Is that blood in the water I can smell?
It might well be, as the sharks seem to be circling. The Supernanny saga drags on as
the Mirror finds a British expat with a little story to tell about Ms Spelman and her nanny.
Remember
this clear and unequivocal statement?
I had advertised my home as my consistency office, as there was no other office that Ian Mills had, nor staff in the constituency.
Well, Janet Parry begs to differ. She was a work experience volunteer who worked out of an apparently non-existent office in 2 Manor Road, Solihull in the summer of 1997.
"I was specifically instructed to report to the office in Solihull - there was never any mention of constituency work taking place at the Spelman family home. At that time there were at least two people doing secretarial work there. I am certain that much of the work being done at that office was for the MP herself. I was doing menial admin work, which wasn't what I had hoped for - a lot of putting letters in envelopes and filing."
But hang on - wasn't that volunteer duplicating work being carried out by Ms Haynes? Caroline said that
Tina would answer the telephone for me and open the post and sort it for me and arrange it into files
Meanwhile,
the Torygraph reports thatCaroline Spelman's former nanny may have to prove she has basic secretarial skills before the parliamentary standards watchdog to back up the Conservative Party chairman's claims that she used her as a part-time personal assistant....Miss Haynes faces having to prove her ability to perform such tasks as taking dictation and word processing to support her former boss's defence.
Perhaps the Tories should fund a crash course in those things over the summer recess...
Iain Dale, predictably, jumped to her defence when this all kicked off.
I remember she had an Association which was trying to deselect her. I remember various MPs telling me at the time that she was finding it incredibly difficult balancing her family life with her new life as an MP. Her statement today explains that because her predecessor died six weeks before the 1997 election there was a huge backlog of mail. There was no constituency office. There was no secretary to deal with it. As a new MP she didn't have an office until a couple of months after the election. So she did the best she could. But she was drowning. That's not to plead sympathy for her, it is a statement of fact.
He's swallowed the line completely - the hook and sinker must be choking the poor lamb. What is evident is that Spelman's statement was not factual. If Ian Mills coped without an office, it seems unlikely that six weeks would create a huge backlog of mail, but as we know, the Tories have had their Solihull headquarters at 2 Manor Road in Dorridge - well inside the constituency - since 1986. Is it likely that the staff - dedicated to the Tory cause - would have decided that the death of their MP just prior to an election was a good time to pack up and go home? Or would they have stuck around to help in the election and then support their new MP? Which is more likely - even without the evidence.
I fully accept that being an MP is a tough job to combine with family life. A friend said to me a little while ago that they admired me for being able to do the amount of political work I do and still have a family life, and I don't do a tenth of what an MP does. I also agree that the process for sorting out MPs' offices is ludicrous - the parliamentary estate knows that whatever the result, there will be an MP from a particular constituency to house, so that needs to be done as a priority and two months is ludicrous, but that's not the issue and we mustn't let Iain cloud our thinking. Iain then throws up this defence:
Caroline Spelman had never worked in Parliament before she was elected. She wasn't a career politician who knew the ways of Westminster. It was, of course, up to her to find out what rules she had to follow. The fact that the chief whip had to have a word indicated she had fallen foul of the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules. Remember, this was ten years ago - the Fees Office rules were not as clear and detailed as they are today and were easy to misinterpret..
I don't believe that Caroline Spelman is stupid, so I can't accept that she would have thought it reasonable to pay the nanny out of the public purse. Ignorance is no defence - there are plenty of people from whom she could have sought advice.
A comment from 'narcissa' on Dale's Diary sums up his post nicely
Your defence of your friend is touching, but you have left us (well, me) with the impression that she was selected in the face of opposition by the constituency party, that she was ill-prepared for public office, and that she was so disorganised that she did not think to engage a proper PA, although she did manage to find out about, and claim, the allowance which should have enabled her to employ one. This is not the best recommendation for her position within the party, however nice and well-meaning a person she may be
Quite.
This still has some distance to run.
Labels: Caroline Spelman, Conservatives, Meriden, Solihull
EU stupid boy
When was the last occasion any political group was on a three line whip to sit on the fence? Granted, that’s the natural position for most Liberals, afraid of offending their voters. A quarter of the Liberal Democrat party disobeyed their high command’s instruction to do nothing and voted alongside their Conservative friends, including our very own John Hemming.
In fact, that instruction is itself odd, as Clegg and Ed ‘Duck’ Davey have been wandering the studios of the nation telling everyone that there was no need for a referendum as the Lisbon treaty is sufficiently different from the early constitution. That’s pretty much the government line, so why didn’t the Liberals have the courage of their convictions and vote alongside our people against a referendum? Why cook up this ludicrous doomsday option of a catch-all ‘In or Out’ vote – culminating in
the staged mass walkout that would have disgraced a sixth form debating society, let alone a party that claims to be a serious player? None of that was necessary for anything other than base party political reasons.
Then you have the peculiar situation whereby
three Liberal Democrat front benchers resign their portfolios to vote against their leadership, but another eight junior spokespeople get to keep their jobs (the other four votes were from the tiny number of Liberal MPs not trusted to speak for the party on anything). That’s either inconsistent or simply hypocritically expedient – they don’t have enough MPs to do all the work, so dropping all eleven would have caused huge problems. I’d expect to see the three senior rebels rehabilitated in due course.
This morning, another Liberal Democrat – Chris Davies MEP – popped up on the Today programme and made sure that he got across the party line that Nick Clegg’s leadership wasn’t in question. The very fact that he shoehorned that statement in – despite not even being queried over it – suggests that it may be very far from the truth. Clegg hasn’t performed well in PMQs lately, his media appearances over the European issue – one where his party should be the most sure-footed of all, as it is avowedly pro-EU – have been flustered at best. If he can’t carry his front bench with him after less than four months, then I think the countdown clock can be started. I’m sure he won’t
feel the knives in his back quite yet, but he has to raise his game massively if he isn’t to become the latest former leader of his party. Can we make the leadership race an annual event?
