Diary
The world's first peaceful flotilla of terror
31 May, 2010
Well it wasn't long before the anti Israel brigade flexed their muscles and went into hysterical overdrive. Last night the Israeli navy intercepted an aid flotilla heading towards the Gaza Strip, killing a number of those on board. Already the deaths are being described as a 'massacre' and a 'disproportionate' response to provocation. The death of 16 people (that figure is disputed) is tragic and tragically unnecessary - but then the pro Palestinian groups knew this all along.
The fact is that Israel clearly informed the flotilla's organisers that they could not enter the Gaza Strip, as this video clearly shows. They were also told that the ships could enter the Israeli port of Ashdod so that the cargoes could be searched and the aid delivered to Gaza. Indeed Israel had even prepared a holding compound at Ashdod, in case the ships would need to be towed there. This despite the fact that Israel regularly delivers large consignments of humanitarian aid to Gaza, even though the government in power there is committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. Furthermore, the Palestinian activists knew their ships would be boarded if they refused to head to Ashdod or turn back.
The Israeli commandos only boarded the ships when the flotilla's organisers declared they were heading for 'Gaza'. The Israelis further say that when the commandos came on board, they came under sustained attack from protestors wielding a variety of weapons, including knives, clubs and axes. This was, in other words, a violent confrontation in the making, not just a small provocation. Many of those who were injured have been airlifted to Israeli hospitals where they are now receiving treatment.
These appear to be the most salient facts. Wait for the libels to start flying.
topTories talk tough while the jihadists flood in
30 May, 2010
The (Liberal) Conservatives have started badly in their campaign to prevent Islamic extremists entering the UK. First they stood idly by as SIAC decided not to deport Abid Nasser, the alleged ring leader of an Al Qaeda plot. Now the Home Secretary's officials have allowed an Indian Muslim radical, Zakir Naik, to land in the UK. His various pronouncements on Islamic matters have been far from moderate as The Times has reported:
Zakir Naik, an Indian televangelist described as a “hate-monger” by moderate Muslims and one Tory MP, says western women make themselves “more susceptible to rape” by wearing revealing clothing.
Naik, who proselytises on Peace TV, a satellite television channel, is reported to have called for the execution of Muslims who change their faith, described Americans as “pigs” and said that “every Muslim should be a terrorist”.
In a recent lecture, he said he was “with” Osama Bin Laden over the attacks on “terrorist America”, adding that the 9/11 hijackings were an inside job by President George W Bush.
In other words, this is precisely the kind of individual who should be barred from entering this country on the grounds that his presence here is not conducive to the public good. Yet this is what the UK Border Agency has said, quoted again by the Times:
"Each case is considered on its own merits. When assessing a visa application, we will consider the previous conduct of the individual and we will ensure the UK does not provide a platform for the promotion of violent extremism.”
Yet by allowing him into the UK, the Border Agency is helping to promote violent extremism and aiding and abetting the forces of violent jihadist Islam. If individuals like Naik cannot be prevented from coming here, what is the point of the Border Agency? Indeed, what was the point of all that Tory talk on getting tough with Islamic preachers? Oh I forgot, there was an election on.
topThe (wholly predictable) unravelling of the Euro dream
28 May, 2010
Nothing better epitomises the incoherence and folly of the Euro-federalist dream than the financial crisis currently engulfing the Continent. The possibility that Greece will default on its debts, sparking a major loss of confidence in other Club Med economies (Spain, Italy, Portugal) and a subsequent run on Europe's banks, is rightly spooking global markets. There is the very real risk that the meltdown of 2008, sparked by a crisis in banks which held sub prime debt, could re-occur with a vengeance.
But as the Telegraph's Edmund Conway argues today, this time it could be much, much worse. It is not just that the figures for the governmental debt of the Club Med economies far exceed those for the sub-prime property market ($9trillion compared to $2trillion), it is that this time there is no backstop. As Conway says:
'Politicians temporarily solved the sub-prime crisis of 2007 and 2008 by nationalising billions of pounds worth of bank debt. While this helped re-inject a little confidence into markets, the real upshot was merely to transfer that debt on to public-sector balance sheets.'
