If you've visited the site in recent hours you will see that it has been migrated, almost totally, to being powered by WordPress - as I explain on the new site, that just makes management and expansion of the site much easier in the long run.

If you want to continue following my posts you'll need to update your bookmark to http://www.oliverdrew.co.uk and your RSS Feed to http://oliverdrew.co.uk/feed/

Many apologies because I understand the pain in the backside this kind of fiddling can bring. Hopefully you all will continue to follow my posts on the new site.

Many thanks,

Oliver

On the 16th of November this story appeared about a Labour Party candidate for Havering Borough Council (in London) who basically suggested that the Queen was "vermin".

He has now been sacked. Thus ends a political career before it begins. As I said at the time, comparing anyone to vermin is a disgraceful thing to do (in general, there are some caveats as I explained before); especially the Queen.

I hesistate to suggest that I'm please he's been sacked, because I don't want anyone to lose their jobs, but I think that after the comments it was the only realistic outcome.

It seems like it has been forever since I last updated this blog with news of my PhD, so I thought that I would write something this evening!

My PhD has not been going well recently. I was wondering around within my area attempting to figure out what to do next.

It turned out that having spoken to my supervisor (2 weeks ago now) that I had missed a fair big chunk of important/critical work out somewhere along the line. I had been working at quite a high-level of abstraction in terms of my thought processes and where the novelty in my work lay. It turns out that I needed to delve deeper into the lower levels and find "technical challenges" that need resolution rather than developing a high-level solution to the problems encountered.

I have to admit that it has set me back a bit from a motivation perspective - my supervisor has been fantastic through the whole process, and he has saved the PhD here with a timely intervention suggesting where I was going wrong - I have taken some time to really get the motivation back to carry on with the work through to it's conclusion - which will be either success, or failure (I'm determined it will be the former, whilst mentally preparing for the latter - I can't help the narcissism, honestly!).

But the point is that I'm around 1 year away, if everything goes according to plan, from starting my thesis, I hope! Of course, my original funding is due to run out in August 2010, so that should be interesting and a bump in the road - I guess I'll just have to show the people that matter that I'm making good progress towards completion.

Anyway, there are 3 full working weeks (including this one) before Xmas. In that time I want to complete what is now the third review of literature that I will have undertaken - though this will be a far deeper look at the works. This review should have taken place over the last 4 months or so and been finished by now, but hey-ho. Then after Christmas I want to spend the 5/6 months after that nailing on the solutions to the "technical challenges" that I find, and writing papers about them etc. After that I need to implement those solutions to show that they work practically. Then I write my thesis.

In conclusion, 2010 is going to be a most interesting year - the first 5 months of which will more-or-less make or break the PhD in my opinion.

A storm is brewing. According to an article on thisislondon.co.uk, Labour council candidate Peter White has described the Queen as a "parasite" and "vermin".

Talk about a lack of respect. He suggests that she is a "parasite" and "vermin" because she was fortunate enough to be born into privelege as the head of state of this nation.

This is a disgrace. You could perhaps describe murderers, rapists and paedophiles as "parasites" and "vermin", but to call a perfectly decent lady, the head of state, the Queen, vermin is an utter disgrace.

I am not a republican - I am a "monarchist" - and Paul White is obviously a republican. That is no excuse for his words though. They are the worst kind of envy politics. He obviously has a problem with wealth - inherited or not I suspect from the quotes - and therefore a problem with people in the admittedly fortunate (though also cursed in my view) position of the Queen.

I would urge the people of the South Hornchurch council ward in Havering to seriously consider whether they want someone with such a big chip on his shoulder representing their views in their council.

It would be not unreasonable for Mr White to apologise for his disgraceful words, but I won't hold my breath.

If in doubt, Cameron's about...that should be the new Tory slogan for the election (just kidding - it would really put people off!).

But that is how I feel with regard to the Tories and their European Policy at the moment. This week Labour have been trying to kick up a stink about Cameron saying their will be no referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

EXCUSE ME!

