Translate

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Why Murdoch Attacks Cameron

The media are asking questions about David Cameron pre-Party Conference. The BBC for example: 'Will PR triumph over policy?' Sky TV are being far less polite, even running a poll asking viewers if they think Cameron is 'vapid'. On the Vapidometer, Cameron scores 70%. OUCH!

The signs are there that Murdoch is out to stop David Cameron if he can. When asked on US TV what he thought of David Cameron, he said, 'Not much'. And so on. Murdoch is also out there in force trying to secure Gordon Brown the Labour leadership. Anyone who thinks Murdoch is politically motivated policywise, is forced to the conclusion that he's a rampant tax-and-spend enthusiast, which seems unlikely.

The theory that he backs only winners is also called into question. Brown is a dinosaur and looks set to tumble. John Reid's odds are narrowing every day, as the realisation sets in that Brown is a total basket case. Without Blair he's not saleable. Murdoch's backing the loser.

The only Murdoch theory that fits every time is that he backs whoever the EU have decided they want. Major in preference to Kinnock. (Labour with a small majority could not have pushed Maastrricht through the Commons while Conservatives had enough cohesion and discipline to get it through). Blair in preference to Hague. (Blair pro-Euro etc). IDS was got rid of for being a known eurosceptic. And so on.

Lance Price has always insisted that Murdoch called the tune on Labour's policy on the EU, when he worked in Downing St.

Conservatives who fear that David Cameron is a secret europhile should take courage from the fact that Murdoch continually attacks Cameron. It is impossible to follow a eurosceptic pattern in Cameron from his rhetoric and his actions so far such as the EPP. But if Murdoch doesn't want Cameron as PM, you can read that as the EU doesn't want him as Prime Minister. Cameron is a lot 'sounder' than people have been lead to believe.

It's Islam's Problem. Not Ours.

Don't rise to the bait. The principal problem for Moslems is internal. Their religion cannot compete easily with the modern world. Their young people are as attracted to American soap operas and movies as any other youth in the world. The Imams cannot compete. Change is sweeping through Moslem lands as fast or faster than it is through the West. The unease within Islam has spawned terrorism but that is not the core issue. It is all a case of how long it takes Islam to adjust to the mdoern world, and move on.

The threat of violence against the West is real enough but that is only a manifestation of Islamic unease and inability to cope with change. If they can externalise the situation, and accuse others of being the 'problem' that lifts the responsibility to achieve change from their shoulders. Every time we show a willingness to fight back in an argument we have little interest in, we fuel the fire, and supply oxygen to the extremists.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Blair's Legacy

Blair is desperate to try to persuade himself and others that he leaves a legacy of achievement. It's a need he has to be significant in terms of concrete results and not just a class sales act that used spin to look good. The kind of achievements he wants to lay claim to are proving elusive, the supposed improvement to public health services and so on. His main achievement may be nothing to do with policy.


There was a time when politicans were elected because of policy. When the country divided into classes. When unemployment was public enemy number one, and when people went hungry. Whichever class you were from decided your political viewpoint. Policy was important because policy identitified your position in the structure that existed.

Britain in 2006 may still have identifiable classes. David Cameron went to Eton. Tony Blair went to Fettes. But John Prescott didn't go to Public School. John Reid did not either. Nor did David Davis or Liam Fox. Both current party leaders may have gone to public school. In the case of Labour, it won't go on much longer that way. The fact is though that hardly anyone seems that bothered if any of them did or they didn't.

Under Blair Britain has let go. We were an uptight lot who were restricted in our aspirations by our class backgrounds, and an inability to show and express emotions. Think all the way back to John Major and Neil kinnock - even William Hague - and you find a totally different world that does not exist any more.

Within that context, Gordon Brown is a dinosaur who has not moved into the modern age. He is locked up in a past with an inability to express emotions, and still defined by his class background. Blair's legacy is that he has told Britain that we can now be whatever we want to be, and that nothing need hold us back. How suitable that John Reid, a similarly cocky aspirant but from another background completely, seems a natural follow-on to Blair.

Political leadership now has little to do with policy, little to do with where you come from and all to do with charisma. Before Blair and after Blair are different. That's his legacy - not the appalling state of the country which will need a Conservative government to get it going again. Cameron is tuned in to where Blair has lead. We are an amazingly open-minded society now. Blair has cracked Britain's class history and blown it to pieces. Cameron will be the one to get it working properly, but it was Blair who made Cameron possible.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Battersea Must Deselect Ellison Immediately

Jane Ellison was selected as the Conservative Battersea candidate by Open Primary. She kept her europhile views secret during the selection process. It's outrageous

If I was a Battersea Conservative, I would propose a motion that jane Ellison is immediately deselected as they were not told she was a europhile. This is a deception and should not be tolerated.

Find a seconder. Put it to the vote and push her out immediately.

Selection is by Open Primary, but deselection is still the business of the constituency association.

If Battersea don't deselect her immediately they will suffer the same fate as Bromley. It is very simnple. Conservatives are becoming very unlikely to vote for europhiles. Don't select them as candidates.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

BBC Calls Europe A Nation

Gavin Hewitt said on the BBC News At ten that 'Europe will be a nation of 27' once Bulgaria and Romania join the EU.

Tossers. The BBC should be dismantled brick by brick. They are so up their own arses, they're a bloody joke. Nations tend to be able to speak to each other as a rule. We are part of the English speaking nation, not part of an adjacent land mass where over 100 separate languages and dialects are spoken.

If there is a referendum and British people vote to be part of a European nation, then i would accept it. Until that day comes, the BBC needs blowing to smithereens for its bloody arrogance in bypassing our democratic rights to be consulted as to the status of our nationhood.

The BBC once was the voice of freedom. Now it's the voice of treachery, treason and totalitarianism. What's happened in the 60 years since the 2nd world war for this mess to be possible?

Conservative Home Bloggers Don't Trust Cameron

Arthur wrote on Conservative Home: If Murdoch wants us to stay in the EU, he has a funny way of showing it...

The Sun can write as many eurosceptic pieces as it likes. The crucial part is which governments it puts in and keeps in power. In fact, to get away with the kind of power leverage I describe, the paper would have to run a cover-up of the real game it's playing, for it to work.

John Major was eurocompliant - forcing through maastricht. He benefited greatly from Murdoch's backing. By chance and coincidence under Major Murdoch acquired the rights to 100% of satellite TV and the Premier league.

Maggie started off being well in with Murdoch, signing into all the Treaties. Murdoch had the Times and the Sunday Times handed to him although strictly only The Times came into the rules because it was losing money. But the ST was lumped in with it. Once Maggie realised that she was not in favour of further European Treaties, she was assassinated without Murdoch coming to her aid, and possibly assisting in the gradual destruction of her character.

Blair read the tealeaves, and signed up to the Murdoch/EU game 100% having previously been an arch-eurosceptic. Murdoch's kept his privileges under Blair, and has gained more - including the recent addition of Test Cricket which most people can now no longer watch as a result.

IDS stood against the EU. Murdoch's editors lead the campaign to assassinate IDS, and he was disposed of, despite his relatively successful gains in the polls.

Gordon Brown is now inheriting the Murdoch/EU Crown. That's 5 cases in a row over 25 years that conform to my theory, Arthur. Not final proof, but persuasive. The fact that Cameron is not approved by Murdoch is strong evidence that Cameron is not eurocompliant, despite his willingness to appear to be so for PR purposes.

Posted by: Tapestry | September 27, 2006 at 12:10

Is Cameron Sound?

monday clubber on CH asked me if was living in a dream world, because I thought Cameron was not eurocompliant.

i may or may not be living in a dream world. If Gordon Brown takes over Labour, I think some kind of alternative reality would be preferable to having to cope with having a dinosaur as Prime Minister.

Your analysis is shared by a few on CH, I know. In fact I was writing heavily against the EPP decision as it was taken, and was angry with Hague for the cop-out.

But there are two ways of looking at the situation. The eurosceptic MEP's were stunned into silence. Helmer was due for the chop. But he's now reprieved, and the voices of the eurosceptics are gradually returning. In fact Helmer is outside the EPP, and still a Conservative.

There could have been reasons why Cameron ducked the EPP choice. He was certainly being threatened with a sustained campaign against him by Ken Clarke while he was still new to position and vulnerable. If he'd been assaulted for being a little englander etc, it might have set back his primary strategy which is still to pick up centre ground voters.

As far as I know Helmer is still loyal. Carswell. Redwood. IDS. Cash. Paterson. And others. Also Hannan. Are you saying that you believe all these to be misjudging the party leader, or sacrificing their beliefs for party position? I've read the kind of things you say, have much sympathy, but i do believe that Cameron is, as Thatcher might say, sound - and that you are wrong.

Blair's Going. Really?

The Blair 'I'm going speech' was theatrical. He ain't going yet, and yet somehow with the Tony Blair ability to flex perceptions of reality, everyone assumed the emotional state as if he had already gone. He fed his own gargantuan narcissistic requirements a healthy meal at the same time.

Cherie was acting like a junior member of staff who felt it good to have a rant before quitting the job. No matter how high she rises (I doubt she will ever get so high again) she will no doubt continue to behave like someone who doesn't believe in her own self worth.

As if those two psychologically challenged individuals were not enough to cope with, there is the dreadful brooding skulking Gordon Brown. The only claim he has to the Labour leadership as and when it does finally come available, is the fact that Tony Blair lied to him. This is most odd. The substance of the lie was that Blair intended to hand over the leadership to him. As it's not even in Blair's power to do that, both parties to this Granita discussion were negotiating about an unreality.

