Tuesday, 31 January 2006
Blair faces coup
Which Blair? Either, we want rid of both of them!
In this case it is policeman Blair. You're right, that still doesn't help.
Okay, Sir Ian Blair, our incompetent chief of police.
He faces a coup as reported in the Mirror today. I rarely read or agree with the Daily Mirror but credit where credit is due, today they are onto something. I have it on good authority from my own Blue Mole that morale has never been lower and deep disatisfaction spreads right down to the rats in the police station sewers.
My views on this particular Blair are well known on this blog so lets hope this coup goes somewhere. Come you boys and girls in Blue. Time to stand tall again. Get behind your senior officers and cut him loose.
Update: Sir Ian still has the full confidence of Prime Minister Tony Blair. Excellent. One big heave and they might both go.
In this case it is policeman Blair. You're right, that still doesn't help.
Okay, Sir Ian Blair, our incompetent chief of police.
He faces a coup as reported in the Mirror today. I rarely read or agree with the Daily Mirror but credit where credit is due, today they are onto something. I have it on good authority from my own Blue Mole that morale has never been lower and deep disatisfaction spreads right down to the rats in the police station sewers.
My views on this particular Blair are well known on this blog so lets hope this coup goes somewhere. Come you boys and girls in Blue. Time to stand tall again. Get behind your senior officers and cut him loose.
Update: Sir Ian still has the full confidence of Prime Minister Tony Blair. Excellent. One big heave and they might both go.
Monday, 30 January 2006
Bydand
Today my old regiment, The Highlanders, have suffered their first operational fatality. It is a terrible thing and I needn't tell you how devastating it will be for his family. Soldiers face the ultimate sacrifice with astonishing fortitude backed up with brilliant leadership and outstanding training. Please note that this regiment has been in Iraq for nearly four months without previous incident.
I served with my regiment for 8 years and, along with my family back home, I faced my own moments of danger in Northern Ireland and on the entry into Kosovo in 1999. Rest assured that their courage and determination will be unmoved. They will grieve another time. For now the team and the job take priority. They will remain professional and ever more motivated to ensure it does not happen again. You would be amazed how well they disassociate what they are there to do from the political process which sent them to do it.
Bydand, boys, Bydand.
[In gaelic this means "Standfast" and was the motto of the The Gordon Highlanders, one of the two regiments amalgamated in 1994 to form The Highlanders.]
I served with my regiment for 8 years and, along with my family back home, I faced my own moments of danger in Northern Ireland and on the entry into Kosovo in 1999. Rest assured that their courage and determination will be unmoved. They will grieve another time. For now the team and the job take priority. They will remain professional and ever more motivated to ensure it does not happen again. You would be amazed how well they disassociate what they are there to do from the political process which sent them to do it.
Bydand, boys, Bydand.
[In gaelic this means "Standfast" and was the motto of the The Gordon Highlanders, one of the two regiments amalgamated in 1994 to form The Highlanders.]
Saturday, 28 January 2006
Going Loco
It is time to turn my attention and my Blog to the very important task of winning back my Huntingdonshire District Council ward (Buckden Diddington and Southoe) for the Conservatives.
For 14 long years it has enjoyed the services of a Liberal Democrat Councillor. I stood against him in two years ago in 2004 and reduced his majority from an unerring 450 to 96. A swing of 21% in my favour and still I lost!! I made errors, I learnt and this time I shall not return from the count to sob unconsollably into my sofa.
Over the next weeks and months until the May 4th polling day I shall post both the articles and speeches I write for distribution in my leaflets and a diary of my campaign, full with thoughts and stories from my door-to-door canvassing (anonymous of course, and most probably self-deprecating). If last time is anything to go by, it should be quite fun and I am looking forward to getting out there.
Things will get pretty local and I hope my more distant readers will forgive me if I don't explain every local issue with my usual clarity. I am hoping that the village will be tuning in aswell, so I mustn't bore them with detailed explanation they don't need.
Now for my campaign slogan - should it be "Bailey for Buckden" or "Buckden for Bailey". Perhaps I should adopt the former and let the village decide on the latter.