Who is in power? Labour. Who, along with the Tories in 2005, promised a referendum? Labour. Who had the power, over the last 4 years, to give us that referendum? Labour.

Could the Tories have given us a referendum? No. But crucially, would they have done? Yes.

So, who u-turned, who lied, who denied us a referendum? Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. That's who. And Cameron said just that (without the lieing bit!) in his speech today, which you can listen to here.

What Cameron said today was the following:

• No point having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty now as it no longer exists. It is now going to be Law.
• Will amend the European Communities Act (1972 - I think) to make it a legal requirement for referenda to be held when powers are to be transferred to the EU (same as Ireland has in it's constitution).
• Will create a UK Sovereignty Act to enshrine the primacy of British Law - or the interpretation of that law
• Will repatriate powers on social justice, crime and the social chapter (I think I might have mixed two of those up!) over the lifetime of the next parliament
• He also would not rule out referenda in the parliament AFTER NEXT (i.e. 2015) if Europe does not negotiate reasonably on the point above.

In short Cameron and the Conservatives now have a reasonable European policy that involves us being at the very heart of Europe, totally involved in it. He also grants us, the people, the final, democratic, say in if or when powers are transferred to Europe. That is a great policy in my view, and a nail in the coffin of those who are trying to claim that the Tories are split. They are not.

The question is how long will it be before Labour either suggests that the Tories are anti-European or steals the policy!

Incidentally, if Labour do claim that the Tories are anti-European, someone will have to explain how Germany, one of the leading nations in the EU, gets by with exactly the type of laws Cameron is suggesting!

I've not blogged at all in the last 3 months for a number of reasons - the main one being that my PhD has become even more all-consuming than it was before and I simply haven't the time.

I have been compelled to blog today though after David Cameron said that the Conservatives might want to consider the imposition of all-women shortlists on candidate selections in time for the next General Election (due May/June 2010).

There have been many that have argued for this. Certainly it was an "equality" measure introduced by the Labour party earlier this decade (if I recall the date correctly), and it is interesting that the Conservatives would want to introduce it right now.

There are valid reasons for doing this. Women and ethnic minorities are woefully under-represented in parliament in terms of number of MPs vs percentage of population, and this needs to be fixed. From this perspective there have been voices in the Conservatives for this - such as PPC Joanne Cash (on twitter @Joanne_Cash) who has tweeted about this this afternoon: "As a meritocrat, I never imagined saying this but DC (David Cameron) is 100% right on shortlists. It's about being representative of voters & as a feminist I say it is about time my party fought for the cause of women and minorities harder. Happy to debate this". She has also defended it on the Conservative Home website.
There are many against it though - Iain Dale has a post on the matter on his blog, and Tim Montgomerie and Nadine Dorries MP are both against as well. I'm certain that there are as many for this as against but I haven't had time to find more opinions at this point!

I come at it from my own personal perspective though and I have a few points to make.

The first is that this has proved to be an embarrasing policy before. In a slightly mad circumstance where Labour kicked out an already installed male candidate (Peter Law) in preference to a female candidate there was embarrasment when Peter Law won the Blenau Gwent seat as an independent. IF the Conservatives do go through with this I hope they won't make the same mistake.

My other point was that I'm personally against all forms of discrimination. Some will say this is not discrimination, and others will say that it is positive discrimination and therefore ok. I say both are wrong. If this was reversed and we were talking about say, all male shortlists, would that be ok? No. Feminists would be up in arms about it (and rightly so). I say that there is only a minor semantic difference between the two states (replacement of female with male). The discrimination is there, and there is no such thing as positive discrimination, because someone must always be discriminated against. Here it would be males, but who it is makes no difference.

All-women, or all ethnic-minority, or all-anything shortlists by dictate are like an extrapolation from Orwell's Animal Farm, "we are all equal but some are more equal than others." Any form of discrimination is like that.

What we need in parliament is the best of the best (to complete the quote from Independence day..."...of the best...SIR!"). It shouldn't matter what their race, colour, creed or gender.