Don't forget, it isn't over yet. The referendum may well be reinserted in the Lords and come back to the Commons to be removed - how will the Liberals vote then? More squirming and manoeuvring for Clegg to come.
And while we’re on that subject, the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Tories never ceases to amaze me. Much of what is happening in the EU today is consistent with the steps taken with the Maastricht Treaty (and others). We never got a referendum then – in fact, Iain Dale’s former boss, David Davis,
was whipping the Conservatives through the lobby even as their rebels were being spat on by colleagues.
William Hague (voted against a referendum on Maastricht) argued on the Today programme on Wednesday that the content of the treaty wasn’t important, it was the manifesto promise that mattered. Well, if we’re going to be nitpicky, the manifesto promise referred to the constitution, not the Lisbon treaty – as Nick Clegg has pointed out. Hague then went on to argue that the 1992 manifesto contained a promise to ratify Maastricht, so there had been a choice back then. Well, he’s wrong.
It doesn’t. It does promise that the UK parliament would decide on a single currency, with no mention of a referendum on that issue
When or if other members of the EC move to a monetary union with a single currency, we will take our own unfettered decision on whether to join. That decision will be taken by the United Kingdom Parliament.
Quite unlike the unequivocal guarantee offered by Labour of a public vote on a simple issue and one that should go to a wider vote outside parliament.
Labels: Conservatives, Europe, Liberal Democrats, Lisbon
Good news Monday
Unusually, I’m going to say something nice now.
Matthew Parris says that he regrets not coming out as gay while he was an MP – the first openly gay MP was Labour’s Chris Smith, subsequently a minister. Given the past record of Conservative party on gay rights, it is a genuine delight to see Alan Duncan, someone who I actually hold in reasonable regard, announce that he is to take a civil partnership. Alan was the first serving Tory MP to come out and that took until 2002 after ten years as an MP.
He recognised this government’s role in changing the culture
You have to give some credit to Tony Blair and the Labour Party for that. They championed an agenda that has made life for a lot of people lots better. They have done a good thing.
So, raise a glass to Alan, who has the good fortune to represent a small slice of English perfection in Rutland and Melton, but has the embarrassment of being the Tory shadow minister for Tyneside. Now there’s a love which dare not speak its name.
Labels: Alan Duncan, Conservatives
Straitjacket for Mr Redwood
And the other Tory taxcutters as well. And if someone could stop Gideon from hyperventilating, that would be great.
Andrew Lansley, the shadow health spokesman (at time of going to press) has
committed the Tories to increasing spending on the NHS – even as
some Tories slate the government for additional spending. He’s promised up to £28 billion to get spending up to 11% of GDP. As
Hopi Sen puts it – there’s nothing like testing your
leader’s pledge of job security to destruction, is there?
Unfortunately, he doesn’t explain how this will be funded – not his problem. Squaring that particular circle – feeding the red meat of tax cuts and state reduction to the Tory loyalists like Redwood, while delivering this proposal looks ludicrous. Even maintaining Labour’s spending promises wouldn’t cover the cost. All this means is that either Gideon has to start axing things on a wholesale basis, borrow more or tax more. None of those are attractive options for a politician, but I can’t see Osborne doing either of the last two.
While this is clearly a calculated attempt to fill the yawning gulf between Labour and the Tories over the NHS, Mr Lansley has just declared open season on Gorgeous George Osborne. Every promise or comment he makes for the next few years will be measured against this commitment and he’ll be asked how he proposes to afford it.
Of course, this could just be another of those headline-grabbing gimmicks that won’t be borne out by their next manifesto.
The new-found Conservative love for the NHS wasn’t borne out by Lord Mancroft, who swiftly rose to his feet and used parliamentary privilege to slam the nurses who had treated him in the Royal United Hospital in Bath, simultaneously destroying Lansley's work earlier in the week,
"The nurses who looked after me were mostly grubby - we are talking about dirty fingernails and hair - and were slipshod and lazy. Worst of all, they were drunken and promiscuous.”
I don’t have rose-tinted glasses and I accept that not every nurse rises to the highest professional standards, but this is a gross generalisation about nurses - or perhaps he spends
too much time watching telly. Of course, the noble Lord has lived a life of purity and ascetism. Curiously, the
Telegraph profile and his
Wikipedia page both fail to mention his time spent as a drug addict and the time he spent in the US getting clean. While I would commend m'lord Mancroft for taking the opportunity to sort his life out, he would do well to remember that not everyone has his privilege or opportunity. The nurses I know are normal human beings with normal failings, but they do their best at work.
Labels: Conservatives, health
Slugger hits out again
Punching below his weight, our beloved Cabinet Member for Housing shows why he has got his reputation as a Speak-your-Brains machine. John Lines expounds on asylum seekers...
Yet some scallywag, some scumbag can jump on the back of a lorry, come over under the tunnel and never expect to work a day in his [expletive] life. And if he's been here for a time waiting for a decision, we give him automatic British citizenship. The world's gone [expletive] mad.
What a fine representative of the Regressive Partnership, the Tory Party and of Birmingham.
Asylum seekers, of course, aren't allowed to work for their first 12 months and survive on a subsistence handout of just 70% of what we consider essential for the ordinary person. According to the Association of Chief Police Officers, they are no more likely to be offenders than anyone else (
unlike a man who might assault a barman) - but why let facts get in the way of prejudice, eh? John, of course, has form when it comes to
these sort of attitudes.
Hat tip to
the Guardian and
DefenceManagement.com.
