I predict a Cameron defeat. He should not lose. Europe should be good for him, so should Afghanistan. Obama's dumping of the Special Relationship provides opportunities to attack Labour for slavishness in that direction.
But he will fail. He will fail because he will try to spin his way out of the 'Cast-iron' pledge nonsense. He needs to put his hands up, and do so pre-emptively. He can do this in his opening statement:
I would like to use my opening statement to talk about the lack of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. I promised that there would be a referendum even if the Treaty became law, but that was a promise too far, made in anger that the British people faced being cheated out of their say. The thing about European law, and the big reservation about European integration, is that once a Treaty comes into force, our only choices are to accept it, leave or try to renegotiate. We prefer renegotiation, and we cannot unilaterally renegotiate. We will use any attempt to deepen integration - and the Euro's problems may bring this forward - as an opportunity to renegotiate.
But it was Labour and the LibDems who cheated the British people of their say. They talk of Britain's influence in Europe, but that is meaningless if the British people are left angry on the side lines. They reneged on their manifesto pledges on the spurious grounds that the European Constitution had been renamed as the Lisbon Treaty. It is a little like refusing to hold a referendum on joining the single currency because it was going to be renamed.
And the LibDems will say that they will off a say on "in and out'. But that is not the 'true' choice. It is a subtle attempt at blackmail. There are two choices: say you are happy, or leave. We would boycott such a referendum as a false and dishonest choice. A choice that no country has ever been given. But one that the LibDems, in their sort of new politics, would use to get their way.
Sadly, he will try to spin. And his cast-iron pledge, added to the LibDem's manipulative offer of a false choice, will allow Clegg to put spokes in his wheels.
Wednesday 21 April 2010
Tuesday 20 April 2010
The Yellow Peril
Has there ever been such a rush of the blood to an electorate's head? It may be that, having seen Clegg, the electorate rushed to read the LibDem manifesto, digested it, and changed their minds. However, YouGov's polling asked about a list of policies (without attributing them to the LibDems) and most of them fared badly.
This is a fad, I feel sure. But as fads go, it need only last a couple more weeks. There are two more debates, and election coverage has been limited by the volcano. If Clegg does well again - and who would have thought that a LibDem could come out on top in a debate involving crime and immigration?? - then he may well improve his position, let alone hold it.
But why has it happened? A plague on both your houses, for sure. But why did this also drag down Cameron? Take that well-rehearsed line about 'the more you argue, the more you sound the same", why did that hit home so well? Obviously, the public is tired of both Labour and Conservatives - but, there is more. The lesson is that Cameron's media and re-branding strategy has had very shallow roots. This is well deserved - it is, after all, a very shallow campaign.
However, will Cameron reflect that all of that work on image, all the Ashcroft advice and analysis, appears to have come to naught? Along comes a more normal looking rich-boy from a public school, and the public is heavily tempted. Cameron brands himself as the bringer of change - but it was so easy for Clegg to steal this mantle. To paraphrase the Norwegian commentator: "Steve Hilton, Lord Ashcroft, Oliver Letwin: your boy took one hell of a beating."
But even now, he sounds like an appalling young executive announcing the new company motto, vision, business plan, etc. A modern scourge of our society is the New Speak of our public authorities and businessmen - full of jargon and buzzwords to keep managers at a fair distance from reality, and to insult everyone else's intellgence. And Cameron does it as badly as anyone.
And this is why Cameron lost. He did not engage with the question. He did not talk ordinary English. Sentences were just platfroms for his jargon: "jobs tax", "Big Society". He is still 'at it'. He still has not learned.
He has unveiled some good policies, but he should have been laying the ground work for these for years. You cannot introduce the phrase "Big Society" one week, and then treat it as your central value the next. For heaven's sake, if it was that important to you then where was it a month ago.
So, Cameron is still trying to fight back using the same tools that got him into trouble.
Time for operation core vote again - it is a delicous irony that Cameron decided to say nothing on immigration, Europe and crime: those are the subjects where the LibDems are most vulnerable. But, again, he could have done with laying the ground work for Tory credibility and LibDem incredibility on these subjects.
This is a fad, I feel sure. But as fads go, it need only last a couple more weeks. There are two more debates, and election coverage has been limited by the volcano. If Clegg does well again - and who would have thought that a LibDem could come out on top in a debate involving crime and immigration?? - then he may well improve his position, let alone hold it.
But why has it happened? A plague on both your houses, for sure. But why did this also drag down Cameron? Take that well-rehearsed line about 'the more you argue, the more you sound the same", why did that hit home so well? Obviously, the public is tired of both Labour and Conservatives - but, there is more. The lesson is that Cameron's media and re-branding strategy has had very shallow roots. This is well deserved - it is, after all, a very shallow campaign.
However, will Cameron reflect that all of that work on image, all the Ashcroft advice and analysis, appears to have come to naught? Along comes a more normal looking rich-boy from a public school, and the public is heavily tempted. Cameron brands himself as the bringer of change - but it was so easy for Clegg to steal this mantle. To paraphrase the Norwegian commentator: "Steve Hilton, Lord Ashcroft, Oliver Letwin: your boy took one hell of a beating."
But even now, he sounds like an appalling young executive announcing the new company motto, vision, business plan, etc. A modern scourge of our society is the New Speak of our public authorities and businessmen - full of jargon and buzzwords to keep managers at a fair distance from reality, and to insult everyone else's intellgence. And Cameron does it as badly as anyone.
And this is why Cameron lost. He did not engage with the question. He did not talk ordinary English. Sentences were just platfroms for his jargon: "jobs tax", "Big Society". He is still 'at it'. He still has not learned.
He has unveiled some good policies, but he should have been laying the ground work for these for years. You cannot introduce the phrase "Big Society" one week, and then treat it as your central value the next. For heaven's sake, if it was that important to you then where was it a month ago.
So, Cameron is still trying to fight back using the same tools that got him into trouble.
Time for operation core vote again - it is a delicous irony that Cameron decided to say nothing on immigration, Europe and crime: those are the subjects where the LibDems are most vulnerable. But, again, he could have done with laying the ground work for Tory credibility and LibDem incredibility on these subjects.
Saturday 17 April 2010
Six billion out of the economy?
Why does not Cameron ask the simple questions?
"Mr Brown, Gordon, please explain: how does not taxing business by an extra six-billion pounds take money OUT of the economy?"
"How does taxing British business ever put money INTO the economy?"
"Is not the justification for taxation that there are some things that need to be done and the state does best? And that does not really apply to wasting money?"
"So why persist with the NI tax if waste can be cut?"
He could even have admitted that he'd have to raise the tax if he failed to identify the waste.
But, why raise intelligent arguments when you could use the words "job-tax" every other sentence.
"Mr Brown, Gordon, please explain: how does not taxing business by an extra six-billion pounds take money OUT of the economy?"
"How does taxing British business ever put money INTO the economy?"
"Is not the justification for taxation that there are some things that need to be done and the state does best? And that does not really apply to wasting money?"
"So why persist with the NI tax if waste can be cut?"
He could even have admitted that he'd have to raise the tax if he failed to identify the waste.
But, why raise intelligent arguments when you could use the words "job-tax" every other sentence.
Net immigration
Cameron would find that the immigration figures are not particularly reducing. There has been a reduction in net migration. But that is largely due to the recession not due to tighter immigration control.
Also, arguing solely on the basis of immigration suggests that the cultural effects are irrelevant, and that immigration is just about material resources.
But consider, if 1 million new migrants arrived in a year, and 1 million Britons left, net migration would be zero. In the eyes of Cameron, nothing has happened, and there is no problem. Yet the cultural impact would be considerable, particularly if those 1 million were concentrated in particular towns and boroughs. Areas can have their whole feel changed by weight of numbers. You can travel down a highstreet near Wembley and see not only no one who is white, but everyone is the same shade of brown. Some diversity that!!
Large immigration combined with minimal assimilation leads to considerable cultural change. It does that regardless of the net migration figure. To be obsessed with net migration suggests that any number of migrants is fine, provide an equal number of Britons want to leave their country. That is a little odd.
