Oh dear, they just can't let it go, can they? Dave says "I don't think we should invent differences where there aren't differences [betweeen the LDs and his motley band of opportunists]." He goes on: "Let's be honest that whether you're Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, you're motivated by pretty much the same progressive aims: a country that is safer, fairer, greener and where opportunity is more equal." Well there's a topic for discussion, Dave. He continues: "It's how to achieve these aims that we disagree about - and indeed between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats there is a lot less disagreement than there used to be."
Oh, and lovable northern stooge Eric Pickles says: "What I am seeking to do is to say to a number of constituencies currently held by Liberal Democrat MPs, the only real way of achieving those ideals of liberal democracy is by voting Conservative". Donning his cloth cap to hide his Conservative membership, Pickles went on: "What I am seeking to do is to say to a number of constituencies currently held by Liberal Democrat MPs, the only real way of achieving those ideals of liberal democracy is by voting Conservative".
Okay, to Dave first: who needs to invent differences? One party is an Eton-dominated 'elite' of people with no fundamental principles who believe simply in the exercise of power for its own sake and whose first action if they achieve power is likely to be to repeal the ban on foxhunting. The other is a meritocratic party which supports equality of opportunity and whose candidates are, to the best of my knowledge, not tax exiles worth millions or chums of the party leader. One party believes in, well, whatever you want as long as you vote for it. The other party has a well established set of fully costed policies of which the biggest criticism is that they might actually be too detailed. I won't insult you by naming the two parties as I imagine you will have a clue.
As for lovable Eric Pickles, well how dismissive can I be without being too insulting. The only real way of achieving the ideals of liberal democracy is by voting Liberal Democrat across the country. The surest way to ensure that the ideals of liberal democracy, such as a fair voting system, a democratic second chamber, realistic devolution, action on the environment which does not look first and foremost to one's corporate supporters, genuine investment in excellent education for all and a public transport system fit for the 21st century is to vote Tory.
There are few safe bets in life but one of them is that a government headed by Dave will do nothing to deliver any of these ideals.
As to any future deal, there are not just differences between our two parties, there is a gulf, a chasm, a bottomless void and I for one will struggle with any accommodation with the party of no principle, regardless of the circumstances.
Danny Alexander was quite moderate in his response to Dave and Pickles the Clown. My response would probably be along the lines of telling them to pull the other one, it has a Westminster chime attached.
Monday, 28 December 2009
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
SNOW JOKE, EVERYTHING WAS FINE
Here's controversy. Yesterday I left my village in Oxfordshire and drove across the country, through all the areas worst affected by the recent snow, including Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire and Suffolk. I arrived at my destination in Norfolk at roughly the same time I would have done at any time of the year despite having driven at between 50 and 60mph, as the conditions demanded. I didn't skid once. I didn't find any roads impassable - in fact they were all perfectly clear.
This is clearly controversial because the news and the papers are full of that staple of headline writers: 'travel chaos'. Well, my apologies but having prepared carefully I was fine. The Highways Agency had clearly done its job well, as had every local authority whose area I travelled through.
Sorry but there it is. Everything was fine. I fact I am more concerned about my imminent trip to the csr park of a major supermarket, which is far more likely to be icy than the roads.
This is clearly controversial because the news and the papers are full of that staple of headline writers: 'travel chaos'. Well, my apologies but having prepared carefully I was fine. The Highways Agency had clearly done its job well, as had every local authority whose area I travelled through.
Sorry but there it is. Everything was fine. I fact I am more concerned about my imminent trip to the csr park of a major supermarket, which is far more likely to be icy than the roads.
Friday, 18 December 2009
SEASIDE SPECIAL
Odd goings on at the seaside on this chilly day.
Police in Great Yarmouth have been co-ordinating efforts to refloat a beached whale in the seaside resort. The whale fetched up in the town early this morning and concerned residents have already nicknamed it 'Pickles'. The whale sounds very distressed and its unearthly call apparently sounds something like 'vooooooooooooooooooooooote tooooooooooorrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyy'. Work to refloat Pickles continues but onlookers say its prospects look dim.
Meanwhile, in Penzance a popular singer from a cruise liner recently docked in Portsmouth has been busking on the streets to try to bring residents some Christmas cheer. The singer, known locally as 'the Baronet' or simply 'George' has been singing snippets of popular Christmas carols rather badly and onlookers have described him as a rather poor imitation of recent 'Crunch Factor' sensation, Vince who, if he recorded a single, would definitely have the Christmas number one. George tends to simply repeat one or two lines from each carol and seems to hope that no one recognises that he doesn't really know what he is doing. In between singing badly he tells anyone who will listen that he is best friends with Dave, although it is not clear who this is or what their relationship is.
The emergency services have been busy in Cleethorpes as well as a man dressed as a superhero keeps accosting people asking them to 'vote for him'. The man, only identified as 'William', was suspected to be a member of Fathers for Justice but police have established that he is just a lunatic who believes he will be Foreign Secretary one day.
BREAKING NEWS: the problems in Cleethorpes have now ended as apparently, 'William' was calmed down and encouraged to push off with the offer of a £1m book deal.
These reports continue to come in with police around the country reporting instances of grey, almost indistinguishable people popping up all along the coast. They are confident that in the majority of cases these strange sightings will simply be ignored by almost all local people.
Chris Grayling is 51.
Police in Great Yarmouth have been co-ordinating efforts to refloat a beached whale in the seaside resort. The whale fetched up in the town early this morning and concerned residents have already nicknamed it 'Pickles'. The whale sounds very distressed and its unearthly call apparently sounds something like 'vooooooooooooooooooooooote tooooooooooorrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyy'. Work to refloat Pickles continues but onlookers say its prospects look dim.
Meanwhile, in Penzance a popular singer from a cruise liner recently docked in Portsmouth has been busking on the streets to try to bring residents some Christmas cheer. The singer, known locally as 'the Baronet' or simply 'George' has been singing snippets of popular Christmas carols rather badly and onlookers have described him as a rather poor imitation of recent 'Crunch Factor' sensation, Vince who, if he recorded a single, would definitely have the Christmas number one. George tends to simply repeat one or two lines from each carol and seems to hope that no one recognises that he doesn't really know what he is doing. In between singing badly he tells anyone who will listen that he is best friends with Dave, although it is not clear who this is or what their relationship is.
The emergency services have been busy in Cleethorpes as well as a man dressed as a superhero keeps accosting people asking them to 'vote for him'. The man, only identified as 'William', was suspected to be a member of Fathers for Justice but police have established that he is just a lunatic who believes he will be Foreign Secretary one day.
BREAKING NEWS: the problems in Cleethorpes have now ended as apparently, 'William' was calmed down and encouraged to push off with the offer of a £1m book deal.
These reports continue to come in with police around the country reporting instances of grey, almost indistinguishable people popping up all along the coast. They are confident that in the majority of cases these strange sightings will simply be ignored by almost all local people.
Chris Grayling is 51.
Monday, 14 December 2009
THE FILM OF STUPID - OR AT LEAST TREATING PEOPLE AS STUPID
I'm a climate change believer. I do all I can to cut waste, use sensible products, limit my driving etc etc ad nauseaum. Tonight I sat down to watch 'The Age of Stupid' thinking it would be a sober yet entertaining reflection on the current debate and I expected to be edified and entertained by the always excellent Pete Postlethwaite.
Well, Postlethwaite didn't disappoint but unfortunately the tone of the piece did. I was shifting uncomfortably as the programme went on for a number of reasons but the moment the hubristic George Monbiot - a man who makes his living from this hokum, remember - came on it was time to despair.
The film was filled with very moving examples of climate change occurring, such as the Alpine guide who has seen the nearby glacier gradually disappear over several decades and the Nigerian woman who had to eke out a living in an oilfield. There was also the hideous scene of Middle England successfully opposing a wind farm due to the negative impact on house prices. I live in a very windy village and I'd love a socking great wind turbine or 10 right here but I just know we'd get the same response.
There was also the wonderful example of the Indian businessman who set up a low cost airline for that country. He was the 'bad man' in the programme. Naughty, nasty man who wants Indians to have cheap flights across their huge country. Yes, on paper this was a good example but a nanosecond's reflection makes you realise that his business is as nothing compared to the thousands of flights taken by 'Western' citizens each week.
Finally, we had the nice but sad man who makes and sells wind turbines. He is a good man and he is fighting for wind turbines to help the planet. Well, yes and he lives on a huge parcel of land in Cornwall which kind of hints at his take home pay for performing this valuable social service for us all. Nice man and nice profits, no doubt.
Now, I am a good Lib Dem and I do not have any problem at all with people making money, even huge amounts of money. I also believe, as I hope to develop below, that this specific driver will be the key to addressing climate change so I am all for this man making wind turbines and money. Good luck to him and I hope he can retire at 50 having made shedloads of cash. What I object to is that he is made out to be some kind of saintly saviour. He isn't, he is a businessman - just like the Indian airline magnate.
And therein lies the 'rub' as a west country poet of days gone by might have had it. The film started well on a good premise but it gradually departed from the appropriate tone and descended into the preachy manure that is the bane of the green 'movement' and which is undoubtedly the primary cause of high levels of public scepticism. People don't like being told what to do.
Back to Monbiot who said direct action is the only way to effect change. This is where I switched off because, well, it isn't. Sure there have been some marked successes in history which have involved direct action but they have been helped along the way by a range of factors. The suffragettes did campaign for votes for women but the little matter of a world war, in which women played a central role and during which countless accepted beliefs were tested to breaking point, helped a bit. Apartheid ended in South Africa but I'm afraid the marches and protests were not the key cause of this change. What changed was South Africa and South Africans. Over 1m people in Britain marched against war in Iraq and what happened?
Monbiot might reflect that the two things which have perhaps changed our society more than any other in recent years are the motor car and plastic - and I assume that in reading this blog you are a reasonably aware kind of person so you know what they entail.
Cars gave people choice over where they lived and worked, where they went on holiday, where they shopped, where they did anything they wanted to. We could argue for decades over whether this is right or wrong but I would suggest that it is pretty undeniable. Similarly, plastic has given us affordable stuff which, rightly or wrongly, we all covet.
What changed our society beyond recognition was industry, oil and easy access to transport. What will change it again will be simple demand, not lectures. What the 'green movement' needs to do is to climb off its collective high horse (all manure scraped up and reused, all other emissions piped off to cook toast with) and encourage us to change, not scare us. We need products we want, ideas we will buy into, things we enjoy, not threats, marches and posh people telling us what to do. Wasn't the 20th century all about us telling said posh people where to get off?
There is a housing development planned which does not require central heating as it is so well insulated. I'd buy one of those houses. Electric cars are on their way, with a little bit of a nudge from government but mainly because enough people have started to say they want one of those. Public transport is on the cusp of a renaissance because car travel in many cities and towns has become so intolerable. These are examples of meaningful, demand-driven change.
Do we like taxes? The silence is deafening. However, are we willing to sign up for an 18 month contract for all and sundry because we want it? Uh-huh...
How about a little less preaching and a little more encouragement to change because it is worth doing and it saves us money? And how about people with lots of money jetting off to glaciers to tell us to be a bit greener booking single flights to said cold places in future?
It's a little dream...
Finally, if you were going to build a permanent archive you wouldn't build a tower, you'd build a pyramid, surely. Pedantic, I know but this is just a blog.
With apologies for the length of this particular screed but these people get my goat...
Well, Postlethwaite didn't disappoint but unfortunately the tone of the piece did. I was shifting uncomfortably as the programme went on for a number of reasons but the moment the hubristic George Monbiot - a man who makes his living from this hokum, remember - came on it was time to despair.
The film was filled with very moving examples of climate change occurring, such as the Alpine guide who has seen the nearby glacier gradually disappear over several decades and the Nigerian woman who had to eke out a living in an oilfield. There was also the hideous scene of Middle England successfully opposing a wind farm due to the negative impact on house prices. I live in a very windy village and I'd love a socking great wind turbine or 10 right here but I just know we'd get the same response.
There was also the wonderful example of the Indian businessman who set up a low cost airline for that country. He was the 'bad man' in the programme. Naughty, nasty man who wants Indians to have cheap flights across their huge country. Yes, on paper this was a good example but a nanosecond's reflection makes you realise that his business is as nothing compared to the thousands of flights taken by 'Western' citizens each week.
Finally, we had the nice but sad man who makes and sells wind turbines. He is a good man and he is fighting for wind turbines to help the planet. Well, yes and he lives on a huge parcel of land in Cornwall which kind of hints at his take home pay for performing this valuable social service for us all. Nice man and nice profits, no doubt.
Now, I am a good Lib Dem and I do not have any problem at all with people making money, even huge amounts of money. I also believe, as I hope to develop below, that this specific driver will be the key to addressing climate change so I am all for this man making wind turbines and money. Good luck to him and I hope he can retire at 50 having made shedloads of cash. What I object to is that he is made out to be some kind of saintly saviour. He isn't, he is a businessman - just like the Indian airline magnate.
And therein lies the 'rub' as a west country poet of days gone by might have had it. The film started well on a good premise but it gradually departed from the appropriate tone and descended into the preachy manure that is the bane of the green 'movement' and which is undoubtedly the primary cause of high levels of public scepticism. People don't like being told what to do.
Back to Monbiot who said direct action is the only way to effect change. This is where I switched off because, well, it isn't. Sure there have been some marked successes in history which have involved direct action but they have been helped along the way by a range of factors. The suffragettes did campaign for votes for women but the little matter of a world war, in which women played a central role and during which countless accepted beliefs were tested to breaking point, helped a bit. Apartheid ended in South Africa but I'm afraid the marches and protests were not the key cause of this change. What changed was South Africa and South Africans. Over 1m people in Britain marched against war in Iraq and what happened?
Monbiot might reflect that the two things which have perhaps changed our society more than any other in recent years are the motor car and plastic - and I assume that in reading this blog you are a reasonably aware kind of person so you know what they entail.
Cars gave people choice over where they lived and worked, where they went on holiday, where they shopped, where they did anything they wanted to. We could argue for decades over whether this is right or wrong but I would suggest that it is pretty undeniable. Similarly, plastic has given us affordable stuff which, rightly or wrongly, we all covet.
What changed our society beyond recognition was industry, oil and easy access to transport. What will change it again will be simple demand, not lectures. What the 'green movement' needs to do is to climb off its collective high horse (all manure scraped up and reused, all other emissions piped off to cook toast with) and encourage us to change, not scare us. We need products we want, ideas we will buy into, things we enjoy, not threats, marches and posh people telling us what to do. Wasn't the 20th century all about us telling said posh people where to get off?
There is a housing development planned which does not require central heating as it is so well insulated. I'd buy one of those houses. Electric cars are on their way, with a little bit of a nudge from government but mainly because enough people have started to say they want one of those. Public transport is on the cusp of a renaissance because car travel in many cities and towns has become so intolerable. These are examples of meaningful, demand-driven change.
Do we like taxes? The silence is deafening. However, are we willing to sign up for an 18 month contract for all and sundry because we want it? Uh-huh...
How about a little less preaching and a little more encouragement to change because it is worth doing and it saves us money? And how about people with lots of money jetting off to glaciers to tell us to be a bit greener booking single flights to said cold places in future?
It's a little dream...
Finally, if you were going to build a permanent archive you wouldn't build a tower, you'd build a pyramid, surely. Pedantic, I know but this is just a blog.
With apologies for the length of this particular screed but these people get my goat...
CHRIS HUHNE, HAMMER OF THE TORIES
Well phew, I've just listened to Chris Huhne on the 'Listen to us, aren't we clever' programme on Radio 4 following the prompting from 'Liberal Revolution'. What an interview and what a guy!
My primary feeling on listening was to want to pull Huhne away with the words 'he's not worth it' as he absolutely hammered Philip Hammond, the Tories' latest fall guy, over the non dom status of Lord Ashcroft and over Tory refusal to back LD proposals in Parliament to tidy this area up.
If this had been a boxing match the referee would have called it off midway through the first round. Fabulous stuff which makes you proud to be on the Gold (and turquoise) team.
I managed to listen to a little bit of the 'Listen...' programme as they discussed medical advice that staff performing CPR might usefully recite 'Nelly the Elephant' as it gives them a good rhythm. This gave the highly amused presenters the opportunity to chortle over two different versions of the famous song, including one by the 'Toy Dolls' which was (chortle) rather fast (chuckle) for performing this resuscitation technique. I could barely hold my toothbrush I was guffawing at their cleverness so much. What a programme this is...
My primary feeling on listening was to want to pull Huhne away with the words 'he's not worth it' as he absolutely hammered Philip Hammond, the Tories' latest fall guy, over the non dom status of Lord Ashcroft and over Tory refusal to back LD proposals in Parliament to tidy this area up.
If this had been a boxing match the referee would have called it off midway through the first round. Fabulous stuff which makes you proud to be on the Gold (and turquoise) team.
I managed to listen to a little bit of the 'Listen...' programme as they discussed medical advice that staff performing CPR might usefully recite 'Nelly the Elephant' as it gives them a good rhythm. This gave the highly amused presenters the opportunity to chortle over two different versions of the famous song, including one by the 'Toy Dolls' which was (chortle) rather fast (chuckle) for performing this resuscitation technique. I could barely hold my toothbrush I was guffawing at their cleverness so much. What a programme this is...
Thursday, 10 December 2009
POPTASTIC BURGEONING RAPSCALLION
You know, I've read the reports on the pre-budget report. I tuned into Newsnight last night - mercifully Paxman was elsewhere so it was a reasonable presentation. I have also read our party's responses. I am still struggling to build up any interest in the whole process as it is now so clearly political rather than economic and the election elephant has pushed out the walls and the ceiling so it just can't be ignored.