The lack of a requirement for any connection to reality is the hallmark of the Blair era. Wars can be started and fought without spending money or showing any wounded soldiers on TV. Pensions can be promised to people as long as they keep quiet and don't spoil elections, Money in fact has been no object. Government spending has risen from £800 million a day in 1997 to £1.5 billion a day now. And there is no end to the amounts that Gordon Brown thinks he can spend in future.

Another unreality has been elections. Labour made it so easy for political parties to harvest postal votes that it is happening now by the million. In 2005 General Election, there were over 4 million postal votes. Many individuals arrived at the polling stations to be told that their vote had already been cast postally by someone else. This happened to John Humphreys and Mariela Frostrup of the BBC, but they were soon encouraged not to speak about it. The International organisation that monitored the election said that the law should be changed and an election like it should never be allowed to happen again. But in the Blair's Britain where nothing real ever happens, anything less than perfect is just pushed to one side and kept out of sight, and the situation is barely changed.


The law has been changed to make it a criminal offence to attempt to vote fraudulantly. That is all. This will not prevent parties from harvesting fraudulent votes. Under rules of criminal justice, any allegations cannot be discussed publicly so it is a most convenient way of silencing what is going on, and ensuring fraudulent voting issues are kept out of the Press.

Another unreality is immigration. In 2001 it was put about by labour that anyone even mentioning immigration was racist or immoral. Silence was achieved on this too. The numbers entering the country by agreement with the EU have been so high that the Home Office has lost control of the situation. Maybe 500,000 people a year are entering Britain, and yet it has hardly been mentioned, and no one seems to have any idea what to do about it. So to avoid any possible dents to the Prime Minister's image, the subject is brushed under the carpet.

The same goes for our whole relationship with the EU. Throughout the Blair years, Britain has been transformed from a country with its own legal system, counties, traditions and laws into a province of the European Union. With EU regions established, counties emasculated, and Westminster a rubber stamping service, Brussels is in control of our law making, legal system and economy, apart from the currency. We may have escaped the Euro, but that is about the only thing. As we are split up into regions, and levered inside an EU Constitution, the currency will no doubt be gone too in time.

That's the ultimate unreality. A complete country has been eliminated by stealth under Blair, Brown and Prescott and yet no one has said anything about it.

Blair's going. Or is he? Brown's determined that he's not going anywhere. If he has the backing of Brussels, who are in league with Rupert Murdoch, then how could any democratic process be strong enough to stop him? Prescott too is going nowhere despite his brazen attitudes to women and money.

Brown is known for stealth taxes. But Prescott has been the real stealth merchant, breaking up Britain into regions, fixing elections and lining his own pockets and those of his supporters, as they use unstoppable powers to monopolise industries and bring them inside the corruption system. If Blair has been the great illusionist, then Prescott and Brown are the stealthiest and greatest kleptocrats.

Take away the Blair illusion, and the ghastly reality of what the Blair years have actually done to Britain are revealed. So far the public have only begun to be aware of the awfulness of the power machine that has been created. They see in Gordon Brown a persona with no charm, greedy for power and ready to take yet more of their money from them. Prescott is still in hiding, but with Blair gone he too will surely be flushed out.

What else will the British people notice once the Blair world of unreality can no longer be maintained? maybe their debts? their problems with alcohol? or their place in the world? Or maybe if the good times still roll, another illusionist will emerge. It won't be Gordon Brown. That's for sure.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Conservativehomers Should Spare Cameron

The problem is that Cameron moves in mysterious ways. He has to be a non-Tory to be popular and win elections. We live in a country where 90% admit they have no interest in politics. The people who write on places like Conservative Home are the .1% - those who are interested, and also willing to act.

They are right to state what they believe and what motivates them, but not very bright about seeing the world from the averge person's viewpoint. They have to accept that Cameron is targeting that audience and not Conservative activists.

In fact Cameron is sound on all key issues that get activists worked up. He's not playing the Rupert Murdoch game which would make it an easier ride. He has his own mind.

Rather than trying to hole the good ship Cameron below the waterlne, activists who feel offended by him should look beyond the current PR, and ask for example how he can easily work with IDS, Redwood, Fox and others if he is a raging europhile in the mould of a Blair.

He has to beat Blair at the PR game, which he's done beautifully, which has collapsed the Lib Dem vote and forced out Kennedy. He is now collapsing labour, and especially Gordon Brown who, compared to DC
looks and sounds like a creature out of a dinosaur movie, dying a slow painful and humiliating death.

Cameron has outspun Blair and Kennedy and is now putting the skids on Brown but he is no Blair himself.

Daily Mail Almost Gets It Right

Paul Dacre, Editor of The Daily mail writes today 'Gordon Brown is ALMOST certain to be Britain's next Prime Minister.' Many things are 'almost' Paul!!!!

Australia almost retained The Ashes. France almost won the World Cup.

While 89% of Britons polled on 5 Live that they don't want Brown as PM, the only thing that is 'almost' now, is that almost all media writers have realised that Brown isn't going make it. Congratulations for Paul Dacre for giving his pal Gordon Brown a bit more of a chance. But really Paul he's had 12 years to prove himself. Isn't that almost enough?

Monday, September 25, 2006

Bloggers Call Time On Gordon Brown

From Iain Dale - 'It has been a very strange morning so far. First of all I listened to a very uncomfortable Gordon Brown being interviewed on 5 Live. As I listened I kept thinking to myself: "This man is just not going to win". Brown just doesn't feel comfortable in his own skin. He keeps inserting little personal anecdotes into interviews to try to make him appear 'normal' (whatever 'normal' is nowadays).

Today we learned that he listens to his iPod while running in the gym. Not an image to conjure up over breakfast. Brown only really hit his stride when talking about foreign affairs. It was instructive that he was plainly taken aback by a 5 Live poll which showed 89 per cent didn't want him as PM.'

It's time someone took Gordon Brown on one side and told him that the game's up. Blair's conned him for over a decade with an offer of the Labour leadership, which was never his to give. It was all just a way to keep Gordon from eating the carpet. But now reality's near, it is quite obvious that Brown as leader is never going to happen.

It's complete agony watching him unable to comprehend the reality that no one likes him, and no one wants him. The Blair/Brown theatre has been used as a news blanket for over ten years, and time has now elapsed for both of them. It would be kinder to tell Gordon now than prolong the agony further. If the Labour Party is too embarrassed to face reality, then the media should confront this. Of course it will be the blogs that take the lead again.

Blog away. Gordon's history. The bloggers can see it. The rest will follow.

Gordon Brown Will Destroy The Labour Party

I took The Guardian's Gordon Brown knowledge test, linked into by iain dale. My score was poor.

5 out of 9. Slipping. Memory's not what is was. That aside, I do know one thing - that Gordon Brown is exactly as described by Charles Clarke.

He's a deluded kleptomaniac - with nil team-working skills, and no leadership capacity. He only knows how to gring everything down to a level that his tiny ego can cope with, while stealthily grasping the power and money he craves.

Blair suppressed opposition by using his boyish charm to create (false) hope.

Brown suppresses by instilling boredom and fear - creating a sick feeling in the bottom of your stomach. Brown makes even trying to think positively completely pointless. It's easier just to turn your brain off, than face the depressing prospect of having to listen any more to that tedious, unimaginative psychological cripple any longer.

Even looking at his sulking brooding picture is enough to make me feel ill. If the Labour Party allow him to win the leadership, it will be the end of them. For a start he's indicating that he will push through Proportional Represntation. The Labour Party will certainly fracture if he does.

He's talking openly about the 'obsolescence' of political parties. It seems obvious that he wants to dismantle the Party system, and create a world where his little ego won't have to deal the inconvenience of too many human beings.

If he goes for State Funding, he will dismantle the power of the unions to play a role in the Labour Party. Why Trades Unions and Labour MP's think backing Gordon Brown will benefit them is hard to fathom. It's the sheep effect. Once the media are all out there backing Brown, because he's done a deal with Murdoch and the EU, MP's seem unable to think beyond that. This lot really would be a bunch of turkeys voting for Christmas.

Couldn't we have a quiz about a few other possible leadership candidates in The Guardian? John Reid, Alan Milburn or really anyone else would be helpful. Or are we really expected to live through the nightmare of a Gordon Brown Prime Ministership? We have been warned.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Economist Joins The Gordon Brown PR Speculation

I've been speculating about Gordon Brown's willingness to trade with the Lib Dems about PR for a while. Seems like The Economist is catching up now.


Bagehot 22.9.06

A more enticing prospect beckons, however. The chances of expanding the number of Lib Dem MPs beyond the present 63 may be low but those of a hung parliament have rarely been higher. It is difficult to imagine this determinedly leftish party making common cause with the Tories, however cuddly Mr Cameron may be. Nor would it be willing to do more than help a defeated Labour Party govern for a year or two.
But, whisper it quietly, some senior Lib Dems think that Mr Brown may already be pondering the pros and cons of changing the voting system in exchange for a more formal and lasting alliance with their party. There are plenty of Labour MPs who believe in “fair votes” and support the recommendation of the Jenkins Commission that the current first-past-the-post system be made a bit more like the proportional representation that the Lib Dems have long campaigned for.
A deal along lines such as these would revive Tony Blair's old dream of creating an electorally unbeatable “progressive” coalition in Britain. Sir Ming and Mr Brown are often seen together on the Edinburgh plane from London. Having waited for a decade to get to Number 10, what might not Mr Brown be willing to do to stay there?

Hattip - Bagehot, The Economist

Gordon Brown: 'Political Parties Obsolete'

What's Gordon Brown up to? The Daily Mirror reported that he will introduce proportional represntation. From his own lips, he states that he will bring an end to political parties. It is completely shocking that he is demanding the leadership without revealing what these crucial changes amount to. Gordon Brown is dangerous, very dangerous. Labour MP's must cotton to the threat to their positions, let alone the country and our democracy.


