How idiotic is this? When there are real issues to be debated and discussed, what's the biggest, hottest topic in the public arena this week? The economy? Employment? Living standards? Terrorism?
No, it's the much-hyped television debates ahead of this coming May's General Election. The broadcasters have again been devising their preferred choices, formats and participants for these, and the political parties who will be involved have been having their own say.
Now, the complex story of who has said what, agreed to what or vetoed whatever is not sensible to go over here, but now narcissistic is all this in reality? Although I am in favour of these debates, and have been consistently from when they were mooted five years ago, it has to be said that they are in constant danger of becoming a sideshow if not handled intelligently and what I'd call 'cleanly'.
Sadly, Labour are trying to make a political football out of the debates issue (sad or what?) and there are some others who are doing the same (sadder still!) Now, I have to say that David Cameron hasn't handled this the best way he could – though I do realise that we was, at heart, trying to be helpful and constructive, but has in the end left himself open to easy criticism from the other parties and, perhaps, from broadcasters themselves.
Incidentally, the Cameron/Miliband 'head to head' would almost certainly be challenged legally by parties who consider themselves to be 'the third party', and at least a few legal experts seem to think this would be taken seriously within the legal system and would no doubt take months to resolve, thus scuppering such an event completely. This isn't the time to be proposing such a contentious idea!
In the end, whatever is decided, David Cameron really must attend whatever of these debates in which he is ultimately invited to participate, regardless of any earlier stance. Any other approach will be used against him and his party.
After all, it isn't (as some opponents are claiming) that he is 'afraid' of debating issues with anyone. He has shown consistently over the years that he is far and away the best at the job in British politics – once one sees through the bluster of Farage and past the nastiness of Galloway, both of whom are significantly inferior debaters despite their superficial ability to apparently dominate whenever they are given free rein (which Cameron usually isn't given, by the way).
It is interesting to see that, although people are generally in favour of the televised debates – and, as I indicated above, I am one of those – they don't seem to have any measurable impact on actual voting intention, as this article shows. After all, we never needed them before the previous election, Tony Blair refused to participate before that, and it's all much of a muchness as far as the country at large is concerned, as polls have shown no strong leanings n favour of them.
Perhaps we all ought to get back to concentrating on real issues!
Showing posts with label david cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label david cameron. Show all posts
Sunday, 8 March 2015
Friday, 2 May 2014
Arnie on Boris and Cameron
This isn't acting. In under two minutes, 'The Governator' enthusiastically gives LBC his views on London Mayor Boris Johnson, and also some words about David Cameron when the question of the Prime Minister-ship arises. It's a delightful little clip, actually, and covers a lot of valid (as anyone who has ever been close to governance will recognise) points...
Friday, 8 November 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 8 November 2013
It has been yet another busy week, so again I shall have to limit what is included and try, where sensible, to keep my comments fairly brief...
They're Watching
Well, of course they are, and often for very good reasons, for example with the (successful) goal of thwarting intended terrorist attacks within our nation. The danger comes when this (or anything else) is used as a justification for ever-increasing surveillance and snooping of various kinds.
The latest is as reported here regarding the EU's proposal to monitor any EU citizen merely suspected of being what they term intolerant. Now there's a word with almost unlimited potential scope, rather like offensive. Anyone can be 'offensive' to someone sufficiently determined to be offended – and there seems to be no end of the 'professionally offended' in today's society.
More significantly, this is an easily-decoded attempt to introduce one of the key elements of totalitarianism that we have long known is the EU's (and others') ultimate aim. Its first purpose is to ensure that no-one can oppose whatever the EUrocrats decide to impose. This is a very dangerous move, and must never be allowed to apply to our nation. Perversely (for the EU) it might end up being the single most powerful weapon for the Better Off Out campaign, which is ready for the planned In/Out referendum...
Free Speech, Free Press
Continuing on the same broad theme: the ongoing saga of the post-Leveson legislative outcome rumbles ever onward. I think most of us by now realise that the whole exercise, and especially the Hacked Off campaign group, has ended up being what those behind it always intended: a Left-wing plot to bring the press under State control, as in the former Soviet Union and other places where the press's main business is in promulgating State propaganda.
Fraser Nelson had a useful piece on this in The Mail a few weeks ago, worth reading again now.
As I and others have touched on already, this is also one of the big goals of Common Purpose. There is a somewhat removed supposed link between the Prime Minister and Common Purpose, via a third party organisation, as The Telegraph reports. I can't see that there was any deliberate connection here: indeed, the PM wouldn't have done it this way (if at all, and I suspect probably not) if he had known of the link between the charity of which he is patron and Common Purpose. It just doesn't ring true, to me – but isn't all that significant, in and of itself, because of what might be called the 'extra-stage remove'.
Unfortunately, the failure to declare that patronage for a year – stated to be an administrative oversight – makes it look worse than it almost certainly is. That was not well handled by David Cameron's office!
Guido has all you need to know re Hacked Off's admittedly partly circumstantial political connections (and Medway-based readers might also like to note the semi-direct connection with Medway Labour and their candidate Tristan Osborne) – but there's enough for anyone to recognise the tone and nature of that common ground – and a further clue is the Guardian's support for the proposed regulation, as reported by The Commentator.
Ultimately, any new regulation planned to be imposed by the State needs to fail before it reaches the Statute Book, and instead existing laws should in future be applied properly in situations where there are grounds for believing that the law has been broken. That is the correct approach; and if done properly will work well as both a corrective and a deterrent.
Twerping
Not some weird (and, frankly, ugly) dance oddity by the likes of the equally ugly Miley Cyrus, but what the mental child Russell Brand has been doing lately. No doubt buoyed up by his return to more positive-sounding (if only just) headlines since the Andrew Sachs affair with Jonathon Ross, he has been putting himself about, at will, on what looks like as many occasions as he could physically manage. Perhaps that's just an illusion...
The no-nonsense Alex Massie has said what I suspect most who have bumped into any of this are already thinking, including that Brand is a 'twerp'. It's enjoyable to read, and on this occasion I really need to add nothing to it here...
It's Alimentary, My Dreary Watson
Although that sub-heading might be a little contrived(!) it does perhaps remind us of the level of activity long associated with Labour's Tom Watson. It has often resembled the lower end of that canal, especially the machinations also involving the likes of Damian McBride and Derek Draper. The Mail has some very interesting revelations from the inside track (or tract!) on Watson's involvement in the Falkirk alleged selection-rigging.
Now, there might be some sour grapes from the eliminated candidate, but there is sufficient detail to indicate that it's probably substantially true. I have personally witnessed some of the same practices in selections here, so I do recognise much of what is being reported. Also, it had become an imposed all-female contest at the short-listing stage, so he couldn't have been chosen anyway (as he is not Jack Dromey, Harriet Harman's husband, who did somehow beat an all-female requirement).
CLASS Acts
This report by Guy Bentley about his attendance at the CLASS Conference (he explains what that stands for) is illuminating. Old Hands such as myself find none of it at all surprising, having had our own experiences of similar events in decades past – but for the younger generations it's quite eye-opening.
Especially as this event included the likes of Owen Jones and (equally ghastly) Mark Serwotka, it shows much of the true nature – and ignorance-or-dishonesty (probably both) of some of the current high-profile players in Britain's political left-wing. The really sad part is that there are still so many gullible folk around who will just lap up this stuff, despite modern facilities that allow just about anyone to discover the reality quite independently – something no previous generation could do so conveniently, if at all.
On the same day, this puff piece in our local (to me) newspaper appeared for Labour's newly-selected candidate for the Rochester and Strood parliamentary seat, Naushabah Khan. Two big laughs for me on one day!
This is the almost-invisible lady who, when faced with a real challenge (me, for example) runs away and hides when losing the argument. The next thing I know, her tweets are now hidden from public view. No doubt that will change for at least the latter part of the election campaign before reverting back later in May 2015, but her true nature is already known to me and others.
Meanwhile, apart from a few examples of doorstep campaigning with other Medway Labour folk, Ms Khan has no political profile whatsoever, and no personal achievements here that I have been able to discover. Perhaps I have missed something...
When her prime opponent, Mark Reckless, stood in the seat and won it some three years ago, he already had a track record on numerous issues from rail fares and services to saving Rochester Airport, and lots in between. He has built up a very strong record of personal achievement and, in particular, representing his constituents (either all/most of them, or the vast majority where views differ).
This selection does beg the question, though: do Medway Labour really have nothing better to offer? Are their (admittedly not very well attended) selections so starved of even reasonable material that they set the bar so low? In this case, as Mark Reckless' position is near-enough unassailable, it could be that they just wanted a 'paper candidate' who could do with the practical experience of standing, ready for something more serious (probably elsewhere – like Bill Esterson, also from Medway, who went to a safe Labour seat in Merseyside.
I perceive something of a parallel to Labour's Harriet Yeo in the Police and Crime Commissioner election here in Kent a year ago: Labour came third; and I think they might well end up with a repeat performance in Rochester and Strood in May 2015...
Well, I do have more, but I think the above is enough for one week!
They're Watching
Well, of course they are, and often for very good reasons, for example with the (successful) goal of thwarting intended terrorist attacks within our nation. The danger comes when this (or anything else) is used as a justification for ever-increasing surveillance and snooping of various kinds.
The latest is as reported here regarding the EU's proposal to monitor any EU citizen merely suspected of being what they term intolerant. Now there's a word with almost unlimited potential scope, rather like offensive. Anyone can be 'offensive' to someone sufficiently determined to be offended – and there seems to be no end of the 'professionally offended' in today's society.
More significantly, this is an easily-decoded attempt to introduce one of the key elements of totalitarianism that we have long known is the EU's (and others') ultimate aim. Its first purpose is to ensure that no-one can oppose whatever the EUrocrats decide to impose. This is a very dangerous move, and must never be allowed to apply to our nation. Perversely (for the EU) it might end up being the single most powerful weapon for the Better Off Out campaign, which is ready for the planned In/Out referendum...
Free Speech, Free Press
Continuing on the same broad theme: the ongoing saga of the post-Leveson legislative outcome rumbles ever onward. I think most of us by now realise that the whole exercise, and especially the Hacked Off campaign group, has ended up being what those behind it always intended: a Left-wing plot to bring the press under State control, as in the former Soviet Union and other places where the press's main business is in promulgating State propaganda.
Fraser Nelson had a useful piece on this in The Mail a few weeks ago, worth reading again now.
As I and others have touched on already, this is also one of the big goals of Common Purpose. There is a somewhat removed supposed link between the Prime Minister and Common Purpose, via a third party organisation, as The Telegraph reports. I can't see that there was any deliberate connection here: indeed, the PM wouldn't have done it this way (if at all, and I suspect probably not) if he had known of the link between the charity of which he is patron and Common Purpose. It just doesn't ring true, to me – but isn't all that significant, in and of itself, because of what might be called the 'extra-stage remove'.
Unfortunately, the failure to declare that patronage for a year – stated to be an administrative oversight – makes it look worse than it almost certainly is. That was not well handled by David Cameron's office!
Guido has all you need to know re Hacked Off's admittedly partly circumstantial political connections (and Medway-based readers might also like to note the semi-direct connection with Medway Labour and their candidate Tristan Osborne) – but there's enough for anyone to recognise the tone and nature of that common ground – and a further clue is the Guardian's support for the proposed regulation, as reported by The Commentator.
Ultimately, any new regulation planned to be imposed by the State needs to fail before it reaches the Statute Book, and instead existing laws should in future be applied properly in situations where there are grounds for believing that the law has been broken. That is the correct approach; and if done properly will work well as both a corrective and a deterrent.
Twerping
Not some weird (and, frankly, ugly) dance oddity by the likes of the equally ugly Miley Cyrus, but what the mental child Russell Brand has been doing lately. No doubt buoyed up by his return to more positive-sounding (if only just) headlines since the Andrew Sachs affair with Jonathon Ross, he has been putting himself about, at will, on what looks like as many occasions as he could physically manage. Perhaps that's just an illusion...
The no-nonsense Alex Massie has said what I suspect most who have bumped into any of this are already thinking, including that Brand is a 'twerp'. It's enjoyable to read, and on this occasion I really need to add nothing to it here...
It's Alimentary, My Dreary Watson
Although that sub-heading might be a little contrived(!) it does perhaps remind us of the level of activity long associated with Labour's Tom Watson. It has often resembled the lower end of that canal, especially the machinations also involving the likes of Damian McBride and Derek Draper. The Mail has some very interesting revelations from the inside track (or tract!) on Watson's involvement in the Falkirk alleged selection-rigging.
Now, there might be some sour grapes from the eliminated candidate, but there is sufficient detail to indicate that it's probably substantially true. I have personally witnessed some of the same practices in selections here, so I do recognise much of what is being reported. Also, it had become an imposed all-female contest at the short-listing stage, so he couldn't have been chosen anyway (as he is not Jack Dromey, Harriet Harman's husband, who did somehow beat an all-female requirement).
CLASS Acts
This report by Guy Bentley about his attendance at the CLASS Conference (he explains what that stands for) is illuminating. Old Hands such as myself find none of it at all surprising, having had our own experiences of similar events in decades past – but for the younger generations it's quite eye-opening.
Especially as this event included the likes of Owen Jones and (equally ghastly) Mark Serwotka, it shows much of the true nature – and ignorance-or-dishonesty (probably both) of some of the current high-profile players in Britain's political left-wing. The really sad part is that there are still so many gullible folk around who will just lap up this stuff, despite modern facilities that allow just about anyone to discover the reality quite independently – something no previous generation could do so conveniently, if at all.
On the same day, this puff piece in our local (to me) newspaper appeared for Labour's newly-selected candidate for the Rochester and Strood parliamentary seat, Naushabah Khan. Two big laughs for me on one day!
