Tag Archives: Politics

The Look from the left: GORDON! Back in a flash to save every lefty one of us!

Posted on by

A Look from the Left at the muddle in the middle by Richard Wright

Week 2: GORDON! Back in a flash to save every lefty one of us!

This week the commons saw the return of Gordon Brown to public life. Oh how we have missed thee. And just in time for the upcoming release of the final Shrek film on DVD and Blu-Ray. Former PM Brown used his speech to support the two aircraft carriers and if there is anyone who knows about taking over a sinking ship its Gordon. I’ve missed Gordon I really have. Sure he looks like a living toby jug and has, roughly speaking, the same personality as one. But you knew where you stood with Gordon. He wasn’t a horrible political clone. He was unique. There will never be another Prime Minister like him. Half of me is saddened by that but sadly that half is being drowned about by the party that’s going on in my other half. As it always has been Gordon stands defeated by show over substance. And no, that’s not a fat joke.

But Mr Ed if you are reading this, and you’re not, Gordon may have a broken leg politically speaking but that’s no reason to put him down. Did you the like the horse metaphor? And the Mr Ed thing? That was intentional. That’s right I’m a classy writer. For this writers money Gordon can still be very useful. The coalition government is lacking a little experience and that could well play into Labours hands in the long run. Well lacking experience if you don’t count Teresa May who is old as Medusa and similar looking into the bargain. And there goes the class out of the window. Also the truthfulness of the piece because as an A-level political student she was the closest thing I could find to attractive at Westminster. But at the time I thought Nicola Sturgeon wasn’t bad looking so I question my sanity there a little. This was all in 1999 and that was quite some time ago. I might be sliding off topic slightly. Back on point: Gordon Brown – party statesman. The Ken Clarke of the Labour Party if you will. Only far less annoying and pointless.

The problem was Gordon Brown is fundamentally unlikeable. However as a Labour Party elder statesman, a background player, a consultant he could be very useful indeed. The man was in the two most important positions in British Political life and that has to count for something. Much like Ole Gunnar Solskjaer was a super sub for Man Utd so Gordon could play a blinder from the back bench. He could create a role for himself that augments and strengthens Labours agenda. After last week’s spending review the Labour Party has taken a lead over the Government in two separate polls. Now I am a massive sceptic when it comes to polling data as the only real poll that matters is a general election. And Labour is, to be fair, a good way off winning one of those. However polls do help shape public perception at least a little and this in encouraging for Mr Ed. The joy for Mr Ed is that because Gordon was such a failure as Prime Minister he really doesn’t have to do that much to look impressive. Basically look like he has a pulse and the battle is half won. But that should also lessen the intimidation factor. Yes Mr Ed I get it, you want to create a new Labour to replace New Labour but Gordon was never New Labour so why not make him a part of your new Labour. It’s getting complicated again.

I think Gordon Brown would be excellent as some kind of Party Chairman, something akin to the way they work in America only with less power. A Howard Dean for the Labour Party. Gordon if you’re reading this, and you’re not, then your party needs you still. I know it’s like watching your girlfriend making out with another bloke but forget it Gordon she left you. Leave it she’s not worth it Gordon she was never the right one for you. And that’s not actually a bad analogy. Gordon Brown and being leader of the Labour Party was like a relationship that was destined to never work. It’s the girl you long for, the girl you wish was yours and when it finally happens it’s not the way it should have been. It’s like Ross and Rachel on Friends.

The public waited a long time for them to get it together and the public waited a long time for Gordon Brown to be PM. But imagine if you had waited all that time on Ross Gellar and Rachel Greene kissing and then after the kiss Ross developed erectile dysfunction and Rachel decided she was really a nun. This happened to Gordon. Sort of. I hope you get what I am trying to say with this cause I’m not even sure I do. Gordon the relationship is over. You’ve moved on, she’s moved on and we’ve moved on. But Gordon there is a light at the end of the tunnel and it’s called political experience. You might lack any gravitas, emotional or charismatic authority and you may look an awful lot like Shrek but you can still play a role. Mr Ed is going to need all the help he can get and I’m sorry but Harriet Harman, Ed Balls and the grumpy old umpire of the front bench aren’t gonna be enough. Gordon – your party needs you. Sort of. You can indeed save everyone one of us. Sort of.

We're not at Home to Champagne Charlie {Politics}

Posted on by
As has been widely reported, this year’s Conservative Party Conference, like its predecessor, will feature a ban on what many might see as the Tories’ beverage of choice – champagne, naturally. We are told that at last year’s conference, the drink would have been seen as a premature celebration of victory – and it’s true that nothing is punished by the British public more swiftly than perceived arrogance; just ask the Labour Party after their narrow loss against John Major’s Conservatives.

