So now we all know that the General Election is scheduled for May 6th.
Thanks to the inability of Bob Ainsworth - the Defence Secretary - to keep his stupid mouth shut, the date has been revealed long before Labour would have liked. I'm really not sure why the election date should be such a big secret, - I can't think of any advantage that could be gained by the opposition by knowing in advance - but the government seemed to think it was.
It's something of a feature of this government - their obsession with secrecy. Like deciding to keep the report into the "suicide" of Dr Kelly secret for 70 years or refusing to release the damning report into the failure of social services in Doncaster to prevent two well known and vicious young thugs from torturing and almost killing two brothers while at the same time using secret courts to enable social services to wrench children from the bosom of loving families for the flimsiest of reasons.
Or the secrecy that results in the government announcing that the "terrorist threat" level is to be raised from one subjective and undefinable level to another, but prevents them from telling us why they do this.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that it is not necessary for a government to have secrets - of course it is. But those secrets should only be things that could, if known to our enemies, compromise national security. That doesn't apply to the date of a General Election, the failure of a local authority department or the reason why a child who is happy with his family who love and cherish that child is taken away and never allowed to see them again.
And, of course, in the interests of national security, it would help if we had a Defence Secretary who knew how to keep his big mouth shut - but this government's obsession with keeping secrets that have nothing to do with national security is symptomatic of something else.
And let's be clear about something else. National security is not intrinsically linked to the fate of the Labour party, the Prime Minister or anyone in government - so national security does not include information which could be damaging to the Labour party's election prospects.
But a government that uses the pretence of national security to keep secrets that have nothing to do with the security of the nation is suggestive of a government with something to hide and, possibly, something to fear.
Showing posts with label NuLabour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NuLabour. Show all posts
Monday, January 25, 2010
Friday, July 17, 2009
Criminal failure
Sometime back in the last century when NuLabour stormed to power, the then leader of the party promised that his government would be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" - a soundbite aimed at those suffering from Attention Span Deficit Disorder - or as they prefer to be known - journalists.
Well, Labour lived up to their promise and have, since coming to power, introduced 36 billion new offences* to criminal law including the offence of improperly weighing a herring. One wonders how we survived all this time with rogue herring weighing going on - thank Gord we've put a stop to this heinous crime.
Meanwhile, real crime - from petty low level stuff to violent assaults and life threatening attacks - has risen inexorably. Now I do not believe for one moment that this is what Labour wanted. I'm sure that - like most politicians - they really believed they had the ideas to tackle the crime and social disorder that blights the lives of more and more people in Britain today - but when it actually came to doing something about it they discovered it was a lot harder than they thought.
This is my problem with the position of "libertarians" who claim that they can somehow impose law and order on society by having fewer rules and laws. I've no doubt that there is plenty of scope for removing laws from our statute books, but the issue of dealing with real crime and disorder will still remain and I have never seen anyone provide an answer for dealing with that.
Labour introduced these myriad of new laws simply because they felt they had to be seen doing something. They genuinely want to reduce real crime and social disorder, but they have no plan for coping with the the thing which breeds crime and social disorder.
When Labour promised to be "tough on the causes of crime" they did so based on the belief that crime is caused by poverty but they ignored the fact that the bulk of their supporters in the first half of the last century were genuinely poor people - considerably poorer than the poor of today - who never ever felt the need to resort to criminal activity as a consequence of being poor.
Poverty does not cause crime. Moral collapse causes crime. Unless and until someone does something to address the issue of morality in society today then nothing they do will have a significant impact on crime and disorder - and this is as true for libertarians as it is for Labour.
Up until the 1950's, that morality was provided by Christianity but this was systematically dismantled by social revolutionaries in the years since leaving a moral vacuum which remains today. Something needed to fill that vacuum on society but never has and this has led to the explosion in crime and disorder.
The response of the government has been to do the only thing any government can do - invent new laws and put in place more measures to try and catch criminals. The result is that we are far less libertarian than we were in the 1950's and are now the most watched, monitored, tracked and scrutinised nation in western civilization.
The only way you are going to be able to change that is to instill some sort of morality back into society so that the government no longer feel compelled to watch and monitor us and to dream up new ways to catch criminals such as DNA databases or ID cards (neither of which will be effective).
The instilling of that morality has to be done from an early age and the state has the ideal way to do that through state education - but that risks accusations of "indoctrination" or, worse still for the progressives, being judgemental. Besides which, how can teachers teach things which they don't believe? Such as that sex is illegal if you are under 16 and confined to marriage.
I'm a Christian, so it is no surprise that I believe the teaching of the Christian faith is the best way of restoring our morality. I'm open to new ideas, but there are none forthcoming except from other faiths - particularly Islam. Let me make it quite clear that I am not arguing for religion in government - just for the restoration of morality in society.
My belief is that this is best achieved through Christianity, but I am certain that if we do not make a conscious effort to restore that to society then Islam will be the moralising force that will fill the vacuum left by Christianity and Britain will become an Islamic state. Then you really will see religion in government!
* A rough estimate
Well, Labour lived up to their promise and have, since coming to power, introduced 36 billion new offences* to criminal law including the offence of improperly weighing a herring. One wonders how we survived all this time with rogue herring weighing going on - thank Gord we've put a stop to this heinous crime.
Meanwhile, real crime - from petty low level stuff to violent assaults and life threatening attacks - has risen inexorably. Now I do not believe for one moment that this is what Labour wanted. I'm sure that - like most politicians - they really believed they had the ideas to tackle the crime and social disorder that blights the lives of more and more people in Britain today - but when it actually came to doing something about it they discovered it was a lot harder than they thought.
This is my problem with the position of "libertarians" who claim that they can somehow impose law and order on society by having fewer rules and laws. I've no doubt that there is plenty of scope for removing laws from our statute books, but the issue of dealing with real crime and disorder will still remain and I have never seen anyone provide an answer for dealing with that.
Labour introduced these myriad of new laws simply because they felt they had to be seen doing something. They genuinely want to reduce real crime and social disorder, but they have no plan for coping with the the thing which breeds crime and social disorder.
When Labour promised to be "tough on the causes of crime" they did so based on the belief that crime is caused by poverty but they ignored the fact that the bulk of their supporters in the first half of the last century were genuinely poor people - considerably poorer than the poor of today - who never ever felt the need to resort to criminal activity as a consequence of being poor.
Poverty does not cause crime. Moral collapse causes crime. Unless and until someone does something to address the issue of morality in society today then nothing they do will have a significant impact on crime and disorder - and this is as true for libertarians as it is for Labour.
Up until the 1950's, that morality was provided by Christianity but this was systematically dismantled by social revolutionaries in the years since leaving a moral vacuum which remains today. Something needed to fill that vacuum on society but never has and this has led to the explosion in crime and disorder.
The response of the government has been to do the only thing any government can do - invent new laws and put in place more measures to try and catch criminals. The result is that we are far less libertarian than we were in the 1950's and are now the most watched, monitored, tracked and scrutinised nation in western civilization.
The only way you are going to be able to change that is to instill some sort of morality back into society so that the government no longer feel compelled to watch and monitor us and to dream up new ways to catch criminals such as DNA databases or ID cards (neither of which will be effective).
The instilling of that morality has to be done from an early age and the state has the ideal way to do that through state education - but that risks accusations of "indoctrination" or, worse still for the progressives, being judgemental. Besides which, how can teachers teach things which they don't believe? Such as that sex is illegal if you are under 16 and confined to marriage.
I'm a Christian, so it is no surprise that I believe the teaching of the Christian faith is the best way of restoring our morality. I'm open to new ideas, but there are none forthcoming except from other faiths - particularly Islam. Let me make it quite clear that I am not arguing for religion in government - just for the restoration of morality in society.
My belief is that this is best achieved through Christianity, but I am certain that if we do not make a conscious effort to restore that to society then Islam will be the moralising force that will fill the vacuum left by Christianity and Britain will become an Islamic state. Then you really will see religion in government!
* A rough estimate
Thursday, June 11, 2009
How not to prove a point
Caroline Flint says she resigned from the cabinet because Gordon Brown questioned her loyalty.
Judging by the nasty, spiteful way she did resign I kind of think he had a point. One day she's simpering that Gordy is the best man for the job, the next she's throwing a tantrum 'cos she didn't get a promotion.
Judging by the nasty, spiteful way she did resign I kind of think he had a point. One day she's simpering that Gordy is the best man for the job, the next she's throwing a tantrum 'cos she didn't get a promotion.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
A touch of class
Around the blogosphere and in various newspapers there are still quite a few people who seem to think that the introduction of the 50p tax rate had something to do with raising revenue. It won't and it wasn't. It was about Labour doing something - anything - that would win them favour with the Old Labour class warriors and, to be fair, from what I've seen and heard it has mostly worked.
Over the last few years, Labour has kind of abandoned their traditional cause of sticking up for the working man - which, at least in part, has allowed the British National Party to flourish - and moved on to pastures new such as discrimination, immigration, multiculturalism, sexual orientation and so on.
There are a couple of reasons for this, in my opinion. First of all, let me say that it wasn't because the class system had been erased and was therefore no longer appropriate for the Labour Party to fight for the working man. The class system is alive and well - just slightly restructured with considerably less movement between social groups. The social mobility that characterised the forties and fifties has not only been frozen - it's been largely reversed and people find themselves entrenched in a social class with little opportunity to move on.
