There is an old saying that goes the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's somewhat simplistic, but it does allow for the creation of some 'unholy alliances' – as I personally witnessed during our local elections here in Medway some eight years ago.
Just about everyone and his dog who were involved in that election campaign (and, yes, there really were a few dogs in the mix!) who wasn't a Conservative teamed up with each other to jointly push an anti-us message. There is quite a story behind that, even entertaining in parts – but that is not my subject of attention on this occasion.
It has been interesting (if predictable) to see the launch of an anti-UKIP Twitter account, supposedly fed from across the political spectrum but (as I expected it would turn out to be) essentially, and predominantly, from the Left.
Okay, it doesn't really matter all that much, but it does mean that – despite a wealth of usable material – they all to often pick on things that they think make the case against UKIP, but to most of the British voting public are more likely to be seen as good things. I have encountered a number of such 'ouch!' moments, and suspect they sometimes do their cause more harm than good.
I follow this account, just to see what they are putting out, and even occasionally re-tweet one of their offerings if it makes a valid and important point. It does happen sometimes, though much of their material is too skewed (and, usually, obviously so) to be usable by someone with my (very high) standards.
So, are they my friends? No. Is UKIP truly my 'enemy'? Not really, not to the extent that I'd apply that term to them. In practice, these elements are already out there, and in practice I am doing little more than keeping a weather eye on them. I do not contribute or respond to them, and don't re-tweet much of their output.
I am content that the British electorate will reach their own conclusions and vote whatever way they decide – though I do like to occasionally pull out the rug from under those who seek to deceive us all. If it hurts enough, and often enough, it might just discourage the deceivers – but it is an ongoing situation and will probably never end.
Thus the game is being played in its 2015 form, and I shall keep a watch on it – though I doubt that any of what I have mentioned here is making more than a miniscule impact around the nation anyway!
Tuesday, 20 January 2015
The Debates Debate
I know it sounds silly, but we've had it before: the way the pre-General Election party leaders' televised debates are to be conducted and who is to be invited to participate.
Last time, five years ago, it was comparatively clear-cut – and there were three parties that could reasonably be thought of as being part or all of the new post-May 2010 UK government. They were, unsurprisingly, the Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats.
Thus when those three parties' leaders were to be the invited participants, it all made sense and was no great surprise. Indeed, two of those leaders subsequently became Prime Minister (David Cameron) and Deputy PM (Nick Clegg).
This time around, the national situation has changed markedly and the waters are distinctly (or should that be indistinctly?) muddy, with no fewer than five parties now of sufficient significance to warrant consideration.
Realistically, there are only two approaches that the organising broadcasters can take without justifiable accusations of political bias...
However, the Green Party has a larger membership that either UKIP or the Lib Dems, they also have a new MP who took that seat from another party by standing on a Green party platform. UKIP has never done this, merely holding two seats by deploying the same candidates whose positions were essentially secured by a different party, and their holding them primarily as 'the devil we know' in this time of anti-political sentiment.
Of course, the Lefties don't want the Green party leader in the debate(s), as that would tend to level the playing field again – and one thing upon which all Lefty organisations depend heavily is skewing things their way, playing as dirty as they feel is necessary to achieve that goal. They know they cannot win in any fair contest (hence all that postal vote rigging that we have read about in recent years, for example) as their most respected writers have frequently admitted, and as worldwide history during the past century or so clearly illustrates.
The Left's diversionary tactic has been to put it about that David Cameron is scared of facing Nigel Farage.
I am sure he'd face such an encounter with trepidation, but he knows he has little to fear. UKIP has lots of internal problems, many of which reach the public awareness; their policies are often incoherent and nonsensical and get changed on the hoof (as our Mark Reckless recently found) or even scrapped in their entirety; they are essentially one-dimensional in nature so can be easily outflanked by Cameron's broader and more inclusive approach, and insider knowledge, especially on the world stage.
He can handle the gig!
On the opposite side of the political divide, the Lefties know that the Greens are on an upward trend these days, after a couple of years more-or-less in the political wilderness. Their change of party leader seems to be bearing fruit – watermelons in this case, of course: green on the outside but raw Communist red when one looks below the surface.