Some credit must be given to Alastair Darling for playing a terrible hand reasonably well, whatever you might think of the details. He has created a few talking points and some very clear dividing lines between Labour and the Tories. The Tories seem increasingly to be troubled by their decision to call for cuts and austerity, which seldom looks good going into an election. They have been directly challenged over their inheritance tax policy, about the only one they have in their rather empty cabinet.
The key problem they have is when George Osborne stands up to opine. I could be very uncharitable and make much of his whining, nasal tone and his generally supercilious attitude which fails to impress anyone other than the most rabid Daily Mail reader. I won't, though, because that would be personal and unpleasant, so let's put that to one side and forget we ever said it.
The trouble is that he is so clearly out of his depth that it verges on the embarrassing. His every comment sounds like a playground insult. His pronouncements on what the Tories would do if they won power sound like A level economics. He simply seems to lack a theory of everything, for want of a more sensible analogy and he tries to make up for it by banging on about what he does understand.
Put plainly, Alastair Darling is sunk, whatever happens. Even if Labour manages to climb out of this hole he is likely to be associated with the recession for years to come. Only if the recovery is miraculous will he be given credit for it. Its unfair but that's the game he is in. By contrast, Osborne has everything to prove and so far he simply isn't doing so.
As for Vince, what can you say. I can't be the only person who gets a warm glow whenever he offers a view. He is like Zorro without the mask. And he makes the other two look like pygmies. [Ethical question: is that comparison allowed on our modern world? If you are one of the Amazonian pygmy tribes and you have been affected by any of the issues raised on this blog, please move on.]
Some credit must be given to Alastair Darling for playing a terrible hand reasonably well, whatever you might think of the details. He has created a few talking points and some very clear dividing lines between Labour and the Tories. The Tories seem increasingly to be troubled by their decision to call for cuts and austerity, which seldom looks good going into an election. They have been directly challenged over their inheritance tax policy, about the only one they have in their rather empty cabinet.
The key problem they have is when George Osborne stands up to opine. I could be very uncharitable and make much of his whining, nasal tone and his generally supercilious attitude which fails to impress anyone other than the most rabid Daily Mail reader. I won't, though, because that would be personal and unpleasant, so let's put that to one side and forget we ever said it.
The trouble is that he is so clearly out of his depth that it verges on the embarrassing. His every comment sounds like a playground insult. His pronouncements on what the Tories would do if they won power sound like A level economics. He simply seems to lack a theory of everything, for want of a more sensible analogy and he tries to make up for it by banging on about what he does understand.
Put plainly, Alastair Darling is sunk, whatever happens. Even if Labour manages to climb out of this hole he is likely to be associated with the recession for years to come. Only if the recovery is miraculous will he be given credit for it. Its unfair but that's the game he is in. By contrast, Osborne has everything to prove and so far he simply isn't doing so.
As for Vince, what can you say. I can't be the only person who gets a warm glow whenever he offers a view. He is like Zorro without the mask. And he makes the other two look like pygmies. [Ethical question: is that comparison allowed on our modern world? If you are one of the Amazonian pygmy tribes and you have been affected by any of the issues raised on this blog, please move on.]
Friday, 4 December 2009
TAX CUTS FOR THE LOWEST PAID - A NO BRAINER
An excellent point is made here by David Lawson on the LD proposal to increase the personal tax allowance for everyone to significantly improve the position of the lowest paid - and to benefit everyone earning an 'ordinary' salary.
He makes the excellent point that the policy is being sidelined by the main commentators in favour of their usual trick of highlighting 'divisions', 'u-turns' and internal arguments rather than bothering with any of the detail.
This is, therefore, simply a plug for the other blog piece which I recommend highly.
He makes the excellent point that the policy is being sidelined by the main commentators in favour of their usual trick of highlighting 'divisions', 'u-turns' and internal arguments rather than bothering with any of the detail.
This is, therefore, simply a plug for the other blog piece which I recommend highly.
'EYNSHAM AN ANARCHIST...'
I am due to start a new job in January. I will be working in Oxford and to get there I will almost certainly use the toll bridge outside Eynsham which was sold for £1.08m yesterday. This means that every day I will have to give myself an extra half an hour to queue to cross the bridge. I will be able to watch in frustration as large lorries and other vehicles seeking to get from the A40 to the nearby Eynsham Business Park have to work their way across the queues of cars and I will be able to join the other users in boiling with rage that this bizarre anomaly from three centuries ago has been allowed to continue. We will naturally all be doing our bit towards global warming as we gun our engines to move that extra few feet every few seconds.
Still, that's Oxfordshire for you, with a County Council run by the Tories for short term gain, rather than in the long term interests of the local population. They are making swingeing cuts due to appalling financial management in past years but even so it seems inexplicable that they could not have found this sum in the long term interests of the local economy.
Once again a cynic might take this as a pointer for any future Tory government. What a relief that this prospect is receding by the day.
Still, that's Oxfordshire for you, with a County Council run by the Tories for short term gain, rather than in the long term interests of the local population. They are making swingeing cuts due to appalling financial management in past years but even so it seems inexplicable that they could not have found this sum in the long term interests of the local economy.
Once again a cynic might take this as a pointer for any future Tory government. What a relief that this prospect is receding by the day.
SO ANOTHER LABOUR MINISTER IS FULL OF S***. WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Oh dear, oh dear, the Environment Minister, Ed Miliband, has been caught out by the increasingly Stalinist 'munsnet' chat group over his admission that he uses disposable nappies for his child. He cited the fatally flawed evidence - funded by disposable nappy makers - that disposables are no more damaging than reusables if you wash your reusables at 90%, tumble dry them and then iron them, which no one in their right mind would dream of doing unless they were a freak American celeb.
What strikes me about this whole debate is how absolute it is. Its a little microcosm of politics, with both sides at loggerheads and no middle ground. Well, mumsnet, I've got two kids and we used reusables but we also used disposables when it was appropriate, such as when we were out or during the night. For the rest of the time, which was almost certainly the majority, we used reusables and washed them at 40 degrees.
For sure the public school educated Environment minister is as out of touch as the rest of his class (there's a loaded term...) but equally I can't help feeling that 'mumsnet' is rather like the KGB in its desire to be so unyielding. They should perhaps make Joanna Lovely their honorary president. Then they can hound politicians together. Or they could try to get themselves elected.
Just a thought.
[Of course this trite point doesn't do justice to the fact that Ed Miliband represents one of those northern seats which would elect the proverbial long eared herbivore if it had a red rosette on.]
What strikes me about this whole debate is how absolute it is. Its a little microcosm of politics, with both sides at loggerheads and no middle ground. Well, mumsnet, I've got two kids and we used reusables but we also used disposables when it was appropriate, such as when we were out or during the night. For the rest of the time, which was almost certainly the majority, we used reusables and washed them at 40 degrees.
For sure the public school educated Environment minister is as out of touch as the rest of his class (there's a loaded term...) but equally I can't help feeling that 'mumsnet' is rather like the KGB in its desire to be so unyielding. They should perhaps make Joanna Lovely their honorary president. Then they can hound politicians together. Or they could try to get themselves elected.
Just a thought.
[Of course this trite point doesn't do justice to the fact that Ed Miliband represents one of those northern seats which would elect the proverbial long eared herbivore if it had a red rosette on.]
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
TORY TROUBLES: THIS IS JUST TOO MUCH FUN TO BE LEGAL, SURELY?
In stark contrast to the woeful 'Today' programme, today's Independent offers fascinating analysis of the travails of the Tories as Dave's halo slips further. Most interesting is Steve Richards' piece on how Dave should not be compared to Tony 'the Liar' Blair but to William 'please like me' Hague when he was Tory leader.
Richards concludes that the essential ingredient for the Tories' poll rating is not their achievements or commitments but the unpopularity of the government. This is nothing new as the old saw has it that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them but it is another hole in the Tory bubble about which I opined so manically recently. He also notes that both Hague and Dave sought to take their party to the right, seeking to secure their 'bedrock' support but he says that in both cases they misjudged the mood and they did not need to fall back to a populist position. He points out that the narrowing in the poll ratings can be attributed to a lack of enthusiasm for Tory 'right-wing' policies that both Dave and Hague trumpeted. Once again it seems that those who study these things have more faith in voters than the politicians who are seeking their support.
There is also much about Tory green claims, as faroured by Dave since taking the helm. The headline is 'Cameron hit by Tory backlash'. Apparently lots of MPs and shadow ministers are unhappy with the idea that they will need to do anything to stop environmental change. Funnily enough, Dave's response was very good. He noted that if the evidence for climate change is 90% there it should be heeded. After all, if you were told there was a 90% chance of your house burning down, you'd get out. Well quite, Dave. Now get your party to buy into that and you might have an argument. Sadly for my MP and, as any fule no, the Tory claim to be green is similar to the mildew around a leaky outside tap. It just happens to be there, it is a mild irritation and someone will eventually get around to wiping it away. Hug a huskie? Have it stuffed with swan and served at a banquet instead.
Blimey, I've been listening to too much Mark Steel on BBC7. Must go and lie down with a Ferrero Rocher.
Richards concludes that the essential ingredient for the Tories' poll rating is not their achievements or commitments but the unpopularity of the government. This is nothing new as the old saw has it that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them but it is another hole in the Tory bubble about which I opined so manically recently. He also notes that both Hague and Dave sought to take their party to the right, seeking to secure their 'bedrock' support but he says that in both cases they misjudged the mood and they did not need to fall back to a populist position. He points out that the narrowing in the poll ratings can be attributed to a lack of enthusiasm for Tory 'right-wing' policies that both Dave and Hague trumpeted. Once again it seems that those who study these things have more faith in voters than the politicians who are seeking their support.
There is also much about Tory green claims, as faroured by Dave since taking the helm. The headline is 'Cameron hit by Tory backlash'. Apparently lots of MPs and shadow ministers are unhappy with the idea that they will need to do anything to stop environmental change. Funnily enough, Dave's response was very good. He noted that if the evidence for climate change is 90% there it should be heeded. After all, if you were told there was a 90% chance of your house burning down, you'd get out. Well quite, Dave. Now get your party to buy into that and you might have an argument. Sadly for my MP and, as any fule no, the Tory claim to be green is similar to the mildew around a leaky outside tap. It just happens to be there, it is a mild irritation and someone will eventually get around to wiping it away. Hug a huskie? Have it stuffed with swan and served at a banquet instead.
Blimey, I've been listening to too much Mark Steel on BBC7. Must go and lie down with a Ferrero Rocher.
TODAY, TOMORROW, FOREVER: TEDIUM AND FRUSTRATION
Brilliant morning on Radio 4's 'Listen to us, aren't we clever!' programme today. Perhaps the most striking moment for me came at around 8.45 when a local issue I have long had a bee in my bonnet about came on the programme. I had better not mention the issue but I have recently asked if we could take some action locally as it would greatly enhance our profile in my bit of the world, where we are going to be taking Dave head on. Unfortunately, the LDs were wary of taking any action, especially in the face of swingeing Tory cuts at the County Council due to their desperate need to balance the books in time for the anticipated arrival of their messiah next May. How the laughter will ring hollow around the county if, after all this pain and all those people losing their jobs before Christmas, Dave doesn't manage to scrape in.
The second notable point was the 5 minute argument at 8.55am, which was on the vexed subject of Afghanistan and which included a BBC correspondent in Kabul and an International Studies academic. Annoyingly for the producers, they did not argue with each other but instead agreed that the situation was extremely difficult and proceeded to provide useful insights on the recent American (and British) decision to beef up troop numbers with a view to leaving in 18 months. As they developed these arguments and the corespondent in Kabul was mid-sentence, the presenter cut them off and told us who their producers were.
It's difficult to find the appropriate expletive here. Any would do...I suppose small comfort can be taken from the fact that Rambling Jim Naughtie was absent from the airwaves but this remains a programme about the presenters and not the subjects they are seeking to discuss.
The second notable point was the 5 minute argument at 8.55am, which was on the vexed subject of Afghanistan and which included a BBC correspondent in Kabul and an International Studies academic. Annoyingly for the producers, they did not argue with each other but instead agreed that the situation was extremely difficult and proceeded to provide useful insights on the recent American (and British) decision to beef up troop numbers with a view to leaving in 18 months. As they developed these arguments and the corespondent in Kabul was mid-sentence, the presenter cut them off and told us who their producers were.
It's difficult to find the appropriate expletive here. Any would do...I suppose small comfort can be taken from the fact that Rambling Jim Naughtie was absent from the airwaves but this remains a programme about the presenters and not the subjects they are seeking to discuss.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
BLOOMING POLLS, COMING OVER HERE TAKING ALL OUR OPTIMISM...
This has to be the first 'punch the air' moment on the way to the election next year. The bubble Dave very cleverly managed to create around the Tories appears to have been well and truly punctured as the basic lack of detail they have been able to offer on what a Tory government might do if elected comes more sharply into focus. On top of that, the long lead into the widely anticipated Tory victory has allowed the spotlight to be shone quite nicely on just what that party is made up of, from Central American Peers through backward East Anglian local parties to ex-pat candidates in south west London whose money has talked even if they are unable to.
I have always had faith in people to do the right thing, especially when they are being taken for granted by the political classes and this poll hints that this is going to happen once more. As Bernard Shaw once said, 'yay'!
There are numerous aspects to this new poll, not least, as Andrew Grice says in the Independent, that it is confirmation of a trend so it can't be lightly dismissed by the Tories. It is also good for politics since neither of the two old parties is in a position to crow. There is everything to play for.
It is encouraging for us, although the suggested number of seats we might end up with is sobering. A period of dampening hopes might ensue but I hope Nickers doesn't slow down as he has been doing extremely well of late to raise the profile of the LDs as a party which actually has something to say on issues as diverse as Iraq, Afghanistan, taxation and the economy. Given that we tend to do better in areas we currently hold we can be confident that the polls for us will be confounded.
Perhaps the 64m Euro question is whether Gordon will take the chance and call a snap poll now or if he will wait and possibly see the numbers reverse once more as the hoped for recovery stutters. Once again these are interesting times and that alone is cause to celebrate after many years of rather stifling politics.
I have always had faith in people to do the right thing, especially when they are being taken for granted by the political classes and this poll hints that this is going to happen once more. As Bernard Shaw once said, 'yay'!
There are numerous aspects to this new poll, not least, as Andrew Grice says in the Independent, that it is confirmation of a trend so it can't be lightly dismissed by the Tories. It is also good for politics since neither of the two old parties is in a position to crow. There is everything to play for.
It is encouraging for us, although the suggested number of seats we might end up with is sobering. A period of dampening hopes might ensue but I hope Nickers doesn't slow down as he has been doing extremely well of late to raise the profile of the LDs as a party which actually has something to say on issues as diverse as Iraq, Afghanistan, taxation and the economy. Given that we tend to do better in areas we currently hold we can be confident that the polls for us will be confounded.
Perhaps the 64m Euro question is whether Gordon will take the chance and call a snap poll now or if he will wait and possibly see the numbers reverse once more as the hoped for recovery stutters. Once again these are interesting times and that alone is cause to celebrate after many years of rather stifling politics.
Monday, 30 November 2009
CAN SOMEONE BUY ALEX SALMOND A REALLY DIFFICULT PUZZLE FOR CHRISTMAS TO KEEP HIM BUSY?
So here we go again. A pointless little man in Edinburgh, apparently unhappy with the job he is supposed to be doing of running Scotland, instead wants independence in one of the worst economic periods the world has faced in decades. His country has a small economy and his proposals for its future would at the very least deliver the citizens of Scotland into a situation of huge uncertainty, if not economic slump which. you might conclude, would not be the actions of a sensible politician.
As ever, the best response to the bleatings of Salmond is the LD proposal for a federal state within which national identities could be affirmed and celebrated. Unfortunately - and not for the first time - this eminently sensible policy is not being heard above the nonsense spouted by characters from all sides of the debate petrified by the 'f' word with all its European connotations. How could we consider a stable, devolved, democratic system like those pesky Germans have had to endure for decades. No, far better for us to have a centralised union run without a care for the more remote parts of the country - and that includes the bits of Scotland which are remote from Edinburgh and Glasgow, Alex.
The continuous bleatings of this pointless little man have one important and very tedious side-effect. He has quite successfully managed to capture much of the national news agenda, not least on Radio 4, where Rambling Jim Naughtie's perpetual orgasm over the subject is almost audible beneath his measured and unending tones.
If a sensible response is not possible (or recognised by the media) I would like to see British politicians calling for a national - that's from Lands End to John O'Groats, with a few islands thrown in - referendum on the issue of Scottish independence. I remain convinced that this would frighten the pointless 'gnats', as another blogger amusingly refers to them, and force them to consider a far more sensible approach to their obsession with buckling the Scottish economy into an unnecessary roller-coaster ride.
After all, if the pointless little man refuses to tack back to a more sensible approach to his country's situation, a future British government of a different hue which was not dominated by Scottish politicians might not take too kindly a view of the devolution experiment - which it remains until it settles into the tedious routine which is the true mark of a successful democracy. That would be a shame for everyone, especially the Welsh, who are getting on quite happily with devolution and who will hopefully be rewarded soon with a real Parliament, and the Northern Irish, whose problems are such that any change to the existing settlement would be highly charged.
As for the issue of England, we really don't want to go there any time soon, for that would release more demons than there are in Alex Ferguson's fevered mind when it comes to the issue of referees. As an Englishman, I want to keep the lid on that particular subject firmly nailed down with heavy weights on top.
But then Alex doesn't care a fig for anyone else, he has his narrow agenda. This is why we all should have a say on Scotland's future: because it isn't Scotland's decision alone, it would affect everyone in these islands.
As ever, the best response to the bleatings of Salmond is the LD proposal for a federal state within which national identities could be affirmed and celebrated. Unfortunately - and not for the first time - this eminently sensible policy is not being heard above the nonsense spouted by characters from all sides of the debate petrified by the 'f' word with all its European connotations. How could we consider a stable, devolved, democratic system like those pesky Germans have had to endure for decades. No, far better for us to have a centralised union run without a care for the more remote parts of the country - and that includes the bits of Scotland which are remote from Edinburgh and Glasgow, Alex.