At this year’s Conference, the mood (or at least the mood the Party wants to project) is sober and business-like. The past few months since the election could be seen, perhaps, as a ‘phoney war’, a kind of hiatus – up until now, cuts have been discussed, options tabled, and Ministers have argued for the necessity of continued spending in their Departments. Now, within two weeks, the axe will begin to fall in earnest and the public will begin to see what 25% cuts in Government spending actually look like.  Accountancy firm BDO and other experts have warned that the cuts are likely to push the country into a second recession, as businesses make their own cuts in anticipation of shrinking markets. Against this background, it would be foolish, indeed, to celebrate too overtly in front of the cameras.

Yet the Conservatives, in fact, have much to celebrate. Of course, winning the election, for one thing, even if the result was the Coalition. Perhaps even more important is how smoothly the Coalition formed and how harmonious it is for the most part – It’s been said of David Cameron that he prefers consensus to confrontation, and he seems to be thriving on it.

But it’s not just about consensus – this is a radical Government – if anyone had missed that point, it was made clear by David Cameron’s invitation to Margaret Thatcher to visit 10 Downing Street in June. Margaret Thatcher herself was the leader of the most revolutionary administration since the Welfare State was born in 1945 under Clemet Attlee.  Thatcher’s revolution, of course, was about shrinking, not enlarging, the State, and David Cameron intends to complete it.

Under Thatcher, the State got out of the business of running industries. Under Cameron, the State will continue to provide the essentials to those who have no alternative, but it will no longer be a viable option for those who prefer not to work to rely on the State as a lifestyle choice. The planned cuts in Housing Benefit for the long-term unemployed are part of this strategy; while they may sound harsh, Ian Duncan Smith’s intended radical reforms to the welfare system will ensure that taking work always pays and that the culture of warehousing people on benefits for life is brought to an end.

The process will undoubtedly be painful, particularly for those State employees who lose their jobs in this process. But we should remember one thing – while the 1980s were also painful for many as the economy changed from State Socialism to free enterprise, by the mid-1990s Britain’s economy was rock-solid, house prices were reasonable, and levels of employment were increasing.

David Cameron’s rejigging of the economy is unavoidable, not least because the country is broke – but people may be pleasantly surprised to see what emerges from the process.

It would be hard to blame Conference delegates for taking a discreet swig of champagne from a paper cup, given the circumstances.

Stephen Canning is the editor of The Tory Boy ( http://www.thetoryboy.com ) one of the fatest growing online political news blogs. He is also the Chairman of the Braintree Conservative Future and is actively involved in local, regional and national politics. Join him on Twitter (@StephenCanning) for regular political news and information.

Minister lauches social impact Bond Pilot. { Politics }

Posted on by

Prisons Minister Crispin Blunt and David Hutchison, Chief Executive of social investment organisation Social Finance, are today visiting HMP Peterborough to launch the Social Impact Bond (SIB) pilot.

The Social Finance run SIB pilot is the first scheme in the world that has used new funding from investors outside government to reduce reoffending with offenders. Investors will only receive returns on their investment from the Ministry of Justice if they reduce reoffending by a set amount.

At a time of tight public finances, payment by results models, such as the Social Impact Bond, can tap into new sources of funding to reduce reoffending and provide value for money for the tax payer

Justice Minister Crispin Blunt said:

“Our priorities are to punish offenders, protect the public and provide access to justice. But we want to initiate a more constructive approach to rehabilitation and sentencing, and re-think whether putting more and more people into custody really does make people safer.

“We want to actively involve individuals and voluntary and community organisations – not just in tackling crime and re-offending but in helping to keep people out of the criminal justice system in the first place. This payment by results pilot is both innovative and imaginative. I am delighted to be launching it at HMP Peterborough today.”

The six-year SIB pilot scheme in Kalyx-run Peterborough prison, run by Social Finance, will prepare around 3,000 short term prisoners for their lives post-release and will work with them to prevent a return to a life of crime

If these services are successful and re-offending drops by more than 7.5 per cent within six years, investors receive a payment representing a proportion of the cost of re-offending. The payment will increase based on the reduction in re-offending with the total cost of the project capped at £8m.

Secretary of State for Justice Kenneth Clarke MP said:

“This Government has a historic opportunity to initiate a more constructive approach to rehabilitation. This means making prisons places of punishment, but also of education, hard work and change. As part of our radical approach to rehabilitation we are considering a range of payment by results schemes like the Social Impact Bond.

