He may have left active politics many years ago, but Michael Foot, who has left the stage at the age of 96, was still seen regularly at Home Park, supporting Plymouth Argyle, but never lived to see his team reach the Premiership. Foot, who was better read but far less ruthless than many of his contemporaries, became a victim of the media obsession with style over substance, something that Pa Broon, his latest successor as Labour leader, still has to suffer.
Tabloid editors who mocked Foot in the early 1980s never stopped to think for a moment that the man they ridiculed had been doing their job in his twenties: Foot took charge at the Evening Standard back in 1942. Moreover, he was prescient enough to develop an early loathing for Rupert Murdoch.
But his winning the Labour leadership in 1980, at the age of 67, and taking charge of a party that had become more and more fractious, was a poisoned chalice. The Murdoch press were cheerleading for Margaret Thatcher, Labour was split by the defection of several of its MPs to the newly formed Social Democratic Party (SDP), and in the aftermath of the Falklands Campaign, Labour were routed in a landslide in the 1983 General Election.
The election campaign was frequently punctuated by ageist attacks on Foot, although the Murdoch Sun, under the less than savoury direction of Kelvin McFilth, was always ready to fawn over then US President Ronald Reagan, who was older. The Sun had previously been in the style police vanguard when Foot had worn an overcoat to a Remembrance Day parade, which was promptly denounced as a “donkey jacket” (it wasn’t, but when did facts matter to Rupe’s troops?).
The style was set for every following General Election: Margaret Thatcher was promoted as more photogenic than Neil Kinnock, John Major – actually a surprisingly vain man – was similarly supported. Then for Labour, Tony Blair’s smile outshone a succession of allegedly less stylish Tories. Now we are fed the idea that Young Dave, especially in suitably airbrushed form, is the future.
And that’s not good enough. But a look at the leadership of Michael Foot tells us much about the superficiality of modern politics. There was no politician of greater substance and depth of intellect, but with too much of the media this counted for nothing.
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Smelling The Coffee In Belize – 3
For someone who gives the impression that he is media friendly, Young Dave is being strangely reticent when quizzed on the subject of Michael Ashcroft – something that has happened a lot this week, and is not about to go away. Sad to say, the Tory leadership appears not to get it. They might just do, and sooner than they think.
The admission forced out of Ashcroft on Monday, which I mentioned at the time, came because a Freedom Of Information (FoI) request was about to be answered. Given the “assurances” provided by Ashcroft to then Tory leader William ‘Ague, more questions have been raised, generally on the subject of what Master ‘Ague knew, and when he knew it, about Ashcroft not being “resident and domiciled” – with the tax benefit I touched on yesterday.
The Guardian has been asking a short list of questions of the Tory leadership, and will no doubt continue to ask, despite the stonewalling from the party. And it’s not just one paper: this week’s issue of Private Eye (number 1257, page 29) has a piece by “Slicker” which carries the suggestion that the Eye will be bringing the matter back to the table.
And, with the General Election maybe just nine weeks away, there will be the inevitable avalanche of FoI requests. So do the Tories not understand that having information forced out of them drip by incriminating drip in the run up to a poll that they are clearly desperate to win might just put the electorate off delivering that “Vote For Change” they crave? Or do they think they can bluff their way out of this corner and put off the requests until after they get into Number 10?
The best course of action appears to be this: come clean, answer all the questions, allow the media frenzy to run its course, and hope that it all gets forgotten two of three weeks down the line. And that Pa Broon sticks to an early May General Election.
Or are the Tories not such jolly clever chaps after all?
The admission forced out of Ashcroft on Monday, which I mentioned at the time, came because a Freedom Of Information (FoI) request was about to be answered. Given the “assurances” provided by Ashcroft to then Tory leader William ‘Ague, more questions have been raised, generally on the subject of what Master ‘Ague knew, and when he knew it, about Ashcroft not being “resident and domiciled” – with the tax benefit I touched on yesterday.
The Guardian has been asking a short list of questions of the Tory leadership, and will no doubt continue to ask, despite the stonewalling from the party. And it’s not just one paper: this week’s issue of Private Eye (number 1257, page 29) has a piece by “Slicker” which carries the suggestion that the Eye will be bringing the matter back to the table.
And, with the General Election maybe just nine weeks away, there will be the inevitable avalanche of FoI requests. So do the Tories not understand that having information forced out of them drip by incriminating drip in the run up to a poll that they are clearly desperate to win might just put the electorate off delivering that “Vote For Change” they crave? Or do they think they can bluff their way out of this corner and put off the requests until after they get into Number 10?
The best course of action appears to be this: come clean, answer all the questions, allow the media frenzy to run its course, and hope that it all gets forgotten two of three weeks down the line. And that Pa Broon sticks to an early May General Election.
Or are the Tories not such jolly clever chaps after all?
After The Quake
Far more severe in magnitude than the Haitian earthquake has been that in Chile last week: this measured 8.8 on the Richter scale, which is very, very bad. Fortunately, the country’s building codes had been drawn up with such events in mind, so the wholesale devastation and loss of life seen in Haiti was not repeated. And Chile is a more advanced and prosperous society.
Fast forward a few days, and the awarding of credit for Chile’s advancement has been made by Rupe’s Wall Street Journal, in the person of hack Bret Stephens, to two men who deserve very little of it: economics quack doctor Milton Friedman, and unapologetic dictator Augusto Pinochet.
Fortunately, Jason Linkins at the HuffPo has assembled and summarised the inconvenient facts, and Friedman is shown in a particularly bad light: his suggested reforms in the mid 70s led to a banking collapse in 1982, unemployment rose as high as 30%, and Pinochet then ended up nationalising banks and industries, together with embarking on a huge job creation plan.
Moreover, the twin engines of Chilean growth, copper and agribusiness, can trace their success back to the intervention of Salvador Allende, deposed in 1973 in the CIA-backed coup which brought Pinochet to power. Allende had nationalised the copper mines – and they have stayed in public hands – and reformed agriculture, this latter not substantially reversed by his successor.
