Happy Birthday...

...to my Mum.

That's all I've got to say today, and probably for the rest of the week. So unless something utterly blog worthy comes to my attention, I will return in a week.

Actually, He's Right

Blair is getting more and more hassle "at home" (ie in the country that he is supposed to be running when he is not gadding about, playing the international statesman poorly) about positioning himself so closely to the Americans over the crisis in Israel/Lebanon. Even shameless sycophants like the bat-shit mad Miliband are apparently breaking ranks and criticising him in cabinet. But the problem is, as much as it pains me to say this (and I am in near physical agony admitting this), that Blair is right.

I have no time for his poodle like love for Dubya, as I have previously mentioned. But that does not mean I think every time he sides with Bush he is automatically wrong. The cause of this crisis is Hezbollah kidnapping Israeli troops and then chucking missiles at Israel. And any lasting solutions to the crisis needs to acknowledge this.

Hanged In Public

This makes me so angry I can barely think. A sixteen year old girl, hanged in public, for being raped.

It makes me feel physically sick. This is a country living in the stone age. I don't care, I really do not care, about their right to their religious beliefs when I read this. It is just wrong, immoral, evil, despicable, whatever fucking justification they give it.

"...it's very annoying..."

The title of this post is a quote from Belinda Oaten, wife of Mark. No, she is not talking about him but rather about her love for him. The full quote is "Yes, it's very annoying, but yes, I do."

Yes, Belinda, I can imagine it is annoying to be in love with someone who pays rent boys to defecate. I would probably use a stronger word than annoying, but you are married to a Liberal Democrat so I suppose strong words and concrete opinions do not come naturally.

Still, could be worse, Mrs Oaten. You could be in love with Simon Hughes. Imagine how annoying that would be!

Strawman

Go on, sign up. You know it makes sense.

Do Some Exercise!

Tony Blair abdicates responsibility for spiralling NHS costs with the simple request of lose some weight and stop smoking/drinking. He is probably one step away from saying "look, moving forward it would be great if you could help the NHS by never getting ill or injured."

Makes me wonder, though, whether he is going to make the likes of Charles Clarke and John Prescott lead by example in the dieting? Although, Blair probably isn't on speaking terms with the former.

Good Riddance

See here.

Just goes to show, repeatedly having deviant sex with a rent boy whilst your wife and family wait at home doesn't pay. Even in the Liberal Democrats.

Another little piece of freedom rides off into the sunset

The heat is getting too much for me. I cannot even raise my usual ire when I think about John Prescott. I am lost in a mire of apathetic lethargy. Which is never good for a blog based on ranting.

But I did notice this: MPs trying to restrict what can be said in memoirs. Perhaps I am missing something but I thought we already had restrictions on memoirs - namely the Official Secrets Act and the Libel laws. Why do we need further ones?

The article states "financial incentives to produce "shocking" or indiscreet revelations should be removed." Not convinced, not convinced at all. The committee points to Sir Christopher Meyer calling serving politicians "pygmies" - let's be honest, whilst it maybe insulting, Meyer's got a point. In fact, his description is probably a little tame. I would have gone with "shameless self-serving piss midgets" to describe the shaved apes running the UK at the moment. The reason why the committee does not want memoirs to be open and frank is because they might be embarrassing. All the more reason to publish them, I reckon.

This is just the government trying to erode freedom of speech that little bit more. Bollocks to them, I say. If you don't want memoirs to contain embarrassing stories, Mr Blair et al, then don't do anything embarrassing. Really not difficult to figure out.

Crisis

According to the main news outlets, Israel is levelling Lebanon. Except that doesn't seem to be quite true, as Mr Eugenides points out.

Israel is attacking Lebanon and too many innocent people are dying. But there is not the total devastation that, in what smells unpleasantly like anti-semitism, our media is reporting.

Let's be honest, this is a classic example of a test of strength. Olmert is realtively new to the job and does not have an extensive miliatry background (unlike his predecessor - who, incidentally, is still clinging to life). He needs to be seen as strong and ruthless when Israel is attacked - but it does not help his cause or the cause of his nation to push that unstable region into total war. Israel is a country surrounded by other nations that hate them - they have to prove, when challenged, that they will fight back and can win. If the whole of the Middle East decided that it wanted to destroy Israel then Israel would probably be finished (although the events of the Six Day War throws that comment open to debate). But that is not the logic on which Israel operates - it is more along the lines of "we will hit back hard at the first country to attack us, and we want to be sure that you don't want to be that first country".