The continuous bleatings of this pointless little man have one important and very tedious side-effect. He has quite successfully managed to capture much of the national news agenda, not least on Radio 4, where Rambling Jim Naughtie's perpetual orgasm over the subject is almost audible beneath his measured and unending tones.
If a sensible response is not possible (or recognised by the media) I would like to see British politicians calling for a national - that's from Lands End to John O'Groats, with a few islands thrown in - referendum on the issue of Scottish independence. I remain convinced that this would frighten the pointless 'gnats', as another blogger amusingly refers to them, and force them to consider a far more sensible approach to their obsession with buckling the Scottish economy into an unnecessary roller-coaster ride.
After all, if the pointless little man refuses to tack back to a more sensible approach to his country's situation, a future British government of a different hue which was not dominated by Scottish politicians might not take too kindly a view of the devolution experiment - which it remains until it settles into the tedious routine which is the true mark of a successful democracy. That would be a shame for everyone, especially the Welsh, who are getting on quite happily with devolution and who will hopefully be rewarded soon with a real Parliament, and the Northern Irish, whose problems are such that any change to the existing settlement would be highly charged.
As for the issue of England, we really don't want to go there any time soon, for that would release more demons than there are in Alex Ferguson's fevered mind when it comes to the issue of referees. As an Englishman, I want to keep the lid on that particular subject firmly nailed down with heavy weights on top.
But then Alex doesn't care a fig for anyone else, he has his narrow agenda. This is why we all should have a say on Scotland's future: because it isn't Scotland's decision alone, it would affect everyone in these islands.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
A GREEN TORY IS LIKE A CHILD BEING GIVEN CASTOR OIL
Ho hum, the Tories are dragging each other on to the green bandwagon once more, having quietly slipped off sometime in 2006 when they thought no one was looking. Fresh from hugging huskies and putting a fan on his roof, Dave has clearly instructed George 'please take me seriously' Osborne to say something slightly mildewed and George has responded with all the gusto of an oil company executive with a gun to his head.
Before we dismiss this latest Tory wheeze let's quickly revisit what the LDs have promised with regard to both the green agenda and the recession. Nickers boldly grabbed the bull by the horns as the country slipped into the morass it is currently wallowing in. Struggling with these hopelessly mixed metaphors he pledged a 'green road to recovery', a clear, targeted plan which included proposals to insulate all schools and hospitals - starting immediately - as well as to begin building 10,000 new homes, all to a high environmental standard. He also pledged to invest in new train carriages and to build new high speed lines.
This was bold thinking and it remains the clearest statement by any politician of practical steps to address the recession and to provide a lasting boost to the economy.
Now putting all that on the side next to the post and the biscuit tin, lets turn to what the Tories have said.
First, George Osborne wants to pay people to recycle. This is not without merit and deserves attention but, let's be honest George, is it really as bold, radical idea to slash emissions and save the planet. Or, is it actually just an example of how a possible future Tory government would ape Labour by simply putting the onus onto local authorities to get them out of a hole in their policies? You decide, dear reader. As Osborne acknowledges, this is already being done in Windsor and Maidenhead so where's the novelty? And where's the government's role?
Second, Osborne wants to 'drive green growth'. Wahey, what a guy! What he proposes to do this is to set up a green investment bank to provide funding for companies wanting to invest in this new technology. Now, a cynic would suggest that this is not exactly proactive as it will rely on companies coming to the new facility for the funds. It is also entirely dependent on how much is made available for such investments and what rules are applied to manage the funds. Put plainly, this is a nice idea but it is so laden with caveats that it could amount to a hill of beans, to mangle an old film quote. (Now there's an amusing image: a cigar smoking, louche Humphrey Bogart putting out his recycling bin...)
Finally, Osborne wants to cut the government's own carbon emissions by 10% in the first year of this mythical Tory government. Again, what's not to like about this? Well, the test of whether such a target could be achieved might be to offset real reductions in carbon emissions against simple cuts on government activity resulting from swingeing Tory cuts across the board as they dimly drag us into depression.
Anyone seeking to damn me for my presumption is welcome to come to Oxfordshire to see how Tories here promised everyone the moon before the June elections, won and now have turned to the urgent task of trying desperately to balance their shaky books by cutting staff - and services - by 10% across the board. I bet they are making wonderful savings in their carbon emissions along the way but is this the kind of government we want?
I think its reasonably clear how different the approaches of the Tories and the LDs are to green agenda. Nickers wants to get on and do something, whereas Osborne wants to win an election at any cost.
Which approach is better? Dear reader, I credit you with too much intelligence to spell it out.
Before we dismiss this latest Tory wheeze let's quickly revisit what the LDs have promised with regard to both the green agenda and the recession. Nickers boldly grabbed the bull by the horns as the country slipped into the morass it is currently wallowing in. Struggling with these hopelessly mixed metaphors he pledged a 'green road to recovery', a clear, targeted plan which included proposals to insulate all schools and hospitals - starting immediately - as well as to begin building 10,000 new homes, all to a high environmental standard. He also pledged to invest in new train carriages and to build new high speed lines.
This was bold thinking and it remains the clearest statement by any politician of practical steps to address the recession and to provide a lasting boost to the economy.
Now putting all that on the side next to the post and the biscuit tin, lets turn to what the Tories have said.
First, George Osborne wants to pay people to recycle. This is not without merit and deserves attention but, let's be honest George, is it really as bold, radical idea to slash emissions and save the planet. Or, is it actually just an example of how a possible future Tory government would ape Labour by simply putting the onus onto local authorities to get them out of a hole in their policies? You decide, dear reader. As Osborne acknowledges, this is already being done in Windsor and Maidenhead so where's the novelty? And where's the government's role?
Second, Osborne wants to 'drive green growth'. Wahey, what a guy! What he proposes to do this is to set up a green investment bank to provide funding for companies wanting to invest in this new technology. Now, a cynic would suggest that this is not exactly proactive as it will rely on companies coming to the new facility for the funds. It is also entirely dependent on how much is made available for such investments and what rules are applied to manage the funds. Put plainly, this is a nice idea but it is so laden with caveats that it could amount to a hill of beans, to mangle an old film quote. (Now there's an amusing image: a cigar smoking, louche Humphrey Bogart putting out his recycling bin...)
Finally, Osborne wants to cut the government's own carbon emissions by 10% in the first year of this mythical Tory government. Again, what's not to like about this? Well, the test of whether such a target could be achieved might be to offset real reductions in carbon emissions against simple cuts on government activity resulting from swingeing Tory cuts across the board as they dimly drag us into depression.
Anyone seeking to damn me for my presumption is welcome to come to Oxfordshire to see how Tories here promised everyone the moon before the June elections, won and now have turned to the urgent task of trying desperately to balance their shaky books by cutting staff - and services - by 10% across the board. I bet they are making wonderful savings in their carbon emissions along the way but is this the kind of government we want?
I think its reasonably clear how different the approaches of the Tories and the LDs are to green agenda. Nickers wants to get on and do something, whereas Osborne wants to win an election at any cost.
Which approach is better? Dear reader, I credit you with too much intelligence to spell it out.
Thursday, 19 November 2009
OKAY, THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH WOMEN, NOW HOW ABOUT SOME IDEAS FOR A SOLUTION?
Lynne Featherstone has written a piece on Lib Dem Voice arguing that there should be more women in Parliament. This is a regular refrain and there can be very few LD members who would demur from this common-sense view. Like most people with a brain I agree entirely.
However, it is a bit of a disappointment that she states this blindingly obvious point of view without really going into the 'how' of changing the current system. Now forgive me if I am being a tad disloyal but this smacks of the old lag propping up the bar at the local pub lamenting the fact that this government is awful but offering nothing better as an alternative.
I am directly interested in this issue because, by sheer accident of birth I am white and male and, by virtue of the passage of time, I am also what you might call 'middle-aged'. However, these disadvantages aside, I am a serious LD and an irregular if committed campaigner. Add to this heady mix of conformity the fact that I would like to be a PPC and that I am actively seeking to get this approval and you might begin to see my problem.
I am 100% in favour of more women in Parliament. I would even go so far as to note that I would be happy to stand aside for a woman in any seat I applied for if that was appropriate since this is a glaring anomaly in our modern world. Given my current attempts at being selected this is not just an idle aspiration but a conscious decision of mine and one I may find I need to honour.
However, where I begin to feel uneasy is where the views of our able MP tend towards the 'something must be done' approach because that way lies discrimination and all-women shortlists - and look where this has got the Tories.
The problem with this [begin shouting here] approach is that it is simply old-fashioned and it will alienate good party members and voters. Any formal approach to redressing the uneven gender (and race/disability) imbalance in Parliament overlooks the simple, fundamentals of our political system at its base level, which are that membership of a political party is voluntary and that standing for Parliament is voluntary. Whatever the arguments in favour of redressing the balance are, it remains the fact that more men than women find themselves in a position where they can udnertake the daunting task of standing for Parliament [In this I am an anomaly, since my wife is currently the main breadwinner and she is on more committees in our village than she cares to mention].
Any system which seeks to redress imbalances in our political system to allow it to better reflect society will put noses out of joint and as a relatively small party which, along with every other one, will be struggling for support and funds far into the future does this help us as a whole? I'd say no.
The counter argument is that we have to have positions on a range of issues and these positions are bound to cheese off some of our members. I don't pretend that I love every policy we have but I'm willing to stay on board and not rock the boat because the general direction of travel is the right one. I'm sure that is true of every other member, from the bottom to the top. However, I'd suggest that a canny general - or, in this case his/her staff - needs to pick their argument carefully.
Perhaps what we need is a bit more encouragement and a little less of the polemical approach to such important matters. I remember the 'Emily's List' idea, which gave practical, financial support to female PPCs to help them to get elected. I hope this still exists but it seems to have disappeared from the political radar for some years.
One idea I have long had is that every one of our MPs might usefully be 'paired' with a female PPC near to their constituency. That way they could share their experience and expertise and hopefully add weight to their campaigns, thus 'organically' adding to our roster of worthy female MPs. Such an approach could easily be widened out to include other groups which are under-represented.
Another possible answer might be for two-member constituencies across the country into which each party must propose both male and female candidates to be allowed to stand. This would not guarantee that more women got elected but it would certainly re-tilt the table somewhat in their direction.
There are bound to be countless other ideas and I would like to see our representatives proposing them rather than simply lamenting the status quo.
Now the disclaimer: I like Lynne Featherstone; I read her blog regularly; I don't hate women - heck, I even married one...[and if that last comment doesn't have people marching on my house with pitchforks and burning crosses, nothing will ;-)]
However, it is a bit of a disappointment that she states this blindingly obvious point of view without really going into the 'how' of changing the current system. Now forgive me if I am being a tad disloyal but this smacks of the old lag propping up the bar at the local pub lamenting the fact that this government is awful but offering nothing better as an alternative.
I am directly interested in this issue because, by sheer accident of birth I am white and male and, by virtue of the passage of time, I am also what you might call 'middle-aged'. However, these disadvantages aside, I am a serious LD and an irregular if committed campaigner. Add to this heady mix of conformity the fact that I would like to be a PPC and that I am actively seeking to get this approval and you might begin to see my problem.
I am 100% in favour of more women in Parliament. I would even go so far as to note that I would be happy to stand aside for a woman in any seat I applied for if that was appropriate since this is a glaring anomaly in our modern world. Given my current attempts at being selected this is not just an idle aspiration but a conscious decision of mine and one I may find I need to honour.
However, where I begin to feel uneasy is where the views of our able MP tend towards the 'something must be done' approach because that way lies discrimination and all-women shortlists - and look where this has got the Tories.
The problem with this [begin shouting here] approach is that it is simply old-fashioned and it will alienate good party members and voters. Any formal approach to redressing the uneven gender (and race/disability) imbalance in Parliament overlooks the simple, fundamentals of our political system at its base level, which are that membership of a political party is voluntary and that standing for Parliament is voluntary. Whatever the arguments in favour of redressing the balance are, it remains the fact that more men than women find themselves in a position where they can udnertake the daunting task of standing for Parliament [In this I am an anomaly, since my wife is currently the main breadwinner and she is on more committees in our village than she cares to mention].
Any system which seeks to redress imbalances in our political system to allow it to better reflect society will put noses out of joint and as a relatively small party which, along with every other one, will be struggling for support and funds far into the future does this help us as a whole? I'd say no.
The counter argument is that we have to have positions on a range of issues and these positions are bound to cheese off some of our members. I don't pretend that I love every policy we have but I'm willing to stay on board and not rock the boat because the general direction of travel is the right one. I'm sure that is true of every other member, from the bottom to the top. However, I'd suggest that a canny general - or, in this case his/her staff - needs to pick their argument carefully.
Perhaps what we need is a bit more encouragement and a little less of the polemical approach to such important matters. I remember the 'Emily's List' idea, which gave practical, financial support to female PPCs to help them to get elected. I hope this still exists but it seems to have disappeared from the political radar for some years.
One idea I have long had is that every one of our MPs might usefully be 'paired' with a female PPC near to their constituency. That way they could share their experience and expertise and hopefully add weight to their campaigns, thus 'organically' adding to our roster of worthy female MPs. Such an approach could easily be widened out to include other groups which are under-represented.
Another possible answer might be for two-member constituencies across the country into which each party must propose both male and female candidates to be allowed to stand. This would not guarantee that more women got elected but it would certainly re-tilt the table somewhat in their direction.
There are bound to be countless other ideas and I would like to see our representatives proposing them rather than simply lamenting the status quo.
Now the disclaimer: I like Lynne Featherstone; I read her blog regularly; I don't hate women - heck, I even married one...[and if that last comment doesn't have people marching on my house with pitchforks and burning crosses, nothing will ;-)]
THE QUEEN SPEAKS, THE PM TOTTERS
Fascinating vignettes from the Queen's Speech yesterday, mostly arising from the arguments after the event.
First, how telling to see that Dave and Gordon could barely speak to each other. The pictures I have seen of them walking to the Lords did not cast Brown in a good light. If I were a senior Labour official I would be sharpening the axe simply because, in this image-obsessed world, Brown looks like a loser and whatever the 'fair play argument might be, that is going to affect a lot of potential voters. That said, Dave has to work on losing the smug expression he increasingly adopts. The voters aren't going to like that either, Dave.
Second, it was impressive watching the cerebral David Laws on Channel 4 News as he damned the floundering and child-like Ed Balls, who sounded like he was having a playground argument with Tory Michael Gove. Michael Gove suffers from being just too posh sounding, although he did provide the most telling contribution when he simply agreed wholeheartedly with much of what Laws said. Well quite, and that's what your leader does: he offers little but simply agrees with the 'zeitgeist'. David Laws is one of our team who really should be on TV more as he really seems to know his stuff.
Finally, Newsnight provided perhaps the mopst interesting moment - the execrable Jeremy Paxman notwithstanding - as their panel of experts discussed the events of the day. The Labour representative, Peter Hyman, was absolutely stark in his assessment of the current situation: he said uncategorically that Gordon Brown must go and go soon. This was quite interesting since the panel members tend to show a certain loyalty to their parties.
I have always tended to the view that the incumbent should be supported to the hilt as infighting is bad for everyone but I am increasingly supporting the view that the Labour Party has to do something pretty dramatic now if it wants to survive at the next election. Hyman's very useful summary was that a new leader might mean that Labour was out of office for only one term, rather than several as seems likely if Brown is allowed to wobble on.
Whatever happens, its very interesting for those of us watching.
First, how telling to see that Dave and Gordon could barely speak to each other. The pictures I have seen of them walking to the Lords did not cast Brown in a good light. If I were a senior Labour official I would be sharpening the axe simply because, in this image-obsessed world, Brown looks like a loser and whatever the 'fair play argument might be, that is going to affect a lot of potential voters. That said, Dave has to work on losing the smug expression he increasingly adopts. The voters aren't going to like that either, Dave.
Second, it was impressive watching the cerebral David Laws on Channel 4 News as he damned the floundering and child-like Ed Balls, who sounded like he was having a playground argument with Tory Michael Gove. Michael Gove suffers from being just too posh sounding, although he did provide the most telling contribution when he simply agreed wholeheartedly with much of what Laws said. Well quite, and that's what your leader does: he offers little but simply agrees with the 'zeitgeist'. David Laws is one of our team who really should be on TV more as he really seems to know his stuff.
Finally, Newsnight provided perhaps the mopst interesting moment - the execrable Jeremy Paxman notwithstanding - as their panel of experts discussed the events of the day. The Labour representative, Peter Hyman, was absolutely stark in his assessment of the current situation: he said uncategorically that Gordon Brown must go and go soon. This was quite interesting since the panel members tend to show a certain loyalty to their parties.
I have always tended to the view that the incumbent should be supported to the hilt as infighting is bad for everyone but I am increasingly supporting the view that the Labour Party has to do something pretty dramatic now if it wants to survive at the next election. Hyman's very useful summary was that a new leader might mean that Labour was out of office for only one term, rather than several as seems likely if Brown is allowed to wobble on.
Whatever happens, its very interesting for those of us watching.
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
SECURE THE FURNITURE, MAUD: GORDON MIGHT JUST BE CONSIDERING SOMETHING BOLD
Now here's a thing. Could Gordon Brown be planning the most radical move of his political life. The words 'Gordon', 'Brown' and 'radical' don't sit well together but it would indeed be a brave step for this most indecisive of Prime Ministers to recognise the failure of the war in Afghanistan and the impossibility of ever 'winning' there and pulling British troops out to stop them being killed needlessly.
