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!
Showing posts with label political digest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political digest. Show all posts
Saturday, 16 November 2013
Friday, 8 November 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 8 November 2013
It has been yet another busy week, so again I shall have to limit what is included and try, where sensible, to keep my comments fairly brief...
They're Watching
Well, of course they are, and often for very good reasons, for example with the (successful) goal of thwarting intended terrorist attacks within our nation. The danger comes when this (or anything else) is used as a justification for ever-increasing surveillance and snooping of various kinds.
The latest is as reported here regarding the EU's proposal to monitor any EU citizen merely suspected of being what they term intolerant. Now there's a word with almost unlimited potential scope, rather like offensive. Anyone can be 'offensive' to someone sufficiently determined to be offended – and there seems to be no end of the 'professionally offended' in today's society.
More significantly, this is an easily-decoded attempt to introduce one of the key elements of totalitarianism that we have long known is the EU's (and others') ultimate aim. Its first purpose is to ensure that no-one can oppose whatever the EUrocrats decide to impose. This is a very dangerous move, and must never be allowed to apply to our nation. Perversely (for the EU) it might end up being the single most powerful weapon for the Better Off Out campaign, which is ready for the planned In/Out referendum...
Free Speech, Free Press
Continuing on the same broad theme: the ongoing saga of the post-Leveson legislative outcome rumbles ever onward. I think most of us by now realise that the whole exercise, and especially the Hacked Off campaign group, has ended up being what those behind it always intended: a Left-wing plot to bring the press under State control, as in the former Soviet Union and other places where the press's main business is in promulgating State propaganda.
Fraser Nelson had a useful piece on this in The Mail a few weeks ago, worth reading again now.
As I and others have touched on already, this is also one of the big goals of Common Purpose. There is a somewhat removed supposed link between the Prime Minister and Common Purpose, via a third party organisation, as The Telegraph reports. I can't see that there was any deliberate connection here: indeed, the PM wouldn't have done it this way (if at all, and I suspect probably not) if he had known of the link between the charity of which he is patron and Common Purpose. It just doesn't ring true, to me – but isn't all that significant, in and of itself, because of what might be called the 'extra-stage remove'.
Unfortunately, the failure to declare that patronage for a year – stated to be an administrative oversight – makes it look worse than it almost certainly is. That was not well handled by David Cameron's office!
Guido has all you need to know re Hacked Off's admittedly partly circumstantial political connections (and Medway-based readers might also like to note the semi-direct connection with Medway Labour and their candidate Tristan Osborne) – but there's enough for anyone to recognise the tone and nature of that common ground – and a further clue is the Guardian's support for the proposed regulation, as reported by The Commentator.
Ultimately, any new regulation planned to be imposed by the State needs to fail before it reaches the Statute Book, and instead existing laws should in future be applied properly in situations where there are grounds for believing that the law has been broken. That is the correct approach; and if done properly will work well as both a corrective and a deterrent.
Twerping
Not some weird (and, frankly, ugly) dance oddity by the likes of the equally ugly Miley Cyrus, but what the mental child Russell Brand has been doing lately. No doubt buoyed up by his return to more positive-sounding (if only just) headlines since the Andrew Sachs affair with Jonathon Ross, he has been putting himself about, at will, on what looks like as many occasions as he could physically manage. Perhaps that's just an illusion...
The no-nonsense Alex Massie has said what I suspect most who have bumped into any of this are already thinking, including that Brand is a 'twerp'. It's enjoyable to read, and on this occasion I really need to add nothing to it here...
It's Alimentary, My Dreary Watson
Although that sub-heading might be a little contrived(!) it does perhaps remind us of the level of activity long associated with Labour's Tom Watson. It has often resembled the lower end of that canal, especially the machinations also involving the likes of Damian McBride and Derek Draper. The Mail has some very interesting revelations from the inside track (or tract!) on Watson's involvement in the Falkirk alleged selection-rigging.
Now, there might be some sour grapes from the eliminated candidate, but there is sufficient detail to indicate that it's probably substantially true. I have personally witnessed some of the same practices in selections here, so I do recognise much of what is being reported. Also, it had become an imposed all-female contest at the short-listing stage, so he couldn't have been chosen anyway (as he is not Jack Dromey, Harriet Harman's husband, who did somehow beat an all-female requirement).
CLASS Acts
This report by Guy Bentley about his attendance at the CLASS Conference (he explains what that stands for) is illuminating. Old Hands such as myself find none of it at all surprising, having had our own experiences of similar events in decades past – but for the younger generations it's quite eye-opening.
Especially as this event included the likes of Owen Jones and (equally ghastly) Mark Serwotka, it shows much of the true nature – and ignorance-or-dishonesty (probably both) of some of the current high-profile players in Britain's political left-wing. The really sad part is that there are still so many gullible folk around who will just lap up this stuff, despite modern facilities that allow just about anyone to discover the reality quite independently – something no previous generation could do so conveniently, if at all.
On the same day, this puff piece in our local (to me) newspaper appeared for Labour's newly-selected candidate for the Rochester and Strood parliamentary seat, Naushabah Khan. Two big laughs for me on one day!
This is the almost-invisible lady who, when faced with a real challenge (me, for example) runs away and hides when losing the argument. The next thing I know, her tweets are now hidden from public view. No doubt that will change for at least the latter part of the election campaign before reverting back later in May 2015, but her true nature is already known to me and others.
Meanwhile, apart from a few examples of doorstep campaigning with other Medway Labour folk, Ms Khan has no political profile whatsoever, and no personal achievements here that I have been able to discover. Perhaps I have missed something...
When her prime opponent, Mark Reckless, stood in the seat and won it some three years ago, he already had a track record on numerous issues from rail fares and services to saving Rochester Airport, and lots in between. He has built up a very strong record of personal achievement and, in particular, representing his constituents (either all/most of them, or the vast majority where views differ).
This selection does beg the question, though: do Medway Labour really have nothing better to offer? Are their (admittedly not very well attended) selections so starved of even reasonable material that they set the bar so low? In this case, as Mark Reckless' position is near-enough unassailable, it could be that they just wanted a 'paper candidate' who could do with the practical experience of standing, ready for something more serious (probably elsewhere – like Bill Esterson, also from Medway, who went to a safe Labour seat in Merseyside.
I perceive something of a parallel to Labour's Harriet Yeo in the Police and Crime Commissioner election here in Kent a year ago: Labour came third; and I think they might well end up with a repeat performance in Rochester and Strood in May 2015...
Well, I do have more, but I think the above is enough for one week!
They're Watching
Well, of course they are, and often for very good reasons, for example with the (successful) goal of thwarting intended terrorist attacks within our nation. The danger comes when this (or anything else) is used as a justification for ever-increasing surveillance and snooping of various kinds.
The latest is as reported here regarding the EU's proposal to monitor any EU citizen merely suspected of being what they term intolerant. Now there's a word with almost unlimited potential scope, rather like offensive. Anyone can be 'offensive' to someone sufficiently determined to be offended – and there seems to be no end of the 'professionally offended' in today's society.
More significantly, this is an easily-decoded attempt to introduce one of the key elements of totalitarianism that we have long known is the EU's (and others') ultimate aim. Its first purpose is to ensure that no-one can oppose whatever the EUrocrats decide to impose. This is a very dangerous move, and must never be allowed to apply to our nation. Perversely (for the EU) it might end up being the single most powerful weapon for the Better Off Out campaign, which is ready for the planned In/Out referendum...
Free Speech, Free Press
Continuing on the same broad theme: the ongoing saga of the post-Leveson legislative outcome rumbles ever onward. I think most of us by now realise that the whole exercise, and especially the Hacked Off campaign group, has ended up being what those behind it always intended: a Left-wing plot to bring the press under State control, as in the former Soviet Union and other places where the press's main business is in promulgating State propaganda.
Fraser Nelson had a useful piece on this in The Mail a few weeks ago, worth reading again now.
As I and others have touched on already, this is also one of the big goals of Common Purpose. There is a somewhat removed supposed link between the Prime Minister and Common Purpose, via a third party organisation, as The Telegraph reports. I can't see that there was any deliberate connection here: indeed, the PM wouldn't have done it this way (if at all, and I suspect probably not) if he had known of the link between the charity of which he is patron and Common Purpose. It just doesn't ring true, to me – but isn't all that significant, in and of itself, because of what might be called the 'extra-stage remove'.
Unfortunately, the failure to declare that patronage for a year – stated to be an administrative oversight – makes it look worse than it almost certainly is. That was not well handled by David Cameron's office!
Guido has all you need to know re Hacked Off's admittedly partly circumstantial political connections (and Medway-based readers might also like to note the semi-direct connection with Medway Labour and their candidate Tristan Osborne) – but there's enough for anyone to recognise the tone and nature of that common ground – and a further clue is the Guardian's support for the proposed regulation, as reported by The Commentator.
Ultimately, any new regulation planned to be imposed by the State needs to fail before it reaches the Statute Book, and instead existing laws should in future be applied properly in situations where there are grounds for believing that the law has been broken. That is the correct approach; and if done properly will work well as both a corrective and a deterrent.
Twerping
Not some weird (and, frankly, ugly) dance oddity by the likes of the equally ugly Miley Cyrus, but what the mental child Russell Brand has been doing lately. No doubt buoyed up by his return to more positive-sounding (if only just) headlines since the Andrew Sachs affair with Jonathon Ross, he has been putting himself about, at will, on what looks like as many occasions as he could physically manage. Perhaps that's just an illusion...
The no-nonsense Alex Massie has said what I suspect most who have bumped into any of this are already thinking, including that Brand is a 'twerp'. It's enjoyable to read, and on this occasion I really need to add nothing to it here...
It's Alimentary, My Dreary Watson
Although that sub-heading might be a little contrived(!) it does perhaps remind us of the level of activity long associated with Labour's Tom Watson. It has often resembled the lower end of that canal, especially the machinations also involving the likes of Damian McBride and Derek Draper. The Mail has some very interesting revelations from the inside track (or tract!) on Watson's involvement in the Falkirk alleged selection-rigging.
Now, there might be some sour grapes from the eliminated candidate, but there is sufficient detail to indicate that it's probably substantially true. I have personally witnessed some of the same practices in selections here, so I do recognise much of what is being reported. Also, it had become an imposed all-female contest at the short-listing stage, so he couldn't have been chosen anyway (as he is not Jack Dromey, Harriet Harman's husband, who did somehow beat an all-female requirement).
CLASS Acts
This report by Guy Bentley about his attendance at the CLASS Conference (he explains what that stands for) is illuminating. Old Hands such as myself find none of it at all surprising, having had our own experiences of similar events in decades past – but for the younger generations it's quite eye-opening.
Especially as this event included the likes of Owen Jones and (equally ghastly) Mark Serwotka, it shows much of the true nature – and ignorance-or-dishonesty (probably both) of some of the current high-profile players in Britain's political left-wing. The really sad part is that there are still so many gullible folk around who will just lap up this stuff, despite modern facilities that allow just about anyone to discover the reality quite independently – something no previous generation could do so conveniently, if at all.
On the same day, this puff piece in our local (to me) newspaper appeared for Labour's newly-selected candidate for the Rochester and Strood parliamentary seat, Naushabah Khan. Two big laughs for me on one day!
This is the almost-invisible lady who, when faced with a real challenge (me, for example) runs away and hides when losing the argument. The next thing I know, her tweets are now hidden from public view. No doubt that will change for at least the latter part of the election campaign before reverting back later in May 2015, but her true nature is already known to me and others.
Meanwhile, apart from a few examples of doorstep campaigning with other Medway Labour folk, Ms Khan has no political profile whatsoever, and no personal achievements here that I have been able to discover. Perhaps I have missed something...
When her prime opponent, Mark Reckless, stood in the seat and won it some three years ago, he already had a track record on numerous issues from rail fares and services to saving Rochester Airport, and lots in between. He has built up a very strong record of personal achievement and, in particular, representing his constituents (either all/most of them, or the vast majority where views differ).
This selection does beg the question, though: do Medway Labour really have nothing better to offer? Are their (admittedly not very well attended) selections so starved of even reasonable material that they set the bar so low? In this case, as Mark Reckless' position is near-enough unassailable, it could be that they just wanted a 'paper candidate' who could do with the practical experience of standing, ready for something more serious (probably elsewhere – like Bill Esterson, also from Medway, who went to a safe Labour seat in Merseyside.