This means they can 'out-left' Labour easily, and could even (after an all-five debate) lead to the Lib Dems petering out completely within the next couple of years. Thus neither of those parties wants the Greens involved in any of the debates, especially while that party is in the ascendancy. Both are running scared of them.
Thus it is easy to see that it is actually the Miliband and Clegg camps that are 'frit', and David Cameron who is correct in insisting that the Greens be included. Overall, they are now the most significant (especially potentially) of the three 'lesser' parties – and without them, neither of the others (Lib Dems, UKIP) should be included either.
That, folks, is the bottom line!
Last time, five years ago, it was comparatively clear-cut – and there were three parties that could reasonably be thought of as being part or all of the new post-May 2010 UK government. They were, unsurprisingly, the Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats.
Thus when those three parties' leaders were to be the invited participants, it all made sense and was no great surprise. Indeed, two of those leaders subsequently became Prime Minister (David Cameron) and Deputy PM (Nick Clegg).
This time around, the national situation has changed markedly and the waters are distinctly (or should that be indistinctly?) muddy, with no fewer than five parties now of sufficient significance to warrant consideration.
Realistically, there are only two approaches that the organising broadcasters can take without justifiable accusations of political bias...
- Have only those party leaders that can sensibly be expected to have a chance of being the next Prime Minister. That means David Cameron and Ed[ward] Miliband – no-one else; or
- All five significant parties. This is the only acceptable way to include the Liberal Democrats again this time, as their support in the country has consistently been so low as to have them in either equal fourth place or even fifth place, behind UKIP and the Green Party.
However, the Green Party has a larger membership that either UKIP or the Lib Dems, they also have a new MP who took that seat from another party by standing on a Green party platform. UKIP has never done this, merely holding two seats by deploying the same candidates whose positions were essentially secured by a different party, and their holding them primarily as 'the devil we know' in this time of anti-political sentiment.
Of course, the Lefties don't want the Green party leader in the debate(s), as that would tend to level the playing field again – and one thing upon which all Lefty organisations depend heavily is skewing things their way, playing as dirty as they feel is necessary to achieve that goal. They know they cannot win in any fair contest (hence all that postal vote rigging that we have read about in recent years, for example) as their most respected writers have frequently admitted, and as worldwide history during the past century or so clearly illustrates.
The Left's diversionary tactic has been to put it about that David Cameron is scared of facing Nigel Farage.
I am sure he'd face such an encounter with trepidation, but he knows he has little to fear. UKIP has lots of internal problems, many of which reach the public awareness; their policies are often incoherent and nonsensical and get changed on the hoof (as our Mark Reckless recently found) or even scrapped in their entirety; they are essentially one-dimensional in nature so can be easily outflanked by Cameron's broader and more inclusive approach, and insider knowledge, especially on the world stage.
He can handle the gig!
On the opposite side of the political divide, the Lefties know that the Greens are on an upward trend these days, after a couple of years more-or-less in the political wilderness. Their change of party leader seems to be bearing fruit – watermelons in this case, of course: green on the outside but raw Communist red when one looks below the surface.
This means they can 'out-left' Labour easily, and could even (after an all-five debate) lead to the Lib Dems petering out completely within the next couple of years. Thus neither of those parties wants the Greens involved in any of the debates, especially while that party is in the ascendancy. Both are running scared of them.
Thus it is easy to see that it is actually the Miliband and Clegg camps that are 'frit', and David Cameron who is correct in insisting that the Greens be included. Overall, they are now the most significant (especially potentially) of the three 'lesser' parties – and without them, neither of the others (Lib Dems, UKIP) should be included either.
That, folks, is the bottom line!
Saturday, 17 January 2015
Still 'Kipping or Waking Up?
Inevitably, and perfectly understandably, there is currently a lot of anti-UKIP activity by other political parties and sources (especially on Twitter) that do not appear, on the surface, to have a party political basis – though it is more than likely that they do.
