Category: Politics

UKIP’s European allies

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The United Kingdom Independence Party are the largest members of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Parliament. Amongst their European allies are Dansk Folkeparti (DF or the Danish People’s Party).

DF have published an advert:

After you’ve finished finding the poor photo manipulation (look at the swords…), it’s worth reading the text. In English, it reads:

Headline
NO to large mosques in Danish Cities!
GUARANTEE

Text
As a bolt of lightning from a clear and peaceful Danish summer sky, the politicians in the City of Copenhagen the other day decided to construct a large mosque in the middle of town.
Only the Danish People’s Party Voted against!
The money comes from, among others, the terror-regime Iran, but none of the other parties cared about that.
In three years another giant mosque – on Amager and financed by the dictatorship Saudi Arabia – a reality, if the citizens don’t say stop.
In other Danish towns there are plans*
We give you a guarantee: The more representatives from the Danish People’s Party that get into/are elected to your city council at the November 17th elections, the more resistance against the strongholds of Islamism there will be, also in your city

under the picture
Vote Danish – locally as well

* my correspondent says that this most likely refers to the local-planning regulations, i.e. there are plans which don’t allow for the building of large mosques. But then again, they also don’t allow for large malls either.

The advert also appears on DF’s website under the headline ‘terrorist lairs’.

The Conservatives would not allow the Danish People’s Party (or the Italian Northern League) to join the EC&R group because of their open xenophobia. UKIP seem to have no such problems.

The thirteen UK MEPs sit alongside nine from Italy’s Lega Nord, two each from Lithuania’s Order & Justice Party, the Greek Popular Orthodox Rally and the Danish People’s Party and one each from the True Finns, Mouvement pour la France, the Netherlands’ Reformed Political Party and the Slovak National Party.

My suspicion is that UKIP may become nuttier without a recognisable, charismatic leader like Nigel Farage. I hope they don’t go for the anti-Islam meme that their Danish allies have.

xD.

A tip of the hat to my good friend and all round bad-ass, David Willumsen, for sending me the link and the translation

Conserving and progressing

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Donal Blaney writes about a sort of division within the Conservative Party. In short, Mr Blaney objects to a large part of David Cameron’s repositioning of his party as progressive conservatives. The bulk of his argument is that liberalism and fascism both descend from progressivism, and so are alike. I may well pick up a copy of the “searing tome” he mentions, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, by Jonah Goldberg.

The idea that the descendant must be fundamentally the same as the ancestor philosophy, or other descendants, is flat wrong. Aristotle studied under Plato, but said “so good riddance to Plato and his forms, for they make no more sense than singing la la la”. The Young Hegelians were at odds with the Old Hegelians, and neither would have agreed with Marx. Even amongst followers of Marx, you have to account for the likes of Georges Sorel.

To say, then, that Tony Blair is in hock to the thinking of Lenin is about as fair as to say that all conservatives would have supported slavery.

The specific example – that liberalism and fascism descend from progressivism – is similarly a load of rot. Progressivism is an ill-defined word, but starts to come into play in the late nineteenth century. Liberalism in one sense dates from rather earlier – Locke’s Two Treatises date from 1689 – while the ‘other’ form of liberalism (in the American sense of the state supporting the unfortunate) could, after a fashion, be said to date from the 1597 Act for the Relief of the Poor. If that is too much, the Corn Law Rhymer, Ebenezer Elliott, was able to write in the mid nineteenth century

What is a communist? One who hath yearnings
For equal division of unequal earnings:
Idler, or bungler, or both, he is willing
To fork out his penny, and pocket your shilling.

If that is too abstract, Thomas Paine was arguing for a welfare state and progressive taxation to prevent the creation of a hereditary aristocracy in The Rights of Man of 1791.

Fascism is a similarly piebald term, but it is, I would argue, the third to emerge as it is only possible, as I understand it, in a modern, industrial society. In short, his analysis is conceptually and factually wrong.

