Well, even the shouting is over so a moment of reflection is probably called for. In West Oxfordshire we did okay. We won the ultra blue seat of Woodstock and we held Charlbury and Finstock, increasing the majority to one which can reasonably be described as 'thumping'. Elsewhere in the district the Labour Party did well, gaining 3 seats. It's always good to see the Tories get a kicking but I still hold to the 'plague on both their houses' line.
The Greens also stood across the area, did b*gger all but took votes which could be ours - the only party which actually does stuff to address environmental concerns rather than just recycling our Guardians in a really concerned manner. If you want to really stuff the environment, vote Green. That way you guarantee the Tories get elected.
Politics is a drug which those of us who are hooked cannot shake off so I enjoyed the campaign, from the endless trudging up drives to deliver another bit of paper to the argument with the man putting his daughter to bed at 9.45pm as I begged him to vote. Needless to say, he didn't. Maybe these people frighten their children once a year by telling them to go to sleep or the nasty Lib Dem Knocker Upper will get them.
Every year I do this stuff and every year I end with the thought that we must do something better to get, retain and increase our vote. Looking at mighty places like Eastleigh and Portsmouth, it is clearly possible and we perhaps need to be a little less prim in Oxfordshire and really go for the jugular. After all, there is little in life which is certain but the prospect of a wounded and spiteful David Cameron standing on a very unpopular ticket in 2015 hereabouts is a good bet.
Labour will have donned white robes and fake wings by then so I suppose our job is to damn Dave for everything he has failed to do - like sacking his culture secretary, promoting just one or two people who didn't go to school with him to the Cabinet, and anything on Lords reform - while simultaneously reminding people about 'New' Labour and its record on sleaze, warmongering and leaping headfirst into bed with Australian media barons. Fingers crossed Ed the Supply Leader will still be in charge of Labour in 2015.
As for our leader, well more on that next.
Rather oddly, I am reassured by the election results. They proved that we are taking on the Tories. They also confirm that we are the challengers to Labour. Yes, the fightback will be hard but this is grown up, national politics and the transition is going to hurt but we might just find in a few years that we are in a significantly better position as far as Westminster politics is concerned, at which point the pain of the current period could seem worthwhile.
With apologies to anyone who fought and lost yesterday. I share your pain and I am not making light of it.
Showing posts with label DAVID CAMERON. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DAVID CAMERON. Show all posts
Saturday, 5 May 2012
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
THE DANCE OF THE NATIONALISTS - A. SALMOND TO LEAD
Dear Mr Cameron
In the light of efforts by opportunistic politicians in Scotland to break up the highly successful union between England and Scotland which has existed for over 300 years - benefiting both countries - as well as the continuation of the appalling constitutional settlement which has been foisted onto England by Labour since devolution, I would like to know when your government plans to enact legislation to ensure that all residents of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are given the chance to vote on the potential break up of the United Kingdom in advance of any such non-binding vote for Scottish voters alone. As this country is a union of nations it is only right that all citizens from Penzance to Belfast should be given the chance to have a say.
Such a UK-wide vote would ensure that the majority population of the UK can express a clear opinion - no doubt in favour of our country - and that British people are not held to ransom for years to come with increasing demands for powers for Scotland with no corresponding increase in powers for England or English regions in particular. The slow cancer of such calls on the body politic of a country can be clearly seen in the disruptive politics of Canada and Quebec over many decades or, closer to home, in Spain, which has for decades had to juggle the demands of various nationalist parties to the detriment of Spain as a whole.
A referendum on the question of Scottish independence from the UK would also be an opportunity for English voters to have a say on the continuing injustice of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being able to govern themselves in many areas and of Scottish MPs in particular being able to vote on legislation affecting England and Wales while English and Welsh MPs do not have corresponding rights over numerous areas of Scottish administration.
I trust that, in advance of the referendum, British voters will be given clear information on the headline terms of any settlement arising from Scottish independence, including details of the payment the Scottish Government will make to secure control of the two banks in Scotland which the UK as a whole bailed out during the recent financial crisis and a percentage figure for the amount of UK debt the newly independent Scotland will be required to take on - reflecting the population of Scotland in relation to the UK as a whole.
I hope that British voters will also be reassured that, in the event of Scottish independence, the British government will make a cast-iron commitment that it will at no time in the future agree to any financial support for Scotland - the original catalyst for union in 1707, instead referring the newly independent country to the EU and the IMF as befits an independent state.
Please reassure me that any attempted power grab by the Scottish government in return for not seeking independence will only be agreed to after the establishment of an English Parliament with equivalent powers and a cast-iron commitment - enshrined in law - that Scottish MPs will be barred from involvement in any decisions which do not affect Scotland.
Finally, please use your good offices to encourage the FA and the Scottish FA to reinstate the oldest international football game of them all, England v. Scotland, to remind Mr Salmond and his petty nationalist ilk that the best way to resolve conflict remains on the football field over 90 entertaining minutes.
Your party is formally the Conservative and Unionist Party. Please act with urgency to ensure that this name remains relevant in future.
Yours sincerely
Andy Crick
Englishman and proud citizen of the UK, a successful, peaceful country largely at ease with itself - for now
(And this diatribe, dear reader, is why Alex Salmond is a fool as he seeks to rename himself Pandora and prise open the locked, sealed, vaulted box marked 'Nationalism: DO NOT OPEN'. And I'm a moderate Englishman. Wait until others really take hold of this debate)
In the light of efforts by opportunistic politicians in Scotland to break up the highly successful union between England and Scotland which has existed for over 300 years - benefiting both countries - as well as the continuation of the appalling constitutional settlement which has been foisted onto England by Labour since devolution, I would like to know when your government plans to enact legislation to ensure that all residents of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are given the chance to vote on the potential break up of the United Kingdom in advance of any such non-binding vote for Scottish voters alone. As this country is a union of nations it is only right that all citizens from Penzance to Belfast should be given the chance to have a say.
Such a UK-wide vote would ensure that the majority population of the UK can express a clear opinion - no doubt in favour of our country - and that British people are not held to ransom for years to come with increasing demands for powers for Scotland with no corresponding increase in powers for England or English regions in particular. The slow cancer of such calls on the body politic of a country can be clearly seen in the disruptive politics of Canada and Quebec over many decades or, closer to home, in Spain, which has for decades had to juggle the demands of various nationalist parties to the detriment of Spain as a whole.
A referendum on the question of Scottish independence from the UK would also be an opportunity for English voters to have a say on the continuing injustice of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being able to govern themselves in many areas and of Scottish MPs in particular being able to vote on legislation affecting England and Wales while English and Welsh MPs do not have corresponding rights over numerous areas of Scottish administration.
I trust that, in advance of the referendum, British voters will be given clear information on the headline terms of any settlement arising from Scottish independence, including details of the payment the Scottish Government will make to secure control of the two banks in Scotland which the UK as a whole bailed out during the recent financial crisis and a percentage figure for the amount of UK debt the newly independent Scotland will be required to take on - reflecting the population of Scotland in relation to the UK as a whole.
