There may be trouble ahead,
But while there's moonlight, and music
And love and romance,
Let's face the music and dance.
Before the fiddlers have fled,
Before they ask us to pay the bill,
And while we still have that chance,
Let’s face the music and dance.
Nice speech, I have to say.
You arrive, as Hugo Drax might have put it, at a capricious moment: the 2010 General Election's one undisputed contribution to western civilisation; the removal of Gordon Brown.
Praise be and Halleluiah !
I try not to talk about politics at work. A few workmates know about this blog and a few others know of my allegiences from a time - many years ago - when I was less discreet. Nowadays though, I keep quiet when the conversation turns to current affairs, which, over the past few weeks, has been quite frequently. But I nearly cracked today.
Somehow the conversation turned to the Winter of Discontent, and one wet-behind-the ears twenty-something touchingly asked what it was.
"Oh", said a lady a few desks away who is old enough to know better. "That was when Maggie Thatcher took on the miners who went on strike over pit closures". How I didn't say "Wrong, the Winter of Discontent was the one where you couldn't travel by train, buy any bread or bury your dead, and was the natural product of 15 years of socialism" I don't quite know. Somehow, I managed to keep quiet.
One of these days, I'm going to kick off. Big time.
My blood’s temperature is rising. My God, is it ever.
I haven’t blogged for ages and ages because I felt all angered out. Utterly dire though the situation that this country funds itself in might be, I thought I’d run out of things to feel completely hacked off about. I thought I couldn’t possibly, under any circumstances, get any more incensed than I already am.
And then Nick Clegg turned up.
Nick bloody Clegg, so-called leader of the most pompous, cynical, self-righteous, wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing and blatantly hypocritical political party on Earth, rises from the gutter like the new Tony Blair and suddenly Britain’s media luvvies are crawling all over each other to laud him as the Nation’s New Saviour. Which he isn’t. The BBC, who have been spinning desperately for a hung parliament all year, think all their Christmases have come at once. Which they might have.
I’m telling you now: if we end up with a hung parliament where Clegg’s Liberals hold the balance of power I am going to be very cross indeed. If David Cameron gets into bed with him and sells out everything that the Conservative party is supposed to stand for and so allows that slippery, scheming little piece of shit and his cohorts places at the Cabinet table, then I am going to be absolutely fucking livid.
And if instead Clegg and his obnoxious, holier-than-thou, we’re-whiter-than-white, narcissistic nannies do a deal with their spiritual Labour sole-mates and keep that thieving, incompetent, snarling Scottish Stalinist in Downing Street then I’m going to go off the scale.
Lib Dems atop the opinion polls ? The country is going absolutely, 100 per cent, stark raving mad. But not half as mad as I’m going to be if this ends up where I think it’s going.
You have been warned.
My, my…it’s all kicked off on the blogosphere since I’ve been away, hasn’t it ?
In a way it’s quite pleasing that the highly tedious spat between Guido and Derek Draper has actually led to something semi-exciting at last; I don’t know about you but they were driving me to distraction before last Friday. Like a couple of playground kids, they were.
I’ve only been bringing myself up-to-speed with this over the past 24 hours or so (I was away over Easter, with little access to news). A HUGE amount has been written, and everyone’s been getting VERY emotional about it, so I’m not going to detain you long. But I thought I’d ask myself a few questions in a dispassionate way as possible.
The Womble’s general thoughts ?
The sad fact is that no one comes out of this with a lot of credit. Yes, it says a lot about New Labour and how they operate but it says a great deal about politics generally too. When it comes to mudslinging Draper, McBride, Fawkes and a few others besides have shown them to be as capable as each other. The only exception I’d make is Iain Dale, who has, throughout it all, kept a level of circumspection and dignity. As he said himself last week, he’s far too nice for this politics business.
The first thing you have to say is that it is quite disgraceful that taxpayers’ money should be spent paying people (I’m sure McBride isn’t the one who’s at it – he’s just the only one who’s been caught - so far) to engage in blatant party politics. It reveals an utter contempt for the public purse. To try and generate unfounded rumour / lies, and to kick a politician’s wife (whether she’s down or not) is one thing. To do it at our expense is just taking the Mickey.
Did Brown Know About The Emails ?
To me the idea that Brown knew exactly what McBride was up to is just laughable. I appreciate that when Nadine Dorries went on Five Live yesterday she might have been feeling a little fragile but she only just stopped short of saying that Brown sanctioned the whole thing. She’s completely lost the plot, I reckon. It might have been wiser for her to have avoided the media for a couple of days until she could get her head straight.