During BBC's Sunday AM, when Andrew Marr was interviewing Gordon Brown, the chancellor had some things to say about constitutional reform. Most interesting is the last bit, about how political parties will become obsolete. It's possible, but not in the 20-50 years Gordo gives it. He was probably so taken up in trying not to say anything that he got a bit confused with what he did say. Anyway, excerpts below:

GORDON BROWN: The Constitutional Reform agenda, when I...

ANDREW MARR: Would you like to see an elected House of Lords?

GORDON BROWN: The House of Lords has certainly got to be accountable. And I think the main other principle is that the House of Commons has got to remain the main legislative body of our country, nothing should take away its power to be seen as the elected body, a principal elected body.

But, yes, we will be discussing election. You know, when I made the Bank of England independent I think what's fascinating about this is we decided to restore confidence in economic policy. The government had to give up power, the executive had to hand away power. So I gave up power, so all this talk about control and everything, we gave up power.

…And I think perhaps politics has been too narrow, sometimes we draw only on party talents and there is a case for looking wider than that as well.

ANDREW MARR: Paint a picture for us, about how a Brown government will feel different. What will be different about it?

GORDON BROWN: Well, I mean, I, my character is one where perhaps people say I don't concentrate enough on my image and everything else. But I want to get down to work. I'm not going to speculate about being Prime Minister or being head of the government.

But I will say that I want to address the challenges of the future in a most inclusive way, with people of all the talents as I've said, perhaps not just in the political party. And I'd want to do it by looking at each and every one of these challenges that we face ahead.

ANDREW MARR: These are things that you might have been able to say as the chancellor in a Tony Blair government. But we're talking about a Gordon Brown government. And what I'm really asking is what's that going... what is the difference, that ordinary people will notice in a Gordon Brown government?

GORDON BROWN: We're dealing with a refreshed government obviously, under a new leader, with new challenges. I see that politics in this country is too narrow, as too much a specialist sport, as too remote from the people of this country, as not involved enough in the communities of our country.

I see political parties as becoming obsolete because they are not networks, in other words they are simply organisations, when what people want are bodies that can link into every part of a community.

And I would see a community approached at this that would be quite different from what we've traditionally thought of politics 50 years ago or 20 years ago. And I would see the constitutional reform that flowed from that as actually being incredibly important also, as to the future of how people saw the way our country is governed.

(hat tip makemyvotecount.org)

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Brown Moves By Stealth

A Populus poll for this morning's Times, however, finds that most voters still think that New Labour has been a force for good.(Monday Clubber)

All part of the Murdoch campaign to rehabilitate Gordon Brown (and Labour) after his disasterous failed coup attempt. What's been offered by Gordon Brown to secure Murdoch's unstinting support, is not known. Unless Brown is going to finally honour Blair's offer to move to PR.

The EU would see that as the end of Britain's independent existence, and would instruct Murdoch to secure Brown's leadership for that.

Gordon Brown's popularity rating is now at minus 32 and falling. labour MP's are starting to see the light. Gordon Brown as PM would spell the end for most of them, whther under FPTP or under PR.

Brown's getting desperate to push Blair out before a more popular figure emerges - John Reid is one strong possibility. Every trick in the book is being used to try to lever Blair out early - Police investigations into cash for peerages, being the main current method. The danger is that Blair will be seen as a martyr again, if people cotton on to the idea that this is all part of Brown's game (backed by Prescott).

Britain's existence hangs in the balance on the Labour succession, while Gordon utters his usual false 'we're all Britsh' rhetoric.

If he was able to tell us what his programme was, I'm sure he would, but Gordon's only able to try to secure the Top Job by stealth - just like all his taxes. If people knew what he was really intending to do, he'd be pet food already.

Five Steps To Tory Tax Cuts

A lot of angry Conservative voters cannot understand why their party won't commit itself to implementing tax cuts when it wins power. They should remember that managing change in the economy is not just about money.

Moving 1 to 2 million employees out of the public sector, saving the billions wasted in the health service, tackling the billions lost to tax fraud, the billions wasted in Brown's tax credit system, will take time.

If the public sector is to be downsized, the private sector will need to absorb the loss of employment, but to do this the private sector will need to be released from the burden of regulation, and prepared for a new phase of fast growth.

Deregulation is to the key. It will require withdrawal from the eu if it is be achieved. Without taking control back from Brussels, no government can commit to cutting tax.

In such circumstances, tax-cuts inevitably gets pushed down the list until the building blocks of rescuing Britain from its current disastrous state have been implemented. Tax cuts will be the icing on the cake. The order of procedure will inevitably be -

1. eu withdrawal.
2. deregulation.
3. moving employment out of the public sector.
4. huge growth in private sector.
5. large scale reduction in taxes.

Terrorists Want To Be Admired (Deep Down)

John Humphreys interviewed Abu Izzadeen, the West Indian convert ot Islam who heckled John Reid, the Home Sec during his visit to a Moslem community. The interview which was a torrent of threats, accusations and demands is well fisked by Dizzy in Dizzy Thinks. One phrase stands out from the outpourings of 'Izzy'. He talks of 'Islamic methodology'.

Izzy sees the need for threats, justifications of terrorism, accusations and demands but by talking of 'Islamic methodology' he's giving a clue of something else - that he also wants to be treated as a reasonable, educated and civilised human being. Like all aggressors, as that is what he appears to be, he wants to overpower - but, at the same time not to be thought of as an uneducated thug.

He has a problem, as the more he threatens, and the more he carries out his threats, the more he will be seen by people including Moslems as an uncivilised barbarian, and the more ludicrous he will be in using words such as 'methodology' - when he really means murder. Not even terrorists want to be seen to be ridiculous. Maybe he has a weak point after all.

Lib Dems Can Be Defeated

Lib Dems have no idea what Lib Dem policies are. That's their achilles heel. To beat Lib Dems in elections, the most effective method is to publicise not Conservative polices, but Lib Dem ones. It invariably destroys their support, and is a tactic that has not been used as much as it should have been.. It works.

Once Blair goes, Cameron will shine brighter than any other party leader. He is very popular - more popular than the Conservative Party. We need to ensure that we don't help our opponents by attacking Cameron too often on policy. He has not declared his hand in most cases, and should be given the benefit of the doubt. Even Heffer's going quiet at last. The penny's beginning to drop.

Friday, September 22, 2006

18 Doughty St Internet TV.

Superb idea. Internet TV launching soon - by Tim Montgomerie of Conservativehome and Iain Dale. It will provide in depth political discussion with instant feedback - no more 'sorry we've got the government's message across and that's all we've got time for'

Only thing is the straplines could be better I think.

Talk TV? Why not Internet TV?
Politics For Adults? Sounds a bit pomous to me for such a revolutionary idea. Why not '18 Doughty St Internet TV. Where You set the agenda. Instant viewer feedback'

It make you feel more like clicking on, doesn't it.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

PR less fair than FPTP

If we had PR all the major parties would fracture into smaller ones. It would be impossible for voters to know how to vote if for example they wished to kick out the government.

All that happens is a reshuffle and the same people come back to power in a different mix in PR countries. It is nearly impossible to dismiss a bad government. Corruption inevitably digs in.

Small parties (counter-intuitively) have far more impact in FPTP countries. If a small party finds a vote-pulling formula, the big ones have to copy it quickly. They have to keep their big tents full, or lose elections.

As a result in Britain the Referendum party was able to lever all the other parties into promising a Referendum on the Euro. Germany and France had similar anti-Euro parties, but they were completely ignored by their ruling coalitions.

UKIP's offer of a referendum on the Constitution was matched by Michael Howard in similar vein, forcing Blair to follow suit. If we were a PR country, Blair could have ignored the challenge and pushed ratification through parliament.

The theory of the 'fairness' of PR systems is not matched in practice. Voters cannot vote a government into power or out of power. The shape of a government is decided by horse-trading between established politicians who trade policies for power after the lection is over, the voter having no part in the process. The voter is disempowered.

Bloggers Worry Journalists

Ros Taylor of The Guardian is jealous. Respectable media have no choice but to faithfully replicate politician's lies and make it appear that they believe them. Bloggers don't need to maintain any relationship with the government, in order to be included in the news feed. They are in the position to call a spade a spade.

For example the Guardian still has to make believe that Gordon Brown has leadership qualities as it is not yet respectable to admit that in fact Gordon's an electoral and managerial liability of extraorinary proportions. Bloggers need observe no such restraint but can talk openly about Brown's incompetence every day of the week. It's like opening a window and letting the air into an old attic that smells musty and the wood's rotted.

Ros will end up adjusting her style soon enough to match the blogosphere, or it will put her and her kind out of business. Newsnight are already trying desperately to sound 'bloggy'. An unnatural friendliness coming out of Paxo? these journos are really feeling the heat!

Brown/Prescott Use Police to Pressure Blairs

Gordon Brown is said to be willing to concede PR (Mirror last friday according to Comstock). If he is, that would explain how he has achieved such broad media support including Murdoch coming to his rescue after the abortive coup attempt. The EU would be delighted with PR in Britain as the chance of a vote for withdrawal in Parliament would recede.

The other part of being willing to adopt PR will be that Labour will more easily sign up the LD's, and the Conservatives will have to outperform them both.

Interesting that the threat of knocks on the door from the boys in blue is the latest tactic to move Blair on. First threatening Cherie with child abuse. and now Tony with illegal fund-raising.

