Water-way to have a good time

I was reading the New York Time earlier and spotted an article about debunking health myths. The full article is here. The most interesting - about drinking water - is reproduced below.

DRINK EIGHT GLASSES OF WATER A DAY

I had long believed that eight glasses of plain water or caffeine-free beverages a day were important to keep the body hydrated and to prevent constipation. Perhaps the toilet paper manufacturers were behind this notion. Researchers have been unable to find scientific support for it.

The Institute of Medicine recently noted that you can meet your body’s need for liquids in many ways, including drinking coffee and tea (with or without caffeine) and eating fruits and vegetables with a high water content. Two clues that you may need to drink more are thirst and the color of your urine, which should be clear like, well, water.

If you are physically very active, especially in hot weather, repeatedly sipping cold water is helpful. But beyond two quarts, you may need to also replace the salts lost in sweat — for example, by drinking a diluted sports drink or eating foods with salt and potassium.

Would glue believe it?

The BBC is reporting that Gordon Brown found himself in a rather sticky situation with an anti Heathrow-expansion protestor.

This is a rather novel protest, but it is a shame that security at Downing Street weren't keeping their eyes glued on possible security threats...

Sour grapes

Unless you hadn't already noticed, Barack Obama is currently dashing around the Middle East and Europe to try and boost his foreign policy credentials.

This has created a campaign headache for John McCain's team; one of their main lines of attack until recently had been that Obama hadn't visited Iraq in almost three years - they even had a clock on his official website counting the time since Obama last visited the country (now removed).

Obama's visit simultaneously removes that line of attack as well as boosting his credentials on foreign policy.

McCain's team is now resorting to criticising Obama for announcing the detail of his Iraq policy in advance of his visit to the country. They are also trying to portray Obama as a 'flip-flopper' (see video below) - the worst kind of smear a Presidential candidate can suffer.

Fox News was also running items over the weekend bemoaning the "liberal" media for their anti-McCain bias and heavy focus on this Middle East/Europe trip.

This seems like sour grapes to me - the McCain campaign should have anticipated that Obama would take steps to address a perceived weakness in his armory. They should have been better prepared for it. And anticipated it being headline news.



McCain may well prove to be right to want to tough the Iraq mess out. However, Iraq remains a running sore in the US - as elsewhere in the world - with the majority of US citizens now opposing the action and wanting troops home. In this light, moves to reduce and withdraw troops from the country are likely to prove popular.

In any event, the economy is likely to be a more salient issue come November. Iraq may just prove to be a distraction.

• Elsewhere, a journalist with the New Yorker, which recently printed 'that' satrical image of the Obamas engaging in a 'terrorist fist bump' - Ryan Lizza - has been barred from the Obama tour this week, presumably in retribution for the cartoon. The image was damaging, but refusing access to the trip is another case of sour grapes.
  

Not being the Tories is no longer good enough for Labour

A couple of days ago, I received an email mailshot from Margaret Curran - Labour's Parliamentary Candidate in the Glasgow East by-election.

The email implored me to give my hard earned cash to the Labour party so that she could buy leaflets bashing the SNP. The particular hook for the leaflet? - An interview given by John Mason, the SNP candidate in the by-election, to BBC's Newsnight Scotland, in which he suggested that there would be "little difference" between a Conservative or Labour administration in Westminster.

Leaving aside the substantive point about whether or not his analysis is correct, I wanted to address another point - the inability of the Labour party to move on from the 1980s.

After 11 years in Government, and despite the fact Thatcher hasn't been Prime Minister for almost two decades, the Labour party seem to believe that they can win election after election simply by invoking how difficult things were after ERM and during the Thatcher government.

They can't. The electorate wants to know what the Government will do for them now and in the future. Not how they differ from the past. Whilst Labour may be right to boast of certain achievements since 1997, they need to better address the concerns of the electorate in today's uncertain economic climate as well as offering a vision for where Britain will be in twenty years time.

David Cameron has successfully decontaminated the Tory brand. The recent by-election victory in Crewe and Nantwich suggests that the electorate are not scared of punishing Labour.

The party will have to do better than simply reminding people how tough things were twenty years ago - both in Glasgow East, as well as further afield.

• I'm in the US at the minute on 'vacation' and hope to bring some insights on the US election whilst I'm here.
  

Monster Raving Looney wins in Haltemprice and Howden

Full results here.

I still don't understand the point of it all...

UPDATE: Davis appeared on 5Live Breakfast at around 8.40 this morning and dealt with a challenge over the cost of this charade pretty badly by his usually high standards...

I'm quitting because I'm rubbish at what I do I want to spend more time with my family

Nicol Stephen, the Scottish Liberal Democrat Leader, is resigning "to spend more time with his family".

So, absolutely nothing to do with being bad at his job then...

Labour should not indulge David Davis' ego

Labour should not stand a candidate against David Davis in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election to show the stunt up for what it really is - a waste of the electorate's time, and taxpayers' money.

What is the point of a representative democracy if MPs resort to referendum by-proxy every time the majority of their colleagues pass legislation which they oppose? There is a very good reason why the Rousseau model of democracy is unworkable; the electorate elect representatives for a reason and not to then make every decision themselves.

The fact of the matter is that the issue was debated by our elected representatives in Parliament, and a vote was taken. All MPs, elected to represent their constituencies (meant in the broad sense - i.e. both geographically, and ideologically), had a vote, and they were free to use that vote in accordance with their own conscience.

Those who opposed the anti-terror legisation lost. In Parliament. Where legislation is decided.

Moving the debate over this issue to a constituency in Yorkshire is not how legislation in this country should be decided.

Hence I vehemently disagree with the view of former Davis henchman, Iain Dale, on the resignation - that:

"this isn't about one man's vanity. It is about the ability to sacrifice personal and public advantage for a greater cause."

And that:

"If [Labour don't field a candidate], they will be treating the issue (and voters) with contempt. The 42 day issue can now be debated fully during the by election campaign."

Rubbish. It is David Davis who is treating the issue (and voters) with contempt. Firstly, he is ignoring the proper institutions in which these matters should (and have) been decided. Secondly, he is forcing the taxpayer to fund his vanity exercise - money which could be better spent on public service provision, not ego-massaging.

Labour would do better to tell it how it is: David Davis put his arguments to Parliament. And lost. Therefore there is no need to re-engage him on this debate in a by-election.

It is to the Lords that Labour's attention should now focus. The bodies of Parliament - not Haltemprice and Howden - is where this matter should rightly be decided.