This post augments the one I wrote on this topic a few weeks ago, and re-iterates part of that post, leading onto a third part soon...
One oddity in my locality is a council ward currently called Rochester East. Part of this was formerly the smaller ward of Troy Town, and it is there that the uncharacteristic proliferation of social housing is to be found. This view from Google Maps shows where much of this is situated.
The main chunks are the two paired long blocks running between Cossack Street and Princes Street (Glovers Mill and Burritt Mews) and the 'chunky' blocks between them (Hussar House and Lancer House), also much of John Street and Hoopers Road. There are a lot of Labour voters living in those places, unsurprisingly when one looks at their nature and pays attention when passing through – which I have done many times.
The origin of all this goes back primarily to the 1980s when the then council leadership (Labour at the time) arranged for all this to be built, in order to skew the demographics of what was an essentially Conservative-supporting area. It does seem very much out of place in that part of the world – but it did work.It gave Labour a permanent and highly strategic foothold in urban Rochester.
When I was first elected to Medway Council nearly seventeen years ago, Troy Town was indeed represented by Labour councillors, even though other parts of Rochester were Conservative. Now, it wasn't always quite as clear-cut as that, for historic reasons from before I moved to Kent and which I have never been able to get to the heart of dependably, only conflicting anecdotal material being offered; so I am now sticking with the period I know personally.
Anyway, even with ward boundary changes a few years after the Unitary Authority came into being, what then became part of Rochester East ward has consistently swung it for Labour, even when other seats they held in the wider Rochester & Strood parliamentary constituency area came and went (in Strood North and Strood South wards, for example) – and they are now the only two Labour-held seats out of the twenty-two in that constituency.
That is highly significant. Without the social engineering of some three decades ago, they wouldn't even have those two council seats. The demographic slant also helped them at parliamentary election level, though never enough to make an actual switch: it was only Tony Blair winning (and John Major losing) in 1997 that ensured that the Medway area had three Labour Members of Parliament from that time.
Actually, it is just two-and-a-half MPs, as one of the constituencies (Chatham & Aylesford) was and is only half in the Medway council area.
Anyway, this does show what goes on in politics and why it is done (because it works!) Any party can do this when it has the power to do so; but it is only Labour who drag whole areas downward for their own power-lust purposes, as is of course a very old story nationally. I think the practice first came to public attention back in the mid 'sixties, though I was too young at the time to fully appreciate what was going on.
The modern-day context is Labour's 'Refugees welcome' initiative, which leads into a whole new story for which the background information in this post will aid understanding. It is, though, a separate story, which I intend to tackle here soon...
Showing posts with label medway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label medway. Show all posts
Saturday, 4 March 2017
Friday, 20 March 2015
Hole In The Ground
Having just received a leaflet from my area's local (Labour) councillors, I was immediately reminded of that classic Bernard Cribbins song 'Hole in the Ground', as they are making a bit of a song-and-dance about (pot)-holes in the roads – again...
As usual, rather than tackling the issues directly (as I have long been doing, for example, including in this and other Labour-represented wards in Medway) they are more interested in making party political capital out of the issue and say that they have submitted 'several petitions'. I wonder how long that took?
Of course, it is done that way so that they get 'seen to be doing something', with the expectation of electoral reward as a consequence. Meanwhile, the roads remain unrepaired, unless a resident has reported them to the council using any of the several methods readily available.
For years now, I have been having issues such as these, broken kerbstones and other such 'street scene' matters fixed without fuss and without trying to draw attention to myself. Thus, over (say) the past five years, I have had a fair number of things fixed, usually promptly, mainly in Labour wards. That's not just here in Chatham Central, but also in Rochester East (with a couple of my recently-reported ones currently pending) and Twydall.
These have been, in the main, instances of obvious long-term neglect – and I checked Google aerial and street view imagery from years before to ascertain that they clearly hadn't been bothered with by the local councillors or others. I also checked whether they were simply in a queue and already programmed to be fixed: none of them ever was.
The real joy came after I had been doing this for a while, for with my record-keeping and 'before and after' photographs I was to demonstrate very clearly who had been active and interested, and who merely made a lot of noise. As the old saying puts it: empty vessels make the most noise.
Another saying that needs a little tweaking could now be written: If you want something talked about and politicised, ask a Labour person. If you want something *done*, ask a Conservative. With me, you don't usually even need to ask...
As usual, rather than tackling the issues directly (as I have long been doing, for example, including in this and other Labour-represented wards in Medway) they are more interested in making party political capital out of the issue and say that they have submitted 'several petitions'. I wonder how long that took?
Of course, it is done that way so that they get 'seen to be doing something', with the expectation of electoral reward as a consequence. Meanwhile, the roads remain unrepaired, unless a resident has reported them to the council using any of the several methods readily available.
For years now, I have been having issues such as these, broken kerbstones and other such 'street scene' matters fixed without fuss and without trying to draw attention to myself. Thus, over (say) the past five years, I have had a fair number of things fixed, usually promptly, mainly in Labour wards. That's not just here in Chatham Central, but also in Rochester East (with a couple of my recently-reported ones currently pending) and Twydall.
These have been, in the main, instances of obvious long-term neglect – and I checked Google aerial and street view imagery from years before to ascertain that they clearly hadn't been bothered with by the local councillors or others. I also checked whether they were simply in a queue and already programmed to be fixed: none of them ever was.
The real joy came after I had been doing this for a while, for with my record-keeping and 'before and after' photographs I was to demonstrate very clearly who had been active and interested, and who merely made a lot of noise. As the old saying puts it: empty vessels make the most noise.
Another saying that needs a little tweaking could now be written: If you want something talked about and politicised, ask a Labour person. If you want something *done*, ask a Conservative. With me, you don't usually even need to ask...
Tuesday, 27 January 2015
On The Right Road
This started off as just an update to my previous post, but needed to be broadened out so warranted its own post.
First, some good news: two of the road repair jobs I mentioned last time – Anchor Road and Mooring Road in Rochester East ward – are to be resurfaced throughout. I had the confirmation of this a little earlier today, and it looks like they will be done quite soon.
Note that these have been completely neglected by the (Labour) ward councillors for years: I first spotted them when I was early for candidate selection in a nearby church hall, back in 2009. I had assumed that they would have been in hand, but even then still not realised the callous disregard Labour nearly always have for anything that does not profit them politically.
Indeed, it was only the following year onward when I moved home into a Labour ward and saw first-hand at close quarters the permanent sneer and telling body language of one or two of their councillors that I finally learned just how much they hate us all, and hate doing any actual work. I have plenty of detailed material on this for my memoirs, which I might start writing soon...
I can't see the point of being elected to represent an area, a community, and not even bother to act for them on what are, after all, council matters. If some of us can do it, then all elected members should be pro-active in ensuring their own 'patch' is up to standard.
I have mentioned previously the purely political reasons why Labour in particular have a vested interest in keeping roads in a bad state, but my sources indicate fairly strongly that those members and activists aren't out and about unless they are on a specific party political quest. They have no interest in simply patrolling the ward and noting things needing attention, getting stopped in the street occasionallyand getting further input from residents.
It's a completely different attitude, almost diametrically opposite; and it is a good indicator of who each side believes serves whom, and what is most important. For me it was always the community and its needs that came first (hence my rock-solid reputation) and for Labour it is entirely about the people serving their political ends as mere pawns in their game.
They are on the wrong road, and always shall be, with no actual value to their community, however cleverly they can sometimes make it look otherwise. All of this is why decent folk despise and shun them, and rightly so!
First, some good news: two of the road repair jobs I mentioned last time – Anchor Road and Mooring Road in Rochester East ward – are to be resurfaced throughout. I had the confirmation of this a little earlier today, and it looks like they will be done quite soon.
Note that these have been completely neglected by the (Labour) ward councillors for years: I first spotted them when I was early for candidate selection in a nearby church hall, back in 2009. I had assumed that they would have been in hand, but even then still not realised the callous disregard Labour nearly always have for anything that does not profit them politically.
Indeed, it was only the following year onward when I moved home into a Labour ward and saw first-hand at close quarters the permanent sneer and telling body language of one or two of their councillors that I finally learned just how much they hate us all, and hate doing any actual work. I have plenty of detailed material on this for my memoirs, which I might start writing soon...
I can't see the point of being elected to represent an area, a community, and not even bother to act for them on what are, after all, council matters. If some of us can do it, then all elected members should be pro-active in ensuring their own 'patch' is up to standard.
I have mentioned previously the purely political reasons why Labour in particular have a vested interest in keeping roads in a bad state, but my sources indicate fairly strongly that those members and activists aren't out and about unless they are on a specific party political quest. They have no interest in simply patrolling the ward and noting things needing attention, getting stopped in the street occasionallyand getting further input from residents.
It's a completely different attitude, almost diametrically opposite; and it is a good indicator of who each side believes serves whom, and what is most important. For me it was always the community and its needs that came first (hence my rock-solid reputation) and for Labour it is entirely about the people serving their political ends as mere pawns in their game.
They are on the wrong road, and always shall be, with no actual value to their community, however cleverly they can sometimes make it look otherwise. All of this is why decent folk despise and shun them, and rightly so!
Friday, 23 May 2014
Dr Caligari's Council Cabinet
Very few people – especially those with any truly valid reason for disliking how their local council is run politically (apart from mere party preferences) – seem to have any idea why the 'Cabinet-plus-Scrutiny' model was imposed on councils above a certain size a dozen or so years ago.
The clues were there from the outset (as they usually are, to the more perceptive among us), though I waited for events to play out in order to have solid evidence rather than supposition and logical deduction alone.
The single biggest clue was that it was devised by Whitehall 'mandarins' and implemented ('sold') through a Labour government. Immediately this should get anyone's mental alarm bells ringing. Secondly, the Cabinet agenda everywhere was required to include a number of strategies and plans that were fevised by, and tightly constrained in format and content by – yes, you probably guessed it: Whitehall.
We probably all realise that Civil Service Mandarins' greatest ambition in life is to expand their empires and extend their control over our country, and the only way left by then was to take over local democracy, by proxy in order to preserve the appearance of what is called 'localism'.
Thus a scheme was devised by senior Civil Servants that would be easy to get a Labour government to implement, via the right 'sales pitch', but which in reality meant that a huge amount of the local policy agenda would be dictated far more closely by themselves. That's why, if you look down any Cabinet agenda for any council in the country, this fact will shout out to you after just a few such scans. It is glaringly obvious.
In practice, what all this has meant was that most (all but nine or ten) of a council's elected members immediately lost their policy voting rights on most topics, these now falling under the direct and exclusive control of the Cabinet. Some matters have to go to the Full Council to finally decide, but only after the Cabinet has already had first dibs at debate (a one-party debate at that) and it is their documentation that goes to Council... although the entirely powerless Scrutiny Committees (made up of the non-cabinet councillors) can also make 'recommendations'.
Here in Medway, the only 'local' agenda items for Cabinet are the long-standing Recruitment Freeze (a nod-through every time) and contract awards – which do not need to come to Cabinet. If you're paying a portfolio holder that much, and with a huge officer corps behind that person as well, there is really no need to make those decisions as 'Cabinet acting collectively'. A competent portfolio holder will almost always be able to handle that directly. It's not as if there is even any public interest in those agenda items...
Just like the Cabinet of Dr Caligari, the elected members that form local council cabinets are, in reality, under the control of another: in this case, Whitehall – though I suspect that many of them haven't even now, after all these years, cottoned onto this fact. If they have, they are complicit in the deceit and are not serving their electorate, however much they might try to deceive themselves that they are, because of, er, this and that (I'm sure they could pluck such things out of the air if challenged). Those ones are not fit to hold public office, ever. The others are too gullible to be entrusted with such office either – but all of that is for the electorate to decide, of course, when they come up for re-election.
Thus is was refreshing when the change of national government resulted in Eric Pickles offering councils the opportunity to revert to the former Service Committee structure instead of Cabinet-plus-Scrutiny, but without having to scrap any genuine benefits that the new system had brought (there have been a few, though more minor than they were trumpeted at the time they were introduced).
I asked a 'public question' at our local council (Medway) at the time this was being prepared at national level, asking if Medway would take up this offer once it was made. As I had expected, I received an evasive and (frankly) arrogant response – and the proof of the pudding is that (surprise, surprise!) they have not done so.
This has singularly resulted in an unstoppable trend that I had noticed over the years since the system was introduced in October 2001, continuing and worsening further. That is the disconnect between the public and their elected representatives, as it is portfolio holders who are invariably addressed by public questions, and they really don't handle it very well.
Now, a lot of what goes on is (predictably!) party political manipulation and dominance of the public questions item on the Council agenda – but even so there are glaringly obvious bad practices by most portfolio holders. I find it all acutely embarrassing – not because they are bad people, they really aren't, but because they have drifting further away from the public-at-large for so long that it has become all too easy for their opponents to label them 'out of touch' and gain a huge amount of (undeserved) political capital as a result.