Who rules Britain thes days? John Prescott in alliance with Murdoch and Gordon Brown? Yet Gordon's popularity rating is diving every week - down from minus 22% to minus 33%. Prescott is loathed, and Murdoch despised. They call us a democracy!

Against such a corrupt cabal, Cameron will shine. We will win without the LD's, no worries. I'm still worried about electoral fraud though. There is little to stop labour from fixing the next election as they did the last one.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Let Moslems Decide If God Has Reason

The Pope raised the topic of reason within religion. The quotation he gave was one in which it was believed that Islam did not use reason.

Some Moslems have spoken since the Pope's speech to say that they believe that Islam is in fact based on reason, and that they do not believe in violence. Are they speaking 'twaddle'?

It is uncumbent on every generation to interpret the religious beliefs it is presented with by its forebears. Allow Moslems to produce their interpretation without denying that there are two sides to this debate within the Islamic world.

If the Pope would address the two sides within Islam, his purpose could not so easily be misinterpreted and misrepresented. There is no debate needed within the Christain church, or even a debate between the Christian Church and Islam. There is only a debate between Moslems, to which Christains can only be spectators and commentators, not participants.

The Environment Needs Political Leadership

"Drivers of two-litre cars would see road tax soar from £190 to £1,500. The figures are simply insane, given the tax burden the average Brit is already buckling under. But the Lib-Dem conference is poised to approve them this week. This rabble only indulge in such wild fantasies safe in the knowledge they’ll never have to act them out."THE SUN


Speed bumps, cameras, excessive fines, penalty score driving bans, petrol taxes, VAT, parking costs, traffic wardens, parking fines, congestion charges, road charges to come and now fines for owning a car at all.

If public transport was in good shape and universally available it would be one thing. But with a 70p London bus fare of three years ago now set to become £2, the message is clear. Labour and Lib Dems want people to stay at home, to do nothing and live on state assistance. Until individual enterprise is crushed, they won't be happy.

Will Cameron remember his words in Built To Last?
'To encourage enterprise in all its forms - #1 of Our Aims'.

Transport has to be affordable for society to function at all.
The answer to the environment is not to destroy the economy, but to accelerate the new energy technologies like hydrogen, fuel cell, bio and other renewables.

Why are politicians so unwilling to talk about these? A little encouragement goes a long way to the many small enterprises and the scientists working in them who are driving down the cost of the new technologies. It's always been the same. The 'big' guys hate it when the little guys become important.

Let's hope Cameron has more sense, and the modesty to encourage the new technologies to struggle through to the moment they explode the old ones, making the inventors household names. You only have to remember the story about Frank Whittle and the jet engine which he invented in 1929, to see how important enlightened leadership can be. It took til the end of the war before it was produced due to the lack of interest from government and its agencies. If it had been got ready in time, the war might have been over in 1940 saving millions of lives.

There are Frank Whittles out there now working to bring the new technologies to fruition, but are they getting any support? Britain throughout history often invents the breakthrough technologies. Let's hope Cameron brings the breakthrough in political leadership that is so badly needed.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Iain Duncan Smith Revisited

Wasn't that when one of the (Maastricht) rebels, IDS, became probably the least effective leader that we've ever had? (Mark Fulford)

He only converted 20% behind Labour to 5% ahead in 2 years, founded the local democracy programme, the social justice agenda and finally resolved the Conservative EU issue in favour of euroscepticism - in addition to depriving Portillo and Ken Clarke of their chance to bugger our party up completely.

Cameron is son of IDS. So are we all.

Blair and Brown Bring Disaster

If Britain doubled defence spending, unemployment would fall, the defence industry would invest and grow raising tax revenues and expanding sales. We could afford to fix rogue states, bring them into the world economy and grow their trade.

If the rest of the world won't provide leadership, then the english speaking world should do so. Experience in threatres like Afghanistan is growing, and our military capabilies to defeat insurgencies are building.

The Blair doctrine of intervening was been held back by the Brown doctrine of refusing to invest money in security. Brown could stick his international aid where he likes. What these countries need is peace and an end to corrupt and brutal regimes, that fear no international retribution for their crimes.

Conservative Slogan Needs Tweeking

The latest Conservative slogan is 'A New Direction', unkindly written as 'A Newd irection' on Conservative Home.
The phrase begets the question - 'which direction is that?' to which answers are only gradually emerging.

How about changing it to 'A Fresh Start'? It suits the style of the oak tree logo better, and is more honest about the Cameron approach to policy. The Direction is being set, but is not yet in stone, while there is clearly a new approach being taken.

A Fresh Start is inclusive - what do you think is the right way to go? A New Direction is exclusive. it's all already decided.

Local politics implies that as little as possible has been decided centrally.

Where are the moderate Moslems?

The problem is that moderate Moslems don't shout and shake their fists. They just get on with it, and keep their heads down. While supporting the fighting of extremists and terrorists, you should bear in mind that one reason so many terrorist attacks are foiled is the willingness of moderate Moslems to help prevent the attacks. Don't ignore them as your life depends on them.

The solution to the problem of Islamofascism will ultimately come from within the Moslem countries, and the Moslem communities.

Their culture will grow beyond the current phase of insecurity about their place in things. Ordinary people will gradually realise that their leaders are acting against their interests by maintaining a hostile and aggessive stance against the world.

The Pope is in a difficult position. He is right to challenge the unreasonableness of the etxremists, but he could position his comments by stating how much the actions of the extremists conflict with the reasonableness of many moderate Moslems, and look for the common ground that such people have with Christians.

It is right for him to fight evil, but also to avoid collateral damage.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Brown Refuses To Pay For Blair's Wars. Men Die.

Hercules C-130 planes still don't have foam-filled fuel tanks, 18 months after one was shot down by small arms in Iraq with the loss of 10 RAF men. Another was lost in Afghanistan, where debris punctured a fuel tank on the runway this year.

John Reid promised on
May 3rd that the fleet would have the foam put into the tanks immediately. Today not one plane is operational with the foam fitted.

Lawyers are now looking at bringing negligence charges against the MOD. What a disaster Labour are at fighting wars.

What lies behind this idiocy? Gordon Brown's Treasury.

The MOD are outright liars and complete shits.

They are also refusing to install systems to defend against shoulder-launched SAM's which threaten the Hercules - on the ground of cost.

Liam Fox spoke well - saying the government has had five years to plan and prepare for this situation. It's a national scandal. The government, he says, can afford a new plane for the Prime Minister, but not to protect servicemen's lives. Also it pays out billions on all kinds of consultancies, but says there is not enough money for this priority, said Liam.

People should be told about this. Liam Fox should speak on this issue and other scandalous underprovision of equipment to servicemen more frequently.

Blair commits us to wars. Brown refuses to pay for them.

Gordon Brown's A Dead Duck

Gordon Brown was already the least popular potential next Labour leader even before the failed Watson coup attempt. His approval rating was minus 20%. It is now minus 35% and falling faster by the day. Even Blair has a higher approval rating. The field is wide open. Jack Straw's in with a chance I would say. But no one wants Gordon Brown, except those he's promised favours to.

Within that list should be the Liberal Democrats. According to the Daily Mirror on Friday, he's playing the same old games as Blair did with offering Proportional Representation. Blair was lying to Ashdown. I doubt anyone will be listening to Labour promises on that one any more.

http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/images/Labourleadership.jpg

It's Violence That's Wrong, Not Moslems

Sean Fear On Conservative Home wrote:
This quote says it all
"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.”
Tasnim Aslam, Pakistani Foreign Ministry Spokesman.
In reply:
Sean Fear, if you allow Tasnim Aslam to speak for all Moslems, you are falling into a trap of tragic proportions. He is speaking the language of unreasonable extremism. He is not even denying this. On the contrary, he is refusing to answer reasonable questions placed by the Pope.
There are many millions of Moslems who do not agree with him. If you are dismissing them from your thoughts, you are as guilty of causing future conflict as anyone.
It is important to stand up for principles, but it is also important not to insist that people who are not enemies, must become so.
In WW2 there were far more Germans willing to act against Hitler than the Allies realised. Those that tried to help us tended to be ignored as potential spies or double agents.
Then Nazis, now Islamofascists.
It makes it easier for the extremists if we exclude the moderates from our thoughts. This is what you appear to be doing. Don't fall for the game. We are not against Moslems and Islam. We are only against violence being used by extremists to propagate the religion. It would be just the same if they were Christians.

Is The Pope Oversimplifying?

It is good to raise issues such as the reasonableness of a religion, and whether it is propagated by violence. The Pope is right. Extremists want to shout the discussion down because in their heart of hearts they must know that violence in a religion is wrong. They give no answer but simply demand a retraction of the question.

I heard a brave moderate Moslem speaking on TV last night, an Editor of a Moslem magazine. He did not believe that Islam had a philosophy of propagating itself with violence. It is worthwhile establishing that this is true, and reaching out to moderate Moslems like him, as well as challenging the more extreme versions that are in the marketplace.

This is not to avoid the issues. It's about addressing the issues in a way that enable the moderates to be heard. There are good Moslems, and we need to be aware of that, while at the same time challenging the ones whose minds have lost sight of reason.

The Pope should ensure his comments address the moderates as well as the extremists. He will find it easy to make the extremists look wrong, because they are wrong. But he might look the less if he fails to acknowledge the good to be found in moderate Moslems. Anyone who wants to present the issues in black and white terms, is oversimplifying. Logic can provide only part of the answer.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Gordon Brown Must Be Stopped

Fridays Mirror claimed Gordon Brown was going to abandon first past the post.(Cornstock on CH today 17th September 2006)

This (if true) could be the key as why the EU is backing Gordon Brown and Murdoch too. I've been writing that Gordon Brown must have offered something to the EU to be getting such solid support and backing. If we lose FPTP and have PR, a coalition government could ignore popular opinion and introduce the Euro and other eurocompliant measures. Gordon Brown must be stopped.

