Translate

Saturday, June 30, 2007

Blair and Brown - Two Flawed Characters

The two characters who have dominated British politics for over a decade were for a long time hard to fathom. But after the last year in particular, as the media have been unable to hide away their plots and coup attempts against each other any longer, the picture of what they are really like as people has become easier to read.

Gordon Brown has little or no self belief. See his original signature before he was coached. There was a ludicrously large G followed by almost an equally vast B, but 'rown' fell away into miniature insignificance.
Then think of his speech in Downing Street. Ludicrous repetition of the word 'Change' and a confidence that the programme he fronts up is for the good, but as soon as it was Gordon's moment to speak about himself, he fell away into a miniature frightened Gordon who could only promise to 'do his best', stumbling on his words like a small boy addressing his Headmaster after a severe telling off. It was instructive that he needed to rest his confidence on his old school motto. Deep down under his bluff middle aged exterior,Gordon has no more belief in himself now than he did then. He's still fighting that child-like battle for self-belief. He cannot win it - heaven only knows what traumas he must have suffered as a child - but the only way he can satisfy his craving is to get others to buckle to his superiority, and allow him to be in control so that he, not they, is giving out the pain.
Accordingly Brown surounds himself with servile ceatures who dare not speak until spoken to, who know that their position depends at all times on flattery, and deference to Gordon. Even dear old defecting Quentin Davies, who regularly slated Gordon Brown in an unusually personal way, seemed to know that his own need for recognition, now depended on handing Brown ludicrously over-generous praise for his past achievements. You are safe either if you believe Gordon Brown is a genius, or if you are good at pretending that you do. Celebrity in others is not to be acknowledged any more. There is now only one real celebrity. All others are poor imitations of the real thing.
The Queen he will bestow full respect to though, as she and he stand at the top of the hill. But EU meetings, other international organisations, heads of state, newspaper tycoons must all pay homage to the greatness of Gordon or feel the chill.
Blair was the exact opposite. He liked to rub along with Pop stars, Presidents, Popes, Comedians - in fact anyone other than the only celebrity who still stood one rank above him and Cherie, who his wife could not stand! The Queen steadfastly refused to call him Tony. It was 'Prime MInister' and 'Mrs Blair' to the end. Only she was able to stand clear of the sofaisation of all Blair's relationships.
He was so cocky that he felt he could walk round any opponent whenever he chose. He couldn't be arsed with delving into too much detail - just enough to be able to fend off questions, and no more. The hard longterm thinking had to be done by someone else. He liked informal environments where he could use his self confidence to see off any jibes and make others appear to be overly strident, serious or extreme. Even parliamentary Questions suited his style. As there is no time to go into detail, he could always paint a instant picture, which left the real story untold or sounding unlikely. The longtem didn't matter. Only the instant, the moment. If Blair could look good now, he could always look good and keep in control. He only dallied with today's situation and its perceptions. He knew that tomorrow everything would be different, and he could strike a different pose. He avoided anything too longterm most of the time. Obviously Iraq became a situation beyond his control, and somehow even though it was mostly a situation of his creation, he still managed to create distance between himself and the unfolding catastrophy.
His favourite ploy was positioning himself in the middle where he could play everyone else off - Mandelson against Brown, Campbell against Brown, Cherie against Brown. It worked for many years but Brown would never let go, and he wore down all these opponents that stood in his way. Finally Blair stood alone and Brown arranged the Watson coup attempt which manoevred Blair towards the exit. The Cash for Peerages investigation merely ensured Blair stuck to the terms of the deal this time.
Blair surrounded hmself with strong personalities, and let them run things around him - starting with Cherie, then Mandelson, Campbell, Brown and Prescott. For Blair everything ran around his image, which he loves more than life itself. Any tarnishing of it or criticism is so painful to him that he doesn't even see that he might have failed. His narcissistic tendencies endured to the end, when Parliament was suckered into performing the final act of the Blair soap opera, where he, for the very last time was the only focus - not his cause, but he himself. His image was all. He knew as he sat down that the game was finally up, and his choking voice showed that losing the golden position of power was breaking his heart.
The legacy of his years will be debated forever. But 'wasted opportunity' will be one phrase that will be heard over and over again. Blair liked to leave all the thinking to others - Iraq was decided by Bush. he went along with that. The EU programme was worked out by Brussels and Merkel. He went along with that. Even the Irish peace process which he is claiming as his legacy, was started by Major. Blair's only real legacy was Blair himself - the iconic image that he created and loved.
Brown wants to be different. He is different. But his flawed character, his desperate lack of self belief renders him a weak leader of others. In as much as Blair's narcisiicism neutralised him as a successful Prime Minister, Brown's character and his similar inability to look at events as they really are, will be equally poor in results. These two flawed characters found themselves at the centre, both equally incapable of achieving anything other than satisfying the needs of their defective personalities by clinging to power. We've suffered the first. Now we'll have to endure the second.

Friday, June 29, 2007

Why Do Conservatives Fear A Nick Clegg Coup?

As Gordon Brown recruits Lib Dem advisers into his team, many fear that he will split away the left wing of the Lib Dem party and the right will fall to a Nick Clegg coup. They would then compete directly for Conservative votes. Would that be such a bad thing?

If there were two Conservative Parties instead of two Labour Parties, we could be the ones to make electoral pacts and target Labour in combination, rather than facing a double enemy. Lib Dems have always obliged Labour in this way, especially noticeable in 2001 but also to some extent in 2005.

It need not be all doom and gloom. Cameron has prepared the ground by adopting many Lib Dem policies that fit with Conservative ideals. Courage, Mes Braves!!

Conservatives - The Far Too Nace Party

Cameron's light touch, intelligence and gentility are his strength but also his weakness. He need a foil - not as in Osborne and Hague, as they too are the same type.
Blair was airy and light touch but he was surrounded with strong henchmen - Mandelson, Brown, Cherie!, Campbell, Prescott.