I perceive something of a parallel to Labour's Harriet Yeo in the Police and Crime Commissioner election here in Kent a year ago: Labour came third; and I think they might well end up with a repeat performance in Rochester and Strood in May 2015...
Well, I do have more, but I think the above is enough for one week!
Friday, 1 November 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 1 November 2013
It has been another of those busy weeks, so I'll have to be selective or this will end up too long for comfortable reading – not that the content necessarily makes for comfortable reading, of course, but I try to temper it with my own thoughts and experiences...
A Knock for Nick
Actually, several over the past two weeks; but this from Guido shows the Lib Dem leader's apparent dual standards when it comes to his own education as against his public stance against Michael Gove's education reforms. It's that question of 'unqualified' teachers – in reality, those not indoctrinated into the politically-driven 'training' style of the (as is now widely known) Lefty 'profession'.
That's what this whole debate is really about: it has nothing to do with standards and quality, only about control by political interests, as generations of unqualified teachers have shown. Nick Clegg himself is an example of the outcome of that freedom. There are times when qualifications are of value, but this turns out not only to be one of the exceptions, but also to be long-established.
While we're looking at hapless Nick, just a few days earlier Fraser Nelson was looking at this and other aspects of the Lib Dems and the behaviour of that party and its leader. It's Fraser in his telling-it-as-he-finds-it mode, and well worth reading throughout.
On a Lib Dem related matter, also in the Speccie on the same day, James Forsyth considered what David Cameron needs to offer Nick Clegg in order to keep the minor partner in the Coalition on board.
Now, if they had done what I outlined a while ago, this wouldn't be an issue for much longer, and the remaining programme of joint work should be well established. Remember: I (and a few others) thought that the two parties could start to separate into more distinct entities in their own right, starting from the recent conference season. Indeed, we have already seen fairly strong signs of that happening.
The idea is to reach a point whereby all the pre-election initiatives and legislation are either now complete or are currently going through the necessary stages, from now on, and nothing brand new (except for emergencies) should suddenly appear at this relatively late stage in the parliamentary five-year term. I'm reasonably confident that this is exactly how it has all been set up, behind the scenes, by the two party leaders.
Expect the separation to be made decisive and unambiguous by next year's autumn conference season, by when only tidying-up and minor (uncontroversial) legislative matters should be all that's left to be done before the May 2015 election. Meanwhile, as James says, the Conservatives in particular need to construct their manifesto – and it looks like it's already well in progress...
Leverage
In the ongoing saga of the UNITE Union, news of the intimidation techniques used by their so-called Leverage Team has reached the public awareness. It is noteworthy that they feel fully justified in applying such techniques, and have all the excuses ready. Of course, as the civilised world realises, only the lowest of the low would even contemplate such tactics, and only absolute trash would put them into practice.
The term 'Commie filth' didn't come about as a nasty insult devised especially for that purpose: it came into being from experience of what such types do in pursuance of their own agenda, here and anywhere else in the world. Put yourself in the position of someone on the receiving end – or, even more pertinently, one of their children.
There is no excuse in the Universe for that behaviour; and I think it might need to be treated as a much more serious offence than it is at present. Society should not be in effect encouraging this through a light-touch penal code.
I don't know how many members have now left the Union as a result of this (and all the other nasties that have been going on for years), but here's the story of one. Clearly noone with a shred of decency can now be a member of such an outfit – which tells us something about those who still are members and who have no plans to even consider leaving. Although I have no wish to turn the tables on them, it would be interesting to know how they'd respond if that did happen. Boot on the other foot, and all that...
The ongoing Falkirk candidate selection row continues this week with another delightful inside-track piece from former Labour member Dan Hodges. A batch of leaked emails has told much of the real story anyway, and it fell to the likes of Dan to write-up their significance, along with all the rest that has been going on during this unhappy (and hugely embarrassing, mostly for Labour) saga.
He correctly deduces, from the evidence now before us, that it is Ed[ward] Miliband whose personal reputation stands to take the greatest hit, rather than his party or even the Union that seemingly tried to rig the selection. As someone who has personally encountered selection rigging, I am very much alert to and cognisant of those methods described and other tactics used (only!) by the corrupt with their own agendas.
During all of the above, the ever-wily Jack Straw MP tried distancing himself from that Union, as this short video clip shows. Not that he was telling us anything we didn't already know, of course(!) Whether anyone believes his new-found stance is a matter for conjecture; but it's useful to have this on the record from a long-standing Labour MP, no matter how dubious his true motives!
Newman is the same old (Labour/Commie) man
Red Ed (Miliband) will continue to be unable to shake off that description while he is still subservient to the likes of UNITE's Len McCluskey, and also while he is ineffective at dealing with the numerous hard left (indeed, Communist) types firmly embedded within the Labour party and including both current elected members and those selected to stand in 2015. This is the story of one of the hopefuls.
To be blunt I have to say that it differs in no practical measure from those I have seen non-stop appearing within the Labour ranks and being picked as candidates, often getting elected (typically in safe Labour seats, but not only in those). Labour has, throughout most of its existence, been a Communist-style party with a very cleverly-manufactured public face to make it less obvious, and that certainly hasn't changed in the nearly forty months since Ed-M took on the party leadership.
Indeed, it has become the norm once again, and not even as well camouflaged as in earlier times – although that isn't helped by modern technology: it is much more difficult to conceal such truths nowadays, so it isn't necessarily down to poorer standards of deception. The example of Andy Newman will be just 'more of the same old Labour' to seasoned veterans like me; but might be more shocking to the younger generations who didn't live through the Foor/Scargill/Wilson (and the rest) years.
To anyone in that position, I can assure you that we've seen it all before, and it is and more-or-less always has been the true face of Labour, despite the veneer of seeming respectability and moderation they try to slap over the red rot to hide it from public view. They are just as totalitarian in nature as those running North Korea right now, and Labour-run governments have always headed in a similar direction, as is nowadays a lot better documented – and more easily publicly visible – than it was in my younger days..
Don't squander the advantage this generation has over mine: learn the lessons and learn them well! Today's world has not only better prospects of understanding the reality, but also has no real excuse for not doing so.
Completely Up The Poll
Jusr a brief mention of this very useful post from Dr Anthony Wells about misleading headlines to reports of and discussions of opinion polls. Long-term visitors to my 'blog will already be aware of how I always play it straight with everything I write, including polling news. The message here is not to be lulled into believing that all others act with such integrity when dealing with the same topic.
The good Dr Wells (whom I have met and talked to at some length) puts the record straight on a couple of recent examples of misleading headlines, and in the process reminds us to be sufficiently alert not to be taken in by such practices.
The Tommy-Knockers
It has been standard big media practice to 'knock' the English Defence League (EDL) and its founder Tommy Robinson. When said Mr Robinson decided to quit the EDL they media hacks and editors must have been in paroxysms of ecstasy: their boat had come in!
In reality, the EDL for all its many faults was never anything like the outfit it was portrayed to be, and some have cited considerable evidence – sometimes backed up with hard-to-challenge photographics records of what actually did happen at EDL meet-ups – that reminded one of the anti-Israel reporting that has been thoroughly documented in other 'blogs for years (I have studied much of that material myself).
Despite all of that, the EDL was known to attract the less idealistic and more thuggish elements of society – I'm sure not by design, and it was just an unfortunate side-effect – so there is some valid criticism of them 'out there'. Much, however, plainly isn't justified. I have been watching the scene for a couple of years now, so have become reasonably well clued-up on what is and what isn't accurate in the various reports I have encountered.
Daniel Hannan MEP has his own take on what he perceives to be a symbiotic style of relationship between the EDL, the Islamists (often a..k.a. Islamo-Fascists or, in the Hannan piece, Islamo-nutters) and even the ironically-named Unite Against Fascism (UAF) folk. By appreciating how all sides act at times, Dan paints what I think is not only a more comprehensive picture of this whole sorry business, but also a more helpful one than others tend to offer.
As for Tommy Robinson's departure from the EDL, this was recently covered in a BBC documentary. Ah, I can already hear alarm bells ringing in my readers' heads! Yes, you are right to be suspicious, though the BBC did a generally good job. However there were other aspects that need bringing to people's awareness – and Douglas Murray has done just that. As one might by now expect of Douglas, he covers not only all you need to know about the programme and its main Islamic participant in typical thoroughness, and then goes on to look at deeper questions.
It's fairly long; but I think you will find the time reading it through time well spent and 9as with Dan) helpful; and that is what we need most in regard to a topic that is somewhat sensitive and prone to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, including of its most media-visible players.
On The Record
Coming closer to home, I usually like to feature at least one item from my local area and (more often than not) its council. This week, it is the initiative by Eric Pickles to allow the public to record Council meetings in sound and/or video, perhaps including committees as well..
Of course, this will not become law for a little while, owing to parliamentary and legal procedures, and at this early stage no-one knows what will even be proposed, let alone finally passed into law or equivalent. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Medway Council did not permit recording by the public of a recent Overview and Scrutiny meeting.
This has infuriated local Labour, who (several weeks ago, a full three weeks before the policy proposal had even been announced) were planning to make and use such a recording for purely party political reasons (as everyone realised at the time, apart from any dullards if indeed any were present), and they are – predictably – having a go at the 'wicked Tories' for refusing such permission.
It also has to be said: if Labour now say "it’s wholly wrong for people not being able to record or film in public meetings", why did they do nothing whatsoever about this during their thirteen years in government? It has taken the Coalition Government just three years (barely a quarter of Labour's tenure) to come up with such a proposal: one that Labour clearly never actually wanted – at least until they could see a way of turning it to their own political advantage.
As always but always with Labour, what is dressed up as being in the 'public' interest is in reality pushed by them only when it is in their interest – nothing to do with the public at all...
A Knock for Nick
Actually, several over the past two weeks; but this from Guido shows the Lib Dem leader's apparent dual standards when it comes to his own education as against his public stance against Michael Gove's education reforms. It's that question of 'unqualified' teachers – in reality, those not indoctrinated into the politically-driven 'training' style of the (as is now widely known) Lefty 'profession'.
That's what this whole debate is really about: it has nothing to do with standards and quality, only about control by political interests, as generations of unqualified teachers have shown. Nick Clegg himself is an example of the outcome of that freedom. There are times when qualifications are of value, but this turns out not only to be one of the exceptions, but also to be long-established.
While we're looking at hapless Nick, just a few days earlier Fraser Nelson was looking at this and other aspects of the Lib Dems and the behaviour of that party and its leader. It's Fraser in his telling-it-as-he-finds-it mode, and well worth reading throughout.
On a Lib Dem related matter, also in the Speccie on the same day, James Forsyth considered what David Cameron needs to offer Nick Clegg in order to keep the minor partner in the Coalition on board.
Now, if they had done what I outlined a while ago, this wouldn't be an issue for much longer, and the remaining programme of joint work should be well established. Remember: I (and a few others) thought that the two parties could start to separate into more distinct entities in their own right, starting from the recent conference season. Indeed, we have already seen fairly strong signs of that happening.
The idea is to reach a point whereby all the pre-election initiatives and legislation are either now complete or are currently going through the necessary stages, from now on, and nothing brand new (except for emergencies) should suddenly appear at this relatively late stage in the parliamentary five-year term. I'm reasonably confident that this is exactly how it has all been set up, behind the scenes, by the two party leaders.
Expect the separation to be made decisive and unambiguous by next year's autumn conference season, by when only tidying-up and minor (uncontroversial) legislative matters should be all that's left to be done before the May 2015 election. Meanwhile, as James says, the Conservatives in particular need to construct their manifesto – and it looks like it's already well in progress...
Leverage
In the ongoing saga of the UNITE Union, news of the intimidation techniques used by their so-called Leverage Team has reached the public awareness. It is noteworthy that they feel fully justified in applying such techniques, and have all the excuses ready. Of course, as the civilised world realises, only the lowest of the low would even contemplate such tactics, and only absolute trash would put them into practice.
The term 'Commie filth' didn't come about as a nasty insult devised especially for that purpose: it came into being from experience of what such types do in pursuance of their own agenda, here and anywhere else in the world. Put yourself in the position of someone on the receiving end – or, even more pertinently, one of their children.
There is no excuse in the Universe for that behaviour; and I think it might need to be treated as a much more serious offence than it is at present. Society should not be in effect encouraging this through a light-touch penal code.