For 14 long years it has enjoyed the services of a Liberal Democrat Councillor. I stood against him in two years ago in 2004 and reduced his majority from an unerring 450 to 96. A swing of 21% in my favour and still I lost!! I made errors, I learnt and this time I shall not return from the count to sob unconsollably into my sofa.
Over the next weeks and months until the May 4th polling day I shall post both the articles and speeches I write for distribution in my leaflets and a diary of my campaign, full with thoughts and stories from my door-to-door canvassing (anonymous of course, and most probably self-deprecating). If last time is anything to go by, it should be quite fun and I am looking forward to getting out there.
Things will get pretty local and I hope my more distant readers will forgive me if I don't explain every local issue with my usual clarity. I am hoping that the village will be tuning in aswell, so I mustn't bore them with detailed explanation they don't need.
Now for my campaign slogan - should it be "Bailey for Buckden" or "Buckden for Bailey". Perhaps I should adopt the former and let the village decide on the latter.
Happy Birthday Wolfgang!
It is this day 250 years since the birth of arguably the most prolific and gifted musician, composer and entertainer that ever lived.
The Telegraph heaped upon him this morning more eloquent and better informed praise than I ever could. But I am in awe of a composer so versatile as to be able to compose such differing pieces as Don Giovanni and Die Zauberflote, or the Figaro overture and the Requiem, with equal acclaim.
It is long been my belief that those blessed with genius are sadly also blessed in equal measure with psychosis. Only such untethered human minds can truly reach such heights and depths.
The 80's film Amadeus is no masterpiece, but it remains a movie that I can and do watch over and over without tiring. It achieves in ninety minutes what several music teachers failed to achieve in a dozen years of schooling - cement the simplest message in my mind, that classical music and its composers were as popular and celebrated in their day as Coldplay and Robbie Williams are in ours. Amadeus was no less an anti-establishment, daring, risk taking musician and showman than Freddie Mercury or Johnny Rotten.
Shame on the BBC that they clear the decks for George Best but fail to honour this wonderful anniversary - the anniversary of a man whose contribution to the world was not simply a body of music so powerful and beautiful as to illicit the heights of emotion in its audience but also the very concept that music exists to push boundaries and to sweep away the constraints of class and pomposity.
Lara and I are going to Vienna for a single weekend this summer during which we shall indulge in our favourite music - the Operas of Mozart and the modern entertainment of Robbie Williams. Cool or what!
The Telegraph heaped upon him this morning more eloquent and better informed praise than I ever could. But I am in awe of a composer so versatile as to be able to compose such differing pieces as Don Giovanni and Die Zauberflote, or the Figaro overture and the Requiem, with equal acclaim.
It is long been my belief that those blessed with genius are sadly also blessed in equal measure with psychosis. Only such untethered human minds can truly reach such heights and depths.
The 80's film Amadeus is no masterpiece, but it remains a movie that I can and do watch over and over without tiring. It achieves in ninety minutes what several music teachers failed to achieve in a dozen years of schooling - cement the simplest message in my mind, that classical music and its composers were as popular and celebrated in their day as Coldplay and Robbie Williams are in ours. Amadeus was no less an anti-establishment, daring, risk taking musician and showman than Freddie Mercury or Johnny Rotten.
Shame on the BBC that they clear the decks for George Best but fail to honour this wonderful anniversary - the anniversary of a man whose contribution to the world was not simply a body of music so powerful and beautiful as to illicit the heights of emotion in its audience but also the very concept that music exists to push boundaries and to sweep away the constraints of class and pomposity.
Lara and I are going to Vienna for a single weekend this summer during which we shall indulge in our favourite music - the Operas of Mozart and the modern entertainment of Robbie Williams. Cool or what!
Last word on these Liberal Democraps
I have listened to the evidence and weighed it carefully. My verdict on Hughes is that he is guilty. Guilty of pursuing a grand deceit over two decades and guilty of being a prize prat in thinking that he had too. Guilty, no less, of concealment for the purpose of retaining power and maintaining ambition.