Now those public-sector balance sheets and enormous budget deficits look as toxic as Lehman Brothers in 2008. But just as Lehman's bankruptcy precipitated a near global banking collapse 2 years ago, so now the fate of Greece threatens to bring down Europe's banking system. As Conway says, 'this is because 'the owners of the suspect European debt tend almost exclusively to be...Europeans.' No wonder the EU's leaders are so desperate to avoid a Greek default. But what appears to be a case of Continental excess is a British problem too. After all, half of our trade is conducted with Europe and the collapse of the Euro would precipitate massive degree of pain over here.
The root of this problem lies, of course, in the perversity of economic integration. It was always unrealistic to hitch together 16 disparate economies with a single currency and interest rate. As Conway writes:
'For years, the German and Dutch economies pulled in one direction (high saving, low spending) while the Club Med bloc – Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy (and their Celtic outpost Ireland) – pulled in the other. At some point, there was always going to be a problem...'
Indeed so, and we are seeing the baleful consequences of this perverse arrangement. Many German savers are apoplectic at bailing out their more profligate European cousins, something reflected in May's dismal regional election result for Merkel's Christian Democrats. Yet a German led bail out of Greece now looks all but inevitable.
Some European leaders now want the EU to have even greater financial powers, effectively snuffing out the remaining vestiges of national independence and sovereignty across the Continent. Perhaps the nuclear option of total federalism is the only way that the euro can now survive. The alternative is the collapse of the entire project and a Continent of nation states trading together - which was how the Euro dream was sold in the first place.
At least we still have our own currency. So for the time being, let us smile a little because we can still control our economy. Very soon, it may be the only thing we can smile about.
topObama's foreign policy is a gift to his enemies
28 May, 2010
Last night I attended an Intelligence Squared event in London which debated the motion 'This house believes that Obama's foreign policy is a gift to his (America's) enemies.' It was a fascinating occasion which was enlivened by the very high quality of speakers present. For the motion were Bill Krystal, a well known American conservative commentator, General Jack Keane, a four star American general and Con Coughlin, the Telegraph's foreign affairs editor. Against the motion were Simon Schama, Professor Phillip Bobbit and Bernard Henri-Levy, France's most famous philosopher.
I think the opposition won this debate hands down on style. Schama overflowed with energetic flourishes and verbal jousting while Henri-Levy delighted his audiences with comparisons between the American President and an obscure ancient Chinese philosopher. But none of the three adequately focused on Obama's actual foreign policies and the affect that they had had on his country's friends and foes. Schama, for all his intellectual brilliance, concentrated far more on the failings of Obama's predecessor.
This gave the three proponents an easy open target and they took it. Jack Keane focused largely on Afghanistan and pointed out that the President's announcement of a premature troop withdrawal represented a fatally flawed strategy. Coughlin reiterated this point but chose a more obvious target: Iran. He pointed out that the President's open ended offer to Tehran's mullahs had resulted in no reciprocal goodwill of any kind. Iranian fists remained very firmly unclenched.
All the while, Obama had made concession after concession to others, including Russia, with very little to show for it. Both Keane and Coughlin also mentioned the fact that Obama had deliberately isolated Israel in his radical quest to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict and appease the Muslim world. Again, as both pointed out, the net result was Palestinian intransigence and Israeli deadlock.
The audience rejected the motion, though not by the margin one might have expected (a factor of 2:1 with many abstentions). Still, the most intellectually challenging arguments came from the proposition in what proved to be a highly engaging evening.
topAmerica's (former) allies turn nasty. And we know who's to blame...