This is the almost-invisible lady who, when faced with a real challenge (me, for example) runs away and hides when losing the argument. The next thing I know, her tweets are now hidden from public view. No doubt that will change for at least the latter part of the election campaign before reverting back later in May 2015, but her true nature is already known to me and others.
Meanwhile, apart from a few examples of doorstep campaigning with other Medway Labour folk, Ms Khan has no political profile whatsoever, and no personal achievements here that I have been able to discover. Perhaps I have missed something...
When her prime opponent, Mark Reckless, stood in the seat and won it some three years ago, he already had a track record on numerous issues from rail fares and services to saving Rochester Airport, and lots in between. He has built up a very strong record of personal achievement and, in particular, representing his constituents (either all/most of them, or the vast majority where views differ).
This selection does beg the question, though: do Medway Labour really have nothing better to offer? Are their (admittedly not very well attended) selections so starved of even reasonable material that they set the bar so low? In this case, as Mark Reckless' position is near-enough unassailable, it could be that they just wanted a 'paper candidate' who could do with the practical experience of standing, ready for something more serious (probably elsewhere – like Bill Esterson, also from Medway, who went to a safe Labour seat in Merseyside.
I perceive something of a parallel to Labour's Harriet Yeo in the Police and Crime Commissioner election here in Kent a year ago: Labour came third; and I think they might well end up with a repeat performance in Rochester and Strood in May 2015...
Well, I do have more, but I think the above is enough for one week!
Friday, 1 November 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 1 November 2013
It has been another of those busy weeks, so I'll have to be selective or this will end up too long for comfortable reading – not that the content necessarily makes for comfortable reading, of course, but I try to temper it with my own thoughts and experiences...
A Knock for Nick
Actually, several over the past two weeks; but this from Guido shows the Lib Dem leader's apparent dual standards when it comes to his own education as against his public stance against Michael Gove's education reforms. It's that question of 'unqualified' teachers – in reality, those not indoctrinated into the politically-driven 'training' style of the (as is now widely known) Lefty 'profession'.
That's what this whole debate is really about: it has nothing to do with standards and quality, only about control by political interests, as generations of unqualified teachers have shown. Nick Clegg himself is an example of the outcome of that freedom. There are times when qualifications are of value, but this turns out not only to be one of the exceptions, but also to be long-established.
While we're looking at hapless Nick, just a few days earlier Fraser Nelson was looking at this and other aspects of the Lib Dems and the behaviour of that party and its leader. It's Fraser in his telling-it-as-he-finds-it mode, and well worth reading throughout.
On a Lib Dem related matter, also in the Speccie on the same day, James Forsyth considered what David Cameron needs to offer Nick Clegg in order to keep the minor partner in the Coalition on board.
Now, if they had done what I outlined a while ago, this wouldn't be an issue for much longer, and the remaining programme of joint work should be well established. Remember: I (and a few others) thought that the two parties could start to separate into more distinct entities in their own right, starting from the recent conference season. Indeed, we have already seen fairly strong signs of that happening.
The idea is to reach a point whereby all the pre-election initiatives and legislation are either now complete or are currently going through the necessary stages, from now on, and nothing brand new (except for emergencies) should suddenly appear at this relatively late stage in the parliamentary five-year term. I'm reasonably confident that this is exactly how it has all been set up, behind the scenes, by the two party leaders.
Expect the separation to be made decisive and unambiguous by next year's autumn conference season, by when only tidying-up and minor (uncontroversial) legislative matters should be all that's left to be done before the May 2015 election. Meanwhile, as James says, the Conservatives in particular need to construct their manifesto – and it looks like it's already well in progress...
Leverage
In the ongoing saga of the UNITE Union, news of the intimidation techniques used by their so-called Leverage Team has reached the public awareness. It is noteworthy that they feel fully justified in applying such techniques, and have all the excuses ready. Of course, as the civilised world realises, only the lowest of the low would even contemplate such tactics, and only absolute trash would put them into practice.
The term 'Commie filth' didn't come about as a nasty insult devised especially for that purpose: it came into being from experience of what such types do in pursuance of their own agenda, here and anywhere else in the world. Put yourself in the position of someone on the receiving end – or, even more pertinently, one of their children.
There is no excuse in the Universe for that behaviour; and I think it might need to be treated as a much more serious offence than it is at present. Society should not be in effect encouraging this through a light-touch penal code.
I don't know how many members have now left the Union as a result of this (and all the other nasties that have been going on for years), but here's the story of one. Clearly noone with a shred of decency can now be a member of such an outfit – which tells us something about those who still are members and who have no plans to even consider leaving. Although I have no wish to turn the tables on them, it would be interesting to know how they'd respond if that did happen. Boot on the other foot, and all that...
The ongoing Falkirk candidate selection row continues this week with another delightful inside-track piece from former Labour member Dan Hodges. A batch of leaked emails has told much of the real story anyway, and it fell to the likes of Dan to write-up their significance, along with all the rest that has been going on during this unhappy (and hugely embarrassing, mostly for Labour) saga.
He correctly deduces, from the evidence now before us, that it is Ed[ward] Miliband whose personal reputation stands to take the greatest hit, rather than his party or even the Union that seemingly tried to rig the selection. As someone who has personally encountered selection rigging, I am very much alert to and cognisant of those methods described and other tactics used (only!) by the corrupt with their own agendas.
During all of the above, the ever-wily Jack Straw MP tried distancing himself from that Union, as this short video clip shows. Not that he was telling us anything we didn't already know, of course(!) Whether anyone believes his new-found stance is a matter for conjecture; but it's useful to have this on the record from a long-standing Labour MP, no matter how dubious his true motives!
Newman is the same old (Labour/Commie) man
Red Ed (Miliband) will continue to be unable to shake off that description while he is still subservient to the likes of UNITE's Len McCluskey, and also while he is ineffective at dealing with the numerous hard left (indeed, Communist) types firmly embedded within the Labour party and including both current elected members and those selected to stand in 2015. This is the story of one of the hopefuls.
To be blunt I have to say that it differs in no practical measure from those I have seen non-stop appearing within the Labour ranks and being picked as candidates, often getting elected (typically in safe Labour seats, but not only in those). Labour has, throughout most of its existence, been a Communist-style party with a very cleverly-manufactured public face to make it less obvious, and that certainly hasn't changed in the nearly forty months since Ed-M took on the party leadership.
Indeed, it has become the norm once again, and not even as well camouflaged as in earlier times – although that isn't helped by modern technology: it is much more difficult to conceal such truths nowadays, so it isn't necessarily down to poorer standards of deception. The example of Andy Newman will be just 'more of the same old Labour' to seasoned veterans like me; but might be more shocking to the younger generations who didn't live through the Foor/Scargill/Wilson (and the rest) years.
To anyone in that position, I can assure you that we've seen it all before, and it is and more-or-less always has been the true face of Labour, despite the veneer of seeming respectability and moderation they try to slap over the red rot to hide it from public view. They are just as totalitarian in nature as those running North Korea right now, and Labour-run governments have always headed in a similar direction, as is nowadays a lot better documented – and more easily publicly visible – than it was in my younger days..
Don't squander the advantage this generation has over mine: learn the lessons and learn them well! Today's world has not only better prospects of understanding the reality, but also has no real excuse for not doing so.
Completely Up The Poll
Jusr a brief mention of this very useful post from Dr Anthony Wells about misleading headlines to reports of and discussions of opinion polls. Long-term visitors to my 'blog will already be aware of how I always play it straight with everything I write, including polling news. The message here is not to be lulled into believing that all others act with such integrity when dealing with the same topic.
The good Dr Wells (whom I have met and talked to at some length) puts the record straight on a couple of recent examples of misleading headlines, and in the process reminds us to be sufficiently alert not to be taken in by such practices.
The Tommy-Knockers
It has been standard big media practice to 'knock' the English Defence League (EDL) and its founder Tommy Robinson. When said Mr Robinson decided to quit the EDL they media hacks and editors must have been in paroxysms of ecstasy: their boat had come in!
In reality, the EDL for all its many faults was never anything like the outfit it was portrayed to be, and some have cited considerable evidence – sometimes backed up with hard-to-challenge photographics records of what actually did happen at EDL meet-ups – that reminded one of the anti-Israel reporting that has been thoroughly documented in other 'blogs for years (I have studied much of that material myself).
Despite all of that, the EDL was known to attract the less idealistic and more thuggish elements of society – I'm sure not by design, and it was just an unfortunate side-effect – so there is some valid criticism of them 'out there'. Much, however, plainly isn't justified. I have been watching the scene for a couple of years now, so have become reasonably well clued-up on what is and what isn't accurate in the various reports I have encountered.
Daniel Hannan MEP has his own take on what he perceives to be a symbiotic style of relationship between the EDL, the Islamists (often a..k.a. Islamo-Fascists or, in the Hannan piece, Islamo-nutters) and even the ironically-named Unite Against Fascism (UAF) folk. By appreciating how all sides act at times, Dan paints what I think is not only a more comprehensive picture of this whole sorry business, but also a more helpful one than others tend to offer.
As for Tommy Robinson's departure from the EDL, this was recently covered in a BBC documentary. Ah, I can already hear alarm bells ringing in my readers' heads! Yes, you are right to be suspicious, though the BBC did a generally good job. However there were other aspects that need bringing to people's awareness – and Douglas Murray has done just that. As one might by now expect of Douglas, he covers not only all you need to know about the programme and its main Islamic participant in typical thoroughness, and then goes on to look at deeper questions.
It's fairly long; but I think you will find the time reading it through time well spent and 9as with Dan) helpful; and that is what we need most in regard to a topic that is somewhat sensitive and prone to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, including of its most media-visible players.
On The Record
Coming closer to home, I usually like to feature at least one item from my local area and (more often than not) its council. This week, it is the initiative by Eric Pickles to allow the public to record Council meetings in sound and/or video, perhaps including committees as well..
Of course, this will not become law for a little while, owing to parliamentary and legal procedures, and at this early stage no-one knows what will even be proposed, let alone finally passed into law or equivalent. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Medway Council did not permit recording by the public of a recent Overview and Scrutiny meeting.
This has infuriated local Labour, who (several weeks ago, a full three weeks before the policy proposal had even been announced) were planning to make and use such a recording for purely party political reasons (as everyone realised at the time, apart from any dullards if indeed any were present), and they are – predictably – having a go at the 'wicked Tories' for refusing such permission.
It also has to be said: if Labour now say "it’s wholly wrong for people not being able to record or film in public meetings", why did they do nothing whatsoever about this during their thirteen years in government? It has taken the Coalition Government just three years (barely a quarter of Labour's tenure) to come up with such a proposal: one that Labour clearly never actually wanted – at least until they could see a way of turning it to their own political advantage.
As always but always with Labour, what is dressed up as being in the 'public' interest is in reality pushed by them only when it is in their interest – nothing to do with the public at all...
A Knock for Nick
Actually, several over the past two weeks; but this from Guido shows the Lib Dem leader's apparent dual standards when it comes to his own education as against his public stance against Michael Gove's education reforms. It's that question of 'unqualified' teachers – in reality, those not indoctrinated into the politically-driven 'training' style of the (as is now widely known) Lefty 'profession'.
That's what this whole debate is really about: it has nothing to do with standards and quality, only about control by political interests, as generations of unqualified teachers have shown. Nick Clegg himself is an example of the outcome of that freedom. There are times when qualifications are of value, but this turns out not only to be one of the exceptions, but also to be long-established.
While we're looking at hapless Nick, just a few days earlier Fraser Nelson was looking at this and other aspects of the Lib Dems and the behaviour of that party and its leader. It's Fraser in his telling-it-as-he-finds-it mode, and well worth reading throughout.
On a Lib Dem related matter, also in the Speccie on the same day, James Forsyth considered what David Cameron needs to offer Nick Clegg in order to keep the minor partner in the Coalition on board.
Now, if they had done what I outlined a while ago, this wouldn't be an issue for much longer, and the remaining programme of joint work should be well established. Remember: I (and a few others) thought that the two parties could start to separate into more distinct entities in their own right, starting from the recent conference season. Indeed, we have already seen fairly strong signs of that happening.
The idea is to reach a point whereby all the pre-election initiatives and legislation are either now complete or are currently going through the necessary stages, from now on, and nothing brand new (except for emergencies) should suddenly appear at this relatively late stage in the parliamentary five-year term. I'm reasonably confident that this is exactly how it has all been set up, behind the scenes, by the two party leaders.
Expect the separation to be made decisive and unambiguous by next year's autumn conference season, by when only tidying-up and minor (uncontroversial) legislative matters should be all that's left to be done before the May 2015 election. Meanwhile, as James says, the Conservatives in particular need to construct their manifesto – and it looks like it's already well in progress...
Leverage
In the ongoing saga of the UNITE Union, news of the intimidation techniques used by their so-called Leverage Team has reached the public awareness. It is noteworthy that they feel fully justified in applying such techniques, and have all the excuses ready. Of course, as the civilised world realises, only the lowest of the low would even contemplate such tactics, and only absolute trash would put them into practice.
The term 'Commie filth' didn't come about as a nasty insult devised especially for that purpose: it came into being from experience of what such types do in pursuance of their own agenda, here and anywhere else in the world. Put yourself in the position of someone on the receiving end – or, even more pertinently, one of their children.
There is no excuse in the Universe for that behaviour; and I think it might need to be treated as a much more serious offence than it is at present. Society should not be in effect encouraging this through a light-touch penal code.
I don't know how many members have now left the Union as a result of this (and all the other nasties that have been going on for years), but here's the story of one. Clearly noone with a shred of decency can now be a member of such an outfit – which tells us something about those who still are members and who have no plans to even consider leaving. Although I have no wish to turn the tables on them, it would be interesting to know how they'd respond if that did happen. Boot on the other foot, and all that...
The ongoing Falkirk candidate selection row continues this week with another delightful inside-track piece from former Labour member Dan Hodges. A batch of leaked emails has told much of the real story anyway, and it fell to the likes of Dan to write-up their significance, along with all the rest that has been going on during this unhappy (and hugely embarrassing, mostly for Labour) saga.
