Lone Piper's Lament and Balance

Across the street, outside the Margaret Thatcher Infirmary in Royal Hospital Road, a lonely Piper squeezes a lament. Is some old Scottish soldier dying or is there another event on at the Royal Chelsea Hospital that requires serenading? One is most unlikely to know although with the numbers walking by it is probably the latter. It is drizzling and I am dissuaded as a result from going to find out.

It could of course be a lament for the decision of Miliband Senior to withdraw from front bench politics. Such a lament would be entirely in keeping with the status of this extraordinarily gifted man, visionary in his own lifetime and almost godlike figure he is presented to us as being by members of his tribe and the left leaning media. Those of us though who question this reading of the man must be wrong as we are told Hillary Clinton likes him. That ends the debate even if it matters not if Hillary hates him. For the sake of transparency though, which the BBC for one is so concerned about in other people, it would be most helpful if journalists, tv as well as print ones, were to have to make clear their own political leanings when propounding their views. We would then be able to say 'he/she would say that wouldn't he/she' and weigh their words accordingly. This might help bring a bit of balance in the media that we so desperately need in this country.  

The Fourth Way (2); Charlie Bean.

I did not watch but I have read every word of Miliband Junior's speech. I thus do not know how it played to the faithful, including the BBC. From reading it all I can say is that it started off well but then deteriorated as it went on and on and on, failed to hang together and contained no surprises. As for his claim about being a proponent of new politics all I can say is that if that is new politics it is not only very boring but it looks excessively like old politics. As a Tory his praise of the 1945 Labour Government, of Harold Wilson, of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown is misplaced to say the least of it. Labour was and remains a cuckoo in the nest and the sooner it quits the scene the better for all of us.

Better also for all of us in this country would be the instant dismissal of Charlie Bean. What an extraordinary, arrogant and stupid thing for him to have said to people who have saved that they should now spend, spend, spend to help the economy. That is what Brown did and look where that has got us. Come on Osborne get rid of this idiot. The Labour Government, the  Bank of England and the banks have failed us. The Labour Government has gone as a result but what about the Bank of England and the banks? If banks are too big to fail then at least the senior individuals in them should not be protected. Why has not a law been passed to sack the senior executives of both the Bank of England and the banks we now own without any compensation and to ban them for life from taking any other job in the financial sector.  Savers have to be protected and should be compensated for the loss their savings have incurred by the Bank of England's crazy Quantitative Easing policy.

The Fourth Way

There is an interesting view propounded by Iain Martin on his blog that Ed Miliband in his speech today is going to change the so-called Clinton/Blair/Cameron Playbook of politics that to win elections the leader of a political party has to be photogenic, adopt the mores and attitudes of the media and avoid references to right and left. I do hope Iain Martin is right as the Playbook approach to politics is unsatisfying in so many ways, stifling as it does real debate about so many issues that need to be properly aired. If Ed Miliband does seek to break the mould it will hopefully encourage Cameron to do likewise. I can only see the result being beneficial by encouraging greater discussion about capitalism, climate change, devolution, the economy, education, free speech, health, immigration, law and order, muticulturalism, trade unions, welfare and, of course, Europe.

I am not holding my breath though as I suspect the speech will be somewhat bland and disappointing, hinting at the lifting of the Third Way veil but in truth re-iterating it. Will this then become known as the Fourth Way?   

Halal

Is it really true that meat being sold by supermarkets is produced from animals killed in the halal way? Unless I am wrongly informed I understand the halal way of killing animals is pretty barbaric. If Muslims want to eat meat prepared in that way then they can of course do so in their own countries. If the halal method of killing causes what we would say in this country are unacceptable levels of distress to animals as opposed to the way we traditionally prepare our meat then we should ban it. I do not agree with banning the Burca or any religious symbol as that is a question of free speech. The preparation of food is a completely different thing but those who want to eat halal meat here can import it so long as it is specifically identified. There is one meat I guess that has not been prepared in the halal way and that is pork. No wonder pork tastes as good as it did when I was a child. I now know why when you buy London supermarket beef, lamb and poultry products the taste is not as succulent as it used to be!

It's frightening...

...that the Bank of England is considering further Quantitative Easing. The last lot has already resulted in an increase in inflation which has still to be brought under control. We need high inflation like a whole in the head. It is to be hoped our bright young Chancellor will quash the Bank of England's idea in no uncertain manner. It is also to be hoped that in his speech to the Tory Conference Osborne will emphasise the need for and the benefits that come from free enterprise, competition and capitalism and indeed from low taxes. This message needs making time and time again.