I don't know how many members have now left the Union as a result of this (and all the other nasties that have been going on for years), but here's the story of one. Clearly noone with a shred of decency can now be a member of such an outfit – which tells us something about those who still are members and who have no plans to even consider leaving. Although I have no wish to turn the tables on them, it would be interesting to know how they'd respond if that did happen. Boot on the other foot, and all that...
The ongoing Falkirk candidate selection row continues this week with another delightful inside-track piece from former Labour member Dan Hodges. A batch of leaked emails has told much of the real story anyway, and it fell to the likes of Dan to write-up their significance, along with all the rest that has been going on during this unhappy (and hugely embarrassing, mostly for Labour) saga.
He correctly deduces, from the evidence now before us, that it is Ed[ward] Miliband whose personal reputation stands to take the greatest hit, rather than his party or even the Union that seemingly tried to rig the selection. As someone who has personally encountered selection rigging, I am very much alert to and cognisant of those methods described and other tactics used (only!) by the corrupt with their own agendas.
During all of the above, the ever-wily Jack Straw MP tried distancing himself from that Union, as this short video clip shows. Not that he was telling us anything we didn't already know, of course(!) Whether anyone believes his new-found stance is a matter for conjecture; but it's useful to have this on the record from a long-standing Labour MP, no matter how dubious his true motives!
Newman is the same old (Labour/Commie) man
Red Ed (Miliband) will continue to be unable to shake off that description while he is still subservient to the likes of UNITE's Len McCluskey, and also while he is ineffective at dealing with the numerous hard left (indeed, Communist) types firmly embedded within the Labour party and including both current elected members and those selected to stand in 2015. This is the story of one of the hopefuls.
To be blunt I have to say that it differs in no practical measure from those I have seen non-stop appearing within the Labour ranks and being picked as candidates, often getting elected (typically in safe Labour seats, but not only in those). Labour has, throughout most of its existence, been a Communist-style party with a very cleverly-manufactured public face to make it less obvious, and that certainly hasn't changed in the nearly forty months since Ed-M took on the party leadership.
Indeed, it has become the norm once again, and not even as well camouflaged as in earlier times – although that isn't helped by modern technology: it is much more difficult to conceal such truths nowadays, so it isn't necessarily down to poorer standards of deception. The example of Andy Newman will be just 'more of the same old Labour' to seasoned veterans like me; but might be more shocking to the younger generations who didn't live through the Foor/Scargill/Wilson (and the rest) years.
To anyone in that position, I can assure you that we've seen it all before, and it is and more-or-less always has been the true face of Labour, despite the veneer of seeming respectability and moderation they try to slap over the red rot to hide it from public view. They are just as totalitarian in nature as those running North Korea right now, and Labour-run governments have always headed in a similar direction, as is nowadays a lot better documented – and more easily publicly visible – than it was in my younger days..
Don't squander the advantage this generation has over mine: learn the lessons and learn them well! Today's world has not only better prospects of understanding the reality, but also has no real excuse for not doing so.
Completely Up The Poll
Jusr a brief mention of this very useful post from Dr Anthony Wells about misleading headlines to reports of and discussions of opinion polls. Long-term visitors to my 'blog will already be aware of how I always play it straight with everything I write, including polling news. The message here is not to be lulled into believing that all others act with such integrity when dealing with the same topic.
The good Dr Wells (whom I have met and talked to at some length) puts the record straight on a couple of recent examples of misleading headlines, and in the process reminds us to be sufficiently alert not to be taken in by such practices.
The Tommy-Knockers
It has been standard big media practice to 'knock' the English Defence League (EDL) and its founder Tommy Robinson. When said Mr Robinson decided to quit the EDL they media hacks and editors must have been in paroxysms of ecstasy: their boat had come in!
In reality, the EDL for all its many faults was never anything like the outfit it was portrayed to be, and some have cited considerable evidence – sometimes backed up with hard-to-challenge photographics records of what actually did happen at EDL meet-ups – that reminded one of the anti-Israel reporting that has been thoroughly documented in other 'blogs for years (I have studied much of that material myself).
Despite all of that, the EDL was known to attract the less idealistic and more thuggish elements of society – I'm sure not by design, and it was just an unfortunate side-effect – so there is some valid criticism of them 'out there'. Much, however, plainly isn't justified. I have been watching the scene for a couple of years now, so have become reasonably well clued-up on what is and what isn't accurate in the various reports I have encountered.
Daniel Hannan MEP has his own take on what he perceives to be a symbiotic style of relationship between the EDL, the Islamists (often a..k.a. Islamo-Fascists or, in the Hannan piece, Islamo-nutters) and even the ironically-named Unite Against Fascism (UAF) folk. By appreciating how all sides act at times, Dan paints what I think is not only a more comprehensive picture of this whole sorry business, but also a more helpful one than others tend to offer.
As for Tommy Robinson's departure from the EDL, this was recently covered in a BBC documentary. Ah, I can already hear alarm bells ringing in my readers' heads! Yes, you are right to be suspicious, though the BBC did a generally good job. However there were other aspects that need bringing to people's awareness – and Douglas Murray has done just that. As one might by now expect of Douglas, he covers not only all you need to know about the programme and its main Islamic participant in typical thoroughness, and then goes on to look at deeper questions.
It's fairly long; but I think you will find the time reading it through time well spent and 9as with Dan) helpful; and that is what we need most in regard to a topic that is somewhat sensitive and prone to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, including of its most media-visible players.
On The Record
Coming closer to home, I usually like to feature at least one item from my local area and (more often than not) its council. This week, it is the initiative by Eric Pickles to allow the public to record Council meetings in sound and/or video, perhaps including committees as well..
Of course, this will not become law for a little while, owing to parliamentary and legal procedures, and at this early stage no-one knows what will even be proposed, let alone finally passed into law or equivalent. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Medway Council did not permit recording by the public of a recent Overview and Scrutiny meeting.
This has infuriated local Labour, who (several weeks ago, a full three weeks before the policy proposal had even been announced) were planning to make and use such a recording for purely party political reasons (as everyone realised at the time, apart from any dullards if indeed any were present), and they are – predictably – having a go at the 'wicked Tories' for refusing such permission.
It also has to be said: if Labour now say "it’s wholly wrong for people not being able to record or film in public meetings", why did they do nothing whatsoever about this during their thirteen years in government? It has taken the Coalition Government just three years (barely a quarter of Labour's tenure) to come up with such a proposal: one that Labour clearly never actually wanted – at least until they could see a way of turning it to their own political advantage.
As always but always with Labour, what is dressed up as being in the 'public' interest is in reality pushed by them only when it is in their interest – nothing to do with the public at all...
Friday, 25 October 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 25 October 2013
I didn't feel up to doing one of these digests last week, mainly because of my temporarily increased medication, and because it came hot on the heels of my Council meeting report, so some of what had been lined up for that week, but is still current, has been included this week...
Capitalism is Popular
Or so says Fraser Nelson – and I think he's right. People with a clue about how and why things work, and what makes our nation (and others) great and what makes them falter, tend toward the capitalist end of the political viewpoint vista. Fraser's point here, though, is to get the Prime Minister to more fully grasp this reality and act on it more strongly than has tended to happen under the Coalition Government.
It's an important discussion that needs to be held with Conservative party strategists; and indeed a manifesto structured primarily on such a tenet, along with truly radical Conservatism, could well bring as much second-term success for David Cameron and his team as it did for Margaret Thatcher and hers, back in the 'eighties. We're looking at an even more highly probable overall majority for the Blues than ever.
More Unhealthy News
As I promised last time, if something significant added to the NHS cover-up story I featured then were to appear, I'd link to it. This in the Mail concerns Furness (i.e. yet another area) and what seem to have been possibly avoidable baby deaths. That in itself is concerning.
The crucial point here, though, is that Labour's Health Secretary at the time, Andy Burnham, denies any awareness of the problems there, yet there are documents that show he was briefed on it, and then just a few months later the hospital was given a clean bill of health. This was just before the May 2010 General Election.
I leave readers to draw their own conclusions after reading the linked article and, if you choose, any other sources on this matter you might find elsewhere. It doesn't look good, though...
Polling Gap Continues to Close
The trend I have been touching upon a couple of times in recent months is confirmed by handy graphs at Guido's site. Labour's lead has almost bottomed-out for the time being, in the week or so since then, and seems to be about 3 or 4% when all results (not just the Ipsos MORI ones for those graphs) are taken into account.
With the very promising economic news of the past day or two, I suspect the decline in Labour's narrow lead might recommence, and it is even possible that the Conservatives will take the lead soon and consistently. Although this is good news for the country, it is coming a little early if anything, which means it might not last out in the polling by the time we reach the May 2015 election.
However, with what I believe is yet to come, during the next eighteen months, there should be plenty to give fresh boosts to the Conservatives, and also to take away from Labour's figures, in advance of Election Day.
Jumper-Gate
In a moment of perhaps surprising honesty and apparent support for David Cameron, the BBC has debunked the contrived and false story about David Cameron apparently advising people to wear jumpers rather than turn on their heating. Not that it would have been bad advice if it had been true, as health professionals and some charities advise us to wrap up well in the colder times of the year, to some extent even when indoors; and it is notable that even MPs themselves are often filmed at home wearing a jumper or a cardigan.
Anyway, it was an attempt to manufacture a story that would suit Labour's agenda – and indeed they are still putting it about as if it were true even today, a full week after this BBC piece that showed it wasn't true. It's another timely reminder that Labour aren't interested in truth, only in smears.
UKIPper Knocking
Now that sub-heading can be read at least three different ways (think about it). What I mean here, though, is that UKIP will be knocking the Conservatives out of their seats in a number of marginals if they campaign all-out in those seats, and the voting public do need to be aware of the danger. Windsor UKIP have wised-up to this fact themselves, as this very useful piece from Mark Wallace reports..
Unlike local Labour activist (and now councillor) Tristan Osborne, who bitterly resented the Left vote being split in the council elections here two years ago (it's on his 'blog), I have no problem with having a range of parties vying for the same batch of votes. Therefore I continue to have no objection to UKIP, the English Democrats, or any Right-wing Independent candidates in any election.
All I ask is that the voting public be informed of the consequences of supporting them. After that, it's up to them, the voters, to decide which way to go, properly informed.. I think that most will realise the dangers and won't risk handing the seat over to those they actually oppose; so I thinking the Conservative vote will hold up in the marginal seats. Disapproval can be registered in (say) Surrey or Tunbridge Wells, where a reduced majority will send a message without making a fatal error!
Left Shoe Shuffle
The fallout from Ed[ward] Miliband's latest reshuffle has generated some significant rumblings within the Parliamentary Labour Party (i.e. the Labour MPs including Whips and Shadow Ministers) as Labour Uncut reveals. Their headline regarding 'fear and loathing' within the PLP is very telling on several levels, and it gets ever more interesting as one reads through what is a slightly lengthy but quite detailed piece.
This is quite a powerful, and very public, disclosure from the 'inside track', so to speak, and reveals a lot of Ed-M's tactical and strategic thinking that seems to have been the driver of who went where – and who didn't, for that matter.
For example, the positioning of Tristam Hunt as what is termed in the linked piece the 'anti-Chuka', and the redefining of Yvette Cooper's portfolio (by shifting the equalities brief to someone else) are clear indicators of the Labour leader's desire to protect his own position and to ensure a 'suitable' (from his viewpoint) chain of potential succession. He's certainly thinking ahead, but only of his own interests it appears.
John Rentoul also has some useful stuff on Tristam Hunt as a possible replacement party leader, and how he has been performing, which is well worth a read.
Medway Maritime Hospital
The two big issues that have been in the news recently concerning my local hospital – over-stretched Accident and Emergency and failings within the Maternity Unit – are being tackled, as one would expect.
The former – caused by an ever-expanding population within its catchment area resulting in an annual intake considerably in excess of that for which it was designed – is being alleviated by an injection of significant funding by central Government. What is to be done makes for quite interesting reading, actually, and gives an impression that they will crack this one. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be available on-line. Perhaps it'll appear later.
.As for the maternity issues: I do not know, and am not exactly the best-qualified to comment anyway. Project Reboot at the Medway is covered here in the Nursing Times, which publications paints a rosy picture but doesn't quite ring true somehow. When I checked out the comments I found that others seemed to agree with my assessment (okay, there are a load of Lefties in there, and it shows; but they still understand the job). Therefore do not accept that article at face value: we shall just have to see how it turns out in reality.
New Council Housing
Finally for this week, also in my home area of Medway, is the news that new council housing is to be built here for the first time in some fifteen years. Over sixty new council homes have been agreed, and there could well be more to follow.