You cannot have Camerons surrounded by more and more of the same type.

If Cameron is Blair, where are the Mandelsons, Campbells, Browns, Prescotts? The fighters and detail people.

There are people in Conservative ranks who can put beef in the Cameron sandwich. But they have been marginalised by the modernisation programme.

As this is a turning point, and Cameron sees the need for the 'and theory', he needs people who can deliver that strategy. That won't be done by the same nice friendly enthusiastic bunch. Cameron needs an eccentric or two alongside his own excellent professionalism...not more and more the same which smells of weakness, and can become a boring diet.

John Hayes is my recommendation for Party Chairman with these thoughts in mind. The quilt should be patchwork not monocultural. The problem was at one time being seen as the 'nasty' party . Now it's the far too nace party. It needs to be more real.

John Bercow's A Twister

Re Rumours about Bercow wanting to cross the floor on Guido.

He always espoused euroscepticism until recently when he swapped horses on Europe, and now makes speeches praising the EU.

He was a big Portillista and fronted the daily attacks on IDS in 2003, and was guilty of gross disloyalty.

His professed euroscepticism seemed a bit puzzling at the time....now it seems like it was a ploy.

If all the europhiles cross the floor, it would help the Conservatives electorally to head off the growth of 'minor parties' which are harvesting disaffected Conservative eurosceptics.

Gentle Cameron Needs A Foil

People moan about lack of policy content. Cameron is ridiculed by Piers Morgan on Question Time for it last night. Time to put some meat into the Cameron sandwich - John Hayes would be suitable...and would reset the tone to a more serious level.

The froth and spin of the A List period was ideal to face Blair - but not to face Brown, and his continuing attempt to slide the Constitution through and break us up into regions without democratic reference.

We have our more serious members who have strategic ability at grass roots level which you need as we are moving towards an election footing. John Hayes would reset the tone, just as required. We don't just need an Iain Dale pleasing reshuffle. The game's moved on from the light touch of the Blair era, where spin outplayed content. Great clunking fists don't even notice intelligence and gentility. Hayes has those but also a tougher and determined side - equal to the measure of the Brown fist.

The light touch of Cameron needs a foil. Osborne is light touch. So is Hague. Hayes is a different flavour. He'd be the ideal next Chairman of the Conservative Party.

Blair To Join Spice Girls World Tour

Why doesn't Tony Blair join the Spice Girls in their relaunch world tour? They're still wrapping themselves in the Union Jack, and were Blair' big image breakthrough when he rebranded Labour as New Labour, emphasised on Cool Britannia. It would seem natural that just as Blair needs to relaunch his career, he joins forces with the Girls. What fortuitous timing!

If Tony Blair's new job in the Middle East turns out to be just a bit of window dressing, and he doesn't get any real political support from America, he might as well promote the image he loved so well, and reconnect with the spirit which defined his era. How about a Bit of Spice to liven up Middle Age, eh Tony? The girls would just love ya!

They should grab the chance of booking Tony before the gloom of the Brown era descends.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6246448.stm

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Inflation Is Gordon Brown's Achilles Heel

For a view that thinks US inflation is actually 10%, and not 2.5% which it is according to government statistsics -
see this webiste which publishes 'shadow' statistics.

http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/data

The inflation in the euro area has been around 15% since launch with the euro's value more than halving. This has been reported as 2-3% inflation by the ECB. Asset price inflation is running away with itself across the eurozone, but Trichet is desperately trying to stop the currency rising. It is laughable that they still pretend they are in control.

In the UK also inflation has been much higher than claimed. They can lie about infaltion, but not about interest rates. Those are now heading North - which kind of proves that the CPI inflation rates are a fabrication created by Gordon Brown to hide the truth.

He instructed the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee to observe only the CPI (Consumer Price Index which excludes cost of housing and taxes), and ignore the more traditional RPI (Retail Price Index). Brown cannot pretend it's nothing to do with him...but of course he will.

Cameron should open up on Brown on this area. Brown is highly vulnerable. He's lost control of inflation, depsite avoiding the Euro and he should pay a political price for having done so.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Irish Skulduggery In Brussels

It's not only Merkel lying, Sarkozy, Bliar. They're all at it.

According to the Irish Times today, the Government (along with the Poles) have negotiated a right to opt-out of the charter of fundamental rights in the new EU treaty. The Taoiseach forgot to mention this at a press conference, in fact mentioning that the charter would be a selling point in next years referendum.

The mess that Europe's in is beyond belief. It's time the EU was put out of its misery.

Brown Will Concede A Referendum

Brown was put in this Constitution mess by Tony Blair and he can hardly say that he doesn't agree with what's been done - at this stage. Once Tony's gone out of the Commons, I wonder if Brown will concede a referendum.

He will be handing Cameron a gift if he doesn't. He could well be facing a substantial rebellion in his own ranks as well. If 85% of the British population want a referendum, he will almost inevitably concede one. It will only be a question of time...a month at most.

Why Are Labour Voters Turned Off By Brown?

On labour blogs they are spitting about the Ashdown thing, and the dumping of trades unions from policy input. Brown obviously thinks he will reaise funds elsewhere now. Many labour supporters are furious also about the Constitution stitch-up, especially as Brown’s intervention was to protect ‘free undistorted competition’.

You will be feeling shocked if you believed Gordon Brown was a ‘Labour’ leader, more to the left than Blair and more eurosceptic as he’s kind of pretended all these years. He’s turning into a stronger version of NuLab than Tony was.
It’s enough to make you stay at home.