Imagine if you will a scenario some time around next May where the first of our troops start to disembark from planes to be greeted with adulation by their friends and families, not to mention a smattering of well-placed politicians. A national celebration of their commitment and a service of remembrance for their fallen comrades could be organised. You could add to the mix the suggestion that David Cameron's race for office has faltered, with his Tories stubbornly sticking to their current 'good-but-not-enough-to-win' level of support, throw in the wily and irrepressible Peter Mandelson to spice things up, possibly even a new standard-bearer for Labour - not necessarily a new leader, you understand. Don't forget the more localised fight of LDs across the country against the Tory foe, a fight which is more likely to succeed than the national competition as voters have real evidence of LD achievement
If you stirred this concoction for three or more weeks you could have one of the most fascinating political competitions for decades.
I should note that I give Gordon Brown more credence than to assume he would use Afghanistan as a simple political tool but it would be a fool who didn't recognise that bold action on this difficult issue could have huge dividends in a range of areas.
Then again, our dithering Prime Minister is more likely to do nothing and allow the negative impact of Afghanistan to continue to erode his authority and Dave will continue to ride on the wave of antipathy, promising jam tomorrow but failing to tell anyone what flavour it will be or when they might get it, as we must first starve before we can eat.
Imagine if you will a scenario some time around next May where the first of our troops start to disembark from planes to be greeted with adulation by their friends and families, not to mention a smattering of well-placed politicians. A national celebration of their commitment and a service of remembrance for their fallen comrades could be organised. You could add to the mix the suggestion that David Cameron's race for office has faltered, with his Tories stubbornly sticking to their current 'good-but-not-enough-to-win' level of support, throw in the wily and irrepressible Peter Mandelson to spice things up, possibly even a new standard-bearer for Labour - not necessarily a new leader, you understand. Don't forget the more localised fight of LDs across the country against the Tory foe, a fight which is more likely to succeed than the national competition as voters have real evidence of LD achievement
If you stirred this concoction for three or more weeks you could have one of the most fascinating political competitions for decades.
I should note that I give Gordon Brown more credence than to assume he would use Afghanistan as a simple political tool but it would be a fool who didn't recognise that bold action on this difficult issue could have huge dividends in a range of areas.
Then again, our dithering Prime Minister is more likely to do nothing and allow the negative impact of Afghanistan to continue to erode his authority and Dave will continue to ride on the wave of antipathy, promising jam tomorrow but failing to tell anyone what flavour it will be or when they might get it, as we must first starve before we can eat.
3D TV? STILL NO.
I tuned in for the 3D programmes on Channel 4 last night and I was hoping that the technology behind this might have moved on to make it something approaching user-friendly but alas it remains the TV equivalent of MS-DOS.
There were loads of people on the programmes to tell us how fascinating this all was and how 3D TV is a must see thing but sadly this is entirely in keeping with the hype of the 1980s which I remember from my childhood, not to mention the hype of decades before that.
The simple fact is that 3D TV only works in poor colour, with stupid glasses - which those of us still wedded to face furniture find a bind, must be watched in darkness and consequently gives you a headache.
The biggest drawback, however, is simply that it completely fails to 'wow' in any way. The Derren Brown show included a range of magic tricks from various people which were fun and which would have been quite enjoyable in 2D but which in 3D simply became blurred as you constantly had to adjust your vision to the different camera angles. Yes, it was definitely 3D and yes it was mildly diverting but the colour simply made it look like a programme from the war.
What is it with meejah types that they have to latch on to the next big thing like this, without doing what any sensible politician or historian would do, which is to look back and see what happened previously?
There were loads of people on the programmes to tell us how fascinating this all was and how 3D TV is a must see thing but sadly this is entirely in keeping with the hype of the 1980s which I remember from my childhood, not to mention the hype of decades before that.
The simple fact is that 3D TV only works in poor colour, with stupid glasses - which those of us still wedded to face furniture find a bind, must be watched in darkness and consequently gives you a headache.
The biggest drawback, however, is simply that it completely fails to 'wow' in any way. The Derren Brown show included a range of magic tricks from various people which were fun and which would have been quite enjoyable in 2D but which in 3D simply became blurred as you constantly had to adjust your vision to the different camera angles. Yes, it was definitely 3D and yes it was mildly diverting but the colour simply made it look like a programme from the war.
What is it with meejah types that they have to latch on to the next big thing like this, without doing what any sensible politician or historian would do, which is to look back and see what happened previously?
Monday, 16 November 2009
LD LEADER LAUNCHES TIRADE AGAINST HER MAJESTY, GAWD BLESS 'ER!
Or at least that is likely to be the reaction of the rabid tabloid press. The doubtless overheated response aside, you have to admire Nickers. His latest statement that the Queen's Speech should be scrapped this year to make way for fundamental reform of politics is right on the nail and it has quite reasonably got a decent amount of coverage.
What I would like to see would be spokespeople from the two old parties asked to respond to this, as quite frankly they can't. Labour will harp on about keeping their work going to 'transform' Britain. The Tories will blather about this being a sideshow and calling for an election. The subtext there will be the Tories' absolute terror of any meaningful change.
There was a related piece in the Independent on Saturday in which the excellent Andrew Grice noted that the Civil Service has simply given up on Labour and is working more and more with the Tories, rather as happened in reverse at the fag-end of John Major's time in office. I think the calls by Nickers for more fundamental changes are spot on and will stand very nicely against what could become seen as simple opportunism on the part of the Tories as they bleat about the government calling an election.
Good on you Nickers. Now, lets work on that prison haircut...
What I would like to see would be spokespeople from the two old parties asked to respond to this, as quite frankly they can't. Labour will harp on about keeping their work going to 'transform' Britain. The Tories will blather about this being a sideshow and calling for an election. The subtext there will be the Tories' absolute terror of any meaningful change.
There was a related piece in the Independent on Saturday in which the excellent Andrew Grice noted that the Civil Service has simply given up on Labour and is working more and more with the Tories, rather as happened in reverse at the fag-end of John Major's time in office. I think the calls by Nickers for more fundamental changes are spot on and will stand very nicely against what could become seen as simple opportunism on the part of the Tories as they bleat about the government calling an election.
Good on you Nickers. Now, lets work on that prison haircut...
Sunday, 15 November 2009
OMG - DAVE CAN'T DO GOD EITHER
Onto more serious matters, I watched Songs of Praise this evening as it featured my local market town, Witney and featured an interview with the local MP, one D. Cameron esq.
Now I feel a little guilty at constantly having a go at the great man as he is genuinely a 'nice guy' but watching him in an interview is never comfortable as he can barely answer the question 'what's your name' without equivocating for England. This show naturally featured an interrogation about his religious beliefs - dangerous territory in our mercifully sceptical country - and Dave's answers were as vague as it was possible to be.
Basically Dave goes to church because he always has and because he used to see a church out of his window. Nothing wrong with that: in other words he is Church of England because he grew up with it and he has the normal level of belief which that religion is famed throughout the world for, i.e. grudging, embarrassed and generally uncommitted. [For any zealots out there I can say all this as I am a committed member of said church but I ain't heading on any crusades...]
That's fine but it is still troubling that a man who would lead our country cannot answer a question. I want a leader who calls a digging implement a digging implement. Would he? No. He'd blame the Labour government for failing to invest in digging implements and pledge that his government would look into a range of models for establishing holes in the ground. He would promise to consult people on the future of digging implements and holes - unless the Czech President decided that he couldn't...
In the name of God, put your proverbial cards on the table Dave - just once before next May.
Now I feel a little guilty at constantly having a go at the great man as he is genuinely a 'nice guy' but watching him in an interview is never comfortable as he can barely answer the question 'what's your name' without equivocating for England. This show naturally featured an interrogation about his religious beliefs - dangerous territory in our mercifully sceptical country - and Dave's answers were as vague as it was possible to be.
Basically Dave goes to church because he always has and because he used to see a church out of his window. Nothing wrong with that: in other words he is Church of England because he grew up with it and he has the normal level of belief which that religion is famed throughout the world for, i.e. grudging, embarrassed and generally uncommitted. [For any zealots out there I can say all this as I am a committed member of said church but I ain't heading on any crusades...]
That's fine but it is still troubling that a man who would lead our country cannot answer a question. I want a leader who calls a digging implement a digging implement. Would he? No. He'd blame the Labour government for failing to invest in digging implements and pledge that his government would look into a range of models for establishing holes in the ground. He would promise to consult people on the future of digging implements and holes - unless the Czech President decided that he couldn't...
In the name of God, put your proverbial cards on the table Dave - just once before next May.
COMEDY INTERLUDE: MIRANDA
Well, I've just seen the first episode of the new sitcom by Miranda Hart, titled quite sensibly 'Miranda' and it zinged. I had heard it on the radio before so I was concerned I might find it a bit tedious but not a bit of it.
Miranda Hart has comedy timing Eric Morecambe would be proud of - I love slapstick and I regret that there isn't more of it - and she can deliver a line like a sniper's bullet. I love comedies and I try to watch them all. It is rare to laugh out loud throughout a full 28 minutes but this was an exception.
The best bit has to be the ending, which was very much the 1970s silly chase scene and which featured the immortal lines 'you have been watching'. Cracking stuff.
Miranda Hart has comedy timing Eric Morecambe would be proud of - I love slapstick and I regret that there isn't more of it - and she can deliver a line like a sniper's bullet. I love comedies and I try to watch them all. It is rare to laugh out loud throughout a full 28 minutes but this was an exception.
The best bit has to be the ending, which was very much the 1970s silly chase scene and which featured the immortal lines 'you have been watching'. Cracking stuff.
Sunday, 8 November 2009
AFGHANISTAN: THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH
The Independent's brilliant Middle East correspondent, Patrick Cockburn, has an article in today's paper which clearly sets out why the war in Afghanistan - and it is a war when British soldiers are being killed every day - is unnecessary and unwinnable.
He repeats the fundamental point that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were precisely what the nebulous 'al Qaeda' wanted and unfortunately an American President of limited abilities and a British Prime Minister with appalling judgment took the bait in one gulp. Cockburn mentions the uncomfortable truth that the centre of the supposed 'al Qaeda' insurgency against civilised human beings is actually in Pakistan. So when is the invasion of Lahore going to be, Gordon?
Cockburn also notes that the Afghan government is utterly corrupt and not worthy of our support. It is essentially one side of a long running tribal dispute within the country.
His conclusion is a hard one to swallow for any British Prime Minister. The war cannot be won and withdrawal will be humiliating - and will be hailed as a victory for the pointless bearded oafs who want to drag us back to the middle ages to satisfy their warped world view - but it would be the right decision and it would stop British soldiers from dying, he argues. For that reason alone, this has to be worth considering and any Prime Minister worth his salt should be doing so. Regrettably, Gordon Brown has a pretty strong reputation for doing nothing so we can expect no change.
And what would Dave do if he won? Why, kowtow to the Americans and keep our troops there for as long as they are required.
Plus ca change...
He repeats the fundamental point that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were precisely what the nebulous 'al Qaeda' wanted and unfortunately an American President of limited abilities and a British Prime Minister with appalling judgment took the bait in one gulp. Cockburn mentions the uncomfortable truth that the centre of the supposed 'al Qaeda' insurgency against civilised human beings is actually in Pakistan. So when is the invasion of Lahore going to be, Gordon?
Cockburn also notes that the Afghan government is utterly corrupt and not worthy of our support. It is essentially one side of a long running tribal dispute within the country.
His conclusion is a hard one to swallow for any British Prime Minister. The war cannot be won and withdrawal will be humiliating - and will be hailed as a victory for the pointless bearded oafs who want to drag us back to the middle ages to satisfy their warped world view - but it would be the right decision and it would stop British soldiers from dying, he argues. For that reason alone, this has to be worth considering and any Prime Minister worth his salt should be doing so. Regrettably, Gordon Brown has a pretty strong reputation for doing nothing so we can expect no change.
And what would Dave do if he won? Why, kowtow to the Americans and keep our troops there for as long as they are required.
Plus ca change...
Thursday, 5 November 2009
OUCH! THE DAILY HIMMLER TURNS ITS GUNS ON THE TORIES
Seriously, how bad are things for the Tories when no less an organ than the Daily Mail, the in-lav journal of all good party members, has the banner headline across its front page stating that yesterday was 'A sorry day for Britain, democracy and the Tories'.
Peter Mandelson must be belting out arias in his bathtub.
Peter Mandelson must be belting out arias in his bathtub.
TORY POLICY ON EUROPE: EMPTY BOXES OF FUDGE
So there we have it, Dave's big idea over Europe: 'Whoops, guys, we completely miscalculated with our last 'cast-iron' pledge so let's make another'. And what is that pledge?
That the Tories will promise no more treaties without a referendum. Great, only why should we trust you on this when you didn't give people a referendum in 1972 (original accession treaty), in 1985 (Single European Act) or in 1992 (Maastricht Treaty), all of which it could be argued were far more important than the Lisbon Treaty? (NB: anyone seeking to deny this must address the notion that joining the whole edifice of Europe could ever be less significant than the latest tidy-up exercise.)
But never mind that, the Tories will seek to renegotiate the Lisbon Treaty. They keyword there is 'seek'. They will go to Europe, they will half-heartedly ask for this, they will be told 'no' as this goes against the whole idea of Europe and would unravel the whole system and they will return to Britain holding onions under their noses and tell us they tried. Well boo hoo.
The wonderful news for the Lib Dems is that this will remain an unexploded bomb at the centre of any future Tory administration as the rabid Tory Eurosceptics (Lord Tebbit was on the radio this morning, gosh how he's missed...) will never let this go. Dave's prospective government is holed below the waterline even before it is launched.
That the Tories will promise no more treaties without a referendum. Great, only why should we trust you on this when you didn't give people a referendum in 1972 (original accession treaty), in 1985 (Single European Act) or in 1992 (Maastricht Treaty), all of which it could be argued were far more important than the Lisbon Treaty? (NB: anyone seeking to deny this must address the notion that joining the whole edifice of Europe could ever be less significant than the latest tidy-up exercise.)
But never mind that, the Tories will seek to renegotiate the Lisbon Treaty. They keyword there is 'seek'. They will go to Europe, they will half-heartedly ask for this, they will be told 'no' as this goes against the whole idea of Europe and would unravel the whole system and they will return to Britain holding onions under their noses and tell us they tried. Well boo hoo.
The wonderful news for the Lib Dems is that this will remain an unexploded bomb at the centre of any future Tory administration as the rabid Tory Eurosceptics (Lord Tebbit was on the radio this morning, gosh how he's missed...) will never let this go. Dave's prospective government is holed below the waterline even before it is launched.
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
PMQs: LDs ROCK, DAVE STUMBLES, GORDON SMILES
Great PMQs today with the Tories clearly out of sorts and Gordon actually sounding like he was enjoying himself for once. I listened on the radio rather than watching on TV and it seems to convey far more of the atmosphere that way. The braying oafery of the Tory benches comes across far more clearly and the barracking Nickers has to put up with would shame the chimps' enclosure at the zoo.
Gordon and the Labour benches missed no opportunity to use the phrase 'cast iron guarantee', although Brown couldn't even get this right all the way through, referring at one point to an 'iron cast' guarantee. If this man was on your football team you'd never willingly give him the ball would you? If he was in the opposition area behind the goalkeeper he could still score an own goal.
The LDs punched way above our weight in this PMQs, with four questions as well as Nickers' two, all on grown up subjects, such as Willie Rennie asking about Rosyth and the much undervalued and underused Alan Beith raising the issue of police pensions. It makes you proud to hear what proper politicians can do - not to mention frustrated that we don't have 646 LDs in Parliament based on the sparkling performance of our team at Westminster.
Dave played it serious, asking about Afghanistan and MPs' expenses but he failed to land any blows. They say the true measure of someone can be gauged when they face a crisis. Could this be the real Dave: ill at ease, struggling to keep his party in line and incapable of challenging the major issues of the day. Compared to Dave, Nickers' questions on Afghanistan were to the point, relevant and clear.
Gordon and the Labour benches missed no opportunity to use the phrase 'cast iron guarantee', although Brown couldn't even get this right all the way through, referring at one point to an 'iron cast' guarantee. If this man was on your football team you'd never willingly give him the ball would you? If he was in the opposition area behind the goalkeeper he could still score an own goal.
The LDs punched way above our weight in this PMQs, with four questions as well as Nickers' two, all on grown up subjects, such as Willie Rennie asking about Rosyth and the much undervalued and underused Alan Beith raising the issue of police pensions. It makes you proud to hear what proper politicians can do - not to mention frustrated that we don't have 646 LDs in Parliament based on the sparkling performance of our team at Westminster.
Dave played it serious, asking about Afghanistan and MPs' expenses but he failed to land any blows. They say the true measure of someone can be gauged when they face a crisis. Could this be the real Dave: ill at ease, struggling to keep his party in line and incapable of challenging the major issues of the day. Compared to Dave, Nickers' questions on Afghanistan were to the point, relevant and clear.
THE TORIES WILL DO NOTHING OVER EUROPE - EVER
Dave has been forced onto the back foot over Europe - that beautiful curse of Tory leaders since Tory Ted Heath took us in in 1972 and Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act, despite not having read it. He has denied that he has done a u-turn or betrayed his supporters over this issue.
Well, I reckon that makes Dave either a fool or a liar. I'm sure he's no fool...but I would never accuse him of lying. I leave it to you, dear reader, to make up your mind.
He parroted the view that the government has 'given away powers to Europe' and he said he would seek to get some of them back if he becomes Prime Minister, a nebulous, undeliverable commitment if ever there was one. The obvious question remains something like this: if the government has given away power to Europe by signing the Lisbon Treaty, doesn't that mean that every former Prime Minister who signed a treaty has given away power, including, as mentioned above, Tory Ted Heath (took us in), Tory Margaret Thatcher (Single European Act, committing us to a single currency) and, er, Tory John Major (setting up the far more wide-ranging and powerful European Union)?
