As we are coming to the end of the last serious conference season before the next General Election (those extras, like the winter conference or the spring conference are unnecessary extras and of little importance) everyone outside UKIP seems to be rather gloomy.
The choice, one must admit, is not particularly scintillating but it is my opinion that as things stand Labour has no chances of winning the election. Their own particular conference and the farce of the Leader's Speech, billed for 80 minutes but lasting for only just over 60 because two of the most important subjects were simply not mentioned though they were clearly there in the text handed out to the media, did not exactly inspire any one except those so committed to the party that casting their vote for anyone else would be like walking barefoot on broken glass.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are deemed by the media to have had a bad week-end because of losing Mark Reckless and because of the Brooks Newmark scandal. Until this story broke I had not heard of Brooks Newmark but the biggest scandal of all, in my opinion, is that we have such a thing as a Minister for Civil Society. What on earth is that?
On the other hand, I was pleasantly suprised to hear that the Mirror's sting operation (whose author, a free-lance hack has, as of this moment, not revealed his name) had been directed at several young Conservative MPs and only one was foolish enough to fall for it, the aforementioned former Minister for Civil Society. It is good to know that the others had enough brains or just an instinct for self-preservation to steer clear of the whole fracas. That, of course, leaves us with the unfortunate young women, whose body parts were used to create the fictional twitter character without their permission and the fact that other newspapers, such as the Sun are virtuously explaining that the idea had been offered to them but they turned their noses up. Also, we have the first case to come before the new Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and it does not involve a Murdoch newspaper. How they must be laughing.
Will any of this really help the Labour Party whose opinion poll results are nowhere near good enough to predict a victory next May? Somehow, I doubt it. There is far too much talk about "New Old Labour", which anyone with any kind of political memory will know to have been unelectable. Ed Miliband is seen as far too left-wing but also incompetent in the simplest political acts like delivering a speech at a party conference. It is particularly unfortunate that his flub should have come so soon after Gordon Brown's highly praised performance in Scotland towards the end of the referendum campaign.
We do, of course, have another "New Old Labour Party" now and that is UKIP who clearly intends to compete for that limited and ever decreasing vote.
Incidentally, the Boss and I discussed Patrick O'Flynn's speech that outlined those preposterous economic policies including the one about raising VAT on "luxury goods". Setting aside the obvious question as to what is defined as "luxury goods" and the obvious comment that a good many people from working class background like to be able to buy them, one cannot help asking why UKIP should be so supportive of VAT, an EU tax that is open to a great deal of fraud and is not particularly useful for the economy. Why not call for its abolition (and if you cannot do that within the EU well you know what we ought to do) and for competitive local sales tax? I seem to recall that the present UKIP parliamentary candidate for Clacton co-authored a book some years ago with one, Daniel Hannan, in which that was one of the policies outlined. One wonders how he felt having to applaud the economic spokesman of his new party who was making it quite clear that neither he nor the party were interested in any serious radical ideas.
Showing posts with label Conservative Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative Party. Show all posts
Monday, September 29, 2014
Saturday, August 30, 2014
No more earthquakes, just a game changer - maybe
Just as I thought I would not have to write about UKIP again until the General Election campaign, along comes Douglas Carswell, the man, who, as the Boss says, was still certain just a couple of months ago that the only way to get a referendum (and none of these people seem to think beyond that) was to vote in a Conservative government next year. Apparently, that is no longer the case, that is if we assume, something that is hard to do, that Mr Carswell's sudden volte face, resignation and reappearance on the streets of Clacton to take part in a UKIP "action day" was motivated by something more than just pique at not being treated with the respect he thinks he deserves.
My own feeling is that Mr Carswell himself shows a certain amount of disrespect to the people who worked with him and for him for some years by this rather nauseating appearance so soon after he dropped them into something of a mess. But then, who expects honourable behaviour from a politician.
There are a few problems facing Mr Carswell and UKIP. The first is that absolutely none of his much-proclaimed ideas are at one with those of UKIP, who have long ago turned themselves into a statist, protectionist and welfarist party, the very opposite of what Mr Carswell has been preaching. There is the question of Brexit but that, as the Boss and I have been pointing out ad nauseam, is no longer high on UKIP's agenda and is often omitted completely in favour of another rant about immigrants. Incidentally, how is Mr Carswell going to like being questioned on that subject as he will be by the media who will not think it necessary to treat him with respect either?
Another problem is that of democracy and being different from other parties, two subjects that UKIP tends to treat as interchangeable. Mr Carswell is known as a great believer in open primaries and UKIP periodically proclaims that it is in favour of direct democracy whatever might be meant by that. So, what is happening? It would appear that the NEC has decided to over-rule the local association and put pressure on the already chosen candidate to stand down in favour of the high-profile defector from another party. Open primaries and direct democracy can both go hang when publicity is needed.
The Boss has referred to the hysteria displayed by the media though nobody is talking about earthquakes any longer - a more modest suggestion of a possible game changer is all anyone can come up with. There is speculation that anything from six to ten (depending which newspaper you are reading) other Conservative MPs are about to jump ship. Remains to be seen. I am guessing that they all know that Mr Carswell's defection was not caused by any great burst of political idealism and can see the various difficulties he might encounter. At the very least, I would imagine they will be waiting for the by-election and its results. That might not be quite what Mr Carswell and UKIP are hoping for.
It is not precisely a secret that Nigel Farage has been agitating for the party to put its collective shoulder to the wheel to make him the first UKIP MP in next year's General Election though that was an unlikely scenario as Our Nige is not precisely a vote winner. Now he has to put on his big grin and a happy face on the strong possibility that Mr Carswell will get there ahead of him. The truth is that this is the only way UKIP could win a by-election and even that is not certain. Much depends on how matters will sort themselves out with the local UKIP association and how angry the Conservative voters of Clacton might be. No amount of mutual back-slapping and grinning for the cameras at some "action day" can hide the difficulties. Or not for long, anyway. Dan Hannan thinks otherwise: he thinks Douglas Carswell's decision to jump was entirely noble and that he is entirely popular in Clacton. The first seems odd, when one takes everything into consideration, the second is a possibility but events are about to hit everyone involved in this saga. Besides, I have a rooted objection to any politician who says "take it from me". Somehow I do not find that a convincing argument.
Meanwhile, what of Roger Lord, the original and, as far as anyone knows, present UKIP candidate in Clacton? As we have seen he is not happy. The New Statesman suggests that he might defect to the Tories, which would be quite entertaining. The Daily Telegraph has not gone that far but has published an article in which he has called Douglas Carswell weak and cowardly. Apparently, he has rejected Nigel Farage's slightly off-hand offer of another "plum" seat (there are no plum seats as far as UKIP is concerned and well they know it).
So what does this do for euroscepticism in general? Much depends on how the by-election pans out and the fact that the anti-politician political party has been behaving in the usual kind of politician-like fashion is not something that they can boast about too much. The Boss and I discussed this at length, as readers can imagine. He said quite rightly that if Carswell loses that will be a huge blow to UKIP and also to the Eurosceptic movement. In my opinion, Mr Carswell's ill-thought through action is already a blow: even he wins the by-election he is unlikely to hold on to the seat in the General and will be, in the meantime, a solitary UKIP voice in the Commons who will have to argue that party's policies whether he likes them or not, while being subjected to jeers from his erstwhile colleagues many of whom would have gone on supporting him, had he stayed in the Conservative Party. No, I do not think we can trust the PM or most Conservatives but neither do I like UKIP or most of their policies (the one I agree with having become ever less important to them). Besides, nothing in this world will give us a UKIP government.
What will prove to be quite entertaining will be the Leader's manoeuvring to ensure that he remains the best known UKIP person in the country even though that actually loses the party votes. As things stand, Douglas Carswell is a far better known one and if he actually is re-elected as a UKIP MP, he will be the one the media will go to instead of Nigel Farage, who is not going to like that at all. I wonder if David Cameron has realized that and is banking on the trouble and tension that will appear between two suchprimadonnas strong personalities.
My own feeling is that Mr Carswell himself shows a certain amount of disrespect to the people who worked with him and for him for some years by this rather nauseating appearance so soon after he dropped them into something of a mess. But then, who expects honourable behaviour from a politician.
There are a few problems facing Mr Carswell and UKIP. The first is that absolutely none of his much-proclaimed ideas are at one with those of UKIP, who have long ago turned themselves into a statist, protectionist and welfarist party, the very opposite of what Mr Carswell has been preaching. There is the question of Brexit but that, as the Boss and I have been pointing out ad nauseam, is no longer high on UKIP's agenda and is often omitted completely in favour of another rant about immigrants. Incidentally, how is Mr Carswell going to like being questioned on that subject as he will be by the media who will not think it necessary to treat him with respect either?
Another problem is that of democracy and being different from other parties, two subjects that UKIP tends to treat as interchangeable. Mr Carswell is known as a great believer in open primaries and UKIP periodically proclaims that it is in favour of direct democracy whatever might be meant by that. So, what is happening? It would appear that the NEC has decided to over-rule the local association and put pressure on the already chosen candidate to stand down in favour of the high-profile defector from another party. Open primaries and direct democracy can both go hang when publicity is needed.
