The Levy has two criteria racing’s needs and Licensed Betting Operators ability to pay.  The Levy will soon be determined by Andy Burnham and whilst the Levy has not gone up over the last five years profits from the big Licensed Betting Operators certainly has.  Further the number of races that the horseracing industry has put on has increased substantially.  This should all point to Andy Burnham offering a bumper increase. Yet in all probability he will plump with the status quo.

The Licensed Betting Operators have put in for a massive reduction in the Levy because of Turf TV and the racing industry countered with a half hearted demand for more cash, a stalemate that has drawn in DCMS to make the determination.

Bookmakers were legalised to recycle some of their profits to horseracing so it can improve its product.  Shouldn’t we encourage Licensed Betting Operators to do the same with other sports?

Horseracing is a unique sporting product that wholly relies on gambling.  Clearly a ‘share of betting profits to fix match fixing’ is a thin end of the wedge but it is an idea that the Select Committee should not dismiss out of hand – although I do not hold out for any hope.

On the other hand some people believe the Levy to be an anachronism and instead racing should sell data and picture rights which would take the place of the Levy. In a few years this could easily become a viable alternative – in which case the sporting bodies now find themselves several years behind the curve.

Back in the Autumn I believed it was Hillary’s to lose; now the once invincible Clinton machine has ended up in a dead heat, crippled by poll-tested corporate packaging and marketed like a bar of soap. The result a change at the top with Patti Solis Doyle stepping down.

With the race tightening Hillary has polarised the black vote and attempted to do the same with the Latino vote. She also seeks the ghost delegates from Florida and Michigan to be reinstated.  A re-run of the 1968 Democratic Convention will create a poisoned chalice, but for Hillary it’s ‘whatever it takes’ – the collateral damage to the Democratic Party she doesn’t care. 

Finally, Ralph Nader will also run if he raises $10 million and there is still an outside chance of Michael Bloomberg running. Four possible candidates for president in November…

If you have a moment the “Yes We Can” Obama youtube video, which has got almost 4 million hits in a week, is worth watching. 

Internet users already expect protection from fraud and illegal content (such asextreme pornography, race hatred and child abuse) so why not take the next step by ensuring children do not have access to harmful content.

Currently eight Government Departments have an interest in internet content:  DCMS, Home Office, Justice, Health, Foreign Office, Cabinet Office, Children, Schools and Families and Business and Regulatory Reform.  This creates a lack of ownership within Government of internet content regulation. 

Why not develop a co-regulatory structure to regulate internet content bringing together, for example, charities, parents, academics, relevant Government departments, law enforcement agencies and the industry itself to decide codes of conduct in grey areas. 

An Advertising Standards Authority for the internet

Harmful content that is content where cultural, taste and decency judgments have to be made would come under the “Internet Standards Authority” remit and could include glorification of violence and terrorism, pornography, cyber-bullying, suicide, internet gambling and anorexia websites – this list is not exhaustive.

The “Internet Standards Authority” would build a dynamic filter and create a blacklist database which would be up-dated hourly.  ISPs would then offer two choices of content one for adults and one for children.  The child content would be the default with adult content accessed with a pin code – or some such protective device.

An “Internet Standards Authority” would be more responsive to new internet trends and lighter on its feet than Government legislation. Perversely ISPs are being held back from implementing “best efforts” to protect customers and children lest they be held liable for over-blocking or harmful content being accessed.

Finally, the “Internet Standards Authority” would have the ability to promote its work and improve transparency whilst also educating parents and ensuring children surf responsibly. 

Internet playgrounds should be supervised in the same way as parks used to be supervised and will be supervised under a Conservative Government (ChildhoodReview). 

We should ensure internet companies which advertise carry responsibility messages such as we see on alcohol advertising and cigarette packages. There is a hotline number in the UK operated by the excellent Internet Watch Foundation which should be displayed.

We need to empower parents, teachers and children in their responsibility and risks of going online.

Finally, any internet ready platform should be sold with a robust self updating tamper proof internet filter pre-installed.

We cannot remove all risk to children but when your kid is using the internet you have opened the door to another world.  Would you let an eight year old walk to the shops without teaching them to cross the road?

The Republican race is polarising between two issues a faltering economy (Mitt Romney’s supposed “strength”), the evil of terrorism (John McCain supposed “strength”). Will the darkest fears become the new vision as the election heats up?

The Democratic race has been thrown of course by a double-barrelled attack led by the attack dog with a touch of the mange – Bill Clinton.  Obama has been forced to go negative and defensive by the Clinton “swift boat” juggernaut. These attacks have further made the contest divide along ethnic and gender lines, not exactly the audacity of hope.

Last week the Conservative Party called for a debate on the modern slave trade – human trafficking.  According to the US State Department 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders each year – approximately 50% of those are minors.

As soon as the debate appeared in the Order Paper the Government announced it was ratifying the Council of Europe’s Convention against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005 that it had previously signed.

A conservative estimate by UNICEF of the number of children trafficked into the UKwas 330 over an 18 month period. Some of these children arrive at airports but there are no global standards for children travelling alone.  For example you cannot travel unaccompanied on Virgin Airways until you are 16. On BA it is 12 and Air France it is four!