Labels: Birmingham Council, Conservatives, John Lines
Conman the Barbarian
‘I think it’s good for parents who want the best for their kids. ’
Dave Cameron
No wonder Derek Conway thought that it was OK to get his family’s snouts into the Westminster trough, when his own leader turns a blind eye to people faking religious faith to get their kids into the right school.
Iain Dale didn’t criticise Derek Conway when the storm broke this week, citing his friendship. That’s fair enough – even if that friend has enriched his family by thrusting his snout deep into the public trough. He's wrong to compare it to Hain, Alexander, et al. Those seem to be examples of administrative foul-ups and nobody has defrauded the taxpayer – I’ve not lost a penny as a result of what is alleged to have happened. The same can't be said of Conway - we've all paid to ensure that his son can run those parties or the other one can enjoy his life at university. The other difference is that some of those matters are still under investigation – Conway has been nailed bang to rights.
Standing down now would be a better remedy, not hanging on for another couple of years to see what more cash he can siphon off from you and me. There's no honour in what he's done - announcing that he’s standing down in a year or two implies that he might have had some say in it. Clearly he was told that there was no chance that the whip would be returned to him, so he would not be eligible for reselection. Apparently,
his foppish older son, who only managed to milk the Bank of Dad for £10k a year for advice on ‘London matters’ (fashion and parties, I presume) is also a party organiser and ran a recent event called the 'Fuck off I'm Rich' Party. That I find offensive - particularly as I seem to have helped to pay for a lifestyle where a £2000 suit is essential.
Incidentally, I think that we should praise Tory MPs Nicholas Soames and David Curry (not something I'll do very often) for standing up to Tory committee chair George Young and insisting on a tough report and punishment for Conway –
apparently, Sir George only wanted to give the old boy a slap on the wrist and ask for a few quid back.
The same can’t be said of Dithering Dave. On Monday, he was standing by his honourable friend. By Tuesday, he’d slept on it (trans: seen the bad press) and decided that the Conman had to go. Apart from the bad press, I don’t see what else had changed overnight. The latest reaction - banning relatives from employment is ludicrous. It makes complete sense to employ family members - as long as they actually do some work. Where do we draw the line? Wives? Children? Mistresses? Any number of MPs of all shades employ their families and expect them to work as hard as any other employee - probably harder as I doubt they will try to claim overtime or whinge about the long hours.
No, let's deal with those who pocket the cash for no work.
Derek? Time to go. Now.
Labels: Conservatives, Derek Conway
Imagine, if you will
If I were to charge a client £40,000 for work not done, do you think I would
- Have to pay back £14,000 of it and be suspended for two weeks.
- Be planning on a long holiday at her Majesty's Pleasure
While you ponder the joys of a world where I'm unable to get to a keyboard to annoy you, the answer is, of course (2) - as it is for everyone, unless you are Derek Conway. Last week, we had the sight of the media in full cry after Labour sleaze, but this week, they are more muted. Peter Hain was a fool not to ensure that his campaign was properly put to bed - nobody believes that he has benefitted from the undeclared money, nor that it was anything other than an oversight. He should probably have resigned as a minister when the scope of the failure became apparent, but it was right that he went last week, once his authority was fatally compromised by the police investigation. Alan Johnson is a different kettle of fish - his donations were declared to the register of members' interests and he claims that they were also reported to the Electoral Commission, but were not recorded on their website - he and his team clearly audited their reported donations to ensure transparency, so top marks to him for spotting what appears to be an admininstrative error by the Electoral Commission.
There is nothing wrong with politicians employing members of their family - providing that they are actually doing some real work. I thought that the days of sticking the wife on the payroll as a notional 'secretary' were gone, but it seems I was wrong. Roger Gale (Con, Thanet) popped up on the Today programme this morning for a very aggressive and bad-tempered (on his part) interview with Sarah Montagu, the chief line of which was that Derek was an honorable man and if he said that his son did the work, then his word should be good enough. I fear he did his cause no good, as the available evidence doesn't support that statement. Let's remind ourselves that the investigation showed three things, not just the issue regarding work actually done.
Firstly, Derek Conway paid his 'researcher' more than the approved scale in terms of bonus - something that he admits (we'll gloss over the administrative issue of using the wrong forms). Other staff in his office received bonuses in line with recommended terms. Secondly, that he paid his son more than the approved and appropriate rate for the job, given his skills and experience. This ties in to the main complaint about the work done or not done by Freddie Conway - work for which there is little or no evidence. Given that there Freddie was unavailable during term time - at Newcastle University, which is some distance from the House or from the Kent constituency, it seems unlikely that he was able to carry out the basic clerical work required by his job. The fact is that he was paid 40% more than the recommended entry level minimum for his job.
The conclusion is pretty damning
We note that FC [Freddie Conway] seems to have been all but invisible during the period of his employment. For the majority of that time he was based at Newcastle where he was engaged in a full time degree course at the university. He had little or no contact with his father's office, either in the House or in the constituency. No record exists of the work he is supposed to have carried out, or the hours kept. The only evidence available to us of work carried out was that provided by FC and his family.
Given that these reports are typically couched in cautious language, this next paragraph is damning
This arrangement was, at the least, an improper use of Parliamentary allowances: at worst it was a serious diversion of public funds. Our view is that the reality may well be somewhere between the two.
Derek Conway has made a name for himself as one of the more traditional Tory MPs - deeply Eurosceptic and in favour of tough action against criminals, to the point where he has backed the return of the death penalty. He's now facing a further query about payments made to his other son as a part-time researcher - this isn't over yet.
For a thorough dissection of Mr Conway, try Unity at the Ministry of Truth. It isn't as gentle as the parliamentary report. Hat tip to Bob for that one.