Monday, June 25, 2007

America Needs To Play Catch-Up

Tapestry, I think you have been given incorrect information about the US. Fox News in the United States is a right of center news channel, and is generally hostile to Europe; dismantling Fox will be a victory for Brussels, not Euroskeptics (the American spelling of that word looks ugly, I'll admit).
Also, as far as Ireland is concerned, it's generally pro-EU policy and shameful diplomatic past doesn't provide much hope that it will be the savior you imagine. JF On Conservativehome
MY REPLY
JF, I'm aware of the Fox standpoint. Murdoch is a sly old fox himself. He can run separate strategies in different places in his organisation. In fact he has to do so to disguise his strategies.
He will allow his newspapers to run powerful anti-EU stories, but he will go out of his way to keep the people, who ensure the EU keeps coming, in power, as that is all that matters in the end of the day.
Because he writes anti-EU, people are confused into thinking he has an anti-EU strategy. There is plenty enough evidence that this is a cover-up, and he has made all his progress in monopolising sport TV and holding onto monopolistic media positions by ensuring the various treaties get signed, and their protagonists such as Brown survive in power.
In the US, he will be thought of as a eurosceptic too, but that is where you would be wrong again. For evidence on this read Lance Price - The Spin Doctor;s Diary, who worked for Blair in 10 Downing St. Blair had agreed not to alter his EU policy on any matter without clearing it first with Murdoch.
Leon Brittan, ex-EU Commissioner is quoted this weekend as saying that Blair took more trouble to negotiate so that Rupert Murdoch's privileges could survive, than he bothered to protect Britain's economy. And Leon's a europhile!
The Murdoch position is sufficient to deceive most people in washington, and most people in Britain. If the USA wants to stop the EU Constitution, they must exert leverage on Murdoch one way or another - although it might be a bit late. But that's who controls the allocation of psoition amond=gst British politicans. So far Parliament has always caved in to his pressure.
Maybe this time, MPs will stand and fight for their survival, but it will help a lot if Murdoch is neutralised. America's intervention will be essential to achieve this.
Posted by: tapestry | June 25, 2007 at 05:59 PM

Wakey Wakey America

America might be a little bit more alert about the Constitution Treaty than they were at the time of the Nice Treaty in 2001. Pre 9/11 America had no idea or interest outside its borders. Europe was only of mild interest as a holiday destination.

Now it is the greatest potential threat to the stability of America's world, not just because Europe harbours terrorists that desire America harm. The EU itself, en bloc would set itself in competition with the USA as its number 1 objective. Judging by US channel news reports, they are at last awake to the threat.

They could start work in Ireland and encourage the Irish to remember the ancient loyalties between Ireland and America, and persuade the Irish to reject the Treaty.

Failing that, they could strong arm Rupert Murdoch and threaten him with the loss of his precious FIX, sorry FOX TV. Murdoch is subject to EU competition laws and acts as the main manipulator of EU power in Britain to ensure they leave him alone to make billions from TV sport - never mind the headlines in The Sun.

Murdoch backed Blair all the way, and he's backing Brown now. The USA must surely realise that they need to twist Murdoch's arm up his back harder than the EU is doing if they want the Constitution buried.

Other than that, once the EU acquires the statehood it desires, the USA might as well accept that there is trouble ahead, and it will have to fall into line behind Brussels, and face humiliation.

I am sure America is not sleeping this time, and she will fight to stop Merkel and Sarkozy. It's not too late, just nearly too late.

Will The Irish Put The Brakes On The EU Constitution?

Ireland rejected the Nice Treaty in a referendum which nearly scuppered it. But the EU ignored the result, and the referendum was held again the following year. The Irish economy was booming and the Treaty with a few concessions was passed in the next referendum.

Ireland's mood now is probably the same - favourable to the EU as they've become so rich - the richest country in Europe per capita. Their economy has made them all millionaires.

But the economy is suffering from an excessive concentration in property and construction now, and their trade with the USA is being hit by the falling dollar and rising euro. But I think they are all too rich to notice or care.

Posted by: Tapestry | 25 June 2007 at 11:40

True, Tapestry, the Irish may well vote for the new treaty. But the central fact is that they will have a referendum, because the Irish Constitution was codified and protected from amendment by the government and/or MPs. There are advantages in that appproach, but also disadvantages. The Irish government did moot whether to free itself from the nuisance of having to hold referendums, but that proposal was quickly quashed - for the time being.

http://blogs.unige.ch/droit/ceje/dotclear/index.php/Ireland

May 13 2005

"In the face of widespread criticism from the opposition parties and media commentators, the Irish government has decided to drop its proposal to allow itself to agree to a wide range of EU policy changes without consulting the people. Originally, the Government's proposed wording for the forthcoming referendum of the EU Constitution contained a passerelle provision, allowing agreement to substantive EU policy changes (including the abolition of the national veto in unspecified areas) to be approved by the Houses of Parliament without the need for a popular referendum (see my blog entry of 6th May).

This proposal was condemned by some commentators on the basis that it was not technically required by the EU Constitution. Opposition politicans denounced the proposal as undemocratic, with the anti-Constitution Sinn Fein suggesting that it would amount to a further erosion of Irish sovereignty.

The Government was fearful that this controversy would lead to a negative vote on the Constitution, and has quickly moved to drop this proposal. Last weekend, a government spokesperson made the following statement: "The Government is sensitive to the political argument that the scope of the procedure might be exaggerated in a referendum campaign, and is now tending to the view that arrangements for ratification, even of such limited treaty change, should remain as at present - namely a decision would be taken on a case-by-case basis as to whether a referendum would be necessary"

The amended wording for the referendum will now allow the Government freedom to approve the abolition of the national veto in specified policy areas only."

Posted by: Denis Cooper | 25 June 2007 at 12:04

The Irish were permitted to opt out of involvement with any EU Military Action after their first referendum rejection of Nice. This was the focus of the rejection campaign, maintaining an independent position for Irish defence. The pro-EU voters came back and voted Nice through after this concession.

Sinn Fein is anti-EU and so are the Greens, but they are minority parties in the Irish Parliament. It will be interesting to see if the anti-EU campaigners in Ireland can find a focus this time to reject the Constitution.