The Boss has referred to the hysteria displayed by the media though nobody is talking about earthquakes any longer - a more modest suggestion of a possible game changer is all anyone can come up with. There is speculation that anything from six to ten (depending which newspaper you are reading) other Conservative MPs are about to jump ship. Remains to be seen. I am guessing that they all know that Mr Carswell's defection was not caused by any great burst of political idealism and can see the various difficulties he might encounter. At the very least, I would imagine they will be waiting for the by-election and its results. That might not be quite what Mr Carswell and UKIP are hoping for.
It is not precisely a secret that Nigel Farage has been agitating for the party to put its collective shoulder to the wheel to make him the first UKIP MP in next year's General Election though that was an unlikely scenario as Our Nige is not precisely a vote winner. Now he has to put on his big grin and a happy face on the strong possibility that Mr Carswell will get there ahead of him. The truth is that this is the only way UKIP could win a by-election and even that is not certain. Much depends on how matters will sort themselves out with the local UKIP association and how angry the Conservative voters of Clacton might be. No amount of mutual back-slapping and grinning for the cameras at some "action day" can hide the difficulties. Or not for long, anyway. Dan Hannan thinks otherwise: he thinks Douglas Carswell's decision to jump was entirely noble and that he is entirely popular in Clacton. The first seems odd, when one takes everything into consideration, the second is a possibility but events are about to hit everyone involved in this saga. Besides, I have a rooted objection to any politician who says "take it from me". Somehow I do not find that a convincing argument.
Meanwhile, what of Roger Lord, the original and, as far as anyone knows, present UKIP candidate in Clacton? As we have seen he is not happy. The New Statesman suggests that he might defect to the Tories, which would be quite entertaining. The Daily Telegraph has not gone that far but has published an article in which he has called Douglas Carswell weak and cowardly. Apparently, he has rejected Nigel Farage's slightly off-hand offer of another "plum" seat (there are no plum seats as far as UKIP is concerned and well they know it).
So what does this do for euroscepticism in general? Much depends on how the by-election pans out and the fact that the anti-politician political party has been behaving in the usual kind of politician-like fashion is not something that they can boast about too much. The Boss and I discussed this at length, as readers can imagine. He said quite rightly that if Carswell loses that will be a huge blow to UKIP and also to the Eurosceptic movement. In my opinion, Mr Carswell's ill-thought through action is already a blow: even he wins the by-election he is unlikely to hold on to the seat in the General and will be, in the meantime, a solitary UKIP voice in the Commons who will have to argue that party's policies whether he likes them or not, while being subjected to jeers from his erstwhile colleagues many of whom would have gone on supporting him, had he stayed in the Conservative Party. No, I do not think we can trust the PM or most Conservatives but neither do I like UKIP or most of their policies (the one I agree with having become ever less important to them). Besides, nothing in this world will give us a UKIP government.
What will prove to be quite entertaining will be the Leader's manoeuvring to ensure that he remains the best known UKIP person in the country even though that actually loses the party votes. As things stand, Douglas Carswell is a far better known one and if he actually is re-elected as a UKIP MP, he will be the one the media will go to instead of Nigel Farage, who is not going to like that at all. I wonder if David Cameron has realized that and is banking on the trouble and tension that will appear between two such
Friday, June 6, 2014
Well, that's that then
The Conservatives won Newark with a halved but comfortable majority on a turn-out of 53.79 per cent. UKIP well enough but did not produce that political earthquake they have been promising and Roger Helmer will have to stay in the Toy Parliament, not a prospect that worries him all that much, I imagine. The Lib-Dims have continued their tale of woe.
The Boss in his inimitable fashion points out something interesting that UKIP ought to ponder over:
Can we now all get back to real work? Thank you.
The Boss in his inimitable fashion points out something interesting that UKIP ought to ponder over:
The comparison is between Newark and Eastleigh. On a near identical turnout (52.79 – 52.8 percent), Helmer got 10,028 votes, taking a 25.9 percent share of the total. At Eastleigh in February 2013 – only just over a year ago, Diane James got 11,571 votes, taking 27.8 percent of the total.Looking forward into the muddy mirror of future predictions, one can say that this is a hopeful sign for the Conservatives (as were the local and Euro elections). Their vote has held, they have won a by-election a year before the General when the turn-out will be even larger and the fact that UKIP has done reasonably well though it is a long way from nipping at their heels may well concentrate their minds in the months to come.
Can we now all get back to real work? Thank you.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
That campaign so far
Eight days to go to the European and local elections and I imagine that all readers of this blog have been overwhelmed by the glossy and meaningless literature that seems to be what election campaigns consist of these days. There is something to be said for abolishing that right to free postage so that parties start considering a little more carefully what they send out to stupefy the electorate. Of course, they can always hire cheap immigrant labour to deliver leaflets but they will not have that free post.
This year's crop has been outstandingly dire in both content and design. The first Labour leaflet I received had a big picture of Ed Miliband looking solemn and the message: "Only Labour will tackle the cost-of-living crisis". Reading this and glancing through the other items: NHS, "free" childcare, housing crisis and soaring energy bills, I could not help wondering whether the party in question had the first idea of which particular elections were coming up. For Mr Miliband's information, none of that can be solved in the European Parliament and very little at the local level.
Actually, tucked away in a corner there was a reference to MEPs who are fighting for jobs and growth (mostly their own jobs and the growth of their waistlines) because, forsooth, we would lose 3.5 million jobs if we left the EU. It seems quite extraordinary that anyone should come up with that particular chestnut still or to think that Britain's membership of the EU somehow depends on the MEPs.
Since then I have also received the Labour leaflet for the local election in which they promise to cut taxes (having clearly forgotten that when they controlled the council, our local tax rate was among the highest in London) and to protect the NHS or the local hospitals or something like that. Nobody, I may add, has been able to explain precisely what the plans are about local hospitals and what alternatives there might be to the projected rearrangements, known by some campaigners and the Labour party as cuts. Nevertheless, it is a bad sign for the Labour party that all they can campaign on is the NHS.
I was not altogether surprised to read that they are now behind the Conservatives in opinion polls, a most unusual situation at this stage of the electoral cycle. It made me recall the 1992 General Election, the first in which UKIP's predecessor, the Anti-Federalist League campaigned. (Yes, it has been around that long.) The day I realized that Labour would lose was when I was accosted by some supporter of theirs who solemnly argued that the real power in the land was the Monday Club. I put my money where my mouth was and eventually won £10 from a friend. Still, Labour can comfort themselves with the thought that opinion polls matter less than the actual election. At least, they might be able to comfort themselves with that thought until next Thursday.
Let's get the unimportant ones out of the way. I have not had any Lib-Dim literature but I gather that they are calling on all of us to re-elect the egregious Sarah Ludford, as ghastly a euro-weenie as I have ever come across and much given to hyperventilation. At one debate she became quite hysterical about people she described as climate deniers. I asked her whether these people actually denied that there was such a thing as a climate. She just gobbled.
The Greens are calling on me to re-elect Jean Lambert but for some reason all the policies are out and out socialist ones, thus proving that saying about watermelons.
Then there is something called the Communities United Party who desperately need a proof-reader to get rid of the inappropriate capitals in their leaflet though I hope they keep the fierce eagle. I am not altogether sure what they are campaigning about as they seem to think all sorts of issues can be solved in the European Parliament and I am not certain that their slogan, Strength in Unity, is entirely appropriate. Reminds me of all those fly-by-night parties that used to appear just before European elections with much fanfare, putting forward "real people" as candidates who invariably demonstrated their reality by knowing nothing about the European Parliament for which they were standing. Mind you, I think that the Communities United Party is against Britain's withdrawal from the European Union though I am not sure I can quite work out their argument.
So we come to the Conservatives, whose local election leaflet does not mention Charing Cross Hospital, possibly because that has more to do with the near-bankrupt Imperial College Healthcare than the local council or possibly because they have some guilty secrets there. They have a certain advantage over the Labour candidates in that they can actually point to a reduction in Council Tax and in debt plus a few achievements that are almost impossible to check. What does 25% reduction in crime mean? Are there really 44 extra police officers in the borough and what do they do? Still, I am reasonably pleased with the 6 new free schools, assuming they have actually opened and the 1,000 affordable homes to buy, assuming they do actually exist.
The more general communication that is aimed at the European Election proves without any doubt that the Conservatives are also using the campaign to fight next year's General Election. On the cover, a picture of their leader, our Prime Minister, the Boy-King himself, speaking rather than looking solemn. Well, looking solemn as he is speaking. What is he offering? A stronger economy at home, renewed respect abroad, real change in Europe. Two out of three are so vague as to be incomprehensible. How do you define renewed respect or real change. Experience with "Europe" tells us that the only real change we ever see is movement towards greater integration.
Moving on into the leaflet, I find out that these are the most important European Elections in a generation as for the "first time since the Eurozone crisis you get to have your say on Britain's relationship with Europe". I am not sure where to start in analyzing that particular piece of nonsense. We get our say on our relationship with Europe by voting for a certain party to send its members to the European Parliament, an institution of the European Union, of which we are a member? Just writing that sentence makes my head spin. Later on we are told that they are fighting to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU which makes about as much sense as people fighting to renegotiate Herefordshire's relationship with the United Kingdom.
