I’ve previously considered the Tory concepts of “fixing the roof while the sun is shining” and “living within our means”, concluding that these soundbites are in fact a cover for increased unemployment in the public sector, at least in the immediate term. Here I’ll show that any increase in public sector unemployment is bad news for the wider – private – sector as well.
To continue the example from Part 1, in Crewe, many people across a wide range of skills are employed at Leighton Hospital. They buy or rent property, use public transport, buy and maintain cars, shop for food, clothing and household goods, are entertained at cinemas and in clubs, enjoy eating out or takeaways. Most, if not all, of these purchases are from the private sector. The businesses concerned employ people, and these employees also buy services from other businesses.
Any reduction in the public sector workforce means that there is less demand for property, cars, household goods – even less demand for food, in money terms, as loss of income drives a move from premium to utility. The simple and chilling conclusion for the private sector is that they, too, will suffer a reduction in employment as the public sector shrinks.
And the reduction in employment can be made worse if the reduction in public spending is made when the wider economy is turning down, or has already turned down. This is, broadly, what happened in the first years of the Thatcher government. There were calls for restraint and patience, and headlines screamed the necessity of the approach in phrases such as “If it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working”. Such calls and phrasings were invariably sourced from those who, at the time, enjoyed a regular income.
It’s always easier to call for belt tightening if the belt concerned belongs to someone else.
Friday, 10 April 2009
Thursday, 9 April 2009
Brute Farce
Some journos, you know, will do exactly what it says on the reputational tin. Peter Hitchens is one. John Pilger is another.
And then there is Bruce Anderson, aka The Brute.
Bruce has been giving full value for money, as witnessed by Iain Dale (and there is no blogger greater than he). See Iain’s, er, observations here.
I thought it was bloody funny. But then, I didn’t have to put up with the SOB.
And then there is Bruce Anderson, aka The Brute.
Bruce has been giving full value for money, as witnessed by Iain Dale (and there is no blogger greater than he). See Iain’s, er, observations here.
I thought it was bloody funny. But then, I didn’t have to put up with the SOB.
Not A Fair Cop?
The case of Ian Tomlinson is still in the news. Adding to the Guardian reports is a piece from another deeply subversive organisation called Channel 4. The report on the C4 website can be seen here.
Fortunately, the officer at the forefront of the incident has now owned up. I’d like to think that this was an act of selfless honesty, rather than an acknowledgement of impending identification.
I’ll be following the case further. In this, I will not be alone.
Fortunately, the officer at the forefront of the incident has now owned up. I’d like to think that this was an act of selfless honesty, rather than an acknowledgement of impending identification.
I’ll be following the case further. In this, I will not be alone.
He’s a Clown, Young Man!
I never did put the time into understanding the way in which the Italians went through so many governments in such a short time, nor did I figure out the number of political parties and the way they came together in seemingly temporary and often fractious coalition.
And now it seems I won’t need to – well, not for the time being. Italy is moving towards a two party system, with the creation of Freedom People, a single right-wing party. This includes the heirs to the fascist tradition of Benito Mussolini. The Guardian has the story here.
So my nickname of “Duce” for Silvio Berlusconi will gather real substance. There are other parallels.
Berlusconi is, like Mussolini, a faintly ridiculous figure, and vain with it. Both have reputations that have been inflated by propaganda; in Berlusconi’s case, it’s entirely predictable, as he owns the media doing the hyping.
And, I would suggest, both were, and in Berlusconi’s case, are, bad news for Italy.
The ability of Berlusconi to demonstrate that he is out of touch with reality, while planting his foot firmly in his mouth, was demonstrated superbly as he visited the town of l’Aquila in the wake of Monday’s earthquake. The people, he said, had everything they needed (forgetting that this did not include all their dead or missing relatives), and then told that, for them, it was like a camping weekend.
Yeah, right.
Cloughie would have figured out “Duce” Berlusconi in one. See title.
And now it seems I won’t need to – well, not for the time being. Italy is moving towards a two party system, with the creation of Freedom People, a single right-wing party. This includes the heirs to the fascist tradition of Benito Mussolini. The Guardian has the story here.
So my nickname of “Duce” for Silvio Berlusconi will gather real substance. There are other parallels.
Berlusconi is, like Mussolini, a faintly ridiculous figure, and vain with it. Both have reputations that have been inflated by propaganda; in Berlusconi’s case, it’s entirely predictable, as he owns the media doing the hyping.
And, I would suggest, both were, and in Berlusconi’s case, are, bad news for Italy.
The ability of Berlusconi to demonstrate that he is out of touch with reality, while planting his foot firmly in his mouth, was demonstrated superbly as he visited the town of l’Aquila in the wake of Monday’s earthquake. The people, he said, had everything they needed (forgetting that this did not include all their dead or missing relatives), and then told that, for them, it was like a camping weekend.
Yeah, right.
Cloughie would have figured out “Duce” Berlusconi in one. See title.
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
New Year on the Waterfront
Yes, it was three months ago, so I’m running a bit late. After putting up with two doses of airport security, and a short, sharp wake event on take-off from CDG, I fetched up in one of my favourite cities, Lisbon (don’t mention the Treaty).
And the exchange rate was not far over parity: very little more than EUR 1.02 to the Pound from hitting the Multibanco downstairs at the recently refurbished Estação do Rossio. So was it all a bit expensive?
No.
What about eating out? Well, first evening I stopped by at Paulo Marques’ agreeable O Marques restaurant – just north of the Rossio – where a meal including half a litre of pretty reasonable red wine cost less than nine Euro. That was very much par for the course. Travel wasn’t expensive: a day pass for the Metro and all the trams (ride the 12 and 28, and avoid the tourist ones) was around EUR 3.50. Staying at a Residencial in the central Baixa district will set you back EUR 45 a night for singles, and 65 for doubles.
But the New Year crowds?
It was certainly busy in the Praça do Comércio on Lisbon’s waterfront: there was the obligatory sound stage, and makeshift beer and food outlets, but the crowd was an agreeable one, mainly of locals. Old Lisbon is actually quite a small city – there’s sprawl, and lots of it, but not in the centre.
Bad behaviour? Apart from some climbing over the tram shelters, and pushing in the beer queues, not much. And, as midnight approached, many got out their bottles of sparkling wine and plastic cups to toast the New Year. I was briefly surprised, thinking that in the UK, all that would have been confiscated and the area cordoned off.
Come to think of it, where were the police? They were there, but it was all very low key.
The fireworks were enjoyable, and then the crowd dispersed, most walking back to their apartments, with the more adventurous heading for the Metro.
Not at all what you might expect in a capital city. And where in the UK can you stroll around on New Year’s Eve without a jacket?
[Crowds gathering on the Rua Augusta here, warming up the Praça do Comércio here, and a glimpse of the fireworks here]
And the exchange rate was not far over parity: very little more than EUR 1.02 to the Pound from hitting the Multibanco downstairs at the recently refurbished Estação do Rossio. So was it all a bit expensive?
No.