For me, already knowing much of what lies up ahead, it has been interesting to observe all these manoeuvrings and the effect they have. The latter has tended to be the opposite of what was intended, actually bolstering UKIP's support rather than diminishing that support/ It's all quite predictable, once one appreciates the 'playing field' that exists in Britain (especially England) today.
None of that really matters all that much in practice, as the deception that is UKIP continues to make headway with a disillusioned voting public, trying hard to find a party that can be considered to be 'non-establishment', for whom they feel they can vote. So far, it seems to be working, and it will result in a spoil for other parties, most notably – but not exclusively – their primary target, the Conservatives.
Thus it is possible that, for a second time, there will no overall majority after the May election – which is what the UKIP leadership are, I believe, fervently hoping, if (as seems likely) they cannot achieve their preferred outcome of a Labour overall majority.
If that sounds strange, it is worth learning at least something of the truth about UKIP, some of which I have described before. All the necessary clues to the truth are in the public domain, and have been obvious to any attentive observer for some time. Two simple questions, that most people will answer incorrectly, will when correctly answered point this out quite starkly...
I shall not answer those here, now, as it is much more instructive for readers to work out the truths for themselves. The mere fact that I felt it necessary to ask them, and in that precise form, is in itself a further clue.
I see that the party's most famous founder (there were originally three, one of who has since died), the left-wing Alan Sked, is weighing-in because of fears that the party's current 'Farage effect' will deprive his old party of any seats. Incidentally, it is interesting to remind ourselves of why he left the party he had helped to create in the first place: partly because of Nigel Farage, partly because it was getting 'too right-wing' – which was never the true game plan: that was just deception.
When it really comes down to it (and as some who have made the switch to UKIP have already learned) everyone is going to have to learn the lessons for themselves, as I often say. There is no point my saying anything to any 'Kipper or supporter in person, because they always 'know better' and use the standard Lefty trick of labelling me in a negative fashion.It has been tried many times.
Therefore I now mostly let them be, and wait for them to humiliate themselves as unfolding events prove what is and what isn't. Although it goes against the grain a little, I have had too much of that kind of treatment to bother much any longer. Let them learn the hard way!
For me, already knowing much of what lies up ahead, it has been interesting to observe all these manoeuvrings and the effect they have. The latter has tended to be the opposite of what was intended, actually bolstering UKIP's support rather than diminishing that support/ It's all quite predictable, once one appreciates the 'playing field' that exists in Britain (especially England) today.
None of that really matters all that much in practice, as the deception that is UKIP continues to make headway with a disillusioned voting public, trying hard to find a party that can be considered to be 'non-establishment', for whom they feel they can vote. So far, it seems to be working, and it will result in a spoil for other parties, most notably – but not exclusively – their primary target, the Conservatives.
Thus it is possible that, for a second time, there will no overall majority after the May election – which is what the UKIP leadership are, I believe, fervently hoping, if (as seems likely) they cannot achieve their preferred outcome of a Labour overall majority.
If that sounds strange, it is worth learning at least something of the truth about UKIP, some of which I have described before. All the necessary clues to the truth are in the public domain, and have been obvious to any attentive observer for some time. Two simple questions, that most people will answer incorrectly, will when correctly answered point this out quite starkly...
- Are the UKIP leadership left-wing or right-wing?
- Are the UKIP leadership in favour of Britain's exit from the EU, or greater integration?
I shall not answer those here, now, as it is much more instructive for readers to work out the truths for themselves. The mere fact that I felt it necessary to ask them, and in that precise form, is in itself a further clue.
I see that the party's most famous founder (there were originally three, one of who has since died), the left-wing Alan Sked, is weighing-in because of fears that the party's current 'Farage effect' will deprive his old party of any seats. Incidentally, it is interesting to remind ourselves of why he left the party he had helped to create in the first place: partly because of Nigel Farage, partly because it was getting 'too right-wing' – which was never the true game plan: that was just deception.