That Friday Feeling

I feel I should be banging on about how Prescott continues to embarrass his party, government and country. Or about the unmitigated shite being spouted by David Miliband here. Or the collapse of the Middle East here.

But I can't be bothered. It is Friday afternoon, it is too hot and I just can't be bothered. So instead I give you this quote:

"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day. " ~Frank Sinatra

I should be feeling very good in around about half an hour...

Slight Return (Charles Kennedy)

It says something about the leadership of Ming "The Merciful" Campbell that a poll suggests only 26% of people think he is a good leader.

And it says something about the calibre of the MPs in the Liberal Democrats that 53% of people believe their best option is the alcoholic the Lib Dems off-loaded in January.

He really is a moron, isn't he?

Bush vetoes a bill funding stem cell research. He piously claims:

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others"

And:

"It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it"

Wanker.

Ignorant wanker.

The taking of an innocent life is not OK to get medical benefits for others, but is fine to get oil in Iraq or revenge for 9/11 in Afghanistan. You are a war president, you cannot act as a defender of life when you have killed thousands of people in the Middle East. The moral high ground became out of bounds for you years ago, Georgie boy.

Perhaps the closest we have to a precedent for Bush is President Ulysses S Grant. A Republican with a drink problem with no real political ability who was elected twice (because there was no-one else) to preside over two scandal ridden administrations. But even that does not work, as Grant had an brilliant career prior to winning the presidency as a general in Lincoln's army in the Civil War. Which is slightly more impressive that being a failed oil magnate and a mediocre governor.

The Little Things in Life

It is the little things that really wind me up. If a calamity befalls me, then I tend to take it stoically. “Nameless Tory, the company you work for has collapsed and you are out of a job.” “Not a problem, I will just have to find another job.” “Nameless Tory, you have lost both of your legs in a bizarre gardening accident.” “Oh well, can’t be helped.” “Nameless Tory, a meteor is heading towards the earth and is set to wipe out all human life.” “Nevermind, these things happen.” But it is the little things that really get to me – an error from my bank, for example, and you are scraping me off the ceiling.

Which is why, when I got a random e-mail on Monday morning from a company/book scheme I would never dream of going near saying I had joined their scheme, I got wound up. And instead of ignoring the problem and hoping it would go away, you know, like a normal person, I took the bait. The (ongoing) e-mail exchange is laid out below.

“random company wrote:

Dear (Nameless Tory),
Thank you for your application to join (our random book club), which has been received and is being processed.
If you have any queries about your order please either e-mail us.
I look forward to welcoming you to the club!
(Random Customer Service Monkey)Online Editor

nameless tory wrote:

I have not asked to join your scheme/club, and require written confirmation that I will not be billed for anything. Please e-mail this to me by close of play on today along with confirmation that I will not be receiving anymore of your spam.

random company wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam,Thank you for your e-mail.
To locate your account and answer any queries please advise us of your membership number. If this is not available please advise of your name and full postal address, together with the name of the club to which you are a member.We trust that this now clarifies the matter for you. Regards, Customer Services

nameless tory wrote:

As far as I am aware I am not a member of any of your clubs. I am not going to send you my address so you can put me on one of your junk mail lists. My request was very simple and in no way does your e-mail clarify the matter for me.
To reiterate - confirm that I will not be billed for anything and delete me from your mailing list. Action by close of play today.

random company wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam,Thank you for your e-mail.
To locate your account and answer any queries please advise us of your membership number. If this is not available please advise of your name and full postal address, together with the name of the club to which you are a member. We trust that this now clarifies the matter for you. Regards, Customer Services

nameless tory wrote:

You need to try to read the e-mail that I sent to you earlier. I DO NOT HAVE THE MEMBERSHIP NUMBER AS I AM NOT A MEMBER. I AM NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU MY ADDRESS AS I DO NOT WANT JUNK MAIL GOING TO MY HOME ADDRESS AS WELL AS MY E-MAIL ACCOUNT.

Confirm I am not going to be charged for everything.

Then confirm I am removed from your spam list.

Really isn't difficult.

random company wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam,Thank you for your e-mail.If we do not have a membership number or your full name and address, we are unable to search our system to see if there is any accounts (sic) in your name.
We trust that this now clarifies the matter for you. Regards,
(Customer Service Gimp)Customer Services

nameless tory wrote:

Well, obviously it does not clarify my surprisingly simple query. All I require is confirmation that I will not be charged for anything and will be deleted from your spam lists. Evidently this is outside of the parameters of your customer services team (oh, what an ironic name for such an unhelpful and incompetent team) so please can you send me a number of someone I can call to escalate this increasingly farcical problem.”

