Another By-election, another u-turn

… and no doubt they’ll be telling us in future how much better off we are because of the postponment of the planned 2p rise in fuel duty. No doubt, also, we are expected to be grateful that in a few months, petrol will be only 130p/litre and not 132p.

So, when the Conservatives propose cuts in fuel duty at times when fuel prices are high, it’s

“a dishonest gimmick which would mean the Tories would have to hike up taxes somewhere else or would mean a massive hole in the public finances.

“Either George Osborne doesn’t understand the way tax revenues work, or he’s prepared to play fast and loose with the public finances for the sake of a good headline.”

But when Labour postpone increases in fuel duty at time when fuel prices are high, it’s

“the right thing to do to help motorists and to help businesses.”

The ever-consistent Lib Dems, however are pouring scorn on both moves. You remember the Lib Dems: they were suggesting tax cuts a few months ago, and are the same party that wants/doesn’t want (delete deopending on day of week) a referendum on the EU.

Straight Talking

“We talk about people being “at risk of obesity” instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise. We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it’s as if these things - obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction - are purely external events like a plague or bad weather.

“Of course, circumstances - where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school, and the choices your parents make - have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make.

David Cameron’s remarks on reintroducing some moral judgement into how we regard the poor, overweight, and so on, have exposed some real nastiness in the Left. Old chestnuts are being dusted off, including comparing Cameron’s comments to Margaret Thatcher’s oft-truncated “there is no such thing as society” quote.

It is ironic that the Left accuse Conservatives of being the nasty party, then launch into a vicious vitriolic attack on David Cameron because he was born into an affluent background and went to Eton. After all, they wouldn’t dream of criticising someone because they were born into, say, a poor Afro-Caribbean family and went to the “bog standard” comp.

What Cameron has done is to open up a debate that has been brushed under the carpet for too long. There are two broad types of poor/disadvantaged in the world, which as a shorthand I will refer to as the “deserving” poor, and the “undeserving”. The latter are the subject of David Cameron’s comments: those who would rather wallow in self-pity, weighed down by the burden of the chip on their shoulder, blaming society and the government for their situation while equally (and, I suppose, logically) expecting the same to compensate them.

It’s vital that we do have this debate, for it is the undeserving poor that are causing the deserving to be tarred with the same brush, by countless hard working individuals who have been waiting for leading politicians to say what they have been thinking for a long time.

The reaction of the Left has been utterly predictable and indicative of why we find ourselves with the problems that we have today.

It has included the inevitable “it’s alright for an old Etonian to lecture the poor, what does he know?” to finding some genuinely deserving cases to be held up as being the alleged subject of the nasty Tories’ attacks. Finally, of course, they blame Mrs Thatcher for why we are where we are.

It is too easy, though, to put this off again, fearful of upsetting someone or having our remarks twisted, taken out of context and thrown back at us, as the “no society” quote was. As Cameron has said,

“… I have not found the words to say it sensitively. And then I realised, that is the whole point.

“We as a society have been far too sensitive. In order to avoid injury to people’s feelings, in order to avoid appearing judgemental, we have failed to say what needs to be said.

“Instead we prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgements about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong. These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more.

Immigration used to be avoided by many politicians for fear of being labelled racist, but now it is being rationally discussed in terms of the burden on public services. Equally, we have previously failed to address effectively the issue of “deserving” vs “undeserving” state dependency, lest we should be accused of wanting to kick away crutches. Yet it must be addressed, for until such “moral” judgements start to inform any overhaul of the welfare state, it will continue to lose credibility and support from those who have to pay for it.

(And, yes, that’s something that those of us in local government need to think about as much as anyone else.)

Henley: John Howell Sends Clegg Back to the Drawing Board

Headline coverage of by-election results tends to focus on the placings of each party (well, I suppose who came first is pretty important!) So there’s probably a muted sigh of relief at LibDem HQ in Cowley Street this morning, among the general despair, that the media haven’t picked up on exactly what a disastrous outcome the Henley result has been for the Libs.