The turnover in population has been immense over the last 10 years. We have gain a few million new permanent residents, a loss a large but smaller number of Britons. Carry on at that rate, and you have a new country in a few decades - at least, you do if you practice multiculturalism and encourage the migrants to think of themselves more as ex-pats than new members of the existing nation.
Judging by the Gay News interview, complicated subjects are not Cameron's forte.
But, as I have said before, we readily recognise that an influx of newcomers can ruin an area: but only when those newcomers are Britons changing the culture of French villages or Spanish towns. Where newcomers bring change by weight of numbers to parts of Britain, it is a cause for positive celebration.
Also, arguing solely on the basis of immigration suggests that the cultural effects are irrelevant, and that immigration is just about material resources.
But consider, if 1 million new migrants arrived in a year, and 1 million Britons left, net migration would be zero. In the eyes of Cameron, nothing has happened, and there is no problem. Yet the cultural impact would be considerable, particularly if those 1 million were concentrated in particular towns and boroughs. Areas can have their whole feel changed by weight of numbers. You can travel down a highstreet near Wembley and see not only no one who is white, but everyone is the same shade of brown. Some diversity that!!
Large immigration combined with minimal assimilation leads to considerable cultural change. It does that regardless of the net migration figure. To be obsessed with net migration suggests that any number of migrants is fine, provide an equal number of Britons want to leave their country. That is a little odd.
The turnover in population has been immense over the last 10 years. We have gain a few million new permanent residents, a loss a large but smaller number of Britons. Carry on at that rate, and you have a new country in a few decades - at least, you do if you practice multiculturalism and encourage the migrants to think of themselves more as ex-pats than new members of the existing nation.
Judging by the Gay News interview, complicated subjects are not Cameron's forte.
But, as I have said before, we readily recognise that an influx of newcomers can ruin an area: but only when those newcomers are Britons changing the culture of French villages or Spanish towns. Where newcomers bring change by weight of numbers to parts of Britain, it is a cause for positive celebration.
Smelt too much coffee?
A short post:
What are two of the biggest topics that the Conservatives are trying to use to fight back against Clegg: immigration and Europe.
What are two of the biggest sugjects that Cameron (guided by Ashcroft's "Smell the Coffee") has spent five years trying not to talk about: immigration and Europe.
Dear political genius Cameron decided not to persist in proposing a referendum on Europe. He preferred it to be a non-subject. Now he desparately needs it to show, particularly for the benefit of voters in the South West, that Clegg is a veritable Federalist.
Let us face it. On immigration and Europe, the LibDems are far more extreme than Labour.
I bet Cameron wished he had not smelt the coffee, but had stuck to principle. He might have laid the ground work for the attacks on Clegg, and they might mesh neatly with popular Tory policies.
What are two of the biggest topics that the Conservatives are trying to use to fight back against Clegg: immigration and Europe.
What are two of the biggest sugjects that Cameron (guided by Ashcroft's "Smell the Coffee") has spent five years trying not to talk about: immigration and Europe.
Dear political genius Cameron decided not to persist in proposing a referendum on Europe. He preferred it to be a non-subject. Now he desparately needs it to show, particularly for the benefit of voters in the South West, that Clegg is a veritable Federalist.
Let us face it. On immigration and Europe, the LibDems are far more extreme than Labour.
I bet Cameron wished he had not smelt the coffee, but had stuck to principle. He might have laid the ground work for the attacks on Clegg, and they might mesh neatly with popular Tory policies.
Thursday 15 April 2010
The debate
What stood out for me were the open goals that Cameron had:
1. Immigration, it is fine to say that Labour has done nothing to date, but that doesn't tell us why Labour will continue to do nothing. The reason Labour will do nothing is that they are intensely relaxed about numbers. They have spent decades denouncing as racist anyone who dared even get worried about immigration. Now they promise tough action? They are just scared of the voters. In five years time, if they win, they will be scared of the voters again. In between, they will return to form.
2. Immigration Two, it is falling because of the recession. Migration from some Eastern European countries makes less economic sense due to the recession. Insofar as Brown's policies have contributed to the recession, he has helped reduce immigration.
3. Immigration Three, if anything LibDems are more relaxed about immigration. They don't have so many urban working class voters to be scared of.
4. Waste - did anyone hear Clegg deny that there was lots of waste that could be saved. And did anyone hear Clegg talk of the awful waste in the MOD as he listed the admiral/ship ratio? Did anyone hear Cameron put together the two? Did anyone hear Cameron say, "Quite right, so why do you oppose cutting this waste for a year - and you'd find it more than just the MOD? No, you didn't hear Cameron go off script to ram this inconsistent piece of opportunism down Clegg's throat.
There is no point having a reputation as a slick performer and then being a wooden perforer.
Comedians learn thousands of jokes so they can spontaneously respond to all sorts of suggestions. Cameron clearly had things he wanted to say and was desparate to say them as often as possible at any opportunity, including some very strained ones.
So, this leads me to the greatest criticism. "Jobs tax, jobs tax, jobs tax." We have rightly had the better of that debate, but you cannot link it to everything. The NHS waste, managers and cancer drugs bit is diluted not assisted by throwing the jobs tax line into mix.
Keep it simple stupid. But that means simple answers for each question - not the same answer!!
1. Immigration, it is fine to say that Labour has done nothing to date, but that doesn't tell us why Labour will continue to do nothing. The reason Labour will do nothing is that they are intensely relaxed about numbers. They have spent decades denouncing as racist anyone who dared even get worried about immigration. Now they promise tough action? They are just scared of the voters. In five years time, if they win, they will be scared of the voters again. In between, they will return to form.
2. Immigration Two, it is falling because of the recession. Migration from some Eastern European countries makes less economic sense due to the recession. Insofar as Brown's policies have contributed to the recession, he has helped reduce immigration.
3. Immigration Three, if anything LibDems are more relaxed about immigration. They don't have so many urban working class voters to be scared of.
4. Waste - did anyone hear Clegg deny that there was lots of waste that could be saved. And did anyone hear Clegg talk of the awful waste in the MOD as he listed the admiral/ship ratio? Did anyone hear Cameron put together the two? Did anyone hear Cameron say, "Quite right, so why do you oppose cutting this waste for a year - and you'd find it more than just the MOD? No, you didn't hear Cameron go off script to ram this inconsistent piece of opportunism down Clegg's throat.
There is no point having a reputation as a slick performer and then being a wooden perforer.
Comedians learn thousands of jokes so they can spontaneously respond to all sorts of suggestions. Cameron clearly had things he wanted to say and was desparate to say them as often as possible at any opportunity, including some very strained ones.
So, this leads me to the greatest criticism. "Jobs tax, jobs tax, jobs tax." We have rightly had the better of that debate, but you cannot link it to everything. The NHS waste, managers and cancer drugs bit is diluted not assisted by throwing the jobs tax line into mix.
Keep it simple stupid. But that means simple answers for each question - not the same answer!!
Tuesday 13 April 2010
An invitation to join what??
Those of you who are members of the Conservative Party will doubtless have received an email today inviting us to join the government of Britain. The government of Britain is, of course, a Labour government. I hope (barely) that it will be a Conservative one - but that depends on whether the British public accept the present job application by Mr D. Cameron.
At present the Tories arrive much as Portillo did when seeking the Tory leadership in 2001, or as Cameron did likewise in 2005. They seemed at one stage to be red-hot, can't lose favourites. Now they hope to crawl over the line.
So, why did they issue an invite as if they were the hottest ticket in town? As if they were so classy that they did not need any flashy covers, just the name of the event and their own name?
Fortunately, the imagery of that sort of "exclusive" invite from a posh-club will go over most people's heads. They will just be confused a little by the title, assuming they even read it. But it does suggest that there is some truth in the attacks that the Cameron-circle live in a different world. They live in a world where invoking this sort of imagery seemed like a natural and stylish thing to do.
That is not the world that they are pretending to live in.
At present the Tories arrive much as Portillo did when seeking the Tory leadership in 2001, or as Cameron did likewise in 2005. They seemed at one stage to be red-hot, can't lose favourites. Now they hope to crawl over the line.
So, why did they issue an invite as if they were the hottest ticket in town? As if they were so classy that they did not need any flashy covers, just the name of the event and their own name?