The worst thing is, I know, having started the process, having taken the bait, this is going to take up days, maybe even weeks, of my time. I will pursue it until I am completely satisfied, like a pedantic, irritable hunting dog. And against my better judgement, I will let myself get wound up about it even though it doesn’t really matter.

Still, at least I am self-aware.

Yo! Blair! Yo' no statesman, yo' know it! Yo' ma b*tch!

I quote from the Independent:

Blair: I don't know what you guys have talked about, but as I say I am perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of the land is, but you need that done quickly because otherwise it will spiral. (Meaning: 'Please, George, let me go to the Middle East and be a world statesman')
Bush: I think Condi is going to go pretty soon. (Meaning: 'No')
Blair: But that's, that's, that's all that matters. But if you... you see it will take some time to get that together. (Meaning: 'Oh well, all right, if you don't want me to. Just a thought')
Bush: Yeah, yeah.
Blair: But at least it gives people...
Bush: It's a process, I agree. I told her your offer to... (Meaning: 'Drop it. You're not going.')
Blair: Well... it's only if I mean... you know. If she's got a..., or if she needs the ground prepared as it were... Because obviously if she goes out, she's got to succeed, if it were, whereas I can go out and just talk.

Go away and read the whole article, here, then come back. It is worth reading, as it may make you laugh a lot. Or, if you are like me, it will make you very angry at the shameless toadying little ferret who claims to be the leader of the UK.

Bush doesn't come out too badly from the conversations. I mean, he does come out as an ignorant, boorish, foul mouthed cretin. But we knew that already. Whereas Blair, well, he comes across as an odious little suck-up. Bush opens the conversation with "Yo!Blair!". If someone said something like that to me my first instinct would be to tell 'em to go and make love to themselves (or words to that effect). But aside from the fact that Bush treats him throughout the conversation with utter contempt, there is the wince inducing image of Blair desperately trying to be a World's Statesman. "Oooo, Mr Bush sir, please can I go to the Middle East to look important. Please. I promise I won't do or say anything to help, I'll let Condi go out and do all that later. I just want to look important. Please, Mr Bush, I'll be you're best friend."

Blair, you shameless, creeping media whore, if you want to go to the Middle East, just go and fucking do it. Don't ask for Bush's permission. And if you are going out there actually try to resolve the problem. It is not a media exercise, and it is not about your legacy. People are dying. The Middle East is sliding to war. The last thing they need is someone to just "go out and just talk."

Good God it makes me feel physically sick to think that our Prime Minister goes crawling to that borderline retarded President to beg for the right to go on a media tour of the war torn Middle East. The only time we can possibly have a special relationship with the US again is when Blair extracts his nose from Bush's anal regions and actually stands up for himself - or we get a new Prime Minister who actually has a backbone.

I favour the latter option. Although whether Brown or Cameron will prove to have more of a backbone is open to debate.

Prosecuted for breaching health and safety

What a load of arse.

Don't get me wrong, I am pleased that the officers involved in the shooting of de Menezes were not charged. Whilst you could make a reasonable argument for a manslaughter charge, I would not say they deserved it. The officers who went after de Menezes on the day thought they were chasing someone who had tried to commit multiple murder the previous day. With little regard for their own safety, they went after someone who they thought might be a human bomb. Something went badly wrong with the operation - that much is clear. But if the person they were chasing had turned out to be a bomber, the SO19 officers who killed him would be feted as heroes. I think it is always worth bearing in mind.

But then you read on and find that the CPS is charging the Met with breaching de Menezes's Health and Safety. That's the Health and Safety at work act, 1974. Sweet Jesus, give me strength. Let's look at this in more detail:

1. Of course they breached his health and safety. They shot the man seven times at point blank range in the face. Give me one example, just one, of when someone being shot in the face repeatedly has improved their health and safety?

2. But de Menezes was not at work. I'm sorry, but he wasn't. He was on the tube. So whilst they breached his health and safety, they didn't do it at his workplace. In fact, if there was a breach of health and safety at work then it was the police officers's health and safety, since they were actually at work, doing their job.

