I'm not often in agreement with the Marxist John Reid, but this time he is right. All three parties were rejected by the electorate and none more so than the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties.
Which begs the question - why is it he can understand this yet so few other people in the political world can't?
There is no call for the parties to "work together" and there is no mandate for any of them to work independently. The message from the electorate is clear and unequivocal - and it is "we think all of you are useless".
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
So much for the "great ignored"
They say that a week is a long time in politics. If that is true than three weeks must be a lifetime - and I suspect that the Tories are hoping that three weeks does feel like a lifetime ago for most people.
Because, back then when they launched their election campaign they told us that they were going to focus on the "great ignored". As usual with the Tories, this big idea was long on rhetoric and short on detail in so much as no one was actually sure what they meant by the great ignored, but it would be fair to assume that they meant the very large number of people who are disillusioned with our political parties and the lack of choice offered and have stopped bothering to vote.
At the last election that amounted to around 40% of the electorate - which is quite a large slice of the pie. There can be little doubt that if any party could motivate a significant proportion of those people to go and vote for them then they'd win the election by a landslide.
Unfortunately for the Tories - and the great ignored - the great ignored got forgotten about again as soon as the first "great debate" was over. After that debacle, the Lib Dems enjoyed a huge surge in support - but not because the great ignored decided they were going to back them. No, the surge in support came from voters who were previously planning to vote Labour or Tory switching their support to the Lib Dems.
The trouble is, this proportion of the electorate represents a fairly small proportion of the total - we're talking maybe 10% of the 60% who are expected to vote - and because these people are comfortable voting for either the Tories or Lib Dems or Labour or the Lib Dems it means we're talking about people whose politics pretty much reflect those parties politics anyway.
In other words, progressive liberals.
Consequently, the great ignored are going to be ignored again. Forty per cent of the electorate will not bother to vote because there isn't a party standing which they feel represents them enough to justify putting a cross in a box for that party on election day.
And if you assume, as it's probably fair to do, that a large proportion of the people who vote Tory, Labour or Lib Dem do so out of tribal loyalty and would vote that way regardless of their policies, then it's fair to say that this election is being fought on the basis of winning the votes of less than 10% of the electorate.
And because that 10% is comprised of left wing, progressive liberal elitists we get political parties that fight for the votes of left wing, progressive liberal elitists - and that is what those parties have become. Left wing, progressive liberal elitists.
As for the "great ignored" - they might as well not exist as far as the main political parties are concerned.
Because, back then when they launched their election campaign they told us that they were going to focus on the "great ignored". As usual with the Tories, this big idea was long on rhetoric and short on detail in so much as no one was actually sure what they meant by the great ignored, but it would be fair to assume that they meant the very large number of people who are disillusioned with our political parties and the lack of choice offered and have stopped bothering to vote.
At the last election that amounted to around 40% of the electorate - which is quite a large slice of the pie. There can be little doubt that if any party could motivate a significant proportion of those people to go and vote for them then they'd win the election by a landslide.
Unfortunately for the Tories - and the great ignored - the great ignored got forgotten about again as soon as the first "great debate" was over. After that debacle, the Lib Dems enjoyed a huge surge in support - but not because the great ignored decided they were going to back them. No, the surge in support came from voters who were previously planning to vote Labour or Tory switching their support to the Lib Dems.
The trouble is, this proportion of the electorate represents a fairly small proportion of the total - we're talking maybe 10% of the 60% who are expected to vote - and because these people are comfortable voting for either the Tories or Lib Dems or Labour or the Lib Dems it means we're talking about people whose politics pretty much reflect those parties politics anyway.
In other words, progressive liberals.
Consequently, the great ignored are going to be ignored again. Forty per cent of the electorate will not bother to vote because there isn't a party standing which they feel represents them enough to justify putting a cross in a box for that party on election day.
And if you assume, as it's probably fair to do, that a large proportion of the people who vote Tory, Labour or Lib Dem do so out of tribal loyalty and would vote that way regardless of their policies, then it's fair to say that this election is being fought on the basis of winning the votes of less than 10% of the electorate.
And because that 10% is comprised of left wing, progressive liberal elitists we get political parties that fight for the votes of left wing, progressive liberal elitists - and that is what those parties have become. Left wing, progressive liberal elitists.
As for the "great ignored" - they might as well not exist as far as the main political parties are concerned.
Friday, April 16, 2010
The big sleep
Ok, I only managed to watch three quarters of an hour of the "prime ministerial" debate last night - and that was more than enough to get me dozing off in my armchair. As debates go, it was one hell of a yawn and if this is the best that they can come up with galvanise the public into going to the polling booths to cast their votes then we could be in for a record low turn out on May 6th.
Where do I begin? I suppose the best place is to start with the policies and hard substance that the three leaders came up with.
............
OK - that's got that bit over with so let's move on to what this was really about - style and personality.
Brown looked awkward and shabby. For some reason he always reminds me of the TV detective Lieutenant Columbo played by Peter Falk - perhaps it's the dodgy eye. If his stylists gave him a grubby mac and stuck a half-chewed cigar in his paw he'd probably appeal much more to viewers than he does now. Or he might look like a flasher - it's hard to know unless they try it.
Of course, they can't do that because modern politicians never wear overcoats these days (because they are rarely out of their cars) and because being seen to be a smoker is considered slightly worse than strangling cats for a hobby.
Cameron looked shifty. The poor man tries so hard to appear sincere, but fails miserably - he just comes across as opportunist and fake. Part of the problem is that nobody knows what he stands for still. He talks in vague, sweeping generalisations and mouths the required rhetoric - but none of it sounds genuine no matter how hard he tries to appear earnest and passionate. It's clearly as false as Lt. Columbo's glass eye.
Clegg won the "debate" easily - but that was to be expected. As the leader of the Liberal Democrats he has nothing to defend so could spend all his time on the attack - but the man looked like a sixth former at a school assembly alongside his headmaster and geography teacher. That image was exacerbated by the patronising way both Cameron and Brown repeatedly kept trying to ally themselves to Clegg - possibly a tactic in the event of a hung parliament.
Ultimately, none of them had anything to say that was new, fresh or even vaguely approached the idea of real solutions to Britain's many problems. Worst of all, they all seemed to agree on the fundamental approach to these problems with only minor differences on detail. This is, of course, because all three lead parties with broadly similar political philosophies - left of centre progressive liberalism.
Overall, the event confirmed my worst fears. It will do nothing to improve the democratic process of Britain but will further entrench the social liberal hegemony. The media got what they wanted - they froze out dissent, stifled argument and bolstered the liberal elite's stranglehold on British politics.
They'll spend the next few days telling us how fantastic this was - how it was "groundbreaking" and will change the face of British politics forever. In truth it was dull, dishonest and instead of changing anything it has merely ensured that the progressive liberal hold on the political system - an ideology supported by the media at the expense of all others - remains intact.
I suspect that was always the intention.
Where do I begin? I suppose the best place is to start with the policies and hard substance that the three leaders came up with.
............
OK - that's got that bit over with so let's move on to what this was really about - style and personality.
Brown looked awkward and shabby. For some reason he always reminds me of the TV detective Lieutenant Columbo played by Peter Falk - perhaps it's the dodgy eye. If his stylists gave him a grubby mac and stuck a half-chewed cigar in his paw he'd probably appeal much more to viewers than he does now. Or he might look like a flasher - it's hard to know unless they try it.
Of course, they can't do that because modern politicians never wear overcoats these days (because they are rarely out of their cars) and because being seen to be a smoker is considered slightly worse than strangling cats for a hobby.
Cameron looked shifty. The poor man tries so hard to appear sincere, but fails miserably - he just comes across as opportunist and fake. Part of the problem is that nobody knows what he stands for still. He talks in vague, sweeping generalisations and mouths the required rhetoric - but none of it sounds genuine no matter how hard he tries to appear earnest and passionate. It's clearly as false as Lt. Columbo's glass eye.
Clegg won the "debate" easily - but that was to be expected. As the leader of the Liberal Democrats he has nothing to defend so could spend all his time on the attack - but the man looked like a sixth former at a school assembly alongside his headmaster and geography teacher. That image was exacerbated by the patronising way both Cameron and Brown repeatedly kept trying to ally themselves to Clegg - possibly a tactic in the event of a hung parliament.