And those building codes, that kept so many structures intact? These date from 1972 – the time of Allende – and were revised in 1993, three years after Pinochet left the stage.
And they have nothing at all to do with Milton Friedman.
Fast forward a few days, and the awarding of credit for Chile’s advancement has been made by Rupe’s Wall Street Journal, in the person of hack Bret Stephens, to two men who deserve very little of it: economics quack doctor Milton Friedman, and unapologetic dictator Augusto Pinochet.
Fortunately, Jason Linkins at the HuffPo has assembled and summarised the inconvenient facts, and Friedman is shown in a particularly bad light: his suggested reforms in the mid 70s led to a banking collapse in 1982, unemployment rose as high as 30%, and Pinochet then ended up nationalising banks and industries, together with embarking on a huge job creation plan.
Moreover, the twin engines of Chilean growth, copper and agribusiness, can trace their success back to the intervention of Salvador Allende, deposed in 1973 in the CIA-backed coup which brought Pinochet to power. Allende had nationalised the copper mines – and they have stayed in public hands – and reformed agriculture, this latter not substantially reversed by his successor.
And those building codes, that kept so many structures intact? These date from 1972 – the time of Allende – and were revised in 1993, three years after Pinochet left the stage.
And they have nothing at all to do with Milton Friedman.
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
Smelling The Coffee In Belize – 2
Sadly, it is not a mark of distinction nowadays for a story to go from the serious to the farcical in less than a day. So the Tory Party’s attempt to take the heat off themselves and Michael Ashcroft by tabling a Freedom Of Information request about Labour “non dom” donor Lord Paul is as predictable as it is irrelevant.
The Tory beef is over Paul’s funding of Pa Broon’s leadership campaign, with suggestions being made that this funding “influenced ministers”. But Brown, as any fule kno, was elected unopposed, so there was nothing to influence. And it is significant that the story is being run by Rupe’s troops at Sky News (“first for breaking wind”).
However, despite Tory cheerleaders across the media and blogosphere trying to equate the Ashcroft row with Labour donors like Lord Paul – or to try and howl down the news as an alleged “non story” – the questions continue to be asked, and the numbers keep mounting up.
First and largest of the numbers concerns Ashcroft’s potential liability for UK tax, had he been “resident and domiciled” from the time he was awarded a peerage. An eye watering amount of 127 million quid has been pitched, and as yet the Tories have not successfully fielded it. Yes, other parties’ “non doms” could also have paid UK tax, but Ashcroft gave the impression that he would become a “permanent resident”, which implies “resident and domiciled”. The Labour donors haven’t.
Moreover, the Tory cheerleaders excusing Ashcroft by telling how little he has supposedly given to the party over the years have managed to forget the Ashcroft largesse when it comes to party use of his private jet aircraft: Young Dave has been a beneficiary, although not to the extent of William ‘Ague, who has clocked up tens of thousands of miles in the care of Bermuda registered Flying Lion, providers of a Dassault Falcon 900 (with deep pile carpet as standard).
Thus far, no updated numbers for Air Ashcroft have been put forward. But they will be. Of course, Young Dave could drop this particular pilot – but he won’t. The Tories need Ashcroft to keep providing – money, aircraft, whatever – and Cameron is as stuck with Michael Ashcroft as he is with Andy Coulson and the Murdoch clan.
The Tory beef is over Paul’s funding of Pa Broon’s leadership campaign, with suggestions being made that this funding “influenced ministers”. But Brown, as any fule kno, was elected unopposed, so there was nothing to influence. And it is significant that the story is being run by Rupe’s troops at Sky News (“first for breaking wind”).
However, despite Tory cheerleaders across the media and blogosphere trying to equate the Ashcroft row with Labour donors like Lord Paul – or to try and howl down the news as an alleged “non story” – the questions continue to be asked, and the numbers keep mounting up.
First and largest of the numbers concerns Ashcroft’s potential liability for UK tax, had he been “resident and domiciled” from the time he was awarded a peerage. An eye watering amount of 127 million quid has been pitched, and as yet the Tories have not successfully fielded it. Yes, other parties’ “non doms” could also have paid UK tax, but Ashcroft gave the impression that he would become a “permanent resident”, which implies “resident and domiciled”. The Labour donors haven’t.
Moreover, the Tory cheerleaders excusing Ashcroft by telling how little he has supposedly given to the party over the years have managed to forget the Ashcroft largesse when it comes to party use of his private jet aircraft: Young Dave has been a beneficiary, although not to the extent of William ‘Ague, who has clocked up tens of thousands of miles in the care of Bermuda registered Flying Lion, providers of a Dassault Falcon 900 (with deep pile carpet as standard).
Thus far, no updated numbers for Air Ashcroft have been put forward. But they will be. Of course, Young Dave could drop this particular pilot – but he won’t. The Tories need Ashcroft to keep providing – money, aircraft, whatever – and Cameron is as stuck with Michael Ashcroft as he is with Andy Coulson and the Murdoch clan.
Who Are Those Guys?
Those still wondering why the opinion polls are looking less good for Young Dave might usefully study the gallery of faces sitting behind their leader last Sunday when he made his thoroughly rehearsed and no doubt jolly good speech. And, after checking out the faces, consider not just that Joe and Joanne Public may not recognise very many of them, but that those they do recognise may not be so positively perceived.
Apart from Cameron himself, very few are universally known: the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, heir to the Seventeenth Baronet, is one, but others who have encountered him may have formed the same impression I did on the morning of the Crewe and Nantwich by-election: that he is instantly dislikeable. William ‘Ague is also well known, but the last time Master ‘Ague was key to a Tory General Election campaign, as leader in 2001, the Tories were thoroughly trounced.