Apparently, if we send in the Conservatives, fundamental changes will take place in the EU. Just to prove that we have a pretty picture of the London team with the Leader. Well, to be fair, the Conservatives are the only ones who have a picture of the whole team, regardless of whether they are likely to get in or not. (I doubt if numbers 6, Sheila Lawlor, or 7, Glyn Chambers, will.)
I left UKIP to last, partly because from the point of the view of this blog that could be said to be the most important party and the biggest missed opportunity and partly because it is still possible that they will come top. The great thing about the European Elections is that, because of the list system, nobody really wins but almost everybody does. So, UKIP coming top in the Euros will not produce a political revolution in this country any more than them coming second last time did. In fact, it will do very little unless they can parlay that into some seats in the General Election next year or one or two by-elections before that, of which there is no chance.
So, first things first, the news that Gerard Batten's home was attacked in the early hours of this morning is completely outrageous, regardless of what one thinks of the party. If, indeed, this is part of an organized campaign to intimidate UKIP (just as there was an organized campaign to intimidate the BNP) then it is also incredibly stupid. Do these people really not understand that this sort of violence merely gives their target group extra support? No, I don't suppose they do. At present, the police are investigating the attack so any other comments from me would be superfluous and quite probably factually wrong. (Here is another article that concentrates on Farage and his fears.)
Back to UKIP election literature of which there is more than from any other party. Either they have had another influx of money or what we are seeing is the well-known Farage strategy of throwing everything at one aim and to hell with the future.
To date, I have had two glossy and one newspaper-type leaflets. Mostly they say the same thing over and over again: there are people coming into this country to take away jobs, accommodation and the country in general. That is the main message with all other issues, including actual membership of the EU, becoming subordinate. That is something of a risky strategy: what if, despite being worried about mass immigration, the electorate of this country reacts badly to this kind of naked fear-mongering and hatred of the outsider?
One glossy leaflet had a big picture of the Great Leader on one side and a much smaller picture of Gerard Batten, the London MEP, on the other. It is, of course, important not to have a bigger picture of yourself than that of the Leader, not to have one above that of the Leader and not to look as if you were taller than the Leader.
On the Batten side (small photograph) we have a good deal about "4,000 people a week" coming to live in Britain from the EU and the cost in British jobs, pushed down wages and pressure on schools, health, welfare. I presume that means that people coming from outside the EU do not have that effect. What, I wonder, about the large number of French people who tend to get jobs in the higher ranks of the economy? Not all. Plenty of French work in catering as do plenty of Poles, Spanish (highly incompetent) and others. Also many Brits and Antipodeans. But, undoubtedly, there are pressures on school, health and welfare, all of which need root and branch reform, strongly opposed .... by .... yes, you guessed it, UKIP.
On the Farage side (big picture) we get a paragraph about immigration and then one that makes me think that UKIP could do with some editors:
The other glossy leaflet concentrated on UKIP's image as the radical, non-political party (just as their Leader is a non-political politician who is really rather a good bloke). Another picture of Nigel Farage inviting us all to join his team and informing us that "we are all going UKIP this year" because of Labour failure on immigration, Tory failure on planning (not strict enough), Liberal (ahem!) sell out to the EU and Green energy price hikes. Note, please, that the EU as a whole comes in third and is attributed only to the Lib-Dims. At least, I assume they do not mean the Liberal Party that is still in existence and is furiously opposed to the European project.
Examples of the "all" are shown by 18 small photos on either side of the Leader, implying that these are people who have seen the light. A quick look through and I recognized about a third as members, activists, candidates and employees of UKIP of long standing, including Sanya-Jeet Thandi who has since left the party. Ah well. Can't win them all.
So, UKIP is not entirely honest in its election literature. So what? Is any party? No, of course not and I think I have made that reasonably clear above. The point is not that UKIP is no worse than anyone else, despite the prevalence of troglodytes among the members, but that their USP, apart from the fear of incomers, is that they are different: not political, not corrupt, not dishonest. Not like the other parties, in other words. That is why it is so damaging when they behave exactly like the other parties and politicians.
Similarly, it would not be a newsworthy item that UKIP employed Latvians at what one assumes were rock bottom wages to deliver their leaflets if their campaign had not concentrated on the subject of immigrant workers taking British jobs and depressing British wages.
Finally, there is the UKIP News, the newspaper-style leaflet, that covers a few issues, the biggest one of which, the one that has the huge main headline: Britain Faces Fresh Wave of Immigrants. Everything else, effect on the City, the European Arrest Warrant, scandalous waste of EU aid projects (as if foreign aid that we give directly was not scandalously wasted and misused), all pale into insignificance.
Do I think this is racist? No. Furthermore, the cries of racism help UKIP in that they can preen themselves as people who are unjustly attacked by demented lefties. As a consequence, they never really have to explain their policies or their statements or how has a party that is supposedly a free-market, vaguely libertarian entity become protectionist, big statist (just read what they say about planning) and backward looking to a rose-coloured view of that tiresome decade, the fifties.
This year's crop has been outstandingly dire in both content and design. The first Labour leaflet I received had a big picture of Ed Miliband looking solemn and the message: "Only Labour will tackle the cost-of-living crisis". Reading this and glancing through the other items: NHS, "free" childcare, housing crisis and soaring energy bills, I could not help wondering whether the party in question had the first idea of which particular elections were coming up. For Mr Miliband's information, none of that can be solved in the European Parliament and very little at the local level.
Actually, tucked away in a corner there was a reference to MEPs who are fighting for jobs and growth (mostly their own jobs and the growth of their waistlines) because, forsooth, we would lose 3.5 million jobs if we left the EU. It seems quite extraordinary that anyone should come up with that particular chestnut still or to think that Britain's membership of the EU somehow depends on the MEPs.
Since then I have also received the Labour leaflet for the local election in which they promise to cut taxes (having clearly forgotten that when they controlled the council, our local tax rate was among the highest in London) and to protect the NHS or the local hospitals or something like that. Nobody, I may add, has been able to explain precisely what the plans are about local hospitals and what alternatives there might be to the projected rearrangements, known by some campaigners and the Labour party as cuts. Nevertheless, it is a bad sign for the Labour party that all they can campaign on is the NHS.
I was not altogether surprised to read that they are now behind the Conservatives in opinion polls, a most unusual situation at this stage of the electoral cycle. It made me recall the 1992 General Election, the first in which UKIP's predecessor, the Anti-Federalist League campaigned. (Yes, it has been around that long.) The day I realized that Labour would lose was when I was accosted by some supporter of theirs who solemnly argued that the real power in the land was the Monday Club. I put my money where my mouth was and eventually won £10 from a friend. Still, Labour can comfort themselves with the thought that opinion polls matter less than the actual election. At least, they might be able to comfort themselves with that thought until next Thursday.
Let's get the unimportant ones out of the way. I have not had any Lib-Dim literature but I gather that they are calling on all of us to re-elect the egregious Sarah Ludford, as ghastly a euro-weenie as I have ever come across and much given to hyperventilation. At one debate she became quite hysterical about people she described as climate deniers. I asked her whether these people actually denied that there was such a thing as a climate. She just gobbled.
The Greens are calling on me to re-elect Jean Lambert but for some reason all the policies are out and out socialist ones, thus proving that saying about watermelons.
Then there is something called the Communities United Party who desperately need a proof-reader to get rid of the inappropriate capitals in their leaflet though I hope they keep the fierce eagle. I am not altogether sure what they are campaigning about as they seem to think all sorts of issues can be solved in the European Parliament and I am not certain that their slogan, Strength in Unity, is entirely appropriate. Reminds me of all those fly-by-night parties that used to appear just before European elections with much fanfare, putting forward "real people" as candidates who invariably demonstrated their reality by knowing nothing about the European Parliament for which they were standing. Mind you, I think that the Communities United Party is against Britain's withdrawal from the European Union though I am not sure I can quite work out their argument.
So we come to the Conservatives, whose local election leaflet does not mention Charing Cross Hospital, possibly because that has more to do with the near-bankrupt Imperial College Healthcare than the local council or possibly because they have some guilty secrets there. They have a certain advantage over the Labour candidates in that they can actually point to a reduction in Council Tax and in debt plus a few achievements that are almost impossible to check. What does 25% reduction in crime mean? Are there really 44 extra police officers in the borough and what do they do? Still, I am reasonably pleased with the 6 new free schools, assuming they have actually opened and the 1,000 affordable homes to buy, assuming they do actually exist.
The more general communication that is aimed at the European Election proves without any doubt that the Conservatives are also using the campaign to fight next year's General Election. On the cover, a picture of their leader, our Prime Minister, the Boy-King himself, speaking rather than looking solemn. Well, looking solemn as he is speaking. What is he offering? A stronger economy at home, renewed respect abroad, real change in Europe. Two out of three are so vague as to be incomprehensible. How do you define renewed respect or real change. Experience with "Europe" tells us that the only real change we ever see is movement towards greater integration.
Moving on into the leaflet, I find out that these are the most important European Elections in a generation as for the "first time since the Eurozone crisis you get to have your say on Britain's relationship with Europe". I am not sure where to start in analyzing that particular piece of nonsense. We get our say on our relationship with Europe by voting for a certain party to send its members to the European Parliament, an institution of the European Union, of which we are a member? Just writing that sentence makes my head spin. Later on we are told that they are fighting to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU which makes about as much sense as people fighting to renegotiate Herefordshire's relationship with the United Kingdom.