24 May, 2010
Watching the West's lily livered efforts at curbing Iran's drive for nuclear status is painful indeed. The latest proposed sanctions resolution (which now has the assent of Russia and China) is inadequate for a number of reasons, not least because it does not prohibit the export to Iran of surface to air missiles or, more significantly, petroleum products.
It will fail to deter the mullahs from continuing their quest for the world's worst weapons. (More of this in my forthcoming article in the Jewish News). But another side to this story is also interesting. Just before Hilary Clinton cobbled together her coalition of the (less than) willing, Brazil and Turkey put the proverbial spanner in the works by producing their own nuclear deal: allowing the Iranian government to export half its enriched uranium to Turkey where it will be re-processed and sent back in harmless form to Tehran. Not surprisingly, neither Turkey nor Brazil are interested in sanctions.
Of course the plan is a clever ruse. It is not clear that Turkey has the facilities to re-process the uranium or that it would allow international observers to monitor the process. In any case, Iran has been increasing its stock of enriched uranium in the last year so accepting this offer does not guarantee that the country would be sufficiently divested of material to guarantee that it could not soon go nuclear. But as ever, Charles Krauthammer really gets the importance of the Brazil/Turkey offer. Here is what he writes in today's Jerusalem Post:
The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.
THAT PICTURE – a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam – is a crushing verdict on President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there’s no cost in lining up with America’s enemies and no profit in lining up with a US president given to apologies and appeasement.
Across the world, these leaders can see the detritus of US foreign policy. President Obama, in his radical quest to delegitimise American power and apologise for his country's perceived misdeeds, has repeatedly alienated his country's traditional allies .
He has sown suspicion among Sunni moderate states by appeasing their Shi'ite rival, Iran. He has distanced himself from London by supporting Argentina over the Falklands, he has sold out his Eastern European allies by reneging on the missile defence shield and has created endless resentment in Jerusalem over his shabby treatment of Netanyahu. Worse he has rewarded Syria's closer relations with Iran by sending back the US ambassador and ignored Palestinian support for terrorism in his Middle East diplomacy. As Krauthammer observes:
This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat – accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.
Brazil and Turkey, once strong American allies, have been brazen enough to spit in America's face by standing with the world's most stridently anti American leader, Ahmadinejad. It would all be so funny if it weren't so tragic.
topCameron's anti democratic assault on his own party
21 May, 2010
David Cameron's emasculation of traditional Parliamentary privilege has taken a new twist. After steamrolling through his idea for a 5 year fixed term Parliament which can only be brought down by a 55% majority, he has now seen fit to walk all over his own backbenchers.
In a matter of hours he has forced through a vote that allows his own ministers and whips to vote on the 1922 committee. This committee is designed to allow Conservative backbench MPs a voice within the party and naturally, it acts be a forum for criticism of party policy. It is understandable that Cameron dislikes this arrangement but an independent party organisation is also part of the checks and balances of Parliamentary democracy. By undermining the committee's structure, he has shown his unwillingness to have party policy independently scrutinized and questioned by his own MPs.
Much worse is the manner in which he has done this. Instead of calling for a free vote of the 1922 committee, he has effectively forced the change through by allowing the ministers and whips in question to vote on the issue. The motion was carried despite overwhelming opposition (168 to 118) and it beggars belief that Cameron's own party henchmen would have been among the opposition. Tory MPs must be seething at this abuse of democracy.
Lord Tebbit, so often a light of reason in the wilderness, really understands what is going on here. As he writes in today's Telegraph:
One has to expect a little discord now and again among Ministers in a coalition, but the contrast between Deputy Prime Minister Clegg’s breathless calls for political reform to give power to the people and the Prime Minister’s putsch against his own backbenchers is really going too far.