Alan Milburn is the only potential Labour leadership candidate making the right noises. Blair should hang on as long as he can despite the W stress lines on his furrowed brow.

Cameron Prioritises The Irrational

English Nationalsim, Scottish Nationalism, Welsh Nationalism, German Nationalism, Japanese Nationalism, Chinese, Indian etc etc. It's on the rise everywhere.

Globalisation has made the world wealthier, but the change it brings has made the world feel less secure. A trip abroad used to be interesting and exciting. Foreign goods exciting to buy. They still are.

The initial flow of travellers and goods was stimulating, but after the level of flow reached another level, people began to feel their identity threatened. The accelerating movement of goods and people has made everything seem transient and temporary.

Islamists react by trying to bomb planes. Scots want devolution and become rude about the English. The English become rude about foreigners generally. The Chinese threaten with naval expansion, and the Japanese want to reassert themselves in defence.

The pace of economic expansion is unlikely to pause. The sense of insecurity can only get worse.

Political and spiritual leadership must deal not with history and culture only on a strictly rational basis, as the Pope is attempting to do. Leaders must also address feelings of alienation, and irrational fears as David Cameron is doing in Scotland. The Poll Tax may have been launched there first because of Rates, but the narrative in current belief in Scotland is different to that. You cannot persuade people not to believe what they believe. You must address them as they are. Cameron seems to have the gift for that.

Blair Endgames Deprive Cameron Of Media

Labour's leadership woes are making the Party interesting. It's like Big Brother and I'm A Celebrity - Get me Out Of Here - rolled into one.

Conservatives appear to be a one man band. Labour have seven candidates competing for the ahem Deputy Leadership. There's a danger of losing the limelight here. Until Blair's gone, Cameron will be a minor player in the main media story. The policy of standing back while Labour melt down could need review.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

The Camerons Are Coming

The Camerons Are Comin Hurrah Hurrah. (makes a change from The Campbells).

Anyone nostalgic for a bit of Scottish culture should head for The Royal Hotel in Oban on a Sunday evening. I was brought up on Scottish dance and music with a mother obsessed with the bloody stuff. I'll never get it out of my bones, and need a fix every so often. It's bloody moving. I'd challenge the hardest-nosed Sassenach to not feel a twinge in an evening of it.

'Stone Age' Environmentalism Is Wrong

It's all a question of emphasis. We have all the qualities within each of us - to be transient and to settle, for example. We are never all one thing or all another. It's just a case of which bit we emphasise at any particular time. Political parties supposedly divide into left and right, but it's more a difference of emphasis, than a clearcut divide between them. Cameron seems to be aware of this, and he cleverly draws from all sides of the argument.

The coming of environmentalism doesn't need to be presented as the end of economics. We've had 'the end of history' and look where that got us (Iraq). To hear Zac Goldsmith sounding off against economics to make way for the environment is a mistake. It is only through economics that technology will come to the fore, and remove the bad technologies that we currently have. Caring and economics are not mutually exclusive.

The arrival of the new is always impossible. We only have things like the jet engine and computers because of the push that wars have given us. We need to find ways to adavance technology fast without the resistance that always stands in its way. It is nuts for Zac Goldsmith to be providing a major source of resistance to the new technologies that we need. We cannot go back to the stone age. We must push forward and improve our world, economically, scientifically and spiritually - all together. Redwood is just as key as Goldsmith and IDS in setting the right values. None must be allowed to claim to represent the whole picture.

Brand Cameron Knows No Allegiances

Cameron is not too bothered about the rights and wrongs of making 'disproportionate' comments, or of humiliating our eurosceptic MEP's. It's all about brand positioning.

Taking Israel, the truth might well be that when an enemy fires missiles into your country using a civilian poulation as a shield, you have little choice but to attack your enemy where he is. This attack might be highly effective in persuading Lebanon to alter its management of Hizbullah. Likewise in Gaza, the descent into chaos is bringing about internal change inside Gaza and might lead to the Palestinians seeking a settlement.

But the truths and the realities are not important. Cameron is seeking to be elected to power. The media game he is playing is as deadly as any military calculation. Brand Cameron is set on victory at all costs.

Truth and traditional allegiances are all expendable in his ruthless pursuit of power.

Is God into violence? Yes or No?

'The emperor's words were, he (the pope) said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul" (BBC website).


Islamists say that the Pope saying such things implies that Christains do not regard them as equal, and it has been condemned by the Pakistan Parliament setting off waves of protests.

Surely, the quotation publicised by the Pope is either true or false. If it is false, then there is no need to get upset. Simply show that it is false. If it is true, then it is true, and no amount of demonstrations will change it.

All the Pope said himself was that violence was incompatible with the nature of God. Is that really so bad? If Islamists believe that violence is compatible with the nature of God, then there is a difference of belief, which is important. Relations between the churches can only be maintained if they share fundamental beliefs.

Does Islam believe that violence is compatible with the nature of God? Yes or No.

Impossibility In An Oak Tree

New Labour are being followed by the Not Conservatives.

Advertising is full of the impossible. Dancing cars. Flying humans. Flying cars. Self driving cars. Unless it can do the impossible, it's not up to level. Reality is no longer good enough. It's all Harry Potter's fault. Everything has to fly now.

All we wanted was a dead boring picture of an oak tree - as boring as we are - and we would have been happy. But we've been given a magic one, an impossible one - one that appears out of the squiggle of a pen, flies in from the left, settles for a moment and then flies away right, leaving a childlike image that cannot possibly be the logo of a political party seeking power.

The main idea has been achieved - impossibility. This cannot possibly be the Conservatives logo, ideal for the Not Conservatives.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Gordon Brown Is Danger To Britain

Murdoch picks winners? Cameron's a winner if the polls are anything to be believed, but Murdoch doesn't rate him.

If you look at all the people Murdoch has backed, they've all been willing to agree to signing EU Treaties - Thatcher, Major, Blair and no doubt Brown has. Anyone who stood up against the EU, IDS e.g., and Thatcher once the reality of the EU had dawned on her, was assassinated.

Cameron has not committed himself on the EU and so gets no Murdoch support. If Labour picked a leader who was unwilling to trade with the EU, then they too would receive no support.

The EU and Murdoch have an agreement to back Brown so he's obviously offered to payback - we don't know how but we suspect it might be to do with the Euro. They will fight like mad to keep Brown in the No 1 slot if they can. That's what's happening now.

I am not in agreement with Conservatives who would like to see Brown as PM. He would sell the country down the river. An alternative outsider - even a left wing one - would be far safer as regards preserving what little is left of our independence. Brown is clearly a danger to Britain as he is getting such powerful support from Murdoch.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Americans Don't Understand Cameron

Cameron's posturing on the EPP and his posturing on Israel's war strategy are both made without reference to notions of right and wrong.

It is all about repositioning the Cameron Conservative brand, so that consumers lift Cameron off the supermarket shelf and not Lib Dem, Green or SuKIP (s for sad - look at Nigel Farage's face on learning he'd won SKIP leadership if you doubt me).

If the public believe the product will work better, that's all that matters....the amazing thing is that this kind of repositioning works.

Israel might be doing very well by demonstrating through violence to her neighbouring populations that a drift towards total war is a waste of time, life and everything else. The Palestinians are looking anew at their options. The Lebanese too are determined not to allow Hizbullah to cause another Israeli assault. But Brand Cameron is not interested in that. If the British public prefer a kneejerk 'disproportionate' comment, they can have one.

With Conservatives outide the EPP, and in a new grouping, the balance of power could have swung in the Euro Parliament, and a fresh wind of independence and decentralisation might blown through Brussels. But the headlines describing us as 'little englander' Tories, would have pushed sales down for a month or two. So brand Cameron passed up the chance.

The anti-brand management camp like Constance Compton - or the brand-sceptics should bear in mind that the winning of power underpins all our aspirations. The Conservative Party only has value if it wins elections. If the branding works, and we win power, then real values-based politics will take over. Cheap branding exercises that undermine our security for real would not be forgiven. Right now we can draw childlike pictures of trees and fire off ill-thought out remarks because we are powerless. Once in power, the focus can sharpen and the people must be made to respect Conservative competence once more.

The Americans have been surprised and delighted by the loyalty of Tony Blair, but they must also be shocked by Britain's inability to do very much to deliver. for example European cooperation, or even a few vehicles to move our troops around in in the Middle East. The days of playing games with words and image will pass, but while it is the order of the day, Conservatives must play the game, and Conservatives must win.

Scottish Independence Is Relative

It is reported that a majority of Scots would like to become independent from the UK. The question would be what currency they would choose. They could set up a Scottish £, but it would be a tiny currency that might well require higher interest rates than Scots would be happy to pay. It might be easier for Scotland to adopt the Euro.

If they did do that, it is unlikely that they would ever be allowed to operate lower tax rates as does Ireland, which has attracted so much foreign investment and boomed Ireland's economy.

(Irish Corporation Tax
There are three rates of Corporation Tax in the Republic of Ireland:

12.5% for trading income
25% for non-trading income
12.5% for small and medium-sized enterprises where the trading income does not exceed €253,948 (provision for marginal relief where income does not exceed €317,435).
The rate for Manufacturing, IFSC and Shannon Free Zone companies remains at 10%.)

John Redwood is looking at the possibility of lower tax rates for Scotland to lift the Scottish growth rate. If Cameron were to adopt a more detached relationship with the EU, these would be come possible, and Scotland would in time become a Celtic tiger.