What about eating out? Well, first evening I stopped by at Paulo Marques’ agreeable O Marques restaurant – just north of the Rossio – where a meal including half a litre of pretty reasonable red wine cost less than nine Euro. That was very much par for the course. Travel wasn’t expensive: a day pass for the Metro and all the trams (ride the 12 and 28, and avoid the tourist ones) was around EUR 3.50. Staying at a Residencial in the central Baixa district will set you back EUR 45 a night for singles, and 65 for doubles.
But the New Year crowds?
It was certainly busy in the Praça do Comércio on Lisbon’s waterfront: there was the obligatory sound stage, and makeshift beer and food outlets, but the crowd was an agreeable one, mainly of locals. Old Lisbon is actually quite a small city – there’s sprawl, and lots of it, but not in the centre.
Bad behaviour? Apart from some climbing over the tram shelters, and pushing in the beer queues, not much. And, as midnight approached, many got out their bottles of sparkling wine and plastic cups to toast the New Year. I was briefly surprised, thinking that in the UK, all that would have been confiscated and the area cordoned off.
Come to think of it, where were the police? They were there, but it was all very low key.
The fireworks were enjoyable, and then the crowd dispersed, most walking back to their apartments, with the more adventurous heading for the Metro.
Not at all what you might expect in a capital city. And where in the UK can you stroll around on New Year’s Eve without a jacket?
[Crowds gathering on the Rua Augusta here, warming up the Praça do Comércio here, and a glimpse of the fireworks here]
A Plonker like Rodney
The police are in the mire again. I’m not surprised.
Last week, a 47 year old newspaper seller called Ian Tomlinson died after suffering a heart attack. Since his death, it has been revealed that he had been, how shall I put it, in contact with the police a few minutes beforehand. The video – shot by a New York fund manager – doesn’t make for comfortable viewing. Once again, it is the Guardian that has the story, here.
Some will look for parallels with the de Menezes shooting, especially as the police did not initially admit that there had been contact between them and Mr Tomlinson. I recalled an incident rather further away, and some years ago.
Back in 1991, a man called Rodney King found himself on the end of a beating by officers from the Los Angeles Police Department. What LAPD’s finest did not know at the time was that their beating was being filmed. This video also did not make for comfortable viewing.
In both cases, the police had had a hard time of it beforehand: King’s car had been chased for some time before his arrest (by several cars and even a helicopter), and the officers in London had no doubt had their fill of the awkward squad during the G20 protests.
But that doesn’t justify assault.
Assault which leads to the death of the person assaulted routinely results in a charge of manslaughter; this is what happened in the case of Tony Virasami, who was thus convicted after punching a 57 year old man in a south London supermarket, as reported by the BBC here.
So many justifiably concerned people are now watching this case, to see if there is a suitably even handed approach in the case of Ian Tomlinson. Not because of any wish to distrust the police – but of wanting to be able to show the opposite case.
Because if you can’t trust the police, then who can you trust?
Last week, a 47 year old newspaper seller called Ian Tomlinson died after suffering a heart attack. Since his death, it has been revealed that he had been, how shall I put it, in contact with the police a few minutes beforehand. The video – shot by a New York fund manager – doesn’t make for comfortable viewing. Once again, it is the Guardian that has the story, here.
Some will look for parallels with the de Menezes shooting, especially as the police did not initially admit that there had been contact between them and Mr Tomlinson. I recalled an incident rather further away, and some years ago.
Back in 1991, a man called Rodney King found himself on the end of a beating by officers from the Los Angeles Police Department. What LAPD’s finest did not know at the time was that their beating was being filmed. This video also did not make for comfortable viewing.
In both cases, the police had had a hard time of it beforehand: King’s car had been chased for some time before his arrest (by several cars and even a helicopter), and the officers in London had no doubt had their fill of the awkward squad during the G20 protests.
But that doesn’t justify assault.
Assault which leads to the death of the person assaulted routinely results in a charge of manslaughter; this is what happened in the case of Tony Virasami, who was thus convicted after punching a 57 year old man in a south London supermarket, as reported by the BBC here.
So many justifiably concerned people are now watching this case, to see if there is a suitably even handed approach in the case of Ian Tomlinson. Not because of any wish to distrust the police – but of wanting to be able to show the opposite case.
Because if you can’t trust the police, then who can you trust?
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
A Warning from Churchill
They’re all at it! Have they no shame? It’s taxpayers’ money – sofa beds, wide screen televisions, adult films, bathplugs ... bathplugs? Er, OK, bathplugs it is.
Now, as a freelance worker getting round to settling this year’s accountant’s bill, or to describe it in the appropriate “speak”, fee note, I might be thought of as one of those baying for blood at the parliamentary expense business. After all, Gordon Brown was at 11 Downing Street when IR35 came to plague us all. The temptation is certainly there. But I am also trying to think the whole thing through – Andy Coulson would hate voters like me, trying to think before acting.
Once upon a time, MPs didn’t get a salary. So it is hardly surprising that those prepared to serve had another income, whether by work or inheritance. David Lloyd George – yes, him again – changed that, quite possibly speeding up the decline of his own Liberal Party in the process. Do we want to go back to the time before LG’s action? Erm, not really. Neither, I suspect, do we want to have “your member of parliament sponsored by MegaCorp (tm)”.
But they’re claiming all those expenses! Yes, yes, I got that one. Because that’s what they’re allowed to do. There’s no mystery about it. MPs get into parliament, and they get told that they can claim for this, that and t’other. They then claim for them. And have been doing so for decades. So why is all the froth being generated now?
Ah well. Now we not only have Freedom of Information, we also have hacks who have figured out how to use FOI, and whose bosses need to keep up their circulation. And nothing keeps up the circulation like a little sleaze. Or even a lot of sleaze. And do the proprietors care about the fallout? Bears, woods, you get the picture.
So I’m not going to join the baying mob. Sure, there may be a need to give the whole system a good shaking. That can’t happen overnight. In the meantime, I would commend the wise words of Churchill. That’s the dog on the adverts, not Winshton.
Steady now.
Now, as a freelance worker getting round to settling this year’s accountant’s bill, or to describe it in the appropriate “speak”, fee note, I might be thought of as one of those baying for blood at the parliamentary expense business. After all, Gordon Brown was at 11 Downing Street when IR35 came to plague us all. The temptation is certainly there. But I am also trying to think the whole thing through – Andy Coulson would hate voters like me, trying to think before acting.
Once upon a time, MPs didn’t get a salary. So it is hardly surprising that those prepared to serve had another income, whether by work or inheritance. David Lloyd George – yes, him again – changed that, quite possibly speeding up the decline of his own Liberal Party in the process. Do we want to go back to the time before LG’s action? Erm, not really. Neither, I suspect, do we want to have “your member of parliament sponsored by MegaCorp (tm)”.
But they’re claiming all those expenses! Yes, yes, I got that one. Because that’s what they’re allowed to do. There’s no mystery about it. MPs get into parliament, and they get told that they can claim for this, that and t’other. They then claim for them. And have been doing so for decades. So why is all the froth being generated now?
Ah well. Now we not only have Freedom of Information, we also have hacks who have figured out how to use FOI, and whose bosses need to keep up their circulation. And nothing keeps up the circulation like a little sleaze. Or even a lot of sleaze. And do the proprietors care about the fallout? Bears, woods, you get the picture.