Labels: Conservatives, Derek Conway
The end of the world.
Here I am, stuck in the 21st century with no way back... hidden away like an
embarrassing family secret.
Quotes from Nigel's blog, but actually about his decision to throw away his vinyl LPs and go completely digital.
They could also be about his current outburst, harking back to an early age when the Tories were the nasty party and 'Enoch Powell was right.' Ironically, Nigel cites Bob Marley and UB40 as musical influences, so perhaps he was indulging in something other than alcohol - too much Red Red Wine, perhaps?
Should we be surprised?
Only a few weeks back, Nigel was hinting at support for a return to the old days when we'd hang people.
Before the abolition of capital punishment, murderers were hanged. They didn’t return to haunt us 12 years later claiming their human rights have been breached because we don’t want them in this country any more... Before they abolished the death penalty, the legal system was there to protect law-abiding citizens. Criminals were treated with the contempt they deserved. The idea that they had “human rights” beyond the very bare minimum would have been laughed out of court. Today, it’s the murderers who come first... When they abolished capital punishment, the Labour Government of the day promised that a life sentence would mean just that.
Ah - the fresh air of the 1950s blasting into modern politics and he even manages to blame Labour for the end of executions. It's probably our fault that we stopped doing them in public. But there's more
European-wide human rights were only introduced because most of the EU states endured brutal dictatorships during the 20th century.We didn’t, so there was never any need for such protection here. Labour gave us human rights anyway.
Human rights, incidentally, formulated largely by Conservative lawyers after the Second World War. I'd take issue with human rights being 'introduced' - some may argue that they were previously restricted, rather than being a new idea.
Oh, but there's more.
Our politically correct PCs in their patrol cars are just glorified social workers only too happy to hug a hoodie
No, Nigel - that was
Dave. Your leader? Remember?
So, demanding the return of capital punishment, being anti-EU, anti-Human Rights - so far, so old Tory. What about the smoking ban?
He's agin it.
We never voted for this epoch-making change. We were never even consulted. Yet here we are facing up to the fact that from now on, our lives will change fundamentally.
And yet,
It is difficult to make a convincing case against the smoking ban except to assert the dubious merits of personal liberty. I end up saying I should be allowed to kill myself in my own way without the interference of the State.
Whereas there is a striking case to be made for the health of the workers who are subjected to people's smoke in pubs and restaurants - not least that there has already been a drop in related illnesses where the ban has been in force for a while.
Nigel has form for dropping bricks that hurt his party, though.
In 2001, I had my own brief experience as a victim of Blair's media manipulation.Alastair Campbell provided him with a series of quotes from an article I wrote. They were partial and highly-selective but deployed in the House of Commons they were able briefly to wrong-foot William Hague, then leader of the Conservative Party.It was a humiliating time for me. And while for everyone else it was a brief moment in the passing show, it’s something I’ve had to live with ever since. Even now, it gets brought up and used against me.
Well, let's remind you of what the then PPC for Edgbaston, prior to the accession of the Blessed Deirdre,
was quoted as saying by TonyYesterday, Mr. Hastilow said: For many voters and most of the media, the Conservative Party is a lost cause. On the economy, Mr. Hastilow--should we call him Nigel?--provided the answer to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) when he said that we've never had it so good . . . people are prospering, unemployment is falling, interest rates are low. There's nothing much to worry about. Mr. Hastilow provides a rather more accurate summary of the economy than does the Leader of the Opposition
Funny that a former editor of the Birmingham Post can be so incautious about what he says, really. You would have thought that of all people, he'd know better.
He still finds time to lay into
politically correct attitudes as well
This is good news for the rest of us as there is only one thing worse than being an oppressed minority in Blair’s Britain. And that is not being an oppressed minority. And under the age discrimination laws, we will all be members of an oppressed minority except blokes of 37. Moslems are using the latest terrorism scare to issue new demands and no doubt our Government will bend over backwards to accommodate them. Yet, actually, most members of ethnic minority groups have never had it so good. As a white, heterosexual, middle-class, middle-aged man I am in the unusual position of being in the most discriminated-against group of all.
So, should we be surprised when Mr Hastilow makes
comments like these in print?
When you ask most people in the Black Country what the single biggest problem facing the country is, most say immigration.
Many insist: 'Enoch Powell was right'. Enoch, once MP for Wolverhampton South-West, was sacked from the Conservative front bench and marginalised politically for his 1968 'rivers of blood' speech, warning that uncontrolled immigration would change our country irrevocably. He was right. It has changed dramatically... They have more or less given up complaining about the way we roll out the red carpet for foreigners while leaving the locals to fend for themselves.He's a throwback - and should be chucked straight back into the pond by the party. Powell was wrong on this issue - he knew exactly what he was saying, but made an intemperate speech that fired up the far right in this country.
Hastilow clearly hasn't learnt that if you keeping blowing dog whistles, you can't complain if the hounds pursue you.
Labels: Conservatives, Enoch Powell, Hastilow
Nice performance, shame about the song
The party trick of
doing a speech without notes is impressive - although Tom Watson queries quite how spontaneous the speech was, given that journalists were thoroughly briefed in advance.
We had the sly little dig at Gordon's pronunciation of Bournemouth - because there's nothing funnier than a rich kid having a go at someone born without his advantages. How my sides nearly split. You smug little git. (That may not have been quite the phrase I used, but I'm a little less splenetic in print).
