Neil Reddin ... No G

As Clegg Jumps Off The Fence, Are the Sandal-Wearers Hesitating?

Neil Reddin — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:09:22 +0000

The Lib Dems, fresh from attacking moves from both proper parties to cut / not increase fuel duties, are once again trying to set themselves up as tax cutters. One can only assume that Vince Cable wasn’t consulted. Guido, as it happens, has already commented along similar lines to those which I have been thinking, but here goes anyway.

Clegg is in an unenviable position. The Lib Dems have long harvested disaffected right-of-centre voters who left the Conservative fold in the nineties and until recently weren’t inclined to return. While the Libs have naturally now started to pick up more Labour discontents (with their classic anti-whoever-is-in stance) a large chunk of their electoral support is still on the right of centre.

When a party see itself on the slide, there is the usual conflict between those who would move more to the centre, and those who would revert to shoring up the core vote. The trouble is, the Lib Dems don’t have much of a core vote. They have the core of activists, who for the most part are clearly of the Left, yet their electorate is mainly of the moderate Right. Somewhere filling in the gaps are the vestiges of classical liberalism – those, that is, who haven’t done the sensible thing and joined the libertarian ranks within the Conservative Party. At least when we Conservatives were in the wilderness, the choice was less stark, effectively being between shades of (a) the “firm” right and (b) right of centre.

So Clegg has chosen a lurch to the right, in a last ditch effort to stop former Conservative voters becoming current Conservative voters again. This will not play well with his activists, who already have a fair amount to grumble about, with lacklustre by-election performances – that is, when they actually stand (the Haltemprice & Howden decision didn’t go down well).

So what next? Once the current strategy fails, Clegg, or his successor, may actually realise that the Libs best chance of avoiding a collapse is to shift to the Left – the natural home of many modern liberals, and one which will set them up as the welcoming committee for all those unhappy Trots.

Either way, this Conservative is quite happy.

Another By-election, another u-turn

Neil Reddin — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:50:54 +0000

… 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.

Blogging Will Be Not Heavy …

Neil Reddin — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:41:52 +0000

… for several days.

Places to go, people to see.

Straight Talking

Neil Reddin — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:36:35 +0000

“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.)

Gordon Opens a Can of Worms, and Tells Us Not To Waste Them

Neil Reddin — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:13:01 +0000

Times are tough, waste not want not, there’s a war on you know, so Gordon has told us to stop wasting so much food.

To have the government lecture anyone on waste is somewhat akin to another Gordon, of the Ramsey clan, telling us to stop swearing. Really, though. we should all be concerned when any politician of the Left starts to “suggest” how we should be living our lives. The next stages usually involve a racheting up of control, using all or any of the following justifications:

(a) to save the taxpayer money (e.g. reducing the burden on the NHS / welfare state)

(b) to ensure “fairness”. This will usually be preceded by statistics showing the poor deprived disadvantaged socially excluded are disproportionately harmed by food wastage (ideally presented in the guise of a report by a favourite left-wing “charity”)

And of course, this being the early 21^st Century …

(c) to combat “climate change”. Cue breast beating about food miles, possibly with the ironic timing of coming a week after another argument between the EU and African nations over free trade.

With luck, however, the can of worms that Gordon has opened will turn around and bite him in the proverbial, with noble members of the press digging up stories of government ministers wasting vast quantities of vol-au-vents and some wag noting the amount thrown out by Parliamentary canteens.

Ray Lewis’ Hard Lesson in Politics

Neil Reddin — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 08:13:40 +0000

Ray Lewis, former Deputy Mayor

So Ray Lewis has resigned. His resignation statement spoke of the “drip drip” of “unfounded allegations”. Sorry Ray, that’s politics. However, I genuinely hope he is able to continue his good work with young people outside the Mayor’s Office.

No doubt the Labour opposition at City Hall are crowing, but they should be aware that they are still in the early days of opposition, where it is easy to assume that such “victories” might seem to herald the beginning of the end, and that a contrite electorate will shuffle back to the fold thoroughly ashamed of themselves for having doubted you.

They should remember, though, that the Bernie Ecclestone affair barely put a dent in Tony Blair’s fortunes so early in his premiership, and so it is with Boris (not that one could compare the substance of the two episodes). Interesting though it is that Labour should be attacking Boris for opting for a cabinet style of government in London, the Mayor should take a lesson from this episode, including that of carrying out proper vetting of potential team members, and come out of it stronger. As it is, Boris was decisive but fair in his reaction to the first “drips” of allegations – it seems he had already learnt from the James McGrath affair, where many thought he had over-reacted.

In four years time, what will the electorate remember: the Ray Lewis episode, or the eight years of Livingstone that Boris has spent four years’ putting right?

Tayside Police Cause Offence … To Dog Owners

Neil Reddin — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:02:48 +0000

Tayside police have apologised to “Muslims” after a postcard featuring a puppy was used to publicise their new non-emergency ‘phone number.

I’ll pause to let you read that a few more times.

So what are these loonies, who I suspect are taking a pretty narrow interpretation of the Koran, upset about?

Does Allah have a particular dislike of non-emergency telephone numbers? Or postcards?

No, it seems that a few representatives of the Muslim community in Tayside have a thing against dogs.

In the words of Jeremy Clarkson: No, really.

We are told that:

… some Islamic scholars believe that dogs are impure and therefore ‘haraam’ - or forbidden - except for use in hunting or farming, and that it is not hygienic to keep a dog in the house*.

They say that the “impurity of dogs is the greatest of animal impurities”, and anyone who touches one must wash the body part that has come into contact with the animal seven times.