The second question is the usual one for Dave. Cut the soundbites, cut the cr@p, tell us precisely what and when your government would do if it was elected to change Britain's relationship with the EU. One of the safest bets you will ever have is that, if elected, a Tory government will do nothing over Europe as it will be completely paralysed within itself. What leadership we would see as a result.
But I must desist, for attacking the Tories over Europe is rather like kicking a legless, petrified puppy: it is entirely vulnerable and cannot hope to respond without first seeking to attack itself first. In 2005 the LDs promised a referendum on the whole idea of our membership of the EU. Regrettably that clear, principled policy has slipped quietly out of our policy pledges. Wouldn't it show leadership that Dave can only dream of if the LDs - alone among the main parties in Britain - gave a 'cast-iron' pledge to hold such a referendum if elected or to fight for one in the next Parliament anyway.
Well, I reckon that makes Dave either a fool or a liar. I'm sure he's no fool...but I would never accuse him of lying. I leave it to you, dear reader, to make up your mind.
He parroted the view that the government has 'given away powers to Europe' and he said he would seek to get some of them back if he becomes Prime Minister, a nebulous, undeliverable commitment if ever there was one. The obvious question remains something like this: if the government has given away power to Europe by signing the Lisbon Treaty, doesn't that mean that every former Prime Minister who signed a treaty has given away power, including, as mentioned above, Tory Ted Heath (took us in), Tory Margaret Thatcher (Single European Act, committing us to a single currency) and, er, Tory John Major (setting up the far more wide-ranging and powerful European Union)?
The second question is the usual one for Dave. Cut the soundbites, cut the cr@p, tell us precisely what and when your government would do if it was elected to change Britain's relationship with the EU. One of the safest bets you will ever have is that, if elected, a Tory government will do nothing over Europe as it will be completely paralysed within itself. What leadership we would see as a result.
But I must desist, for attacking the Tories over Europe is rather like kicking a legless, petrified puppy: it is entirely vulnerable and cannot hope to respond without first seeking to attack itself first. In 2005 the LDs promised a referendum on the whole idea of our membership of the EU. Regrettably that clear, principled policy has slipped quietly out of our policy pledges. Wouldn't it show leadership that Dave can only dream of if the LDs - alone among the main parties in Britain - gave a 'cast-iron' pledge to hold such a referendum if elected or to fight for one in the next Parliament anyway.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
REBECCA ADLINGTON NEEDS TO GET A LIFE
Oh dear, Olympic double gold medallist Rebecca Adlington has an agent and that agent has got her all prissy over a joke made on a relatively popular comedy programme last year. This has echoes of the Andrew Sachs business which about 9 people heard originally but which subsequently everyone found out about thanks to the media publicity which followed.
Well, Ms Adlington needs to get a sense of perspective. She is now in the public eye and there will be jokes about her, many of them cruel. That's what happens when you're famous. Also, the comedian in question, Frankie Boyle, is relentlessly cruel about everyone and anyone. That's why he is funny.
Let's hope we don't become like the Americans where no one can say anything. If you had to pick one quality which marks out this country it is surely the sense of humour and the relentless belittling of anyone who gets too self-important. Well, I'd say this is one person who has achieved that.
So, in better taste than the matchless Frankie, how many swimmers does it take to change a lightbulb? Two: one to change the lightbulb and one to disappear up their own fundament in a dizzying display of undeserved self-regard...
Well, Ms Adlington needs to get a sense of perspective. She is now in the public eye and there will be jokes about her, many of them cruel. That's what happens when you're famous. Also, the comedian in question, Frankie Boyle, is relentlessly cruel about everyone and anyone. That's why he is funny.
Let's hope we don't become like the Americans where no one can say anything. If you had to pick one quality which marks out this country it is surely the sense of humour and the relentless belittling of anyone who gets too self-important. Well, I'd say this is one person who has achieved that.
So, in better taste than the matchless Frankie, how many swimmers does it take to change a lightbulb? Two: one to change the lightbulb and one to disappear up their own fundament in a dizzying display of undeserved self-regard...
DAVE'S SEETHING DOZY CHEEKY TORY FIT (OVER THE LISBON TREATY)
Tee hee. There really is little to be said here, other than to point out how clearly Dave is simply a shaky bung - or plastic enclosure - in the neck of the toxic bottle that is the old Tory party. I wonder if his cork will pop before next May?
Monday, 2 November 2009
HOORAY, ANOTHER FACELES PRECINCT OPENS SOMEWHERE IN ENGLAND
My local market town has just seen a shiny new shopping precinct opened on the site of a former car park. Dave himself did the honours last week and I joined a stream of inquisitive people this morning to see what it was all about.
Well, er, it's just another precinct. It has the usual fashion chains, the usual eating and drinking chains and a cinema. Oh, and lots of empty units: we are, after all, in the midst of a recession. It goes up from the existing road to the cinema, a distance of around 100 yards, then it, er, stops.
Not much to show for what I recall was around £9m. Not much for the local Tory council to crow about, aside from the vital funds it received to replenish its vanishing reserves.
A friend of mine who lives in Witney has argued that this is a good thing since it will encourage people to shop locally. Well yes, in principle it will and I would fully support any moves to encourage local trade. Unfortunately this new, old, identikit development is not going to change much unless, that is, people simply want the same old bland nothing shops which the new precinct has to offer. And you can bet your bottom dollar that a good proportion of the new shops will have closed within 12 months, hopefully to be replaced with new ones but I wouldn't put any money on it.
As for the cinema, people in rural towns will surely declare this a major coup for Witney and indeed it might prove to be. However, one delightful aspect of the local character of Witney is that it has a lovely little cinema in the old town hall which regularly draws a full house and which shows the full range of films available at any bland out of town complex. How will this much valued business fare when faced with the might of a national cinema chain just down the road?
I don't wish the new development ill, I just wish someone in our Tory town had the courage to have promoted a more ambitious scheme, perhaps with buildings which could not be found in any other town in England and with some businesses which were more interesting and local. So the new development gets 4 out of 10 for delivery, since it does appear to be on time and in budget; 1 out of 10 for ambition; 0 out of 10 for style.
It would be churlish to see this as a microcosm for Tory ambition nationally but then this is Dave's constituency and this is a Tory-run area so why shouldn't I?
Well, er, it's just another precinct. It has the usual fashion chains, the usual eating and drinking chains and a cinema. Oh, and lots of empty units: we are, after all, in the midst of a recession. It goes up from the existing road to the cinema, a distance of around 100 yards, then it, er, stops.
Not much to show for what I recall was around £9m. Not much for the local Tory council to crow about, aside from the vital funds it received to replenish its vanishing reserves.
A friend of mine who lives in Witney has argued that this is a good thing since it will encourage people to shop locally. Well yes, in principle it will and I would fully support any moves to encourage local trade. Unfortunately this new, old, identikit development is not going to change much unless, that is, people simply want the same old bland nothing shops which the new precinct has to offer. And you can bet your bottom dollar that a good proportion of the new shops will have closed within 12 months, hopefully to be replaced with new ones but I wouldn't put any money on it.
As for the cinema, people in rural towns will surely declare this a major coup for Witney and indeed it might prove to be. However, one delightful aspect of the local character of Witney is that it has a lovely little cinema in the old town hall which regularly draws a full house and which shows the full range of films available at any bland out of town complex. How will this much valued business fare when faced with the might of a national cinema chain just down the road?
I don't wish the new development ill, I just wish someone in our Tory town had the courage to have promoted a more ambitious scheme, perhaps with buildings which could not be found in any other town in England and with some businesses which were more interesting and local. So the new development gets 4 out of 10 for delivery, since it does appear to be on time and in budget; 1 out of 10 for ambition; 0 out of 10 for style.
It would be churlish to see this as a microcosm for Tory ambition nationally but then this is Dave's constituency and this is a Tory-run area so why shouldn't I?
Saturday, 31 October 2009
THE TORY PARTY HAS NOT CHANGED ONE IOTA - WOMEN TAKE NOTE
I am currently over in Norfolk visiting the in-laws and generally enjoying a bit of relaxation, visiting the delightful coast and the finest of fine cities, Norwich. I always laugh at the bland, tired jokes about Norfolk from people who have never been here. Long may they stay away.
I also have the opportunity to enjoy perhaps the finest local paper in the country, the Eastern Daily Press. The most interesting story in this fine newspaper concerns South West Norfolk Conservatives who have turned on their PPC, Elizabeth Truss, because she had an affair four years ago. You can almost envisage the outraged party members setting up the pyre for this evil woman so she can be burned for her heresy in not being a good Tory woman.
This issue has convulsed local Tories, including the venerable Iain Dale who referred to the local party's attitude to their candidate as 'neanderthal'. He has an article in the EDP and he spent today lamenting the whole issue. He deserves respect for this resolute response and for his frankness but the whole story once again throws the Conservative Party into sharp relief - and it is not pretty close up.
This is not a party transformed by Dave into embracing equality with any passion. As several people have commented, if it had been a male PPC who had had an affair there wouldn't have been a ripple of protest. This party has not 'found' the environment in any meaningful way. It has not changed its approach to the economy, as the Cassandra-like pronouncements and pledges to cut, cut, cut of George 'I hope they don't find me out before next May' Osborne very clearly demonstrate. It is not suddenly in love with good public services or giving proper power to local government.
This Tory Party is the same beast which tore itself apart in the 1990s and it retains almost all of the same prejudices and simply backward attitudes which rendered it unelectable then. If Dave drags them to power next year it will be the biggest confidence trick since Bernard Madoff had a bright idea for paying off his debts.
I also have the opportunity to enjoy perhaps the finest local paper in the country, the Eastern Daily Press. The most interesting story in this fine newspaper concerns South West Norfolk Conservatives who have turned on their PPC, Elizabeth Truss, because she had an affair four years ago. You can almost envisage the outraged party members setting up the pyre for this evil woman so she can be burned for her heresy in not being a good Tory woman.
This issue has convulsed local Tories, including the venerable Iain Dale who referred to the local party's attitude to their candidate as 'neanderthal'. He has an article in the EDP and he spent today lamenting the whole issue. He deserves respect for this resolute response and for his frankness but the whole story once again throws the Conservative Party into sharp relief - and it is not pretty close up.
This is not a party transformed by Dave into embracing equality with any passion. As several people have commented, if it had been a male PPC who had had an affair there wouldn't have been a ripple of protest. This party has not 'found' the environment in any meaningful way. It has not changed its approach to the economy, as the Cassandra-like pronouncements and pledges to cut, cut, cut of George 'I hope they don't find me out before next May' Osborne very clearly demonstrate. It is not suddenly in love with good public services or giving proper power to local government.
This Tory Party is the same beast which tore itself apart in the 1990s and it retains almost all of the same prejudices and simply backward attitudes which rendered it unelectable then. If Dave drags them to power next year it will be the biggest confidence trick since Bernard Madoff had a bright idea for paying off his debts.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
GOD BLESS BONNIE GREER - AND THE GREAT BRITISH PUBLIC
To anyone protesting or worried about the BNP, or indeed to anyone concerned about the standard of our political culture, I hope this evening's Question Time was a lesson in how to deal with both issues. The panellists challenged Mad Eye Moody's every word expertly - none more so than the delightfully laconic Bonnie Greer - and the audience left him in no doubt about his party's real level of support.
Jack Straw had much to say but sadly he has lost his edge. He is a very able politician but this evening he rambled and thus he lost many of the arguments. Rather worryingly, Baroness Warsi was impressive and she spoke with real feeling. Should the unthinkable happen next May she must be assured a place in a Dave government.
As for Chris Huhne he is always eloquent and he spoke with passion when addressing Moody. However, I was concerned to hear him lamenting the fact that the British government did not put a limit on economic migrants from the 'new' European countries when they joined the EU. That's not a policy I would ever have supported and I would be horrified to find that the LDs had ever said this. If we did, shame on us.
But queen of the panel was the magnificent Bonnie Greer for her charm, her intelligence and for the perfectly lazy way she dispatched Moody with simple facts put across with style. She deserves all the plaudits she will hopefully receive in tomorrow's press, although she will be challenged for the honours by the feisty audience, which did the country proud.
It was refreshing and it will hopefully represent a serious blow to the aura Moody has built up around himself. As Jack Straw put it at the end, this programme has allowed proper scrutiny of the BNP and it ain't pretty, as my day on youtube clearly demonstrated.
So push off Peter Hain, please leave the country Ken Livingstone and let's allow the grown up politicians to deal with the BNP as they should be - head on and with all guns blazing.
Jack Straw had much to say but sadly he has lost his edge. He is a very able politician but this evening he rambled and thus he lost many of the arguments. Rather worryingly, Baroness Warsi was impressive and she spoke with real feeling. Should the unthinkable happen next May she must be assured a place in a Dave government.
As for Chris Huhne he is always eloquent and he spoke with passion when addressing Moody. However, I was concerned to hear him lamenting the fact that the British government did not put a limit on economic migrants from the 'new' European countries when they joined the EU. That's not a policy I would ever have supported and I would be horrified to find that the LDs had ever said this. If we did, shame on us.
But queen of the panel was the magnificent Bonnie Greer for her charm, her intelligence and for the perfectly lazy way she dispatched Moody with simple facts put across with style. She deserves all the plaudits she will hopefully receive in tomorrow's press, although she will be challenged for the honours by the feisty audience, which did the country proud.
It was refreshing and it will hopefully represent a serious blow to the aura Moody has built up around himself. As Jack Straw put it at the end, this programme has allowed proper scrutiny of the BNP and it ain't pretty, as my day on youtube clearly demonstrated.
So push off Peter Hain, please leave the country Ken Livingstone and let's allow the grown up politicians to deal with the BNP as they should be - head on and with all guns blazing.
SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO LAUGH
Well it is the talking point of the day so who am I to buck the trend by not offering my second 'twopenn'orth' of the day, first by damning two idiots and second by ridiculing the nonsense the other side spouts.
I have read Ken 'liar' Livingstoke and now Weyman Bennett, joint national secretary of Unite Against Fascism, saying that the BBC will be responsible for any increase in racist attacks as a result of showing this programme. No they won't. The people carrying out the racist attacks will be responsible for the racist attacks. The BBC will have nothing to do with it.
If you want to blame someone, you might try the Labour politicians who for decades have failed so many of the cities in the north where the BNP have a modicum of power. You might try the Tories who remain so woeful in the north that they have barely any council seats in the important cities, thus allowing those with legitimate right of centre views some representation. If you were being fair you might even criticise LDs for similar failures to expand into some of the areas affected, although you would need to acknowledge the sterling efforts of LDs to redress this problem and offer everyone concerned the utmost praise for what must be a very difficult task.
You might also blame Mad Eye Moody for making racism acceptable to many people again. You might blame the members of the BNP and associated groups for their hateful policies. But the BBC? Isn't that just the softest of targets, damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. Grow up, ye critics of the BBC and turn towards the real enemy.
On a lighter note, BNP beliefs can be destroyed with one simple recent comment. Apparently footballer Ashley Cole is not 'ethnically British' according to two members who appeared on Radio 1, of all places. Well, no he isn't but then neither am I, proud son of an English father and mother whose parents came from a blend of Scotland, Sicily and, er, Cricklewood...and god knows where before that. I'm also related by marriage to half of Gujerat in India, which improves the family blend hugely with a range of new and exotic spices. Yet Mad Eye would probably welcome me into his sorry little band with open arms.
As to this beautiful notion of 'ethnic Britishness', I regret that you, dear reader, would not make the cut whatever your background because there is no such thing as 'ethnic Britishness'. The nearest anyone could come to such an absurd linguistic concoction would be if they headed to Anglesey, where the old 'British' fled in the face of the rotten Romans and all the uncouth Europeans who came across the North Sea in times gone past.
So there we are: the British National Party is actually a Welsh Nationalist Party (with apologies to Plaid Cymru who, although I disagree with them, are demonstrably not racist) - and not only that, a north west Welsh nationalist party. Bang goes the purity myth without even breaking into a sweat, unless you fancy building your pure white Jerusalem on a rocky outcrop off the coast of Wales.
I'm sure its lovely but I'll stay in Oxfordshire, thanks.
I have read Ken 'liar' Livingstoke and now Weyman Bennett, joint national secretary of Unite Against Fascism, saying that the BBC will be responsible for any increase in racist attacks as a result of showing this programme. No they won't. The people carrying out the racist attacks will be responsible for the racist attacks. The BBC will have nothing to do with it.
If you want to blame someone, you might try the Labour politicians who for decades have failed so many of the cities in the north where the BNP have a modicum of power. You might try the Tories who remain so woeful in the north that they have barely any council seats in the important cities, thus allowing those with legitimate right of centre views some representation. If you were being fair you might even criticise LDs for similar failures to expand into some of the areas affected, although you would need to acknowledge the sterling efforts of LDs to redress this problem and offer everyone concerned the utmost praise for what must be a very difficult task.
You might also blame Mad Eye Moody for making racism acceptable to many people again. You might blame the members of the BNP and associated groups for their hateful policies. But the BBC? Isn't that just the softest of targets, damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. Grow up, ye critics of the BBC and turn towards the real enemy.
On a lighter note, BNP beliefs can be destroyed with one simple recent comment. Apparently footballer Ashley Cole is not 'ethnically British' according to two members who appeared on Radio 1, of all places. Well, no he isn't but then neither am I, proud son of an English father and mother whose parents came from a blend of Scotland, Sicily and, er, Cricklewood...and god knows where before that. I'm also related by marriage to half of Gujerat in India, which improves the family blend hugely with a range of new and exotic spices. Yet Mad Eye would probably welcome me into his sorry little band with open arms.
As to this beautiful notion of 'ethnic Britishness', I regret that you, dear reader, would not make the cut whatever your background because there is no such thing as 'ethnic Britishness'. The nearest anyone could come to such an absurd linguistic concoction would be if they headed to Anglesey, where the old 'British' fled in the face of the rotten Romans and all the uncouth Europeans who came across the North Sea in times gone past.
