The pundits' attempt to put a noose around the neck of the Conservative Party in the months immediately preceding the local elections in May 2006, by "talking up" council seat gains which, according to their analysis, would have to be achieved, were confounded by the Party's success in those elections.  Undeterred, the Media is now having a second bite at the cherry even though on this occasion the cards are even more heavily stacked against the Conservatives, for various reasons.

In the north, particularly in the conurbations, any Conservative advance has to contend with a Liberal Democrat challenge.  An unpopular Labour administration no longer leads to marginal council seats "going" Conservative because of floating voters changing allegiance and/or Labour core support remaining at home.  The Liberal Democrats are ever present to accept votes against which ever of the main parties is the most unpopular. For many years it has been a three horse race in local elections. The Liberal Democrats are going to win sack loads of seats in the north generally and in northern conurbations in particular.  The Conservatives on the other hand, will increase their vote but win few seats. At local level at the very least, the political landscape has changed and the lack of an obvious Conservative advance must be seen in that light.

In the south, the Conservatives already control a majority of the councils and have either reached or nearly reached their high-tide mark. The electorate often votes against incumbent councils.  Since the Conservatives suffered a local election meltdown in 1995, in successive local elections they have been recovering gradually their natural strongholds such that in many areas they are the incumbents. In this way Conservative seats are vulnerable.  The Liberal Democrats' ability to target seats in which they concentrate upon a very "localised" local issue, must not be lost sight of. An example is Woking Borough Council, where the Conservatives polled a significantly higher percentage of the overall vote in May 2006, but lost councillors in certain, targeted wards. The remaining Labour-held wards are now being targeted by the Liberal Democrats, so they will consolidate their control of Woking Borough Council on 3^rd May, with the Conservatives being mere onlookers, unable to affect the outcome.

UKIP's impact on the Conservative vote must not be overlooked either. In numerous councils where the Conservatives are defending against the Liberal Democrats, just a few score votes transferring from the Conservative to UKIP candidate in marginal wards would hand seats to the Liberal Democrats.

Polls indicate that support for the Conservatives nationwide stands at about 38%, the same as the best poll result published immediately before the local elections in May 2006. The actual poll result in 2006 was just short of 40%, underlining the fact that polls tend to underestimate actual support for the Conservatives by between 1% and 2%. On a 38% vote, Rallings and Thrasher calculate that the Conservatives would achieve 300-400 seat gains. I would venture that support for the Conservatives has reached 40% though certainly not the 42% required for a clear election victory.  I would suggest also that factoring in for instance, the manner in which the Liberal Democrat challenge functions "on the ground", the UKIP diversion and the aversion of disaffected, northern Labour voters to switch direct from Labour to Conservative, even with 40% of the vote, the Conservatives will still secure about 400 extra councillors only.  It is reported that privately the aim of the Conservatives is to gain at least 800 seats. One can conjecture the source of this private briefing, which appears mischievous. Whilst nationwide the Conservatives are challenging for more seats than both Labour and the Liberal Democrats and might be hotly contesting thousands of marginal seats, this is not the same as expecting to win all of them.  Even Labour strategists, who are expecting a hiding, calculate that they will lose between 400 to 500 seats. An ineffective showing by UKIP (possible) or the Liberal Democrats (highly implausible) and the Labour core vote remaining at home would hand eight hundred seats to the Conservatives, but the prerequisites for such a result are just not present.

That attempts will be made to extrapolate the results of the May 2007 local elections to show that the Conservative advance has stalled and that David Cameron will not win the 2009/10 election, should not trouble the Conseravtives.  Following the defeat at the General election of 1997, most commentators agreed that the Conservatives would not be able to overturn the Labour majority in just one election. The Party could not even start to do so whilst its deep unpopularity remained, as evidenced by the result of the 2001 General Election.  Whilst being still unpopular in some quarters, the 2005 election result was further distorted by the Liberal Democrats still being on a roll (largely achieved by the injection of funds from the now disgraced Michael Brown) which meant the Conservatives were often watching their backs whilst at the same time trying to attack Labour.  The General Election in 2009/10 will be the first when Conservative fortunes are in the ascendency but yet commentators now seek to convince us that only spectacular success in the forecoming local elections and outright success at the next general Election will do, otherwise (it will be argued) the Conservatives are in a desperate position where, goes the inference, recovery becomes less and less likely.  It is not so.  It took four consecutive election defeats before the Labour Party rejuvenated. During that rejuvenation it did not have to contend with the Liberal Democrats bleeding a part of its core vote.  Whilst it is correct that for a brief period the Social Democratic Party purported to be an alternative to Labour, the SDP realised quickly that there were more votes to be had from instinctively Conservative electors, hence the merger with the Liberal Party and the splitting of the non-Labour vote in every General Election since.