As women and ethnic minorities are under-represented rather than skimming over the problem perhaps politicians should, for once, actually consider the cause. In my view there are at least two reasons why we have the problems we have. The first is that parliament does not strike me as particularly "family friendly". What with MPs away from home a lot of the week (unless they are London-based MPs) something needs to be done to help people who have a family life but also want a political life but find it hard.

The second problem is the image of politics. Whilst I do not believe we have a "talent problem" in this country, we do have an image problem in terms of politics. Why would people want to get in to politics right now? Frankly "Honourable" members of parliament have dis-honered the instituation wholesale in my opinion certianly over the last 10 years and perhaps more. Only one of the outcomes is visible and that is the expenses scandal that continues to grip the Houses of Commons and Lords by the throat (and incidentally it will continue to do so until the MPs who have done wrong are removed and in some cases prosecuted and jailed).

So perhaps rather than preaching to us about the need for better representation in OUR parliament, perhaps you should look at yourselves as one of the causes of the problem? Just a suggestion.

In the end the Conservative way of politics should be to nurture and encourage, but in the end let people make up their own mind about what they want to do with their lives, and the way they want to live those lives. The state, and political parties, should interfere as little as possible. It should be roughly the same with parliamentary candidate - parties could and should vet the candidates sure, but then let constituencies make up their own shortlists and choose their own candidates.

I end the same way I started. We need the best of the best. Discrimination through all-anything shortlists is NOT the way to solve the problem of mis-representation in parliament. People should be selecteed based on ability, regardless of race, colour, creed or gender.

Link: http://www.oliverdrew.co.uk/

As the title suggested, I've finally got around to finished the "re-launch" of my website. It's not the end though. When I get some more free time I want to attempt to modify this blog so that it matches more closely the layout of the rest of the website. Free time however, is few and far between at the moment!

Anyway, hope you enjoy the site...

Link: http://englisheclectic.blogspot.com/

Paul Halsall is an "English Historian who just happens to be Gay, Catholic, and a Democratic Socialist. Now back in the UK after 20 years of living in the United States".

I had/am having an interesting discussion with him in the comments on Iain Dale's blog - a very respectful discussion I might add despite our obvious political differences!

I thought that, having read his blog, I would link to it here so that anyone who reads would be able to have a look. It really is a good read.

Link: http://order-order.com/2009/06/24/harman-bill-not-independent-not-credible/

The government have been banging on for ages about establishing an "independent" body to look at MPs expenses and salaries for the future - what the levels should be, raises etc etc.

Unfortunately the Government once again has shown that it is served more by self-interest than the interest of the country.

If you look at the Bill, it says that at least one member of the "independent" body will have parliamentary experience! It also says that all members will be voted upon by the House of Commons - so they get to elect their own "judge and jury" as Guido Fawkes puts it.

He once again is quite right. This is a government stitch up. They are attempting to hide behind the cloak of independence and reform whilst attempting to keep as much of the status quo as possible.

This proves that the Government is not interested in accepting fault, and that they STILL do not believe that they have done wrong. To that end they are ignoring the public clamour for change and reform for their own disgusting self interest.

This is what happens when the Government hold all the power and the people hold none. We should be able to call a General Election ourselves regardless of what the PM or his cronies (because the cabinet really are just his cronies now, they are not at all independent - aside from perhaps Mandelson, who is running the country) want.

It is time for a big sea change in this country - and that sea should not include the Labour Party.

Link: http://www.oliverdrew.co.uk

If you've visited my website in the last 36 hours or so you might have noticed that the layout has changed quite a bit!

Unfortunately I've not had time to complete the changes yet so there is still a lot of "Lorem Ipsum" across the site. I hope to change that this evening though.

In the end I hope to fully integrate this blog (or at least as much as possible) with the rest of the site. It has been a bit "seperate" for the last 10 months or so. That might take a bit longer though, but will hopefully be achieved without me having to change blogging platforms, or start writing posts in the actual web pages themselves...here's hoping!