The headlines are about the fact that, on his first anniversary in office, Brown’s candidate plummeted to fifth place behind the BNP and Greens. (On many BBC bulletins right now, they are leading on the Zimbabwean elections.) The Lib Dems, despite pulling out all the usual stops, scraped only a 1.8% increase in their vote. Lord Rennard, as I noted earlier, ran the usual personal negative Lib Dem campaign which has worked reasonably well for them before - well, pre-2007 anyway. Now it’s back to the drawing board. Thing is, it’s been so long, can anyone at Cowley Street find it?

They Just Don’t Get It

So, Kelvin Mackenzie might step in to be Gordon Brown’s stooge stand against David Davis in the Haltemprice & Howden by-election. I hope Kelvin knows what he is letting himself in for by coming onto the other side of the media/victim fence. I would find it difficult to see Mackenzie, given his tabloid background, not getting personal in the campaign. This by-election was looking to be genuinely about the issue – if Mackenzie loses the plot then he will find himself reaping a whirlwind.

Add to the mix the fact that quite a few people will think that anything Murdoch/Mackenzie is for they are against, then I would say “bring it on”.

Of course, Kelvin has said he will do it if Labour don’t put anyone up themselves.

Thing is, Labour just don’t get it. Labour blogger Luke Akehurst, for example, is getting a good old kicking for suggesting, as indeed Nick Robinson was heard doing last night, that Labour should get a terrorist victim or retired Army or Police type to stand. Rachel from North London has put him firmly in his place as regards the first suggestion, and I can’t think of too many retired police or armed forces officers who would even give the government the time of day, with broken promises on pay rises, overstretched forces (both police and armed) and servicemen still at risk because of poor equipment. This seems to be a more specific form of the Yasmin Alibhai Brown “you are black/muslim/poor therefore you must vote Labour” way of thinking.

Labour – and indeed too many of the Westminster media - do seem to genuinely believe that there must be a grubby tactical motive to Davis’ actions, and that the Tories must have been just looking to give Gordon Brown a bloody nose on Wednesday. With a combination of arrogance and naivety, they sneer with derision the invocation of the principles of Magna Carta and feign deafness when mention is made of setting the boundaries of the State – presumably because the State is good, boundaries suggest constraints and why would one want to constrain Good?

Anyhow, one way or another it looks like there certainly will be a by-election. More interesting is how the last couple of days will affect that other parliamentary by-election in Henley….

David Davis Resigns

OK, so it’s a developing story – even as I had to break off to change a nappy (not mine) things have moved on – so what follows is something of a collection of random thoughts right now.

DD has given a spectacular demonstration of principle, and on a principle that I support. Reports were that he would restand as an independent (a position which his association seems to be supporting), but then Cameron says he will campaign for DD. I guess the “Independent” thing might be simply a condition of the no-stand deal with Clegg, though I doubt many Lib Dems will actually come out and campaign for DD anyway.

In fact, from the LibDem view point this isn’t good. Some will be disgusted that they aren’t fighting the by-election anyway and may even resign from the party in protest. Good. More to the point, I don’t see how the Clegg had much choice. DD has clearly made 42 days the touchstone issue, and even the multi-faced Libs could hardly oppose that one on the ground.

With Cameron publicly declaring his support for DD’s re-election campaign, presumably the various parts of the party machine, post 26^th June (Henley) will be able to head up to Heltemprice and Howden to work there, albeit with white rosettes on?

What is already clear is that the initial chatter on the media about this being a falling out between Cameron and Davis is some way off the mark. That’s not to say that they are the best of buddies, but Cameron has moved quickly to show that this is about the erosion of individual freedom under Labour, of which 42 days is the latest, and a precursor to the monstrosity of the National Identity Database.

Of course, if Gordon Brown had any political nous, he woudl announce asap (ideally before the 6 o’clock bulletins) that Labour would not contest, thus making a go of rendering the whole episode a half day wonder. Then again, if Gordon Brown had any political nous….

Oh What a Night

It’s 1968 all over again … so I’m told - not that I was around to remember 1968.

