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)

Those 18 Doughty Street Sources

I thought I'd look into the sources used for the 18 Doughty Street attack ad on Ken Livingstone... Guess what I found?

A load of old cobblers, that's what.

I'm not even a particularly strong supporter of Ken, but having to wade through 18DS's piss-poor attempt at an "attack advert" ("oooh, look at me, I'm the new Karl Rove") just wound me up.

So, here they are, those "sources" in full:

1 Taxi Bill
'Yesterday morning, for the second time in a month, Ken Livingstone took a 234-mile taxi trip home from Blackpool to London. The journey took more than four hours and the fare was £260, charged to council-tax payers through the Greater London Authority (GLA).’
SOURCE HERE - Daily Telegraph Article.
Price of First Class Ticket London - Blackpool £173.50 (www.nationalrail.co.uk)

X3 passengers = £520.50

... or almost exactly twice the price of the cab.

2 Share of Council Tax up
‘In 2000/01, the average cost of the Mayor to a Band D council Taxpayer was £123 a year for each household. This year, it is £289 (an increase in cash terms of 135%). Next year, it will be over £300.’
SOURCE HERE
Source = Victoria Borwick, prospective Conservative candidate for Mayor 2008. Couldn't find an impartial source boys?

Other sources including the London Evening Standard suggest an even higher increase of 147%.
SOURCE HERE
Source = London Evening Standard, unsuccessful litigant against the Mayor 2006; currently running long-winded "Get Ken" campaign (see Standard editor Veronica Wadley's article on Ken Livingston, Febraury 24 2006 [not online])

3 Traffic speeds static and cost up
‘When it comes to road user charging, the essential trade off for motorists is that a charge is paid in exchange for a quicker journey. Unfortunately, the Mayor has dropped his side of the bargain, with the average speed in central London the second lowest on record since 1968.’
SOURCE HERE

Source = Angie Bray, Conservative GLA Member, Conservative PPC.

Click through to Department for Transport: Dead Link

4 London is now less safe than New York

According to the survey of 18 of the EU’s 25 countries, London was more dangerous than Istanbul or New York.
SOURCE HERE

Policing is a joint responsibility of the Mayor and the Metropolitan Police Authority. MPA's political representation is: 4 Tory Members, 4 Labour Members, 1 UKIP (One London) Member, 1 Green Member.

5 Not visited London’s 10 borough’s since re-election:

This was revealed when Andrew Pelling, a member of the London Assembly asked him about his visits to London boroughs.
SOURCE HERE.

Misleading. The question asked about visits "as mayor" - i.e. official visits.
According to that list, he has visited Brent once since 2004. Ken Livingstone lives in Brent.

6 Trip to Cuba

‘Ken Livingstone's botched trip to Latin America cost Londoners more than £35,000, he has admitted. It cost £19,051 in flights and hotel bills for the Mayor and four aides to spend six days in Cuba, during which he spent around 30 minutes at an Olympic conference.’
SOURCE HERE

Source = Evening Standard, published less than three weeks after that newspaper lost a High Court case against Ken Livingstone.
The paper does not quote any sources for the statistic.
The trip to Cuba was in response to an invite from Lord Moynihan, former Conservative Sports Minister, to an international Olympics convention.

7 Party to celebrate 50 years of Cuban revolution

‘Ken Livingstone is planning a "massive festival" across London to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Fidel Castro's Cuban revolution. Although the Mayor's office refused to provide budget estimates, it could cost up to £2 million.’
SOURCE HERE

Source = Evening Standard. Subsequently shown to be untrue: http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=10289

8 Al-Qaradawi is the strongest force for the modernisation of Islam

“Unbelievably, Mayor Livingstone asserted in the question period that Yusuf al Qaradawi was the “strongest force for modernization of Islam - he is the future of Islam.”
SOURCE HERE

First person report on heart-on-its-sleeve US conspiracist-conservative blog.

Today's headline story, for example, lists all the recent shooting incidents of people with muslim surnames in the US and asks, without any evidence whether they are part of jihad:

"Talovic joins an unfortunately growing list of Muslims who have committed random acts of violence, only for officials to assure us that their actions have nothing to do with terrorism. Maybe none of them do, but the list is full of troubling details..."

Nutjobs one and all.

9 Qaradawi describes suicide bombing against Israel as duty

‘Recently he told Al-Jazeera that he was not alone in believing that suicide bombings in Palestinian territories were a legitimate form of self defence for people who have no aircraft or tanks. He said hundreds of other Islamic scholars are of the same opinion. In this respect, he is very much in tune with what the vast majority of people in the Arab world believe. Defending suicide bombings that target Israeli civilians Sheikh A-Qaradawi told the BBC programme Newsnight that "an Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier.’
SOURCE HERE BBC
SECOND SOURCE HERE BBC
Finally, what appears to be a fair source... but its a bit pointless, given the weakness of the source in point 8.

