Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Rifkind attacks Maggie Thatcher
Malcolm Rifkind seems to have been designated as the Tory attack dog. I never thought I would hear a Tory grandee, such as Rifkind, attacking Maggie Thatcher and accusing her of, among other things, being "brazen".
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Cameron and the Hefferlump - Now it's serious!
There is an absolute gem in this fortnight's Private Eye, reproduced on their website:
Simon Heffer’s constant criticism of David Cameron in the Telegraph is beginning to goad poor Dave beyond endurance. During his holiday in Brittany last month, the Tory leader was lunching one day with Tory treasurer Lord Marland, who has a holiday apartment out there – and who mentioned that Hefferlump sometimes rents a particular house in Dinard for his summer hols.
Simon Heffer’s constant criticism of David Cameron in the Telegraph is beginning to goad poor Dave beyond endurance. During his holiday in Brittany last month, the Tory leader was lunching one day with Tory treasurer Lord Marland, who has a holiday apartment out there – and who mentioned that Hefferlump sometimes rents a particular house in Dinard for his summer hols.
‘Right!’ Dave roared, rising from the table. ‘Let’s go over there and settle this Heffer business now!’ Cameron was ready for battle. Marland had to drive him to Dinard and lead him to the front door of the house.
Alas! What terrible vengeance he planned will never be known: the villa turned out to be occupied by a blameless and wholly unHefferish family.
Cameron stomped off red-faced with rage and embarrassment – while, far away, Simon Heffer continued his sedate motoring holiday in the Bavarian Alps. Poop poop!
Conservative's green policy shambles
On balance, I agree with the Friends of the Earth verdict on the Tory "Quality of Life" proposals:
This is an enormously important report with many innovative and significant proposals that we wholeheartedly support.The challenge now is to turn this blueprint for a greener future into official party policy.
There's the rub. My head is still spinning on this. I am still not quite sure what the Tories are proposing, particularly after Zak Goldsmith "backpedalled" on some of the main proposals on Conservative Home as highlighted by Chris K. Maybe they aren't proposing anything - it's all just a way of getting on the telly. I don't know. It's a mystery.
This whole thing (I hesitate to use the word "announcement" as it has been more a series of briefings, leaks, press releases and lots of "backpedalling") has been almost impossible to follow. The Tory policy making process, if it can be called that, is an utter shambles.
But anyway, there are some contradictions which are glaring. On Newsnight, only last month, Cameron said he was in favour of airport expansion but now this report proposes to "institute a significant moratorium on new road and airport building." No doubt, Cameron will indicate that it hangs on the interpretation of the the word "significant", but he can't have it both ways.
On the one hand, David Cameron is saying that the money taken on "green taxes" will 'go into a ring-fenced fund to reduce family taxes', and on the other the report itself (1.3.3.1.2) says the proposed green taxes will be "fiscally neutral":
Our policy proposals are fiscally neutral. For example, whilst we recommend levying a high Purchase Tax for the most polluting cars in a class, we argue that all the money received should be returned to tax payers either in the form of a ‘feebate’ to the greenest cars or in other tax reductions.
So which is it to be?
With only a month to go before a possible election, this is a policy mess I would not like to have in our party!
It was entertaining to see John Gummer presenting this report on the telly. My goodness how I missed him! I always feel that he should be doing the voices at a "Punch and Judy" show. As far I am concerned the Tories can give us 24 hour rolling Gummer and Redwood. Most entertaining but unlikely to win them any votes.
This is an enormously important report with many innovative and significant proposals that we wholeheartedly support.The challenge now is to turn this blueprint for a greener future into official party policy.
There's the rub. My head is still spinning on this. I am still not quite sure what the Tories are proposing, particularly after Zak Goldsmith "backpedalled" on some of the main proposals on Conservative Home as highlighted by Chris K. Maybe they aren't proposing anything - it's all just a way of getting on the telly. I don't know. It's a mystery.
This whole thing (I hesitate to use the word "announcement" as it has been more a series of briefings, leaks, press releases and lots of "backpedalling") has been almost impossible to follow. The Tory policy making process, if it can be called that, is an utter shambles.
But anyway, there are some contradictions which are glaring. On Newsnight, only last month, Cameron said he was in favour of airport expansion but now this report proposes to "institute a significant moratorium on new road and airport building." No doubt, Cameron will indicate that it hangs on the interpretation of the the word "significant", but he can't have it both ways.
On the one hand, David Cameron is saying that the money taken on "green taxes" will 'go into a ring-fenced fund to reduce family taxes', and on the other the report itself (1.3.3.1.2) says the proposed green taxes will be "fiscally neutral":
Our policy proposals are fiscally neutral. For example, whilst we recommend levying a high Purchase Tax for the most polluting cars in a class, we argue that all the money received should be returned to tax payers either in the form of a ‘feebate’ to the greenest cars or in other tax reductions.
So which is it to be?
With only a month to go before a possible election, this is a policy mess I would not like to have in our party!
It was entertaining to see John Gummer presenting this report on the telly. My goodness how I missed him! I always feel that he should be doing the voices at a "Punch and Judy" show. As far I am concerned the Tories can give us 24 hour rolling Gummer and Redwood. Most entertaining but unlikely to win them any votes.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Yet more problems for the Tory quality of life proposals
It seems to be one danged thing after another for the Tory quality of life proposals. They appear to have more holes than your average-sized colander.
The latest squall is to do with the proposals about shops and green taxes.