I hope that British voters will also be reassured that, in the event of Scottish independence, the British government will make a cast-iron commitment that it will at no time in the future agree to any financial support for Scotland - the original catalyst for union in 1707, instead referring the newly independent country to the EU and the IMF as befits an independent state.
Please reassure me that any attempted power grab by the Scottish government in return for not seeking independence will only be agreed to after the establishment of an English Parliament with equivalent powers and a cast-iron commitment - enshrined in law - that Scottish MPs will be barred from involvement in any decisions which do not affect Scotland.
Finally, please use your good offices to encourage the FA and the Scottish FA to reinstate the oldest international football game of them all, England v. Scotland, to remind Mr Salmond and his petty nationalist ilk that the best way to resolve conflict remains on the football field over 90 entertaining minutes.
Your party is formally the Conservative and Unionist Party. Please act with urgency to ensure that this name remains relevant in future.
Yours sincerely
Andy Crick
Englishman and proud citizen of the UK, a successful, peaceful country largely at ease with itself - for now
(And this diatribe, dear reader, is why Alex Salmond is a fool as he seeks to rename himself Pandora and prise open the locked, sealed, vaulted box marked 'Nationalism: DO NOT OPEN'. And I'm a moderate Englishman. Wait until others really take hold of this debate)
Monday, 12 December 2011
SHOULD WE STAY OR SHOULD WE GO? IT'S REALLY NOT DIFFICULT
[I have taken to writing a blog some hours before posting it so that I can review the language. This is a good discipline particularly when referring to our charming coalition 'partners'. You might say there's no 'f' in coalition...]
Ouch. The Independent today discusses whether the Lib Dems should stay in the coalition with the Tories or whether we should accept that we have nothing in common with their self-destructive approach to the world and pull out now, probably precipitating a new General Election. The answer is simple. We have to stick it out, however hard we must hold our noses.
We went into the coalition with the Tories because it was in the national interest. People attack Nick Clegg for changing his tune but he said this before, during and after the General Election campaign. He was absolutely, unequivocally clear that we would work with whichever party won the most votes. Thankfully, in this case it was the Tories for, let no one forget, Labour in 2010 was entirely washed up, with one of the most unpopular leaders ever, a Chancellor promising cuts pretty much along the lines of what we have now and absolutely no idea about what to do next. They were lost and they still are, as Ed Miliband demonstrated on Sunday when the best response he could come up with in response to the European debacle was to declare that he agreed with Nick. And this man has ambitions to be Prime Minister. Seriously.
By contrast, the Tories offered us a good deal. We have lost out in some areas like student fees and the referendum - call it political naivety - but in others we are doing well, such as cutting taxes for the lowest paid, investing in education for disadvantaged schoolchildren and wrestling with the nightmare of our energy policy. We are doing good Lib Dem stuff in government and that will all stop if we walk away. We are also working hard to deliver the stability which is so clearly lacking in much of Europe and which remains the touchstone of this government's success. It's hard, it is hurting but if it succeeds we will all benefit, even union leaders on £120,000 a year who seek to derail all these plans. [Note: the fiery anachronistic leader of UNISON gets this princely sum each year. I wonder how many of his poorly paid members know that...]
On a more inward-looking tack, if the Lib Dems do leave the coalition and an election is called, it's unlikely to be wine and roses for us. We have good arguments and a principled stance but Joe and Josephine Public haven't been sold on that yet. We need time to get the message across that we are holding the Tories in check and delivering on our promises. I don't know many people who dislike the Tories as much as I do and that is because I have seen close at hand how they operate. This government needs principles and clarity of purpose to survive and that isn't going to come from them. Lib Dems need to fight them all the way but do it from the inside.
So plaudits to Nick for what has become one of the best assaults of recent years on arrogance and ignorance in government and the abject failure of British diplomacy in Europe, for which David Cameron is 100% responsible. Forget the nuanced arguments of various pundits about why he did it - he failed to negotiate wisely for our interests in an international forum, he failed to engage with partners and he was comprehensively outflanked by the French - the French, goddamit!
I agree with Nick and I wish him well in what is going to be a Hell of a week for us and for our disastrously isolated country.
Ouch. The Independent today discusses whether the Lib Dems should stay in the coalition with the Tories or whether we should accept that we have nothing in common with their self-destructive approach to the world and pull out now, probably precipitating a new General Election. The answer is simple. We have to stick it out, however hard we must hold our noses.
We went into the coalition with the Tories because it was in the national interest. People attack Nick Clegg for changing his tune but he said this before, during and after the General Election campaign. He was absolutely, unequivocally clear that we would work with whichever party won the most votes. Thankfully, in this case it was the Tories for, let no one forget, Labour in 2010 was entirely washed up, with one of the most unpopular leaders ever, a Chancellor promising cuts pretty much along the lines of what we have now and absolutely no idea about what to do next. They were lost and they still are, as Ed Miliband demonstrated on Sunday when the best response he could come up with in response to the European debacle was to declare that he agreed with Nick. And this man has ambitions to be Prime Minister. Seriously.
By contrast, the Tories offered us a good deal. We have lost out in some areas like student fees and the referendum - call it political naivety - but in others we are doing well, such as cutting taxes for the lowest paid, investing in education for disadvantaged schoolchildren and wrestling with the nightmare of our energy policy. We are doing good Lib Dem stuff in government and that will all stop if we walk away. We are also working hard to deliver the stability which is so clearly lacking in much of Europe and which remains the touchstone of this government's success. It's hard, it is hurting but if it succeeds we will all benefit, even union leaders on £120,000 a year who seek to derail all these plans. [Note: the fiery anachronistic leader of UNISON gets this princely sum each year. I wonder how many of his poorly paid members know that...]
On a more inward-looking tack, if the Lib Dems do leave the coalition and an election is called, it's unlikely to be wine and roses for us. We have good arguments and a principled stance but Joe and Josephine Public haven't been sold on that yet. We need time to get the message across that we are holding the Tories in check and delivering on our promises. I don't know many people who dislike the Tories as much as I do and that is because I have seen close at hand how they operate. This government needs principles and clarity of purpose to survive and that isn't going to come from them. Lib Dems need to fight them all the way but do it from the inside.
So plaudits to Nick for what has become one of the best assaults of recent years on arrogance and ignorance in government and the abject failure of British diplomacy in Europe, for which David Cameron is 100% responsible. Forget the nuanced arguments of various pundits about why he did it - he failed to negotiate wisely for our interests in an international forum, he failed to engage with partners and he was comprehensively outflanked by the French - the French, goddamit!
I agree with Nick and I wish him well in what is going to be a Hell of a week for us and for our disastrously isolated country.
