Business as usual for the Blair brand as our mate Tone brings out his new book. Not read it and have no plans to catch what may well be the longest excuse ever written. Nice to see (presumably his publishers) try to generate a little heat by releasing snippets on Blair’s views on Brown. This easy target is a rather sad one, considering man-of-the-people and all round chummy chap Tony and the glum Scot used to pitch themselves as the best of friends. No more cobblers I suppose than these PR punts to avoid Tony’s Tome hitting the remainder buckets, and to limit the damage by Mandy scooping his former Leader last month with his own money-spinning back-stabber.
Having managed to secure an historic entry into the government of the UK, the Lib Dems are now struggling to appreciate the opportunity handed to them despite a less than sparkling endorsement from the electorate. Both Charles Kennedy and Paddy Ashdown are now acting like the parents of a debutante whose virtue was lost too cheaply following the Ball. Commentators are saying that Lib Dem members are uneasy about their role in a Conservative coalition. This week’s special conference could see more whinging from the rank-and-file reportedly nervous that they could be swallowed up by Tory dominance. The evident discomfort of Vince Cable trying to respond to Cameron’s compliments in introducing him as the new Business Secretary is perhaps the most visible example of Lib Dems coming to terms with a new political reality.
How dumb are these people ? This represents a unique opportunity for the Lib Dems to eclipse Labour, despite the batting order of party power indicated by the recent election. The Labour Party is in the throes of electing new leaders, and with candidates like Ed Balls and the Milliband Bros will end up with a complete non-entity in charge; powerless in the face of a resurgent union powerbase. The Lib Dems by contrast need to focus their energies on maintaining their identity within a governing coalition and taking every opportunity to demonstrate their contribution to the electorate. They need a Campbell-figure who can take advantage of the Party’s role to reinvent Liberalism in the eyes of the public. A possibility exists – however slim – to consign Labour to the role of 3rd party in UK politics IF the Lib Dems have the wit to grab it. Time is short and all the signs are they will waste this chance with an extended bout of hand-wringing and petulance which will leave the Tories to demonstrate their leadership. Policy failures could be laid at the LibDem door is they are not careful.
Old hands like Ashdown and Kennedy (reported laughingly as representing the “radical” wing of the Liberal-Democrats – surely a contradiction in terms ?) need to contribute their political experience to the benefit of their party, or keep quiet. All Liberal-Democrats need to recognise the possibility open to them from this entry into government and use it to transform their party in the eyes of the public. Have they the depth and collective intelligence needed to grasp it ? Perhaps they are just too nice ……. but dim.
Who could have called this result ? Jensen Button drives a shrewd race to win the Australian Grand Prix today in Melbourne, assisted by an incident-laden afternoon down under. Sebastian Vettel looked like a winner from pole, staying clear of a few shunts at the start but ultimately succumbing to a repeat of the brake failure that saw his demise during the Bahrain race. The race was not handed to Button, who bravely came in early to switch back to slicks on a track that was barely beginning to dry out. The World Champion slip-slided out of the pits, did a brief bit of mowing the verge before settling down and taking the lead as the field scrambled to switch tyres 3 laps later.
McLaren teammate Lewis Hamilton showcased his abilities after a terrible qualifying session yesterday, bringing his car back from 11th on the grid to 3rd and challenging Kubica for 2nd before a disastrous decision to pit for a tyre change. Once again the smart money was on this being the correct move, as the tyres went off for the rest of the field. It was not to be as the occasional damp, off-line parts of the track assisted tyre longevity. Hamilton drove beautifully to bring himself back behind the Ferraris, wasted time whinging on the radio to his crew and crying about the news tyres going off in the bad air behind Alonso. True that the stop cost him a podium and, arguably, a win but the otherwise respectable 6th was useful and a relief given he was t-boned off by a charging Mark Webber; the Red Bull driver clearly frustrated at not being higher up the field in his home GP.
Not much showing from Schumacher as he continues to find his racing legs. Great result for Renault with Kubica in 2nd; Massa looking very unsteady but managing to stay ahead of Alonso but only just. Terribly nice chap Heikki Kovalainen looked relaxed and happy, leading the so-called second tier of Cosworth-powered new teams – good to see him continuing in Formula One.
Vastly more entertaining racing despite a middling BBC coverage. Jake Humphrey continues to mature and helms well, assisted by David Coulthard and Eddie Jordan, keeping the comment and news around the actual race relatively bright and interesting. Radio-hack Legard continues to be a massive irritation, only partially relieved by the presence of Brundle, as this muppet continues to present a masterclass in stating the bleeding obvious and demonstrating a penchant for football-commentator-style incoherence when he finally realises that something of note has happened on the track. Bloody awful and totally detracts from an otherwise pro package from Auntie.
Congratulations to Jensen Button. Thoroughly deserved win from cool tactics, mature decisions and a characteristically smooth drive. Completely vindicates CEO Martin Whitmarsh’s recruitment drive to nab him from Brawn, against the general opinion (including mine!). Great stuff.
Today’s letter in the Guardian from 95 experts in industrial relations is misguided at best. They are reported as crediting BA’s Chief Exec Willy Walsh with union-breaking tactics and state that “victory” for the company would mean a “unilateral management prerogative” which would ride roughshod over workers’ rights. Probably true but these academics do need to get out more.
