Smashed out of sight!

The Greens, Lib Dims and Labour decided to merge their campaigns and support the Labour candidate for the by-election in Trench Ward, Tonbridge.  Fat lot of good it did them as the Tory romped home with  61% of the vote.  Labour secured 21% and UKIP 18%.

What price the 'progressive alliance'?

http://votingandboating.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/winning-elections-isnt-difficult-its.html?spref=fb

Post 2015 General Election

Remember the aftermath of the 2010 general election? Like the whore of old the Liberal Democrats jumped into bed with the highest bidder.  In the process election promises were thrown out of the window.

With a hung parliament the most likely outcome of the 2015 election it is likely there will be more horse-trading, only this time not only will the Lib Dems be involved but also the Scottish Nationalists, UKIP and a few other minor parties. The interests of the political parties will be paramount.  The electorate will have no say in the matter. The political parties should inform us before the election of their intentions in the event of a hung parliament, who will cosy up to whom, which policies will be abandoned?  Fat chance of it happening.

It will be the local elections soon.

The political parties will have decided whom their candidates are for the forthcoming local elections. From now until the elections in May we can expect a steady drip of political literature through our letter boxes, unless we live in a 'safe' seat in which case it is likely nothing will be delivered until April which is election address time.

It disappoints me that people vote at local elections for parties rather than individuals and that is why I applaud individuals prepared to stand as independents.  Sadly, national politics rather than local issues determine overwhelmingly voting behaviour in local elections.

The election in the Borough of Tunbridge Wells should be interesting as there are a number of marginal seats.

Southborough & High Brooms is being defended by the Conservatives.  Has 2 Conservative and 1 Labour councillor.  This is a seat Labour might have been expected to win had it not been for a stunning Conservative gain last year in a by-election for Southborough Town Council.  Local factors may well play a part, as there is vigorous opposition to plans to develop land and build a supermarket.

St John's has 2 Conservative and 1 Liberal Democrat councillor.  The seat is being defended by the Conservatives, who won a seat from the Liberal Democrats last year.

Pembury also has 2 Conservatives and 1 Liberal Democrat councillor.   The seat is being defended by the Conservatives who had a good result last May which made up for an earlier defeat to the Liberal Democrats in a by-election.

Broadwater is being defended by the Conservatives.  The other councillor for the ward, a Liberal Democrat, died recently and it is possible that a by-election could be held, although one would hope that a by-election is not called and that both seats are contested in May.

Benenden & Cranbrook has 2 Conservative and 1 Liberal Democrat councillor.  Should be a Conservative hold in May.

Rusthall. UKIP won a seat from the Conservatives last May.  This year the defending Conservative councillor is also Leader of the Council.  The Liberal Democrats have held Rusthall in the past, so it will be an interesting three-way contest.

Silly Six

According to the English Passport blog I am one of the 'Silly Six'.  Yes, we do encourage as many people as possible to visit the blog - after all people enjoy a good laugh, escapism  and knockabout from a blog which, although it has pretensions to seriousness, is harmful to the cause of English nationalism.

For a much better standard visit:

http://www.wonkosworld.co.uk/wordpress/

http://morleypatriot.blogspot.com/2011/12/english-democrats-beat-ukip-and-greens.html

http://toque.co.uk/

http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/



IPPR Report delivers body blow to English Democrats.

An interesting report on attitudes to 'Englishness' and an English parliament.

http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2012/01/dog-that-finally-barked_englishness_Jan2012_8542.pdf

At page 34 of the PDF is the following:

Even more significant was the response to a question that asked respondents which political party in their view ‘best stands up for the inter ests of England’. As is made clear in table 6.2, a (narrow) plurality supported the view that no party does this.

To the extent that one agrees that ‘English interests’ require championing, it is hard to dissemble from the view that they are not sufficiently well represented in the current political system. Unlike Scotland and Wales, there is no significant political party promoting England as a locus and focus of political life. That the tiny English Democrats are currently absorbing members from a disintegrating British National Party makes clear that they will not plug that particular gap. 12 UKIP’s recent conversion to the cause of an

12 For example, two very prominent former BNP activists – Chris Beverley and Eddy Butler – ar e now members of the English Democrats, the latter following an unsuccessful leadership bid against the BNP’ s Nick Griffin in 2010. Despite their membership of the English Democrats, Beverley and Butler continue to work for BNP MEP , Andrew Brons. See http://andrewbrons.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71&Itemid=120 (accessed 5 January 2012)

English parliament suggests they hope to broaden their appeal in England, but they can draw little encouragement from table 6.2.