Some might recall Theresa May, but that too might not poll well: after all, she is known for reminding the Tories of their being “the nasty party”. Liam Fox and Andrew Lansley may provoke a flicker of recognition, if only to ask who they really are. Small wonder that Fat Ken was brought back into the Tory mainstream: he not only brings experience of Government, but is perceived as an agreeable kind of bloke, even for those who dislike his past association with the tobacco industry.
A similar line of thought has been followed today by the Guardian’s Michael White, who has stressed the lack of experience in Team Cameron – even, tellingly, compared to Tony Blair’s first cabinet of 1997.
Apart from Cameron himself, very few are universally known: the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, heir to the Seventeenth Baronet, is one, but others who have encountered him may have formed the same impression I did on the morning of the Crewe and Nantwich by-election: that he is instantly dislikeable. William ‘Ague is also well known, but the last time Master ‘Ague was key to a Tory General Election campaign, as leader in 2001, the Tories were thoroughly trounced.
Some might recall Theresa May, but that too might not poll well: after all, she is known for reminding the Tories of their being “the nasty party”. Liam Fox and Andrew Lansley may provoke a flicker of recognition, if only to ask who they really are. Small wonder that Fat Ken was brought back into the Tory mainstream: he not only brings experience of Government, but is perceived as an agreeable kind of bloke, even for those who dislike his past association with the tobacco industry.
A similar line of thought has been followed today by the Guardian’s Michael White, who has stressed the lack of experience in Team Cameron – even, tellingly, compared to Tony Blair’s first cabinet of 1997.
The Republican Wrong – In The Retelling
Yesterday, I mentioned the comments made by Berkshire Hathaway head Warren Buffett on the cost of health care in the USA. Buffett made two important points, which you can see in the video clip signposted: that, although he’d rather have a bill that explicitly tackled costs, he’d back the Senate bill over no bill, and that the cost of health care was “like an economic tape worm”.
Following the Buffett intervention, this morning, Rupe’s stooges over at Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse) demonstrated superbly why the USA needs groups like Media Matters For America (MMFA) to highlight the blatant bias and shockingly bad standards of right-wing media outlets. In the network’s morning show Fox And Friends, which routinely passes off misinformation as fact, Buffett’s comments were deliberately, and wrongly, misrepresented.
Fox And Friends has a standard format of three presenters: in the middle of the sofa – that reassuring prop that no good early show should be without – is Gretchen Carlson, who is not even remotely as daft as she all too often portrays herself. Flanking Ms Carlson are Steve Doocy, the tall and goofy one, and Brian Kilmeade, the rodent faced one, both easily identifiable to anyone brought up with Sesame Street.
But the game for both Doocy and Kilmeade is deadly serious, and it is simply to slip deliberate misinformation into each and every broadcast without letting on that they are telling a variety of whoppers. Without the intervention of bodies like MMFA, they might accomplish this task unchallenged.
In the case of the Buffett interview the previous day, goofy Doocy changed Buffett’s choice of the Senate bill over no bill to “he simply cannot go along with this particular health care bill”, while the gerbil-like Kilmeade declared that Buffett “called health care reform a tape worm that is basically sucking the life out of the economy”, substituting “reform” for “costs” to fit the Fox and Murdoch agenda.
MMFA has summarised this typical slice of slanted Fox reporting, along with a video, so you can see the trio that is Fox And Friends at work.
Following the Buffett intervention, this morning, Rupe’s stooges over at Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse) demonstrated superbly why the USA needs groups like Media Matters For America (MMFA) to highlight the blatant bias and shockingly bad standards of right-wing media outlets. In the network’s morning show Fox And Friends, which routinely passes off misinformation as fact, Buffett’s comments were deliberately, and wrongly, misrepresented.
Fox And Friends has a standard format of three presenters: in the middle of the sofa – that reassuring prop that no good early show should be without – is Gretchen Carlson, who is not even remotely as daft as she all too often portrays herself. Flanking Ms Carlson are Steve Doocy, the tall and goofy one, and Brian Kilmeade, the rodent faced one, both easily identifiable to anyone brought up with Sesame Street.
But the game for both Doocy and Kilmeade is deadly serious, and it is simply to slip deliberate misinformation into each and every broadcast without letting on that they are telling a variety of whoppers. Without the intervention of bodies like MMFA, they might accomplish this task unchallenged.
In the case of the Buffett interview the previous day, goofy Doocy changed Buffett’s choice of the Senate bill over no bill to “he simply cannot go along with this particular health care bill”, while the gerbil-like Kilmeade declared that Buffett “called health care reform a tape worm that is basically sucking the life out of the economy”, substituting “reform” for “costs” to fit the Fox and Murdoch agenda.
MMFA has summarised this typical slice of slanted Fox reporting, along with a video, so you can see the trio that is Fox And Friends at work.
Monday, 1 March 2010
Health Of The Nation – 2
While members of both major parties digest last week’s health care “summit”, which I mentioned earlier, there has been an intervention in the style of stating the blindingly obvious, and from someone who knows a little about getting value for money.
Warren Buffett, head of Berkshire Hathaway and a man who has assembled a substantial fortune over the years, has appeared on CNBC today and spelled out the facts: that the USA is spending around 17% of GDP on health care, while other nations spend around half that, and provide a service that is often better.
Buffett’s analogy is that health care costs are “like an economic tape worm”. And he looks forward to action directed at driving those costs down. Because, as he explains in the video, the ultimate result of high health care costs is that goods and services provided within the USA become uncompetitive.
The problem is that health care lobbyists exercise enough power – routinely exercised through payments to the campaign funds of elected representatives – to bend many politicians to their will, while the issue of increasing cost – not to mention the thirty million uninsured – remains to be addressed.
Warren Buffett, head of Berkshire Hathaway and a man who has assembled a substantial fortune over the years, has appeared on CNBC today and spelled out the facts: that the USA is spending around 17% of GDP on health care, while other nations spend around half that, and provide a service that is often better.
Buffett’s analogy is that health care costs are “like an economic tape worm”. And he looks forward to action directed at driving those costs down. Because, as he explains in the video, the ultimate result of high health care costs is that goods and services provided within the USA become uncompetitive.