There is an oddity in Medway, in that the two councils that merged to form the Unitary Authority, coincidentally also fifteen years ago, had different situations regarding council homes. On the Rochester and Chatham side of the borough, including the Hoo Peninsula, all their former stock was by then being administered by Housing Associations and the like. In Gillingham, Twydall and Rainham, their council still owned and looked after such properties.
That anomalous situation remains to this day, so the new properties are all to be located within the Gillingham etc part of the borough, as will be the potential additional units if they should come to pass.
This whole initiative has become possible only because of the national Government's exchange of an old, restrictive policy for something far more useful. It is notable that during the Labour years in government, virtually no new council homes were built. I once read a figure of just 300 such homes for their entire period in office, for the whole of England.
The way things are going, Medway alone might well be able to surppass that figure in a noticeably shorter time period...
Capitalism is Popular
Or so says Fraser Nelson – and I think he's right. People with a clue about how and why things work, and what makes our nation (and others) great and what makes them falter, tend toward the capitalist end of the political viewpoint vista. Fraser's point here, though, is to get the Prime Minister to more fully grasp this reality and act on it more strongly than has tended to happen under the Coalition Government.
It's an important discussion that needs to be held with Conservative party strategists; and indeed a manifesto structured primarily on such a tenet, along with truly radical Conservatism, could well bring as much second-term success for David Cameron and his team as it did for Margaret Thatcher and hers, back in the 'eighties. We're looking at an even more highly probable overall majority for the Blues than ever.
More Unhealthy News
As I promised last time, if something significant added to the NHS cover-up story I featured then were to appear, I'd link to it. This in the Mail concerns Furness (i.e. yet another area) and what seem to have been possibly avoidable baby deaths. That in itself is concerning.
The crucial point here, though, is that Labour's Health Secretary at the time, Andy Burnham, denies any awareness of the problems there, yet there are documents that show he was briefed on it, and then just a few months later the hospital was given a clean bill of health. This was just before the May 2010 General Election.
I leave readers to draw their own conclusions after reading the linked article and, if you choose, any other sources on this matter you might find elsewhere. It doesn't look good, though...
Polling Gap Continues to Close
The trend I have been touching upon a couple of times in recent months is confirmed by handy graphs at Guido's site. Labour's lead has almost bottomed-out for the time being, in the week or so since then, and seems to be about 3 or 4% when all results (not just the Ipsos MORI ones for those graphs) are taken into account.
With the very promising economic news of the past day or two, I suspect the decline in Labour's narrow lead might recommence, and it is even possible that the Conservatives will take the lead soon and consistently. Although this is good news for the country, it is coming a little early if anything, which means it might not last out in the polling by the time we reach the May 2015 election.
However, with what I believe is yet to come, during the next eighteen months, there should be plenty to give fresh boosts to the Conservatives, and also to take away from Labour's figures, in advance of Election Day.
Jumper-Gate
In a moment of perhaps surprising honesty and apparent support for David Cameron, the BBC has debunked the contrived and false story about David Cameron apparently advising people to wear jumpers rather than turn on their heating. Not that it would have been bad advice if it had been true, as health professionals and some charities advise us to wrap up well in the colder times of the year, to some extent even when indoors; and it is notable that even MPs themselves are often filmed at home wearing a jumper or a cardigan.
Anyway, it was an attempt to manufacture a story that would suit Labour's agenda – and indeed they are still putting it about as if it were true even today, a full week after this BBC piece that showed it wasn't true. It's another timely reminder that Labour aren't interested in truth, only in smears.
UKIPper Knocking
Now that sub-heading can be read at least three different ways (think about it). What I mean here, though, is that UKIP will be knocking the Conservatives out of their seats in a number of marginals if they campaign all-out in those seats, and the voting public do need to be aware of the danger. Windsor UKIP have wised-up to this fact themselves, as this very useful piece from Mark Wallace reports..
Unlike local Labour activist (and now councillor) Tristan Osborne, who bitterly resented the Left vote being split in the council elections here two years ago (it's on his 'blog), I have no problem with having a range of parties vying for the same batch of votes. Therefore I continue to have no objection to UKIP, the English Democrats, or any Right-wing Independent candidates in any election.
All I ask is that the voting public be informed of the consequences of supporting them. After that, it's up to them, the voters, to decide which way to go, properly informed.. I think that most will realise the dangers and won't risk handing the seat over to those they actually oppose; so I thinking the Conservative vote will hold up in the marginal seats. Disapproval can be registered in (say) Surrey or Tunbridge Wells, where a reduced majority will send a message without making a fatal error!
Left Shoe Shuffle
The fallout from Ed[ward] Miliband's latest reshuffle has generated some significant rumblings within the Parliamentary Labour Party (i.e. the Labour MPs including Whips and Shadow Ministers) as Labour Uncut reveals. Their headline regarding 'fear and loathing' within the PLP is very telling on several levels, and it gets ever more interesting as one reads through what is a slightly lengthy but quite detailed piece.
This is quite a powerful, and very public, disclosure from the 'inside track', so to speak, and reveals a lot of Ed-M's tactical and strategic thinking that seems to have been the driver of who went where – and who didn't, for that matter.
For example, the positioning of Tristam Hunt as what is termed in the linked piece the 'anti-Chuka', and the redefining of Yvette Cooper's portfolio (by shifting the equalities brief to someone else) are clear indicators of the Labour leader's desire to protect his own position and to ensure a 'suitable' (from his viewpoint) chain of potential succession. He's certainly thinking ahead, but only of his own interests it appears.
John Rentoul also has some useful stuff on Tristam Hunt as a possible replacement party leader, and how he has been performing, which is well worth a read.
Medway Maritime Hospital
The two big issues that have been in the news recently concerning my local hospital – over-stretched Accident and Emergency and failings within the Maternity Unit – are being tackled, as one would expect.
The former – caused by an ever-expanding population within its catchment area resulting in an annual intake considerably in excess of that for which it was designed – is being alleviated by an injection of significant funding by central Government. What is to be done makes for quite interesting reading, actually, and gives an impression that they will crack this one. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be available on-line. Perhaps it'll appear later.
.As for the maternity issues: I do not know, and am not exactly the best-qualified to comment anyway. Project Reboot at the Medway is covered here in the Nursing Times, which publications paints a rosy picture but doesn't quite ring true somehow. When I checked out the comments I found that others seemed to agree with my assessment (okay, there are a load of Lefties in there, and it shows; but they still understand the job). Therefore do not accept that article at face value: we shall just have to see how it turns out in reality.
New Council Housing
Finally for this week, also in my home area of Medway, is the news that new council housing is to be built here for the first time in some fifteen years. Over sixty new council homes have been agreed, and there could well be more to follow.
There is an oddity in Medway, in that the two councils that merged to form the Unitary Authority, coincidentally also fifteen years ago, had different situations regarding council homes. On the Rochester and Chatham side of the borough, including the Hoo Peninsula, all their former stock was by then being administered by Housing Associations and the like. In Gillingham, Twydall and Rainham, their council still owned and looked after such properties.
That anomalous situation remains to this day, so the new properties are all to be located within the Gillingham etc part of the borough, as will be the potential additional units if they should come to pass.
This whole initiative has become possible only because of the national Government's exchange of an old, restrictive policy for something far more useful. It is notable that during the Labour years in government, virtually no new council homes were built. I once read a figure of just 300 such homes for their entire period in office, for the whole of England.
The way things are going, Medway alone might well be able to surppass that figure in a noticeably shorter time period...
Friday, 11 October 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 11 October 2013
There has been so much going on this week that I have had to miss out a few of the less interesting topics; but there's plenty of good material available via the links below, and hopefully my accompanying notes will be useful too. I am doing this with a less-than-clear head, so it might not come out quite right in places, but I'll do my best...
Covering It Up
Probably the biggest story of the past week (and more) has been the ongoing revelations about just how much trouble within the National Health Service (NHS) was kept hidden by the then minister Andy Burnham, especially toward the end of the previous decade because of the electoral damage the truth might well do to Labour in the May 2010 General Election.
The Standard has a useful item on Basildon and Thurrock hospitals, and of course we already knew of the mid-Staffs scandal. There are no doubt others, as the sheer numbers of reports of issues seems to keep growing by the day, from scores to hundreds, and now (apparently) thought to be somewhere around a thousand, plus or minus. In fact, no-one seems to have reached the end of the trail as yet, so that number is likely to continue to grow – unless it is suppressed, that is.
The whole contention that has inevitably been propounded is that the NHS was not safe with Labour, and certainly wasn't fit for purpose. Anecdotes from several trustworthy sources I know personally reveal a true catalogue of poor practice and, frankly, idiocy in many areas. It would be embarrassing to the decent NHS staff to have these revealed here, tempting though it is to use a few examples to show that this is all genuine.
I could provide at least another half-dozen links to good, useful articles on this topic; but I don't think they are needed at this time. If that should change, I'll post additional links (probably updated or new) in the weeks to come.
As I have mentioned before, the NHS model is not a good fit for today's world and its needs and capabilities, and the NHS is regarded by many with knowledge of other countries' medical services to be considerably inferior. That's why it needs a proper reform exercise, to bring it up to a standard fit for the twenty-first century. These issues are fundamental and can no longer be metaphorically swept under the carpet: they need to be tackled, and now.
It's A Gotcha!
As regular readers will by now have got the message I keep exemplifying, Lefties tend to be dishonest, manipulative and hypocritical. Indeed, I have never in my (fairly long) life met even one that hasn't been at least one of those, and most have repeatedly demonstrated at least two of those traits.
The truly ghastly Mehdi Hasan has been caught out in respect of his attitude toward the Daily Mail, switching around completely from one occasion he has reason to mention them to the next. See Mr Steerpike's post at The Spectator, complete with a short clip from BBC Question Time on which he appeared last week and where the hypocrisy became evident.
Now, there might be a little leeway one can allow, bearing in mind that a job application was one side of this picture and the first part of story dates to a couple of years or so ago; but this was way beyond what could be allowed for in that context. Read Mr Steerpike's post, also this by Guido and this at Trending Central, and then think about how it would be if you were in the same position. It's a good little exercise to try...
On the topic of Question Time, this from The Commentator illustrates yet again just how blatantly biased the BBC is, with yet another heavily-slanted programme in the series, as most of them are now. I have to confess I no longer bother with it: as I am no longer a moderator for the old LiveChat for the programme (because CoverItLive broke their 'it'll never cost you a penny' promise and made it untenable) there is no compelling reason for me to sit through all that carefully-engineered Socialist propaganda and manipulation – so I don't.
Press Freedom
Another big issue that is still rumbling around Westminster, because a Bill about it is coming up, is press freedom-vs-regulation post-Leveson. Lord Justice Leveson has this week appeared before Members, but gave bo answers, evading replying instead. The whole thing is in danger of more-or-less freewheeling into something like how the old Soviet Union worked, with the government effectively dictating what could and could be said, and how it was to be presented.
We do not need a Pravda/Izvestia type of media scene in Britain! The criminal law as it exists already covers all angles, so there is no need for any new regulations. Perhaps Fraser Nelson has the best approach to tackling the issue once and for all: by enshrining media independence and freedom (within the law) in a Bill of Rights. Otherwise it's going to pop up again and again, whenever there is a media scandal, rather than correctly applying the relevant existing law or laws to deal with it properly and to most if not all people's satisfaction.
Shuffling the Deck
All three major parties have been having a re-shuffle of their ministers/shadows this past week. Labour's was most notable for keeping Andy Butnham, despite all the revelations as I mentioned above. A junior shadow minister for health has been moved instead. Either Burnham 'knows where the bodies are buried' as the saying goes, or Len McCluskey told Ed[ward] Miliband to keep him in post as shadow health secretary.
I can't think of any other likely reason; but it makes Ed-M look weak by not having what it takes to get him out of the shadow cabinet. Overall, it does look like a McCluskey-driven set of changes, as any Blairite members (such as Jim Murphy, Stephen Twigg and Liam Byrne) are now out, and hard Left types are in. It has been a true lurch to the left by Ed-M, as many pundits predicted and have also recognised once the news came out.
The Lib Dems' reshuffle was fairly low-key, and doesn't really warrant further mention. For the Conservatives, David Cameron made some interesting changes to some junior appointments, but (as expected) left the front-bench team untouched. There was no secret made of this plan, though it seems to have surprised one or two commentators...
