Agony Uncle Corbyn

After hearing Jeremy Corbyn's responses to recent major incidents, including the two horrible terrorist attacks during the election and the terrible Grenfell tower inferno this week, I wondered how he'd respond to agony aunt style pleas for sensitive, honest, non-self-serving advice and guidance...

Dear Jeremy,

I fear my wife is having an affair. I've been told by a mutual friend that she's seeing a fireman from my local fire station that she met on a girls night out last year, but I've no definite evidence she is. 

What can I do to find out if she is cheating and rebuild our relationship if she is?

Yours,

Barry, Yeovil.

Dear Barry,

Trust is such an important part of any relationship. It's clear to me that your trust in your wife has been damaged by your friend's revelation. If you ask your wife directly about her potential infidelity you will expose your lack of trust in her. However, if you ignore it, the doubt will naw away at your feelings for her and may destroy your marriage for good. 

What is clear, however, is that firefighters have suffered years of cuts and pay restraint at the hands of this Tory government. Is it any wonder that they seek solace for the years of intolerable abuse in the bosom of other men's wives? I note that at no point in your letter to me did you mention austerity and how that may have had a bearing on your situation. I suspect you may not have voted Labour. Have you ever thought that it might be your vote that caused your marital difficulties?

Until you accept that it is Theresa May and her Tory party that is to blame for your wife's suspected infidelity, you can never begin to rebuild your marriage. 

Yours in solidarity,

JC

---------------------------------

Dear Jeremy,

I've always enjoyed a very active sex life. However, after turning 50, I've experienced erectile dysfunction a couple of times in the last few months. I am worried this may occur more often as I age, leaving me incapable of enjoying this important side of my life, or being able to satisfy my wife and various mistresses needs in bed. 

Is there any advice you can provide to reassure me as I am sure the stress of worrying about it is making matters worse. 

Yours, 

Philip, Somerset 

Dear Philip,

We all age (I'm 68 years old, although able to achieve full sexual engorgement at any time I put my mind to it) and as part of that ageing process we find that our bodies let us down from time to time. What is important to remember is that even if things get worse there are medications available that can help put lead back in your pencil. 

But, you say you've only experienced a couple of incidents of erectile dysfunction in the past few months. This may be due to stress more than any ageing of your body.

Perhaps you're a public sector worker forced to have your final salary pension downgraded? Or an unskilled worker who is working on a zero hours contract, or perhaps you are disabled and not working and you face the humiliation of being assessed to confirm whether or not you can work? The chances are, it's the Tories who are causing you to lose wood. 

Theresa May doesn't give your erection a second thought when she's plotting the next unnecessary and heartless cuts to the public sector. She would laugh at your impotence, point and probably flick your limp noodle before making love to her gym instructor in front of you. That's Tories for you. 

Have you never wondered why it's only since Theresa May became Prime Minister that you have had this issue? 

It's only me and my Labour Party that will stop austerity and spend much more on public sector workers; it's only me and my Labour Party that will scrap zero hours contracts and provide everyone with a highly paid, secure full time jobs whether they want them or not; it's only me and my Labour Party who will ensure anyone who wants benefits will get them and get much more money than before; it's only me and my Labour Party that will stop gym instructors having sex with our wives. 

You know what to do at the next election if you want to get an erection (note to Seamus: could this be a new sound bite at the next GE?).

Yours in solidarity,

JC. 

---------------------------------

Dear Jeremy,

Since losing my wife after a short and unexpected illness last year I've struggled to cope with life and feel lonely and increasingly hopeless. 

Is there any advice you can give that can lift my spirits?

Yours,

Bill, 78, Manchester. 

Dear Bill, 

Firstly, let me send you my condolences and great sympathy for your loss. Adjusting to life after losing your life partner is such a huge challenge but one many of us have to, sadly, face in our later lives. It's important you know that you are not alone and there are many other bereaved widows and widowers (or Wids if they are non-binary) facing the same challenges as you. I advise reaching out to friends and family as well as looking for companionship with others of your age who may be going through a similar journey. You can then begin to rebuild social networks that you may not currently have for support and continue the grieving process but with more companionship of others who understand what you're going through. 

You mention that your wife died after a short and unexpected illness. It must have been a terrible shock. Was she being treated at one of our (Labour's) NHS hospitals? Everyone who works there is an angel, of course. But the chances are she'd still be alive today if it wasn't for Tory cuts and austerity. Yes, they tell you they've increased spending on our (Labour's) NHS but the facts are that our (Labour's) NHS needs far more money than whatever they have spent. Probably six or ten times more. Whatever, it's a lot and I'll spend it. 

It's only Labour that can be trusted with our (Labour's) NHS. I only wish you were still enjoying the companionship of your good lady wife. But the Tories and Theresa May had other ideas. 

I hope you find companionship and happiness in the coming years and that I become Prime Minister before all your new friends and potentially a new partner are killed by Theresa May's assault on our (Labour's) NHS. 

Yours in solidarity,

JC. 

Upset With The Election Result?

There are a group of people in our great nation who are deeply troubled, especially since the election result last Thursday. Are you one of them?

What can you do to salve the painful feelings of rejection and humiliation you must be experiencing? You may have tried a number of things already to comfort yourself and salvage your sanity.

Perhaps you've already posted a sanctimonious FB message expressing your disappointment at the obvious moral and intellectual shortcomings of those 11.3 million voters who don't share your superior brand of politics.

Perhaps you've already warned your Twitter followers not to bother turning up to NHS appointments as the organisation no longer exists or where it does they'd better take a credit card.

Surely you've reposted a letter from a left wing reverend or an "11 year old girl", or some such, to David Cameron imploring him not the exterminate poor people or introduce hunting of the disabled, like we all know he wants to... the bastard.

