas - oh, yes, I was also born in Wantage and went to FCGS before it was bulldozed. Spent half my life (I’m guessing optimistically) in Oxon, including DC’s Witney constituency, not far from where the Stig floors the pedal. I guess that might qualify me as a newbie here?
DON’T get me started about Yvette and her lot. That woman…splutter, gasp, retch. Can someone explain to her what she’s done to the housing market? The last time I visited Oxon blocks of flats had been put up on corner plots, pubs had been converted into 10+ flats, allotments had been built on etc.
There is SO much space elsewhere in the UK than in the S East/Home Counties - you are all doomed.
Mike said on November 8th, 2007 at 11:09 am:
Ed - Some of your old metropolitan acquaintances still follow your progress even if you are now rarely seen in SW6.
canvas said on November 8th, 2007 at 12:29 pm:
If that is the wonderful artist Richard Hamilton - then - Richard - you are too cool for school! But I think Ed Vaizey is cool too.
Votedave said on November 8th, 2007 at 9:14 pm:
“Hey, How Ya Doin’”
Gordon Brown doesn’t really talk like that, does he?!
canvas said on November 9th, 2007 at 11:09 am:
PS> ConservativeHome isn’t a groovy site. I wouldn’t worry about them - it’s much better for your street cred if you are NOT one of their recommended blogs!! hahaha.