Party
British National Party	4
Conservatives	20
English Democrats	2
Green Party	2
Labour	21
Liberal Democrats	4
UK Independence Party	9
‘I do not think that any party stands up for the inter ests of England’	23
Don’t know	15
N

The full report is well worth a read.

See also: http://www.ippr.org/publications/55/8542/the-dog-that-finally-barked-england-as-an-emerging-political-community

Hague and Sarkozy

Two upbeat articles, one from the Daily Telegraph emphasising William Hague's eurosceptic credentials and his determination to counter the europhile Foreign Office and other Whitehall mandarins.

The second article from Spiegel considers the standing of the main candidates for the next French presidential elections.  Clearly supportive of Sarkozy and critical of his Socialist opponent Hollande.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100125337/william-hague-has-the-frites-fraternity%e2%80%99-on-the-run-across-whitehall/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,804595,00.html

Political Parties in England: Leagues

Based on election results and membership this is my ranking:

Premier Division:
Conservative Party
Labour Party

Championship:
Liberal Democrats

Division One:
Green Party
United Kingdom Independence Party

Division Two:
British National Party

Conference:
English Democrats
Communist party
Respect
The Liberal Party
Social Democratic Party

My party right or wrong

David Davis MP, a former  minister and challenger for the leadership of the Conservative Party said on Radio Four recently that Members of Parliament should put country first, constituency second and party third.

Translate that to local government  and it would read: put town first, interests of your ward second and party third.

Sentiments with which I concur.  Sadly though, all political parties have members, councillors and MPs who put party first, second and third. The whip system, together with the desire for self-preservation  and finding favour with the dreaded selection committee, results in some of our elected representatives toeing the party line no matter how disastrous that line is for the welfare of the people they represent.

Whilst one may legitimately expect a councillor or MP to follow the party line on most issues, there are times when MPs and councillors should exercise independent judgement when they deem it appropriate to do so.  Demanding blind obedience requires people to act as zombies.  Within political parties it is sometimes the case that the dissident or maverick has reached the correct conclusion on an issue. 

Backbench councillors and MPs should not be treated as voting fodder.

The death of Welfare UK?

Towards and just after the end of the Second World War great changes were wrought to our society through the Education Act 1944 and the establishment by the post war Labour government of the National Health Service. The Labour government implemented the Beveridge proposals for national insurance.  In theory, the state provided a financial safety-net from the cradle to the grave.  Beveridge considered his proposals would advance the cause of social justice and that governments would follow economic and fiscal  policies to achieve full employment which he defined as no more than 3% of the population being unemployed.

Such was the vision and hope for the post war social settlement. 

Welfare UK, as I dub the post war social settlement,  has been  lurching along the track for years and the riots of the past few days could be  the catch-points which hurl the whole rotten lot off the line and smash it to pieces.

Respect and deference to authority, in whatever form, began to collapse in the early 1960s and has continued relentlessly since.  The heady release from moral, ethical, social and legal restrictions those of us born in the immediate post-war period luxuriated in has been passed on to our children and thence to our grandchildren.  Alongside this has been the development of the concept that people have rights, but scant regard to the existence of duties.  We have seen a boom in consumer expenditure.

Since 1945  there has been an acceleration in immigration, increasing ethic tension,  insistence on multi-culturalism and the zealous application of political correctness.   It might just have been possible to keep Welfare UK on the rails but for the advent of new technologies, loss of manual jobs and periodic economic recession.  The Beveridge vision of social justice has sunk without trace and we have incubated, hatched and seen grow a section of the population in low incomes jobs or benefits, with no educational qualifications, in poor health and in poor housing.  Successive governments have connived at supporting the welfare dependency culture.  Little effort or resource has been put in to tackling the causes of disadvantage, indeed  some policies have encouraged dependency. What we have seen is vast sums expended on maintaining the status quo.

I have spent many years working in areas of deprivation and have met many good people who have been overwhelmed by the system.  Poor schools, poor health, poor physical environment, threatening neighbourhoods, low income.  What has surprised me is that the explosion has taken so long to happen as indicators that it could have been around for a long time.

No-one should seek to condone the outbreaks of violence and looting of recent days, but we do  need to understand  and counter the deep-rooted causes of the problems.  The problems demand attention and would have even if the opportunistic criminality of the last few days had not occurred.  What has happened is that the issues have shot up the political agenda.