You've probably posted memes calling for a change in electoral system to one that might deliver more palatable results for you in the future.

You almost certainly would have pointed out it's all the fault of the "Tory press" and that even the BBC didn't play its part in promoting Labour seriously enough.

You simply must have signed up to some kind of anti-Tory manifesto.


You may even have had a bit of a riot and wittily defaced a monument to war heroes with the words "Tory scum!", such is your understandable anger at this disgustingly unacceptable democratic outcome.

If you've done all these things and still feel down, never fear. The Guardian have provided counselling advice from a psychotherapist for all those tender hearts that have been "traumatised by the election result"...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/traumatised-by-the-election-result-a-psychotherapists-recovery-guide

No, really, this is an actual thing. Please do read it, even though, at first, you'll think it must be a spoof. As with everything written in The Guardian, it's achingly (self-)righteously worthy advice.

Local Elections 2013

Ed inspiring commuters on the Tube

Lots of spinning going on about the council elections results. In reality, it's been a typically bad mid-term result for the Tories and the Lib Dems. Labour's gains have been patchy and mostly disappointing. Only UKIP can take any pleasure in that they attracted a significant percentage of the vote and some councillors. Although no councils, of course.

Apart from the UKIP performance, the only other notable outcome is Labour's lacklustre progress. Ed Miliband had the following going for him:

• With the Liberal Democrats in coalition with the Tories, Labour are the lone party of opposition on the left. Dissatisfaction with the government should drive votes to Labour as the only possible alternative
• The Coalition parties are in mid-term, midway through implementing very painful reforms and departmental budget cuts that have sapped their political capital.
• UKIP are splitting the vote on the right, sapping support from the Conservatives
• Labour were starting from a very low point and the Tories a very high point, as the last time these wards were fought was during the darkest days of the previous Labour government. Any slight improvement in Labour's vote should have delivered hundreds of councillors.

Given all of this, you'd expect a Labour landslide, gains of 4/5/600 or more. But no, nothing like it. More worrying for Labour is its lack of success in the South. The only councils Labour won were Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire - both rock solid Labour before Labour's disastrous result in 2009. Few significant inroads were made in the South of England.

Ed Miliband has had an easy run in the media for a while. But following recent poor decisions, especially around opposing Conservative welfare reforms, another car crash interview and now these disappointing results, pressure should start to mount on the Labour leader. But, I suspect, most of the electorate have already made their mind up on him, and Labour's only hope will be no economic recovery and UKIP's popularity persisting to the election in 2015.

If yesterday's vote proves anything, it proves the country has a strong right of centre mind set. Ed Miliband's march to the left is leaving people cold.

Maggie's Dignified Send Off

It was pleasing to see that today's ceremonial funeral for Margaret Thatcher passed off without any significant incident. Much was made of the threats to use the event for anti-Thatcher / Tory political demonstrations. But all attempts to barrack and disrupt proceedings were drowned out by a genuine outpouring of support by the many spectators that lined the procession's route.

The Bishop of London's words were spot on regarding the Maggie behind the mythological figure. It was right that we look to her as the person she was rather than the caricature her fans and detractors have in their minds. His words regarding the common and deliberate misrepresentation of her words "There's no such thing as society" were also very welcome. It is one of the mainstay myths that the Left use to try to portray Thatcherism as a creed of greed and individualism. In fact, she was saying the opposite. She was saying that society is made up of individuals, families and neighbours but it is not synonymous with the state.

Typical misrepresentation of
Margaret Thatcher's words

The suggestion that people's needs, ambitions and desires are not wholly determined and delivered by the state goes against a central tenant of Left wing thinking. The idea that people should demonstrate personal responsibility for their families, friends and neighbours and shouldn't always look to the state to provide, without some effort themselves, is an anathema to many on the Left. As we've seen with Labour's opposition to recent welfare reform, and their record of expanding the client state exponentially during their time in power.

But today wasn't about politics, it was about marking the passing of the 20th centuries longest serving and first ever woman prime minister, who came to power at a time of decline and unrest and changed our country. Many think for the better, some for the worse. But either way, today was not the time, and her funeral not the place, for political demonstrations. So it's good to see the attempts to make it so, fail.

You win again. RIP Mrs T.

Bully Balls

Labour are attempting to blame Ed Balls' poor performance in his response to George Osborne's Autumn Statement yesterday on his stammer and, what they want people to believe was, "nasty" mocking by the Tory front bench.

Not content with attempting to smear the Thatcher cabinet with the Paedo tag (something he's gone very quiet about since the McAlpine debacle), Tom Watson is now chucking stones from within his glass house at Osborne and co, accusing them of bullying poor defenceless Balls. Of course, he, his parties' Shadow Chancellor and his ex-boss, Gordon Brown would know nothing about that kind of behaviour.

But let's not forget a genuinely nasty moment in the House of Commons that happened not too long ago. The moment when Labour MPs mocked Tory MP, Paul Maynard who has cerebral palsy, for the way he spoke.


Mr Maynard spoke subsequently about the attitude of some Labour MPs who take offence at the fact he, a disabled man, should have the temerity to be a Conservative. In their warped minds, the disabled should only consider Labour for their political home. Failure to comply with their thought policy immediately renders you a traitor to your "kind". You've got to wonder at the hypocrisy of this kind of nasty, myopic prejudice.

So, perhaps the likes of Tom Watson and his Watsonettes on Twitter should consider their own side before making ludicrous accusation about others.

Leveson On Political Spin

All the focus following the publication of the Leveson report has been on the big issue of press regulation and whether or not we want our newspapers answerable to politicians (i.e. statutory "underpinning"). This is a big question and one that deserves extensive coverage and public debate.

