If it's hot stay in the shade - you don't need a quango to tell you that!

And once again the nanny state swings into action.

The last couple of days have been a little warm so now we are given advice on the weather.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: 'The heat is especially dangerous for the very young, older people or those with serious illnesses. Keeping the home as cool as possible during hot weather and remembering the needs of friends, relatives and neighbours who could be at risk is essential."

They usefully provide some helpful hints:

Tips of how to keep cool in the heatwave...

• People with serious health problems (for example heart conditions), should avoid going out in the heat, especially between 11am and 3pm.
• Drink cold drinks such as water or fruit juice regularly and avoid tea, coffee and alcohol.
• Stay tuned to the weather forecast and plan ahead with supplies - think of elderly neighbours who may need help.
• Keep plenty of water to hand and stay in the shade where possible.
• Identify the coolest room in the house to use as a room to cool down or sleep in.

Now, this is what I would call commonsense and doesn't need the intervention of a government department.

What these busybodies seem to forget is that an awful lot of people have been on holiday to Spain, Italy, the Caribbean and other hot places and somehow have managed to survive without being told to drink water or stay in the shade.

Perhap this is the subtle way for the global warming nutters to tell us that we won't be allowed to fly anywhere in the future.

Keep your nose out...

The BNP is back in the news after the Equalities and Human Rights Commission said it must change its rules that you can only join if you are white.

Once again, the BNP gets the oxygen of publicity but one has to ask why is it any business of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission whether the BNP only admits whites?

If an organisation or club wants to exclude some one that should be entirely at their discretion - it certainly should not be any business of a quango.

If the BNP is forced to change its rules so anyone of any colour can join, does the Equalities and Human Rights Commission really expect a flurry of applications from West Indians and Pakistanis?

So what is the point apart from as a BNP spokesman says, "an entirely politically-motivated attack"?

Does Gordon Brown know how to tell the truth?

We know that Gordon Brown has difficulty telling the truth. We know that he is unhappy in his own skin but now he appears to have lost the plot entirely.

He has now said, "To be honest, you could walk away from all of this tomorrow. I'm not interested in what accompanies being in power."

Liar.

In the interview with The Guardian, Brown also said he was "not very good" at political manoeuvring - a claim that will amaze Labour politicians whose careers have been destroyed after incurring his wrath.

And two more reasons why people vote BNP

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I could almost believe that the government is deliberately arranging things so that people will vote BNP and then introduce yet more draconian laws to assault out civil liberties.

The first story is that gypsies will be given priority over normal people at doctors' surgeries.

Gipsies and travellers should be given priority in NHS hospitals and GP surgeries, doctors have been told.

They will be fast-tracked for doctors, nurses and even some dentist appointments above all other patients.

GPs have also been told to see any travellers who simply walk in without an appointment, even if all consultation times for the day are full.

Second is the tale about the fanatic Muslim organisation Al Muhajiroun which some claim should be banned for if not espousing terrorism then at least giving it a sympathetic ear. However, the Home Office said a ban could only be implemented if there was evidence that a group was involved with terrorism. A spokesman said: 'Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism."

So they won't ban an organisation which called the 9/11 hijackers "magnificent" but will ban American shockjock Michael Savage?

We are, indeed, living in strange times.

Cameron needs to explain fully his ID card opposition

David Cameron has announced that any future Tory government will abolish the ID card scheme.

All well and good but...

He has also said that he will not offer a referendum on the EU constitution when/if he comes to power if the Irish have been conned into saying yes when they are forced to vote again.

Will Cameron say that he will abolish the ID cards no matter what, and not just abolish plans for them if they have not been introduced by the time of the next election?

A sensible view on ID cards

Retired law lord Lord Steyn has spoken out on the folly of identity cards.

In a London memorial lecture, Lord Steyn warned that ID cards, and the national identity database which will store the personal data, are steps towards a 'Kafkaesque' society.

He accused the Home Office of introducing the cards step by step as a way of 'conditioning' and 'softening up' public opinion.