Thankfully for him, his punishment is simply to look ridiculous for a short while. If the electorate punish him at all it will only be due to the campaign of deceit and their consequent loss of faith. The Lib Dem members won't specifically punish him now, at least not for being gay and, knowing them, not even for lying. No, Hughes will lose the leadership campaign because deep down the Lib Dems won't want to enter the 2009 election with a leader best known for stumbling into the 21st Century still thinking he had to hide his sexuality. It's 2006, Simon. Watch a bit more Trisha and Springer and you'll realise your pretty mainstream now. You'll probably catch your old mate Oaten too - re-enacting the moment when he tells his wife....!!
I will make one sympathetic observation in this case. One suspects the true story behind the Sun's chatline proof is more tawdry than at first sight. Either the Sun has obtained credit card or telephone records illegally, or someone with access has taken the necessary papers, handed them to the press and plunged the knife into Hughes. No wonder Tatchell has accepted Hughes' apology for that homophobic election campaign in Bermondsey 1983 - his own strict code of outing the hypocrites has been followed to the letter. All good things come to those who wait. Two decades, eh Tatchell. Patience of a saint!
Next case - Oaten. Again a liar and a prat. He will be punished for his deceit very directly. No-one, however Liberal, will stand the sight of a wife and family being humiliated in this way. We'll be having Winchester back then shall we.
Finally - Opik. I'm afraid this man continues to pursue a political death wish with the zeal of a moth's headlong dash for those noisy lights up ahead and he remains my prize idiot of the week.
As the self appointed chief apologist for the Party he has taken debates into unchartered waters and sunk. Make no mistake, the rest of his Party have been delighted to defer to his lead. Noticed anyone coming to his rescue. Not likely! He thinks the media invite him on for his persuasive argument. Lembit, it's because you're great entertainment. Even Lembit's fiancee, weathergirl Sian Lloyd, has better judgement - she's the one who's delayed their wedding!! Now try re-negotiating that deal with OK!!
The "fat lady" started warming up weeks ago and finally last night, as Lembit went on This Week and freely admitted to being a political kiss of death, she burst heartily into song. We'll have Montgomeryshire back too.
There are dark forces at work in Cowley Street. The Lib Dems are having a really good bath and unless I am much mistaken a certain Mr Ming is in charge of the loofer.
Thankfully for him, his punishment is simply to look ridiculous for a short while. If the electorate punish him at all it will only be due to the campaign of deceit and their consequent loss of faith. The Lib Dem members won't specifically punish him now, at least not for being gay and, knowing them, not even for lying. No, Hughes will lose the leadership campaign because deep down the Lib Dems won't want to enter the 2009 election with a leader best known for stumbling into the 21st Century still thinking he had to hide his sexuality. It's 2006, Simon. Watch a bit more Trisha and Springer and you'll realise your pretty mainstream now. You'll probably catch your old mate Oaten too - re-enacting the moment when he tells his wife....!!
I will make one sympathetic observation in this case. One suspects the true story behind the Sun's chatline proof is more tawdry than at first sight. Either the Sun has obtained credit card or telephone records illegally, or someone with access has taken the necessary papers, handed them to the press and plunged the knife into Hughes. No wonder Tatchell has accepted Hughes' apology for that homophobic election campaign in Bermondsey 1983 - his own strict code of outing the hypocrites has been followed to the letter. All good things come to those who wait. Two decades, eh Tatchell. Patience of a saint!
Next case - Oaten. Again a liar and a prat. He will be punished for his deceit very directly. No-one, however Liberal, will stand the sight of a wife and family being humiliated in this way. We'll be having Winchester back then shall we.
Finally - Opik. I'm afraid this man continues to pursue a political death wish with the zeal of a moth's headlong dash for those noisy lights up ahead and he remains my prize idiot of the week.
As the self appointed chief apologist for the Party he has taken debates into unchartered waters and sunk. Make no mistake, the rest of his Party have been delighted to defer to his lead. Noticed anyone coming to his rescue. Not likely! He thinks the media invite him on for his persuasive argument. Lembit, it's because you're great entertainment. Even Lembit's fiancee, weathergirl Sian Lloyd, has better judgement - she's the one who's delayed their wedding!! Now try re-negotiating that deal with OK!!
The "fat lady" started warming up weeks ago and finally last night, as Lembit went on This Week and freely admitted to being a political kiss of death, she burst heartily into song. We'll have Montgomeryshire back too.