I do remember the mid nineties, though. The delusion that it was all mid-term blues, that every minor ministerial announcement might help to turn the tide. That losing hundred of council seats was a temporary blip and the opinion polls were telling it wrong again. Alas, the dark days for the party were the precursor to the drubbing we got in 1997.

Note to Labour activists – this is where you are. The tide has turned, and there’s nothing you can do about it except brace yourself and work to keep the next Conservative parliamentary majority to a minimum. Of course, as a good Tory I hope Labour carry on as we did and crash and burn in 2009/10.

So we have taken councils like Harlow - not a bad barometer, Bury – a good foothold in Greater Manchester, Southampton - where yours truly spent the odd student night out (OK, so no political significance there), and Maidstone, which has been NOC for donkey’s years, and was something of a near miss for us last year, and not just because of my efforts.

The Lib Dems have consolidate their position … as the anti-party. They used to be anti-Conservative, now they are anti-Labour. Swapping their ex-Conservative councils for Town Halls gained from Labour. Is there anyone who genuinely votes for the Lib Dems, rather than against the incumbent party?

The inevitable General Election projections give the Conservatives a majority approaching 140, but of course these are local elections and some Labour support will return to the fold when it comes to the crunch, but things are looking good.

Paying the (Old) Bill

As my reader may be aware, the Police Federation has reached breaking point and some officers are seriously thinking the unthinkable – strike action - in response to the government’s failure to backdate the police pay rise to September, as has been the routine for over 25 years. Jan Berry, the Federation chairman, has made a canny move with her “olive branch” to the Home Secretary. Jacqui Smith is hung either way - she can dig her heels in, rejecting the perfectly reasonable overture, and try to contain the anger of every copper south of the border (since the Scottish police have had their pay backdated) or retreat to the last refuge of the incompetent minister and blame her civil servants - and hanging your departmental staff out to dry will do your career no good at all - just ask John Reid.

Now normally when workers in the public sector go on strike or take other industrial action, there will always be some who will suggest that no-one would actually notice if a few Whitehall paper shufflers took a Friday off. It is perhaps an indictment of how the police service has been treated in recent times that someone could almost say the same of the police today – though for very different reasons. Yes, too much of police time is spent paper shuffling, but it is also true that, effectively undermanned, seemingly undervalued, and overburdened with politically-inspired cobblers like stop forms, health and safety assessments, central targets and other red tape, the average copper has less and less time to actually be out there, whether on foot or on wheels, keeping the streets safe. Safer Neighbourhood Teams have proved popular with the public in recent times, and a good, well-skippered SN team can make a difference, but many underlying problems remain nationally.

It is a no-brainer that the police should get the full backing of the Party. I’m not saying that we and the police won’t differ on issues like ID cards or DNA databases, or that the police as a collective service should be immune from any criticism (though such criticism when it comes is largely of the management - both political and senior operational). That aside, the many individual officers whose sacrifices can include family, marriages, as well as their lives, must have the support of any who are serious about improving our “quality of life”.

Finally, for now, there is a dull accounting aspect to all this. When the budgets were set for the 2007/08 year, the pay rise would have been factored in. The Home Office wouldn’t have known the precise percentage of course, so a provision would have been made at a realistic rate. Even by the government’s Mickey Mouse CPI inflation measure, something close to 2.5%, pro-rated from September, would have been calculated and included in the budgets.

So either the Home Office is in such a diabolical financial mess that desperate measures are being used to balance the books, or day-to-day financial control at the Home Office is diabolical, or the Home Office is diabolical at setting proper budgets.

Or perhaps the decision not to observe the traditional backdating to September was made a year ago when the budgets were drafted. Hmmmm.

The Home Office has been either incompetent on a number of levels, or the department responsible for fighting crime and other dishonest behaviour has been … dishonest.

Oh, and … Happy New Year!