Ministers say the scheme will help fight terrorism, crime and illegal immigration and help people easily prove their identity.

But Lord Steyn says there is 'absolutely no evidence' they would protect the country against terrorism. Their introduction was an unjustified 'invasion' of civil liberties, the former judge added.

He said: 'The commitment, by and large, of the British people to European constitutional principles and ideals does not require us to adopt an ID card system.

'In my view a national identity card system is not necessary in our country. No further money should be spent on it. The idea should be abandoned.

'The Home Office now proudly asserts that comprehensive surveillance has become routine. If that is true, the resemblance to the world of Kafka is no longer so very distant.'

'To illustrate the scale of the surveillance, one can refer to the estimated 4.2 million CCTV cameras in operation in this country. It is said that a person living and working in London is likely to be filmed about 300 times on an average day.

'The cost to the taxpayer is several hundred millions of pounds. No doubt CCTV coverage has, in some cases, proved effective in combating crime. But it is unclear how cost effective generally the system is. Some of the types of surveillance introduced by the State border on the ridiculous.'

Gordon's latest folly

Oh dear, oh dear. So Gordon Brown has swallowed the same bunkum that Tony Blair did about the necessity for everyone to have broadband.

Blair who couldn't even use a computer was convinced of the necessity for every school pupil to have a computer at home.

Now Brown's government has announced that every household in Britain will be forced to pay an additional tax to fund a national roll-out of superfast broadband.

The news comes as Mr Brown today claimed that a fast internet connection was now a vital service for all homes.

Writing in The Times, he said: "Whether it is to work online, study, learn new skills, pay bills or simply stay in touch with friends and family, a fast internet connection is now seen by most of the public as an essential service, as indispensable as electricity, gas and water."

Utter bollocks, Mr Brown.

He added, "Britain is going to lead the world. This is us taking the next step into the future, being the digital capital of the world."

Does this idiot actually listen to what he says? World-class schools. World-class public transport. Oh yes we are going to have it all.

I suppose the one consolation with all this is given the Government's appallingly bad record on delivery (NHS super computer), it will never happen.

A lot of people don't want internet in their homes. I have a close friend who is highly literate and does not use the internet and does not want to use it. There are millions like him.

Gordon, give up - you're a prat.

Peace... for a time

So for now the internecine war within the Labour Party is at an end... at least until the party conference rolls around or until Gordon makes another balls up of things and does his party trick of running away and letting someone else take the blame.

I have already said that he will be seen as the Jim Callaghan of his generation - the PM who bottled an autumn election that he almost certainly would have won and lost/will lose a spring election.

It is my belief that David Miliband will be seen as the Michael Portillo of the Labour Party, a man who twice had the opportunity to strike and twice lost his nerve.

Next Labour leader? Alan Johnson, possibly, as a stopgap but for the future - James Purnell.

Why people voted BNP

On Question Time last Thursday Caroline Spelman said that she thought people voted BNP because they didn't really understand what that party stood for.

She was either being disingenuous or incredibly patronising. That well-known former window dresser Caroline Flint - Caroline Spelman, Caroline Flint, hmm perhaps it's something in the name - said much the same thing when the Irish very sensibly voted no in the EU referendum, that the Irish didn't understand what they were voting for/against.

The people who voted BNP last week - mostly disaffected and disenchanted Labour voters - knew exactly what they were voting for.

They voted BNP because they are fed up of a Labour Government that they think doesn't give a toss about them. They get angry.

They voted BNP because they are fed up of a Labour Government that they think cares more about the rights of ethnic minorities than then. They get angry.

They voted BNP because they are fed up of a Labour Government that they think is in thrall to Muslim fanatics. When British war heroes march through the streets of England and are booed and jeered by Muslims and the police arrest Britons rather than the Muslim troublemakers. They get angry.