He correctly deduces, from the evidence now before us, that it is Ed[ward] Miliband whose personal reputation stands to take the greatest hit, rather than his party or even the Union that seemingly tried to rig the selection. As someone who has personally encountered selection rigging, I am very much alert to and cognisant of those methods described and other tactics used (only!) by the corrupt with their own agendas.
During all of the above, the ever-wily Jack Straw MP tried distancing himself from that Union, as this short video clip shows. Not that he was telling us anything we didn't already know, of course(!) Whether anyone believes his new-found stance is a matter for conjecture; but it's useful to have this on the record from a long-standing Labour MP, no matter how dubious his true motives!
Newman is the same old (Labour/Commie) man
Red Ed (Miliband) will continue to be unable to shake off that description while he is still subservient to the likes of UNITE's Len McCluskey, and also while he is ineffective at dealing with the numerous hard left (indeed, Communist) types firmly embedded within the Labour party and including both current elected members and those selected to stand in 2015. This is the story of one of the hopefuls.
To be blunt I have to say that it differs in no practical measure from those I have seen non-stop appearing within the Labour ranks and being picked as candidates, often getting elected (typically in safe Labour seats, but not only in those). Labour has, throughout most of its existence, been a Communist-style party with a very cleverly-manufactured public face to make it less obvious, and that certainly hasn't changed in the nearly forty months since Ed-M took on the party leadership.
Indeed, it has become the norm once again, and not even as well camouflaged as in earlier times – although that isn't helped by modern technology: it is much more difficult to conceal such truths nowadays, so it isn't necessarily down to poorer standards of deception. The example of Andy Newman will be just 'more of the same old Labour' to seasoned veterans like me; but might be more shocking to the younger generations who didn't live through the Foor/Scargill/Wilson (and the rest) years.
To anyone in that position, I can assure you that we've seen it all before, and it is and more-or-less always has been the true face of Labour, despite the veneer of seeming respectability and moderation they try to slap over the red rot to hide it from public view. They are just as totalitarian in nature as those running North Korea right now, and Labour-run governments have always headed in a similar direction, as is nowadays a lot better documented – and more easily publicly visible – than it was in my younger days..
Don't squander the advantage this generation has over mine: learn the lessons and learn them well! Today's world has not only better prospects of understanding the reality, but also has no real excuse for not doing so.
Completely Up The Poll
Jusr a brief mention of this very useful post from Dr Anthony Wells about misleading headlines to reports of and discussions of opinion polls. Long-term visitors to my 'blog will already be aware of how I always play it straight with everything I write, including polling news. The message here is not to be lulled into believing that all others act with such integrity when dealing with the same topic.
The good Dr Wells (whom I have met and talked to at some length) puts the record straight on a couple of recent examples of misleading headlines, and in the process reminds us to be sufficiently alert not to be taken in by such practices.
The Tommy-Knockers
It has been standard big media practice to 'knock' the English Defence League (EDL) and its founder Tommy Robinson. When said Mr Robinson decided to quit the EDL they media hacks and editors must have been in paroxysms of ecstasy: their boat had come in!
In reality, the EDL for all its many faults was never anything like the outfit it was portrayed to be, and some have cited considerable evidence – sometimes backed up with hard-to-challenge photographics records of what actually did happen at EDL meet-ups – that reminded one of the anti-Israel reporting that has been thoroughly documented in other 'blogs for years (I have studied much of that material myself).
Despite all of that, the EDL was known to attract the less idealistic and more thuggish elements of society – I'm sure not by design, and it was just an unfortunate side-effect – so there is some valid criticism of them 'out there'. Much, however, plainly isn't justified. I have been watching the scene for a couple of years now, so have become reasonably well clued-up on what is and what isn't accurate in the various reports I have encountered.
Daniel Hannan MEP has his own take on what he perceives to be a symbiotic style of relationship between the EDL, the Islamists (often a..k.a. Islamo-Fascists or, in the Hannan piece, Islamo-nutters) and even the ironically-named Unite Against Fascism (UAF) folk. By appreciating how all sides act at times, Dan paints what I think is not only a more comprehensive picture of this whole sorry business, but also a more helpful one than others tend to offer.
As for Tommy Robinson's departure from the EDL, this was recently covered in a BBC documentary. Ah, I can already hear alarm bells ringing in my readers' heads! Yes, you are right to be suspicious, though the BBC did a generally good job. However there were other aspects that need bringing to people's awareness – and Douglas Murray has done just that. As one might by now expect of Douglas, he covers not only all you need to know about the programme and its main Islamic participant in typical thoroughness, and then goes on to look at deeper questions.
It's fairly long; but I think you will find the time reading it through time well spent and 9as with Dan) helpful; and that is what we need most in regard to a topic that is somewhat sensitive and prone to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, including of its most media-visible players.
On The Record
Coming closer to home, I usually like to feature at least one item from my local area and (more often than not) its council. This week, it is the initiative by Eric Pickles to allow the public to record Council meetings in sound and/or video, perhaps including committees as well..
Of course, this will not become law for a little while, owing to parliamentary and legal procedures, and at this early stage no-one knows what will even be proposed, let alone finally passed into law or equivalent. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Medway Council did not permit recording by the public of a recent Overview and Scrutiny meeting.
This has infuriated local Labour, who (several weeks ago, a full three weeks before the policy proposal had even been announced) were planning to make and use such a recording for purely party political reasons (as everyone realised at the time, apart from any dullards if indeed any were present), and they are – predictably – having a go at the 'wicked Tories' for refusing such permission.
It also has to be said: if Labour now say "it’s wholly wrong for people not being able to record or film in public meetings", why did they do nothing whatsoever about this during their thirteen years in government? It has taken the Coalition Government just three years (barely a quarter of Labour's tenure) to come up with such a proposal: one that Labour clearly never actually wanted – at least until they could see a way of turning it to their own political advantage.
As always but always with Labour, what is dressed up as being in the 'public' interest is in reality pushed by them only when it is in their interest – nothing to do with the public at all...
Wednesday, 16 October 2013
PMQs – 16 October 2013
I don't usually feature the Prime Minister's Questions sessions these days, as they have become somewhat predictable (and generally boring) political knockabout with little actual value.
Today's exchange between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition was sufficiently interesting, and fact-laden (though needs proper attention paid to it, as both sides were perhaps too soundbite-conscious so missed out explanatory notes that would have nailed their claims) to warrant putting up, on the basis that an occasional airing helps us keep our thinking correctly calibrated. It seems to have been a day for wagging fingers, but one can put that aside.
Therefore, courtesy of the BBC (on one of those still all too infrequent occasions when they allow embedding of their videos, though even now it involves a huge block of code, necessitating a lot more effort than it should have done to switch off autoplay and make the player size more sensible!) is today's exchange – nearly nine minutes of much hot air, but some interesting facts and figures in the mix too...
Today's exchange between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition was sufficiently interesting, and fact-laden (though needs proper attention paid to it, as both sides were perhaps too soundbite-conscious so missed out explanatory notes that would have nailed their claims) to warrant putting up, on the basis that an occasional airing helps us keep our thinking correctly calibrated. It seems to have been a day for wagging fingers, but one can put that aside.
Therefore, courtesy of the BBC (on one of those still all too infrequent occasions when they allow embedding of their videos, though even now it involves a huge block of code, necessitating a lot more effort than it should have done to switch off autoplay and make the player size more sensible!) is today's exchange – nearly nine minutes of much hot air, but some interesting facts and figures in the mix too...
Friday, 4 October 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 4 October 2013
In this week of the Conservatives Autumn Conference, much else has also been happening. I shall try to steer a sensible course through the muddied waters...
UKIPper Knocking
Well, it is thought by some (and with a degree of justification) that UKIP are still knocking at voters' doors and continuing to receive a lot of favourables responses.
Alex Wickham (the rapidly-matured 'WikiGuido' member of the Guido team) has here written at the recently-created Trending Central site how UKIP's potential success could let Ed[ward] Miliband into Downing Street undeservedly. There is also a goodly amount of other interesting material in the piece; but the bottom line issue remains the strongest: 'no need to vote Red to let in Ed'.
It's an old, old story; and it crops up on all sides of the political arena fairly regularly. Although the point being made is certainly valid, and people will kick themselves afterward if they end up throwing away their only hope for the future and end up with a totalitarian dictatorship (which is clearly the aim, as last week's Miliband conference speech again revealed), I have long accepted it as a part of having a reasonably open democracy.
UKIP is in reality a political irrelevance, as they themselves sometimes let slip, most recently in party leader Nigel Farage's admission that only at this year's conference did the party finally 'grow up'. There are numerous other indications, some of which I have mentioned before so don't need to revisit them now.
There is actually very good reason to proscribe all Left-wing parties and other such political movements, but I do not advocate that. Yes, the British electorate make mistakes, often in thinking that their little protest vote won't make any difference to who wins the seat in their constituency, just 'sends a message'.
It is a harsh lesson to be learnt – but it has to be learnt, so the mistake might well have to be made – or, ideally, almost made. The best result in 2015 would be a slim overall Conservative majority and the necessity for a second election later the same year. That should drive the necessary points home, when the voting public realise just how close they had come to having a neo-Communist dictatorship running their country...
Unhinged on the Left
It has been fairly common knowledge for some time just how unhinged James (a.k.a. 'Gordon') Brown was and how violent his temper tantrums could so easily (and often) be. With the publication of diaries and other written works by the likes of Damian McBride and 'Bad Al' Campbell, however much one is disinclined to take what they say at face value, there is more than enough insider detail to show that others were, as Rod Liddle puts it, 'mad as hatters'.
The mutual hatred within the Labour upper echelons during the Blair/Brown years are now spilling out into the public arena. No doubt today's version will appear in years to come – and make no mistake, it is very likely to be at least as much, as serious, as mad and as bad now as it was back then. We have been hearing of so much turmoil and mixed messages that it is all very reminiscent of those earlier times, in those and in other ways as well.
Meanwhile, the controversy over Ed-M's late father, the (very Red indeed) Ralph Miliband, rumbles on. Firstly, was the Mail right to make the remarks that it did? It's not the sort of journalism I usually go for or appreciate all that much, personally, but on balance it probably was better to have done than not to have bothered.
The primary reason for this is that Ed himself has repeatedly used references to his father's lead, guidance or whatever in speeches and the like, as Dan Hodges reminds us, so he brought up the whole business in the first place. The Mail certainly isn't apologizing for their original article, as this follow-up piece makes abundantly clear, and it looks like they have a good point (or several).
The question of whether Ralph M loved, hated or was indifferent to Britain is bound to be nuanced and I suspect is, in reality, impossible for anyone (including either of his sons) to pin down with certainty, despite any claims they might make. My own suspicion is that Ralph was grateful to this country for taking him in as a refugee, but hated it nonetheless for not being run as a Marxist state. Nuances, you see...
Interestingly, The Telegraph wrote a perhaps surprisingly kind obituary to Prof. Ralph Miliband back in 1994, long before the Barclay Brothers shifted that newspaper's political leanings and emphasis. On the other hand, The Commentator takes a more robust and uncompromising stance on this and the wider matter of Marxism and the like.
This is a better approach, as Ed Miliband and his supporters within our big media have diverted attention from the real issue and made it a 'personal attack/affront', thus making it easier to sweep the original subject-matter under the carpet again. We should never forget, though, the points raised in that (shortish) editorial.
Not that personal attacks and the like have ever been anathema to the Left anyway, as Carol and Mark Thatcher (for example), similarly bereaved and only this year, surely realise only too well...
Fake Protest?
Predictably, the Left arranged a demonstration outside the Conservative Autumn Conference in Manchester on its opening day. It was a modest size, well-behaved event on the (equally predictable) 'Save our NHS' theme.
Labour MP Andrew Gwynne, though, realised it wasn't very impressive, so tweeted this, along with a photo of the same location, but rather obviously a different demonstration altogether. There were lots of clues, especially in the banners held aloft – and it didn't take long for several people to independently reach just one conclusion: that it was the anti-Labour government demonstration there, opposing Britain's involvement in the Iraq war..
Oops! Big embarrassment for Andrew Gwynne, who obviously treated the British public as 'too ignorant' to realise his deception. He has deleted the tweet, but Politwoops has caught it on his page there – though there is no direct link to the tweet itself, only to the page from which it has been deleted.
At Peace With Itself
That is how James Forsyth describes the Conservative Party this week, after a workmanlike conference that was, in practice, a kind of 'extra' in the election cycle, which is usually a four-year term but this time round is for five years. This is the one-in-between, especially for the party running or leading the national government of the day.
The party is, James reports, more united now than it had been for a while, largely down to the antics, positioning and threats of and from Nigel Farage (and his UKIP chums) and Ed Miliband (and his Labour comrades). This fits in very neatly with what I have been saying for the past couple of years – some of it here, some in private conversations. It is why I have maintained a calm assurance during these turbulent times, which some might have misinterpreted as complacency. It was never that!
It takes an understanding of how people and societies act and react, to be able to work all this kind of stuff out in advance, and a few commentators have that ability, which can be valuable. In this case, there are other elements that no-one could predict specifically, but it was (for example) always likely that one of the top campaign strategists would be brought in around now, and that was always most likely to be Lynton Crosby.
Thus today's in-party scenario is a culmination of all that has been pointing toward this time for a long while now. From here on, it hots up all around the country. The likes of election agent Andrew Kennedy have been reporting all manner of perhaps surprisingly positive party and campaigning news, and it's not guff: I've been involved with Kennedy-manamged election campaigns and am well aware of how it all works; and the way he puts it on his 'blog and social media today remains entirely consistent with that methodology.
This is the point at which not only Britain as a nation turned a corner: it's where the Conservative Party did much the same...