The only way, in the whole of creation, that this trend can be halted and reversed is by scrapping the Cabinet system, and by having brand new committee chairmen who have never been portfolio holders. Frankly, there is no other way; and if the nettle isn't grasped soon it will mean that Whitehall will be able to strike the final few nails into the 'localism' coffin before very much longer, killing off actual local democracy Caligari-style, as has obviously been their intention all along.
The clues were there from the outset (as they usually are, to the more perceptive among us), though I waited for events to play out in order to have solid evidence rather than supposition and logical deduction alone.
The single biggest clue was that it was devised by Whitehall 'mandarins' and implemented ('sold') through a Labour government. Immediately this should get anyone's mental alarm bells ringing. Secondly, the Cabinet agenda everywhere was required to include a number of strategies and plans that were fevised by, and tightly constrained in format and content by – yes, you probably guessed it: Whitehall.
We probably all realise that Civil Service Mandarins' greatest ambition in life is to expand their empires and extend their control over our country, and the only way left by then was to take over local democracy, by proxy in order to preserve the appearance of what is called 'localism'.
Thus a scheme was devised by senior Civil Servants that would be easy to get a Labour government to implement, via the right 'sales pitch', but which in reality meant that a huge amount of the local policy agenda would be dictated far more closely by themselves. That's why, if you look down any Cabinet agenda for any council in the country, this fact will shout out to you after just a few such scans. It is glaringly obvious.
In practice, what all this has meant was that most (all but nine or ten) of a council's elected members immediately lost their policy voting rights on most topics, these now falling under the direct and exclusive control of the Cabinet. Some matters have to go to the Full Council to finally decide, but only after the Cabinet has already had first dibs at debate (a one-party debate at that) and it is their documentation that goes to Council... although the entirely powerless Scrutiny Committees (made up of the non-cabinet councillors) can also make 'recommendations'.
Here in Medway, the only 'local' agenda items for Cabinet are the long-standing Recruitment Freeze (a nod-through every time) and contract awards – which do not need to come to Cabinet. If you're paying a portfolio holder that much, and with a huge officer corps behind that person as well, there is really no need to make those decisions as 'Cabinet acting collectively'. A competent portfolio holder will almost always be able to handle that directly. It's not as if there is even any public interest in those agenda items...
Just like the Cabinet of Dr Caligari, the elected members that form local council cabinets are, in reality, under the control of another: in this case, Whitehall – though I suspect that many of them haven't even now, after all these years, cottoned onto this fact. If they have, they are complicit in the deceit and are not serving their electorate, however much they might try to deceive themselves that they are, because of, er, this and that (I'm sure they could pluck such things out of the air if challenged). Those ones are not fit to hold public office, ever. The others are too gullible to be entrusted with such office either – but all of that is for the electorate to decide, of course, when they come up for re-election.
Thus is was refreshing when the change of national government resulted in Eric Pickles offering councils the opportunity to revert to the former Service Committee structure instead of Cabinet-plus-Scrutiny, but without having to scrap any genuine benefits that the new system had brought (there have been a few, though more minor than they were trumpeted at the time they were introduced).
I asked a 'public question' at our local council (Medway) at the time this was being prepared at national level, asking if Medway would take up this offer once it was made. As I had expected, I received an evasive and (frankly) arrogant response – and the proof of the pudding is that (surprise, surprise!) they have not done so.
This has singularly resulted in an unstoppable trend that I had noticed over the years since the system was introduced in October 2001, continuing and worsening further. That is the disconnect between the public and their elected representatives, as it is portfolio holders who are invariably addressed by public questions, and they really don't handle it very well.
Now, a lot of what goes on is (predictably!) party political manipulation and dominance of the public questions item on the Council agenda – but even so there are glaringly obvious bad practices by most portfolio holders. I find it all acutely embarrassing – not because they are bad people, they really aren't, but because they have drifting further away from the public-at-large for so long that it has become all too easy for their opponents to label them 'out of touch' and gain a huge amount of (undeserved) political capital as a result.
The only way, in the whole of creation, that this trend can be halted and reversed is by scrapping the Cabinet system, and by having brand new committee chairmen who have never been portfolio holders. Frankly, there is no other way; and if the nettle isn't grasped soon it will mean that Whitehall will be able to strike the final few nails into the 'localism' coffin before very much longer, killing off actual local democracy Caligari-style, as has obviously been their intention all along.
Monday, 28 April 2014
New Rochester Station
The new railway station for Rochester is already under construction, as the short time-lapse video below shows. This illustrates how the new underpass was assembled on the site, the gap prepared for it, and then the whole thing was slid into place on a cushion of compressed nitrogen gas.
The new site, in Corporation Street, will serve both the existing community and also connect to the new Rochester Riverside development that is also being constructed right now, and which is starting to look very promising at the Doust Way end which is partly complete. I had a little wander around there recently, as well as a look at the rail station work from the top deck of a No. 141 'bus on my way back from a Strood South walkabout (yes, another on!)
It is at times like this that I can really 'feel the future' even without my abilities as a Sensitive – though I have done so in years gone by and felt it back then too. As with other instances I have mentioned before, here and elsewhere, it has been quite a powerful feeling to re-live, in real time, experiences I previously only felt as yet-to-happen.
As with those others, it is a very good sense indeed that I have of the transformation of old, tatty areas that had been there since before I moved into the area in 1997, into high quality, modern townscapes and riverscapes. There is a sense of new life, what some might call 'green shoots' growing out of the old now-dead landscapes of yesteryear.
The old Rochester station is, bluntly, a ghastly place, especially from the street coming up to the platforms, and is now in the wrong place. This new station will be such an improvement, and it too has started to happen...
The new site, in Corporation Street, will serve both the existing community and also connect to the new Rochester Riverside development that is also being constructed right now, and which is starting to look very promising at the Doust Way end which is partly complete. I had a little wander around there recently, as well as a look at the rail station work from the top deck of a No. 141 'bus on my way back from a Strood South walkabout (yes, another on!)
It is at times like this that I can really 'feel the future' even without my abilities as a Sensitive – though I have done so in years gone by and felt it back then too. As with other instances I have mentioned before, here and elsewhere, it has been quite a powerful feeling to re-live, in real time, experiences I previously only felt as yet-to-happen.
As with those others, it is a very good sense indeed that I have of the transformation of old, tatty areas that had been there since before I moved into the area in 1997, into high quality, modern townscapes and riverscapes. There is a sense of new life, what some might call 'green shoots' growing out of the old now-dead landscapes of yesteryear.
The old Rochester station is, bluntly, a ghastly place, especially from the street coming up to the platforms, and is now in the wrong place. This new station will be such an improvement, and it too has started to happen...
Saturday, 5 April 2014
Motes and Beams
Something the 'dodgier' political types frequently do, I have noticed, is to gloss over their own (often huge) shortcomings in a particular area of work, typically ignoring them altogether, and using what more often than not turn out to be relatively minor instances of the same thing by their political opponents as a diversionary tactic as well as a stick with which to beat them. I suppose this is quite normal in some politicians' eyes, though anathema to me, as one might expect.
Many of these are Trades Union driven, via local Labour councillors and (where they have them) MPs, so suddenly the same supposedly 'local' issue crops up everywhere in the country – or, at least, everywhere with a non Labour-run council. Thus my tendency to focus on Medway Labour might be being a little unkind, as they usually turn out to be just one of many such Labour groups doing precisely the same thing, so it isn't really their fault at all: they are merely complicit.
Anyway, the latest Labour 'initiative' here in Medway is (don't laugh) 'fixing our streets'. All of a sudden they have developed an apparent interest in having our roads repaired. Of course, as always with Labour, it will turn out to be almost entirely a party political rant against 'the Tory-run council' – which is the only reason it has suddenly, after many years of not even being on Labour's radar, become one of the issues du jour. Anyone who decides to keep a weather eye on how it plays out will, I have not the slightest doubt, find that this is exactly what will unfold – just as it does with every other t'new' opic they periodically highlight.
The irony is (as long-term readers of this 'blog will already be well aware) that Medway Labour have never been all that interested in having roads fixed even in their own wards. I have in the past highlighted my own findings, using personal observation on my walkabouts, Google Maps and Street View (which are all dated) and such facilities as the one-time ELGIN to check whether a particular location was scheduled for such work.
Those readers will recall what I reported about Eastcourt Road in Twydall – in an unchanged bad state in several places for quite a few years. There have been others that I haven't covered here, but naturally have complete records as proof.
Those readers will also recall the work I had done here in Chatham central, from having a trip hazard at a busy road just outside a primary school repaired to a number of other street scene hazards and other matters. I posted before-and-after photographs, as some here might recall, showing that I was doing more in just a year or so than all three elected Labour members had done between them in half a decade.
I might have concentrated on the area near my home, but I was also aware of how the rest of the ward was faring – especially as I had had the opportunity to inspect it all during a leafleting exercise throughout most of the ward shortly before I moved here.
Thus we can see that Medway Labour's apparent initiative is yet another of their sham activities, serving only themselves and their political prospects, with any peripheral benefit to the community being merely coincidental. No change there, then.
In reality, Medway's roads are in a better state overall than those of just about any other council area in Kent, and have been for years. We have a good record on repairs, though imperfect, and even places one might expect to be in a bad state tend not to be. Google Maps and Street View are useful here, for anyone with some time to kill and who'd like to take a look – but keep an eye on those diaplayed dates, as some parts of Medway are (currently) dated May 2012 and others are dated 2014 but appeared last December.
As always, it pays to be informed of the reality, rather than feel an idiot upon realising that one has fallen for the Goebbels-like propaganda of Labour. Believe me, it feels so much better to be in the know and immune to their con-tricks!
UPDATE: As expected, this and every other topic local Labour is covering at the moment is in reality nothing more than an anti-Conservative purely party political manouevre (see their new Rochester East newsletter) – well, apart from promoting their own parliamentary candidate, anyway!
Many of these are Trades Union driven, via local Labour councillors and (where they have them) MPs, so suddenly the same supposedly 'local' issue crops up everywhere in the country – or, at least, everywhere with a non Labour-run council. Thus my tendency to focus on Medway Labour might be being a little unkind, as they usually turn out to be just one of many such Labour groups doing precisely the same thing, so it isn't really their fault at all: they are merely complicit.
Anyway, the latest Labour 'initiative' here in Medway is (don't laugh) 'fixing our streets'. All of a sudden they have developed an apparent interest in having our roads repaired. Of course, as always with Labour, it will turn out to be almost entirely a party political rant against 'the Tory-run council' – which is the only reason it has suddenly, after many years of not even being on Labour's radar, become one of the issues du jour. Anyone who decides to keep a weather eye on how it plays out will, I have not the slightest doubt, find that this is exactly what will unfold – just as it does with every other t'new' opic they periodically highlight.
The irony is (as long-term readers of this 'blog will already be well aware) that Medway Labour have never been all that interested in having roads fixed even in their own wards. I have in the past highlighted my own findings, using personal observation on my walkabouts, Google Maps and Street View (which are all dated) and such facilities as the one-time ELGIN to check whether a particular location was scheduled for such work.
Those readers will recall what I reported about Eastcourt Road in Twydall – in an unchanged bad state in several places for quite a few years. There have been others that I haven't covered here, but naturally have complete records as proof.
Those readers will also recall the work I had done here in Chatham central, from having a trip hazard at a busy road just outside a primary school repaired to a number of other street scene hazards and other matters. I posted before-and-after photographs, as some here might recall, showing that I was doing more in just a year or so than all three elected Labour members had done between them in half a decade.
I might have concentrated on the area near my home, but I was also aware of how the rest of the ward was faring – especially as I had had the opportunity to inspect it all during a leafleting exercise throughout most of the ward shortly before I moved here.
Thus we can see that Medway Labour's apparent initiative is yet another of their sham activities, serving only themselves and their political prospects, with any peripheral benefit to the community being merely coincidental. No change there, then.
In reality, Medway's roads are in a better state overall than those of just about any other council area in Kent, and have been for years. We have a good record on repairs, though imperfect, and even places one might expect to be in a bad state tend not to be. Google Maps and Street View are useful here, for anyone with some time to kill and who'd like to take a look – but keep an eye on those diaplayed dates, as some parts of Medway are (currently) dated May 2012 and others are dated 2014 but appeared last December.
As always, it pays to be informed of the reality, rather than feel an idiot upon realising that one has fallen for the Goebbels-like propaganda of Labour. Believe me, it feels so much better to be in the know and immune to their con-tricks!
UPDATE: As expected, this and every other topic local Labour is covering at the moment is in reality nothing more than an anti-Conservative purely party political manouevre (see their new Rochester East newsletter) – well, apart from promoting their own parliamentary candidate, anyway!
Tuesday, 18 February 2014
Warren Wood School
I am so disappointed to find that Warren Wood Primary School has again had a bad Ofsted report and been placed into what are termed 'special measures' for the third time in a decade or so.
The first time was a consequence of the death of its former head teacher, Peter Coker, who was so well liked, respected, and a strong positive influence, that his passing dropped the bottom out of the school's world. That happened a short time before boundary changes moved the school into the – then new – ward I was to jointly represent from May 2003.