The problem is that health care lobbyists exercise enough power – routinely exercised through payments to the campaign funds of elected representatives – to bend many politicians to their will, while the issue of increasing cost – not to mention the thirty million uninsured – remains to be addressed.
Smelling The Coffee In Belize
The question that senior Tories have been consistently reluctant to answer over most of the past decade has been that regarding Michael Ashcroft, purveyor of largesse to the party and supplier of exclusive air travel to its most deserving chaps. This reluctance has not served the Tories well, and the penny appears finally to have dropped, with today’s disclosure that Ashcroft is a “non-dom” for tax purposes.
So it might be thought that the proverbial line could now be drawn under the affair, except that things are not quite so straightforward: Ashcroft could have made the admission back in 2000, but did not, and in any case, his status means that he will not be paying tax on any income from outside the UK. Given Ashcroft’s involvement in Belize, it would be no surprise if he were to enjoy some kind of benefit there.
Moreover, the driver for Ashcroft’s disclosure is down to our old friend Freedom Of Information: information was to be released today regarding his “promise” on UK residency, which we now know not to be “permanent and domiciled” but “long term and non domiciled”, which for tax purposes are two very different things.
Reliable and suitably obedient Tory conduits have been in rebuttal mode this morning, trying to draw parallels with Labour donor and peer Lord Paul, who is also a Privy Councillor. But Paul has been open about his non-dom status, while Ashcroft and his pals have kept schtum, only yielding when an FoI request forced their hands. And Paul – along with the rest of Labour’s non-doms – aren’t central to their party, as Ashcroft is to the Tories (he’s a deputy chairman of the party).
And Ashcroft will have to change his domicile status if rules change to require all MPs and peers to be both UK resident and domiciled. But then, he’s had a whole decade to cover his tracks, so may not suffer unduly. After all, the poor fellow is allegedly down to his last 850 million quid.
So it might be thought that the proverbial line could now be drawn under the affair, except that things are not quite so straightforward: Ashcroft could have made the admission back in 2000, but did not, and in any case, his status means that he will not be paying tax on any income from outside the UK. Given Ashcroft’s involvement in Belize, it would be no surprise if he were to enjoy some kind of benefit there.
Moreover, the driver for Ashcroft’s disclosure is down to our old friend Freedom Of Information: information was to be released today regarding his “promise” on UK residency, which we now know not to be “permanent and domiciled” but “long term and non domiciled”, which for tax purposes are two very different things.
Reliable and suitably obedient Tory conduits have been in rebuttal mode this morning, trying to draw parallels with Labour donor and peer Lord Paul, who is also a Privy Councillor. But Paul has been open about his non-dom status, while Ashcroft and his pals have kept schtum, only yielding when an FoI request forced their hands. And Paul – along with the rest of Labour’s non-doms – aren’t central to their party, as Ashcroft is to the Tories (he’s a deputy chairman of the party).
And Ashcroft will have to change his domicile status if rules change to require all MPs and peers to be both UK resident and domiciled. But then, he’s had a whole decade to cover his tracks, so may not suffer unduly. After all, the poor fellow is allegedly down to his last 850 million quid.
Sunday, 28 February 2010
Falklands – Can’t Pay, Won’t Fight (3)
The level of general cluelessness over the Argentines’ grumbles at oil exploration starting off the Falkland Islands extends beyond the blogosphere, as an article on the Mirror website demonstrates.
The author, one Mark Austin, thinks that the chances of military intervention by Argentina are “slim” and “unlikely”: he could make a more certain definition by taking on board the information that the Government in Buenos Aires has ruled out such action, as I pointed out recently, mainly because they’re skint.
But such details do not detain Austin, who tells of “pressure exerted through the UN”, while forgetting that the Argentines have been trying to get attention via the UN for several years now without success, not least because the UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and can therefore veto whatever Argentina or its supporters proposes.
However, more serious, Austin believes, is that the US have taken “no position” on the issue. This could be because, right now, all that is happening is Argentina trying to get attention. Austin’s article is supposed to point out that wars in future may be fought over scarce resources: if it really did come to a shooting war, the USA, with its appetite for oil, would have no trouble at all siding with the UK.
After all, the Reagan Administration was supposed to be neutral when the 1982 conflict kicked off, but they were giving the UK access to intelligence. It would be no different with whoever might be in the White House in the future.
Especially if they wanted the oil.
The author, one Mark Austin, thinks that the chances of military intervention by Argentina are “slim” and “unlikely”: he could make a more certain definition by taking on board the information that the Government in Buenos Aires has ruled out such action, as I pointed out recently, mainly because they’re skint.
But such details do not detain Austin, who tells of “pressure exerted through the UN”, while forgetting that the Argentines have been trying to get attention via the UN for several years now without success, not least because the UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and can therefore veto whatever Argentina or its supporters proposes.
However, more serious, Austin believes, is that the US have taken “no position” on the issue. This could be because, right now, all that is happening is Argentina trying to get attention. Austin’s article is supposed to point out that wars in future may be fought over scarce resources: if it really did come to a shooting war, the USA, with its appetite for oil, would have no trouble at all siding with the UK.
After all, the Reagan Administration was supposed to be neutral when the 1982 conflict kicked off, but they were giving the UK access to intelligence. It would be no different with whoever might be in the White House in the future.
Especially if they wanted the oil.
Tea For You?
On the fringe of the Tories’ so-called Spring Conference has been another in the long line of Stateside imports, but one that Young Dave may wish had stayed “over there”: the Tea Party movement has fetched up in Brighton.
And the supposedly respectable face of Tea Party UK is occasional Tory and committed Europhobe Dan, Dan the Oratory Man, seen recently denouncing the NHS for the benefit of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse).
But the event for some reason has not forced itself onto the news agenda thus far: well, not in the UK, at any rate. Why should that be? Well, the credibility of the concept of slashing the public sector in the way that Hannan and his pals at the so-called Freedom Association are advocating may not be high, for starters.
