Those of a leftist disposition are almost uniformly completely bereft of any self awareness of their true position in the political spectrum.  Remarks one of the contributors to Insight Guides latest edition of its travel guide entitled England,

“Although free from state control and financially independent of political parties, many nationals do have pronounced political leanings.  Of the quality dailies The Times and The Daily Telegraph are on the right, The Guardian and The Independent in the middle.  On Sunday The Observer leans slightly left of centre, while the Independent on Sunday stands in the middle and The Sunday Times and The Sunday Telegraph are on the right.

 

The Financial Times is renowned for the clearest, most unbiased headlines in its general news pages plus exhaustive financial coverage.”

I am sure that The Times will be irked to learn that it is “of the right” given its pretence of being a newspaper of record and having openly supported the Labour Party in the General Elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005.   As everyone else seems to be aware, The Guardian is the newspaper of choice of the centre-left and left because… it is of the centre-left, as is The Independent, which tried unsuccessfully to usurp The Guardian as the Left’s newspaper of choice.  As for The Financial Times well, until the 2010 General Election it had been a steadfast cheerleader for the Labour Party (and steadily lost market share amongst its core business readership as a result) since well before the 1997 election.

Those engaged in journalism, publishing and The Arts generally are largely of a “progressive”, centre-left and left persuasion. Surrounded almost exclusively by like-minded individuals, they suffer a red-shift in perception as to their true position in the political Universe.

“On election night, as the exit polls indicated that the Prime Minister [Gordon Brown] was no more popular or trusted than Michael Foot had been in 1983, his favourite emissaries rushed to the microphones to “interpret” the results. My jaw dropped as I heard Jack Dromey (aka Mr Harperson) claim: “The real losers tonight are the Conservatives.” This was life mimicking art: Orwell's allegory had become the how-to-cope manual for New Labour's response unit……Foremost among these comedians was Mr [Alastair] Campbell, who, having battled gamely to overcome alcoholism, appears to have succumbed to an even more powerful intoxicant: the fumes from his own exhaust. Others, such as Peter Hain and Ed Balls, are, one suspects, inhaling similar hallucinatory gases.”

Jeff Randall

As the Liberal Democrats have been beaten comprehensibly by the Conservatives in the Guildford parliamentary constituency contest, perhaps in future we shall be spared the “It’s so close here!” claims and their “Winning here!” posters.

The Liberal Democrats successfully mobilised and maximised their student support at Surrey University. They squeezed further the Labour vote, from Karen Landles’ 5,054 in 2005 to Tim Shand’s current 2,812. At this election, unlike that of 2005, the Liberal Democrats did not have to contend with a potential loss of votes to the Green Party candidate (John Pletts secured 811 votes in 2005.)  Notwithstanding all of this, the Conservatives’ candidate Anne Milton increased her majority from 347 in 2005 to 7,782 in May 2010.  The Liberal Democrats can no longer claim that a tactical vote in their favour by Labour supporters will help to defeat the Conservative candidate.   This was an emphatic, decisive victory for Anne Milton.

General Election Results: Guildford

It is not just the Winning here! Posters sited in places where the Liberal Democrats have lost recent local and General Election seats that irk, but election leaflets that tell it as it isn’t.

The Liberal Democrats’ prospective parliamentary candidate for Guildford Sue Doughty’s latest election leaflet (emblazoned There is nothing to smile about Gordon) claims that the Conservatives will “sell off the NHS” and are planning “huge cuts to schools, policing and even defence”.  This is from a member of the party whose leader Nick Clegg declared that Britain needed “savage cuts”.

For the record, it should be reiterated that the Conservatives are the only party to have made a promise to increase spending on the NHS.  The maverick Daniel Hannan was slapped down by David Cameron for making his (very) minority comment about the efficacy of the NHS.

The “huge cuts” alleged rely upon regurgitated funny figures originally published by Labour, which have since been debunked elsewhere including (on the issue of education, for instance) on Channel 4’s FactCheck Blog.

It is generally accepted that whichever party wins the General Election on 6^th May 2010 a severe reduction in public expenditure will have to take place.  We shall just to have to accept the Liberal Democrats’ word for it that their savage cuts will be kinder than those to be imposed upon us by the post-General Election government.  It follows that the spending pledges made by the Liberal Democrats are not worth the leaflet they are printed on.

“Yet with Proportional Representation an entire election can be “wasted”. After a haggle between party bigwigs, the electorate may get no say at all in a choice of government or policy. A change from a system that allows the voters to “throw the rascals out” to one that guarantees Clegg and friends a permanent seat in cabinet with alternating Labour and Tory coalitions would be nice for Nick. But fair?