Friday, 9 December 2011
FOG IN CHANNEL, BRITAIN FLOATS OFF
I struggle with Europe. I am a passionate European and I see only benefits in the European project. I have always supported Britain’s membership of the EU but that enthusiasm is tempered by my complete disdain for the EU as it is: a garbled, ill-thought out ‘camel’ of an institution with absurdities such as the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fish Abolition Policy and the farce of the European Parliament moving lock, stock and barrel from its headquarters in Brussels to Strasbourg once a month at a cost of millions of Euros to satisfy French egos.
Europe is a mess - a great idea but a terrible entity. It needs a counterweight to the French and their self-aggrandizing President. Angela Merkel is a star but her default setting, sadly, is to compromise, not to tell Sarko what's what. It needs a country like ours which, for all our myriad faults, is still relatively uncorrupt and which has been outward-facing for a good few centuries now. Sadly, we have mucked up our relationship with Europe for 70 years and it might just be the case that we can't 'do' Europe.
If you look back at the history of European integration it is obvious to even the most in-bred Tory that Britain has squandered what could have been a key role. When countries began talking about ‘Europe’ in London during the Second World War they were very keen for Britain to join. Britain was at the time important due to its wartime role. Reflect on that, Dave...Crucially, Britain was seen as an essential bulwark against French ambitions to use the European project to create a ‘greater France’.
Sadly, the Tory government of the time (1957) could not see the bigger picture and decided to let the foreign Johnnies get on with it while we declined politely on the sidelines. Thus France got its way from day one and all the current problems of Europe to this day emerged: the CAP, the abject lack of democracy, the corrupt Commission system, the deals behind closed doors. How much better could Europe – and Britain – have been if we had been mixing it from the start, insisting on representative and effective institutions and a free trade area which could have brought countries together while not diminishing states and their democratic checks to the detriment of the people who live in them?
When Britain realised its mistake the government had to go cap in hand to the French, who drove a hard bargain and finally let Britain join in 1973 – just as the global economy sank into one of its perennial crises. Since then we have been in a state of confusion over Europe, not sure whether to be committed or sceptical.
Well Dave has made the decision for us, now. By walking out of one of the most crucial meetings in European history he has taken Britain’s influence with him for a generation. And he let the French win again, which just smarts. We have the Olympics, they have the future of Europe. Well played, Dave.He may be defended by Eurosceptics but the crux of this whole story is that a better politician would not have let himself be put in this position.
Having now comprehensively lost all credibility in Europe, perhaps this is the time for everyone here to reflect. Frankly, we just don’t get it. Perhaps we should admit that Britain cannot be part of the EU, not because it is not in our interests – it is, and the moment we leave, London goes down the tubes as global finance moves to Frankfurt and Shanghai – but because we haven’t escaped the curse of empire, the notion that we are somehow different and better than others. We are not, we are Europeans and we have been ever since people first arrived here many thousands of years ago from Europe and continued to trade and work with their neighbours ever since.
Maybe Europe is better off without us. Maybe the spirit of closed door deals and compromise is what is needed. Maybe the new powers of Poland and Germany can stand up to France better than we have. For the first time in my life I find myself strangely sympathetic to the imbecilic voices calling for us to leave the EU. I don't agree with them but it may just be that we have shot our collective bolt and now is the time to call it a day.
As for Nick, my God he's a cool one. I can imagine what he's been saying to Dave behind the scenes but his sang froid before the cameras is a sight to behold. I'd have preferred him to have called Dave every version of fool in the English language but he is playing the long game and he deserves credit for that.
Europe is a mess - a great idea but a terrible entity. It needs a counterweight to the French and their self-aggrandizing President. Angela Merkel is a star but her default setting, sadly, is to compromise, not to tell Sarko what's what. It needs a country like ours which, for all our myriad faults, is still relatively uncorrupt and which has been outward-facing for a good few centuries now. Sadly, we have mucked up our relationship with Europe for 70 years and it might just be the case that we can't 'do' Europe.
If you look back at the history of European integration it is obvious to even the most in-bred Tory that Britain has squandered what could have been a key role. When countries began talking about ‘Europe’ in London during the Second World War they were very keen for Britain to join. Britain was at the time important due to its wartime role. Reflect on that, Dave...Crucially, Britain was seen as an essential bulwark against French ambitions to use the European project to create a ‘greater France’.
Sadly, the Tory government of the time (1957) could not see the bigger picture and decided to let the foreign Johnnies get on with it while we declined politely on the sidelines. Thus France got its way from day one and all the current problems of Europe to this day emerged: the CAP, the abject lack of democracy, the corrupt Commission system, the deals behind closed doors. How much better could Europe – and Britain – have been if we had been mixing it from the start, insisting on representative and effective institutions and a free trade area which could have brought countries together while not diminishing states and their democratic checks to the detriment of the people who live in them?
When Britain realised its mistake the government had to go cap in hand to the French, who drove a hard bargain and finally let Britain join in 1973 – just as the global economy sank into one of its perennial crises. Since then we have been in a state of confusion over Europe, not sure whether to be committed or sceptical.
Well Dave has made the decision for us, now. By walking out of one of the most crucial meetings in European history he has taken Britain’s influence with him for a generation. And he let the French win again, which just smarts. We have the Olympics, they have the future of Europe. Well played, Dave.He may be defended by Eurosceptics but the crux of this whole story is that a better politician would not have let himself be put in this position.
Having now comprehensively lost all credibility in Europe, perhaps this is the time for everyone here to reflect. Frankly, we just don’t get it. Perhaps we should admit that Britain cannot be part of the EU, not because it is not in our interests – it is, and the moment we leave, London goes down the tubes as global finance moves to Frankfurt and Shanghai – but because we haven’t escaped the curse of empire, the notion that we are somehow different and better than others. We are not, we are Europeans and we have been ever since people first arrived here many thousands of years ago from Europe and continued to trade and work with their neighbours ever since.
Maybe Europe is better off without us. Maybe the spirit of closed door deals and compromise is what is needed. Maybe the new powers of Poland and Germany can stand up to France better than we have. For the first time in my life I find myself strangely sympathetic to the imbecilic voices calling for us to leave the EU. I don't agree with them but it may just be that we have shot our collective bolt and now is the time to call it a day.
As for Nick, my God he's a cool one. I can imagine what he's been saying to Dave behind the scenes but his sang froid before the cameras is a sight to behold. I'd have preferred him to have called Dave every version of fool in the English language but he is playing the long game and he deserves credit for that.
Sunday, 2 October 2011
ANOTHER QUANDARY FOR OUR 'GREEN' PM OVER LOCAL ROADS
Fresh from this vital decision over our bins, David Cameron might usefully be asked a few interesting questions about a long discussed plan to build a new road in Witney which would devastate a local flood plain and park and which would brilliantly divert traffic from one bottleneck to another within the town, shifting a problem down the road rather than resolving it.
I had a rare day off work on Friday and I drove into Witney. The good weather had caused a bit of a glut of cars as everyone bought stuff for the weekend. On this particular day - at 12pm on a Friday - the roundabout onto which the new 'Cogges Link Road' would deposit hundreds of cars every hour was absolutely solid with traffic, as were most of the roads around the town. Despite the unseasonably good weather, this was a fairly average occurrence and, not surprisingly, around rush hours this road is even more congested.