Ireland might be sensitive to the right of the EU to operate an independent foreign policy in competition with the USA. Ireland has close connections and much more trade with the USA than the rest of Europe, and the potential loss of an independent foreign policy might become a focus, as EU foreign policy is almost bound to be anti-American.

In 2001 the USA was still not very aware that the EU posed a substantial threat to US foreign policy. It was pre-9/11 and the USA was still feeling hugely secure with the dotcom boom in flood and the joy of the Clinton years.

The USA is far more sensitive to foreign policy now, and is likely to be keen to halt the EU Constitution if it can. They would be able to provide largescale funding to any political opposition. It is a possible area of concern for the Brussels centralisers that the Irish might again throw a spanner in the works.

Posted by: Tapestry | 25 June 2007 at 12:04 (conservativehome)

Father Time Calls Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine

On second thoughts, Clarke and Heseltine cannot be thrown out or treated harshly. They are quite old men now, and have illustrious careers behind them. They need handling with care, or their health might be impaired. Maybe a long cruise would be appropriate paid for from Conservative funds by a grateful and admiring Party. They mustn't suffer any stress, so no phones, internet or TV allowed. Just nature, rest and composure.

Ken Clarke obviously suffers from some kind of stress reaction nervous condition, which compels him to chnage his story every few weeks. It's embarrassing to see it after so much good work in the past. Help him in his dotage. It comes to us all one day.

Ken Clarke Must Wait Outside Headmaster's Study

The media is in full cry trying to slide the EU Constitution past the noses of the people, and puff up Gordon Brown, the man selected to perform their final act of treachery. Which names would you expect to be at the forefront - Portillo? yes. Ken Clarke? yes.

The Portillo critique is pantomime, straight from Bruce Forsyth's The Generation Game. 'Modernise more, modernise more - not that much.' Portillo's starting to look and sound dated, which is quite comical for a professed moderniser. It would be nice to take him seriously, but who does?

Ken Clarke's brilliance is combined with his usual appalling inattention to detail. He needs a damned good thrashing. He'd look perfect in 1930's school cap, short trousers and a blazer wouldn't he, combined with cheeky grin. 'Just William' springs to mind.

If these two jokers are the worst the media can find to throw at us, then we can get straight back to the serious business. Hague's impressing me no end.

Cameron should let the media do their worst, not rush out and lower himself to responding to such nonsense. He will pick his moment, once all the Brown ballyhoo starts to tire. Knowing Gordon Brown, he won't have long to wait.

Posted by: Tapestry | June 24, 2007 at 11:35

I Predicted Harman (Modestly)

MY POST ON JUNE 15th On Politicalbetting.com - How secure is the postal voting system being used? If it’s anything like the general election system, there will be plenty of opportunity for someone to rig the process to bring the ‘required’ result.

What would Broon’s desired result be? Hilary Benn possibly. No possible threat to Broon as a future leader, and another one who’s keen to hand billions over to African dictators like Broon himself. Johnson’s not going to be Broon’s choice as he might become a threat and he’s known to be Blairite. The other possible winner in a rigged vote would be Harriet Harman. Broon would not feel threatened by her, and he’d look good having a woman alongside. Ignoring the genuine voting, and imagining that the whole thing’s going to rigged anyway, it looks like Harman.

by Tapestry June 15th, 2007 at 10:25 am on Politicalbetting

and now she's won the Labour party Deputy Leadership on a wafer thin victory. It’s a classic fiddled election result like France’s referendum on the Euro. How many elections across Eurpe now smell of fixing? Sarkozy? Merkel especially? apparently by one seat. Funny how the most pro-Euro ones win every time. Europe is a post-democracy, a pseudo-democracy - run and controlled through the media - a mediocracy.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Doubts About Constitution Grow

The Observer celebrates shrilly the Treaty with its headline on page 35 - Europe Finally Unites After Agreeing To Treaty.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2109970,00.html

In the third column, the tone of celebration is moderated by 'fears that Sarkozy had suceeded in diluting the EU's historic commitment to an unfettered free market. Alarm bells rang..in the British delegation when it emerged that Merkelhad agreed to drop the EU's 50 year commitment to promoting 'undistorted competition'.

Lord Brittan said,'so much capital was devoted to supporting 'red lines' for the benefit of Rupert Murdoch that a substantial weakening of competition policy was slipped through that is damaging to Britain.'

This view from a previous EU Commissioner and Europhile is interesting. Lance Price wrote in his Spin Doctor's Diary that Rupert Murdoch effectively controlled Britain's relationship with the EU under Blair. This was not expanded on and seemed an almost incredible assertion. But here again in today's Observer we find the same implication - that Rupert Murdoch controls our negotiations with the EU.

Clearly Gordon Brown is going to allow Murdoch to dictate his European Policy. To achieve a democracy, Rupert Murdoch should be standing for election, not Gordon Brown. Britain is ruled secretly by a dictator who is protecting his media privileges - and the same privileges enable him to exert so much leverage over our political system that he can effectively control it. If you ever doubted this theory, we now have more evidence.

Cameron and Hague will be facing withering fire from Murdoch as they campaign for the referendum, and Brown will be praised to the rafters for pursuing his act of treachery to the politcal system that has promoted him to its pinnacle.

I doubt labour MPs will allow this Murdoch regime to continue further - the same one that pushed Britain into Iraq, and now wants to push Britain into a protectionist corrupt and closed Europe...all just to help Murdoch make money. It's time they rebelled, and joined forces with Cameron to get Britain out of this pernicious Murdoch-controlling fix.

Gordon On The Politics Show

Brown on The Politics Show - now

Q. Are you going to have a deputy prime minister?

A. That's up to me.

Q. The Deputy Leadership Contest looked like a leap to the left.

A. All must support the manifesto of our party...we must honour our manifesto.

No comeback from interviewer that a referendum was promised in the Labour Party manifesto.