So I’m not going to join the baying mob. Sure, there may be a need to give the whole system a good shaking. That can’t happen overnight. In the meantime, I would commend the wise words of Churchill. That’s the dog on the adverts, not Winshton.
Steady now.
Grenade in Crowded Room Horror
An issue that will not go away, mainly because politicians across the spectrum cannot or will not address it, is that of currently illegal drugs. And, demonstrating that we need these kinds of newspapers (who else will allow the airing of such subjects and their debate?), today’s Guardian has lobbed the grenade into the room, with this article.
And why won’t politicians face up to the D-word? Step forward the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail. Any politico putting his or her head above the parapet on this one knows that the Mail will be there to shoot it off. More, the screaming denunciation will be backed up by sufficient personal intrusion and the nastiest kind of attacks to shut up anyone who steps out of line.
Why is this? Dacre could do the country a substantial service by admitting the obvious: that present policy on drugs doesn’t work. Decriminalisation, together with regulation, has the potential to lower crime rates and therefore the cost of policing. Moreover, there is also a potential revenue benefit to the Treasury. Would more folks use the stuff? We don’t know – but what we do know is that Paul Dacre also doesn’t know. And he’s got nothing better to offer, bar more screaming denunciation.
The status quo has come about because the size of the industries involved with legal drugs – including tobacco and alcohol – means that their lobbying has kept them legal. That, more or less, is all there is to it. Illegal drugs can do all sorts of nasty things to a user’s wellbeing. And so can legal drugs.
It’s all very well sneering at the Guardian. At least one newspaper is grown up enough to have the debate – it’s just a pity that others are not.
And why won’t politicians face up to the D-word? Step forward the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail. Any politico putting his or her head above the parapet on this one knows that the Mail will be there to shoot it off. More, the screaming denunciation will be backed up by sufficient personal intrusion and the nastiest kind of attacks to shut up anyone who steps out of line.
Why is this? Dacre could do the country a substantial service by admitting the obvious: that present policy on drugs doesn’t work. Decriminalisation, together with regulation, has the potential to lower crime rates and therefore the cost of policing. Moreover, there is also a potential revenue benefit to the Treasury. Would more folks use the stuff? We don’t know – but what we do know is that Paul Dacre also doesn’t know. And he’s got nothing better to offer, bar more screaming denunciation.
The status quo has come about because the size of the industries involved with legal drugs – including tobacco and alcohol – means that their lobbying has kept them legal. That, more or less, is all there is to it. Illegal drugs can do all sorts of nasty things to a user’s wellbeing. And so can legal drugs.
It’s all very well sneering at the Guardian. At least one newspaper is grown up enough to have the debate – it’s just a pity that others are not.
Monday, 6 April 2009
Wrong Sort of Baked Beans
Or chips. Or burgers, or breakfast cereal: maybe there really is a difference, or perhaps it’s the influence of the Mad Men, of peer pressure or pester power. Kids demand the brand, and no other. Human beings can be horribly irrational, not that the manufacturers able to charge a premium for their products are complaining. Unlike some economists, they live in the real world.
Sad to say, the demands of childhood never go away for some. This has been understood very well by the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, as Nick Davies’ excellent Flat Earth News shows. Mail readers want to have their world view confirmed; Dacre gives them a product that gives them that confirmation. Further, the Mail delivers the flip side: it doesn’t frighten its readers with stories they don’t want to hear. It’s a comfort blanket.
As for the Daily Mail, so for the blogosphere. It’s not necessary to read many blogs before you realise that there is an often desperate desire to push views and stories that chime with a particular political viewpoint: whether the author is left or right wing, whether Labour, Tory, Lib Dem or any other affiliation.
So what? Isn’t it all harmless froth?
Ah well. Yes and no. Because it’s not so long a journey from the idea of hearing what you want to, to dismissing the stories you don’t want to hear as being biased or downright untrue.
And this mindset has one easy victim: any media organisation that is compelled to apply even handedness, or one that is not so compelled, but which works towards that end.
No prizes for identifying the targets: in broadcast media, the BBC, and in print media, the Guardian.
Are these organisations so horribly biased, or is it simply that they are selling the wrong shape of pasta, the wrong thickness of chips, or the wrong brand of baked beans?
Not that I’d want a little serious thought to remove the comfort of that blanket, of course.
Sad to say, the demands of childhood never go away for some. This has been understood very well by the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, as Nick Davies’ excellent Flat Earth News shows. Mail readers want to have their world view confirmed; Dacre gives them a product that gives them that confirmation. Further, the Mail delivers the flip side: it doesn’t frighten its readers with stories they don’t want to hear. It’s a comfort blanket.
As for the Daily Mail, so for the blogosphere. It’s not necessary to read many blogs before you realise that there is an often desperate desire to push views and stories that chime with a particular political viewpoint: whether the author is left or right wing, whether Labour, Tory, Lib Dem or any other affiliation.
So what? Isn’t it all harmless froth?
Ah well. Yes and no. Because it’s not so long a journey from the idea of hearing what you want to, to dismissing the stories you don’t want to hear as being biased or downright untrue.
And this mindset has one easy victim: any media organisation that is compelled to apply even handedness, or one that is not so compelled, but which works towards that end.
No prizes for identifying the targets: in broadcast media, the BBC, and in print media, the Guardian.
Are these organisations so horribly biased, or is it simply that they are selling the wrong shape of pasta, the wrong thickness of chips, or the wrong brand of baked beans?
Not that I’d want a little serious thought to remove the comfort of that blanket, of course.
Fixing The Roof – Part 1
The Chileans have, apparently, embarrassed Pa Broon by talking about putting money aside in the good times. Music to the ears of David Cameron.
The Tories have put out what sound like straightforward, common sense messages on the economy: “fix the roof while the sun is shining” and the Thatcher hand-me-down of “living within our means”. But what do these snappy soundbites mean for Joe and Joanne Public?
The concept of “living within our means” carries an implicit criticism of the level of public spending: that Labour is doing too much of it, and the Cameron Tories would do less. So what does public spending buy, and what would it therefore buy less of under the ideas floated by the Tories?
Consider a middling size town like Crewe. Here, public spending provides places like Leighton Hospital: buildings, equipment, facilities are all provided. But most of all – and you just need a walk through the place for the point to register – that spending buys people. Put directly, it provides jobs. If there is to be significantly less of this spending, then less jobs will be provided. And, to paraphrase Calvin Coolidge, when many people are out of work, unemployment results.
Those doubting the result of public spending cuts need look no further than the early Thatcher years. Unemployment increased massively: the true maximum number is difficult to ascertain, as the basis on which the figures were calculated was changed, producing numbers lower than by using pre-1979 methods. Even with the revised basis for calculating jobless figures, that number peaked at well over three million.
What, then, of the concept of “fixing the roof while the sun is shining”? This makes an attractive soundbite, but the reality, in the immediate term at least, is a greater amount of unemployment. To “fix the roof” means that public spending – unless bolstered by higher borrowing and/or taxation – would have to be foregone. So the employment of those whose jobs would be bought by that public spending would also be foregone. The result, then, is less employment.