Inside the UK Scotland would have a chance of EU independence and faster growth. On her own she would be too easily overpowered by Brussels, and forced to stay in the slow lane.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Islamists Battle With A Can Of Coke

Ask any Moslem if they are more interested in world domination or in making a living, and they will mostly answer the latter. Their philosphy is battling not with Christianity, not with democracy and the West, but with economics.

Economics is a damned difficult enemy to fight. Historians write of the power of the sword, and of the pen being mightier. What pisses Islamists off, is that even mightier than the pen is the can of coke. They can blow themselves up but they will not stop the march of economics.

UKIP Strategic Mess

If UKIP want withdrawal from the EU, they should stop standing against eurosceptics, and target eurocompliant MP's only.

UKIP's electoral strategy is a farce. They are far more likely to accelerate the loss of Britain's independence by standing against eurosceptics, than they are to prevent it.

Equally by reducing potential Conservative majorities, they are postponing the day when a Conservative leadership would be in a strong enough position ignore its eurocompliant rump.

Now they're waffling on about low tax in competition with John Redwood.

UKIP should focus on what their core business is, if it wants to be considered anything other than an egotistical farce, a home for fruitcakes, loonies and racists.

There cannot be many organisations in the world with a single declared aim that continually behaves in a way guaranteed to achieve the exact opposite. Farage looks a bit sheepish, winning the poisoned chalice of UKIP leadership. I'm not surprised. It's a bloody mess.

Cameron Common Sense - Not Reported

'we and others are justified in using pre-emptive force when an attack on us is being prepared, and when all means of peaceful dissuasion and deterrence have failed.

Furthermore, I believe that we should be prepared to intervene for humanitarian purposes to rescue people from genocide.'

Fukuyama's End Of Common Sense

Francis Fukuyama wrote that the neoconservatives:

...believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. ..

but later he wrote: .. Neoconservatism.... has evolved into something I can no longer support.

(Fukuyama was originally the main proponent of neoconservatism and pushed Bush to get going in Iraq)

Fukuyama (having started off as an enthusiastic militarist) then announced the end of the "neoconservative moment" and argued for the demilitarization of the war on terrorism:

"[W]ar" is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle," he wrote, "since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world.

Afghanistan? Pakistan? Iran? Lebanon? Gaza? Iraq? etc etc

Fukuyama changed from the biggest advocate of war to the biggest advocate of not war. Reality is no doubt somewhere in the middle. Fukuyama just confuses everyone (including George Bush) by trying to make out that it's all really very simple - to please the American mentality.

I think we need to move on from simplistic explanations of what is going on, and look at specific threats and situations and how to deal with them effectively. Obviously hearts and minds is part of the picture.

Fukuyama seems to suffer from the worst kind of American mentality that thinks there is always a simple and quick solution to every problem - no matter how complex. Who else could write a book called The End Of History?

Nazis With Nukes - Britain Does Nothing

It has become almost a universal truth that the war in Iraq was a mistake, but how many would really be pleased if Saddam Hussein was still in power?

Now we live in a world where Iran is starting to call the shots. The West seems to prefer to sit back and wait in case the results are not too bad. The EU in particular, is chronically deluded about the threat posed by Iran's current regime.

This is how terrorism and war is bred - when the West does nothing in the face of a rapidly growing very major threat. Cameron's rhetoric is aimed at only one objective - winning votes in the UK. Labour are all consumed with their troubles. Britain is currently leaderless.

Employers Don't Strike. They Disappear.

The government should be "encouraging more demand from industry for R&D. This new way of going about things makes sense...In the EU, support for such an approach to tackling sluggish growth in innovation is gaining ground. " - Natasha Gilbert in The Guardian

Left wing people are never happier than when they are finding fault with, bribing or bullying business leaders. If people want new businesses and industries to be built, government should reduce interference and the 'social chapter' programmes, not come up with yet more interference.

No one in their right mind wants to build a business these days. Once people've got enough money, they just want to get out - for similar reasons that no teachers want to become head teachers any more. If you're the responsibility taker in Britain today, you're assumed to be a criminal by government. Your job is dealing with endless legal problems, people who've been given ways to make money by accusing you or your organisation, and so on.

Running the business or teaching the kids is unlikely to ever get a look in during the day.

The more government decides to encourage R&D in business, the less R&D there will be. The more government leaves people alone, the more R&D there will be. That's the only formula government needs to learn.

Get out of peoples' lives. Let them run their own businesses without constant interference and burial in documentation, regulation, prosecution, legal liabilities, visits by government officials, threats, penalties, idiotic political programmes and so on. All we don't need is a new initiative - a bloody R&D man who comes round threatening some kind of penalty if a company's R&D spend doesn't reach a certain % of turnover etc.

We have 5 million inactive adults of working age in Britain. Unemployment is rising when the world economy is booming. Employers are seeing the light. Close down. Sell up. Anything but having to deal with the insanity of government officials and endless lawyers who have nothing else to do except make businessmen's lives a constant hell.

People will build businesses if you'll let them. But we're signed up to the EU now.

Cameron Should Not Criticise Israel and the USA

Cameron appears to be advocating the greater use of intelligence in the military and the political/strategic sense, but he is unrealistic if he believes warfare can be made any nicer. Aggressive acts by enemies require firm response. Israel has learned that, and by giving a firm response to attacks, has achieved some progress.

Far from criticising, Cameron should be learning.

Likewise the USA has tightened up her immigration procedures and giving of visas in the last five years and taken control of her borders, while in Britain, we've allowed the EU to swamp our country with uncontrolled immigration, and Human Rights Acts have provided fomenters of hatred full rein.

Given that we don't control our own country, we have little choice but to play gently, but we would be wrong to criticise others who have taken control, reacted strongly and successfully to terrorism.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Cameron A Common Sense Warrior

After reading Cameron's speech on terrorism on COnservative Home, here are some comments.

The case of Israel is instructive. If terrorists attack you and you are unable to prevent their attacks by liberal means, you are usually forced to proceed to using illiberal methods of making war to protect yourself.

Israel seems to have adopted a policy of inflicting pain on the whole of Lebanon as she is unable to pinpoint her attacks on Hezbollah, in the same way that she is punishing the whole of Gaza for the attacks being carried out by Hamas or other terror merchants from there.

It is a tragic fact that such tactics might work where reasonable more liberal efforts at war-making have not succeeded. It is not necessarily good policy to criticise Israel for using such methods.

For example, Labour are benefiting from support from Murdoch's Press for either stating support for Israel or in Gordon Brown's case for keeping quiet. David Cameron and William Hague are getting their ears clipped for speaking out.

Judicious silence might be better, unless Cameron and Hague have come up with an alternative strategy for Israel which will work better, of course.

War-making should not be based on sound-bites, I would agree with David Cameron. So it is not therefore advisable for Hague to use phrases like 'disproportionate' against Israel, which sounds horribly like soundbite material to me.

Other than this criticism, the above writing is getting closer to common sense than the Bush doctrine.

Guardian Still Don't Get It

It's bizarre. Conservatives are feeling sorry for Gordon Brown. Dan Hannan is trying to find a way to assist him by localising government. EU Serf has formed a netroots campaign to back his promotion to PM.

Even more bizarre. Labour are lost in limbo. The fantasy of Gordon Brown's leadership has been written and rewritten so many times in the last 12 years, that the Labour Party and the media are totally unable to connect to the reality - that Brown is bereft of leadership qualities.

This cruel trick of pretending that he does have some, has been practised on him by Blair and the whole panoply of the British media for so long, that the awful reality that he would be even worse as a leader than he was as a jealous follower, is not yet accessible to Labour minds.

Today's Press is in denial. The first glimpse of the total impossibility of Gordon Brown as a Prime Minister was presented to us by Charles Clarke last week, but the adjustment to facing this reality is simply too painful for these people to cope with. It would involve them in admitting that they've been writing bollocks for 12 years.

Labour prefer to stay in denial about Gordon Brown, it seems. Blair is trying to give them a chance by giving them them time to realise that the Brown game was just that. Charles Clarke has tried too. But it could be that Britain will be asked to live out the nightmare of being governed by the most deluded, psychologically flawed and insecure Prime Minister in our history.

Should Conservatives really be advocating this? Surely we too should be helping Labour to see the light, assist them through their current trauma and put our country before our Party.

Or it might be men in white coats not grey suits that are forced to retire Britain's next PM.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

The Post Blair Era

I am not and never have been a member of the Communist Party, sorry BNP. They are active in our Constituency now and polled around 5% in the Council elections in the 2 wards they stood in. That was before they started a Constituency organisation. Their support will surely grow, and as you say their support is mostly Labour, although I know one Conservative who is considering swapping over to them.

Today's poll on CH (BPIX?) gives 16% to 'others' (100-84) but we are not told what others are made up of. I imagine that BNP and the Greens are the majority.

I am convinced that various undemocratic measures are being used against the BNP - such as vote rigging. My report on Postal Voting (previous post) covers some of this.

If the BNP continue to grow, by 2009 they could be as big as the declining Lib Dems. In this scenario, Cameron's strategy would have been constructed around defeating one opponent only to find a new one had taken their place. If that happens, presumably his rhetoric would alter and become less environmental, and more about fair voting, democratic accountability and so on. His localism would tailor well with many BNP policies. Meanwhile the BNP website is occasionally the most informative location on the net about what's going on at street level - if some articles are slightly paranoid.

It's the inevitable reaction to Blairism, where democratic accountability has been sacrificed in a deal for support from media tycoons, and foreign powers.