There are dark forces at work in Cowley Street. The Lib Dems are having a really good bath and unless I am much mistaken a certain Mr Ming is in charge of the loofer.
Friday, 27 January 2006
I'll tell you why, Ian mate
It is because two little girls, aged only 10, were deceived, captured, subjected to extreme mental and physical torment, abused, probably raped (we'll never actually know), killed and then partially cremated by a man known to be a danger to young girls; but who remained at large and free to work amongst children entirely through the incompetence, disinterest and fecklessness of your police force.
You're making a habit, like your name sake, of grabbing a few too many headlines and a few too few criminals, Mr Blair. You are also becoming a liability when placed in front of a microphone.
If you are really the quality policeman that the nation deserves to have at the head of its police force, might I suggest that you get out amongst your men and women and amongst our communities and f****ng well prove it, instead of grandstanding your ineloquence and your inability to think and speak at the same time.
Our police force is dead on its feet because another idiot named Blair invited a man called MacPherson to decimate the reputation and standing of our police without thought for consequence or purpose. He then proceeded to appoint a succession of the most uninspiring, feeble, politically correct, three-bags-full-sir Commissioners he could possibly find.
It is beyond parody that after 8 years in office, the inept words of one man called Blair heap opprobrium on the inept actions of another man called Blair.
We have sunk to a new low when our Commissioner of Police both fails to comprehend the nation's grief at the preventable slaughter of two innocent young school girls, and that he would dare to cite such a case in a wholly misconceived belief that our media discriminate in the coverage of murder.
Get on with your job, Mr Blair.
You're making a habit, like your name sake, of grabbing a few too many headlines and a few too few criminals, Mr Blair. You are also becoming a liability when placed in front of a microphone.
If you are really the quality policeman that the nation deserves to have at the head of its police force, might I suggest that you get out amongst your men and women and amongst our communities and f****ng well prove it, instead of grandstanding your ineloquence and your inability to think and speak at the same time.
Our police force is dead on its feet because another idiot named Blair invited a man called MacPherson to decimate the reputation and standing of our police without thought for consequence or purpose. He then proceeded to appoint a succession of the most uninspiring, feeble, politically correct, three-bags-full-sir Commissioners he could possibly find.
It is beyond parody that after 8 years in office, the inept words of one man called Blair heap opprobrium on the inept actions of another man called Blair.
We have sunk to a new low when our Commissioner of Police both fails to comprehend the nation's grief at the preventable slaughter of two innocent young school girls, and that he would dare to cite such a case in a wholly misconceived belief that our media discriminate in the coverage of murder.
Get on with your job, Mr Blair.
Thursday, 19 January 2006
I don't know about you but...
...isn't there something vaguely depressing and offensive about a headline in New Labour's 2006 that reads "Sex offenders banned from working in schools" (BBC). Such a proud nation we are, indeed.
And another thing.
If you bring in legislation that specifically rules out any person convicted or cautioned for a sexual offence from working in our schools and places their name on a single register through which all teacher candidates are screened, precisely what "expert" skill do you need to determine whether someone can be employed in a school? Might I suggest - the ability to read names off a list.
I despair that both Parliament and the public appear to believe our children are safer in the hands of an independent, "expert" decision making panel. Elected Ministers are precisely the people who should both take and be responsible for such decisions. After all to whom is the expert panel responsible - that's right, Ministers.
A caution or conviction for a sexual offence is a definable thing; your name then goes on a list; if your name is on the list, the law will state that you can't work in a school or with children - where is the decision in that process that requires an expensive, tax funded expert quango.
Sadly - austere and sincere as Mrs Kelly was - if the mindless slaughter of two beautiful young girls by a pervert known to the authorities but freely permitted to work and live among children doesn't spur the Government into action within two years, I am unable to invest any confidence in them to act now.
A fiver says that a year from now, still nothing will have happened.
And another thing.
If you bring in legislation that specifically rules out any person convicted or cautioned for a sexual offence from working in our schools and places their name on a single register through which all teacher candidates are screened, precisely what "expert" skill do you need to determine whether someone can be employed in a school? Might I suggest - the ability to read names off a list.
