And another thing…

GEORGE Osborne’s star is waning, according to Conservative Home’s survey of Tory Party activists:

Our latest survey of over 1,600 rank-and-file members found that 49% were satisfied with Mr Osborne but 47% were dissatisfied; a net positive rating of just 2%. That is a huge shift since last month when George Osborne enjoyed a net positive rating of +70%.

Undoubtedly some of the recent fall is short-term fallout from He-Said-She-Said-No-I-Didn’t-YahBooSucks-Gate. But there seem to be deeper, more considered reservations among the blue rinsers. He certainly hasn’t quite cut it against Alistair Darling, at a time when most commentators expected him to capitalise on the government’s perceived weaknesses.

There’s certainly no reason for Cameron to keep Osborne in the Shadow Chancellor’s role if he doesn’t want to. A move sideways to Shadow Home Secretary would allow ‘Dave’ to demote Dominic Grieve, the “accidental Shadow Home Secretary” as well as promote the far more effective Michael Gove into the Shadow Chancellor’s job.

You read it here first, folks.

IMAGINE if the government announced it was going to offer marriage advice to couples intending to marry.

I can think of a few regular visitors to this site who would be barely able to contain their outrage. I can see the comments already: “NuLiebour control freakery… just like the smoking ban… abolishing civil liberties… what about the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty…”

Ah, but now that that nice Mr Gove has suggested that this is what a future Tory government will do, I wonder what the reaction will be?

GEORGE Osborne has just illustrated why this is called “the silly season” by claiming the Conservatives are best placed to tackle poverty.

Perhaps the first version of his speech to Demos also included the following claims:

Jeremy Clarkson is best placed to manage cycling policy

George Osborne is best placed to be the next Chancellor

Etc, etc…

Other suggestions welcome, but be warned: I will only publish those that I think are funny.

HAVING thoroughly enjoyed the opening episode of The X-Factor, I’m nevertheless reminded of the same reservations I’ve had during each of the previous seasons.

Every week of the auditions, almost every candidate tells the cameras that he/she wants nothing more in their lives than to be famous; they want to be more famous than Mariah Carey or Madonna; they want to sell more albums than Robbie Williams. The level of self-belief is startling, particularly given the limits (of most) of their singing talent.

Prince Charles got a lot of stick a few years ago because he said that young people should have more realistic ambitions. He was criticised by, among others, the then education secretary Charles Clarke, who interpreted Charles’s remarks as a “know your place” put-down from the upper classes.

It was nothing of the sort. I remember thinking at the time that HRH was spot on. A frighteningly high proportion of young people want only to be celebrities. More importantly, it seems to me that they want to be famous more than they want to be famous for doing something; celebrity is everything.

Telling those young people that their dream will come true if they really believe it will, and if they want it enough, is bordering on cruelty. It’s certainly irresponsible, because the fact is they’re not going to be singing stars.

One woman on tonight’s programme is a case in point. A mother since a very young age, with a history of drug abuse, she said she wanted to give her children a new life, and she was clearly sincere. But she also said that she didn’t want to do anything except sing. Now, as it happens, she gave an outstanding audition and I wouldn’t be surprised if she got down to the last two or three. But what if she doesn’t realise her dream? What of the hundreds of thousands of young people who, if not actively encouraged, aren’t exactly discouraged from focussing every ounce of their energy to attain an unattainable dream?

A couple of weeks ago, Michael Gove criticised the publishers of magazines like Zoo and Nuts for peddling an unrealistic view of women. More damaging, surely, to young people’s self-esteem are those magazines which treat celebrities as objects of worship and respect, even where the reasons for achieving celebrity status is either unclear or disreputable. “You, too, can have all this,” these publications seem to be saying. “All you need to do is win a reality TV show.”

Which is why I’m such a fan of Simon Cowell’s. His role as the hard man of the judge’s panel on The X-Factor is, I’m sure, largely a media construct. But when he tells auditioning hopefuls that they should give up their dreams of becoming singers, that they don’t have the talent to make it, he’s offering them advice that their families and friends should have given them a long time ago.

There’s nothing wrong in having dreams, or even in having a go at realising that dream. But when reality bites, it’s time to use your talent for something more achievable.

So that’s that off my chest. Now I can get on with the traditional run-up to Christmas in the Harris household: tuning into The X-Factor every Saturday between now and December.

MICHAEL Gove is a decent and likeable chap (for a Tory, I mean). He endeared himself to me recently by confessing in a newspaper article about his former life as a geek.

I first met him in 1990, when he worked for Scottish Television and I for the Labour Party in Scotland. I always got on well with him and was pleased to see him elected to the Commons in 2005.

So why have I suddenly been getting flashbacks of TV images of a young Gove examining in detail the contents of celebrities’ dustbins? It did happen. It was a (regular, I think) feature within a late-night “yoof” programme, probably on Channel 4, but I’m not sure.

What on earth was that programme? Are there any clips of Michael’s muck-raking activities available on the web? Can anyone help? I’m not making this up, honestly.

SEEMS I may have been somewhat prescient in comparing Michael Gove’s attack on lads’ mags with Major’s ‘Back to basics” crusade, if Guido’s story today has any truth.

Apparently the Nuts TV production company has given Gove’s constituency office a £2000 contribution. Now that’s what I call bad timing.

Guido’s been unable to get a statement from Michael, so it may not be true.

I understand he’s pretty shell-shocked. But there may be a kernel of truth in it, etc…

Some nuts: less offensive than any of the Nuts cover shots I found on the web

MICHAEL Gove has hit the headlines with a substantial speech on health, education and relationships. It’s actually quite thoughtful and worth reading .

It’s a pity, therefore, that he (deliberately?) attracted media attention to a small part of the speech focusing on so-called “lads’ mags”. Here’s what he said:

“That’s why I believe we need to ask tough questions about the instant-hit hedonism celebrated by the modern men’s magazines targeted at younger males. Titles such as Nuts and Zoo paint a picture of women as permanently, lasciviously, uncomplicatedly available. The images they use and project reinforce a very narrow conception of beauty and a shallow approach towards women. They celebrate thrill-seeking and instant gratification without ever allowing any thought of responsibility towards others, or commitment, to intrude.”

But what does he mean by the phrase “we need to ask tough questions”? That a future Tory government would regulate the content or sale of such magazines? That would be absurd, and would hardly fit with his party’s claimed libertarianism. But why raise the issue in the first place if he doesn’t want to do anything about them?

In fact, he’s being very – and predictably – clever by burnishing his party’s feminist credentials (now, who would have thought that sentence would ever be written?) and recognising valid concerns about this particular medium while at the same time using a phraseology that doesn’t commit him or his party to lifting a finger to do anything about it.

More mood music. Clever mood music, but nothing more than mood music, nonetheless.

I’ll add one caveat to that: clever, but only if you’ve already written off the demographic who actually buy these magazines and everyone else who will worry that a Tory government might usher in an unwanted and ineffective era of moral crusading. Major’s “back to basics”, anyone?

Thought I’d jump on the old parliamentary poetry bandwagon and try my hand at some really poor verse. I’m sure you’ll agree it really is poor:

As I was walking up Whitehall
I met a man who told me: “Call
Me Dave. Now tell me, have you seen
My legendary Spin Machine?”

“I may have caused offence, old chap
With pejorative use of ‘council flat’
But The Mirror’s splash’s beyond a joke
Red lights are just for common folk!”