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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)