Apparently, if we send in the Conservatives, fundamental changes will take place in the EU. Just to prove that we have a pretty picture of the London team with the Leader. Well, to be fair, the Conservatives are the only ones who have a picture of the whole team, regardless of whether they are likely to get in or not. (I doubt if numbers 6, Sheila Lawlor, or 7, Glyn Chambers, will.)
I left UKIP to last, partly because from the point of the view of this blog that could be said to be the most important party and the biggest missed opportunity and partly because it is still possible that they will come top. The great thing about the European Elections is that, because of the list system, nobody really wins but almost everybody does. So, UKIP coming top in the Euros will not produce a political revolution in this country any more than them coming second last time did. In fact, it will do very little unless they can parlay that into some seats in the General Election next year or one or two by-elections before that, of which there is no chance.
So, first things first, the news that Gerard Batten's home was attacked in the early hours of this morning is completely outrageous, regardless of what one thinks of the party. If, indeed, this is part of an organized campaign to intimidate UKIP (just as there was an organized campaign to intimidate the BNP) then it is also incredibly stupid. Do these people really not understand that this sort of violence merely gives their target group extra support? No, I don't suppose they do. At present, the police are investigating the attack so any other comments from me would be superfluous and quite probably factually wrong. (Here is another article that concentrates on Farage and his fears.)
Back to UKIP election literature of which there is more than from any other party. Either they have had another influx of money or what we are seeing is the well-known Farage strategy of throwing everything at one aim and to hell with the future.
To date, I have had two glossy and one newspaper-type leaflets. Mostly they say the same thing over and over again: there are people coming into this country to take away jobs, accommodation and the country in general. That is the main message with all other issues, including actual membership of the EU, becoming subordinate. That is something of a risky strategy: what if, despite being worried about mass immigration, the electorate of this country reacts badly to this kind of naked fear-mongering and hatred of the outsider?
One glossy leaflet had a big picture of the Great Leader on one side and a much smaller picture of Gerard Batten, the London MEP, on the other. It is, of course, important not to have a bigger picture of yourself than that of the Leader, not to have one above that of the Leader and not to look as if you were taller than the Leader.
On the Batten side (small photograph) we have a good deal about "4,000 people a week" coming to live in Britain from the EU and the cost in British jobs, pushed down wages and pressure on schools, health, welfare. I presume that means that people coming from outside the EU do not have that effect. What, I wonder, about the large number of French people who tend to get jobs in the higher ranks of the economy? Not all. Plenty of French work in catering as do plenty of Poles, Spanish (highly incompetent) and others. Also many Brits and Antipodeans. But, undoubtedly, there are pressures on school, health and welfare, all of which need root and branch reform, strongly opposed .... by .... yes, you guessed it, UKIP.
On the Farage side (big picture) we get a paragraph about immigration and then one that makes me think that UKIP could do with some editors:
We have no control over our borders, but we also have no control over who we trade with, how much we pay to heat our homes and feed our families or how we just get on with our lives.To think that Mr Farage attended Dulwich College, the alma mater of two of the best twentieth century stylists: P. G. Wodehouse and Raymond Chandler.
The other glossy leaflet concentrated on UKIP's image as the radical, non-political party (just as their Leader is a non-political politician who is really rather a good bloke). Another picture of Nigel Farage inviting us all to join his team and informing us that "we are all going UKIP this year" because of Labour failure on immigration, Tory failure on planning (not strict enough), Liberal (ahem!) sell out to the EU and Green energy price hikes. Note, please, that the EU as a whole comes in third and is attributed only to the Lib-Dims. At least, I assume they do not mean the Liberal Party that is still in existence and is furiously opposed to the European project.
Examples of the "all" are shown by 18 small photos on either side of the Leader, implying that these are people who have seen the light. A quick look through and I recognized about a third as members, activists, candidates and employees of UKIP of long standing, including Sanya-Jeet Thandi who has since left the party. Ah well. Can't win them all.
So, UKIP is not entirely honest in its election literature. So what? Is any party? No, of course not and I think I have made that reasonably clear above. The point is not that UKIP is no worse than anyone else, despite the prevalence of troglodytes among the members, but that their USP, apart from the fear of incomers, is that they are different: not political, not corrupt, not dishonest. Not like the other parties, in other words. That is why it is so damaging when they behave exactly like the other parties and politicians.
Similarly, it would not be a newsworthy item that UKIP employed Latvians at what one assumes were rock bottom wages to deliver their leaflets if their campaign had not concentrated on the subject of immigrant workers taking British jobs and depressing British wages.
Finally, there is the UKIP News, the newspaper-style leaflet, that covers a few issues, the biggest one of which, the one that has the huge main headline: Britain Faces Fresh Wave of Immigrants. Everything else, effect on the City, the European Arrest Warrant, scandalous waste of EU aid projects (as if foreign aid that we give directly was not scandalously wasted and misused), all pale into insignificance.
Do I think this is racist? No. Furthermore, the cries of racism help UKIP in that they can preen themselves as people who are unjustly attacked by demented lefties. As a consequence, they never really have to explain their policies or their statements or how has a party that is supposedly a free-market, vaguely libertarian entity become protectionist, big statist (just read what they say about planning) and backward looking to a rose-coloured view of that tiresome decade, the fifties.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
It seems that ...
... Dr Rachel Frosh who dared to re-tweet something that is absolutely true but upset the socialists has been reinstated on the candidates' list. One wonders what she had to promise. Never to say anything nasty about socialists again?
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Every time one thinks ....
... the Conservative Party has hit rock bottom a completely new chasm opens before one's feet. To be fair, this story started several days ago and has now been covered by a few people but I think I can add something or other to it all.
About three days ago the Daily Wail published an article in which it told us that
On Thursday Rachel Frosh (the Dr is a medical one as she has been that, working in the NHS, for twenty years) wrote a feisty article in The Commentator, in which she explained that although holding those views might hamper in her work as Deputy Police Crime Commissioner, she does not wish to distance herself from the fairly widely held opinion that National Socialism had its origins in socialism. The name is something of a give-away though few people on the left accept that. I recall having the usual sort of argument about Nazism being socialism with somebody solemnly assuring me that it could not be. The word "national" gave the truth away. I replied that I did not see why the word "national" should give anything away while the word "socialist" was ignored.
If one goes through the comments on the article one finds the same arguments rehashed though, I am happy to say, people who appear to know history seem to predominate.
However, I was still ignoring the story, as it seemed such a stupid storm in a teacup. No longer.
Yesterday morning The Commentator informed us all that Dr Frosh has now been suspended
According to Guido Fawkes a Tory spokesman has confirmed that they viewed the comments as "completely unacceptable" and that she was, indeed, suspended from the party's candidate list.
Douglas Murray points out, as do many of us, that there is a clue in the name. As it happens, there were clues in the various ideas such as the notion of the individual as a cog in the great structure, shared by Nazis and Communists, both of whom grew from socialism.
James Delingpole calls his blog The Conservative Party - where telling the truth is a sackable offence and points out that the obvious connection between fascism, socialism and Nazism has always annoyed the left but it is a little odd, to put it mildly, for the Conservative Party to worry about that. When I think what Conservatives of the past, such as Margaret Thatcher, used to say about socialism I have to admit that not one of them would now be able to get to the candidates' list.
Iain Dale points out that he has made comments along those lines years ago and is, therefore, clearly not candidate material. (Actually, he is a better journalist than politician but let that pass.) And we get the same arguments about whether the fact that something is called socialist makes it socialist with at least one commenter saying that neither Stalin nor Hitler ended up as socialists. Let us forget the ideology: socialism is a lovely cuddly-wuddly set of ideas that wants to make a better world and everybody happy but people who claim to be putting that into practice always end up murdering and torturing millions so they cannot possibly be socialists. Or something like that. At least the Nazis had the sense not to confiscate everybody's property and allowed private business as long as the state remained totally in control; the economy did well unlike in the Soviet Union but that does not alter the basic ideas.
Dr Frosh herself has a website on which she explains that she, of all people, having studied Judaism and converted to it, can speak about the roots of Nazism. The special pleading, in my opinion, is unnecessary. Anyone can speak about the roots of Nazism and anyone can point to their essential socialist qualities; and anyone can disagree.
Setting aside what one thinks about the roots of Nazism, there are two things I find particularly appalling. One is the ignorance that is clearly displayed by the Conservative party hierarchy and the other is the notion that perfectly reasonable political views cannot be expressed by candidates if they upset the left-wing consensus of the twitterati. Here, if anywhere we can see the extent to which the left has captured the commanding heights of our cultural life.
It is as if all political parties (including UKIP) are now competing as to which can show itself in a stupider light and lose more support.
About three days ago the Daily Wail published an article in which it told us that
Hertfordshire’s Deputy Police Crime Commissioner Rachel Frosh has resigned today after she retweeted a quote said by Adolf Hitler.And that seemed to be that.
The tweet, which was originally posted by a user under the name Fenrir, said: 'Dear Socialists, embrace your inner Nazism.'
A link took web users to a picture of Adolf Hitler captioned with a quote from him describing the fledgling Nazi party as socialist.
Speaking after the gaffe, she said: 'I recognise that I am not able to fully comment on some political issues whilst remaining as Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner.