David Cameron has previously declared his full support for the proposed new bottleneck - it made the front page of the local paper, the Witney Gazette. If his government is going to be 'the greenest ever' and if he is serious about both addressing pollution and the interests of his local residents, perhaps this is the time for a sharp turn about while there is still time. If the diggers are sent in to concrete over the Windrush and surrounding land our Prime Minister might find more local difficulties to range against the financial storm developing across the world.
Someone might remind the Prime Minister of the old truth that all politics is local.
I had a rare day off work on Friday and I drove into Witney. The good weather had caused a bit of a glut of cars as everyone bought stuff for the weekend. On this particular day - at 12pm on a Friday - the roundabout onto which the new 'Cogges Link Road' would deposit hundreds of cars every hour was absolutely solid with traffic, as were most of the roads around the town. Despite the unseasonably good weather, this was a fairly average occurrence and, not surprisingly, around rush hours this road is even more congested.
David Cameron has previously declared his full support for the proposed new bottleneck - it made the front page of the local paper, the Witney Gazette. If his government is going to be 'the greenest ever' and if he is serious about both addressing pollution and the interests of his local residents, perhaps this is the time for a sharp turn about while there is still time. If the diggers are sent in to concrete over the Windrush and surrounding land our Prime Minister might find more local difficulties to range against the financial storm developing across the world.
Someone might remind the Prime Minister of the old truth that all politics is local.
TORIES LOOK ALL WAYS OVER BINS
So the Tories' latest gimmick for their conference is Eric Pickles's wheeze to bribe councils to re-introduce weekly bin collections. In fairness, this does honour one of their pre-election pledges but in practice it's as daft as John Redwood after a litre of scrumpy.
Here in Tory West Oxfordshire, we have had fortnightly collections for about a year now and its all going fine. Our waste is collected every two weeks, our green waste the other week and our food waste every week and all is fine. In my village we have no overflowing bins, there is no evidence of fly-tipping and I have seen no signs of open rebellion on the streets of Witney on Chipping Norton. What is happening is that recycling is going through the roof and I for one am thinking a lot harder about what I throw away, perhaps using up that food in the fridge which is on the way out instead of simply chucking it out without a thought. I suspect others are doing similar.
As I cycle around the area I have seen no evidence of any problems anywhere. I don't get to every village hereabouts but I would guess that my neighbours are comfortable with the new scheme, including one D. Cameron esq. Now, he is different because I understand he now spends a lot of time in London but the challenge for him and for the normally sensible Eric Pickles is to say whether Mr Pickles is right or whether the local Tory Council is right. A clue might be gleaned from the response of the Tory Council leader wheeled out on the Today programme last week to dismiss the Pickles Bribe as nonsense.
So here's a challenge for the Prime Minister. Who is wrong on this issue: West Oxfordshire Tories or Eric Pickles? If he can't answer this one, god help him when it comes to the Palestine vote.
Here in Tory West Oxfordshire, we have had fortnightly collections for about a year now and its all going fine. Our waste is collected every two weeks, our green waste the other week and our food waste every week and all is fine. In my village we have no overflowing bins, there is no evidence of fly-tipping and I have seen no signs of open rebellion on the streets of Witney on Chipping Norton. What is happening is that recycling is going through the roof and I for one am thinking a lot harder about what I throw away, perhaps using up that food in the fridge which is on the way out instead of simply chucking it out without a thought. I suspect others are doing similar.
As I cycle around the area I have seen no evidence of any problems anywhere. I don't get to every village hereabouts but I would guess that my neighbours are comfortable with the new scheme, including one D. Cameron esq. Now, he is different because I understand he now spends a lot of time in London but the challenge for him and for the normally sensible Eric Pickles is to say whether Mr Pickles is right or whether the local Tory Council is right. A clue might be gleaned from the response of the Tory Council leader wheeled out on the Today programme last week to dismiss the Pickles Bribe as nonsense.
So here's a challenge for the Prime Minister. Who is wrong on this issue: West Oxfordshire Tories or Eric Pickles? If he can't answer this one, god help him when it comes to the Palestine vote.
Saturday, 13 August 2011
POLICE HAVE A GO AT THE TORIES. SUPER DUPER!
The Independent has a story today quoting senior police officers in criticising the Tories for seeking to take credit for the police response to the looting of recent days. One senior officer is reported to have described Dave as 'idiotic' and the report states that he had to be 'talked down' from putting the army onto the streets. Thank God for that.
The report also considers the role of the new adviser to Dave, Bill Bratton, formerly of Los Angeles in the USA, where he is credited with achieving much in the wake of riots there. This seems to be another role for the 'Common Sense Czar', my fantasy government adviser who is given the role of sitting down with Cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister and considering all their ideas from the perspective of the world outside a few narrow streets in Westminster. In this case, the Czar would doubtless point out to Dave and to Mr Bratton that London is not LA and that whatever the problems in London, they are dwarfed by the violence and racial tension in the USA, a country which proudly allows its citizens and police to bear arms and which is thus the scene of hundreds of shootings daily.
The Tories always set great store beside their commitment to law and order and they have failed miserably in recent days. A rift with police must be like drinking hemlock to the average Tory.
This of course does not acquit the Lib Dems of responsibility and I have made clear my deep disappointment at the lack of any senior Lib Dems decrying the Tory approach to unrest. My wait continues and the longer it does the more we seem to be in agreement with the Tories on this matter, which I trust we are not. I just wish this was being demonstrated loudly and publicly.
That does not mean that Nickers needs to walk out of the Cabinet or slag off Dave but there is surely no harm in him as the leader of his own political party setting out our view on the looting and our disdain for the violent tactics which other politicians have advocated, against the wishes of the police and anyone who doesn't read the Sun. What's the point of being a Lib Dem if you can't speak out at a time like this.
The report also considers the role of the new adviser to Dave, Bill Bratton, formerly of Los Angeles in the USA, where he is credited with achieving much in the wake of riots there. This seems to be another role for the 'Common Sense Czar', my fantasy government adviser who is given the role of sitting down with Cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister and considering all their ideas from the perspective of the world outside a few narrow streets in Westminster. In this case, the Czar would doubtless point out to Dave and to Mr Bratton that London is not LA and that whatever the problems in London, they are dwarfed by the violence and racial tension in the USA, a country which proudly allows its citizens and police to bear arms and which is thus the scene of hundreds of shootings daily.
The Tories always set great store beside their commitment to law and order and they have failed miserably in recent days. A rift with police must be like drinking hemlock to the average Tory.
This of course does not acquit the Lib Dems of responsibility and I have made clear my deep disappointment at the lack of any senior Lib Dems decrying the Tory approach to unrest. My wait continues and the longer it does the more we seem to be in agreement with the Tories on this matter, which I trust we are not. I just wish this was being demonstrated loudly and publicly.
