Should convicts get the vote?

Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are trying to make it that convicts of 6 months or under still get to vote if they are in jail during an election.

Surely the whole point of becoming a 'convict' is that your privileges are taken away from you, so that you aren't tempted to do it again?

So if the petty criminals get the vote back whilst incarcerated  surely the other inmates with long term sentences will also want the vote?

Also what are they going to learn if privileges aren't taken away?

Maybe petty criminals such as Vicky Pryce, and her estranged husband Chris Huhne should have just been given some grueling community service instead of a prison sentence? Maybe non-violent criminals should be treated differently, depending on the crime.

Maybe Britain really just needs to re-form it's justice system, because quite frankly, it isn't serving its purpose at the moment.

Shadow Cabinet re-shuffle

Quite embarrassing for Dave Cameron today as the Shadow Cabinet re-shuffle has taken over the Cabinet re-shuffle (that or it's a blessing in disguise)

Ed Miliband has obviously taken a large lurch to the left, sacking off the remaining 'New' Labour ministers.

Stephen Twigg, Liam Byrne, and Jim Murphy. All strong supporters of 'New' Labour, and Tony Blair.

Now to me this looks like a nice lurch to the left, but to some, like Owen Jones:

 @OwenJones84 Bonfire of the Blairites? Tories - bear in mind 'Labour shifts left' narrative won't wash with voters who care about issues, not left/right

Now I do agree with what Owen is saying, but all his dreams must be coming true right now, getting rid of the Blairites, sticking with Brownites, (although not sure he is in favor of that), and making sure Unite The Union Leader, Len McCluskey (who told Miliband to sack these individuals) is a happy man.

Maybe Ed has done this as a peace offering over wanting to 'reform' their dealings with the Trade Unions.


To me it just looks like the same old Labour Party doing the same old schmoozing; Tony Blair wanted to make Gorge Bush happy, Ed Miliband wants to make Len McCluskey happy.

Either way, neither are actually interested in the opinions of the voters, just that of the money and power!

The Daily Mail vs Ed Miliband

As we all know the Daily Mail published an article written by Geoffrey Levy about Ed Miliband's dead father, claiming he hated this country.

To which Ed Miliband has come out fighting against this article claiming his father loved this country, his father enrolled in the Royal Navy saying;

'He did so because he was determined to be part of the fight against the Nazis and to help his family hidden in Belgium. He was fighting for Britain.'

Now I can absolutely understand why Ed Miliband is angry. Firstly, someone writing about a parent that has passed away, and didn't know them s, I'm sure, pretty annoying. Then claiming that that parent hated the country you want to govern would push you over the edge.

So for Ed Miliband his anger is justified, but now do the left see how hurtful it can be when you bring up someones background?

The left are always bringing up David Cameron's background, Boris Johnson's, George Osbourne's. You never hear them bring up Harriet Harman's background do you?

One rule for one hey?

No one can help where, who and how they were brought up. As a child you have no say over your life, adults make the decisions for you. 

So I hope it's a lesson for political sides out there, leave the politician's childhood out of it, as it has nothing to do with how good they can run a country.

Defeat for Cameron: But I'm glad it happened

Last night MP's voted against any military intervention from the UK into Syria, a massive blow to Cameron, but one I am extremely glad of, and I think secretly so is Cameron.

Firstly I think lessons from Iraq have been, even though DC tried to persuade us 'This is not like Iraq', how has Iraq fared since the Western world intervened? Probably more hostile now than ever before.

What's happening in Syria is awful, vile and down right plan disgusting. The pictures, and videos of men, women and children dying is just horrendous, and sickening to see someone do that to their own people.

How would military intervention help them? How would warfare help them? How would the added risk of bombs hitting, and killing them help them? How can anymore blood shed help them?

I'm proud of every MP who voted against last night, I don't care what party, I don't care if you did it just to have a pop at David Cameron, or Tony Blair, it was the right choice to make.

A few months a go I spent a week with ex-military soldiers, wounded soldiers injured from Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked them their opinion on whether we should intervene, as they are the ones who see would, and have seen what happens when the West intervene.