At the conference itself, the set-piece speeches in the main hall (the televised part of the event) were good but not at the peak that some recent Conservative autumn conferences have produced.
They didn't need to be: they just needed to be truthful (which they seem to have been, though I am sure the odd hair could be split by someone trying desperately hard to find fault), carry the somewhat overworked conference slogan 'hard-working people', and send out all the right messages, attacking where necessary and praising where appropriate, including patting themselves and each other on the back. That's standard fare, of course.
It did the job; and both commentators and the public (when polled) have been clear that it was the best of the three main party events, and David Cameron still far and away the best – or in polls thus worded, the least bad – of those parties' leaders. The somewhat unscientific measure of Twitter mentions parallels this. The Express's Macer Hall even thinks of Cameron as the Man of Steel – a worthy successor to the Iron Lady.
Reasonably good news on the economy pointed to the way forward and took the wind out of other parties' sails, especially Labour who no longer avoidably even talk about the economy.
Although Ed Miliband's speech last week painted him as suddenly a strong leader, it was obvious to anyone with even a modicum of insight that he hadn't miraculously changed overnight: his is essentially Union-dictated policy, not his own.
It is axiomatic that if he couldn't come up with any firm and substantive policy after more than three years as party leader, it wasn't all just going magically appear more or less overnight. We are also acutely aware of how the unions (UNITE via its own leader in particular) are controlling Labour policy anyway.
The public seem to be broadly aware of this too, this year, as the expected post-conference 'bounce' for Labour in the polls was not only more modest than tends to happen at such times, it also took several days to take any real effect. Their conference closed on Wednesday, but it was the following weekend before this (almost certainly short-lived) polling boost came about.
Funnily enough, I expect a not dissimilar pattern to occur for the Conservatives, though for different reasons. Theirs was what has been termed a 'holding' conference (similar to my own description a couple of days ago) so wasn't anywhere near as geared up to securing immediate/short-term support 'blips'. It was aiming much more strategically toward May 2015; and I for one could perceive this during the event.
This was not the case with the Miliband speech or, indeed, any of Labour's conference: the aim there was very different, (a) to plug the policy vacuum and (b) to save Ed Miliband from ending up where he would be called upon to resign as weak and ineffective.
Their conference need was immediate and drastic: the Blues, on the other hand, were playing the long game coolly and calmly, regardless of what some have been trying to suggest – although no doubt a journo' can always find a few nervous MPs of any party in marginal seats!
Bad Reports? Burn 'Em, said Burnham
We already knew about the mid-Staffs hospital scandal, had heard that there were scores of bad reports coming in from here and there, and yet Andy Burnham – the then Health Secretary – has on several occasions been reported as having had all that bad news suppressed, hidden from the public eye.
The latest to hit the news has been Basildon University Hospital, as The Telegraph tells us, and in particular the apparent subversion of the official health watchdog (and its complicity) in providing what appears to be a false appraisal of the health service. Note that the 'Mike O'Brien' mentioned in that article is not the same Mike O'Brien who is a member of Medway Council's cabinet. Wrong party, for a start(!)
With a shadow cabinet re-shuffle thought to be imminent, this now looks like a suitable time for Burnham to be moved from the health remit; and Ed-M will have both immediate and (no doubt) further revelatory troubles later on if he doesn't move him. The additional revelations, if there are any, will still appear, but be less damaging to Labour if a new shadow health secretary has taken over at least several months before, and certainly well before the next General Election.
Guardian Loves Lenin
It seems to me that The Telegraph is going through a phase in which it is positioning itself as a kind of mediator between warring factions within our big media, and attempting redress and the highlighting of hypocrisy, presumably to take the sting out of the situation and smooth things over.
This week we have them dealing with the digging up of an ancient Mail item seemingly in praise of the now-infamous Blackshirts. The Telegraph's contributor for their counter, one Sean Thomas, points out that The Guardian has in its own past been similarly disposed toward the likes of Lenin, and in recent years Milosevic. The last two paragraphs are particularly worth reading. Yes, The Guardian has always liked and admired, and still likes, those Left-wing mass murderers and suchlike...
Party Membership
It is an open secret that all long-standing political parties in Great Britain (i.e. not necessarily in Northern Ireland, about which I know little in detail) has seen an ongoing decline in their membership levels for decades. Every now and again, something will happen to give one or another a short-term boost, often at another party's expense, but the overall trend is unmistakable.
Some though not all of this ongoing decline seems to have come about as a result of reduction in the benefits in being a member, and the subscriptions becoming a little too high for many people to justify on that basis.
The blogger known as Churchmouse has looked at the impact of a change in party rules and benefits for members that was brought in by the Conservatives for their membership back in 1998 – some fifteen years ago now. The post raises valid points; and it would be to David Cameron's great credit if he were to personally propose and successfully work toward reversing the damage and even improving on the original.
Although it is bound to take several years before enough potential members (including returning former members) .realise that there are by that time good reasons to sign up, a lot of good will have been done for the long-term future strength of the nationwide party.
...and on that potentially positive note, this ends the current week's digest.
UKIPper Knocking
Well, it is thought by some (and with a degree of justification) that UKIP are still knocking at voters' doors and continuing to receive a lot of favourables responses.
Alex Wickham (the rapidly-matured 'WikiGuido' member of the Guido team) has here written at the recently-created Trending Central site how UKIP's potential success could let Ed[ward] Miliband into Downing Street undeservedly. There is also a goodly amount of other interesting material in the piece; but the bottom line issue remains the strongest: 'no need to vote Red to let in Ed'.
It's an old, old story; and it crops up on all sides of the political arena fairly regularly. Although the point being made is certainly valid, and people will kick themselves afterward if they end up throwing away their only hope for the future and end up with a totalitarian dictatorship (which is clearly the aim, as last week's Miliband conference speech again revealed), I have long accepted it as a part of having a reasonably open democracy.
UKIP is in reality a political irrelevance, as they themselves sometimes let slip, most recently in party leader Nigel Farage's admission that only at this year's conference did the party finally 'grow up'. There are numerous other indications, some of which I have mentioned before so don't need to revisit them now.
There is actually very good reason to proscribe all Left-wing parties and other such political movements, but I do not advocate that. Yes, the British electorate make mistakes, often in thinking that their little protest vote won't make any difference to who wins the seat in their constituency, just 'sends a message'.
It is a harsh lesson to be learnt – but it has to be learnt, so the mistake might well have to be made – or, ideally, almost made. The best result in 2015 would be a slim overall Conservative majority and the necessity for a second election later the same year. That should drive the necessary points home, when the voting public realise just how close they had come to having a neo-Communist dictatorship running their country...
Unhinged on the Left
It has been fairly common knowledge for some time just how unhinged James (a.k.a. 'Gordon') Brown was and how violent his temper tantrums could so easily (and often) be. With the publication of diaries and other written works by the likes of Damian McBride and 'Bad Al' Campbell, however much one is disinclined to take what they say at face value, there is more than enough insider detail to show that others were, as Rod Liddle puts it, 'mad as hatters'.
The mutual hatred within the Labour upper echelons during the Blair/Brown years are now spilling out into the public arena. No doubt today's version will appear in years to come – and make no mistake, it is very likely to be at least as much, as serious, as mad and as bad now as it was back then. We have been hearing of so much turmoil and mixed messages that it is all very reminiscent of those earlier times, in those and in other ways as well.
Meanwhile, the controversy over Ed-M's late father, the (very Red indeed) Ralph Miliband, rumbles on. Firstly, was the Mail right to make the remarks that it did? It's not the sort of journalism I usually go for or appreciate all that much, personally, but on balance it probably was better to have done than not to have bothered.
The primary reason for this is that Ed himself has repeatedly used references to his father's lead, guidance or whatever in speeches and the like, as Dan Hodges reminds us, so he brought up the whole business in the first place. The Mail certainly isn't apologizing for their original article, as this follow-up piece makes abundantly clear, and it looks like they have a good point (or several).
The question of whether Ralph M loved, hated or was indifferent to Britain is bound to be nuanced and I suspect is, in reality, impossible for anyone (including either of his sons) to pin down with certainty, despite any claims they might make. My own suspicion is that Ralph was grateful to this country for taking him in as a refugee, but hated it nonetheless for not being run as a Marxist state. Nuances, you see...
Interestingly, The Telegraph wrote a perhaps surprisingly kind obituary to Prof. Ralph Miliband back in 1994, long before the Barclay Brothers shifted that newspaper's political leanings and emphasis. On the other hand, The Commentator takes a more robust and uncompromising stance on this and the wider matter of Marxism and the like.
This is a better approach, as Ed Miliband and his supporters within our big media have diverted attention from the real issue and made it a 'personal attack/affront', thus making it easier to sweep the original subject-matter under the carpet again. We should never forget, though, the points raised in that (shortish) editorial.
Not that personal attacks and the like have ever been anathema to the Left anyway, as Carol and Mark Thatcher (for example), similarly bereaved and only this year, surely realise only too well...
Fake Protest?
Predictably, the Left arranged a demonstration outside the Conservative Autumn Conference in Manchester on its opening day. It was a modest size, well-behaved event on the (equally predictable) 'Save our NHS' theme.
Labour MP Andrew Gwynne, though, realised it wasn't very impressive, so tweeted this, along with a photo of the same location, but rather obviously a different demonstration altogether. There were lots of clues, especially in the banners held aloft – and it didn't take long for several people to independently reach just one conclusion: that it was the anti-Labour government demonstration there, opposing Britain's involvement in the Iraq war..
Oops! Big embarrassment for Andrew Gwynne, who obviously treated the British public as 'too ignorant' to realise his deception. He has deleted the tweet, but Politwoops has caught it on his page there – though there is no direct link to the tweet itself, only to the page from which it has been deleted.
At Peace With Itself
That is how James Forsyth describes the Conservative Party this week, after a workmanlike conference that was, in practice, a kind of 'extra' in the election cycle, which is usually a four-year term but this time round is for five years. This is the one-in-between, especially for the party running or leading the national government of the day.
The party is, James reports, more united now than it had been for a while, largely down to the antics, positioning and threats of and from Nigel Farage (and his UKIP chums) and Ed Miliband (and his Labour comrades). This fits in very neatly with what I have been saying for the past couple of years – some of it here, some in private conversations. It is why I have maintained a calm assurance during these turbulent times, which some might have misinterpreted as complacency. It was never that!
It takes an understanding of how people and societies act and react, to be able to work all this kind of stuff out in advance, and a few commentators have that ability, which can be valuable. In this case, there are other elements that no-one could predict specifically, but it was (for example) always likely that one of the top campaign strategists would be brought in around now, and that was always most likely to be Lynton Crosby.
Thus today's in-party scenario is a culmination of all that has been pointing toward this time for a long while now. From here on, it hots up all around the country. The likes of election agent Andrew Kennedy have been reporting all manner of perhaps surprisingly positive party and campaigning news, and it's not guff: I've been involved with Kennedy-manamged election campaigns and am well aware of how it all works; and the way he puts it on his 'blog and social media today remains entirely consistent with that methodology.
This is the point at which not only Britain as a nation turned a corner: it's where the Conservative Party did much the same...
At the conference itself, the set-piece speeches in the main hall (the televised part of the event) were good but not at the peak that some recent Conservative autumn conferences have produced.
They didn't need to be: they just needed to be truthful (which they seem to have been, though I am sure the odd hair could be split by someone trying desperately hard to find fault), carry the somewhat overworked conference slogan 'hard-working people', and send out all the right messages, attacking where necessary and praising where appropriate, including patting themselves and each other on the back. That's standard fare, of course.
It did the job; and both commentators and the public (when polled) have been clear that it was the best of the three main party events, and David Cameron still far and away the best – or in polls thus worded, the least bad – of those parties' leaders. The somewhat unscientific measure of Twitter mentions parallels this. The Express's Macer Hall even thinks of Cameron as the Man of Steel – a worthy successor to the Iron Lady.
Reasonably good news on the economy pointed to the way forward and took the wind out of other parties' sails, especially Labour who no longer avoidably even talk about the economy.
Although Ed Miliband's speech last week painted him as suddenly a strong leader, it was obvious to anyone with even a modicum of insight that he hadn't miraculously changed overnight: his is essentially Union-dictated policy, not his own.
It is axiomatic that if he couldn't come up with any firm and substantive policy after more than three years as party leader, it wasn't all just going magically appear more or less overnight. We are also acutely aware of how the unions (UNITE via its own leader in particular) are controlling Labour policy anyway.
The public seem to be broadly aware of this too, this year, as the expected post-conference 'bounce' for Labour in the polls was not only more modest than tends to happen at such times, it also took several days to take any real effect. Their conference closed on Wednesday, but it was the following weekend before this (almost certainly short-lived) polling boost came about.
Funnily enough, I expect a not dissimilar pattern to occur for the Conservatives, though for different reasons. Theirs was what has been termed a 'holding' conference (similar to my own description a couple of days ago) so wasn't anywhere near as geared up to securing immediate/short-term support 'blips'. It was aiming much more strategically toward May 2015; and I for one could perceive this during the event.
This was not the case with the Miliband speech or, indeed, any of Labour's conference: the aim there was very different, (a) to plug the policy vacuum and (b) to save Ed Miliband from ending up where he would be called upon to resign as weak and ineffective.
Their conference need was immediate and drastic: the Blues, on the other hand, were playing the long game coolly and calmly, regardless of what some have been trying to suggest – although no doubt a journo' can always find a few nervous MPs of any party in marginal seats!
Bad Reports? Burn 'Em, said Burnham
We already knew about the mid-Staffs hospital scandal, had heard that there were scores of bad reports coming in from here and there, and yet Andy Burnham – the then Health Secretary – has on several occasions been reported as having had all that bad news suppressed, hidden from the public eye.