But there are a myriad of other questions addressed by The Lord Justice, not least, Labour's serious accusations about the Tories relationship with News International and Cameron's handling of the BSkyB bid. Leveson's findings here also deserve attention but won't get it due to the gravity of the press regulation debate. However, Guido helpfully distils Leveson's judgements:

Labour claimed the Conservatives did ‘a deal’ with NI over BSkyB and other policy in exchange for their support.
But Lord Justice Leveson says ‘The evidence does not, of course, establish anything resembling a “deal”’.

Labour claimed Jeremy Hunt ‘was not judging the [BSkyB] bid he was backing it’.
But Lord Justice Leveson says ‘there is no credible evidence of actual bias on the part of Mr Hunt’.

Labour claimed ‘Cameron should never have given the decision to Hunt in the first place’.
But Lord Justice Leveson says Jeremy Hunt ‘was the obvious candidate to entrust with the decision because of his portfolio… The evidence does not begin to support a conclusion that the choice of Mr Hunt was the product of improper media pressure, still less an attempt to guarantee a particular outcome to the process’.

Labour claimed ‘Jeremy Hunt “was acting as a backchannel for the Murdochs”’
But Lord Justice Leveson says ‘Mr Hunt immediately put in place robust systems to ensure… fairness, impartiality and transparency’ and Jeremy Hunt’s ‘actions as a decision maker were frequently adverse to News Corp’s interests’.

Labour claimed the Prime Minister had discussions with James Murdoch about the BSkyB bid at a dinner on 23 December 2010.
But Lord Justice Leveson says the Prime Minister was ‘perfectly in order’.

God knows there's enough dodgy behaviour going on in public life without this kind of mendacious spinning. Perhaps the next public inquiry should be into the ethics of party political spinning* and the way parties attempt to smear each other at every turn. No wonder politicians are down there with journalists in people's regard.

* Somehow I suspect this is one inquiry Ed Miliband will not be calling for.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Dial C For Conspiracy

The Jimmy Savile revelations were shocking. I can't say I ever liked him much myself, I always thought he was a bit of a weirdo. But I didn't imagine he was a serial sex offender. And, if other allegations are to be believed, a murderer and a necrophiliac (presumably in that order).

How he got away with this for so long became a real focus for attention. The fact that ITV broke the story after the BBC suppressed it last year, was another. We learnt that Savile had access to vulnerable young people in hospitals and schools as well as the opportunities his work for the BBC gave him. All this led, unsurprisingly, to criticism of the institutions implicated.

At no point did I consider that politics might enter this scandal. I had failed to analyse the situation thoroughly enough. Had I reflected on the institutions involved I might have predicted a defensive political reaction. Those institutions being: the BBC, the NHS and a state run school. What was, at times over the top, but justifiably very angry criticisms and questioning of these organisations, was being interpreted by some as a right wing conspiracy to destroy institutions that the left hold dear to their hearts. 

For the most part, the criticism was no such thing. If David Cameron was gunning for the Beeb, as some would have you believe, he would have gone along with Ed Miliband's, by now automatic response to all occurrences, a call for an independent inquiry into Savile and the BBC. He didn't. But this didn't stop the defensive response from the left. Twitter was ablaze with outrage at the "evil Tory" attacks on the BBC. Anybody who generally held views right of centre, that dared opine on the possible failings in the BBC, or any of the other institutions involved, were accused of waging an ideological war. But, apart from in the minds of some of the more paranoid on the left, there genuinely was no political dimension to this. Just outrage at what had happened and at the failure of the BBC to expose a man who many within its employ suspected (even knew) was an abuser, even after he had died and the threat of litigation had disappeared.

As the scandal unfolded, the BBC started to turn on itself. For a little while it looked like it might implode. But then, out of blue, allegations of a Tory paedophile scandal started to emerge. I say emerge, but I mean re-emerge as these allegations have been around for many, many years. There is a mini-conspiracy theorist universe that exists in the darkest reaches of the internet where the same stories are circulated over and over again. Some are wildly fanciful, like David Icke's Paedophile Lizard people. Other's take a more analytical approach (you know like the best conpiracy theorists do in the USA - 9/11 was US Government not al-Qaeda , Elvis is Alive, Obama isn't an American etc etc).

But it was when the deputy chair of the Labour Party, Tom Watson, stood up in Parliament to announce that he had evidence that a paedophile ring had existed with links that went to the heart of 10, Downing Street, that the game changed. I started to question my cynicism at the theories on the net. The separate North Wales care home scandal that involved a "high profile politician from the Thatcher years" fitted perfectly with Watson's accusation of a national Paedophile ring. Indeed, in the rumours and innuendo I had seen on the web, they were part and parcel of each other. Was he on to something? Surely, Ed Miliband would not have sanctioned such an explosive allegation without being certain that his deputy chairman had water tight evidence.

But then the North Wales care home allegations about a senior Tory abuser fell apart. The Guardian reported that the allegations were wrong, a case of mistaken identity. For The Guardian, Tories can only be found innocent when the evidence proves them so, beyond reasonable doubt. Newsnight's decision to run the totally unverified allegation plunged the BBC back into crisis. A crisis that this time cost it's Director General his job (if not a year's salary). With the North Wales allegations against Lord McAlpine in tatters the wider allegations that can be found on the web start to look shakey, as Alastair McAlpine is a fairly consistent character across most of the theories.

None of this deterred the intrepid Mr Watson. His accusations about a "Thatcher era senior Tory" were, he said, separate from the obviously false "Thatcher ere senior Tory" made by Newsnight with back up from the likes of Sally Bercow and George Monbiot. He continued brief newspapers and blog about his concerns, expanding on the allegations, hinting one of the perpetrators was a senior Thatcher government minister who is still alive, even still "powerful". His blog doesn't miss the opportunity to make it clear how brave he's being:

"I’m not going to let this drop despite warnings from people who should know that my personal safety is imperilled if I dig any deeper. It’s spooked me so much that I’ve kept a detailed log of all the allegations should anything happen."