And Young Dave may want the event to stay off the news: after all, on the council of the Freedom Association along with Hanann is Malcolm Pearson, otherwise known as the leader of UKIP. Anything that even mentions the party that could take precious votes off the Tories will not go down well with Team Cameron.
And the supposedly respectable face of Tea Party UK is occasional Tory and committed Europhobe Dan, Dan the Oratory Man, seen recently denouncing the NHS for the benefit of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse).
But the event for some reason has not forced itself onto the news agenda thus far: well, not in the UK, at any rate. Why should that be? Well, the credibility of the concept of slashing the public sector in the way that Hannan and his pals at the so-called Freedom Association are advocating may not be high, for starters.
And Young Dave may want the event to stay off the news: after all, on the council of the Freedom Association along with Hanann is Malcolm Pearson, otherwise known as the leader of UKIP. Anything that even mentions the party that could take precious votes off the Tories will not go down well with Team Cameron.
Bully For You – 2
The attempt to not only stand up Bullygate, but keep the story in the news, continues today in the Mail On Sunday, part of the empire of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre. And a pretty feeble attempt it is: Pa Broon apparently pushed an aide out of his way with his arm – the kind of thing that tube commuters do to each other every weekday. But the Dacre empire has something the other papers don’t, so it has to be milked aggressively.
And this is where the story came in: Observer journalist Andrew Rawnsley had painstakingly put together a book on the New Labour “Project” which he and his publishers wanted to sell, and his paper was being relaunched, and also wanted to sell. So excerpts from the Rawnsley book have been serialised in the Observer, with the bullying allegations batting first, merely as a commercial imperative for the Guardian Media Group.
This aspect of Bullygate does not appear to have been taken on board by Tory cheerleaders, many of whom have worked themselves up into an advanced state of excitement over the story, believing it to be the bringer of electoral advantage. The idea that the fourth estate may be rallying to Young Dave may also have taken root with those who want to see him in power.
Alas, as Tory groupies should know by now, the print media acts out of commercial realism and occasional expediency: both the original story and the latest “revelation” have been put out there for reasons other than the serving of the Tory Party’s purpose. And the effect on the electorate has been next to negligible.
But the real point has been served: both stories have sold well.
And this is where the story came in: Observer journalist Andrew Rawnsley had painstakingly put together a book on the New Labour “Project” which he and his publishers wanted to sell, and his paper was being relaunched, and also wanted to sell. So excerpts from the Rawnsley book have been serialised in the Observer, with the bullying allegations batting first, merely as a commercial imperative for the Guardian Media Group.
This aspect of Bullygate does not appear to have been taken on board by Tory cheerleaders, many of whom have worked themselves up into an advanced state of excitement over the story, believing it to be the bringer of electoral advantage. The idea that the fourth estate may be rallying to Young Dave may also have taken root with those who want to see him in power.
Alas, as Tory groupies should know by now, the print media acts out of commercial realism and occasional expediency: both the original story and the latest “revelation” have been put out there for reasons other than the serving of the Tory Party’s purpose. And the effect on the electorate has been next to negligible.
But the real point has been served: both stories have sold well.
The Lead Narrows – 3
Full disclosure: when I began this series of posts, I wasn’t privy to any opinion poll data, or to the workings of any newspaper. So there was no inside information to inform my decision.
So why focus on this subject? Well, today’s Murdoch Sunday Times has the answer for all to see: Young Dave’s poll lead has narrowed to a mere two points, with Labour showing in the mid 30s, a level that would have been thought impossible towards the end of last year.
There could of course be variations in marginal seats, where Michael Ashcroft’s largesse is being freely sprayed around, but if the poll percentages were evenly distributed, Labour would be the largest party, and by over fifty seats – so Pa Broon would remain in 10 Downing Street, and the suitably disgruntled Men In Suits would be coming to give Young Dave the bad news.
Moreover, the impression is given that some in the media are becoming just that little bit bolder in questioning the Tories: on this morning’s Andy Marr Show, the host gave the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, heir to the Seventeenth Baronet, quite a hard time, and quizzed the thoroughly dislikeable Shadow Chancellor persistently on the Ashcroft Question.
Osborne, for his part, kept on about “Change”, and there may lie the problem for the Tories: many voters know that things are bad, but if they’re in work, and have had the benefit of low mortgage rates, someone coming along wanting to introduce “Change” might not seem so attractive.
But Pa Broon being plodding and reassuring just might.
So why focus on this subject? Well, today’s Murdoch Sunday Times has the answer for all to see: Young Dave’s poll lead has narrowed to a mere two points, with Labour showing in the mid 30s, a level that would have been thought impossible towards the end of last year.
There could of course be variations in marginal seats, where Michael Ashcroft’s largesse is being freely sprayed around, but if the poll percentages were evenly distributed, Labour would be the largest party, and by over fifty seats – so Pa Broon would remain in 10 Downing Street, and the suitably disgruntled Men In Suits would be coming to give Young Dave the bad news.
Moreover, the impression is given that some in the media are becoming just that little bit bolder in questioning the Tories: on this morning’s Andy Marr Show, the host gave the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, heir to the Seventeenth Baronet, quite a hard time, and quizzed the thoroughly dislikeable Shadow Chancellor persistently on the Ashcroft Question.
Osborne, for his part, kept on about “Change”, and there may lie the problem for the Tories: many voters know that things are bad, but if they’re in work, and have had the benefit of low mortgage rates, someone coming along wanting to introduce “Change” might not seem so attractive.
But Pa Broon being plodding and reassuring just might.
Saturday, 27 February 2010
The Lead Narrows – 2
Today, the Tories, together with the usual motley convocation of cheerleaders, hacks and other hangers-on, are having a so-called Spring Conference. Fortunately for those of us in Crewe, this jolly is happening some 200 miles away in Brighton. And, while there will no doubt be much mud slung at Pa Broon and Corporal Clegg, there will still be no conclusive answer to the question that many are asking.
