Don’t let Gordon be forgotten or forgiven

Posted on May 23, 2011

Radio 4′s Desert Island Discs is a national institution. Since 1942, celebrities and famous figures from Debbie Harry to David Cameron have been nominating their eight music tracks that they would want to ake with them to a desert island.

As part of a new feature, the BBC are looking for people to nominate their eight discs, to produce a show of the nation’s favourite picks.

On the Today Programme this morning, Kirsty Young invited people to run a campaign if they wanted to. So here it is – in the spirit of remembering exactly what Gordon Brown did to our finances and our economy, overinflating an asset bubble, generating a financial crash, selling our gold at a massive loss, running the national debt up to crippling levels and more, let’s all nominate classic ’70s track “Gordon is a Moron” by Jilted John.

All you need to do is click here, type in the song and the artist along with your other favourite songs and you’ll have done your bit to ensure Gordon Brown is never forgotten or forgiven for what he did. Obviously, if you could send this suggestion on to your friends as well that’d be great.

In the meantime, here’s the song itself:

Finally, here’s the link again – go and nominate it now!

Awkward HS2 moments at the water cooler

Posted on May 19, 2011

Today’s PR Week reports that the backers of the HS2 High Speed Rail project have engaged the Westbourne Communications agency to make their case.

What no-one seems to have noticed yet is that this could lead to more than a few awkward moments at the water cooler. Westbourne are based on the top floor of 55 Tufton Street – the second floor of which is home to the TaxPayers’ Alliance, vocal opponents of the HS2 plans. What will happen next time Westbourne want to borrow a cup of milk?

UKUncut support starts to crumble

Posted on March 31, 2011

I said earlier in the week that UKUncut should decry and condemn violence for the good of British politics – now there are signs that their failure to do so is harming their own campaign, too.

Early Day Motion 1146 was tabled back in December by John McDonell to praise UKUncut’s campaigns. So far this week, the EDM has lost 5 of its 27 MP signatories, apparently in reaction to UKUncut’s barefaced refusal to condemn violence on Newsnight the other day. Well done to Gregory Campbell MP, Nigel Dodds MP, Mike Hancock MP, Mark Williams MP and Stephen Williams MP for withdrawing their support.

This is a concrete example of why the trend towards violence and apologism for the violence of others is utterly counter-productive for the Left. UKUncut should ask themselves this: When even Mike Hancock thinks it’s embarassing to be associated with you, are you doing something wrong?

Raponomics

Posted on March 25, 2011

Guido drew attention yesterday to the new Andrew Lansley Rap, a viral hit that is storming its way across the internet thanks to the unexpected marriage of Grime and the politics of NHS reform:

As much as I disagree with its message, it’s a brilliant example of a pretty complex issue being communicated well and amusingly through Youtube. This is the shape of political campaigning to come.

While we’re on the topic, this is the perfect opportunity to plug the best example of a geeky topic being communicated in this way – the John Maynard Keynes vs F.A.Hayek rap battle:

Definitely the quickest and most catchy way to learn all about the economic divide…and worth it just to hear someone rhyme “Austrian perspective” successfully.

Liberal Conspiracy and the confession that wasn’t

Posted on March 15, 2011

Nick Clegg gets enough trouble from the things he does say (remember this?), but now it seems the good burghers of Liberal Conspiracy have started to deliberately misinterpret what he says as well.

The Left’s obsession at the moment is the artificial distinction that the Coalition’s cuts were “ideological” rather than practical. For them, perhaps, ideology is divorced from reality – it would certainly explain a lot about their views – but very few people would hold an ideological view that they didn’t think was practical.

The illogic of their position aside, it is this line of attack that has led to either a misunderstanding or a deliberate deception over at Liberal Conspiracy today. “Nick Clegg admits cuts were a political choice” blares their headline, claiming they have uncovered

Two interesting things here – first the admission that the speed of deficit reduction is a ‘choice’, in contrast to the Government’s usual ‘no alternative’ line.

Second the admission that the cuts were ‘not forced on us by the bond markets’ as in Greece and Ireland.

So what did the Deputy Prime Minister say to apparently blow his supposed cover? Well, in his speech to Lib Dem Spring Conference he announced:

[Cutting the deficit] has meant making difficult choices.

But at least they have been our choices…

Not forced on us by the bond markets as they have been in Greece and Ireland.

And the risks of delay far outweigh the risks of swift action.

The problem is, Liberal Conspiracy’s interpretation of these comments just doesn’t stand up.

Their first charge, that he said the cuts are a “choice”, is a total misinterpretation. Clegg says that cutting the deficit “has meant taking difficult choices” – ie that with deficit reduction being essential, they then had to choose which spending cuts to make. That’s no confession or change of line – it’s a reasonable acknowledgement that picking the specifics of cutting isn’t easy.