“The voluntary and private sectors will be crucial to our success and we want to make far better use of their enthusiasm and expertise to get offenders away from the revolving door of crime and prison.”

David Hutchison, Chief Executive of Social Finance commented:

“The Social Impact Bond aligns the interests of government, charities, social enterprises and socially motivated investors around a common goal. We are delighted to be launching the first such structure in the world here at Peterborough.

Our work is driven by a desire to transform society’s ability to invest in addressing its most intractable problems. Developing the Social Impact Bond market will take years, but we believe that with care it can enable future investment of hundreds of millions of pounds a year in these crucial areas.”

Social Finance has raised capital from social investors that will be used to pay for the services in the prison and outside in the community. It is expected to close the £5 million fund by the end of the year. Initial investors include the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, the Monument Trust and committed individuals.

The development of Social Impact Bonds has been supported by a number of partners including Allen & Overy, Kalyx and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough community including the Criminal Justice agencies, Local Authority and the voluntary sector.

Phil Andrew, Kalyx Managing Director, said:

“We are delighted to be working in partnership with Social Finance. Our work is dedicated to preventing future victims by delivering rehabilitative opportunities to prisoners through work skills, educational qualifications, behaviour programmes, substance misuse interventions, and assistance with accommodation and employment.

“This project will complement our work by supporting ex-offenders through the difficult transition from prison to the community, and it will increase the chances of them avoiding further crime in the future.”

What not to call a posho {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

When Samantha Cameron gave birth to her baby yesterday I was in an office in Central London. The news spread in that office of course like the news that Julie from HR has brought in some Rice Krispie treats made with cocaine.

While everyone was wincing and speculating on its weight, I was wondering whether the name would have a double barrel – mainly because my politics is stuck in the 80s (80s Cuba that is).

David Cameron has made it clear that benefits, such as that for a child, should not be received by middle class parents such as him (*cough splutter cough* middle class sir? Don’t let Grandad Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet hear you say that).

But if DavCam is going to be middle class, will he be one of those postmodern middle class people whose names are Plum or Eggnog or something like that, will he stick with his roots and call his child something like Martha Cunningham-Gash or will he go all hug-a-hoodie and call his kid Beyonce or Vodkaandorange (a Dutch name I believe)?

Certainly David Cameron’s identity, back as a shadow leader, was stained by the synonyms of a name. Last year he was said to advise Annunziata Rees-Mogg to insist people refer to her as Nancy Mogg, so as to appeal to the voters of North West Somerset – though some wonder whether it was less about the “poshness” of the name, or whether it was too “foreigny” (that’s right, foreigny!).

Having found out about 30 minutes before writing this small entry I found out, and I think they made a good choice – perfect for postmodernism it has a bit of foreign in there (Cornwall is obviously a bit foreign with their foreigny flag) has a typical English name in there, and has the name of a nurse who saved the world (unlike the Cameron-led budget, which has overburdened the poorest – what a turn up for the books).

That’s right folks, the Camerons have called their latest child Florence Rose Endellion Cameron Rees-Mogg. That about sums it up really.

Wikileak in Afghanistan {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

Julian Assange won’t find himself on any leaked document, but he should be under no illusion: he is enemy number 1 now. The owner of Wikileaks may have just tickled a ball too many with his latest release; 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict in Afghanistan.

Homeless Assange, whose profile on the Guardian notes him as confessing a genetic disposition to rebel, has spent the last 24 hours justifying his acts, in light of fierce criticism from the White House, who have said the leaks – probably the result of hacking (their assumption) – which contains classified and sensitive information could put the war effort in jeopardy.

The twitter hashtag #warlogs has had discussions ranging from whether to see Wikileaks forever more as a champion of free speech, or as a danger, more intent on causing naive damage and anarchy rather than any grown up appeal to classical liberal motifs.

Having seen a sample of the records myself I can conclude one thing for the nice readers at Frost Magazine: we are at war.

If you want to find out anymore, say if you want to see what Osama Bin Laden told intelligence in his poetic, tyrannical phraseology, or perhaps you’d like to see how much carnage the Taliban have caused with roadside bombings, go and see the files for yourself.

Though when you see them remember one of the main reasons why this stuff isn’t on public display (other than the issue of a national threat, or sensitivity to families): war is rubbish, people die, and it is often better to put it to the back of one’s mind, for otherwise the emotional proximity to what is really going on can have deleterious effects on a reasonable and rational opinion of the war effort in Afghanistan.