Ultimately, none of them had anything to say that was new, fresh or even vaguely approached the idea of real solutions to Britain's many problems. Worst of all, they all seemed to agree on the fundamental approach to these problems with only minor differences on detail. This is, of course, because all three lead parties with broadly similar political philosophies - left of centre progressive liberalism.
Overall, the event confirmed my worst fears. It will do nothing to improve the democratic process of Britain but will further entrench the social liberal hegemony. The media got what they wanted - they froze out dissent, stifled argument and bolstered the liberal elite's stranglehold on British politics.
They'll spend the next few days telling us how fantastic this was - how it was "groundbreaking" and will change the face of British politics forever. In truth it was dull, dishonest and instead of changing anything it has merely ensured that the progressive liberal hold on the political system - an ideology supported by the media at the expense of all others - remains intact.
I suspect that was always the intention.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Fair questions
Both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have put "fairness" as their overarching principle in their manifestos.
Sounds good in theory - but what does it mean in practice?
Is it fair that a straight A student is denied a place in their chosen university because the state decrees that that child comes from the wrong background?
Is it fair that a hard working couple with a couple of kids have to pay for a service that only lazy, itinerant, selfish criminals use?
Is it fair that pensioner who fought for his country in WW2 is not allowed to enjoy a cigarette with his half of bitter in the local pub that he has frequented for forty years? And is fair that that pensioner - who has paid more than his fair share in tax for his smoking habit - is denied health care because he enjoys a perfectly legal pursuit while violent junkies addicted to illegal narcotics are given free health care, expensive treatments and substitute narcotics for their indulgent and illegal behaviour?
Is it fair that a man who has scrimped and saved for years to buy his own home is forced to sell that home just to pay for the care that the lazy, frivolous and wasteful get for nothing?
Is it fair that public sector workers receive pay increases higher than the rate of inflation at a time when private sector workers - whose taxes pay for those pay rises - are facing pay freezes and even pay cuts?
I could go on and on - but my point is simple.
Labour and the Lib Dems have no real interest in fairness - like so many other words and phrases it is just something they bandy about because they know it sounds good. Their only interest is in penalising the hard working, the self reliant, the responsible, the law abiding and the conscientious to fund their every expanding client state.
Sounds good in theory - but what does it mean in practice?
Is it fair that a straight A student is denied a place in their chosen university because the state decrees that that child comes from the wrong background?
Is it fair that a hard working couple with a couple of kids have to pay for a service that only lazy, itinerant, selfish criminals use?
Is it fair that pensioner who fought for his country in WW2 is not allowed to enjoy a cigarette with his half of bitter in the local pub that he has frequented for forty years? And is fair that that pensioner - who has paid more than his fair share in tax for his smoking habit - is denied health care because he enjoys a perfectly legal pursuit while violent junkies addicted to illegal narcotics are given free health care, expensive treatments and substitute narcotics for their indulgent and illegal behaviour?
Is it fair that a man who has scrimped and saved for years to buy his own home is forced to sell that home just to pay for the care that the lazy, frivolous and wasteful get for nothing?
Is it fair that public sector workers receive pay increases higher than the rate of inflation at a time when private sector workers - whose taxes pay for those pay rises - are facing pay freezes and even pay cuts?
I could go on and on - but my point is simple.
Labour and the Lib Dems have no real interest in fairness - like so many other words and phrases it is just something they bandy about because they know it sounds good. Their only interest is in penalising the hard working, the self reliant, the responsible, the law abiding and the conscientious to fund their every expanding client state.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
The great ignored
I saw Michael Gove being questioned on this morning's BBC news and telling the interviewer that his parties big idea was to tap in to the "great ignored".
Yeah, right. In other words, his parties going to try and get us to vote for them and then they'll ignore us again.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Still, credit where it's due. At least he had a "big idea" unlike the Lib Dems or Labour who just waffled on about "public services" again.
Yeah, right. In other words, his parties going to try and get us to vote for them and then they'll ignore us again.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Still, credit where it's due. At least he had a "big idea" unlike the Lib Dems or Labour who just waffled on about "public services" again.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Desperate to find a difference
The argument over the Labour and Tory plans for NI demonstrates just how pathetic our politics has become.
First of all, of course lots of "business leaders" support the Tory plans. On the whole, businesses support anything that means lower costs to them - but their opinions are no more worthy or valid than anybody else's so it really isn't relevant.
Secondly, in terms of the deficit and debt faced by this country, the sums we're talking about are trivial. It might sound like a lot - anything with the word "billion" after it always does - but it isn't really. That's the trouble when currencies reach the situation we have now - people lose all sense of value.*
Finally, the Tories are not proposing to reduce NI - only not to raise it by quite so much as Labour. Fundamentally, they are not arguing over the general idea - just over the scale of the idea - which demonstrates, once again, just how similar the two parties are.
It also demonstrates how desperate our political media is to find something to distinguish Labour and Tory policy - that they cling on to this minor quibble as if it is something of great importance while, in the grand scheme of things, it's very, very minor. In terms of our economy, it's like fighting over a farthing in the gutter while pouring hundreds of pounds down the drain.
* Which is why I believe we need to revalue our currency so that £10 becomes £1 - to bring back a sense of value to money. Consider this, if you've got £100 and spend £10 - you still have £90 left. That's a lot of money, right?
But if you only have £10 and spend £1 - you only have nine quid left. It's the same proportion, but suddenly it doesn't sound so much and you're much more likely to watch what you spend. Of course, this isn't a popular idea in a consumption based economy.
First of all, of course lots of "business leaders" support the Tory plans. On the whole, businesses support anything that means lower costs to them - but their opinions are no more worthy or valid than anybody else's so it really isn't relevant.
Secondly, in terms of the deficit and debt faced by this country, the sums we're talking about are trivial. It might sound like a lot - anything with the word "billion" after it always does - but it isn't really. That's the trouble when currencies reach the situation we have now - people lose all sense of value.*
Finally, the Tories are not proposing to reduce NI - only not to raise it by quite so much as Labour. Fundamentally, they are not arguing over the general idea - just over the scale of the idea - which demonstrates, once again, just how similar the two parties are.
It also demonstrates how desperate our political media is to find something to distinguish Labour and Tory policy - that they cling on to this minor quibble as if it is something of great importance while, in the grand scheme of things, it's very, very minor. In terms of our economy, it's like fighting over a farthing in the gutter while pouring hundreds of pounds down the drain.
* Which is why I believe we need to revalue our currency so that £10 becomes £1 - to bring back a sense of value to money. Consider this, if you've got £100 and spend £10 - you still have £90 left. That's a lot of money, right?
But if you only have £10 and spend £1 - you only have nine quid left. It's the same proportion, but suddenly it doesn't sound so much and you're much more likely to watch what you spend. Of course, this isn't a popular idea in a consumption based economy.
Friday, March 26, 2010
No compromise
Sometimes I get a bit frustrated with the situation I find myself in. By that I mean that I don't feel comfortable about supporting any of the political parties because there simply isn't one which I completely or even mostly agree with.
In truth, most of the parties have one or even several policies that I can agree with or, at least, see some merit in - even the Labour Party (although, oddly enough for a conservative, the party I least have anything in common with is the Tory Party - but perhaps that is because I expect them to conservative which they clearly are not).
In that sense most people prioritise. They decide what is important to them politically and then vote for the party which they least disagree with. For example, the recent revival of Labour in the polls is put down to most voters believing that Labour are better placed to steer us through the economic maelstrom. It's not that they necessarily think that what Labour is doing is right - chances are they don't - but they do think it's less wrong than what the Tory party is proposing (if anyone actually knows what the Tories are proposing, 'cos I'm damned if I do).
Does that make sense? It does to me.
Essentially, what I am saying is that the party that wins elections is not the one that most people support - it is the one that the fewest disagree with. Actual support is reflected in membership numbers - i.e. the people who most agree with a political party's policies are likely to sign up as members to that party - and the fact that support for all the main political parties has waned considerably over the last 10-20 years or so is indicative of just how few people actually support the policies of the Labour, Tory or Lib Dem parties.