Cameron pledged to decentralise decision making while he was in opposition. Indeed it is one of the big themes of the Big Society. But it seems that local empowerment and political reform will not apply to the Tory party. And they call this the new politics!
topThe courts hand another victory to the jihadis
18 May, 2010
While they were in opposition, the Tories regularly condemned Labour's blatant failure to protect the homeland from Islamist bombers. They had good reason to do so. Human rights laws, deriving from the Convention on Human Rights, gave our courts free rein to prevent the deportation of dangerous terrorists to any foreign land where they might face degrading treatment, including torture.
How well did the Tory opposition exploit all this, promising that in power they would repeal the Human Rights Act and deal responsibly with threats to national security. Well now another dangerous Islamist has been spared the 'horrors' of deportation by our overly generous courts, and on the Tories watch.
The Special Immigration and Appeals Commission has just ruled that Abid Nasser, the alleged ring leader of an Al Qaeda plot to bomb a shopping centre in Manchester, cannot be sent back to Pakistan because he may face ill treatment there. Yet the tribunal accepts that Nasser was behind an imminent terrorist plot and that he "poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom." Another man, Ahmad Khan, also won his appeal on the same grounds.
So a potential mass murderer, whose diabolical plots involve the killing of as many Britons as possible, will have to remain in the UK (at our expense) where he can remain a lethal threat, all because it would be a far greater evil to subject him to 'potential' abuse in his own country. Isn't human rights law wonderful!
What is sadder still is the government's response to all this. This is Home Secretary Theresa May's take on the affair:
"We are disappointed that the court has ruled that Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan should not be deported to Pakistan, which we were seeking on national security grounds. As the court agreed, they are a security risk to the UK. We are now taking all possible measures to ensure they do not engage in terrorist activity."
Sadly these measures do not involve tackling the very human rights conventions that breed these insane decisions in the first place. May's protestations are just a lot of liberal-Conservative hot air.
topThe Liberal-Conservatives attack democracy itself
15 May, 2010
The prospect of a Tory backbench revolt over plans for a fixed term government will concentrate minds in the new Liberal-Conservative government. And with good reason. What the Tories are proposing, namely to increase the majority necessary to bring the government down, is an ugly and unwarranted infringement of Parliamentary rights. It is an attack on Britain's unwritten constitution and on democracy itself.
Normally a government falls when it loses a vote of no confidence, something that requires a tiny majority of MPs (50% of MPs +1). The Lib-Tories want that majority increased to 55%, meaning that if the Liberal Democrats pull out of the coalition, the opposition (consisting of less than 55% of MPs) would be unable to bring the government down. In effect, Cameron's one party minority government would survive, in limbo, until 2015 regardless of its standing in Parliament or its inability to pass legislation. This is a draconian attack on the fundamental freedoms of MPs.
Cameron has argued that he is giving up the right of a Prime Minister to call an early election. This is self serving nonsense. Parliament has the right to ditch an unpopular government after 1, 2 or 3 years - this is one of their precious freedoms which any Conservative party should be seeking to preserve and uphold. What does all this tell us about the 'Conservative' leadership?
topA brave new world this is not
12 May, 2010
The generally respectful tributes paid to Gordon Brown and his ‘statesmanlike’ pursuit of ‘the national interest’ are likely to raise as many eyebrows as the new Conservative-Lib Dem government. The two parties have indeed decided to bed down with each other, ending the on/off flirtation that threatened to turn Westminster into a pantomine.
Yet the new ‘Tory democrats’ are indeed a pantomine government, a curious patchwork of ideologically opposed parties driven together in spite of their mutual animosity. It is not just that on a range of issues that are crucial to this country’s future, such as Europe, the special relationship, immigration and defence, the two sides are poles apart, it is that the last few days have demonstrated everything we suspected about Nick Clegg – that he is a venal and opportunistic office chaser willing to sell his party to the highest bidder. A coalition government needs trust to be stable but that commodity has been shattered in recent days.