The up-front reason for the strike as suggested by Unite is because BA were attempting to bring in working practices at Heathrow without consultation. Yet these same working practices are already in operation – with union agreement – at Gatwick. BA is making a loss and had the highest cabin cost base of any airline in the world (average wage £30,000 per annum versus non-BA average of £15,000). Far from the reverse, this strike is an attempt by the union to break the management. It makes far less sense than, say, the potential dispute from the Rail Union RMT and militant bruvva, Bob Crow – who at least can point to safety as his pretext.
So British Airways will fall under industrial action again today and it is not clear precisely what Unite expects to achieve on behalf of its members. The union leadership will no doubt feel justified by the letter to the Guardian, however absurd its assertions. Having felt a twinge of nostalgia for old union leaders and Communist Party of Great Britain comrades like Mick McGahey (NUM) and Hugh Scanlon (AEU) – the architects of some of the big strikes of the 70s and 80s – it seems the principles of militancy and self-promotion they upheld are alive and well in the union leadership of today. Step forward Tony Woodley of Unite (2009 salary, pension and expenses £122K+) and Bob Crow of the RMT (£120K). Heroes of the working class indeed. Woodley’s Unite chum, Derek Simpson takes the brass-neck award: According to an article in the Times last year, he received nearly £200,000 in pay and benefits, with his pay package increased 17 percent in 2010. He also has the right to stay in his £800,000 house in Hertfordshire until he dies. Check out the pay of the rich and shameless here.
Andrew Marr had the pleasure of George Osborne’s company on his Sunday morning show on the Beeb today. The Shadow Chancellor treated us to more waffle about the “… values …” of a Tory government – but no actual plans. Particularly irritating was the deflection of questions on specifics by continually spouting that he knows the electorate best and what we really want is the end of a Labour government. So “Labour Out” then, at any cost.
Is it fair that the Conservatives cannot be specific (about cuts in public services, for example) without more economic data ? Seems reasonable but surely they could posit something more tangible than George’s “specific examples” ? They come across as being scared of being called out (again) by government economists who disparage any figures they generate (prompted by the likes of Darling and Brown who inappropriately used Treasury civil servants to rubbish previous Tory pronouncements).
Marr’s guests Greg Dyke and Jane Moore had already raised the interesting Sunday Times headline that Brown is on track for retaining power – the result of a YouGov poll which sees the difference between the two nags in this electorial race dropping to 2%. A prominent Labour-loving headline from a News International brand is certainly a bit of a surprise !
As the interview progressed, I felt Osborne did say more. The problem with this – and Osborne is not alone – is that to the viewer, the die is cast when he has spent 10 minutes already NOT answering the question. By the time he gets to telling us something, we have stopped listening.
So once again: what do the Tories have in store for us ? When are they going to say something tangible and stop blowing raspberries and going ‘nah nah nah’ to Labour ?
What will a Conservative government really do to the BBC ?
How will promised tax reductions (in inheritance and corporation tax) be paid for ?
What plans do the Conservatives have for electoral reform ?
What plans do the Conservatives have for reforming MP’s remuneration and standards in public life ?
What are the key foreign policy plans that the Conservatives wish to pursue ?
Foreign policy specifics, please: Afghanistan, Iraq and Europe would be a start. Israel, Gaza and the Falklands would also be nice to know. Come on William (Hague) !
Maybe we will hear more as the Tories gather in Brighton for their last hurrah before the election. Hope so. With luck, perhaps today’s middling media coverage will prompt Cameron to be more positive and less patronising in talking to voters. If not, he needs to learn that all Labour need do is sit back, say little and they will win. The latest Labour tactic of scaremongering about a return to a “right-wing” government under the Tories is working. Cameron needs to counter it – but with policies, not pouting.
OK – so this subject is getting a fair bit of blogosphere babbling at the mo. Does not make it a bad idea, of course, so I thought I would chuck in a few words of my own on the matter.
A “Robin Hood Tax” has generally been taken to describe a tax on the Banks and, twitchy but mislead that we all are, it has not been embraced wholeheartedly. It may be seen as kicking them when they are down. Complete bollox, of course, and I am sure the righteous-indignation meter is starting to peak frequently. Background is that a minor campaign for a version of such a tax is starting to get twittered, blogged and generally pushed via the internet. A neat little video from Richard Curtis and starring Bill Nighy is doing the rounds – scroll down to watch it.
Sounds like a winner to me. A few fractional points on each Bank transaction that does not involve an individual – presumably sparing personal accounts but not so sure about company current accounts – would be applied. The video suggests this would raise over £100billion (I am guessing per year). With a £700billion plus public spending overdraft, this sounds like a cracking move.
I wonder which of the political bands of merry men will jump on this bandwagon first. Certainly the Tories need to do something sensible and quickly, as whichever idiot Cameron has advising him should be fired PDQ ! The Eton Rifle’s playground attacks on Brown of late smack of desperation – the public already knows what an egomaniac Brown is and they are looking to the opposition to provide some genuine policies. On this latest performance, Cameron Ain’t Cutting It. Today, I would not vote Conservative ….. and I actually want to. Go figure.
So, I await with interest a more thorough analysis of the Curtis/Nighy Robin Hood Tax proposal from wiser souls. If you spot a decent article then please add a link as a comment to this article. (Click on the article headline and scroll down the page to find the comments box).