Labour might decide to ditch their close association with Rupert Murdoch as Blair goes. To do that they will need to ditch Brown too, Johnson, Milburn and Reid. Charles Clarke might be the only independent candidate, that has the strength to walk away from Murdoch's toxic embrace. Only then could Labour start to resist their break-up into BNP hands.

Did Labour Win By Postal Vote Fraud?


Labour scored around 25% in local elections in 2004 and 2006, but managed 35% in the general election (GE) in 2005. A different pattern is expected in local compared to national elections, but not usually by such a large margin.

Turnout in the 2005 GE was forecast (from polling) to be heading lower than the 59.4% of 2001. Headlines were saying 'turnout to be the lowest since 1918' and some were wondering if it might reach 50%, but on the day it actually went up to 61.3%.

Articles had appeared in the Times and Sunday Times about large scale postal voting fraud about to happen in the General Election in 2005, but these suddenly fell silent on the matter two weeks prior to the poll, no doubt due to election reporting rules.

Allegations of postal voting fraud after the 2005 GE were reported to Parliament. See THIS - Police were looking into 25 alleged incidents of postal voting fraud in 19 Constituencies.

Many voters across Britain turned up to vote and were told that their vote had already been cast postally. These included two BBC reporters, John Humphreys and Mariela Frostrup.

The law had been modified by Labour in 2001 relaxing the previous restrictions on Postal votes. Parties were to be allowed to handle their own postal votes. This should never have been allowed. Only election officials and voters should be involved. see THIS.

In Northern Ireland postal votes are extremely hard to acquire requiring proof of identity etc so that cheating is impossible. In the rest of the UK the system is becoming a farce.

George Galloway Of Respect claimed that in the GE he was nearly defeated by Labour harvesting around 1000 fraudulent postal votes in his constituency Bethnal Green. He scraped home by around 80 votes. There were many cases reported of voters being turned away from polling stations, who claimed that their votes had been used by others postally.

The numbers from the GE 2005 are as follows - Labour polled 9.4 million. Conservatives came in with 8.5 million. Postal votes were reported in the Press as having been 6 million. The Electoral Commission however states that the actual total was in excess of 4 million, although Parties had requested 6 million application forms.

The numbers and anecdotal evidence suggest that postal voting fraud was widespread in the 2005 GE. 100,000 targeted votes delivered into marginal seats could easily have changed the result of the election. It is perfectly possible that postal voting fraud was a significant factor in Labour's victory. The proportion of postal votes in marginal seats was suspiciously high.

Such an allegation would be impossible to prove or disprove.

Since the GE the media have been mostly silent on the topic of electoral fraud. The government have not substantially changed the law since, although they claim to have resolved the situation. They have made it a criminal offence to attempt to vote fraudulently.

This conveniently means that once an allegation of fraud has been made and is being investigated, it becomes a Police matter, and is subject to the rules of criminal enquiry and legal procedure. The Press can say little, so the topic rarely makes the headlines.

As any individual case is very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the criminalisation of voting fraud provides little check. Not to mention that Police Forces are becoming more political than they used to be, and it is not inconceivable that prosecution and investigation could be selectively applied.

It would be far more effective to put in place controls that prevent those with criminal intent from being able to cheat, than making Police Forces run around allocating time and resources on cases that are almost impossible to substantiate. Fraud is a notoriously difficult crime to prove. The actions of a fraudster resemble those of an honest person. It is only the intent that is different.

In the 2006 local elections, the BNP claim that postal voting scams were used to bar them from winning many seats in Birmingham and London. There are also alleged substantial discrepancies between the numbers of votes at the counts and the numbers of people who were logged going into polling stations.

Richard Mawrely QC famously stated in 2005 during an electoral fraud trial that the postal voting system in Britain would 'disgrace a banana republic'. The situation has attracted international comment from the ODIHR in Warsaw

The only substantive article I have seen on this appeared in The Guardian in August 2005.

Pressure on Britain to curb postal vote fraud

Hugh Muir Saturday August 6, 2005 The Guardian

International election monitors yesterday applied fresh pressure on the government to introduce new measures to combat postal voting fraud. Officials from the Warsaw-based Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) yesterday urged ministers to ensure that voting materials were only handled by election officials. Their comments followed controversy during the general election campaign, which was marred by accusations of postal voting fraud and claims that parties were exploiting an insecure system by "harvesting" postal vote applications. Article continues

The election monitors told ministers that they should move towards the more secure system used in Northern Ireland, where those applying for a postal vote are obliged to explain why they need one and to have their applications verified by a third party. The monitors also called for more measures to help increase voting in person. This could be done, they say, by operating polling stations "out of country" for voters who are abroad, or by using absentee voting certificates which would require the proxy voter to enter a polling station. The ODIHR also suggested that British voters might be compelled to produce identification at polling stations before being given a ballot paper. A national database of registered voters should be established to help "identify or prevent multiple registrations". Further safeguards might involve changing the law relating to registrations to emphasise the need for individuals to register themselves. During the election it was found that heads of households were completing registration forms for individual members of their families, a practice that was exposed as open to abuse. The monitors also urged ministers to remove the serial numbers from ballot papers, arguing that these created "opportunities to breach the secrecy of the vote".

There were also calls for minimum standards for those who administer elections, and concern about the extent to which the monitors were able to scrutinise the May election.

"The United Kingdom's legislation is not yet in full compliance with its ... commitments regarding election observation," they said. John Turner, president of the Association of Electoral Administrators, said the monitors supported many of the concerns raised by officials during the campaign.

"It is a matter of public record that the problems with this election were the largest number that have come together at any one point in recent years," he said. "Postal voting diverted attention away from everything else. Most people who were involved are saying fairly publicly that this must never happen again."

The government has pledged to address concerns with an electoral administration bill, which will still allow postal voting on demand but will also introduce a new offence of fraudulently applying for a postal vote, punishable by up to two years in prison. Under the proposals, electoral registers will be more secure, with household registrations including signatures and dates of birth for all occupants.

However the lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, has indicated that the government will reject the idea of a registration system similar to that in Northern Ireland, where individuals register separately, providing details such as date of birth, signature and national insurance number. The parties are also likely to continue their involvement in garnering postal vote application forms, continuing to make a clear distinction between those and completed postal vote applications. A spokesman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs said: "We recognise that security issues are important but need to be balanced with the ability of as many people as possible to be able to register to vote." ENDS


For further reports of tampering with votes and elections, the British National Party is making a series of allegations. See also THIS.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Will Labour MP's Sack Murdoch?

The crux seems to me whether Labour can choose a leader who has not done a deal with Murdoch. Brown was Murdoch's safety play, now looking very wobbly. Johnson is Murdoch's next Labour thoroughbred in line to be pushed forwards if Brown stumbles. But what if a Murdoch-non-aligned leader came to the fore?

With Cameron not playing Murdoch games, (and paying a price for not doing so), if a Labour leader came to the fore who refused to play Murdoch games, say Charles Clarke, then power would flood back into Parliament, and the media years started by John Major and perfected by New Labour would be over.

Labour MP's must surely like the smell of that.

Charles Clarke 66-1

The discontent about the EPP within Conservative raks rumbles on. It was Hague that bollocksed up the EPP. Hague has shown himself incapable of taking on anything real in politics over and over. He's a weak force with nil power-broking ability.

Cameron is not ready to take on the Ken Clarke diehard Eurocompliant wing yet. Hague had his chance to move things forwards a step and as usual blew it. This has exposed the split on Europe once more, but Cameron is not ready to deal with it - especially while Labour need all the exposure we can give them.

Hague needs to go and write that Biography of William Wilberforce. It will be an excellent read, and it will get him out of the way. Hague is not the right guy. Cameron needs someone who can sort shit.

Taking on Ken Clarke, Channel 4, Rupert Murdoch, who are all dug in to protect Britain's armlock by the EU, will take Cameron time. Brown is Murdoch's horse for the new Labour crown, followed by Johnson as his next alternative. But what if it went to a non-Murdoch head for once?

Cameron has not received the Murdoch badge of approval becasue he is refusing to do Murdoch deals, as did IDS. If labour also look toward a post-Murdoch era, with say Charles Clarke as the new leader, power would flood back to Parliament, and rule by the media - started by John Major and continued by Blair will be over.

Charles Clarke at 66-1 looks a very good bet to me. And I'm £30 lighter on the strength of it.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Gordon Brown Is History

It cannot go on. Brown will finish with Blair. It was always an illusion that Brown would take over. It was the only way that Brown would comply with the Blair regime, if he was promised the next turn. But it was bollocks all along.

The media are still backing Brown, maybe convinced after writing the Brown will inherit the Crown story so many times that it must be true. But it isn't. Now reality is coming close, it's getting obvious. It's all bollocks. Brown hasn't got it. He's a little guy who wants to be big guy. That's all. He's history's longest running wannabee.

Murdoch too will have to do a quick turnaround and find a new Labour leader to sponsor. He's not playing with Cameron, so he'll be getting very nervous soon, once the penny drops.

What has Gordon Brown offered the EU?

There is definitely something up with Murdoch's media network taking a very soft line on Gordon Brown. Sky News presents Brown in presidential style. Irwin Stelzer in The Spectator - 9th September - has a most curious piece on Gordon Brown, which ends up trashing David Cameron, as follows -


'If he(Brown) follows his head rather than his heart, he should present the voters with a reasonable alternative to his hoodie-loving, chocolate- and Thatcher-hating, Israel-bashing opponent.'


There is little doubt that the Murdoch media machine is running with Brown for Labour leader. There is also little doubt that that support includes offering to back him through the next General Election as well. Much of current Tory rejoicing has not realised that Brown has loaded the dice.