So these two ostensibly attractive Tory slogans have one direct and clear consequence: more people out of work. It would be refreshing to hear David Cameron admit this directly, but it is equally unlikely. Also, that reduction in jobs does not just affect the public sector, a subject to which I will return.
The Tories have put out what sound like straightforward, common sense messages on the economy: “fix the roof while the sun is shining” and the Thatcher hand-me-down of “living within our means”. But what do these snappy soundbites mean for Joe and Joanne Public?
The concept of “living within our means” carries an implicit criticism of the level of public spending: that Labour is doing too much of it, and the Cameron Tories would do less. So what does public spending buy, and what would it therefore buy less of under the ideas floated by the Tories?
Consider a middling size town like Crewe. Here, public spending provides places like Leighton Hospital: buildings, equipment, facilities are all provided. But most of all – and you just need a walk through the place for the point to register – that spending buys people. Put directly, it provides jobs. If there is to be significantly less of this spending, then less jobs will be provided. And, to paraphrase Calvin Coolidge, when many people are out of work, unemployment results.
Those doubting the result of public spending cuts need look no further than the early Thatcher years. Unemployment increased massively: the true maximum number is difficult to ascertain, as the basis on which the figures were calculated was changed, producing numbers lower than by using pre-1979 methods. Even with the revised basis for calculating jobless figures, that number peaked at well over three million.
What, then, of the concept of “fixing the roof while the sun is shining”? This makes an attractive soundbite, but the reality, in the immediate term at least, is a greater amount of unemployment. To “fix the roof” means that public spending – unless bolstered by higher borrowing and/or taxation – would have to be foregone. So the employment of those whose jobs would be bought by that public spending would also be foregone. The result, then, is less employment.
So these two ostensibly attractive Tory slogans have one direct and clear consequence: more people out of work. It would be refreshing to hear David Cameron admit this directly, but it is equally unlikely. Also, that reduction in jobs does not just affect the public sector, a subject to which I will return.
Sunday, 5 April 2009
Nul Points
Yes, the conclusion of today’s Malaysian Grand Prix was a tad shambolic. No more 1700 hours local time starts for that one, I suspect. But Jenson’s doing well. Back to back victories for a driver with only the one previous win.
But where were Ferrari? Two races, no points. As the Hitch-Hikers’ Guide has told us, Don’t Panic. It’s been worse: within living memory, the Prancing Horse has been withdrawn for several races of a Formula 1 season – well, for those of us of A Certain Age, it has.
Ferrari started the seventies with some purpose: Mauro Forghieri gave them the legendary flat-12 engined 312B car, and they were competitive. But by the end of 1972 they had ended a season with just one victory, and both preparation and reliability were poor. They were trying to keep two operations going: F1 had to share with the team’s commitment to sportscars. The three litre sportscar of that year was not dissimilar to the F1 car: ostensibly they had two seats, but for practical purposes, were single seaters with the driver’s position off centre. The sportscar had its wheelarches covered, and the engine tuned to last the longer distance – 1,000 kilometres, six hours, or the full 24 of Le Mans.
Push came to shove in 1973. F1 rule changes meant a new chassis, but Ferrari’s commitment to sportscars meant that the new car was short of development. By the time of the French GP, it was obvious that they were not competitive. So they didn’t show. This continued at the British race, and that soon after in the Netherlands. By the time of the German GP, Ferrari number one Jacky Ickx had had enough and appeared in a third McLaren (rules were different then) to take third place.
Ferrari did reappear later in the season, but to little effect: Ickx left, and they had to start over before 1974. And they lost the sportscar title to Matra, so ended up with nothing. They then had to choose. And, as did Indiana Jones, they chose wisely.
The 1974 Ferrari sportscar never did get an outing. They chose F1, and having focused the team on that one championship, they started once more to win.
Ferrari is the one link that runs through F1 from its beginning over half a century ago to the present day. Today’s F1 Fans may not know how close that link once came to breaking.
But where were Ferrari? Two races, no points. As the Hitch-Hikers’ Guide has told us, Don’t Panic. It’s been worse: within living memory, the Prancing Horse has been withdrawn for several races of a Formula 1 season – well, for those of us of A Certain Age, it has.
Ferrari started the seventies with some purpose: Mauro Forghieri gave them the legendary flat-12 engined 312B car, and they were competitive. But by the end of 1972 they had ended a season with just one victory, and both preparation and reliability were poor. They were trying to keep two operations going: F1 had to share with the team’s commitment to sportscars. The three litre sportscar of that year was not dissimilar to the F1 car: ostensibly they had two seats, but for practical purposes, were single seaters with the driver’s position off centre. The sportscar had its wheelarches covered, and the engine tuned to last the longer distance – 1,000 kilometres, six hours, or the full 24 of Le Mans.
Push came to shove in 1973. F1 rule changes meant a new chassis, but Ferrari’s commitment to sportscars meant that the new car was short of development. By the time of the French GP, it was obvious that they were not competitive. So they didn’t show. This continued at the British race, and that soon after in the Netherlands. By the time of the German GP, Ferrari number one Jacky Ickx had had enough and appeared in a third McLaren (rules were different then) to take third place.
Ferrari did reappear later in the season, but to little effect: Ickx left, and they had to start over before 1974. And they lost the sportscar title to Matra, so ended up with nothing. They then had to choose. And, as did Indiana Jones, they chose wisely.
The 1974 Ferrari sportscar never did get an outing. They chose F1, and having focused the team on that one championship, they started once more to win.
Ferrari is the one link that runs through F1 from its beginning over half a century ago to the present day. Today’s F1 Fans may not know how close that link once came to breaking.
Nothing Much Changes
Well, that’s the G20 over. The circus moves on. Today is, as ever, not very different to yesterday. Will it be any different after a General Election?
Let’s cut directly to the short answer: no.
Not even after the fullest exercising of the democratic process? Nope.
So why all the cheerleading behind the various parties? It’s true, there are good people out there who believe that they can make a difference, and that their parties can too. It’s as true now as it was in May 1997: after that date, and that victory, there was only one way that Labour Party membership was going to go: down. Some stayed on; others realised that there wasn’t going to be change, or not as much as they hoped. If the Tories win next time round, they will suffer in the same way.
More, they will find the probing of the various media organisations will not abate just because of the change of stripe. The spin, leaks, investigations, FOI requests, public disillusionment – all will continue.
On a quiet day at the office last year, I was flicking through the feedback to an article on Guardian Online – whoops, that’s me bang to rights – and there was much adverse comment directed towards Pa Broon. Then, further down the comments, someone put forward the original thought of how long after a Tory victory it would take for David Cameron to be hated equally strongly.
The unusually unanimous view was not just that this state would be reached, but reached in short order.
With this I have to agree: Cameron is good at soundbites, slick presentation, at opposing the government. What he would do when gifted the levers of power I have little idea. What is more, I remain unconvinced that he and his party have much more.
Plus ça change, and all that.
Let’s cut directly to the short answer: no.
Not even after the fullest exercising of the democratic process? Nope.