Thus I came into an existing situation, and tried (very) hard to be supportive but not intrusive. Though I'd be there for every event to which I was invited, such as the opening of the Evergreen language unit, most of what I did was behind the scenes.
All seemed well; and bearing in mind that schools even then were (rightly) becoming less caught up with their local politicians and more independent in general – not that this fact will stop opposition politicians trying to turn this situation into a party political attack, but that merely shows how low and how dishonest those types are – a watching brief was the right approach and I and my two ward colleagues (one of whom was expert on education) were content throughout the years that followed.
As (now) an outsider, and again not wishing to stick my nose in, I really do not know what has gone wrong since – twice more now – but it is very sad that such an inherently good, very interesting, and formerly well-run primary school is having such difficulties.
Indications are that, yet again, it is pulling itself out of the mire, under new leadership; but I can't help wondering how it got there yet again, on this occasion. Perhaps something serious happened that isn't public knowledge (nothing is referred to in the above-linked article, and I wasn't aware of anything).
The only (possible) clue is the line that "governors have been removed" from the school. Now, I have personal knowledge of how Boards of Governors in certain other schools I could mention have been 'stacked' with what might be termed a specific faction with its own agenda, so yes I am well aware that – as with any other body, especially one with voting and/or speaking rights, boards of governors can also be 'rigged', there is no indication that this was necessarily the case here.
Nevertheless, having governors removed is a significant – and serious – step, for whatever reason, so this might at least be an indicator of something more than trivial in this department. One could speculate (and I have a few possibilities in mind) but at this time we just don't know anything of substance.
The bottom line must be to get this valuable school back up to scratch, and more 'solid' than it has ever been before, so that this might never happen again. We can fully understand and sympathise with the original situation back in 2003, so it seems more reasonable to treat this as the second real case of 'special measures' through avoidable circumstances. Let's not have a third instance of that, ever!
The first time was a consequence of the death of its former head teacher, Peter Coker, who was so well liked, respected, and a strong positive influence, that his passing dropped the bottom out of the school's world. That happened a short time before boundary changes moved the school into the – then new – ward I was to jointly represent from May 2003.
Thus I came into an existing situation, and tried (very) hard to be supportive but not intrusive. Though I'd be there for every event to which I was invited, such as the opening of the Evergreen language unit, most of what I did was behind the scenes.
All seemed well; and bearing in mind that schools even then were (rightly) becoming less caught up with their local politicians and more independent in general – not that this fact will stop opposition politicians trying to turn this situation into a party political attack, but that merely shows how low and how dishonest those types are – a watching brief was the right approach and I and my two ward colleagues (one of whom was expert on education) were content throughout the years that followed.
As (now) an outsider, and again not wishing to stick my nose in, I really do not know what has gone wrong since – twice more now – but it is very sad that such an inherently good, very interesting, and formerly well-run primary school is having such difficulties.
Indications are that, yet again, it is pulling itself out of the mire, under new leadership; but I can't help wondering how it got there yet again, on this occasion. Perhaps something serious happened that isn't public knowledge (nothing is referred to in the above-linked article, and I wasn't aware of anything).
The only (possible) clue is the line that "governors have been removed" from the school. Now, I have personal knowledge of how Boards of Governors in certain other schools I could mention have been 'stacked' with what might be termed a specific faction with its own agenda, so yes I am well aware that – as with any other body, especially one with voting and/or speaking rights, boards of governors can also be 'rigged', there is no indication that this was necessarily the case here.
Nevertheless, having governors removed is a significant – and serious – step, for whatever reason, so this might at least be an indicator of something more than trivial in this department. One could speculate (and I have a few possibilities in mind) but at this time we just don't know anything of substance.
The bottom line must be to get this valuable school back up to scratch, and more 'solid' than it has ever been before, so that this might never happen again. We can fully understand and sympathise with the original situation back in 2003, so it seems more reasonable to treat this as the second real case of 'special measures' through avoidable circumstances. Let's not have a third instance of that, ever!
Tuesday, 11 February 2014
Faux ''People's Forum' Meeting
In a rather transparent attempt to further manipulate public perceptions, Medway council's Labour group arranged what they have termed 'an alternative council meeting', under the even more pretentious official name 'The People's Forum'– which was held at the Corn Exchange in Rochester yesterday evening.
As soon as I became aware of this wheeze, about a week ago, I sussed out what it was really all about, and prepared some predictions. I was going to publish them here, then decided it was better not to forewarn the Labour folk that I was well and truly on to them (and no doubt, by extension, others were too) so left it to unfold in its own way. I stocked up on popcorn and awaited the fun...
I had been tempted to put in an appearance myself, but decided against that as well – and, looking back a day after the event, I believe that both those decisions were the right ones. No-one can attempt to claim that I tried to 'influence' or 'subvert' the event in any way: that rug was pulled from under those who might have liked to try that one on!
.Fortunately, there was tweeting going on from within the meeting throughout, most notably by Rd Jennings, who tends to be (on the whole) fairly sharp, and generally spots what os really going on. His tweets are very telling; and the string of them can be read starting here and working forward along his timeline. It is very educational...
Exactly as I expected, it was an attempt to get local voters away from the courtesies of an actual council meeting, so that they could play their political games unimpeded – and, of course, as it was Labour, that was the one and only true purpose of the event, though they will of course claim otherwise. Years of experience has show a hundred percent correlation, though, as simply following how they handle these events and what they claim afterward gives away, every time.
The bottom line was to be (as always) to make Medway Labour look 'good' and 'in touch with residents', unlike 'the wicked Tories'. Plus ça change...
Equally as I predicted, the meeting was stuffed with labour councillors and local party members – and, I suspect, a number of Labour's out-of-area members/activists whom local observers would not have recognised, but who had given away in public places (e.g. Twitter) their intention to be there. The Labour group leaderhas claimed that the majority weren't Labour people. Although this is what one expects to be said, for all anyone knows it is possible.
There is probably no way to find out how many genuine local residents without a Labour affiliation were there: probably not very many in reality, despite that claim, if previous public events by the party locally are any indication (I have been to a fair few of those!) The local media dutifully attended this one, which was of course a vital part of the exercise.
There were two issues to be discussed, and Ed spotted exactly how each was presented in a way that (if you read his tweets in full) was designed expressly for that purpose.
I have to say that I find this sort of thing mildly entertaining: not only is it an attempt to 'cheat' by bypassing rules of conduct at council meetings (and the Labour lot already tried that at the last meeting, much to my non-surprise), but it was selective, one-sided, and with little time for actual debate – just nine minutes for the second item.
That second item, the plans for Rochester Airport's future, had the interesting (and unwanted by Labour) ingredient of my own writings on the topic being briefly quoted. Awkward; and definitely not fitting into Labour's narrative!
The point being raised was that the fears being put about by the scaremongers were ill-founded, as evidenced by the numerous other small airports in Britain that had already done what is now being proposed for Rochester Airport, without trouble and with a reduction in noise – counter to the scare messages.
I shall go into no more detail than that, as it could easily become tedious and make this post over-long. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of what has followed the event is that, rather than their usual trumpeting of their wheezes, claiming this, that and the other, they have in fact been very quiet about it. Apart from a couple of predictably gung-ho tweets, nothing material has appeared in the public realm – or if it has we haven't been pointed to it – a good day later.
My strong suspicion is that they are struggling to find a way to dress it up as any kind of success – which is obviously what they are seeking to do. The impression I have gained from a few sources is that it was something of a damp squib in reality – which at least is consistent with other events run by Medway Labour. For example, one well-publicised event, conveniently located close to shops and on the weekend, attracted fewer members of the public than the exhibitors and presenters.
I was there, so can personally attest to this...
Will people be fooled? I suppose it will depend to a fair extent on how the local newspaper writes up what happened. I don't think they will be gushing with praise for the initiative, though I could be wrong: there are angles they can use as an excuse for builfing this up a long way beyond what it really warrants.
Fortunately, as local election results have shown over the past decade and a half, the public mood had consistently swung more and more toward the Conservatives, and nearly always against Labour. Most people around here who have fully functioning brains have them well sussed-out and aren't falling for any of their nonsense, no matter how cleverly it is dreessed up or how craftily tailored to give the outcome they want (as distinct from that which is true).
Coming as it does some fifteen months before the next all-out local council elections here in Medway, it is likely to have a fairly modest effect for a short while, and that will then fade away, long before polling day. All remains well...
Addendum: It occurred to me, while re-reading it, that those less familiar with my writings might have thought I had actually wished for this meeting to be poorly attended by the public. In fact, for reasons that will probably be obvious to just about any half-decent or better psychologist, my preference is for the exact opposite. I want the public to be drawn into this sort of deception – at least for now.
It is the best way to learn truths, being immersed in the untruths, rather than having avoided them and never learning through personal experience and embarrassment when one realises what has been done to oneself, and just how easily the victims slipped into the pattern so skilfully prepared for them. It is a lesson well worth learning; and will (after it has bitten, and bitten hard!) make my job a lot easier in years to come.
As soon as I became aware of this wheeze, about a week ago, I sussed out what it was really all about, and prepared some predictions. I was going to publish them here, then decided it was better not to forewarn the Labour folk that I was well and truly on to them (and no doubt, by extension, others were too) so left it to unfold in its own way. I stocked up on popcorn and awaited the fun...
I had been tempted to put in an appearance myself, but decided against that as well – and, looking back a day after the event, I believe that both those decisions were the right ones. No-one can attempt to claim that I tried to 'influence' or 'subvert' the event in any way: that rug was pulled from under those who might have liked to try that one on!
.Fortunately, there was tweeting going on from within the meeting throughout, most notably by Rd Jennings, who tends to be (on the whole) fairly sharp, and generally spots what os really going on. His tweets are very telling; and the string of them can be read starting here and working forward along his timeline. It is very educational...
Exactly as I expected, it was an attempt to get local voters away from the courtesies of an actual council meeting, so that they could play their political games unimpeded – and, of course, as it was Labour, that was the one and only true purpose of the event, though they will of course claim otherwise. Years of experience has show a hundred percent correlation, though, as simply following how they handle these events and what they claim afterward gives away, every time.
The bottom line was to be (as always) to make Medway Labour look 'good' and 'in touch with residents', unlike 'the wicked Tories'. Plus ça change...
Equally as I predicted, the meeting was stuffed with labour councillors and local party members – and, I suspect, a number of Labour's out-of-area members/activists whom local observers would not have recognised, but who had given away in public places (e.g. Twitter) their intention to be there. The Labour group leaderhas claimed that the majority weren't Labour people. Although this is what one expects to be said, for all anyone knows it is possible.
There is probably no way to find out how many genuine local residents without a Labour affiliation were there: probably not very many in reality, despite that claim, if previous public events by the party locally are any indication (I have been to a fair few of those!) The local media dutifully attended this one, which was of course a vital part of the exercise.
There were two issues to be discussed, and Ed spotted exactly how each was presented in a way that (if you read his tweets in full) was designed expressly for that purpose.
I have to say that I find this sort of thing mildly entertaining: not only is it an attempt to 'cheat' by bypassing rules of conduct at council meetings (and the Labour lot already tried that at the last meeting, much to my non-surprise), but it was selective, one-sided, and with little time for actual debate – just nine minutes for the second item.
That second item, the plans for Rochester Airport's future, had the interesting (and unwanted by Labour) ingredient of my own writings on the topic being briefly quoted. Awkward; and definitely not fitting into Labour's narrative!
The point being raised was that the fears being put about by the scaremongers were ill-founded, as evidenced by the numerous other small airports in Britain that had already done what is now being proposed for Rochester Airport, without trouble and with a reduction in noise – counter to the scare messages.
I shall go into no more detail than that, as it could easily become tedious and make this post over-long. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of what has followed the event is that, rather than their usual trumpeting of their wheezes, claiming this, that and the other, they have in fact been very quiet about it. Apart from a couple of predictably gung-ho tweets, nothing material has appeared in the public realm – or if it has we haven't been pointed to it – a good day later.
My strong suspicion is that they are struggling to find a way to dress it up as any kind of success – which is obviously what they are seeking to do. The impression I have gained from a few sources is that it was something of a damp squib in reality – which at least is consistent with other events run by Medway Labour. For example, one well-publicised event, conveniently located close to shops and on the weekend, attracted fewer members of the public than the exhibitors and presenters.
I was there, so can personally attest to this...
Will people be fooled? I suppose it will depend to a fair extent on how the local newspaper writes up what happened. I don't think they will be gushing with praise for the initiative, though I could be wrong: there are angles they can use as an excuse for builfing this up a long way beyond what it really warrants.
Fortunately, as local election results have shown over the past decade and a half, the public mood had consistently swung more and more toward the Conservatives, and nearly always against Labour. Most people around here who have fully functioning brains have them well sussed-out and aren't falling for any of their nonsense, no matter how cleverly it is dreessed up or how craftily tailored to give the outcome they want (as distinct from that which is true).
Coming as it does some fifteen months before the next all-out local council elections here in Medway, it is likely to have a fairly modest effect for a short while, and that will then fade away, long before polling day. All remains well...