Q. Europe?

A. I've read the detail from Brussels. All our 4 red lines have been achieved. In these areas we are properly protected as a country.

Q. will there be a referendum?

A. because we've achieved all 4 red lines, the public would not expect a referendum.

Q. Hague says you have no mandate to agree the Treaty.

A. He would say that wouldn't he. The effects people are claiming are not true.

Q. Qualified Majority Voting.

A. We've asked for QMV in certain areas. It's not a constitution. It's an amending treaty. Our negotiations have been successful.
We've met our red line negotiating objectives.

Q. will Blair become Bush's middle east envoy?

A. lots of words meaning YES.

Q. how will you personally change in the way you deal with your colleagues.

A. you have to bring people together. you have to reach out, build a shared sense of national purpose. education. science. innovation. build a national consensus.

GORDON, 85% of your people want a referendum on the Constitution. A majority of MPs want one. How will you achieve national consensus from the 15% who don't care about Europe?

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Cometh The Moment, Cometh The Man

The world has split into two. There is the media reality, in which Blair and Brown have conceded 52 new powers to Brussels, in effect terminating the existence of the British state. From all viewpoints, this is all fine and OK and in fact jolly good.

There is the other world that lives quietly in silence in peoples' minds - the world of thoughts and opinions. This world is not in agreement with the visual, media one. This world has no quick avenue of expression, no way to stop the charge of the powerful, the moneyed organised bureaucratic system that has been over fifty years in its creation.

The only way the powerful will be stopped by the weak, is by a gradual, slow refusal to comply with the Brussels whip. Every day people's minds will be assaulted with arguments and reasons why Brown must ratify this Constitution, and every day the silent refusal to cooperate must grow in intensity, until it becomes a vocal, formed opinion of strength which can provide the foundations for a political fightback.

This battle will be Cameron's to fight. He must choose his battleground carefully, and time his thrusts. Cameron has right on his side, but the battlefield looks loaded against him. Goliath must fall to a single slingshot, and the fable of the weak defeating the strong be retold.

Traditionally the British have always loved the underdog. There have been many occasions in our history when the strong have been overpowered by the weak. It's also the story of humanity. The strong become first powerful, then arrogant and finally vulnerable. Cometh the moment............

Friday, June 22, 2007

Gordon Brown's Loneliness

Losing Tony is a big blow to Gordon. Yes he pulverised him on a weekly basis, and raged at him for 14 years, but Gordon's human too and needs individuals who can cope with constant and regular abuse to keep him happy. Ashdown rejected him. Alan Sugar, the biggest abuser on TV, and who makes Simon Cowell seem like Mother T, has now rejected Gordon too. Is there anyone else out there wo could help?

ITV are launching a new reality TV show in the summer, competing with 'Britain's Got Talent' to find the ideal partner for Gordon our psycho Prime Minister. Gordon Brown deserves to be happy as much as any other human being.

Here's his latest ad from a lonely hearts column, submitted secretly but you can tell who it easily enough. Can you please help Gordon. He's a heart of gold underneath. It just needs someone with a kind heart and he'll work out just fine.
ADVERT -
'lonely megalomaniac seeks partner, who possesses easy way with people, is good with media, and who enjoys continual abuse and fits of jealous rage. GSOH essential, and an ability to give and take - well a lot more give than take actually. rewards will be considerable for anyone who can cope working with this psycho. Please write in confidence to 'Gordon' P.O.Box 10DS
Whitehall, LONDON.

The Brown Terror Begins

The gremlins are out in force on the web today. Probably trying to stifle comment at this sensitive time.

Cameron might do better to hold his fire rather than reshuffling his team to match Brown's early moves. The Conservatives are all wound up getting ready to play Brown. But he'll be hiding in his bunker 9 days out of 10, waiting for Cameron to make a move, or events to force his hand, which he will then respond to.

His own side will be in total confusion as to what he's up to, as he only ever gives out the minimum.

Cameron should play the new game and not carry on as if Blair were still there hoovering up all the limelight. With Brown as PM, limelight wil be going cheap.

It will be like hunting a bear that lives in a cave, which only comes out once every two weeks to give an awful terrifying roar, and then disappears again while the rest of the world wonders what it all meant.

If Cameron can provide a feeling of calm and continuity, that will tend to make people feel they would prefer that living at the mercy of an ursine roar. Less action and initiative, more meaning and reassurance will be at a premium during the Brown Terror.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

King Gordon The First

Those who run political parties are beginning to look for safety. Blair wants a shiny job in Brussels. Brown and Ming want to stop opposing each other.

They can all see that once the Constitreaty is signed, the game's over anyway so they might as well all hang up their weapons and get together for a nice easy run while Brussels takes over.

Do they need voters any more? Not really. They can orchestrate the outcomes they desire with the media alone.

Cameron's not playing to the corruption system. He doesn't quite fit in with the back-scratching ways. He won't attend EPP meetings. He missed Murdoch's annual bash. But he's no threat. With the LD's and Lab finally admitting publicly that they are in fact an anti-Tory alliance, the chances for Cameron are over.

Gordon could retire to Buckingham Palace. He might as well fire the Monarchy next.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Assassination Of British Politicians. Whodunnit?

Assassination conspiracy theories (wikipedia) on murders of senior British politicians.

Kevin Cahill, an Irish investigative journalist, claims (Airey) Neave was on the verge of a massive overhaul of the security services, possibly involving a merger of MI5 and MI6 and arising from his belief in corruption in the security services.

Cahill suggests a link between Neave's murder and Sir Christopher Sykes' murder and the attempted murder of Christopher Tugendhat in December 1980. Cahill claims that Neave would have been head of the combined security services with Sykes and Tugendhat as his deputies, with Sykes responsible for foreign operations and Tugendhat responsible for home operations.