10 Qaradawi supports severe punishment for homosexuals
"Almighty Allah has prohibited illegal sexual intercourse and homosexuality and all means that lead to either of them. This perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man's sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females. Muslim jurists hold different opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements."
SOURCE HERE
Yes, but Ken Livingstone doesn't support severe punishment, does he? See also point 8.

11 Bob Crow’s support for a Communist party candidate.

‘RMT rail union leader Bob Crow praised the Communist Party's candidate in Pontypridd, Robert Griffiths, as 'a champion of workers' rights and an internationalist who is implacably opposed to Blair's wars' last night (Tuesday).’
SOURCE HERE
Bob Crow is a Communist? Well I never...

Crow supported a Communist in Pontypridd, but Ken Livingstone didn't, did he?

Ken and Bob aren't exactly the best of friends.

Besides which, according to the Telegraph, "Mr Crowe and the brothers are the arbiters of London's transport. Ask any commuter."

12 Invited him to the board of TFL ‘Both Steve Norris, the Tory candidate for Mayor, and Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes said they would remove Mr Crow from the TfL board if elected to power. He was only backed in the post by Mr Livingstone.’
SOURCE HERE.
Yes, but they weren't elected to power, were they? Why not? Because Bob Crowe has control of the RMT and could shut down the transport system whenever he wanted. Dialogue with him is annoying but necessary.

13 Has spent £100 million of Londoner’s money on self publicity and policy propaganda. ‘There is already much evidence of waste: spending on publicity by the Mayor and his various quangos has been estimated at over £100 million a Year (nearly as much as was spent by the Labour Government in its first Year in office); staffing costs at City Hall have nearly trebled from £12 Million in 2000/01 to £33 million in 2005/06.’

SOURCE HERE.
Source: Victoria Borwick, candidate for Conservative Mayoral Nomination 2008.

That source list by category:
2 Conservative politicians
1 American nut-job blog
1 Right-wing newspaper with an avowed campaign against your subject (including one report which has been shown to be untrue)
1 Dead link
4 sources which, though fair representations, fail to relate to - or deliberately misconstrue - the point 18 DS are making.

All in all, completely Fair and Balanced then.

If 18DS wanted to have a crack at Ken, they could have spared a hell of a lot of time and simply linked to his wikipedia page, which spells out far more than 18DS's cack-handed attempt.

BTW, I'm not even saying that all of 18DS's allegations are untrue, just that a first year undergraduate could have done a better job in sourcing them.

It's the arms trade next week. They can't balls that up, can they? Eh? Oh.

Still, I'm particularly looking forward to how they deal with the tricky connection between Al-Yamamah and Mark Thatcher...

***EDIT***

I left a comment on the 18 Doughty Street site, drawing their attention to the "deficiencies" in the sources. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be able to publish my comment. Strange, isn't it, that nearly all the comments on 18DS are positive, while on Iain's blog (which to his credit, he doesn't appear to have censored) most of the comments are, well, pretty negative really.

I hope I haven't offended the nice boys at 18DS...

***EDIT 2***

I stand corrected. My comment on the 18DS site highlighting the problems with their sources is now up.

"Fox News for Adults"

I want to talk about Iain Dale and 18 Doughty Street.

Two of their campaigns really get my goat - the anti Ken Livingstone drive and the anti-state funding drive.

I'm not going into the details of Iain Dale's Ken Livingstone campaign, read this from Tim Ireland, which sets it out perfectly. In short: Ireland criticises Dale for his coverage of the Smith Institute/Sith (delete as politically relevant), because Iain Dale is a trustee of Policy Exchange; Policy Exchange being the Tory's version of the S(m)ith - a registered charity with a party political slant. Iain Dale is a trustee of the Policy Exchange. So is Nick Boles. Who has applied to be Mayor of London. See the connection? 18 Doughty Street don't... and haven't made any declaration of interest. "Politics for adults" turns out to be not much more than a, well, Fox News Lite.

The issue here is most definitely declarations of interest. Or rather the lack of.

Which leads me onto the Dale/18DS state funding campaign.

18DS's next attack ad is on Livingstone. The last was on State Funding. In it, three MPs from the major parties discuss a forthcoming election. (You can tell which party they're from - they have coloured rosettes: it might be politics for adults, but it's not politics for particularly bright adults) Anyway, they sit in a suitably swanky restaurant and discuss how to swindle the costs of the next election out of the British Public, while at the same time inferring that they are pocketting the cash and planning to emigrate. Not exactly a reasoned argument. Not exactly "politics for adults".