We have also lost the slow improvement in meritocracy that was, gradually, taking place in Britain before the advent of progressive dogma. Although it is true to say that it is less now about having the right school tie, it is now - as much as ever - necessary to belong to the right "club". It's not so much who you know, anymore - it's what you think that opens doors to the institutions of power.
Anyway - the first reason that Labour abandoned their traditional working class roots is that they realised that achieving their aims would effectively mean the end of their raison d'etre. The Labour Party was formed to support the working class man - but once the socialist model had achieved hegemony then working class man no longer mattered. So they had to find other reasons for being and other causes to support - hence the branching out into the areas above.
The other reason is that the Labour Party could not foresee any circumstance whereby their core voter base would vote any other way. Who else was white working man going to vote for? Yes, there were a fair few who switched to supporting Thatcher in 1979 - but given the mess Labour had made of things, who could blame them?
Besides, that disaffection was also driven by the Labour abandonment of social conservatism - pretty soon the electorate would realise that the Tories had also abandoned social conservatism as well and they'd all come back to the fold. They had to - there was no alternative - except not to vote which many many people are increasingly choosing to do.
But the Labour Party didn't reckon with the BNP or the Internet. They thought they could just continually smear the BNP as racist extremists and, with the support of the MSM and various other groups, that would be enough to ensure the BNP would always be seen as "right wing extremists".
Unfortunately for Labour, the BNP publish their views and their policies on the Internet and anyone can go and take a look for themselves what they really say and what their policies are - and when they do, as many thousands are doing every week by all accounts, they find that the policies of the "far right extremists" are actually fairly socialist Old Labour policies which, not that long ago, would have been quite at home in a Labour Party Manifesto.
Unsurprisingly, this has found favour with a considerable number of white working class people who feel abandoned by their traditional party of choice and led to a trickling of support away from Labour and to the BNP - but the trickle keeps getting bigger and soon it may be a stream and then a flood - and that worries Labour.
They've found that continually shouting down the BNP as far-right racist nutters isn't actually putting people off the BNP. Instead, all it is doing is alienating and offending those people who have taken a look for themselves and found themselves in considerable agreement with much of what the BNP say. Labour may have been able to win those people back with reasoned argument - but calling them racist scum isn't going to do it.
So Labour have reverted to their old ways - bash the rich. They would have liked to have done far more than they did, but they realise that too much would scare off many of the floating voters who, now more than ever, are essential to their chances of securing any future role in government.
Hence the 50p tax rate - nothing to do with raising revenue and everything to do with trying to stem the loss of support from the white working class. To be honest, I don't think it will work. Any kudos they regain from the white working class isn't going to be enough to sway the balance in their favour unless they can come up with other ways and means of showing that they mean it without alienating the floating voter into believing that Labour are back to their old tax and spend ways (which they never actually abandoned).
The next General Election isn't winnable for Labour - instead they will have to rely on the Tories to lose it. And I still don't believe that that is beyond the realms of possibility.
Over the last few years, Labour has kind of abandoned their traditional cause of sticking up for the working man - which, at least in part, has allowed the British National Party to flourish - and moved on to pastures new such as discrimination, immigration, multiculturalism, sexual orientation and so on.
There are a couple of reasons for this, in my opinion. First of all, let me say that it wasn't because the class system had been erased and was therefore no longer appropriate for the Labour Party to fight for the working man. The class system is alive and well - just slightly restructured with considerably less movement between social groups. The social mobility that characterised the forties and fifties has not only been frozen - it's been largely reversed and people find themselves entrenched in a social class with little opportunity to move on.
We have also lost the slow improvement in meritocracy that was, gradually, taking place in Britain before the advent of progressive dogma. Although it is true to say that it is less now about having the right school tie, it is now - as much as ever - necessary to belong to the right "club". It's not so much who you know, anymore - it's what you think that opens doors to the institutions of power.
Anyway - the first reason that Labour abandoned their traditional working class roots is that they realised that achieving their aims would effectively mean the end of their raison d'etre. The Labour Party was formed to support the working class man - but once the socialist model had achieved hegemony then working class man no longer mattered. So they had to find other reasons for being and other causes to support - hence the branching out into the areas above.
The other reason is that the Labour Party could not foresee any circumstance whereby their core voter base would vote any other way. Who else was white working man going to vote for? Yes, there were a fair few who switched to supporting Thatcher in 1979 - but given the mess Labour had made of things, who could blame them?
Besides, that disaffection was also driven by the Labour abandonment of social conservatism - pretty soon the electorate would realise that the Tories had also abandoned social conservatism as well and they'd all come back to the fold. They had to - there was no alternative - except not to vote which many many people are increasingly choosing to do.
But the Labour Party didn't reckon with the BNP or the Internet. They thought they could just continually smear the BNP as racist extremists and, with the support of the MSM and various other groups, that would be enough to ensure the BNP would always be seen as "right wing extremists".
Unfortunately for Labour, the BNP publish their views and their policies on the Internet and anyone can go and take a look for themselves what they really say and what their policies are - and when they do, as many thousands are doing every week by all accounts, they find that the policies of the "far right extremists" are actually fairly socialist Old Labour policies which, not that long ago, would have been quite at home in a Labour Party Manifesto.
Unsurprisingly, this has found favour with a considerable number of white working class people who feel abandoned by their traditional party of choice and led to a trickling of support away from Labour and to the BNP - but the trickle keeps getting bigger and soon it may be a stream and then a flood - and that worries Labour.
They've found that continually shouting down the BNP as far-right racist nutters isn't actually putting people off the BNP. Instead, all it is doing is alienating and offending those people who have taken a look for themselves and found themselves in considerable agreement with much of what the BNP say. Labour may have been able to win those people back with reasoned argument - but calling them racist scum isn't going to do it.
So Labour have reverted to their old ways - bash the rich. They would have liked to have done far more than they did, but they realise that too much would scare off many of the floating voters who, now more than ever, are essential to their chances of securing any future role in government.
Hence the 50p tax rate - nothing to do with raising revenue and everything to do with trying to stem the loss of support from the white working class. To be honest, I don't think it will work. Any kudos they regain from the white working class isn't going to be enough to sway the balance in their favour unless they can come up with other ways and means of showing that they mean it without alienating the floating voter into believing that Labour are back to their old tax and spend ways (which they never actually abandoned).
The next General Election isn't winnable for Labour - instead they will have to rely on the Tories to lose it. And I still don't believe that that is beyond the realms of possibility.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Do you believe in fairy stories?
No - me neither.
Back in balance in two years?
Recovery in 2nd half of this year?
In your dreams, Chancellor!
The Budget was pretty much as expected - not surprising as most of it was leaked to the press long before Darling got to his feet - long on political rhetoric and posturing while short on detail. Full of spurious guesswork, devoid of real substance.
A Budget that sums up the times we live in, really. Despite fluffing the phrase "fuel tax escalator" (it's not that hard, Dave), I thought Cameron's response was pretty much spot on. I also think it was pretty damn cheeky seeing how Dave and the boys of the New Tory Revolution had previously committed themselves to following the Great Gordo's conjuring tricks with public spending.
In the end, Labour have resorted to their traditional tactics of bash the rich, tax and spend as a last resort to try and convince the voters to keep them in power. I think that it probably won't work and the Tories may well win the next election.
I still maintain that it is not a foregone conclusion. Come March, Darling will trot out some massaged figures to suggest that the economic recovery is underway and Labour will pump something into the public sector to appease their voter base (probably large infrastructure projects). Even if the Tories do win, I don't think it will be a landslide - and whoever does win will inherit the worst economic situation in British history.
Cameron is probably hoping to be the next Thatcher - or more likely Blair. He's more likely to be the next Ted Heath. Except, unlike Heath - Cameron won't retire bitter and twisted to the back benches - he'll find some EU gravy train to ride on.
Back in balance in two years?
Recovery in 2nd half of this year?
In your dreams, Chancellor!
The Budget was pretty much as expected - not surprising as most of it was leaked to the press long before Darling got to his feet - long on political rhetoric and posturing while short on detail. Full of spurious guesswork, devoid of real substance.
A Budget that sums up the times we live in, really. Despite fluffing the phrase "fuel tax escalator" (it's not that hard, Dave), I thought Cameron's response was pretty much spot on. I also think it was pretty damn cheeky seeing how Dave and the boys of the New Tory Revolution had previously committed themselves to following the Great Gordo's conjuring tricks with public spending.
In the end, Labour have resorted to their traditional tactics of bash the rich, tax and spend as a last resort to try and convince the voters to keep them in power. I think that it probably won't work and the Tories may well win the next election.
I still maintain that it is not a foregone conclusion. Come March, Darling will trot out some massaged figures to suggest that the economic recovery is underway and Labour will pump something into the public sector to appease their voter base (probably large infrastructure projects). Even if the Tories do win, I don't think it will be a landslide - and whoever does win will inherit the worst economic situation in British history.
Cameron is probably hoping to be the next Thatcher - or more likely Blair. He's more likely to be the next Ted Heath. Except, unlike Heath - Cameron won't retire bitter and twisted to the back benches - he'll find some EU gravy train to ride on.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Worse than they will admit
Just as I was saying the other day, the true severity of this "recession" is yet to be revealed.
THE chancellor, Alistair Darling, has admitted that he and his Treasury officials got it wrong over the length and severity of the recession and that he will be forced to tear up his economic predictions.