But above all, the new partnership lacks the stamp of full democratic legitimacy. Already we are hearing that the Tories have been forced into major concessions: a commitment to fixed term Parliaments, a change to tax allowances and a delay in their own inheritance tax proposals. For their part, the Liberal Democrats have sacrificed their mansion tax and opposition to capping non EU migration. None of this reflects the will of the voters. Instead it represents the kind of horse-trading, back room dealing and concession hunting associated with the worst form of Westminster politics. A brave new world it is not.
With good reason the constitutional expert, Lord Norton, has described a hung Parliament as a ‘politician’s parliament’ where policy ‘is the result of post-election bargaining.’ As he puts it: “The people do not get a look in. Compromises are reached which may bear no relationship to what electors want, which were never placed before them, and which they may have no opportunity to pass judgment on at the next election if parties stand as independent entities: there is no one body to call to account.” Indeed, and one suspects that both parties may suffer at the next election.
Some of the commentariat are suggesting that Clegg is now Cameron’s prisoner, trapped in a Conservative embrace that is necessary for his own survival. But that presupposes that Cameron has the strength and ruthlessness to head off one of Clegg’s inevitable hissy fits on a matter of public policy. Yet the Tory leader’s willingness to make concessions, even after Clegg’s temporary flirtation with Labour, suggests he may not. One of the biggest charges against Cameron was that he was willing to say and do anything to attain power. If he abandons yet more of the Tory script in an effort to maintain the coalition, this perception will only gain strength.
The era of New Labour has come to a resounding end and for that, millions are understandably thankful. But what has replaced it is not a brave new world but a Westminster farce which insults millions up and down the land. If this is the new politics, get me out of here.
toprichard, uk
london, uk
12/05/2010
incredible you give new labour no credit for anything in the last 13 years. even cameron was gracious enough to do that. anyway, i don't get how these two parties can scrap manifesto commitments that were voted on by the public.
Very well, alone!
11 May, 2010
Gordon Brown's resignation was hardly a surprise now, was it. The man came into politics with a ruthless desire for power and a visceral loathing for the Tory brand. Once it became clear that Clegg (and perhaps Mandelson) would not support a Brown led government, the PM knew he had one final card up his sleeve - his own resignation which might, just might, allow the Labour party to steal the Tories' thunder and scupper their proposed deal with Nick Clegg. Such is the nature of this audacious coup. This was a cynical, manipulative, shameful stitch up - utterly undemocratic and in keeping with Labour's total abuse of power.
As it is abundantly clear that the Lib Dems will ally themselves with whichever party allows them a glimpse of power, regardless of the 'national interest,' Cameron has only one viable option. He must go it alone and announce that he intends to run as the leader of a minority administration. Clegg is absolutely not to be trusted. True, he lacks the MPs for an overall majority but he could reach an understanding with the Unionists, giving him greater clout, and then rule on a bill by bill basis.
Of course the Conservatives continue to flirt with a Tory/Liberal alliance but even if one could be formed, it would barely last. The two parties are poles apart on so many issues - Europe, immigration, the economy, defence. Such a patched up marriage of convenience would scarcely survive beyond the honeymoon.
The alternative is a Lib/Lab pact, stitched together with the support of a number of smaller parties. Such a patchwork arrangement, however, is hardly likely to last either. We would soon be left with the prospect of a second election, one from which the Tories could benefit. They would not have soiled their brand by allying with a left wing party and might be seen as the only credible basis for strong, central government. By contrast, the Lib Dems would be seen as the shifty prop boys holding up a tired and discredited Labour party. For the Conservatives, a temporary absence of power could provide long term benefits.
There are certain moments when I am reminded of David Low's famous cartoon from 1940: a British soldier stands on the White Cliffs of Dover, shaking his first towards a subjugated France that has just surrendered to the Nazis. He declares with pugnacity: 'Very well, alone.' Those stirring words must now become the Tory motto. Cameron needs to show some character, bottle and, more importantly, a sense of principle.
topWe are seeing a terrifying glimpse of PR
09 May, 2010
In the last 48 hours we have seen worrying glimpses of a Britain living under proportional representation. After an election that had no clear victor, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have battled round the clock to reach an acceptable accommodation, while publicly pretending that their past differences were no more than political trifles. The last weekend has seen frantic horse-trading, backroom deals and behind the scenes concessions in an attempt to secure a stable government.