Murdoch must have cleared his support of Brown with the EU, who hold all the strings. What has Brown offered the EU to secure all this is the only question?

Is it compliance with the Constitution, or the Euro - or both?

Subsequently reported in The Daily Mirror - on Friday 15th September - Brown is suggesting Proportional Representation. So now we know.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Ask Brown One Simple Question

"Will you rule membership of the single currency for at least the next 10 years?"

He was on the verge of pushing the currency in 2003. He's friendly with Merkel. He has the backing of Murdoch. What has he promised to secure these two powerful backers?

He said in 2003, that the currency would not come to Britain for at least four years. The referendum would not be necessary once the Constitution is resurrected, as the EU could impose it on BRitain without a referendum under its terms. (Bill Cash)

The headlines from 2003 below might give pauise for thought. Where does Brown stand? Could someone just ask him on camera, or are the media part of the game and unwilling to ask such a direct question?


Brown to launch plan for euro to track pound

Kamal Ahmed, political editor
Sunday June 8, 2003
The Observer
A national changeover plan to dump sterling and prepare Britain for joining the single currency will be published tomorrow, laying out the practical steps the country needs to take before a referendum on the euro.
In a clear signal that the Government is moving close to a 'when' rather than an 'if' stance on joining the single currency, Chancellor Gordon Brown will say the country must be ready for a launch of the euro referendum
Michael Hume
Sunday May 11, 2003
Observer.co.uk
It is almost upon us. Within the next fortnight Gordon Brown is expected to make the most important announcement of the Labour government's second term - the assessment of the five economic tests for euro entry. Although the prime minister has stated that nobody other than he or his chancellor is privy to the assessment, there is no doubt what its bottom line will be. The Treasury will state that the five tests have not been passed. Britain will not be part of the euro for at least a further four years.

Blair's Betrayal of Britain

Today is September 6th. There remains just over a fortnight to go before the Blair Government capitulates, as seems pretty certain, and surrenders the veto on an important constitutional and legal issue, perhaps the key issue relating to national sovereignty.

On 22nd September Home Secretary John Reid will attend a meeting of EU Justice Ministers to discuss the abolition of the national veto on “Justice and Home Affairs”.
The effect of this would be that the EU member states could take decisions by majority voting and impose changes to our criminal law, and our police and court procedures, regardless of our wishes. The UK government has just 9% of the votes in the EU.

The EU would thus acquire one of the most essential attributes of a state – the power to determine who shall be put in prison, and by what judicial process.
(from bnp website)

Roger Helmer's Not Quitting the EP

2009 euro-elections: I am planning to run



When asked "Will you run again in the 2009 election?", my standard response was that I had not yet decided. Now I have. I am determined to run in 2009 (or at least to offer myself for re-selection).



The problem right now is that, with the Conservative Whip suspended, I am actually not eligible to offer myself as a Conservative candidate. However, I am continuing to use my best efforts to resolve the outstanding difficulties with the delegation, and I am hugely grateful to all those Conservatives across the region, and beyond, who have supported my efforts. I am now hopeful that progress will be made.



There are various reasons for my decision to run in 2009. First, it is a huge advantage to any euro-candidate-team to have an experienced incumbent MEP on the list. With Chris Heaton-Harris headed for Daventry and Westminster, I am the only East Midlands Conserva­tive MEP available to run, and I owe it to the Party and the region to do so.



Secondly, the great debate on Europe is as interesting and exciting and important as it ever was. I believe we have seen off the threat of the euro, but the battle over the Constitution is not over yet. There is a big job to do and I believe I have an important part to play.(Roger Helmer's newsletter Sepember 2006)

Monday, September 04, 2006

Dan Hannan's First Piece on EPP Betrayal

KEEP OUR PROMISE
This is my first bulletin since the Conservative Party shelved its plans to withdraw from the federalist European People’s Party (EPP). Like many of you, I am disappointed by the climb-down. David Cameron now says that the break will come in 2009, adding in a Daily Telegraph article of 14 July that his commitment “is not an aspiration, it is a guarantee — and it will be delivered.”

Put like that, it would be churlish not to believe him. None the less, the delay seems to me unnecessary and damaging. By postponing the decision over the past nine months, we created a good deal of harmful bickering, as opponents of David Cameron’s promise sought — successfully, as it turned out — to push him into a U-turn. We now risk three more years of the same.

While on the subject, it is worth dealing with a couple of misapprehensions that have cropped up in the media. First, it has been widely claimed that the Conservatives were unable to find suitable allies in the rest of the EU. William Hague, we are told, trawled Europe’s capitals in search of partners. In fact, William made just one visit to Brussels, at which he found more than enough parties to make up the necessary numbers. It is sometimes suggested that these came from the political fringe. Nonsense: they are mainstream and respectable parties — although the repeated postponement of the decision more or less guaranteed that supporters of the EPP link would attempt to smear them as far-Right.

I mention these things, not in order to carp, but because we risk making the same mistake again. By delaying the move, we give the EPP every incentive to seek to turn our prospective allies, and we encourage the federalists to plant vicious stories about them. If we are serious about forming a new group, and thus creating a vehicle to advance the Conservative vision of a Europe of nations, we should do it without further delay.

Is Hague Up To It?

The position of Roger Helmer is fast becoming the acid test of Hague's competence.

Hague decided to welch on the EPP promise for no good reason as we can see. Daniel Hannan is certain that there are/were plenty of willing partners for us to form a new group. Each delay merely allows the likes of Kirkhope to practise the black arts and make false accusations against these likely partners.

Now Kirkhope's at it again (see www.reinstateroger.com), accusing Roger of talking about joining the Fruitcakes in UKIP. This is not only an outrageous fabrication. It is TOOO - TOTALLY OUT OF ORDER.

Hague has created this situation so he cannot shirk his responsibilities. He must resolve this running open sore in the Conservative delegation to the EUP, or rightly get the blame for it.

As part of the EPP situation, Hague should have sorted out the position of Roger Helmer. He could esily have asked Kirkhope to 'reinstate Roger' as part of the deal. But No. Hague gave the whole deal to the EU-compliant faction, and shit all over the eurosceptics.

There is now no doubt left. KIRKHOPE MUST GO. It is one thing to withdraw Roger Helmer's whip because he carried out his manifesto commitment and challenged Barroso about suspected corruption in the EUP. The withdrawal of the whip was inappropriate and 'disproportionate'. But at least withdrawing the whip is recognised as part of the process of party management. Fabricating false stories about Roger Helmer however, and suggesting that he is talking to UKIP is not.

No one has fought harder against UKIP than Roger Helmer. He was up against Kilroy Silk in the East Midlands, but he energetically persuaded voters to stay loyal to Conservatives and promised to fight against EU corruption on their behalf, which he then did. Now the corruption is being aided and abetted by Kirkhope, backed up by William Wetness Hague, and Roger Helmer, the only bloke who is acting as a responsible Conservative should, is being quietly demolished.

Kirkhope has shown that he is total shit with no principles often enough and must go. But William Hague for some reason hopes to keep himself aloof from this bloody mess for which he has been responsible now for a year. He has little credibility left, and should be asked to step aside by David Cameron. If he can't sort shit, then what the hell is Hague doing posing it around as some kind of leader. He has demonstrated time and again that he has no leadership ability. He has admitted as much, and has stated that he would be quite happy to go and write books now. Well **** off and write a few is my advice. Let someone else get at this situation, and sort it.

If Cameron wants to go on jollies round the world, he's entitled to do so, but he cannot leave Hague in charge of crucially important business back at home. Even John Prescott would have sorted this one out by now.

Sunday, September 03, 2006

2 More British Soldiers on Murder Charge

Atticus in Sunday Times calls CH 'the Conservatives' website'. I thought a denial of official status was going to be placed on the header.

I hope the Nimrod was not another small arms through the fuel tank job like the Hercules. The government has made the RAF subcontract out most maintenance work. Here's the likely result of that brilliant bit of cost saving.

As for the Hercules, still nothing has been done to fit them with foam, my sources tell me. They all could have been done by now in the year since the shooting down in Iraq. The Hercules that blew up in Afghanistan was probably a punctured fuel tank as well. James Arbuthnott is Chairman of the Defence Select Committee. Why are Conservative Shadow Ministers not roasting his bollocks for such gross irresponsibility?

Not in the news yet is a report that two British soldiers in Afghanistan are up on a charge of murder. There are only 700 soldiers doing the fighting. They're facing daily stresses that would leave anyone totally frazzled. Now they have to think about lawyers as well as fighting the Taliban.

In Iraq quite a few British soldiers were charged with murder. When they got to court all the charges were dropped. The cases took three years to get heard. What a sick way to treat soldiers who are put through extreme danger.

Our troops need support from Conservative spokesmen. Where are they hiding? they can't all be riding on superfast trains in japan.

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Orwell's 1984 - only 30 years out.

Cameron's adoption of Local Democracy will be revolutionary if he can do it.

From 1914 on, Britain centralised power. By 2014, an individual will scarcely have any choices left which can be made without state interference. Blair wants to intervene before children are even born. He's probably only mouthing a policy which is already being advocated within the bureaucracy. All children are already being put on a datebase which monitors their risk level - that is from their own parents. It's truly terrifying.

Orwell predicted 1984 as the date when the totally centralised state would come into being. That was the date that computers really began to kick in. It will be about thirty years later, and he'll be right. The State is becoming so powerful, that individual life is ceasing to have much meaning.

No wonder one fifth of people want to leave the country, and become human beings who are listened to once again.

Undoing the panoply of state power and control will be nigh impossible, but Cameron tells us he's prepared to try. Someone's got to.