Sorry, but this is downright deceit. Darling was warning sometime ago that this was going to be the worst economic situation for 60 years or more, but then seemed to backtrack and hint that this will be no worse than the recession of the early nineties. Clearly it is much worse than that.
He will slash his growth forecast in the budget and warn that there will be no economic recovery until the end of the year, dashing hopes that last week’s G20 summit will be followed by an early upturn. “ It's worse than we thought,” Darling said this weekend.
As I said yesterday, the true test of the "success" of the G20 stitch up - I mean summit - will be what Darling delivers in his budget. By all accounts it won't even be as "steady as she goes" budget, but an "all hands to the pumps" budget instead. The idea that Darling will "slash his growth forecast" is a little fanciful as there will be no growth - just a sharp contraction of the economy.
Nor will there be an economic recovery at the end of the year - well, not this year, anyway.
In his April 22 budget, the chancellor will predict that the economy will slide by at least 3% this year, its worst single-year performance since the second world war and three times the rate of decline that he forecast in November in his prebudget report.
Think of a number then triple it. A 3% contraction? You'll be lucky sunshine.
The weaker growth forecast will mean public borrowing in the coming fiscal year will be well above the £118 billion level that Darling had predicted six months ago, renewing fears about the sustainability of public finances. Independent economists say borrowing could hit £150 billion or more.
My bet would be on "or more".
The economy’s dive over the past six months had been steeper than the Treasury had expected, he said, making it inevitable that he would be forced to revise his forecast significantly. Britain’s gross domestic product slid by 1.6% in the final three months of last year, its biggest drop since the recession of the early 1980s.
A drop of 1.6% per quarter equates to a yearly contraction of 6.4%, but the Chancellor is expected to predict just a 3% decline? Based on what? Tea leaves? If anything it is going to accelerate, not slow down - if it's not pushing a 10% contraction by the fourth quarter I will be amazed .... or the government will be fiddling the figures (not for the first time).
The economy’s biggest single-year fall in the postwar period was in 1980, when it shrank by 2.1% under Margaret Thatcher, followed by a further 1.3% decline in 1981.
I for one remember just how bad that recession was, but compared to what we're going to go through those early eighties years will seem like times of plenty. The difference this time is that, unlike Thatcher, Brown and Darling have no "plan" for recovery or what comes after the recession - just a faint hope that pouring money into the same old systems that got us into this state in the first place will resolve it.
It won't.
How about the Tories? They don't have a plan either - the only difference is that they'd pour the money down the pan a little more slowly, but only a little.
Face it - if the Chancellor is preparing the ground now for what is looking to be a very austere budget - a budget that is likely to be the last significant chance the government have to bribe the electorate before the next election - then things aren't just much worse than they thought - they are much worse than they are letting on.
THE chancellor, Alistair Darling, has admitted that he and his Treasury officials got it wrong over the length and severity of the recession and that he will be forced to tear up his economic predictions.
Sorry, but this is downright deceit. Darling was warning sometime ago that this was going to be the worst economic situation for 60 years or more, but then seemed to backtrack and hint that this will be no worse than the recession of the early nineties. Clearly it is much worse than that.
He will slash his growth forecast in the budget and warn that there will be no economic recovery until the end of the year, dashing hopes that last week’s G20 summit will be followed by an early upturn. “ It's worse than we thought,” Darling said this weekend.
As I said yesterday, the true test of the "success" of the G20 stitch up - I mean summit - will be what Darling delivers in his budget. By all accounts it won't even be as "steady as she goes" budget, but an "all hands to the pumps" budget instead. The idea that Darling will "slash his growth forecast" is a little fanciful as there will be no growth - just a sharp contraction of the economy.
Nor will there be an economic recovery at the end of the year - well, not this year, anyway.
In his April 22 budget, the chancellor will predict that the economy will slide by at least 3% this year, its worst single-year performance since the second world war and three times the rate of decline that he forecast in November in his prebudget report.
Think of a number then triple it. A 3% contraction? You'll be lucky sunshine.
The weaker growth forecast will mean public borrowing in the coming fiscal year will be well above the £118 billion level that Darling had predicted six months ago, renewing fears about the sustainability of public finances. Independent economists say borrowing could hit £150 billion or more.
My bet would be on "or more".
The economy’s dive over the past six months had been steeper than the Treasury had expected, he said, making it inevitable that he would be forced to revise his forecast significantly. Britain’s gross domestic product slid by 1.6% in the final three months of last year, its biggest drop since the recession of the early 1980s.
A drop of 1.6% per quarter equates to a yearly contraction of 6.4%, but the Chancellor is expected to predict just a 3% decline? Based on what? Tea leaves? If anything it is going to accelerate, not slow down - if it's not pushing a 10% contraction by the fourth quarter I will be amazed .... or the government will be fiddling the figures (not for the first time).
The economy’s biggest single-year fall in the postwar period was in 1980, when it shrank by 2.1% under Margaret Thatcher, followed by a further 1.3% decline in 1981.
I for one remember just how bad that recession was, but compared to what we're going to go through those early eighties years will seem like times of plenty. The difference this time is that, unlike Thatcher, Brown and Darling have no "plan" for recovery or what comes after the recession - just a faint hope that pouring money into the same old systems that got us into this state in the first place will resolve it.
It won't.
How about the Tories? They don't have a plan either - the only difference is that they'd pour the money down the pan a little more slowly, but only a little.
Face it - if the Chancellor is preparing the ground now for what is looking to be a very austere budget - a budget that is likely to be the last significant chance the government have to bribe the electorate before the next election - then things aren't just much worse than they thought - they are much worse than they are letting on.
Friday, January 23, 2009
How to lose friends and influence people
Great, scathing piece by Andrew Pierce on the Telegraph about Mr Bean's tour of India.
David Miliband, aged 44 but with the face of a 30-year-old, has proved yet again he is even more immature than he looks. His performance in India was rude, stupid and politically and diplomatically naive – pretty impressive in a Foreign Secretary.
Ah, that's the sort of thing we've been missing in the right side of journalism for some time! It's about time someone other than bloggers started hitting these pompous lefties where it hurts - in their ego.
What does matter, though, is that this so-called intellectual is allowed to strut his stuff on the world stage, desperate to prove he is still a big player, and in the process deeply offend India, one of Britain's staunchest allies.
Love it! Perhaps even more remarkable than the fact that Mr Bean abroad managed to piss off one of the few friends we still have overseas is the fact that so little attention was given to it by the broadcast media.
If a member of the real royalty rather than the Marxist Monarchy had managed to offend our colonial colleagues to even a modest degree then you can bet it would be all over the BBC news - pretty much like the supposed "racist" nickname given by the Prince of Wales to an Indian friend (who found the nickname affectionate and not the least bit offensive).
But the pathetic Miliband can trample over the toes of one of our most relaible allies in their own country and this warrants barely a mention? Strange, don't you think?
The charge sheet makes grim reading. Why did he think it was tactful or clever to deliver a speech declaring there was no such thing "as the war on terror" in the Taj Hotel in Mumbai where dozens of innocent people were killed in a hail of machine gun bullets by terrorists? Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group linked with the murderous attack, welcomed our Foreign Secretary's "positive comments!".
As Pierce points out, those comments were intended to impress a certain incoming President rather than any terrorist organisation, but the fact that Lashkar-e-Taiba pounced on it with relish gives you some clue as to where we headed over the next 4-8 years.
Miliband, Oxford educated and a Kennedy scholar – which apparently makes you clever – showed off in private meetings hence the official complaint about his conduct from Delhi. He also caused grave offence by addressing his host, Pranab Mukherjee, 73, by his first name even though the veteran foreign minister called Miliband "Your Excellency". My, little David must have loved that.
One of the things I love about India and its people is that even though we ruled over them for so long - and not always particularly well - they still have huge admiration for Britain and many things British. The trouble is that many of the things which they retain and still believe are British - such as etiquette, manners and politeness - have been thrown out in this country.
This whole episode highlights the poor standard of our politicians today. By all accounts, as Pierce remarks on, Miliband is well-educated and intelligent but the reality is that he has lived a closeted and insulated life. Brought up in a Marxist family and groomed from an early age (like his brother) to be a politician, Miliband has no exposure to the real world. All his life he has listened to a one sided political viewpoint which he has accepted as correct and never questioned. This is the way of all politicians these days - Labour or Conservative - they virtually all come through a system.
Some might argue that that was always the way. Churchill had a closeted and insulated early life - but unlike Miliband and the modern breed of career politician, Churchill had an army career during which he would have been exposed to all sorts of different political viewpoints - from barrack room lawyers to important foreign diplomats. All of these things are necessary for anyone to get a rounded view of politics - it may not change your overall standpoint, but it will help you to understand the real nature of politics and diplomacy. You can't be taught that in a classroom by some lecturer.
Miliband's disgraceful performance should mark the end of his political career. Nobody should be that bad as a foreign secretary and be able to move on up the ladder. A couple of decades ago he'd be staring into the abyss of a life on the back benches (at best) by now - but not the chosen one. He's still seen as the golden boy of the left by the left and is still marked for "great" things.
But God help us if he ever does get to be Prime Minister.
David Miliband, aged 44 but with the face of a 30-year-old, has proved yet again he is even more immature than he looks. His performance in India was rude, stupid and politically and diplomatically naive – pretty impressive in a Foreign Secretary.