In any case, Progressive Conservatism is nothing new. John Diefenbaker was elected Prime Minister of Canada in 1957 as a Progressive Conservative, while Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican and then a Progressive.

Blaney continues:

Progressivism is diametrically opposed to everything that conservatives believe in

The Conservative Party has always been a coalition of interests; at the moment, it has one-nation, traditionalist and Thatcherite1 wings. This is true of the other parties (the LibDems have the Orange Bookers and social democrats, while Labour has Campaign Group, Compass and Progress). What’s interesting is the source of Blaney’s rights:

‘God-given or natural, fundamental freedoms inherent in my being a free-born Englishman’

It would be fascinating to hear an enumeration of those rights; I suspect that they would be neither natural nor fundamental, but contingent on the existence of a state. Unless the almighty gives different rights to those born English and Ethiopian, they cannot be natural; unless the creator brands at birth the slave and lets the yeoman go free, they cannot be fundamental.

In other words, the source of Donal’s rights is verbiage. The question is whether he speaks just for the Thatcherite part of his party, or the others.

Much of Donal’s paean to conservativism is then a roll call of people and quotes. I would simply answer: what of Havel, Walesa, Dubcek and Horn?

I have a quote, too:

O Liberty, liberty! what crimes are committed in thy name!

– Mme Roland.

Blaney sets up a dichotomy between conservatism and progressivism and tries to say that the latter is tantamount to fascism, thus coming awfully close to an invocation of Godwin’s Law. As I hope I’ve shown, this is bunk as descent does not mean what he thinks it means and, in any case, isn’t there. From Donal’s point of view, Cameron’s positions mean he cannot be a conservative; I think it’s rather more likely that the positions advocated by Blaney are pretty far from the mainstream of conservatism. I hope so, as if I’m wrong, the zeitgeist of the British Conservative party is similar to the GOP in the US.

xD.

1 – I deliberately say ‘Thatcherite’ rather than ‘neo-liberal’ as the emphasis on liberty in neo-liberalism is at odds with the social conservatism of Thatcher.

Conservatives for Patients’ Rights ‘Faces of Government Healthcare’ video

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Conservatives for Patients’ Rights (CPRights) have a video up decrying government healthcare.

The NHS has its problems; no-one would say that it is perfect. However, it does a pretty damned good job and it does so regardless of someone’s ability to pay. While we don’t see the faces of private healthcare – or those who can’t afford it – it strikes me that there are some missing faces in the video; those who are happy with the NHS. There’s rather a lot of us.

The first face is Kate Spall, who says ‘if you have cancer in the UK today, you are going to die quicker than any other country in Europe’. The largest, pan-European, cohort-based study on cancer survival is EUROCARE. EUROCARE runs into the same problem that any other systematic review of cancer survival rates in Europe is going to; there are different recording systems between (and sometimes within) countries and some countries don’t keep records at all (the UK is pretty good; adult coverage in Germany is about 1.4%).

Nevertheless, the EUROCARE research suggests that Ms Spall is wrong.

Tables to show life expectancy of fatal cancer cases against % cured patients for country, age and date of diagnosis
Tables to show life expectancy of fatal cancer cases against % cured patients for country, age and date of diagnosis

While we are towards the bottom of the table, we are not at the bottom. In any case, this study does not take account of factors such as smoking, drinking, diet and so on. More information is on the latest results page.

A brief search on BBC News shows Ms Spall’s interest in cancer; her mother died from a rare form of kidney cancer. She managed to have Nexavar provided, even though “the drug, which can cost up to £40,000, is not a cure, but can help some patients”. Now, while my greatest sympathies are with Ms Spall, £40,000 is a lot to spend on a non-cure. Perhaps, in terms of QALYs, it was worth it; however, part of her objection was that the drug was available in some English health trusts. While I would certainly agree that there is not enough democratic involvement in NHS trusts, one of the effects of choice is, necessarily, variation. This seems like a poor choice – if you’ll excuse the pun – of ‘face of government healthcare’.