...that the subsidy farm off the Thanet coast (a) exists at all and (b) is going to be increased to 340 windmills. Building nuclear power stations will not only be significantly cheaper but will provide electricity 24/7. If people so believe in wind power then let them build them windmills with their on money, not with mine. Why is there no current top flight politician in office who supports looking at global warming and renewable energy in the same common sense way as Lord Lawson? We should at least have waited to see the result over the next few years in the changes the movement of the jet stream and the sun spot activity will bring to our climate. Who knows perhaps these changes will bring global cooling (thought of as highly likely twenty or so years ago). Perhaps global cooling has already started - it was reported that -4 degree temperatures were recorded last night in two places in Scotland and that this made September the coldest for 30 years.            

Miliband Junior

Well there you have it. Ed has won it. Even though their election system is somewhat undemocratic, even flawed, if that is the way the Labour Party wants to elect their leaders then so be it. It will though serve to remind the rest of us that the Labour Party does not believe in fairness (one member, one vote) but in elites, in the nomenklatura, like all fascist/communist parties. In other words like all parties of the left. We know little about Ed but will know too much about him shortly. Now he has taken the crown what kind of leader will he make? Probably more centrist than his rhetoric to date has led us to think but probably more of an attack dog than his brother would have been. Ed Balls, a fully certified attack dog, I am sure will be given an important position in Junior's team if the body language between the two Eds whilst they were watching the announcement of the voting results is anything to go by. The coalition I hope have done their homework and have an idea of how to handle Ed as opposed to David Miliband as leader of the opposition? The coalition will no doubt be put to the test in defending the decisions made to handle the deficit and I expect to be bored rigid being told again and again of the difference between debt and deficit and how the latter must be brought under control. As John Redwood says the coalition should also frequently remind us that the cuts are in the amount of the increases planned over the next five years not cuts in what is being spent out of our taxes today.   

Milibands

Does it matter which Miliband wins the Labour leadership election? Despite the fact that David can hardly be said to have been an outstanding Foreign Secretary and cannot  be said to have judgment and guts  following his failure to seek a leadership election against Brown he is at least a known quantity. Ed though looks more gutsy standing as he has against his brother. I say a plague on both their houses as it matters not one tittle or iota which of the two wins as they are both going to have to follow the same line. Whatever the outcome, which everyone now seems to think will result in the younger brother being elected, democracy will be the loser because of the insane Labour party voting system. Only on the left can you have more than one vote depending on which sub-section of the party you belong to. It would of course be more logical and in that sense fairer (that childish whinge again) if in General Elections those who paid more in taxes had a corresponding greater number of votes. Would the brothers agree to that? Not bloomimg likely! Which makes them hypocrites. Would the LibDems support that? I suppose they might so long as they did not have to pay anything back!

Marmite and Other Things

I have never liked Marmite and would refuse to eat it if invited to do so. I cannot understand how anyone likes it but know that many do, even amongst my own family. I just shrug and simply accept that this is so. It is much more difficult though to accept that people have different views about religion, politics and so on and do not see things in the way one sees them at a gut level oneself. Some say that one's basic beliefs are as a result of one's upbringing but I am not so sure. I think it is possible to be born with one's gut feelings already set in one's bones. I also think it is possible to be born without any gut feelings at all about, say, politics. We all accept we have to learn to allow others their points of view but why should we allow ourselves to be manipulated into feelings of guilt about our class system for example.  Our class system is little different from those of other countries. Do not tell me that in the United States or in China there are not those born with silver spoons whose families will always hope that their children will marry someone with the same background. It is a natural phenomenon. This is a roundabout way of saying that there is nothing to be ashamed of in being white, middle class and a Tory. We are not nasty people and should not allow ourselves to continue to be branded as such. The yeoman classes have always been the backbone of any society and so it is in England.

Dr Cable and Spivs and Gamblers

We are told that Downing Street were shown Dr Cable's speech in advance and did not ask him to change it. I think Downing Street were absolutely right in not doing so. Apart from freedom of speech issues which Conservatives passionately believe in no one in his right mind would imagine that the Conservatives would support what either Dr Cable was saying or the language he used. Prior to the election Dr Cable was held out by many as a sort of economic guru. Rather less ignorant  commentators remained unconvinced. The best way to handle Dr Cable was to give him enough rope to hang himself and in my book that is exactly what has happened. Dr Cable will find himself twisting in the wind not knowing how to free himself from his predicament despite the underpinning of his few supporters. Some kind sole will eventually put him out of his misery but not before his twisting has served a larger purpose. 