Ah, that's the sort of thing we've been missing in the right side of journalism for some time! It's about time someone other than bloggers started hitting these pompous lefties where it hurts - in their ego.
What does matter, though, is that this so-called intellectual is allowed to strut his stuff on the world stage, desperate to prove he is still a big player, and in the process deeply offend India, one of Britain's staunchest allies.
Love it! Perhaps even more remarkable than the fact that Mr Bean abroad managed to piss off one of the few friends we still have overseas is the fact that so little attention was given to it by the broadcast media.
If a member of the real royalty rather than the Marxist Monarchy had managed to offend our colonial colleagues to even a modest degree then you can bet it would be all over the BBC news - pretty much like the supposed "racist" nickname given by the Prince of Wales to an Indian friend (who found the nickname affectionate and not the least bit offensive).
But the pathetic Miliband can trample over the toes of one of our most relaible allies in their own country and this warrants barely a mention? Strange, don't you think?
The charge sheet makes grim reading. Why did he think it was tactful or clever to deliver a speech declaring there was no such thing "as the war on terror" in the Taj Hotel in Mumbai where dozens of innocent people were killed in a hail of machine gun bullets by terrorists? Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group linked with the murderous attack, welcomed our Foreign Secretary's "positive comments!".
As Pierce points out, those comments were intended to impress a certain incoming President rather than any terrorist organisation, but the fact that Lashkar-e-Taiba pounced on it with relish gives you some clue as to where we headed over the next 4-8 years.
Miliband, Oxford educated and a Kennedy scholar – which apparently makes you clever – showed off in private meetings hence the official complaint about his conduct from Delhi. He also caused grave offence by addressing his host, Pranab Mukherjee, 73, by his first name even though the veteran foreign minister called Miliband "Your Excellency". My, little David must have loved that.
One of the things I love about India and its people is that even though we ruled over them for so long - and not always particularly well - they still have huge admiration for Britain and many things British. The trouble is that many of the things which they retain and still believe are British - such as etiquette, manners and politeness - have been thrown out in this country.
This whole episode highlights the poor standard of our politicians today. By all accounts, as Pierce remarks on, Miliband is well-educated and intelligent but the reality is that he has lived a closeted and insulated life. Brought up in a Marxist family and groomed from an early age (like his brother) to be a politician, Miliband has no exposure to the real world. All his life he has listened to a one sided political viewpoint which he has accepted as correct and never questioned. This is the way of all politicians these days - Labour or Conservative - they virtually all come through a system.
Some might argue that that was always the way. Churchill had a closeted and insulated early life - but unlike Miliband and the modern breed of career politician, Churchill had an army career during which he would have been exposed to all sorts of different political viewpoints - from barrack room lawyers to important foreign diplomats. All of these things are necessary for anyone to get a rounded view of politics - it may not change your overall standpoint, but it will help you to understand the real nature of politics and diplomacy. You can't be taught that in a classroom by some lecturer.
Miliband's disgraceful performance should mark the end of his political career. Nobody should be that bad as a foreign secretary and be able to move on up the ladder. A couple of decades ago he'd be staring into the abyss of a life on the back benches (at best) by now - but not the chosen one. He's still seen as the golden boy of the left by the left and is still marked for "great" things.
But God help us if he ever does get to be Prime Minister.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Good Lords!
The government have been forced to abandon plans to introduce 42 day detention without charge thanks to the House Of Lords. Whatever your opinion of the 42 day detention plan, this demonstrates that our Upper House is capable of doing what it is supposed to do - providing a vital check and balance to the Commons. It is also worth mentioning that this is something which elected or appointed upper chambers frequently fail to do.
I've always been opposed to the reform of the House of Lords - although constitutional vandalism would be a more appropriate term for what Labour have been doing. My opposition is due, in part, to the fact that I see the potential flaws in an elected system - principally the potential for either a too powerful governing party or a "lame duck" executive depending on how the electoral barometer swings at the time.
I also see the problems with an appointed upper house which would be open to being stuffed with cronies - something which already happens to an extent - and with that the potential for the rise of a tyrant.
The Lords was far from perfect, but then so is democracy. However, the point that everyone seems to forget and the other reason why I was opposed to the idea of "reform" of the House of Lords is that, basically, it worked. Anachronistic it may be, but as Mark Stein used to say - if something has been around long enough to become anachronistic it must be doing something right (or words to that effect).
There are many areas of our government that do need reform - not least the bloated public sector, failing processes of various departments (lost data? Home Office "not fit for purpose"?), but the least of them was the Upper House or even our constitution. The motivation for the constitutional vandalism perpetrated by the Labour party was not to improve our democracy but simply class hatred.
Hatred, for whatever reason, is a motivation that should not be part of government. That alone should be enough to disqualify the Labour party from ever holding power again. The damage they have wrought on our constitution is merely the clincher.
I've always been opposed to the reform of the House of Lords - although constitutional vandalism would be a more appropriate term for what Labour have been doing. My opposition is due, in part, to the fact that I see the potential flaws in an elected system - principally the potential for either a too powerful governing party or a "lame duck" executive depending on how the electoral barometer swings at the time.
I also see the problems with an appointed upper house which would be open to being stuffed with cronies - something which already happens to an extent - and with that the potential for the rise of a tyrant.
The Lords was far from perfect, but then so is democracy. However, the point that everyone seems to forget and the other reason why I was opposed to the idea of "reform" of the House of Lords is that, basically, it worked. Anachronistic it may be, but as Mark Stein used to say - if something has been around long enough to become anachronistic it must be doing something right (or words to that effect).
There are many areas of our government that do need reform - not least the bloated public sector, failing processes of various departments (lost data? Home Office "not fit for purpose"?), but the least of them was the Upper House or even our constitution. The motivation for the constitutional vandalism perpetrated by the Labour party was not to improve our democracy but simply class hatred.
Hatred, for whatever reason, is a motivation that should not be part of government. That alone should be enough to disqualify the Labour party from ever holding power again. The damage they have wrought on our constitution is merely the clincher.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Labour stooge at C4 news
Watching Jon Snow interview some Labour minister (I think it was Yvette Cooper) on last nights Channel 4 news was an excruciating experience.
Snow has a reputation - undeserved, in my opinion - for being a tough interviewer, but he is only tough when it suits him to be. In other words, when the person he is interviewing doesn't share his socialist world view, Snow can be a tough interviewer - but last night was a lesson in deference and forelock tugging obsequiousness.
Discussing the current official rate of inflation - which, through manipulation of the way inflation is measured is actually far lower than the real rate of inflation - Snow allowed the minister to blame it all on oil and food prices and was quite happy himself to play down the comparisons to previous times of high inflation.
Not as bad as the early nineties, nothing like the eighties and far removed from the seventies - all this was allowed and more.
The truth is that inflation - which had run out of control under a Labour administration - was on a downward trend since the early eighties and well under control by the time Labour came to power in 1997. Labour can not and should not be allowed to take credit for the low inflation which we have enjoyed for a relatively long period.
One of the things that annoys me most about our media is the willing acceptance of the myth that Brown was a good chancellor, but the truth is that Brown was fortunate to inherit a Treasury with a solid economic base. The fact it took him 10 years to fuck that up is nothing to be proud of and nothing to crow about.
Inflation is not 3.3% - even though that is the official figure. By the old measure of inflation it would be closer to 5%. When Mervyn King estimates that the official figure will reach 4% by the end of the year that means the real rate will be closer to 7%.
And even then that is not an accurate measurement because, when it comes to the essentials - food, fuel, housing - the real figure is nearer 15-20%. You don't need to be an economist or the governor of the Bank Of England to work that out. Most of us know from our trips to the supermarket each week how fast our food bills are rising. The fact that the latest plasma TV has come down in price by 5% is irrelevant when your weekly food bill has increased by 20%.
And every truly prudent family knows that when you're in times of plenty the prudent thing to do is to put a little aside for when times get a little thin. Brown didn't do this. He embarked on a spending spree which has provided little improvement and left the coffers empty at the very moment we need to be tightening our belts. With inflation rising rapidly it is only a matter of time before the public sector start flexing their restored muscle and demanding inflation busting pay rises. Once that happens, inflation will really kick off.
But Snow didn't challenge the minister on any of this. He just let her say what she wanted when she wanted and meekly sat there and fed her the lines like the Labour stooge he is.
Snow has a reputation - undeserved, in my opinion - for being a tough interviewer, but he is only tough when it suits him to be. In other words, when the person he is interviewing doesn't share his socialist world view, Snow can be a tough interviewer - but last night was a lesson in deference and forelock tugging obsequiousness.
Discussing the current official rate of inflation - which, through manipulation of the way inflation is measured is actually far lower than the real rate of inflation - Snow allowed the minister to blame it all on oil and food prices and was quite happy himself to play down the comparisons to previous times of high inflation.
Not as bad as the early nineties, nothing like the eighties and far removed from the seventies - all this was allowed and more.
The truth is that inflation - which had run out of control under a Labour administration - was on a downward trend since the early eighties and well under control by the time Labour came to power in 1997. Labour can not and should not be allowed to take credit for the low inflation which we have enjoyed for a relatively long period.
One of the things that annoys me most about our media is the willing acceptance of the myth that Brown was a good chancellor, but the truth is that Brown was fortunate to inherit a Treasury with a solid economic base. The fact it took him 10 years to fuck that up is nothing to be proud of and nothing to crow about.