What the ad doesn't mention is another of Dale's undeclared interests: that immediately before his last election campaign, his constituency association received generous funding from Lord Ashcroft. This was legal and in no way breached electoral law. Nevertheless, between the time that Iain Dale was selected as a Potential Parliamentary Candidate and the calling of the 2005 General Election, Iain Dale's constituency assocation was funded by a millionaire who applied an unprecedented level of financial leverage to a UK General Election Campaign: a feat he would be unable to repeat in a state-funded environment.

This is a pertinent and important fact and shapes any interpretation that can fairly be made of Iain Dale's campaign against State Funding. Needless to say, he doesn't mention it.

At the last election, Iain Dale stood in North Norfolk for the Conservatives. His was one of the constituencies chosen to be funded by Lord Ashcroft's Bearwood Corporate Services.

Now if you're not familiar with Lord Ashcroft, the biog is something like this (better be careful, he's somewhat litigious): brought up in UK and Belize, makes millions, donates millions to Tory Party. Offered a peerage by William Hague in 2001 on the condition that he took British citizenship (he had uncharitably been dubbed a "tax exile" up to that point) Ashcroft quipped back "only if I can be titled Lord Ashcroft of Belize".

His support for the Conservative Party during the 2005 General Election was unusual: Ashcroft chose the seats into which the money was donated. One of which was Iain Dale's North Norfolk campaign.

I raised this with Dale last week, and he made some valid points (at 5.27 and 5.59), particularly in correcting me that the money was not direct campaign funding, but that it was donated before the campaign - i.e before Parliament dissolved for the election.

He made some weaker points too: on Ashcroft's procedure for selecting the seats he would support, he said (5.40pm):

The seats were analysed according to which seats needed the most support. Seats which had adequate funding did not receive any. All candidates had to submit a properly costed business/campaign plan and they were analysed on that basis.

This is pretty unlikely, not least because the Cities of London and Westminster - one of the richest constituencies in Western Europe and true blue since time immemorial - was also Ashcroft/Bearwood funded. It also contradicts the evidence given by Peter Bradley at the Constitutional Affairs select committee hearing into party funding in 2005 (although as a Labour MP unseated by Tory using Bearwood funding, I accept that he's hardly a disinterested observer):

(Bearwood and others using the same method) contributed over £1.3 million to what I have identified as three categories of constituency:
— those Labour and Liberal Democrat seats they aimed to win in 2005;
— those Labour and LD seats they aim to win at the next election; and
— Conservative marginals they were defending in 2005.

Dale went on "He bypassed CCO because he rightly thought that the money would be wasted."
Aside from the fact that a Tory PPC thinks a donation to the Tory party would be a "waste", I think Dale's comment here is the biggest indictment of the Bearwood model.

Why should a millionaire dictate how parties are run? Who were the voters of Norfolk North (or the Cities of London and Westminster, or any of the other dozens of constituencies that Bearwood and others funded) actually voting for - the Conservative candidate or the Bearwood candidate? To whom do they look to for representation? To whom does the candidate look to for direction - his party or his funder? What is the point of political parties at all if they are simply used as a vehicle to further the political opinions of the super-rich?

This pattern will continue. According to Lord Ashcroft, the results of the 2005 General Election funding model were pleasing:

"it soon became clear that we had been wasting neither our time nor our resources. Of the 33 candidates who won seats from Labour or the LDs, no fewer than 25 had received support from the fund that I had set up"
(Lord Ashcroft, "Dirty Politics, Dirty Times", p.295-6)

So, in other words, expect more of the same. A lot more.

State funding is a deeply flawed option. It will almost certainly be criticised for costing too much. It will take funds away from elsewhere. It will require civil servants to implement it. It will, no doubt, be inefficient at some point in its implementation. And, sin of sins, it may need to be paid for out of tax. But it is the least worst option.

Critics of of state funding inevitably point to cash for peerages as an example of the venality of politics. But they miss the point: the cash for peerages scandal is what happens when you increase public scrutiny of the political system. Parties have always given their donors peerages (**looks up page**). It has come to light because it is only recently that it has been provable. We need more of this. State funding would give us more.

State funding would be the subject of unparalleled scrutiny precisely because it is so controversial. It would be a further illumination of one of the dark spaces of British politics.

On the other hand, more private funding = more private funders. More hidden agenda. More debasing of politics.

Whatever you think of state funding, remember that there are vested interests speaking vocally and that they aren't declaring those interests.

It is not as cut and dried as Iain Dale or 18 Doughty Street make out. Not by a long way.

***EDIT***
The Ken Livingstone attack ad is now up on the 18DS website. The link to it on Iain Dale's site is attracting some criticism of the "sources" used for the "facts", but no declaration of interest...

Picture my surprise.