Fortunately, the imagery of that sort of "exclusive" invite from a posh-club will go over most people's heads. They will just be confused a little by the title, assuming they even read it. But it does suggest that there is some truth in the attacks that the Cameron-circle live in a different world. They live in a world where invoking this sort of imagery seemed like a natural and stylish thing to do.
That is not the world that they are pretending to live in.
Monday 12 April 2010
Detoxifying the Tory Brand
Cameron is praised for detoxifying the Tory Brand. He has made them gay friendly. He has increased the presence of minority candidates and of women. He speaks little of immigration, almost vacating the issue for Labour to claim that it (belatedly) 'gets it'. It tries to say little of Europe - it's main message going into the campaign is that it doesn't want to pick a fight with 'our partners'.
But, where is 'class'?
There are vast swathes of the country where the working class worry about crime and worry about immigration. They have little time for those in their midst who sponge off the state. Their women are scathing about all-women shortlists saying that Betty Boothroyd needed no such things. They want discipline in schools, and probably wouldn't mind their sons and daughters having a crack at the 11-plus. They oppose European integration. Their are thoroughly patriotic - the sort of people whose children still consider the army as a career. They have nothing in common with the left wing intelligensia of the Labour Party - and are probably a little tired of party insiders being foisted on them.
How little these people have in common with New Labour?
Nothing, of course.
But they will not vote for a Tory party that devastated their industry in the 1980s. They were never pro-Tory before, but the 1980s made the Tories anathema. They have not forgotten.
To these people class matters. Not in the crude sense of hating Etonians, but in the sense that the Tories are not like them and care nothing for them. This was something that Cameron did not tackle. He denied it - encouraged by the Crewe and Nantwich by-election. But when recessions come, the question is rather stark: who cares if you suffer? The rich Tories or the Labour Party?
How the Tories could have done with teaching the white working class that the Labour Party did not care! The Republicans had achieved this in America with considerable success. While rich Democrats bussed poor whites to the worst schools, the children of the same Democrats were not bussed. Is it not the same with our state schools - do Labour MPs take the same chances with the kids' education as poor people (of all colours) are made to do?
Did Cameron reach out? No - he reached out to rich Guardian readers with his denunciation of grammar schools. All part of the detoxification, of course.
So, vast parts of the country will not vote Tory because the Tories are the party of privilege. They may have more in common with Tory policies on a vast array of subjects, but they are more likely to leap all the way to the Nazi Party than to take the comparative pixie steps to the Tories.
Why? Because Cameron never tackled this part of detoxification. Class was too close to home for him to acknowledge it.
He deserves to lose for failing to do so. Sadly, the alternative makes us hope he wins.
But, where is 'class'?
There are vast swathes of the country where the working class worry about crime and worry about immigration. They have little time for those in their midst who sponge off the state. Their women are scathing about all-women shortlists saying that Betty Boothroyd needed no such things. They want discipline in schools, and probably wouldn't mind their sons and daughters having a crack at the 11-plus. They oppose European integration. Their are thoroughly patriotic - the sort of people whose children still consider the army as a career. They have nothing in common with the left wing intelligensia of the Labour Party - and are probably a little tired of party insiders being foisted on them.
How little these people have in common with New Labour?
Nothing, of course.
But they will not vote for a Tory party that devastated their industry in the 1980s. They were never pro-Tory before, but the 1980s made the Tories anathema. They have not forgotten.
To these people class matters. Not in the crude sense of hating Etonians, but in the sense that the Tories are not like them and care nothing for them. This was something that Cameron did not tackle. He denied it - encouraged by the Crewe and Nantwich by-election. But when recessions come, the question is rather stark: who cares if you suffer? The rich Tories or the Labour Party?
How the Tories could have done with teaching the white working class that the Labour Party did not care! The Republicans had achieved this in America with considerable success. While rich Democrats bussed poor whites to the worst schools, the children of the same Democrats were not bussed. Is it not the same with our state schools - do Labour MPs take the same chances with the kids' education as poor people (of all colours) are made to do?
Did Cameron reach out? No - he reached out to rich Guardian readers with his denunciation of grammar schools. All part of the detoxification, of course.
So, vast parts of the country will not vote Tory because the Tories are the party of privilege. They may have more in common with Tory policies on a vast array of subjects, but they are more likely to leap all the way to the Nazi Party than to take the comparative pixie steps to the Tories.
Why? Because Cameron never tackled this part of detoxification. Class was too close to home for him to acknowledge it.
He deserves to lose for failing to do so. Sadly, the alternative makes us hope he wins.
Friday 9 April 2010
What is wrong with honesty?
It was sad to see Theresa May this morning. An excellent example of the debased nature of public debate.
20-40,000 public sector jobs will go due to wastage. It is said that there should be no need for sackings as there is a high turnover in the public sector. Now, this is quite right. Millions are employed in the public sector, so a turnover of just a few percentage would allow for these sort of cuts in job numbers to be made.
But, in her need to stay on script, she appeared evasive and was evasive:
1. What is wrong with admitting that there may be job cuts? They cannot be ruled out, but on their calculations it should be avoided. It is after all the truth, and people understand it. But, in her mind is the fear of the headline it would provoke.
2. If a job represents waste, why should it only go when someone is good enough to retire from it? Or why wait until someone near to them in a useful job retires, allowing the pointless civil servant to be re-allocated?
3. Why not point out that the NHS has at least 1 million staff, and 40,000 jobs would represent a turnover of 4% - not difficult when many of the workers a temporary migrants who go home after a few years. But - ho dear, that would touch on immigration!! That would touch on the ring-fencing of the NHS, where any efficiency savings must find a home (hopefully efficient) in the NHS lest someone cries "they are cutting our health service!!"
4. Why not point out that the credit crunch has cost hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs, so to absolutely guarantee public sector jobs would be wrong? Diane Abbott may say that it is wrong for public sector workers to pay the price of bailing out the bankers - but that is a crude approach to the economic crisis. Car workers and so many others have paid the price of the asset bubble exploding in our faces, and that has included bailing out the banks. But why this should fall only on the innocent parts of the private sector and exempt the public is a mystery?
5. Why not point out that a failure to make cuts in the deficit will lead to a crunch in the government's credit. That will lead to externally imposed austerity measures. Then here will be real and horrible cuts.
But now, we just get Mrs May dragging in the talk of "jobs tax", "endanger recovery", "our provisional figures say..." and lots of other talk that blanks the dangers that lie beneath.
There is a real danger for the Tories in this. It is unsustainable to pretend that there is no risk of job cuts, it will have to be admitted. When they admit it, they will appear not just as bad people to those who simply hate the cuts - but evasive and dishonest to those who recognise that such things are a horrible necessity.
A double whammy in trying to please everyone.
20-40,000 public sector jobs will go due to wastage. It is said that there should be no need for sackings as there is a high turnover in the public sector. Now, this is quite right. Millions are employed in the public sector, so a turnover of just a few percentage would allow for these sort of cuts in job numbers to be made.
But, in her need to stay on script, she appeared evasive and was evasive:
1. What is wrong with admitting that there may be job cuts? They cannot be ruled out, but on their calculations it should be avoided. It is after all the truth, and people understand it. But, in her mind is the fear of the headline it would provoke.
2. If a job represents waste, why should it only go when someone is good enough to retire from it? Or why wait until someone near to them in a useful job retires, allowing the pointless civil servant to be re-allocated?
3. Why not point out that the NHS has at least 1 million staff, and 40,000 jobs would represent a turnover of 4% - not difficult when many of the workers a temporary migrants who go home after a few years. But - ho dear, that would touch on immigration!! That would touch on the ring-fencing of the NHS, where any efficiency savings must find a home (hopefully efficient) in the NHS lest someone cries "they are cutting our health service!!"
4. Why not point out that the credit crunch has cost hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs, so to absolutely guarantee public sector jobs would be wrong? Diane Abbott may say that it is wrong for public sector workers to pay the price of bailing out the bankers - but that is a crude approach to the economic crisis. Car workers and so many others have paid the price of the asset bubble exploding in our faces, and that has included bailing out the banks. But why this should fall only on the innocent parts of the private sector and exempt the public is a mystery?