The Sun fires off at Cameron saying "he is barking mad if he thinks supermarkets should charge for parking".
Richard Littlejohn, never missing an opportunity to shoot from the hip, also goes steaming in, in the Mail:
People are aware of their responsibilities to the planet, and most try to conserve energy and recycle as much as possible. But they resent lectures about individual behaviour from Old Etonian politicians. An extra two grand on a Mondeo may not matter to a multi-millionaire like Goldsmith, but it's a huge chunk of change from the average family budget. And whatever CMD [Call Me Dave] may think, regardless of what people tell pollsters, no one will vote for higher taxes and higher prices. They also resent being expected to pay more, on top of their council tax, for less frequent rubbish collections. The Government already raises the thick end of £30 billion a year through "green" taxes - virtually none of which gets spent improving the environment.
I don't agree with the gist of these attacks, but it is great fun to observe the travails of the combustible organism which is the present day Tory "coalition".
The latest squall is to do with the proposals about shops and green taxes.
The Sun fires off at Cameron saying "he is barking mad if he thinks supermarkets should charge for parking".
Richard Littlejohn, never missing an opportunity to shoot from the hip, also goes steaming in, in the Mail:
People are aware of their responsibilities to the planet, and most try to conserve energy and recycle as much as possible. But they resent lectures about individual behaviour from Old Etonian politicians. An extra two grand on a Mondeo may not matter to a multi-millionaire like Goldsmith, but it's a huge chunk of change from the average family budget. And whatever CMD [Call Me Dave] may think, regardless of what people tell pollsters, no one will vote for higher taxes and higher prices. They also resent being expected to pay more, on top of their council tax, for less frequent rubbish collections. The Government already raises the thick end of £30 billion a year through "green" taxes - virtually none of which gets spent improving the environment.
I don't agree with the gist of these attacks, but it is great fun to observe the travails of the combustible organism which is the present day Tory "coalition".
Monday, September 10, 2007
The public dismantling of Jim Davidson, aka "Hell's Kitchen"
Jim Davidson's career has been on something of a downward trajectory for some time. Once fêted by Margaret Thatcher, the toast of Conservative Association Dinners and host of The Generation Game, he is now somewhat sidelined in the entertainment world, if not in the twilight world of the Conservative party.
Last night on Hell's Kitchen the reasons why Davidson is now arguably persona non grata in mainstream entertainment were displayed with embarrassing clarity.
In summary, a series of exchanges with fellow contestant, Brian Dowling, resulted in Jim Davidson, in the words of the presenter Angus Deayton, "being asked to leave the show". I understand that this coincided almost precisely with the moment Davidson asked in writing to leave the show.
ITV.com gives the words used in the exchanges (there's a set-up video from YouTube below). It's worth reading. Suffice it to say that it involves Jim Davidson using the word "shirt-lifters", talking about a 'gay preen' look, accusing Dowling of 'playing the homophobic card' and, finally, starting some nonsense about "G.A.Y - good as you" which he later tried to imply was sympathetic to gay people. Bear in mind that this all happened after a hard day in the kitchen and a glass or twain of wine all round, with resultant hyperventilation stirred up by the televisual setting and, no doubt, skilful editing.
Paul Young (yes, he is still alive) played something of the umpire's role. He is a friend of Davidson and of a similar generation. Even he made clear that he thought Davidson was out of order. And in a moment of perspicuity and, indeed, perspicacity, when Davidson asked "What happens to us - where do we go?", Young said: "Well, we're the old generation, you and me, Jim. Things have moved on". Wise words.
Full marks to Brian Dowling. He stood his ground. Despite being very emotional and fighting to speak through tears and sobs, he refused to be encouraged away from Davidson by the ladies in the company. Dowling said his piece very effectively to Davidson, culminating in the statement: "You are the most offensive person I have ever met".
Thank goodness the producers had the good sense to ask Davidson to leave after all that and, it seems Mr Davidson also realised that he was on a hiding to nothing.
Concluding by saying "in fairness to Jim Davidson" would be going too far. However, it has to be said that nothing Jim Davidson said or did on that programme surprised me. He did what you would expect an unreconstructed right-winger to do. He did what you would expect Jim Davidson to do. He even asked: "What about white, straight, Anglo-Saxon males like me? Who cares about us? Where do we go?" As if white, straight, Anglo-Saxon males don't hold sufficient aces in life to be sensitive to others' feelings, like the rest of us (I'm a Celt).
None of what Davidson said or did cannot be found expressed in some corners of some pubs, clubs and homes in the country everyday. Like the Jade Goody/Big Brother stuff. But that does not excuse it for one second being blurted out on national TV without somewhat career-limiting consequences for the proponent.
(It seems Davidson is suffering from a mild case of Bernard Manning Syndrome, by the way. Having spent a lifetime making a career out of debatably offensive, or, at least, patronising, material (his act for many years majored on his friend "Chalkie", who was.....you guessed it) he is now viewing the public's arguable rejection of his previously lucrative views with complete bemusement.)
Above all, Davidson was just boorishly insensitive to Dowling. Having had a career in light entertainment, you would have thought Davidson would have shown at least an atom of sensitivity towards the chap.
Take one of the mildest things Davidson said to Dowling (who admittedly was drawing on all his considerable reality show skills): "If I was in a pub and you were there as well, I wouldn't talk to you."