Inflation is not 3.3% - even though that is the official figure. By the old measure of inflation it would be closer to 5%. When Mervyn King estimates that the official figure will reach 4% by the end of the year that means the real rate will be closer to 7%.
And even then that is not an accurate measurement because, when it comes to the essentials - food, fuel, housing - the real figure is nearer 15-20%. You don't need to be an economist or the governor of the Bank Of England to work that out. Most of us know from our trips to the supermarket each week how fast our food bills are rising. The fact that the latest plasma TV has come down in price by 5% is irrelevant when your weekly food bill has increased by 20%.
And every truly prudent family knows that when you're in times of plenty the prudent thing to do is to put a little aside for when times get a little thin. Brown didn't do this. He embarked on a spending spree which has provided little improvement and left the coffers empty at the very moment we need to be tightening our belts. With inflation rising rapidly it is only a matter of time before the public sector start flexing their restored muscle and demanding inflation busting pay rises. Once that happens, inflation will really kick off.
But Snow didn't challenge the minister on any of this. He just let her say what she wanted when she wanted and meekly sat there and fed her the lines like the Labour stooge he is.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Mr Bean rides to the rescue
There have been various reports that David Miliband - the Mr Bean of British politics - is planning a challenge to Gordon Brown for leadership of the New Labour project - and with it the Premiership of Britain.
I find it quite ironic that, with Labour supporters claiming that Gordon Brown isn't making it clear where Labour is going, the person they are looking to turn to is another empty vessel when it comes to firm policies and beliefs. Just like Tony Blair and David Cameron!
Of course, the main reason is that David Miliband - like Blair and Cameron - is photogenic, while Brown isn't. He looks new, shiny and inoffensive and he's good at talking without saying anything specific - another characteristic he shares with Blair and Cameron.
Underneath it all, though, Miliband is still the closet commie he always was and he is very much a supporter of the cultural Marxism which has been used over the years to quietly advance the discredited cause of Marxism in Britain.
The problem for Brown is that he was, is and will always be Old Labour. An old school socialist who can not hide that fact. He talks like one and he looks like one - something which doesn't suit the New Labour project.
The media are keen to support Miliband's putsch because the media, in the main, are also left wing and cultural Marxists. The biggest concern for them is not that Cameron might win the next election - hell no! He's just a New Labour man with a blue tie. The biggest worry is that Brown might win and he isn't New Labour. So they want him out and one of their own in - and Miliband is one of their own. Like Blair and like Cameron.
Having an election between a Conservative party led by Cameron and a Labour party led by Miliband gives the cultural Marxists a win/win situation. All options are covered. The only fly in the ointment is Brown who still retains some (not much) of the social conservatism of Old Labour.
The last thing the MSM want is Brown to spoil their plans.
I find it quite ironic that, with Labour supporters claiming that Gordon Brown isn't making it clear where Labour is going, the person they are looking to turn to is another empty vessel when it comes to firm policies and beliefs. Just like Tony Blair and David Cameron!
Of course, the main reason is that David Miliband - like Blair and Cameron - is photogenic, while Brown isn't. He looks new, shiny and inoffensive and he's good at talking without saying anything specific - another characteristic he shares with Blair and Cameron.
Underneath it all, though, Miliband is still the closet commie he always was and he is very much a supporter of the cultural Marxism which has been used over the years to quietly advance the discredited cause of Marxism in Britain.
The problem for Brown is that he was, is and will always be Old Labour. An old school socialist who can not hide that fact. He talks like one and he looks like one - something which doesn't suit the New Labour project.
The media are keen to support Miliband's putsch because the media, in the main, are also left wing and cultural Marxists. The biggest concern for them is not that Cameron might win the next election - hell no! He's just a New Labour man with a blue tie. The biggest worry is that Brown might win and he isn't New Labour. So they want him out and one of their own in - and Miliband is one of their own. Like Blair and like Cameron.
Having an election between a Conservative party led by Cameron and a Labour party led by Miliband gives the cultural Marxists a win/win situation. All options are covered. The only fly in the ointment is Brown who still retains some (not much) of the social conservatism of Old Labour.
The last thing the MSM want is Brown to spoil their plans.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The real history of the Blair era
Over the last few weeks I've read plenty of articles and commentaries on the "Blair Years", but nothing as good as this one from one of my favourite commentators - Theodore Dalrymple.
Tony Blair's most alarming characteristic, however, has been his enmity to freedom in his own country, whatever his feelings about it in other countries. No British prime minister in 200 years has done more to curtail civil liberties than has Mr. Blair. Starting with an assumption of his infinite beneficence, he assumed infinite responsibility, with the result that Britain has become a country with a degree of official surveillance that would make a Latin American military dictator envious. Sometimes this surveillance is merely ludicrous--parking-enforcement officers' wearing miniature closed-circuit security cameras in their caps to capture abusive responses from those ticketed, say, or local councils' attaching sensing devices to the garbage cans of three million homes to record what people throw away, in order to charge them for the quantity and quality of their trash.
I can not recommend it enough. Read it all - then compare it to the garbage chucked out by the BBC and the rest of the British media.
Tony Blair's most alarming characteristic, however, has been his enmity to freedom in his own country, whatever his feelings about it in other countries. No British prime minister in 200 years has done more to curtail civil liberties than has Mr. Blair. Starting with an assumption of his infinite beneficence, he assumed infinite responsibility, with the result that Britain has become a country with a degree of official surveillance that would make a Latin American military dictator envious. Sometimes this surveillance is merely ludicrous--parking-enforcement officers' wearing miniature closed-circuit security cameras in their caps to capture abusive responses from those ticketed, say, or local councils' attaching sensing devices to the garbage cans of three million homes to record what people throw away, in order to charge them for the quantity and quality of their trash.
I can not recommend it enough. Read it all - then compare it to the garbage chucked out by the BBC and the rest of the British media.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Acting job
"I'm not in the business of making predictions" said David Miliband on Andrew Marr's show this Sunday morning.
Really, David? How about this one.
"Continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to significant changes in the global climate system with a projected warming of the planet over the next twenty years of about 0.2 degrees C per decade."
Sounds like a prediction to me. Or what about this one.
This is likely to result in snow cover contracting; sea ice shrinking in both the Arctic and Antarctic; and it is ‘very likely’ that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation will continue to become more frequent.
Is that not a prediction, either? Maybe this one will strike a chord.
Mr Miliband stressed that there was no "safe" level of climate change, with even the proposed action to limit the rise in global temperatures to only two degrees resulting in regular 50-degree summers in Berlin and continental Europe by mid-century.
I don't know what else you could call forecasting heat waves and 50C summers other than predictions. What he really means when he says "I'm not in the business of making predictions" is that he is only going to make predictions that suit his propaganda.
Like most career politicians, David Miliband does not actually think about anything he says. He just talks in sound bites - carefully selected chunks of speech that are designed to make him sound knowledgeable about a topic which he actually knows nothing about. Watching him this morning made me realise just how far our political system has fallen - it was like watching someone "acting" the part of a serious politician (and not doing a very good job). The carefully staged pose to make it him appear keen and interested, the steepling fingers and practiced pauses to signify "thinking" and the earnest look of concentration designed to convey "I really mean what I say".
He isn't a serious politician, he isn't knowledgeable - he is a careerist weasel.
Really, David? How about this one.
"Continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to significant changes in the global climate system with a projected warming of the planet over the next twenty years of about 0.2 degrees C per decade."
Sounds like a prediction to me. Or what about this one.
This is likely to result in snow cover contracting; sea ice shrinking in both the Arctic and Antarctic; and it is ‘very likely’ that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation will continue to become more frequent.
Is that not a prediction, either? Maybe this one will strike a chord.
Mr Miliband stressed that there was no "safe" level of climate change, with even the proposed action to limit the rise in global temperatures to only two degrees resulting in regular 50-degree summers in Berlin and continental Europe by mid-century.
I don't know what else you could call forecasting heat waves and 50C summers other than predictions. What he really means when he says "I'm not in the business of making predictions" is that he is only going to make predictions that suit his propaganda.
Like most career politicians, David Miliband does not actually think about anything he says. He just talks in sound bites - carefully selected chunks of speech that are designed to make him sound knowledgeable about a topic which he actually knows nothing about. Watching him this morning made me realise just how far our political system has fallen - it was like watching someone "acting" the part of a serious politician (and not doing a very good job). The carefully staged pose to make it him appear keen and interested, the steepling fingers and practiced pauses to signify "thinking" and the earnest look of concentration designed to convey "I really mean what I say".
He isn't a serious politician, he isn't knowledgeable - he is a careerist weasel.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
How not to interview
One of the first things Alastair Campbell said during his interview with Andrew Marr this morning was that he hasn't included everything in the book because he didn't want to publish something that may be "damaging to Labour".
Now - given this massive admission - the first response of any serious, and impartial, interviewer would be to question what could be considered damaging wouldn't it? Now I realise that most of these events that could be considered damaging are common knowledge amongst journalists and popular topics at the various Islington set dinner parties, but they are not known to Joe Public and, at the very least, it would be expected of any serious interviewer to pursue the fact that there are aspects of the Labour government which, should they be revealed to us, the stupid public, would make us think twice about voting for Labour in the future.
Not Andrew Marr. No, Mr Left Liberal let that little titbit pass and preferred, instead to allow Campbell to apply his usual "spin". On the positive side, at least Marr didn't resort to the obsequious bowing and scraping that he reserved for Harold Pinter - a display so reverential that it could have been a priest kneeling before his god.