So why all the cheerleading behind the various parties? It’s true, there are good people out there who believe that they can make a difference, and that their parties can too. It’s as true now as it was in May 1997: after that date, and that victory, there was only one way that Labour Party membership was going to go: down. Some stayed on; others realised that there wasn’t going to be change, or not as much as they hoped. If the Tories win next time round, they will suffer in the same way.
More, they will find the probing of the various media organisations will not abate just because of the change of stripe. The spin, leaks, investigations, FOI requests, public disillusionment – all will continue.
On a quiet day at the office last year, I was flicking through the feedback to an article on Guardian Online – whoops, that’s me bang to rights – and there was much adverse comment directed towards Pa Broon. Then, further down the comments, someone put forward the original thought of how long after a Tory victory it would take for David Cameron to be hated equally strongly.
The unusually unanimous view was not just that this state would be reached, but reached in short order.
With this I have to agree: Cameron is good at soundbites, slick presentation, at opposing the government. What he would do when gifted the levers of power I have little idea. What is more, I remain unconvinced that he and his party have much more.
Plus ça change, and all that.
Friday, 3 April 2009
Eternal Flame
Top Ten competitions abound. Rail enthusiasts have had another to discuss recently: most beautiful stations. Brits can feel proud: St Pancras International, as it now calls itself, won.
Further down the list was Madrid’s Estacion de Atocha. This entry can only be for the conversion of the old station’s train shed into an open space – the “palm house”. For most who transit Atocha on a daily basis, the idea of the place as top ten material will be seen with a mixture of disbelief and grim humour: those travellers are commuters using the Cercanias, or suburban, station, its low level platforms covered over by the long stay car park and lending a dark and stygian atmosphere. It was here that some of the March 2004 bombs were detonated.
The following year, we in the UK became the next target for the Al Qaeda franchise. Here, too, were underground explosions, terrible loss of life, worlds disrupted. Here we have had the debate, and it still rumbles on: how do we remember our loss?
In Madrid, the problem was straightforward: any idea of a memorial or place for reflection in the station area at Atocha was out. This is where people are on the move, and even at the stand up snack bars you don’t linger for long. There is no space for quiet reflection. But the need to remember was there. After all, 192 lives had been lost.
The solution you will find in the nearby Parque del Retiro. Here, between the Porta Angel Caido and La Chopera, is a newly formed green hill – yes, a green hill without a city wall – surrounded by water, lovingly tidied and constantly guarded, called Bosque del Recuerdo. That’s “Forest of Remembrance” in English.
King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia inaugurated this area of remembrance a year on from the bombings, accompanied by many other dignitaries, but there were no speeches, just five minutes of unbroken silence.
Every victim is remembered here: there are 192 trees, 22 olives and 170 cypresses. Each day, many from Madrid and elsewhere visit, making the short climb to the top of the hill, there to pause and remember.
I am happy to admit that I am one of them.
[The inscription in front of the Bosque del Recuerdo can be seen here, and there is a general view here]
Further down the list was Madrid’s Estacion de Atocha. This entry can only be for the conversion of the old station’s train shed into an open space – the “palm house”. For most who transit Atocha on a daily basis, the idea of the place as top ten material will be seen with a mixture of disbelief and grim humour: those travellers are commuters using the Cercanias, or suburban, station, its low level platforms covered over by the long stay car park and lending a dark and stygian atmosphere. It was here that some of the March 2004 bombs were detonated.
The following year, we in the UK became the next target for the Al Qaeda franchise. Here, too, were underground explosions, terrible loss of life, worlds disrupted. Here we have had the debate, and it still rumbles on: how do we remember our loss?
In Madrid, the problem was straightforward: any idea of a memorial or place for reflection in the station area at Atocha was out. This is where people are on the move, and even at the stand up snack bars you don’t linger for long. There is no space for quiet reflection. But the need to remember was there. After all, 192 lives had been lost.
The solution you will find in the nearby Parque del Retiro. Here, between the Porta Angel Caido and La Chopera, is a newly formed green hill – yes, a green hill without a city wall – surrounded by water, lovingly tidied and constantly guarded, called Bosque del Recuerdo. That’s “Forest of Remembrance” in English.
King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia inaugurated this area of remembrance a year on from the bombings, accompanied by many other dignitaries, but there were no speeches, just five minutes of unbroken silence.
Every victim is remembered here: there are 192 trees, 22 olives and 170 cypresses. Each day, many from Madrid and elsewhere visit, making the short climb to the top of the hill, there to pause and remember.
I am happy to admit that I am one of them.
[The inscription in front of the Bosque del Recuerdo can be seen here, and there is a general view here]
French Bad, French Good
Eurosceptics are an interesting bunch. They are invariably ready with the usual battery of soundbites: unelected bureaucrats, federal drift, Brussels diktat, all are deployed against the perceived array of dreadful foreigners telling us free spirited Brits what to do. And as for the French, well, for them a particularly strong scorn is reserved: we have to put up with all the directives, so the tale goes, but the French can just please themselves and get away with it. Thus the EU is portrayed as being biased against the UK, a playing field that will never be level – or not as level as some would like.
And then along comes the G20.
The medium term, sustainable, prudent defender of the colour Broon is perceived here as wanting further “fiscal stimulus” – for which read more government spending – from other participants in the proceedings. In this he is further perceived as allied to new White House incumbent Barack Obama. Not all Eurosceptics resist any idea of further government intervention – or even any government intervention – but there is, as the average statistician might say, a strong correlation between the two.
So, when German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Nicolas Sarkozy came out against further government intervention, with Sarko even suggesting that he might not sign the end of conference communiqué, Eurosceptics were in new territory. They’re suspicious of the Germans, and dislike the French, but hate Pa Broon even more. So the French go from dastardly zero to financially sound hero in one bound.
Now, all it needs to tie the silly beggars up in knots properly is for Jean-Claude Trichet to signal the adoption by the European Central Bank (ECB) of a sound money policy. Again, not all Eurosceptics are paid up members of the Freddie Hayek Glee Club, but there’s another of those strong correlations.
Of course that won’t happen. Which is good for your average Eurosceptic: too many about turns and folks might wonder where you really stand.
[Postscript: It was no surprise to me that the spoiling chucker of the Microsoft product used to put this post together managed Obama and Merkel, but not Sarkozy]
And then along comes the G20.
The medium term, sustainable, prudent defender of the colour Broon is perceived here as wanting further “fiscal stimulus” – for which read more government spending – from other participants in the proceedings. In this he is further perceived as allied to new White House incumbent Barack Obama. Not all Eurosceptics resist any idea of further government intervention – or even any government intervention – but there is, as the average statistician might say, a strong correlation between the two.
So, when German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Nicolas Sarkozy came out against further government intervention, with Sarko even suggesting that he might not sign the end of conference communiqué, Eurosceptics were in new territory. They’re suspicious of the Germans, and dislike the French, but hate Pa Broon even more. So the French go from dastardly zero to financially sound hero in one bound.
Now, all it needs to tie the silly beggars up in knots properly is for Jean-Claude Trichet to signal the adoption by the European Central Bank (ECB) of a sound money policy. Again, not all Eurosceptics are paid up members of the Freddie Hayek Glee Club, but there’s another of those strong correlations.