5. Why not point out that a failure to make cuts in the deficit will lead to a crunch in the government's credit. That will lead to externally imposed austerity measures. Then here will be real and horrible cuts.
But now, we just get Mrs May dragging in the talk of "jobs tax", "endanger recovery", "our provisional figures say..." and lots of other talk that blanks the dangers that lie beneath.
There is a real danger for the Tories in this. It is unsustainable to pretend that there is no risk of job cuts, it will have to be admitted. When they admit it, they will appear not just as bad people to those who simply hate the cuts - but evasive and dishonest to those who recognise that such things are a horrible necessity.
A double whammy in trying to please everyone.
Wednesday 7 April 2010
On not getting it, Mandelson style
This morning Mandelson gave what, 13 years ago, would have been an excellent speech. It promised all sorts of glowing things. We would have an economy built on innovation and industry. Government would facilitate. It would reform politics. What was there not to like?
The answer, of course, is that it is not 13 years ago. Labour has had a long time to go down the routes that Mandelson mapped out, but had not. But there is something more.
In promising to reform politics and the economy, Mandelson repeatedly used the phrase that the Tories "did not get it". In doing this, he showed that far from bringing any improvement to political life, he continues to inhabit the world of spin. Intelligent argument is eschewed in favour of attractive buzz-words and slogans. The Tories "do not get it"!! And don't ask about the last 13 years, because "we get it". In short, Labour has seen the light, praise the Lord!!
But what does Labour get:
- So, it will make constituencies of similar size giving up its in built advantage in the name of fairness? No.
- It will give Scotland and Wales a proportionate number of MPs? No.
- Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs won't be able to determine for England policies which, for their own constituencies, are nothing to do with Westminster? No - heaven forbid.
What they have done is go root through the voting systems and take out the only one that promises to skew the system even more in their favour. They have latched onto the Alternative Vote System. Even here, they are equivocal. They doubtless know that an unpopular Fourth Term Labour Government might find itself hammered under Alternative Voting. All it needs is for them to disillusion the country so much that they cease to be the second choice of most LibDems.
What else do we find from Mandelson? Wealth through investment in the universities. Is this the same Mandelson who recently cut their budget - something which facilitated Darling announcing new special funding. A new politics? An end to spin? I think not.
And they will secure the (doubtful) economic revival... This is the party that bought into not one but three Ponzi schemes during the last 13 years:
1. The Ponzi scheme of debt.
2. The Ponzi scheme of expanding the economy through immigration - you need more immigrants for the next expansion, and to pay for the services when the old ones settle down and do awkward thingsw like have children, grow old, fall ill, etc.
3. The Ponzi scheme of out-sourcing - it may make some businesses more profitable, but it does have obvious limitations as a long term business plan.
But forget all of this,because, Labour "gets it".
It is a desire to wipe out the last 13 years, and present again the fresh faced promise that seemed so attractive in Blair's 1997 victory speech.
But we know that they have failed because their methods have failed. They have targets which are corrupted into a "tick box" culture. Hospitals become breeding grounds for germs. Pointless appointments are scheduled so that a patient can "see a consultant" within a time frame, after which it can be "no-business as usual". Discipline collapses in the class room - and, even if there is some irony at Guardian reading teachers squealing at the inevitable outcome of their own progressive principles, it is a very bad thing for our future.
Labour doesn't get it. But it still corrupts politics with facile slogans. Sadly, that infection has also spread to the Tories.
The answer, of course, is that it is not 13 years ago. Labour has had a long time to go down the routes that Mandelson mapped out, but had not. But there is something more.
In promising to reform politics and the economy, Mandelson repeatedly used the phrase that the Tories "did not get it". In doing this, he showed that far from bringing any improvement to political life, he continues to inhabit the world of spin. Intelligent argument is eschewed in favour of attractive buzz-words and slogans. The Tories "do not get it"!! And don't ask about the last 13 years, because "we get it". In short, Labour has seen the light, praise the Lord!!
But what does Labour get:
- So, it will make constituencies of similar size giving up its in built advantage in the name of fairness? No.
- It will give Scotland and Wales a proportionate number of MPs? No.
- Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs won't be able to determine for England policies which, for their own constituencies, are nothing to do with Westminster? No - heaven forbid.
What they have done is go root through the voting systems and take out the only one that promises to skew the system even more in their favour. They have latched onto the Alternative Vote System. Even here, they are equivocal. They doubtless know that an unpopular Fourth Term Labour Government might find itself hammered under Alternative Voting. All it needs is for them to disillusion the country so much that they cease to be the second choice of most LibDems.
What else do we find from Mandelson? Wealth through investment in the universities. Is this the same Mandelson who recently cut their budget - something which facilitated Darling announcing new special funding. A new politics? An end to spin? I think not.
And they will secure the (doubtful) economic revival... This is the party that bought into not one but three Ponzi schemes during the last 13 years:
1. The Ponzi scheme of debt.
2. The Ponzi scheme of expanding the economy through immigration - you need more immigrants for the next expansion, and to pay for the services when the old ones settle down and do awkward thingsw like have children, grow old, fall ill, etc.
3. The Ponzi scheme of out-sourcing - it may make some businesses more profitable, but it does have obvious limitations as a long term business plan.
But forget all of this,because, Labour "gets it".
It is a desire to wipe out the last 13 years, and present again the fresh faced promise that seemed so attractive in Blair's 1997 victory speech.
But we know that they have failed because their methods have failed. They have targets which are corrupted into a "tick box" culture. Hospitals become breeding grounds for germs. Pointless appointments are scheduled so that a patient can "see a consultant" within a time frame, after which it can be "no-business as usual". Discipline collapses in the class room - and, even if there is some irony at Guardian reading teachers squealing at the inevitable outcome of their own progressive principles, it is a very bad thing for our future.
Labour doesn't get it. But it still corrupts politics with facile slogans. Sadly, that infection has also spread to the Tories.
Monday 5 April 2010
What Grayling Should Have Said
So, Grayling is trying to squirm out of his difficulties? Meanwhile, our liberal minded friends are releasing their inner-Robespierre on anyone who questions orthodoxy on discrimination issues, even in the slightest degree. Hence, I suggest here what Grayling should have said:
"John Stuart Mill once said that no issue should be closed off from debate and criticism lest it become a matter of dogma. A long time ago, Chris Huhne and maybe even Peter Mandelson would have known that. We have seen the harm done to the immigration debate by it being policed by constant denuncations of racism. It is a bad thing for democracy and public debate if the smallest criticism of the existing law is made impossible.
This is effectively what Labour and the Liberal Democrats have sought to do with their exaggerated response to my comments on Bed and Breakfast establishments and gay customers. They have not merely asserted - which is understandable - that the cause of gay equality must come ahead of any socially conservative religious sentiment and that this priority should be given legal force; they have asserted that to doubt that legal force should be given to that priority in all situations is akin to being a vile bigot.
In short, their position is not just absolutist in its championship of gay rights, but they demand that it should not in any way be subject to criticism. It is not just that their position should not be qualified, but that no one should dare even suggesting that it should be criticised.
This is a dangerous proposition. It really will not do to say "what if a major religion objected to black people?" No religion does. We should not use hypothetical analogies to add to the categories of what is seen as beyond debate. That should be a rare thing indeed.
But what of the subject at hand? It is worth remembering that, as the liberals never tire of reminding us, that we live in a diverse society. There are religious ethics which contradict from time to time modern secular ethics. We do not want to create different systems of law. People cannot opt out of any legal obligation by citing real or spurious religious scrupples.
But it has always been the case, at least since we stopped enforcing religious conformity, that in some situations we allow conscientious objection rather than drive people of strong faith from society. For example, at times of war, we accommodate Quakers with their objections to fighting. I suspect that, as diversity increases, we shall increasingly find ourselves making such accommodations in order that we can live together.