If you (sorry, we) pay someone to do something completely underhand on your behalf, you also pay them to make sure that you’re completely ignorant of what they’re doing. McBride, out of loyalty to Brown, will have made quite sure that Brown knew nothing of the details of what he was up to.
Who’s To Blame ?
Well, Damian McBride, obviously, for a start. I just cannot understand how the bloke lives with himself, abusing public finances in that way. But the fact is that he’s just the symptom. The cause is politicians’ (especially Labour’s) growing disregard for our money.
Whilst Brown may not have been directly involved in what McBride and Draper were up to, he, and Blair before him, have created the culture in which this kind of behaviour is commonplace. They have surrounded themselves with all sorts of political hacks funded by the taxpayer. So obsessed have they been about their own image, they have created an entire industry out of news management, and that industry is utterly out of control. It’s poetic justice when, once in a while, they themselves get bitten by the monster they have sired.
How much of this goes on ?
My guess is lots. And lots. Politics is a horrible, tough business. The Tories are carrying on as if they’ve never tried to dish the dirt on anyone. Yeah, right. They must think we’re barking mad. Labour have been caught this time….next time, who knows ?
What Of Derek Draper ?
I’m going to try and keep my promise not to swear, here….
Draper is a thoroughly nasty piece of work and clearly a complete idiot into the bargain. I can’t for the life of me work out why the Tory bloggers have been wasting so much disk space on him, or on his ludicrous creation Labour List. Right now they should shut up completely. There are calls for Draper to “go” from his self-appointed role as Labour Blogger-In-Chief. I’d have thought that getting rid of Draper was the last thing anyone who hates Labour wanted them to do; if he goes he might be replaced by someone who knows what they’re doing – someone who could actually make the Left a force on the internet.
There, managed it (just).
Will Anything Improve As A Result Of All This ?
I doubt it. Labour are so immersed in the sea of spin they don’t know there’s an alternative to it. Brown’s request to Gus O’Donnell to tighten up the role of Special Advisors (SPADs) is itself an exercise in news management; a desperate attempt to look as if he’s being decisive and doing something when in fact he couldn’t give a monkey’s what happens anyway. We saw the same behaviour from him last week over parliamentary expenses and I daresay we’ll see the same behaviour next week over something else. Whether you expect the Tories do be any better if and when they come to power depends on your point of view. Personally I won’t be holding my breath.
What Are The Lessons ?
1. Don’t expect politicians to police their own appointees.
2. Don’t expect politicians to behave like normal, level-headed people. Because they’re not, and they don’t.
3. Don’t talk to the media when you’re feely highly emotional about something (Nadine Dorries take note).
4. Don’t, when you're leading 2-1 in the dying minutes of a crucial game and you're standing on the very threshold of promotion, kick the ball out of play because you’ve got a player injured and expect the opposition to give you it you back. (Sorry, wandered off topic – yesterday was a bit emotional for me, too. Don't, on any account, mention "Bromley" to me. No, really....don't).
a) not blogging much at the mmoment - there's a lot on - and
b) not getting over excited over David Cameron's reshuffle.
I appreciate that bringing Ken Clarke back might be seen as a significant move, but why do party leaders see fit to move their people around with such frequency, and what good to they think it does ? Wouldn't it be better to leave ministers / shadow ministers with the same brief for a good few years, giving them time to get the hang of it ? How long, for instance, has Cameron given Dominic Grieve as Shadow Home Secretary before moving him on ? Less than a year. Why ?
Whichever way he cuts it though, Cameron can hardly claim this change-around is going to alter much. It does exactly what it says on the tin; it shuffles the pack. The pack, I'm afraid, has shown itself incapable of offering a radical, landscape-changing agenda on either of the two biggest issues facing us today, namely the financial crisis and the systematic attack by this Government on our rights as individuals.
Until Dave (or some other party leader) demonstrates an understanding of the wholesale change in direction we as a nation need to undertake, their messing about with minor changes in personnel will leave me feeling considerably underwhelmed.
There’s been lively debate this week about a Conservative councillor in Croydon.
Maria Gatland has been suspended from the Conservative group and has resigned as a Cabinet member after it emerged that she worked for the IRA in the early 1970s.
Garland (then Maria McGuire, before she married) originally had her cover blown whilst gun-running in Amsterdam in 1971. Nine months later she became disillusioned with the IRA after a bombing campaign in Belfast that left 11 dead in one day. She wrote a book about her time with the movement, from whom she consequently faced a death sentence. She gave a number of interviews to the British press, lifting the lid on IRA brutality. She then appears to have gone to ground, her past forgotten, before she joined the Conservatives in Croydon and began forging a legitimate political career. Her paramilitary activities were brought to light earlier this week by a trade union official at a council meeting.