And that question has to do with the shrinking opinion poll lead which I mentioned yesterday. Given the amount of money that is being thrown at Tory propaganda – most noticeably the poster campaigns – they should be out of sight by now, especially given the unpopularity of Pa Broon and the less than total discipline displayed by Labour.
Instead, this so-called Conference is considering what to do in the event of a hung parliament. There is even suggestion that infighting has already broken out between the mole-like Steve Hilton and former Screws editor Andy Coulson, the two members of Young Dave’s team who should be working together, not merely to satisfy the obvious need of the Party, but as an example to everyone else.
Well, if they’re preparing for a less than total victory, and the electorate knows that, the result could easily be to make the Tories less popular still. If they haven’t got the confidence in their policies, their message, and their abilities, then why should anyone else? The opportunity for Labour appears more than possible: however, the chance of costly own goals is not the preserve merely of Her Majesty's Opposition.
And that question has to do with the shrinking opinion poll lead which I mentioned yesterday. Given the amount of money that is being thrown at Tory propaganda – most noticeably the poster campaigns – they should be out of sight by now, especially given the unpopularity of Pa Broon and the less than total discipline displayed by Labour.
Instead, this so-called Conference is considering what to do in the event of a hung parliament. There is even suggestion that infighting has already broken out between the mole-like Steve Hilton and former Screws editor Andy Coulson, the two members of Young Dave’s team who should be working together, not merely to satisfy the obvious need of the Party, but as an example to everyone else.
Well, if they’re preparing for a less than total victory, and the electorate knows that, the result could easily be to make the Tories less popular still. If they haven’t got the confidence in their policies, their message, and their abilities, then why should anyone else? The opportunity for Labour appears more than possible: however, the chance of costly own goals is not the preserve merely of Her Majesty's Opposition.
Not Out Of The Woods Yet
Earlier this month, I considered the background to severe weather events on both sides of the Atlantic, showing that these could be attributed to natural phenomena, and that they could not be credibly used to challenge the established wisdom on climate change.
Since that time, the weather patterns in the UK – well, here in the North West, at least – have brought more snow, although it has melted quickly and hardly caused any disruption. But as of now the harsh night frosts have gone, there has been rain rather than snow (and coming from the South West, too), and even the odd day or two of spring like sunshine.
So is the wintry weather at an end? The short term good news is that conditions look to remain fair in this part of the country for a few days, but the longer term bad news is that winds coming out of the still cold continent, together with some snow and night frost, are entirely possible. And why should this be?
Ah well. As I mentioned before, the Atlantic Jet Stream is behaving unpredictably. As can be seen from this forecast, those high level winds are blowing over the UK at the moment, but over the coming week their effect will die away: check out the forecast for next Friday.
In fact, there may be some high level wind effect encouraging weather system movement out of Scandinavia into North East England by next weekend. But this is too difficult for the Christopher Bookers and James Delingpoles of this world, so expect the usual exaggeration and abuse from them.
Cuts out thinking.
Since that time, the weather patterns in the UK – well, here in the North West, at least – have brought more snow, although it has melted quickly and hardly caused any disruption. But as of now the harsh night frosts have gone, there has been rain rather than snow (and coming from the South West, too), and even the odd day or two of spring like sunshine.
So is the wintry weather at an end? The short term good news is that conditions look to remain fair in this part of the country for a few days, but the longer term bad news is that winds coming out of the still cold continent, together with some snow and night frost, are entirely possible. And why should this be?
Ah well. As I mentioned before, the Atlantic Jet Stream is behaving unpredictably. As can be seen from this forecast, those high level winds are blowing over the UK at the moment, but over the coming week their effect will die away: check out the forecast for next Friday.
In fact, there may be some high level wind effect encouraging weather system movement out of Scandinavia into North East England by next weekend. But this is too difficult for the Christopher Bookers and James Delingpoles of this world, so expect the usual exaggeration and abuse from them.
Cuts out thinking.
Friday, 26 February 2010
Friday Food – 6
A simple meal accompaniment today, but first off, you have to get something out of sight, mind, smell or whatever: do not even think of takeaway kebabs for a while. It will harm the appreciation of one of the quickest and easiest prepared breads known to humankind.
That is the pitta bread, which exists beyond the world of the greasy, over seasoned, over sauced, late night kebab. This weekend is a curry weekend on Zelo Street, so pittas will feature strongly. They can also feature with any kind of chilli or spicy bean feast, stand in for spag to accompany the bol, and go with a Chinese instead of rice (especially if you’re not feeling brave enough to do the egg fried variety I mentioned the other week).
Also, the pitta does not just come in the plain white so loved by the local takeaway: wholemeal pittas are becoming widely available in many supermarkets, along with the inevitable garlic variety. They can be frozen for use later, but as with other breads, should be put in the freezer as soon as you are back from the shops.
Cooking is quick and easy: heat each side under the grill for a minute or two, just to warm the breads and get the two sides to separate. I usually give them a sloosh under the hot tap beforehand if they’ve been frozen, but a word of warning here: that can lead to hot steam swelling the bread from inside, so care is needed when getting pittas out of the grill and on to the plate.
There are some enthusiasts for putting pittas in the toaster – if you’ve got the thick and thin kind – but I’d do this only as a last resort. Enjoy!
That is the pitta bread, which exists beyond the world of the greasy, over seasoned, over sauced, late night kebab. This weekend is a curry weekend on Zelo Street, so pittas will feature strongly. They can also feature with any kind of chilli or spicy bean feast, stand in for spag to accompany the bol, and go with a Chinese instead of rice (especially if you’re not feeling brave enough to do the egg fried variety I mentioned the other week).
Also, the pitta does not just come in the plain white so loved by the local takeaway: wholemeal pittas are becoming widely available in many supermarkets, along with the inevitable garlic variety. They can be frozen for use later, but as with other breads, should be put in the freezer as soon as you are back from the shops.