The Conservatives will not achieve any breakthrough until the Liberal Democrats are seen to be patently receding as a political force.  The Conservatives, through eighteen years of Government and eight years of drift in opposition, enabled the Liberal Democrats to thrive and entrench themselves.  In consequence the Liberal Democrats will not be dislodged in just one or two local elections. That the Liberal Democrats failed to make any impact during the local elections in 2006 was significant, but that lack of success could be (and was) brushed under the carpet before the Public absorbed what had happened.  On 4^th May 2007, after taking many Labour councillors' scalps (and a few from the Conservatives too) the Liberal Democrats will be crowing from the roof tops.  The Media will echo the Liberal Democrat triumph.  Commentators will burble and chatter about the Conservatives' lack of serious progress in "the north", the cities and elsewhere.  Whatever is said, the Conservatives will possess a significant number of new councillors following the May 2007 local elections. Their advance will not have stalled.  For their part, the Liberal Democrats still have to reap the whirlwind that they sowed by accepting the donation from Michael Brown, the donation that enabled them to so inflate their prospects in the 2005 General Election.  The future is bright - and still blue.

New Labour’s local election plans are going pear shaped

Labour strolling to "victory" in the local elections in May 2006

The Sunday Times

Seen by Labour's "intellectual" and "old" left as a joke candidate and provoking disdain amongst those on the Conservative right, Hazel Blears' mildly self-depreciating campaign for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party is gradually gaining support, nevertheless.

Miss Blears understands the vital importance of continuing to be relevant and attractive to so-called "middle class" voters and holding the political centre-ground.  This insight appears to be rapidly vanishing amongst a large section of the ascendant Labour hierarchy who do no more than pay it lip service.

If elected, Hazel Blears promises to ensure that the voice of the Labour Party membership is heard in cabinet.  She will do as she says. She is not a politician who deigns to acquaint herself with her constituents only once every four or five years. She listens to what people have to say and is described by supporters as "both considerate and tough" and as having an "ability to connect with voters like few other politicians." She has been politically astute by highlighting that it does not follow that the Prime Minister should automatically appoint the deputy leader as the deputy prime minister.

It is overlooked that Tony Blair's ability to appeal to a wide swathe of voters leading to the 1997 General Election and beyond was not the only reason for his historic election victories. A tired Government that after eighteen years had overstayed its welcome was always going to lose badly an election against an invigorated Official Opposition Party led by a popular new leader. More importantly, by 1997 and until 2005 the prospect of a Labour Government had ceased to frighten core supporters comprising the liberal, progressive wing of the Conservative Party. A significant minority of these supporters ceased their political activitism, thereby contributing to the loss of marginal constituencies.

Hazel Blears is popular with ordinary people.  She does not frighten the horses.  She is liked even though she is a Labour politician and a ready apologist for the nightmare that this Labour Government has become.  Whilst support from certain quarters of the centre-right might be tongue in cheek, the affection and respect for Miss Blears generally is genuine.  Labour activists ignore that at their peril.  Election of the current favourites for the leadership and deputy leadership can only assist the Labour Party's opponents' cause.

Hazel Blears for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party

The Chief Constable of North Wales, Richard Brunstrom's most irritating fault is that he almost always overstates his case, thereby undermining it.  Excessive speed is a killer, but there is inadvertent speeding and there is deliberate (often reckless) speeding. In failing to differentiate between the two he alienates those very citizens whose support he needs, just as with his beloved speed cameras.

It was unacceptable that he had not sought the permission of the families whose sons had been killed before showing photographs of their mutilated bodies to journalists and local authority representatives at a meeting to promote his Force's road safety work. Nevertheless, it is right that we be reminded of the consequences of irresponsible speeding and substandard driving, combined.  It is so easy to forget that in a collision, even when protected by seatbelts, airbags, collapsing bonnets and safety bars, the human body can suffer serious injury.  At high speeds it can simply disintegrate.

Shock tactics such as these should not be used too often lest their impact be weakened and relatives' permission for publication should be sought, always.  Had Mr Brunstrom not had the reputation of being the  "Mad Mullah of the Traffic Taliban" and with the permission of the relatives, perhaps he would not have caused such a furore.