People still turn out in large numbers to put their X next to those parties candidates, but they do so not because they support them - they do so because they disagree with them less than they do the other parties. I've done this myself in the past. The last time I voted for a party I actually supported was in 1979 when, as a Liberal party member, I voted Liberal (hey, I was only 18 - if I can't be stupidly idealistic at 18 then when can I be?).
I'm just not comfortable in voting that way anymore. Next time I go into a polling booth I want to be able to put my mark next to the name of a candidate whose party I mostly agree with. If there was one I completely agreed with that would be even better, but such a party does not exist (and with my rather unusual mix of political philosophies they are unlikely to).
And if I'm not happy with any of the options available to me on the day I won't vote for any of them - but I will spoil my ballot paper.
For what it is worth, I'd like to urge everyone else to do the same. If you really agree with the Tory party policies then vote for them - but if you are thinking of voting for them just because you disagree with them less than you disagree with the Labour party then don't. Check out all the options too - whether it is UKIP, the Greens or BNP - and if you feel that any of those match your views better than the Tories, vote for them.
Vote for a party that you actually support. A good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself if you could see yourself as a member of that party - if you can't then you probably shouldn't be voting for them. Whatever you do, don't vote for a party just because you think they aren't as bad as the other lot.
In truth, most of the parties have one or even several policies that I can agree with or, at least, see some merit in - even the Labour Party (although, oddly enough for a conservative, the party I least have anything in common with is the Tory Party - but perhaps that is because I expect them to conservative which they clearly are not).
In that sense most people prioritise. They decide what is important to them politically and then vote for the party which they least disagree with. For example, the recent revival of Labour in the polls is put down to most voters believing that Labour are better placed to steer us through the economic maelstrom. It's not that they necessarily think that what Labour is doing is right - chances are they don't - but they do think it's less wrong than what the Tory party is proposing (if anyone actually knows what the Tories are proposing, 'cos I'm damned if I do).
Does that make sense? It does to me.
Essentially, what I am saying is that the party that wins elections is not the one that most people support - it is the one that the fewest disagree with. Actual support is reflected in membership numbers - i.e. the people who most agree with a political party's policies are likely to sign up as members to that party - and the fact that support for all the main political parties has waned considerably over the last 10-20 years or so is indicative of just how few people actually support the policies of the Labour, Tory or Lib Dem parties.
People still turn out in large numbers to put their X next to those parties candidates, but they do so not because they support them - they do so because they disagree with them less than they do the other parties. I've done this myself in the past. The last time I voted for a party I actually supported was in 1979 when, as a Liberal party member, I voted Liberal (hey, I was only 18 - if I can't be stupidly idealistic at 18 then when can I be?).
I'm just not comfortable in voting that way anymore. Next time I go into a polling booth I want to be able to put my mark next to the name of a candidate whose party I mostly agree with. If there was one I completely agreed with that would be even better, but such a party does not exist (and with my rather unusual mix of political philosophies they are unlikely to).
And if I'm not happy with any of the options available to me on the day I won't vote for any of them - but I will spoil my ballot paper.
For what it is worth, I'd like to urge everyone else to do the same. If you really agree with the Tory party policies then vote for them - but if you are thinking of voting for them just because you disagree with them less than you disagree with the Labour party then don't. Check out all the options too - whether it is UKIP, the Greens or BNP - and if you feel that any of those match your views better than the Tories, vote for them.
Vote for a party that you actually support. A good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself if you could see yourself as a member of that party - if you can't then you probably shouldn't be voting for them. Whatever you do, don't vote for a party just because you think they aren't as bad as the other lot.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
All in the same boat
Over on The Telegraph comment page, Toby Young (no, I have no idea who he is either) wonders why the Tories and Labour are running neck and neck in the polls.
So what, exactly, is going on here? Why can’t the Tories put clear blue water between them and Labour?
A good question, Mr. Young.
It's not really - I was being sarcastic. It's a stupid question. The Tories can't put "clear blue water" between them and Labour in the polls because there is no "clear blue water" between them and Labour in general policy and the fundamental aims of their parties.
Whichever party gets elected to form a government we're going to get a progressive liberal government. Labour and the Tories may squabble over the minutiae of detail, but basically they are both pushing in the same direction.
Given that there is so little difference between Labour and Tory policy, it's actually quite surprising that the Tories are as high in the polls as they are - but the reason for that is that most people who say they will vote Tory at the next election will vote that way just because they always vote Conservative. Of that 36% from the latest poll, I would guess that at around 90% of those will always vote Tory (i.e. they are guaranteed around a 30-32% share of the vote just from their core vote).
And it's not as if Labour have moved to the right either. The centre ground of British politics is way to the left of where it was fifty, forty or even twenty years ago. The "centre ground" has been moving inexorably to the left of the political spectrum since the sixties and the pace of that move has, if anything, increased over the last five years since Cameron became leader of the opposition.
Even if the Tories do win the next election, those who voted for them are going to be disappointed - because they will still have the same government they had before. The only real difference will be that the new administration has even less experience and even fewer truly talented people to draw upon to form a government than the Labour party.
The Tories have spent fifty years paddling their battered craft closer and closer to the good ship Labour - discarding conservative ideals as they go - and now they've jumped aboard and cast the remnants of conservatism to drift with the tide.
The Conservative Party is no longer a conservative party - and more and more people are beginning to realise this. They can't open up clear blue water between them and the Labour party because they are all in the same boat and they are not fighting over which direction to steer the ship - only about whose flag is to fly from the main mast.
So what, exactly, is going on here? Why can’t the Tories put clear blue water between them and Labour?
A good question, Mr. Young.
It's not really - I was being sarcastic. It's a stupid question. The Tories can't put "clear blue water" between them and Labour in the polls because there is no "clear blue water" between them and Labour in general policy and the fundamental aims of their parties.
Whichever party gets elected to form a government we're going to get a progressive liberal government. Labour and the Tories may squabble over the minutiae of detail, but basically they are both pushing in the same direction.
Given that there is so little difference between Labour and Tory policy, it's actually quite surprising that the Tories are as high in the polls as they are - but the reason for that is that most people who say they will vote Tory at the next election will vote that way just because they always vote Conservative. Of that 36% from the latest poll, I would guess that at around 90% of those will always vote Tory (i.e. they are guaranteed around a 30-32% share of the vote just from their core vote).
And it's not as if Labour have moved to the right either. The centre ground of British politics is way to the left of where it was fifty, forty or even twenty years ago. The "centre ground" has been moving inexorably to the left of the political spectrum since the sixties and the pace of that move has, if anything, increased over the last five years since Cameron became leader of the opposition.
Even if the Tories do win the next election, those who voted for them are going to be disappointed - because they will still have the same government they had before. The only real difference will be that the new administration has even less experience and even fewer truly talented people to draw upon to form a government than the Labour party.
The Tories have spent fifty years paddling their battered craft closer and closer to the good ship Labour - discarding conservative ideals as they go - and now they've jumped aboard and cast the remnants of conservatism to drift with the tide.
The Conservative Party is no longer a conservative party - and more and more people are beginning to realise this. They can't open up clear blue water between them and the Labour party because they are all in the same boat and they are not fighting over which direction to steer the ship - only about whose flag is to fly from the main mast.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Dear prudence
If I hear one more politician from the Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat parties tell us of the need for financial "prudence" I will go spare.
They wouldn't know financial prudence if it bit them on the backside. The Labour Party, while our dear leader was Chancellor, frittered away untold billions of pounds of public money on various pet projects and for no discernible improvement.
But worse than that, both the opposition parties supported them in doing so. Indeed, David Cameron took great pride in telling us all how he would stick to Labour spending plans if he were Prime Minister.
Look, I've no intrinsic objections to the idea of the state taking tax from the people to pay for essential services which the public want and demand - I just have a very different idea of what those services are. As a homeowner, I know what financial prudence really means - it means living within your means and not spending what you haven't got.
Our politicians don't understand this and most likely never will - hardly surprising given their history on claiming expenses and hugely excessive personal spending.
The next time a politician from any of these parties mentions "prudence" on national TV or radio the right response from the interviewer would be to give that politician a swift, hard kick up the backside while telling him to get out and never darken our doors again.