Which, in some ways, it was.
Now - given this massive admission - the first response of any serious, and impartial, interviewer would be to question what could be considered damaging wouldn't it? Now I realise that most of these events that could be considered damaging are common knowledge amongst journalists and popular topics at the various Islington set dinner parties, but they are not known to Joe Public and, at the very least, it would be expected of any serious interviewer to pursue the fact that there are aspects of the Labour government which, should they be revealed to us, the stupid public, would make us think twice about voting for Labour in the future.
Not Andrew Marr. No, Mr Left Liberal let that little titbit pass and preferred, instead to allow Campbell to apply his usual "spin". On the positive side, at least Marr didn't resort to the obsequious bowing and scraping that he reserved for Harold Pinter - a display so reverential that it could have been a priest kneeling before his god.
Which, in some ways, it was.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
And so ends a decade of self-service
Luckily I was able to avoid most of the nauseating coverage of the Blair departure yesterday - but not lucky enough to miss all the retch inducing accolades and tributes that poured out from the MSM or from his political "opponents".
Because I didn't catch all the coverage, it's possible that I missed someone somewhere mentioning the most obvious point about Blair's exit - but in case no one mentioned it, I may as well do so.
Having left the office of Prime Minister, Blair went straight to his constituency and resigned as an MP - bringing to an end a parliamentary career that has lasted just 24 years - 13 as Labour leader and 10 as PM.
Just to put that into context, Blair's entire career was shorter than the time Ted Heath had served as an MP BEFORE becoming Prime Minister. I didn't like Heath - the man who sold Britain out to the EU. I believe he was wrong about the EU and a lot of other things and he certainly lied about the EU - but I never doubted that he did so because he believed it was the right thing for Britain.
And this is, for me, the glaringly obvious point about Blair which everyone seems to have missed. His decision to not just quit as PM, but to leave the British political system entirely confirms to me that the only thing that has motivated Blair over those 24 years was himself. He had no real interest in serving Britain other than using it as a stepping stone to the world stage.
As he leaves the British political stage to take up his role working for some foreign power, he leaves behind a Britain more divided than ever before. He leaves the Union teetering on the brink of collapse. He leaves a Britain where the gap between the haves and have-nots has never been larger and the chances for the have-nots to improve their lot have never been lower.
He leaves a Britain full of illiterate children - a generation barely able to read or write and hardly able to string a coherent sentence together without punctuating it with expletives.
He leaves a Britain that has spent most of the last ten years at war with someone somewhere - Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq - and armed forces that, even as they are committed to more and more efforts overseas, are stripped of men and equipment by ever tightening cuts in defence spending.
He leaves us all, grinning and waving and thinking of nothing but himself.
The most self-serving Prime Minister ever.
Because I didn't catch all the coverage, it's possible that I missed someone somewhere mentioning the most obvious point about Blair's exit - but in case no one mentioned it, I may as well do so.
Having left the office of Prime Minister, Blair went straight to his constituency and resigned as an MP - bringing to an end a parliamentary career that has lasted just 24 years - 13 as Labour leader and 10 as PM.
Just to put that into context, Blair's entire career was shorter than the time Ted Heath had served as an MP BEFORE becoming Prime Minister. I didn't like Heath - the man who sold Britain out to the EU. I believe he was wrong about the EU and a lot of other things and he certainly lied about the EU - but I never doubted that he did so because he believed it was the right thing for Britain.
And this is, for me, the glaringly obvious point about Blair which everyone seems to have missed. His decision to not just quit as PM, but to leave the British political system entirely confirms to me that the only thing that has motivated Blair over those 24 years was himself. He had no real interest in serving Britain other than using it as a stepping stone to the world stage.
As he leaves the British political stage to take up his role working for some foreign power, he leaves behind a Britain more divided than ever before. He leaves the Union teetering on the brink of collapse. He leaves a Britain where the gap between the haves and have-nots has never been larger and the chances for the have-nots to improve their lot have never been lower.
He leaves a Britain full of illiterate children - a generation barely able to read or write and hardly able to string a coherent sentence together without punctuating it with expletives.
He leaves a Britain that has spent most of the last ten years at war with someone somewhere - Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq - and armed forces that, even as they are committed to more and more efforts overseas, are stripped of men and equipment by ever tightening cuts in defence spending.
He leaves us all, grinning and waving and thinking of nothing but himself.
The most self-serving Prime Minister ever.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Lip service
Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, has been sticking her toe into the waters of multiculturalism - and found them distinctly chilly. Kelly told the BBC's "Politics Show" that immigrants must do more to learn English and that councils should do less to help them with translation.
Of course, Kelly's statement is all bluff. Behind it all is a government that wants to be seen trying to recoup some of the ground they have lost to the BNP as many of the areas in which the BNP have been most successful are traditional Labour heartlands - the working class conurbations. The working class are the ones most effected by immigration - because it is their jobs that are taken by cheap immigrant workers, their homes that are taken by new arrivals, their schools that are swamped by foreign children with no English and their streets that are becoming alien to people who have lived there for generations.
But the government don't intend to actually do anything about it themselves as they can't risk upsetting their new core voters - immigrants - but they still need to retain their old core voters - the working class that they abandoned long ago and who are slowly starting to realise it.
So, instead they are shifting the blame and the responsibility on to local government. The Labour Party believes this is a safe policy as local government has no power. By allowing the blame for all the ills of immigration to fall onto local government they believe that the parliamentary Labour party can come out of it more or less unscathed - as long as they appear to be talking the talk. So we've had a succession of prominent Labour luvvies - Brown, Blears and now Kelly - apparently voicing their concerns over immigration while doing their darndest to apportion the blame to someone else for their policies - because open door immigration IS a Labour party policy (albeit a covert one).
Personally, though, I think this is not as safe a policy as it might seem for Labour. They are undermining their own grass roots - and that may come back to bite them.
Of course, Kelly's statement is all bluff. Behind it all is a government that wants to be seen trying to recoup some of the ground they have lost to the BNP as many of the areas in which the BNP have been most successful are traditional Labour heartlands - the working class conurbations. The working class are the ones most effected by immigration - because it is their jobs that are taken by cheap immigrant workers, their homes that are taken by new arrivals, their schools that are swamped by foreign children with no English and their streets that are becoming alien to people who have lived there for generations.
But the government don't intend to actually do anything about it themselves as they can't risk upsetting their new core voters - immigrants - but they still need to retain their old core voters - the working class that they abandoned long ago and who are slowly starting to realise it.
So, instead they are shifting the blame and the responsibility on to local government. The Labour Party believes this is a safe policy as local government has no power. By allowing the blame for all the ills of immigration to fall onto local government they believe that the parliamentary Labour party can come out of it more or less unscathed - as long as they appear to be talking the talk. So we've had a succession of prominent Labour luvvies - Brown, Blears and now Kelly - apparently voicing their concerns over immigration while doing their darndest to apportion the blame to someone else for their policies - because open door immigration IS a Labour party policy (albeit a covert one).
Personally, though, I think this is not as safe a policy as it might seem for Labour. They are undermining their own grass roots - and that may come back to bite them.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Policy free politics
David Cameron tries to reassure conservatives that he and Blair are different - and that Cameron is a conservative - with a comment piece in today's Telegraph. Cameron is actually responding to Blair's response to Cameron's recent rambling about "incivility".
Responding to my speech last week on the growing incivility of our society, the Prime Minister argued that I am making the same mistake that he once made. He used to think, he tells us, that incivility and crime were problems arising from, and affecting, "society as a whole". Tackling them would therefore require "investment in poorer areas and regeneration".
Does that mean Blair has changed his mind? It certainly isn't apparent if that is the case, but, leaving that aside, Cameron then says ...
In his Daily Telegraph article, Mr Blair writes that he "regarded this as an issue about the nature of society as a whole, curable by Sure Start and the New Deal on jobs, better and improved schooling and so on".
In this one sentence, the Prime Minister captures perfectly the fundamental philosophical difference between us. He believes that state initiatives and taxpayers' cash can ''cure'' the "nature of society". Anyone who still believes either that Mr Blair is a ''closet Tory'', or that I am anything other than a Conservative, should stick that quotation on their fridge door.
Well, I've never believed that Blair was a closet Tory - a closet Liberal Democrat, maybe - but not a conservative. I don't believe Cameron is a conservative either. He is a liberal with socialist tendencies, a social liberal - a progressive liberal. I'm still sticking the quotation on my fridge door. Cameron goes on - as he tends to do - thus.
Only a Labour politician would think that you can pump billions of pounds into public services and expect crime to fall and social wellbeing to rise in direct consequence.
So why are you proposing to do the same? Sorry, Dave, but this is an important point. If there is no benefit to society from pouring untold billions of taxpayers money into "public services" then why the hell aren't you proposing massive tax cuts? You've effectively told us that it is a waste of money, but you are proposing to continue along exactly the same spending programme as Blair!
Labour's intentions may have been good, but its approach failed because its only instruments were taxpayers' money and mechanical central control.
Even I don't believe that the Labour party's intentions were bad - misguided, unprincipled, untested, unimaginative, unaffordable, unsustainable, blinkered, stupid, ignorant, bigoted, vindictive and many other things - but not bad. Cameron's answer to the "instruments" of taxpayers money and mechanical central control?
The fact is that British society in general needs a different approach to Labour's. Not more control. Not more money. But more responsibility.