3. The CPS is a public body. The Met is a public body. So a body paid for by taxpayers will prosecute another body funded by the taxpayers to try to extract a large fine. Paid for by taxpayers money. Brilliant! Awesome! Goddamned spectacular! What staggering decision making prowess! de Menezes gets shot in the face, and who is punished for it? The taxpayer. How wonderfully Blairite.

Something went wrong on the 22nd July, 2005 and an innocent man was shot dead by police trying to protect the public. I wouldn't support any decision to prosecute the police officers invovled unless there was clear evidence that something other than institutional incompetence that led to the death. But equally I do not support the decision to prosecute the Met, because it is a waste of public time and a waste of public money. In fact, instead of pissing public money away on a worthless, symbolic prosecution, let's buy the police some decent radios so may be officers in the field can stay in contact with the control room. And so may be something as terrible as the shooting does not happen again.

Paedo-geddon!

The Devil's Kitchen rightly points out this absurd and frustrating story - a vicar banned from a school for kissing a girl on the cheek. Frankly this is worthy of Chris Morris - it is beyond belief. I am surprised that they did not drag him from the school and burn him in a giant wicker phallus. It almost looks like a wind-up. Sadly it isn't.

There is a massive difference between someone kissing a child on the cheek and someone abusing a child. I cannot, cannot, understand how people do understand this very simple fact. How can showing affection to a child who has done well be interpreted as abuse?

And there is more to it than just the absurdity that someone links a kiss on the cheek with statutory rape. Is this really what it has come to? Are we so paranoid about paedophiles that we see them everywhere? This is like America at the height of McCarthy's power - rather than reds under the bed, we have paedos under the bed.

And how does this help children? They will grow up afraid of adults, and afraid of affection. Yes we have to teach kids to be careful and to avoid strangers. Monsters do exist, and kids need to be protected from them. But the fact remains that the chances of a child being abused by a stranger is far far far less likely that the chances of a child being abused by someone they know.

Jumping the Gun

It was always going to happen - someone stands up to challenge Gordon Brown. Perhaps the only surprise is that it is someone from the left of the party, as opposed to the Far Right.

Of course, John McDonnell is doing this for honourable reasons - as BBC news states, he wants to "get back to grass roots campaigning" and he wants to increase democracy in the Labour party. Ignoring the fact, reported by Guido, that he restricts when his constituents can talk to him - oh such a democratic thing to do - I think this is a positive move. Both the Labour and the Tories manage to elect their leaders, and a Brown coronation does not help anyone other than Gordon Brown. Don't get me wrong, I would never vote for anyone like McDonnell but at least the rise of the dour one will be contested.

But then McDonnell ruins it all by lying. He says "This is not a move against Tony Blair". Oh, come on, McDonnell, please don't patronise us with this sort of bollocks. Of course this is a challenge to Tony Blair. It comes in a week were his key political allies are being arrested or questioned by the police. He is a (very) right wing MP, you are a very left wing one. You would love to see Blair gone - everyone can see that. So have the bottle to say what you actually want to do - stand up and say "yes I am a stalking horse and I want to challenge Blair for the leadership." If Anthony Meyer can do it, so can you.

It is all good though. With every passing day the shameless Bliar gets more and more compromised, and I look forward to seeing him fall. If I was a gambling man, I would be putting money on September...

Which US President Are You Most Like?

You Are Most Like Ronald Reagan

People tend to think you're a god - or that you almost ruined the country. But even if people do disagree with you, they still fall victim to your charms!

What Modern US President Are You Most Like?

Uh huh. Whilst I don't doubt that some people think I am a god, I can't claim that I am far right former Hollywood star, former governor of California, Christian fundamentalist and old man.

Still, could be worse. I was terrified I would be most like George W. Bush!

Hug a Hoodie

Actually, I'd rather not. But I reckon that will come as something of a relief to those who do wear the hoodies.

David Cameron is at it again, chasing a touchy-feely media opportunity rather than coming up with any tangible policy. Shamelessly chasing the headlines and the zeitgeist, he states:

"We - the people in suits - often see hoodies as aggressive, the uniform of a rebel army of young gangsters."

I know several people who wear suits for the office, and hoodies outside. Wearing a suit does not preclude wearing a suit, and vice versa. Although I wouldn't wear a hoodie with a suit, mind. And talk of "rebel armies" reminds me of Star Wars.

"But hoodies are more defensive than offensive. They're a way to stay invisible in the street."

Hmmmm. Or they are a way to keep your head warm in the winter.

"In a dangerous environment the best thing to do is keep your head down, blend in."