That does not mean that Nickers needs to walk out of the Cabinet or slag off Dave but there is surely no harm in him as the leader of his own political party setting out our view on the looting and our disdain for the violent tactics which other politicians have advocated, against the wishes of the police and anyone who doesn't read the Sun. What's the point of being a Lib Dem if you can't speak out at a time like this.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
THE TORIES HAVEN'T CHANGED, PART 94
I was stunned into inaction this morning during the normal rush to deposit two children at school (i) dressed (ii) fed and watered (iii) provisioned for the exertions of the coming day with bags, lunch, coats etc. Stunned because of the return of perhaps the most oleaginous and disreputable politician of the late 20th century*, David Mellor. And if you think about the competition, that's saying something
This duplicitous wretch was on the Today programme (how many people had they rung before they settled on him, I wonder) defending - yep, defending - the King of Bahrain as a good friend of Britain and thus diminishing the importance of the crackdown which occurred early this morning in which at least 2 people were killed by the inappropriately named 'security forces'. His tone and his complete assurance had the ring of a 19th century nabob defending the local tribal chieftain for the massacre of a neighbouring village because it was good for Britain.
I was lucky enough to be in Wandsworth Town Hall in May 1997 when Mellor lost his Putney seat. It was a night of rare theatre and the thought remains that it couldn't have happened to a more deserving person.
I like David Cameron more and more as I think he's playing it straight but I think he still has the sheerest of mountains to climb in his ambitions to change the Tory Party when there remain individuals with the attitude of the hated Mellor within his ranks.
This must be time to repeat my regular assurance to anyone who will listen (shades of the drunk in the bus station, but who cares) that this Lib Dem will never enter into any formal electoral or other agreement with the Tories. I don't think Nickers will either but if he has a weak moment, I'm an independent from that moment.
*Editor's note: Tony Blair is of course utterly disreputable for his decision over the illegal and devastating Iraq war but that complete breakdown of the man's judgement and morality occurred in the 21st century.
This duplicitous wretch was on the Today programme (how many people had they rung before they settled on him, I wonder) defending - yep, defending - the King of Bahrain as a good friend of Britain and thus diminishing the importance of the crackdown which occurred early this morning in which at least 2 people were killed by the inappropriately named 'security forces'. His tone and his complete assurance had the ring of a 19th century nabob defending the local tribal chieftain for the massacre of a neighbouring village because it was good for Britain.
I was lucky enough to be in Wandsworth Town Hall in May 1997 when Mellor lost his Putney seat. It was a night of rare theatre and the thought remains that it couldn't have happened to a more deserving person.
I like David Cameron more and more as I think he's playing it straight but I think he still has the sheerest of mountains to climb in his ambitions to change the Tory Party when there remain individuals with the attitude of the hated Mellor within his ranks.
This must be time to repeat my regular assurance to anyone who will listen (shades of the drunk in the bus station, but who cares) that this Lib Dem will never enter into any formal electoral or other agreement with the Tories. I don't think Nickers will either but if he has a weak moment, I'm an independent from that moment.
*Editor's note: Tony Blair is of course utterly disreputable for his decision over the illegal and devastating Iraq war but that complete breakdown of the man's judgement and morality occurred in the 21st century.
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
IN HERTFORD, HEREFORD AND HACKNEY...
Ay yi yi! The Prime Minister - he of the expensive private and Oxford education - was defending student fee changes today and he said of them: "We want more people to go to university, not less".
Its 'fewer', Dave. It's 'fewer'.
If Dave is planning to take us all to Hell in a handcart, you'd think he could at least condemn us grammatically correctly as we slide to our collective doom. No doubt these days Hell is spelt with a 'Haitch'...which, if you think about it, would be entirely appropriate.
Its 'fewer', Dave. It's 'fewer'.
If Dave is planning to take us all to Hell in a handcart, you'd think he could at least condemn us grammatically correctly as we slide to our collective doom. No doubt these days Hell is spelt with a 'Haitch'...which, if you think about it, would be entirely appropriate.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
BLIMEY, WE HAVE A STATESMAN IN NUMBER 10
Well, here's courting unpopularity. David Cameron has done well in China by raising the issue of political development and human rights.
Why is this likely to be unpopular? Because, for anyone under 30 his failure to stand in Tianenmen Square and decry the Chinese government with flags and whistles is a vicious betrayal of all those people in China who suffer from repression, torture and murder at the hands of the state.
If you take a longer view, it is important that a British Prime Minister has said these things in China and that he has made it clear to Chinese students that there are alternatives to one party rule. Those students and their peers in China will change China: it is not for us to do so or to lecture them on precisely how they should. It is good for us to present options and raise issues, even if potentially affects our trading relationship.
China will be a democracy one day and China will be one of the most important - and dangerous - countries in the world, even more so that it is now (not dangerous, you understand - I'm not a 'Reds under the beds' kind of person, I believe in peaceful change). We can't challenge China, we have to engage and our Prime Minister is doing so.
So well done, Dave - and well done the millions of people around the world who protest against human rights abuses in China and the continued occupation of Tibet. Both approaches are valid and both should continue together.
Why is this likely to be unpopular? Because, for anyone under 30 his failure to stand in Tianenmen Square and decry the Chinese government with flags and whistles is a vicious betrayal of all those people in China who suffer from repression, torture and murder at the hands of the state.
If you take a longer view, it is important that a British Prime Minister has said these things in China and that he has made it clear to Chinese students that there are alternatives to one party rule. Those students and their peers in China will change China: it is not for us to do so or to lecture them on precisely how they should. It is good for us to present options and raise issues, even if potentially affects our trading relationship.
China will be a democracy one day and China will be one of the most important - and dangerous - countries in the world, even more so that it is now (not dangerous, you understand - I'm not a 'Reds under the beds' kind of person, I believe in peaceful change). We can't challenge China, we have to engage and our Prime Minister is doing so.
So well done, Dave - and well done the millions of people around the world who protest against human rights abuses in China and the continued occupation of Tibet. Both approaches are valid and both should continue together.
Thursday, 28 October 2010
PROGRESS?! NOT HERE, THANKS
With apologies for the lack of any recent streams of vaguely Lib Dem consciousness, here is an interesting article in the Independent which focuses on NIMBY power which challenges wind farms across the country, drastically reducing the number of new turbines going up.
I am a strong supporter of wind farms, indeed I live in a very windy village and I would love a blooming great turbine on a nearby ridge which is currently home to a series of radio aerials - thus not exactly a beauty spot. However, I am sure that if any such plans were proposed (there are sadly none in the pipeline, despite my gentle enquiries to the industrial unit which sits there) a vocal minority would oppose them and our spineless council and the less than radical MP (one D. Cameron esq.) would doubtless cave in to pressure and oppose any such proposals. The sadness is that a lot of people support wind farms but they are invariably a private concern and therefore they seldom provide an opportunity for positive campaigning.