Addendum: It occurred to me, while re-reading it, that those less familiar with my writings might have thought I had actually wished for this meeting to be poorly attended by the public. In fact, for reasons that will probably be obvious to just about any half-decent or better psychologist, my preference is for the exact opposite. I want the public to be drawn into this sort of deception – at least for now.
It is the best way to learn truths, being immersed in the untruths, rather than having avoided them and never learning through personal experience and embarrassment when one realises what has been done to oneself, and just how easily the victims slipped into the pattern so skilfully prepared for them. It is a lesson well worth learning; and will (after it has bitten, and bitten hard!) make my job a lot easier in years to come.
Thursday, 19 December 2013
What Are The Odds...?
...of gamblers turning to on-line alternatives as payouts on the 'fruit machine' type of gambling device are reduced to a tiny maximum by statute, as is being proposed in some quarters?
Douglas Carswell MP has today written on this topic in his Telegraph column, citing an existing, equally predictable (at the time, and even more obvious now) effect of government imposition on another activity. Although there are differences, the result was exactly what is almost certain to happen in this move in regard to what are known generically as Fixed-Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs).
Locally, here in Medway. Labour has been pushing the drive against the device, not addressing the underlying issue. It is their way: as ever, they even now pursue only the issues that they judge will give them the chance to make the political running and gain them kudos in the electorate's eyes.
The other constant is that their 'solutions' almost always impose new laws and/or regulations – such is the natural dictator's way of doing things, and all Lefties are wannabe dictators at heart, though most deny this, unsurprisingly.
When I looked at this subject in one of my weekly digests (currently on hold throughout the Christmas season, but material still being actively pursued every day), I stated that it was the gamblers' behaviour, and their desire to gamble in particular, that is the real issue. As nearly always occurs, Labour miss the target yet again because their interest is only in serving their own interests, not in serving society – and this is yet another of that ever growing pile of obvious examples of that worthless approach.
As Douglas says, gamblers will turn to on-line gambling instead; and it should be said that there – as most of it is provided from overseas so has no UK jurisdiction overseeing or moderating it at all – they are likely to end up with greater problems than they have had in the establishments, not forgetting a lack of exercise by staying at home, as a secondary effect.
Personally, I don't like these FOBTs or their arcades – but I'd rather keep them if the alternative is going to be worse, as seems close to a certainty.
UPDATE 20 December: I see that at least one member of Medway Labour is (somewhat desperately, it has to be said) trying to twist the above post into me-against-one-Conservative (out of almost three dozen of such, I might add). Apparently, this one member is supportive of Labour's stance, which suggests to me he is simply not up to speed regarding what I and Douglas Carswell have written on the subject, for example. There's certainly nothing in the local newspaper article (linked from that tweet) that suggests the member concerned actually is what the Labourite claims, however.
Nevertheless, the real question is: was it that one member who has been pushing this issue for months, and seeking as much publicity as possible in self (and party) promotion? No: all that haas been done by Medway "look at me! look at us!" Labour, as is firmly embedded in the public record.
As for the Conservative councillor concerned: I recommend reading the above post, follow the link to the Carswell column, and have a good hard think about the probable consequences of the action Medway Labour have been pushing, in case there actually is any doubt in his mind.
Further UPDATES 22/23 December: Local Labour blogger Cllr Tristan Osborne, who was tweeting just a couple of days ago on this as I mentioned in the first update, has come out of blogging hibernation (no posts for a month and a half) to have a go at those of us who have a different (i.e. intelligent) view on the subject, no doubt bolstered by this (blatantly) one-sided story in our local newspaper. Won't work: read Alex Massie for an appraisal coming from near enough the opposite direction, but still reaching more-or-less the same conclusion that I did. Also, this from David Atherton fits in well with the Massie piece.
Labour show themselves to be either unable to or unwilling (probably both) to treat the subject as adults and with any shred of intelligence whatsoever. For them it is nothing more than an attack line and an excuse to regulate our lives further – their two ultimate aims in life.
Douglas Carswell MP has today written on this topic in his Telegraph column, citing an existing, equally predictable (at the time, and even more obvious now) effect of government imposition on another activity. Although there are differences, the result was exactly what is almost certain to happen in this move in regard to what are known generically as Fixed-Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs).
Locally, here in Medway. Labour has been pushing the drive against the device, not addressing the underlying issue. It is their way: as ever, they even now pursue only the issues that they judge will give them the chance to make the political running and gain them kudos in the electorate's eyes.
The other constant is that their 'solutions' almost always impose new laws and/or regulations – such is the natural dictator's way of doing things, and all Lefties are wannabe dictators at heart, though most deny this, unsurprisingly.
When I looked at this subject in one of my weekly digests (currently on hold throughout the Christmas season, but material still being actively pursued every day), I stated that it was the gamblers' behaviour, and their desire to gamble in particular, that is the real issue. As nearly always occurs, Labour miss the target yet again because their interest is only in serving their own interests, not in serving society – and this is yet another of that ever growing pile of obvious examples of that worthless approach.
As Douglas says, gamblers will turn to on-line gambling instead; and it should be said that there – as most of it is provided from overseas so has no UK jurisdiction overseeing or moderating it at all – they are likely to end up with greater problems than they have had in the establishments, not forgetting a lack of exercise by staying at home, as a secondary effect.
Personally, I don't like these FOBTs or their arcades – but I'd rather keep them if the alternative is going to be worse, as seems close to a certainty.
UPDATE 20 December: I see that at least one member of Medway Labour is (somewhat desperately, it has to be said) trying to twist the above post into me-against-one-Conservative (out of almost three dozen of such, I might add). Apparently, this one member is supportive of Labour's stance, which suggests to me he is simply not up to speed regarding what I and Douglas Carswell have written on the subject, for example. There's certainly nothing in the local newspaper article (linked from that tweet) that suggests the member concerned actually is what the Labourite claims, however.
Nevertheless, the real question is: was it that one member who has been pushing this issue for months, and seeking as much publicity as possible in self (and party) promotion? No: all that haas been done by Medway "look at me! look at us!" Labour, as is firmly embedded in the public record.
As for the Conservative councillor concerned: I recommend reading the above post, follow the link to the Carswell column, and have a good hard think about the probable consequences of the action Medway Labour have been pushing, in case there actually is any doubt in his mind.
Further UPDATES 22/23 December: Local Labour blogger Cllr Tristan Osborne, who was tweeting just a couple of days ago on this as I mentioned in the first update, has come out of blogging hibernation (no posts for a month and a half) to have a go at those of us who have a different (i.e. intelligent) view on the subject, no doubt bolstered by this (blatantly) one-sided story in our local newspaper. Won't work: read Alex Massie for an appraisal coming from near enough the opposite direction, but still reaching more-or-less the same conclusion that I did. Also, this from David Atherton fits in well with the Massie piece.
Labour show themselves to be either unable to or unwilling (probably both) to treat the subject as adults and with any shred of intelligence whatsoever. For them it is nothing more than an attack line and an excuse to regulate our lives further – their two ultimate aims in life.
Saturday, 7 December 2013
The Storm
Most of the borough of Medway is just sufficiently inland to have avoided most if not all of storm Xaver's effects. A few places in Rochester (Esplanade area) and Strood (Canal Road and Knights Road areas, and inland a distance from there) were evacuated, and flooding was reported before the waters receded during Friday morning.
I stayed up through much of the first night, monitoring the situation, using social media to disseminate useful information and contact details, and filtering out unnecessary material, so that it was as lean yet valuable as I could make it, without worrying people unnecessarily with blow-by-blow accounts such as those from more coastal areas that didn't apply to us here in Medway. I think (and hope) that was the best approach...
Our biggest issue was the extremely powerful wind, which made it difficult to stang up. even hours before it was all due to kick-off in earnest. I was surprised when returning from a shopping trip much earlier in the day, just how much the wind had built up during the half-hour I was indoors in the Pentagon Centre.
This short news video gives an admittedly all too brief taste of what happened in various parts of Europe and the east coast of Britain, but is still useful to gain an idea of what it was like – nowhere near as bad as some extreme weather we have seen around the globe in recent years, but bad enough nonetheless...
I stayed up through much of the first night, monitoring the situation, using social media to disseminate useful information and contact details, and filtering out unnecessary material, so that it was as lean yet valuable as I could make it, without worrying people unnecessarily with blow-by-blow accounts such as those from more coastal areas that didn't apply to us here in Medway. I think (and hope) that was the best approach...
Our biggest issue was the extremely powerful wind, which made it difficult to stang up. even hours before it was all due to kick-off in earnest. I was surprised when returning from a shopping trip much earlier in the day, just how much the wind had built up during the half-hour I was indoors in the Pentagon Centre.
This short news video gives an admittedly all too brief taste of what happened in various parts of Europe and the east coast of Britain, but is still useful to gain an idea of what it was like – nowhere near as bad as some extreme weather we have seen around the globe in recent years, but bad enough nonetheless...
Saturday, 16 November 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 15 November 2013
This is being delayed a little, owing to some tragic news that has come in this week, but will be dated Saturday instead of Friday. I might also delay its release beyond that, while I am checking a couple of points. As is often the case, there is a fair amount to cover this week too. As usual, I shall start with national matters and end with local (Medway) topics...
Boom Today
Misquoting Susan Ivanova from Babylon 5, I admit, but the mini-boom (as I prefer to think of it, being perhaps more cautious than some other commentators) is not only confirmed in various ways and from numerous sources, it is also continuing to be awkward for Labour.
First, here's the Treasury's statement regarding (mainly) inflation, the deficit, and jobs.
As James Forsyth writes here, it is now very difficult to argue against this 'boom' assertion. It is no surprise that Labour has recently been trying divert attention onto other topics, realising that they have been rumbled and their messages on the economy have (yet again) been shown to be false and misleading. Not that the two Eds are in agreement over how their party should present itself regarding the economy, as leaked emails have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt (and most of us knew anyway)..
Awkwardly for Labour, their tacking-away efforts are also coming back to bite the, as they have been clearly and unambiguously shown to be the architects of what they are now calling the 'living standards crisis'. I recently alluded to some of that on this 'blog. This graphic taken from their own manifesto for the last General lection (i.e. 2010) even shows that their policies are exactly the ones they are now attacking the coalition for implementing. I cannot see any wriggle-room with this either: it's an open-and-shut case.
Who Is Right On Immigration?
This perennial question is perhaps better answered from Douglas Carswell MP's angle, as he seeks to shed some light on an issue that, inevitably, suffers from a lot of misinformation, some deliberate, some from ignorance of what is a perhaps surprisingly complex subject. Take it from someone who has worked in this area: me!
The week before, Douglas had already looked at the topic from the point of view of our apparent reliance upon – and reverence of – so-called 'experts' in the field. I find all this a refreshing take on a difficult and (frankly) little-understood topic. It's only part of the learning one needs in order to be able to formulate a sensible and coherent view, but an essential part, I venture to suggest.
Incidentally, the only time I met Douglas was at a fund-raising social event here in Chatham, when he asked me to give him clues on local issues for his speech to the dinner gathering, later in the evening. It went down very well...
Falkirk Falsehoods lead Faltering Labour to a Fall
There is now too much evidence to let off any of the Labour party players in the Falkirk selection scandal and ongoing fiasco, right from the top of the party, for them to be able to protest innocence. Dan Hodges has looked first at Ed[ward] Miliband's own involvement, and the next day at the party leader's perceived lack of trustworthiness from inside the party; while Guido focuses on Labour's General Secretary and the part he played in all of this. It makes for very interesting reading; and the cat is now well and truly out of the bag!
As for Unite aspect of all this: although, as is said, they have some reason to be miffed at Mili-E's new-found negative stance, their own attempts to take over the Labour party during the past two years hardly afford them the moral high ground.
Spare Room Subsidy
This is another all-but-dead horse that Labour are still trying to flog, despite voter opinion remaining strongly in favour of the Coalition Government's stance on the issues. It's a full two-to-one ratio! Especially bearing in mind that the wording of the question tends to point toward responders feeling mean in doing so, they are – as in previous surveys – majorly behind the Government on this.
Labour are having an increasingly difficult time gaining traction on any of a wide range of topics they are pushing, which has led to near-desperation that has produced the seemingly scatter-gun approach they have been taking increasingly in recent months.
They are all over the place – and the clues are all there for anyone who cares to analyse what they have been doing, especially when compared to previous periods. It has happened before when they have been in a similar position, and not at other times, showing empirically that their approach is driven dolely by their own party political-driven agenda.
Social Housing
I am pleased that FullFact have looked at the question of who built more social housing (to use the in vogue generic term), Mrs Thatcher or New Labour? Although they try to slant it more toward Labour than they should, they are with validity bringing the Housing Association sector into the equation.
While there is still no doubt, in the final analysis, that there was much more of this type of housing created during the Thatcher years, despite a slow tailing-off over the years, it is overall a more balanced appraisal of the whole subject than some of the headline writers have been suggesting, on both sides of the political divide, for quite some time now.
Overall, it is a valuable source of data, provided one is just a little cautious regarding the (admittedly less than overt) attempted slant, which isn't difficult.