Their idea of "prudence" has cost us dear.
They wouldn't know financial prudence if it bit them on the backside. The Labour Party, while our dear leader was Chancellor, frittered away untold billions of pounds of public money on various pet projects and for no discernible improvement.
But worse than that, both the opposition parties supported them in doing so. Indeed, David Cameron took great pride in telling us all how he would stick to Labour spending plans if he were Prime Minister.
Look, I've no intrinsic objections to the idea of the state taking tax from the people to pay for essential services which the public want and demand - I just have a very different idea of what those services are. As a homeowner, I know what financial prudence really means - it means living within your means and not spending what you haven't got.
Our politicians don't understand this and most likely never will - hardly surprising given their history on claiming expenses and hugely excessive personal spending.
The next time a politician from any of these parties mentions "prudence" on national TV or radio the right response from the interviewer would be to give that politician a swift, hard kick up the backside while telling him to get out and never darken our doors again.
Their idea of "prudence" has cost us dear.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Money for nothing?
You know, I had no idea that the Labour Party was so reliant on one union for a quarter of its funding and that over one hundred Labour MPs are members of that union - Unite. I can't help feeling that there is something rotten about that.
That the governing party should be so dependent on one organisation and appears to reward that organisation with parliamentary seats and cabinet posts would cause outrage if that organisation were a private enterprise. Imagine if the Tories were dependent on BaE for a quarter of its funding and went on to stuff its front benches with BaE management - there would be outrage from the left (and from me too).
I just hope the mainstream parties don't use this as an excuse to resurrect the idea of public funding for political parties. I'm sure they will try, but there is no justification for this whatsoever. We should, however, have strict rules on funding for political parties - the first of which being that all donations to a political party must be from individual British subjects using their own money and capped at £50,000 per year. There should be nu funding from corporations - whether private enterprises or public bodies.
I also want to see and end to corporate political lobbying - again, regardless of whether it comes from a private corporation, a national union or trans-national NGO. I have no problem with the principle of a corporation - regardless of its nature - writing to their local MP, but they have no right to the ear of government just because they are large and powerful. That goes against the grain of democracy.
Above all, political parties must start to live within their means and only spend what they can afford to spend. If this means they have to get out on the streets to get their message across instead of relying on expensive and flashy television adverts then that has to be good. Perhaps then we can start to have a proper political debate instead of a media directed one.
These organisations are not handing over great wads of cash to the main political parties for nothing. They do it because they expect to gain something out of it. I just think that is plain wrong in a democracy - and it ought to be stopped.
That the governing party should be so dependent on one organisation and appears to reward that organisation with parliamentary seats and cabinet posts would cause outrage if that organisation were a private enterprise. Imagine if the Tories were dependent on BaE for a quarter of its funding and went on to stuff its front benches with BaE management - there would be outrage from the left (and from me too).
I just hope the mainstream parties don't use this as an excuse to resurrect the idea of public funding for political parties. I'm sure they will try, but there is no justification for this whatsoever. We should, however, have strict rules on funding for political parties - the first of which being that all donations to a political party must be from individual British subjects using their own money and capped at £50,000 per year. There should be nu funding from corporations - whether private enterprises or public bodies.
I also want to see and end to corporate political lobbying - again, regardless of whether it comes from a private corporation, a national union or trans-national NGO. I have no problem with the principle of a corporation - regardless of its nature - writing to their local MP, but they have no right to the ear of government just because they are large and powerful. That goes against the grain of democracy.
Above all, political parties must start to live within their means and only spend what they can afford to spend. If this means they have to get out on the streets to get their message across instead of relying on expensive and flashy television adverts then that has to be good. Perhaps then we can start to have a proper political debate instead of a media directed one.
These organisations are not handing over great wads of cash to the main political parties for nothing. They do it because they expect to gain something out of it. I just think that is plain wrong in a democracy - and it ought to be stopped.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Cameron can win - but he needs the BNP
Yesterday I was saying that I don't think the Tories can win enough seats at the next election to enable them to form a government based on the latest opinion polls. However, there was one factor that I forgot to take into account - the BNP factor.
After the last election, someone did an analysis of the UKIP factor on Tory results - I think it was over on EU Referendum. Their analysis suggested that there were a number of closely contested seats which , had the UKIP vote transferred to the Tory party then the Conservatives would have won the seat - and if this had been translated across the country then the final result would have been much tighter resulting in, probably, a hung parliament.
Of course, not everyone who voted UKIP would necessarily have put their X next to the Tory party if UKIP weren't an option - there are plenty of left wing voters who are EU sceptics too - but there is no doubt that UKIP are very much a party in the old Tory mould and much more likely to attract right wing votes.
Of course, there have always been minor parties on the right and the left which have taken small amounts of votes away from the two main parties. I don't include the Lib Dems in this as they basically inherited an established voter base from the Liberal Party. Yes, there were defections from both Labour and Conservative voters to the Lib Dems, but these were balanced out by defections from the Liberal Party vote to Labour and Tory.
However, the arrival of UKIP on the scene was a significant change. Although they remain a minor party, there is no doubt that the number of votes they are winning is enough to influence results - and generally this is to the detriment of the Tory Party. While this has been happening to the Tory vote there hasn't been a similar significant challenge to the Labour vote.*
Until now. The growth of the BNP over the last decade means that they are now at a point where they could become Labour's "UKIP" - a party which takes enough votes away from Labour to leave them short in marginal seats that could result in a Tory victory. Make no mistake, the BNP are a party which appeals primarily to working class voters who would usually vote Labour.
The BNP factor may be crucial in the coming General Election. Will it be enough to give Cameron's Conservatives an election victory? Probably not, but it may just be enough to ensure a hung parliament. What is certain is that the Tories are reliant on the BNP doing well to have any hope of forming the next government.
I wonder how they feel about that!
* Some might point to the Green Party as Labour's equivalent to UKIP, but I don't include them in this even though The Green Party is an ultra left party. They appeal, primarily, to middle class urban voters and are more likely, if anything, to be taking votes away from the Tories and Lib Dems in urban areas where eco-fascism is popular than they are Labour - and Labour are very strong in urban areas. Nobody who has a serious interest in the environment and rural affairs would vote Green.
After the last election, someone did an analysis of the UKIP factor on Tory results - I think it was over on EU Referendum. Their analysis suggested that there were a number of closely contested seats which , had the UKIP vote transferred to the Tory party then the Conservatives would have won the seat - and if this had been translated across the country then the final result would have been much tighter resulting in, probably, a hung parliament.
Of course, not everyone who voted UKIP would necessarily have put their X next to the Tory party if UKIP weren't an option - there are plenty of left wing voters who are EU sceptics too - but there is no doubt that UKIP are very much a party in the old Tory mould and much more likely to attract right wing votes.
Of course, there have always been minor parties on the right and the left which have taken small amounts of votes away from the two main parties. I don't include the Lib Dems in this as they basically inherited an established voter base from the Liberal Party. Yes, there were defections from both Labour and Conservative voters to the Lib Dems, but these were balanced out by defections from the Liberal Party vote to Labour and Tory.
However, the arrival of UKIP on the scene was a significant change. Although they remain a minor party, there is no doubt that the number of votes they are winning is enough to influence results - and generally this is to the detriment of the Tory Party. While this has been happening to the Tory vote there hasn't been a similar significant challenge to the Labour vote.*
Until now. The growth of the BNP over the last decade means that they are now at a point where they could become Labour's "UKIP" - a party which takes enough votes away from Labour to leave them short in marginal seats that could result in a Tory victory. Make no mistake, the BNP are a party which appeals primarily to working class voters who would usually vote Labour.
The BNP factor may be crucial in the coming General Election. Will it be enough to give Cameron's Conservatives an election victory? Probably not, but it may just be enough to ensure a hung parliament. What is certain is that the Tories are reliant on the BNP doing well to have any hope of forming the next government.
I wonder how they feel about that!