Back to those radio aerials in the heart of Oxfordshire, because they have a very interesting history. The small village I live in was home to one of the very first transatlantic radio antennas established by an Italian immigrant named Marconi. Not sure what became of him but it is interesting to reflect on what would have happened to the incredible and generally beneficial progress made in radio, TV, mobile phone and satellite communications over the past 100 years if a bunch of NIMBYs had told Mr Marconi that he couldn't put his masts in Oxfordshire as it would depress local property prices.
This country - every country - depends on progress and every inch of our country has changed throughout our history, most radically in the past 300 years. That includes Oxfordshire - the vast Morris plant, East Oxford, Didcot Power Station, the town of Carterton and RAF Brize Norton being clear examples of this which bear a mention. I wish we could be reminded of the fact that we don't live in a museum more often. Museums are for relics.
I am a strong supporter of wind farms, indeed I live in a very windy village and I would love a blooming great turbine on a nearby ridge which is currently home to a series of radio aerials - thus not exactly a beauty spot. However, I am sure that if any such plans were proposed (there are sadly none in the pipeline, despite my gentle enquiries to the industrial unit which sits there) a vocal minority would oppose them and our spineless council and the less than radical MP (one D. Cameron esq.) would doubtless cave in to pressure and oppose any such proposals. The sadness is that a lot of people support wind farms but they are invariably a private concern and therefore they seldom provide an opportunity for positive campaigning.
Back to those radio aerials in the heart of Oxfordshire, because they have a very interesting history. The small village I live in was home to one of the very first transatlantic radio antennas established by an Italian immigrant named Marconi. Not sure what became of him but it is interesting to reflect on what would have happened to the incredible and generally beneficial progress made in radio, TV, mobile phone and satellite communications over the past 100 years if a bunch of NIMBYs had told Mr Marconi that he couldn't put his masts in Oxfordshire as it would depress local property prices.
This country - every country - depends on progress and every inch of our country has changed throughout our history, most radically in the past 300 years. That includes Oxfordshire - the vast Morris plant, East Oxford, Didcot Power Station, the town of Carterton and RAF Brize Norton being clear examples of this which bear a mention. I wish we could be reminded of the fact that we don't live in a museum more often. Museums are for relics.
Friday, 11 June 2010
'REVERE' OUR TROOPS? NORTH KOREA, HERE WE COME
The Prime Minister has said he wants us all to 'revere and support' British forces for the work they do in Afghanistan. This is an interesting phrase and it is highly dangerous as only language, that most terrible of weapons, can be.
There are very few of us who do not strongly respect and support the work of British forces abroad. I couldn't do what they do and I can't imagine the stress it puts on them and their families so they deserve the highest respect and regard. However, we should not 'revere' an army.
One of the most striking moments in my life came when I was driving through London with a Syrian friend in the late 1980s. Coming along the Embankment in the other direction was a small, light tank on which sat a group of squaddies. My friend instantly froze and asked if there had been a coup. I laughed and reassured him that of course there hadn't been as I was absolutely certain that such things just don't happen in Britain. However, his fear was real and I stopped myself from ridiculing his question. He was scared and he understood the danger of such events because his country had seen the terror that they bring in his recent history.
Our armed forces are among the best in the world - in the words of a famous lager they probably are the best - but they should not be revered. Reverence puts them above and outside of society. They are one of the best and most reliable organs of our state because they are fully part of the state, not separate. We should support our troops wholeheartedly but revere only whatever gods we choose to worship.
There are very few of us who do not strongly respect and support the work of British forces abroad. I couldn't do what they do and I can't imagine the stress it puts on them and their families so they deserve the highest respect and regard. However, we should not 'revere' an army.
One of the most striking moments in my life came when I was driving through London with a Syrian friend in the late 1980s. Coming along the Embankment in the other direction was a small, light tank on which sat a group of squaddies. My friend instantly froze and asked if there had been a coup. I laughed and reassured him that of course there hadn't been as I was absolutely certain that such things just don't happen in Britain. However, his fear was real and I stopped myself from ridiculing his question. He was scared and he understood the danger of such events because his country had seen the terror that they bring in his recent history.
Our armed forces are among the best in the world - in the words of a famous lager they probably are the best - but they should not be revered. Reverence puts them above and outside of society. They are one of the best and most reliable organs of our state because they are fully part of the state, not separate. We should support our troops wholeheartedly but revere only whatever gods we choose to worship.
Saturday, 29 May 2010
THOSE WHO FORGET HISTORY...
Here's a strange thought thrown up by my last blog. I doubt it is novel in the musings about the coalition but it has intrigued me. David Lloyd George, the last LD Prime Minister, was elected in 1918 on the back of his success in bringing the First World War to an end at the head of a coalition government. In the process the Liberals divided among themselves, resulting in his needing the support of Conservatives to govern. Ultimately the Liberals fell apart, allowing the new Labour Party to emerge as the main opposition to the Tories.
In 2010 we have a Conservative Prime Minister who has failed to win an election and who has instead called upon the support of the Liberal Democrats, to the evident dislike of many within his own party. His party appears to have lost its clear purpose in the process of seeking re-election and in many ways he is making common purpose more with Liberal Democrats than with Conservatives.
It may not be a ground-breaking notion but it is interesting.
In 2010 we have a Conservative Prime Minister who has failed to win an election and who has instead called upon the support of the Liberal Democrats, to the evident dislike of many within his own party. His party appears to have lost its clear purpose in the process of seeking re-election and in many ways he is making common purpose more with Liberal Democrats than with Conservatives.
It may not be a ground-breaking notion but it is interesting.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
NO DEALS WITH FAILING LABOUR OR SAME OLD TORIES
I am delighted to read in today's Independent that Nick Clegg is as opposed to any deal with Gordon Brown's Labour Party as I am. As Nick said, a vote for the Liberal Democrats is just that, a vote for the Liberal Democrats.
A separate article from Matthew Norman, which I haven't linked to as it is rather bad-tempered, interestingly points out how David Cameron has failed to present a modern agenda for change, instead focusing on old arguments like supporting First Past the Post, a system which might see him do well in terms of votes but poorly in terms of seats, or in defending a weapons system for a past war rather as French Generals backed the Maginot Line which invading German forces simply went around.
Labour have run out of steam, the Conservatives haven't changed. If you want real change, please vote for it on May 6th.
A separate article from Matthew Norman, which I haven't linked to as it is rather bad-tempered, interestingly points out how David Cameron has failed to present a modern agenda for change, instead focusing on old arguments like supporting First Past the Post, a system which might see him do well in terms of votes but poorly in terms of seats, or in defending a weapons system for a past war rather as French Generals backed the Maginot Line which invading German forces simply went around.
Labour have run out of steam, the Conservatives haven't changed. If you want real change, please vote for it on May 6th.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
MORE ON THE LEADERS' DEBATE
The Telegraph headline on their website is 'Clegg 'wins' Election Debate'.