The latest to hit the news has been Basildon University Hospital, as The Telegraph tells us, and in particular the apparent subversion of the official health watchdog (and its complicity) in providing what appears to be a false appraisal of the health service. Note that the 'Mike O'Brien' mentioned in that article is not the same Mike O'Brien who is a member of Medway Council's cabinet. Wrong party, for a start(!)
With a shadow cabinet re-shuffle thought to be imminent, this now looks like a suitable time for Burnham to be moved from the health remit; and Ed-M will have both immediate and (no doubt) further revelatory troubles later on if he doesn't move him. The additional revelations, if there are any, will still appear, but be less damaging to Labour if a new shadow health secretary has taken over at least several months before, and certainly well before the next General Election.
Guardian Loves Lenin
It seems to me that The Telegraph is going through a phase in which it is positioning itself as a kind of mediator between warring factions within our big media, and attempting redress and the highlighting of hypocrisy, presumably to take the sting out of the situation and smooth things over.
This week we have them dealing with the digging up of an ancient Mail item seemingly in praise of the now-infamous Blackshirts. The Telegraph's contributor for their counter, one Sean Thomas, points out that The Guardian has in its own past been similarly disposed toward the likes of Lenin, and in recent years Milosevic. The last two paragraphs are particularly worth reading. Yes, The Guardian has always liked and admired, and still likes, those Left-wing mass murderers and suchlike...
Party Membership
It is an open secret that all long-standing political parties in Great Britain (i.e. not necessarily in Northern Ireland, about which I know little in detail) has seen an ongoing decline in their membership levels for decades. Every now and again, something will happen to give one or another a short-term boost, often at another party's expense, but the overall trend is unmistakable.
Some though not all of this ongoing decline seems to have come about as a result of reduction in the benefits in being a member, and the subscriptions becoming a little too high for many people to justify on that basis.
The blogger known as Churchmouse has looked at the impact of a change in party rules and benefits for members that was brought in by the Conservatives for their membership back in 1998 – some fifteen years ago now. The post raises valid points; and it would be to David Cameron's great credit if he were to personally propose and successfully work toward reversing the damage and even improving on the original.
Although it is bound to take several years before enough potential members (including returning former members) .realise that there are by that time good reasons to sign up, a lot of good will have been done for the long-term future strength of the nationwide party.
...and on that potentially positive note, this ends the current week's digest.
Wednesday, 2 October 2013
Conservative Party Autumn Conference 2013
This was an interesting event. It lacked the sheer fire of some they've held in recent years, but was solid if a little plodding at times.
The biggest issue is, of course, that the sheer cost of attending (including travel, accommodation, the event itself and any incidental expenditure) is nowadays so high that few ordinary members are in a realistic position to attend. Consequently, the emphasis has changed to suit the primary audience, which tends to be lobbyists and party hacks.
This applies to all the other parties as well, of course; but usually the Conservative conference is head and shoulders above all the others, and has been for nearly a decade at least (2005 marked a real sea change that even the press pack recognised at the time).
Even Boris Johnson yesterday was less jokey than usual and more serious than he is inclined to be at these annual events. What he did was good but not outstanding. Interestingly, that seems to have been the theme for this year's conference in general: it's all good stuff, solid and at least factual (though I am sure there are hairs to be split by those determined to do so), but not a great deal for the headline writers to use with any degree of power behind them.
Even the Prime Minister's speech, good though it was, fell noticeably behind his best of recent years. His podium-tapping moments and others intended to induce applause, were just that little bit too obviously pre-planned. Not that the points he made weren't valid, but this could have been handled better I think.
Although as a businesslike mid-term party conference it would have been fine, with just eighteen months or so to the General Election is was a little too tame, I think.
One highlight from this morning was young Zantain, a twelve-year-old going to a free school and so obviously very proud of that fact. The lady was actually brilliant, and rightly received a standing ovation for her contribution. Michael Gove was almost on the edge of his seat throughout, seeing the realisation of his dreams for the free schools scheme speaking directly to him and us.
If that goes up on-line (it hasn't yet: I have checked several ways, to be sure) I shall, if possible, embed it here: otherwise I'll post the link to it if it can't be embedded. Meanwhile, just uploaded, here's David Cameron's conference-closing speech in full...
Overall, this has as usual been the best quality and most trustworthy of all the party conferences so far this autumn, but not the most memorable. I have a feeling it's a building block toward next year's pre-election conference, which ought to be a real blockbuster of an event, referencing this year's foundation stones laid in advance of what looks like it could even be an election-winning campaign.
This is a good thing: present generations now know what a coalition government is like, its pluses and its minuses. I don't think all that many feel the need to continue in the same vein after this term, so I feel a shift in the political will of the nation at large.
They could well vote in a Conservative majority government in 2015, and this week's event in Manchester has laid some of the foundation for such an outcome. It might not have been the most exciting of events, but in the grand scheme of things it might turn out to have been one of the most significant.
The biggest issue is, of course, that the sheer cost of attending (including travel, accommodation, the event itself and any incidental expenditure) is nowadays so high that few ordinary members are in a realistic position to attend. Consequently, the emphasis has changed to suit the primary audience, which tends to be lobbyists and party hacks.
This applies to all the other parties as well, of course; but usually the Conservative conference is head and shoulders above all the others, and has been for nearly a decade at least (2005 marked a real sea change that even the press pack recognised at the time).
Even Boris Johnson yesterday was less jokey than usual and more serious than he is inclined to be at these annual events. What he did was good but not outstanding. Interestingly, that seems to have been the theme for this year's conference in general: it's all good stuff, solid and at least factual (though I am sure there are hairs to be split by those determined to do so), but not a great deal for the headline writers to use with any degree of power behind them.
Even the Prime Minister's speech, good though it was, fell noticeably behind his best of recent years. His podium-tapping moments and others intended to induce applause, were just that little bit too obviously pre-planned. Not that the points he made weren't valid, but this could have been handled better I think.
Although as a businesslike mid-term party conference it would have been fine, with just eighteen months or so to the General Election is was a little too tame, I think.
One highlight from this morning was young Zantain, a twelve-year-old going to a free school and so obviously very proud of that fact. The lady was actually brilliant, and rightly received a standing ovation for her contribution. Michael Gove was almost on the edge of his seat throughout, seeing the realisation of his dreams for the free schools scheme speaking directly to him and us.
If that goes up on-line (it hasn't yet: I have checked several ways, to be sure) I shall, if possible, embed it here: otherwise I'll post the link to it if it can't be embedded. Meanwhile, just uploaded, here's David Cameron's conference-closing speech in full...
Overall, this has as usual been the best quality and most trustworthy of all the party conferences so far this autumn, but not the most memorable. I have a feeling it's a building block toward next year's pre-election conference, which ought to be a real blockbuster of an event, referencing this year's foundation stones laid in advance of what looks like it could even be an election-winning campaign.
This is a good thing: present generations now know what a coalition government is like, its pluses and its minuses. I don't think all that many feel the need to continue in the same vein after this term, so I feel a shift in the political will of the nation at large.
They could well vote in a Conservative majority government in 2015, and this week's event in Manchester has laid some of the foundation for such an outcome. It might not have been the most exciting of events, but in the grand scheme of things it might turn out to have been one of the most significant.
Friday, 6 September 2013
Hope and Glory
Team Guido puts a one-minute snippet of what Prime Minister David Cameron has said earlier into a pertinent context. 'Cam' mentioned Elgar anyway, so there's no reason not to use his music. Well done, Team Guido...
Friday, 30 August 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 30 August 2013
Issues big and small, international, national and local, abound this week...
Syria is the Kobayashi Maru
Star Trek movie fans will be well aware of the Kobabyashi Maru simulation used on training exercises at Starfleet, and introduced in the second Trek movie The Wrath of Khan. It has been referenced several times since, in later Trek productions of one kind or another. It was a no-win scenario and was a test of character only – unless one cheated and re-programmed the simulator to make it able to be solved, as one James Tiberius Kirk apparently did...
There is no doubt that the biggest news this week has been over the Parliamentary recall to debate the possibility of UK involvement in a military action against the Syrian Assad régime following their use of chemical weapons against their own people, including children. Specifically, air strikes were being considered, in principle at this stage, in a two-vote arrangement the second of which would have come later.
These are always difficult decisions to take, and this one – perhaps more so than others, perhaps just the same but this time we're handling it more democratically – has been just like the Kobayashi Maru. There is no 'right' answer, as I have today tweeted, yet each side of the argument to go in or not believes it alone is right.
Unless a way could be found to forensically (to use the in-vogue term) remove Assad and those he commands who commit these acts, we could not even be a form of 'international police'. Whether or not we should intervene in another country's affairs, especially bearing in mind what has tended to happen in previous cases, is another question.
I have some sympathy for the decision-makers, because it is a very close call in practice: not because the issues are small, but because even a big pull in one direction is countered by a different by equally large pull in the opposite direction. It really is like that. I am not surprised, therefore, that even our own Medway Members of Parliament were split on the vote, with two of them voting one way and the third walking through the other voting lobby.
Back to the 'Maru': as a test of character, it certainly brought out the strength of PM David Cameron's character, though not backed up properly by the Number Ten machine and Conservative Parliamentary Whips' Office, which have rightly come in for strong criticism. Cam made his case, made concessions to the leader of the opposition, and put the question before the House of Commons.
As Dan Hodges (among others) covers in his 'blog post today, Ed[ward] Miliband behaved abominably, as did members of his party who revelled at the defeat of the Government's motion as a political success, as that was (as always) all that really mattered to them.
It comes as little surprise that Dan Hodges has, at last, resigned from the Labour party – who are no doubt rejoicing over that as well. As is so often the case, there is a lot of good, solid stuff in the Hodges piece and I recommend spend five minutes or so reading it all the way through.
Of course, it is equally unsurprising that local (and no doubt others whom I do not follow) sycophantic Labourites are fawning over Miliband's 'victory' and finding yet more ways to lick his boots. They show themselves up by so doing, as the Hodges piece clearly demonstrates – and I can if required provide links to others in the know who have confirmed what he has said, such as Toby Young, here, and (update) the Mail here. There are others... If there were the need for a new reason to feel disgust at Labour and their supporters, here it is in spades.
Unusually, Fraser Nelson is, I think, very much overstating the severity and significance of this defeat for Cameron, which he has done a few times before, though not to this extent. Never again can his stated support be taken as genuine. There are matters that need to be sorted out, especially now the hard lesson has (I hope) been learned that Mili-E is not to be trusted and his assurances can count for nothing.
In the final analysis, the defeat last night might see our standing within at least some sections of the international community weakened for a while, and it could harm the (admittedly largely fictitious) 'special relationship' we supposedly have with the USA; but in the longer term I have a feeling that history will soon enough show that, on balance, it was the better outcome, though not by a large margin.
This extract from an important document on the feasibility of an operation such as that being proposed makes for sobering reading, though, and I dread to think how much it might have cost us in resources as well as the most important resource of all – our Armed Forces' lives – if we had committed to the air strikes and whatever might lie beyond.
Meanwhile, other countries will no doubt make their own decisions about whether to intervene in Syria, and in what way. This little island, despite its significance on the world stage, is but one relatively small nation among hundreds on Planet Earth. Yesterday's debate and vote showed also that we are one of the more democratic, with Parliament trumping the Executive where necessary...which is exactly as it should be.
The Militax
Staying with Mili-E for a few minutes: Michael Gove is on form as usual in exposing the Labour leader's latest wheeze to get you and me to fund his party from the public purse. This is standard practice for the Left anywhere in the world, near enough, and probably always has been, so it's hardly a surprise.
The best weapon against this very bad idea, though, is as always exposure to the public gaze – and this is exactly what Michael Gove is doing at the linked article. It covers a fair amount of ground, and is well worth a read, which will probably take eight to ten minutes (it looks longer, but a few medium to large size photographs give a misleading first impression of its length).
Meanwhile, ongoing money-laundering exploiting any route that is open to them, Lefties in positions of authority and Unions continue to come to notice, such as this one regarding some £64,000 passing from Tower Hamlets to what is a UNITE Union establishment that includes union recruitment facilities and, apparently, considerable pressure to join.
I leave it to readers here to follow the link and read the post by Ted Jeory, and the comments beneath, the latter taking a mix of sides, though I spot the methodology of those trying to suggest that 'it's all okay', so perhaps it's advisable to stay especially alert when reading those.
Abbott on the Landscape
This telling-it-like-it-is piece by Stephen Pollard in The Express hits lots of nails on the head regarding the ghastly Diane Abbott, Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. The headline concerns Labour's real intentions regarding immigration, none of which comes as a surprise to me (and probably not to many others by now, either) but he also catalogues a fair amount of other useful information by which we might gain an insight into this character.
Interestingly, when Ms Abbott was a regular on the BBC's This Week, the contributors to the LiveChat sessions had her well sussed, even then, so there really is nothing surprising to any of us who were regulars on the LiveChat. For everyone else, read and learn...
On the related topic of foreigners claiming UK benefits, the Mail reports that the numbers of these have increased by over forty percent during the past five years (a Labour government legacy, still not fully tackled in the coalition situation) to some 400,000 and costing billions of Pounds every year.
Again, it's not unexpected by those of us who have been conscious of what was happening during the Labour years and how much of it was effectively semi-permanently locked into our nation, so reversing the trend was deliberately made almost impossible by Blair, Brown and Co.
You might remember that, not long before the Coalition was formed, statements came trickling out about how things had been rigged (for want of a better word) by Labour in a number of areas – so it has been public knowledge for a long time.
Of course, knowing about something is not the same as being able to deal with it, and this one will, I suspect, take several years to remedy...and probably can't be done without a Conservative overall majority in the House of Commons.
Not So (Sha)nice...
The holographic receptionist at Brent Council that I mentioned a little earlier this month is, unsurprisingly, coming in for some stick. Even The Guardian has a mostly negative report on her – though, perhaps predictably, their biggest gripe appears to be the loss of a public sector job because Shanice supplants such a human employee. They also point up Shanice's "lack of compassion".