'It is therefore with great regret that I have tendered my resignation this morning.'
On Thursday Rachel Frosh (the Dr is a medical one as she has been that, working in the NHS, for twenty years) wrote a feisty article in The Commentator, in which she explained that although holding those views might hamper in her work as Deputy Police Crime Commissioner, she does not wish to distance herself from the fairly widely held opinion that National Socialism had its origins in socialism. The name is something of a give-away though few people on the left accept that. I recall having the usual sort of argument about Nazism being socialism with somebody solemnly assuring me that it could not be. The word "national" gave the truth away. I replied that I did not see why the word "national" should give anything away while the word "socialist" was ignored.
If one goes through the comments on the article one finds the same arguments rehashed though, I am happy to say, people who appear to know history seem to predominate.
However, I was still ignoring the story, as it seemed such a stupid storm in a teacup. No longer.
Yesterday morning The Commentator informed us all that Dr Frosh has now been suspended
from the Conservative Party's candidates list for the next general election, following hysterical coverage of a retweet of hers which linked Nazism to Socialism.I checked my calendar. No, it was not a particularly cold April 1 but a mildly warm February 15. What on earth is going on?
Party sources are reported to have confirmed the suspension in response to the retweet, which mockingly encouraged socialists to embrace their "inner Nazi".
According to Guido Fawkes a Tory spokesman has confirmed that they viewed the comments as "completely unacceptable" and that she was, indeed, suspended from the party's candidate list.
Douglas Murray points out, as do many of us, that there is a clue in the name. As it happens, there were clues in the various ideas such as the notion of the individual as a cog in the great structure, shared by Nazis and Communists, both of whom grew from socialism.
It is neither an insult to all of the left, nor an attempt to exonerate all of the right, but rather a statement of historical fact that National Socialism had its origins in socialism. If the Conservative party’s apparatchiks look hard enough they will even find a clue in the name. But evidently they are too busy giving in to left-wing twitter-mobs to have time for such a bland and useless thing as historical truth.They might also read the excellent Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg that gives a detailed analysis of the historic development.
James Delingpole calls his blog The Conservative Party - where telling the truth is a sackable offence and points out that the obvious connection between fascism, socialism and Nazism has always annoyed the left but it is a little odd, to put it mildly, for the Conservative Party to worry about that. When I think what Conservatives of the past, such as Margaret Thatcher, used to say about socialism I have to admit that not one of them would now be able to get to the candidates' list.
Iain Dale points out that he has made comments along those lines years ago and is, therefore, clearly not candidate material. (Actually, he is a better journalist than politician but let that pass.) And we get the same arguments about whether the fact that something is called socialist makes it socialist with at least one commenter saying that neither Stalin nor Hitler ended up as socialists. Let us forget the ideology: socialism is a lovely cuddly-wuddly set of ideas that wants to make a better world and everybody happy but people who claim to be putting that into practice always end up murdering and torturing millions so they cannot possibly be socialists. Or something like that. At least the Nazis had the sense not to confiscate everybody's property and allowed private business as long as the state remained totally in control; the economy did well unlike in the Soviet Union but that does not alter the basic ideas.
Dr Frosh herself has a website on which she explains that she, of all people, having studied Judaism and converted to it, can speak about the roots of Nazism. The special pleading, in my opinion, is unnecessary. Anyone can speak about the roots of Nazism and anyone can point to their essential socialist qualities; and anyone can disagree.
Setting aside what one thinks about the roots of Nazism, there are two things I find particularly appalling. One is the ignorance that is clearly displayed by the Conservative party hierarchy and the other is the notion that perfectly reasonable political views cannot be expressed by candidates if they upset the left-wing consensus of the twitterati. Here, if anywhere we can see the extent to which the left has captured the commanding heights of our cultural life.
It is as if all political parties (including UKIP) are now competing as to which can show itself in a stupider light and lose more support.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
So where are we? - 1
President Vaclav Klaus possesses many admirable qualities. The one I admire most is the continuous smoothness of his presentations that includes answers to difficult or, as is the case with many eurosceptic audiences, downright stupid questions.
This afternoon he gave a habitually clear and convincing explanation of all the many things that have gone wrong with the European Union - its centralizing and bureaucratizing tendencies - in the rush towards greater though ultimately unachievable integration. More specifically, he explained very clearly why the eurozone was not optimal either in its extent or its membership while asserting firmly (and, in my humble opinion, correctly) that the political investment in the project was so great that talk of its collapse was akin to a discussion of what kind of pie ought to be flying across the sky.
So where do we go from here, given that the European Union is going the wrong way, given that we know, roughly speaking, what the right way ought to be, and given that the leadership of Europe and to a great extent its people are persisting in following the wrong path? To that President Klaus apparently has no answer, no matter how often he repeats his cogent analysis. (It is, of course, possible that there is an answer in his latest book, Europe: The Shattering of Illusions, which he was launching, but I have not yet read it.)
At the same time, there is something admirable in President Klaus's refusal to pander to his audience, be they EU grandees or a collection of eurosceptics of varying degree, who usually want to hear their own views confirmed and their own prejudices reasserted.
Vaclav Klaus absolutely refused to discuss internal British politics, slyly turning every question to his own experiences with Czechoslovakia and its disintegration into the two component parts. He did, however, remind people with great firmness that the Conservative Party had expected him to hold out against all pressure and against his country's constitutional rules over the signing of the Lisbon Treaty in order to help them to win the 2010 election though they, themselves, had given up any semblance of a fight. (I wrote about that on this blog and, before that, on EU Referendum, my erstwhile blogging home.)
He also said that while he could see that the UK might, for its selfish reasons, want to be out of the EU, the Czech Republic's selfish reasons wanted the UK to stay in. He was challenged on this by Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
Briefly, the two arguments ran thus: President Klaus appears to think (and who knows what he really thinks on the subject) that the more countries there are in the EU, the less likely is it to integrate. That is our old friend, the widening versus deepening debate, which has been settled some time ago by the inevitability of every new widening being used as an excuse for further deepening. But, more importantly, said Klaus, we must have countries like Britain, countries that have genuine democratic traditions and notions, inside the EU as that will help to reverse the pernicious process of centralizing and bureaucratizing.
Lord Stoddart, on the other hand, thinks that Britain's exit from the EU would be of great benefit not only to this country but also to others like the Czech Republic who could then follow the British example and find a way out. Maybe it could even join the Commonwealth, suggested the noble peer with a smile. (I can't quite imagine the Czech Republic wanting to be in an organization with such luminaries of democracy as Nigeria or Rwanda but the obsession with the Commonwealth is one that needs a separate set of arguments.)
Once again President Klaus refused to pander to his audience, reminding us all, instead, that Britain actually had the choice of a different kind of European "integration" through EFTA, which it abandoned, preferring to join the EEC. (Lord Stoddart loudly pointed out that he did not prefer it and how true that is. He has been an opponent of Britain's participation in the European project from the beginning.)
I find it hard to believe that President Klaus really believes that Britain's continued membership of the EU would have the desired effect of turning the process of ever greater integration back towards the creation of a low government intervention free market agreement. A swift look at the history of Britain's membership should disabuse him of such a notion. Nor is he under any illusion about the Party Formerly Known As Conservative or the present government. He knows full well that he can hope for nothing from that quarter. Then again, he also knows that his position is very lonely and there is no help anywhere at the moment. One can only admire him for his tenacity (as well as the smoothness of his presentation).
This afternoon he gave a habitually clear and convincing explanation of all the many things that have gone wrong with the European Union - its centralizing and bureaucratizing tendencies - in the rush towards greater though ultimately unachievable integration. More specifically, he explained very clearly why the eurozone was not optimal either in its extent or its membership while asserting firmly (and, in my humble opinion, correctly) that the political investment in the project was so great that talk of its collapse was akin to a discussion of what kind of pie ought to be flying across the sky.
So where do we go from here, given that the European Union is going the wrong way, given that we know, roughly speaking, what the right way ought to be, and given that the leadership of Europe and to a great extent its people are persisting in following the wrong path? To that President Klaus apparently has no answer, no matter how often he repeats his cogent analysis. (It is, of course, possible that there is an answer in his latest book, Europe: The Shattering of Illusions, which he was launching, but I have not yet read it.)
At the same time, there is something admirable in President Klaus's refusal to pander to his audience, be they EU grandees or a collection of eurosceptics of varying degree, who usually want to hear their own views confirmed and their own prejudices reasserted.
Vaclav Klaus absolutely refused to discuss internal British politics, slyly turning every question to his own experiences with Czechoslovakia and its disintegration into the two component parts. He did, however, remind people with great firmness that the Conservative Party had expected him to hold out against all pressure and against his country's constitutional rules over the signing of the Lisbon Treaty in order to help them to win the 2010 election though they, themselves, had given up any semblance of a fight. (I wrote about that on this blog and, before that, on EU Referendum, my erstwhile blogging home.)
He also said that while he could see that the UK might, for its selfish reasons, want to be out of the EU, the Czech Republic's selfish reasons wanted the UK to stay in. He was challenged on this by Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
Briefly, the two arguments ran thus: President Klaus appears to think (and who knows what he really thinks on the subject) that the more countries there are in the EU, the less likely is it to integrate. That is our old friend, the widening versus deepening debate, which has been settled some time ago by the inevitability of every new widening being used as an excuse for further deepening. But, more importantly, said Klaus, we must have countries like Britain, countries that have genuine democratic traditions and notions, inside the EU as that will help to reverse the pernicious process of centralizing and bureaucratizing.