When it really comes down to it (and as some who have made the switch to UKIP have already learned) everyone is going to have to learn the lessons for themselves, as I often say. There is no point my saying anything to any 'Kipper or supporter in person, because they always 'know better' and use the standard Lefty trick of labelling me in a negative fashion.It has been tried many times.
Therefore I now mostly let them be, and wait for them to humiliate themselves as unfolding events prove what is and what isn't. Although it goes against the grain a little, I have had too much of that kind of treatment to bother much any longer. Let them learn the hard way!
Saturday, 10 January 2015
Tweet of the Day that wasn't – 10 January 2014
I haven't done one of these in a long while, but this one was just begging to be immortalised, just in case it got deleted. Oh, oops, it has just vanished, and I did try to be quick...
It referred to Labour's candidates for the 'Rochester & Horsted' (sic) council ward as including one 'Derek Mutton' (sic again). I bet they're feeling somewhat sheepish about that one! Hopefully it managed to get into an archive so will be publicly visible once its index has been updated.
UPDATES: a corrected version has now been posted; and they are now titled 'Rochestersth&Horsted'...
The ward is, of course, correctly named 'Rochester South and Horsted' – and I am sure that better brains than theirs could have come up with a better shorthand ID to fit with the Twitter specifications.
I don't blame Labour for targeting my old ward, by the way: they have been coming second there ever since the boundaries changed, displacing the Liberal Democrats into third place long before that latter party's woes nationwide. They know it is a 'nexus ward', and with its nexus member out of contention (that's me, by the way) it is nowadays much more vulnerable than it has ever been since coming into being. Its main strut has been removed, and all parties locally know it.
The poor handling by the ward incumbents of the Rochester Airport improvements has allowed a situation to develop that is now against the Conservatives' stance and plays right into Labour's – something that was never within a million miles of happening when I represented the ward, and of course never would have happened while I was there.
They are also as keen as ever to get their ageing former councillor Derek 'Mumbling' Munton (not Mutton!) back onto the Council – to which he has failed to be re-elected in 2003, 2007 and 2011 and is in reality a spent force, though local Labour either can't or won't see that. Thus they continue to field him in one ward after another: Strood South in 2003 and 2007, Rochester West in 2011, and now Rochester South & Horsted in 2015. The proven loser still fights a hopeless battle...
It is probably worth mentioning that, although I do not personally dislike Derek Munton, he is the one who tried making mischief for me in both the local newspapers and with the governmental councillor watchdog, but to no avail as it was easily shown that I had no case to answer and his vindictiveness fell on stony ground. I have all the evidence on file, and have shared it in public in the past.
However cleverly (and craftily) local Labour try to manipulate the agenda and public perception in the ward, their chances are still not that great – provided that the Conservative councillors extract their digits and stop treating the job as a casual, spare-time activity.
It is no secret that the state of affairs in the ward would now be orders of magnitude better and more secure if I had been back on the Council – but it is too late for that now, and I am no longer interested. The bed has been made and they need to lie in it. The Conservatives' position in the ward are a long way from being secure, and it is exclusively the result of their putting their own agenda above the interests of the communities (ten of 'em!) they purport to serve.
They are going to have their work cut out for them between now and May, not exactly helped by having a General Election running alongside, but it is possible to hold those three council seats. If they don't put this first in their lives, they deserve to get kicked out – so the ball is in their court, no-one else's as far as this is concerned. Otherwise, my people might end up with 'Mutton', however dressed up, when they deserve much better!
It referred to Labour's candidates for the 'Rochester & Horsted' (sic) council ward as including one 'Derek Mutton' (sic again). I bet they're feeling somewhat sheepish about that one! Hopefully it managed to get into an archive so will be publicly visible once its index has been updated.
UPDATES: a corrected version has now been posted; and they are now titled 'Rochestersth&Horsted'...
"Your candidates Derek Munton, Joe Murray and Elaine Thomas feel 4.4m may be better spent on our failing primary schools"
The ward is, of course, correctly named 'Rochester South and Horsted' – and I am sure that better brains than theirs could have come up with a better shorthand ID to fit with the Twitter specifications.