Oi - Whitless! Get with the programme! Your big mate Dave has spoken:
I believe it's time in our big cities for elected mayors, so people have one person to blame if it goes wrong and to praise if it goes right
Dave's an optimist. He's going to withdraw from the Social Chapter and rely on business responsibility
we need business to be responsible in the way they market to children, in the way they treat their employees, in the way they encourage family life - all of those things will help us to get tax and regulation down for the long term good of our economy
There's a non-sequitur. The lesson of history is that businesses exist to make money and, by and large, they only do what they legally have to. The minimum wage, the new laws guaranteeing every employee a minimum 24 days' holiday a year (soon to rise to 28), time off for dependents, extended maternity leave - all of these have been brought about through legislation. Many of them have been fought all the way by the Tories - the ones who opposed the minimum wage.
He paid his dues to the swivel-eyed nutters who demand immediate withdrawal from the EU and probably a return to the Gold Standard and Imperial Measures, with a promise to campaign for a no vote on a putative referendum on the EU treaty. Dave's already had the experience of putting himself in hock to the Europhobic wing of the Tory party with that promise to withdraw from the EPP grouping in the European Parliament and to make common cause with the bigots of the even-further-right. But he's not afraid to take a step further - the Human Rights Act has to go. Don't worry that the origins of the HRA lie in post-war Europe when a group of jurists (a fair few of them committed Conservatives) drew up the original convention. Don't worry that all the HRA does is bring into UK law the articles of the European Convention (drawn up by those Tories, don't forget) and allow them to be used in British courts, rather than having to rely on them being taken to Strasbourg. And don't worry that in 1997, the British people voted for the HRA - it was a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party. None of that matters when it comes to finding a whipping boy for the ills of the country - the HRA will do for that.
And then, Lord above, Dave - the leading light of the Bullingdon Club, that Oxford society of rich twits devoted to drinking and smashing up restaurants - talks about discipline in schools.
And I stopped a boy as he was running into his GCSE exam and I said 'What's the problem?' and he said 'Well, I got completely pissed last night, I've got a hangover and I'm going to flunk this exam'.
'I know how you feel,' I said. 'I remember parties like that at Oxford.'
(That may not be an exact transcript).
if a head teacher wants to exclude a pupil ... they should be able to do so, the appeals panels have got to go.
Oh look at Freedom Dave running roughshod over the concept of natural justice. If a head teacher wants your child out of school, then tough.
Then there's the little lie
highlighted by Devil's Kitchen, but repeated by Cameron
the Thames barrier meant to be lifted once every six years, is now being lifted six times a year.
DK referred to Factchecking PolyannaIn fact, the barrier had to close six times in 1990, and not at all in 1991. Nine times in 1993 and only once in 1994. Only twice in 2004 and 2005, though this comes after 18 times in 2003.
Onwards.
But you know it is more cynical than that. Boy has this guy got a plan. It's to appeal to that 4% of people in marginal seats. With a dog whistle on immigration there and a word about crime here, wrap yourself up in the flag and talk about Britishness enough times and maybe, just maybe, you can convince enough people that you are on their side. Well I say, God we've got to be better than that.
Well, you weren't back in 2005, were you?
Although he talks as though he understands the green agenda, the speech gives us nothing but vacuous promises. He praises single parents for the job they do, but still promises to prioritise the two parent family. Lots on the NHS, from the party that spent two decades running the whole operation into the ground.
That's a recurrent theme during the speech - detail on key Tory touchstones, but generalities at best. For sheer guts, you have to admire his unmitigated gall:
I went to a fantastic school and I'm not embarrassed about that because I had a great education and I know what a great education means. And knowing what a great education means there is a better chance of getting it for all of our children
Floreat Etona indeed. Yes, Dave reckons that his experience at Eton enables him to understand how the state system works.
In summary - great performance, wonderful spin, but little real substance to sustain those outside the Tory faithful.
Of course, the real question is has it done enough to stave off a general election? The first polls should start hitting within the next few hours, but we probably aren't going to see if there's a Cameron effect until the weekend. Even if there is, I suspect that we are now too far down the road for Gordon to back away without looking nervous.
The game's afoot.
Labels: Cameron, conference, Conservatives
Bad math
The fightback starts here, so says Little Lord Daveyboy.
Indeed.
First to the barricades are the 6% who currently pay inheritance tax. Well, they would be if they weren't inconveniently dead and thus unable to vote
(*different rules may apply in Northern Ireland). Yes, if the Tories win, the top 5% or so of estates can look forward to exemption from IHT under the new £1 million pound limit. I don't know about you, but I find it hard to find much sympathy for kids collecting on their parents' hard work. I'm more bothered by the kids whose parents' life expectancy is shortened by living in poverty and who can't expect to be left £1,000, let alone a million.
Homebuyers get an exemption on their stamp duty up to £250,000 - which won't buy much in the Home Counties and the Tories' policies on building new houses anywhere else (in short, they're opposed to it) means that there isn't an awful lot to buy.
All of the giveaways total some £3.5 billion, but this will be revenue neutral, so that the shortfall in public spending (to support those useless things like hospitals and schools) will be made up by taxing the super-rich who are non-domiciled in the UK for tax reasons. There are 150,000 non-doms, of whom around 114,000 are reckoned to be rich enough to qualify for this special tax payment to stop taxation on their foreign income. The Treasury reckon that there are only around 14,000 people for whom this payment actually makes financial sense, which could reduce the tax take still further. Above all, remember that these are the people with the nous and the resources to avoid the best tax lawyers in the business. If they can avoid paying £25,000 to the government of any hue, they will.
In the end, Gideon has promised to steal from the rich to give to the only-rather-well-off (while shafting those unfit to work just for the hell of it). While that may appeal to the core Tory vote, I can't see it grabbing the vote of the average man or woman in Birmingham. Especially not when you explain that all that investment in their local school or that nice new hospital may have to go so the upper middle class don't get stung for tax when their parents pop off.
Meanwhile,
The Devil's Kitchen slices n'dices a Tory presentation, highlighting some factual inaccuracies - or lies, as I prefer to call them.