At the same we have been deluged by platitudes from all sides: that this is a new politics for Britain, the start of a fairer and more democratic society and a revolution that will shake Westminster to the core. We have even been told that electoral reform is the ‘will of the majority,’ as 65% have apparently voted for it.
This latter claim is of course pure hogwash. The Liberal Democrats were the only party that made electoral reform a key manifesto commitment. As only 25% of votes were cast in their direction, it is clear that the majority either had little interest in PR or decided it would not be fundamental to their voting choice. Supporters of PR have indeed spoken and, in party political terms, they have lost the argument. The idea that the views of a quarter of the population should dictate the electoral reform agenda is, well, undemocratic.
But in any case, PR is hardly a panacea for our current ills. Where it is practised, it almost always results in coalition governments, many of which are unstable and short lived because one party rarely wins outright. What results is a frantic attempt to accommodate a medley of parties, all vying for influence and usually extracting a price for their support.
The main argument for PR is that it produces governments that follow ‘the will of the majority’ rather than parties backed by minority support. Indeed if the Conservatives were to form the next government, their mandate would be 36% of the nation’s votes based on a 65% turnout i.e. around a quarter of the electorate. Under any PR system more parties are represented, purportedly making the system more representative.
But there are two obvious problems with this. The first is that a small party, sometimes an extremist one, ends up wielding wholly disproportionate influence when it acts as an electoral kingmaker. The Liberal Democrats, as the current kingmakers, are being wooed by the other two big parties yet they mustered fewer than 60 seats. They can decide if the second placed party with less than 260 MPs or the first placed party with over 300 becomes the dominant coalition partner in the next government. But if they were to choose Labour, what would one say to those who voted for the biggest party?
Secondly, any coalition requires deep and sometimes painful compromises from all sides. As a result, the parties involved inevitably diverge from their initial manifesto positions. David Cameron has already changed his entire tone towards the Liberal Democrats while his nod towards PR remains distinctly unConservative. He may find a number of manifesto commitments have to be diluted for the sake of forming a government. But none of those who voted Liberal Democrat wanted watered down PR any more than Tory voters were desperate for the Euro.
And far from being new politics, it is in one sense a victory of the old. The same old parties would resurface every time, jockeying around for a seat at the top table. Under first past the post, you are more likely to get the seismic shifts that really bring political change.
A referendum on PR may well be the outcome of these Lib/Con talks. Let us hope for all our sakes that people vote wisely when it comes.
topElection result
7 May, 2010
9.25 am.As predicted, Cameron has indeed failed to seal the deal with the British people. Barring a last ditch miracle, the Conservatives will fall just sort of the majority of seats needed to win this election outright. There will follow some days of horse trading as first Labour and then the Conservatives cosy up to the Liberal Democrats (and other parties) in a frantic bid to form a stable government.
Some are already decrying these developments. They are pointing out, quite rightly, that Labour has lost this election, both in terms of seats and voters, while the Lib Dem surge was so much hot air. The swing to the Conservatives has been impressive. How can Brown have any moral case for staying in Number 10 under these circumstances? Is he not, as Cameron puts it, squatting in Downing Street?
In one sense, these critics are right. A Lib-Lab coalition is a pact of the defeated parties based on no more than squalid opportunism. On the other hand, strict constitutional propriety does not allow for moral considerations. Brown is allowed 1st choice in forming a government, even more so if the Conservatives fail to obtain more seats than the next two parties.
Indeed Mr. Brown will argue that he has a duty to maintain a government during this period of uncertainty. There is no constitutional reason for him to step down until it is clear that he cannot form a government - and then the Queen may invite David Cameron, as leader of the opposition, to try to do the same.