Of course that won’t happen. Which is good for your average Eurosceptic: too many about turns and folks might wonder where you really stand.
[Postscript: It was no surprise to me that the spoiling chucker of the Microsoft product used to put this post together managed Obama and Merkel, but not Sarkozy]
Thursday, 2 April 2009
A Little More Joy
An email arrives from Simon Latham, who is secretary of CREAM, set up to focus opposition to the frankly potty Network Rail (NR) plan to move Crewe station south to a greenfield site at Basford. CREAM’s blog site can be found here, along with contact details.
And if you check out that site, you’ll see that the group is still focused on the now urgent need to update the station on its present site. The plans have been there for some time, and money had apparently been made available, so why wait? For starters, the removal of the ageing overall roof structures in favour of new canopies – as has already been done over on Platform 12 – should be going ahead.
Personal observations suggest that NR are merely patching and mending existing roof and canopy structures. This is not good enough. A station of this size, with a user base that can only grow in the longer term, needs the work doing sooner rather than later.
At least the long stay car park is to receive some attention. The good news is that, over the Easter holidays, there will be resurfacing and “a new pedestrian walkway”, whatever that may be.
It’s a start. But we need to go further, and faster.
[Those checking out the CREAM site will see that there has even been an Early Day Motion in Parliament on the issue. And as to why this matter is still not being seriously addressed by the area’s MP, I will return]
And if you check out that site, you’ll see that the group is still focused on the now urgent need to update the station on its present site. The plans have been there for some time, and money had apparently been made available, so why wait? For starters, the removal of the ageing overall roof structures in favour of new canopies – as has already been done over on Platform 12 – should be going ahead.
Personal observations suggest that NR are merely patching and mending existing roof and canopy structures. This is not good enough. A station of this size, with a user base that can only grow in the longer term, needs the work doing sooner rather than later.
At least the long stay car park is to receive some attention. The good news is that, over the Easter holidays, there will be resurfacing and “a new pedestrian walkway”, whatever that may be.
It’s a start. But we need to go further, and faster.
[Those checking out the CREAM site will see that there has even been an Early Day Motion in Parliament on the issue. And as to why this matter is still not being seriously addressed by the area’s MP, I will return]
Crikey and Yikes – I’m off, Readers!
The eyes of the world are on the G20, which may be a relief for the Tories, particularly in London. Because, while in mid-answer before the Commons’ Transport Select Committee this afternoon, Mayor of London Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson declined to continue his appearance and walked out.
This Mayor business is proving rather taxing on Boris. He’s shipped several deputies already, there’s been backpedalling on Congestion Charging zones, the Cross River Tram’s been binned, and now the Transport Select Committee has had the temerity to suggest that his handling of the disruption to transport following recent snowfalls might not be up to scratch.
It’s not as if he wasn’t warned. Ken Livingstone – who might just know about the demands of the job, having done it for two full terms – warned that Boris would need to be a full time Mayor. But Johnson’s continuing to write regular columns for the Telegraph suggests he is allocating some of his time elsewhere.
Just what is driving the Johnson mayoralty? What are the big themes? Are there any? The cancelling of the Cross River Tram is one particularly worrying development: London is the one city in the UK that can point to a half decent and reasonably integrated public transport offering. Improving that offering – getting good quality services into areas that need them – is an essential part of giving Londoners an alternative to the private car. As other cities have shown – Madrid and Barcelona being two recent examples – there are times when a full blown Metro system can’t be justified, but you need something better than buses. Thus the modern tram.
Ken Livingstone realised that, in London, even the tram would need planning and commitment. He also realised that buses could be done much more quickly, and the next best people mover after a tram is a bendy bus. Johnson’s decision to phase out these vehicles on the flimsiest of pretexts would make matters worse. And his idea of developing a “new Routemaster” is just potty. No safety regime anywhere in the western world would countenance the development of such a vehicle, and London isn’t going to be an exception. It isn’t going to happen.
Quit farting around, Boris. Take this job seriously – shape up, or ship out.
This Mayor business is proving rather taxing on Boris. He’s shipped several deputies already, there’s been backpedalling on Congestion Charging zones, the Cross River Tram’s been binned, and now the Transport Select Committee has had the temerity to suggest that his handling of the disruption to transport following recent snowfalls might not be up to scratch.
It’s not as if he wasn’t warned. Ken Livingstone – who might just know about the demands of the job, having done it for two full terms – warned that Boris would need to be a full time Mayor. But Johnson’s continuing to write regular columns for the Telegraph suggests he is allocating some of his time elsewhere.
Just what is driving the Johnson mayoralty? What are the big themes? Are there any? The cancelling of the Cross River Tram is one particularly worrying development: London is the one city in the UK that can point to a half decent and reasonably integrated public transport offering. Improving that offering – getting good quality services into areas that need them – is an essential part of giving Londoners an alternative to the private car. As other cities have shown – Madrid and Barcelona being two recent examples – there are times when a full blown Metro system can’t be justified, but you need something better than buses. Thus the modern tram.
Ken Livingstone realised that, in London, even the tram would need planning and commitment. He also realised that buses could be done much more quickly, and the next best people mover after a tram is a bendy bus. Johnson’s decision to phase out these vehicles on the flimsiest of pretexts would make matters worse. And his idea of developing a “new Routemaster” is just potty. No safety regime anywhere in the western world would countenance the development of such a vehicle, and London isn’t going to be an exception. It isn’t going to happen.
Quit farting around, Boris. Take this job seriously – shape up, or ship out.
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Quality Street Again
I’m not too hot on toffee pennies. And there are always more of them than the purple ones, or the green triangles. Yes, Quality Street is a bit like the EU. We want the bits that appeal to us, and hate the ones that don’t. But if we buy into it, we have to have both. And that takes us back to Spain.
Or France. Or Italy, Greece or Portugal. But in Spain we get the largest numbers – of expat Brits. More than three quarters of a million of them. With most living in what are effectively Anglophone ghettos, making no attempt to learn one of Spain’s main languages, or otherwise integrate into the wider society. Many also work in Spain – a direct benefit of EU membership. Many more take advantage of the route network of the low cost airlines to keep holiday homes – both the right to own property elsewhere in the EU, and the liberalisation of air travel are, again, direct benefits of EU membership.
There are benefits at home: Nissan, Toyota, Honda – all have set up production facilities in the UK to enable them to sell into the wider EU marketplace. Were we not in the European club, there would be no point in them staying. Anyone for a rather more permanent “production holiday”? And there should be no need to mention the financial services industry, and the potential loss of business arising from losing EU membership.
But countries outside the EU are also able to trade with those inside, aren’t they? Yes they are. But consider this: it’s one thing negotiating from inside a club, where you’ve got a say, but quite another being outside, where you ultimately have to do business on terms decided by others.
So what is our problem with the EU? Perhaps it’s a language thing?
If so, that would be strange, especially as the main working language of the EU is, as I’m sure is universally known, English. For that, we have the much derided Neil Kinnock to thank.