However, what is proposed is that we should never accommodate. To the crude liberal mind there are two possibilities, 1) never accommodate, or 2) always accommodate. So to make any exceptions means you must scrap the entire law. This simply does not follow: if we made no exceptions then the Catholic Church would have to employ men as nuns, and women as priests. Also, let us suppose that Mr and Mrs Smith want to hire a nanny - but Mr Smith is a philanderer on his very last chance - do we doubt that Mrs Smith should be entitled to discriminate against young, pretty female candidates?
What I have suggested is no more than this. The principle of equality is a good principle. It may be uncomfortable to some, but so be it. However, when it brings that discomfort into their own home, I begin to doubt. If someone runs a hotel or a guest house, then it should be open to all. But when it is very much their own house, and they will in the ordinary course sit down with their guests at the same table, the situation is different. As with my nanny example, the subject matter is intimate as well as commercial.
That is my doubt, and I am aware that there are counter-arguments, and arguments with considerable strength. A Bed and Breakfast that generally advertises is a commercial enterprise, so must not turn people away. I am aware of the strength of that, but there is strength in the arguments for accommodating the squeamishness of a minority. Were this exception to cause great problems in practice, then I would think again.
So, all that I have suggested is a minor exception in a marginal case. It is a case that I find difficult, but many would disagree with that. The point is that there is no warrant for saying that such points ought never to be raised nor argued. That appears, perversely, to be the liberal position.
I should say one more thing. It has been suggested that having this view would disqualify me from being home secretary - the home office enforces these laws, how can the home secretary disagree with a law that he will be enforcing? This is also nonsense. Ministers uphold laws whether they disagree with them or not. In the Victorian days, some Home Secretaries upheld capital punishment although they were abolitionists. Until it was repealed, Labour education ministers upheld section 28. The law on this point is clear. Whatever my personal doubts may be - and those doubts are not Conservative Party policy - are frankly irrelevant."
Unfortunately, he contented himself with squirming.
"John Stuart Mill once said that no issue should be closed off from debate and criticism lest it become a matter of dogma. A long time ago, Chris Huhne and maybe even Peter Mandelson would have known that. We have seen the harm done to the immigration debate by it being policed by constant denuncations of racism. It is a bad thing for democracy and public debate if the smallest criticism of the existing law is made impossible.
This is effectively what Labour and the Liberal Democrats have sought to do with their exaggerated response to my comments on Bed and Breakfast establishments and gay customers. They have not merely asserted - which is understandable - that the cause of gay equality must come ahead of any socially conservative religious sentiment and that this priority should be given legal force; they have asserted that to doubt that legal force should be given to that priority in all situations is akin to being a vile bigot.
In short, their position is not just absolutist in its championship of gay rights, but they demand that it should not in any way be subject to criticism. It is not just that their position should not be qualified, but that no one should dare even suggesting that it should be criticised.
This is a dangerous proposition. It really will not do to say "what if a major religion objected to black people?" No religion does. We should not use hypothetical analogies to add to the categories of what is seen as beyond debate. That should be a rare thing indeed.
But what of the subject at hand? It is worth remembering that, as the liberals never tire of reminding us, that we live in a diverse society. There are religious ethics which contradict from time to time modern secular ethics. We do not want to create different systems of law. People cannot opt out of any legal obligation by citing real or spurious religious scrupples.
But it has always been the case, at least since we stopped enforcing religious conformity, that in some situations we allow conscientious objection rather than drive people of strong faith from society. For example, at times of war, we accommodate Quakers with their objections to fighting. I suspect that, as diversity increases, we shall increasingly find ourselves making such accommodations in order that we can live together.
However, what is proposed is that we should never accommodate. To the crude liberal mind there are two possibilities, 1) never accommodate, or 2) always accommodate. So to make any exceptions means you must scrap the entire law. This simply does not follow: if we made no exceptions then the Catholic Church would have to employ men as nuns, and women as priests. Also, let us suppose that Mr and Mrs Smith want to hire a nanny - but Mr Smith is a philanderer on his very last chance - do we doubt that Mrs Smith should be entitled to discriminate against young, pretty female candidates?
What I have suggested is no more than this. The principle of equality is a good principle. It may be uncomfortable to some, but so be it. However, when it brings that discomfort into their own home, I begin to doubt. If someone runs a hotel or a guest house, then it should be open to all. But when it is very much their own house, and they will in the ordinary course sit down with their guests at the same table, the situation is different. As with my nanny example, the subject matter is intimate as well as commercial.
That is my doubt, and I am aware that there are counter-arguments, and arguments with considerable strength. A Bed and Breakfast that generally advertises is a commercial enterprise, so must not turn people away. I am aware of the strength of that, but there is strength in the arguments for accommodating the squeamishness of a minority. Were this exception to cause great problems in practice, then I would think again.
So, all that I have suggested is a minor exception in a marginal case. It is a case that I find difficult, but many would disagree with that. The point is that there is no warrant for saying that such points ought never to be raised nor argued. That appears, perversely, to be the liberal position.
I should say one more thing. It has been suggested that having this view would disqualify me from being home secretary - the home office enforces these laws, how can the home secretary disagree with a law that he will be enforcing? This is also nonsense. Ministers uphold laws whether they disagree with them or not. In the Victorian days, some Home Secretaries upheld capital punishment although they were abolitionists. Until it was repealed, Labour education ministers upheld section 28. The law on this point is clear. Whatever my personal doubts may be - and those doubts are not Conservative Party policy - are frankly irrelevant."
Unfortunately, he contented himself with squirming.
Friday 2 April 2010
A strange turn of events
Labour's rise in the polls has been built largely on a simple trick. Mandelson and Brown simply do not acknowledge any defeats or blows made against them. It would be very easy for an intelligent man to agonise about having once denied the need for cuts and (shortly after) presented himself as a man who could be trusted to cut public spending. Similarly, we would probably worry about presenting ourselves as having succeeded in controlling immigration, when it has merely fallen a little from record heights achieved on our watch.
But why worry if you can simply ignore those problems. Why be concerned if you can flatly deny them when the heat is on, and sneak out an apology later. Do not admit a failing when being cross-examined in Chilcott enquiry. Do not admit in PM's questions that the whole G20 was out of recession first. You mislead the enquiry, and put up a good show when it matters most. And you pretend (to cheers) that Spain is a G20 member.
Like Eddie Murphy in the sketch, and Shaggy is in his song, if you simply ignore your fault regardless of all the evidence, you may just get away with it. Hence, the taunts of Cameron as to Brown's boast of "no more boom and bust", does not ruffle Brown - and Cameron looks like a name caller.
At least that, perhaps, is what you see if you watch too closely. The audience on last night's Question Time seemed almost at times to queue up to call Brown a liar. Maybe the public do not take enough interest to end up giving high marks for artistic impressions to politicians, even when they are spinning tall tales. Like RicRoc's rebuke to Shaggy: but they caught us on camera saying we'd solved boom and bust, that we would lead the world out of recession, that there would be no cuts, etc.
So, maybe Cameron should not worry too much that he seems to be bashing his head against a brick wall trying to get Brown to admit failure.
His worry should instead be to present a positive case, and let the public take care of Brown's nonsense. We have seen with the National Insurance issue that a positive policy can cause havoc to Labour. Labour have committed themselves to outright denunciation of everything about Tory economic policy. They could not cope with the idea of businessmen supporting the opposition. So, they over-reacted and fell into the trap that they have laid for Cameron.
It is obvious that Labour should have respectably disagreed. They should have wheeled out those who back their approach. Then repeat a lot of half-truths and untruths about how the Conservatives have got everything wrong from Northern Rock onwards - Newsnight exploded this, but it still makes a good line. Instead, they ranted and raged. Labour does not really do criticism well.
Will it matter? I think, yes. The polls may go up and down in the next month. But Labour need the aura of being a saffe pair of hands, and they need the Tories to have an aura of danger and incompetence. They need those impressions to be whirling around the heads of undecided voters come 6 May. The sight of businessmen queuing up to endorse supposed "Tory incompetence" was actually good, doubtless helped. But it helped that Labour made it a much bigger story with their hysteria.
But why worry if you can simply ignore those problems. Why be concerned if you can flatly deny them when the heat is on, and sneak out an apology later. Do not admit a failing when being cross-examined in Chilcott enquiry. Do not admit in PM's questions that the whole G20 was out of recession first. You mislead the enquiry, and put up a good show when it matters most. And you pretend (to cheers) that Spain is a G20 member.