With Labour ministers openly espousing electoral reform, the possibility of a Lib/Lab pact (with or without Brown as leader) looks increasingly likely. It will serve the narrow interests of Brown, a man desperate to hang on to power at any cost. It will clearly not reflect the will of the nation.
topRichard
london
08/05/2010
Sorry to disagree again but the will of the nation was for a hung Parliament, which does allow for Brown to stay in power if he can. I love your blog but you seem to be putting blame on one man.
Jeremy
08/05/2010
I know that a hung Parliament was the overall democratic result but that does not stop me from pointing out what a troublesome time we are now going to have.
The day of reckoning
05 May, 2010
Over the last three years, I have been very hard on David Cameron. His brand of liberal 'Compassionate' Conservatism has struck me as a diluted, dumbed down version of the Conservative brand. Cameron has used his fair share of stunts, gimmicks and spin in order to prove his liberal, 'softer' credentials, resulting in a messy blue-orange fudge that has left traditional Tories in the cold. Judging by opinion polls, Cameron's Tories now have the same share of the vote as they did under the more right wing Michael Howard.
That has been especially disappointing when you consider this government's abject performance over the last 13 years. This blog has wasted no time in highlighting many of these failures, including the failure to reform the welfare state, the terrible legacy of public debt, the creation of a client public state, the decimation of our private pensions, the undemocratic surrender over the Lisbon treaty, mass immigration and multiculturalism, violent teenage crime, the terrible state of our state schools and a host of other problems. A bolder Tory approach would have taken a consistently different line on all these issues without the need to detox the 'nasty party.'
Nonetheless, Cameron has been consistent on a number of issues, such as his support for the family and his radical proposals for transforming the education system. His big society idea, when it is properly understood, offers an exciting vision for reducing the state in many areas of public life. True, Cameron has often cared more about style and image, resulting in him running scared over the economy and immigration. But he has also instinctively understood the cause of our current malaise and has been prepared to apply distinctly Conservative ideas for solving them. For this reason, he narrowly deserves to win this election. But he must remember that only a bold and imaginative approach to the nation's problems will see him crowned as a truly great leader.
topThe start of Labour's latest civil war
4 May, 2010
The repercussions of Gordon Brown's attack on Gillian Duffy continue to reverberate with even Labour candidates now declaring open season on the Prime Minister. Manish Sood, the prospective Labour candidate for North West Norfolk, has called Gordon Brown 'the worst Prime Minister in history' with policies that have been 'a total disaster' for Britain. Mr. Brown’s authority is clearly haemorrhaging by the minute if a junior (and somewhat jumped up) Parliamentary candidate is prepared to launch such a brazen public attack.
Clearly there is no place for loyalty in the Labour party. For if Mr. Sood really believes his own derogatory assessment of the Prime Minister’s record, then why on earth is he standing for his party? Why is he not running as an independent instead and maintaining at least a modicum of integrity?
His constituents will conclude that this man is a backstabbing opportunist, devoid of principle and ruthlessly intent on seizing power by whatever means possible. Is there another Labour politician this reminds you of?
What Mr. Sood has said so openly is no doubt the privately held view of many a sitting Labour MP. Many view Mr. Brown as a political liability whose ruthlessness, moral cowardice and inability to connect with ordinary people have gravely damaged Labour’s prospects in the election.
There are rumours of a coup in the event that Labour suffers its worst defeat in a century. After Brown is forced out, there will be a period of internecine warfare as Brownites (led by Ed Balls) battle with disgruntled Blairites for the prize of Labour leadership. The prospect of Mr. Brown’s imminent demise, and the ongoing repercussions of ‘bigotgate,’ have naturally fuelled the antagonism towards Brown from within the Labour party. When Labour is duly trounced on May 6th, this is surely only a foretaste of the political bloodshed to come.
toprichard
london, uk
05/05/2010
this is just incumbent PM bashing.