Richard Brunstrom: Chief Constable and now humble Blogger

It should not be necessary for me to point out that the former Roxy Music star and singer Brian Ferry is not and never has been, a Nazi sympathiser.  It was with some bemusement on my part therefore when I read that he had apologised yesterday for saying Nazi imagery was “amazing”.

It seems that Mr Ferry had said in an interview with a German newspaper that the Nazis “knew how to put themselves in the limelight and present themselves” and that Helene Bertha Amalie Riefenstahl’s movies, Albert Speer's buildings, the mass parades and the flags were “just amazing. Really beautiful.”

Mr Ferry explained that he was “deeply upset” by the negative publicity his remarks had caused and added,

“I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused by my comments on Nazi iconography, which were solely made from an art history perspective. I, like every right-minded individual, find the Nazi regime, and all it stood for, evil and abhorrent.”

Given the death and destruction caused by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945 it is difficult to credit Germany with creating anything worthwhile during that period. The despatch of eight and a half million people in murder camps (everyone forgets about the two and a half million gypsies, two hundred and fifty thousands communists/trade unionists and two hundred thousand homosexuals) gives rise to an instinctive, overwhelming revulsion to the whole concept of Nazism and everything and everyone associated with it. Helene Riefenstahl is intimately and forever associated with the Nazis having directed Der Sieg des Glaubens (Victory of Faith) about the Nuremberg rally in 1933 and Triumph of the Will, the notorious documentary glorifying Adolf Hitler. As Riefenstahl was steadfastly unapologetic about her close collaboration with the Nazis, praise for her was always going to raise eyebrows.  Nevertheless, though critics have agreed that it is difficult to "separate the subject from the artist behind it", Riefenstahl’s work during that period is generally regarded as masterful, epic, and innovative. She is renowned for developing new aesthetics in film, especially in relation to nude bodies.  Anyone who has seen those Nazi propaganda documentaries, though repelled in significant measure, cannot deny that they are impressive.  Similarly some of Albert Speer’s architecture and designs were little short of magnificent.

No one can suggest reasonably that Brian Ferry did not make his comments in good faith from an “art history perspective”.  It is highly questionable whether he had anything for which to apologise.  That there was a suggestion that Marks & Spencer, for whom Mr Ferry models, should “reconsider [his] contract”, is wholly unacceptable. 

Mr Ferry’s opinions were unremarkable and did not merit censure.

Martin Beckford

Karen McVeigh

Much has been made of Gordon Brown’s incredible decision to sell a substantial part of the United Kingdom’s gold reserves at a time when the value of gold had fallen to rock bottom.  This has been brought to our attention again in an article by Holly Watt and Robert Winnett in The Sunday Times.

More importantly, this episode has gone to show how corrupt Government has become under the New Labour regime and how the Labour spin machine involves the use not only of its own apparatchiks but also supposedly impartial arms of government (in this case HM Treasury) and the misuse of laws and rules that should be applied even-handedly and without favour.

Watt reports,

“The Sunday Times has been battling the Treasury for 18 months to obtain documents revealing the advice it received on the sale of gold.  Under freedom of information laws, the paper has asked for statistical information relating to the decision to sell gold; minutes of ministerial meetings; official correspondence and studies into the aftermath of the decision.

 

Before the 2005 election the Treasury rushed out comparable information about the Conservatives’ darkest economic hour, Black Wednesday, but it took it five months to turn down this request, although it is required by law to respond within 20 working days [my italics and emphasis.]

 

Among five exemptions it has claimed to block publication is that “such information relates to the location (past or present) of the UK’s gold holdings, which, if made known, could increase risks to security”. This information is on the Bank’s official website.”

The conclusion that must be drawn is that this Government will readily accede to a Freedom of Information request that damages its opponents but obfuscates and seeks to bury anything that shows its own bad faith, venality or incompetence.

There has been considerable exaggeration concerning our so called “humiliation” at the hands of the Iranians by way of their seizure of fifteen Royal Navy personnel on 23^rd March 2007 and the alleged consequential loss of our military prestige.  That the abduction was allowed to occur reeks of incompetence on somebody’s part, but once it had taken place, we were left twisting in the wind until events took their course.

During the course of the past one thousand years the English, and latterly the British, have suffered numerous such “humiliations”.  There have always been steady supplies of tin-pot rulers and sometimes extremely powerful enemies who have seized our citizens or military personnel and subjected them to ritual, personal humiliation and sometimes even death.  It is the furore in the aftermath of such incidents that reveals our true mettle. These enemies always assumed the ease in which they inflicted the humiliation, was a sign of our weakness.  It was never so.  Retribution always followed by one means or another, even though the score being settled might be years in the coming.  These little embarrassments do no more than to strengthen our resolve to ensure that they do not happen again, so easily.