Ah, well: you can't win them all, as the saying goes...
Medway Matters
BBC News Kent has reported on a claim that our local council's free periodical Medway Matters is 'biased toward the Conservatives'. This is a bit strange for a publication that, for all its faults (and it has them) has remained essentially the same for something like a decade, and I have not noticed any slant suddenly appearing, so why wasn't this ever brought up before?
In practice, it continues to cover quite a wide range of topics, mostly without any politicians being mentioned, quoted or pictured at all, apart from the regular ward-by-ward contact page inside the back cover.
The truth is that, when there is a political involvement in anything included in the magazine, it almost universally means Cabinet members, or perhaps the mayor or deputy mayor. These are all Conservatives, but only a minority of them (under a third, in fact).
Now, I have made so secret of my dislike of the Cabinet system that was inflicted upon us by the then Labour government in 2001, and which Eric Pickles has now allowed councils to scrap if they so choose. it is the continuation of that inappropriate and non-democratic institution that is the real cause of this separation between the 'élite few' and all the other elected members. It has nothing to do with the opposition, several of whose members were featured in the magazine a few years ago in page-long specials on each.
Indeed, it has been a de-politicisation of Medway Matters that has meant that series of features has never been revisited, and I am pleased about that. It seems to conform with the long-standard governmental guidance on how such publications should be edited and presented.
Of course, in Labour-run councils the boot is on the other foot; yet I am not aware that Conservative oppositions have ever made such complaints in those councils. I am ready to be corrected on this if I have missed something; but I shall be just as critical of any such as I am of Medway Labour.
All that is now needed is to get rid of the Cabinet-and-Scrutiny structure and give everyone elected to the Council back their equal voting status, as per Eric Pickles' wise-headed provision. That would also bring the elected Council closer to its electorate.
Labour, though, seek only party political coverage as usual, so again have missed the real target in pursuit of self-interest. After all, they want coverage for their members in the magazine, titling it back to more political coverage than now. That is their true motive, and it is so transparent. I'm not taken in, and nor should anyone else be.
Truth Goes The Gallo-way
Finally for this week, here's a short video that seems to show Respect's Georhe Galloway first making a truly outrageous claim on the Iranian television channel with which he is associated, and then denying it in the House of Commons, courtesy of Trending Central.. It looks very much like a GOTCHA..
Syria is the Kobayashi Maru
Star Trek movie fans will be well aware of the Kobabyashi Maru simulation used on training exercises at Starfleet, and introduced in the second Trek movie The Wrath of Khan. It has been referenced several times since, in later Trek productions of one kind or another. It was a no-win scenario and was a test of character only – unless one cheated and re-programmed the simulator to make it able to be solved, as one James Tiberius Kirk apparently did...
There is no doubt that the biggest news this week has been over the Parliamentary recall to debate the possibility of UK involvement in a military action against the Syrian Assad régime following their use of chemical weapons against their own people, including children. Specifically, air strikes were being considered, in principle at this stage, in a two-vote arrangement the second of which would have come later.
These are always difficult decisions to take, and this one – perhaps more so than others, perhaps just the same but this time we're handling it more democratically – has been just like the Kobayashi Maru. There is no 'right' answer, as I have today tweeted, yet each side of the argument to go in or not believes it alone is right.
Unless a way could be found to forensically (to use the in-vogue term) remove Assad and those he commands who commit these acts, we could not even be a form of 'international police'. Whether or not we should intervene in another country's affairs, especially bearing in mind what has tended to happen in previous cases, is another question.
I have some sympathy for the decision-makers, because it is a very close call in practice: not because the issues are small, but because even a big pull in one direction is countered by a different by equally large pull in the opposite direction. It really is like that. I am not surprised, therefore, that even our own Medway Members of Parliament were split on the vote, with two of them voting one way and the third walking through the other voting lobby.
Back to the 'Maru': as a test of character, it certainly brought out the strength of PM David Cameron's character, though not backed up properly by the Number Ten machine and Conservative Parliamentary Whips' Office, which have rightly come in for strong criticism. Cam made his case, made concessions to the leader of the opposition, and put the question before the House of Commons.
As Dan Hodges (among others) covers in his 'blog post today, Ed[ward] Miliband behaved abominably, as did members of his party who revelled at the defeat of the Government's motion as a political success, as that was (as always) all that really mattered to them.
It comes as little surprise that Dan Hodges has, at last, resigned from the Labour party – who are no doubt rejoicing over that as well. As is so often the case, there is a lot of good, solid stuff in the Hodges piece and I recommend spend five minutes or so reading it all the way through.
Of course, it is equally unsurprising that local (and no doubt others whom I do not follow) sycophantic Labourites are fawning over Miliband's 'victory' and finding yet more ways to lick his boots. They show themselves up by so doing, as the Hodges piece clearly demonstrates – and I can if required provide links to others in the know who have confirmed what he has said, such as Toby Young, here, and (update) the Mail here. There are others... If there were the need for a new reason to feel disgust at Labour and their supporters, here it is in spades.
Unusually, Fraser Nelson is, I think, very much overstating the severity and significance of this defeat for Cameron, which he has done a few times before, though not to this extent. Never again can his stated support be taken as genuine. There are matters that need to be sorted out, especially now the hard lesson has (I hope) been learned that Mili-E is not to be trusted and his assurances can count for nothing.
In the final analysis, the defeat last night might see our standing within at least some sections of the international community weakened for a while, and it could harm the (admittedly largely fictitious) 'special relationship' we supposedly have with the USA; but in the longer term I have a feeling that history will soon enough show that, on balance, it was the better outcome, though not by a large margin.
This extract from an important document on the feasibility of an operation such as that being proposed makes for sobering reading, though, and I dread to think how much it might have cost us in resources as well as the most important resource of all – our Armed Forces' lives – if we had committed to the air strikes and whatever might lie beyond.
Meanwhile, other countries will no doubt make their own decisions about whether to intervene in Syria, and in what way. This little island, despite its significance on the world stage, is but one relatively small nation among hundreds on Planet Earth. Yesterday's debate and vote showed also that we are one of the more democratic, with Parliament trumping the Executive where necessary...which is exactly as it should be.
The Militax
Staying with Mili-E for a few minutes: Michael Gove is on form as usual in exposing the Labour leader's latest wheeze to get you and me to fund his party from the public purse. This is standard practice for the Left anywhere in the world, near enough, and probably always has been, so it's hardly a surprise.
The best weapon against this very bad idea, though, is as always exposure to the public gaze – and this is exactly what Michael Gove is doing at the linked article. It covers a fair amount of ground, and is well worth a read, which will probably take eight to ten minutes (it looks longer, but a few medium to large size photographs give a misleading first impression of its length).
Meanwhile, ongoing money-laundering exploiting any route that is open to them, Lefties in positions of authority and Unions continue to come to notice, such as this one regarding some £64,000 passing from Tower Hamlets to what is a UNITE Union establishment that includes union recruitment facilities and, apparently, considerable pressure to join.
I leave it to readers here to follow the link and read the post by Ted Jeory, and the comments beneath, the latter taking a mix of sides, though I spot the methodology of those trying to suggest that 'it's all okay', so perhaps it's advisable to stay especially alert when reading those.
Abbott on the Landscape
This telling-it-like-it-is piece by Stephen Pollard in The Express hits lots of nails on the head regarding the ghastly Diane Abbott, Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. The headline concerns Labour's real intentions regarding immigration, none of which comes as a surprise to me (and probably not to many others by now, either) but he also catalogues a fair amount of other useful information by which we might gain an insight into this character.
Interestingly, when Ms Abbott was a regular on the BBC's This Week, the contributors to the LiveChat sessions had her well sussed, even then, so there really is nothing surprising to any of us who were regulars on the LiveChat. For everyone else, read and learn...
On the related topic of foreigners claiming UK benefits, the Mail reports that the numbers of these have increased by over forty percent during the past five years (a Labour government legacy, still not fully tackled in the coalition situation) to some 400,000 and costing billions of Pounds every year.
Again, it's not unexpected by those of us who have been conscious of what was happening during the Labour years and how much of it was effectively semi-permanently locked into our nation, so reversing the trend was deliberately made almost impossible by Blair, Brown and Co.
You might remember that, not long before the Coalition was formed, statements came trickling out about how things had been rigged (for want of a better word) by Labour in a number of areas – so it has been public knowledge for a long time.
Of course, knowing about something is not the same as being able to deal with it, and this one will, I suspect, take several years to remedy...and probably can't be done without a Conservative overall majority in the House of Commons.
Not So (Sha)nice...
The holographic receptionist at Brent Council that I mentioned a little earlier this month is, unsurprisingly, coming in for some stick. Even The Guardian has a mostly negative report on her – though, perhaps predictably, their biggest gripe appears to be the loss of a public sector job because Shanice supplants such a human employee. They also point up Shanice's "lack of compassion".
Ah, well: you can't win them all, as the saying goes...
Medway Matters
BBC News Kent has reported on a claim that our local council's free periodical Medway Matters is 'biased toward the Conservatives'. This is a bit strange for a publication that, for all its faults (and it has them) has remained essentially the same for something like a decade, and I have not noticed any slant suddenly appearing, so why wasn't this ever brought up before?
In practice, it continues to cover quite a wide range of topics, mostly without any politicians being mentioned, quoted or pictured at all, apart from the regular ward-by-ward contact page inside the back cover.
The truth is that, when there is a political involvement in anything included in the magazine, it almost universally means Cabinet members, or perhaps the mayor or deputy mayor. These are all Conservatives, but only a minority of them (under a third, in fact).
Now, I have made so secret of my dislike of the Cabinet system that was inflicted upon us by the then Labour government in 2001, and which Eric Pickles has now allowed councils to scrap if they so choose. it is the continuation of that inappropriate and non-democratic institution that is the real cause of this separation between the 'élite few' and all the other elected members. It has nothing to do with the opposition, several of whose members were featured in the magazine a few years ago in page-long specials on each.
Indeed, it has been a de-politicisation of Medway Matters that has meant that series of features has never been revisited, and I am pleased about that. It seems to conform with the long-standard governmental guidance on how such publications should be edited and presented.
Of course, in Labour-run councils the boot is on the other foot; yet I am not aware that Conservative oppositions have ever made such complaints in those councils. I am ready to be corrected on this if I have missed something; but I shall be just as critical of any such as I am of Medway Labour.
All that is now needed is to get rid of the Cabinet-and-Scrutiny structure and give everyone elected to the Council back their equal voting status, as per Eric Pickles' wise-headed provision. That would also bring the elected Council closer to its electorate.
Labour, though, seek only party political coverage as usual, so again have missed the real target in pursuit of self-interest. After all, they want coverage for their members in the magazine, titling it back to more political coverage than now. That is their true motive, and it is so transparent. I'm not taken in, and nor should anyone else be.
Truth Goes The Gallo-way
Finally for this week, here's a short video that seems to show Respect's Georhe Galloway first making a truly outrageous claim on the Iranian television channel with which he is associated, and then denying it in the House of Commons, courtesy of Trending Central.. It looks very much like a GOTCHA..
Friday, 23 August 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 23 August 2013
It has been another busy week, even though we are in the summer holiday period which traditionally tends to be quiet on the political front. Not this year, though. Even Hopi Sen has realised this; and if you have the time to read a lengthy piece on Labour's current difficulties then follow this link, and I recommend that you also check out the more insightful comments below it...
Snowden, Miranda and Greenwald
The biggest news this week was almost certainly the detention of David Miranda for carrying what is described as 'potentially sensitive information' from one of Edward Snowden's contacts to journalist colleague and domestic 'partner' Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian – which publication had paid for Miranda's flight, by the way.
In what has turned out to be a more complex scenario, with several twists and turns along the way, even those who initially had their doubts and concerns about that long detention (the legal maximum of nine hours without charge, as the information could not be decrypted in order to verify its nature within that time period) have changed their tune. This from Louise Mensch is particularly useful as it goes into very careful (if somewhat repetitive) detail; and Dan Hodges has faced up to the Guardianistas who seem to have taken a rather bizarre approach to what transpired.
My own thoughts are that there is still too much we don't really know, and no doubt much that we'll never have in the public domain; but the security of the nation is paramount. Provided it is a genuine case, as this strongly appears to have been, and not just an excuse to apply draconian measures inappropriately as some had liked to imagine, then dealing with the data and any known copies of it, in the way that has been described (including destroying computer hard drives at The Guardian's offices) is obviously entirely justified. Imagine what could have happened otherwise.
Of course, there are no doubt other copies still out there somewhere, and it is quite possible that one way or another some inimical force or other will one day find out from one such copy whatever is needed to severely harm our nation. Perhaps (as has been strongly hinted by Glenn Greenwald himself) this will be facilitated by The Guardian.
I wonder if that will make its readers happy. After all, they are mostly Lefties, and as we know, Lefties support those who seek to destroy our nation and its culture from within, whether via the Fabian route or the more revolutionary Marxist (e.g. Frankfurt School) route.
I Kid You Not
One of the topics I have touched upon over the years has been early indoctrination. As the Jesuit Fathers knew, and from whom came the saying about this very subject, those first few years in particular are the time an organisation with its own agenda can imprint its views more or less permanently. It is why I have always been wary of early years intervention by the State or any of its agencies, despite the 'sales pitch' and the convenience of changing domestic patterns in Britain during recent decades
The following few years should not be neglected by those with such an outlook, especially when they are no longer pulling the strings of national government and the next batch of children might no longer be so compliant. This to me seems to be why the UNITE Union (interesting that it is the McCluskey outfit!) has created what might be called a 'child activism and propaganda' website, as Guido briefly describes. He rightly calls it 'creepy'...
This is an ominous development; and the first thing any parent should do is block it from access by their child's computer (the so-called Parental Controls) but how the mentioned videos can be prevented from being shown, or Union representatives going into schools, is less easy.