Cahill claims to have had a conversation with a drunken Neave on St. Patrick's Day 1979 in the foyer of the Irish embassy in London. Cahill had left a party and was waiting for a taxi. He saw Neave in the room and introduced himself to him as an admirer. Cahill claims that Neave was inebriated and responded "quite out of the blue" by saying "There are going to be changes here, big changes, soon. There is going to be cleaning of the stables...There has been serious corruption."

Neave then said that there was "no use playing games. We have to win...We will win when the [corruption] is sorted out. Count on that." Cahill found Neave's remarks surprising because he seemed internally preoccupied with the UK, with his Northern Ireland brief "almost a sideline". Cahill also thought that Neave's mention of corruption meant Soviet penetration.

Who was Neave trying to stop? The link between Romano Prodi and the FSB (KGB) shows that Russian intelligence and the EU have worked closely on occasions.

Litvinenko and Scaramella were trying to reveal some of these links recently. Scaramella is being held in Italy by Prodi and threatened with prosecution for revealing secrets. Litvinenko's been eleminated already.

Litvinenko had already revealed that Prodi was the KGB's main agent in Italy, and there is no doubt a lot more we could be told about Prodi's role as head of the EU Commission.

Was the Irish situation used as a proxy by the KGB/EU to demolish Britain's determination to remain independent? Was Maggie's attempted assassination in Brighton also more than just an 'Irish' terrorist situation?

She was determined to avoid signing the Masatricht Treaty, and ensure Britain's survival.

Monday, June 18, 2007

The Centre Ground Is Only A Media Strategy

The centre ground strategy is an old idea much approved of by media types like Portillo, which hasn't born much fruit for Cameron.

The idea was to target the centre i.e. nick Lib Dem voters and ignore the UKIP tendency, and hey presto, we'd be the new Blairlike centre party just as Brown lurched left.

PROBLEM 1. Does anyone actually know what left and right wing means in any detail?

PROBLEM 2. The Lib Dem vote is bombing, but the ones leaving the Lib Dems are not going the Conservative way. They must be going elsewhere.

PROBLEM 3. The big increase in voter intentions has consistently been to the minor parties - UKIP, BNP, Nationals and GREEN. Up from 8% to 14/16%. Lib Dem are down from 22 to 14% in the same period. labour and Conservative are not moving all that much overall.

All the traffic is in fact moving away from the 'centre ground', and towards parties that care about particular issues.

The Cameron centre ground sum was constructed from the idea that Conservative voters had nowhere else to go, and so the 'rightwing' could be safely ignored. All the advances would be made on the 'left' flank. If any Lib Dem have in fact been attracted to vote Conservative, an equivalent number must have deserted to the minors from inside the party. As an electoral strategy, the centre ground plan has not been profitable, and should no longer dominate Cameron's thinking.

The centre ground strategy has had the unintended consequence of demotivating almost all Conservative activists, and given the public the impression that Conservatives are far to the right of Cameron.

As Cameron has tried wearing Lib Dem clothes, it has brought a series of howls from his own party's ranks which have made the party seem more extreme. These howls were being inetntionally whipped up it seemed, to create the impression that the party was moving its policies a long way from where they were before.

Blair played the centre ground strategy to perfection, but the economy was doing so well no one really cared about policy details in 2001 or 2005. Interest rates are now rising fast as are prices and anxiety about world events. The times have moved on.

Posted by: tapestry | June 18, 2007 on Conservative Home

The one advantage of the centre ground strategy for Cameron was that it was a media approved strategy so it enabled him to get support from the Guardian and the Observer for example, and Channel 4 and other TV, while he was being pilloried in The Telelgraph. He needed to expand the party's media presence on gaining the leadership, and help the Conservative brand from being seen as the equivalent as social criminality! It has worked as a media strategy, but not as a psephological strategy.

COMMENTS - Thanks Praguetory. I canot post a comment myself for some reason. A virus maybe?

Mail Misrepresents Brown's Words

Mail article details show that Brown has yet to decide whether to allow Britain to have a referendum on Europe - so why the title 'Brown To Allow UK To Have A Referendum On Europe.'?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462675&in_page_id=1770

The Mail is playing around with semantics. Brown has not promised a referendum. He is posturing.

Osborne is reported as saying referendum 'if' powers are to be transferred by the 'treaty'. If he really did use these words, why the 'if' and why limited to this 'treaty'?

Cameron clearly said that before any powers are to be transferred to Brussels, there should be a referendum. His speech yesterday taunted Gordon Brown saying he would not even commit to a referendum on the EU Constitution.

1

DAVID CAMERON: '

The British people will have a clear choice. A choice between two

different visions of society. A choice between two different approaches to running the

country. And a choice between the old and the new politics. Us against Gordon Brown......

Very soon, the real battle in British politics will begin. Tony’s going, and the phoney
His answer to crime, his

answer to education, his answer to everything - is a top-down government scheme.

Whatever the issue, whatever the challenge, whatever the circumstances, under Gordon

Brown all we’ll get is “he knows best” politics, as he sits as his desk expecting a grateful

nation to wait with bated breath for the latest master-plan to emerge.

He won’t even

commit to giving the British people a say over the EU constitution.'

PS - the rest of Europe wants a referendum too.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/42c2465e-1ced-11dc-9b58-000b5df10621.html

Portillo Misses Target

Portillo's article could have been written for him by someone else. It's his traditional theme. Conservatives are not electable because they are divided on Europe, and extreme. Are we?

We don't want the Euro. Neither does Britain.

We don't want the Constitution. Neither does Britain.

many Conservatives want withdrawal from the EU. But that issue is not yet in the debate.

On the issue which is current, do we want Britain signed up to the Constitution, Conservative policies are far more representative of the public at large than Blair's desperate sucking up to Sakozy hoping for a big job. The public would be reassured to hear a deabte from the Conservatives on this issue, as they hate the way Blair has signed away power to Europe and to Bush in the lasr few years.