Some say he's an attention seeking egotist acting to further enhance his crusader image garnered from his successful execution of the Gordon Brown initiated war on News International via the phone hacking scandal.

McBride exposed the depths Labour
spin can stoop to

But some might think there's more to it. A party political strategy to sound the "Tory sleaze" klaxon, so successfully deployed against Major's government in the 90's. A similar, unsuccessful attempt was made before the last election with the Damian McBride scandal. Tom Watson worked alongside McBride at the heart of Gordon Brown's spin machine at the time. He denies any involvement in the spin operation to smear Tory politicians with false allegations at the time. But questions are being asked about his approach now to these allegations. While these allegations don't directly smear anyone, they do associate his political enemies with the most heinous and hateful of crimes in the minds of the public. And of course, as Labour's ex-social media Tsar, he would be more than aware of the internet trawling his words would initiate and which names would emerge. I've subsequently seen Facebook status updates and Tweets generally associating Tories with child abuse. Although, of course, he can't be blamed for the stupidity of the likes of Schofield's list*. 

Of course, if there has been a terrible injustice, the most important thing is to investigate and expose any wrong doing of failures in the system. But, if he genuinely wants to uncover widespread wrongdoing involving child abuse, why do it so publicly? Surely, all this publicity is doing more harm than good. It's tipping off potential perpetrators, who now could be nuking their hard drives of any evidence before they're seized by police, or getting out of the country if they really thought their liberty was at risk. And it is swamping genuine victims cases by encouraging scores of false claims from the confused, unwell and even some who no doubt smell a compo claim in the offing. He could have worked with the police to build a case. He could have then emerged, once convictions had been secured thanks to his evidence, in court, as a true hero. Instead he chose to rise, in the midst of a media frenzy around the Savile paedophilia revelations, to ride the wave, dragging the Tories into the mire with Savile, redirecting focus from the BBC and rekindling the "Tory sleaze" tag in peoples minds.

But then, perhaps he's calculated that a public revelation is the only way to get action. Perhaps he believes there really is an establishment cover up so widespread that only by bringing the issue into the public domain can it be broken and the truth exposed.

Only time will tell. At the moment it feels like the most likely scenario from the above scenarios is the attention seeking egotist. The party political strategy to smear Tories sounds as much like a conspiracy theory as the nationwide establishment cover up Watson is claiming.

If nothing does come of his accusation in the weeks to come, or if potential prosecutions are compromised by his actions, serious questions need to be asked about his fitness to be in public office. But, if the information he's provided to police does lead to the exposure of a widespread conspiracy that facilitated child abuse on a grand scale, he may actually be able to justifiably claim to be a crusader for justice, something his loyal band of left wing Watson-ettes already think he is for giving Murdoch a kicking after his papers stopped supporting Labour.

*The opposite of Schindler's list - it is a list of names of people who are to be persecuted.

Two Eds Aren't Better Than One

Miliband slow hand claps Balls

I had a strong feeling of déjà vu this morning as I read an article in The Times based on the Labour leader's and his Chancellor's briefings against each other. Miliband's lot say Balls is domineering, secretive and untrustworthy while Balls' lot say Miliband is weak and lacks vision or any strategic direction. It's a shame they can't be as insightful about the state they left the economy in, but you can't expect too much.

This all comes after John Rentoul's article in The Independent that pointed out that George Osborne's position is secure and the real issue is with tensions between the two Eds and their lack of any credible alternative to the government's economic plans. The New Statesman publishes an article by Dan Hodges that confirms Labour's plans to avoid making any difficult policy decisions until after the next general election. They hope the Tories will render themselves unelectable allowing Labour to continue their vacuous opportunistic opposition which runs less risk of them losing union or party support.

Meanwhile, the Tory Chancellor gets some rare supportive commentary via Matthew Parris in The Times. While admitting George Osborne is getting increased criticism from all sides, each side undermines the other. From the Right, comes intellectually potent but politically suicidal pressure to cut harder and faster; from the Left comes intellectually bankrupt and mealy-mouthed pressure to cut a little less and a little slower.

It's good to see some focus on the alternatives (or in the Left's case lack of) to Osborne's plans. I don't suppose it will last. But the light being shed on the decaying relationship between Miliband and Balls shows that nothing has changed since the Blair/Brown years.

 

Posted with Blogsy

No!alition Government

"Come back, Nick" "NO! I HATE you, you is not my friend no more.... Blahhhh!"

Following the news that the government was dropping proposals for House of Lords reform, Nick Clegg has retaliated by setting his party against proposals to equalise the size of electoral constituencies and reduce their number.

Clegg's toy evacuation from his pram seems justified as he explains that there was a deal; the Tories were to deliver House of Lords reform and the Liberal Democrats were to deliver boundary changes. But there are a few problems with Clegg's position:

1. The boundary changes were not linked to Lords reform. The Coalition Agreement promises an AV referendum followed by boundary changes to equalise constituency sizes. The Tories delivered on the AV referendum despite knowing it was a waste of public money and political time:

We will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum,as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. We will whip both Parliamentary parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.