Like Eddie Murphy in the sketch, and Shaggy is in his song, if you simply ignore your fault regardless of all the evidence, you may just get away with it. Hence, the taunts of Cameron as to Brown's boast of "no more boom and bust", does not ruffle Brown - and Cameron looks like a name caller.
At least that, perhaps, is what you see if you watch too closely. The audience on last night's Question Time seemed almost at times to queue up to call Brown a liar. Maybe the public do not take enough interest to end up giving high marks for artistic impressions to politicians, even when they are spinning tall tales. Like RicRoc's rebuke to Shaggy: but they caught us on camera saying we'd solved boom and bust, that we would lead the world out of recession, that there would be no cuts, etc.
So, maybe Cameron should not worry too much that he seems to be bashing his head against a brick wall trying to get Brown to admit failure.
His worry should instead be to present a positive case, and let the public take care of Brown's nonsense. We have seen with the National Insurance issue that a positive policy can cause havoc to Labour. Labour have committed themselves to outright denunciation of everything about Tory economic policy. They could not cope with the idea of businessmen supporting the opposition. So, they over-reacted and fell into the trap that they have laid for Cameron.
It is obvious that Labour should have respectably disagreed. They should have wheeled out those who back their approach. Then repeat a lot of half-truths and untruths about how the Conservatives have got everything wrong from Northern Rock onwards - Newsnight exploded this, but it still makes a good line. Instead, they ranted and raged. Labour does not really do criticism well.
Will it matter? I think, yes. The polls may go up and down in the next month. But Labour need the aura of being a saffe pair of hands, and they need the Tories to have an aura of danger and incompetence. They need those impressions to be whirling around the heads of undecided voters come 6 May. The sight of businessmen queuing up to endorse supposed "Tory incompetence" was actually good, doubtless helped. But it helped that Labour made it a much bigger story with their hysteria.
Wednesday 31 March 2010
The Provencal Paradox
So, Labour is going to campaign on immigration: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/mar/31/general-election-2010-conservatives.
The absurdity is clear and will be said by others. What I wish to challenge here is the idea that the only good challenge to immigration is by reference to resources. David Cameron seems to have bought into this. Doubtless he was taken aback when he was asked on television by a Muslim nurse with a hijab about why we import medical staff rather than train our own? An excellent question - but once you remove identity issues from the immigration debate, once you have no particular loyalty to compatriots over would be migrants, then it is all about economics. If it is cheaper to import staff, it is economically rational not to train your own.
Essentially, we have long since bought into this. The original importation of migrant labour into the NHS was to deal with a genuine labour shortage when we had full-employment. But it has long since turned into a means of bringing in cheaper workers and cutting down the messy business of training your own.
Provencal paradox
However, what I want to address here, is the issue of whether it is racist to object to cultural change created by immigration. Gordon Brown clearly thinks so, and has limited his debate to purely material matters.
My point is that no one likes their community changed by weight of numbers - at least not if they like it. I am sorry to use such a prejorative term such as "weight of numbers", but I could tie myself in knots looking for a euphemism. Let us not play that game. After all, the weight of numbers need not come from immigrants, it may come from British middle class people moving into a Docklands development (eg: Wapping), it may come from Guardian readers wanting to move somewhere edgy, and pushing out local ethnic minorities (eg: parts of Brixton). But unless an area is wholly undesirable, locals do not welcome such change. Well, they may pocket the profits from house sales, but they do not regard it is an improvement.
Why can our left-wing friends not understand that it is rational to object to changes brought by virtue of mass immigration? It is not a belief in the superiority of local people or culture. It is not even a desire to be wholly insular. It is just that people like the familiar, and don't want it swept away. Locals will be quick enough to assimilate the best influences of newcomers once barriers are broken down. But it is one thing to delight in an Indian restaurant, another to find that the local butcher has been replaced by a Halal one.
What is more, I like to think that most immigrants come to Britain not to create an enclave of their home country. Some do behave like the worst British ex-pats and colonials, sending their children "home" to marry rather than risk mixing with the locals - and let us never forget, inter-marriage is the best sign of healthy immigration. But ultimately, those who make their home in this country probably like this country for what it is.
This sentiment is probably incredible to many lefties, but let me explain it in terms they may understand: the Provencal paradox:
If you move to Provence, you do so to live in France. You want France to surround you and French things to surround you. You want to talk French to French people, even if it might take time to get fluent. You want to be part of local life. Of course, you need to take time to achieve such a state of affairs. If there are a few other English people in your village, that may make things easier - it is nice to relax and speak your own language and discuss familiar things. Only with copatriots can you discuss British TV of the 1970s and 1980s, and it is nice to do so.
But you do not want too large a British community. You do not want to create a British cocoon to keep France at arm's length. What is more, you do not want in your village a large number of compatriots who Anglicise the place. You do not want the cafe turning into a greasy-spoon. You do not want an English pub replacing the local bars. You do not want to live in the place which feels increasingly like England, and decreasingly like France.
I am sure our left-wing friends would wholly agree with this. They would regard as an abomination towns in Spain where English pubs sit next to Welsh pubs which sit next to Scottish pubs.
But wherever they find in Britain areas that are increasingly defined by Asian or African culture, they are thrilled to the bone. It is on such areas that they lavish praise for being vibrant; while damning as a sterile any areas which seem hideously white.
Of course, somewhere, deep down, the left understand that this does not quite square. That is why Tony Blair maximised immigration without lifting a finger to share the blessings of diversity with his Sedgefield constituents. But, until such time as the socially conservative minorities flex their muscles with the Labour party, it will always be full-steam ahead with immigration.
The absurdity is clear and will be said by others. What I wish to challenge here is the idea that the only good challenge to immigration is by reference to resources. David Cameron seems to have bought into this. Doubtless he was taken aback when he was asked on television by a Muslim nurse with a hijab about why we import medical staff rather than train our own? An excellent question - but once you remove identity issues from the immigration debate, once you have no particular loyalty to compatriots over would be migrants, then it is all about economics. If it is cheaper to import staff, it is economically rational not to train your own.
Essentially, we have long since bought into this. The original importation of migrant labour into the NHS was to deal with a genuine labour shortage when we had full-employment. But it has long since turned into a means of bringing in cheaper workers and cutting down the messy business of training your own.
Provencal paradox
However, what I want to address here, is the issue of whether it is racist to object to cultural change created by immigration. Gordon Brown clearly thinks so, and has limited his debate to purely material matters.
My point is that no one likes their community changed by weight of numbers - at least not if they like it. I am sorry to use such a prejorative term such as "weight of numbers", but I could tie myself in knots looking for a euphemism. Let us not play that game. After all, the weight of numbers need not come from immigrants, it may come from British middle class people moving into a Docklands development (eg: Wapping), it may come from Guardian readers wanting to move somewhere edgy, and pushing out local ethnic minorities (eg: parts of Brixton). But unless an area is wholly undesirable, locals do not welcome such change. Well, they may pocket the profits from house sales, but they do not regard it is an improvement.
Why can our left-wing friends not understand that it is rational to object to changes brought by virtue of mass immigration? It is not a belief in the superiority of local people or culture. It is not even a desire to be wholly insular. It is just that people like the familiar, and don't want it swept away. Locals will be quick enough to assimilate the best influences of newcomers once barriers are broken down. But it is one thing to delight in an Indian restaurant, another to find that the local butcher has been replaced by a Halal one.
What is more, I like to think that most immigrants come to Britain not to create an enclave of their home country. Some do behave like the worst British ex-pats and colonials, sending their children "home" to marry rather than risk mixing with the locals - and let us never forget, inter-marriage is the best sign of healthy immigration. But ultimately, those who make their home in this country probably like this country for what it is.
This sentiment is probably incredible to many lefties, but let me explain it in terms they may understand: the Provencal paradox:
If you move to Provence, you do so to live in France. You want France to surround you and French things to surround you. You want to talk French to French people, even if it might take time to get fluent. You want to be part of local life. Of course, you need to take time to achieve such a state of affairs. If there are a few other English people in your village, that may make things easier - it is nice to relax and speak your own language and discuss familiar things. Only with copatriots can you discuss British TV of the 1970s and 1980s, and it is nice to do so.