Governments of all political persuasions are to blame for the failure to address the myriad causes of deprivation and it will be interesting to see if the parties retreat into their outmoded and useless mindsets or come up with radical proposals for change. In this context the following link is to an interesting article:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100100666/uk-riots-left-and-right-look-for-simple-answers-to-a-complex-problem/

In the narrow fields of community development and community engagement I argued last week that policies had failed in particular the people they are aimed at.  The problems to be overcome are multi-faceted.  We need to strike a balance between the welfare model of the past and a purely utilitarian approach.  There has to be a period of transition.  The problems we have created over the last 65 years will take a long time to overcome.  We must avoid knee-jerk solutions,  otherwise the events of the past few days will seem minor when the outpouring of anger at social injustice erupts.

The current lawlesness have been sporadic and opportunistic, but people are learning how to organise.  Next time it will be volcanic.  The post war settlement has broken down irretrievably, not through the fault  of the poor, but as a consequence of the abject failure of the political  and administrative elites: not only have they failed to tackle problems, they have exacerbated them.

Since I wrote this article I have come across the following which may be of interest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8693544/Our-political-leaders-seem-to-be-paralysed-by-crises.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8693521/Liberal-certainties-tested-to-destruction.html

Redefining the political map

I have been inactive in party politics since the day Tony Blair gained the support of the House of Commons for the ill-conceived war in Iraq.  Nevertheless I have maintained an interest in the machinations of the political parties.

Recently the activities of the 'Right' have come under my scrutiny. Unsurprisingly the small parties of the Right are as busy as the small parties of the 'Left' engaging in turf wars and internecine strife. 

On the Right the only parties of any significance in an English context are the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), the English Democrats (ED) and the British National Party (BNP).

The BNP is a spent force, heavily in debt, hemorrhaging members and losing seats.  Some of its members have joined the ED, not to the universal acclaim of ED members. 

The key policies of the EDs are withdrawal from the European Union and the establishment of an English Parliament within a federal  United Kingdom.   The ED claims not to be a party of the Right, but the pre-occupation with immigration and the 'threat of Islam'  voiced by party members on social networking sites certainly gives the party a 'tinge' which makes it an attractive proposition to disaffected BNP members. Some ED members are heavily involved with the English Defence League (EDL) which is a direct action pressure group rather than a political party.  The EDL is matched on the Left by United Against Fascism (UAF).

The ED is quite excited by the recent statement by the leader of UKIP that he favours an English parliament within a federal UK.  See: http://www.indhome.com/2011/07/farage-calls-english-parliament/  This is a shift from the UKIP policy that English matters should be considered only by English MPs within the Westminster Parliament.  Should the leader's comments become official policy it may result in some ED members joining UKIP.

Within UKIP there is a strand of opinion which emphasises that the party is libertarian, by which it means a party of small government. Is this a Tea Party manifestation?  UKIP has managed to avoid being tinged with racist overtones (but not entirely) so will be attractive to some ED members worried about the growing ex- BNP influence within the ED. 

One could argue, fascinating though all this may be to a political anorak, it is of no interest given the poor electoral performance of the parties at the last General Election. I am not so sure.  The major political event in the next few months will be the future of the eurozone.  Decisions will be taken which inevitably will lead to some form of fiscal and political union. The key issue in the UK is its future relationship with the EU.  The three main political parties are all to varying degrees pro-EU.   A strong anti-EU party could do well at the next general election.

Surfing along: political parties

One of the joys of the Internet is the freedom it gives to study the views of political parties/ pressure groups and their members.

It is fascinating to a political anorak such as myself to explore the machinations of the minor parties of right and left.  Both left and right spend more time attacking organisations on their wing than attacking the opposing wing, or challenging the major parties.  In this regard nothing has changed over the years.  What has changed is the weaponry used to mount attacks.  Websites, fora and blogs have replaced the pamphlet.

The small parties of left and right engage in bitter internecine arguments of little interest to the vast majority of the population.  A flavour of the disputation may be found by following this link:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/142531385797995

Miliband is a loser.

The Labour Party's arcane electoral system saddled them with a leader who was not the choice of Labour MPs, nor of the of the individual members.  He was elected by the trade union constituency.

Last Thursday was a bad day for Labour.  Divided over the Alternative Vote, Ed became the cheerleader for the 'Yes' campaign. His name will for ever be associated with the disastrous Yes campaign.  Quite why Labour jumped on the AV bandwagon is a mystery.  Perhaps he hoped AV would result in a permanent 'progressive' (whatever that means) majority in the House of Commons.  What he forget, and Labour must remember, is that the majority of citizens in the United Kingdom are conservative in their attitudes.  This has been recognised by Jon Cruddas who has the ear of Ed Miliband.  Labour became disconnected from its core vote which is conservative as distinct from progressive. Labour had thirteen years to change the electoral system but failed to do so. The Miliband stance on AV was pure opportunism and it failed.