It's the kind of thing you might think, but would you ever say it to someone unless they had actually said something outrageous and needed being taken down a peg or two? Of course not. And to say it to such an obviously sensitive fellow as Dowling (who incidentally has been unusual for a ex-Big Brother contestant in displaying a respectable amount of talent in television presenting, even if it is often doing that annoying ITV nightime polyfilla show with the gameboard to his right) is just not fair.
So Davidson gets his comeuppance. (As Harry Enfield's pub-berating character might say "Oi! Davidson! You're out of order!"). Unlike Jade Goody with India and Boris Johnson with Liverpool, somehow I don't see Jim Davidson doing an apologia tour of Old Compton Street, doing penitential stand-up in Heaven or, far more relevantly, apologising to the human race in general. That's the point. He is such an insensitive person that salvaging his mainstream career with some humility and grace is simply not in him, I suspect. Instead, we'll probably get the affronted "I didn't mean any offence...many of my best friends are gay" defence. But I live in hope of being proved wrong.
So, as Jim Davidson asked last night: "Where do I go?"
Answer, presumably Jim: where you've been recently. Dubai is it, some of the time? One suspects it may well be anywhere except mainstream British public life.
Has anyone got Martin Bashir's number?
UPDATE: You can see the clip of the “dust-up” from last night here on ITV's site - under “Latest clips” – “He’s a horrible man”.
Last night on Hell's Kitchen the reasons why Davidson is now arguably persona non grata in mainstream entertainment were displayed with embarrassing clarity.
In summary, a series of exchanges with fellow contestant, Brian Dowling, resulted in Jim Davidson, in the words of the presenter Angus Deayton, "being asked to leave the show". I understand that this coincided almost precisely with the moment Davidson asked in writing to leave the show.
ITV.com gives the words used in the exchanges (there's a set-up video from YouTube below). It's worth reading. Suffice it to say that it involves Jim Davidson using the word "shirt-lifters", talking about a 'gay preen' look, accusing Dowling of 'playing the homophobic card' and, finally, starting some nonsense about "G.A.Y - good as you" which he later tried to imply was sympathetic to gay people. Bear in mind that this all happened after a hard day in the kitchen and a glass or twain of wine all round, with resultant hyperventilation stirred up by the televisual setting and, no doubt, skilful editing.
Paul Young (yes, he is still alive) played something of the umpire's role. He is a friend of Davidson and of a similar generation. Even he made clear that he thought Davidson was out of order. And in a moment of perspicuity and, indeed, perspicacity, when Davidson asked "What happens to us - where do we go?", Young said: "Well, we're the old generation, you and me, Jim. Things have moved on". Wise words.
Full marks to Brian Dowling. He stood his ground. Despite being very emotional and fighting to speak through tears and sobs, he refused to be encouraged away from Davidson by the ladies in the company. Dowling said his piece very effectively to Davidson, culminating in the statement: "You are the most offensive person I have ever met".
Thank goodness the producers had the good sense to ask Davidson to leave after all that and, it seems Mr Davidson also realised that he was on a hiding to nothing.
Concluding by saying "in fairness to Jim Davidson" would be going too far. However, it has to be said that nothing Jim Davidson said or did on that programme surprised me. He did what you would expect an unreconstructed right-winger to do. He did what you would expect Jim Davidson to do. He even asked: "What about white, straight, Anglo-Saxon males like me? Who cares about us? Where do we go?" As if white, straight, Anglo-Saxon males don't hold sufficient aces in life to be sensitive to others' feelings, like the rest of us (I'm a Celt).
None of what Davidson said or did cannot be found expressed in some corners of some pubs, clubs and homes in the country everyday. Like the Jade Goody/Big Brother stuff. But that does not excuse it for one second being blurted out on national TV without somewhat career-limiting consequences for the proponent.
(It seems Davidson is suffering from a mild case of Bernard Manning Syndrome, by the way. Having spent a lifetime making a career out of debatably offensive, or, at least, patronising, material (his act for many years majored on his friend "Chalkie", who was.....you guessed it) he is now viewing the public's arguable rejection of his previously lucrative views with complete bemusement.)
Above all, Davidson was just boorishly insensitive to Dowling. Having had a career in light entertainment, you would have thought Davidson would have shown at least an atom of sensitivity towards the chap.
Take one of the mildest things Davidson said to Dowling (who admittedly was drawing on all his considerable reality show skills): "If I was in a pub and you were there as well, I wouldn't talk to you."
It's the kind of thing you might think, but would you ever say it to someone unless they had actually said something outrageous and needed being taken down a peg or two? Of course not. And to say it to such an obviously sensitive fellow as Dowling (who incidentally has been unusual for a ex-Big Brother contestant in displaying a respectable amount of talent in television presenting, even if it is often doing that annoying ITV nightime polyfilla show with the gameboard to his right) is just not fair.
So Davidson gets his comeuppance. (As Harry Enfield's pub-berating character might say "Oi! Davidson! You're out of order!"). Unlike Jade Goody with India and Boris Johnson with Liverpool, somehow I don't see Jim Davidson doing an apologia tour of Old Compton Street, doing penitential stand-up in Heaven or, far more relevantly, apologising to the human race in general. That's the point. He is such an insensitive person that salvaging his mainstream career with some humility and grace is simply not in him, I suspect. Instead, we'll probably get the affronted "I didn't mean any offence...many of my best friends are gay" defence. But I live in hope of being proved wrong.
So, as Jim Davidson asked last night: "Where do I go?"