We cannot address social problems merely with state solutions. Government has a role to play in setting the framework of law and incentives that encourage the right behaviour. But the best thing that the state can do is to help build the independent institutions of a responsible society - strong families and strong communities.
Er - OK, Dave. And that means what exactly?
Reforming the benefits system; recognising marriage in the tax system; freeing police from central bureaucracy; long-term contracts for voluntary and social enterprises.
That sounds a lot like "mechanical central control" to me, but Dave being the big greenie that he is, probably prefers to think of it as "organic central control". And things like "long-term contracts" and "social enterprises" sound an awful lot like they're going to be funded with taxpayers money. Wow, Dave - you really are so different from Tony. I've really had my eyes opened and will be rushing off to my local Conservative party branch just as soon as I've stopped laughing.
All, I'm hearing is exactly the same garbage and rhetoric that Blair spouted during his "Respect" campaign (Note to Labour party activists: It's never a good idea to launch a campaign and name it after one of your rival political parties). And it is just talk and rhetoric. No solid ideas. For example - how do you propose to free police from central bureaucracy? How will you reform the benefits system? How are you going to reward marriage through taxation - and what kind of "marriage"? What social enterprises? Forgive me if I've missed something, but I can't actually recall any specific policies on any of these.
All I've noticed is that you and Tone have been carrying out a slanging match through various comment pieces in The Telegraph - and probably other newspapers - telling us what you are not going to do, the mistakes you won't make and that you aren't what you appear to be.
All talk. Talk, talk talk. Just as Blair came in promising to be "tough on crime", that "education, education, education" was the priority and that his party would be "whiter than white" it's all easy to say - but there are no policies backing up this talk, just as there were no policies behind Blair's Labour party. Just plenty of empty rhetoric - from Labour, from the Conservatives and from the Liberal Democrats (the original policy free party).
Isn't it time we gave all three a bloody good kicking at the polls?
Responding to my speech last week on the growing incivility of our society, the Prime Minister argued that I am making the same mistake that he once made. He used to think, he tells us, that incivility and crime were problems arising from, and affecting, "society as a whole". Tackling them would therefore require "investment in poorer areas and regeneration".
Does that mean Blair has changed his mind? It certainly isn't apparent if that is the case, but, leaving that aside, Cameron then says ...
In his Daily Telegraph article, Mr Blair writes that he "regarded this as an issue about the nature of society as a whole, curable by Sure Start and the New Deal on jobs, better and improved schooling and so on".
In this one sentence, the Prime Minister captures perfectly the fundamental philosophical difference between us. He believes that state initiatives and taxpayers' cash can ''cure'' the "nature of society". Anyone who still believes either that Mr Blair is a ''closet Tory'', or that I am anything other than a Conservative, should stick that quotation on their fridge door.
Well, I've never believed that Blair was a closet Tory - a closet Liberal Democrat, maybe - but not a conservative. I don't believe Cameron is a conservative either. He is a liberal with socialist tendencies, a social liberal - a progressive liberal. I'm still sticking the quotation on my fridge door. Cameron goes on - as he tends to do - thus.
Only a Labour politician would think that you can pump billions of pounds into public services and expect crime to fall and social wellbeing to rise in direct consequence.
So why are you proposing to do the same? Sorry, Dave, but this is an important point. If there is no benefit to society from pouring untold billions of taxpayers money into "public services" then why the hell aren't you proposing massive tax cuts? You've effectively told us that it is a waste of money, but you are proposing to continue along exactly the same spending programme as Blair!
Labour's intentions may have been good, but its approach failed because its only instruments were taxpayers' money and mechanical central control.
Even I don't believe that the Labour party's intentions were bad - misguided, unprincipled, untested, unimaginative, unaffordable, unsustainable, blinkered, stupid, ignorant, bigoted, vindictive and many other things - but not bad. Cameron's answer to the "instruments" of taxpayers money and mechanical central control?
The fact is that British society in general needs a different approach to Labour's. Not more control. Not more money. But more responsibility.
We cannot address social problems merely with state solutions. Government has a role to play in setting the framework of law and incentives that encourage the right behaviour. But the best thing that the state can do is to help build the independent institutions of a responsible society - strong families and strong communities.
Er - OK, Dave. And that means what exactly?
Reforming the benefits system; recognising marriage in the tax system; freeing police from central bureaucracy; long-term contracts for voluntary and social enterprises.
That sounds a lot like "mechanical central control" to me, but Dave being the big greenie that he is, probably prefers to think of it as "organic central control". And things like "long-term contracts" and "social enterprises" sound an awful lot like they're going to be funded with taxpayers money. Wow, Dave - you really are so different from Tony. I've really had my eyes opened and will be rushing off to my local Conservative party branch just as soon as I've stopped laughing.
All, I'm hearing is exactly the same garbage and rhetoric that Blair spouted during his "Respect" campaign (Note to Labour party activists: It's never a good idea to launch a campaign and name it after one of your rival political parties). And it is just talk and rhetoric. No solid ideas. For example - how do you propose to free police from central bureaucracy? How will you reform the benefits system? How are you going to reward marriage through taxation - and what kind of "marriage"? What social enterprises? Forgive me if I've missed something, but I can't actually recall any specific policies on any of these.
All I've noticed is that you and Tone have been carrying out a slanging match through various comment pieces in The Telegraph - and probably other newspapers - telling us what you are not going to do, the mistakes you won't make and that you aren't what you appear to be.
All talk. Talk, talk talk. Just as Blair came in promising to be "tough on crime", that "education, education, education" was the priority and that his party would be "whiter than white" it's all easy to say - but there are no policies backing up this talk, just as there were no policies behind Blair's Labour party. Just plenty of empty rhetoric - from Labour, from the Conservatives and from the Liberal Democrats (the original policy free party).
Isn't it time we gave all three a bloody good kicking at the polls?
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Making Britain a laughing stock
Margaret Beckett is a remarkable foreign secretary. She has achieved something that, on the face of it seemed impossible. She is actually worse at the job than Jack Straw.
Now that takes some doing, but she has managed it.
Chairing a UN Security Council debate, Beckett used the opportunity to claim that the biggest threat to world security right now is - climate change. Not terrorism or Islamic extremism, then? Not a nuclear armed North Korea or Iran, then? Not a destabilising in the governments of nuclear armed Pakistan or Russia, then?
No - the biggest threat to the world's security is something that may never happen and which, from a national perspective, can be mitigated relatively easily.
"This is an issue which threatens the peace and security of the whole planet - this has to be the right place to debate it," Mrs Beckett said.
If unproven hypotheses that threaten the peace and security of the whole planet are issues which need to be debated by the UN Security Council then I can only presume that the next debate will be on how to prevent an alien invasion force from taking over the world or what can be done to prevent the earth being devastated by a meteor strike. These are obviously far more pressing concerns for Mrs Beckett than genocide in Darfur, the threat to African stability caused by the implosion of the Zimbabwean economy or the dire situation in the Middle East.
She warned of migration on an unprecedented scale because of flooding, disease and famine.
All of which can be easily mitigated by Britain and most of the world - even assuming it is likely (which it isn't).
Drought and crop failure would also cause intensified competition for food, water and energy, and result in economic destruction comparable to World War II or the Great Depression.
Once again, assuming this could happen and is likely - which there is no evidence to suggest it is - then these can be mitigated relatively simply. In Britain's case by becoming much more self-sufficient in terms of food and energy supply, implementing stringent immigration policies and by having armed forces capable of defending a fairly easily defensible island.
"Climate change is a security issue but it is not a matter of narrow national security - it has a new dimension," she said.
Aha! A new dimension, eh? None of that narrow nationalistic stuff that Beckett is supposed to be concerned about. Oh no, she has much grander plans and visions than simple concern for British interests.
"This is about our collective security in a fragile and increasingly interdependent world."
And that's it? That's the "new dimension"? I'd like to ask Mrs Beckett why it is that after more than 50 years of the United Nations and fifty years of European Union our world is so fragile? And this interdependency myth is one that needs examination as, while some nations such as Britain become increasingly "interdependent" (just another way of saying "dependent" without making it sound like dependent) other nations such as India and China feel increasingly self-reliant, self-confident and are taking on more leading roles on the world stage.
The representative from one of those nations, China, offered the correct response to Beckett's childish speech.
China's deputy ambassador to the UN, Liu Zhenmin, was blunt in rejecting the session.
"The developing countries believe that [the] Security Council does not have the professional competence for handling climate change, nor is it the right decision-making place for extensive participation," Mr Liu said.
China and Russia, among others, warned that the council's mandate was limited to peace and security. So did Pakistan, on behalf of 130 developing nations, which argued that the council was encroaching on more representative bodies, such as the 192-member General Assembly.
Labour need to change their slogan. "New Labour - making Britain a laughing stock" would be about right.
Now that takes some doing, but she has managed it.
Chairing a UN Security Council debate, Beckett used the opportunity to claim that the biggest threat to world security right now is - climate change. Not terrorism or Islamic extremism, then? Not a nuclear armed North Korea or Iran, then? Not a destabilising in the governments of nuclear armed Pakistan or Russia, then?
No - the biggest threat to the world's security is something that may never happen and which, from a national perspective, can be mitigated relatively easily.
"This is an issue which threatens the peace and security of the whole planet - this has to be the right place to debate it," Mrs Beckett said.