* Some might point to the Green Party as Labour's equivalent to UKIP, but I don't include them in this even though The Green Party is an ultra left party. They appeal, primarily, to middle class urban voters and are more likely, if anything, to be taking votes away from the Tories and Lib Dems in urban areas where eco-fascism is popular than they are Labour - and Labour are very strong in urban areas. Nobody who has a serious interest in the environment and rural affairs would vote Green.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Lies, responsibilty and hypocrisy
So after all the buildup and hype, Tony Blair's appearance in front of the Chilcot inquiry turned out to be one great anti-climax. I'm not really sure what people expected - perhaps they thought he'd break down sobbing as he confessed to deliberate lying to parliament and the people. Was that really likely from "Teflon Tony"?
Personally, I always thought this inquiry was a monumental waste of time and money. We've learned nothing new and the only thing that has come out of it is that civil servants and politicians will say and do whatever they think is necessary for them to save their own skin. Having Blair appear in the dock was really nothing more than a stunt.
What it did do, however, was give those professional protesters a chance to come out on the streets again with their pre-prepared placards, slogans and chants to voice their "disapproval" of Blair's actions.
Which is fine - except .......
Well, how many of those protesting voted for Labour? I suspect that most of them did - and I suspect that most of them will do so again. I suspect that the majority of "anti-war" protesters are Labour supporters who celebrated with gusto when Blair walked into Number 10.
These people are convinced that Tony Blair and the Labour Party lied about going to war against Iraq. They are all convinced that Tony Blair and the Labour Party systematically deceived the people of Britain to pursue personal ambitions for their own ends.
And yet, these same people are prepared to accept that, apart from that, everything else Tony Blair and the Labour Party did was above board and scrupulously honest. Whether it's on the subject of health, education, economics, poverty, immigration or what have you - they all swallow the rhetoric, statistics and "evidence" as indisputable fact as long as it supports their own personal bias.
How can they be so stupid? If Blair and the Labour Party were prepared to lie about something as monumentally important as going to war, don't they realise that they are even more likely to be lying about issues that are less important?
The people who voted for Labour are the ones who elected Labour to power. They are the ones who put Tony Blair into Number 10. If there were warmongers in government, it is they - the Labour voters - who put them there and they are as guilty and as culpable as anyone. For them to then wave banners and chant slogans criticising the government that they chose reeks of hypocrisy.
Not in their name, but only with their help - and those self same people will do it all again on May 6th 2010.
Personally, I always thought this inquiry was a monumental waste of time and money. We've learned nothing new and the only thing that has come out of it is that civil servants and politicians will say and do whatever they think is necessary for them to save their own skin. Having Blair appear in the dock was really nothing more than a stunt.
What it did do, however, was give those professional protesters a chance to come out on the streets again with their pre-prepared placards, slogans and chants to voice their "disapproval" of Blair's actions.
Which is fine - except .......
Well, how many of those protesting voted for Labour? I suspect that most of them did - and I suspect that most of them will do so again. I suspect that the majority of "anti-war" protesters are Labour supporters who celebrated with gusto when Blair walked into Number 10.
These people are convinced that Tony Blair and the Labour Party lied about going to war against Iraq. They are all convinced that Tony Blair and the Labour Party systematically deceived the people of Britain to pursue personal ambitions for their own ends.
And yet, these same people are prepared to accept that, apart from that, everything else Tony Blair and the Labour Party did was above board and scrupulously honest. Whether it's on the subject of health, education, economics, poverty, immigration or what have you - they all swallow the rhetoric, statistics and "evidence" as indisputable fact as long as it supports their own personal bias.
How can they be so stupid? If Blair and the Labour Party were prepared to lie about something as monumentally important as going to war, don't they realise that they are even more likely to be lying about issues that are less important?
The people who voted for Labour are the ones who elected Labour to power. They are the ones who put Tony Blair into Number 10. If there were warmongers in government, it is they - the Labour voters - who put them there and they are as guilty and as culpable as anyone. For them to then wave banners and chant slogans criticising the government that they chose reeks of hypocrisy.
Not in their name, but only with their help - and those self same people will do it all again on May 6th 2010.
Monday, January 04, 2010
And they're off!
We're barely into the new year and the Labour and Tory parties have already begun electioneering while the Lib Dems petulantly stamp their feet and grumble on the start line because the starter hasn't fired his starting pistol yet.
Actually, the starting pistol isn't even loaded yet and the starter isn't in the stadium because Gordon Brown refuses to say when the election will be even though we all know it has to be held in the first half of this year.
It's as if he fears he will be handing his opponents some advantage by naming the day, but he's got to do it sooner or later - and the longer he leaves it the more the nation feels like it is in limbo and effectively drifting without anyone at the wheel.
But that is typical of modern politics where the personal and party ambitions of the politicians are put ahead of national security and prosperity. The only certain thing we can be sure of in this election is that the future of the people and nation of Britain will be the last thing the mainstream politicians of Labour, Tory and Lib Dems think about.
Actually, the starting pistol isn't even loaded yet and the starter isn't in the stadium because Gordon Brown refuses to say when the election will be even though we all know it has to be held in the first half of this year.
It's as if he fears he will be handing his opponents some advantage by naming the day, but he's got to do it sooner or later - and the longer he leaves it the more the nation feels like it is in limbo and effectively drifting without anyone at the wheel.
But that is typical of modern politics where the personal and party ambitions of the politicians are put ahead of national security and prosperity. The only certain thing we can be sure of in this election is that the future of the people and nation of Britain will be the last thing the mainstream politicians of Labour, Tory and Lib Dems think about.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Polls, popularity and pictures
It would be nice if the recent poll that put the Tories just 6 points ahead of Labour could act as some sort of trigger for a proper political discussion in Britain today, but I fear it will not. Over the last couple of years, the mainstream political commentators have been telling us that Cameron's Tory party is now incredibly popular and that their poll lead was proof of this.
This was never the case.
The Tories held a significant lead over Labour not because the Tories were popular, but because Labour was unpopular - and the reason Labour became unpopular is that they were being led by a man that the media don't like. Gordon Brown's unpopularity had little to do with his policies which, by and large, are exactly the same as his predecessor who was very well liked by the press.
Gordon Brown became unpopular because the media decided this was to be the case and so began a long campaign of subtly drip feeding negativity about the man. They use tried and tested but remarkably discreet methods to do this - a favourite being a picture taken in an unflattering pose or poorly lit.
Throughout his time in office, hardly ever was there a poor photograph of Blair published -either in the newspapers or on online editions of MSM content. This isn't because poor pictures of Blair don't exist any more than good pictures of Brown don't exist - it is a deliberate policy by the MSM who employ experienced photo editors to ensure that the image of a person they publish conveys the image of that person they want to get across to the public.
Over the years they've got very good at this as they've had lots of practice - usually at the expense of previous Tory leaders such as Hague, IDS and Howard. Curiously, since Cameron became leader there seems to be a dearth of bad pictures of Tory leaders, but a wealth of damaging images of Mr Brown. This isn't a coincidence - the press like Cameron as he is considered the best man to continue the Blairite revolution which our press almost universally favour.
Unfortunately for the media, the electorate are not quite as gullible as they like to think so, despite their best efforts to talk up Cameron's Tory party, the Conservative party's share in opinion polls is little better than it was under Hague, IDS or Howard.
The MSM recognised this - and recognised the fact that even with a 15 point lead over Labour, the Tory share in polls was never going to be enough to translate into a victory at a General Election. Around 40% is nowhere near enough for the Conservatives. The first past the post system and constituency boundaries means that they would need to be polling somewhere over 50% to have a realistic chance of winning a decent working majority at an election.
So the MSM upped their campaign and became less subtle in their demonisation of Brown with daft stories about biscuits and then, critically, the overblown tirade over the letters to dead soldiers families. But this lack of subtlety has backfired - and rather than making Brown even less popular the electorate seems to have decided that it really isn't British to keep kicking a man when he is down. So Labour support has risen and Tory support has fallen.
I'm sick to death of a media which seems to think it has the right - as well as the capability - to decide who we elect as our leaders. Wouldn't it be nice if who we voted for was decided by the politics of the people and the policies of their parties rather than the elite of the MSM?
This was never the case.
The Tories held a significant lead over Labour not because the Tories were popular, but because Labour was unpopular - and the reason Labour became unpopular is that they were being led by a man that the media don't like. Gordon Brown's unpopularity had little to do with his policies which, by and large, are exactly the same as his predecessor who was very well liked by the press.