Answer, presumably Jim: where you've been recently. Dubai is it, some of the time? One suspects it may well be anywhere except mainstream British public life.
Has anyone got Martin Bashir's number?
UPDATE: You can see the clip of the “dust-up” from last night here on ITV's site - under “Latest clips” – “He’s a horrible man”.
Does John Bercow stand a candle in hell's chance of standing again for the Conservatives?
I wouldn't bet on it.
Conservative Home today reports speculation over the deselection of Bercow and Patrick Mercer, his fellow Tory Brown adviser. That follows a Daily Mail article talking about "Grassroots fury" at the two.
Conservative Home reckon that pressure on the two is not massive, particularly in Bercow's case. But, we have already had Iain Dale having to hold his swear words about the two. And there have been a cascade of (admittedly, not uniformly) critical comments on Conservative Home about the two. Some of those comments are included for your delectation at the bottom of this post.
I don't often receive comments on my blog from named Conservatives. Simon Icke of Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire (in John Bercow's constituency) was kind enough to leave a very fulsome comment here. He obviously feels very strongly that Bercow should be replaced. The gist of it is summed up by this passage:
In my opinion John Bercow is not a man of conviction or has any real principles, nor, is he a man that shows loyalty to the Conservative Party or it's leaders, he is merely an opportunist MP that blows with every favourable wind, if that wind is a trendy left wing liberal wind, all the better.
Mr Icke goes on to say:
...is the only way to remove him as the MP for Buckingham to have a real conservative; someone with traditional conservative values and ideology, stand against him at the next election as an Independent Conservative?
Strong stuff. Here is that equally strong stuff from Conservative Home commenters:
Conservative Home today reports speculation over the deselection of Bercow and Patrick Mercer, his fellow Tory Brown adviser. That follows a Daily Mail article talking about "Grassroots fury" at the two.
Conservative Home reckon that pressure on the two is not massive, particularly in Bercow's case. But, we have already had Iain Dale having to hold his swear words about the two. And there have been a cascade of (admittedly, not uniformly) critical comments on Conservative Home about the two. Some of those comments are included for your delectation at the bottom of this post.
I don't often receive comments on my blog from named Conservatives. Simon Icke of Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire (in John Bercow's constituency) was kind enough to leave a very fulsome comment here. He obviously feels very strongly that Bercow should be replaced. The gist of it is summed up by this passage:
In my opinion John Bercow is not a man of conviction or has any real principles, nor, is he a man that shows loyalty to the Conservative Party or it's leaders, he is merely an opportunist MP that blows with every favourable wind, if that wind is a trendy left wing liberal wind, all the better.
Mr Icke goes on to say:
...is the only way to remove him as the MP for Buckingham to have a real conservative; someone with traditional conservative values and ideology, stand against him at the next election as an Independent Conservative?
Strong stuff. Here is that equally strong stuff from Conservative Home commenters:
Why the whips ever let Bercow and Mercer accept such positions is beyond me. Why they think their voice will be heard or heeded is equally unfathomable.
Bercow and Mercer should become Brown-ian experts on Unemployment by being issued with P45's forthwith!!!!!
Tories are not doing better in the marginals after all
Last month there were reports that the Tories were doing better in the most marginal seats than in the national polls. Triples all round on Conservative Home and Iain Dale's Diary.
Except the authoritative (fast becoming my 'word of the month', I know) figure of Stephan Shakespeare (co-founder of YouGov as well as J.Archer's former spokesperson) explains on Conservative Home that the optimism was based on a false interpretation of the poll, and that the Tories are doing no better or worse in the marginals:
...an analysis of the three most recent Populus polls, separating the data from just the 120 most marginal seats, painted a rather too rosy picture by wrongly suggesting a better result for the Conservatives in the seats that matter most, the 120 ‘most marginals’, prompting ConservativeHome and others to think that the targeted campaigning effort being made in marginal seats is paying dividends.
It may or may not be paying dividends – but the poll analysis provided no evidence for it. In fact, the correct interpretation of the data is that change in voting intention is exactly the same in the marginals as it is in the rest of the country. And that change is zero.
Except the authoritative (fast becoming my 'word of the month', I know) figure of Stephan Shakespeare (co-founder of YouGov as well as J.Archer's former spokesperson) explains on Conservative Home that the optimism was based on a false interpretation of the poll, and that the Tories are doing no better or worse in the marginals:
...an analysis of the three most recent Populus polls, separating the data from just the 120 most marginal seats, painted a rather too rosy picture by wrongly suggesting a better result for the Conservatives in the seats that matter most, the 120 ‘most marginals’, prompting ConservativeHome and others to think that the targeted campaigning effort being made in marginal seats is paying dividends.
It may or may not be paying dividends – but the poll analysis provided no evidence for it. In fact, the correct interpretation of the data is that change in voting intention is exactly the same in the marginals as it is in the rest of the country. And that change is zero.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Two fatal flaws in the Tory quality of lfe proposals....and counting
Jock Coats was up late last night and spotted a Tory bloomer within their Quality of Life commission report. That is that outlawing stand-by functionality on TVs has already been announced by the government...thirteen months ago.
Iain Dale, bless him, has now spotted another fatal flow in one of the proposals:
I've just watched Zak Goldsmith's interview with Andrew Marr (HERE). His Quality of Life Policy Commission will be proposing that if your house is 'environmentally friendly' you will get a reduction in stamp duty when you sell it. Only one problem with that, as far as I can see. It is the buyer who pays stamp duty, not the seller.