They voted BNP because they are fed up of a Labour Government that they think places the rights of gypsies above their own. When a group of "travellers" set up camp on a field and the local, law-abiding people see the value of their homes decrease and the amount of crime increase; when the opinions of the local, law-abiding people are dismissed as racist and ignored by the local council. They get angry.

They voted BNP because they are fed up of a Labour Government that tells them "British jobs for British workers" and then imports hundreds of thousands of migrant workers. A Labour Government confidently predicts that only 13,000 workers from Eastern Europe would come to Britain when the true figure was around a million. They get angry.

They voted BNP because they are fed up with a Labour Government that seems not to care for old aged pensioners. They see the government spending millions on overseas aid, giving money to asylum seekers and ignoring pensioners who often have to decide between eating and heating.

They voted BNP because they are fed up with being told by a liberal elite that Britain is a multicultural society (by and large, it isn't but that's another blog) and wonder why no one thought to ask them if they wanted to live in a multicultural society.

The disenchanted Labour voter would never vote Conservative and is unlikely to put their X next to the Liberal Democrats' box so who can they turn to? Who appears to speak up for them? The BNP.

All three major parties need to address the matters outlined above or more and more votes will go to the BNP until one day there are BNP members at Westminster. And no one wants that.

Flintish fury of a woman scorned....

Former Europe Minister Caroline Flint's continued rants against Gordon Brown may have more credibility if they did not come days after she professed her loyalty to him.

And do we really believe that she would have quit if Brown had given her a top job?

It is simple for Gordon Brown to reclaim the initiative - but his cowardice won't let him

Tony Blair has said of Gordon Brown that “the darkness in his heart and the lies will be his downfall”.

Aside from being a bit rich that Blair is calling someone else a liar, he has a point.

A friend of Blair revealed that the former PM always feared Brown did not have the right temperament or character to do the job and that’s how it has turned out.

Another source close to Mr Blair claimed: “Tony’s view is that Gordon has brought this all on himself. He spent years plotting against Tony and is in no position to complain now that it is happening to him.”

When he took over, Brown’s people put it about that he was a new broom and that would replace Labour “spin” with a more “honest” style.

That was itself spin.

Brown is anything but honest. He claimed that he was at his press conference last week, seconds after lying that he had not intended to sack chancellor Alistair Darling when it was an open secret that he wanted to install his protégé Ed Balls at Number 11.

Lord Mandelson said before he came back to the Cabinet that Brown is insecure.

A simple way to defuse that allegation is for Brown to do what John Major did many years ago. Tell the Cabinet that he is resigning as leader of the Labour Party and invite them to stand against him. Put up or shut up.

Of course, Brown won’t do anything such thing because he is fundamentally a coward.

Hold the front page! Mandelson tells the truth

Peter Mandelson on the Andrew Marr Show this morning...

"I can assure you the Cabinet are united against him"

Finally, Mandy tells the truth...

Children are not a social experiment

Today The Mail on Sunday reports of another case where a ten-year-old Catholic boy is being placed in the care of gay foster parents against the wishes of his religious mother.

It follows the case of the other children - a brother and sister - who were "adopted" by a gay couple against the wishes of their mother and despite the fact that their grandparents - her mother - offered to house the children.

Naturally, none of the children can be named for their own protection and perish the though not so that we cannot question the social workers and their motives.

If homosexual couple of either sex want to have children, they can get the turkey baster out and there is nothing we can do. But it is the duty of councils to look after the children in their care and that means not placing them with gay couples.

The best place to raise children is in a loving, stable home with a mother and a father. That is the ideal and yes we know that not every home is ideal and that not every home is loving or stable. Nonetheless, that is what we as a society should be aiming for.

We do not know whether children raised in a home where both lovers are gay will turn out to be normal - and yes gay people are normal, too - and well-adjusted members of society. And there's the rub - placing children in homes with gay people is a social experiment. It may work or it may not.

We have recently heard much, too much, about the "rights" of children. Isn't the most fundamental right of a child not to be part of a social experiment where no one knows the outcome?