Kerron Cross reminds us that the Tories really are lodged firmly in the 1980s with their Pacman-alike game.
Iain Dale, predictably, rates Gideon's speech highly. I thought it was pretty poorly-delivered, to be honest (and there are a number of Labour figures who need to put in some practice as well) and wowing a Tory conference by promising tax cuts is about as challenging as impressing monkeys with a card trick.
Actually, the best speech I've seen so far was William Hague yesterday - once the socialist gremlins had been expelled from the sound system. If he would consider a return to the top job, then I think Gordon would be nervous, but Dave is just too lightweight to pose a threat.
Labels: conference, Conservatives
Conservatism - an evolutionary throwback
It appears that conservatives and liberals (in which I'd include the Labour Party) have brains that work in different ways. The first shock of
the report from New York University is that conservatives have brains in the first place, but it seems that there are other differences.
Electroencepholographs of parts of the brain associated with conflict resolution have shown that we actually think differently:
respondents who had described themselves as liberals showed "significantly greater conflict-related neural activity" when the hypothetical situation called for an unscheduled break in routine. However, conservatives were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits "despite signals that this ... should be changed".
Ain't that the truth....
Labels: Conservatives, Science
Keep right on to the end of the road
Owing to a rush of work and some ill-deserved holiday, I've hardly had a chance to look at things for the past couple of weeks, but the Tory policy process is grinding away again. This conveyor belt of reports is less about real manifesto proposals and rather more to do with creating a Pick N' Mix to attract voters. If you want something green, then the Tories will be able to dip into that jar. If you prefer something libertarian, then that nice Mr Redwood would be able to give you a handful of sweeties. The thing is that the whole doesn't hang together with any sense of cohesive principle - it is simply more Cameronian spin.
Like a dodgy second-hand car, the Tories are pulling to the right as the steering wears out. The sound of flapping white coats fills our ears again as
John Redwood hoves into view, miming (badly) to
the Welsh national anthem and promising tax cuts -
music to the ears of the Tory faithful.
Data protection laws are to be scrapped - no reason to ensure that companies have to spend time and money actually trying to look after your personal information. If your bank decides to dump your bank details on the street rather than securely shredding it, why should they face any restriction on that?
As part of a sustained attack on regulation, which proposes putting market forces in charge, rather than government or EU regulation:
We advise restoring the Social Chapter opt out, and producing UK rules on: Works Councils, part time and fixed term working, sex discrimination, information, and consultation. These should balance the interests of existing employees with the need for a flexible labour market to create more jobs
I suspect that this 'UK-approach' wouldn't provide the same level of protection that we currently have, thanks to Labour. Your boss will be able to demand that you work any hours that they wish. We already work some of the longest hours in the world, so why shouldn't we have to work longer?
These regulations... restrict people’s access to overtime, and reduce businesses’ flexibility to respond to their employees’ wishes, as well as their ability to manage their workload sensibly.
This overlooks the fact that employees can agree to step outside the rules - although even that exemption is abused by some employers who require recruits to sign away their rights under the WTR. It is absolutely clear that the intention is to create a labour market thoroughly tilted in favour of business and the employer. It will be easier to sack you, to hire
We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk.
The borrower is simply putting their home into the hands of a mortgage supplier. Anyone else remember the mis-selling of certain mortgage products over recent years?
Truly, those donations from big business to the Tory Party are going to pay off. The Midlands Industrial Council will be working out how to spend their extra profits.
Leisure and cultural facilities. There is scope for these to be financed through public-private initiatives. Those councils wishing to ensure access to such facilities by young, elderly or disabled people could guarantee payments to providers, which would cover their use by local communities.
Does that suggest to you that equality of access might become purely optional? If you can't afford it and your local council doesn't want to support you, tough.
Expect lots more toll roads and ever-higher rail ticket prices, as public financing of new track projects will be a thing of the past. Oh, and traffic calming measures will be 'reassessed.' The chief proposal for improving rail services seems to be adding rubber-tyred wheels to suburban trains - a concept that has been ridiculed by rail specialists in this country as impractical because of the massive changes that would be required to current track layouts.
Redwood even has the nerve to tackle the issue of coal-mining.
The UK coal industry is a shadow of its former self. It is the casualty of too many years as a nationalised industry, where poor management and endless political rows helped to ensure its rapid decline.
A decline in no way assisted by a vindictive Tory government, of course - although Scargill's ego has to bear responsibility as well.
Cameron has spent months trying to change the image of the party - these proposals will show us how little that the Tories have really changed. One glance at this report and the unions should be only too willing to cough up the money for Gordon's snap election (should he choose to call it).
Labels: Cameron, Conservatives, policy, Redwood
Two Nation Conservatism
On the one hand, we have
Dave Cameron arguing in favour of flexible working for all parents - nice to see that he's caught up with the Labour Party, as this is a policy I fully expect to see brought in under a Brown administration. I am cheered by this change of heart, as I'm more used to seeing the Tories criticise any shift in favour of workers' rights because of the effect it might have on business. Remember that they opposed the minimum wage.
On the other hand, we have the unreconstructed
Tory Cllr Bill Archer in Sandwell, who was a little less supportive when a
fellow councillor (who coincidentally happens to be a Labour member) took paternity leave to be with his wife who has just given birth. Archer described it as 'unacceptable' according to
The Stirrer.
'I’m old fashioned I know, but do we have to cancel council business until he’s ready?... My wife had four children but we just got on with it... Personally I can’t accept that a councillor isn’t available for duty. I think it’s a bit unfair on the electors. It’s not the council’s fault he’s having another child... He’s vice chair of the Wednesbury town committee. If the wives of all the other councillors got pregnant, would that mean that it would just have to stop doing its job?'