2. What's more, the agreement doesn't promise Tory support for Lords reform but that a committee will be set up to consider it and propose a motion:

We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely that there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

3. By scuppering equalisation of constituency sizes, the Lib Dems are condemning themselves and the Conservatives to entering the next election with an even bigger systematic bias to Labour that will make the prospect of a hung parliament much less likely. If things turn round for the Tories there's a chance that another coalition with them will be possible. But I wonder how keen the Tories would be with that idea, especially after today's childish and self destructive behaviour. If UKIP do well, they may well prove to be a more attractive partner - a nightmare for the Europhile Lib Dems. More likely, Labour will win outright. With the current bias caused, in part, by the democratic deficit in the South and a surplus in Northern England and Scotland that the boundary changes would have corrected, all Labour need is a percentage share of the vote in the mid-thirties to win a decent majority - no need for the Lib Dems.
   

The Lib Dem's action today brings coalition government into disrepute. It show's that politicians of different parties can't opporate under an honest interpretation of an agreement and specifically that Clegg's party can't deliver grown up government - a shocking situation for a party that dreams of introducing an electoral system (PR) that would make coalition government the norm, not an exception.

With the Conservatives likely to lose the Corby by-election to Labour following Louise Mensch's resignation, Lib Dems must be praying for further Tory to Labour seat transfers before the next election. A shift in parliamentary arithmetic may allow them to jump ship into a Lib/Lab coalition before they are decimated at the polls. Then they could extract a promise from Ed Miliband to implement PR (presumably without a referendum this time, what with people's opinions being so troublesome an' all).

Today at least, this scenario is looking like the only one where they can continue as an influential political force, no matter how little they seem to deserve it. I hope they reconsider their opposition to fair constituency sizes and rediscover the maturity, bravery and commitment to doing what is best for the country rather than their party, that Clegg demonstrated back in 2010.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Playing The Victim - Now It's May's Turn

After George Osborne suggested that Labour has some questions to answer over the Libor scandal that occurred while they were in power, Ed Balls switched to his highest spin setting and very successfully diverted attention from valid questions about Labour and Libor and turned the tables on the increasingly hapless Chancellor.

Balls' genius was to re-frame Osborne's question in the media's and therefore public's mind as a direct accusation against himself - Osborne hadn't suggested Labour had questions to answer, he had said Balls had directed the whole affair. Now, there's no evidence for this, so Balls is onto a winner straight away. When Barclays insinuated that the Bank of England had suggested they "low-ball" the Libor rate, Balls saw his opportunity. He knew that, whatever the strong likelihood was that ministers in the last government were aware, even complicit in, the rate fixing, there wouldn't be any trail back to him. So effective was the deeply engrained principle of "plausible-deniability" within the Labour leadership. All dodgy decisions or instructions were to have no paper or electronic trail back to a minister. Everything was kept informal and verbal. 

Mr Cooper

So when the deputy governor of the Bank of England refers to "senior Whitehall sources" everyone knows they are Labour ministers, but there's no actual proof they had anything to do with it. Great. And, perhaps they didn't. Certainly, that's what the Deputy of The Bank of England, Paul Tucker told the select committee when he appeared before them shortly after Osborne said Labour had questions to answer in an article in The Spectator. And how Balls, the BBC, the Guardian and a myriad of other left wing and not-so-left-wing-but-not-keen-on-Osborne media outlets jumped on the news. Osborne should apologise immediately. The number of times I heard BBC commentators talk as if this was a blatant truism. Osborne had accused Balls of pressurising the BoE and now his accusations have been denied (albeit by someone who would never have admitted to the charge even if he was guilty, but let's ignore that for now).

Osborne released a statement clarifying that he hadn't accused Balls of anything and this was immediately cast as a humiliating climb down. Game, set and match, Ed Balls.

Well, now the government finds itself with an opportunity, rather sweetly involving Balls' wife, to exact some revenge in a similar fashion. This time over the G4S debacle. Again, a crisis born under Labour - they signed up contracts with G4S when they were in power. Ex-Labour minister John Reid is a G4s Director - so it could easily be said that Labour have questions to answer again. But that line isn't being played very hard since Osborne's problems. No, the opportunity here is that Yvette Cooper made a quite specific allegation in the Commons that Theresa May knew before the last couple of weeks that G4S was struggling to meet it's commitments. Well, what do you know, today Nick Buckles confirmed Theresa May's account that she was only told on the 11th July.

So, where is the outcry for an apology now? I'll watch the BBC news in the morning and pick up a Guardian expecting to see the headlines dominated with the word "APOLOGISE"...

I may be disappointed.

It's Gone All Gordon

Hugo Rifkind wrote an excellent article in The Times (£) about Gordon Brown's evidence at the Leveson Enquiry this week. He compares Tony Blair's and Gordon Brown's views on the press, views that expose the two men's very different outlook.

Tony Blair thought back then — and doubtless still thinks — that the British press was awful. “Of course the accuracy of a story counts,” he said. “But it is secondary to impact. It is this necessary devotion to impact that is unravelling standards, driving them down, making the diversity of the media not the strength it should be, but an impulsion towards sensation above all else.”

It’s a fairly devastating critique, this, painting the press as irresponsible and amoral; a nihilistic force of mob-handed destruction. In the wake of phone hacking and everything else, this does not seem inaccurate. But this is not what Gordon Brown thinks at all. He sees a press that is not amoral, but immoral. Or, to put it another way, Tony Blair would say that the press tore apart Gordon Brown because he was rubbish, because it was fun, because it was just so damn easy, because a mindless sort of group-think took hold and ordinary humanity flew out the window. Whereas Gordon Brown thinks it happened because two or three powerful men, for ideological or commercial reasons, entered into a conspiracy to get rid of him.

I would argue that this isn't just how Gordon Brown thinks but how many on the left think. The left sees News International as a political opponent (at least since its papers swapped sides) not as a news outfit whose failings are the same as other media operators. They genuinely believe that News International is in league with the Tories and out to get them.