I despair that both Parliament and the public appear to believe our children are safer in the hands of an independent, "expert" decision making panel. Elected Ministers are precisely the people who should both take and be responsible for such decisions. After all to whom is the expert panel responsible - that's right, Ministers.
A caution or conviction for a sexual offence is a definable thing; your name then goes on a list; if your name is on the list, the law will state that you can't work in a school or with children - where is the decision in that process that requires an expensive, tax funded expert quango.
Sadly - austere and sincere as Mrs Kelly was - if the mindless slaughter of two beautiful young girls by a pervert known to the authorities but freely permitted to work and live among children doesn't spur the Government into action within two years, I am unable to invest any confidence in them to act now.
A fiver says that a year from now, still nothing will have happened.
Wednesday, 18 January 2006
The Liberal Dilemma
I have received today a very pleasant comment on a previous post concerning my (negative) views on the electability of Mr Kennedy.
Steve Guy said:
Having just attended a presentation of the 2005 British Electoral Survey (http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes) a couple of things you should know are: 1) The personal rating of Charles Kennedy was a HUGE factor in increasing Lib Dem votes, 2) It takes a swing of just 3% away from Labour to produce a hung parliament, but a massive 12% to deliver a Tory majority - so the Tories really should start being a bit nicer to the Lib Dems. The odd of the LDs holding the balance of power next time out are very high.
To which I would respond:
1. I am unable to fathom any possible way in which Kennedy inspired votes, but that's beside the point.
2. Your % swing analysis merely highlights the differing aspirations and expectations that we seek from our politics. We aim at outright Government. The Libs aspire solely to being a weak and uninfluencial partner. That really matters because majorities within electorates back winners.
3. We Tories are being kind to the Libs. We have helped motivate you to pick a better leader; we are even constantly promoting your best potential candidate - Mr Clegg (see you've got me doing it now!); and we are offering a more influencial home to your more sensible Orange Bookers.
Most modern Tories would be delighted to work a little more closely with the Liberals, but before that can happen we need to press them into defining who and what they are. For too long they have wandered about in a world of contradiction and global platitudes.
Please don't think that Cameron hasn't thought this one through - he has, and whichever way the Libs fall, he wins.
You can go East and he will pick up lots of votes and all your serious, young Orange Bookers in a stampede across the floor or you can go West and he picks up an election winning (Junior) ally, that, as you rightly observe, can influence the outcome of the next election. Which ever way you look at it, you are going to propel Cameron into Govt.
And to think that we Tories have struggled with how to deal with the Libs for all these years and the answer so simple.
Steve Guy said:
Having just attended a presentation of the 2005 British Electoral Survey (http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes) a couple of things you should know are: 1) The personal rating of Charles Kennedy was a HUGE factor in increasing Lib Dem votes, 2) It takes a swing of just 3% away from Labour to produce a hung parliament, but a massive 12% to deliver a Tory majority - so the Tories really should start being a bit nicer to the Lib Dems. The odd of the LDs holding the balance of power next time out are very high.
To which I would respond:
1. I am unable to fathom any possible way in which Kennedy inspired votes, but that's beside the point.
2. Your % swing analysis merely highlights the differing aspirations and expectations that we seek from our politics. We aim at outright Government. The Libs aspire solely to being a weak and uninfluencial partner. That really matters because majorities within electorates back winners.
3. We Tories are being kind to the Libs. We have helped motivate you to pick a better leader; we are even constantly promoting your best potential candidate - Mr Clegg (see you've got me doing it now!); and we are offering a more influencial home to your more sensible Orange Bookers.
Most modern Tories would be delighted to work a little more closely with the Liberals, but before that can happen we need to press them into defining who and what they are. For too long they have wandered about in a world of contradiction and global platitudes.
Please don't think that Cameron hasn't thought this one through - he has, and whichever way the Libs fall, he wins.
You can go East and he will pick up lots of votes and all your serious, young Orange Bookers in a stampede across the floor or you can go West and he picks up an election winning (Junior) ally, that, as you rightly observe, can influence the outcome of the next election. Which ever way you look at it, you are going to propel Cameron into Govt.
And to think that we Tories have struggled with how to deal with the Libs for all these years and the answer so simple.
Tuesday, 17 January 2006
Let me introduce you...