Dave, sometimes the donkeys just won't be led, will they? One day, they will drag Bill into the twentieth century - any more progress would be too much to ask.
Labels: Conservatives
Every Prime Minister needs a Willie Johnny
The education debate within the Tory Party does not bode well for the further conflicts ahead over policy. By itself, it was a slight squall in a cappucino cup and nothing more, but Cameron has been wounded by it - by no means fatally, but it has been a little scarring. In a deviation from the Tony Blair
'How to Reform Your Party' book, Cameron backed down in the face of his parliamentary party, despite the resignation (before he was sacked) of a junior shadow minister. Even then, other front benchers - Dominic Grieve, for example - were allowed to modify what seemed a clear-cut policy on the fly, without any sanction being imposed. The only message that can be drawn from this is that Cameron lacks the muscle to deliver on the controversial issues. When the opportunity came to demonstrate that the changes in the party were root and branch, he flunked the test.
In conversation with a friend of mine this week, he pointed out the real reason for the Tory education crisis - that Cameron doesn't have a Prescott to act as his wingman. Now before the Tory visitors get all caught up in abuse from the Tory commentators over secretaries and croquet and other items of fluff and frivolity, hear this out.
You see, Prescott has been a vital part of the government for the past decade. Not only has he mediated between Brown and Blair when that relationship was somewhat strained - to be be delicate about it - but Prescott has also acted as the outrider for the Blair/Brown political operation. Whenever things looked difficult, it was Prescott who had the clout and the background to keep the other Labour stakeholders - chiefly the unions, but also the party itself - broadly in line. It is wrong to portray him as some sort of enforcer, but he has the credibility with those players that made the difference. The real problems for Cameron occurred when he was on holiday, when party discipline seemed to fall apart. When Cameron's around, things seem solid enough, but the press will leap on any dissent and it seems likely that there will be more - the failure of Cameron to deal effectively with his dissenters may make it more likely.
Without a credible Cameron loyalist holding the ring for him - someone who has the ability to work with the right wingers and can convince them of the need to back the leadership. It also has to be someone that the Cameroons can trust - somebody who has no desire to replace Dave. Liam Fox or David Davies should probably stepping forward to do the job for the sake of their party, as they are probably the men best-qualified for the role, but have either of them surrendered their leadership ambitions?
As the Cameroon revolution spins onwards, we can expect to see real policies emerge and some of those won't necessarily follow traditional Tory principles. I understand that we can expect to see the first fruits of this policy process as soon as the autumn. The party in the country and in the House won't always buy them at first opportunity, but Cameron knows that he needs to keep the image going to ensure that all those middle-ground swing voters buy the campaign and bring their lovely, lovely votes across to the Tory Party. The events of the past couple of weeks suggest that this process might not be as smooth as might be expected.
Labels: Cameron, Conservatives
More bad grammar
You have to feel a little sorry for Graham Brady, who discovered his principles and resigned before he was sacked. His former colleague Dominic Grieve was able to change policy on the fly and won the backing of the leadership. I'm sure that is is irrelevant that Dominic hails from Westminster and Oxford, while Graham is a grammar school boy who went to the (slightly) lesser university of Durham. That couldn't explain the differences in their treatment.
Could it?
Labels: Conservatives
I like driving in my car (actually it IS a Jaguar)
Iron Angle picks up on something that Labour missed when it tried to
hang abuse of council property on Whitless. Certainly, he used it to pop to the supermarket up the road from his house and he seems to have been a regular traveller between the Council House and Skeldings, the company he apparently runs. However, the real fun starts when you look at how this new, green Tory uses his council Jaguar - complete with chauffeur - to drive around the city.
Clearly, Mickey can't be expected to walk amongst the plebs. That would be too much for him to bear. It might even be too much for us to bear.
So, he has used the Jag for trips to the BullRing, Alpha Tower, the Radisson, the Hyatt, Snow Hill, Bank and Opus restaurants and to New Street station. The picture below shows you a few of these destinations. To give you an idea of the scale, the picture shows an area about 2500m across. The BullRing and New Street are just off the edge to the bottom right, the Radisson is a little way below the 'T' of Tower, the Hyatt is to the left of Alpha Tower and the Bank Restaurant is a bit further away to the left.
If Whitless comes back and says that the car is quicker, my experience is that walking to all of these destinations from the Council House is going to be shorter and quicker than driving. For example, the walking distance from the Council House to Alpha Tower - cutting through Paradise Circus, is a
quarter of the driving distance, which has to take into account the one-way system. He could walk to New Street or Snow Hill stations and do half the distance it would take a car and that isn't taking into account the inevitable delays caused by traffic jams. Bear in mind that for some of those journeys, the driver would have been sent away after dropping his master off and would then have to make a return trip, so potentially doubling the total driving distance.
As the Tories' own policy group on transport puts itgrowth in motorised transport is associated with a number of environmental and social problems, ranging from climate change and the loss of greenbelt land to health problems such as asthma and obesity
Or as Mike himself responded to the original accusations
my administration is delivering... a cleaner, greener and safer City
So come on Mike, take a stroll through the city you claim to represent. Take a lead in cutting emissions from your car, even if you can't reduce the hot air emitted from your mouth. Or from wherever else you speak. By the way,
the picture here suggests that you could do with the exercise (I'm perfectly well aware that I'm chucking stones from the security of my own greenhouse on this issue). I'm not sure whether it shows a Teletubbie reunion or a poor-quality swingers' convention, but fortunately, BrummieTory enlightens us that it was a post-election party.