Ooops...again.
Iain Dale, bless him, has now spotted another fatal flow in one of the proposals:
I've just watched Zak Goldsmith's interview with Andrew Marr (HERE). His Quality of Life Policy Commission will be proposing that if your house is 'environmentally friendly' you will get a reduction in stamp duty when you sell it. Only one problem with that, as far as I can see. It is the buyer who pays stamp duty, not the seller.
Ooops...again.
Money and celebrity will not make us happy - thanks for the advice Dave!
With the new policy launch, David Cameron is telling us that money and celebrity will not make us happy. Well, that's very easy to say when you are rich and famous like him, Cameron, and one of the main authors of the report, Zak Goldsmith.
The Sindie reports:
The proposals, to be published by David Cameron, are expected to urge people to pursue a "slower" lifestyle that may involve a cut in salary and flexible working.
That's great advice isn't it? Especially coming from someone who is rich with at least two highly paid jobs and a wife in a highly paid job, and from a Shadow Cabinet which not only have highly paid MPs' jobs but also 115 jobs outside their parliamentary and shadow roles.
The advice is sound, but it would sound so much better coming from someone who had taken a cut in salary and had moved to flexible working and a slower life style.
The Sindie reports:
The proposals, to be published by David Cameron, are expected to urge people to pursue a "slower" lifestyle that may involve a cut in salary and flexible working.
That's great advice isn't it? Especially coming from someone who is rich with at least two highly paid jobs and a wife in a highly paid job, and from a Shadow Cabinet which not only have highly paid MPs' jobs but also 115 jobs outside their parliamentary and shadow roles.
The advice is sound, but it would sound so much better coming from someone who had taken a cut in salary and had moved to flexible working and a slower life style.
Great Tory idea: bring back evacuees
After "bring back National Service", the Tories now seem to be suggesting "bring back evacuees".
Victoria Cohen in the Observer highlights a gem of an idea which was contained in the launch of the recent Conservative public services review. Co-author Baroness Perry said:
'Discipline, achievement and standards are better in small schools than they are in big ones. So why can't we close the great big city schools...and bus the children out to the villages?'
Is this the battiest idea ever? I can imagine those Baroness Perry envisages those little boys and girls in their gaberdine macs, with gas masks round their shoulders and little packets of sandwiches, being bussed out to the country for school.
Apart from anything else, if you send out bus loads of kids to small village schools, they are no longer small are they?
Cameron chickening out of green air taxes - MIrror
The Sunday Mirror reports that "advisers to Mr Cameron believe they have now persuaded him to dump the plans for green air taxes". So his chickening out of one of the most necessary green policies, then.
Sunday Times reports enticing green tax cut proposals from the Tories:
The Conservatives are proposing to offer tax cuts worth thousands of pounds to householders who make homes more energy efficient. A policy group set up by David Cameron is recommending rebates in stamp duty, reductions in council tax and cuts in the Vat levied on materials that save energy.
Sunday Times reports enticing green tax cut proposals from the Tories:
The Conservatives are proposing to offer tax cuts worth thousands of pounds to householders who make homes more energy efficient. A policy group set up by David Cameron is recommending rebates in stamp duty, reductions in council tax and cuts in the Vat levied on materials that save energy.
Desperate Cameron contacted Eliasch 15 times to try to stop him defecting
So says the Sunday Telegraph:
David Cameron made a series of desperate bids to persuade Johan Eliasch, the Conservative Party's former deputy treasurer, from signing up as an adviser to Gordon Brown. It was claimed that Mr Eliasch, a millionaire businessman, was contacted as many as 15 times by Mr Cameron as the Tory leader made a vain effort to dissuade him from defecting to the Prime Minister.
David Cameron made a series of desperate bids to persuade Johan Eliasch, the Conservative Party's former deputy treasurer, from signing up as an adviser to Gordon Brown. It was claimed that Mr Eliasch, a millionaire businessman, was contacted as many as 15 times by Mr Cameron as the Tory leader made a vain effort to dissuade him from defecting to the Prime Minister.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
At last! The antidote to hysterical talk of coalitions
The pamphlet “In the balance: coalition and minority government in Britain and abroad” from CentreForum is a welcome contribution to the debate on hung parliaments.
Earlier this week I pooh-poohed an article from Mark Oaten on a potential Lib-Con coalition. Perhaps that was unfair, given my welcome now for CentreForum’s opus. However, Mr Oaten has a book to promote and a career to kick-start. His article suggested commonalities between the LibDems and the Tories which I simply don’t think exist.
In contrast, the CentreForum pamphlet is more objective and authoritative. It takes a look at the structures of minority government and coalitions, using the recent examples of Wales, Scotland and Germany.
I am always very reluctant to enter into discussions about coalitions. That is often because such discussions have, historically, tended to be ridiculously simplistic and bordering on the hysterical. “In the balance” covers the various complexities of balanced governments and, from them, produces some very objective and sober conclusions. As such, the pamphlet is the antidote to those hitherto frenetic, conclusion-jumping debates about coalitions.
The pamphlet goes through the history of hung parliaments here and abroad. One aspect of history, which it highlights, is one which is often conveniently forgotten. John Major’s government was kept in power by the Ulster Unionists in 1996. Also, while Conservatives have slammed Brown’s use of advisers from other parties, the paper notes that Churchill did this in 1951 - with those awful Liberals, of all people!