Portillo needs to get up to speed. In 2001 the public had no real idea that the EU signified an and of national sovereignty, and most were only worried about losing the £. Many still do not know that the EU is an organistion which will end Parliamentary sovereignty. But the majority of voters in 2007 are aware that the EU is the reason we have so little authority left in Westminster.

The public are now ready for a debate. Cameron should give them one.

Wild-eyed Eurosceptics may torpedo the Tories again

Saturday, June 16, 2007

The Man Making The European Superstate - Pissed!!

The FT runs the story of Sarkozy wanting Blair as the EU's first President.

TONY4PRESIDENT

Then Sarkozy attends a Press conference clearly worse for wear.

SARKYdrunk

Hardly the new Napoleon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Friday, June 15, 2007

Gordon Brown's Baby Boom

The tax credit systems is deeply flawed as Frank Field explains, let alone the fact that it spews out incorrect £100's of millions which are not collectable back, and it is also subject to widespread fraud.

There are other effects.

Because Broon has volunteered government money (and I mean big money, not mere assistance but more like enough to live on) to pay for children (single parents working 16 hours a week get £487 after tax credits - an astonishing £30 an hour equivalent), there are far larger numbers of children being born.

The more children you have, the more money you get. The programme is ultimately self-defeating, as the pool of demand ('poverty') is growing rapidly.

My brother has six childtren. It was not worth both he and his wife working because of tax credits, so he's gone down to three days a week, and she's part time too. The country gets exactly what it pays for - more children and less work.

I'm single with no children myself. Because tax rates on taking money out from my company is now 63.8% (40% Income Tax plus 23.8% Nat Ins), I now live from rental income (taxed at 40%) and so I too am no longer working (pre-1997 you could take money from a company taxed at 40%).

Broon has pushed both my brother and myself out of work - me, by taxing so highly it's not worth it, and my brother because of supposedly 'eradicating child poverty'!

It's work that Brown's eradicating - not child poverty! All of this talk of hard working families is a joke. With Gordon paying for it all, they can put their feet up, and party.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Bob Woolmer - The Next Non-Assassinated Person

On the heels of Diana and David Kelly, another mysterious death will leave doubts lingering.

The BBC reports today,

'But deputy police commissioner Mark Shields told the BBC a later x-ray showed the bone was not broken. ' - why not the Police Commissioner himself? Doesn't he agree with the new version of what happened?

"I instructed my team... to go back and actually retrieve it from his body... We got it x-rayed and the fact is that the bone wasn't broken in the first place," he said. - what does the medical knowledge on this say? And are you sure it's the right bone?

Mr Woolmer's widow, Gill, welcomed the latest news, saying: "My sons and I are relieved to be officially informed that Bob died of natural causes and that no foul play is suspected in his death." Yes if you trust the new version. The first version seemed real enough. Do you think they didn't seek second opinions immediately before making such as erious announcement, threatening the whole wolrd cup?

But

Pakistan

's former captain Imran Khan said he was shocked there was no apology to the national side. all the political pressure could well have forced the Police to rethink their first and probably honest decision

He said

Pakistan

's cricket board should sue those responsible for the "humiliation that the
Pakistan

team went through".

"Bob Woolmer had diabetes, he had blood pressure, an enlarged heart, he had respiratory problems. On top of it, the depression of losing and then he drank a bottle of champagne. They should have first ruled out natural causes before this whole drama about the murder," Imran Khan said. so what actually killed him then Imran?

The BBC's Andy Gallacher in

Kingston

says this is an embarrassing U-turn for the Jamaican police.

He says the news conference was an attempt to shift the blame for the errors in the case onto the report of the original pathologist, Dr Ere Sheshiah. It's pretty certain that one person who won't be allowed to comment in public will be Dr Ere Sheshiah. The truth is no longer required, I doubt. The whole thing will be brushed under the carpet as quickly as they can

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Britain Bored To Death

Blair's signing the Constitution. Brown will ratify it through Parliament. Cameron won't say much. Goodbye Britain. It's over.

One of the freest and most creative cultures in the world is condemning itself to a grim and rather sad subjugation, a long slow and painful death. It's odd that a nation that used to fight wars to stay free, now throws it all away for no obvious reason, and certainly no positive reason. It's happening purely because the EU freezes our brains by creating a total lack of interest.

A whole country with a 1000 year history ceases to exist because of a lack of interest? The EU is so dull and lifeless that no one wants to know anything about it. If it sent tanks and aircraft and dropped bombs on us, people would react, but boring us to death is working far better. Brits cannot cope with boredom. We respond to humour, to music, to life, to argument, to sport, to animals, to film, theatre, books but not to bureaucracy. They couldn't outfight us, but it seems they can outbore us very easily indeed.

Our culture has one Achilles heel. We don't have any way to deal with really boring uninsiring unproductive slimy bastards who sit and say and do nothing. When the EU does produce any of its propaganda, it is so dull and uninspiring Brits yawn and look somewhere else.

Gordon Brown has seen how it works. He knows that all he has to do is to be as dull as it is possible to be, and he can do with Britain exactly as he likes. No one will trouble him.

People can focus on their obsessions - football, house prices, shopping, alcohol, drugs, sex and the rest but Gordon only has to be dull. The history of Britain ends this summer, along with its once vibrant political culture - the eptaph 'Bored To Death'.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Spain In Economic Meltdown?

Reported from gold traders - The Bank of Spain's sale in May comes on top of the 80 metric tons it sold in March and April, according to Neal Ryan, director of economic research at Blanchard & Co.
"That means they have sold over 25% of their gold reserves in three months into the market," he said in an e-mail. "That's not diversification, that's trying to fend off an economic meltdown in a major economy." (marketwatch)

Spain's Economy Minister Pedro Solbes said on Wednesday that the proceeds had been reinvested in bonds.