Airlines have an important part to play in deterring child trafficking. Some simple questions at check in and on arrival would also make a difference.

Amazingly of the 330 children 183 went missing from the care of social services. Even when under “care” of the social services some of these children are still controlled by their traffickers.

The Republicans are a shadow of their former coalition because of a mishandled war and intellectual exhaustion on domestic issues.

There are three touchstone issues with their respective wings in the party; Iraq/Iran – Neoconservatives; abortion – religious-conservatives and tax cuts – fiscal-conservatives.

Frustratingly the Republican shadow is what matters in the primaries and the candidates have rushed to the right.  The main candidates all have similar policies on the touchstone issues.  

These issues has led to Bush’s unpopularity.  Yet what would be the repercussions of another Republican presidency?  A Middle East or terrorist “incident” that led to a Republican candidate scaring American’s into thinking a Democrat will not protect them (not so far fetched when either a black man or woman will be nominated) could lead to a Republican president.

Why do all the candidates support “strict constructionalist” judges which will overturnRoe V Wade given the declining influence of the religious right?  Why do all the candidates support the war in Iraq given it and the neoconservatives has been discredited and made America more vulnerable?  Why do all the candidates support (income) tax cuts when the argument could be made for budget deficit reduction?

Parties always pander during the primaries and tack back for the election.  But after eight long years of George Bush “the change”, long overdue, looks like it will have to be a Democrat. John McCain, my preferred candidate, has agreed to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent – after being an eloquent opponent.  Still the other options are less promising, Romney has flip flopped Kerry style, Giuliani has a dubious judge of character and Huckabee’s moral beliefs are unpalatable.  McCain with his foreign policy experience is the most formidable candidate.  His bold stance on immigration offers hope that he can make the tough calls which are right.

But I hope Obama wins today and in November and if he does I think President Bartlett and President Palmer will have played a part in the final result.  Obama anti-war from the start can bury Vietnam once and for all.  His unifying stance and relentless focus on hope, optimism and change even when flagging in the polls shows he has the mettle and hopefully the vision thing.  Finally a black man with a Muslim (agnostic) father who spent four years growing up in Indonesia is the only plausible candidate who could win hearts and minds on the “war on terror”.

•  
  • DBRR have offered just £50 million for the marine renewable deployment fund to support the large demonstration projects
  • on Carbon sequestration a total of just £46 million for research and industry led development
  • Most shockingly of all Government Investment on Research for all renewable energy technologies stands at just £19 million spread over nine technologies.

The Prime Minister wants to impose legally binding targets for a sustainable environment but without the investment. Britain should be a world leader with substantial Government investment and proper commitment.

I am not a fan of a codified constitution and revel in the constitutional anomalies that exist. The system of devolution in the UK & NI is asymmetric, there is no common pattern to the responsibilities devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland or that matter England. “Better an imperfect union than a broken one” said David Cameron yesterday.

If Scotland elected the same number of Labour and Conservative MPs toWestminster this would, to all intense and purposes, be a dead issue.  Instead,Scotland returned 39 Labour MPs and 1 Conservative.  If Labour cling on at the next election, thankfully unlikely, it is more than likely their Scottish MPs will be decisive. 

Can a Government be formed that make policies on the key domestic issues but voted through by MPs not accountable to the electorate for their decisions e.g. tuition fees?

If we have English votes for English laws, the question is reversed and it becomes apparent the absurdity of a Government that could not pass legislation in relation toEngland on health, housing and education.  Coincidentally the supposed issues of Gordon’s vision for his Labour Party.

If we had English votes on English laws the Commons becomes a mess. As the only democratically elected chamber in Westminster its role as a link to constituents, a legislature and the executive means it becomes a jack of all trades and master of none.  A Government with a minority in England unable to control the Commons on the key domestic issues of the day would sideline it altogether and use for exampleStatutory Instruments to push through decisions.

The key to unlocking the debate is the future of the House of Lords where the West Lothian question is irrelevant.  A fully elected, by PR, upper chamber would throw up as many constitutional questions as it does answers.  But it would allow the Commons the political space to represent geographical interests that it can’t do whilst there is a wholly appointed upper chamber without a democratic mandate.

The last calculation was back in March 2005 when the Government said the liability stood at £530 billion.  The reason why it has not been updated is because according to Andy Burnham, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, they are “complex calculations”.  Is Government no longer making “complex calculations”!

As Mr Burnham makes clear they are awaiting “updated assessments of the discount rate”.  By using a higher discount rate in its sums, the Treasury is able to charge state employers, such as the NHS, less for their pension contributions — leaving more money for current improvements to public services but obliging future taxpayers to pick up the tab.  

Independent current estimates of liability vary betweenWatson Wyatt’s £960 billion and Neil Record’s £1,025 billion. This is just under double the size of the national debt.

The cost of meeting the public sector pension commitments already made could cost every family in Britain £33,000 according to, Shadow Spokesman Philip Hammond.  Current commitments will peak at £90 billion a year in 2045 which is larger than the current education budget of £80 billion.  This Government is irresponsibly mortgaging our children’s future.