Vote Clegg, get Brown, could be one result of the system’s vagaries. Vote Clegg, get Cameron, another. Vote Clegg and get the Lib Dems for ever, would be an ironical end to an anti-Establishment election.”

Martin Ivens

“…it may be worth quoting from an official Liberal Democrat election manual, Effective Opposition, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, published by the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors in 2002 and still in use, judging by the techniques seen around the country. On page 21, it instructs Lib Dems to “be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly”. Page 23 advises: “Don't be afraid to exaggerate. For example, responses to surveys and petitions are always 'massive'. If a council is doing something badly, public expressions are always of 'outrage'.” Page 4 advises:“Positive campaigning will NOT be enough to win.”

Nick Clegg uncovered

Enough said.

“Even a small Lib Dem revival could hurt the Tories in target seats. Much larger swings are needed to threaten Labour in its heartlands. At its worst it could be a case of vote Clegg get Brown.”

Martin Ivens

“…the worst of it is that if you do vote Lib Dem in the demented belief that there could ever be such a thing as a Lib Dem government, you won't get Prime Minister Clegg. You'll get Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for five more hole punch-hurling years, because the Lib Dems almost always vote with Labour, and in my years in Parliament I can't remember a single moment when they opposed a Labour measure to expand state spending or state control.

I can't think of anything worse for this country than some great ghastly soggy Lib-Lab coalition, dripping with piety and political correctness and unable to take the decisions we need for fear of offending the vast hordes of public sector special interest groups they collectively represent.”

Boris Johnson

“The Daily Telegraph can disclose that the “raw” results of YouGov surveys in the month up to mid-March, covering more than 16,000 people, indicated that the Conservatives had a lead of more than 12 per cent. However, the figures – leaked to The Daily Telegraph – were then “weighted” using an undisclosed YouGov formula which reduced the lead to six per cent…. In recent weeks, YouGov and Experian, one of the country’s biggest market research firms, co-operated to compile a major study on the voting intentions of more than 16,000 people. Experian concluded that, overall, the Conservative lead over Labour was 12.5 percentage points, with the Tories on 40.8 per cent, Labour on 28.3 per cent and the Liberal Democrats on 17.4 per cent. After “re-weighting” by Mr Kellner, the Tory lead fell to six per cent. ”

YouGov pollster “gives Labour an unfair advantage”

Something we can expect a great deal more from the Labour sympathising commentariat between now and the May 2010 General Election, is disingenuous garbage masquerading as “impartial analysis”.  An example is Anatole Kaletsky’s article in The Times today entitled The two faced Tories can’t have it both ways.   Commenting upon the article, Padraig O'Halloran retorted,

“If one were overly-generous, one would say that Anatole is as a political babe-in-the-wood.  He knows full well that Oppositions are supposed to hold governments to account - pointing out the details and truth about policies and the economic status.

 

When the Tories spell out the extent of the economic mess, “they are talking down the economy”. When they spell out their broad policy directions and some policy details, they are not being totally candid, apparently.

With the unlimited bureaucratic resources available, together with the co-opted public servants, from Gus O'Connell down, any incumbent can cause any Opposition a lot of grief - who can argue with all that “impartial” analysis? Yeah, right!

Any Opposition would be totally stupid to spell out the full details of their intentions, then be blown over by shrieks of “unfunded spending, “blackholes”, etc.

Stick to economics, Anatole!”

Whilst largely agreeing with Mr O’Halloran’s reply, I should add that Mr Kaletsky’s views upon economics have oft been found wanting, too.

Reports Richard Norton-Taylor of The Guardian today,

“Joanna Lumley said today that Gurkha supporters had been the victims of smears and lies, after a defence minister publicly apologised for attacking her over the way she conducted the successful campaign to allow all Nepalese veterans of the British army the right to settle in the UK.

 

Kevan Jones, the veterans' minister, said: “I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused to Joanna Lumley … I have the greatest of respect for Joanna for her superb work on Gurkha issues.”

Joanna Lumley is held in great esteem by the British Public and in consequence is strong enough to look after herself, but what of the lawyers involved on behalf of the Gurkhas?  According to Mr  Richard Norton-Taylor,

“[Kevan] Jones was asked by the Commons home affairs committee whether he was aware of “rogue solicitors” involved in Gurkha cases. He replied that he understood an organisation called the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen's Organisation (GAESO) had been taking payments of £500 from Gurkha veterans and passing them on to UK solicitor Howe & Co, which was part of the campaign to win settlement rights.