But you do not want too large a British community. You do not want to create a British cocoon to keep France at arm's length. What is more, you do not want in your village a large number of compatriots who Anglicise the place. You do not want the cafe turning into a greasy-spoon. You do not want an English pub replacing the local bars. You do not want to live in the place which feels increasingly like England, and decreasingly like France.
I am sure our left-wing friends would wholly agree with this. They would regard as an abomination towns in Spain where English pubs sit next to Welsh pubs which sit next to Scottish pubs.
But wherever they find in Britain areas that are increasingly defined by Asian or African culture, they are thrilled to the bone. It is on such areas that they lavish praise for being vibrant; while damning as a sterile any areas which seem hideously white.
Of course, somewhere, deep down, the left understand that this does not quite square. That is why Tony Blair maximised immigration without lifting a finger to share the blessings of diversity with his Sedgefield constituents. But, until such time as the socially conservative minorities flex their muscles with the Labour party, it will always be full-steam ahead with immigration.
Monday 29 March 2010
With thanks to Stephanie Flanders
The Tories now have two lines which are compelling. One is a gift to Labour and well highlighted by the BBC's Stephanie Flanders - the other comes from their own endeavour, although they possibly haven't thought it through yet.
1. If Labour has identified large amounts of waste, why wait a year to stop the waste? Why tax the economy in order to waste the money? Why borrow in order to waste money? Now, Maynard Keynes would say that there is no such thing as wasted government spending in a recession - but most of us cannot see the point of paying one man to dig a hole, and another to fill it in, to use Keynes's example. Osborne was a little slow to use this important point - probably he had not fully thought it through, possibly he was a little worried at the small matter of opportunism having denied the existence of Labour's efficiency savings, more likely it was just the vicissitudes of debate. But can Labour explain why cuts of waste should be deferred?
2. Labour highlight their stimulus measures. They stress the help to businesses that they will give? But how can it make sense to increase employer's national insurance? Labour propose taxing business generally in order to put money into chosen businesses and chosen business areas. And, throughout the process, there will be waste and inefficiency. Even if the civil service is thoroughly efficient, there will be costs in managing the process. And for what point - to tax business in order to stimulate business?
All in all, not so pessimistic. Osborne did okay, which should be enough to blunt the strongest attacks on him. Maybe, like Brown, he could even engage public sympathies for having been subject to attacks. He remains "not the best choice", but should have ceased to be a positive liability.
But, it all rather depends on the Tories sowing together simple points into a compelling narrative. In the above, with particular thanks to Stephanomics, they should have the starts.
1. If Labour has identified large amounts of waste, why wait a year to stop the waste? Why tax the economy in order to waste the money? Why borrow in order to waste money? Now, Maynard Keynes would say that there is no such thing as wasted government spending in a recession - but most of us cannot see the point of paying one man to dig a hole, and another to fill it in, to use Keynes's example. Osborne was a little slow to use this important point - probably he had not fully thought it through, possibly he was a little worried at the small matter of opportunism having denied the existence of Labour's efficiency savings, more likely it was just the vicissitudes of debate. But can Labour explain why cuts of waste should be deferred?
2. Labour highlight their stimulus measures. They stress the help to businesses that they will give? But how can it make sense to increase employer's national insurance? Labour propose taxing business generally in order to put money into chosen businesses and chosen business areas. And, throughout the process, there will be waste and inefficiency. Even if the civil service is thoroughly efficient, there will be costs in managing the process. And for what point - to tax business in order to stimulate business?
All in all, not so pessimistic. Osborne did okay, which should be enough to blunt the strongest attacks on him. Maybe, like Brown, he could even engage public sympathies for having been subject to attacks. He remains "not the best choice", but should have ceased to be a positive liability.
But, it all rather depends on the Tories sowing together simple points into a compelling narrative. In the above, with particular thanks to Stephanomics, they should have the starts.
Saturday 27 March 2010
How not to express yourself
Matthew Parris quite rightly commented in today's Times that Cameron should be a little less angry in his speech. I could not agree more. Intelligent policies should be expressed intelligently.
We should all by now have noticed the difference between listening to and reading a Gordon Brown speech. Much the same as a Tony Blair speech. Fine in tone, and you can often be forgiven for believing you had heard something brilliant. Or at least something that could be mistaken as great crowd pleasing rhetoric.
But read the same speech, and all you find is a sequence of non sequiturs. No argument - just assertion interspersed with insult.
So what is Cameron doing?? Not for the first time - he did the same in his Spring Conference Speech - he ends with the tone of a school rugger captain trying to rally the First XV at half-time. Short of arranging a rally in Sheffield and shouting, "Well, alright!!", could it be more embarrassing?
A cry of "lets get at them" may be good at the meeting - but has Cameron not forgotten the true audience of every speech? Every word he says before television, the audience is the entire British electorate.
In short, he must always present a tight, logical and coherent argument for why the viewer should vote Tory. Something that can withstand the sneers of Brown, Balls and the other blustering bullies. Something that always addresses the basic charge against the Tories - that they are going to cut for the sake of ideology and not because the nearly bankrupt must cut costs.
So, please, if he does has policies - explain what and why to the public as a whole. Your party workers will do their job without the captain's half-time talk.
We should all by now have noticed the difference between listening to and reading a Gordon Brown speech. Much the same as a Tony Blair speech. Fine in tone, and you can often be forgiven for believing you had heard something brilliant. Or at least something that could be mistaken as great crowd pleasing rhetoric.
But read the same speech, and all you find is a sequence of non sequiturs. No argument - just assertion interspersed with insult.
So what is Cameron doing?? Not for the first time - he did the same in his Spring Conference Speech - he ends with the tone of a school rugger captain trying to rally the First XV at half-time. Short of arranging a rally in Sheffield and shouting, "Well, alright!!", could it be more embarrassing?
A cry of "lets get at them" may be good at the meeting - but has Cameron not forgotten the true audience of every speech? Every word he says before television, the audience is the entire British electorate.
In short, he must always present a tight, logical and coherent argument for why the viewer should vote Tory. Something that can withstand the sneers of Brown, Balls and the other blustering bullies. Something that always addresses the basic charge against the Tories - that they are going to cut for the sake of ideology and not because the nearly bankrupt must cut costs.
So, please, if he does has policies - explain what and why to the public as a whole. Your party workers will do their job without the captain's half-time talk.
Why should I vote Conservative?
Some time ago, Matthew Parris dealt with the question of why he did not change to New Labour. At the time, there seemed little between the parties apart from a social conservatism where he was firmly on the side of Labour. “I am too tribal,” I recall was his answer. Essentially, the Tories were his team and he’d support them evermore. Faced almost 25 years ago with relegation from the league – Burnley fans had sung the same refrain, even those who seldom turned up to see a game.
And this, I think is the difference between most of us and those who have played the game of politics as a lifelong pursuit. Even if we have voted Tory at almost every opportunity, we do not support them with the unconditional loyalty that we give to our football teams. We are not tribal with our political parties in quite the same way. We do not shop around to support the team which plays the style of football that we most admire – we do shop around for the political party that supports the type of policies we most desire.
This, is the first flaw in Cameron’s modernisation strategy. It assumes that the core vote will vote Tory as they will still vaguely assume that the party is likely to be sounder on Europe (despite Maastricht), sounder on immigration, sounder on educational standards (despite introducing the GCSE), and tougher on crime (despite always disappointing in the past). But when we see a party flirt with all-women short lists, we are not so sure that it shares our principles – although the hostility of the northern women at the recent Question Time to the idea shows that these principles are fairly broadly held. The abandonment of the European referendum has sowed doubts (wrongly, in my view) as to their soundness in that issue. The code of silence on immigration means that (ridiculously) Labour are trying to appropriate immigration control for themselves – even if their definition of immigration control is finding a system to process the record numbers that we have seen for over a decade, and to pretend (clearly wrongly) that it has all been about temporary Eastern European immigration. Stripped of a policy direction on matters of general conservative thinking, we ask ourselves why we should vote Conservative.
