It's Like Eton and Oxford and Being Rich

Gweirdo goes from strength to strength

Keeping your trap shut

We're constantly being told that trust for politicians is at an all time low. That's because we don't know what politicians bloody *do*. Show an average voter a picture an average feed from the House of Commons and the first thing they'll mention is that there's practically no-one in there. The obvious conclusion is therefore that all the snout-in-trough lazy bastards are pissed in the bars. And the distrust of politicians is reinforced.

So MPs have voted themselves an extra £10k each for communications. Good. How can it be a bad idea for politicians to have more communication with the electorate? If they waste the money, or have nothing to say because they haven't done anything, then we'll know. And we'll vote them out. If, on the other hand, we learn more about what our MPs are up to then maybe - maybe - we'll have a bit more respect for them. And that is worth £6.5m in my book.

The Tories claim it's another example of Labour politicians with their snouts in their trough, that it's a waste of public money, that it protects the incumbent. That last one is a gem: it only protects the incumbent if the incumbent has something to communicate: if they can point to a job well done. In that respect, it is a diadvantage to Tories because they'll have to work even harder to show that the sitting Labour and Lib Dem MPs are deserving of replacement.

But there's another reason why the Tories are unhappy with the Communications allowance.

Consider this. In the past two months, two Conservative politicians have been embroiled in race rows. Patrick Mercer was the Shadow Defence Secretary, while Brian Gordon is a Councillor in Hendon. I'm not going to go into the detail on these, others have done it already (or not, as the case may be).

But it's worth pointing that both episodes were sparked by the politicians themselves. They were not "outed" or "duped" (even though Patrick Mercer claims he was off the record). Councillor Gordon sent the offending photo into the local newspaper himself.

Say, for the sake of argument, that you were a Tory politician. One of the nice new ones that we keep hearing about. Worried about the environment, big fan of the NHS, solar panels on your roof, cycle to the golf club, all that.

Now, would you, as a New Conservative, really want all those nasty old-school Tories running off down to Prontaprint? With Jack Straw's ten large in their back pockets and their essays on why "multiculturalism is a failed experiment" scrawled on an old Garrick Club menu in their sticky paws? Would you?

No. Which is why all the Tories voted against the allowance.

If you can't trust a shadow cabinet member to keep his trap shut, how the hell are you going to trust 650+ Parliament Candidates?

Man-made hot air

Oh dear.

The 18DS boys have struck again with one of their "attack adverts". Once again it is not only laughably bad, but contains about as much accuracy as Ann Widdecombe's erotic fiction.

This time, the bee in the collective Tory bonnet is the "hypocricy" of climate change advocates. The 18DS stance is that, in order to comment on the subject you have to have lived as monk for the past three centuries and never ventured out of your postcode (or if you have travelled more than three miles, you have to have done this using ONLY ONE FORM OF TRANSPORT. EVER.)

According to 18DS, the holy trinity of climate change campaigners/hypocrites (the terms are interchangeable) are Al Gore (fair enough, he won an oscar for his film, so clearly he does have a *bit* of a profile), David Cameron (because he rides a bike and also travels by plane) and The Independent (cos they run climate change related headlines while at the same time advertising foreign holidays in their travel section. For Shame!).

Far be it from me to suggest that:

a. David Cameron is not one of the names that trips off the tongue when asked to name a client change campaigner; and therefore
b. The whole thing is just an excuse for the 18DS boys to have a crack at their favourite hate figures and climate change was just a nice zeitgeisty hook upon which to hang said crack.

But there you go. I also feel a bit wary about posting this. As a commenter on here pointed out, criticising 18DS is like shooting fish in a barrell: their insistence on adding comedy "sources" to their swivel eyed rantings makes it almost *too* easy. And given how poor most of the sources are, it hardly seems worth attributing them. Added to this, 18DS have a marvellous habit of erasing parts of their website that become a bit embarassing, so future ads will probably not be sourced in the same way, denying me the fruitful and enjoyable pastime of pointing out their bullshittery to both my readers (Hi Mum).

Thus, with the heavy air of a man settling down to a meal of what may just be the last cod in the ocean, here are those accusations and sources in full:

1 AL Gore’s Electricity Bill

The Tennessee Centre for Policy Research recently reported that the electricity bill for Al Gore’s 20 room house was thirty thousand dollars.

SOURCE HERE

Note how the link doesn't go through to the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research itself. The reason for this is that the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research is not the kind of organisation you'd want to be seen sourcing material from. Not only does it refuse to list it's board members (in contravention of Federal US law), but it is run from someone's apartment.

It also has the enviable economic skill of managing on a research budget of precisely nil. Yep: a policy research institute with no research budget. (Source for this: the TCPR's Form 990 on www.guidestar.org - registration required).