Next up is Katie Brickell. Despite asking for one at 23, Ms Brickell wasn’t given a smear test; by that time, she had contract cancer of the cervix. Again, my heart goes out to Ms Brickell, but this was a fluke. The evidence suggests that the smear test provides no benefit before about 25. If everyone were going in for a test whenever they were worried and there was no consideration about whether the test was appropriate, a lot of money would be needlessly spent on a lot of needless procedures.

Angela French says that it’s hard to get hold of new, expensive drugs on the NHS. Quite why this isn’t the case in the USA at the moment or, indeed, in any system that doesn’t have an unlimited budget is beyond me. Dr Karol Sikora makes the same point; quite why it is any less heartbreaking when a poor person in the US with insufficient insurance cannot afford a given drug is, again, beyond me.

The rest of the people featured are Canadian; I’ll leave them to one side as I don’t know enough to comment on the situation there. I would just note that no-one in the US is proposing a UK-style health service; rather, they’re going for different ways of amending insurance-based policies. The only system that exists like that at the moment is healthcare for the armed services which is, er, pretty good.

xD.

When points mean passports

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I’ve become a bit enured to being called a war-mongering baby-eater when I knock on a door to ask someone to vote for Labour. Usually, people listen politely and occasionally offer you a cup of tea, but you do get the odd snipe.

Imagine the scene when an aspirant British citizen knocks on a door to canvass for their party of choice. Not only will they be associating themselves with politics, they will be opening up their motives to criticism. “You’re only doing this to get a passport”.

Phil Woolas wants a points-based system for awarding passports, with points available, inter alia, for canvassing for political parties. That would only add to the scepticism over the motives of those involved in politics.

If we say that Britishness is behaving like people in Britain, the problem is that being a member of a political party, let alone door-knocking for one, is an increasingly un-British thing to do.

There is also, apparently, no limitation to which parties, present or future, are allowed. maybe taking part in our civic life does include campaigning for the Official Monster Raving Looney Party or the Church of the Militant Elvis, but I don’t think that’s what Woolas had in mind. I might set up the ‘immigrants campaigning to get rid of this stupid immigration points system, but only in a thoroughly British way’ party.

It’s not obvious what British values means, either. I would rather not have a hereditary monarchy. Were I an aspirant citizen, would that be sufficiently un-British? Would campaigning for Scottish independence be un-British? Are Sinn Fein kosher?

There will be also be points for going to live in areas of depopulation. Yes, you too can be British by living where the British don’t.

Of course, Woolas might be trying to make immigrants be model Brits, in which case I would advise him to look at the plank in his own eye before the speck in his brother’s. I know plenty of non-citizens resident in the UK who are model citizens, fully engaged with community and civic life. I just don’t want their motives to be quesioned.

Posted by Wordmobi

Neil William’s template Twitter strategy

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Neil Williams (blog, Twitter) has drafted a template strategy for Government departments wanting to use Twitter; find it on the Cabinet Office’s Digital Engagement Blog or on Neil’s website as a PDF. It’s a good document – you have to bear in mind that this is for civil servants – and could be a good starting point for anyone with a brand to manage. It’s worth reading and I do hope that various people in HMG take it on board, particularly how useful it is as a conversational tool – I’ve had questions answered by MoD over Twitter in a matter of a couple of minutes and replied to a few things from Paul Drayson, Tom Watson and others.

I really like a particular idea that Neil has – departments live twittering their own press conferences and so on. That would be a real ‘value-added’.

A little while ago, I put all the regional and departmental RSS feeds that the COI’s News Distribution Service provide onto Twitter. The full list is here; I’m really pleased that Neil has listed me as an unofficial aggregator of government content, and more than a little flattered.

xD.