It is this paranoid political outlook, allied with the commercial opportunism on the part of Murdoch's competitors, that has led to the unjustifiable amount of media coverage that Leveson and any Murdoch related story gets. Rifkind concludes...

“Attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgment,” said Tony Blair in 2007. “It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial.”

Quite. The Leveson Inquiry was born out of a sudden public awareness that print media had terrible problems. I’m not going to play those problems down. But they were Tony Blair problems, not Gordon Brown problems; problems about process, not motive. All the way through, I’ve had a sense of lawyers looking for problems with motive and simply not finding them. And thus, what started seven months ago (seven months!) as a righteous autopsy into grotesque wrongs done to ordinary folk has become a whirlwind of innuendo about whether the sidekicks of media bosses and Cabinet ministers are sending each other the right sort of text message.

This is why it’s getting boring. It’s gone weird. It’s gone Gordon.

My favourite comment under this article is from Stephanie Bennett...

"A politician complaining about the press is like a sailor complaining about the sea". - Enoch Powell

Miliband's English Interest

You won't have been able to escape Ed Miliband opining on his sense of Englishness today, as he attempts to exploit a wave of patriotism that has gripped the country following the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. He desperately needs to distract the voting public from his parties more natural republicanism, as expressed by Tom Watson, Labour MP who described the Diamond Jubilee as a "show of opulence by state elites". For the old loyal Brownite (and now MiliBrownite) spinner, Watson's comments are an unusually clumsy and honest expression of what many on the left think of the Monarchy but, as Ed Miliband knows, are a big turn off for many key sections of the electorate.

Miliband knows Labour needs to revive its fortunes in the South of England after being wiped out there in the last election, and he'll hope claiming an interest in England will help that objective. However, as with Gordon Brown's "British jobs for British workers" sound bite, this speech is likely to turn out equally as meaningless and empty.

You have to ask, what is Miliband offering the English? There isn't one policy he can point to that is intended to benefit the English. To be fair, there isn't much on offer from any political party specifically for the English, apart from the Government's plan to reduce the democratic deficit caused by the unequal parliamentary constituency boundaries. Unsurprisingly, Labour oppose this eminently sensible plan. Why? Because they benefit from the inequality as there are more safe Labour constituencies in their heartlands than there should be.

It is also this self-serving approach to their politics we should bear in mind when considering Labour's new found interest in England. Labour relies heavily on Scotland as a power base and, if they got back into power, would do everything they could to boost their recently flagging fortunes there, at the expense of England and the English tax payer.

Local Election Results - Nothing We Didn't Already Know

I'm getting a bit bored of the hysterical local election results coverage now. It's difficult to see what these results tell us that we didn't already know. There is a lot of commentary, especially from anti-Cameron right wing commentators as well as the normal party political spin from Labour, around the state of the Conservative party and its leadership.

Based on the local election results the BBC estimates the national share of the vote as the Tories on 31%, Labour on 38% and the Lib Dems on 16%. This outcome reflects what polls have been telling us about Tory support for about a month now. Labour's support is not anywhere near the peek of 45% some polls have suggested and the Lib Dems (who always do better at local elections) is higher.

If anything, the lack of much improvement in the popular vote for Ed Miliband's Labour party since last year's local elections is comment worthy, but instead we're hearing how fantastically well Labour have done and how Cameron's "gaffe prone" government is in real trouble.

Focus has been on the number of council seats gained and lost by the parties since these seats were last up for election in 2008. But Labour couldn't have failed to win 700 odd seats given the low base they were at 4 years ago and the very high base the Tories achieved. Labour did well to win about 100 more than that but that's still not terribly surprising. It's worth remembering that Labour gained over 400 seats in the local elections on the same day they lost the General Election in 2010, with a Michael Foot-esque share of the national vote due, again, to the base positions of the parties when those seats had last been elected. So, Labour haven't produced anything worth the hype. The danger is that all the positive coverage they are getting will start to embed the idea that the same lot of failures that ran this country into the ground up to 2010 are credible candidates to run the country again in 2015.

The main difference between now and last year's election is the fall in Tory support. There's no doubt Cameron has some major issues with communicating his government's agenda. This has been a major contributor to the Tories drop in support of about 5% since the general election. For example, the last budget cut taxes for the poor and increased the amount of tax raised from the rich, but you'd think the opposite was true from the coverage it received in the media. This last month has seen one issue after another spin out of control. The government's position in most cases has been reasonably defensible. But no adequate expectation setting before policy announcements seems to take place. Then, following announcements or potentially damaging events, no effective rebuttal of opposition attacks occurs, allowing them to drive the media agenda and influence public opinion.

I have to admit, the lack of aggressive media management from the likes of the mendacious Alistair Campbell is refreshing in this government. But perhaps Labour had it right. Could it be that a modern political party can't survive without aggressively bullying the media to get your line into their headlines. I hope that is not the case. But one way or the other the Tories need to get their point across. Otherwise, Labour's minor successes like these local elections will continue to be blown out of all proportion and their, often misleading, narrative on government policy will become the perceived truth in the public's mind. It could already be too late.

Of course, the Tories woes are not all down to poor communication. They are lacking a strong message that goes beyond getting the nation's finances back into shape (and even that is arguably suffering as they increasingly water down their policies as the going gets tough and in response to pressure from their worried coalition partners). The Big Society was supposed to provide a broader agenda but it's disappeared as has Steve Hilton, Cameron's policy guru and nothing seems to have replaced it or him.

Cameron shouldn't be panicked into any policy lurches to the left or right. But he should take some time now to clarify what his broad message is and how to effectively get it across to voters. He should start by looking at who he has working on media management and policy development. Then he needs to start planning to differentiate the Tories from the coalition, focusing on what he'd like to do but currently can't and how a majority Tory government would deliver if given a chance.