Amidst the revival of the backward Unite union’s attempts to convince their cabin crew members at British Airways to strike, it is worth repeating some of the material the press has unearthed about this bizarre dispute. The background to Unite’s recommendation for strike action – which was endorsed by members wholeheartedly in a vote before Christmas – are BA’s plans to implement working practices already in force at Gatwick, at Heathrow. Apparently the union was a bit miffed at not being consulted. It has since been reported that they were consulted but blocked the new working stipulations in a rather 70′s flexing of their shop-steward muscles.
These lunatic lemmings seem hell-bent on damaging the airline despite an economic crisis which the airline industry feels all the more acutely. I was lucky to chat with BA employees and customers to get their views. According to those I talked to, the high vote for strike action last year was due in part to the fact that the Unite members assumed they were voting for occasional, low-key actions as opposed to an all-out, death-match permanent strike. As Unite got kicked in their collective goolies by the High Court in the UK, a Christmas strike was averted but not before the damage to BA’s reputation was done – particularly amongst its North American customers. So these left-wing muppets are having another go in an exercise that seems more about the egos of the union representatives than it really does about protecting their members.
BA Cabin Crew earn on average almost double their counterparts at other airlines. Attempts by management to reduce the level of staffing on their flights to manage the impact of this inflated cost-base are also being given the 2-fingered salute by Unite. For example, a typical 747 flight requires 16 cabin crew; BA are asking to reduce this to 15. Redundancies are already happening; those cabin crew looking to keep working and to move into ground roles are being faced with the rude realities of pay cuts as they lose their flight allowances. BA Pilots have already accepted a pay cut, arguably because their larger salaries can accommodate a little pruning.
Willy Walsh has responded to the threat by asking non-crew to volunteer to fill-in for striking cabin crew and is actively asking for applicants to undertake training. You cannot fault him for trying to get ahead of the game and, above all, avoid the large scale cancellations that will prompt fliers to switch in advance (as I did over Christmas – sampling the lesser charms of Continental to ensure I could get back to Blighty for a family do). Sadly, customers booking ahead cannot predict the availability of BA flights so will naturally plump for another airline. Will they, like me, return ? Possibly.
Consider the backdrop to this sorry affair. Japan Airlines (JAL) went into receivership today. Surviving airlines are rushing to find allies in code- and cost-sharing agreements in order to survive. Analysts have responded positively to the pending BA-Iberia merger and are reportedly seeing this as the dream ticket in the industry. The British Airways’ reputation for quality means they stand to gain most from any recovery in corporate travel spending. (Certainly my clients in the City are now resuming air travel with gusto). All of this is now jeopardised by Unite’s ridiculous exercise in futility. See their press release, in response to Walsh’s call for internal support, which includes the following gem:
“Tony Woodley, Unite joint general secretary, said: “This is a provocative attempt by BA to disrupt negotiations. It is inconceivable that BA should even be thinking of running its airline – the national carrier – with scab labour who have had only minimum training. This shows contempt for professionalism of cabin crew.”
It is indeed “… inconceivable that BA should even be thinking of running its airline….”. That – of course – is the job of those pillocks at Unite. I do strive to keep a certain level of professional analysis and perceptive comment here at BabbleTalk; so please forgive the following observation: Tony Woodley – you are a complete tosser ! I bet your salary is sorted should BA go down the crapper or get taken over by a foreign airline. Well done !
Receiving some small media attention is the decision to allow the first criminal trial to be decided by a judge alone – that of 4 alleged armed robbers due to start this week – as the Lord Chief Justice decreed last year that jury tampering in this case was a real threat. This is the thin end of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 whereby those nice NuLabour types decided that a right enshrined by Magna Carta was a tad too difficult for them to manipulate and oh so terribly expensive – leaving them less millions to squander on Infrastructure UK, Partnerships UK or some other bloody quango-money-pit-do-nothing jobs-for-the-Labour-boys.
I only spotted this from an article by Lord Jezza (Jeremy Clarkson, for it is he) hidden away in today’s Sunday Times’ News Review. It was also reported again by Marcel Berlins in the Guardian. Perhaps there are too many other crises vying for our limited attention these days to warrant getting any airtime but this for me is a terrible turn of events.
As Clarkson says, Jury Duty is a pain. Having done it when I was a single parent, it could not have come at a worse time for me. However, there was a feeling of ‘the system works’ and ‘having done one’s duty’ on its completion. It is good that it takes effort; that it is out of the dirty hands of politicians and away from the whim of the nutter. Above all, it is crucial that the presence of a jury means that the ‘executive’ has less chance to influence the ‘judiciary’ – and the result of a trial – unduly. That independence is potentially more under threat – although it would be interesting to hear the views of Britain’s judges on the matter. I know there has been some discussion on the presence of juries in complex technical cases – such as fraud in the financial markets or hacking/technological crime. Perhaps we could adopt a Grand Jury approach ? A group of 12 wise-and-true are at least called upon to decide whether a trial is eligible for judge-only decisions (of course then those chosen to serve may well plump for judge-only to get themselves off the hook to serve in the trial-proper…). Tricky stuff.
Sure, the right to a jury was withdrawn in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. I am not sure it was a fine day for freedom but the circumstances may well have been appropriate. Dunno. For sure, the trial of allegedly gun-toting thieves in London sounds like run-of-the-mill stuff and, protection of jury members aside, no reason to forego one of King John’s key come-uppances.
I doubt this issue will hit the radar in any big way in the run up to the election but I will be looking to see what the parties have planned for Criminal Justice reform, if anything. Perhaps those nice people at 38 Degrees might look into it ?