I call this the problem of overproximity, and I first spoke about it last year with regard to the camps in Calais that were home to many migrants. Photojournalist Jason Parkinson, a good guy, was frustrated by then immigration Minister Phil Woolas’ response to the camp. He wrote in the Guardian:

It is easy for Woolas, back in London, to arrogantly state these men don’t deserve asylum in the UK. But in doing so he exposes his distance from the issue. If he had bothered to go to the camps and squats around Calais and talk to these people, hear their stories first hand – perhaps then he would remember they are human beings and not just a statistic or price tag on a government spreadsheet.

It is my contention that it didn’t matter where Woolas made the decision if it involved taking a look at what the UK could do, but certainly visiting the camp was not going to help, only other than putting Woolas in a situation where his proximity to the problem would influence his reponse (we all know his stomach for pressure, just see Joanna Lumley take him down).

The leaked documents have the potential to change people’s mind in the wrong way, it will remind people that death is common to war, and that strategy has not always been good in Afghanistan.

The shock of the reality has the potential to delete from our emotional minds the cost of not challenging the Taliban – this network of extremists will not stop until every son of every scared parent in Afghanistan has forcefully been signed up to fight in their fascist wars.

The Fat of the Land {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

There is a simple reason why I predict the two taser shots received by Raoul Moat on the morning of 10 July had nothing to do with his eventual death. Not because disruptions to ones nervous system couldn’t release a spasm that would set off a trigger to an unfortunate whose gun happened to be pointed at his own head. No (although I’m sure you can find these conspiracies on Moat’s popular facebook fan page). Rather, a bit of shock therapy could shake a bit of sense into the bugger.

Subsequently, I would like to prescribe a bit of shock therapy to our health minister Andrew Lansley if he expects fatty food producers to take it upon themselves to cut salt, sugar and spice (and everything that’s nice) out of the nations food, now that the regulators are out.

With no regulation, why wouldn’t Dave Osler be right to say:

“Anti-obesity campaigning in Britain will soon be brought to you courtesy of Bombay Bad Boy-flavour Pot Noodles, Snickers, Golden Wonder and Fanta. Or at least it will be, if Andrew Lansley gets his way.”

Lansley recently told food manufacturers that if they were to be nutritionally responsible then they could be spared regulation. The next week it is revealed that the Food Standards Agency is to be abolished.

This has been met with calls that government has “caved in to big business”. Either that or food manufacturers, in a week, suitably impressed Lansley that they would be culinary ethical (to coin a phrase). Although Labour health spokesman, and leadership candidate, Andy Burnham, probably hit the nail on the head when he said that: “It does raise the question whether the health secretary wants to protect the public health or promote food companies.”

The same food companies that Professor Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, among many other leading doctors, asked Lansley and the government to stop giving a platform to by allowing them to advertise their products during sports events, shortly after Lansley announced that manufacturers of crisps and confectionery could play a central role in the Change4Life campaign.

One of the main beneficiaries of austerity, be that the killing off of the FSA or for customer popularity, is bad foodies. McDonalds, it was reported in 2008, defied the credit crunch by recruiting 4,000 people to fill ‘McJobs’.

KFC, also back in 2008, according to one report, enjoys “strong growth as Britons are drawn towards cheaper eat-out deals in the face of the recession.”

There were gasps of horror when George Osborne announced OBR predictions of 2m more private sector jobs within five years(although how much of this should be taken at face value is questionable, with the early departure of Sir Alan Budd, whose parting gift was to say the Treasury needs more outside regulation – and he should know). The McJob could be the future; which means less unionisation, less workers rights, and an almost robotic allegiance to the French fry.

There has been one overall winner of this period of negative economic growth, and that is bad food. Unhealthy people die, so why wouldn’t our government want to cosy up to the winners. Lets just hope the public isn’t reminded that Andrew Lansley is being bankrolled by some dreaded private health firm now… (whoops).

The Budget: to progressive what Kim Jong-il is to moderate {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

We’ve had the first budget by the new coalition government, called out by a small boy, nervously looking down at his sheet, behind him a Prime Minister with a face so red backbenchers thought it was daytime (it was daytime, but they didn’t know it was daytime by any other measure than David Cameron’s face, which actually isn’t a measure of time at all, allegedly) and two Liberal Democrats, whose party once called the rise in VAT (which was called today, starting in January 2011) the Tories’ ‘secret plot‘.

Though, back then, the plot referred to Tory plans to raise VAT to 19.5%. Judging by the chants of ‘here here’ today by Nick Clegg and Douglas Alexander, either we are to take it that once VAT rises to 20% it stops being a plot, or the Liberal Democrats have their hands tied in this coalition government. All such speculation has been achieved on this subject, and it doesn’t look good for the yellows.