The Times says 'Nick Clegg seizes his moment in historic TV debate'
These papers are not natural supporters of the Lib Dems. The Telegraph has been described as the Conservative Party's in house journal. I think I am justified in feeling extremely pleased tonight with my leader, my party and my ability to be the only candidate for Henley who can argue for a clear, costed programme for the next government. Well done, Nick.
I hope residents in Henley will consider this when they cast their vote on May 6th. The Tories sound reassuring but what are they actually saying. For many years on a less moderate blog I have pondered the simple, six word question to be raised with any Conservative candidate: yes, but what will you do?
Their leader, David Cameron, was found wanting this evening. I feel their party will be in the weeks to come.
The Times says 'Nick Clegg seizes his moment in historic TV debate'
These papers are not natural supporters of the Lib Dems. The Telegraph has been described as the Conservative Party's in house journal. I think I am justified in feeling extremely pleased tonight with my leader, my party and my ability to be the only candidate for Henley who can argue for a clear, costed programme for the next government. Well done, Nick.
I hope residents in Henley will consider this when they cast their vote on May 6th. The Tories sound reassuring but what are they actually saying. For many years on a less moderate blog I have pondered the simple, six word question to be raised with any Conservative candidate: yes, but what will you do?
Their leader, David Cameron, was found wanting this evening. I feel their party will be in the weeks to come.
LEADERS' DEBATE: BRITISH POLITICS ENTERS THE 21st CENTURY
I'm obviously biased but that aside, I thoroughly enjoyed the leaders' debate which has just ended on ITV. Most importantly it was a useful discussion between the leaders and I trust that anyone watching the programme would have got a very good idea about what the three parties stand for.
I would compliment Gordon Brown for his performance. Mr Brown is not a natural communicator but he acquitted himself well and he landed a few good blows on David Cameron. It was gratifying, if perhaps a trifle embarrassing, for any Lib Dem to see how much Mr Brown sought to align himself with Nick Clegg, suggesting regularly, if rather disingenuously, that Nick agreed with him, rather than Gordon Brown having become a late convert to many Lib Dem causes such as an elected House of Lords and a fair voting system. Mr Brown had the most to lose and I imagine he will be pleased with his performance.
Mr Cameron is a confident speaker and he was naturally assured in his demeanour but his performance was fatally weakened by the lack of detail the Conservatives are able to offer in their election campaign and manifesto. The Conservatives will doubtless claim victory on behalf of Mr Cameron but I doubt he will have persuaded many voters with this display.
It was quite exciting for a Lib Dem candidate such as me to hear Nick Robinson on the BBC making much of Nick Clegg's performance and noting that the comment he noticed the most came from both David Cameron and Gordon Brown saying 'I agree with Nick'. I am entirely partial but I am very pleased with Nick Clegg's confidence, his knowledge of the issues faced and his ability to engage with the audience. And so, it seems, are many viewers and commentators.
However, the overall conclusion must be that the naysayers have been proven completely wrong. This was good, intelligent, useful television with everything to recommend it. I hope it was watched widely and I hope the subsequent two debates will be as successful.
SUPPLEMENT: BBC Question Time is considering the leaders' debate and Nick Clegg is getting a resounding thumbs up from commentators and - crucially - the audience of great British voters.
I would compliment Gordon Brown for his performance. Mr Brown is not a natural communicator but he acquitted himself well and he landed a few good blows on David Cameron. It was gratifying, if perhaps a trifle embarrassing, for any Lib Dem to see how much Mr Brown sought to align himself with Nick Clegg, suggesting regularly, if rather disingenuously, that Nick agreed with him, rather than Gordon Brown having become a late convert to many Lib Dem causes such as an elected House of Lords and a fair voting system. Mr Brown had the most to lose and I imagine he will be pleased with his performance.
Mr Cameron is a confident speaker and he was naturally assured in his demeanour but his performance was fatally weakened by the lack of detail the Conservatives are able to offer in their election campaign and manifesto. The Conservatives will doubtless claim victory on behalf of Mr Cameron but I doubt he will have persuaded many voters with this display.
It was quite exciting for a Lib Dem candidate such as me to hear Nick Robinson on the BBC making much of Nick Clegg's performance and noting that the comment he noticed the most came from both David Cameron and Gordon Brown saying 'I agree with Nick'. I am entirely partial but I am very pleased with Nick Clegg's confidence, his knowledge of the issues faced and his ability to engage with the audience. And so, it seems, are many viewers and commentators.
However, the overall conclusion must be that the naysayers have been proven completely wrong. This was good, intelligent, useful television with everything to recommend it. I hope it was watched widely and I hope the subsequent two debates will be as successful.
SUPPLEMENT: BBC Question Time is considering the leaders' debate and Nick Clegg is getting a resounding thumbs up from commentators and - crucially - the audience of great British voters.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
I WANT REAL CHANGE FOR HENLEY, NOT JUST SPIN
At last the election has been called and pretty much everyone welcomes the chance to finally deliver a verdict on the tired Labour government. Perhaps the only group nervous about the coming campaign is the Conservative Party, which has slipped badly in recent months and which has found itself on the back foot as the lack of anything to say has been exposed under media scrutiny. David Cameron wants people to vote Tory because they aren't Labour but that's just not enough.
So, in the spirit I intend to hold to during this campaign I want to set out simply why a vote for the Lib Dems is not only the right thing to do but is the only choice if you want real change, not just a change of image promised by David Cameron.
The Lib Dems propose four steps to a fairer Britain:
1. Fair taxes that put money back in your pocket
* The first £10,000 you earn tax-free: a tax cut of £700 for most people
* 3.6 million low earners and pensioners freed from income tax completely
* Paid for in full by closing loopholes that unfairly benefit the wealthy and polluters
2. A fair future creating jobs by making Britain greener
* Break up the banks and get them lending again to protect real businesses
* Honesty about the tough choices needed to cut the deficit
* Green growth and jobs that last by investing in infrastructure
3. A fair chance for every child
* Ensure children get the individual attention they need by cutting class sizes
* Made possible by investing £2.5 billion in schools targeted to help struggling pupils
* Give schools the freedom to make the right choices for their pupils
4. A fair deal by cleaning up politics
* Put trust back into politics by giving you the right to sack corrupt MPs
* Restore and protect hard-won British civil liberties with a Freedom Bill
* Overhaul Westminster completely: fair votes, an elected House of Lords, all politicians to pay full British taxes
There is no question that Labour have run out of steam and that the Conservatives represent 'more of the same'. If you want real change, vote for it.
I hope you will consider voting Liberal Democrat on May 6th and I am proud to represent the Lib Dems in Henley constituency.
So, in the spirit I intend to hold to during this campaign I want to set out simply why a vote for the Lib Dems is not only the right thing to do but is the only choice if you want real change, not just a change of image promised by David Cameron.