Parents will need to watch this very carefully, watching for signs that it is happening at their child's school and lobbying school governors to do what they can to stop it happening in the first place. Governor's don't have the power to control the curriculum or the nuts and bolts of teaching, and rightly – that's the Head Teacher and his/her management team's job – but the governors will have a good idea of that team's and the Head's outlook and methodologies. The more laterally thinking (and right minded) ones will no doubt find a way to deal with any such move.
Looking Back to May 2010
This from Mike Smithson is very telling, and really puts the final nail in the coffin of the idea that David Cameron could have gone for a Conservative minority government. Although one might think that, as the party with the greatest number of MPs back in May 2010 they could have just gone ahead, the telling line is that James (a..k.a. Gordon) Brown was under no obligation to go to the Palace.
Whether or not that should remain constitutionally or be changed to prevent minority incumbencies to cling to power in the face of a democratic defeat for them is an interesting debate that perhaps should be had anew; but the result was that, as explained at the above link, at the time there was no realistic way that Cameron could form a minority government. Personally, I'd have preferred it as well, but it was never going to happen.
On the other hand, as Iain Martin points out, Cameron and Co should be going flat out for an overall majority in 2015, not planning for another coalition. That was then, this is now and looking forward not back.
Shale of the Century
This century sees the advent of shale gas mining in this country, and we should all be glad of it as it will help to keep the lights on in the aftermath of a long period without a proper energy policy. It's more complex than that, of course, but shale gas will be a real boon to us here in Britain. Not that this stops the Lefties protesting and indeed shouting about it, trying to undermine it all on some manufactured and/or exaggerated pretext.
Yorkie at The Commentator does a fairly thorough job of taking the lid off the Left's game, including the later news that Green MP Caroline Lucas has managed to get herself arrested at a so-called 'anti-fracking' protest (almost certainly deliberate, with the primary aim of getting herself some publicity).
It is well worth going through what is a fairly short piece, especially noting the use of the totalitarians' favourite techniques such as declaring that only their own views count and accusing any government that takes note of other views as being 'anti-democratic', 'not listening', or some such. This again demonstrates the inherent dishonesty off Lefty outfits, and they are all like that and probably always have been. Lying, manipulative, totalitarian by nature: all of 'em!
Well, if they don't like what's happening to our country (not really theirs is it?) then perhaps they might be happier living in a Socialist/Communist country instead. They are no benefit to Britain, so they might as well get out. That would also help with the burgeoning overcrowding in this small island, and by getting rid of the dross the overall quality will rise too.
On The House
Okay, houses and housing in general. There are, as one might expect, a whole range of claims and counter-claims being made about Britain's housing situation, from the numbers being built year by year to the controversial new Help to Buy equity loan scheme.
It looks like the latter is starting to achieve its headline outcome, which is a positive sign, at least if taken in isolation. The effect on house prices over time is likely to be less helpful to the buying public; but of course the scheme could be modified or even withdrawn at a later date, before that has had a chance to bite too hard. I don't know this will play out, but am aware of legitimate concerns about the scheme, so it one to watch quite closely over the months and (perhaps, if it lasts that long) years ahead.
Meanwhile, the numbers of residences being built remains a thorny question; and FullFact has had a go at looking into this. Their main angle is on the claim that planning consent has been granted for some 400,000 residences that have yet to be built. I am cautious about their treatment, including the somewhat selective graph that shows only the period of the Coalition Government so has no broader context.
I know from my own time on the local Council – when we were also very much aware of what was happening in other places as well as our own – just how much of a house-building slump there had been before the change of national government. The dip for a few months more recently, while significant, looks worse than it really is, and which that longer-term context should (if the data are accurate) have shown.
We knew back in those years what was happening nationally as well as locally – though we here in medway have tended to buck this trend somewhat and have more building going on and achieved than many other places, including elsewhere in Kent.
Indeed, we even have more so-called 'affordable homes' than neighbouring/nearby Local Authority areas whose specifications call for a higher percentage of such homes. For example, our ten percent has resulted in many more such places actually coming into being than others' 25%, where little has actually been provided. Delivery is much more important than posturing...
Back to FullFact: the actual numbers each year are quite impressive, especially in the present climate. The question of whether there even ought to be a need for all these extra homes on the small and increasingly crowded island is a separate (though obviously related) issue; but although the demand ought to slow over the next decade, for now it needs to be satisfied.
Obviously developers weren't going to build when that very climate meant that few could afford to buy them, however 'affordable' some of them (subsidised by the other properties and from the public purse) were in practice. This is why the whole previous decade's figures are so important in setting context, as it becomes easy to spot when things turned downward and what must have driven that. Anyway, with a little intelligence one can glean enough from that analysis to realise what is actually going on, and it is quite good.
Labour On Back Foot
Labour's ongoing policy woes (largely through a lack of any real policies) are being added to by the loss of dominance on key issues such the economy and even in areas thought 'safe' for them, such as the National Health Service (NHS).
Regarding the latter, Simon Heffer has, in a return to a more sensible outlook than he has tended to exhibit in the last few years, does a thorough job of showing how, as he puts it, Labour has lost the moral high ground on the NHS. It is a good piece, and I have little quibble with any of it – which is the first time I have been able to say that about a Heffer contribution in a long time.
I have been sitting on this one for a few weeks, awaiting the fallout from the Keogh report, and it looks as though nothing has materially changed in the weeks from then until now. The article looks lengthy, but it isn't: there are several large photographs embedded within in. The opening few paragraphs tell most of the story in a nutshell, including a list of just some of the issues that are of concern to us all, as users of the NHS and paying for it in our taxes. Especially for anyone wearing the proverbial rose-tinted spectacles when it comes to the NHS, I urge you to read the whole piece, which will probably take around twelve minutes.
When it comes to the economy, Labour still have no credible or consistent stance, and are continuing to struggle to find one. They have essentially silent on the whole issue for several weeks now; and their gloom-and-doom merchants have received a further blow with this week's slow-but-positive economic indicators, which are turning out to be better than was previously forecase.
It's still small beer, but this careful policy has resulted in a general upward trens during the coalition years, which is an understandable way to proceed. Personally, and as I have written before, it has been my belief that it could have a notch or two higher for the past year or so without significantly risking a catastrophe – but I don't have all the inside information, so perhaps the Chancellor has been right in his approach all along.
Even if not a hundred percent optimum, it has certainly been close to that ideal, as most independent organisations in the field have acknowledged, most or all of the the time. Even the credit down-rating (unavoidable in the global situation, especially as we are essentially a trading nation) was fractional, and so much less than in many other countries that one might have thought were stronger than us.
Airport Bias?
This is an interesting development regarding the Rochester Airport plans. A local resident here has formally complained to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) over the leaflet about the plans that has been distributed locally, and which he claims is misleading and biased in favour of the airport. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the leaflet myself; but I'd probably prefer not to comment while the complaint was being looked into by the ASA.
For myself, I can state that we on the airport Consultative Committee put a lot of thought into the ideas that culminated (somewhat belatedly) in the formal proposal. As I have already explained on this 'blog in recent weeks, the paved runway enables earlier take-off so that the craft will have climbed much further than at present by the time it passes over the nearest residential areas.
My estimate is for a ten-fold reduction in sound at ground level, not an increase. That simple Applied Mathematics, routine A-Level stuff: I know, as I studied for that qualification myself...
As for the new generation of mini-jets: they are actually quieter than propeller-type craft, as other small airports can attest, so there's no worry there. I suspect warped agendas are at work here, as is so often the case, and the 'hyper alarmism' that was mentioned in at least one of the linked articles from earlier in this post as being a standard tool of the Left, who are behind this as they have been all along.
I certainly have confidence, as perhaps the community's best advocate and representative in Medway for many years; and again there are similar situations elsewhere in the country, including in much more 'sensitive' locations than ours that – despite initial (uninformed) concerns – turned out to be cases of "What was all the fuss about?"
Fairoaks Airport in Surrey is perhaps the ultimate example of that phenomenon; and who opposing the Rochester Airport plans feels able to challenge that now well-established parallel development in leafy Surrey of all places? Money -> mouth...
Close to Home
Here in the county of Kent, as elsewhere in Britain, councils often have to resort to court proceedings to ensure the payment of due Council Tax. This inevitably results in cases where bailiffs have to go in. Note that all this is caused by people's actions in not paying their dues. These are very often (though of course not always, by any means) those living a fairly grand lifestyle, often subsidised from the public purse.
Anyone who has been in the debt-collecting business (and I know a couple) will tell you what they discover when calling at debtors' homes. One typical case was of someone owing thousands of Pounds to a bank, who 'had no money' and was paying the debt back at a rate that would take decades to fully repay, yet during the early stages of that (weekly) collection period, suddenly there was an expensive new car replacing the older one that had been there previously. Was it a visitor? No: it remained there as the only vehicle at that address.
Anyway, reported in our local newspaper is the number of instances of teach council where bailiffs came into the picture. Although I don't think Medway was even included in the survey, they probably aren't in the top few so I doubt would have been mentioned in any case.
This is an awkward one for opposition politicians on the councils, mostly Labour and a few Lib Dems and perhaps the odd Independent, as they are so vociferous about Council Tax collection rates and the amounts of total arrears. They can hardly start taking the side of the 'poor resident', especially when they know that there are some of us who have whole strings of anecdotes in similar vein to the example I cited above that show that many of them are not (literally) 'poor' at all.
Not that this has kept them quiet when it comes to what they still erroneously term 'the bedroom tax' and supposedly 'evictions' of those caught in having their benefit hand-ours corrected to where they should have been all along. This is the usual Labour bandwaggon-jumping, as it has been from the outset, and as usual for them an attempt to sweep under the carpet their own earlier piloting of exactly the same policy some twelve . Here's the evidence of that...
.
Snowden, Miranda and Greenwald
The biggest news this week was almost certainly the detention of David Miranda for carrying what is described as 'potentially sensitive information' from one of Edward Snowden's contacts to journalist colleague and domestic 'partner' Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian – which publication had paid for Miranda's flight, by the way.
In what has turned out to be a more complex scenario, with several twists and turns along the way, even those who initially had their doubts and concerns about that long detention (the legal maximum of nine hours without charge, as the information could not be decrypted in order to verify its nature within that time period) have changed their tune. This from Louise Mensch is particularly useful as it goes into very careful (if somewhat repetitive) detail; and Dan Hodges has faced up to the Guardianistas who seem to have taken a rather bizarre approach to what transpired.
My own thoughts are that there is still too much we don't really know, and no doubt much that we'll never have in the public domain; but the security of the nation is paramount. Provided it is a genuine case, as this strongly appears to have been, and not just an excuse to apply draconian measures inappropriately as some had liked to imagine, then dealing with the data and any known copies of it, in the way that has been described (including destroying computer hard drives at The Guardian's offices) is obviously entirely justified. Imagine what could have happened otherwise.
Of course, there are no doubt other copies still out there somewhere, and it is quite possible that one way or another some inimical force or other will one day find out from one such copy whatever is needed to severely harm our nation. Perhaps (as has been strongly hinted by Glenn Greenwald himself) this will be facilitated by The Guardian.
I wonder if that will make its readers happy. After all, they are mostly Lefties, and as we know, Lefties support those who seek to destroy our nation and its culture from within, whether via the Fabian route or the more revolutionary Marxist (e.g. Frankfurt School) route.
I Kid You Not
One of the topics I have touched upon over the years has been early indoctrination. As the Jesuit Fathers knew, and from whom came the saying about this very subject, those first few years in particular are the time an organisation with its own agenda can imprint its views more or less permanently. It is why I have always been wary of early years intervention by the State or any of its agencies, despite the 'sales pitch' and the convenience of changing domestic patterns in Britain during recent decades
The following few years should not be neglected by those with such an outlook, especially when they are no longer pulling the strings of national government and the next batch of children might no longer be so compliant. This to me seems to be why the UNITE Union (interesting that it is the McCluskey outfit!) has created what might be called a 'child activism and propaganda' website, as Guido briefly describes. He rightly calls it 'creepy'...
This is an ominous development; and the first thing any parent should do is block it from access by their child's computer (the so-called Parental Controls) but how the mentioned videos can be prevented from being shown, or Union representatives going into schools, is less easy.
Parents will need to watch this very carefully, watching for signs that it is happening at their child's school and lobbying school governors to do what they can to stop it happening in the first place. Governor's don't have the power to control the curriculum or the nuts and bolts of teaching, and rightly – that's the Head Teacher and his/her management team's job – but the governors will have a good idea of that team's and the Head's outlook and methodologies. The more laterally thinking (and right minded) ones will no doubt find a way to deal with any such move.
Looking Back to May 2010
This from Mike Smithson is very telling, and really puts the final nail in the coffin of the idea that David Cameron could have gone for a Conservative minority government. Although one might think that, as the party with the greatest number of MPs back in May 2010 they could have just gone ahead, the telling line is that James (a..k.a. Gordon) Brown was under no obligation to go to the Palace.
Whether or not that should remain constitutionally or be changed to prevent minority incumbencies to cling to power in the face of a democratic defeat for them is an interesting debate that perhaps should be had anew; but the result was that, as explained at the above link, at the time there was no realistic way that Cameron could form a minority government. Personally, I'd have preferred it as well, but it was never going to happen.
On the other hand, as Iain Martin points out, Cameron and Co should be going flat out for an overall majority in 2015, not planning for another coalition. That was then, this is now and looking forward not back.
Shale of the Century
This century sees the advent of shale gas mining in this country, and we should all be glad of it as it will help to keep the lights on in the aftermath of a long period without a proper energy policy. It's more complex than that, of course, but shale gas will be a real boon to us here in Britain. Not that this stops the Lefties protesting and indeed shouting about it, trying to undermine it all on some manufactured and/or exaggerated pretext.