Lord Stoddart, on the other hand, thinks that Britain's exit from the EU would be of great benefit not only to this country but also to others like the Czech Republic who could then follow the British example and find a way out. Maybe it could even join the Commonwealth, suggested the noble peer with a smile. (I can't quite imagine the Czech Republic wanting to be in an organization with such luminaries of democracy as Nigeria or Rwanda but the obsession with the Commonwealth is one that needs a separate set of arguments.)
Once again President Klaus refused to pander to his audience, reminding us all, instead, that Britain actually had the choice of a different kind of European "integration" through EFTA, which it abandoned, preferring to join the EEC. (Lord Stoddart loudly pointed out that he did not prefer it and how true that is. He has been an opponent of Britain's participation in the European project from the beginning.)
I find it hard to believe that President Klaus really believes that Britain's continued membership of the EU would have the desired effect of turning the process of ever greater integration back towards the creation of a low government intervention free market agreement. A swift look at the history of Britain's membership should disabuse him of such a notion. Nor is he under any illusion about the Party Formerly Known As Conservative or the present government. He knows full well that he can hope for nothing from that quarter. Then again, he also knows that his position is very lonely and there is no help anywhere at the moment. One can only admire him for his tenacity (as well as the smoothness of his presentation).
Friday, May 18, 2012
Is it worth the trouble?
People I know and like have told me that I was wasting my time on the 1922 Committee. Who really cares, said they, on the shenanigans within the party formerly known as Conservative? Nobody, of course, except the ever decreasing number of members. However, the structure of British politics, hollowed out by various agents, including the EU, is of importance. One day we shall want to use it again. Building from scratch is never easy as a number of post-Communist states have demonstrated.
On a far more important level, I have been following, together with his many supporters, Cranmer's battle with the ASA. Any reader who is unaware of the ASA's outrageous and dishonest behaviour and of His Grace's capable fight with them, ought to spend a little time catching up.
In his most recent posting Cranmer wrote:
Cranmer is absolutely right. These things are of importance. Some of the discussion on the blog is interesting though, I note the presence, comme d'habitude, of a ninny who advises the blog author to get over it and start writing about something else. He gets short shrift from the others, I am glad to say.
So, for the last time I hope, here is a little more about the 1922 Committee. The "modernisers" by which one means the people who ensured that the Conservatives did not manage to win against the least popular government in living memory, are rejoicing. Graham Brady, the Chairman, is calling on everyone to unite and stop the infighting, which would indicate that things are truly bad and the Committee's meetings may well start resembling those of Tower Hamlets Council.
Not all is smooth sailing, though. It seems that the Treasurer of the "influential 1922 backbench committee" has criticized William Hague for "criticizing British firms", which is hardly the Foreign Secretary's job and neither is addressing the CBI Conference. Instead, Mr Binley thinks, Mr Hague should be doing more to free British business from EU red tape, though he does not actually explain how that can be done. Clearly, the intelligence level of the new Executive Committee is not spectacularly high.
A thought comes to one: does this mean that Conservative MPs will be allowed to attack Mr Hague to show their supposed independence of the leadership?
On a far more important level, I have been following, together with his many supporters, Cranmer's battle with the ASA. Any reader who is unaware of the ASA's outrageous and dishonest behaviour and of His Grace's capable fight with them, ought to spend a little time catching up.
In his most recent posting Cranmer wrote:
It is a question of impartiality, which matters profoundly in political processes where force and influence compete with manipulation and facts: if an organisation with quasi-judicial authority professes to be objective in its investigations, then its senior staff and officers must not only be impartial, they must also be seen to be impartial. There cannot be even the merest hint of a political agenda subverting that professed neutrality or corrupting the overriding commitment to fairness and justice.He then goes on to detail why the Chairman of the ASA, Lord Smith of Finsbury, formerly known as Chris Smith MP and Culture Minister, cannot be said to be impartial or objective.
Cranmer is absolutely right. These things are of importance. Some of the discussion on the blog is interesting though, I note the presence, comme d'habitude, of a ninny who advises the blog author to get over it and start writing about something else. He gets short shrift from the others, I am glad to say.
So, for the last time I hope, here is a little more about the 1922 Committee. The "modernisers" by which one means the people who ensured that the Conservatives did not manage to win against the least popular government in living memory, are rejoicing. Graham Brady, the Chairman, is calling on everyone to unite and stop the infighting, which would indicate that things are truly bad and the Committee's meetings may well start resembling those of Tower Hamlets Council.
Modernisers hope the group, which has traditionally acted as a “safety valve” for the party, will now form greater links with Tory HQ and its volunteers around the country.
They also hope meetings can be moved from Wednesday to Monday so MPs can unite around key events in the Parliamentary week, and want the 1922 to become an “umbrella” for other policy groups right across the party.
New executive member George Hollingbery said the election had shown an “appetite for change” but stressed the new MPs wanted to work with colleagues on the changes.
“This stuff will all take time, none of this will happen overnight,” he told the Standard. “The ’22 has been here a lot longer than I have and will be here for a long time after I’ve gone.”So the plan is to use the Committee, which is supposed to be the voice of the backbenchers separate and, sometimes, against the leadership, to establish complete control of the Parliamentary party and local associations by the leadership. Time for a 2012 Committee, perhaps? After all, the 1922 was created at a time of a creaking coalition.
Not all is smooth sailing, though. It seems that the Treasurer of the "influential 1922 backbench committee" has criticized William Hague for "criticizing British firms", which is hardly the Foreign Secretary's job and neither is addressing the CBI Conference. Instead, Mr Binley thinks, Mr Hague should be doing more to free British business from EU red tape, though he does not actually explain how that can be done. Clearly, the intelligence level of the new Executive Committee is not spectacularly high.
A thought comes to one: does this mean that Conservative MPs will be allowed to attack Mr Hague to show their supposed independence of the leadership?
Thursday, May 17, 2012
How fares the 1922 Committee?
Two weeks ago this blog mentioned that David Cameron and the Whips were once again trying to undermine the 1922 Committee, this time by putting up a slate of candidates for the Executive Committee from the 301 group, all people who can be relied upon not to rock the boat too much (and that goes for the much-lauded but ever so cautious Ms Pritti Patel).
Since then I have been told by a veteran Tory MP that while this was undoubtedly a plot by the Whips it was not going to go anywhere as long as the Cameroonie loyalists did not get any of the important positions. To be fair, Graham Brady remains Chairman and John Whittingdale, one of the Vice-Chairmen.
Well, we have had the election. Who won, who lost and what will it mean for the parliamentary party, formerly known as Conservative? Reports are somewhat mixed. The Guardian, who, as readers will recall, broke the story of the slate, thus managing to annoy a lot of Tory MPs, says that it was win some, lose some for Cameron.
James Forsyth in the Spectator thinks that 301 Group have managed to purge the 1922 Committee, though he acknowledges that Bernard Jenkin and Nick de Bois (the non-slate candidate who got one of the secretarial positions) managed to win because of personal popularity and despite not being part of the slate. There is no mention of Robert Halfon.
Curiously enough, Mr Forsyth thinks this makes the 1922 Committee more powerful because it now definitely represents the parliamentary party as a whole. The fact that the Executive is now full of Cameron loyalists who stood specifically to ensure that the Committee, from now on, toed the line, seems to him unimportant.
Paul Goodman on ConHome is clear: it is a victory for the 301 Committee. He sees it as a change of generations, though he does mention that undoubtedly glasses are being raised in Downing Street and the Treasury. Their boys and girls have won and will ensure that there will be no undue opposition to the leadership that the backbenchers will not have an organization through which they can express their discontents.
Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the definition of a rebel is now someone who voted for that benighted and pointless EU referendum. As this blog and EURef noted at the time, the referendum is a means of fudging the issue. Vote for it and you are a "rebel" though it is meaningless. The fact that most of those MPs, including the fragrant Ms Patel have never put their heads over the parapet on any issue that matters, becomes irrelevant.
The commenters on ConHome who ask whether there really is nothing more important going on in Britain fail to see the point. As far as the Boy-King and his camarilla are concerned the most important matter is controlling everything they can: party, Commons, backbench committees and, soon, the Lords. Nothing else matters to them.
Since then I have been told by a veteran Tory MP that while this was undoubtedly a plot by the Whips it was not going to go anywhere as long as the Cameroonie loyalists did not get any of the important positions. To be fair, Graham Brady remains Chairman and John Whittingdale, one of the Vice-Chairmen.
Well, we have had the election. Who won, who lost and what will it mean for the parliamentary party, formerly known as Conservative? Reports are somewhat mixed. The Guardian, who, as readers will recall, broke the story of the slate, thus managing to annoy a lot of Tory MPs, says that it was win some, lose some for Cameron.
Supporters and opponents of David Cameron achieved a score draw in elections to the executive of the 1922 committee on Wednesday, which were seen as a test of Tory backbench mood amid fears that Downing Street is losing its touch.