Gordon Brown became unpopular because the media decided this was to be the case and so began a long campaign of subtly drip feeding negativity about the man. They use tried and tested but remarkably discreet methods to do this - a favourite being a picture taken in an unflattering pose or poorly lit.
Throughout his time in office, hardly ever was there a poor photograph of Blair published -either in the newspapers or on online editions of MSM content. This isn't because poor pictures of Blair don't exist any more than good pictures of Brown don't exist - it is a deliberate policy by the MSM who employ experienced photo editors to ensure that the image of a person they publish conveys the image of that person they want to get across to the public.
Over the years they've got very good at this as they've had lots of practice - usually at the expense of previous Tory leaders such as Hague, IDS and Howard. Curiously, since Cameron became leader there seems to be a dearth of bad pictures of Tory leaders, but a wealth of damaging images of Mr Brown. This isn't a coincidence - the press like Cameron as he is considered the best man to continue the Blairite revolution which our press almost universally favour.
Unfortunately for the media, the electorate are not quite as gullible as they like to think so, despite their best efforts to talk up Cameron's Tory party, the Conservative party's share in opinion polls is little better than it was under Hague, IDS or Howard.
The MSM recognised this - and recognised the fact that even with a 15 point lead over Labour, the Tory share in polls was never going to be enough to translate into a victory at a General Election. Around 40% is nowhere near enough for the Conservatives. The first past the post system and constituency boundaries means that they would need to be polling somewhere over 50% to have a realistic chance of winning a decent working majority at an election.
So the MSM upped their campaign and became less subtle in their demonisation of Brown with daft stories about biscuits and then, critically, the overblown tirade over the letters to dead soldiers families. But this lack of subtlety has backfired - and rather than making Brown even less popular the electorate seems to have decided that it really isn't British to keep kicking a man when he is down. So Labour support has risen and Tory support has fallen.
I'm sick to death of a media which seems to think it has the right - as well as the capability - to decide who we elect as our leaders. Wouldn't it be nice if who we voted for was decided by the politics of the people and the policies of their parties rather than the elite of the MSM?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The rise of fascism
As BNP leader Nick Griffin prepares to appear on BBC Question Time this evening I thought it would be appropriate to explore the phenomenal rise of fascism in Britain today.
And what better place to start than with the revelation that the Tory Party are to ban men from being candidates for election in certain constituencies. This was an arbitrary decision taken by a small elite of the Tory Party without consultation or vote by the ordinary members. How fascist is that? Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the Tory Party.
This is nothing new or unique to the Tory Party either. The former London mayor, Ken Livingstone, was prone to rejecting duly appointed personnel purely on the basis of their gender or their colour - those personnel being too white and too male for Red Ken to bear. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in London.
Meanwhile, the Labour deputy leader pledges to end "the nightmare of men only boards" suggesting that she will use the power of government to interfere in private industry purely to promote a specific gender group at the expense of the other gender group. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the Labour Party.
It's not only in politics where we see fascism is thriving. Environmentalists are trying to close down power stations, thus depriving millions of essential energy at a time when they need it most, purely on the basis of their misguided beliefs. They have no mandate to do so - just their belief that they alone are right - and they have demonstrated that they are prepared to use violence and destruction to achieve their aims. The parallels with Nazi brown shirts are all too obvious. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the environmental movement.
Then we have the police - once a respected and independent crime prevention organisation, but now nothing more than government enforcers. They arrest and imprison people purely on the basis that they hold views which the government object to or have said something which the government has decreed you are not allowed to say. How fascist is that? Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the police "service".
Fascism is alive and well and thriving every where you look in Britain today. The main political parties are as fascist as anything we have ever seen in this country come to power. And we worry about some minor party leader coming on to a TV programme once in a blue moon? The time to worry about fascism in this country is when the government of this country dictate who you can vote for and who you can listen to. Unfortunately, I don't think that time is far away now.
And what better place to start than with the revelation that the Tory Party are to ban men from being candidates for election in certain constituencies. This was an arbitrary decision taken by a small elite of the Tory Party without consultation or vote by the ordinary members. How fascist is that? Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the Tory Party.
This is nothing new or unique to the Tory Party either. The former London mayor, Ken Livingstone, was prone to rejecting duly appointed personnel purely on the basis of their gender or their colour - those personnel being too white and too male for Red Ken to bear. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in London.
Meanwhile, the Labour deputy leader pledges to end "the nightmare of men only boards" suggesting that she will use the power of government to interfere in private industry purely to promote a specific gender group at the expense of the other gender group. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the Labour Party.
It's not only in politics where we see fascism is thriving. Environmentalists are trying to close down power stations, thus depriving millions of essential energy at a time when they need it most, purely on the basis of their misguided beliefs. They have no mandate to do so - just their belief that they alone are right - and they have demonstrated that they are prepared to use violence and destruction to achieve their aims. The parallels with Nazi brown shirts are all too obvious. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the environmental movement.
Then we have the police - once a respected and independent crime prevention organisation, but now nothing more than government enforcers. They arrest and imprison people purely on the basis that they hold views which the government object to or have said something which the government has decreed you are not allowed to say. How fascist is that? Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the police "service".
Fascism is alive and well and thriving every where you look in Britain today. The main political parties are as fascist as anything we have ever seen in this country come to power. And we worry about some minor party leader coming on to a TV programme once in a blue moon? The time to worry about fascism in this country is when the government of this country dictate who you can vote for and who you can listen to. Unfortunately, I don't think that time is far away now.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
It's the way you tell 'em
The Telegraph reports that the Tories have "extended" their lead over Labour in the polls, but it is a dubious claim.
The way the Telegraph phrases the headline would tend to make one think that the Tories are gaining support when this is not actually the case. In fact, considering all that has gone on over the last year or so, support for the Tory Party remains unchanged and stubbornly lacklustre at 41%. The reality is that support for the Labour Party continues to drain away but not significantly to the Lib Dems and certainly not to the Tories.
The Telegraph goes on to say ....
Last month's poll by YouGov for The Daily Telegraph found that Mr Brown's government was as unpopular as John Major's the year before his party suffered a landslide general election defeat.
..... but neglects to point out that Labour enjoyed poll results predicting a 47% share of the vote at the time - a full 6 points higher than Cameron's Tory Party can manage. I can understand that the Telegraph would be keen to talk up the Tories chances of winning the next election, but if I were Cameron I would be wondering why it is that the Tory Party is failing to make any significant inroads. Sure, they have a significant lead in the polls, but that is purely down to falling support for the Labour Party and not due to any significant rise in support for the Conservatives.
And given that the electoral map of Britain is far from simple, I am still not convinced that 41% share in the opinion polls will translate into a comprehensive victory for Cameron. Far from it in fact. I believe - with the way constituencies are set up and the virtual absence of Tory support outside of England - the Tories would need to be regularly polling close to 50% to achieve even a significant majority let alone a landslide.
As long as the Tories continue to bumble along at the 40% mark we're heading for either a slim Tory majority or a hung parliament. Either way, it's still not good reading for Cameron no matter how much spin you ladle on to it.
The way the Telegraph phrases the headline would tend to make one think that the Tories are gaining support when this is not actually the case. In fact, considering all that has gone on over the last year or so, support for the Tory Party remains unchanged and stubbornly lacklustre at 41%. The reality is that support for the Labour Party continues to drain away but not significantly to the Lib Dems and certainly not to the Tories.
The Telegraph goes on to say ....
Last month's poll by YouGov for The Daily Telegraph found that Mr Brown's government was as unpopular as John Major's the year before his party suffered a landslide general election defeat.
..... but neglects to point out that Labour enjoyed poll results predicting a 47% share of the vote at the time - a full 6 points higher than Cameron's Tory Party can manage. I can understand that the Telegraph would be keen to talk up the Tories chances of winning the next election, but if I were Cameron I would be wondering why it is that the Tory Party is failing to make any significant inroads. Sure, they have a significant lead in the polls, but that is purely down to falling support for the Labour Party and not due to any significant rise in support for the Conservatives.