The seized personnel were pilloried for allowing themselves to be used for propaganda purposes by the Iranian Regime.  Regimes that pay no attention to the conventions of war have oft used captured soldiers for propaganda purposes.  The Chinese and North Koreans did so in the Korean War and likewise the North Vietnamese almost two decades later.  As we are not at war with Iran, it is not clear what proportionate response could have been made to ensure the earlier release of the hostages.  Besides, our military personnel cannot be expected to behave in a heroic situation on each and every occasion demanded of them, particularly when they are not at war with those who ambush them.  Not every imprisoned serviceman will behave like the prisoners of Colditz.  Even in Wellington’s Peninsula Army, arguably one of the best ever fielded by this country, seasoned soldiers ran away from time to time.  The Duke knew that most of them would return and fight another day.  Sometimes it is just not a good day to die.

Any argument that the abduction occurred because of our military weakness or lack of moral fibre is fatuous.  In many situations it is not militarily possible to rescue hostages, unless you are willing to spark the Third World War.  The mighty United States was forced to negotiate the return of their embassy staff seized by the Iranians on 4^th November 1979 and held for a little over fourteen months. Negotiation was the means of release for the crew of USS Pueblo, held for eleven months after being attacked and seized in international waters by the North Koreans on 23^rd January 1968. North Korea has never paid the price for that act of piracy.

Now it is only our pride that is hurt.  Only three centuries ago Arab slave traders regularly raided villages on the southwest coast of England, snatching thousands of free born Englishmen and women into slavery.  In July 1625, when as now, England possessed one of the most formidable navies in the World; these Islamic corsairs of Barbary sailed up the Bristol Channel, captured Lundy Island and raised the standard of Islam.  Now that was really embarrassing.

You can forget Alan Johnson the Education Secretary and Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland Secretary. Hilary Benn might be considered as “leading the race” for deputy by a wide margin and  Harriet Harman,  the Constitutional Affairs Minister described as “Gordon Brown's feminine conscience, on a crusade for women” because when it comes to overall suitability for the position of Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Hazel Blears walks it by a mile.

Miss Blears is a feisty woman who has never lost touch with her roots, “traditional working class” as she would describe them.  She had achieved the lofty position of Minister of the Crown (and now Labour Party Chairman) through her own efforts alone without benefit of privilege or favour.  What you see is what you get, a plain speaking Mancunian.  She is popular with the grass roots membership of her party and rightly so – she is one of the people.  Her effervescent optimism, ability to defend with full conviction an impossible position and infectious enthusiasm prove her to be a very capable individual as well as an endearing personality.

In the difficult times ahead for the Labour Party, Hazel Blear’s presence near the helm is in prudence, something it cannot forego.

Hazel for Deputy

I have never felt challenged by anyone possessed of opinions differing or even diametrical to my own, though upon occasion, the manner in which those opinions might be held or expressed, concomitant as they so often are with a presumption of intellectual and moral inferiority on my part, is more than a little wearisome.  Such conceit is a common vice (though not the exclusive domain) of the so-called “liberal left”, those self-appointed guardians of the moral high ground.  In the circumstances I should be forgiven a wry smile when reading recently an article by AA Gill in The Sunday Times where he wrote briefly about the sanctimonious George Monbiot and the insufferable Peter Hitchens,

“But don’t for a moment imagine that the bicycle-riding, organic-hedgerow-grazing, self-denying, 40-watt miserablists are in fact selfless crusaders for the common good. Never underestimate the sustaining pleasure in a hair shirt. Just look at George Monbiot, and witness a man who couldn’t be happier about the imminent demise of life as we know it. It’s given him purpose, prestige and celebrity: without global warming he’d be a geography teacher.”

For Peter Hitchens, no punches were pulled,

“Among journalists, Hitchens is fondly known by the nickname Bonkers. He’s called Bonkers Hitchens because he is raving bonkers, in a way that sells papers but makes him very annoying to sit next to on long flights. I’ve covered elections with him and seen him chase cars like an incensed border collie….[T]he great thing about Hitchens is that he never disappoints. Blissfully, he is utterly bereft of self-irony. For Bonkers there was nothing remotely odd or absurdly hilarious about hating the Conservative party for having Eton-educated, upper-class boys in it. Hitchens should be encouraged to do more. He’s like a lost biblical character from The Life of Brian.”