That’s two facts that the Murdoch and Rothermere press won’t be stressing any time soon. Unfortunately, many politicians and commentators have also developed a blind spot on the positive aspects of EU membership. And that’s a pity.
Or France. Or Italy, Greece or Portugal. But in Spain we get the largest numbers – of expat Brits. More than three quarters of a million of them. With most living in what are effectively Anglophone ghettos, making no attempt to learn one of Spain’s main languages, or otherwise integrate into the wider society. Many also work in Spain – a direct benefit of EU membership. Many more take advantage of the route network of the low cost airlines to keep holiday homes – both the right to own property elsewhere in the EU, and the liberalisation of air travel are, again, direct benefits of EU membership.
There are benefits at home: Nissan, Toyota, Honda – all have set up production facilities in the UK to enable them to sell into the wider EU marketplace. Were we not in the European club, there would be no point in them staying. Anyone for a rather more permanent “production holiday”? And there should be no need to mention the financial services industry, and the potential loss of business arising from losing EU membership.
But countries outside the EU are also able to trade with those inside, aren’t they? Yes they are. But consider this: it’s one thing negotiating from inside a club, where you’ve got a say, but quite another being outside, where you ultimately have to do business on terms decided by others.
So what is our problem with the EU? Perhaps it’s a language thing?
If so, that would be strange, especially as the main working language of the EU is, as I’m sure is universally known, English. For that, we have the much derided Neil Kinnock to thank.
That’s two facts that the Murdoch and Rothermere press won’t be stressing any time soon. Unfortunately, many politicians and commentators have also developed a blind spot on the positive aspects of EU membership. And that’s a pity.
Attribute Export Strategy
How does a political party rid itself of less than flattering descriptions that have inconveniently lodged in the public mind? Simple – dump them on the opposition.
I’ve already mentioned the Tory painting of Labour as “stupid”. This reverses the impression of the last years of John Major, with an incumbent Prime Minister seen as not quite up to the task, and a sharp, clever young challenger. But why stop there?
Why indeed. And here, yet again, the Tories have seen the Class issue coming over the horizon and acted swiftly. What the electorate might conclude when offered a party whose new stars went to very good schools, took the best kind of degrees, and had a rather good time on the way, is that they might just be out of touch with ordinary people. You might not empathise with the checkout staff at Asda when someone else does the shopping.
The solution is straightforward: dump that one on Labour. So we have the sight of the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, heir to the seventeenth Baronet, and someone who has little experience of the world outside politics, telling us that Pa Broon – or any other minister in the news at the time – is out of touch with the electorate. It’s industrial strength drivel. Osborne might represent Tatton, but the thought of him soiling his hands popping into Booth’s to do the shopping does not enter. And neither will the regulars at the Red Cow be seeing him any time soon.
Osborne is also in the vanguard when it comes to dumping yet another key attribute on Labour: that of what then chairman Theresa May called the idea that they were the “nasty party”. So Osborne simply labels Pa Broon as “cruel”. Another one crossed off the list.
This is also drivel, as anyone who “enjoyed” the effects of over reliance on monetary policy, and savage budgets, of the early Thatcher years will know. So best not to give the electorate time to think – just keep up the assault.
And the Shadow Chancellor isn’t through with this tactic yet. Just to underline the deliberate use of the idea, he clumsily fielded a question on whether his grasp of minutiae showed a slight autism by, you guessed it, accusing Pa Broon of being autistic.
Here, in summary, is the politics of the playground: “No, that’s you”. It might keep opposition minds occupied, but that kind of approach in government would not do.
I’ve already mentioned the Tory painting of Labour as “stupid”. This reverses the impression of the last years of John Major, with an incumbent Prime Minister seen as not quite up to the task, and a sharp, clever young challenger. But why stop there?
Why indeed. And here, yet again, the Tories have seen the Class issue coming over the horizon and acted swiftly. What the electorate might conclude when offered a party whose new stars went to very good schools, took the best kind of degrees, and had a rather good time on the way, is that they might just be out of touch with ordinary people. You might not empathise with the checkout staff at Asda when someone else does the shopping.
The solution is straightforward: dump that one on Labour. So we have the sight of the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, heir to the seventeenth Baronet, and someone who has little experience of the world outside politics, telling us that Pa Broon – or any other minister in the news at the time – is out of touch with the electorate. It’s industrial strength drivel. Osborne might represent Tatton, but the thought of him soiling his hands popping into Booth’s to do the shopping does not enter. And neither will the regulars at the Red Cow be seeing him any time soon.
Osborne is also in the vanguard when it comes to dumping yet another key attribute on Labour: that of what then chairman Theresa May called the idea that they were the “nasty party”. So Osborne simply labels Pa Broon as “cruel”. Another one crossed off the list.
This is also drivel, as anyone who “enjoyed” the effects of over reliance on monetary policy, and savage budgets, of the early Thatcher years will know. So best not to give the electorate time to think – just keep up the assault.
And the Shadow Chancellor isn’t through with this tactic yet. Just to underline the deliberate use of the idea, he clumsily fielded a question on whether his grasp of minutiae showed a slight autism by, you guessed it, accusing Pa Broon of being autistic.
Here, in summary, is the politics of the playground: “No, that’s you”. It might keep opposition minds occupied, but that kind of approach in government would not do.
Wheelered Out The Door
Like poor old Dusty Bin, Stuart Wheeler has been rejected by the Tory Party. He can’t say it wasn’t coming to him, and neither can he have any complaints. You want to support UKIP? Fine. Just don’t expect to remain as a member of another party at the same time.
David Cameron knows that he must be not only decisive, but consistently so. Having dealt with Derek Conway and Giles Chichester, he had no alternative with Wheeler: anything that smacks of “a party within a party” summons up visions of Militant, and Neil Kinnock faced them down. To appear less strong and decisive than Kinnock just would not do. That is all there is to it. Those who have been accusing the likes of Iain Dale (and there is no blogger greater than he) of having some kind of other agenda on this issue miss the obvious point: Dale has been following politics, particularly Tory ones, for long enough to know that Cameron would have Wheeler expelled. He was therefore in a win-win situation: he could call for Wheeler’s head, knowing that expulsion would follow, then be able to say that he told us so. Job done!
But however decisive Cameron is, the E-word, and the spectre of UKIP, continues to hang over the Tories, aided and abetted by the screaming Europhobia of the Murdoch and Rothermere press. You want examples? Let’s pick a Euro-issue, any Euro-issue ... I know – Working Time Directive! 48 hours? How dare those foreigners tell us how many hours a week we can put in?
Of course, the 48 hours is not an EU diktat. Nobody is being told they can’t work more than 48 hours a week - if they want to. And there’s the rub: this is about personal freedom. So where’s David Davis when you need him? Fancy a byelection on a freedom issue, Dave? You wouldn’t want to come over all inconsistent, just because it’s a Euro-issue, would you?
But, say anti-Europeans, there’s more to it than that. What about all those unelected bureaucrats? What indeed. So we’ve started to put the Civil Service up for regular election, have we? We haven’t? So what makes our unelected bureaucrats different to the ones in Brussels?