 

The firm’s senior partner, Martin Howe, said Jones’s comments were “extremely defamatory”. “I knew at the time that his words were untrue and should not have been made, but as a result almost a Stasi-like investigation was started into my firm. Within days investigators were in my office, crawling over files, questioning people, asking for documentation.” ”

Anyone who dares to challenge Labour’s distorted version of the truth or exposes its spin on events is smeared, or worse.

Gurkha champion Joanna Lumley attacks 'smears' by minister

“Labour vowed last night to target the shadow chancellor, George Osborne, as the strategic "weak link" in the Conservatives' bid for power.

 

Party sources told the Observer that a decision had been taken to focus on Osborne as the prime target throughout the campaign, because the future stewardship of the economy is the issue that most concerns voters.

 

They said there was "strong evidence" from their own focus groups that people regard Osborne as "shrill, immature and lightweight", and that the Tories are already being harmed in the polls because of doubts about their economic policies.”

 

The Observer

It is going to be a case of smear, smear and smear again.

“It was no coincidence that the Ministry of Justice chose to release details of the highest-paid legal aid barristers and firms at the same time as it unveiled its latest plans for a tendering system for legal aid work.

The unsubtle message is, ‘we’re tightening our grip on what we will shell out on legal aid, and if you want to know why,  just look at how much some of these lawyers are trousering’.

It is ironic, then, that the firms the Ministry of Justice has chosen to spotlight as high earners are following precisely the model that it favours – increasing in size, taking on high volumes of work and operating with maximum efficiency.”

Editorial – Law Society Gazette

“Even now, though, we are gullible. Artificially low interest rates have made people think that things are looking up. The outlook is “brighter” for house prices, we read. As Spring comes at last, people linger longer at the estate agents' window, unaware that the cost of debt servicing is already rising. It may well be right, because of our near-collapse in 2008, not to put up rates yet, but rates held down for too long persuade people to forget risk, which is why we got where we are. It suits Mr Brown to encourage that oblivion. Between now and May, he has to try to make us feel hopeful, when the truth, in exact reversal of the winning slogan of 1997, is that things can only get worse.”

Charles Moore

…as the opinion polls begin to show the Conservative lead widening again.  It is understandable, of course.  It is not the news most of the commentariat want to hear because it drowns a good story about a “hung Parliament” following the General Election in May 2010 and also, given the political sympathies of a significant number of them, it is unwelcome.

Dominic Lawson tells a few home truths about opinion polls results here.

“…Among the ordinary public, meanwhile, many people know little beyond an oft-quoted fact that a mere 6 per cent of reported rapes end in a conviction.  But as a thoughtful government review, published today, points out, constant repetition of this figure – usually for the purpose of indicting an allegedly failing police and criminal justice system – is unhelpful to victims and society alike.  It is a good example of a “fact” that generates more heat than light.

As Baroness Stern's report explains, this low figure refers only to the percentage of complaints received by the police that end in a conviction. About 60 per cent of those actually charged with rape are indeed convicted by the courts. This latter figure radically changes the standard portrayal of a justice system that is routinely failing women and all too often treating the victims as if they had “asked for it”.”

Leader - The Independent

The Stern Review

A guide to injustice: something must be done – anything in fact, to raise rape conviction rates

Professor Jennifer Temkin rides again: devious barristers and ignorant judges

“Mr Brown's act of hypnosis is to make us ignore the facts about what will become of Britain should he be left in charge for much longer: economically relegated, permanently crippled with debt, addicted to public spending and big state interference, reliant on ever higher taxes and ruled by the trade unions.”

Gordon Brown has voters in a trance - it's time for a wake-up call – Benedict Brogan

“We British Muslims, who enjoy full freedom of faith, should remember that Islam obliges us to be good neighbours and respect others. Rather than dismissing objections as either racist or intolerant, we should listen to local opinion. And if the Muslims of Camberley are still determined to build their “traditional” mosque, they should seek an alternative site. More importantly, they should jettison reactionary ideology and adopt a progressive Islam that is part of the British mainstream.”

Taj Hargey

“[The Liberal Democrats] show no sign of ceasing to be the third party in British politics. They remain a dustbin for the votes of all those whose policy on cake is pro-having it and pro-eating it, and who think you can govern the country by sucking and blowing at the same time [My emphasis].”