Behind this is the reason why this perhaps unexpected turnout has come to light. For those who truly know, rather than merely soak up the lines they are fed, Conservatives – for all their faults – have long been the best party to support and provide for the poorer end of society, while simultaneously encouraging self-reliance, dignity and wealth creation. They are now so one-dimensional as the political Left tend to be, whose aim is to dominate the poor and keep them that way: both poor and dominated by the Lefty 'élite' via the vast State machine
Kipper Rippers
Long-term readers of this 'blog will be well aware that I have been saying for some time that UKIP aren't a properly structured party (or words to similar effect) and their popularity would not endure. Both aspects of that are now being proven, not only with their opinion poll ratings having already slipped back part of the way toward where they were before all the protest votes without another home defaulted to their support, but also with the party's own structural deficiencies creating big problems.
Alex Wickham, better known to many as WikiGuido, and thus hardly a friend of the Conservatives, of all people has felt compelled to disclose the degree of rot inside UKIP, and how any dissent with its leader's views can have severe repercussions on one's prospects within the party.
Now, all parties have some level of discipline requirement, but the mainstream parties tend to be more of the so-called 'broad church' outlook. While this can encourage division into factions, it is not only much healthier on general principles but more accountable and less dictatorial than the alternative. Within UKIP, it's essentially a dictatorship – as, to be fair, several members and former members have been warning was on the cards for a few years now – in fact, ever since Nigel Farage again became the party's leader.
The party is now essentially a one-man cult, and is also one-dimensional, certainly as far as the public perception of them is concerned (there's plenty of evidence for that, for anyone who wishes to pursue this aspect), as always happens when a party is dominated by an individual. George Galloway and Robert Kilroy-Silk are two obvious other examples (and there and have been are others) that spring to mind in just this nation's own recent political history.
They are slowly dying as a party; and only if they get rid of Farage and 're-imagine' themselves (to borrow an expression from Hollywood) will the party be able to survive as a truly viable operation for much longer, preferably under a new name – and they have changed their name before (they were once the Referendum Party), so it could be done. UPDATE: Mark Pack has the graph that shows a consistent trend of decline in support of Nigel Farage's leadership, which just goes to add to my assertion that he needs to go if UKIP are to thrive again.
Naturally, I have modelled future scenarios for each way this could go, as I always do with my forecasting and public predictions (most of my findings are never made public, by the way), so I have no axe to grind on this. Either way will work out, one way or another...
A and E Pressures
As this is in the news again, especially locally, I thought it worth referring back to the hard data (using The Telegraph's own term) from a few months ago that shows A&E visits increased quite suddenly and dramatically, during Labour's second and third terms in government, beginning around 2004. The number rose by almost fifty percent (14 million when they came into office in 1997, to 20 million when they left), but has since flattened out under the Coalition.
Note that although from a year before that the columns in the graph were made up of two separate figures for the different types of A&E units, the total is still as accurate as when they were simply counted together. I know that's obvious, but Labour are trying to claim the graph 'misrepresents' the true picture, which obviously it does not..
The body of the linked article gives some explanation of what was happening, and deserves to be read fully to comprehend the full context and the multiple causes; but there is not the slightest doubt that the Labour government of the time caused much of it and triggered part of the rest through their policies, such as the 2004 contract that resulted in many GPs dropping their out-of-hours care provision.
No Khan Do
As I predicted last week, local Labour's newly-selected candidate for Rochester and Strood, Naushabah Khan, has changed her Twitter account to be publicly readable. The interest there is not so much in what has been posted there recently, but what went on while the account was 'protected'; and it is worth those who are sufficiently interested (and I can think of a few!) spending time going back through that period.
While most of it is of little interest, there are a few gems that no doubt some of us will have saved out on our own local hard drives, long before they might be deleted by their author....
As for offering a serious challenge to Conservative Mark Reckless: the section subtitle I have given this says it all: 'no Khan do'. It needs much more than a lightweight with no real substance to take on Mark – and I have the strongest feeling that even if that were to happen, he still will not be toppled, nor should he. It would be bad for the constituency, and ultimately bad for Britain if he went. Fortunately, I cannot see even the remotest chance of that happening: it remains broadly a Conservative-supporting constituency.
And that's it for another week!
Boom Today
Misquoting Susan Ivanova from Babylon 5, I admit, but the mini-boom (as I prefer to think of it, being perhaps more cautious than some other commentators) is not only confirmed in various ways and from numerous sources, it is also continuing to be awkward for Labour.
First, here's the Treasury's statement regarding (mainly) inflation, the deficit, and jobs.
As James Forsyth writes here, it is now very difficult to argue against this 'boom' assertion. It is no surprise that Labour has recently been trying divert attention onto other topics, realising that they have been rumbled and their messages on the economy have (yet again) been shown to be false and misleading. Not that the two Eds are in agreement over how their party should present itself regarding the economy, as leaked emails have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt (and most of us knew anyway)..
Awkwardly for Labour, their tacking-away efforts are also coming back to bite the, as they have been clearly and unambiguously shown to be the architects of what they are now calling the 'living standards crisis'. I recently alluded to some of that on this 'blog. This graphic taken from their own manifesto for the last General lection (i.e. 2010) even shows that their policies are exactly the ones they are now attacking the coalition for implementing. I cannot see any wriggle-room with this either: it's an open-and-shut case.
Who Is Right On Immigration?
This perennial question is perhaps better answered from Douglas Carswell MP's angle, as he seeks to shed some light on an issue that, inevitably, suffers from a lot of misinformation, some deliberate, some from ignorance of what is a perhaps surprisingly complex subject. Take it from someone who has worked in this area: me!
The week before, Douglas had already looked at the topic from the point of view of our apparent reliance upon – and reverence of – so-called 'experts' in the field. I find all this a refreshing take on a difficult and (frankly) little-understood topic. It's only part of the learning one needs in order to be able to formulate a sensible and coherent view, but an essential part, I venture to suggest.
Incidentally, the only time I met Douglas was at a fund-raising social event here in Chatham, when he asked me to give him clues on local issues for his speech to the dinner gathering, later in the evening. It went down very well...
Falkirk Falsehoods lead Faltering Labour to a Fall
There is now too much evidence to let off any of the Labour party players in the Falkirk selection scandal and ongoing fiasco, right from the top of the party, for them to be able to protest innocence. Dan Hodges has looked first at Ed[ward] Miliband's own involvement, and the next day at the party leader's perceived lack of trustworthiness from inside the party; while Guido focuses on Labour's General Secretary and the part he played in all of this. It makes for very interesting reading; and the cat is now well and truly out of the bag!
As for Unite aspect of all this: although, as is said, they have some reason to be miffed at Mili-E's new-found negative stance, their own attempts to take over the Labour party during the past two years hardly afford them the moral high ground.
Spare Room Subsidy
This is another all-but-dead horse that Labour are still trying to flog, despite voter opinion remaining strongly in favour of the Coalition Government's stance on the issues. It's a full two-to-one ratio! Especially bearing in mind that the wording of the question tends to point toward responders feeling mean in doing so, they are – as in previous surveys – majorly behind the Government on this.
Labour are having an increasingly difficult time gaining traction on any of a wide range of topics they are pushing, which has led to near-desperation that has produced the seemingly scatter-gun approach they have been taking increasingly in recent months.
They are all over the place – and the clues are all there for anyone who cares to analyse what they have been doing, especially when compared to previous periods. It has happened before when they have been in a similar position, and not at other times, showing empirically that their approach is driven dolely by their own party political-driven agenda.
Social Housing
I am pleased that FullFact have looked at the question of who built more social housing (to use the in vogue generic term), Mrs Thatcher or New Labour? Although they try to slant it more toward Labour than they should, they are with validity bringing the Housing Association sector into the equation.
While there is still no doubt, in the final analysis, that there was much more of this type of housing created during the Thatcher years, despite a slow tailing-off over the years, it is overall a more balanced appraisal of the whole subject than some of the headline writers have been suggesting, on both sides of the political divide, for quite some time now.
Overall, it is a valuable source of data, provided one is just a little cautious regarding the (admittedly less than overt) attempted slant, which isn't difficult.
Behind this is the reason why this perhaps unexpected turnout has come to light. For those who truly know, rather than merely soak up the lines they are fed, Conservatives – for all their faults – have long been the best party to support and provide for the poorer end of society, while simultaneously encouraging self-reliance, dignity and wealth creation. They are now so one-dimensional as the political Left tend to be, whose aim is to dominate the poor and keep them that way: both poor and dominated by the Lefty 'élite' via the vast State machine
Kipper Rippers
Long-term readers of this 'blog will be well aware that I have been saying for some time that UKIP aren't a properly structured party (or words to similar effect) and their popularity would not endure. Both aspects of that are now being proven, not only with their opinion poll ratings having already slipped back part of the way toward where they were before all the protest votes without another home defaulted to their support, but also with the party's own structural deficiencies creating big problems.
Alex Wickham, better known to many as WikiGuido, and thus hardly a friend of the Conservatives, of all people has felt compelled to disclose the degree of rot inside UKIP, and how any dissent with its leader's views can have severe repercussions on one's prospects within the party.
Now, all parties have some level of discipline requirement, but the mainstream parties tend to be more of the so-called 'broad church' outlook. While this can encourage division into factions, it is not only much healthier on general principles but more accountable and less dictatorial than the alternative. Within UKIP, it's essentially a dictatorship – as, to be fair, several members and former members have been warning was on the cards for a few years now – in fact, ever since Nigel Farage again became the party's leader.
The party is now essentially a one-man cult, and is also one-dimensional, certainly as far as the public perception of them is concerned (there's plenty of evidence for that, for anyone who wishes to pursue this aspect), as always happens when a party is dominated by an individual. George Galloway and Robert Kilroy-Silk are two obvious other examples (and there and have been are others) that spring to mind in just this nation's own recent political history.
They are slowly dying as a party; and only if they get rid of Farage and 're-imagine' themselves (to borrow an expression from Hollywood) will the party be able to survive as a truly viable operation for much longer, preferably under a new name – and they have changed their name before (they were once the Referendum Party), so it could be done. UPDATE: Mark Pack has the graph that shows a consistent trend of decline in support of Nigel Farage's leadership, which just goes to add to my assertion that he needs to go if UKIP are to thrive again.
Naturally, I have modelled future scenarios for each way this could go, as I always do with my forecasting and public predictions (most of my findings are never made public, by the way), so I have no axe to grind on this. Either way will work out, one way or another...
A and E Pressures
As this is in the news again, especially locally, I thought it worth referring back to the hard data (using The Telegraph's own term) from a few months ago that shows A&E visits increased quite suddenly and dramatically, during Labour's second and third terms in government, beginning around 2004. The number rose by almost fifty percent (14 million when they came into office in 1997, to 20 million when they left), but has since flattened out under the Coalition.
Note that although from a year before that the columns in the graph were made up of two separate figures for the different types of A&E units, the total is still as accurate as when they were simply counted together. I know that's obvious, but Labour are trying to claim the graph 'misrepresents' the true picture, which obviously it does not..
The body of the linked article gives some explanation of what was happening, and deserves to be read fully to comprehend the full context and the multiple causes; but there is not the slightest doubt that the Labour government of the time caused much of it and triggered part of the rest through their policies, such as the 2004 contract that resulted in many GPs dropping their out-of-hours care provision.
No Khan Do
As I predicted last week, local Labour's newly-selected candidate for Rochester and Strood, Naushabah Khan, has changed her Twitter account to be publicly readable. The interest there is not so much in what has been posted there recently, but what went on while the account was 'protected'; and it is worth those who are sufficiently interested (and I can think of a few!) spending time going back through that period.
While most of it is of little interest, there are a few gems that no doubt some of us will have saved out on our own local hard drives, long before they might be deleted by their author....
As for offering a serious challenge to Conservative Mark Reckless: the section subtitle I have given this says it all: 'no Khan do'. It needs much more than a lightweight with no real substance to take on Mark – and I have the strongest feeling that even if that were to happen, he still will not be toppled, nor should he. It would be bad for the constituency, and ultimately bad for Britain if he went. Fortunately, I cannot see even the remotest chance of that happening: it remains broadly a Conservative-supporting constituency.
And that's it for another week!
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!
Tuesday, 29 October 2013
Mark Reckless MP in the Aviation Debate
Here is the very good if somewhat hurried contribution (as the speaking time limit had been cut from the original seven minutes to just four) from local Medway MP Mark Reckless in the Aviation Debate on 24 October...
Saturday, 19 October 2013
Mark Reckless MP on BBC Daily Politics
This is very good, with Andrew Neil quite firmly quizzing both Mark Reckless (the MP for the constituency just a hundred metres up the road my home) and Atul Hatwal (Director of the Migration Matters Trust) on the subject of immigration and its employment-related effects.
It's a useful eleven minutes, so I present it here in its entirety, for your interest...
It's a useful eleven minutes, so I present it here in its entirety, for your interest...
Saturday, 14 September 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 14 September 2013
I have deliberately held this back for a day, so that those readers with a sensitivity to 'Friday the thirteenth' don't shy away from it. I know, I know...