Red Ken's Brass Neck And Red Ed's Regret

You've got to admire the brass neck of Labour's Mayoral candidate, Ken "do as I say not as I do" Livingstone.

As Everyone will be aware he was caught out arranging his financial affairs in the most tax efficient way possible, despite condemning others who did the same as evil, tax dodging "rich bastards".

Hypocrisy in Labour politicians being par for the course the issue probably would have blown over by now had it not been for Livingstone's accusations that Boris Johnson, the Tory candidate, had similar arrangements. Boris and Ken had previously covered this territory and Ken knew full well the accusations weren't true.

Red Ken's accusations inevitably led to calls for all the candidates to reveal their financial affairs for public scrutiny. His attempts to avoid disclosure then, when forced, the revelations that he (and to a lesser extent the Lib Dem candidate - they always have to be "equidistant", don't they?) had paid a significantly smaller proportion of their income in tax than Boris, have made all the headlines over the past few days.

Now, Ken is attempting to make out that it was the Tories who made everyone's tax affairs an issue, saying it's a distraction from the "real" issues facing Londoners. In reality it was him, by making false allegations that inflamed the whole topic. The fuss being made about individuals tax affairs has been a distraction, not least as it was only Ken that had a big problem with tax efficient arrangements. But the original revelation on Livingstone's tax arrangements was very much relevant as it showed him up as the hypocrite he is. His response also revealed him to be and out and out liar. Boris Johnson would have to be condemning, and proposing the jailing of, serial adulterers to reach the same levels of hypocrisy as dear old Ken.

Mayoral elections are very much about the individuals as well as their policies. How trustworthy are they? Can we trust them to do what they say they are going to do? etc. Ken, like many politicians on the left in this country, has shown himself not to be trustworthy. His chances of winning are now looking very slim.

After losing in Bradford, Ed Miliband really can't afford to lose in another Labour orientated city like London, especially during a mid-term Tory government. He will hope the inevitable gains Labour will see in the local elections (the Tories will be defending a very high water mark result from 2008) will overshadow his failure in London.

How Red Ed must be regretting going for his colour-sake, Red Ken, now.

Dishonouring The Honours

It's fair to say that honours and, more so, peerages have always been used by politicians to favour their own cronies. Never was this more blatant than under Tony Blair's Labour administration where begging party fund raisers would actually offer honours and peerages at set prices. The more you gave the greater the honour. If you gave enough you would be able to seat your generous arse on the hallowed benches of the House of Lords.

The honours system was reluctantly reformed by the last Government following exposure of their abuse of it. The reforms introduced more independent scrutiny and nominations. Also, the provision of peerages now go through the House of Lord's appointments commission. The idea being that blatantly party political nominations get weeded out and rejected if there's no genuine reason for their inclusion. David Cameron, as can be seen here, was keen to broaden recognition to those that made efforts in their own communities to tackle issues and improve lives.

But none of this has stopped the papers and opposition politicians kicking off and denouncing the latest round of New Year honours. It's interesting to see who and why people are getting so upset this time round. For Labour and the Daily Mail it is "ex-cons" Gerald Ronson and Chris Preddie. These two evil bastards have, in Ronson's case, raised more than £100 million and donated £30 million to charity including, amongst others, the NPCC and the Princes Trust, and in Preddie's case, turned his life around, renounced crime, set up a charity to help other young people do the same (Making Dreams Reality) and is acting as a positive role model to a section of society that has very few.

However, both have in the past been on the wrong side of the law. And for some this is reason enough to exclude them from any recognition of their subsequent good deeds. Labour and the Daily Mail are also gunning for Paul Ruddock, a serial fund raiser and philanthropist for the arts. Both the tabloid and Labour's Michael Dugher point to the donations Ronson and Ruddock made to the Conservative party as further reason for their nominations to be called into question. While, given the abuses of the past, this is more understandable, I don't see why philanthropists should be excluded from honours just because they donate money to a political party. Indeed, it is highly likely that those who raise and donate money for good causes are going to want to support a party they think will do most for those same causes.

Not for the first time we see Labour and the Daily Mail, albeit for different reasons, being on the same reactionary side. As with the Jeremy Clarkson controversy they are both quick to leap on what the think looks like the moral high ground. But only manage to convince themselves that the ground they are on is high in the mountain ranges of morality by ignoring the broader context of the story.

It's a shame, because, from what I can see, these people all deserve their awards. There are also lots of other very deserving recipients that deserve the air time and column inches being given to these politically motivated accusations. Coverage that would provide a fantastic boost to some very good causes. But, at the end of the day, if newspaper sales are anything to go by, we all love a scandal. Even when there isn't really any.

State Funeral For Maggie?

The proposal to give Margaret Thatcher a state funeral deserves more public debate than it's been given, as Peter Oborne points out. But of course the debate will inevitable give voice to the usual left wing Thatcher haters who take every opportunity to share with us their feelings about the ex-Prime Minister.

Peter Oborne correctly points to sections of society that have reason to regret the changes she brought to the country. But those with genuine reason to dislike Thatcher are vastly outnumbered by the, mostly middle-class leftists, who hate Thatcher because the shift in British politics she engendered. They've had to live with the fact that the only way Labour has been able to get back into power has been to move to the right. They hate the fact that it took, what many of them believe to be a "Tory clone", like Tony Blair to get Labour elected and pine for the days when a Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown or even an Ed Miliband of all things, could once again be electable. Their insecurities often give rise to hateful and mindless attacks on the woman they see as the main change agent, their arch-enemy.

But such is politics and while I think the nation owes Maggie a great deal, I also think a national debate on whether or not she is a suitable candidate for a state funeral and what form that should take would be healthy. If the debate concludes for a state funeral it would result in one that has the support of more people than otherwise might be the case.