A bold move by loyalists to achieve "seismic change" in the elections, by removing "bloody rude" members of the old guard, achieved partial success when some critics of the prime minister were unseated. But the modernisers on the 301 Group, who had published a slate of candidates that was handed out to MPs as they voted on Wednesday afternoon, also suffered some setbacks.
The main battle for the two coveted secretary posts on the executive of the 1922 executive resulted in a draw. Karen Bradley, who was on the 301 Group slate, won a post. But Charlie Elphicke, a Cameron loyalist, failed in his bid to take the other.
That post went to Nick de Bois, a popular figure with all wings of the party who was not on the 301 Group slate. But the Thatcherite Chris Chope, who had been strongly supported by the traditional right, was unseated.And so it goes: Bernard Jenkin survived, Peter Bone did not; some MPs got in with the support of the 301, some like Robert Halfon, part-time rebel, without it and Ms Patel managing to get the support both of the Cameroonie loyalists and of his opponents.
James Forsyth in the Spectator thinks that 301 Group have managed to purge the 1922 Committee, though he acknowledges that Bernard Jenkin and Nick de Bois (the non-slate candidate who got one of the secretarial positions) managed to win because of personal popularity and despite not being part of the slate. There is no mention of Robert Halfon.
Curiously enough, Mr Forsyth thinks this makes the 1922 Committee more powerful because it now definitely represents the parliamentary party as a whole. The fact that the Executive is now full of Cameron loyalists who stood specifically to ensure that the Committee, from now on, toed the line, seems to him unimportant.
Paul Goodman on ConHome is clear: it is a victory for the 301 Committee. He sees it as a change of generations, though he does mention that undoubtedly glasses are being raised in Downing Street and the Treasury. Their boys and girls have won and will ensure that there will be no undue opposition to the leadership that the backbenchers will not have an organization through which they can express their discontents.
Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the definition of a rebel is now someone who voted for that benighted and pointless EU referendum. As this blog and EURef noted at the time, the referendum is a means of fudging the issue. Vote for it and you are a "rebel" though it is meaningless. The fact that most of those MPs, including the fragrant Ms Patel have never put their heads over the parapet on any issue that matters, becomes irrelevant.
The commenters on ConHome who ask whether there really is nothing more important going on in Britain fail to see the point. As far as the Boy-King and his camarilla are concerned the most important matter is controlling everything they can: party, Commons, backbench committees and, soon, the Lords. Nothing else matters to them.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Going after the 1922 Committee again
Readers of this blog will recall that very soon after the General Election of May 2010, the Boy-King who did eventually become the Prime Minister, leading a Coalition government nobody had voted for, showed that one of the most important things on his agenda was an attempt to exert control over the backbenchers' organization, the 1922 Committee. (Here, here and here.)
He lost that battle so now he and his minions have decided to undermine it, using other methods. Claiming that it is nothing but a grumbling post and a completely ineffective one at that, the "modernising 301 Group will be running a slate in an attempt to oust the Tory old guard". The Cameroonie hacks have been primed.
Among them is a youthful hackette, hitherto unknown to me, called Donata Huggins who "writes about politics and life in the Westminster village" in the Daily Torygraph and does so very badly.
In her article on the subject of the 1922 Committee and the attempt to subvert it, she commits the cardinal sin of telling her readers that this is a story because the Guardian is reporting it. Does she not know the scuttlebutt herself?
She then adds in her easily imitable way:
Other media outlets also reported the proposed coup. The Spectator, another Cameroonie rag thought that it was a fuss about not much at all. According to James Forsyth, who is also anxious to show that this is all about modernisation,
Tim Montgomerie is cautiously in favour and thinks this is an attempt to rebalance the Committee in favour of the 2010 intake, which would, in his opinion, push aside a great deal of parliamentary experience. That may well be the aim of the exercise. Get the younger and less experienced lot in and it will be easier to control them. They might not stand up against bullying the way the Committee stood up to it in 2010. It is also useful to add that, despite all the predictions, the 2010 intake is extremely loyal to the leadership and will not do much against it.
Craig Woodhouse in the Evening Standard writes in that vein as well:
He lost that battle so now he and his minions have decided to undermine it, using other methods. Claiming that it is nothing but a grumbling post and a completely ineffective one at that, the "modernising 301 Group will be running a slate in an attempt to oust the Tory old guard". The Cameroonie hacks have been primed.
Among them is a youthful hackette, hitherto unknown to me, called Donata Huggins who "writes about politics and life in the Westminster village" in the Daily Torygraph and does so very badly.
In her article on the subject of the 1922 Committee and the attempt to subvert it, she commits the cardinal sin of telling her readers that this is a story because the Guardian is reporting it. Does she not know the scuttlebutt herself?
She then adds in her easily imitable way:
The Committee is currently run by a group of mostly cantankerous old farts who do little to further Right-wing ideas in Britain. Just last week they stirred up a fight with the Government on Lords reform. Just imagine if that brought down the Coalition? Not unemployment or economic growth: the things that matter to their constituents, but reform of a place many see as a retirement home for politicians. The Conservatives shouldn't allow Ed Miliband's repetition of "out of touch Tories" to ring true.And ends the article with the words that fall somewhat short of Wildean with or Bagehot-like profundity:
Put simply, Right-wingers need to chill out and realise that they'll be more effective if they act like they're all in it together.This, gentle readers, is the standard of the modern Daily Torygraph.
Other media outlets also reported the proposed coup. The Spectator, another Cameroonie rag thought that it was a fuss about not much at all. According to James Forsyth, who is also anxious to show that this is all about modernisation,
Also included on the list are two Cornish MPs, George Eustice and Sheryll Murray, who tried to block the so-called pasty tax. The intention is to show that while the slate is broadly supportive of the leadership and wants a Tory majority at the next election it is made up of people who will tell the Prime Minister when they think he is wrong.
If this slate succeeds, and I expect it will given both its voting weight in the party and its relatively modest aims, it will remove those who have used their position on the ’22 to campaign against the leadership. But the far harder challenge for it will be, as Tim Montgomerie says, to give the ’22 more of a campaigning focus.
One other thing worth noting is that these elections will vastly increase the standing of the ’22. The fact that the new intake are competing so vigorously for posts on it means that the likes of Louise Mensch can no longer dismiss it as an outdated body that does not speak for them.Whether a 1922 Committee that is entirely in the pocket of the leadership and whose members will be allowed to show phony dissidence by opposing some unimportant measure while certain subjects like the European Union will be off the agenda, will really increase its standing is very doubtful.
Tim Montgomerie is cautiously in favour and thinks this is an attempt to rebalance the Committee in favour of the 2010 intake, which would, in his opinion, push aside a great deal of parliamentary experience. That may well be the aim of the exercise. Get the younger and less experienced lot in and it will be easier to control them. They might not stand up against bullying the way the Committee stood up to it in 2010. It is also useful to add that, despite all the predictions, the 2010 intake is extremely loyal to the leadership and will not do much against it.
Craig Woodhouse in the Evening Standard writes in that vein as well:
The new generation of Tory MPs was accused of being “government patsies” today as they launched a bid to revolutionise the party’s key backbench committee.
A group of broadly pro-leadership MPs took the unusual step of announcing a slate of candidates — mainly from the 2010 intake — they want to succeed in next month’s internal elections to the 1922 Committee.The reason this election is happening, incidentally, is that next week will see the long-delayed opening of the new session of Parliament with the Queen's Speech on Wednesday, May 9. Though what exactly the extra-long session has achieved remains a mystery.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Peter Hitchens had it right
I must admit I did not think I would agree with Peter Hitchens for all sorts of reasons, not least because I was told that he supported a referendum and was convinced that the OUT side would win. Nothing of the kind. He was very eloquent on the subject of why a referendum now with the forces standing as they are and no strategy on our side we are bound to lose.
Mr Hitchens does not think much of UKIP (and who can blame him?) but thinks that a new party and realignment is needed. The Labour Party, he said rightly, did not just emerge fully formed as the second major party. There was a long period of overlap with the Liberals. At the moment there is nothing that can overlap with the Conservatives. His idea is that the new party should be started by people who split away from the Conservative Party but that, I fear, is a forlorn hope. Maybe some more bullying from the Boy-King will give them a backbone.
Above all, Mr Hitchens thinks, the Conservative Party that has long ago ceased to be conservative has to go. It has to be destroyed. He urged all its supporters to give up on it and feel the liberation of not supporting the No-Longer-Conservative Party any more.
Delenda est Toria Partia he repeated in what can only be described as dog Latin.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Inevitable
The Motion to ask the Government to introduce legislation in the next session of Parliament was lost by 483 to 111. Some of the debate is up on the unedited Hansard. My view is that we while the recriminations proceed, those of us who care about the real issues - withdrawing from the EU, how to go about it and what to do afterwards - must use the time to prepare ideas and strategies. It can't be done without money and most probably the money will once again go towards some half-baked campaign. But maybe, just maybe there is another Anthony Fisher somewhere who understand the importance of ideas and ill donate serious money towards their development.
Tim Montgomerie, astonishingly, analyzes the real malaise in the Conservative Party and that is dissatisfaction with the Boy-King but inability to do anything about him.
