Taxpayers are actually contributing to this?

Report warns Hull's climate set to soar

Hull faces more heat-related deaths and an increased risk of flooding over the next few decades, a climate change report has warned.

The document, produced by local strategic partnership One Hull, has examined the impact climate change will have on the city by 2080.

First, a disclaimer: I am sure that One Hull has done some good work, I would love to hear about the positive projects they are involved with which are making a difference.

Secondly, the rant: Why, in the name of all that is good, are One Hull, and by extension the taxpayers of Hull (since One Hull is in part funded by Hull City Council), wasting time and money on a report like this? Put aside, for a moment, any discussions which might reasonably have about how strong the case is for anthropogenic global warming (humans being responsible for a warming of the globe). The Climatic Research Unit and the "scientists" at the University of East Anglia (note the inverted commas, from what I can see scientific method has been replaced by dogmatic adherence to a belief about that the conclusions should be) have done the debate no favours at all with their potentially fraudulent actions. What's more of a concern is the fact that someone decided that rather than asking "how can we encourage businesses to come to Hull now" they instead asked "will our assumption that summers will be warmer in 2080 mean more tourists in the summer".

To all of which, I simply say, stop spending our money on rubbish like this, start looking at ways to lower the business rates to encourage companies to locate themselves in Hull. Too simple? Not high profile enough? Want something more exciting that you can put on your campaign leaflets? Tough, elected individuals don't always get to make the exciting announcements, sometimes they just have to do what's right for their electorate.

Of course, the risk is always that someone will accuse you of favouring the rich by daring to suggest cutting a tax which might possibly allow a company to make more money. To them I say "feel free to keep voting for the other two parties, they will both be more than happy to commission consultants to produce a report telling you what you want to hear." Meanwhile, those who want to help elect someone who will make the tough decisions, however much flack they may get for it, should seriously consider a vote for the Conservatives at the next election.

Simple enough?

What is liberty?

I could try and write a long essay on what I believe "liberty" to be, but frankly it would fall far short of this brilliant animation, and thus I shall simply provide the following link:



That's why I vote Conservative, because I genuinely believe that neither of the other two credible parties believe as passionately about liberty as the Conservatives. They're not perfect, only a fool would suggest otherwise, and when they have policies that lack liberty I feel no issue with saying so, but I agree with them far more of the time than not.

And this is a surprise?

Hull's economic recovery 'will be slower'

Researchers say Hull could be left behind other cities as the UK comes out of recession.

A report by think tank Centre for Cities suggests a lack of private sector businesses in the city, in comparison to other areas, could mean Hull experiences a "second-wave recession".

And this, dear readers, is what happens when you have the big government mentality that vast numbers of people being dependant on the state for their income is a good thing. The state rightly provides a safety net in the form of various benefits to avoid people "falling through the cracks". The Conservatives are a party who value aspiration and people working, because then more people will start to appreciate conservative policies since they will want to enjoy as many of the fruits of their labour as possible. On the other hand, Labour are best served by people being dependent on them for their income on the principle of turkeys rarely voting for Christmas.

So then, we have a choice between two parties. Both want to increase their number of votes and therefore have policies to do so. One the one hand we have the Conservatives who want to make people richer and more self-reliant so that they will vote Conservative. On the other hand we have Labour who want to make people more reliant on the state so that they will vote Labour. I know which choice I would prefer!

Where is "Brown Direct"?

As David Cameron launches the second part of the Conservative Draft Manifesto, I can't help wondering where Gordon Brown (or indeed Nick Clegg) are in terms of announcing their policies on the issues being discussed. Cameron is undoubtedly far more comfortable than Brown in this format, engaging in a conversation with an audience and allowing sometimes difficult questions to be posed to him, but that doesn't preclude Gordon entering into similar conversations.

My proposal, and if anyone from Labour HQ reads this blog (which is unlikely I know) would like to use it then please feel free, is for the PM along with the relevant ministers to answer say the top 10 questions posed on the "Google Moderator" service to David Cameron. I wouldn't expect them to put on an event, or even to talk to people face to face, but a simple written answer to just those questions would give us a far greater understanding of what Labour is proposing people vote for in the next election. Nick Clegg and co would also be welcome to join in on the fun of course, seems only fair to hear their view point. Think of it as a warmup to the upcoming debates between the party leaders, a chance to road-test some policy ideas and get a feel for the public's reaction.

Well, a boy can dream anyway...

The two faces of Alan Johnson

Home Secretary Alan Johnson accused of asylum-seeker betrayal

HOME Secretary Alan Johnson has been accused of "betraying" a respected Hull asylum seeker.

The Hull West and Hessle MP has been charged with ending his support for Emmanuel Njoya and his family after taking the top post with the Home Office last year.

So what we have here is Alan Johnson (Hull West and Hessle MP) being convinced enough of the merits of Mr Njoya's case that he willing to write to the Home Secretary and plead his case. We also have Alan Johnson (Home Secretary) suggesting the case is without merit and deporting a man and his family who may now be killed due to their political allegiance. I will leave the reader to decide on the potential motives behind Mr Johnson's actions, particularly given the likely criticism of the government's record on immigration and the upcoming general election, but suffice to say one of our Alan Johnsons has got it horribly wrong.

There are right ways to reduce the influx of people into this country so that genuine asylum seekers can justifiably be accommodated, but I'm not sure this is it. Won't mention Europe because it doesn't really need saying, but imagine how much easier it would be for genuine asylum seekers coming to this country if the vast majority of migration into this country was by the permission of our elected government rather than because the European Union has decided to allow it. Oops, guess I did mention Europe there a little bit didn't I?

My take on PMQs

Just a few thoughts and in no particular order:

• Really liked David Cameron's first set of questions, businesslike and serious, definitely the right tone to set
• Does Nick Clegg have a new hair cut or is that just me? Not an important question I know, but I can't quite work it out. His questions about Chilcot were spot on, Gordon really chickened out on answering it but then what do we expect?
• Cameron's second set of questions really rattled Brown, the cheap jokes about photos didn't really manage to hide that, particularly given the way Cameron masterfully turned it around. Only real concern is Gordon doing so badly that expectations are lowered to a position where him not massively screwing up (unlikely I know) is seen as a success.
• A very aggressive tone for the last question from Cameron, and about time, once in a while Brown needs to be knocked for 6 to remind everyone of why he shouldn't be leading this country. Rattled doesn't even begin to describe it.

All in all, not a good day for Gordon and really quite a good day for Cameron and Clegg. Can't wait for the TV debates...

Thought for the day (from a Facebook reply that got a bit long...)

Firstly, much as the Conservatives are selling themselves very much on the strength of David Cameron, the range of views within the party are diverse and there are many senior Conservatives who will make excellent ministers. Brown has failed in one of his primary functions as Prime Minister which is to lead the country effectively, something I believe David Cameron will be far better at. Brown loves to point out the worldwide nature of the recession but refuses to admit that the decisions he has made have left us in a far worse position than we should be in. His continuing denial that we need to change our spending habits only makes things worse and ultimately I think he knows that, but since he realistically can't foresee himself being in power after the next election then not being the one to make the tough spending decisions suits him fine. Public spending needs to be cut, and cut massively, the government needs to re-evaluate the areas which it should and shouldn't be playing an active role in, but that's something Brown could never do because his "big government" mentality says the government should run as much of our lives as it can.