Guido ran a rolling 'blog of the reshuffle details as they came in, and the completed record is here. I find it convenient because of its colour coding that makes it easy to concentrate on one party at a time if desired, or to simply go through it chronologically if that is preferred.
Energy Price Fixing
?The Labour leader's big new populist policy is to rig (i,e fix, or dictate if you prefer that term) energy prices for 24 months if he should become Prime Minister in 2015.
Sounds good, doesn't it? Well, it was supposed to. Of course, those of us with experience of Labour governments trying this sort of stunt in the past well remember the blackouts because the power supply couldn't be maintained to all customers at all times.
With the decay in our own power station capability, EU directives closing down perfectly serviceable power stations and a lack of any proper energy provision for the future during Labour's previous thirteen years in government, the situation is likely to be a lot more severe this time than it was back in the 'seventies. I still have powerful and enduring memories of those times, and it was not good. Price fixing will mean insufficient funds to invest in whatever is required to meet future need.
The National Grid is already warning of blackout risk this winter, although that shouldn't happen in practice as other sources are available to us.
Not that Ed-M cares about that: all he wanted was something attractive that he could 'sell' to enough of the less alert sections of the electorate, simply to help him win the next election. That was and is his only consideration, and it is obvious with a couple of moments' thought. As this at Trending Central indicates, several major energy providers already offer fixed-price tariffs for even longer periods, as well as providing other information to show that this 'policy' is in reality essentially a con-trick – and it will cost us all a lot!.
Communism Kills
Actually, all forms of Leftward politics ends up killing people, as oppression and fear are the only way they can maintain their steely grip on the citizenry. The fabled New World Order of which James (a.k.a. Gordon) Brown spoke so often is to be a totalitarian dictatorship, and is largey in place in key chunks of the world.
Often the Left-wing régimes we have encountered during the last century or so have been mass-murderers as well, though trying to ascertain accurate numbers is difficult for various reasons, from lack of record-keeping to artificial famine in areas without accurate census data, and suchlike.
I don't have all the information – though longer-term readers of this 'blog will recall that I have posted a table showing recorded and estimated numbers murdered, by date, country, régime and event. The middle column of that table seems to be borne out by a new book that seeks to document it all as authoritatively as possible. That number was around a hundred million.
The third column in the table I posted showed what it might have been in reality – more than founle that number – but this will almost certainly never be possible to verify or refute. The bottom line is that Communism (or Socialism, which is essentially the same thing, as the likes of Stalin and Lenin have both attested) is in that business and does not care how many it kills.
The iron grip, reinforced by fear, is all that counts with the evil that is all Leftism, without any exception. Those who claim otherwise are either being dishonest or just aren't bright enough to understand the overwhelming and unambiguous concrete evidence that is easily found in general terms. For the closest to accurate figures, though, Stephane Courtois' Black Book is probably the best source currently available.
The Cancer Called Labour
Not my words, but Sean Thomas in The Telegraph. Although he tends to lay it on a little thick, he is correct; and this also follows on neatly from my previous item in this digest. The contention is that the Blair/Brown government was 'the worst ever' – which is very much a judgment call, though I'd agree without hesitation that it was one of the very worst, and one of the most evil, too.
Beyond that is hard to be definitive on, but Sean could well be right. Anyway, it's not all that long and worth going through, if only as a reminder of some things that might have slipped our minds with the passage of years. The section on education, toward the end, is a sobering reminder, expressed in stark terms, of just how bad we had become.
And that's it for now. I have some other quite usable material, but this is starting to become long again, so I shall stop here. I might do a supplementary digest after an overnight think: we shall see...
Covering It Up
Probably the biggest story of the past week (and more) has been the ongoing revelations about just how much trouble within the National Health Service (NHS) was kept hidden by the then minister Andy Burnham, especially toward the end of the previous decade because of the electoral damage the truth might well do to Labour in the May 2010 General Election.
The Standard has a useful item on Basildon and Thurrock hospitals, and of course we already knew of the mid-Staffs scandal. There are no doubt others, as the sheer numbers of reports of issues seems to keep growing by the day, from scores to hundreds, and now (apparently) thought to be somewhere around a thousand, plus or minus. In fact, no-one seems to have reached the end of the trail as yet, so that number is likely to continue to grow – unless it is suppressed, that is.
The whole contention that has inevitably been propounded is that the NHS was not safe with Labour, and certainly wasn't fit for purpose. Anecdotes from several trustworthy sources I know personally reveal a true catalogue of poor practice and, frankly, idiocy in many areas. It would be embarrassing to the decent NHS staff to have these revealed here, tempting though it is to use a few examples to show that this is all genuine.
I could provide at least another half-dozen links to good, useful articles on this topic; but I don't think they are needed at this time. If that should change, I'll post additional links (probably updated or new) in the weeks to come.
As I have mentioned before, the NHS model is not a good fit for today's world and its needs and capabilities, and the NHS is regarded by many with knowledge of other countries' medical services to be considerably inferior. That's why it needs a proper reform exercise, to bring it up to a standard fit for the twenty-first century. These issues are fundamental and can no longer be metaphorically swept under the carpet: they need to be tackled, and now.
It's A Gotcha!
As regular readers will by now have got the message I keep exemplifying, Lefties tend to be dishonest, manipulative and hypocritical. Indeed, I have never in my (fairly long) life met even one that hasn't been at least one of those, and most have repeatedly demonstrated at least two of those traits.
The truly ghastly Mehdi Hasan has been caught out in respect of his attitude toward the Daily Mail, switching around completely from one occasion he has reason to mention them to the next. See Mr Steerpike's post at The Spectator, complete with a short clip from BBC Question Time on which he appeared last week and where the hypocrisy became evident.
Now, there might be a little leeway one can allow, bearing in mind that a job application was one side of this picture and the first part of story dates to a couple of years or so ago; but this was way beyond what could be allowed for in that context. Read Mr Steerpike's post, also this by Guido and this at Trending Central, and then think about how it would be if you were in the same position. It's a good little exercise to try...
On the topic of Question Time, this from The Commentator illustrates yet again just how blatantly biased the BBC is, with yet another heavily-slanted programme in the series, as most of them are now. I have to confess I no longer bother with it: as I am no longer a moderator for the old LiveChat for the programme (because CoverItLive broke their 'it'll never cost you a penny' promise and made it untenable) there is no compelling reason for me to sit through all that carefully-engineered Socialist propaganda and manipulation – so I don't.
Press Freedom
Another big issue that is still rumbling around Westminster, because a Bill about it is coming up, is press freedom-vs-regulation post-Leveson. Lord Justice Leveson has this week appeared before Members, but gave bo answers, evading replying instead. The whole thing is in danger of more-or-less freewheeling into something like how the old Soviet Union worked, with the government effectively dictating what could and could be said, and how it was to be presented.
We do not need a Pravda/Izvestia type of media scene in Britain! The criminal law as it exists already covers all angles, so there is no need for any new regulations. Perhaps Fraser Nelson has the best approach to tackling the issue once and for all: by enshrining media independence and freedom (within the law) in a Bill of Rights. Otherwise it's going to pop up again and again, whenever there is a media scandal, rather than correctly applying the relevant existing law or laws to deal with it properly and to most if not all people's satisfaction.
Shuffling the Deck
All three major parties have been having a re-shuffle of their ministers/shadows this past week. Labour's was most notable for keeping Andy Butnham, despite all the revelations as I mentioned above. A junior shadow minister for health has been moved instead. Either Burnham 'knows where the bodies are buried' as the saying goes, or Len McCluskey told Ed[ward] Miliband to keep him in post as shadow health secretary.
I can't think of any other likely reason; but it makes Ed-M look weak by not having what it takes to get him out of the shadow cabinet. Overall, it does look like a McCluskey-driven set of changes, as any Blairite members (such as Jim Murphy, Stephen Twigg and Liam Byrne) are now out, and hard Left types are in. It has been a true lurch to the left by Ed-M, as many pundits predicted and have also recognised once the news came out.
The Lib Dems' reshuffle was fairly low-key, and doesn't really warrant further mention. For the Conservatives, David Cameron made some interesting changes to some junior appointments, but (as expected) left the front-bench team untouched. There was no secret made of this plan, though it seems to have surprised one or two commentators...
Guido ran a rolling 'blog of the reshuffle details as they came in, and the completed record is here. I find it convenient because of its colour coding that makes it easy to concentrate on one party at a time if desired, or to simply go through it chronologically if that is preferred.
Energy Price Fixing
?The Labour leader's big new populist policy is to rig (i,e fix, or dictate if you prefer that term) energy prices for 24 months if he should become Prime Minister in 2015.
Sounds good, doesn't it? Well, it was supposed to. Of course, those of us with experience of Labour governments trying this sort of stunt in the past well remember the blackouts because the power supply couldn't be maintained to all customers at all times.
With the decay in our own power station capability, EU directives closing down perfectly serviceable power stations and a lack of any proper energy provision for the future during Labour's previous thirteen years in government, the situation is likely to be a lot more severe this time than it was back in the 'seventies. I still have powerful and enduring memories of those times, and it was not good. Price fixing will mean insufficient funds to invest in whatever is required to meet future need.
The National Grid is already warning of blackout risk this winter, although that shouldn't happen in practice as other sources are available to us.
Not that Ed-M cares about that: all he wanted was something attractive that he could 'sell' to enough of the less alert sections of the electorate, simply to help him win the next election. That was and is his only consideration, and it is obvious with a couple of moments' thought. As this at Trending Central indicates, several major energy providers already offer fixed-price tariffs for even longer periods, as well as providing other information to show that this 'policy' is in reality essentially a con-trick – and it will cost us all a lot!.
Communism Kills
Actually, all forms of Leftward politics ends up killing people, as oppression and fear are the only way they can maintain their steely grip on the citizenry. The fabled New World Order of which James (a.k.a. Gordon) Brown spoke so often is to be a totalitarian dictatorship, and is largey in place in key chunks of the world.
Often the Left-wing régimes we have encountered during the last century or so have been mass-murderers as well, though trying to ascertain accurate numbers is difficult for various reasons, from lack of record-keeping to artificial famine in areas without accurate census data, and suchlike.
I don't have all the information – though longer-term readers of this 'blog will recall that I have posted a table showing recorded and estimated numbers murdered, by date, country, régime and event. The middle column of that table seems to be borne out by a new book that seeks to document it all as authoritatively as possible. That number was around a hundred million.
The third column in the table I posted showed what it might have been in reality – more than founle that number – but this will almost certainly never be possible to verify or refute. The bottom line is that Communism (or Socialism, which is essentially the same thing, as the likes of Stalin and Lenin have both attested) is in that business and does not care how many it kills.
The iron grip, reinforced by fear, is all that counts with the evil that is all Leftism, without any exception. Those who claim otherwise are either being dishonest or just aren't bright enough to understand the overwhelming and unambiguous concrete evidence that is easily found in general terms. For the closest to accurate figures, though, Stephane Courtois' Black Book is probably the best source currently available.
The Cancer Called Labour
Not my words, but Sean Thomas in The Telegraph. Although he tends to lay it on a little thick, he is correct; and this also follows on neatly from my previous item in this digest. The contention is that the Blair/Brown government was 'the worst ever' – which is very much a judgment call, though I'd agree without hesitation that it was one of the very worst, and one of the most evil, too.
Beyond that is hard to be definitive on, but Sean could well be right. Anyway, it's not all that long and worth going through, if only as a reminder of some things that might have slipped our minds with the passage of years. The section on education, toward the end, is a sobering reminder, expressed in stark terms, of just how bad we had become.
And that's it for now. I have some other quite usable material, but this is starting to become long again, so I shall stop here. I might do a supplementary digest after an overnight think: we shall see...
Friday, 4 October 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 4 October 2013
In this week of the Conservatives Autumn Conference, much else has also been happening. I shall try to steer a sensible course through the muddied waters...
UKIPper Knocking
Well, it is thought by some (and with a degree of justification) that UKIP are still knocking at voters' doors and continuing to receive a lot of favourables responses.
Alex Wickham (the rapidly-matured 'WikiGuido' member of the Guido team) has here written at the recently-created Trending Central site how UKIP's potential success could let Ed[ward] Miliband into Downing Street undeservedly. There is also a goodly amount of other interesting material in the piece; but the bottom line issue remains the strongest: 'no need to vote Red to let in Ed'.