US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, has apparently been briefed by Google on their plans to remove censorship of search results on their Chinese site. This could lead to the banning of the search leader from far eastern shores and their withdrawal from China. Google are further claiming that operating in possibly the strongest economy in the world has its drawbacks, aside from Beijing’s insistence on massaging the results of any searches. Specifically, that Google’s servers are constantly threatened by hackers, along with those of other companies operating in the country, and lays the blame for this squarely with the Chinese state. PC Pro reported that the cyber-attacks culminated in the compromise of the email account details of at least 2 human-rights activists.
Within hours of reports that Clinton has asked China to explain the allegations, the White House appeared to be isolating her by saying that the administration had left its response “to Secretary of State … who is scheduled to give an address on Internet freedom next week”. Presumably in an attempt to avoid pissing Beijing off, they are trying to climb back onto the fence.
That the Chinese State uses hacking techniques as part of its intelligence arsenal is not exactly news. I worked for 2 years with a major Chinese supplier of telecommunications and networking equipment. I was deeply suspicious about some of the software that was provided and my attempts to block access by their ‘engineering’ teams drew accusations of racism, mis-trust and fraud. Charming ! Admittedly, there was little proof – just a feeling – and network traces proved little. I doubt any data would have revealed much anyway as the company failed to get significant traffic flowing – mainly as a result of the poor quality of the system – but it did generate a little paranoia in my otherwise trusting soul.
That said, I have also dealt with the more traditional Chinese economy by using factories over there to produce goods for sale over here. Quality was occasionally suspect but the people I dealt with were straight and for the most part responsive. Keen to do business with Europe, they enjoyed the bargaining and pretty much met their promises. Don’t paint the people with the same brush as the State.
If Google’s actions do result in them being kicked out, it will be interesting to see the effects – if any. They have been slagged off for their original decision to kow-tow despite the defense that any online visibility for the people of the, er, People’s Republic is better than none. Certainly, I would hate to be the poor sod grappling with the security of my servers out there. Lest we forget, physical borders have no immediate presence within cyber-space so the fact that certain Minions of Mao may be hacking local servers should wake the world up to the fact they are probably doing similar nasties to networks across the globe.
In the words of the Great KiddyFiddler himself:
“All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality they are not so powerful. From a long-term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are really powerful.”
Thanks to political blogger Iain Dale, who twittered the latest on the Trafigura saga. The New Statesman reports that the BBC have apparently pulled all reference from their website to their Newsnight piece on freedom of speech and the Minton Report in response to pressure from lawyers, Carter Ruck.
Worthy of a look. The material includes Paxman interviewing Mark Stephens – a ‘media lawyer’ and a Trustee of the Index On Censorship – alongside Matthew Nicklin – a barrister specialising in media cases. I am not sure what prompted the BBC’s latest timidity but I do hope this story rebounds back into the limelight so the shameful practice of limiting reporting of parliamentary affairs (let alone genuine, global public interest stories) is stopped. Trafigura must be rueing the retention of Carter Ruck with their rather extreme tactics pushing the polluting petroleum producer back into the media – assisted by Britain’s antique libel laws (i.e. old, quaint, useless and very expensive).
Thanks to Dani for this excellent contribution : Political Spin – How It Is Done !
It’s all in the wording you see. It just all depends on how you look at some things…
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Congressman Harry Reid‘s great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory:
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory in 1889
On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: ‘Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.’
So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle. Believe it or not, Harry Reid’s staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
“Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed..”
Yesterday’s Sunday Times carried a startling and otherwise unreported brief on “…danger money…” paid to Ministry of Defence civil servants working in conflict zones (NB: not on the front line, natch).
A “junior” civil servant gets £6,750 PER MONTH
(£1,500 Conflict Zone and £5,250 for “long hours”)
Announced in December 2007, the independent review into the crash of Nimrod XV230 in Afghanistan in 2006 by Charles Haddon-Cave QC reported today. The outcome contains some of the harshest criticism of government and civilian contractor mis-management ever heard. Jeremy Paxman challenged a contrite Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, on tonight’s BBC Newsnight. Ainsworth – to his credit – recognised that the report contained “… justifiable criticisms…of the MoD [Ministry of Defence]“, and said that he was “dreadfully sorry for the loss of life…”.
Haddon-Cave specifically pointed to the breakdown of the covenant between Britain and its armed forces as a result of the “organisational trauma” generated by Labour Party policy. His criticism contains yet more strident echoes of earlier attacks on defence procurement ‘policy’ which have indirectly led to loss of life in Afghanistan (through inadequate or non-existent equipment). This is a terrible example of how this government cannot implement policy in a coherent manner. The loss of 14 lives is a tragic outcome of incompetence for which, at the very least, a resignation or two might be expected.
If this were a company (and 2 companies are involved in the maintenance of the Nimrod – BAE Systems and Kinetiq) then Corporate Manslaughter prosecutions might surely be considered. However unlikely – given an Administration that is so totally separated from moral realities – it seems reasonable that such negligence is punished severely. Another dreadful example of the real results of incompetent implementation of arrogantly short-sighted and criminally inefficient government policies. If Cameron and the Tories – as Her Majesty’s Official Opposition – fail to tackle the government on these criticisms, they too are indictable in my mind.
The appearance of Nick Griffin on Thursday’s Question Time has generated predictable criticism of the BBC. Amongst others, this includes politicians using indignation to deflect attention from the fact that they alone are responsible for the reported 22% support for the loathsome BNP in some parts of the UK. Griffin’s performance was suitably naive and nasty, albeit toned-down, all part of his masterplan to make the BNP acceptable and electable.