Third time lucky, Eurosceptics? Here’s another common idea: we’re drifting into some kind of uniform Euro-state. If so, then riddle me this: in Germany, your income tax is collected by what we would call local government. After Margaret Thatcher’s vindictive demonisation of local government in the 1980s, and the subsequent centralisation of power – maintained by all her successors – there is little likelihood of the UK going down that road.
The idea of strong regional identity has also been pursued in Spain, and during its period of EU membership. I will return to matters Anglo-Spanish (in a European context, of course) later.
David Cameron knows that he must be not only decisive, but consistently so. Having dealt with Derek Conway and Giles Chichester, he had no alternative with Wheeler: anything that smacks of “a party within a party” summons up visions of Militant, and Neil Kinnock faced them down. To appear less strong and decisive than Kinnock just would not do. That is all there is to it. Those who have been accusing the likes of Iain Dale (and there is no blogger greater than he) of having some kind of other agenda on this issue miss the obvious point: Dale has been following politics, particularly Tory ones, for long enough to know that Cameron would have Wheeler expelled. He was therefore in a win-win situation: he could call for Wheeler’s head, knowing that expulsion would follow, then be able to say that he told us so. Job done!
But however decisive Cameron is, the E-word, and the spectre of UKIP, continues to hang over the Tories, aided and abetted by the screaming Europhobia of the Murdoch and Rothermere press. You want examples? Let’s pick a Euro-issue, any Euro-issue ... I know – Working Time Directive! 48 hours? How dare those foreigners tell us how many hours a week we can put in?
Of course, the 48 hours is not an EU diktat. Nobody is being told they can’t work more than 48 hours a week - if they want to. And there’s the rub: this is about personal freedom. So where’s David Davis when you need him? Fancy a byelection on a freedom issue, Dave? You wouldn’t want to come over all inconsistent, just because it’s a Euro-issue, would you?
But, say anti-Europeans, there’s more to it than that. What about all those unelected bureaucrats? What indeed. So we’ve started to put the Civil Service up for regular election, have we? We haven’t? So what makes our unelected bureaucrats different to the ones in Brussels?
Third time lucky, Eurosceptics? Here’s another common idea: we’re drifting into some kind of uniform Euro-state. If so, then riddle me this: in Germany, your income tax is collected by what we would call local government. After Margaret Thatcher’s vindictive demonisation of local government in the 1980s, and the subsequent centralisation of power – maintained by all her successors – there is little likelihood of the UK going down that road.
The idea of strong regional identity has also been pursued in Spain, and during its period of EU membership. I will return to matters Anglo-Spanish (in a European context, of course) later.
I Want You to Drink All of That, Eric
A disturbance behind the Speaker’s chair is nothing new, as Neil Kinnock and Norman Tebbit will know. So there was a scuffle in the corridor last night. So what? Ah well. We have the conjunction of “drinks party” and the Karl Rove of the Tory Party, Eric Pickles, that’s what.
If Labour didn’t know what to expect from today’s Tory party in general, and Fat Eric in particular, before the Crewe and Nantwich byelection, they certainly knew afterwards. As I’ve shown, the Tories have hit on a simple tactic: take your own negative attributes and dump them on Labour. In Crewe and Nantwich, the negative was racism. The Tories, after all, were the party of Smethwick, of John Enoch Powell, even of the internal undermining of the unfortunate John Taylor in Cheltenham. Best avoid having any of that kind of thing sticking to you.
The Tories’ opportunity was gifted to them by a Labour election leaflet early in the campaign – early enough to get traction and do damage – which mentioned the idea of ID cards for foreign nationals. As with so much of the waste paper doing the rounds at the time, I glanced at it and sent it on its way to the recycling container. Heard it all before.
But Crewe, in particular, has a large population of migrants from other EU countries, notably Poland. Thus the Tory opportunity. The Labour leaflet was perhaps clumsy, and certainly unhelpful. But racist? I doubt that there was any intent in that direction, but the Tories were off and running. They had been gifted an opportunity to dump one of their most severe and enduring negatives on Labour, and did not hold back. Fat Eric, who prides himself on his anti-racism, trowelled on the righteousness, lecturing his opponents that “we’ve all got to rub along together after this election”.
Labour could not clean off that particular stain, no matter how much senior firepower they deployed in their defence, before polling day. All the Tory visitors were, of course, up to speed on the issue and piled in behind Fat Eric. What a joy, to be able to dump the race issue on another party – any other party!
But what goes around, comes around. Fat Eric’s “righteous Yorkie” approach has not made him popular outside the Tory party. It was no surprise to see on the face of Lib Dem MP Ed Davey, during Pickles’ less than assured Question Time performance recently, a look not so much of dislike, but of downright detestation. Pickles has been more than a little abrasive towards the Lib Dems over local government matters, and his elevation to party chairman means that any suggestion that David Cameron could do deals with Nick Clegg has one big fat roadblock in its way.
Labour, too, with Prince of Darkness Peter Mandelson back in harness, will be looking to exploit any weakness in the Tory armour, and with the desire to pay Fat Eric back with interest over his suggestion of racism.
If Labour didn’t know what to expect from today’s Tory party in general, and Fat Eric in particular, before the Crewe and Nantwich byelection, they certainly knew afterwards. As I’ve shown, the Tories have hit on a simple tactic: take your own negative attributes and dump them on Labour. In Crewe and Nantwich, the negative was racism. The Tories, after all, were the party of Smethwick, of John Enoch Powell, even of the internal undermining of the unfortunate John Taylor in Cheltenham. Best avoid having any of that kind of thing sticking to you.
The Tories’ opportunity was gifted to them by a Labour election leaflet early in the campaign – early enough to get traction and do damage – which mentioned the idea of ID cards for foreign nationals. As with so much of the waste paper doing the rounds at the time, I glanced at it and sent it on its way to the recycling container. Heard it all before.
But Crewe, in particular, has a large population of migrants from other EU countries, notably Poland. Thus the Tory opportunity. The Labour leaflet was perhaps clumsy, and certainly unhelpful. But racist? I doubt that there was any intent in that direction, but the Tories were off and running. They had been gifted an opportunity to dump one of their most severe and enduring negatives on Labour, and did not hold back. Fat Eric, who prides himself on his anti-racism, trowelled on the righteousness, lecturing his opponents that “we’ve all got to rub along together after this election”.
Labour could not clean off that particular stain, no matter how much senior firepower they deployed in their defence, before polling day. All the Tory visitors were, of course, up to speed on the issue and piled in behind Fat Eric. What a joy, to be able to dump the race issue on another party – any other party!
But what goes around, comes around. Fat Eric’s “righteous Yorkie” approach has not made him popular outside the Tory party. It was no surprise to see on the face of Lib Dem MP Ed Davey, during Pickles’ less than assured Question Time performance recently, a look not so much of dislike, but of downright detestation. Pickles has been more than a little abrasive towards the Lib Dems over local government matters, and his elevation to party chairman means that any suggestion that David Cameron could do deals with Nick Clegg has one big fat roadblock in its way.
Labour, too, with Prince of Darkness Peter Mandelson back in harness, will be looking to exploit any weakness in the Tory armour, and with the desire to pay Fat Eric back with interest over his suggestion of racism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