“In the balance” relates some of the institutional structures present elsewhere, and absent in Westminster, which are essential in facilitating stable coalition government. In Germany they have fixed term parliaments which stop any shenanigans with the election dates (bliss!). They also have a system where the ousting of a government requires a “constructive vote of no confidence” – i.e. “the Chancellor can be removed from office only by the Bundestag if he or she is replaced by an alternative candidate in command of a parliamentary majority.” In Scotland they have had specialist, expert committees which have often provided “cover” for political parties to take action to defuse controversial problems.
The paper makes an interesting observation about the possibility of similar structures for Westminster:
In principle, Westminster parties could also set up such mechanisms. The potential difficulty is that a political culture which sees minority or coalition governments as short lived anomalies would have little incentive to build mediating institutions. This could potentially have serious implications for the viability of coalitions at Westminster.
“In the balance” also makes a point which is often forgotten in debates about hung parliaments – “minority government is a viable alternative to a coalition” – a point which is now receiving a timely demonstration, to some extent, by the SNP in Scotland.
The paper also interestingly highlights the importance of the public’s perception when forming governments after elections. If it is clearly thought that an existing government is “knackered” and that there is a popular view that they “lost” the election (even though the arithmetic may not be so overwhelming) then that perception plays a key role in what happens after the election.
Pulling all this together, the pamphlet concludes:
In the absence of significant electoral reform, coalition or minority governments are likely to remain exceptions to the norm in Westminster – although a continued long term decline in the standing of the two major parties and a more fragmented party system may make them more frequent than they have been since 1945. As such, the institutional structures and cultural norms which sustain coalitions are likely to remain absent in Westminster without a very conscious effort to put them in place, which, in something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, further reduces the viability of coalitions here. Nonetheless, the examples show that Westminster should not fear minority or coalition government. This form of government may introduce added complexity, and the need for certain new institutional mechanisms. But (our) essays show that coalitions and minority governments can produce both stable and productive governments, and may pave the way to a more consensual style of politics.
Earlier this week I pooh-poohed an article from Mark Oaten on a potential Lib-Con coalition. Perhaps that was unfair, given my welcome now for CentreForum’s opus. However, Mr Oaten has a book to promote and a career to kick-start. His article suggested commonalities between the LibDems and the Tories which I simply don’t think exist.
In contrast, the CentreForum pamphlet is more objective and authoritative. It takes a look at the structures of minority government and coalitions, using the recent examples of Wales, Scotland and Germany.
I am always very reluctant to enter into discussions about coalitions. That is often because such discussions have, historically, tended to be ridiculously simplistic and bordering on the hysterical. “In the balance” covers the various complexities of balanced governments and, from them, produces some very objective and sober conclusions. As such, the pamphlet is the antidote to those hitherto frenetic, conclusion-jumping debates about coalitions.
The pamphlet goes through the history of hung parliaments here and abroad. One aspect of history, which it highlights, is one which is often conveniently forgotten. John Major’s government was kept in power by the Ulster Unionists in 1996. Also, while Conservatives have slammed Brown’s use of advisers from other parties, the paper notes that Churchill did this in 1951 - with those awful Liberals, of all people!
“In the balance” relates some of the institutional structures present elsewhere, and absent in Westminster, which are essential in facilitating stable coalition government. In Germany they have fixed term parliaments which stop any shenanigans with the election dates (bliss!). They also have a system where the ousting of a government requires a “constructive vote of no confidence” – i.e. “the Chancellor can be removed from office only by the Bundestag if he or she is replaced by an alternative candidate in command of a parliamentary majority.” In Scotland they have had specialist, expert committees which have often provided “cover” for political parties to take action to defuse controversial problems.
The paper makes an interesting observation about the possibility of similar structures for Westminster:
In principle, Westminster parties could also set up such mechanisms. The potential difficulty is that a political culture which sees minority or coalition governments as short lived anomalies would have little incentive to build mediating institutions. This could potentially have serious implications for the viability of coalitions at Westminster.
“In the balance” also makes a point which is often forgotten in debates about hung parliaments – “minority government is a viable alternative to a coalition” – a point which is now receiving a timely demonstration, to some extent, by the SNP in Scotland.
The paper also interestingly highlights the importance of the public’s perception when forming governments after elections. If it is clearly thought that an existing government is “knackered” and that there is a popular view that they “lost” the election (even though the arithmetic may not be so overwhelming) then that perception plays a key role in what happens after the election.
Pulling all this together, the pamphlet concludes:
In the absence of significant electoral reform, coalition or minority governments are likely to remain exceptions to the norm in Westminster – although a continued long term decline in the standing of the two major parties and a more fragmented party system may make them more frequent than they have been since 1945. As such, the institutional structures and cultural norms which sustain coalitions are likely to remain absent in Westminster without a very conscious effort to put them in place, which, in something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, further reduces the viability of coalitions here. Nonetheless, the examples show that Westminster should not fear minority or coalition government. This form of government may introduce added complexity, and the need for certain new institutional mechanisms. But (our) essays show that coalitions and minority governments can produce both stable and productive governments, and may pave the way to a more consensual style of politics.
Friday, September 7, 2007
'Voters are confused about Cameron' - new Tory Vice Chairman
I think the Tory party is bit like Cricket Clubs - they have 37 Vice Chairs or something like that. Anyway, Kulveer Ranger has just been appointed a Tory Vice-Chair and has said:
Voters do not know if David Cameron is a “toff with a conscience” or whether he can relate to wider society, according to a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party.