Cooking is quick and easy: heat each side under the grill for a minute or two, just to warm the breads and get the two sides to separate. I usually give them a sloosh under the hot tap beforehand if they’ve been frozen, but a word of warning here: that can lead to hot steam swelling the bread from inside, so care is needed when getting pittas out of the grill and on to the plate.
There are some enthusiasts for putting pittas in the toaster – if you’ve got the thick and thin kind – but I’d do this only as a last resort. Enjoy!
The Lead Narrows
Young Dave’s lead in the opinion polls was well into double figures not long ago. No longer: a poll for the Maily Telegraph by Ipsos Mori puts it at a mere 5%. Moreover, it is suggested that, with these poll numbers, Pa Broon could end up leading the largest party at Westminster, and thus be first to be asked to form a Government following the election.
And that lead is in single figures in polls elsewhere: the Murdoch Sun is doing a “daily poll” that shows a 6% advantage for the Tories. So you might think that the Maily Telegraph would be headlining this story, given that it’s their poll. You would be wrong: the story is only on the front page of their website through being in the “most viewed” list. And the headline stresses the potential greater number of seats for Labour, rather than the lead of only 5%.
Why should that be? Well, despite all the flak thrown at the paper suggesting that it is no longer a reliable Tory supporter, the Maily Telegraph is pretty obviously leaning towards Young Dave. And the Sun makes no secret of its affiliation: its headline avoids mentioning that Cameron’s lead is only six points, and stresses instead the 1% rise in Tory support (while ignoring Labour’s similar advance). Roger Ailes would have approved.
Meanwhile, Young Dave might consider another statistic: he’s expected to come out of the forthcoming leaders’ debates well ahead of the field. If he merely does as well as Pa Broon and Corporal Clegg, that will fuel an inevitable disappointment, and if he does less well than Brown, well, the Tories will be most reluctant to go there.
Ever.
And that lead is in single figures in polls elsewhere: the Murdoch Sun is doing a “daily poll” that shows a 6% advantage for the Tories. So you might think that the Maily Telegraph would be headlining this story, given that it’s their poll. You would be wrong: the story is only on the front page of their website through being in the “most viewed” list. And the headline stresses the potential greater number of seats for Labour, rather than the lead of only 5%.
Why should that be? Well, despite all the flak thrown at the paper suggesting that it is no longer a reliable Tory supporter, the Maily Telegraph is pretty obviously leaning towards Young Dave. And the Sun makes no secret of its affiliation: its headline avoids mentioning that Cameron’s lead is only six points, and stresses instead the 1% rise in Tory support (while ignoring Labour’s similar advance). Roger Ailes would have approved.
Meanwhile, Young Dave might consider another statistic: he’s expected to come out of the forthcoming leaders’ debates well ahead of the field. If he merely does as well as Pa Broon and Corporal Clegg, that will fuel an inevitable disappointment, and if he does less well than Brown, well, the Tories will be most reluctant to go there.
Ever.
Thursday, 25 February 2010
Health Of The Nation
Today, a “health care summit” is taking place in Washington DC, specifically in Blair House on Pennsylvania Avenue. Here, Barack Obama is hosting both Democrat and Republican Senators in an effort to bring some kind of agreement on what has proved to be a difficult and divisive subject.
Should we in the UK be concerned? I would say that we should. The USA is the world’s de facto sole “superpower”, and will be a significant player for the foreseeable future, whatever the growth rate in China and India. And for such a player to be spending almost twice what the UK does on health, and for generally worse outcomes, potentially blunts that country’s economic edge, especially given the tendency of health care costs to rise over time.
The proceedings are being carried live here. I’ll have another look at the exercise after letting the dust settle.
Should we in the UK be concerned? I would say that we should. The USA is the world’s de facto sole “superpower”, and will be a significant player for the foreseeable future, whatever the growth rate in China and India. And for such a player to be spending almost twice what the UK does on health, and for generally worse outcomes, potentially blunts that country’s economic edge, especially given the tendency of health care costs to rise over time.
The proceedings are being carried live here. I’ll have another look at the exercise after letting the dust settle.
Murdoch Is Served (12)
Only yesterday I predicted that this blog would be returning to Phonehackgate before long. The only surprise was that the wait was so short. The latest Guardian piece on the report of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee into the activities of the press, which I mentioned yesterday, had one man missing from its list of authors: Flat Earth News creator Nick Davies, who had previously carried most of the reporting on the affair.
The reason for this is straightforward: Davies was continuing to get stuck in to the story, and today the paper has published details of developments, including the news that, on the watch of Andy Coulson, the Murdoch News Of The World employed a freelance private detective who was fresh out of jail, having done time for blackmail.
The only barrier to revealing the name of the individual concerned is that he is to be tried for a crime of violence. He is the fourth investigator to work for the Screws known to have used illegal methods to get information.
Former Labour minister Denis MacShane has urged the withdrawal of Coulson’s parliamentary pass, and Lib Dem spokesman Chris Huhne has demanded a judicial enquiry. Young Dave, meanwhile, must be hoping it all goes away: my take is that he’s stuck with Coulson, who is part of the Murdoch “family”.
After all, he wants Rupe’s support. Doesn’t he?
The reason for this is straightforward: Davies was continuing to get stuck in to the story, and today the paper has published details of developments, including the news that, on the watch of Andy Coulson, the Murdoch News Of The World employed a freelance private detective who was fresh out of jail, having done time for blackmail.
The only barrier to revealing the name of the individual concerned is that he is to be tried for a crime of violence. He is the fourth investigator to work for the Screws known to have used illegal methods to get information.
Former Labour minister Denis MacShane has urged the withdrawal of Coulson’s parliamentary pass, and Lib Dem spokesman Chris Huhne has demanded a judicial enquiry. Young Dave, meanwhile, must be hoping it all goes away: my take is that he’s stuck with Coulson, who is part of the Murdoch “family”.
After all, he wants Rupe’s support. Doesn’t he?