It's an old, old story; and it crops up on all sides of the political arena fairly regularly. Although the point being made is certainly valid, and people will kick themselves afterward if they end up throwing away their only hope for the future and end up with a totalitarian dictatorship (which is clearly the aim, as last week's Miliband conference speech again revealed), I have long accepted it as a part of having a reasonably open democracy.
UKIP is in reality a political irrelevance, as they themselves sometimes let slip, most recently in party leader Nigel Farage's admission that only at this year's conference did the party finally 'grow up'. There are numerous other indications, some of which I have mentioned before so don't need to revisit them now.
There is actually very good reason to proscribe all Left-wing parties and other such political movements, but I do not advocate that. Yes, the British electorate make mistakes, often in thinking that their little protest vote won't make any difference to who wins the seat in their constituency, just 'sends a message'.
It is a harsh lesson to be learnt – but it has to be learnt, so the mistake might well have to be made – or, ideally, almost made. The best result in 2015 would be a slim overall Conservative majority and the necessity for a second election later the same year. That should drive the necessary points home, when the voting public realise just how close they had come to having a neo-Communist dictatorship running their country...
Unhinged on the Left
It has been fairly common knowledge for some time just how unhinged James (a.k.a. 'Gordon') Brown was and how violent his temper tantrums could so easily (and often) be. With the publication of diaries and other written works by the likes of Damian McBride and 'Bad Al' Campbell, however much one is disinclined to take what they say at face value, there is more than enough insider detail to show that others were, as Rod Liddle puts it, 'mad as hatters'.
The mutual hatred within the Labour upper echelons during the Blair/Brown years are now spilling out into the public arena. No doubt today's version will appear in years to come – and make no mistake, it is very likely to be at least as much, as serious, as mad and as bad now as it was back then. We have been hearing of so much turmoil and mixed messages that it is all very reminiscent of those earlier times, in those and in other ways as well.
Meanwhile, the controversy over Ed-M's late father, the (very Red indeed) Ralph Miliband, rumbles on. Firstly, was the Mail right to make the remarks that it did? It's not the sort of journalism I usually go for or appreciate all that much, personally, but on balance it probably was better to have done than not to have bothered.
The primary reason for this is that Ed himself has repeatedly used references to his father's lead, guidance or whatever in speeches and the like, as Dan Hodges reminds us, so he brought up the whole business in the first place. The Mail certainly isn't apologizing for their original article, as this follow-up piece makes abundantly clear, and it looks like they have a good point (or several).
The question of whether Ralph M loved, hated or was indifferent to Britain is bound to be nuanced and I suspect is, in reality, impossible for anyone (including either of his sons) to pin down with certainty, despite any claims they might make. My own suspicion is that Ralph was grateful to this country for taking him in as a refugee, but hated it nonetheless for not being run as a Marxist state. Nuances, you see...
Interestingly, The Telegraph wrote a perhaps surprisingly kind obituary to Prof. Ralph Miliband back in 1994, long before the Barclay Brothers shifted that newspaper's political leanings and emphasis. On the other hand, The Commentator takes a more robust and uncompromising stance on this and the wider matter of Marxism and the like.
This is a better approach, as Ed Miliband and his supporters within our big media have diverted attention from the real issue and made it a 'personal attack/affront', thus making it easier to sweep the original subject-matter under the carpet again. We should never forget, though, the points raised in that (shortish) editorial.
Not that personal attacks and the like have ever been anathema to the Left anyway, as Carol and Mark Thatcher (for example), similarly bereaved and only this year, surely realise only too well...
Fake Protest?
Predictably, the Left arranged a demonstration outside the Conservative Autumn Conference in Manchester on its opening day. It was a modest size, well-behaved event on the (equally predictable) 'Save our NHS' theme.
Labour MP Andrew Gwynne, though, realised it wasn't very impressive, so tweeted this, along with a photo of the same location, but rather obviously a different demonstration altogether. There were lots of clues, especially in the banners held aloft – and it didn't take long for several people to independently reach just one conclusion: that it was the anti-Labour government demonstration there, opposing Britain's involvement in the Iraq war..
Oops! Big embarrassment for Andrew Gwynne, who obviously treated the British public as 'too ignorant' to realise his deception. He has deleted the tweet, but Politwoops has caught it on his page there – though there is no direct link to the tweet itself, only to the page from which it has been deleted.
At Peace With Itself
That is how James Forsyth describes the Conservative Party this week, after a workmanlike conference that was, in practice, a kind of 'extra' in the election cycle, which is usually a four-year term but this time round is for five years. This is the one-in-between, especially for the party running or leading the national government of the day.
The party is, James reports, more united now than it had been for a while, largely down to the antics, positioning and threats of and from Nigel Farage (and his UKIP chums) and Ed Miliband (and his Labour comrades). This fits in very neatly with what I have been saying for the past couple of years – some of it here, some in private conversations. It is why I have maintained a calm assurance during these turbulent times, which some might have misinterpreted as complacency. It was never that!
It takes an understanding of how people and societies act and react, to be able to work all this kind of stuff out in advance, and a few commentators have that ability, which can be valuable. In this case, there are other elements that no-one could predict specifically, but it was (for example) always likely that one of the top campaign strategists would be brought in around now, and that was always most likely to be Lynton Crosby.
Thus today's in-party scenario is a culmination of all that has been pointing toward this time for a long while now. From here on, it hots up all around the country. The likes of election agent Andrew Kennedy have been reporting all manner of perhaps surprisingly positive party and campaigning news, and it's not guff: I've been involved with Kennedy-manamged election campaigns and am well aware of how it all works; and the way he puts it on his 'blog and social media today remains entirely consistent with that methodology.
This is the point at which not only Britain as a nation turned a corner: it's where the Conservative Party did much the same...
At the conference itself, the set-piece speeches in the main hall (the televised part of the event) were good but not at the peak that some recent Conservative autumn conferences have produced.
They didn't need to be: they just needed to be truthful (which they seem to have been, though I am sure the odd hair could be split by someone trying desperately hard to find fault), carry the somewhat overworked conference slogan 'hard-working people', and send out all the right messages, attacking where necessary and praising where appropriate, including patting themselves and each other on the back. That's standard fare, of course.
It did the job; and both commentators and the public (when polled) have been clear that it was the best of the three main party events, and David Cameron still far and away the best – or in polls thus worded, the least bad – of those parties' leaders. The somewhat unscientific measure of Twitter mentions parallels this. The Express's Macer Hall even thinks of Cameron as the Man of Steel – a worthy successor to the Iron Lady.
Reasonably good news on the economy pointed to the way forward and took the wind out of other parties' sails, especially Labour who no longer avoidably even talk about the economy.
Although Ed Miliband's speech last week painted him as suddenly a strong leader, it was obvious to anyone with even a modicum of insight that he hadn't miraculously changed overnight: his is essentially Union-dictated policy, not his own.
It is axiomatic that if he couldn't come up with any firm and substantive policy after more than three years as party leader, it wasn't all just going magically appear more or less overnight. We are also acutely aware of how the unions (UNITE via its own leader in particular) are controlling Labour policy anyway.
The public seem to be broadly aware of this too, this year, as the expected post-conference 'bounce' for Labour in the polls was not only more modest than tends to happen at such times, it also took several days to take any real effect. Their conference closed on Wednesday, but it was the following weekend before this (almost certainly short-lived) polling boost came about.
Funnily enough, I expect a not dissimilar pattern to occur for the Conservatives, though for different reasons. Theirs was what has been termed a 'holding' conference (similar to my own description a couple of days ago) so wasn't anywhere near as geared up to securing immediate/short-term support 'blips'. It was aiming much more strategically toward May 2015; and I for one could perceive this during the event.
This was not the case with the Miliband speech or, indeed, any of Labour's conference: the aim there was very different, (a) to plug the policy vacuum and (b) to save Ed Miliband from ending up where he would be called upon to resign as weak and ineffective.
Their conference need was immediate and drastic: the Blues, on the other hand, were playing the long game coolly and calmly, regardless of what some have been trying to suggest – although no doubt a journo' can always find a few nervous MPs of any party in marginal seats!
Bad Reports? Burn 'Em, said Burnham
We already knew about the mid-Staffs hospital scandal, had heard that there were scores of bad reports coming in from here and there, and yet Andy Burnham – the then Health Secretary – has on several occasions been reported as having had all that bad news suppressed, hidden from the public eye.
The latest to hit the news has been Basildon University Hospital, as The Telegraph tells us, and in particular the apparent subversion of the official health watchdog (and its complicity) in providing what appears to be a false appraisal of the health service. Note that the 'Mike O'Brien' mentioned in that article is not the same Mike O'Brien who is a member of Medway Council's cabinet. Wrong party, for a start(!)
With a shadow cabinet re-shuffle thought to be imminent, this now looks like a suitable time for Burnham to be moved from the health remit; and Ed-M will have both immediate and (no doubt) further revelatory troubles later on if he doesn't move him. The additional revelations, if there are any, will still appear, but be less damaging to Labour if a new shadow health secretary has taken over at least several months before, and certainly well before the next General Election.
Guardian Loves Lenin
It seems to me that The Telegraph is going through a phase in which it is positioning itself as a kind of mediator between warring factions within our big media, and attempting redress and the highlighting of hypocrisy, presumably to take the sting out of the situation and smooth things over.
This week we have them dealing with the digging up of an ancient Mail item seemingly in praise of the now-infamous Blackshirts. The Telegraph's contributor for their counter, one Sean Thomas, points out that The Guardian has in its own past been similarly disposed toward the likes of Lenin, and in recent years Milosevic. The last two paragraphs are particularly worth reading. Yes, The Guardian has always liked and admired, and still likes, those Left-wing mass murderers and suchlike...
Party Membership
It is an open secret that all long-standing political parties in Great Britain (i.e. not necessarily in Northern Ireland, about which I know little in detail) has seen an ongoing decline in their membership levels for decades. Every now and again, something will happen to give one or another a short-term boost, often at another party's expense, but the overall trend is unmistakable.
Some though not all of this ongoing decline seems to have come about as a result of reduction in the benefits in being a member, and the subscriptions becoming a little too high for many people to justify on that basis.
The blogger known as Churchmouse has looked at the impact of a change in party rules and benefits for members that was brought in by the Conservatives for their membership back in 1998 – some fifteen years ago now. The post raises valid points; and it would be to David Cameron's great credit if he were to personally propose and successfully work toward reversing the damage and even improving on the original.
Although it is bound to take several years before enough potential members (including returning former members) .realise that there are by that time good reasons to sign up, a lot of good will have been done for the long-term future strength of the nationwide party.
...and on that potentially positive note, this ends the current week's digest.
UKIPper Knocking
Well, it is thought by some (and with a degree of justification) that UKIP are still knocking at voters' doors and continuing to receive a lot of favourables responses.
Alex Wickham (the rapidly-matured 'WikiGuido' member of the Guido team) has here written at the recently-created Trending Central site how UKIP's potential success could let Ed[ward] Miliband into Downing Street undeservedly. There is also a goodly amount of other interesting material in the piece; but the bottom line issue remains the strongest: 'no need to vote Red to let in Ed'.
It's an old, old story; and it crops up on all sides of the political arena fairly regularly. Although the point being made is certainly valid, and people will kick themselves afterward if they end up throwing away their only hope for the future and end up with a totalitarian dictatorship (which is clearly the aim, as last week's Miliband conference speech again revealed), I have long accepted it as a part of having a reasonably open democracy.
UKIP is in reality a political irrelevance, as they themselves sometimes let slip, most recently in party leader Nigel Farage's admission that only at this year's conference did the party finally 'grow up'. There are numerous other indications, some of which I have mentioned before so don't need to revisit them now.
There is actually very good reason to proscribe all Left-wing parties and other such political movements, but I do not advocate that. Yes, the British electorate make mistakes, often in thinking that their little protest vote won't make any difference to who wins the seat in their constituency, just 'sends a message'.
It is a harsh lesson to be learnt – but it has to be learnt, so the mistake might well have to be made – or, ideally, almost made. The best result in 2015 would be a slim overall Conservative majority and the necessity for a second election later the same year. That should drive the necessary points home, when the voting public realise just how close they had come to having a neo-Communist dictatorship running their country...
Unhinged on the Left
It has been fairly common knowledge for some time just how unhinged James (a.k.a. 'Gordon') Brown was and how violent his temper tantrums could so easily (and often) be. With the publication of diaries and other written works by the likes of Damian McBride and 'Bad Al' Campbell, however much one is disinclined to take what they say at face value, there is more than enough insider detail to show that others were, as Rod Liddle puts it, 'mad as hatters'.