There is something of a debate raging on Conservative Home (a truly excellent website), as you might expect, over the tactics and strategy of a certain Mr Cameron. I can assure you this debate rages all over place!
You will know that I have supported both Cameron and his outlook on politics from the earliest moment, so it will come as no surprise to you that I might contribute to such debates. Normally, I make just short notes but this time it was a bit longer and it hit upon a thought that I might expand upon later, so for posterity's sake, here it is now, along with a link to the actual debate:
Stop berating DC over his manifesto involvement. We have all done stuff under instruction for our boss that we did'nt agree with. Its called learning.
The best politics is played out amongst the majority of voters, where-ever that happens to be at the time. And yes, good politicians should be able to anticipate where the majority can be moved to and carry it through.
Thatcher was just such a politician. Her real legacy of course was the creation of politically placid times, and thus for the last decade or so the majority of voters have occupied the political centre ground. She swam in troubled waters and made them calm. Through her kitchen table economics, defeat of the unions and house ownership policies she successfully encouraged millions of people out of the extreme edges of politics into the comfortable and aspirant middle class. She knew that the majority were ready to move and which direction they wanted to go.
So as Portillo rightly observed this weekend, "there is no sense of crisis in Britain today...and the majority of people do not believe that revolutionary change is the answer...they may be wrong but there is no future for any politician who stuffs radical ideas down unwilling throats in such placid times."
I am always amused that the Right wing fringe, so fixed on the memory of their heroine Thatcher, have forgotten who this election winning majority are and are so idealogically opposed to any policies that attract them. These people are the exact same people that Thatcher pulled from the mud. It is not their essential outlook on life that has changed, just their social and economic aspirations. They still want to be looked after and get as much as they can get for free.
The Tories mistake was to believe that all those people who bought their council houses in the eighties also converted to selfish, hard nosed, survival of the fittest, capitalism. They didn't and that's why we lost power.
So as all good and bad squash players know, it is all about dominating the T in the centre of the Court and forcing your opponent to run around behind you. If that is what politics has TEMPORARILY boiled down to, then Portillo will be wrong about one thing - Cameron will only need one leap to power and we can all raise a glass to that.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/01/tell_newsnight_.html#comment-12931456
You will know that I have supported both Cameron and his outlook on politics from the earliest moment, so it will come as no surprise to you that I might contribute to such debates. Normally, I make just short notes but this time it was a bit longer and it hit upon a thought that I might expand upon later, so for posterity's sake, here it is now, along with a link to the actual debate:
Stop berating DC over his manifesto involvement. We have all done stuff under instruction for our boss that we did'nt agree with. Its called learning.
The best politics is played out amongst the majority of voters, where-ever that happens to be at the time. And yes, good politicians should be able to anticipate where the majority can be moved to and carry it through.
Thatcher was just such a politician. Her real legacy of course was the creation of politically placid times, and thus for the last decade or so the majority of voters have occupied the political centre ground. She swam in troubled waters and made them calm. Through her kitchen table economics, defeat of the unions and house ownership policies she successfully encouraged millions of people out of the extreme edges of politics into the comfortable and aspirant middle class. She knew that the majority were ready to move and which direction they wanted to go.
So as Portillo rightly observed this weekend, "there is no sense of crisis in Britain today...and the majority of people do not believe that revolutionary change is the answer...they may be wrong but there is no future for any politician who stuffs radical ideas down unwilling throats in such placid times."
I am always amused that the Right wing fringe, so fixed on the memory of their heroine Thatcher, have forgotten who this election winning majority are and are so idealogically opposed to any policies that attract them. These people are the exact same people that Thatcher pulled from the mud. It is not their essential outlook on life that has changed, just their social and economic aspirations. They still want to be looked after and get as much as they can get for free.
The Tories mistake was to believe that all those people who bought their council houses in the eighties also converted to selfish, hard nosed, survival of the fittest, capitalism. They didn't and that's why we lost power.
So as all good and bad squash players know, it is all about dominating the T in the centre of the Court and forcing your opponent to run around behind you. If that is what politics has TEMPORARILY boiled down to, then Portillo will be wrong about one thing - Cameron will only need one leap to power and we can all raise a glass to that.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/01/tell_newsnight_.html#comment-12931456
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)