Details about debate and votes tomorrow.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Useless Eustice is back
It's really problematic to work out who is more of a useful idiot in this struggle to undermine euroscepticism. At present George "Useless" Eustice is winning. Apparently he was not satisfied with the amount of fudge the original Motion to be debated on Monday included and put down an Amendment:
This House calls upon the government to publish a White Paper during the next session of Parliament setting out the powers and competences that the government would seek to repatriate from the EU, to commence the renegotiation of Britain's relationship with the EU, and to put the outcome of those negotiations to a national referendum.In some ways this makes sense. After all, the legislation for a referendum, as proposed in the Motion, will provide for that impossible third option
to re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.And if you are going to do that, you may as well explain what you are going to renegotiate and then ask the people if they want you to do so. Except that you do not need a referendum for that. The government can produce a White Paper and start renegotiating anyway.
Still, it is interesting to see that the Spectator, supposedly the most eurosceptic of all publications (as long as it does not involve opposing the Tories) and a magazine with a proud history in that respect, seems unable to grasp some obvious facts.
James Forsyth opines (I don't like that word but blathers seems rude):
What’s needed now is some reassurance that the leadership is serious about using any treaty change – and one is likely in the not too future given that Germany wants to give the ‘Stability and Growth Pact’ legal force – to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the European Union.Now James, repeat after me: we do not have a relationship with the European Union, we are part of it; and we can change terms of our membership only by a major treaty change, which has to be agreed unanimously. What is going to be offered to the other countries in return?
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
This would be the best solution
We are told that David Cameron is so worried that the Tory MPs might rebel and vote for a referendum (he can't have been reading this blog or EUReferendum) that he has ordered them to vote against the motion on the 27th. Most will, presumably, obey that instruction and we do not, as yet, know how the other parties will instruct their MPs. That could be the best solution from our point of view.
If the vote is lost, we can throw that one into the faces of the Conservatives (and others) who pretend that they want a solution to this problem beyond things staying as they are. (And, of course, the People's Pledge, which has achieved its biggest victory to date by running the rival EU Referendum Campaign out of business, will continue to receive its handsome subsidies.)
If, on the other hand, the motion is carried, Cameron will find it difficult not to have the necessary legislation for a referendum some time soon though it can be dragged out for a while. As we know (also here on Witterings from Witney), the proposed referendum will not be a straight IN/OUT one. They are not taking any chances though I am near certain that even that one would be lost by our side. No. As the great Douglas Carswell tells us:
This house calls upon the government to introduce a bill in the next session of parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the united kingdom [sic]:Bearing in mind all the different forces, which of the three is likely to get most support from the media, so-called eurosceptic politicians, NGOs, almost all think-tanks, old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all? Yes, that's right, the third one, which sounds just right: not extremist like those nasty withdrawalists (yes, yes, I know pulling out will not solve our problems but we cannot begin to address them while we are in the EU); in fact, very rational. It will attract many votes.
A) should remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;
B) leave the european union; or
C) re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.
The only problem is that it is not possible without pulling out. If the clever-clogs of the East European Furniture Polish People's Pledge and their supporters think that this is a wonderfully subtle way of getting round the problem ("they cannot renegotiate without pulling out so they will have to pull out in order to renegotiate and we have achieved it all by subterfuge" geddit?) they can think again. Our membership terms cannot be changed without the treaties being changed and that can be done only by unanimity. What shall we offer to the others to get their support? I know that many of the thirty-odd speakers at the Saturday victory conference will say that the others will be glad to get rid of Britain as it is the difficult member but that is simply not true. Britain is not a difficult member and has created no obstacles to the project for many years.
So, if there is a referendum and if the third option is voted through, we shall see a few cosmetic "renegotiations" and the cause of sane politics will have been set back by decades. We have done what the people really wanted will be the chant of the politicians and the eurosceptics will be shown up for being out of touch with popular opinion.
All in all, it will be better if the Conservatives obey their leader's command and ensure that the motion is lost.
ADDENDUM: Glancing through the great Daniel Hannan's self-congratulatory piece on the subject I noted something I missed before: the Motion, if it is passed, will call on the Government to introduce a Bill for that three-option referendum in the next session of Parliament. That is not about to start, something that most people have forgotten. The Coalition Government cancelled this autumn's State Opening of Parliament. We shall be lucky to have one next spring.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
More grandstanding
For some reason this sort of nonsense is taken seriously:
Apparently, he is grandstanding at the party conference. I am shocked, I tell you, shocked. And there is a biography that shows a continuing rivalry between the two, Cameron and Johnson. Are we going into another stage of the "political rivals in one party" soap opera, last seen starring Blair and Brown? Surely not. (Excuse me while I yawn.)
Meanwhile BoJo as he is known by the hacks, has been boasting about his achievements as Mayor of London and telling us to re-elect him. As the alternative to him is Ken Livingstone, I see no real problem about that re-election. But is Hizonner the Mayor going to boast about this?
Bob Crow has been crowing:
BORIS JOHNSON is not reading from David Cameron’s script at the Tory party conference in Manchester. While the Prime Minister described a "modern and compassionate" party on Sunday, the Mayor of London went wildly off-piste by discussing his new demand for tough laws against swearing at policemen.So Boris Johnson is ambitious. Well, well, well. Any stories about dogs biting men or supermodels taking drugs? No? Well, I guess one about an ambitious Tory politician will have to do.
Johnson is to address the conference this week and as a true darling of the party he will be a major attraction. His words will be carefully scrutinised for signs of friction with Cameron, or of increased ambition.
Apparently, he is grandstanding at the party conference. I am shocked, I tell you, shocked. And there is a biography that shows a continuing rivalry between the two, Cameron and Johnson. Are we going into another stage of the "political rivals in one party" soap opera, last seen starring Blair and Brown? Surely not. (Excuse me while I yawn.)
Meanwhile BoJo as he is known by the hacks, has been boasting about his achievements as Mayor of London and telling us to re-elect him. As the alternative to him is Ken Livingstone, I see no real problem about that re-election. But is Hizonner the Mayor going to boast about this?
Tube drivers in the capital will see their pay go over the £50,000-a-year mark under a four-year wage deal negotiated between London Underground and union leaders.This will not be popular in London and among people who struggle into London to work here, work a darn sight harder than those drivers and mostly for considerably less money.
The Rail Maritime and Transport union began consulting on a four-year pay deal, which LU said offered the prospect of no industrial action over wages until at least 2015.
Under the deal, staff will get a 5% pay increase this year followed by RPI inflation plus 0.5% in the subsequent three years.
Industry sources said that if RPI inflation stays reasonably high, some tube staff will receive a pay rise approaching 20% by the end of the settlement period.
Bob Crow has been crowing:
General secretary Bob Crow said: "We saw major movement from LU and we now take this improved offer back to our local reps.He is, of course, one of the prominent supporters of the People's Pledge Campaign that is fighting for that referendum we are likely to lose. All of a pattern, I'd say.
"In these days of austerity we have shown … trade unionism is the best defence from attacks on jobs and living standards. I doubt you will find a better offer than this anywhere else in the public sector."
From that conference in Manchester
This is the last week of political grandstanding, known as the party political conferences. We just have to get through it.
I am quite pleased, as readers will know that the Boy-King has again said that there will be no in/out referendum on EU membership. There is no question in my mind that we would lose. Whenever any eurosceptic tells me with great pomposity or sincerity (take your pick) that we are bound to win I suggest one or two questions that are bound to come up in the campaign and ask him or her how he or she will reply.
For instance: exactly how do we effect that exit? What are we to do with all the deals that now go under the EU's umbrella but will no longer exist once we are out? I am not talking just about trade deals, which will have to be re-negotiated but about other matters, such as student exchange. Whenever I raise that one people look horrified, not having realized just how much of our life is now governed by the EU.
These are not insuperable barriers - everything can be renegotiated in a different framework and, probably, more advantageously to us but until we understand and have a plan how we proceed, we shall lose any referendum.
This morning I was once again told by e-mail from Bill Cash's office (no link to the text but it is not private communication):
In the most recent YouGov poll, almost half of the British public would vote for Britain to leave the European Union if there were a referendum on British membership. In fact, 47% would want Britain to leave the EU compared to 33% who say they would vote for Britain to retain its membership. This means the British people do want to see a real change.Do these people really think that 47 per cent for withdrawal so long before the other side has even bothered to campaign is of any significance? That figure is not high enough and will become even lower as the arguments so few of us can actually answer will pour forth from well-funded sources.
In case, somebody wants a few arguments about the extent of our trade with other EU countries (which can and will be renegotiated if we ever get to leave), here are some. Interesting figures that show, unsurprisingly, our famous trade agreements to be not in our interest; and the refusal to tell the truth how much of that trade is actually with other countries but goes through Antwerp and Rotterdam.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Can't stop laughing
No sooner do I express a sense of déjà vu than the Conservative Party manages to outdo itself in ridiculous behaviour.
Paul Goodman tells us on ConHome
Paul Goodman tells us on ConHome
A Conservative MP I know was recently alerted by CCHQ to a website which suggested topics delegates might like to take an interest in at the fortcoming party conference.Actually, I do prefer EU for obvious reasons but I am not a member of the Party Formerly Known as Conservative so it makes few odds. (Though I shall continue my campaign against that sloppy lack of definition that plays into the hands of our opponents.) So, errm, what are they going to discuss? SamCam's latest outfits?
It included "fashion".
It didn't include "Europe" (or the EU if you prefer).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)