This story caught my interest because it raises questions about how long a person has to pay penance for their past. Does working for the IRA 35 years ago really make someone unfit for public office, even if they have clearly concluded for themselves that what they did was wrong ? I’d argue that it doesn’t.
I lived in London as a child. I well remember the hatred I had for the IRA, and the revulsion I felt over atrocities such as Chelsea Barracks, Hyde Park, Harrods and many others. I also recall finding a British Rail guard at Waterloo station and telling him, my voice shaking, that I had seen an unattended suitcase. As things turned out the explanation was innocent, but the fear I’d felt was real enough. I think I was about 12 at the time. But doesn’t there come a point when we have to move on ?
There is no suggestion that Maria Gatland faces any criminal investigation, so in the eyes of the law she is innocent. This therefore is essentially a question about politics.
To me, politics is a battle of ideas. Those involved seek to win hearts and minds through debate and argument. And I’d argue that just because someone once shunned political debate three decades previously (albeit in favour of violence) doesn’t mean they should forever be denied access to it now.
As a Tory Party activist in Halifax in the early 90s (now there’s a confession !) I became embroiled in a fracas of the same ilk (though certainly not on the same scale). A friend of mine left the local Conservatives in the run-up to the 1992 General Election and joined an anti-Europe party, for whom another former Tory was standing as a candidate. His party got something like 650 votes, and the Conservatives went down to “Red Alice” Mahon by fewer than 500, cutting her majority but failing to overturn it. Feelings ran high amongst local Conservatives that my friend’s party had cost them victory. When, a few months later, my friend, cajoled by me and suitably repentant, tried to rejoin the Conservative Association, he was rebuffed amidst bitter recrimination. Thinking it daft that we had turned away someone whom we had managed to win round by sound argument, I walked out, and never went back.
Changing one’s mind is often seen as a weakness in politics, but it shouldn’t be, Often it is just the opposite. It takes courage to admit that one was wrong. It takes courage and a fair bit more besides to turn one’s back on the IRA. Maria Gatland should not have to pay for what she did for the rest of her life. I hope she fights on in Croydon, and I hope it’s a fight she wins.
See the story here.
I took the Political Compass test this morning (well, it beats working). Came out here...
Interesting piece here from the excellent Mike Smithson of Political Betting suggesting it might be in Labour's long-term interest to hold a General Election now.
The argument goes that so bad is Labour's predicament, and so bad is the short-term future for the economy, that Labour might be forgiven more quickly it it hands over the reigns of power to the Conservatives now rather than limp on with a spent Prime Minister and be associated with ever growing doom, gloom and despondency till 2010. Using this logic you could conclude that had John Major gone to the polls in say, 2005, the outcome, though a Tory defeat, would not have been as bad as it was in 1997; and it's probably right.
There isn't a chance of it happening of course. There is no way Brown has the guts to call an election now. Actually I'd be hard-pressed to think of any politician capable of taking such a long-term, self-sacrifical view.
One of two things will happen. Either Brown will soldier on, hoping for some sort of minor miracle (and perhaps even getting one - Cameron is not invincible, and things can change very quickly) or he'll be forced to stand aside for another leader. I'll be fascinated to watch what happens at the Labour Conference (and I don't think I've ever said that before !) to see the manoeuvring of those who aspire to the Labour leadership. My bet is that Brown will cling on, but by the ned of this month I think we'll have a better idea of who the runners and riders are for a leadership contest.
By the way, Political Betting is a fabulous site for those wanting a regular fix of political discussion. The articles are usually interesting, challenging and neutral, and the comments surprisingly free of partisan bickering or point-scoring.
What does someone who hates the Labour Party want out of the Glasgow East by-election tonight ? Do you want Labour to lose because you hate them and they're ruining our lives or do you actually want them to win because if they do lose they might get rid of Gordon Brown and mount some sort of recovery ?
Tough call.
Anyone who thinks they're prepared to make sacrifices for their beliefs should read this. Would you really be prepared to go this far ? I mean suicide bombing is one thing, but trying to glue yourself to Gordon Brown...that really does go beyond the call of duty. Yes, OK, it didn't quite come off (or actually it came off all too quickly depending on your point of view) but you've got to credit the guy for risking such a horrendous fate.
Give me a night on Harriet Harman's roof anytime.