Labour's decimation in the Scottish Parliament elections has resulted in what most commentators believed could not happen under the electoral system in Scotland - an overall majority for the Scottish National Party. Already the SNP is talking about greater powers being devolved to the Scottish Parliament and there will be a referendum on independence within the next three years.  It would be wrong to assume that the SNP will lose the referendum.

Labour's showing at the local election was poor. Seats lost in 2003 were not regained.

The Tories must be pinching themselves at Labour's poor showing and the rout of the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps Ed Miliband was hoping that that the Liberal Democrats would leave the Coalition and join with the Labour Party and eventually force an early general election.  Such a strategy will fail for two reasons.

First, the Liberal Democrats are are an uneasy coalition of 'Orange Book' ideas which can be traced back to the Liberal Party and ideas of democratic socialism which can be traced back to the Social Democratic Party.  The SDP was formed by disillusioned Labour MPs when the Labour Party was in the grips of Militant. Whilst it is likely the majority of Liberal Democrats would feel at home in the current Labour Party, a significant number would not. For the Liberal Democrats to throw their lot in with Labour runs the risk of splitting the party even more so than the current Coalition arrangements.

Secondly, there is the issue of support. The recent local elections resulted in Labour hammering the Liberal Democrats in northern local authorities - areas in which the Liberal Democrats have destroyed the Conservative Party and are the only real opposition to Labour.  Therefore it was likely they would take a hammering over Coalition policies.

Over  large swathes of  the South the Liberal Democrats have destroyed the Labour Party and therefore the only real choice the electorate had was between the two Coalition parties.

Where the Conservatives did not do well was in those areas where the main opponents were Labour and Conservative.

The Liberal Democrats cannot risk withdrawing from the Coalition and forcing an early general election. Labour will take Liberal Democrat seats in the north and Conservatives likewise in the south.

For Ed Miliband the risk of an early general election is that he will lose heavily in Scotland and be unable to gain seats in the rest of the UK to compensate.

Interesting times: must renew my political activity!

I retired from active party politics when this country went to war in Iraq.

Since then I have surveyed the party political scene with disinterest. I quickly came to the conclusion that the Labour Party's remedy for dealing with an issue, namely throw money at it, centralise decision making and micro-manage didn't work. Engaged as I am with people who make up the poor end of the socio-economic spectrum it was clear to me that health, education, benefits, housing, community empowerment and a host of other topics were not being tackled to achieve long-term improvement in the lives of disadvantaged people.

Casting round, I came to the conclusion that a radical overhaul was needed in all these areas. I was drawn to the work of the Centre for Social Justice and its range of policies which offered hope for a break with the past and failed policies. My MP had published a pamphlet on the role of the voluntary sector which I thought was eminently sensible.

I have been opposed to the concept of a united Europe for many years and viewed the failure to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as an appalling breach of an election pledge by the Labour government. A growing awareness of the intrinsic unfairness of devolution arrangements and failure to address the West Lothian Question has seen the growth of far right organisations like the English Defence League fuelled by the Labour Party's failure to recognise, until far too late, the problems caused by mass immigration and the policy of multi-culturism. Chickens are coming home to roost: with a vengeance.

Locally we have a junta in the Town Hall which seems intent on attracting the wrath and displeasure of the citizenry as it pursues deeply unpopular policies.

My problem is that I find it difficult to decide which political party to throw my lot in with if I am to be politically active.

Would you trust Clegg on anything?

In the first televised leaders’ debate, Mr Clegg said: “There are MPs who flipped one property to the next, buying property, paid by you, the taxpayer, and then they would do the properties up, paid for by you, and pocket the difference in personal profit.’’

He was referring of course to Conservative and Labour MPs. His own MPs were squeaky clean and hadn't done such terrible deeds. Indeed, Clegg's pitch was that the 'old' parties were riddled with sleaze in contrast to the clean upstanding behaviour of Lib Dem MPs.

Then we had the David Laws revelations and now we have revealed to us the activities of Mr Alexander which, if the Daily Telegraph story is correct, are some of the actions Mr Clegg spoke so disparagingly of in the television debate. People in glasshouses are well advised not to throw stones. What is Clegg going to do now? Having slagged off Labour and Tory MPs is he going to make an exception for Danny boy? And, what is Cameron going to do?

The expenses sleaze stench has been carried into the new House of Commons and it is ironic that it is emanating from the Liberal Democrats who made great play at the general election of their virtuousness, integrity, honesty and transparency.