Yorkie at The Commentator does a fairly thorough job of taking the lid off the Left's game, including the later news that Green MP Caroline Lucas has managed to get herself arrested at a so-called 'anti-fracking' protest (almost certainly deliberate, with the primary aim of getting herself some publicity).
It is well worth going through what is a fairly short piece, especially noting the use of the totalitarians' favourite techniques such as declaring that only their own views count and accusing any government that takes note of other views as being 'anti-democratic', 'not listening', or some such. This again demonstrates the inherent dishonesty off Lefty outfits, and they are all like that and probably always have been. Lying, manipulative, totalitarian by nature: all of 'em!
Well, if they don't like what's happening to our country (not really theirs is it?) then perhaps they might be happier living in a Socialist/Communist country instead. They are no benefit to Britain, so they might as well get out. That would also help with the burgeoning overcrowding in this small island, and by getting rid of the dross the overall quality will rise too.
On The House
Okay, houses and housing in general. There are, as one might expect, a whole range of claims and counter-claims being made about Britain's housing situation, from the numbers being built year by year to the controversial new Help to Buy equity loan scheme.
It looks like the latter is starting to achieve its headline outcome, which is a positive sign, at least if taken in isolation. The effect on house prices over time is likely to be less helpful to the buying public; but of course the scheme could be modified or even withdrawn at a later date, before that has had a chance to bite too hard. I don't know this will play out, but am aware of legitimate concerns about the scheme, so it one to watch quite closely over the months and (perhaps, if it lasts that long) years ahead.
Meanwhile, the numbers of residences being built remains a thorny question; and FullFact has had a go at looking into this. Their main angle is on the claim that planning consent has been granted for some 400,000 residences that have yet to be built. I am cautious about their treatment, including the somewhat selective graph that shows only the period of the Coalition Government so has no broader context.
I know from my own time on the local Council – when we were also very much aware of what was happening in other places as well as our own – just how much of a house-building slump there had been before the change of national government. The dip for a few months more recently, while significant, looks worse than it really is, and which that longer-term context should (if the data are accurate) have shown.
We knew back in those years what was happening nationally as well as locally – though we here in medway have tended to buck this trend somewhat and have more building going on and achieved than many other places, including elsewhere in Kent.
Indeed, we even have more so-called 'affordable homes' than neighbouring/nearby Local Authority areas whose specifications call for a higher percentage of such homes. For example, our ten percent has resulted in many more such places actually coming into being than others' 25%, where little has actually been provided. Delivery is much more important than posturing...
Back to FullFact: the actual numbers each year are quite impressive, especially in the present climate. The question of whether there even ought to be a need for all these extra homes on the small and increasingly crowded island is a separate (though obviously related) issue; but although the demand ought to slow over the next decade, for now it needs to be satisfied.
Obviously developers weren't going to build when that very climate meant that few could afford to buy them, however 'affordable' some of them (subsidised by the other properties and from the public purse) were in practice. This is why the whole previous decade's figures are so important in setting context, as it becomes easy to spot when things turned downward and what must have driven that. Anyway, with a little intelligence one can glean enough from that analysis to realise what is actually going on, and it is quite good.
Labour On Back Foot
Labour's ongoing policy woes (largely through a lack of any real policies) are being added to by the loss of dominance on key issues such the economy and even in areas thought 'safe' for them, such as the National Health Service (NHS).
Regarding the latter, Simon Heffer has, in a return to a more sensible outlook than he has tended to exhibit in the last few years, does a thorough job of showing how, as he puts it, Labour has lost the moral high ground on the NHS. It is a good piece, and I have little quibble with any of it – which is the first time I have been able to say that about a Heffer contribution in a long time.
I have been sitting on this one for a few weeks, awaiting the fallout from the Keogh report, and it looks as though nothing has materially changed in the weeks from then until now. The article looks lengthy, but it isn't: there are several large photographs embedded within in. The opening few paragraphs tell most of the story in a nutshell, including a list of just some of the issues that are of concern to us all, as users of the NHS and paying for it in our taxes. Especially for anyone wearing the proverbial rose-tinted spectacles when it comes to the NHS, I urge you to read the whole piece, which will probably take around twelve minutes.
When it comes to the economy, Labour still have no credible or consistent stance, and are continuing to struggle to find one. They have essentially silent on the whole issue for several weeks now; and their gloom-and-doom merchants have received a further blow with this week's slow-but-positive economic indicators, which are turning out to be better than was previously forecase.
It's still small beer, but this careful policy has resulted in a general upward trens during the coalition years, which is an understandable way to proceed. Personally, and as I have written before, it has been my belief that it could have a notch or two higher for the past year or so without significantly risking a catastrophe – but I don't have all the inside information, so perhaps the Chancellor has been right in his approach all along.
Even if not a hundred percent optimum, it has certainly been close to that ideal, as most independent organisations in the field have acknowledged, most or all of the the time. Even the credit down-rating (unavoidable in the global situation, especially as we are essentially a trading nation) was fractional, and so much less than in many other countries that one might have thought were stronger than us.
Airport Bias?
This is an interesting development regarding the Rochester Airport plans. A local resident here has formally complained to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) over the leaflet about the plans that has been distributed locally, and which he claims is misleading and biased in favour of the airport. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the leaflet myself; but I'd probably prefer not to comment while the complaint was being looked into by the ASA.
For myself, I can state that we on the airport Consultative Committee put a lot of thought into the ideas that culminated (somewhat belatedly) in the formal proposal. As I have already explained on this 'blog in recent weeks, the paved runway enables earlier take-off so that the craft will have climbed much further than at present by the time it passes over the nearest residential areas.
My estimate is for a ten-fold reduction in sound at ground level, not an increase. That simple Applied Mathematics, routine A-Level stuff: I know, as I studied for that qualification myself...
As for the new generation of mini-jets: they are actually quieter than propeller-type craft, as other small airports can attest, so there's no worry there. I suspect warped agendas are at work here, as is so often the case, and the 'hyper alarmism' that was mentioned in at least one of the linked articles from earlier in this post as being a standard tool of the Left, who are behind this as they have been all along.
I certainly have confidence, as perhaps the community's best advocate and representative in Medway for many years; and again there are similar situations elsewhere in the country, including in much more 'sensitive' locations than ours that – despite initial (uninformed) concerns – turned out to be cases of "What was all the fuss about?"
Fairoaks Airport in Surrey is perhaps the ultimate example of that phenomenon; and who opposing the Rochester Airport plans feels able to challenge that now well-established parallel development in leafy Surrey of all places? Money -> mouth...
Close to Home
Here in the county of Kent, as elsewhere in Britain, councils often have to resort to court proceedings to ensure the payment of due Council Tax. This inevitably results in cases where bailiffs have to go in. Note that all this is caused by people's actions in not paying their dues. These are very often (though of course not always, by any means) those living a fairly grand lifestyle, often subsidised from the public purse.
Anyone who has been in the debt-collecting business (and I know a couple) will tell you what they discover when calling at debtors' homes. One typical case was of someone owing thousands of Pounds to a bank, who 'had no money' and was paying the debt back at a rate that would take decades to fully repay, yet during the early stages of that (weekly) collection period, suddenly there was an expensive new car replacing the older one that had been there previously. Was it a visitor? No: it remained there as the only vehicle at that address.
Anyway, reported in our local newspaper is the number of instances of teach council where bailiffs came into the picture. Although I don't think Medway was even included in the survey, they probably aren't in the top few so I doubt would have been mentioned in any case.
This is an awkward one for opposition politicians on the councils, mostly Labour and a few Lib Dems and perhaps the odd Independent, as they are so vociferous about Council Tax collection rates and the amounts of total arrears. They can hardly start taking the side of the 'poor resident', especially when they know that there are some of us who have whole strings of anecdotes in similar vein to the example I cited above that show that many of them are not (literally) 'poor' at all.
Not that this has kept them quiet when it comes to what they still erroneously term 'the bedroom tax' and supposedly 'evictions' of those caught in having their benefit hand-ours corrected to where they should have been all along. This is the usual Labour bandwaggon-jumping, as it has been from the outset, and as usual for them an attempt to sweep under the carpet their own earlier piloting of exactly the same policy some twelve . Here's the evidence of that...
Friday, 12 July 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 12 July 2013
There is a fair amount to cover this week, even after my whittling down of an admittedly busy week into a manageable amount of material...
(With) UNITE We Fall...
The big national political story of the week was, without any doubt, the Labour ties with (and dependence upon the financing by) the UNITE Union. The only way Labour leader Ed[ward] Miliband was going to come out of this at all well was by appearing to stand up to the Unions in general, and UNITE in particular.
He has managed to pull off this trick, thus deflating the Conservatives' taunts of 'weak, weak, weak' as their current description of Ed-M.
The truth is, though, that by limiting the opt-in change to just the Labour party affiliation fee, nothing really changes apart from the unions keeping some of that money rather than passing it on. Zero change overall, in fact, as the Financial Times' Jim Pickard has sussed out. Indeed, the Miliband proposed change stands ready to give the unions more power than they have now.
This leaked UNITE briefing note is helpful in calibrating our thinking regarding the outfit's true motivations and intentions.
Labour's past keeps the party stuck in the 'what once was' era, meaning it can never really be a true part of today's world, no matter how much posturing and clever wordplay they apply to their public messages. As Matthew D'Ancona has realised, Ed-M's handling of this tie to the past is absolutely crucial to his and his party's future. So much hangs on this, which is something that very few people seem to realise...
Royal Mail
Should the Royal Mail (as distinct from the Post Office, which is a separate organisation) be privatised? City-AM's editor, Allister Heath, not only believes this Coalition Government move is a good one, but thinks it should have been done some twenty years ago. His arguments for this appear to be sound.
It is certainly demonstrably the case that the delay in so doing has left the outfit a lot less able to cope in the market, whereas if the John Major Government had managed to see this one through during their time the situation would be vastly better for the organisation.
Locally, Labour have expressed their (predictable) opposition to the currently planned change; but they are wrong to do so. It might be late, but it is something that really must not be left any longer, as the rapidly-changing market (mostly toward parcel deliveries, especially same-day services) will get even further away from the Royal Mail if it remains in the market's wilderness for much longer.
More Bona Than Jonah
Followers of Guido's anyone but Gordon series of posts, largely featuring Gordon Brown as a Jonah-like character who seems to be able to spoil any sporting types' chances of success simply by his meeting or just mentioning them, might have noticed that the same does not apply to Brown's successor at Number Ten, David Cameron. Instead, Cameron is bringing a genuine involvement and interest with him, such as at the Wimbledon tennis recently, as this tale explains so well.
Yes, Dave is a tennis player himself (and a good 'un, apparently) and is interested – and he didn't put the mockers on Andy Murray either. Lefties are hating this, and a number of their disgusted reactions have been spotted in the usual social media. The colour of envy is green, but their raging faces were no doubt more like red...
Suffering From The Trots
Poor local Labour candidate Tristan Osborne, having been likened (only visually) to the young Leon Trotsky, has been featured in one of the Kent newspapers trying to lay this spectre to rest.
It isn't easy, when in fact there is indeed quite a close resemblance, as this public photograph of the young 'Trot' shows...
(With) UNITE We Fall...
The big national political story of the week was, without any doubt, the Labour ties with (and dependence upon the financing by) the UNITE Union. The only way Labour leader Ed[ward] Miliband was going to come out of this at all well was by appearing to stand up to the Unions in general, and UNITE in particular.
He has managed to pull off this trick, thus deflating the Conservatives' taunts of 'weak, weak, weak' as their current description of Ed-M.
The truth is, though, that by limiting the opt-in change to just the Labour party affiliation fee, nothing really changes apart from the unions keeping some of that money rather than passing it on. Zero change overall, in fact, as the Financial Times' Jim Pickard has sussed out. Indeed, the Miliband proposed change stands ready to give the unions more power than they have now.
This leaked UNITE briefing note is helpful in calibrating our thinking regarding the outfit's true motivations and intentions.
Labour's past keeps the party stuck in the 'what once was' era, meaning it can never really be a true part of today's world, no matter how much posturing and clever wordplay they apply to their public messages. As Matthew D'Ancona has realised, Ed-M's handling of this tie to the past is absolutely crucial to his and his party's future. So much hangs on this, which is something that very few people seem to realise...
Royal Mail
Should the Royal Mail (as distinct from the Post Office, which is a separate organisation) be privatised? City-AM's editor, Allister Heath, not only believes this Coalition Government move is a good one, but thinks it should have been done some twenty years ago. His arguments for this appear to be sound.
It is certainly demonstrably the case that the delay in so doing has left the outfit a lot less able to cope in the market, whereas if the John Major Government had managed to see this one through during their time the situation would be vastly better for the organisation.
Locally, Labour have expressed their (predictable) opposition to the currently planned change; but they are wrong to do so. It might be late, but it is something that really must not be left any longer, as the rapidly-changing market (mostly toward parcel deliveries, especially same-day services) will get even further away from the Royal Mail if it remains in the market's wilderness for much longer.
More Bona Than Jonah
Followers of Guido's anyone but Gordon series of posts, largely featuring Gordon Brown as a Jonah-like character who seems to be able to spoil any sporting types' chances of success simply by his meeting or just mentioning them, might have noticed that the same does not apply to Brown's successor at Number Ten, David Cameron. Instead, Cameron is bringing a genuine involvement and interest with him, such as at the Wimbledon tennis recently, as this tale explains so well.
Yes, Dave is a tennis player himself (and a good 'un, apparently) and is interested – and he didn't put the mockers on Andy Murray either. Lefties are hating this, and a number of their disgusted reactions have been spotted in the usual social media. The colour of envy is green, but their raging faces were no doubt more like red...
Suffering From The Trots
Poor local Labour candidate Tristan Osborne, having been likened (only visually) to the young Leon Trotsky, has been featured in one of the Kent newspapers trying to lay this spectre to rest.
It isn't easy, when in fact there is indeed quite a close resemblance, as this public photograph of the young 'Trot' shows...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)