(Allegations that the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research is a shadowy right-wing organisation set up to fling shit at Al Gore were considered so bloody obvious that no-one could be bothered to refute them.)

That said, the $30k figure has not been disputed by the Gores. Their aide did point out though that the home also acts for as offices for both Al and Tipper. Still though - $30,000 for electricity must mean an awful lot of nasty carbon, no?

Well, no. Turns out the Gores purchase their electricity through Tennessee's Green Power Switch Programme - which supplies electricity exclusively from green sources. So the Gores' electricity bill could be $30m, and it still would have hardly any environmental impact.

Oh, and if you think that the 18DS boys were unaware of the falsity of their information, 'fraid not. Most of it is in the article they use as their source.

Nice one fellas.


2 David Cameron cycling to work

It was reported on the BBC that David Cameron cycled to work but his car followed behind him carrying his papers.

SOURCE HERE

Riiight, with you so far... but would it be rude to point out that in the report to which 18DS link, Cameron is quoted as saying the car accusation is "not true at all"?

Or the fact that 18 DS last week took the BBC to task for "selective reporting of facts", but this week see them as the perfect source to illustrate their political point?

3 David Cameron’s Journey to Scotland

It was confirmed by a party official that David Cameron and his shadow cabinet flew to Scotland for a cabinet meeting instead of travelling by train.

.... so he uses bicycles AND planes? The BASTARD.

Strangely, they haven't provided the source for this. Or the source for Al Gore's plane trip to London this week.

But that would bring up all sorts of inconvenient truths - for example the truth that one of his reasons for coming was to address the Conservative shadow cabinet.

And while 18DS and ConHome see Cameron as Diet Blair, there remain quite a few "good eggs" in the shadow cabinet, and 18DS don't want to start criticising them. Like Patrick Mercer for example. Eh? Oh.

4 Cameron encourages rail travel

He argued on the Today Programme that he would promote rail travel as an alternative to air travel.

SOURCE HERE

So, the main point of this section is that Cameron is whoring himself around modes of transport like Phileas Fogg on crack. It's not exactly Black Wednesday is it?

5 The Independent Newspaper says travel locally

Last year, the Independent Newspaper’s front page urged readers to travel within the UK instead of flying abroad on holiday. It argued that this would help to tackle global warming.

SOURCE HERE

So, when Cameron flies by plane, it is incontravertible evidence that he is contributing to global warming. But when the Independent make the same link, it is only an "argument".

6 The Independent Newspaper advertises foreign holidays

On the same day, it also advertised cheap foreign holidays on its travel section.

SOURCE HERE

That's not really a source, by the way - it's a comment article from Conservative Home whinging about the Independent.

So the 18DS point is that newspapers that tackle global warming lose the right to publish a travel supplement? Hardly "free speech" is it? Or does 18DS's campaign for free speech only extend to racial epithets?

But, that said, I'm convinced. Clearly, Travel Supplements are the work of the devil and need to be eradicated with a crusader's zeal.

And that's that. Barely time to ask where the promised 18DS Arms Trade advert is (it's "been in production" for about three months: they made two Harry Potter films in less time than that), or point out Iain Dale's latest undeclared interest. To those I shall return later.

Image: Gweirdo (inspired by this and this and with sincere apologies to Banksy)

Saying more than he should?

From the Conservative press release on Cameron's green speech today:

The consultation calls for submissions in response to three main policy ideas: charging fuel duty and/or VAT on domestic flights; replacing APD with a per-flight tax based more closely on actual carbon emissions; and introducing a 'Green Air Miles Allowance' so that people who fly more frequently pay tax at a higher rate

I can't see how you're going to introduce a "per-flight tax" or a "green air-miles allowance" without tracking the flights of 60 million people.

And if you're going to do that, you're going to need the e-borders scheme.

And if you're going to do that, you're going to need the national ID database up and running before you even start to consider how you're going to spend all that lovely tax revenue.

All of which makes this statement from David Davis all the more meaningless.

The Tories only have about three policies and two of them contradict.

Image: Beau Bo D'or

There's no "ID" in "Policy"

Hat Tip - Beau Bo D'or

In a series of letters to Whitehall bigwigs, David Davis has pledged that the Tories would roll back ID card legislation should they get into power.

Stephen Pollard sums up the political reasoning behind this in breathy tones:

[Davis] has reiterated the Conservative Party's stance in favour of individual liberty versus the state; he has undermined the chances of ID cards being successfully introduced under Labour by indicatingthat he might, as Home Secretary, overturn contracts with commercial organisations, thus introducing a crucial new element of risk; he has helped the Conservative Party in its key task of drawing in potential LibDem voters; and he has given the Conservative troops a morale boost by sticking to core principles.

Unfortunately, the truth is that this is another example of the Tories looking around for a policy (any policy) and via the path of least resistance settling on the easiest headline grabber.