Green Stuff

Conservatives naturally believe in the conservation of the best, of things that work, in things that will make life better and in the preservation of the environment but recognise that sometimes these things are in conflict and thus that difficult choices have to be made. Conservatives also believe that tax should be as low as possible as they prefer to spend their money as they want to spend it. They mistrust the state to spend their taxes wisely and after all the evidence of taxes wasted over the last few years who can say they are wrong. Of course apart from the defence of the realm, the maintenance of civil order, the maintenance of our coinage, the support of those in need, the coordination of countrywide infrastructure projects and the encouragement of education there is really very little else on which our taxes need be spent. The question of how these taxes should be raised then arises. I find the arguments about a flat tax attractive so long as the initial tax free element on income is set at a high enough level. A flat tax would exclude 'behavioural' taxes such as green taxes which are preachy and an abomination. In any event where is the 'science' that (a) there is global warming and (b) man is the cause of it. The revelations concerning the Met Office, the Climate Research Unit and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leave me gravely in doubt about global warming and, even if it's true, man's part in it. I wonder who benefits from promoting global warming, I see subsidies paid out of taxes for wind farms and the like and I do not like what I see. Wind farms are a blotch on the landscape, apart from being inefficient and costly. They should be dismantled.          

I was in Geneva for a family wedding over the weekend and was struck by how much more expensive everything is compared to the last time I was there two years ago. One reason is obviously the exchange rate difference with sterling a quarter down. Why is sterling down? Surely not having had the genius Gordon Brown running their economy might be an answer?

How could Tony Blair still maintain that Gordon Brown is brilliant when all the evidence points to the disastrous handling of the economy over 13 years? Is it because Tony Blair believes he has to say this as otherwise people will ask why he did not remove Gordon Brown even more insistently than they are doing already? If so Tony Blair is wrong as it will not change the opinion of those who consider he was one of the weakest and worst Prime Ministers we have ever had. A bad Prime Minister because he thought the end justifies the means (as demonstrated by his devolution policy and by his war strategy or lack of it) and weak because he constantly felt the need to show he was strong (as demonstrated by the introduction of a whole spate of crime legislation). My old Granny used to say never trust a man who claims integrity ("I'm a pretty straight kinda guy") as you know he has none. We shall probably never know but exactly how did Tony Blair manage to amass his fortune and when was the groundwork for doing so begun?

It has been reported that about £75m has been spent by taxpayers on supporting the Unions. Why would taxpayers want to do this? Has a Union ever done anything for anyone other than its own members and sometimes members of other Unions? No Union has ever done me a favour, indeed I would say the very reverse. Look for example at the chaos caused in London yesterday by the tube strike.

Discussing this earlier today with a LibDem supporter he thought it politic to provide the Unions with some funding in the hope they will act in a more responsible and conciliatory manner. I call this appeasement and can see no rational reason for continuing such funding. Indeed taxpayer funding of the Unions encourages bad behaviour. It is human nature to be less careful with other peoples money than your own, of which the MPs' expenses scandal of this summer is an eloquent reminder. It seems strange though that tube drivers paid £40,000 a year would want to strike but apparently on that salary they can afford to lose the odd day's pay in support of the need of Mr Crow to 'big up' himself. That can be the only reason for the strike as the other excuses given for it are risible.

The Unions support the Labour party and the money provided to the Unions by the taxpayer gets passed on to the Labour party. There is no argument that I have heard that makes the case for taxpayer support of political parties and in particular the case for taxpayers supporting one political party to the exclusion of the others. I appreciate that the Labour party believes it is special and can behave in ways that would create a media storm if carried out by other parties but just what makes this 'fair', to use a word Labour is currently purloining? Fairness is the issue here though - support of the Labour party out of taxes is plain wrong.

First Post

As an outside but nonetheless interested observer of the excitement generated by the Hague/Myers and Coulson stories I can't help wondering what's behind it all. Is the purpose of the stories to try and dislodge Hague and Coulson and thus to weaken the Government? One might be forgiven for thinking so.

If so who are the persons keeping the stories alive? Surely those who are most likely to think they would benefit most? Does the finger of suspicion not therefore point to members of that tribe of diligent workers known as the Labour party? (Strange name for a political party I always think, particularly since  the trade union branch has always been rather keen on reducing the number of hours their members have to work.)

One wonders if the likes of Alistair Campbell, Damian McBride or some other Labour spin doctor is helping behind the scenes. I do hope so and I do hope they lose these particular battles. There is one fearless non Labour tribesman though still diligently looking into the Hague/Meyer story and that is Guido Fawkes. What is his particular beef? Is it his detestation of Government expenditure, is it because he was not asked to approve the Meyers appointment or is it something else entirely?