David Laws Resignation

It is sad that David Laws has resigned as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but probably it was inevitable. There are MPs in the current Parliament (Hazel Blears for starters) who have benefited financially far more from the deficient expenses system.

It is regrettable that Nick Clegg has remained silent for the last 24 hours. No statement of support. But of course it is what we should have expected. The whole Liberal Democrat election was run on a lie: that the Lib Dems were squeaky clean on the expenses issue. Now we know they are not: indeed one former Lib Dem MP, David Holmes, lost Chesterfield to Labour and had been embroiled in an expenses issue. Clegg attempted to gloss over that: wrongly claiming the MPs involved had volunteered the information - but it was only after the Daily Telegraph had identified them.

David Laws has paid the price for the stance the Liberal Democrats took at the election.

David Laws: further reflection

Last night I stated on this blog that I hoped David Laws would not be hounded out of office. Nothing I have read since has changed my opinion.

There is no suggestion that Laws was seeking to, or did gain any personal financial advantage from his actions, nor I assume did his partner as the rent charged seems to be at the going rate. This marks out this case from most of the other examples of grubby expenses wrongdoing which were about financial self-interest.

The motive behind Laws' actions was to protect himself and his partner from the nature of their relationship and sexuality becoming public knowledge.

It is likely that what has happened has not damaged the public purse and it is public funds which the rules are there to protect. For this reason I hope Laws stays in post.

The argument being put forward by Laws that he was not in a partnership looks tenuous. He had lived with his partner since 2001 and extended the mortgage on his house to help his partner acquire a new property. Attempts to distance the relationship from being a partnership run the risk of suggesting it was simply a sordid sex relationship.

The problem for Laws is that the Labour Party will make political capital from this if he stays in post. His stature in the Commons will be diminished as will the standing of the coalition parties.

The debate will focus on the cant and hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats who took the moral high ground at the general election characterizing the 'old' parties as riddled with sleaze. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. The Laws issue will haunt the Lib Dems and Clegg is particular.

David Laws: a real shock!

Earlier this evening I was adding items to my Facebook page about David Laws, Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The articles referred to his excellent performance in the House of Commons, his intellectual qualities and mastery of his brief.

Then all hell broke loose on the Internet as the Daily Telegraph published an article about Laws stating he had paid £40,000 of public money to his partner for accommodation. Laws response is that he will pay the money back. However his argument that his partner really isn't his partner within the expenses rules are those of a man squirming on a hook.

However it is important to note that there is no evidence that David Laws paid anything other than the market rate for the accommodation. The reason he gives for not taking action earlier to repay the money is that he wanted to protect his privacy concerning his sexuality. Unfortunately in so doing incomplete information was given by Laws to the Commons staff dealing with expenses.

It is unfortunate to put it mildly that one of the star performers of the new government has been caught up in the expenses quagmire. The quandary facing Clegg and Cameron is what to do next. Clegg fought the election on the grounds that the Liberal Democrats were squeaky clean on the expenses issue. Cameron sacked MPs for what might be considered piffling indiscretions when set against what Laws has done.

Difficult decisions. My view is that Laws should not have allowed himself to get into this position but, given the overall circumstances, he should NOT be hounded out. Whether his parliamentary colleagues, the press or public opinion will be as generous we shall see.

Staring into the abyss

For the past three months I have been posting articles on my Facebook page about the deteriorating economic position in Europe.

Now Italy's government has agreed an austerity package. The trade unions have called a general strike. The spectres of economic and social upheaval hover over Europe.

Leave to one side for a moment the massive unemployment, poverty and misery that economic depression will bring: the problems of either deflation or rampant inflation. Or maybe stagflation?

Instead, focus on the dangers of political turmoil. Whether one is pro or anti -European Union is not the point. The issue is that the EU and the eurozone is the creation of political elites: not the will of the electorates of the countries. Whenever populations have voted against proposals for greater integration the democratically expressed view has been ignored by the Brussels bureaucracy. Soon, maybe very soon, it will be pay back time.

We live in dangerous times: political, social and economic unrest combined will be toxic, we will be in uncharted waters. Have the lessons of the 1920s and 30s been understood?

Add to all this worries about money supply in the USA which compounds the problems. A weak USA economy will not ride to Europe's rescue.

Bonkers

According to PoliticsHome, click here for details, Diane Abbott is the public's choice to be the next leader of the Labour Party. Bonkers.

British politics is becoming a branch of show business.

U Turn

So David Cameron has backed off from his attack on the Tory backbencher 1922 Committee if press reports are to believed. Must be one of the earliest U turns ever made by a Prime Minister.