The mutual hatred within the Labour upper echelons during the Blair/Brown years are now spilling out into the public arena. No doubt today's version will appear in years to come – and make no mistake, it is very likely to be at least as much, as serious, as mad and as bad now as it was back then. We have been hearing of so much turmoil and mixed messages that it is all very reminiscent of those earlier times, in those and in other ways as well.
Meanwhile, the controversy over Ed-M's late father, the (very Red indeed) Ralph Miliband, rumbles on. Firstly, was the Mail right to make the remarks that it did? It's not the sort of journalism I usually go for or appreciate all that much, personally, but on balance it probably was better to have done than not to have bothered.
The primary reason for this is that Ed himself has repeatedly used references to his father's lead, guidance or whatever in speeches and the like, as Dan Hodges reminds us, so he brought up the whole business in the first place. The Mail certainly isn't apologizing for their original article, as this follow-up piece makes abundantly clear, and it looks like they have a good point (or several).
The question of whether Ralph M loved, hated or was indifferent to Britain is bound to be nuanced and I suspect is, in reality, impossible for anyone (including either of his sons) to pin down with certainty, despite any claims they might make. My own suspicion is that Ralph was grateful to this country for taking him in as a refugee, but hated it nonetheless for not being run as a Marxist state. Nuances, you see...
Interestingly, The Telegraph wrote a perhaps surprisingly kind obituary to Prof. Ralph Miliband back in 1994, long before the Barclay Brothers shifted that newspaper's political leanings and emphasis. On the other hand, The Commentator takes a more robust and uncompromising stance on this and the wider matter of Marxism and the like.
This is a better approach, as Ed Miliband and his supporters within our big media have diverted attention from the real issue and made it a 'personal attack/affront', thus making it easier to sweep the original subject-matter under the carpet again. We should never forget, though, the points raised in that (shortish) editorial.
Not that personal attacks and the like have ever been anathema to the Left anyway, as Carol and Mark Thatcher (for example), similarly bereaved and only this year, surely realise only too well...
Fake Protest?
Predictably, the Left arranged a demonstration outside the Conservative Autumn Conference in Manchester on its opening day. It was a modest size, well-behaved event on the (equally predictable) 'Save our NHS' theme.
Labour MP Andrew Gwynne, though, realised it wasn't very impressive, so tweeted this, along with a photo of the same location, but rather obviously a different demonstration altogether. There were lots of clues, especially in the banners held aloft – and it didn't take long for several people to independently reach just one conclusion: that it was the anti-Labour government demonstration there, opposing Britain's involvement in the Iraq war..
Oops! Big embarrassment for Andrew Gwynne, who obviously treated the British public as 'too ignorant' to realise his deception. He has deleted the tweet, but Politwoops has caught it on his page there – though there is no direct link to the tweet itself, only to the page from which it has been deleted.
At Peace With Itself
That is how James Forsyth describes the Conservative Party this week, after a workmanlike conference that was, in practice, a kind of 'extra' in the election cycle, which is usually a four-year term but this time round is for five years. This is the one-in-between, especially for the party running or leading the national government of the day.
The party is, James reports, more united now than it had been for a while, largely down to the antics, positioning and threats of and from Nigel Farage (and his UKIP chums) and Ed Miliband (and his Labour comrades). This fits in very neatly with what I have been saying for the past couple of years – some of it here, some in private conversations. It is why I have maintained a calm assurance during these turbulent times, which some might have misinterpreted as complacency. It was never that!
It takes an understanding of how people and societies act and react, to be able to work all this kind of stuff out in advance, and a few commentators have that ability, which can be valuable. In this case, there are other elements that no-one could predict specifically, but it was (for example) always likely that one of the top campaign strategists would be brought in around now, and that was always most likely to be Lynton Crosby.
Thus today's in-party scenario is a culmination of all that has been pointing toward this time for a long while now. From here on, it hots up all around the country. The likes of election agent Andrew Kennedy have been reporting all manner of perhaps surprisingly positive party and campaigning news, and it's not guff: I've been involved with Kennedy-manamged election campaigns and am well aware of how it all works; and the way he puts it on his 'blog and social media today remains entirely consistent with that methodology.
This is the point at which not only Britain as a nation turned a corner: it's where the Conservative Party did much the same...
At the conference itself, the set-piece speeches in the main hall (the televised part of the event) were good but not at the peak that some recent Conservative autumn conferences have produced.
They didn't need to be: they just needed to be truthful (which they seem to have been, though I am sure the odd hair could be split by someone trying desperately hard to find fault), carry the somewhat overworked conference slogan 'hard-working people', and send out all the right messages, attacking where necessary and praising where appropriate, including patting themselves and each other on the back. That's standard fare, of course.
It did the job; and both commentators and the public (when polled) have been clear that it was the best of the three main party events, and David Cameron still far and away the best – or in polls thus worded, the least bad – of those parties' leaders. The somewhat unscientific measure of Twitter mentions parallels this. The Express's Macer Hall even thinks of Cameron as the Man of Steel – a worthy successor to the Iron Lady.
Reasonably good news on the economy pointed to the way forward and took the wind out of other parties' sails, especially Labour who no longer avoidably even talk about the economy.
Although Ed Miliband's speech last week painted him as suddenly a strong leader, it was obvious to anyone with even a modicum of insight that he hadn't miraculously changed overnight: his is essentially Union-dictated policy, not his own.
It is axiomatic that if he couldn't come up with any firm and substantive policy after more than three years as party leader, it wasn't all just going magically appear more or less overnight. We are also acutely aware of how the unions (UNITE via its own leader in particular) are controlling Labour policy anyway.
The public seem to be broadly aware of this too, this year, as the expected post-conference 'bounce' for Labour in the polls was not only more modest than tends to happen at such times, it also took several days to take any real effect. Their conference closed on Wednesday, but it was the following weekend before this (almost certainly short-lived) polling boost came about.
Funnily enough, I expect a not dissimilar pattern to occur for the Conservatives, though for different reasons. Theirs was what has been termed a 'holding' conference (similar to my own description a couple of days ago) so wasn't anywhere near as geared up to securing immediate/short-term support 'blips'. It was aiming much more strategically toward May 2015; and I for one could perceive this during the event.
This was not the case with the Miliband speech or, indeed, any of Labour's conference: the aim there was very different, (a) to plug the policy vacuum and (b) to save Ed Miliband from ending up where he would be called upon to resign as weak and ineffective.
Their conference need was immediate and drastic: the Blues, on the other hand, were playing the long game coolly and calmly, regardless of what some have been trying to suggest – although no doubt a journo' can always find a few nervous MPs of any party in marginal seats!
Bad Reports? Burn 'Em, said Burnham
We already knew about the mid-Staffs hospital scandal, had heard that there were scores of bad reports coming in from here and there, and yet Andy Burnham – the then Health Secretary – has on several occasions been reported as having had all that bad news suppressed, hidden from the public eye.
The latest to hit the news has been Basildon University Hospital, as The Telegraph tells us, and in particular the apparent subversion of the official health watchdog (and its complicity) in providing what appears to be a false appraisal of the health service. Note that the 'Mike O'Brien' mentioned in that article is not the same Mike O'Brien who is a member of Medway Council's cabinet. Wrong party, for a start(!)
With a shadow cabinet re-shuffle thought to be imminent, this now looks like a suitable time for Burnham to be moved from the health remit; and Ed-M will have both immediate and (no doubt) further revelatory troubles later on if he doesn't move him. The additional revelations, if there are any, will still appear, but be less damaging to Labour if a new shadow health secretary has taken over at least several months before, and certainly well before the next General Election.
Guardian Loves Lenin
It seems to me that The Telegraph is going through a phase in which it is positioning itself as a kind of mediator between warring factions within our big media, and attempting redress and the highlighting of hypocrisy, presumably to take the sting out of the situation and smooth things over.
This week we have them dealing with the digging up of an ancient Mail item seemingly in praise of the now-infamous Blackshirts. The Telegraph's contributor for their counter, one Sean Thomas, points out that The Guardian has in its own past been similarly disposed toward the likes of Lenin, and in recent years Milosevic. The last two paragraphs are particularly worth reading. Yes, The Guardian has always liked and admired, and still likes, those Left-wing mass murderers and suchlike...
Party Membership
It is an open secret that all long-standing political parties in Great Britain (i.e. not necessarily in Northern Ireland, about which I know little in detail) has seen an ongoing decline in their membership levels for decades. Every now and again, something will happen to give one or another a short-term boost, often at another party's expense, but the overall trend is unmistakable.
Some though not all of this ongoing decline seems to have come about as a result of reduction in the benefits in being a member, and the subscriptions becoming a little too high for many people to justify on that basis.
The blogger known as Churchmouse has looked at the impact of a change in party rules and benefits for members that was brought in by the Conservatives for their membership back in 1998 – some fifteen years ago now. The post raises valid points; and it would be to David Cameron's great credit if he were to personally propose and successfully work toward reversing the damage and even improving on the original.
Although it is bound to take several years before enough potential members (including returning former members) .realise that there are by that time good reasons to sign up, a lot of good will have been done for the long-term future strength of the nationwide party.
...and on that potentially positive note, this ends the current week's digest.
Friday, 27 September 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 27 September 2013
In the week of the Labour party conference, there has been a lot to look at and report on, and some unrelated material too...
Labour Conference – Before and After
Ahead of the Labour conference, The Spectator's James Forsyth gave three reasons why Ed[ward] Miliband should not be written off. Now, it has to be said that these are primarily external factors (boundaries favouring Labour, and the UKIP effect) and not suddenly coming into being because of anything the Dear Leader has done.
The third reason, the Left coming together again, is mainly down to the big unions' 'barons', so still isn't anything like a direct result of Ed-M's activity or even presence. As I quoted last week, he remained at that time more of an absence than a presence.
Wind the clock forward to the end of the conference and his speech shows just how much presence he now has. Admittedly, this is the union chiefs' (and other Communists') agenda, and Mili-E was just the mouthpiece for what they have been dictating – and the Labour leader will, by his nature, be fully compliant with – but it certainly re-established his standing among the fawning Socialist classes. Predictable, yes, and of no value whatsoever to society (not even his faux 'energy price fixing' policy announcement) but it all focussed attention on the man.
He had already come back into the public eye (after having been invisible for so long) when he stated he was bringing back Socialism a.k.a. Communism – they are near-enough the same, as Stalin admitted and Lenin partly acknowledged, quite apart from the egg-pelting incident.
Of course, this conference was the proper occasion for actual firm policies to be announced, and they were announced in plenty. With little over 18 months to go until the General Election, and barely 18 months to the start of the official election campaign, this was the only time, realistically, when it would be sensible and appropriate to launch these policies into the public awareness.
Naturally, the commentariat dissected it all, and reaced the unsurprising (and correct) conclusion that, not only was this a severe lurch to the left for Labour, it was also a harking back to the 1970s. A lot of what was proposed in that speech fits in so very well with the failed policies of the Wilson and Callaghan governments of more than a third of a century ago.
What was revealed on this occasion was, if anything, even worse, including land grabs from private owners by government at one level or another – theft, in reality, just as the very worst of Communism and its ilk ever practiced. It's just an inevitable part of the route toward create a totalitarian State, which all Lefty outfits either desire or have already achieved. The Mail takes a suitably cynical view of it all, and is worth reading, although it involves a fair amount of scrolling owing to the quantity of large images embedded within the article..
The best way to deal with the potentially popular (though almost certainly disastrous) energy price-fixing policy is for the Conservatives to come up with a much better policy that will work and won't result in power blackouts. Some of us are old enough to recall the last batch of those, getting on for forty years ago, and it is not something that anyone should relish. Once again, Dan Hodges is on top of this and sees it for what it is: just Leftism, nothing more.
These just-announced policies will ultimately fail, if they are ever put into practice, and we are then likely to see a Thatcher-like long-term exclusion of Labour from national government for probably at least as long. It might almost be worth a single term of Miliband-ism just to get the British voters to wake up to the reality of the totally corrupt ideology that is the political Left, so that they do not repeat the mistake for at least a generation.
With any luck, there might this time be a widespread call for a prohibition of all Left-wing political movements, parties or otherwise, in Britain. Now that would be an interesting backlash (and backfiring!) in the wake of a Miliband-led one-term – perhaps even just part-term – national government!