And given that the electoral map of Britain is far from simple, I am still not convinced that 41% share in the opinion polls will translate into a comprehensive victory for Cameron. Far from it in fact. I believe - with the way constituencies are set up and the virtual absence of Tory support outside of England - the Tories would need to be regularly polling close to 50% to achieve even a significant majority let alone a landslide.
As long as the Tories continue to bumble along at the 40% mark we're heading for either a slim Tory majority or a hung parliament. Either way, it's still not good reading for Cameron no matter how much spin you ladle on to it.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Is a week a long time in politics? Not any more.
After two weeks of avoiding the news, papers and basically anything to do with politics whatsoever it's kind of depressing to return to it and find nothing has changed.
The Tories are still unconservative, the Lib Dems are still a leaderless rabble and Labour continue to drag this country into ever deeper mess while the press work hard to demonise the PM while virtually ignoring the far more worrying comments coming from other members of the government.
The outrageously sexist Harriet Harman continues her campaign to feminise the world while our Foreign Secretary appears on radio to heap praise on a Marxist terrorist and tell us that he thinks terrorism is justifiable.
Of course, it's always been a quiet time for politics during the summer recess, but I can't believe that some of the things which have been uttered by our political class over the last two weeks have not been held up to greater scrutiny. It's not good enough to just excuse them as just being part of the "silly season" - some of these comments reveal the true nature of the people who run this country and yet our press virtually ignore them.
Fifty years ago the likes of Alan Duncan, Harriet Harman, David Miliband and Peter Mandelson would have been sacked or forced to resign at the very least.
They used to say that a week is a long time in politics - and so it was when we actually had politicians and political parties worthy of the name. Now it seems that this current crop can say what they like and get away with it as long as they are gay, female or subscribe to the same progressive doctrine that dominates the media these days.
The Tories are still unconservative, the Lib Dems are still a leaderless rabble and Labour continue to drag this country into ever deeper mess while the press work hard to demonise the PM while virtually ignoring the far more worrying comments coming from other members of the government.
The outrageously sexist Harriet Harman continues her campaign to feminise the world while our Foreign Secretary appears on radio to heap praise on a Marxist terrorist and tell us that he thinks terrorism is justifiable.
Of course, it's always been a quiet time for politics during the summer recess, but I can't believe that some of the things which have been uttered by our political class over the last two weeks have not been held up to greater scrutiny. It's not good enough to just excuse them as just being part of the "silly season" - some of these comments reveal the true nature of the people who run this country and yet our press virtually ignore them.
Fifty years ago the likes of Alan Duncan, Harriet Harman, David Miliband and Peter Mandelson would have been sacked or forced to resign at the very least.
They used to say that a week is a long time in politics - and so it was when we actually had politicians and political parties worthy of the name. Now it seems that this current crop can say what they like and get away with it as long as they are gay, female or subscribe to the same progressive doctrine that dominates the media these days.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Are the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems racist?
I seem to be posting a lot about the BNP these days. Believe me, I find it a little tiresome, but I find the "BNP are racist" argument even more so. The excellent blog Letters From A Tory links to yet another tirade against the BNP from Matt Wardman.
It's the usual thing - the BNP won't allow non-whites to join so they must be racist. The point being made though is that the BNP use the existence of various groups set up to promote and defend the interests of various ethnic minority groups as justification for their own policy.
I've left a comment on the post, so I'll just repost that comment here.
________________________
I’ll be honest - I’m a little tired of the “BNP is racist” argument and numerous people trying, thought various different means, to prove their already held view that the BNP are indeed racist.
Nobody seems to be addressing the fundamental point that the BNP make, though - the lack of any organisation specifically set up to defend the interests of white people. As they clearly point out - and as we all know - there are numerous groups set up specifically to promote and defend the interests, culture and traditions of various ethnic minorities. Some of these are even funded out of taxpayers money - BBC Asian Network for example.
The point is, why is it OK to have these sort of groups specifically for certain ethnic groups, but not for white people? Te question is not “are these groups racist?” - it should be “isn’t it racist to allow these groups this right but exclude whites from the same right?”
That is undeniably racist - and it is the policy of this government, the Labour Party, the Tory Party and the Lib Dems. Therefore, by definition, each of those parties is also racist.
So there you go. Every political party in the country is racist - the BNP are no different, except they are racist in favour of the one group who are now allowed to have someone represent their interests.
Has this got us anywhere? No - of course not. The problems which the BNP exploit are well known and stem from two policies pursued by mainstream parties - namely multiculturalism and mass immigration. At no point were the people of Britain consulted on these policies. They have never been openly discussed or debated about either in parliament or with the electorate. They have been foisted upon us by Labour and Tory governments. We were not asked if we want “multiculturalism” - we were told we have to be multicultural. Please note that multicultural is not the same as multiracial.
I don’t care if the BNP are racist - all the other parties are as well. So what? What worries me is that nobody is working to address the issues which allow the BNP to make their rather clumsy points.
__________________________
My point is that the BNP may well be racist - but they are not the ones who allow black and Asian people to have groups specifically set up to support, promote and defend their interests and culture while specifically excluding white people the same right.
That is the policy of all the mainstream parties - to deny a right to white people that they allow for other racial groups. That is racist - and that is the policy of the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem parties. They are, therefore, every bit as racist as the BNP.
It's the usual thing - the BNP won't allow non-whites to join so they must be racist. The point being made though is that the BNP use the existence of various groups set up to promote and defend the interests of various ethnic minority groups as justification for their own policy.
I've left a comment on the post, so I'll just repost that comment here.
________________________
I’ll be honest - I’m a little tired of the “BNP is racist” argument and numerous people trying, thought various different means, to prove their already held view that the BNP are indeed racist.
Nobody seems to be addressing the fundamental point that the BNP make, though - the lack of any organisation specifically set up to defend the interests of white people. As they clearly point out - and as we all know - there are numerous groups set up specifically to promote and defend the interests, culture and traditions of various ethnic minorities. Some of these are even funded out of taxpayers money - BBC Asian Network for example.
The point is, why is it OK to have these sort of groups specifically for certain ethnic groups, but not for white people? Te question is not “are these groups racist?” - it should be “isn’t it racist to allow these groups this right but exclude whites from the same right?”
That is undeniably racist - and it is the policy of this government, the Labour Party, the Tory Party and the Lib Dems. Therefore, by definition, each of those parties is also racist.
So there you go. Every political party in the country is racist - the BNP are no different, except they are racist in favour of the one group who are now allowed to have someone represent their interests.
Has this got us anywhere? No - of course not. The problems which the BNP exploit are well known and stem from two policies pursued by mainstream parties - namely multiculturalism and mass immigration. At no point were the people of Britain consulted on these policies. They have never been openly discussed or debated about either in parliament or with the electorate. They have been foisted upon us by Labour and Tory governments. We were not asked if we want “multiculturalism” - we were told we have to be multicultural. Please note that multicultural is not the same as multiracial.
I don’t care if the BNP are racist - all the other parties are as well. So what? What worries me is that nobody is working to address the issues which allow the BNP to make their rather clumsy points.
__________________________
My point is that the BNP may well be racist - but they are not the ones who allow black and Asian people to have groups specifically set up to support, promote and defend their interests and culture while specifically excluding white people the same right.
That is the policy of all the mainstream parties - to deny a right to white people that they allow for other racial groups. That is racist - and that is the policy of the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem parties. They are, therefore, every bit as racist as the BNP.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Core beliefs
First of all, let's start with the best joke of the day from Tim Montgomerie talking about the possibility that the BNP may win a seat in the EU Parliament.
Britain will no longer be able to proudly say it has kept fascists out of high office.
That's funny for a couple of reasons. First of all, the BNP don't claim to be fascist - that assertion is put forward by people like Montgomerie - they claim to be just another democratic political party, but one with a different world view to that of the three main parties. Just because someone says different doesn't make it so - it's what they do that matters.
Which is why it is funny on the second level - because if you want evidence of fascism you only have to look at our current government for that. Fascism is characterised by authoritarianism, corporatism and the suppression of free speech - three major features of this Labour administration. Fascists in high office? We already have them, Tim old boy.