These digests are proving to be very popular, especially the one two weeks ago which is still going strong, and now heading toward two thousand page views. Meanwhile, it has been an exceptionally busy week!
Unite? You Might? You're Not!
Inevitably the Unions-versus-Miliband saga rolls on. I don't wish to make this into a long-running overblown saga, so here are just a few links for those readers who are following all of this as avidly as I and at least some others are doing...
Young Eyes Look Right
This is an interesting and well-evidenced piece from the always-excellent (and probably underrated) Mark Wallace on a further example of the younger end of our society turning more to the political Right than their (mostly Lefty) teachers and lecturers tried to prepare them to do, or even to be..
There is always an element of this trend, in every generation, even since the days when the Communist-style teaching profession in this country first took prominence within our educational establishments – something that 'Miss Snuffy' and others have divulged public in recent years, so we know from the inside what many of us realised already.
Occasionally, when even young and less experienced minds can see the (deliberate) harm being done to society by the Left, there comes a kind of natural re-balancing that largely – though nowhere near entirely – corrects the tendency for the upcoming generation to head leftward in their outlook.
Although when I was in that age bracket it was a hugely different world from that of today, we still tended to go that way – though I was never seriously pro-Labour myself. It is always encouraging to see that, no doubt aided by modern communications and on-line resources, the current younger generation is seeing more truths than were perhaps so readily available to those of us in a parallel position half a century ago...
Falkirk Fail Quirk
Oh dear! There seems to be a falling out between Labour MPs Tom Watson and Jim Murphy over the Falkirk vote-rigging allegations issue, as this highlighted tweet shows. The latter's message to the former reads (with shorthand expanded to aid readability)...
Continuing to 'Ed' South
Still heading toward oblivion, along the road of irrelevance and via the town of Little Dooing On-the-Hole, the Labour leader continues to be seen as a non-entity by his own side's supporters at least as much as by his political opponents. Fraser Nelson covers the current state of play in more detail here.
This quotation of David Aaronovitch of The Times, by Iain (radio presenter of the year) Dale, is one of the most telling I have yet encountered – especially as I have known of Aaranovitch for a number of years, and realise just how strong this really is. Probably the most significant phrase is this...
Food Banks
As with all schemes that are essentially hand-outs, the food banks that were introduced during the Labour years have gone, to some extent at least, the way of all such: something to be exploited by the scroungers. Once this reaches widespread public awareness, the whole idea tends to become discredited, which – as with the other such ideas – does a disservice to the genuine and honest cases.
This from The Mail revolves around first-hand testimony of (wait for it) a Liberal Democrat former mayor, whose personal experience of what seems to be a fair number in Liverpool strongly suggests that many of them are using the handout nature of food banks as a way to subsidise a more luxurious lifestyle than any reasonable person might well expect.
The example given by the former mayor is of the preponderance of (very expensive!) iPhones that the claimants (for want of a better term) seem to sport. Lefties have, as usual, sprung to those claimants' defence, suggesting that perhaps the iPhones were 'gifts from friends or family'.
Oh, I can just see that happening in either my own family's equivalent generation, or others I know – not! Also, if these obviously ricj benefactors were even slightly aware of the person's situation (and wouldn't you be, in that kind of situation?) surely they'd opt for a cheaper 'phone and some cash to put dinners on the table, at least for a while. Yes?
When it comes to trusting the views of Labour's Luciana Berger or the insight of Michael Gove, most intelligent and insightful folk must surely go for the latter; and that seems to be what is gradually happening, thanks to this debate that was triggered by the Education Secretary's words on the subject recently.
Ultimately, the lessons to be learned are (a) accepting that some long-standing handout schemes probably cannot be changed materially, no new ones should be introduced, and more recent ones need to be reviewed to try to find a better way to tackle the underlying issues; and (b) if that can't be done for one or more specific schemes, at least make the criteria more intelligent and much less easy to cheat one's way in as a lifestyle choice at others' expense.
There is much public support for taking a more sensible line on welfare and related matters in the country nowadays, as even The Independent acknowledges, including admitting that this is benefiting the Conservatives at Labour's expense. Interesting reading, that!
Age of Education
On the subject of education itself (i.e. not just the minister!) there has been a proposal by a collection of Lefty 'experts' to move the school starting age to seven. Interestingly, it was that side of the political divide that formerly (while their people were running the country) supported early years learning.
Back then, they were able to indoctrinate our youngsters with their ideology at their most susceptible time of life, as I have covered previously, and as is evidenced in the famous Jesuit Fathers claim that I supect is familiar to most if not all readers of this 'blog, so needs no repetition here.
As Toby Young, a co-founder of the West London Free School, writes in The Telegraph, such a move would result in 'a generation of illiterates'. His piece is well-evidenced and is worth reading in full, especially by existing and potential parents
We have already seen the outcome of a dumbed-down education system in the Labour years, concentrating on non-subjects such as 'diversity' and 'citizenship' at the expense of genuinely useful areas, with the well-documented (and glaringly obvious to employers) result that we already have a generation of whom a fair-sized proportion are at best semi-literate and numerate.
This, of course, is the 'Plan B' idea of these self-styled 'experts'. If their people in government can no longer reduce future generations' education to largely worthless non-qualifications and lower-standard exams, then they might at least reduce the time for proper education by a few crucial years..The aim is the same, but now coming at it from the other end, so to speak.
As always, we should never let ourselves be fooled by anything Lefties attempt to foist upon us, however appealingly it is dressed up for public consumption. It's our children's futures at stake, no less – a point reinforced by this tale of Labour and Green councillors voting together to defeat a very promising looking proposal for a new school where it is genuinely needed in central Hove.
It seems that the Lefties there prefer instead to make the site into what is described as a comfortable environment for council staff. Interesting choice of priorities here, and as always with Lefties one wonders who they think should be serving whose interests...
On a not entirely unrelated topic (the need for more school places) it is Labour's 'time-bomb' caused by their deliberate flooding of the UK with some four million immigrants (as Daniel Hannan MEP reminded us in a tweet earlier today) that has now come around to causing a shortage of secondary school places.
Although in theory it should be possible for any council to see the problem coming in advance, and prepare for it, it doesn't seem that many if any parts of the country actually achieve this, at least not consistently over the years. I have seen it in my own area, and have been aware of it elsewhere; and the above-linked article just shows how big the issue is nationwide.
Lessons need to be learned by bureaucrats and councillors/MPs as much as lessons within the classrooms themselves, but also the immigrant tide needs to be stemmed so that we don't get a repeat of this potentially harmful (to the youngsters) situation arise again in the future.
Striking at Britain
The TUC-supported nationwide labour strike (once upon a time called 'industrial action', even though it involved inaction and certainly without any industry).was indeed accepted at the Congress's conference last Monday. Their main beef appears to be the public sector pay freeze, and the firefighters also have an issue regarding their pensions.
Indeed, it is (predictably?) the unions covering public sector – either exclusively or with some private sector membership as well – who are leading this, driven by their predominantly known Communist leaders. For them,.as always with their ilk, their foot-soldier members who will be called upon to lose income by striking, are merely pawns in their (purely political) game.
From the TUC's and the more moderate unions' point of view, there is a separate reason, and that is of having become less relevant during the past three decades, and seeing that trend continuing ever more since the change of national government in May 2010.
They need something, anything of significance, to rally the troops and help promote a dwindling overall membership (as I gather it is in reality, though not widely realised), especially while the public sector is now shrinking – which is where the mainstay of the active union movement resides in practice.
As a nation, we'll live through it all, just as we have done in the past as I well recall from my own experience.
When it's all over, or even before, although there will be a modest (but inflated in the reporting of the usual suspects e.g. BBC/Guardian/Mirror, no doubt) shift toward sympathy for the strikers, perhaps just one group such as the firefighters, this is likely to be hugely outweighed by the real public opinion. I've seen that before as well, and in much more favourable times for the unions and the rest of the political Left.
That will give the government all the 'ammo' it needs to further tighten-up union-related legislation, reduce public funding/support for them still further (way beyond the current 'Pilgrims' clampdown) and turn more public services over to the private sector. The TUC et al are playing straight into their hands, but are not bright enough to realise it. Well, they shall reap what they are planning to sow...
FullFact on Royal Mail
It is not exactly surprising that FullFact have taken a detailed look at part of the Royal Mail sell-off issue, though completely ignoring (except via a fairly short quotation from Business Secretary Vince Cable) the question of the service's future viability. Thus this is one of their more selective (slanted, one might even consider it) reports, and should be read with that in mind.
They have instead focussed the 'conclusion' end of their post on the opposition to the move by – well, one can guess before even reading that far down, it's so predictable. This is where one needs to be careful not to be lulled by FullFact's straighter reports into thinking they are impartial, as they claim. It is not that difficult to spot when they have an agenda, and this looks to be one example of that.
Medway A & E
Great news regarding the now well-overstretched Medway Maritime Hospital's Accident and Emergency department, as Medway MP Mark Reckless has blogged about here including a clip from his words on the topic in the House of Commons.
This significant grant – one of the largest being made – ought to make a real difference, though I doubt that it will be able to overcome all the reported issues all of the time. A&E is like that; though my own experiences on two occasions in the year 2011 showed that it was a well run outfit with no waiting outside in the ambulance and only quite modest delays within the department.
Indeed, my longest wait was the necessary time for some administered medicine to 'kick-in' (as they say there) and that was less than half an hour. I had no reason for complaint; and as I observed the workings of the place I noticed a calm but always on-the-go activity. I am no expert, but I couldn't perceive a problem on either of those occasions, at that time – barely thirty months ago.
Sooner or later, though, as populations rise and social trends can add to the pressures, something starts to give. From recent reports, it looks as though that has started to happen on occasion, so this is good if less than ideal timing for what one might term an 'enhancement grant'..
A Few Links
To avoid making this post too long , I am providing the following few links on assorted topics as a simple click-on list. None of them needs any significant comment from me...
?And that's it for another week. Hopefully next week will be at least a little lighter and not quite as busy!
These digests are proving to be very popular, especially the one two weeks ago which is still going strong, and now heading toward two thousand page views. Meanwhile, it has been an exceptionally busy week!
Unite? You Might? You're Not!
Inevitably the Unions-versus-Miliband saga rolls on. I don't wish to make this into a long-running overblown saga, so here are just a few links for those readers who are following all of this as avidly as I and at least some others are doing...
- Guido's take on who was the stronger
- Isabel Hardman on how Miliband can sometimes hit the mark, but not this time
- James Forsyth on the (then) imminent Miliband speech to the TUC conference
- Here is that speech
- The Mail's reaction, including a video of the Miliband speech
- Alex Wickham on the similarity of Miliband-and-McCluskey to Roald Dahl's The Witches
Young Eyes Look Right
This is an interesting and well-evidenced piece from the always-excellent (and probably underrated) Mark Wallace on a further example of the younger end of our society turning more to the political Right than their (mostly Lefty) teachers and lecturers tried to prepare them to do, or even to be..
There is always an element of this trend, in every generation, even since the days when the Communist-style teaching profession in this country first took prominence within our educational establishments – something that 'Miss Snuffy' and others have divulged public in recent years, so we know from the inside what many of us realised already.
Occasionally, when even young and less experienced minds can see the (deliberate) harm being done to society by the Left, there comes a kind of natural re-balancing that largely – though nowhere near entirely – corrects the tendency for the upcoming generation to head leftward in their outlook.
Although when I was in that age bracket it was a hugely different world from that of today, we still tended to go that way – though I was never seriously pro-Labour myself. It is always encouraging to see that, no doubt aided by modern communications and on-line resources, the current younger generation is seeing more truths than were perhaps so readily available to those of us in a parallel position half a century ago...
Falkirk Fail Quirk
Oh dear! There seems to be a falling out between Labour MPs Tom Watson and Jim Murphy over the Falkirk vote-rigging allegations issue, as this highlighted tweet shows. The latter's message to the former reads (with shorthand expanded to aid readability)...
"You know how to get in touch away from Tory twitter eyes. Meanwhile I'll just get on with supporting Ed's plans for party/Trades Union reform."Ouch!
Continuing to 'Ed' South
Still heading toward oblivion, along the road of irrelevance and via the town of Little Dooing On-the-Hole, the Labour leader continues to be seen as a non-entity by his own side's supporters at least as much as by his political opponents. Fraser Nelson covers the current state of play in more detail here.
This quotation of David Aaronovitch of The Times, by Iain (radio presenter of the year) Dale, is one of the most telling I have yet encountered – especially as I have known of Aaranovitch for a number of years, and realise just how strong this really is. Probably the most significant phrase is this...
"...politically he is not a presence at all, he is an absence."Ouch again!
Food Banks
As with all schemes that are essentially hand-outs, the food banks that were introduced during the Labour years have gone, to some extent at least, the way of all such: something to be exploited by the scroungers. Once this reaches widespread public awareness, the whole idea tends to become discredited, which – as with the other such ideas – does a disservice to the genuine and honest cases.