If unproven hypotheses that threaten the peace and security of the whole planet are issues which need to be debated by the UN Security Council then I can only presume that the next debate will be on how to prevent an alien invasion force from taking over the world or what can be done to prevent the earth being devastated by a meteor strike. These are obviously far more pressing concerns for Mrs Beckett than genocide in Darfur, the threat to African stability caused by the implosion of the Zimbabwean economy or the dire situation in the Middle East.
She warned of migration on an unprecedented scale because of flooding, disease and famine.
All of which can be easily mitigated by Britain and most of the world - even assuming it is likely (which it isn't).
Drought and crop failure would also cause intensified competition for food, water and energy, and result in economic destruction comparable to World War II or the Great Depression.
Once again, assuming this could happen and is likely - which there is no evidence to suggest it is - then these can be mitigated relatively simply. In Britain's case by becoming much more self-sufficient in terms of food and energy supply, implementing stringent immigration policies and by having armed forces capable of defending a fairly easily defensible island.
"Climate change is a security issue but it is not a matter of narrow national security - it has a new dimension," she said.
Aha! A new dimension, eh? None of that narrow nationalistic stuff that Beckett is supposed to be concerned about. Oh no, she has much grander plans and visions than simple concern for British interests.
"This is about our collective security in a fragile and increasingly interdependent world."
And that's it? That's the "new dimension"? I'd like to ask Mrs Beckett why it is that after more than 50 years of the United Nations and fifty years of European Union our world is so fragile? And this interdependency myth is one that needs examination as, while some nations such as Britain become increasingly "interdependent" (just another way of saying "dependent" without making it sound like dependent) other nations such as India and China feel increasingly self-reliant, self-confident and are taking on more leading roles on the world stage.
The representative from one of those nations, China, offered the correct response to Beckett's childish speech.
China's deputy ambassador to the UN, Liu Zhenmin, was blunt in rejecting the session.
"The developing countries believe that [the] Security Council does not have the professional competence for handling climate change, nor is it the right decision-making place for extensive participation," Mr Liu said.
China and Russia, among others, warned that the council's mandate was limited to peace and security. So did Pakistan, on behalf of 130 developing nations, which argued that the council was encroaching on more representative bodies, such as the 192-member General Assembly.
Labour need to change their slogan. "New Labour - making Britain a laughing stock" would be about right.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
At last - some good news
David Milliband is NOT going to stand for the Labour leadership.
Thank God for that. It's bad enough Britain being humiliated by having a Mr Bean in the Royal Navy - could you imagine the world's reaction if we have another one as our Prime Minister?
Thank God for that. It's bad enough Britain being humiliated by having a Mr Bean in the Royal Navy - could you imagine the world's reaction if we have another one as our Prime Minister?
Monday, April 16, 2007
Understanding comprehension
Do politicians ever listen to themselves? Do you think they actually know what they are saying - or why they are saying it?
Judging by Sky's report on International Development Secretary (why do we want or need an International Development Secretary?), Hilary Benn's intended speech today it is easy to reach the conclusion that they neither think about what they are saying or understand it.
Britain has decided to ban the term 'War on Terror' - sparking fears of a major row with the US.
The International Development Secretary will say the phrase has strengthened militant groups by giving them a shared identity.
Yeah, right! Like the thing uppermost on the mind of a terrorist is establishing a "shared identity". What strengthens militant groups is abject capitulation as a reaction to terrorist violence or even the threat of terrorist violence - like in Spain a few years back when a carefully timed mass murder changed the course of an election.
But it's typical of liberal progressives like Mr Benn to weigh up all the evidence and come to the most errant conclusion. It probably has something to do with years exposed to highly educated people with degrees in "social science" who have spent lifetimes trying to understand what it is that makes people do the things that they do - and having done so, then ignore the obvious.
Mr Benn will say in his speech: "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'War on Terror' because we can't win by military means alone, and because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.
For Mr Benn's benefit - no war can be won by military means alone. What is needed above all else in any war is a willingness on the part of governments to win and to then speak and act with that goal in mind. That willingness needs to be replicated through all strands of government and permeate through the media and institutions to the people. Jingoism may not necessarily win a war, but nothing ensures defeat like defeatism.
He's also wrong to claim that the terrorists do not have a clear - or shared - identity. They do - it's just that Mr Benn is too culturally sensitive to say it. The one thing they have in common is that they are muslim. Mr Benn may not like to admit that, but that is the reality of the situation. The fear of Mr Benn and the liberal progressives is that admitting that the enemy we face is Islamic in nature is tantamount to suggesting that all muslims are terrorists. Of course they aren't and that is not what is being said by admitting that the vast majority of terrorists are muslim - but it does reveal that these groups share a common thread. And a common objective to - although it has to be said that the objective isn't particularly coherent.
On the matter of coherence, Mr Benn reveals a moment of enlightenment when he says ....
"What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others without dialogue, without debate, through violence."
Er - that's about right, except they are not "individual" values, but the values which are enshrined and shared by a number of legitimate nation states, by millions of people and which our own governments have made many concessions on in our own nations. In the very next sentence, Benn reveals his sheer ignorance.
"And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength."
Part of something bigger? Give me strength! These people believe they have God on their side. They believe they are in the spearhead of a movement totalling some one and a half billion people. What could be bigger than that!?! They believe that their actions will bring about the destruction of Satan and guarantee them eternal life in paradise - and Mr Benn thinks that they get their "strength" from fairly meaningless terminology?
They gain their strength from their faith - and by every small victory. Every little propaganda piece, every little anti-western snippet, every little concession - which we think is minor and just "reporting the facts", but it all adds up to them. That is what gives them strength far more than any term used to describe them.
Finally, to prove my point that politicians do not think about what they are saying - having told us that "these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others without dialogue, without debate, through violence" Sky then tells us that ......
Mr Benn will also urge world leaders to open dialogue with potential enemies rather than use military force.
Right. And what should they say?
We surrender?
Judging by Sky's report on International Development Secretary (why do we want or need an International Development Secretary?), Hilary Benn's intended speech today it is easy to reach the conclusion that they neither think about what they are saying or understand it.
Britain has decided to ban the term 'War on Terror' - sparking fears of a major row with the US.
The International Development Secretary will say the phrase has strengthened militant groups by giving them a shared identity.
Yeah, right! Like the thing uppermost on the mind of a terrorist is establishing a "shared identity". What strengthens militant groups is abject capitulation as a reaction to terrorist violence or even the threat of terrorist violence - like in Spain a few years back when a carefully timed mass murder changed the course of an election.
But it's typical of liberal progressives like Mr Benn to weigh up all the evidence and come to the most errant conclusion. It probably has something to do with years exposed to highly educated people with degrees in "social science" who have spent lifetimes trying to understand what it is that makes people do the things that they do - and having done so, then ignore the obvious.
Mr Benn will say in his speech: "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'War on Terror' because we can't win by military means alone, and because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.
For Mr Benn's benefit - no war can be won by military means alone. What is needed above all else in any war is a willingness on the part of governments to win and to then speak and act with that goal in mind. That willingness needs to be replicated through all strands of government and permeate through the media and institutions to the people. Jingoism may not necessarily win a war, but nothing ensures defeat like defeatism.
He's also wrong to claim that the terrorists do not have a clear - or shared - identity. They do - it's just that Mr Benn is too culturally sensitive to say it. The one thing they have in common is that they are muslim. Mr Benn may not like to admit that, but that is the reality of the situation. The fear of Mr Benn and the liberal progressives is that admitting that the enemy we face is Islamic in nature is tantamount to suggesting that all muslims are terrorists. Of course they aren't and that is not what is being said by admitting that the vast majority of terrorists are muslim - but it does reveal that these groups share a common thread. And a common objective to - although it has to be said that the objective isn't particularly coherent.
On the matter of coherence, Mr Benn reveals a moment of enlightenment when he says ....
"What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others without dialogue, without debate, through violence."
Er - that's about right, except they are not "individual" values, but the values which are enshrined and shared by a number of legitimate nation states, by millions of people and which our own governments have made many concessions on in our own nations. In the very next sentence, Benn reveals his sheer ignorance.
"And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength."
Part of something bigger? Give me strength! These people believe they have God on their side. They believe they are in the spearhead of a movement totalling some one and a half billion people. What could be bigger than that!?! They believe that their actions will bring about the destruction of Satan and guarantee them eternal life in paradise - and Mr Benn thinks that they get their "strength" from fairly meaningless terminology?
They gain their strength from their faith - and by every small victory. Every little propaganda piece, every little anti-western snippet, every little concession - which we think is minor and just "reporting the facts", but it all adds up to them. That is what gives them strength far more than any term used to describe them.
Finally, to prove my point that politicians do not think about what they are saying - having told us that "these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others without dialogue, without debate, through violence" Sky then tells us that ......
Mr Benn will also urge world leaders to open dialogue with potential enemies rather than use military force.
Right. And what should they say?
We surrender?
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Puppet government
Watching Question Time last week, I couldn't help thinking that Blair "babe", Hazel Blears, reminded me of somebody, but I couldn't for the life of me work out who it was.
The clues were all there.
The clues were all there.
The strangely bobbing head. The fake, fixed smile. The empty, vacant expression. Eyes that looked but didn't see. The mouth that moved as if disconnected from the brain. The words that came out which were clearly rehearsed, scripted and often incomprehensible to the speaker.
Today, I realised who she reminded me of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)