Every single person told me it was the worst thing to do, not only for them, but for the people of Syria, and I couldn't agree more.

One the wounded soldiers said to me the old saying 'You can't fight fire, with fire.'

They also spoke about the cost of intervening militarily, not only in lives, but in money, our economy is starting to head in the right direction, this would put us back trillions upon trillions of pounds, and we owe it to ourselves not to put our hard working class families through anymore hardship.

War only brings blood, death, and sorrow, never peace.

Syria: Reasons not to intevene

What is currently happening in Syria is an awful, and vile act human kind. It shows what too much power can do to one person.

However, do I believe that Britain, or any other Western country should intervene? No.

How would bombing from the USA, UK, and any other Western Country help the people of Syria? How would it help bring peace the Syrians? Would calm, or anger the Assad Regime? Would it save or kill more lives? And last but not least, can we, or they, actually afford another war?

By the last question I'm not just talking about money, what about lives lost. Can either country really afford anymore lives lost to a war? Can the mother's, children, siblings, and friends afford more heartache at watching their loved ones fighting a war with no real end in sight?

These are the things I hope David Cameron is thinking about, otherwise we might as well have just kept Tony Blair as Prime Minister, because I cannot see a lot of difference between either man at the moment.

'A Fleeting Moment'

The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, seems to have got himself in a bit of a pickle over his choice of words.

Earlier this morning, on LBC 97.3, the Deputy PM was asked is he would have intervened if he had been a witness to the incident between TV Chef Nigella Lawson and husband Charles Saatchi.

Mr Clegg's answer was: "You are asking me to comment on photographs everyone has seen in the papers - we don't know if it was a fleeting moment, so I'd rather not comment"

Now, I am certainly not Mr Clegg's biggest fan, but I'm hoping for his sake, it was just a case of choosing the wrong words.

To me a fleeting moment is raising your voice, or swearing, a fleeting moment isn't placing my hands around someones neck.

It's not the first Clegg has been in hot water this year thanks to Lord Rennard, who sexually harassed some Liberal Democrats' members, and even though he received the complaints about Lord Rennard, he didn't do much about it at the time.

I have to say I am completely shocked at Mr Clegg's response on LBC, especially as the leader of the Liberal Democrat, the party who wants equality for all, and the way he handled the Lord Rennard case before it came to the public's attention.

It seems to me Clegg doesn't want to treat everyone as equal, especially woman, to me, he comes across as a man who likes women as lovers, rather than colleagues and friends.

If I were Nick Clegg, I'd be doing everything in my power to prove otherwise right now.

350 mile bike ride

On Monday the 27th May to the 2nd June I cycled from Paris to London with Help for Heroes, an event and charity I think politicians should probably get involved in, and not on a political stance, but on a moral one, so that they realise what war can do to our men and women.

I met some courageous people on this ride, and I wouldn't change it for anything in the world.

I met a triple amputee, double amputees, and single amputees, also met silver medalist paralypian Jon-Allen Butterworth.

When my shoulders and knees were starting to give way, or my backside hurt to the point I wanted to stop, a hand cyclist would pass me, and boy oh boy did it motivate me to keep going.

I think all politicians, especially leaders, should spend a day with these people, and ask them how they feel about the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq, ask them if we should intervene in Syria, ask them how it felt to lose their limbs because of 'their' decisions.

Tony Blair, and now David Cameron, have both tried to emulate Margaret Thatcher's glorious victory in The Falklands, and have both failed dramatically.

There is one reason why they have failed: All glory, no real reason for going out there.


I have to say meeting the wounded soldiers, some were from Canada and America, none of them said they regretted joining the armed forces, and were proud of their achievements, and so am I.

Blair and Cameron don't give off the same amount of pride of our armed forces that Thatcher did, and maybe they should spend sometime with these men and women without camera's, without any advisers, just them and our wounded heroes, and hear their voices, hear their words of pain, hear what they have put them through, or might put them through.

No politics, no camera, no advisers, just their ears and compassion, maybe they'd feel differently towards war.