Well it's not surprising is it? I suppose we should give the public full marks for skills of perception.
Voters do not know if David Cameron is a “toff with a conscience” or whether he can relate to wider society, according to a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party.
Well it's not surprising is it? I suppose we should give the public full marks for skills of perception.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Portillo accuses Cameron of "losing his nerve" over Conservative rebranding
Appropriately, Marketing Week reports:
Michael Portillo, the former Conservative minister-turned-TV-personality, has accused Tory leader David Cameron of "losing his nerve" over the rebranding of the party after it faltered in opinion polls.
Michael Portillo, the former Conservative minister-turned-TV-personality, has accused Tory leader David Cameron of "losing his nerve" over the rebranding of the party after it faltered in opinion polls.
Conservative Home criticises Cameron's sharp rebuffs to internal critics
Cameron does seem to be making a consistent mistake in attacking his internal critics with remarkable venom.
First, he shredded Kalms, Brady and Miraj on Today. Now he says a former deputy leader and Tory Chairman, Michael Ancram, is a 'blast from the past who signifies nothing'. The actual quote was: "When you make changes you’ll get blasts from the past who signify nothing."
While this "offence is the best form of defence" tactic might dig Cameron out of temporary ordure occasionally, in the long-term he is making a huge mistake. He is building up a very cheesed-off cadre of Tories who are going to be sharping their knives behind his back, waiting for the moment to pounce.
Conservative Home comments:
Mr Cameron really must stop trashing his critics. His frustration is understandable but his behaviour is not statesmanlike.
First, he shredded Kalms, Brady and Miraj on Today. Now he says a former deputy leader and Tory Chairman, Michael Ancram, is a 'blast from the past who signifies nothing'. The actual quote was: "When you make changes you’ll get blasts from the past who signify nothing."
While this "offence is the best form of defence" tactic might dig Cameron out of temporary ordure occasionally, in the long-term he is making a huge mistake. He is building up a very cheesed-off cadre of Tories who are going to be sharping their knives behind his back, waiting for the moment to pounce.
Conservative Home comments:
Mr Cameron really must stop trashing his critics. His frustration is understandable but his behaviour is not statesmanlike.
David Cameron gets the White Van Man vote
"They ought to bring back national service"
...The clarion call of white van men, cab drivers and retired colonels everywhere.
Well that's what David Cameron wants to. All 16/17 year-olds should go on a "boot camp" and wrap themselves in the Union Jack, he reckons. In fact, he initially proposed this in 2005 but he has pulled it out of his "in case of emergency lurch right" box to fit in with his "on the hoof" PR "programme".
There is no more suitable organ for Cameron to re-announce this than the Currant Bun, the home of the White Van Man.
To be fair, it's a voluntary scheme. Six weeks. It could involve helping charidees or such like. And he's getting Amir Khan to launch it with him, so that's alright then. Very glossy and shiny.
And the youngsters would be given a cash sum at the end of their "service"! But - wait for it - that will go to a charity of their choice and to the organisation who provided their service opportunity.
I can't see it, somehow.
Is this idea cobblers or am I being unfair?
Is the take-up of teenagers, who could be surfing and earning a bit of money over the summer holidays, to go on a sort of "Boot camp", for no pay, likely to be overwhelming?
It seems to be, above all, another example of policy (re-)announcement driven by a rather desperate PR agenda, aimed, above all, at getting Cameron's revolting, shiny, saintimonious face on the telly as much as possible.
...The clarion call of white van men, cab drivers and retired colonels everywhere.
Well that's what David Cameron wants to. All 16/17 year-olds should go on a "boot camp" and wrap themselves in the Union Jack, he reckons. In fact, he initially proposed this in 2005 but he has pulled it out of his "in case of emergency lurch right" box to fit in with his "on the hoof" PR "programme".
There is no more suitable organ for Cameron to re-announce this than the Currant Bun, the home of the White Van Man.
To be fair, it's a voluntary scheme. Six weeks. It could involve helping charidees or such like. And he's getting Amir Khan to launch it with him, so that's alright then. Very glossy and shiny.
And the youngsters would be given a cash sum at the end of their "service"! But - wait for it - that will go to a charity of their choice and to the organisation who provided their service opportunity.
I can't see it, somehow.
Is this idea cobblers or am I being unfair?
Is the take-up of teenagers, who could be surfing and earning a bit of money over the summer holidays, to go on a sort of "Boot camp", for no pay, likely to be overwhelming?
It seems to be, above all, another example of policy (re-)announcement driven by a rather desperate PR agenda, aimed, above all, at getting Cameron's revolting, shiny, saintimonious face on the telly as much as possible.
Mark Oaten - what can I say?
I don't want to cause a kerfuffle.
Mark Oaten is entitled to write an article in the Times.
I just don't think he is right about 'common cause' between the LibDems and the Tories. Yes, if, a few months ago, you looked at some of the vague mood music that Cameron was emitting, he did seem like a bona fide Observer reader. But now he is showing his true colours (Hit a hoodie etc), so it is obvious that:
a) There is no common cause between the LibDems and the Tories, as we knew all along - the Cameron "sunshine" agenda was a sham masking the real Tory party.
b) The Tory party haven't really worked out what the heck they stand for, so how can you have common cause with a confused entity?
Mark Oaten is entitled to write an article in the Times.