Boris Johnson

“You would expect [the Bribery Bill] to criminalise both the person who pays a bribe and the person who accepts one. And so it does. But the Bribery Bill also makes it lawful for a very broad range of law enforcement agencies to provide or receive what would otherwise be improper financial inducements.  They include not just the police, prosecutors and bodies such as HM Revenue & Customs and the UK Borders Agency. Clause 12 would allow every environmental health officer and local authority trading standards officer in the land to go around handing out or accepting cash if they can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that this is necessary for the prevention, investigation or detection of ‘serious’ crime.

Officers from all the security and intelligence services would also be able to pay or receive bribes if they can show it was needed for the ‘proper exercise of any function’. So would all troops on active service.”

Joshua Rozenberg

Says House of Lords Constitution Committee member Lord Pannick QC,

“It is quite unacceptable for any intelligence officer of whatever rank, any employee of the CPS or any employee of a local authority carrying out law enforcement functions to be able to decide for themselves to carry out an act of bribery.”

Quite so.

“Having overcome rivalry between Protestants and Catholics, and learned to live in harmony with the Jewish faith and other minority religions and cultures by accepting a society based on Judaeo-Christian principles, we should be wary of those who seek to implant a rival culture with its own legal systems and standards of public behaviour to keep separate its followers from the mainstream of our majority. Apartheid is made no better by being voluntary.”

Norman Tebbit

“And the next time a Labour politician bangs on about Thatcher having destroyed Britain’s manufacturing base, remember this: under new Labour, manufacturing output has contracted by 1.2 per cent every year, down to around 12 per cent of GDP. Britain’s finances were in deep structural deficit before the crisis hit — one reason why, even with aggressive fiscal pump-priming, it has taken Britain longer than any other major economy to start emerging from recession.”

Rosemary Righter

“Class attack is an inherently discourteous and unpleasant way of conducting yourself. Voters and the news media already have an image fixed of the viciousness and spite that [Gordon Brown] and those around him show to enemies both within and outside their party.”

Matthew Parris

 “What has become evident in the run-up to [the climate change conference in] Copenhagen is that every time someone comes up with some ludicrous, self-flagellating proposal, yet another chunk of the population becomes disenchanted with the whole issue. There can hardly be a farmer left in Britain who has any truck with fighting climate change after being told last week that 30 per cent of the livestock in this country needed to go.

The failure of the “experts” to understand the situation was staggering. They clearly did not know that 60 per cent of our farm land is grassland, suitable only for rearing animals. The environmental damage that would ensue should this be ploughed up for cereals and legumes would be catastrophic.”

Charlie Brooks

“The brazenness with which Mr Brown reduced the election ahead to a battle between the rich and the rest has one advantage at least: it exposed the fraudulence of his claim to govern for all the people, or whatever the phrase was that he used when he first took over in 2007. He governs for himself and his party, first and always.

And, like the Russians retreating before Napoleon, Mr Brown pursues a scorched earth strategy. Its purpose is two-fold: to put the Tories on the spot as an Opposition by driving them towards difficult policy choices that can then be demolished, while doing everything to ensure that if they do get in, they will find the wells have been filled and the fields ploughed with salt.”

Benedict Brogan

“Labour’s hopes of avoiding a general election rout at the hands of David Cameron’s Tories will be boosted today as a new poll shows a sharp fall in the Conservative's lead, raising the possibility of a hung parliament”

reports The Observer  today.  The figures show Conservative support slipping to 37% - only six per cent ahead of Labour.  However, the field work for this “new poll” conducted by Ipsos MORI was undertaken between 13^th and 15^th November 2009, the same period as The Guardian’s ICM poll published six days earlier.  The Guardian/ICM poll disclosed the Conservatives as being thirteen points ahead of Labour.

One of these polls looks like a rogue.  Now let me think…which one?

Yesterday, discussing why it would be suicidal electorally for either of the main party leaders to holiday abroad in a hot clime this Christmas Steve Richards of the Independent explained,

“The case of Cameron is more revealing. Unlike Blair he would be taking a big risk if he headed for somewhere hot this winter, and the reasons highlight better than any opinion poll why he has not “sealed the deal”, to apply the accurate cliché.”

Four days earlier Julian Glover of the The Guardian reported the result of the latest Guardian/ICM poll under the heading, “Cameron closing deal despite Labour boost – Guardian/ICM poll”. According to the poll, as well as indicating that Labour had lost its crown as the champion of the poor,

“Cameron appears to be cementing his reputation with voters on key issues of character – suggesting that voting Tory isn't just about being fed up with Labour, but is now being seen as a positive move.”

If the facts don’t fit your argument, ignore them.