Race
Before analysing him and his party, it is worth getting annoyed about the smug way in which many politicians bask in the derision of the BNP without recognising the cause of the rise of this group of thugs. Politicians have let down the public in this country – and continue to do so – forcing people to seek an outlet or agent who can respond to their feelings of betrayal. This is not a racist issue, yet it is convenient for people like Jack Straw to allow that argument to obscure the underlying sense of disgust from ordinary voters towards their elected representatives. Take immigration: Baroness Warsi was at least coherent in defining the issue as one of resources – can Britain continue to support a major jump of 10 – 15% in its population ? Until the Tory peer said this, no party would have had the guts to say that immigration is ‘bad’, for fear of being labelled racist. Indeed, some incredible reports suggest that the high levels of immigration to the UK in recent years is actually considered and secret Labour policy. Whether true or not, such reports do nothing for establishing trust in one’s ‘leaders’.
Credibility
Consider next the House of Commons’ own attempts to clean up. Sir Nicholas Legg’s actions as part of an attempt to clean up the MP Expenses row are largely discredited. Whilst he has been described as applying rules ‘retrospectively’, there seems to be no coherent set of expenses rules actually published. What he did was to apply a set of ‘moral’ rules with little consistency. As a result, the expenses issue remains, whilst the main party leaders try to avoid the topic and wish it would just quietly go away. Failure to tackle this issue quickly means that – to us – MPs are a race apart from mere mortals. Being a politician is a jolly, not an obligation. All of which will be used by an otherwise corrupt and hungry BNP to distance themselves morally from the mainstream parties.
Fairness
Mark Byford, Director-General of the BBC, rightly defended Griffin’s inclusion on the programme. The fact that all attention now is put on analysing the BBC and not the BNP is a disgrace perpetuated by the newspapers, politicians and commentators. It is missing the point and works to the benefit of Griffin and his cohorts. There can be no doubt that the BNP actually stand for getting themselves into power – nothing more tangible than that. If hatred and group-manipulation are what it takes to achieve recognition, then those are the ‘policies’ that Griffin will espouse. All this criticism of others merely removes scrutiny of what this band of thugs says and what they do.
A Lesson From History
It is easy to compare the BNP to the Nazis, and it is a typical post-National Front epithet for a group such as this. Griffin is many things but not a complete imbecile. His game is power and his performance on Question Time a wonderful view into the mindset of – not only the man but – his group. Hitler and the German National Socialists had similar levels of support when he too adopted the tactic of reasonable, rational and reckoned heightening of the concerns of ordinary people. Hitler had his scapegoat – the Jews – so it will be interesting to see who the BNP actually fix upon as the real cause of Britain’s woes (that Griffin and the BNP can, of course, salve and save). The joke is that, with this type of politician, it will be a group that most effectively stoke up the worries of Griffin’s constituency. By this I mean that it could be white, middle class ‘ruling elite’ (i.e politicians) whom Griffin selects as the nigger-in-the-woodpile (and I use that dreadful term consciously). Whoever they select to vilify, it will obscure the fact that it is minorities, politics and ultimately freedom that will suffer should these cretins manage to convince an increasing number of us that they are the only choice. Is that likely ? I think not. My point is that it is career politicians of whatever party to whom we should turn to make these nutters fade away.
The Blame Game
It is the self-serving, egotistical and frankly arrogant inactions of the mainstream politicians that permits such Parties-of-Discontent to foster. Shame on them, as usual. As for the suggestion that the BBC is giving legitimacy to such thugs – not true. If a million people have voted for these bullies then it is the public who are giving them credibility and it is the fault of the politicians for being so odious as to force people to vote for the BNP.
It has been a busy blogging week with the Tory conference and, to me, a real sea-change in the Tory approach. The week started with a poor performance from Cameron against Andrew Marr on the BBC but, once into conference mode, the Conservatives seem to be getting it. Rather than just slag off New Labour and take personal pot shots at individual ministers, the Tories are starting to talk action. Some snippets of policy planning are coming through and, as a group, the Conservatives are rightly not sitting back and expecting the significant swing they need in the next Election to just come their way. More fluid now as they are up-front about the lack of a detailed manifesto (yet), sowing the seeds for more detail later.
I caught Cameron’s speech yesterday on the news and what a difference a week makes ! (and perhaps the absence of a probing interviewer). More about what they (the Tories) will do in power as opposed to carping on about the complete hash that Labour is making of it. Finally they are bold enough to assert that Labour is far from the caring crew that tradition had annointed them. This has long been my argument against, and my frustration with, the Blair approach which so far has not been tempered much by Brown. Any group which contains people describing the massacre of 9/11 as “….a good day to bury bad news…” has adopted an ethos which is beyond the pale. Could it be that the Tough, Toffish Tories become the Caring Conservatives ? It may be the stuff of which satirists dream, but so what ? I have long held that New Labourites do not deserve to be seen as the people’s party.
So enough about the party cultures; bring on the policies. Sorry to see my newest hero, Chris Grayling, making a huge gaff on the adoption by the Conservatives of Sir Richard Dannett. Oh well. I missed Grayling’s conference speech but I hope he will welcome Dannett’s presence, even if a peerage is the price tag. Someone who genuinely cares for his soldiers, Dannett is a former Chief of the General Staff (Head of the British Army) who has frequently been in vocal and public opposition to the Government on Afghanistan, and Defence Policy generally (I also missed Liam Fox on this – must catch up as I hope the Tories will provide some coherent plans and support our troops).