On another tack entirely Paul Dale also takes a pop at one of my blogging colleagues, BrummieTory, the attack puppy of the local Tories (think of him as a boisterous Labrador puppy). While Gary comes across as occasionally naive and sometimes downright silly, I will defend him (just as
I defended John Hemming the last time his blog was attacked) on the basis that it is a good thing that young people are interested and involved in politics - even if they are wrong-headed about their ideals. Aside from his politics, my biggest criticism of young Sambrook is that he could do with taking some more care over his spelling and grammar - and another observer notes that he has pinched some of the format of this blog.
Paul picked up on the guests at the mayor-making banquet nicking the flowers from the table and had
the temerity to write about it, something that
Brummie Tory thought was a waste of newsprint. I get the feeling that if it had been about Labour members wandering off with flowers, then BT would have been fulminating about the theft of public property (no doubt aided and abetted by the coterie of tame Tory bloggers who all join in these attacks in the hope of creating a little maelstrom of bad publicity for Labour). Thing is, the Tories always prefer to attack the messenger rather than deal with the issues raised by the message itself. Was it a big story? Nope - which is why it was a paragraph in a weekly diary column rather than a front page splash.
Labels: Birmingham Council, Conservatives, Whitby
Off message
'We've changed,' says The Boy David.
Then he goes on holiday and the other side of the Tory Party crawls out from under a rock.
Sir Anthony Steen, part of the Bufton Tufton tendency, was in a hurry to catch his train to London and, being an important man, he saw nothing wrong in putting his car into a space reserved for disabled drivers. After all, he had only ever seen one car parked in those spaces at Totnes station and he is an important man - a Tory knight of the shires, after all.
So when he gets a ticket for leaving the car there for three days, he responds by demanding that the station stops discriminating against the able-bodied and says that there are too many
'busybodies in this world running around complaining... There are too many whiners and whingers.'
Who says that the modern Tory party is out of touch with reality? The modern Tory party is probably in close touch with their own version of reality, but outside Notting Hill, the rest of the party is firmly locked in 1959.
According to
his Guardian biography, he is a former social worker. I'm sure he must have been a tremendous comfort to his clients.
Labels: Conservatives
Bad grammar
For a while last week, I thought that Cameron had found his Clause IV moment - the point where he proved to the swing voters that he was prepared to stand up against the dinosaurs in his own party.
I'm not sure that this was the right issue. Sure, nobody really believes that a Tory government would introduce hundreds of selective schools - just as nobody really believed that a post-1983 Labour government would start a programme of glorious renationalisation of Thatcher's privatised industries. Like Clause IV, this was a policy more honoured in the breach than in the observance, but it was vaguely reassuring to Tory supporters in the same way that many of them liked knowing that
One Man and his Dog was on telly, but never actually felt the need to watch it. On the other hand, isn't it possible that offering an expansion of grammar schools might actually appeal to the chattering classes and to the upwardly mobile members of the working class, evoking memories of when the grammar school really did offer mobility within class barriers, rather than the middle-class enclaves that they have now become? The other catch with this policy shift is that there are a fair few Tory heartlands with popular grammar school systems and talking down these local schools does not go down well with local voters.
It hasn't been well-handled though and has simply promoted an image of a divided Tory party. This is by no means fatal and if the perception can be controlled, then Cameron may yet come out strengthened in the public's view, but it is looking shaky at the moment. The
resignation of a shadow minister that nobody had ever heard of could have been said to serve the purpose of demonstrating Cameron's resolve, but
the promise by another senior spokesman today that, despite promises of no more grammar schools, areas that currently have them may be allowed to open more has made Cameron look as though he is indecisive on the issue.
That indecision is the problem for Cameron. Standing up to his party or just giving in are positions that are more easily defensible. Trying to tough it out and then rolling over just makes him look weak and if that occurs on other issues still to come to the fore, then he run. Allied with the fact that he's just gone off on holiday, with this row still rumbling on and you have to question the unity at the top of the party. If this is what happens over a policy change that has been in place for over a year, what's going to happen when Cameron faces up to the other policy changes to come?
And then, with trumpets, they hire the former editor of the News of the World - the weekly comic for those obssessed with the sex lives of the famous and the not-so-famous - as their director of communications. Labour had Alistair Campbell and the Tories even manage to find someone with the same initials - Andy Coulson. Andy is available after he had to resign his newspaper job
following a court case involving the royal correspondent, a dodgy private detective and access to the mobile phone messages of senior royals. What a fine choice for the new Tory party.
Labels: Cameron, Conservatives
Conference 08
I can hardly wait!
Yes, in 2008, the Tory Party conference will be coming to Birmingham. It only took £2 million of council taxpayers' cash to fund it. Actually, I'm not that bothered about it - think of it as an investment to bring in the delegates. I'm thinking of opening a Stannah stairlift and Sanatogen concession stand at the conference. I should make a fortune.
Well, I suppose that they had to find a city 'oop north where they weren't completely wiped out. You and I both know that Birmingham isn't really in the north, but as they've appointed
Alan Duncan (MP for Rutland) as their 'shadow cabinet' member for Newcastle and the North East, I think you get the idea of how limited their more northern roots are. Let's face it, the MP who represents one of the most rural seats in the country has so much in common with the Tynesiders.
I wonder if it will be as tightly choreographed as Dave's last outing in Brum, where the audience wasn't quite as racially mixed as Dave's minders thought it should be.
'As community leaders and residents took their seats in the church hall, 'Dave' Cameron's aides appeared to be attempting to mix them up – surely not to give a more integrated look to the politician's audience? One young white woman was asked to swap seats with a middle-aged man of Asian appearance. A slightly bemused-looking member of the audience, well-dressed and possibly a party worker or sympathiser, remarked: "I hate it when they do that – trying to make it look more integrated."
And they accuse Dave of being heavy on the spin, light on the policy. I don't know where they get that idea.
Labels: conference, Conservatives