Their second charge is equally flimsy. Saying that those choices weren’t “forced on us by the bond markets as they have been in Greece and Ireland” is clearly about the timing of the spending cuts – either they would inevitably have to happen due to the collapsing confidence in Britain’s solvency or, as Clegg says in the previous half of the sentence, they could be the Coalition’s choices taken with greater consideration rather than in a panic.

This is a total dead-end for those who want to oppose the Government’s spending and tax measures. The opinion polls aren’t going to swing based on a theory of the philosophy behind the fiscal direction, they will rest ultimately on whether the measures work – will the pain be worth the gain?

Crime mapping – power to the people

Posted on February 03, 2011

Finally – after years of arguments, promises and u-turns on the part of both Labour and the Conservatives – the Government has introduced crime mapping right across the country at www.police.uk.

Anyone who doubted that there was an interest among the public in finding out what crimes are committed in their neighbourhoods was immediately given a firm slap round the chops by the fact that the site received so much traffic it has at times struggled to deal with it all. At its peak it was getting 18 million hits an hour – a remarkable number.

Obviously, the Guardian chose to lead on the fact it crashed without reflecting on the fact that this proved what huge demand there is out there for this kind of transparency.

I’m personally delighted about crime mapping coming to the UK because it has been a massive hobby horse of mine in recent years. I first wrote about it for the TPA almost 3 years ago and since then I’ve met ministers, spoken at the Police Federation conference, addressed the Association of Chief Police Officers and generally banged the drum for this idea endlessly – not always making myself popular, it must be said.

This is a genuinely exciting reform. For the first time, everyone has the right to know what the real picture is of reported crime in a given area. That helps people moving house, scrutinising police performance and communicating with their MP.

It’s still just the start of the transparency and accountability revolution, though.

Giving people this information is a great start, but there’s plenty more to give. Other police forces are apparently experimenting with ways to provide even more data in greater accuracy and more informative formats. Yvette Cooper has called for full transparency on police numbers, which I can’t see a problem with. Ideally in my view each crime on the map would also be updated when it is either solved and prosecuted or shelved into a cold file. The possibilities are myriad.

Once you’ve given people information, you should also give them the power to do something with it, too. Now people are being given some data about how effective or ineffective their local police are, it is high time they were given the right to elect, scrutinise and – if necessary – sack the people in charge of the force.

The internet makes it possible for us to be given access to all that state data which our public employees compile about all of us in our name and at our expense. The digital revolution, if properly applied, can be a real revolution – handing power from hidden officials in back offices to the people. Crime mapping is an early and crucial step on that road to empowerment.

The Sword and the Shield: how to deliver growth

Posted on January 25, 2011

Bad headlines have a way of colliding at the same time. So it is on the economy this week – first the CBI’s Richard Lambert alleged that the Government don’t have a coherent growth strategy across Whitehall, now the growth (or rather, not growth) figures for the last quarter have come out.

Things may well not be as bad as they seem – indeed, Fraser Nelson has a good post warning the Left against undue glee and the Right against undue gloom as a result of the new economic figures. However in economics as much as politics perception is hugely important and cannot be ignored.

So what to do?

Figures are figures, and they’re rather hard to change. It’s natural that the Government should talk about the impact of the snow, but overdoing that is quite dangerous. Politically it opens the door to stinging rebuttals from the Opposition, in media terms there’s a risk it looks like gimmickry and economically the markets have become bored of numerous companies using this as an excuse for their own poor results announcements in recent weeks.

Nelson’s argument that previous recessions have seen a jittery recovery is much more powerful. It’s based in sound fact and it communicates economic understanding. It’s notable that Ed Balls has chosen a relatively complex argument in criticising the Government today, saying that the shrinkage is due to people reducing spending in advance of cuts due to fear, so Downing Street shouldn’t be scared of using a little bit of economic complexity themselves.

More can be done to address the allegations about a lack of a clear strategy. Understandably there’s confusion – in Whitehall, Westminster and business – about how the roles of the Treasury and BIS divide when it comes to responsibility for encouraging growth.

A clear statement of these responsibilities would be a good start, identifying the Treasury and BIS as the sword and the shield of economic growth.

The Treasury holds the purse strings, so it has the most pro-active role – the sword.

It should set promoting growth as a priority, to be implemented by lowering taxes (or, depending on your ideological and economic bent, spending wildly). As a direct result, consumers, investors and businesses should find more money in their pockets.

BIS should be the shield, acting as a guardian of business around the cabinet table – monitoring the activities of other departments to make sure they aren’t introducing regulation that hobbles enterprise, weighing in against anti-growth policies from other arms of government and pursuing an aggressive purge of the bad regulation that it currently oversees.