Julian Glover of the Guardian on the day of the budget argued that it was not: “as a Thatcherite one would have done, seek[ing] to divide the nation between winners and losers. It was a one-nation one, albeit produced in desperate circumstances.” Certainly all the talk of “progressive” (that vacuous blanket term for anything not fascistic or carried out by a person over the age of 50 – Ken Clarke beware) provided the cover with which to place over our eyes, while our ears heard insistence from the Treasury that “The top income decile [consult graph 1 here for further explanation] sees the largest absolute losses, while, on average, the bottom three income deciles experience the lowest losses”.

But if the way in which Ozzy Osborne has dealt his number blow is progressives then I might as well sign myself up to that Facebook group supporting Kim Jong-il right now.

VAT always hits the lowest paid in society the hardest, though mostly what George has forgotten is proportion and scale. If figure A earns £200 a week and the government decides to take £10 more of that away, while figure B earns £2000 a week, and the government also decides to take £10, figure A feels more of a pinch in spite of the fact that both have contributed the same.

Now this is not an accurate picture of what the government are doing at the moment, but certainly the illustration holds true, that though the top income decile will see the largest amount of money taken from them on their pay packets, this is because they are earning more. This does not represent an equal distribution of the “pinch” when you consider that those on the bottom end of the income decile, though not contributing as much (as they don’t earn as much as those on the top decile) feel more of a pinch by the raise in VAT, freeze on public sector pay and freeze on benefits.

It doesn’t follow that since figure A has less on his income statement than last year, that figure A is feeling the pinch more than figure B, in fact the opposite is true. This does not represent everyone taking an equal hit. Until this is rectified, the coalition government’s budget plans are to progressive what Girls Aloud were to dignity.

Carl on the Israeli – Palestine conflict {Politics}

Posted on by

Surprise of all surprises, there are left wing groups in existence today who are pro-Israel. J-Street is a not for profit advocacy group in the US who campaign for a peaceful two-state solution on the Israel-Palestine conflict, supports refined petroleum sanctions on Iran to curb their achieving nuclear weaponry, encourages border negotiation of Jerusalem, and views illegal Israeli settlements as a constant obstacle to peace.

It’s president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, recently said on the subject of the blockade: “There wouldn’t have been a flotilla if Gazan children had enough food, had schools and clean water to drink.”

Through the frivolity with which certain neoconservatives and Zionists like to throw around the term anti-Semite (where anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian or pro-two state solution, all different concepts, might have sufficed) the sensible, anti-fascist, left (often, rightly, exemplified in distinction to the socialist workers/Respect party, as mentioned here and here) have to be careful when criticising Israel so as not to be tarred with such a rancorous brush.

Earl Raab, founding director of the Nathan Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University, was so very far from the point when he mentioned that prejudice against Israel is often a bridge to anti-Semitism, though became closer when he distinguished this from antisemitism as such.

Tariq Ali, historian and political activist, once mentioned that: “the supposed new ‘anti-Semitism’ [in Europe today, is a] “cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians…. Criticism of Israel can not and should not be equated with anti-semitism.”

I recognise leftist appeals to anti-Semitism, or trace elements of Islamist appeasement in the ranks of so-called left wing movements, preferring victim idolatry to reasoned political standpoint, but I’m still tempted by what Ali recognises that a certain few Israel supporters often obfuscate, with their liberal use of the paranoia sword, what is criticism of the crimes committed by the state of Israel and what crosses the line into anti-Semitic strokes. But to be sure, many people now find it difficult to tell one from the other, and it is a thorn in the side of the left.

The centre-right have an easy time of it though. Just look at our current Foreign Secretary William Hague. He recently condemned what he called Israel’s “unacceptable” blockade around the time of the flotilla deaths, causing little stir, and not much more than the word “astonishing” and “wobble” as criticism, from former speccie editor Matthew d’Ancona.

In 2003 Hague described America’s foreign policy as “bleeding away,”and in 2006 Hague opined that: “In some instances, such as attacks on the Lebanese army or on parts of the civil infrastructure, Israeli actions have been disproportionate, and our Foreign Office should not be afraid to say so”.

He is supported by a Prime Minister who chose September 11 of 2006 to announce reservations of the UK-US special relationship, not to mention the untrustworthy characters inside the European Conservatives and Reformists that he defends.

I don’t think Hague is an anti-Semite, but nor do I think a lot of leftists who are branded this are, either. I wonder why Hague is getting let off for his critical eye on Israel and American foreign policy while the left get cuts and bruises for it. Have the dubious voices who wrongly liken left-wing criticism directed at Israel being anti-Semitic won their little battle?