So the choice at the next Election is likely to be between a tax-raising, joy-killing, freedom-sapping socialist and someone who cannot obey basic traffic laws.
Fabulous.
By comparison, Hobson was spoiled for choice.
I saw this quote on BBC News' website yesterday but didn't mention it because I thought it must have been taken out of context. This morning I checked Hansard. It hadn't.
Responding to David Cameron congratulating him on coming to "the right decision" to meet the Dalai Lama to discuss Tibet, Gordon Brown really did say
"We make the right decisions at all times."
No acknowledgement of Cameron's generosity, no humility, just a blanket assertion that the government is never, never wrong. Ever.
I truly believe that only a big-government-loving socialist could even dream of coming up with such a staggeringly arrogant and self-congratulatory remark.
I wish I had Lord Goldsmith's job. I'd love to be paid thousands for talking twaddle.
Apparently the ex-attorney general is serious when he says that school-leavers should be encouraged to swear an oath of allegiance to Queen and country. He also wants a "Britishness" public holiday. And suggests, if you please, that our kids might be encouraged to sing "We Are The World". Give me strength. If this were 1st April, you'd really be thinking that this must be the day's spoof story. Unfortunately it's 11th March, and it isn't.
It is symptomatic of new-Labour's "big government solves everything" thinking that they really believe it desirable to stand teenage children in a line and ask them to swear an oath of allegiance. It is also clear that they do not understand one of the key results of devolution; that the genie is out of the bottle and we are moving to ever-greater separation of the four nations. People's feeling of "Britishness" cannot be rekindled through gimmicks such as bank holidays.
Slightly lower under the surface of these dreadful proposals lies another misconception - that patriotism and royalism come down to the same thing. Is every republican unpatriotic ? I love my country (that country being England, by the way, not Britain). I believe there is much in our history and the values we stand for today that I can be proud of. But I'm dammed if that means that I am automatically loyal to an unelected Head of State.
And then there is the assertion that getting children to take this oath will in some way increase unity and a common sense of belonging. Doubtful. If the government really want to give young people the feeling that this country is worth having an allegiance to, then it could do worse than:
..getting politicians to behave honourably and honestly instead of ripping us off and treating us like idiots;
..giving the English the same trappings of national identity than they have bestowed upon everyone else;
..stopping invading other countries;
..giving us some of our hard-earned money back.
If this comes in by the time Womble On Tour Junior I & II come to leave school I won't indoctrinate them with my own prejudices, I'll let them make up their own minds. When I was 16, I'd have taken the oath, no question. And they may well do. But if Lord Goldsmith seriously believes that that, itself, will make them better citizens in a more unified country, then he's even crazier than this idea suggests.
Much as I enjoy writing, I'm no great reader and I never have been. This means that my volcabulary isn't as good as it should be for a womble of my age. But even so, I can't believe I'm the only one struggling with Nick Clegg's latest description of British politics. "Sclerotic" ?
A visit to dictionary.com doesn't help much. The nearest I can get is "Affected or marked by sclerosis", which itself is defined as a "morbid hardening of the tissue".
For the record, the full quote is as follows. "When you have a system that is as sclerotic as this - tied up between the two parties - it is quite right for a principled party such as the Liberal Democrats, which believes in political reform from saying, from time to time, 'hang on, this is an absolute joke'''.
Can any better-read people elucidate, please ?
On a slightly different point, I think it might have been a mistake to utter the words "Liberal Democrats", "principled party", and "joke" in the same sentence.
I don't pretend to have the inside track on the ins and outs of Parliamentary procedure. Maybe, for all I know, Ed Davey had every right to be peeved when the Deputy Speaker refused to allow MPs the chance to debate and vote on a Lib Dem call for a referendum to be held on the UK's membership of the EU.
What I do know however, it that losing your rag with the Speaker is not the way forward. By all accounts things got distinctly heated in the Commons this afternoon. Davey called the decision an "outrage", to which the Deputy Speaker responded "the outrage is in danger of being the honourable member's attitude to the chair." Which, in Parliamentary terms, is as close to a personal insult as it gets.
Davey carried on complaining until the Deputy Speaker decided he may as well cut his losses and kick the guy out of the Chamber altogether - red card job. At which point, all the other Lib Dem MPs stormed out.
Putting to one side the fact that the Commons must be a manifestly better place without a shed- load of Lib Dem MPs putting their oar in every five minutes, this little episode does little for the image of politicians generally. Even when they don't like them, MPs should respect the decisions of the Speaker in much the same way that footballers should play to the whistle.
Throwing your toys out of the pram gets you nowhere.