Enough of this nonsense about David Cameron not having “sealed the deal”

So Labour held Glasgow North East in yesterday’s by-election.  This was hardly a surprise, particularly as the Labour Party was likely to throw everything into the fight to retain the seat.  As reports The Times today,

“So desperate was Labour to hang on to this seat that the party flooded the constituency yesterday with hundreds of activists from all over Britain.”

Now, they are not going to be able to repeat that concentration of their remaining activists at every vulnerable seat during a General Election, are they?

In The Sunday Times on 1^st November 2009, Andrew Sullivan wrote,

 “And my bet is that in a decade’s time, the banning of cannabis will seem as strange as the banning of alcohol.”

This is not the first time I’ve heard that sentiment expressed.  Indeed, it was a common view at my school.  In 1971.

“…Mr Cameron and his close allies are proper, robust Eurosceptics. The Tory split on Europe at the beginning of the last decade was always misunderstood. The party was not split down the middle. The vast majority were on the Eurosceptic side. The row came because a relatively small, senior and ageing group at the top of the party was intent on resisting the stance that everyone else wanted to take. So in Mr Cameron’s generation almost everyone is a Eurosceptic. His position was, and remains, standard on the British centre Right.”

 

Daniel Finkelstein

And while you’re at it you should read this, too.

Addressing The Sun newspaper on 26th September 2007, David Cameron announced,

 “Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.

 

No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.”

To highlight the obvious, Gordon Brown signed the Treaty of Lisbon on 13^th December 2007 thereby completing, in effect, the ratification process on behalf of the United Kingdom.  Today, the last outstanding signatory, President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, signed the Treaty. Ratification by all member states of the European Union is now complete.  It is all over bar the shouting.

The referendum pledge by the Conservatives envisaged that the Treaty had not been ratified – “No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum”. We now know that the ratification process was accelerated (and according to some conspiracy theorists, a General Election delayed) to avoid the prospect of a Conservative Government throwing a spanner in the works. The Conservatives have little choice but to give up on the Lisbon Treaty referendum.  It has been overtaken by events.

Labour and its Media fellow travellers will now no doubt present the Conservatives as having reneged on their promise.  That would be worse than disingenuous.

“We have seen from alcohol and tobacco exactly what legalising certain substances can do to health, so why on earth add others?”

Ann Widdicombe

“All peoples possess a culture, but this does not mean all cultures are equally valid and commendable.  Some values and ideas are better than others.”

Peter Tatchell

“Policy-based evidence making”

It’s what Labour do.

Hat Tip to Obnoxio

According to The Sunday Times today,

“Gordon Brown is planning a final public spending spree to help pull the economy out of recession and put pressure on the Conservatives over their plans for deep cuts….

....Brown also hopes the stimulus package will open a new dividing line between Labour and Conservative plans over the public finance.  “At the next election we need a clear story to tell about how Labour will support the economy through investment while the Tories would choke off the recovery with draconian cuts,” said a cabinet source.”

The report continues,

“However, the proposals have caused alarm among Treasury officials who fear any increased spending could upset the financial markets, making it harder to service the growing national debt.”

Just how much long term damage is the Labour Government prepared to inflict upon the British economy in return for a small amount of political gain against the Conservatives?

The problem with pointing out that Polish MEP Michal Kaminski has a splinter in his eye when he doesn’t is that as well as damaging Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s credibility; it also causes attention to be drawn to the plank in Labour’s own.

This is yet more proof that Labour cannot even run an effective smear campaign anymore.

Accusing Euro-sceptics of anti-Semitism is the most shameful tactic yet

As should be expected, the “progressive” Media has roundly condemned the removal of Professor David Nutt from his position at the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.  In essence, the pro legalisation of “recreational drugs” lobby approve of what Professor Nutt has to say, so it is outraged by his treatment by Home Secretary Alan Johnson.

As an adviser who has suffered the rejection of sound advice, I can commiserate to a small degree with the Professor but at the end of the day he is paid to give an opinion and his “client” is entitled to accept or reject it, notwithstanding that he is a high and mighty academic.  It is the Professor’s paroxysm at the rejection of his advice and reaction that shows, to my mind, that the Home Secretary was right to ask for his resignation.

Sacked drugs adviser accuses Gordon Brown of meddling in cannabis decision

Sacked – for telling the truth about drugs

Sacked adviser criticises Brown

Do you really want to help Labour divide and conquer?

“David Cameron could find old regime partisans sniping at him from the hills; the people who sit on boards and commissions, hold chairs and run reviews: the whole well-intentioned infrastructure of progressive society that, almost like royalty, remains in place from one government to the next.”

Julian Glover

Labour’s fifth columnists

The Conservatives winning the next General Election is not the half of it