So there we are: the British National Party is actually a Welsh Nationalist Party (with apologies to Plaid Cymru who, although I disagree with them, are demonstrably not racist) - and not only that, a north west Welsh nationalist party. Bang goes the purity myth without even breaking into a sweat, unless you fancy building your pure white Jerusalem on a rocky outcrop off the coast of Wales.
I'm sure its lovely but I'll stay in Oxfordshire, thanks.
MAD EYE MOODY IS NOT A THREAT TO THE COUNTRY; AN ATTACK ON FREE SPEECH IS
Oh dear, Question Time approaches and the whole issue is spinning wildly out of control. Mad Eye Moody, the party leader, must be singing in his bathtub over this. (I shan't name him as I'd rather not add to the exposure he and his acolytes get on the interweb)
It seems to me that the best possible way to deal with this would be to let Moody appear and let the audience and panellists find him out rather than all this pointless grandstanding because he never looks or sounds good when he is invited to speak. He invariably launches into a diatribe and quickly becomes incoherent.
Peter Hain should be ashamed that he has been made to look so foolish, whereas the effortlessly polished Chris Huhne, as well as Jack Straw, Bonnie Greer and Baroness Warsi should be commended for facing up to the challenge of extremism in a far more mature way.
If you go to the Question Time website it is full of stories about Moody and his cronies, with lots of 'worthies' like Ken 'liar' Livingstone agonising over his appearance, thus giving him and his Harry Potter-related merchandising far more exposure than it might have had.
Isn't the key point to make to all these bleeding heart 'liberals' that democracy and free speech are not in any way easy but they remain by far the least worst option when faced with extremism. The BBC is doing its job in representing the views of the country and if those views are in some way unpleasant it is for 60 million people to reflect on, not the constantly criticised Beeb.
UPDATE: in fact here's how to challenge the British Numpty Party, with facts.
It seems to me that the best possible way to deal with this would be to let Moody appear and let the audience and panellists find him out rather than all this pointless grandstanding because he never looks or sounds good when he is invited to speak. He invariably launches into a diatribe and quickly becomes incoherent.
Peter Hain should be ashamed that he has been made to look so foolish, whereas the effortlessly polished Chris Huhne, as well as Jack Straw, Bonnie Greer and Baroness Warsi should be commended for facing up to the challenge of extremism in a far more mature way.
If you go to the Question Time website it is full of stories about Moody and his cronies, with lots of 'worthies' like Ken 'liar' Livingstone agonising over his appearance, thus giving him and his Harry Potter-related merchandising far more exposure than it might have had.
Isn't the key point to make to all these bleeding heart 'liberals' that democracy and free speech are not in any way easy but they remain by far the least worst option when faced with extremism. The BBC is doing its job in representing the views of the country and if those views are in some way unpleasant it is for 60 million people to reflect on, not the constantly criticised Beeb.
UPDATE: in fact here's how to challenge the British Numpty Party, with facts.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
PMQs: DAVE DOESN'T DELIVER ON THE POST
I am at a loss. Once again PMQs involved some sound questions and some reasonable answers from Gordon Brown. Have our MPs really had a good look at themselves and seen what everyone else has seen for all these years, namely that Parliamentary debates and PMQs in particular have largely been farcical?
Happily for all those who 'get the joke', the main antagonists, Gordon and Dave, were up to their usual nonsense of shouting at each other and not really caring what was said in response.
Dave asked Gordon about the looming postal strike and asked Gordon to condemn it. Gordon rather smugly responded that he had condemned the strike last week. Dave then asked why the planned part-privatisation was not being pursued and why the bill going through Parliament earlier in the year had been halted. Apparently someone called Peter Mandelson had supported this in the past. Gordon said there was no commercial buyer willing to take on Royal Mail and he mentioned modernisation plans for the service which were moving forward as, er, something positive happening to Royal Mail.
Dave said this was 'complete nonsense', Gordon had stopped the bill because he couldn't sell it to backbenchers. This was a withering attack which somewhat loses its impact when you consider that what Dave was effectively saying was that the Tories would privatise the Royal Mail if they came into office. Is that a 'policy', Dave and do you really think most voters would warm to it?
Gordon said the bill's lack of progress had nothing to do with the current dispute, which is true. The government has simply stopped doing anything anywhere. Dave promised the support of the Tories if the bill was returned to Parliament. He argued that unrest in the Royal Mail had increased since the bill had been suspended. Gordon said Dave may seek to bring industrial unrest into the political arena but he, Mother Theresa-like, would favour negotiation and arbitration.
Dave was heckled by Labour backbenchers when he said that the party gets a huge amount of funding from the union concerned, which is odd since it is entirely true. Mr Speaker Toad told them to settle down. Dave said the unions can sense weakness in the PM and that is the reason for the strike and that Gordon should show some leadership and courage. Gordon wondered if anything Dave was saying was helping and then he launched into a final flourish, noting that the Tories were wrong on Northern Rock, on the rescue of the banking system, on fiscal stimulus, on Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round, on the recession, when Edison recorded sound, on recovery, at Wilbur and his brother when they said that man could lose his luggage...you get the idea. And, er, that was it.
Dave has to win these exchanges from now on but he sounded old-fashioned and Brown batted away his attacks rather too easily. Most of us think the Communication Workers' Union is wrong to be taking strike action, which will be hugely damaging to the Royal Mail but traditional Tory union-bashing isn't going to bring across many undecided voters. Nick Robinson on the BBC mentioned what Dave didn't raise, which was the comments of the Governor of the Bank of England on banks and bonuses. Robinson concluded that the Tories are so exposed on this issue that they dare not raise it. What a position for a party seeking government to be in, you might say...
Happily, Nickers asked the question Dave couldn't, referring to his earlier enquiries in June and July. He quite cleverly asked if Gordon would break up the biggest banks and if the Governor of Bank of England was wrong? Gordon said the future of British banking was being reviewed by the government and by the European Commission, a comment which always jars with me even as a Euro-enthusiast. Gordon did note quite sensibly that Northern Rock was a retail bank while Lehmann Brothers was an investment bank and both had collapsed, so simply dividing banks up between sectors would not necessarily be the solution. This was a good answer and a refreshing change for Gordon, who usually does everything but answer a question.
But Nickers was having none of it. He put down his board rubber, adjusted his mortar board and said the current situation is worse than before with less competition in the sector, higher bonuses for bankers and many people losing jobs. He asked whether, if banks have a 'blank cheque' from taxpayers, there should be an additional claim on their profits. This is a good line to pursue and it will resonate with voters far more than Dave's questions on the unions. Unfortunately, Gordon was on hand to inform Nickers that he was wrong, along with the Bank of England governor, it seems. The banking system has been restructured and it did not collapse. Gordon hoped the LDs would support the government's work to revive the financial system. How wonderful Gordon's world must be for him always to be right.
By this stage even my politics-phobic wife was warming to the whole event and laughing out loud as indecipherable northern accents invariably denoted Labour MPs while equally indecipherable public school accents invariably denoted Tories. Class struggle? No, that's all over these days, isn't it?
Still, compliments to most of the contributors - including LDs Paul Rowan, Michael Moore and Tim Farron - for what is fast becoming a sensible political forum, as opposed to the nonsensical bunfight of ages past. If this continues I'd say it will be the Tories who have most to lose since they are banking on their image to sweep them to power but mature debate will require a bit more policy 'beef' beneath the usual sneers.
If I were given the option of being in Dave or Gordon's shoes just at the moment I'm not sure which I'd pick. Both are in a precarious position but it seems that Dave has the most to lose. Nickers by contrast continues to move on up in his performances.
Happily for all those who 'get the joke', the main antagonists, Gordon and Dave, were up to their usual nonsense of shouting at each other and not really caring what was said in response.
Dave asked Gordon about the looming postal strike and asked Gordon to condemn it. Gordon rather smugly responded that he had condemned the strike last week. Dave then asked why the planned part-privatisation was not being pursued and why the bill going through Parliament earlier in the year had been halted. Apparently someone called Peter Mandelson had supported this in the past. Gordon said there was no commercial buyer willing to take on Royal Mail and he mentioned modernisation plans for the service which were moving forward as, er, something positive happening to Royal Mail.
Dave said this was 'complete nonsense', Gordon had stopped the bill because he couldn't sell it to backbenchers. This was a withering attack which somewhat loses its impact when you consider that what Dave was effectively saying was that the Tories would privatise the Royal Mail if they came into office. Is that a 'policy', Dave and do you really think most voters would warm to it?
Gordon said the bill's lack of progress had nothing to do with the current dispute, which is true. The government has simply stopped doing anything anywhere. Dave promised the support of the Tories if the bill was returned to Parliament. He argued that unrest in the Royal Mail had increased since the bill had been suspended. Gordon said Dave may seek to bring industrial unrest into the political arena but he, Mother Theresa-like, would favour negotiation and arbitration.
Dave was heckled by Labour backbenchers when he said that the party gets a huge amount of funding from the union concerned, which is odd since it is entirely true. Mr Speaker Toad told them to settle down. Dave said the unions can sense weakness in the PM and that is the reason for the strike and that Gordon should show some leadership and courage. Gordon wondered if anything Dave was saying was helping and then he launched into a final flourish, noting that the Tories were wrong on Northern Rock, on the rescue of the banking system, on fiscal stimulus, on Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round, on the recession, when Edison recorded sound, on recovery, at Wilbur and his brother when they said that man could lose his luggage...you get the idea. And, er, that was it.
Dave has to win these exchanges from now on but he sounded old-fashioned and Brown batted away his attacks rather too easily. Most of us think the Communication Workers' Union is wrong to be taking strike action, which will be hugely damaging to the Royal Mail but traditional Tory union-bashing isn't going to bring across many undecided voters. Nick Robinson on the BBC mentioned what Dave didn't raise, which was the comments of the Governor of the Bank of England on banks and bonuses. Robinson concluded that the Tories are so exposed on this issue that they dare not raise it. What a position for a party seeking government to be in, you might say...
Happily, Nickers asked the question Dave couldn't, referring to his earlier enquiries in June and July. He quite cleverly asked if Gordon would break up the biggest banks and if the Governor of Bank of England was wrong? Gordon said the future of British banking was being reviewed by the government and by the European Commission, a comment which always jars with me even as a Euro-enthusiast. Gordon did note quite sensibly that Northern Rock was a retail bank while Lehmann Brothers was an investment bank and both had collapsed, so simply dividing banks up between sectors would not necessarily be the solution. This was a good answer and a refreshing change for Gordon, who usually does everything but answer a question.
But Nickers was having none of it. He put down his board rubber, adjusted his mortar board and said the current situation is worse than before with less competition in the sector, higher bonuses for bankers and many people losing jobs. He asked whether, if banks have a 'blank cheque' from taxpayers, there should be an additional claim on their profits. This is a good line to pursue and it will resonate with voters far more than Dave's questions on the unions. Unfortunately, Gordon was on hand to inform Nickers that he was wrong, along with the Bank of England governor, it seems. The banking system has been restructured and it did not collapse. Gordon hoped the LDs would support the government's work to revive the financial system. How wonderful Gordon's world must be for him always to be right.
By this stage even my politics-phobic wife was warming to the whole event and laughing out loud as indecipherable northern accents invariably denoted Labour MPs while equally indecipherable public school accents invariably denoted Tories. Class struggle? No, that's all over these days, isn't it?
Still, compliments to most of the contributors - including LDs Paul Rowan, Michael Moore and Tim Farron - for what is fast becoming a sensible political forum, as opposed to the nonsensical bunfight of ages past. If this continues I'd say it will be the Tories who have most to lose since they are banking on their image to sweep them to power but mature debate will require a bit more policy 'beef' beneath the usual sneers.
If I were given the option of being in Dave or Gordon's shoes just at the moment I'm not sure which I'd pick. Both are in a precarious position but it seems that Dave has the most to lose. Nickers by contrast continues to move on up in his performances.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
HANG ON, THEY'RE BEING SENSIBLE!
Well, for an event ripe for satire, today's PMQs was a bit off-kilter. Mr Speaker Toad had clearly told everyone to be on their best behaviour and, incredibly, they were to a large extent. Gordon Brown started by reading out a list of all the service personnel killed in action in Afghanistan over the summer. This made for grim reading and it was rightly heard in respectful silence.
Inevitably, after this, Members and Honourable Members made a point of associating themselves with the remarks and Gordon missed no opportunity to repeat his fulsome tribute. Unfortunately the more he repeated the tribute, the less he sounded convincing.
Dave leapt in to ask about the ongoing situation in Afghanistan and whether it should be reviewed in the light of two wars in eight years - a pertinent question for once. Unfortunately, Gordon had taken it upon himself to repeat a tribute from the House in response to nearly every question and he and Dave almost turned inside out in their efforts to remain earnest and sombre.
From the issue of the war, Dave asked about the treatment of returning troops and those injured in the conflict, once again actually a sensible and relevant issue which was not simply point scoring - scary. Gordon responded with details of what the government had done to ensure it honoured the military covenant but somehow little light emerged. So Dave continued and Gordon responded in a similar vein. This is a huge issue and one which should be given more attention but this interchange - I will not dignify it by calling it a debate - was rather like two wife beaters admitting that the problem of wife beating was serious and that more should be done to address wife-beating but meanwhile the wife-beating must continue until a solution is found to the issue of wife beating. If you wish to damn me for this analogy, tell me what you think an incoming Tory government will do about the Afghanistan conflict if they win next year. The answer is nothing because the Americans would not let them change anything so the grim fact is that, whatever happens next May, British troops will remain in the firing line for many years to come.
Dave continued to dig, turning to training for troops, particularly Territorial Army soldiers. He raised a specific case of a man who had been told he would only be given limited training before being deployed to the conflict. Gordon said he would look into this case, quite reasonably but Dave kept on about it. Once again more heat was created but not the merest glimmer of light.
Before Dave had spoken, Ann Winterton associated the Tories with Gordon's comments on the casualties. She then asked about the prospect of the Lisbon Treaty being ratified and the European Council of national leaders becoming a formal institution of the EU, which it currently isn't. She asked if the Prime Minister would consequently have to put the interests of the EU above those of the UK as a formal member of the EU. Gordon blathered about always supporting national sovereignty but this made me smile as a nice pointer to the future for any Tory leader. Europe is like the troll under the bridge to Tory victory. It is always there waiting to leap up. Tee hee.
After Dave and Gordon had 'out-earnested' each other Gordon was asked to congratulate the Guides for 70 years in existence, which he of course did. This was somewhat incongruous but it got things back to normal.
Then it was Nickers' turn and he was given a childish reception by the party that fancies itself as a government in waiting, rather like a supply teacher walking into a class of idiotic chinless oafs. Well done the 'new' Tory Party. Nickers continued the schoolteacher analogy by repeating his question sternly and with a firm glare at the assembled ranks of gibbering, harrumphing Tories. He asked why British troops are fighting for a corrupt government in Kabul. Blimey, little bit of politics there, Nickers...Gordon said the troops were supporting the elections and it was remarkable that any elections took place at all, for only in democracies can ballot boxes be stuffed in favour of the incumbent. He went on that the troops are there to protect the streets of Britain, forgetting to mention that the streets of our country were infinitely safer before his government had started blundering round the Middle East and Asia like a drunken teenager with a shotgun. Nickers, chalk dust on his jacket, his hair unruly and a pile of exercise books behind him on the benches, declared that he didn't think we could live in denial about the situation, which even the Americans had noticed, so it must be pretty serious. Nickers wanted a government of national unity if Mohammed Karzai is declared the winner of the elections and he gave the entire Tory benches a detention. Gordon said something more but I had zoned out trying to fix my keyboard which had decided to explode dramatically at this point.
Steve Webb asked about increases in the cost of living for pensioners faced with a 2.5% increases in pensions in May, which will leave them out of pocket. Gordon mentioned all the wonderful things his government has done for pensioners, including the pension credit, the increased winter fuel allowance, increasing the individual savings account allowance and, somewhat forgetting that this is Prime Minister's Questions, repeating that pensioners will be getting 'at least' a 2.5% increase in their pensions next year. I wonder if he has considered a career on the radio, since they don't listen to anyone either.
Then it was a moment of nostalgia as an old Labour lag, David Anderson, asked about the postal strike and sought assurances from Gordon to call Peter Mandelson off from attacking the Communication Workers' Union. Gordon said something but it was lost in the general ennui of the moment. Perhaps honourable Members were contemplating what the Communication Workers' Union could call itself when its members are no longer working. Perhaps 'workers' could be changed to 'lemmings'. Ahem, then at least they'd have a 'CLU'...
Then came a proper question. The room held its breath as Peter Bottomley asked if in future the text of any secret injunction granted in a British court could be placed in the library of the House of Commons. There was an audible gasp as MPs marvelled at a pertinent, sensible suggestion being made at PMQs. Several Members had to be escorted from the Chamber, some exclaiming audibly that it was a scandal and that never in their time in Parliament had they heard such sense at Prime Minister's Questions. Somewhere in the gallery, lobby correspondents were heard to sob audibly. Gordon said he would be talking to the Justice Minister about the particular case, which doesn't exactly leave me fizzing with anticipation of a speedy and proactive response...
As the Chamber reeled, there was another sensible question, this time from a Plaid Cymru MP who asked about the number of ex-service personnel currently in prison. Gordon said he would write to him and hopefully this issue will re-emerge at a later date, since its a biggie which gets scant attention.
Finally, asked about child poverty, Gordon agreed that this is an important issue which a Tory government would just make worse, nimbly dodging the issue of the failure of his government to honour one of its key 1997 manifesto pledges.
Well, plaudits must go to Mr Speaker Toad, who seems to have had an impact. This was of course the first PMQs of the pre-election season so a betting man would put a large sum on a return to the usual nonsense next week but we can only hope that a vestige of the common sense remains.