"Gold is not a profitable asset," he said in answer to questions in the Senate.

Or does he simply just need the money in a hurry? More likely as gold has been a rising asset for four years now, and most analysts see it rising a lot further, especially when Spain stops dumping multiple tonnes onto the market.

Bonds tend to fall when interest rates rise. Euro interest rates are currently rising so bonds are not likely to be much good to Mr Solbes compared to gold.

Was he buying government bonds which would hand the Spanish government badly needed cash, but are likely to be a lousy investment longer term? Expect more distress stories from Spain.

Monday, June 04, 2007

50% Income Tax. labour Are Fucking Thick.

Pre-1997 I paid 40% tax on company bonuses. It was worth taking money out of my company, so I worked hard and expanded operations. It cost £100,000 to put £60,000 in my pocket.

Then came Gordon Brown, who added Nat Ins so tax is raised at around 63%. It has, since 1997 cost around £160,000 to put £60,000 in my pocket.

It is simply not worth putting money at risk when you keep 100% of your loss, and only have a beggar's portion if you win. Result - I stopped working and went overseas.

To buy UK assets, instead of earning money, I now borrow with no intention of paying back, except by reselling the asset. I have moved to living from rents and capital gains which are taxed variously, but with top rate at 40%, still acceptable.

It seems odd to me that the kind of investment that creates jobs, raises wealth levels, and makes the economy more productive is the most penalised by tax.

Britain has a problem. People must accept that those who raise the country's productivity and its wealth level have to be rewarded. Taking risks is not a job like a brain surgeon, or architect. You can stop doing it any time. I have, I regret to say. The reason is undoubtedly Gotdon Brown.

If they raise the rate to 50%, that will translate to 73% with nat Ins added on. So I would need to pay £220,000 to put £60,000 in my pocket. Do they think I'm mad?

I have paid far less tax since Gordon Brown starting raising taxes. In fact they keep sending investigators round to try to see where all their money has gine. They really don't have a clue. If the p[urpose of tax is to raise more money, they should cut the rate. BUt of course the purpose is not that at all. They want to flatten wealth levels.

They won't make me poorer. People like me just go - to where people want us, and allow us to be free. That's the main motivation in people running busionesses - to be free of all this crap, and people like Harriet Harman.

Sunday, June 03, 2007

The Telegraph Is Wrong. Cameron Should Not Apologise.

No. Cameron should not apologise. He should use the Grammar Games as the moment to launch a new narrative for what his leadership will be about.

He should lessen his reliance on William Hague who has been far too influential to date, and so often persuaded Cameron into an anti-democratic corner. Cameron should use the arrival of Coulson to open up the Party's willingness to openly debate policy, and publicly look for the best solutions we can find to the problems the country faces...which must be localist and democratic, the two fundamental ideas that Cameron believes in.

The period of trying to ape Blair should end immediately. Hague should go or be reduced in influence, and Cameron should start to be his own man. He need not apologise. It is much to his credit that so many MP's have felt able to speak out against a policy that seemed to be going in the wrong direction, or at least had not been fully thought through by Head Office. Once you get down to local level, the policy clearly had holes in it,and these needed exposing and quickly. Well done Brady for speaking out.

Because Cameron has refused to do deals with Murdoch and court the media at every turn, it has left the field open, which is why there is space there for mere MP's to open up on policy.

It's a great moment for British politics, and for the Conservatives.

Not all parties are the same any more. There is one which doesn't do deals with Murdoch, or bow down to the BBC. It's a Party which is trying to have new ideas - and find ways to improve things. Cameron can wear his amazing technicolour dream coat, and announce that 'any dream will do' - but he must allow his Party and ordinary people to turn those dreams into reality - and stop trying to out-Blair Blair.

Blair only got away with implementing appallingly wrong policies for ten years because he ruthlessly buried all opposition, and kept a close realtionship with the media. If Cameron is bringing the Blair era of spin to an end, he should be making sure people realise that's what he's about and claim the credit for it. Blair's gone. Cameron's coming. The air is lighter. No apology required.

Cameron - Any Dream Will Do.

Thw worst the commentators have been able to come up with during Grammargame is the 'Any Dream Will Do' Cameron in his amazinig technicolour dreamcoat.

It gave all sides a good chuckle.

Interesting though is that it was not a cynical representation. Cameron the young dreamer is a funny but not a wholly unattractive image.

It might even be attractive to voters of other hues that the Consevatives hold genuine policy punch-ups in public, however unintentional, and it might even be good to show the leader losing. He was trying to be the next control freak and copy Blair (the young fool) and he failed.

That is not a negative as far as the public are concerned.

We are all so sick of the control freakery of Labour where all policy comes from No's 10 or 11, backed by a compliant media, and no one dares step out of line.

The Grammar Game, as it has turned out was not planned by anyone, but it shows the Conservatives genuinely as they are - full of new ideas, some not yet tested, prepared to be different and an inexperienced young idealistic leader, with the media (yet) having no idea where to go.

To the cynical 'all parties are the same' comment, we can begin to say, ' didn't you see the row over grammar schools? The Conservatives had a big row over policy - and the leadership lost. (almost) unheard of in any other party for 25 years....'

A primary requirement of local democracy and decentralisation is the end of control by Party Leaders in cahouts with the media - localism is the main policy that Cameron espouses. The centre must weaken, and the line-up of powerful media with No 10/11 must be broken.

Grammargame is the first sign that the Blair/media stranglehold of Britain is ending. What a bloody relief! Brady's overdoing it, but who cares? Democracy is crawling back to life in Britain, and it feels bloody refreshing (note the part played in the blogs too - that was a big part of what happened in the last two 2.5 weeks!)

Cameron's been seeking his Clause 4 moment. Grammargame has been Clause 4 in reverse. Just what we all needed, and the COnsewrvatives will be much better for it, and I think more electable.