Now to see if Dave keeps the collective Conservative promise and starts to build and publicise their Manifesto for the 2010 Election. To the hustings …….
The Tories kicked off their election campaigning in earnest with the big speech on the economy today. Jeremy Paxman led Newsnight’s analysis of Osborne’s ‘We Are All In This Together’ speech tonight with a his usual scepticism. Not entirely a thumbs-up for the Shadow Chancellor. I was with Paxman, until he interviewed Chris Grayling MP, the Shadow Home Secretary.
A meek, quiet but relatively confident politician, I had never heard of him. Where have the Tories been hiding this guy ? He met Paxman’s probing well, and offered facts in response to questions. Good god, is this chap a political infant ? Yes indeedy, I have finally heard real numbers being expressed which make some kind of sense. Grayling said that tax rises could not be ruled out but maintained the line that the final numbers would only be known as the economic measures became clear. In other words, a Shadow Budget is needed and, whilst not stated, Grayling lent weight to measured thinking now with hard facts to follow. Above all, he kept to the refrain that cuts in waste are the preferred line to managing the budget deficit.
I found Osborne’s substance interesting, let down slightly by his delivery, but at least making me feel that the Tories are turning towards thinking instead of bitching. If they can get rid of this European blight amidst their rank-and-file then perhaps the week will have seen an about-turn from my criticism of Cameron at the weekend.
With chaps like Grayling in the group, again some cause for optimism amongst Tory supporters. This guy had the same quiet credibility that I would attribute to old hands like Clarke and – especially – William Hague. So much more convincing than some, more manufactured Blair-clones which perhaps remain essential in any party character arsenal in order to get media attention.
If one assumes that Conservative economic policy planning is coming along nicely, we might now look forwards to the Tory position on Foreign Affairs – especially the approach to be taken in Afghanistan and perhaps wider Defence and International Development Policies. Improving Britain’s standing in the world remains a secondary but important priority for me, alongside shoring-up the Union and stoking the domestic economy to increase GDP.
That leaves policy execution. In an earlier article, I made much of the lack of management skills in our existing government. Too early for the Conservatives to pitch this…..yet. One can only hope they remember that the same organisations Osborne and Grayling lauded (corporate Britain) in managing their way out of the slump, did so by skillful and efficient implementation of strategies to achieve their goals. We need politicians who can do, not just talk. Tonight was not the first time I felt one of the parties might have people who can deliver (Vince Cable, for one) but a strong day for the Conservative Party. Pass the champers, Dave !
Having grilled Gordon last week, Andrew Marr had at the Tory Leader, David Cameron today in Manchester ahead of the Conservative Party Conference. The country is expecting policy pronouncements galore and Cameron had to twist and turn with Marr to get in the, somewhat hazy, pitches on employment and general cuts in services.
Once again, my expectations were trashed. Having thought Brown would mumble his way into irrelevancies – and being uncomfortably impressed with his trial outcome against Marr last week – Cameron by contrast, waffled away into oblivion. This was extremely poor stuff, even when you factor in Marr’s sensationalist approach to – yet again – grab headlines for the Beeb’s News programmes. He attempted to foster controversy by an amazing attack on the ‘toffishness’ of Cameron, which yielded nothing informative.
Quite rightly, Marr pointed out that Cameron had actually failed to answer his questions on European policy following Ireland’s ‘Yes’ result this week in their Lisbon Treaty referendum. Cameron had better wake up quickly to the fact that while he pussyfoots around, trying to keep the internal Euro struggles in his party calm, he is bewildering the watching public. Not a good performance and it pains me to say it, flying in the face of my own prejudices. I am biased. I want Labour out; I am tired of this ‘PC”, spin-orientated and actually completely uncaring approach to government. (It’s true – they simply do not care about people – only their own image.) So to Cameron, banging on about the deficit without actually saying how the Conservatives will tackle it – only when – is not good enough.
Cameron’s approach was to attempt to switch discussion towards the failings of Labour. A fine tactic in months gone by but nowhere near what is needed now to demonstrate he and his party are ready for power. I already know Brown is a triumph of timid-spin over substance and execution. What I want to know is what do Cameron & Co have to offer ? Marr was having none of this bitching and managed the Proposed PM well in this regard. As a TV opportunity, Cameron fluffed it so I am looking forwards to the week’s conference. Will he improve on today’s outing ? It was not strong. No substance. Very disappointing.
Gordon Brown appeared on the Andrew Marr Show this morning ahead the Labour Party Conference in Brighton. To me, Brown’s performance was a revelation. There was an awful lot of waffle served but I did recognise some answers in there. There was a confident element to the PM’s points, despite a slight sweat and the amazing questioning by Marr, who chose to quizz Brown on his health and use of medicinal drugs. Sure, the leader’s health should be of public interest but it did open the door for Brown to rattle on about his eyesight and the struggle he has had with it. No doubt garnering a bit of sympathy, he also reduced the amount of time Marr had to pitch more penetrating questions.