As for Nickers, I must apologise in advance as I have now got an indelible image of him in my mind as a school teacher and I cannot see how this will be shaken.
Inevitably, after this, Members and Honourable Members made a point of associating themselves with the remarks and Gordon missed no opportunity to repeat his fulsome tribute. Unfortunately the more he repeated the tribute, the less he sounded convincing.
Dave leapt in to ask about the ongoing situation in Afghanistan and whether it should be reviewed in the light of two wars in eight years - a pertinent question for once. Unfortunately, Gordon had taken it upon himself to repeat a tribute from the House in response to nearly every question and he and Dave almost turned inside out in their efforts to remain earnest and sombre.
From the issue of the war, Dave asked about the treatment of returning troops and those injured in the conflict, once again actually a sensible and relevant issue which was not simply point scoring - scary. Gordon responded with details of what the government had done to ensure it honoured the military covenant but somehow little light emerged. So Dave continued and Gordon responded in a similar vein. This is a huge issue and one which should be given more attention but this interchange - I will not dignify it by calling it a debate - was rather like two wife beaters admitting that the problem of wife beating was serious and that more should be done to address wife-beating but meanwhile the wife-beating must continue until a solution is found to the issue of wife beating. If you wish to damn me for this analogy, tell me what you think an incoming Tory government will do about the Afghanistan conflict if they win next year. The answer is nothing because the Americans would not let them change anything so the grim fact is that, whatever happens next May, British troops will remain in the firing line for many years to come.
Dave continued to dig, turning to training for troops, particularly Territorial Army soldiers. He raised a specific case of a man who had been told he would only be given limited training before being deployed to the conflict. Gordon said he would look into this case, quite reasonably but Dave kept on about it. Once again more heat was created but not the merest glimmer of light.
Before Dave had spoken, Ann Winterton associated the Tories with Gordon's comments on the casualties. She then asked about the prospect of the Lisbon Treaty being ratified and the European Council of national leaders becoming a formal institution of the EU, which it currently isn't. She asked if the Prime Minister would consequently have to put the interests of the EU above those of the UK as a formal member of the EU. Gordon blathered about always supporting national sovereignty but this made me smile as a nice pointer to the future for any Tory leader. Europe is like the troll under the bridge to Tory victory. It is always there waiting to leap up. Tee hee.
After Dave and Gordon had 'out-earnested' each other Gordon was asked to congratulate the Guides for 70 years in existence, which he of course did. This was somewhat incongruous but it got things back to normal.
Then it was Nickers' turn and he was given a childish reception by the party that fancies itself as a government in waiting, rather like a supply teacher walking into a class of idiotic chinless oafs. Well done the 'new' Tory Party. Nickers continued the schoolteacher analogy by repeating his question sternly and with a firm glare at the assembled ranks of gibbering, harrumphing Tories. He asked why British troops are fighting for a corrupt government in Kabul. Blimey, little bit of politics there, Nickers...Gordon said the troops were supporting the elections and it was remarkable that any elections took place at all, for only in democracies can ballot boxes be stuffed in favour of the incumbent. He went on that the troops are there to protect the streets of Britain, forgetting to mention that the streets of our country were infinitely safer before his government had started blundering round the Middle East and Asia like a drunken teenager with a shotgun. Nickers, chalk dust on his jacket, his hair unruly and a pile of exercise books behind him on the benches, declared that he didn't think we could live in denial about the situation, which even the Americans had noticed, so it must be pretty serious. Nickers wanted a government of national unity if Mohammed Karzai is declared the winner of the elections and he gave the entire Tory benches a detention. Gordon said something more but I had zoned out trying to fix my keyboard which had decided to explode dramatically at this point.
Steve Webb asked about increases in the cost of living for pensioners faced with a 2.5% increases in pensions in May, which will leave them out of pocket. Gordon mentioned all the wonderful things his government has done for pensioners, including the pension credit, the increased winter fuel allowance, increasing the individual savings account allowance and, somewhat forgetting that this is Prime Minister's Questions, repeating that pensioners will be getting 'at least' a 2.5% increase in their pensions next year. I wonder if he has considered a career on the radio, since they don't listen to anyone either.
Then it was a moment of nostalgia as an old Labour lag, David Anderson, asked about the postal strike and sought assurances from Gordon to call Peter Mandelson off from attacking the Communication Workers' Union. Gordon said something but it was lost in the general ennui of the moment. Perhaps honourable Members were contemplating what the Communication Workers' Union could call itself when its members are no longer working. Perhaps 'workers' could be changed to 'lemmings'. Ahem, then at least they'd have a 'CLU'...
Then came a proper question. The room held its breath as Peter Bottomley asked if in future the text of any secret injunction granted in a British court could be placed in the library of the House of Commons. There was an audible gasp as MPs marvelled at a pertinent, sensible suggestion being made at PMQs. Several Members had to be escorted from the Chamber, some exclaiming audibly that it was a scandal and that never in their time in Parliament had they heard such sense at Prime Minister's Questions. Somewhere in the gallery, lobby correspondents were heard to sob audibly. Gordon said he would be talking to the Justice Minister about the particular case, which doesn't exactly leave me fizzing with anticipation of a speedy and proactive response...
As the Chamber reeled, there was another sensible question, this time from a Plaid Cymru MP who asked about the number of ex-service personnel currently in prison. Gordon said he would write to him and hopefully this issue will re-emerge at a later date, since its a biggie which gets scant attention.
Finally, asked about child poverty, Gordon agreed that this is an important issue which a Tory government would just make worse, nimbly dodging the issue of the failure of his government to honour one of its key 1997 manifesto pledges.
Well, plaudits must go to Mr Speaker Toad, who seems to have had an impact. This was of course the first PMQs of the pre-election season so a betting man would put a large sum on a return to the usual nonsense next week but we can only hope that a vestige of the common sense remains.
As for Nickers, I must apologise in advance as I have now got an indelible image of him in my mind as a school teacher and I cannot see how this will be shaken.
Friday, 9 October 2009
I SURELY CAN'T BE THE ONLY ONE TO SEE THAT HE'S NAKED
I am going to be Prime Minister. This is certain and it will happen soon. That's because I regularly rail about what drives me, what I believe in and why I am the right person to change things.
Sure, I tend to do this in the pub but it seems that the fact that I have strong views and that I believe in something qualifies me to be Prime Minister. Or at least that is what you might think if you read the papers today. For example, Bruce 'chewing a wasp' Anderson in the Independent said Dave's speech yesterday was 'seriously good'. Other commentators, including a 'PR guru' whose name I refuse to repeat, and Sheila Gunn, former press adviser to John Major have gushed. The PR person said he looked 'like a Prime Minister in waiting'. Sheila Gunn said 'he delivered'.
Mercifully, Steve Richards raised the more pertinent question in the same newspaper about just how Dave will ultimately deliver the change and growth we need by spending less and doing less and relying on bankers to respond to a gentle 'nudge' [find this 'theory' on page 58 of your 'Big Book of Political Gadflies'].
But I am sure that the usually reliable Mr Richards is mistaken, for can everyone else be wrong. Dave is surely now 'it', like an emperor parading before his subjects in his beautiful new outfit made of the finest material, so fine you can barely see it.
Unless, that is, I beat him. Because I care too. I love my country, my community and my family too - and I have strong views on these. I want to change things. I donate to charity and I am, more or less, a nice bloke. So vote for me, make me your next Prime Minister and I will deliver the change. I won't tell you how but I promise I will.
Sure, I tend to do this in the pub but it seems that the fact that I have strong views and that I believe in something qualifies me to be Prime Minister. Or at least that is what you might think if you read the papers today. For example, Bruce 'chewing a wasp' Anderson in the Independent said Dave's speech yesterday was 'seriously good'. Other commentators, including a 'PR guru' whose name I refuse to repeat, and Sheila Gunn, former press adviser to John Major have gushed. The PR person said he looked 'like a Prime Minister in waiting'. Sheila Gunn said 'he delivered'.
Mercifully, Steve Richards raised the more pertinent question in the same newspaper about just how Dave will ultimately deliver the change and growth we need by spending less and doing less and relying on bankers to respond to a gentle 'nudge' [find this 'theory' on page 58 of your 'Big Book of Political Gadflies'].
But I am sure that the usually reliable Mr Richards is mistaken, for can everyone else be wrong. Dave is surely now 'it', like an emperor parading before his subjects in his beautiful new outfit made of the finest material, so fine you can barely see it.
Unless, that is, I beat him. Because I care too. I love my country, my community and my family too - and I have strong views on these. I want to change things. I donate to charity and I am, more or less, a nice bloke. So vote for me, make me your next Prime Minister and I will deliver the change. I won't tell you how but I promise I will.
Thursday, 8 October 2009
NO, DAVE, TALKING AROUND THE SUBJECT JUST ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH
So there it was. Dave gave his last speech before the General Election and, lets be fair, he spoke well. He expressed anger at some points, notably when describing the benefits trap when people move into work and find they are effectively taxed to the tune of around 96p in every £1 they earn. This is something which used to exercise me when I worked in the hideously inefficient benefits system in the 1990s and it remains a scandal, so well done him for raising it as an issue. He referred to the loss of his son earlier in the year and he gave a commitment that the NHS would remain free at the point of use, although he said that didn't mean it couldn't change. Yup, that's fine too, although the experience of private treatment centres being used by PCTs across the country has been woeful so a lot more thought needs to go into precisely how it should change.
Dave demonstrated his commitment to troops serving in Afghanistan, although the Tory ovation was rather too much of a copy of the Labour ovation from the previous week. His views on Afghanistan were interesting since on this he set out a relatively clear direction of travel if he wins next year, promising to set up a war cabinet, to commit more troops and to train the Afghan army with a view to British troops coming back. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but it was a clear commitment and that's welcome.
Unfortunately that was pretty much all he said on policy. Steve Richards of the Independent commented afterwards that this was a 'policy lite' speech and that he had written 'how' next to many of Dave's general commitments. Well quite. The most telling response to the speech for me was from my wife, who is not a political animal, even if she does support the LDs after years of being worn down...She was working on her computer while half-listening to the early part of the speech and several times she scoffed quietly as Dave promised something else without any detail. The biggest response from her was when he said he wanted every child to have the opportunities he did. 'Yeah, right' came the unequivocal reply. Whoops, I think she would describe herself as an ordinary person, not one of us political obsessives so her reaction spoke volumes.
Put plainly there was just no substance here. It was a good, reasonably lengthy critique of the country and a series of aspirations for how things should be but that was it. 'Airy fairy' springs to mind. One thing everyone should take issue with is the 'broken society' refrain, which is quite simply nonsense. Society isn't broken but it does have problems in some areas which need to be addressed. I don't want a government which tells me everything is terrible, I want a government which tells me how it plans to improve the situation.
It's always nice to be proved right and this speech makes me feel pretty smug since I have long criticised Dave for his complete lack of any concrete plans, while acknowledging that he is fundamentally a decent person. Unfortunately, as Tory Party leader, he is still effectively saying to people 'vote for me because I'm a nice guy, I've changed the Tory Party and we will do the right thing if we win - but we won't tell you what we will do until you vote fo us'. Well Dave I really think that voters across the country have a bit more sense than to buy your blue pig in a hastily patched up poke. You need to up your game significantly and time is running out for you.
Dave demonstrated his commitment to troops serving in Afghanistan, although the Tory ovation was rather too much of a copy of the Labour ovation from the previous week. His views on Afghanistan were interesting since on this he set out a relatively clear direction of travel if he wins next year, promising to set up a war cabinet, to commit more troops and to train the Afghan army with a view to British troops coming back. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but it was a clear commitment and that's welcome.
Unfortunately that was pretty much all he said on policy. Steve Richards of the Independent commented afterwards that this was a 'policy lite' speech and that he had written 'how' next to many of Dave's general commitments. Well quite. The most telling response to the speech for me was from my wife, who is not a political animal, even if she does support the LDs after years of being worn down...She was working on her computer while half-listening to the early part of the speech and several times she scoffed quietly as Dave promised something else without any detail. The biggest response from her was when he said he wanted every child to have the opportunities he did. 'Yeah, right' came the unequivocal reply. Whoops, I think she would describe herself as an ordinary person, not one of us political obsessives so her reaction spoke volumes.
Put plainly there was just no substance here. It was a good, reasonably lengthy critique of the country and a series of aspirations for how things should be but that was it. 'Airy fairy' springs to mind. One thing everyone should take issue with is the 'broken society' refrain, which is quite simply nonsense. Society isn't broken but it does have problems in some areas which need to be addressed. I don't want a government which tells me everything is terrible, I want a government which tells me how it plans to improve the situation.
It's always nice to be proved right and this speech makes me feel pretty smug since I have long criticised Dave for his complete lack of any concrete plans, while acknowledging that he is fundamentally a decent person. Unfortunately, as Tory Party leader, he is still effectively saying to people 'vote for me because I'm a nice guy, I've changed the Tory Party and we will do the right thing if we win - but we won't tell you what we will do until you vote fo us'. Well Dave I really think that voters across the country have a bit more sense than to buy your blue pig in a hastily patched up poke. You need to up your game significantly and time is running out for you.
BORIS DOES 'EUROPE'. CAN DAVE?
I have just seen the bizarre interview between Jeremy Paxman and Boris Johnson - a clash of egos if ever there was one. Boris did a 'Heseltine', not answering any questions and interrupting the Great Paxman throughout. Thus little was learned apart from Boris's unequivocal assertion that there should be a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Paxman raised all the issues around this, including the pertinent point that the next government might find the treaty ratified already, making a referendum pointless.
Now I'm not a constitutional lawyer - thank God - but I did study international relations for a few years and I always understood that a treaty between sovereign countries is essentially just a mutual agreement to do certain things. I also always understood that a sovereign government could at any time review treaties and could withdraw from them if it so chose, a move which could have significant consequences, particularly with regard to European treaties given the nature of this beast.
If this is so and if I remember my education with any degree of clarity this surely means that a Tory government - may God protect us from that eventuality - (i) could hold a referendum on any treaty (ii) depending on the outcome of that referendum, could enter into negotiations with the other parties to revise or withdraw from any treaty - accepting that there would be significant and damaging consequences, natch.
If this is the case, doesn't this render the Tory argument of impotence once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified completely obsolete, even - dare I say it - deceitful? I wonder if Dave will make an unequivocal commitment to a referendum in his speech today. I wonder if we will see flocks of pigs flying south for the winter...
For the record I am 100% pro-European and in no way desirous of seeing this outcome (although I consider the EU to be a disaster of French design) but I would like to see Dave pinned down on this issue - indeed on any issue.
Now I'm not a constitutional lawyer - thank God - but I did study international relations for a few years and I always understood that a treaty between sovereign countries is essentially just a mutual agreement to do certain things. I also always understood that a sovereign government could at any time review treaties and could withdraw from them if it so chose, a move which could have significant consequences, particularly with regard to European treaties given the nature of this beast.
If this is so and if I remember my education with any degree of clarity this surely means that a Tory government - may God protect us from that eventuality - (i) could hold a referendum on any treaty (ii) depending on the outcome of that referendum, could enter into negotiations with the other parties to revise or withdraw from any treaty - accepting that there would be significant and damaging consequences, natch.
If this is the case, doesn't this render the Tory argument of impotence once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified completely obsolete, even - dare I say it - deceitful? I wonder if Dave will make an unequivocal commitment to a referendum in his speech today. I wonder if we will see flocks of pigs flying south for the winter...
For the record I am 100% pro-European and in no way desirous of seeing this outcome (although I consider the EU to be a disaster of French design) but I would like to see Dave pinned down on this issue - indeed on any issue.
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
ARMY DREAMERS
So you're a Tory. You believe in lower taxes, you are suspicious of Europe, you believe in the institutions of state: the Queen, the Union, the military. If you had to pick out one area of government to be supported over all others you would probably go for the military.
You thus have to pity Dave. He has worked so hard since 2005 to make the Tories electable. He has shut the more loony parts of his party up, he has changed the logo, he has sidelined his only serious challenger, David Davis and he has tried to 'out New Labour' the Labour Party with some degree of success.
Then comes his final conference before the General Election and what happens? Up pops Europe like the troll beneath the bridge to Number 10. Along comes George Osborne Like Little Red Riding Hood with his basket containing not apples for grandma but a big pair of scissors with which to bring Grandma down to earth with a bump. Dave must have clung to the coup of appointing former Army Chief of Staff Sir Richard Dannatt to the House of Lords as a Tory peer rather as a drowning man clings to a piece of wreckage.
Then the piece of wreckage disintegrated underneath him...Senior officials and top brass at the MOD were described on Channel 4 news as furious as this move has completely politicised the ministry. They are going to be pilloried the next time they go to the government for more troops or equipment for any current campaign.
This has been a cock-up. Dave has everything to do tomorrow in his big speech. I've been pretty down on him as a potential Prime Minister and tomorrow we'll get the true measure of the man as his speech is pretty much all that stands between his party and electoral indifference next May.
You thus have to pity Dave. He has worked so hard since 2005 to make the Tories electable. He has shut the more loony parts of his party up, he has changed the logo, he has sidelined his only serious challenger, David Davis and he has tried to 'out New Labour' the Labour Party with some degree of success.
Then comes his final conference before the General Election and what happens? Up pops Europe like the troll beneath the bridge to Number 10. Along comes George Osborne Like Little Red Riding Hood with his basket containing not apples for grandma but a big pair of scissors with which to bring Grandma down to earth with a bump. Dave must have clung to the coup of appointing former Army Chief of Staff Sir Richard Dannatt to the House of Lords as a Tory peer rather as a drowning man clings to a piece of wreckage.
Then the piece of wreckage disintegrated underneath him...Senior officials and top brass at the MOD were described on Channel 4 news as furious as this move has completely politicised the ministry. They are going to be pilloried the next time they go to the government for more troops or equipment for any current campaign.