ID Cards themselves are little more than the front end of the state's attempts to track citizens. They would be meaningless without the national ID database, DNA database, CCTV infrastructure and plans for cross-Whitehall database sharing.

Look closely at Davis's letter to Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell again:

"As you will be aware, the Conservative Party has stated publicly that it is our intention to cancel the ID card project immediately on our being elected to government. You are now formally on notice of our position and fully appraised of the contingent risks and associated liabilities arising from the national identity card scheme."

Davis is careful to frame the Tories' position around the cards themselves. There is no mention of the other facets of the ID project. Thus, if elected to office, the Tories could retain the databases, but reject the national roll-out of the physical card (except to immigrants, presumably).

In practical terms, this is like the Competition Commission cracking down on Tesco by restricting the use of loyalty cards.

However, as a piece of politics, it is deft. It speaks to all corners of Cameron's big tent while at the same time stealing some Yellow Thunder. It has the added benefit of throwing a spanner in the works of a flagship Labour policy.

The problem is, it might be too deft. In the event that commercial organisations are scared off the project, it may well come to pass that the ID cards scheme is scrapped by Labour before the next election.

In which case, the Tories will be left scrabbling around for another policy that will grab a few headlines and then fade quietly from view.

Patients' Passport anyone?

Cameron's Observer article - Exclusive early draft

No one will be left behind in a Tory Britain

Especially not my briefcase! Jeeves has it in the Jag

By vigorously promoting equal opportunity and fairness, we will make this a better country for all

David Cameron (Sorry Danny, your name doesn't have the same recognition at the Observer)

The subject of community cohesion, for understandable reasons, has become prominent in our national conversation over the past few years. But it is a challenge we have faced before: the question of how we live together is as old as humanity itself. Throughout history, there have been periods when Britain has not been entirely comfortable with itself or individual communities within it.

Nice and trite to start - like it. Don't want the lefties carking it from a coronary before they get halfway through...

Who would now question the contribution made by Jewish people to British society - or even talk about there being a conflict between being British and Jewish? And yet, only 50 years ago, this was exactly the debate going on in both the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. More recently, Britain's Irish community was questioning and being questioned about its loyalty to Britain.

Bloody hell, our lot won't like this. Can we have some more like your other one? Bit worried that we share a definition of "being questioned" with Birmingham CID circa 1974. Also, massive missed opportunity here: this bit's crying out for a nice "cricket test" reference. Ah well, best not bring up embarrassing past episodes - the Ashes were a disaster.

Each time, over time, we have kept our country together by having faith in our institutions and our way of doing things: freedom under the rule of law, a common culture defined by pluralism and tolerance and a distinctively British approach (calm, thoughtful, reasonable) to potentially incendiary issues. The challenge today may have its own specific characteristics, but our approach should be the same. In that context, I am concerned by the direction that the debate on cohesion has taken recently. I believe it is time for a more British approach.

Yes! A More British Approach! They come over here, taking our jobs, taking our approaches... Like it, like it.

First, we must not fall for the illusion that the problems of community cohesion can be solved simply through top-down, quick-fix state action. State action is certainly necessary today, but it is not sufficient. Second, it must be the right kind of action, expressed in a calm, thoughtful and reasonable way.

We've had enough of quick-fix state solutions! We need the state to come up with a new solution! And Quick!

The doctrine of multiculturalism has undermined our nation's sense of cohesion because it emphasises what divides us rather than what brings us together. It has been manipulated to entrench the right to difference (a divisive concept) at the expense of the right to equal treatment despite difference (a unifying concept).

Do you think anyone will notice this is bollocks? I mean, the Human Rights Act entrenches equal treatment, doesn't it? Oh, sorry, we're going to abolish it. Ignore this comment.

But in seeking to atone for those mistakes, we should not lurch, with the zeal of the convert, into a simplistic promotion of 'Britishness' that is neither in keeping with our traditions, nor likely to bring our communities closer together.

Loving this - "traditions" = right wing, "communities" = left wing, "Dave the boy Cameron" = both wings. I'm like Cristiano Ronaldo (without being a lying foreigner, obviously.) (Or a foreigner, anyway)

Yes, we need to ensure that every one of our citizens can speak to each other in our national language. Yes, we need to ensure that our children are taught British history properly. And I do think it is important to create more opportunities for celebrating our sense of nationhood. Unlike Labour, we will set out a clear and consistent path to ensure these things actually happen, starting with our policy review which will make specific recommendations this week.

NEXT WEEK!!? Shit. Have you still got that copy of the 97 election manifesto? We'll be needing that.

But I think we need to go much deeper than this if we are to address the substantial alienation and division that exist in our country today. It's no use behaving like the proverbial English tourist abroad, shouting ever more loudly at the hapless foreigner who doesn't understand what is being said. We can't bully people into feeling British - we have to inspire them.