I don't blame Labour for targeting my old ward, by the way: they have been coming second there ever since the boundaries changed, displacing the Liberal Democrats into third place long before that latter party's woes nationwide. They know it is a 'nexus ward', and with its nexus member out of contention (that's me, by the way) it is nowadays much more vulnerable than it has ever been since coming into being. Its main strut has been removed, and all parties locally know it.
The poor handling by the ward incumbents of the Rochester Airport improvements has allowed a situation to develop that is now against the Conservatives' stance and plays right into Labour's – something that was never within a million miles of happening when I represented the ward, and of course never would have happened while I was there.
They are also as keen as ever to get their ageing former councillor Derek 'Mumbling' Munton (not Mutton!) back onto the Council – to which he has failed to be re-elected in 2003, 2007 and 2011 and is in reality a spent force, though local Labour either can't or won't see that. Thus they continue to field him in one ward after another: Strood South in 2003 and 2007, Rochester West in 2011, and now Rochester South & Horsted in 2015. The proven loser still fights a hopeless battle...
It is probably worth mentioning that, although I do not personally dislike Derek Munton, he is the one who tried making mischief for me in both the local newspapers and with the governmental councillor watchdog, but to no avail as it was easily shown that I had no case to answer and his vindictiveness fell on stony ground. I have all the evidence on file, and have shared it in public in the past.
However cleverly (and craftily) local Labour try to manipulate the agenda and public perception in the ward, their chances are still not that great – provided that the Conservative councillors extract their digits and stop treating the job as a casual, spare-time activity.
It is no secret that the state of affairs in the ward would now be orders of magnitude better and more secure if I had been back on the Council – but it is too late for that now, and I am no longer interested. The bed has been made and they need to lie in it. The Conservatives' position in the ward are a long way from being secure, and it is exclusively the result of their putting their own agenda above the interests of the communities (ten of 'em!) they purport to serve.
They are going to have their work cut out for them between now and May, not exactly helped by having a General Election running alongside, but it is possible to hold those three council seats. If they don't put this first in their lives, they deserve to get kicked out – so the ball is in their court, no-one else's as far as this is concerned. Otherwise, my people might end up with 'Mutton', however dressed up, when they deserve much better!
Friday, 9 January 2015
Rochester Airport Improvements
I notice that the council's Planning Committee has decided to defer a decision on the application for a paved runway and a number of other improvements at Rochester Airport, so that a site visit can be held.
I am not surprised by this, nor do I think it is a negative move: it is important that no allegations of riding roughshod over concerns and suchlike should be able to be levelled against the planning authority (the council) and this is the right way to proceed. The minimal additional delay will be negligible.
I say additional delay because this whole plan for the airport should have been implemented at least five years earlier, and perhaps even ten. There has been no material change in circumstances during the past decade, except that the airport itself has deteriorated and now needs a considerably higher investment to put right – by my reckoning, three times as much as it would have cost a decade ago, though I cannot be certain of the figures as I have been 'out of the loop' for nearly three-quarters of that period.
I have in the past covered the falsity of the fears aroused by scaremongers – and all the intelligent observer needs to do is check what the consequences of the other eight (or perhaps nine by now) small airports that have already been down this path, years ago, have been. I think anyone doing so will find that there has been no problem, and indeed there has if anything been an improvement in (for example) noise levels and safety records as a result of modernisation – which is exactly the same as is being proposed for Rochester.
Is there something odd about our little airport that doesn't apply to those others? I can't find anything...
I notice that the local media are, as usual, putting their own slant on how they are reporting what is currently happening. Here's a good example...
Three errors (spin?) in so few words:
How's that for being (and it looks to be deliberately) misleading?
Nothing new in that, of course, as I have noted – and recorded in my files, and occasionally in public forums such as this over the years. Never mind: we press onward regardless.
Although I do not know what the committee will decide in due course, I expect the application to be approved – though possibly with changes or additions to its conditions as a result of the site visit. I don't those, if they are imposed, to be big or difficult to manage for the airport.