This from The Mail revolves around first-hand testimony of (wait for it) a Liberal Democrat former mayor, whose personal experience of what seems to be a fair number in Liverpool strongly suggests that many of them are using the handout nature of food banks as a way to subsidise a more luxurious lifestyle than any reasonable person might well expect.
The example given by the former mayor is of the preponderance of (very expensive!) iPhones that the claimants (for want of a better term) seem to sport. Lefties have, as usual, sprung to those claimants' defence, suggesting that perhaps the iPhones were 'gifts from friends or family'.
Oh, I can just see that happening in either my own family's equivalent generation, or others I know – not! Also, if these obviously ricj benefactors were even slightly aware of the person's situation (and wouldn't you be, in that kind of situation?) surely they'd opt for a cheaper 'phone and some cash to put dinners on the table, at least for a while. Yes?
When it comes to trusting the views of Labour's Luciana Berger or the insight of Michael Gove, most intelligent and insightful folk must surely go for the latter; and that seems to be what is gradually happening, thanks to this debate that was triggered by the Education Secretary's words on the subject recently.
Ultimately, the lessons to be learned are (a) accepting that some long-standing handout schemes probably cannot be changed materially, no new ones should be introduced, and more recent ones need to be reviewed to try to find a better way to tackle the underlying issues; and (b) if that can't be done for one or more specific schemes, at least make the criteria more intelligent and much less easy to cheat one's way in as a lifestyle choice at others' expense.
There is much public support for taking a more sensible line on welfare and related matters in the country nowadays, as even The Independent acknowledges, including admitting that this is benefiting the Conservatives at Labour's expense. Interesting reading, that!
Age of Education
On the subject of education itself (i.e. not just the minister!) there has been a proposal by a collection of Lefty 'experts' to move the school starting age to seven. Interestingly, it was that side of the political divide that formerly (while their people were running the country) supported early years learning.
Back then, they were able to indoctrinate our youngsters with their ideology at their most susceptible time of life, as I have covered previously, and as is evidenced in the famous Jesuit Fathers claim that I supect is familiar to most if not all readers of this 'blog, so needs no repetition here.
As Toby Young, a co-founder of the West London Free School, writes in The Telegraph, such a move would result in 'a generation of illiterates'. His piece is well-evidenced and is worth reading in full, especially by existing and potential parents
We have already seen the outcome of a dumbed-down education system in the Labour years, concentrating on non-subjects such as 'diversity' and 'citizenship' at the expense of genuinely useful areas, with the well-documented (and glaringly obvious to employers) result that we already have a generation of whom a fair-sized proportion are at best semi-literate and numerate.
This, of course, is the 'Plan B' idea of these self-styled 'experts'. If their people in government can no longer reduce future generations' education to largely worthless non-qualifications and lower-standard exams, then they might at least reduce the time for proper education by a few crucial years..The aim is the same, but now coming at it from the other end, so to speak.
As always, we should never let ourselves be fooled by anything Lefties attempt to foist upon us, however appealingly it is dressed up for public consumption. It's our children's futures at stake, no less – a point reinforced by this tale of Labour and Green councillors voting together to defeat a very promising looking proposal for a new school where it is genuinely needed in central Hove.
It seems that the Lefties there prefer instead to make the site into what is described as a comfortable environment for council staff. Interesting choice of priorities here, and as always with Lefties one wonders who they think should be serving whose interests...
On a not entirely unrelated topic (the need for more school places) it is Labour's 'time-bomb' caused by their deliberate flooding of the UK with some four million immigrants (as Daniel Hannan MEP reminded us in a tweet earlier today) that has now come around to causing a shortage of secondary school places.
Although in theory it should be possible for any council to see the problem coming in advance, and prepare for it, it doesn't seem that many if any parts of the country actually achieve this, at least not consistently over the years. I have seen it in my own area, and have been aware of it elsewhere; and the above-linked article just shows how big the issue is nationwide.
Lessons need to be learned by bureaucrats and councillors/MPs as much as lessons within the classrooms themselves, but also the immigrant tide needs to be stemmed so that we don't get a repeat of this potentially harmful (to the youngsters) situation arise again in the future.
Striking at Britain
The TUC-supported nationwide labour strike (once upon a time called 'industrial action', even though it involved inaction and certainly without any industry).was indeed accepted at the Congress's conference last Monday. Their main beef appears to be the public sector pay freeze, and the firefighters also have an issue regarding their pensions.
Indeed, it is (predictably?) the unions covering public sector – either exclusively or with some private sector membership as well – who are leading this, driven by their predominantly known Communist leaders. For them,.as always with their ilk, their foot-soldier members who will be called upon to lose income by striking, are merely pawns in their (purely political) game.
From the TUC's and the more moderate unions' point of view, there is a separate reason, and that is of having become less relevant during the past three decades, and seeing that trend continuing ever more since the change of national government in May 2010.
They need something, anything of significance, to rally the troops and help promote a dwindling overall membership (as I gather it is in reality, though not widely realised), especially while the public sector is now shrinking – which is where the mainstay of the active union movement resides in practice.
As a nation, we'll live through it all, just as we have done in the past as I well recall from my own experience.
When it's all over, or even before, although there will be a modest (but inflated in the reporting of the usual suspects e.g. BBC/Guardian/Mirror, no doubt) shift toward sympathy for the strikers, perhaps just one group such as the firefighters, this is likely to be hugely outweighed by the real public opinion. I've seen that before as well, and in much more favourable times for the unions and the rest of the political Left.
That will give the government all the 'ammo' it needs to further tighten-up union-related legislation, reduce public funding/support for them still further (way beyond the current 'Pilgrims' clampdown) and turn more public services over to the private sector. The TUC et al are playing straight into their hands, but are not bright enough to realise it. Well, they shall reap what they are planning to sow...
FullFact on Royal Mail
It is not exactly surprising that FullFact have taken a detailed look at part of the Royal Mail sell-off issue, though completely ignoring (except via a fairly short quotation from Business Secretary Vince Cable) the question of the service's future viability. Thus this is one of their more selective (slanted, one might even consider it) reports, and should be read with that in mind.
They have instead focussed the 'conclusion' end of their post on the opposition to the move by – well, one can guess before even reading that far down, it's so predictable. This is where one needs to be careful not to be lulled by FullFact's straighter reports into thinking they are impartial, as they claim. It is not that difficult to spot when they have an agenda, and this looks to be one example of that.
Medway A & E
Great news regarding the now well-overstretched Medway Maritime Hospital's Accident and Emergency department, as Medway MP Mark Reckless has blogged about here including a clip from his words on the topic in the House of Commons.
This significant grant – one of the largest being made – ought to make a real difference, though I doubt that it will be able to overcome all the reported issues all of the time. A&E is like that; though my own experiences on two occasions in the year 2011 showed that it was a well run outfit with no waiting outside in the ambulance and only quite modest delays within the department.
Indeed, my longest wait was the necessary time for some administered medicine to 'kick-in' (as they say there) and that was less than half an hour. I had no reason for complaint; and as I observed the workings of the place I noticed a calm but always on-the-go activity. I am no expert, but I couldn't perceive a problem on either of those occasions, at that time – barely thirty months ago.
Sooner or later, though, as populations rise and social trends can add to the pressures, something starts to give. From recent reports, it looks as though that has started to happen on occasion, so this is good if less than ideal timing for what one might term an 'enhancement grant'..
A Few Links
To avoid making this post too long , I am providing the following few links on assorted topics as a simple click-on list. None of them needs any significant comment from me...
- Obama's Syria speech falls flat
- Douglas Murray on 'human rights' hyper-inflation
- UKIP founder creates new left-wing party
- Benedict Brogan on the lobbyists issue
?And that's it for another week. Hopefully next week will be at least a little lighter and not quite as busy!
Thursday, 15 August 2013
Chatham Mural in the Making
Here's a four-minute video by Creatabot (a local outfit) of the creation of the Chatham Community Mural I mentioned a few days ago, and a great panaoramic shot of the finished production...
Friday, 19 July 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 19 July 2013
There is again a lot to go through this week, but I shall, as always, attempt to keep it fairly brief...
First, following up something covered in my last digest, it's worth noting that UNITE's Len McCluskey has, as expected, welcomed Ed Miliband's proposal regarding union affiliation fees that will give the unions more of the money they will continue to collect, while making Ed-M seem responsible and competent in the eyes of those who don't realise what a sell-out it really is.
How Much Tax?
The Daily Mirror ran a typical front page headline that tried to suggest that the Coalition Government was placing a higher tax burden on 'the poor' than on 'the rich' – standard Lefty class warfare. Of course, they got it wrong, on two counts in fact.
First, as Fraser Nelson reports, there has already been a significant shift of the tax burden away from the poorer end of society and toward the better off than was operated under the previous government, or indeed any previous government.
Second, the real or effective tax level for some at the lower end can be as high as 84%, not the 36% that the Mirror splashed over its front page; and Fraser has provided the data to back up this claim. Some could even be paying 95% in effective tax.
As he says, the real issue is the slow reform of the welfare system that really needs to move on apace, as the reality of Labour's system and how it was structured was (as some have been saying all along) to trap huge numbers of people within a system that was always intended to make them dependent upon the State and be economically unable to find a realistic way out of in as many cases as James (a.k.a. Gordon) Brown in particular could devise a way to hold onto.
Not that Labour has stopped there: in order to restore and expand on that whole policy, they are secretly planning to make claiming benefits a kind of 'human right', so that it becomes a permanent and unshakeable burden and a trap for even more of us than ever before.
Again, the solution is (as with so many inadequate outcomes since 2010) a Conservative overall majority in 2015. Not only would this release their MPs and Ministers from the compromises and blockages that they are currently having to tolerate – and I have considerable inside info on this, provided to me in confidence – but it would also remove the excuse of the Lib Dems, for those who like to perceive it as such.
As I say, I know more of the truth than to fall for that easy attack line myself, but that doesn't stop others, especially UKIPpers, who seem to have made a career out of it.
Fantasy Politics
Lord Ashcroft has an enormously respected record of extensive and detailed opinion polling, and among his latest commissioned work has been the result that a lot of ideas being floated by some within the Conservative fraternity, including some MPs, is just fantasy politics that has little if any public support. He has been looking specifically at what has been labelled The Alternative Queen's Speech: it is the speech that is different, not the Queen, I hasten to add(!)
As the Noble Lord. says, those policies are not the way to a parliamentary majority in the next General Election. Although there is no harm in looking at these side issues in private (they make for useful mental exercise, especially in terms of inventiveness and thinking outside the box), but it isn't a good idea to promote such ideas in public.
However, now that this had been done, it did at least afford Lord Ashcroft a suitable opportunity to teach us the hard-knock lesson of life regarding such things, so I suspect this is the last Alternative Queen's Speech we shall encounter from this government...
Beeb Traps Itself
Charles Moore looks at the BBC this week, and finds all manner of interesting things, some of which I and others already knew. It is worth going through the whole piece. The most striking conclusions, inescapable though they are (in more than one senses of the word), are that (a) the Beeb has, in effect, trapped itself into reporting only what suits its people's own outlooks, and (b) employing only like-minded people.
This seems to be irreconcilable, no matter what anyone tries to do, so almost certainly cannot be solved in any way that leaves the BBC essentially intact. As a number of commenters and observers have been saying for years, it has to be broken up and sold off as a commercial enterprise that will in future need to compete directly in the marketplace, not hold a privileged position outside and above the real marketplace. The licence fee (in reality an anachronistic stealth tax) must then go as well, and rightly so!
Medway Maritime Hospital
Our local hospital – the one where I was taken when I had my 'incident' a couple of years ago – is one of the fourteen that were looked at specifically in the recent inquiry, and of which eleven have now been placed in so-called 'specisl measures'. Whether or not the media were right to latch onto the 'excess mortality rates' as the single big factor is challenged by FullFact, with some justification, though it shouldn't be dismissed as a measure, having considerably validity nonetheless.
The Keogh report contains a number of colour-coded tables to show the level of quality at each of those hospitals in various areas and a range of aspects of each. It has to be said that the Medway came out not all that badly overall, but a moderate number of areas needing attention did get highlighted.
In a sense, all this is good news, in that it had been going on for years yet nothing was being done about it. The previous Labour government treated the NHS almost as a kind of sacred cow, and it is known that the then Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, refused to countenance dealing with any complaint and instead preferred to hide it all away and pretend that all was well.
That has been documented in several places, though with differing numbers of formal complaints, so there isn't a single source I can quote with a hundred percent confidence on that particular aspect. The 'NHS as a religion' meme is covered very well by Rev. Dr Peter Mullen at Cranmer's 'blog, and helps one understand just what it is like to some and what that means in practice.
It will come as no surprise that Lefties treat the NHS as an entity as the be-all and end-all, and that (as always with the Left, as I have reminded readers numerous times) the individual has no value. Paul Goodman covers this in his piece for ConHome.
When the subject was aired in the House of Commons, perhaps inevitably – and certainly predictably – it became something of a blame game. Now, there are those who don't like that in politics, and I tend to go along with that view myself as an ideal; but if one doesn't realise and understand how we got to a particular point and why, and especially if some are spreading misinformation, then it becomes difficult or even impossible to find a proper and lasting solution.