The main thrust of Montgomerie's article though is to claim that the BNP present a veneer of respectability to hide their core beliefs and have successfully used the internet to promote this. Montgomerie uses an anecdote about a conversation with two people who were suggesting they would vote BNP.
I asked if they knew about the Nazi ideology that many BNP activists followed. I asked if they knew about the party's preference for an all-white Britain. They didn't. They were horrified and promised to find a different vehicle for their protest vote.
Now this may be true about some BNP members, but the point is that it is not necessarily the position of all of them or even the majority of them. I'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of Tory, Labour and Lib Dem members who actively support elements of Nazi ideology - such as anti-smoking, animal "rights", environmental obsession and suppression of free speech and thought.
More to the point, you will find amongst the ranks of the senior Labour party many MPs and even current and former Cabinet members who were supporters and followers of the communist ideology. Let's be honest about this, Hitler was a madman and responsible for the death of some 15 million people, but he pales in comparison with the heroes of the left.
The ideology that so many Labour members, MPs and leaders followed caused the death of hundreds of millions of people. It's repellent enough that the Nazis murdered some 6 million people in their concentration camps - why is it less repellent that the communists so beloved of Labour murdered tens of millions more in their gulags?
Why do we forget this? Why do we forgive it?
I know it's hard, but if you remove Hitler's anti-semitism and the fact he led Europe into a major conflagration there is no doubt that he transformed Germany from a broken and pathetic nation into a major industrial and economic power. People forget just how low Germany had sunk in 1933. Hitler's Germany gave us BMW and Volkswagen. Communism gave us the Moskvitch and Lada.
So if you're talking about core beliefs - are BNP any worse than Labour?
I don't think so.
Britain will no longer be able to proudly say it has kept fascists out of high office.
That's funny for a couple of reasons. First of all, the BNP don't claim to be fascist - that assertion is put forward by people like Montgomerie - they claim to be just another democratic political party, but one with a different world view to that of the three main parties. Just because someone says different doesn't make it so - it's what they do that matters.
Which is why it is funny on the second level - because if you want evidence of fascism you only have to look at our current government for that. Fascism is characterised by authoritarianism, corporatism and the suppression of free speech - three major features of this Labour administration. Fascists in high office? We already have them, Tim old boy.
The main thrust of Montgomerie's article though is to claim that the BNP present a veneer of respectability to hide their core beliefs and have successfully used the internet to promote this. Montgomerie uses an anecdote about a conversation with two people who were suggesting they would vote BNP.
I asked if they knew about the Nazi ideology that many BNP activists followed. I asked if they knew about the party's preference for an all-white Britain. They didn't. They were horrified and promised to find a different vehicle for their protest vote.
Now this may be true about some BNP members, but the point is that it is not necessarily the position of all of them or even the majority of them. I'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of Tory, Labour and Lib Dem members who actively support elements of Nazi ideology - such as anti-smoking, animal "rights", environmental obsession and suppression of free speech and thought.
More to the point, you will find amongst the ranks of the senior Labour party many MPs and even current and former Cabinet members who were supporters and followers of the communist ideology. Let's be honest about this, Hitler was a madman and responsible for the death of some 15 million people, but he pales in comparison with the heroes of the left.
The ideology that so many Labour members, MPs and leaders followed caused the death of hundreds of millions of people. It's repellent enough that the Nazis murdered some 6 million people in their concentration camps - why is it less repellent that the communists so beloved of Labour murdered tens of millions more in their gulags?
Why do we forget this? Why do we forgive it?
I know it's hard, but if you remove Hitler's anti-semitism and the fact he led Europe into a major conflagration there is no doubt that he transformed Germany from a broken and pathetic nation into a major industrial and economic power. People forget just how low Germany had sunk in 1933. Hitler's Germany gave us BMW and Volkswagen. Communism gave us the Moskvitch and Lada.
So if you're talking about core beliefs - are BNP any worse than Labour?
I don't think so.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
The House of Mediocrity
One of the strangest things about Gordon Brown's premiership has been the fact that at the time when Blair stepped down and Brown took over there wasn't a single person in the Parliamentary Labour Party who apparently thought they would do a better job - but ever since he took over there has been virtually non-stop talk of challenges and potential candidates being put forward.
First it was Milliband, then Balls, Harman and Johnson. There may be one or two I missed - and I may not have got it in the right order - but one thing stands out about that list.
There isn't a single decent politician among them.
Milliband was hotly favoured at one time, but his lamentable performances as Foreign Secretary have demonstrated to most that he is wholly unqualified for even that post let alone the Prime Minister.
Balls looks increasingly like a startled rabbit in his role in education. You'd think one of the qualities required for being in charge of education would be to have had some yourself - Balls stuttering and spluttering reveals that out of his comfort zone he really is lacking.
Harman ... well, I could go on all day about Harman. She's proven herself to be crap at every thing she has ever done. Not only does she get trounced by opposition spokesmen in parliament, but her appearances on BBC Question Time demonstrate that she routinely gets flustered and beaten in debate by 18 year olds from Barnsley. A PM who can't hold their own in an argument with a spotty teenager isn't likely to have much joy against the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party.
Which leaves Johnson. Alan Johnson is as mediocre as they come, but the quality of parliamentarian he is up against today is so low that he actually stands out as one of the shining lights of the Labour Party and a potential leader. What does that tell us about politics today?
When I peruse the front benches of the modern political parties, I can not help thinking that there are very few who would be there on merit thirty years ago. It's a compliment to the Tory Party that most of the few there are come from the opposition. Cameron, to give him his due, could probably make it as minister in one of the smaller departments. Hague is the only one who I think could make it in one of the top jobs - maybe even PM. Beyond that there is the amiable (if not especially capable) Vince Cable from the Lib Dems and ...... that't it.
The rest would have struggled to get noticed in politics thirty years ago or so - and those from that era were hardly the greatest bunch we've seen! For me, it's one of the most troubling aspects of our political landscape today - the almost complete lack of quality politicians. Yes, I know that is something of an oxymoron, but there always used to be a dozen or so that stood out strongly.
I really don't think that is the case today. Something has gone badly wrong with the production line of politicians. Looking beyond the current crop, who do we see coming through as having potential? I can't think of anyone off the top of my head - just more mediocrity.
First it was Milliband, then Balls, Harman and Johnson. There may be one or two I missed - and I may not have got it in the right order - but one thing stands out about that list.
There isn't a single decent politician among them.
Milliband was hotly favoured at one time, but his lamentable performances as Foreign Secretary have demonstrated to most that he is wholly unqualified for even that post let alone the Prime Minister.
Balls looks increasingly like a startled rabbit in his role in education. You'd think one of the qualities required for being in charge of education would be to have had some yourself - Balls stuttering and spluttering reveals that out of his comfort zone he really is lacking.
Harman ... well, I could go on all day about Harman. She's proven herself to be crap at every thing she has ever done. Not only does she get trounced by opposition spokesmen in parliament, but her appearances on BBC Question Time demonstrate that she routinely gets flustered and beaten in debate by 18 year olds from Barnsley. A PM who can't hold their own in an argument with a spotty teenager isn't likely to have much joy against the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party.
Which leaves Johnson. Alan Johnson is as mediocre as they come, but the quality of parliamentarian he is up against today is so low that he actually stands out as one of the shining lights of the Labour Party and a potential leader. What does that tell us about politics today?
When I peruse the front benches of the modern political parties, I can not help thinking that there are very few who would be there on merit thirty years ago. It's a compliment to the Tory Party that most of the few there are come from the opposition. Cameron, to give him his due, could probably make it as minister in one of the smaller departments. Hague is the only one who I think could make it in one of the top jobs - maybe even PM. Beyond that there is the amiable (if not especially capable) Vince Cable from the Lib Dems and ...... that't it.
The rest would have struggled to get noticed in politics thirty years ago or so - and those from that era were hardly the greatest bunch we've seen! For me, it's one of the most troubling aspects of our political landscape today - the almost complete lack of quality politicians. Yes, I know that is something of an oxymoron, but there always used to be a dozen or so that stood out strongly.
I really don't think that is the case today. Something has gone badly wrong with the production line of politicians. Looking beyond the current crop, who do we see coming through as having potential? I can't think of anyone off the top of my head - just more mediocrity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)