As far as the scaremongers are concerned, and their buddies in the local media: longer-term residents of this area will no doubt be well aware of the previous (Labour, with Lib Dem collusion to achieve majority voting) council administration's plans to close the airport altogether and have it concreted over, so that 'crinkly shed' automated warehouses could ply HGVs by the hundred up and down the adjoining roads and beyond.
That plan was sneakily inserted into a planning policy document that went to central government as the council's official position, even though it was not the version that the elected representatives of the people here had voted upon. There were another couple of 'new' items sneaked into that version that also had not been included in the version approved by the elected Council. The whole thing was underhand, and still reeks to this day of a corrupt agenda that is being pursued even now.
As long as this decision is made, and is effectively legally binding, before the May elections then the future of the airport will be more-or-less assured, even if there should then be a change of political control. That, as people will soon enough discover – some to their surprise, I imagine – will be the best possible outcome, and set things up for a much brighter future around those parts than any of the alternatives.
I am not surprised by this, nor do I think it is a negative move: it is important that no allegations of riding roughshod over concerns and suchlike should be able to be levelled against the planning authority (the council) and this is the right way to proceed. The minimal additional delay will be negligible.
I say additional delay because this whole plan for the airport should have been implemented at least five years earlier, and perhaps even ten. There has been no material change in circumstances during the past decade, except that the airport itself has deteriorated and now needs a considerably higher investment to put right – by my reckoning, three times as much as it would have cost a decade ago, though I cannot be certain of the figures as I have been 'out of the loop' for nearly three-quarters of that period.
I have in the past covered the falsity of the fears aroused by scaremongers – and all the intelligent observer needs to do is check what the consequences of the other eight (or perhaps nine by now) small airports that have already been down this path, years ago, have been. I think anyone doing so will find that there has been no problem, and indeed there has if anything been an improvement in (for example) noise levels and safety records as a result of modernisation – which is exactly the same as is being proposed for Rochester.
Is there something odd about our little airport that doesn't apply to those others? I can't find anything...
I notice that the local media are, as usual, putting their own slant on how they are reporting what is currently happening. Here's a good example...
"Councillors dither over plan to use taxpayer cash to expand airport"
Three errors (spin?) in so few words:
- it's not a question of dithering, any more than any other site visit the Planning Committee holds is ever labelled 'dithering' – it's a standard procedure to ensure those taking the decision have on-the-spot knowledge of the site and how what is being proposed will be in practice;
- it's capital investment.to reap ongoing returns – another standard practice in business, government and anyone else with an asset that needs something done in order to be able to generate a return – slanting it in the above manner is not only incomplete, but is a hundred percent biased in the message it conveys; and
- the airport is not expanding – indeed, it is contracting slightly, while the site remains exactly the same size but with new facilities added in one corner.
How's that for being (and it looks to be deliberately) misleading?
Nothing new in that, of course, as I have noted – and recorded in my files, and occasionally in public forums such as this over the years. Never mind: we press onward regardless.
Although I do not know what the committee will decide in due course, I expect the application to be approved – though possibly with changes or additions to its conditions as a result of the site visit. I don't those, if they are imposed, to be big or difficult to manage for the airport.
As far as the scaremongers are concerned, and their buddies in the local media: longer-term residents of this area will no doubt be well aware of the previous (Labour, with Lib Dem collusion to achieve majority voting) council administration's plans to close the airport altogether and have it concreted over, so that 'crinkly shed' automated warehouses could ply HGVs by the hundred up and down the adjoining roads and beyond.
That plan was sneakily inserted into a planning policy document that went to central government as the council's official position, even though it was not the version that the elected representatives of the people here had voted upon. There were another couple of 'new' items sneaked into that version that also had not been included in the version approved by the elected Council. The whole thing was underhand, and still reeks to this day of a corrupt agenda that is being pursued even now.
As long as this decision is made, and is effectively legally binding, before the May elections then the future of the airport will be more-or-less assured, even if there should then be a change of political control. That, as people will soon enough discover – some to their surprise, I imagine – will be the best possible outcome, and set things up for a much brighter future around those parts than any of the alternatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)