I have never had a great deal of time for Brown. I saw a massive ego at work and the way in which his entourage manages detractors inside and outside of the Party smacks of bullying. Early on in the interview, Marr did well to limit the verbal dysentery but lost control and possibly used the drug question to grab it back. The tactic failed and the PM wobbled on. Nevertheless, I found myself at least listening to what Brown had to say. Do I believe him ? No, but I will take more time to listen to him in the future. I suspect his problem is less about his own personal perception amidst the public but the poor way in which the government informs the public about what they are doing and what it means for us ordinaries. Yes, I am almost extolling the vitrtues of the PR approach I have slagged off in the past. Almost !
Rather than using spin and selective briefing to make people look good, perhaps they should get the policy message over more clearly. They do have some (policies), it seems, and Brown announced that a new Business and Financial Services Act will be brought before Parliament after the next Queen’s speech; this legislation meant to give more power to (presumably) the FSA in controlling Banks and their remuneration schemes. If one accepts what Brown said today, then he has maintained Britain’s international reputation by leading the way in managing the financial crisis. Hmmmm, maybe, but I am prepared to listen further. If this is reflected in the general population then it is too early to write off a Labour resurgence in time for the 2010 General Election.
The BBC reported today that 10% of the UK’s prison population is made up of former servicemen. Yet more evidence of the failure of this government to recognise the benefits of a joined-up approach and, at a more basic level, to live up to its duty of care to the men and women who serve in our armed forces. Follow-on reports – possibly aimed at promoting a new book on the Expenses scandal – also refers to moonlighting servicemen and -women struggling to earn extra cash to pay for better personal equipment. Please tell me this is fiction ! No response yet from the government who may, to be fair, be ignoring what could be self-serving puff. With party season upon a jaded public, there are no signs of substantial intellect being employed by politicians of any persuasion.
With the possible exception of the lame-duck Liberal-Democrats, the parties are in a frenzy of fabricating soundbite pronouncements on their ‘intentions’ – a million miles away from actually crafting real policies for the next election. Whilst the Lib-Dems seem to have one or two credible nuggets, they still suffer from the feeble factor (lack of any real chance of contributing to the make-up of the next Parliament). The sight of Jeremy Paxman giving up on professional questioning and just lambasting the likes of Vince Cable on Newsnight illustrates the degree to which they are not seen as having any chance of forming the next government. This despite Clegg’s avowed dream of being the next PM and Cable being the only politician to float some imaginative and considered policy options.
So nothing yet from any party on the war in Afghanistan, the plight of our men and women in the field and the existence of a realistic, rounded and recognisable strategy. Even the obvious economic impact – the prison overpopulation reports neatly demonstrating the crossovers in policy failures – will not encourage the leaders to ditch their PR approach to politics and do that old-fashioned thinking thing. No signs then that the depths to which politics in the UK – and Britain’s reputation abroad – have plumbed are prompting a fresh approach. Shame.
The comment storm surrounding the ‘compassionate’ release of one of the men convicted of facilitating the dreadful Lockerbie airliner bombing, is only just starting. At some point, someone will inevitably say that Magrahi’s release was a function of the Scottish justice system and not a political decision. Cobblers of course as the release on compassionate, health or parole grounds involves the Home Secretary. Public interest played a significant part in the arguments affecting decisions to (not) release Moors murderer Myra Hindley on parole, despite the fact that perpetrators of similar crimes are routinely released under the tariffs maintained by our criminal justice system.
No, the arguments will of course surround any possible commercial interests. In these dark economic times, powerful arguments indeed. However, at some point, the moral aspects should hold sway. Did Magrahi do it ? Well, there is an appeals’ process to handle that. Meanwhile, it is difficult to support the government’s approach to the whole situation, especially when there is a hint of Mandelson playing broker behind the scenes.
There is more to come on this story. The Libyans have clearly ignored any private agreement to low-key the former spook’s homecoming. Obama and the entire USA is justifiably annoyed, even disgusted. The world will ask “why?” and then draw its own assumptions. Whatever the next revelation, it has once again pitched Britain’s dwindling reputation lower down the rubbish heap. Nice one, Gordon !
No surprise in the Norwich by-election with Tory Chloe Smith snatching the seat from new Labour candidate Chris Ostrowski, who was brought in to run after the enforced resignation of Labour expenses scapegoat Dr. Ian Gibson. (Amidst much comment from locals in support of Gibson’s track record for the locals, Labour central office manage to, once again, snatch defeat from the jaws of a dwindling fuss on MP propriety).
New malcontents inevitably drift out of the woodwork that is the Labour backbenches. Kate Hoey cautiously criticising Brown on BBC Breakfast today, seeing a General Election rather than a leadership challenge being the next event to face the Prime Minister. Interesting to hear that dirty tricks from Labour were employed – a natural extension of their Leader’s approach to political life, it reflects what I have come to understand of Brown’s values.
Useful that Gibson’s outing has brought the expenses row back into the light. MPs must have been awaiting the slow and silent death of the story yet it remains my fervent wish that the pressure remains on the Commons to clean house. Will it happen ? Given the ridiculous nature of modern British politics, this seems unlikely. Laws and rules which apply to mere mortals are only enforced for the political ‘elite’ when the media glare rains down on it. Shame.
Business as usual, then. Worth keeping an eye on the press as well as challenging your own MP to ‘fess up. Continue to demand service from elected members. They must be made to realise that winning a seat is not like winning Big Brother. Far from guaranteed press attention, money and glamour, this is when their work actually starts. They would do well to remember it.