The second flaw is presentational. You do not want to be the nasty party? But how can you be anything but a nasty party if you have no policies? All you are left with is negative campaigning. For sure, there can be times when this is sufficient – but we live in an era of real difficulties where difficult policies must be announced. How can you say we will cut, and not say how? To say how is to give a rational explanation of what you plan and hope to achieve. Otherwise, you are just cutting.
The third flaw was shown by his Gay News interview. It was a simple question - how far would he use the whip on gay equality issues? To translate - it means when does he regard the issues as being open and shut, and when it is the sort of difficult thing that requires compromise for us to live happily together? The teaching of gay issues in church schools is an obvious example of such complications - if civil partnerships are upgraded to marriage, then should churches be required to conduct gay marriages? These are the sort of issues that lie beneath the question. What was shocking was that Cameron had embraced gay issues without having any understanding of the limits of his support, or the complexity of some of the issues. Other than that it sounds nice and modern, he does not seem to understand why he supports gay rights. If he understood why, he would be able to have an idea as to what demands might be going too far, in his view. And this encapsulates his whole approach to modernisation - it is done for the sake of image. He doesn't know what any given step should be thought of as a good thing. No wonder his rebranding is quickly seen as unprincipled.
But to return to the main theme, parties are there to represent strands of opinion that exist in society. If those strands go unrepresented, then it is a failure of democracy. The Tories campaigned on reducing public spending in 2001 and 2005 – they lost. I do not say that parties should not take stock of the situation – politicians must ask if there is a constituency for their views. But they cannot simply track the fashions because they garner 33% as opposed to the winner's 36%. Oppositions can only hold a government to account if they disagree with it - and maintain that disagreement despite by definition haveing had their own views rejected.
If a party wins two or three elections, it does not follow that political debate must narrow and everyone must adopt the thinking of the recent winner - but that appears to be the idea behnd this "heir of Blair" abomination. We see that with Cameron and Osborne’s previous pledge to follow Labour spending policies – does anyone doubt that it would be better if they were now saying that the Tories had been right in 2001 and 2005? Would it not be better if they took Labour’s proposed efficiency savings and played a thousand times Brown and Blair denying in 2001 and 2005 that there was any scope for such serious savings? What Labour trumpeted on Budget Day, was Tory policy of 2001 and 2005. But Cameron and Osborne abandoned that policy – and with it they abandoned any sense the people might have that the country was moving towards Tory policies.
So, why should I vote Conservative? The harm that Brown will do is a certainty – the gain from humiliating Cameron is speculative. We know that the deficit will not be tackled – the overspend comes from Labour pet causes. We all know that immigration is a core belief of Labour, they will not tackle it. Left wing teachers are pathologically opposed to school discipline and academic rigour – how will a left wing party do anything but fail on education. If Europe comes asking for more powers, we know Labour will find an excuse to deny us a referendum – the Tory failure is a misdemeanour in comparison to Labour’s.
So, at the very least, let us to try to reduce their majority, or dent their legitimacy by giving the Tories the higher vote. I am very sceptical about winning – Cameron has done too much damage to woo the liberals, who repay him with talk of toffs. But we do not want Brown given a landslide as a reward for his many failures, and thus encourage him to many more and greater disasters.
In the meantime, it may be too late, but could Cameron remember that his voters are partisan towards policies not towards party colours. We are not interested in him becoming Prime Minister or any of his friends achieving office. We are interested only in what might happen next. And, frankly, he has given us only doubts.
And this, I think is the difference between most of us and those who have played the game of politics as a lifelong pursuit. Even if we have voted Tory at almost every opportunity, we do not support them with the unconditional loyalty that we give to our football teams. We are not tribal with our political parties in quite the same way. We do not shop around to support the team which plays the style of football that we most admire – we do shop around for the political party that supports the type of policies we most desire.
This, is the first flaw in Cameron’s modernisation strategy. It assumes that the core vote will vote Tory as they will still vaguely assume that the party is likely to be sounder on Europe (despite Maastricht), sounder on immigration, sounder on educational standards (despite introducing the GCSE), and tougher on crime (despite always disappointing in the past). But when we see a party flirt with all-women short lists, we are not so sure that it shares our principles – although the hostility of the northern women at the recent Question Time to the idea shows that these principles are fairly broadly held. The abandonment of the European referendum has sowed doubts (wrongly, in my view) as to their soundness in that issue. The code of silence on immigration means that (ridiculously) Labour are trying to appropriate immigration control for themselves – even if their definition of immigration control is finding a system to process the record numbers that we have seen for over a decade, and to pretend (clearly wrongly) that it has all been about temporary Eastern European immigration. Stripped of a policy direction on matters of general conservative thinking, we ask ourselves why we should vote Conservative.
The second flaw is presentational. You do not want to be the nasty party? But how can you be anything but a nasty party if you have no policies? All you are left with is negative campaigning. For sure, there can be times when this is sufficient – but we live in an era of real difficulties where difficult policies must be announced. How can you say we will cut, and not say how? To say how is to give a rational explanation of what you plan and hope to achieve. Otherwise, you are just cutting.
The third flaw was shown by his Gay News interview. It was a simple question - how far would he use the whip on gay equality issues? To translate - it means when does he regard the issues as being open and shut, and when it is the sort of difficult thing that requires compromise for us to live happily together? The teaching of gay issues in church schools is an obvious example of such complications - if civil partnerships are upgraded to marriage, then should churches be required to conduct gay marriages? These are the sort of issues that lie beneath the question. What was shocking was that Cameron had embraced gay issues without having any understanding of the limits of his support, or the complexity of some of the issues. Other than that it sounds nice and modern, he does not seem to understand why he supports gay rights. If he understood why, he would be able to have an idea as to what demands might be going too far, in his view. And this encapsulates his whole approach to modernisation - it is done for the sake of image. He doesn't know what any given step should be thought of as a good thing. No wonder his rebranding is quickly seen as unprincipled.
But to return to the main theme, parties are there to represent strands of opinion that exist in society. If those strands go unrepresented, then it is a failure of democracy. The Tories campaigned on reducing public spending in 2001 and 2005 – they lost. I do not say that parties should not take stock of the situation – politicians must ask if there is a constituency for their views. But they cannot simply track the fashions because they garner 33% as opposed to the winner's 36%. Oppositions can only hold a government to account if they disagree with it - and maintain that disagreement despite by definition haveing had their own views rejected.
If a party wins two or three elections, it does not follow that political debate must narrow and everyone must adopt the thinking of the recent winner - but that appears to be the idea behnd this "heir of Blair" abomination. We see that with Cameron and Osborne’s previous pledge to follow Labour spending policies – does anyone doubt that it would be better if they were now saying that the Tories had been right in 2001 and 2005? Would it not be better if they took Labour’s proposed efficiency savings and played a thousand times Brown and Blair denying in 2001 and 2005 that there was any scope for such serious savings? What Labour trumpeted on Budget Day, was Tory policy of 2001 and 2005. But Cameron and Osborne abandoned that policy – and with it they abandoned any sense the people might have that the country was moving towards Tory policies.
So, why should I vote Conservative? The harm that Brown will do is a certainty – the gain from humiliating Cameron is speculative. We know that the deficit will not be tackled – the overspend comes from Labour pet causes. We all know that immigration is a core belief of Labour, they will not tackle it. Left wing teachers are pathologically opposed to school discipline and academic rigour – how will a left wing party do anything but fail on education. If Europe comes asking for more powers, we know Labour will find an excuse to deny us a referendum – the Tory failure is a misdemeanour in comparison to Labour’s.
So, at the very least, let us to try to reduce their majority, or dent their legitimacy by giving the Tories the higher vote. I am very sceptical about winning – Cameron has done too much damage to woo the liberals, who repay him with talk of toffs. But we do not want Brown given a landslide as a reward for his many failures, and thus encourage him to many more and greater disasters.
In the meantime, it may be too late, but could Cameron remember that his voters are partisan towards policies not towards party colours. We are not interested in him becoming Prime Minister or any of his friends achieving office. We are interested only in what might happen next. And, frankly, he has given us only doubts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)