This has been a cock-up. Dave has everything to do tomorrow in his big speech. I've been pretty down on him as a potential Prime Minister and tomorrow we'll get the true measure of the man as his speech is pretty much all that stands between his party and electoral indifference next May.
LUIGI, ANOTHER BOTTLE OF BEAUJOLAIS FOR THE TORY PARTY
So I'm getting out of my car in 2009 when suddenly everything goes dark. I wake up to the strains of Human League ('Don't you want me?') coming from the car. I am wearing a hopelessly over-tailored suit weighed down on one side by what appears to be a house brick - until it starts to ring. My car is a red Audi Quattro. I look around in vain for Keeley Hawes (well wouldn't you?).
I switch on the car radio and instantly I am reassured, for here is something I can understand. I am in the 1980s. The Tories at their conference are attacked by a gay rights group over their association with homophobic Europeans...They argue publicly over Europe endlessly and to the delight of everyone else...The Tory Shadow Chancellor [hang on, weren't they in government back then?] promises to freeze public sector pay for everyone earning over £18,000 - a fortune these days - setting the Tories against every public sector worker in the country...That same Shadow Chancellor promised 'tough choices' to sort out the current deficit...He also promises to cut Whitehall costs and to reduce the number of QUANGOs.
Then up steps David Davis in a sheepskin coat, wearing leather driving gloves. He is flanked by two badly dressed Tory PPCs, one with a perm, the other dribbling slightly. Davis refers to himself as 'Hunt' for some inexplicable reason - at least I think that's what he said...We drive off in the Quattro towards some wasteland for a staged fight with some public sector workers. I mention Europe and Davis tells me to 'shut it', reminding me that we don't do Europe, poofs or the working classes.
What is happening to me?!
Is it me or is this Tory conference rather weird? Are Kajagoogoo going to return to the Charts? Will those brick-sized mobile phones and red braces see a return to the City of London? Will women once again sport shoulder pads and hideous amounts of blusher? Will we all have to hold our noses to down Beaujolais Nouveau?
More pertinently, have the Tories learned anything during their time in the wilderness? They seem to have simply climbed into the Tory attic and blown the dust off an old book of 1980s policies which worked to some degree in that peculiar decade but which began to unravel when the government failed to adapt to new circumstances.
When every other country and almost every economist is telling you that your idea of cuts is wrong, it might be worth stepping back and reviewing your plans. When your plans are so plainly taken from an earlier period, would it not be worth sitting down and considering whether they are still entirely valid given that, er, everything has changed?
When respected organisations such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies tell you that your plans for cuts, while unpopular and out of kilter with everyone else in the world, also do not even begin to address the problems faced by the country, would it not be worth finally suggesting to Osborne that he really isn't up to the task and could he go now, remembering to close the door behind him.
Alas no, for George went to Eton and George is a friend of Dave. George will therefore remain as Shadow Chancellor while Dave is leader. The good news is that George has made such an almightly hash of this conference that the clock might just have started ticking on the Eton caucus.
On a not entirely unrelated point, George 'please listen to me' Osborne said the retirement age would increase to 65 in 2016 - for men, whereas women would not see this increase until 2020. I'm sorry but when did equality stop being a factor in such decisions?
I switch on the car radio and instantly I am reassured, for here is something I can understand. I am in the 1980s. The Tories at their conference are attacked by a gay rights group over their association with homophobic Europeans...They argue publicly over Europe endlessly and to the delight of everyone else...The Tory Shadow Chancellor [hang on, weren't they in government back then?] promises to freeze public sector pay for everyone earning over £18,000 - a fortune these days - setting the Tories against every public sector worker in the country...That same Shadow Chancellor promised 'tough choices' to sort out the current deficit...He also promises to cut Whitehall costs and to reduce the number of QUANGOs.
Then up steps David Davis in a sheepskin coat, wearing leather driving gloves. He is flanked by two badly dressed Tory PPCs, one with a perm, the other dribbling slightly. Davis refers to himself as 'Hunt' for some inexplicable reason - at least I think that's what he said...We drive off in the Quattro towards some wasteland for a staged fight with some public sector workers. I mention Europe and Davis tells me to 'shut it', reminding me that we don't do Europe, poofs or the working classes.
What is happening to me?!
Is it me or is this Tory conference rather weird? Are Kajagoogoo going to return to the Charts? Will those brick-sized mobile phones and red braces see a return to the City of London? Will women once again sport shoulder pads and hideous amounts of blusher? Will we all have to hold our noses to down Beaujolais Nouveau?
More pertinently, have the Tories learned anything during their time in the wilderness? They seem to have simply climbed into the Tory attic and blown the dust off an old book of 1980s policies which worked to some degree in that peculiar decade but which began to unravel when the government failed to adapt to new circumstances.
When every other country and almost every economist is telling you that your idea of cuts is wrong, it might be worth stepping back and reviewing your plans. When your plans are so plainly taken from an earlier period, would it not be worth sitting down and considering whether they are still entirely valid given that, er, everything has changed?
When respected organisations such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies tell you that your plans for cuts, while unpopular and out of kilter with everyone else in the world, also do not even begin to address the problems faced by the country, would it not be worth finally suggesting to Osborne that he really isn't up to the task and could he go now, remembering to close the door behind him.
Alas no, for George went to Eton and George is a friend of Dave. George will therefore remain as Shadow Chancellor while Dave is leader. The good news is that George has made such an almightly hash of this conference that the clock might just have started ticking on the Eton caucus.
On a not entirely unrelated point, George 'please listen to me' Osborne said the retirement age would increase to 65 in 2016 - for men, whereas women would not see this increase until 2020. I'm sorry but when did equality stop being a factor in such decisions?
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
DAVE DITHERS AND IS DAMNED DECIDEDLY BY DESOLATE TORIES
Here is a reason to love and cherish Dave. Genuinely.
There is a smashing piece of commentary in the Independent today from Steve Richards which discusses the problems of promising things in opposition which you are then bound to if you win power. He was of course referring to Dave and his pledges over Europe, namely to hold a referendum and to withdrawn from the European People's Party.
Richards discusses this in his usual eloquent way but, rather like Brighton Rock, it is the very last line which strikes the killer blow. He frames his piece around Dave writing his memoirs and expressing regrets over various issues after the event. The last line simply says: 'I wonder how long it will be before [he] writes his memoirs'.
Well quite. Dave is after all getting a bit of a kicking at the conference this week and the front page of the Times had an opinion poll which showed that nearly 70% of voters think the Tory Party has not changed even if they like Dave. God bless the Tories in all their fractious, in-fighting glory!
This does make me wary that my bet from 2005, that Dave would not fight a single election as Tory leader, might just pay off. The problems come if he goes.
When the lunatic, Europe-hating rabble behind him finally overwhelms Dave, then what? Dave was the last sensible throw of the die for the Tories. When he falls, the attention will shift to a new terror, like a horror movie where the gorgeous, half-clothed teenaged beauties [focus, damn you!] regroup having beaten back one evil monster only to see a far worse one appearing in the wood/cellar/abandoned mine.
The frightening thing is that this hideous, almost comically insane beast comes with unkempt blond hair, a background which makes Dave look like a barrow boy and a 'Prescottian' inability to speak sense or to keep his trousers on. That's enough to have most sane people running for cover. But these are Tories we are talking about...
There is a smashing piece of commentary in the Independent today from Steve Richards which discusses the problems of promising things in opposition which you are then bound to if you win power. He was of course referring to Dave and his pledges over Europe, namely to hold a referendum and to withdrawn from the European People's Party.
Richards discusses this in his usual eloquent way but, rather like Brighton Rock, it is the very last line which strikes the killer blow. He frames his piece around Dave writing his memoirs and expressing regrets over various issues after the event. The last line simply says: 'I wonder how long it will be before [he] writes his memoirs'.
Well quite. Dave is after all getting a bit of a kicking at the conference this week and the front page of the Times had an opinion poll which showed that nearly 70% of voters think the Tory Party has not changed even if they like Dave. God bless the Tories in all their fractious, in-fighting glory!
This does make me wary that my bet from 2005, that Dave would not fight a single election as Tory leader, might just pay off. The problems come if he goes.
When the lunatic, Europe-hating rabble behind him finally overwhelms Dave, then what? Dave was the last sensible throw of the die for the Tories. When he falls, the attention will shift to a new terror, like a horror movie where the gorgeous, half-clothed teenaged beauties [focus, damn you!] regroup having beaten back one evil monster only to see a far worse one appearing in the wood/cellar/abandoned mine.
The frightening thing is that this hideous, almost comically insane beast comes with unkempt blond hair, a background which makes Dave look like a barrow boy and a 'Prescottian' inability to speak sense or to keep his trousers on. That's enough to have most sane people running for cover. But these are Tories we are talking about...
Monday, 5 October 2009
RETURN TO YOUR SEATS AND EXTINGUISH YOUR CIGARETTES, FOLKS, THEY'VE GOT ANOTHER 'POLICY'!
Good old Dave. He wants to cut benefits and help people back to work. Well, amen to that.
Dave says his plans include cutting Incapacity Benefit for people who are able to work. Bold, radical, forward thinking. But wait! A dim memory stirs in my addled brain. Wasn't it the Tories under Margaret Thatcher who pushed unemployed people onto Incapacity Benefit in an attempt to massage the dreadful unemployment figures resulting from their caring policies early in the 1980s?
Wheest and fie for my being a curmudgeonly old so-and-so. Dave is a young, 'new' Tory so he won't remember this. He is simply trying to help people get back to work.
Another part of the Tories' new 'policy' is that they want to scrap the terrible New Deal, which is a personalised service which seeks to get people - particularly young people and the long-term unemployed - into work through advice and training and replace it with, er, a new, personalised service to get unemployed people back into work through personalised advice and training...hang on!
Thus do the bold, radical, 'new' Tories march on to next May. I can't wait for their next policy announcements this week. What next? Will Dave pledge his obsession with 'education, education, education'? Will he pledged a review of the voting system, then do bugger all? Will he promise to 'overhaul/radically overhaul/transform' the NHS to 'make it more responsive to users', or some such sub-New Labour tosh? Probably all of these and more.
Perhaps he'll plan an oil-based war in a Middle East country? Thankfully this is one policy of Tone's he can't ape since there is a proper politician in the White House who isn't obsessed with sorting out the mess his daddy made in 1990.
March forward, John Tory but watch out for that huge, steaming pile of hubris just ahead. Whoops, too late.
Dave says his plans include cutting Incapacity Benefit for people who are able to work. Bold, radical, forward thinking. But wait! A dim memory stirs in my addled brain. Wasn't it the Tories under Margaret Thatcher who pushed unemployed people onto Incapacity Benefit in an attempt to massage the dreadful unemployment figures resulting from their caring policies early in the 1980s?
Wheest and fie for my being a curmudgeonly old so-and-so. Dave is a young, 'new' Tory so he won't remember this. He is simply trying to help people get back to work.
Another part of the Tories' new 'policy' is that they want to scrap the terrible New Deal, which is a personalised service which seeks to get people - particularly young people and the long-term unemployed - into work through advice and training and replace it with, er, a new, personalised service to get unemployed people back into work through personalised advice and training...hang on!
Thus do the bold, radical, 'new' Tories march on to next May. I can't wait for their next policy announcements this week. What next? Will Dave pledge his obsession with 'education, education, education'? Will he pledged a review of the voting system, then do bugger all? Will he promise to 'overhaul/radically overhaul/transform' the NHS to 'make it more responsive to users', or some such sub-New Labour tosh? Probably all of these and more.
Perhaps he'll plan an oil-based war in a Middle East country? Thankfully this is one policy of Tone's he can't ape since there is a proper politician in the White House who isn't obsessed with sorting out the mess his daddy made in 1990.
March forward, John Tory but watch out for that huge, steaming pile of hubris just ahead. Whoops, too late.
Sunday, 4 October 2009
DAVE IS RICH. A NATION YAWNS
Dave refused to set out how much he is worth when Andrew Marr interviewed him today. The BBC is running this as a top story but is it? Does it matter what Dave has in the bank? Everyone has a clear idea that he is a wealthy man and that he is posh but this really is a sideline to the major political issue, which is his complete lack of any direction.
The interview included questions about Dave's call for banks to be deregulated before the crash and he fumbled that quite badly. This is the issue, for heavens sake: not whether he has a big house but whether he has any idea about what he will do if he scrapes home next May. That's frightening, not his bank balance.
The interview included questions about Dave's call for banks to be deregulated before the crash and he fumbled that quite badly. This is the issue, for heavens sake: not whether he has a big house but whether he has any idea about what he will do if he scrapes home next May. That's frightening, not his bank balance.
Saturday, 3 October 2009
WOW, A TORY POLICY
Here are the Tories, set out in bold, plain print: they will give free care to elderly people if they pay £8000 upfront on their 65th birthday. Or, put more plainly, if you can pay for it you will get the help. The simple, reasonable idea is that more people will pay into the scheme that will claim for it.
On its own this is not a bad idea. Everything needs to be paid for and this echoes the original principle behind national insurance, which every government after 1950 bastardized to add to the general taxation coffers. It is reasonably bold and it demonstrates that Tory strategists are trying hard to square the circle between their generally hands-off approach to running things with the fact that the people they seek to represent don't like that idea.
However, it puts into reasonably clear focus the Tory approach to government which is ad hoc and based on the same old 'Grantham' ideas of Margaret Thatcher, which include the notion that everything must be paid for upfront. There is fundamentally no new thinking here. Let's hope there's more of the same over the coming week to really give us an insight into the Tory Party hiding behind the skirts of Dave, to completely misquote Bagehot.
Andrew Grice put it best in the Independent today when he discussed the coming fight and the failure of the Tories to establish an insuperable poll lead. He said quite plainly: 'I suspect the reason the Tories have not "sealed the deal" is that people haven't a clue what they stand for...Mr Cameron needs a pledge card'. Quite.
On its own this is not a bad idea. Everything needs to be paid for and this echoes the original principle behind national insurance, which every government after 1950 bastardized to add to the general taxation coffers. It is reasonably bold and it demonstrates that Tory strategists are trying hard to square the circle between their generally hands-off approach to running things with the fact that the people they seek to represent don't like that idea.
However, it puts into reasonably clear focus the Tory approach to government which is ad hoc and based on the same old 'Grantham' ideas of Margaret Thatcher, which include the notion that everything must be paid for upfront. There is fundamentally no new thinking here. Let's hope there's more of the same over the coming week to really give us an insight into the Tory Party hiding behind the skirts of Dave, to completely misquote Bagehot.
Andrew Grice put it best in the Independent today when he discussed the coming fight and the failure of the Tories to establish an insuperable poll lead. He said quite plainly: 'I suspect the reason the Tories have not "sealed the deal" is that people haven't a clue what they stand for...Mr Cameron needs a pledge card'. Quite.
CAN DAVE KEEP THE LID ON THE 'EUROPE BOX'?
According to the Independent, which itself is quoting 'Conservative Home, Dave faces a revolt from his part, the great majority are against the Lisbon Treaty whatever the outcome of the Irish referendum is today. If the Irish vote no, the 'democratic' Commission will simply ask them to try again so the idea of hiding behind the Irish referendum is a false one anyway. Dave faces a stark choice: call for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, thus upsetting all the other countries and making himself look like an amateur if he wins next year, or betray the majority of his party, thus taking us back to the febrile days of the 1990s. Ouch!
This is the crux of the problem for Dave. He is effectively riding a blue-hued tiger and that tiger has modernised about as much as the Victorian Society. He can talk the talk until he is 'green' in the face but his party remains the same lot that blew themselves apart in the 1990s. If the European issue resurfaces, he is in serious trouble (tee hee).
One reassuring thought: I was in Tory Wandsworth for the 1997 result and spent a joyous night watching David Mellor and John Bowis losing their seats and seeing the utterly mad James Goldsmith with those terrifying staring eyes as he and his equally barking acolytes howled at Mellor while he made his valedictory speech. The LDs were hopeless in Wandsworth so we weren't unduly worried by the results but the sense that something big had happened and the sight of Tories unable to accept defeat stays with me and warms me on cold nights. I wonder if we might see similar scenes next May...
UPDATE: well it seems as though Dave has got his 'get out' with the Irish referendum result but, happily, he is being put on the spot about his apparent weakness in the face of the now almost inevitable ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Great stuff to kick off their conference.
This is the crux of the problem for Dave. He is effectively riding a blue-hued tiger and that tiger has modernised about as much as the Victorian Society. He can talk the talk until he is 'green' in the face but his party remains the same lot that blew themselves apart in the 1990s. If the European issue resurfaces, he is in serious trouble (tee hee).
One reassuring thought: I was in Tory Wandsworth for the 1997 result and spent a joyous night watching David Mellor and John Bowis losing their seats and seeing the utterly mad James Goldsmith with those terrifying staring eyes as he and his equally barking acolytes howled at Mellor while he made his valedictory speech. The LDs were hopeless in Wandsworth so we weren't unduly worried by the results but the sense that something big had happened and the sight of Tories unable to accept defeat stays with me and warms me on cold nights. I wonder if we might see similar scenes next May...
UPDATE: well it seems as though Dave has got his 'get out' with the Irish referendum result but, happily, he is being put on the spot about his apparent weakness in the face of the now almost inevitable ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Great stuff to kick off their conference.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
GREEN ACTION - AN OXYMORON?
The BBC has a magnificent story about a young man in Malawi who built windmills from scrap to provide electricity and fresh water to his village. He has now been picked up by the international green hype industry but his story remains truly impressive even without the hype.
This is brilliant and the true answer to current energy issues - not government conferences or more books telling us all to be afraid but positive, practical action to do something. He deserves all the success he can get.
This is brilliant and the true answer to current energy issues - not government conferences or more books telling us all to be afraid but positive, practical action to do something. He deserves all the success he can get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