The irony here is that most people were probably unaware that Islam was so anti-dog. Thanks to the rantings of Cllr. Asif and others, now we do, and a great service to the cause of social cohesion and peace between religions has been done. Not.

In any case, I must say that as a dog owner I am offended by Tayside police’s apology, and so I am demanding an apology.

* I think I can speak from experience now when I say that our house-trained dog is considerably cleaner than, say, an 11 month old baby. Especially at mealtimes.

Older, More Polluting Cars

Neil Reddin — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:38:49 +0000

“Older more polluting cars” has become a stock phrase of late, particularly with the storm brewing over the backdating of the road tax increases. Our dear national broadcaster used the phrase at the top of the news this morning, saying something like “Labour rebels and Conservatives are criticising the increase in tax on older more polluting cars”. This is a rather pejorative turn of phrase - why couldn’t they just say “road tax increase” or similar? It’s OK, though, I’m not going to launch into another rant about BBC bias and climate change, tempting though it is.

The arguments centre on the effects of the increase on poorer drivers and families, and rightly so, but in addition the blanket assumption that older cars are more polluting is wrong. My first car was 1961 Triumph Herald convertible. I doubt it had particularly clean emissions. “Aha!” says the tree-hugger, “it’s an older, more polluting car!” Er, no, because it used to go out fairly occasionally, and so contributed less CO2 in a typical year than my everyday (then) new Golf. Yet even if it wasn’t a second car, the most significant way in which my old Triumph was less polluting was that it was an older car – i.e. it was still on the road. Cars have the greatest impact on the environment when they are made, and when they are scrapped. Even when the old girl does come to the end of her life, as an older car with less plastics, no catalytic converter, no coolant filled air con system, and not much of anything else, most of the car will be easily recyclable steel.

Now, I concede that the Herald would be exempt from road tax anyway (though for how long?), and in any case is an extreme example (the road tax increase are only being backdated to 2001 cars) but the blind assumption that older cars are the chariot of the devil is one that should be challenged, if only on the main point that looking after an older car and keeping it on the road is the best thing an owner can do for the environment.

Of course, in truth the road tax changes have nothing to do with the environment – after all, what would they be trying to achieve? Clearly we can’t turn back time to not purchase the vehicles, so it must be trying to force us to take older cars off the road, which means in most cases scrapping them, and generating demand for new ones to be built - a double whammy for the environment. Yet surely Alistair Darling couldn’t be using the “climate change agenda” as an excuse just to raise environmentally irrelevant taxes?

West Lothian, West Gwent, West Antrim …

Neil Reddin — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:32:10 +0000

Iain Dale is pretty unimpressed by Ken Clarke’s ideas on the West Lothian question, and I have some sympathy, but I wouldn’t necessarily be so harsh.

The proposals may be timid, but they are at least a tiny step in the right direction, so as far as it goes I wouldn’t object to them. If the plans are “half-baked”, though, then they are no more so than the current situation.

As some point we are going to have to decide whether to do the job properly and have a fully fledged federal system or go back to Whitehall centralisation (which doesn’t seem likely).

The next step, though, should be increasing the size of Scottish (and Welsh/NI) constituencies - after all, with so much now devolved, why shouldn’t they have, say, half the number of MPs?

Livingstone: Look, I Came Here For a Good Argument

Neil Reddin — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:28:32 +0000

At the risk of appearing a Livingstone obsessive, I though I’d post a transcript of Ken’s first appearance today as a presenter on LBC radio.

(Errrm, it may not be entirely verbatim, but you’ll get the general idea of how it sounded!)

Ken Livingstone (for it is he): “Hi, this is Ken Livingstone here on LBC. Phone me, text me, or email me, and be as rude as you like.”

Caller 1: “Hi Ken. I’d just like to say what a tragic shame it was that you lost. I compare it to the assassination of Allende in Chile by the evil American Empire, or the rise of Hitler perhaps.”

KL: “Oh dear, how embarrassing. This isn’t a set up, honest. We’d better find someone to criticise me otherwise they’ll complain that we’re not balanced.”

Caller 2: “Hi Ken, I’d like to say congratulations to you on getting a larger vote this time than you’ve ever had before.”

KL: “Errm, thanks, but we’re going to have the authorities onto us because we’re not finding any callers to have a go at me.

“By the way, we asked Boris Johnson if he wants to come on and have a good argument, but haven’t heard back.”

Caller 3: “Ken, mate, I think you could do no wrong. I was so upset when you lost.”

KL: “I’m going to have to cut you off there, surely there’s someone out there who wants to argue with me. Incidentally, if Andrew Gilligan’s listening, he could call in if he thinks he’s hard enough.

Caller 4: “Ken, I’ve got a few points for you. I think you are an anti-semite and a paranoid fascist. Let me go through each of those.”

KL: “OK, fine. This is more like it.”

Caller 4: “Right then. That you’re paranoid. I say this because… police … bbxzxt.”

KL: “Sorry caller, you’re breaking up. Oh well, time for the travel news.”

(Time passes).

Ken: Thanks there to Dave Spart in Neasden. By the way, we did invite God onto the programme, but we haven’t heard back from the big beardy coward.

…

OK, so now for a few more accurate nuggets (again from memory .. what? I do have to work y’know):

Andrew Hosken (unofficial biographer): “So, would you run for Mayor again?”

KL: “Well, if there was a by-election – I mean, if Boris was arrested and carted off, as he should be – then yes I’d like to do it.”

On the US embassy not paying their congestion charge:

Cuddly Ken: “If I could I’d have directed the police to crush the ambassador’s car … with the ambassador still in it.”

Caller: “Why don’t you have a go at other countries … like the Nigerians for instance?”

KL: “Well, the Nigerians have never paid anyway.” (So that’s alright then?)