Was Eton a particularly dangerous environment, David? Did you have to wear a hoodie to protect you from the teachers? An Oxbridge educated Old Etonian cannot appear credible when talking about the street and how to survive on it.

But this is just me being hyper-critical as I voted for the other David in the leadership election last year. Where the fundamental problem lies is in this:

"Let's try and understand what's gone wrong in these children's lives and we'll find it's about family breakdown, it's about drugs, it's about alcohol abuse, often it's young people who are brought up in care when they should be in loving homes."

Absolutely David! Could not agree more! Let us understand what is wrong with these kids, let's understand the family breakdowns, the drugs, the booze, the care homes. The problem is, David, you've identified the issues. But you are not telling us what you are going to do about them.

On July 15th, 1979, Jimmy Carter deliever the famous malaise speech and in doing so pretty much handed the 1980 Presidential Election to Ronald Reagan. He said that there were problems in the USA, but could not offer any solutions. And Cameron seems to suffer, if you pardon the pun, from the same malaise.

David, people don't need politicians to point out that there are problems. More often that not, we can work out that there are problems ourselves. What we want from politicians is solutions - and offering solutions is perhaps the best way for the new Conservative Party to differentiate itself from NuLabour.

Publicise This!

One of the main objections to ID cards is that the cost will be more than the government is stating. Therefore, in order to allay these concerns, the government could reveal what the costs are. But as the BBC website shows, they are fighting any attempts to publically reveal what the costs are. Ipso facto, the anti-ID card lobby is right and the government knows how much ID cards will really cost. And those costings do not help their case.

No2ID should be shouting about this.

The Conservative Party should be shouting about this.

The Liberal Democrats should be shouting about this.

Any blog with concerns about ID cards should be shouting about this.

The fight against ID cards isn't over until they are in our wallets or purses.

..and a weirdo

The Devil's Kitchen lays into Mr Thom Yorke of Radiohead here.

Now I quite like Radiohead, partly as I am a bit of a miserable sod sometimes. I even don't mind them now, when they have ceased even trying to write songs - I find the ambient drum beats topped off with incoherent wailing comforting in an odd sort of a way. It is a bit like whale-song; albeit a whale coked off his tits and trying to sing along with the music in an obscure dance club.

But DK is absolutely right to lay into Thom Yorke. Firstly, Yorke makes claims but cannot back them up (since he thinks it is OK to do this I have no intention of backing this claim up). Secondly, he is highly critical of capitalism, but I have never heard what his alternative is (in fact, in some respects I am sad that the Soviet Union has fallen as it denies us the response of "well piss off back to Russia then Thom"). And there can be few people who had benefitted more from capitalism than Yorke and other multi-million pound rock stars. Thom, the only reason why you can spend all day making obtuse pseudo-songs and pontificating like an ill-educated member of Militant Tendency is because the good people at your capitalist record company (if memory serves Radiohead were signed to EMI) press your songs onto environmentally unfriendly discs and sell them - at a profit to them and you - to the general public.

Even worse though is the arrogance of Thom Yorke. Thom, I don't think that George W. Bush is qualified to talk about politics and he has been at the head of the world's most powerful state since 2001. So there is no way that I would think that a rock star who displays the same emotional misanthrophy as Morrissey (but without the caustic wit) would be qualified to talk about politics. And it gets even worse - I can remember reading an interview with Thom Yorke in the NME a few years back (sorry, I don't have the time to research a link but it was about the time Amnesiac was released) where he said that he was afraid that MI5 was following him, and may even be willing to kill him.

Thom, MI5 have better things to do with their time than follow you. They are probably more focussed on the religious fundamentalists with the bulky rucksacks and the intention to commit mass murder. This time last year we were vividly shown who the real enemies of the state are. And guess what? They didn't turn out to be rock stars. MI5 will ignore you, Thom, because you are irrelevant - the only damage you do to society is to mildly irritate those of us who are not naive enough to take your facile falsies at face value.

Another Prescott Rant

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I cannot believe that Prescott still has no intention of resigning. Whilst the Tories were often grossly corrupt and sometimes more than a little seedy under Major, they at least had the common decency to resign when they were caught out. Prescott has punched a member of the public, had Greenpeace protestors arrested at gunpoint, has had (according to Guido) multiple affairs, has abused his grace and favours home, has abused the offices of the DPM whilst having his affair(s) and has now accepted hospitality in complete contravention of the rules of Parliament! What does it take for him to resign? “Aye, aye, I murdered Shergar, I helped Lord Lucan skip the country, I regularly cruise Clapham Common and ordered the death of Princess Diana but I’ll be a bugger’s mother if I am going to resign!”