Take it from an old hand in the public sector who has seen it all before...
Indeed, as Douglas Carswell MP reports, Labour MPs were far more interested in making it out to be about them than caring about the multiple deaths and other ills at the hospitals. Self-serving to the end, their 'phoney rage' (as Douglas puts it) attempts to divert attention away from the actual issues.
Meanwhile, local Medway MP Mark Reckless welcomes the support that the special measures will apparently provide to Medway Maritime Hospital. We shall have to wait and see what this will turn out to be in practice, but Mark's words in the linked article do make for illuminating reading about how the three Medway-based MPs have approached the matter of our local hospital and its deficiencies and needs.
First, following up something covered in my last digest, it's worth noting that UNITE's Len McCluskey has, as expected, welcomed Ed Miliband's proposal regarding union affiliation fees that will give the unions more of the money they will continue to collect, while making Ed-M seem responsible and competent in the eyes of those who don't realise what a sell-out it really is.
How Much Tax?
The Daily Mirror ran a typical front page headline that tried to suggest that the Coalition Government was placing a higher tax burden on 'the poor' than on 'the rich' – standard Lefty class warfare. Of course, they got it wrong, on two counts in fact.
First, as Fraser Nelson reports, there has already been a significant shift of the tax burden away from the poorer end of society and toward the better off than was operated under the previous government, or indeed any previous government.
Second, the real or effective tax level for some at the lower end can be as high as 84%, not the 36% that the Mirror splashed over its front page; and Fraser has provided the data to back up this claim. Some could even be paying 95% in effective tax.
As he says, the real issue is the slow reform of the welfare system that really needs to move on apace, as the reality of Labour's system and how it was structured was (as some have been saying all along) to trap huge numbers of people within a system that was always intended to make them dependent upon the State and be economically unable to find a realistic way out of in as many cases as James (a.k.a. Gordon) Brown in particular could devise a way to hold onto.
Not that Labour has stopped there: in order to restore and expand on that whole policy, they are secretly planning to make claiming benefits a kind of 'human right', so that it becomes a permanent and unshakeable burden and a trap for even more of us than ever before.
Again, the solution is (as with so many inadequate outcomes since 2010) a Conservative overall majority in 2015. Not only would this release their MPs and Ministers from the compromises and blockages that they are currently having to tolerate – and I have considerable inside info on this, provided to me in confidence – but it would also remove the excuse of the Lib Dems, for those who like to perceive it as such.
As I say, I know more of the truth than to fall for that easy attack line myself, but that doesn't stop others, especially UKIPpers, who seem to have made a career out of it.
Fantasy Politics
Lord Ashcroft has an enormously respected record of extensive and detailed opinion polling, and among his latest commissioned work has been the result that a lot of ideas being floated by some within the Conservative fraternity, including some MPs, is just fantasy politics that has little if any public support. He has been looking specifically at what has been labelled The Alternative Queen's Speech: it is the speech that is different, not the Queen, I hasten to add(!)
As the Noble Lord. says, those policies are not the way to a parliamentary majority in the next General Election. Although there is no harm in looking at these side issues in private (they make for useful mental exercise, especially in terms of inventiveness and thinking outside the box), but it isn't a good idea to promote such ideas in public.
However, now that this had been done, it did at least afford Lord Ashcroft a suitable opportunity to teach us the hard-knock lesson of life regarding such things, so I suspect this is the last Alternative Queen's Speech we shall encounter from this government...
Beeb Traps Itself
Charles Moore looks at the BBC this week, and finds all manner of interesting things, some of which I and others already knew. It is worth going through the whole piece. The most striking conclusions, inescapable though they are (in more than one senses of the word), are that (a) the Beeb has, in effect, trapped itself into reporting only what suits its people's own outlooks, and (b) employing only like-minded people.
This seems to be irreconcilable, no matter what anyone tries to do, so almost certainly cannot be solved in any way that leaves the BBC essentially intact. As a number of commenters and observers have been saying for years, it has to be broken up and sold off as a commercial enterprise that will in future need to compete directly in the marketplace, not hold a privileged position outside and above the real marketplace. The licence fee (in reality an anachronistic stealth tax) must then go as well, and rightly so!
Medway Maritime Hospital
Our local hospital – the one where I was taken when I had my 'incident' a couple of years ago – is one of the fourteen that were looked at specifically in the recent inquiry, and of which eleven have now been placed in so-called 'specisl measures'. Whether or not the media were right to latch onto the 'excess mortality rates' as the single big factor is challenged by FullFact, with some justification, though it shouldn't be dismissed as a measure, having considerably validity nonetheless.
The Keogh report contains a number of colour-coded tables to show the level of quality at each of those hospitals in various areas and a range of aspects of each. It has to be said that the Medway came out not all that badly overall, but a moderate number of areas needing attention did get highlighted.
In a sense, all this is good news, in that it had been going on for years yet nothing was being done about it. The previous Labour government treated the NHS almost as a kind of sacred cow, and it is known that the then Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, refused to countenance dealing with any complaint and instead preferred to hide it all away and pretend that all was well.
That has been documented in several places, though with differing numbers of formal complaints, so there isn't a single source I can quote with a hundred percent confidence on that particular aspect. The 'NHS as a religion' meme is covered very well by Rev. Dr Peter Mullen at Cranmer's 'blog, and helps one understand just what it is like to some and what that means in practice.
It will come as no surprise that Lefties treat the NHS as an entity as the be-all and end-all, and that (as always with the Left, as I have reminded readers numerous times) the individual has no value. Paul Goodman covers this in his piece for ConHome.
When the subject was aired in the House of Commons, perhaps inevitably – and certainly predictably – it became something of a blame game. Now, there are those who don't like that in politics, and I tend to go along with that view myself as an ideal; but if one doesn't realise and understand how we got to a particular point and why, and especially if some are spreading misinformation, then it becomes difficult or even impossible to find a proper and lasting solution.
Take it from an old hand in the public sector who has seen it all before...
Indeed, as Douglas Carswell MP reports, Labour MPs were far more interested in making it out to be about them than caring about the multiple deaths and other ills at the hospitals. Self-serving to the end, their 'phoney rage' (as Douglas puts it) attempts to divert attention away from the actual issues.
Meanwhile, local Medway MP Mark Reckless welcomes the support that the special measures will apparently provide to Medway Maritime Hospital. We shall have to wait and see what this will turn out to be in practice, but Mark's words in the linked article do make for illuminating reading about how the three Medway-based MPs have approached the matter of our local hospital and its deficiencies and needs.
Tuesday, 2 July 2013
What's Wrong With Hempstead?
I have gone for walkabouts in Hempstead several times now, as well as my carrying of the Medway Millennium Torch through some of that area some years previously. I have never taken any photographs there or reported in any detail on my treks around the place. Why is this?
The truth is that I don't really like Hempstead very much: there's something about it that jars with me. It took me a while to work it out, including my most recent jaunt there last month; and it turns out that it is too hidden.
I first noticed this on an accidental diversion through there by a new driver of the Chatham Salvation Army minibus (we ended up arriving late as a consequence, that evening!) and have checked it out, on the ground, fairly extensively since then.
I have noticed that very little of the place is ever visible from any of the significant roads or places. It gives the impression that it is somewhat secretive – not in a hostile way, but more a matter of being very private. The design and construction of all the parts I have ever visited has borne this out, with no exception. Contrast this with, say, Princes Park, which is so much more open and visible, and there really is no contest.
Hempstead might well be 'posh' and almost certainly the safest Conservative area in Medway, but ir really isn't my kind of place. That said, it obviously appeals to many others who have chosen to live there; so this is not a poor reflection on Hempstead itself, merely my own tastes and feelings.
Within that context, I hope that readers here will thus understand the reasons why I have not felt inclined to report in detail after any of those walkabouts: it could well have been perceived, with some legitimacy, as an unfair commentary.
Note that this is hugely different from my findings at Twydall, which were valid and needed to be reported at the time of my visit, which I did. One day I might go back there, by the way, though not just yet...
The truth is that I don't really like Hempstead very much: there's something about it that jars with me. It took me a while to work it out, including my most recent jaunt there last month; and it turns out that it is too hidden.
I first noticed this on an accidental diversion through there by a new driver of the Chatham Salvation Army minibus (we ended up arriving late as a consequence, that evening!) and have checked it out, on the ground, fairly extensively since then.
I have noticed that very little of the place is ever visible from any of the significant roads or places. It gives the impression that it is somewhat secretive – not in a hostile way, but more a matter of being very private. The design and construction of all the parts I have ever visited has borne this out, with no exception. Contrast this with, say, Princes Park, which is so much more open and visible, and there really is no contest.
Hempstead might well be 'posh' and almost certainly the safest Conservative area in Medway, but ir really isn't my kind of place. That said, it obviously appeals to many others who have chosen to live there; so this is not a poor reflection on Hempstead itself, merely my own tastes and feelings.
Within that context, I hope that readers here will thus understand the reasons why I have not felt inclined to report in detail after any of those walkabouts: it could well have been perceived, with some legitimacy, as an unfair commentary.
Note that this is hugely different from my findings at Twydall, which were valid and needed to be reported at the time of my visit, which I did. One day I might go back there, by the way, though not just yet...
Monday, 1 April 2013
Medway (Easter) Monday 2013
It was interesting going out shopping this morning and returning soon after midday, to see how quiet Chatham town centre was – I'd say little more than a third its normal level of activity at that time on a weekday.
However, inside the Pentagon Centre, it was more like somewhere between half and two-thirds normal activity level, say three-fifths or thereabouts for a rough-and-ready figure. This includes inside Sainsbury, which seemed to be a little over half its usual weekday 'footfall' level at this time (around 11.30 to 11.50 am).
The only outdoor situation that closely resembled normality was outside a couple of the four pubs I pass on my way to and from the Pentagon, one of which has no provision for 'street patronage' (for want of a better term) anyway. In Military Road, though, the usual size gathering outside the Prince of Wales showed that some institutions are scarcely affected by the significance of the day.
Whether or not that is a good thing I cannot say; but there it is...
I have no idea what the other Medway town centres were like, but I thought this brief first-hand snapshot might be useful to place on the public record.
However, inside the Pentagon Centre, it was more like somewhere between half and two-thirds normal activity level, say three-fifths or thereabouts for a rough-and-ready figure. This includes inside Sainsbury, which seemed to be a little over half its usual weekday 'footfall' level at this time (around 11.30 to 11.50 am).
The only outdoor situation that closely resembled normality was outside a couple of the four pubs I pass on my way to and from the Pentagon, one of which has no provision for 'street patronage' (for want of a better term) anyway. In Military Road, though, the usual size gathering outside the Prince of Wales showed that some institutions are scarcely affected by the significance of the day.
Whether or not that is a good thing I cannot say; but there it is...
I have no idea what the other Medway town centres were like, but I thought this brief first-hand snapshot might be useful to place on the public record.
Saturday, 2 February 2013
Medway Events Calendar
One of the problems we have had for years in the Medway area is in compiling and maintaining a single, central calendar of all events going on in the area.
A few websites have tried to cover as much of this as they are able; but there is no formalised and structured mechanism in place to enable a single-point-of-contact reference source to be effecively and comprehensively established. Some event-promoting sites don't even have an RSS feed, which is all they need to enable to permit others to be aware of and read (and link to) their announcements and related posts.
I was speaking to someone who runs one of these "What's On" sites, for Medway, at Bloggle earlier this week, and he agreed that persuading those in this business whose sites are currently without an RSS feed should be encouraged to switch the facility on. Then, and only then, what is after all only fairly basic technology can raise the quality and completeness of "what's on" centralised publicity.
A common 'header' format might well be useful, containing dates/times/locations and the booking contact info (or 'none' if there is no need to book), but I'd tend not to make that prescriptive, merely a suggestion or perhaps even a recommendation – but no more.
I cannot think of any reason why anyone who is already making public the details of one or more events could have any objection to letting other sites add their promotional muscle and readerships. It's what I'd do if I were in that line of work myself.
A few websites have tried to cover as much of this as they are able; but there is no formalised and structured mechanism in place to enable a single-point-of-contact reference source to be effecively and comprehensively established. Some event-promoting sites don't even have an RSS feed, which is all they need to enable to permit others to be aware of and read (and link to) their announcements and related posts.
I was speaking to someone who runs one of these "What's On" sites, for Medway, at Bloggle earlier this week, and he agreed that persuading those in this business whose sites are currently without an RSS feed should be encouraged to switch the facility on. Then, and only then, what is after all only fairly basic technology can raise the quality and completeness of "what's on" centralised publicity.
A common 'header' format might well be useful, containing dates/times/locations and the booking contact info (or 'none' if there is no need to book), but I'd tend not to make that prescriptive, merely a suggestion or perhaps even a recommendation – but no more.
I cannot think of any reason why anyone who is already making public the details of one or more events could have any objection to letting other sites add their promotional muscle and readerships. It's what I'd do if I were in that line of work myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)