Indeed, without a real debate, the argument is influenced by the inane and ignorant such as this from Sunny Hundal on a e-petition to "privatise Thatcher's funeral". It's a good example of how the left's hatred blinds them to basic facts. Hundal refers to the "first privatised funeral" as if funerals are generally run by the state. It may come as a shock to Hundal and the signatories to the petition he is touting, but normal funerals are already private affairs. I know it's meant to be a joke and he's taken the idea of privatised funeral to mean a for-profit event with ticket sales etc. But the "joke" doesn't really work when you consider that, for example, funeral directors actually make a profit, the evil Thatcherite bastards! Hundal is right about one thing, perhaps Thatcher would have been happier with a private funeral.

But these kinds of articles and petitions highlight the polarised views on the subject and the need for more of a public debate.

It is kind of amusing to see so many on the left getting worked up about a state funeral for Maggie when you remember that the arrangements were set in train by Gordon Brown as part of his usual party political mischief making. He was attempting to destabilise a reforming Cameron leadership by courting Tory right wingers with gestures like inviting Maggie to No 10 and then the state funeral planning. But, as with most things Gordon tried, his plans didn't work out.

Labour's Riots Blame Game Tactic Turns Toxic

Ed Miliband has recently proven he is more wily than he's been given credit for in the past.

His opportunistic harrying of Cameron over Hackgate was politically very effective. He correctly assessed the mood of the public and demanded decisions and action faster than a Prime Minister burdened with actual responsibility could deliver. It made him look like he was leading the debate. He was lucky that the media (most of which backed Labour's politically motivated anti-Murdoch agenda but for commercial reasons) mostly glossed over Miliband's hypocrisy and inconsistency on the subject. He emerged from the Hackgate scandal in a stronger position as Labour leader. It now looks likely he'll not be replaced anytime soon.

But Miliband couldn't play the same game when the riots broke out. There's no doubt he'd loved to have gone with the "PM's on holiday in Tuscany and is out of touch with the suffering of the nation" line but, sadly for him, he was also on holiday. So that line was somewhat muted.

Instead, when he and Harriet Harman returned from holiday early, they decided on a strategy to blame the Tories for the rioting and looting that had, by now, spread around London and into other English cities. But wily Miliband has been careful to leave the explicit statement of this line to his lieutenants. Harman's brazen outburst on Newsnight on Tuesday was the clearest example if it, closely flowed by Diane "private school is ok for my kids but not yours" Abbott, last night.

Miliband was right to test the water via his underlings first. It's gone down like a lead balloon with the public, who want to see a strong and robust response to the criminals who have been perpetrating the vandalism and theft, not weak excuses made for party political gain. The whole tactic is turning toxic for Labour exposing, as it does, their preponderance to see every event as an opportunity to score party political points. That's not to say that there aren't serious political issues to discuss. But the petty accusations that we've heard (such as riots only occur under Tory governments, spending cuts (that haven't happened yet) are to blame and tuition fees (that have yet to increase)) are clearly not intended to help cast light on the real root causes of the trouble but to advance the cause of the Labour party.

Again, today, Miliband has been careful not to make petty party political points in Parliament. Let's hope he now abandons the whole tactic and insists on his troops showing a bit more sensitivity and common sense from now on.

Health Inequality And NHS Funding

Labour claims that a small change in the way Primary Care Trusts are allocated funds is designed to transfer money from "Labour" to "Conservative" areas of the country.

Labour point to a report by Public Health Manchester. Unsurprisingly, Manchester comes out as a victim of this evil Tory conspiracy. Of course, their conclusions are totally unbiased and deserving of the weight Labour have given them. But even if you believe that, and the figures are true, is this method of allocating cash to areas of the country really that sensible?

The change being suggested is to reduce the amount of additional money allocated to areas of considered to suffer from "health depravation". On first look that sounds sensible. They'll have more issues so need more money. This money is intended to be spent in more preventative activities such as encouraging healthier lifestyles and sexual health etc. Again, that sounds like a sensible thing to spend money on in places with such issues. But there is something fundamentally wrong with that approach.

One sign that something is wrong is that the money is always targeted at the same areas. Year in year out. In other words, the money is not buying preventative services that are making any significant difference. No doubt there are the odd examples of success here and there, but no overall relative upward trend in general health in these communities is discernible.

There is no doubt that there is a serious problem with health inequality in Britain. It ends up costing the tax payer more and more as the issues go unaddressed. So there certainly is a case for spending money on it. But what is the best way of allocating funds?

We can easily turn Labour's claims round and point out that they originally ran a system that benefitted Labour areas at the expense of Tory ones. But this shouldn't be a party political issue. Instead we should think about the best way to fund activity that will improve health across the nation.

I would argue that funding for preventative health initiatives should be linked to outcomes. Where one initiative produces success it should be given funds to expand its activities to other areas etc. And it shouldn't matter if the initiative is state run, charity of private. The most successful provider should attract the most investment. But the current system just rewards failure. As long as an area keeps its "deprived" status its PCT can rely on some more money. The money fails to improve anything so they need more next year and such is the story of NHS spending over the decades.

The original idea behind setting up the NHS was a (typically deluded central planner's) view that it would cost less and less as the health of the nation improved. Instead we've spent more and more of our national income on it and have barely kept up with our international competitors in terms of overall national health. In some cases outcomes are woefully behind.

The NHS reforms go some way to at least lay the foundations for more effective funding of health care in Britain. But they have been watered down too much and much more is needed to transform the attitudes of NHS staff and users so that they are less resistant to change.

But a good first step would be to show real progress in addressing health inequalities by rewarding success in this area rather than failure and ignoring politicians who want "their" people funded more than the "other's".