Labour’s Inconvenient Truth

Amidst the déjà vu of another “race row” episode that has played out in the last day or so, with the errant candidate now departing the stage, it has been interesting to note Labour’s reaction. I’m not referring to the predictable “same old Tories” mantra. Nor just how the remarks have thrown into relief how well David Cameron has revived immigration as an issue in terms of the pressure on public services – an approach that has made his position immune to the “playing the race card” accusations. Nor how the candidate inadvisedly (in the current media environment) invoked the memory of Enoch Powell and that speech – even if there were a number of constituents in Halesown and Rowley Regis who do agree with old Enoch. If there is one British political figure the left hate more than Mrs Thatcher it is Powell.

No, Labour’s reaction has ignored the elephant in the room that any observer of recent electoral trends will know – that the old fashioned “send them all home” message resonates not so much with Conservatives, but with dyed in the wool working class socialists – the real old Labour. The inconvenient truth for Labour is that they have more to fear than the Conservatives when a BNP candidate stands in their ward/constituency – it is, after all, in the traditional Labour strongholds that the BNP have garnered most support – from Barking to Burnley.

Peter Hain has been quoted saying the remarks expose the Tories’ “racist underbelly”. Sorry Mr Hain, if there is a racist underbelly in politics today, you are more likely to find it among the hard left, not the Conservative heartlands.

Conference Day 1

The first rule for organising a conference fringe event is to ensure that the magic word “refreshments” is prominent in any promotional material. Otherwise, you’ve got your work cut out ensuring a big turnout without a big name.

So following young William’s morning conference opener, it was on to the National Lottery fringe event this lunchtime and I can report that many members were keen to ensure that Lottery funds were going to a good cause. Away from the hot buffet, though, there was some interest in the Lottery itself, and a vote on a range of case studies of possible good causes revealed just how low the party had come - when the meeting came up with the same result as Lib Dems had at the same event two weeks earlier. (Even though I voted for the one that Labour delegates had chosen.)

[Serious policy comment] Some do get worked up about Lottery money going into areas that should be funded by the taxpayer. Frankly I reckon that as no-one is forced to buy the tickets, then Lottery funding is nearly always preferable to milking the taxpayer.[/enough already]

Into the main hall for the first time, squeezed into the temporary auditorium style seating (rather than the old single level arrangement), and the DVT held off for long enough to take in Lord Heseltine and more. Hezza’s baggage ensures that he could deliver the combined oratory quality of Churchill, JFK and the Lord Jesus himself, and still he wouldn’t have mustered much more of a standing ovation than the handful of members who stood at the end of his workmanlike speech today. I was not one of them.

Never mind, Tarzan, we had Big Eric Pickles to brighten things up (full marks for the soundbite “this Government’s idea of freedom for local councils is to say “jump” and then leave them to decide how high”, which will have pressed councillors’ buttons). Following that, we had Boris, Dave, Arnie and finally Mayor Bloomberg of New York giving a masterclass in fiscal conservatism.

Boris may not be the most polished of formal speakers, but he hardly needs to be – his strengths lie in his other qualities. If the activity level of Livingstone’s astro-turfers and smear-merchants is anything to go by, he has them rattled already.

And finally for now…

Conference tip #1
When Dizzy is already miffed about the whole pass thing, don’t add to his stress levels by sitting him in front of a crooner in the Hilton bar.

Conference tip #2
Free chocolate is available at the Conservative MEPs’ and the Electoral Commission stands.

Conference tip #3
Chocolate tends to mess up a laptop keyboard somewhat.

YouGov Survey For Party Conference

There’s an interesting YouGov survey in the offing – closing date is midday tomorrow.

Apart from the usual “if there was a General Election tomorrow” fare, someone is clearly looking for a headline-grabber, with questions like:

Thinking about [party leader], which of the following breeds of dog do you think he resembles the most?

• King Charles spaniel
• Labrador
• Bulldog
• Pitbull terrier
• Doberman
• Sheepdog
• Greyhound
• Poodle
• Dachshund
• Old English sheepdog (Dulux dog)
• St Bernard
• Chihuahua

Or, more ominously:

If the Conservatives suffered a significant defeat at a General Election (and David Cameron resigned) who would you prefer to replace him?

The predictable list of Davis, Hague, Fox, Clarke (still?) and Boris are offered.

I predict mountains appearing where once were molehills. Nothing new there then.