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Murdoch Is Served (11)
As I predicted earlier this month, more has come to light on Phonehackgate, with the House of Commons committee on Culture, Media and Sport producing a damning report into the affair.
What I hadn’t realised earlier is that the twinkle toed yet domestically combative Rebekah Brooks (née Wade), now chief executive of News International, has repeatedly refused to appear before the committee: this would not have impressed them.
The report does not pull punches: the verdict, unanimously given, was that News International had sought to conceal the truth about what really happened. Contradictory testimony is highlighted, along with such phrases as “collective amnesia” and “deliberate obfuscation”.
Moreover, the investigation has vindicated Guardian writer Nick Davies, author of the excellent Flat Earth News, finding evidence to back up his assertions. But the Murdoch press has not been slow in biting back.
News International have asserted that the committee is in some kind of conspiracy with the Guardian – highly unlikely – while managing not to realise that this is a cross party body operating under the chairmanship of a Tory MP.
Where does the process go from here? Well, there are calls for a judicial review circulating. That could be bad for Rupe, and not favourable to Young Dave, who now employs Andy Coulson, the editor of the News Of The World at the time. One thing is sure: this blog will be returning to the subject before long.
What I hadn’t realised earlier is that the twinkle toed yet domestically combative Rebekah Brooks (née Wade), now chief executive of News International, has repeatedly refused to appear before the committee: this would not have impressed them.
The report does not pull punches: the verdict, unanimously given, was that News International had sought to conceal the truth about what really happened. Contradictory testimony is highlighted, along with such phrases as “collective amnesia” and “deliberate obfuscation”.
Moreover, the investigation has vindicated Guardian writer Nick Davies, author of the excellent Flat Earth News, finding evidence to back up his assertions. But the Murdoch press has not been slow in biting back.
News International have asserted that the committee is in some kind of conspiracy with the Guardian – highly unlikely – while managing not to realise that this is a cross party body operating under the chairmanship of a Tory MP.
Where does the process go from here? Well, there are calls for a judicial review circulating. That could be bad for Rupe, and not favourable to Young Dave, who now employs Andy Coulson, the editor of the News Of The World at the time. One thing is sure: this blog will be returning to the subject before long.
Falklands – Can’t Pay, Won’t Fight (2)
It’s not often that other blogs get a mention on Zelo Street, but following yesterday’s observations on the situation in the South Atlantic, I felt the need to comment on a particularly clueless posting on the same subject by someone who is supposed to be a leading blogger.
The intervention was made by one Paul Staines, who blogs under the alias of Guido Fawkes: yesterday, he posted an item titled “Sabre Rattling”, suggesting that the UK may be caught up in another conflict in the Falklands, inferring that Pa Broon has run down the military, and harking back to the deeds of “Maggie”, while conveniently failing to mention that the running down of the military by “Maggie” was what precipitated the conflict in the first place.
The likelihood of Argentina embarking on another military campaign against anyone right now is, as I said yesterday, not unadjacent to zero. If the country cannot afford to settle the bill for surplus railway equipment from Portugal – the kind of amounts are scrap value plus any shipping and overhaul costs – then the idea that they could fund a small war is ridiculous.
Moreover, as the Beeb has noted, Argentina has 13 billion US Dollars’ worth of debt “maturing” - for which read ‘needing to be paid off or restructured’ – this year. No player in the markets is going to award bonus points to a borrower indulging in needless military operations on the side. And in addition to that debt, there is a hole in the country’s budget estimated to be in the range from two to seven billion more US Dollars.
So, if Argentina cannot finance a war over the Falklands, why the rhetoric coming out of Buenos Aires? Well, this again is down to economics, and a desperate need to get a piece of any oil action that might be going: anything that helps pay down that debt will be welcome. But the Argentine Government, as the Beeb has also reported, “has ruled out military action”. So there has been no “sabre rattling” at all: there are no sabres to rattle.
Which brings us back to Paul Staines’ routinely clueless inference – that something the Argentine Government has ruled out will somehow happen anyway. The country cannot fund the most basic of purchases. It has an eye-watering amount of debt falling due, well, right now. And it has ruled out military action. The question for Paul Staines is simply this: just which part of “has ruled out military action” do you not understand?
The intervention was made by one Paul Staines, who blogs under the alias of Guido Fawkes: yesterday, he posted an item titled “Sabre Rattling”, suggesting that the UK may be caught up in another conflict in the Falklands, inferring that Pa Broon has run down the military, and harking back to the deeds of “Maggie”, while conveniently failing to mention that the running down of the military by “Maggie” was what precipitated the conflict in the first place.
The likelihood of Argentina embarking on another military campaign against anyone right now is, as I said yesterday, not unadjacent to zero. If the country cannot afford to settle the bill for surplus railway equipment from Portugal – the kind of amounts are scrap value plus any shipping and overhaul costs – then the idea that they could fund a small war is ridiculous.
Moreover, as the Beeb has noted, Argentina has 13 billion US Dollars’ worth of debt “maturing” - for which read ‘needing to be paid off or restructured’ – this year. No player in the markets is going to award bonus points to a borrower indulging in needless military operations on the side. And in addition to that debt, there is a hole in the country’s budget estimated to be in the range from two to seven billion more US Dollars.
So, if Argentina cannot finance a war over the Falklands, why the rhetoric coming out of Buenos Aires? Well, this again is down to economics, and a desperate need to get a piece of any oil action that might be going: anything that helps pay down that debt will be welcome. But the Argentine Government, as the Beeb has also reported, “has ruled out military action”. So there has been no “sabre rattling” at all: there are no sabres to rattle.
Which brings us back to Paul Staines’ routinely clueless inference – that something the Argentine Government has ruled out will somehow happen anyway. The country cannot fund the most basic of purchases. It has an eye-watering amount of debt falling due, well, right now. And it has ruled out military action. The question for Paul Staines is simply this: just which part of “has ruled out military action” do you not understand?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