The Lib Dems propose four steps to a fairer Britain:
1. Fair taxes that put money back in your pocket
* The first £10,000 you earn tax-free: a tax cut of £700 for most people
* 3.6 million low earners and pensioners freed from income tax completely
* Paid for in full by closing loopholes that unfairly benefit the wealthy and polluters
2. A fair future creating jobs by making Britain greener
* Break up the banks and get them lending again to protect real businesses
* Honesty about the tough choices needed to cut the deficit
* Green growth and jobs that last by investing in infrastructure
3. A fair chance for every child
* Ensure children get the individual attention they need by cutting class sizes
* Made possible by investing £2.5 billion in schools targeted to help struggling pupils
* Give schools the freedom to make the right choices for their pupils
4. A fair deal by cleaning up politics
* Put trust back into politics by giving you the right to sack corrupt MPs
* Restore and protect hard-won British civil liberties with a Freedom Bill
* Overhaul Westminster completely: fair votes, an elected House of Lords, all politicians to pay full British taxes
There is no question that Labour have run out of steam and that the Conservatives represent 'more of the same'. If you want real change, vote for it.
I hope you will consider voting Liberal Democrat on May 6th and I am proud to represent the Lib Dems in Henley constituency.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
CAMERON DOES WELL ON NI PROPOSALS - BUT WHERE WAS OSBORNE?
There was a good interview on the Today programme this morning in which Conservative leader David Cameron gave as good as he got on the issue of budget cuts and the National Insurance proposals from the Tories. This was one of those interviews which was well balanced and Sarah Montague is to be congratulated for addressing Mr Cameron's responses rather than simply continuing with pre-prepared and lengthy arguments which some of her colleagues tend to resort to.
Two points struck me about this interview. First, Cameron's quote from last year, read back to him, that 'efficiencies' were not a serious proposal for anyone considering savings was quite simply unanswerable. Mr Cameron did well but he was forced to defend a 180 degree handbrake turn, which is never easy.
The second, damning point was that it was David Cameron defending Tory budget plans, not the Shadow Chancellor George Osborne. Why could this be?
Two points struck me about this interview. First, Cameron's quote from last year, read back to him, that 'efficiencies' were not a serious proposal for anyone considering savings was quite simply unanswerable. Mr Cameron did well but he was forced to defend a 180 degree handbrake turn, which is never easy.
The second, damning point was that it was David Cameron defending Tory budget plans, not the Shadow Chancellor George Osborne. Why could this be?
Sunday, 28 February 2010
THE ARROGANCE OF CONSERVATIVE EXPECTATION
The BBC today reports that David Cameron will declare in front of the Conservative Spring conference that it is his 'patriotic duty' to remove Gordon Brown as the country is 'a complete and utter mess'. This is a fascinating formulation and it will be interesting to see if he goes through with this.
It is fascinating because Mr Cameron has encapsulated in a single phrase the essence of Conservatism, which has in the past often tended towards an arrogant expectation to rule with little or no regard to the wishes or priorities of voters. If he does indeed deliver the trailed speech it will confirm to me that the Conservative Party under David Cameron has not changed one iota from previous incarnations.
The second aspect is a harking back to the 'Broken Britain' formulation of recent years. Now I would not for a second seek to defend the Labour government, which has singularly failed to address many of the ills of our society over 13 long years and which has settled into the political doldrums under Gordon Brown but I object very strongly to the assertion that the country - my country - is a 'complete and utter mess' as Mr Cameron would have us believe. It is not.
There are myriad problems in Britain which require urgent attention, such as the parlous state of the public finances, the complete failure of New Labour over 13 years to address the democratic deficit at the heart of our country, the 'car crash' which faces all local authorities as the hated Council Tax continues to spin out of control, causing them all budget problems and the issue of social care which is precisely the kind of thing we elect politicians to deal with but which the Conservatives in particular have simply walked away from.
The Conservatives' response to these issues is at best ill thought out, at worst dangerous. They would slash spending with an axe, most likely forcing us into a slump; they are content that our political system, with its unelected second chamber, its all-powerful Prime Minister and its crude, unrepreentative electoral system is working just fine; they invented and continue to support the Council Tax, planning a two year freeze to try to address the problem - a sticking plaster for a gaping wound if ever there was one; and they have simply and shamefully walked away from the discussion over social care.
Instead of his planned speech I would like to see David Cameron acknowledge that it is not his patrician 'duty' to become Prime Minister, it is the choice of millions of voters whom he must persuade that he is able to do the job and that he has the appropriate policies, which for many he has failed to do.
I would also like him to acknowledge that we don't live in a terrible, crime ridden country of single mums and drug addicts but that millions of people in this country do have urgent needs which an incoming government must address while accepting that life for many people is reasonable and should be maintained as far as possible. He should accept that there are major problems for an incoming government to address but damning the very people one seeks to help is not a good starting position for any potential leader.
Mr Cameron's prescription for the country is wrong and it appears that voters are recognising that in increasing numbers.
It is fascinating because Mr Cameron has encapsulated in a single phrase the essence of Conservatism, which has in the past often tended towards an arrogant expectation to rule with little or no regard to the wishes or priorities of voters. If he does indeed deliver the trailed speech it will confirm to me that the Conservative Party under David Cameron has not changed one iota from previous incarnations.
The second aspect is a harking back to the 'Broken Britain' formulation of recent years. Now I would not for a second seek to defend the Labour government, which has singularly failed to address many of the ills of our society over 13 long years and which has settled into the political doldrums under Gordon Brown but I object very strongly to the assertion that the country - my country - is a 'complete and utter mess' as Mr Cameron would have us believe. It is not.
There are myriad problems in Britain which require urgent attention, such as the parlous state of the public finances, the complete failure of New Labour over 13 years to address the democratic deficit at the heart of our country, the 'car crash' which faces all local authorities as the hated Council Tax continues to spin out of control, causing them all budget problems and the issue of social care which is precisely the kind of thing we elect politicians to deal with but which the Conservatives in particular have simply walked away from.
The Conservatives' response to these issues is at best ill thought out, at worst dangerous. They would slash spending with an axe, most likely forcing us into a slump; they are content that our political system, with its unelected second chamber, its all-powerful Prime Minister and its crude, unrepreentative electoral system is working just fine; they invented and continue to support the Council Tax, planning a two year freeze to try to address the problem - a sticking plaster for a gaping wound if ever there was one; and they have simply and shamefully walked away from the discussion over social care.
Instead of his planned speech I would like to see David Cameron acknowledge that it is not his patrician 'duty' to become Prime Minister, it is the choice of millions of voters whom he must persuade that he is able to do the job and that he has the appropriate policies, which for many he has failed to do.
I would also like him to acknowledge that we don't live in a terrible, crime ridden country of single mums and drug addicts but that millions of people in this country do have urgent needs which an incoming government must address while accepting that life for many people is reasonable and should be maintained as far as possible. He should accept that there are major problems for an incoming government to address but damning the very people one seeks to help is not a good starting position for any potential leader.
Mr Cameron's prescription for the country is wrong and it appears that voters are recognising that in increasing numbers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)