OpenLeft: a response

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Over at the OpenLeft website, various worthies are asked the question “What is it about your political beliefs that put you on the Left rather than the Right?”. Various others have weighed in; I’d like to go through some of the comments people made and then have a go myself.

Polly Toynbee
Sunder Katwala
Jon Cruddas
James Purnell
Dave Cole
Continue reading “OpenLeft: a response” →

Peak capacity to be reduced on the 507

Posted on by David Landon Cole

TfL have released more information on the replacements to the 507. As of Saturday, 25th July (edited – had August originally!) 2009. The note, which is available here as a PDF, says:

  • Brand new two door single deck buses will replace the current bendy buses on route 507.
  • Passengers will still need a valid ticket before boarding through either door.
  • A more frequent service will run during Monday to Friday morning and evening peak hours. Buses will run about every three minutes.
  • New service on Saturdays and Sundays. Buses will run every 15 minutes during the early morning and every 12 minutes throughout the day.

My thoughts, in the same order as above:

New buses are indeed going to be replacing, at non-zero cost, the perfectly decent and relatively new bendies.

One of the objections to bendies was fare evasion. You only had to touch in if you were using pay-as-you-go Oyster; people with passes didn’t have to at touch in at all. Only 1% of journeys, according to this TfL FOI request, were made using paper tickets. Because not everyone had to pass the driver – you could board at any door – it was impossible to verify except when an inspector was on board. It will be possible to board through either set of doors on the 12m replacements; that problem (which didn’t really exist, largely as they were used by commuters who have Travelcards anyway) isn’t solved.

The service will be more frequent; every three minutes instead of every five during morning and evening peaks. Mercedes-Benz Citaros carry up to 149 passengers (source). Alexander Dennis Enviro200 Darts have a maximum capacity of 61. At three minute intervals, the smaller buses would need a capacity a fraction over 89 to match the bendies. That is a reduction in capacity on busy routes, meaning more people queuing on Mepham Street at Waterloo and, more problematically, on Terminus Place at Victoria.

The new service on Saturdays and Sundays is to be welcomed. As I have previously said, the bus is principally used by commuters but it passes three housing estates, a couple of schools and goes through residential areas.

This represents very bad value for money: relatively new buses are going to be replaced and capacity is going to be reduced. As many people, including Dave Hill, Christian Wolmar, Adam ‘Tory Troll’ Bienkov, MayorWatch and BorisWatch have said, scrapping the bendies is a bit of a daft thing to do and suggests that Mayor Johnson didn’t know much about the diverse London transport situation (not that I claim to in any great detail) before running for this office and has either not bothered to learn since or has realised he is trapped into silly, headline-grabbing populist policies.

xD.

The BNP Language and Concepts Discipline Manual goes down the memory hole

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I wrote here, in passing, about the BNP’s Language and Concepts Discipline Manual which included

Rule #15. BNP activists and writers should never refer to ‘black Britons’ or ‘Asian Britons’ etc, for the simple reason that such persons do not exist. These people are ‘black residents’ of the UK etc, and are no more British than an Englishman living in Hong Kong is Chinese. Collectively, foreign residents of other races should be referred to as ‘racial foreigners’, a non-pejorative term that makes clear the distinction needing to be drawn. The key in such matters is above all to maintain necessary distinctions while avoiding provocation and insult.

and

it is best to simply never speak or write of Jews at all [emphasis in original]

It would appear that this document was changed on or about April 27th 2009 to remove these and other sections. The new version is here and Wikileaks still has a copy of the original at http://www.wikileaks.com/leak/bnp-language-discipline-2005.pdf.

xD.

The BNP aren’t the only ones to worry about

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Even if they are the main ones.

The English Democrats’ Peter Davies has won the Mayoralty of Doncaster. The previous incumbent, Martin Winter, was criticised over failings by Doncaster Council following the death of seven children on the at-risk register. Davies’ first actions were to say that he wanted to stop funding Doncaster Gay Pride and translation services in the borough.

