Tory turmoil over MP vote

First, some observers will ask why the response of Conservative Central Office was not more effective when it became aware of the seriousness of the subterfuge claims over a year ago? Its passiveness has only allowed this schism to wider. Second, could more have been done to stem this infighting so the energies of both Miss McIntosh, and her party, could focus exclusively on the priorities of residents in the flood-hit Thirsk and Malton constituency?

In many respects, there are some uncanny parallels with Labour’s disarray in Falkirk over the selection of a new Parliamentary candidate. A primary difference is that turmoil within the Thirsk and Malton party has not involved the police – this sorry saga has all the hallmarks of vindictiveness and revolves around a sitting MP who has endured an uneasy relationship with her local party since her former Vale of York seat was abolished because of boundary changes. How ironic that those who endorsed Miss McIntosh before the 2010 election ahead of long-established Ryedale MP John Greenway are now vehement proponents of change.

MPs will always have to balance priorities, especially those who combine constituency duties with Ministerial responsibilities or chair an influential select committee like Miss McIntosh who holds Defra to account. In normal circumstances, this would be beneficial to Thirsk and Malton – agriculture is the area’s main industry and its MP is in a position to shape farming policy or to campaign for more money to be spent on flood defences – but some clearly disagree.

It remains to be seen whether Miss McIntosh’s re-selection vote is a credible one given the acrimony over access to the membership records of the local party and so on, but there is one certainty – the outcome and the ability of this troubled constituency to unite after this vote is not just a referendum on Anne McIntosh’s record, but also the character and conduct of her senior local officers.

Politics of envy

WHO is in charge of Labour economic policy? It is a question that goes to the heart of the surprise announcement by Ed Balls that he will re-introduce the 50p top rate of tax for high-earners. The Shadow Chancellor’s pledge needs to be seen in the context of party leader Ed Miliband’s interview seven days earlier when he stressed that no such decisions would be taken until the eve of the next election.

There are only two plausible explanations for this volte-face. The first is the Labour has been spooked by the International Monetary Fund’s revised growth forecasts which point to a stronger-than-anticipated recovery. The second is that Labour’s policy begins and ends with its concerns about the cost of living.

Neither explanation is a satisfactory one because the last Labour government only chose to introduce the 50p tax rate in the final days of Gordon Brown’s administration when it was desperate to portray the Tories as the party of the rich. If such a tax strategy was not justified five years ago when Britain headed into a deep recession, it is not the right one now when the recovery is still fragile according to respected bodies like Centre for Cities which has now highlighted the prodigious number of jobs being created in London in contrast to Bradford.

What it does prove, however, is that Mr Balls is still in denial about Labour’s past mistakes and the fact that public spending – particularly the welfare budget – can only be produced if Britain nurtures a new generation of entrepreneurs who 
can create the jobs of tomorrow.

This will not happen if investors turn their back on this country because Labour – still the party of envy – chose to bracket all wealth-creators with the tiny number of bankers who it failed to regulate.

Another red card

IF the Football Association’s Respect campaign is to have any credibility, it will ensure that Goole FC’s Karl Colley receives a life ban after storming into a supporters’ section and appearing to throw a punch at an opposition fan.

Even if the player had been goaded by provocative taunts from terraces, there is absolutely no place in football – whether it be the Premier League, the Evo-Stik South League or Sunday League games – for this kind of reaction to an incident.

All sportsmen, whether it be footballers or boxers, have a duty to keep their actions in check and Goole FC’s instant decision to sack the player is to be commended.

It sends out a strong message that this type of violent conduct is totally out of place with a sport where the actions of a moronic minority at all levels of the game, whether it be players or fans, is distracting attention away from the exhaustive work being undertaken by clubs to foster better links with their local community and to highlight football’s role as a force for good in society. This exercise can do without own goals like this incident.