I promise I will find another target soon (most probably Simon Hughes), hopefully once Prescott is back in his natural home - a working men's club, eating pie after pie after pie. But that will only come after Blair offers the immortal words "he has my full support" - the kiss of death for any Labour minister.

A One Man Mountain...

...of sleaze and scandal. Prezza, that is, as once again he has got himself into trouble. See here for more details.

With story after story of how bad Prescott is emerging, I am almost starting to feel sorry for the one man EU Jaguar mountain. It reminds me a bit of Michael Murray in the wonderful GBH - a leftwing hypocrite is getting his comeuppance owing to the many sins he has committed, but it has happened, like a House of Cards falling, all at once.

Then I think, well, he has brought this on himself. He has been boorish, violent, sexist, lazy and corrupt. And he chose to do all those things. Yes, it looks like life is really against him at the moment. But he really deserves every bit of it. He has got away with his petty, Deputy Prime Minister fiefdom for long enough. Now he is being called on what positive things he has achieved (if anything), and surely his resignation cannot be far away.

So I say, with a gleeful relish, "Mr Prescott, I look forward to your resignation. And I look forward to it leading to the resignation of your even more odious boss."

Do you remember freedom?

This is something I really don't get. The concept that to fight the War on Terror in the UK we need to have a 90 day detention period.

Why? No, really, why? 90 days was not needed to prove the Forest Gate suspects were innocent. It would not have helped against Abu Hamza. And above all, it would not have stopped the July 7th bombers.

But there is a greater worry nagging away at me when I read stories like this. We have a Labour party in power (yes, Labour - you may remember them as a socialist party less than 25 years ago) looking to restrict democracy and freedom in this country. Taking into account the Religious Hatred Bill, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill and the ID card schemes, it seems this government is determined to neuter Parliament and put (in this country) unprededented controls on what the people can say and do.

Put simply we have a government trying to neuter Parliament, trying to condense your identity onto an expensive credit card, and who want to give the police the right to lock you up for 90 days without charge. And this is against a backdrop of the police shooting innocent people.

There is a war on terror to be fought. But sometimes it feels like, in this country, the government is fighting a war on their people instead.

"Order in English"

The BBC news website is reporting the case of a man who is inflaming the immigration debate by asking his customers to order there food in English (see here).

The sign says "This is America, please order In English."

I can't be the only person to see the irony in that statement, surely?

Bromley and Blaenau

The by-elections in Blaenau Gwent and Bromley and Chislehurst are apparently bad news for both Labour and the Tories.

Well, yes and no.

I don't think you can doubt that the results were terrible for Labour. Don't get me wrong, they were never going too be good. I don't think anyone can realistically see them winning in Bromley, but their vote dropped by 8,316. And they were beaten by UKIP. And Blaenau Gwent would never have been a victory, because they should never have lost in the 2005 General Election. But to lose both the national and Welsh Assembly seats in the same constituency in just over twelve months is an absolute disaster for the party. And just to hammer the point home, this was the seat occupied by Michael Foot and Nye Bevan. It shows just how far NuLabour has strayed from their core vote - they have lost again the seat of a former Labour leader and a Labour icon. The local elections earlier this year showed they were struggling to hold the middle ground, and Blaenau Gwent shows that they cannot hold their heartlands.

But I don't see the Bromley result as bad for the Conservatives. Yes, it could have been much better but they still won. They retained a seat in their heartlands, in spite of losing an iconic MP in the form of Eric Forth (the conservative equivalent of Tony Banks, I personally think) chosing a flawed candidate in the form of Bob Neill (who does not live in the constituency and has three other jobs) and a brutal campaign by the local Lib Dems (Ming the Merciful had to stop members of his party campaigning prior to the funeral of Mr Forth). Yes, Francis Maude may have sent out a page message to Tory MPs saying the result was disappointing and "shows change must move faster, wider and deeper" (see here), but that is pretty much all Maude says these days. The simple fact is that the Tories won in Bromley, Labour and the Liberal Democrats did not. Once winning a by-election would have been a pipe dream for the Tories - it is a sign of their growing strength and rising expectations that senior Conservatives see a victory as not good enough.

Put simply, the by-elections on Thursday have to be seen as a victory for the Tories as they were the only national party to win.