Found an interesting site collecting an online petition to lobby the leaders of the main parties to commit to new legislation in their next manifesto. As a useful way to remind these muppets that we have not forgotten and are still angry, check this site out and sign up. Seems like a great idea – give enough people in any constituency the power to recall their local MP and prompt a bi-election. How about setting the threshold to be the same number that voted for them in the first place ? It obviously depends on finding a cost-effective and secure mechanism for voters to register their disgust and prompt a recall / local election but it remains a worthy objective.
Thanks to all who followed up on the recent article on the Lebanese elections – the result appears to be (almost) the best of all possibilities for the future of this lovely country as the 14th March coalition retain the majority of parliamentary seats but without a clear mandate, with opposition Hezbollah and fellow-travellers retaining much the same position. The turnout was reported to be double that of 2005 but it would be wrong to credit recent US policy shifts and rhetoric for the result. The Lebanese have firm views on their own governance. The visit and comments from US Vice-President Joe Biden last month and even President Obama’s overtures in Cairo, are not responsible. The rifts in local politics remain firm and wide – a larger turnout still voted in similar proportions. There are still aspects which must play out. Syrian lackey Aoun and even Hezbollah may need to be appeased by the ruling clique in order to prevent veto of new legislation. Some backoffice deals will no doubt be needed to ensure a peaceful renewal of parliament.
So to Iran where a challenge to incumbent local hero and President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, comes in the guise of moderate candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a former Prime Minister. He (Mousavi) has been endorsed by former President Mohammad Khatami, another major reformer in his time. Ahmadinejad will be a tough nut to crack. Often forgotten, he was one of the student firebrands behind the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979; the incident which prompted the abortive US rescue attempt in Operation Eagle Claw and ultimately sabotaged the Carter presidency. A hardliner who has reversed many reforms, his stand against the US and other Western powers’ attempts to halt nuclear power (and potentially weapons) development has given him rock-star-like status in his own country. Whilst ultimate power in Iran remains with the Supreme Leader – Grand Ayotollah Sayyid Ali Hoseyni Khamenei – the President remains the mouthpiece and most visible (to worldly eyes) representation of the Islamic Republic’s policy. Recent clampdowns – such as the blocking of social networking site Facebook within Iran’s borders – show the government’s determination to retain a strong grip on the populace. The result of Friday’s poll will be important for internal freedoms, Iran’s place in the world, and to its many sponsored groups in some of the most troubled areas of the world. Whatever your location, religion or nationality, the results of these Presidential elections potentially have an impact on your life.
The UK has breathed a giggling goodbye to the latest round of council and European elections, with satirists and columnists having a fine old time laughing along with the media at the tarnished and tacky British politicians. Switching from the ridiculous to the downright dangerous, we in the West need to take notice of the Lebanese elections happening tomorrow (Sunday 7th June). The laughter dies down quickly when one realises the significance of the possible outcomes in this troubled Middle Eastern state.
Lebanon has had a slow, painful recovery from the destruction caused by its 15 year civil war and Israeli invasion. Long coveted by the greedy eyes of Syria, Lebanon must also contend with Israel watching to make sure the security of the Jewish homeland can no longer be threatened by terrorist groups harboured in the Cedar state. The 50/50 split between the Muslim and Christian population has shifted slightly in recent years towards a 60%+ Muslim majority. That said, it is not religious divides which generate internal strife but more the competition between opposition Hezbollah with Shia and Christian chums (the “8th March” coalition) which has considerable backing from Syria and Iran – and the anti-Syria (and currently ruling) combination of Christian, Druze and Sunni Muslim factions (the “14th March” Coalition), backed by Saudi Arabia. These two main blocs are led on one hand by Hassan Nasrallah and the other by Sa’ad Hariri, son of assassinated PM Rafik Hariri.
It is likely to be a close run thing with the BBC reporting a recent poll in the al-Akhbar newspaper as showing 48 seats safe for Hezbollah and 40 for the currently ruling clique. This leaves a further 70 seats as up for grabs in tomorrow’s poll, the most contested being in the central Christian areas around Beirut and the Bekaa. A major win by Hezbollah could see twitchy regional neighbours giving up on rhetoric and involving themselves actively – once again – in Lebanese affairs. As the Party of God has a substantial and well-armed private militia at its disposal, it is difficult not to be concerned at this outcome.
In a recent trip to Lebanon – including a moving visit to the Hariri memorial shrine attached to the Central Mosque in Beirut – it was fascinating to talk with locals. The Lebanese from each side are passionate about their politics, and with good reason. Their past troubles destroyed what was once the jewel of the Eastern Mediterranean. Both sides view their opponents with deep suspicion and even some allies such as the comically corrupt and – some say – cowardly former General, Michel Aoun, the Christian Free Patriotic leader with close Syrian ties.
Whichever way it goes, this beautiful country deserves a peaceful future. A clear sign of stability could see much more foreign investment heading into Lebanon with the already-advanced reconstruction being extended both North and South to revitalise what could be, once again, a fantastic tourist trap.
A tempting holiday destination is one thing; this frequent Middle Eastern political hotspot is facing the most significant democratic elections in the region for the past few years. It may surprise many that this is in no way a choice between two religiously-motivated power bases – it is not Muslim-versus-Christian. Far from it; the elections are a battle between two complex coalitions, backed by (amongst others) widely opposed Muslim sponsor-states. The hopes of 5m locals and her immediate neighbours, and maybe the wider world, rest on this 2-horse Lebanese political race.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d326711d-207b-4c96-bbda-e4af9429ed7c)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=52e3e738-49f7-4dd6-85e7-44d7bd251c83)