Incidentally, the stage at the Labour conference was distinctly odd. Not only was there a long walk from the desk area to the lectern, the latter had even been placed off-centre to make it even further away than it needed to be. Let's hope the extra bit of exercise did them some good...
Labour Candidates
While we're with Labour, it's worth noting in passing that eleven failed MPs (i.e. who lost their elections in 2010) have been re-selected to fight the same seats next time. As Mark Wallace puts it at ConHome, this is directly contradictory to Ed Miliband's claim that his is a 'new kind of Labour.' and not a throwback to the past.
The list provided in that post includes Paul Clark, who was booted out of the Gillingham and Rainham seat (by Rehman Chishti), just along the road from where I live, in the adjacent constituency...
Open Primary
Also here in Kent, the retirement of the highly-regarded (and with good reason) Sir John Stanley has meant a new candidate for his Tonbridge and Malling seat needs to be selected. In a bold move, the local Conservative constituency association has gone for a form of 'open primary' style of selection, in which anyone from the area can vote to choose the new candidate, not just party members. It is a method that has operated successfully in a few parts of the world, most notably the USA.
Now, strictly speaking. it's not a full open primary, as the candidates themselves will still be only those approved by the party: a proper open primary allows anyone in the party to stand under the party banner, not just those on what is currently an 'approved list'. Whether one method is better than the other I do not know definitively, nor whether the circumstances here and there are sufficiently different to justify the varying approaches, but it seems to be a move in a good general direction.
Do Not Repay The Debt!
In a well-argued piece, Peter Franklin suggests that, once the deficit is eliminated so the situation becomes stable and known, we should not attempt to repay the resultant debt, even in part. The reason is that it will tempt some (future?) government to spend over the top again, seeing the ;spare capacity' (as it so often seems to be perceived).
I have considerably sympathy with this view, especially bearing in mind the way he has reasoned it out and its future cost, though it naturally goes against the grain of my natural inclination to clear any deby as soon as I am able. In my own case, I have the necessary discipline (though I haven't always!) but collectively a government and bureaucracy can never safely be assumed to be of the same nature.
Especially the Lefties, they love to spend other people's money if there is any scope to do so, mainly on their own pet projects – and that can apply to 'mandarins'at least as much as to ministers. Therefore, grudgingly, I have to accept the argument and support this idea of not repaying the debt – but it is a sad reflection on the nature of those holding the public purse strings that I have been compelled to come to this conclusion.
Muslim Brotherhood Expands London Operation
Something that is not widely known is that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has run its admin from London for a while. Now, with the proscribing of the outfit by an Egyptiam court, their media operation is also moving here.
Why London? Why not somewhere more favourable to their world-view? I cannot see the purpose in their being here of all places, unless it's part of a longer-term plan to use our country for some inappropriate purpose. Admittedly, that would be consistent with the easy ride and complicit handling of anything involving those of that broad faith, as so many have been reporting for years. I could list (and link to) a number of well-reputed websites that each have a long history of including such material in their mix of material.
.
Propaganda or Improper Gander
In this important Trending Central article, the Nazi-like use of propaganda – and most notably falsified news – by the Palestinian movement, the real face of the hugely-slanted big media presentation of the ongoing conflict is revealed. It is also shown how some of those big media sources are (it is claimed) complicit in the propagation of the falsified 'evidence'.
Meanwhile, Cranmer reports on the case of the Nun who exposed some of the falsification, for example by the same children's bodies appearing in photographs taken at various locations. It is especially telling that the likelihood is that those few children (and perhaps others we haven't seen) were killed by the Palestinians' own militia, firing upon civilians and the youngsters were 'collateral damage' as the military put it. The photographs reproduced at the Cranmer post show the fakery very clearly.
Do not think for a moment that this is a new feature of media reporting: I have seen numerous other examples of photographic fakery, often by suggestion through careful staging and framing, quite apart from the BBC/Guardian-style slanting and omissions, terminology manipulation and the rest. Indeed, back in 1996, the Babylon5 episode 'The Illusion of Truth' covered the topic even more strongly than it had done in the two-season-earlier episode 'And Now For A Word'.
We must always be prepared to evaluate and, where we feel it is necessary, challenge what we find reported in the media. It is why I am so selective in what I include here, not only second-sourcing where I can but also building up a comprehensive picture of what is (as far as I can determine, and with a 'confidence factor' attached in every case) to ensure consistency and thus credibility.
Even then, one's world can occasionally be turned upside down by new discoveries that pan out after investigation. Overall, I cannot guarantee that everything I present here is a hundred percent accurate, but I do go to lengths that most others never would to make that as likely as I can.
And finally...
Crick In The Neck
Well, I expect Michael Crick might well have a painful head at least, if not necessarily his neck, after this little caper by the now-notorious UKIPper Godfrey Bloom (hat-tip to Guido for linking to this)...
Labour Conference – Before and After
Ahead of the Labour conference, The Spectator's James Forsyth gave three reasons why Ed[ward] Miliband should not be written off. Now, it has to be said that these are primarily external factors (boundaries favouring Labour, and the UKIP effect) and not suddenly coming into being because of anything the Dear Leader has done.
The third reason, the Left coming together again, is mainly down to the big unions' 'barons', so still isn't anything like a direct result of Ed-M's activity or even presence. As I quoted last week, he remained at that time more of an absence than a presence.
Wind the clock forward to the end of the conference and his speech shows just how much presence he now has. Admittedly, this is the union chiefs' (and other Communists') agenda, and Mili-E was just the mouthpiece for what they have been dictating – and the Labour leader will, by his nature, be fully compliant with – but it certainly re-established his standing among the fawning Socialist classes. Predictable, yes, and of no value whatsoever to society (not even his faux 'energy price fixing' policy announcement) but it all focussed attention on the man.
He had already come back into the public eye (after having been invisible for so long) when he stated he was bringing back Socialism a.k.a. Communism – they are near-enough the same, as Stalin admitted and Lenin partly acknowledged, quite apart from the egg-pelting incident.
Of course, this conference was the proper occasion for actual firm policies to be announced, and they were announced in plenty. With little over 18 months to go until the General Election, and barely 18 months to the start of the official election campaign, this was the only time, realistically, when it would be sensible and appropriate to launch these policies into the public awareness.
Naturally, the commentariat dissected it all, and reaced the unsurprising (and correct) conclusion that, not only was this a severe lurch to the left for Labour, it was also a harking back to the 1970s. A lot of what was proposed in that speech fits in so very well with the failed policies of the Wilson and Callaghan governments of more than a third of a century ago.
What was revealed on this occasion was, if anything, even worse, including land grabs from private owners by government at one level or another – theft, in reality, just as the very worst of Communism and its ilk ever practiced. It's just an inevitable part of the route toward create a totalitarian State, which all Lefty outfits either desire or have already achieved. The Mail takes a suitably cynical view of it all, and is worth reading, although it involves a fair amount of scrolling owing to the quantity of large images embedded within the article..
The best way to deal with the potentially popular (though almost certainly disastrous) energy price-fixing policy is for the Conservatives to come up with a much better policy that will work and won't result in power blackouts. Some of us are old enough to recall the last batch of those, getting on for forty years ago, and it is not something that anyone should relish. Once again, Dan Hodges is on top of this and sees it for what it is: just Leftism, nothing more.
These just-announced policies will ultimately fail, if they are ever put into practice, and we are then likely to see a Thatcher-like long-term exclusion of Labour from national government for probably at least as long. It might almost be worth a single term of Miliband-ism just to get the British voters to wake up to the reality of the totally corrupt ideology that is the political Left, so that they do not repeat the mistake for at least a generation.
With any luck, there might this time be a widespread call for a prohibition of all Left-wing political movements, parties or otherwise, in Britain. Now that would be an interesting backlash (and backfiring!) in the wake of a Miliband-led one-term – perhaps even just part-term – national government!
Incidentally, the stage at the Labour conference was distinctly odd. Not only was there a long walk from the desk area to the lectern, the latter had even been placed off-centre to make it even further away than it needed to be. Let's hope the extra bit of exercise did them some good...
Labour Candidates
While we're with Labour, it's worth noting in passing that eleven failed MPs (i.e. who lost their elections in 2010) have been re-selected to fight the same seats next time. As Mark Wallace puts it at ConHome, this is directly contradictory to Ed Miliband's claim that his is a 'new kind of Labour.' and not a throwback to the past.
The list provided in that post includes Paul Clark, who was booted out of the Gillingham and Rainham seat (by Rehman Chishti), just along the road from where I live, in the adjacent constituency...
Open Primary
Also here in Kent, the retirement of the highly-regarded (and with good reason) Sir John Stanley has meant a new candidate for his Tonbridge and Malling seat needs to be selected. In a bold move, the local Conservative constituency association has gone for a form of 'open primary' style of selection, in which anyone from the area can vote to choose the new candidate, not just party members. It is a method that has operated successfully in a few parts of the world, most notably the USA.
Now, strictly speaking. it's not a full open primary, as the candidates themselves will still be only those approved by the party: a proper open primary allows anyone in the party to stand under the party banner, not just those on what is currently an 'approved list'. Whether one method is better than the other I do not know definitively, nor whether the circumstances here and there are sufficiently different to justify the varying approaches, but it seems to be a move in a good general direction.
Do Not Repay The Debt!
In a well-argued piece, Peter Franklin suggests that, once the deficit is eliminated so the situation becomes stable and known, we should not attempt to repay the resultant debt, even in part. The reason is that it will tempt some (future?) government to spend over the top again, seeing the ;spare capacity' (as it so often seems to be perceived).
I have considerably sympathy with this view, especially bearing in mind the way he has reasoned it out and its future cost, though it naturally goes against the grain of my natural inclination to clear any deby as soon as I am able. In my own case, I have the necessary discipline (though I haven't always!) but collectively a government and bureaucracy can never safely be assumed to be of the same nature.
Especially the Lefties, they love to spend other people's money if there is any scope to do so, mainly on their own pet projects – and that can apply to 'mandarins'at least as much as to ministers. Therefore, grudgingly, I have to accept the argument and support this idea of not repaying the debt – but it is a sad reflection on the nature of those holding the public purse strings that I have been compelled to come to this conclusion.
Muslim Brotherhood Expands London Operation
Something that is not widely known is that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has run its admin from London for a while. Now, with the proscribing of the outfit by an Egyptiam court, their media operation is also moving here.
Why London? Why not somewhere more favourable to their world-view? I cannot see the purpose in their being here of all places, unless it's part of a longer-term plan to use our country for some inappropriate purpose. Admittedly, that would be consistent with the easy ride and complicit handling of anything involving those of that broad faith, as so many have been reporting for years. I could list (and link to) a number of well-reputed websites that each have a long history of including such material in their mix of material.
.
Propaganda or Improper Gander
In this important Trending Central article, the Nazi-like use of propaganda – and most notably falsified news – by the Palestinian movement, the real face of the hugely-slanted big media presentation of the ongoing conflict is revealed. It is also shown how some of those big media sources are (it is claimed) complicit in the propagation of the falsified 'evidence'.
Meanwhile, Cranmer reports on the case of the Nun who exposed some of the falsification, for example by the same children's bodies appearing in photographs taken at various locations. It is especially telling that the likelihood is that those few children (and perhaps others we haven't seen) were killed by the Palestinians' own militia, firing upon civilians and the youngsters were 'collateral damage' as the military put it. The photographs reproduced at the Cranmer post show the fakery very clearly.
Do not think for a moment that this is a new feature of media reporting: I have seen numerous other examples of photographic fakery, often by suggestion through careful staging and framing, quite apart from the BBC/Guardian-style slanting and omissions, terminology manipulation and the rest. Indeed, back in 1996, the Babylon5 episode 'The Illusion of Truth' covered the topic even more strongly than it had done in the two-season-earlier episode 'And Now For A Word'.
We must always be prepared to evaluate and, where we feel it is necessary, challenge what we find reported in the media. It is why I am so selective in what I include here, not only second-sourcing where I can but also building up a comprehensive picture of what is (as far as I can determine, and with a 'confidence factor' attached in every case) to ensure consistency and thus credibility.
Even then, one's world can occasionally be turned upside down by new discoveries that pan out after investigation. Overall, I cannot guarantee that everything I present here is a hundred percent accurate, but I do go to lengths that most others never would to make that as likely as I can.
And finally...
Crick In The Neck
Well, I expect Michael Crick might well have a painful head at least, if not necessarily his neck, after this little caper by the now-notorious UKIPper Godfrey Bloom (hat-tip to Guido for linking to this)...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)