Hardly what one would call progressive measures.

They are also uninformed policies; as comes out in this interview (transcript courtesy of Luke Akehurst) with Toby Foster of BBC Radio Sheffield, Davies doesn’t know how much Doncaster Gay Pride costs or earns and can’t scrap translation services under existing laws. Other flagship policies include reducing the number of councillors (he doesn’t have the authority) and doesn’t know which jobs are the ‘PC jobs’ he wants to cut. In fairness to him, he has accepted a reduced salary of ?30K.

Beyond that, there is a problem with the English Democrats: the nature of some of the people attracted by their ideology.

There seem to be two schools of thought that lead to an English parliament as the answer to the West Lothian question; one is that some conception of natural justice requires an even-handedness in passing legislation that the current form of assymmetric devolution cannot deliver.

The other is that a nation qua nation requires some form of political existence to achieve some sort of teleological objective. That, in and of itself, I don’t have a problem with, although I disagree with it.

The problem is some of the fellow-travellers that position attracts; crudely put, the soi-disant civic nationalism attracts ethnic nationalism.

By way of an example, Matt O’ Connor of Fathers 4 Justice was originally slated as the ED’s candidate for the Mayor of London. He withdrew, however, when it turned out that the EDs had entered into an electoral agreement not to contest seats that the racist England First Party were to contest.

As reported in the East London Advertiser, O’ Connor said

“I realised the English Democrats were working with ‘England First’ and had no choice other than to resign there and then.

The Little Man in a Toque has further background on certain parts of the EDs’ preparedness to work with racists.

My concern here is not specifically about Davies, but those who give him advice and support and the risks of an alternative centre of gravity for racists from the BNP. While some of this rag-bag set their policies around Britain, there are others who are very similar but prefer to set England alone as their leitmotif.

Continue reading “The BNP aren’t the only ones to worry about” →

Labour can win a fourth term

Posted on by David Landon Cole

‘Governing party does badly in midterm election’ is hardly a shocking story. We are familiar with the arguments about local & Euro polls being second-order elections. We know that the Guardian advocated a vote for the Lib Dems or Greens1. We know that Labour’s fratricidal tendency has come to the fore.

And yet, the share of the vote won by the Conservatives was 38%. That translates into a Commons majority of perhaps 45 seats that could be easily turned into a hung parliament if Labour voters who stayed at home on Thursday can be coaxed into voting. It could even be, with a following wind, a historic fourth term.

How?

The first part of winning a fourth term must be a simple message to all the plotters: put up or shut up. There is a debate to be had about whether we’d fare better under Gordon Brown or another, as yet unnamed, leader. There is no debate that another year of rumour and intrigue under gothic arches will be worse than either. If Brown is still in place on Tuesday – after the PLP meeting – he must stay in place, unopposed, until the election. The discontent about Gordon has been rumbling on for some time. This is the most recent, and most self-destructive, manifestation of that discontent. If senior members of the party continue to undermine our leader, calls for an election will grow louder and louder and our ability to articulate an effective policy platform will grow weaker and weaker.

The reason the Tories want an election now is that they know a year of Labour policies that appeal to people in these nervous economic times could deprive them of government. A good year of governance and progress, with the economy improving – it would appear that the green shoots of economic recovery are poking through – might bring us our fourth term.

Secondly, we must recognise who deeply unattractive this looks to people outside politics. I ask: what are the policy differences between Brown & Purnell? Between Brown & Blears? Between Brown & Flint? It does seem as if these are indeed the first ministers to resign solely on issues of style.

Thirdly, the party as a whole must use the summer recess to regroup and to articulate a set of coherent policies to take us forward into the next election. They must focus on the economy and constitutional reform, but we must keep talking about our successes in the NHS, education and building a fairer society.

xD.

1 – in fairness, they also said vote Labour if your local councillor is a good one. I wonder how many Guardianistas can name their local councillors.

Cross-posted at Common Endeavour