They do bloody understand you know. There was this chap in Whistler last year who understood every word I said. Still, needs must...

A number of the interventions we have seen from ministers recently have spectacularly failed to do that. Instructing Muslim parents to spy on their children.

Heh heh, "BOO!"

Offending our war heroes with the proposal of a new 'Veteran's Day' when we already have Remembrance Sunday.

"HISS!" Hawhawhaw. Just like Oxford Union this...

Suggesting that we put flags on the lawn.

HAHAHA! "HANG NELSON MANDELA!" Oop, sorry, bit carried away there...

These and similar clunking

Like the dig at Broon, but a bit subtle for the proles this, no? Can't we come up with something better? He's only got one eye you know, there's got to be a gag in that... I'll see what I can come up with.

attempts to address the complexities of community cohesion show a serious misunderstanding of the scale of the challenge, and the shape of the solution. Above all, we have seen a dangerous muddling of concerns: community cohesion, the threat of terrorism and the integration of British Muslims.

Good point this: the threat of the integration of British Muslims bloody terrifies me.

Promoting community cohesion should indeed be part of our response to terrorism. But cohesion is not just about terrorism and it is certainly not just about Muslims. Similarly, promoting integration will help protect our security. But too mechanistic a connection between these objectives will make it harder to achieve both, by giving the impression that the state considers all Muslims to be a security risk.

Which we do, obviously. But we don't want them to think that we do. Nice.

This week's report from our policy review, the product of months of dialogue with Britain's diverse communities,

Glad I sidestepped that one

will seek to disentangle these threads and point a clear and responsible way forward. There will be no shying away from the tough issues: the influence of those who twist faith into ideology; the cultural attitudes that exclude women from mainstream society; the impact of foreign policy on domestic affairs;

I'm going to need a briefing note on Iraq. Are we for it or against it this week?

and, vitally, the divisive effects of the catastrophic failure of state education in many parts of urban Britain.

Bloody right. One of Sam's colleagues got her son into Eton from a state primary! Enrolled into the bally place without paying a penny! I said to her, that's bloody unfair, it cost my mater and pater an absolute packet in prep school fees!

I want the Conservative party to stand for a broad and generous vision of British identity.

Is this about those cards?

In a speech in Birmingham tomorrow, I will argue that questions of social cohesion are also questions of social justice and social inclusion. Cohesion is as much about rich and poor, included and left behind

Good idea for the conference stage banner: "No rich person left behind"

as it is about English and Scot

BOO! Hawhawhaw

or Muslim and Christian. Inspiring as well as demanding loyalty from every citizen will require a new crusade for fairness. A society that consistently denies some of its people the chance to escape poverty, to get on in life, to fulfil their dreams and to feel that their contribution is part of a national effort: such a society will struggle to inspire loyalty, however many citizenship classes it provides.

Bloody hell, bit pink this isn't it? Still, like the cuts in citizenship classes. Should save a few quid.

Fairness will be our most powerful weapon against fragmentation. In America, new immigrants feel part of something from the moment they arrive

Ha! Usually a chain gang! Hahaha

because they feel they have the opportunity to succeed. It is that belief in equal opportunity that we need in Britain today and it is why the denial of quality education to so many is such a vital part of the cohesion argument.

Good point. Absolutely crucial to deny a quality education. The old "don't know what they're missing" ruse.

There is no easy short cut. Having tried to impose democracy in Iraq at the point of a gun, we must surely realise that we will never impose cohesion at home with the ping of a press release.

Do Press Releases Ping? My BlackBerry makes the noise of a pig when I get a text. Can we change "ping" to "grunt" here?

There are serious divisions in our country today. Many thousands - maybe millions - feel shut out, under attack.

Hunters, farmers, Jade Goody, the list goes on... Actually, can we get Jade in Birmingham for the speech on Monday?

Turning the situation around will require patience. We must be calm, thoughtful and reasonable: that is the British way.

Well, not the Scottish way, obviously - that Gordon Brown's a nutter. Or the Welsh way - Neil Kinnock couldn't bloody stop shouting. But the English way anyway. Which is the same thing.

Building cohesion is a social responsibility. Government must enforce the rules of the road -

I feel we could say more about foreign drivers here

speaking English, teaching history, upholding and celebrating the symbols of nationhood - and we will be absolutely clear about what needs to be done. If the government brings forward these measures, they will have our full support.

I've got to say, this is a top wheeze. We can't lose!

But this is about much more than government and politics. We must each do all we can to make this a fairer and more just society - helping others, creating opportunity and ensuring that no one is excluded from it.

Especially Jade Goody.

Lovely stuff Danny, pop round mine for a snifter ;) later.