I just don't think he is right about 'common cause' between the LibDems and the Tories. Yes, if, a few months ago, you looked at some of the vague mood music that Cameron was emitting, he did seem like a bona fide Observer reader. But now he is showing his true colours (Hit a hoodie etc), so it is obvious that:
a) There is no common cause between the LibDems and the Tories, as we knew all along - the Cameron "sunshine" agenda was a sham masking the real Tory party.
b) The Tory party haven't really worked out what the heck they stand for, so how can you have common cause with a confused entity?
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Fisk this: Widdy goes beserk
Crikey.
Just when you thought it was safe to go out, Ann Widdecombe explodes all over the place splattering bits of old wig everywhere.
I wonder what senior economist and single mother, Stephanie Flanders (of Newsnight) will think of this:
People are terrified of being judgmental. But we should be judgmental. Being judgmental does not mean abandoning people.
Take, for example, the issue of single parents. Whenever a Tory mentions single parents, we are accused of scapegoating. Nonsense. Sometimes, the children miraculously turn out OK.
But in a lot of cases they grow up dysfunctional, turn to drugs and crime and then repeat the same wretched pattern. Either you say that we must not judge this behaviour and therefore do nothing. Or you say we are going to break this cycle.
In our day, to become pregnant before marriage was a disaster, not just for the stigma but because the girl didn't have a roof and you didn't have a breadwinner.
Now, the State supplies the roof and the State is the breadwinner.
"In our day"......I know, I know......nurse the screens!
As usual, it's the generalisation which grates:
I can remember when being on the dole was a matter for stigma. Now it doesn't matter. There is not the sense of individual pride.
Er..and that would apply to what proportion of those on the dole Ann....20%? 50%? 99%? 100%?
It is the liberal dictatorship...Most of our social ills are down to loss of authority; in schools, by the police, in the home, in organised religion.
There is a slow descent into anarchy. We are in moral anarchy. In some estates it is already there. To change things, you must start to restore authority to the police.
Er....how can you have a dictatorship within an anarchy? Any ideas anyone?
I can feel one of my headaches coming on.
Just when you thought it was safe to go out, Ann Widdecombe explodes all over the place splattering bits of old wig everywhere.
I wonder what senior economist and single mother, Stephanie Flanders (of Newsnight) will think of this:
People are terrified of being judgmental. But we should be judgmental. Being judgmental does not mean abandoning people.
Take, for example, the issue of single parents. Whenever a Tory mentions single parents, we are accused of scapegoating. Nonsense. Sometimes, the children miraculously turn out OK.
But in a lot of cases they grow up dysfunctional, turn to drugs and crime and then repeat the same wretched pattern. Either you say that we must not judge this behaviour and therefore do nothing. Or you say we are going to break this cycle.
In our day, to become pregnant before marriage was a disaster, not just for the stigma but because the girl didn't have a roof and you didn't have a breadwinner.
Now, the State supplies the roof and the State is the breadwinner.
"In our day"......I know, I know......nurse the screens!
As usual, it's the generalisation which grates:
I can remember when being on the dole was a matter for stigma. Now it doesn't matter. There is not the sense of individual pride.
Er..and that would apply to what proportion of those on the dole Ann....20%? 50%? 99%? 100%?
It is the liberal dictatorship...Most of our social ills are down to loss of authority; in schools, by the police, in the home, in organised religion.
There is a slow descent into anarchy. We are in moral anarchy. In some estates it is already there. To change things, you must start to restore authority to the police.
Er....how can you have a dictatorship within an anarchy? Any ideas anyone?
I can feel one of my headaches coming on.
Isn't it great when the Tories turn on themselves?
Iain Dale is erring more and more towards, presumably unconscious, self-parody.
But I have to welcome his Letterman (US version) style "Top Ten reasons", which he's running on 18DS.
Tonight he's running "Top 10 reasons the LibDems should ditch Ming". Should be interesting. I am glad the Tories want to us ditch Ming - this is quite a positive reason for tightly holding onto the man. Mind you, I think the resultant list tonight may transcend such a serious observation.
The top ten reasons why Michael Ancram should be taken out and shot were most entertaining.
I particularly liked:
Number 10: So he knows how the grouse feel.
and
Number 1: Because shooting him inside would mean that you'd have to repaint the walls.
Talking of Tories turning on themselves, I particularly liked this Dale post from a few days ago:
Bercow & Mercer to "Advise" Labour
The contents of this post have been deleted due to the author of the blog transgressing his own 'no swearing' policy. Normal service will be resumed in the next post.
But I have to welcome his Letterman (US version) style "Top Ten reasons", which he's running on 18DS.
Tonight he's running "Top 10 reasons the LibDems should ditch Ming". Should be interesting. I am glad the Tories want to us ditch Ming - this is quite a positive reason for tightly holding onto the man. Mind you, I think the resultant list tonight may transcend such a serious observation.
The top ten reasons why Michael Ancram should be taken out and shot were most entertaining.
I particularly liked:
Number 10: So he knows how the grouse feel.
and
Number 1: Because shooting him inside would mean that you'd have to repaint the walls.
Talking of Tories turning on themselves, I particularly liked this Dale post from a few days ago:
Bercow & Mercer to "Advise" Labour
The contents of this post have been deleted due to the author of the blog transgressing his own 'no swearing' policy. Normal service will be resumed in the next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Mercer and Bercow the great and the good...oh please do me a favour. I can't believe any party would actually not pretty much auto-deselect anyone advising the other side? The Tory Party has gone from the subline to the rediculous.
Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge | September 10, 2007 at 14:14