If both Departments are simply given a blurred role of sharing the aim of delivering growth then at best they will duplicate activity and trip over each other, or at worst neither will do the job and they’ll end up blaming each other. Dividing responsibilites and encouraging specialisms is the best and clearest way to get the job done.

Will the new NUS President fail the fire extinguisher test?

Posted on January 12, 2011

The politics of the Far Left is like a lava lamp – pointless, out of date, but still fascinating to watch. The arrival of a Government which is starting to do something (though only starting) about the huge deficit problem has flicked the switch, and the Left is bubbling away again in the most interesting way.

At the minute, pressure seems to be building for a leftist coup within the NUS – to throw out current President Aaron Porter and replace him with someone even worse. For those of us in the real world, who have long despaired at the absurdity and insanity of NUS politics, it is easy to forget that in the eyes of the loony Left, Porter and other recent so-called student leaders are “right wing”. (Check out this interesting piece at Left Futures for a bit of an insight.)

The SWP and the usual nutjobs have played quite a clever game – by accident or design. By turning the student protests from mass lobbies of Parliament into violent riots, they first brought Porter under pressure from the mainstream media and wider, law-abiding society.

Now, they are demanding that he back their extremism by supporting further protests, or be sacked.  For reasons that are obvious to any sane and civilised person, Porter is loathe to lend his or the NUS’s institutional backing to protests that – on previous form – are likely to descend into riots.

That’s the right – indeed, the only – decision. However, it may well cost him his job.

The intriguing question will be who will take over, and who they will be representing. This wouldn’t be a move from a representative, mainstream NUS to a loony lefty one. It is already an unrepresentative, loony, lefty body – the question is whether it is about to become a lot more loony – and a lot more violent.

You could call this the fire extinguisher test: for all his other, manifold sins, Porter thinks that it was wrong and criminal for Edward Woollard to throw that fire extinguisher off the top of Millbank. If the hard Left take over, Porter’s successor could well be someone who thinks Woollard was a hero and that more people should behave in the same way. If that happens, it won’t be pretty.

“America should bail out the Euro”, say europhiles

Posted on January 06, 2011

In 1972, German Chancellor Willi Brandt announced a gesture of thanks from the German people to the USA for the Marshall Plan reconstruction funds provided over the previous 25 years. He gave 150 million Deutschmarks to establish the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a think tank and grant-giving body to encourage discussion and understanding between Europe and the US.

The tone of the Fund was set from its birth – in effect, Brandt was giving the US bak some of their own money to be used on his terms. Since then it’s been a voice for Eurofederalism for the last 38 years.

Now, though, the German Marshall Fund has perhaps pushed things too far.They are too smart to pretend that the Euro is safe and solid, and their proposed solution is that the USA should bail the single currency out.

If German taxpayers are furious about bailing out Ireland and Greece, can you imagine how their American equivalents would respond to the idea of bailing out this failed project? It will go down like a lead balloon.

The Americans are getting a taste of a classic EU approach: they will take your money hand over fist, sweeten you up with a generous “gift” of a slice of your own cash, and only later will you find out that this money has in fact been given to try to get more cash out of you. I somehow doubt they will put up with as patiently (and foolishly) as we have.

Rowan Williams: Polly Toynbee in a dog collar

Posted on December 26, 2010

Predictable as the post-Christmas sales, I see the leader of one of the country’s mist left-wing institutions has been criticising the spending cuts again.

I’m not talking about Brendan Barbour of the TUC, Mark Thompson of the BBC or even Bob Crow at the RMT. No, it’s our old friend Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

Of course, it’s part of the Archbishop’s job to have opinions. An Archbishop who didn’t preach wouldn’t be doing his job. Many would argue that he should stick to matters spiritual, though – not least because his inconsistency and hypocrisy on political issues is in danger of invalidating the religious message he is meant to be broadcasting.

Let’s look at his Christmas message. He has attacked the Government for implementing cuts that could in his view hurt the poor – but where was he when pensioners were freezing to death thanks to the burden of green taxes, when soaring council tax was driving people to the wall or when people were losing their jobs thanks to excessive business regulation?

His Christmas message also criticised the rich for not having borne sufficient “burden”. This is jawdropping coming from a man who lives in a taxpayer-subsidised palace – as do many of his Bishops. By laying into “the rich” whilst living in luxury they are increasingly coming to resemble the hypocritical Catholic church that they split from.

If they really feel so strongly, they should sell their palaces, Old Masters, silver and gold and distribute the proceeds to the needy. Then – and only then – they would have a right to preach to others about what they should do with their own money. Without that, Williams is little better than any other champagne socialist – Polly Toynbee in a dog collar. 

The real shame here is that Williams’ rhetoric is detracting from the truly charitable and Christian work done by many others in his church. He could do more to help the poor by emulating the lives led by many of his junior clergy and flock. They deserve better than to be led by someone who blunders into politics in such a cack-handed way.