CentreRight

Revisiting the moral case for low taxation

Thanks to the correspondent who tells me that my recent piece stirred up some discussion here and a second post here.  Let's just say that they disagree with me.

The Beeb needs to face up to bias against Israel

A couple of weeks ago the massive pro-Israel media watchdog HonestReporting released an analysis of the BBC's coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict in 2007. Amongst its conclusions were:

• The BBC virtually ceased reporting on Palestinian rocket attacks while detailing numerous Israeli military operations against Gaza.
• The BBC's headline selection for stories focused on combat and terrorist attacks was inconsistent and favored the Palestinian side.
• Images accompanying articles of combat or terrorist attacks were heavily sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective by a ratio of three to one.

The BBC sent them a response today. I say response, it was more of a brief, contemptuous anknowledgment of the report with no refutation of any of its findings:

"HonestReporting has a particular view of the conflict and cannot be seen as an independent arbiter of our output."

MoD - inept because it is unaccountable

Our troops in Afghanistan do not have enough helicopters.  Indeed, one almost wonders if they lack sufficient helicopters for airborne operations (hence, perhaps, recent American reinforcements?)  Yet, at the same time, the government is actually spending £Billions on helicopters.  So, what is going on?

Imagine if there was only one chain of restaurants in the town where you live.  It is a fair bet that you - and everyone else - would face long delays, find less choice, and pay over the odds.  That, put simply, is how we run defence procurement;  in politician-speak, it is called the "Defence Industrial Strategy".

Instead of shopping around for what is best, the MoD tends to buy off a few privileged suppliers.  And guess what?  The orders usually arrive late, are overpriced, and delivered the way it suits the contractor.

Let's see that quote in context

Over at ToryDairy – CentreRight's older and uglier sister – there's a post on David Cameron's interview with Times. The focus is on his alleged endorsement of parents who get religion just to get their children into faith schools.

Melanie Phillips is quoted:

For a politician who aspires to lead his country to endorse lying and cheating is to give the public the message that he himself is not to be trusted.

It's worth quoting something else she said in the same piece:

I say ‘if’ it is true because, although there is a summary reference to this in the paper’s report of the actual interview with Cameron, it does not actually appear – in the on-line version, at least – and therefore I cannot see what Cameron actually said.

Quite so.

I'd very much like to see the complete quote in its proper context. My guess is that this would make clear that David Cameron is defending the general principle that parents have every right to do the best for their children, rather than the specific practice of faking a faith one doesn't actually have.

TV licensing - two words, a world of irritation

Another year rolls round, another season comes... another letter from the bloody TV Licensing people.

NICE advice on the obvious

Yes, NICE, that institution of wisdom and rationing, have today announced that they have conclusive evidence that exercise is good for you and we should be doing more of it. Taxes being put to waste once again.

The reponse from Sustrans, of whom as a cyclist I am normally a fan, was:

"This guidance should be the final argument convincing the transport sector to make walking and cycling the first priority for local trips".

Hmmm. Methinks there isn't much money to be made for the transport sector in cycling and walking.... bicycle parking meters perhaps?

Au revoir to ID cards - a solution in search of a problem

Thank God for that - looks like ID cards have been kicked into touch, or at least quietly into the long grass. Cost has to be the primary reason, between £5-6 Billion for 10 years or quite a bit more than one of the new large aircraft carriers, a snip at £4 billion which will last 40. As a small island nation, we should be capable of securing our borders and knowing who is in the country. But if you don't control the borders, what's the point of ID cards?

Cameron fails to condemn motherhood or call for ban on apple pie

In an article on the American primaries in last week's Spectator, James Forsyth drew the following lesson for David Cameron:

"[He] should be worried by this yearning for authenticity. While his political evolution has not been anywhere near as dramatic as his critics make out, it is still hard for him to point to any time that he has risked his political career for a cause."

As grateful as we should be for James's excellent coverage of the primary season, he is being unfair – and all but admits it himself in the next sentence:

"(In part, this is because Cameron has repeatedly found himself to be pushing at open doors; few Tory strategists would have dared hope that his positions on marriage and welfare reform would turn out to be so popular both with voters and the press.)"

Cameron did indeed take a big risk in his defence of marriage. The fact that this met with a better than expected response is great but it does not diminish the courage of his initial stance. It would be a shame if political authenticity were to depend entirely on the championing of genuinely hopeless causes.

David Cameron may be pushing at open doors, but that's surely better than banging his head against a brick wall.

Advantage Republicans?

Are the Democrats beginning to blow their assumed advantage in the presidential election? As the fallout from Monday's rancorous presidential debate in South Carolina intensifies, The Guardian has a timely analysis about the spin and counter-spin being employed by the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Citing that the latest exchanges yesterday have brought "what has become a mean-spirited and negative campaign to a new low", the underlying tone implies concern on the Left that Clinton and Obama may cause so much damage in their nomination battle that a Republican could yet win the Presidency.

It's an interesting thought, as 'conventional wisdom' has suggested that it will be a Democrat year. We'll know more after the Republican Florida primary, but if John McCain or Rudy Giuliani triumph there, the Republicans will likely have a candidate after Super-Duper Tuesday whereas the Democrats may still be trapped in bitter deadlock. 

A distant process

People often tell me that they feel like the legal process is a distant and unapproachable thing, one they can't find out about or about which they can't gain an understanding.  This is particularly so in crime, my area, where one might think that the need for clarity is particularly strong.  Much of it - including, to our politicians' shame, the legislative process - often is rather opaque.  But there's a good example of transparency.

The sentencing process in this country is informed by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, on advice from the Sentencing Advisory Panel.  Their online home is here; the process by which they make guidelines is set out here; and a list of their guidelines produced thus far is here.

If only more of our regulations were as approachable as this.

Farewell to Fred

And so adieu to Fred Thompson from the Republican Presidential race. You came, you saw, you left in the manner that you had campaigned in. Quietly, and without much fanfare.

Your campaign was an abject lesson in the adage that timing is everything in politics. Your conservative voting record while in the Senate, and TV star credentials, had propelled you to opinion poll leads by early summer 2007. Yet you dawdled on making the decision to enter the race until all the momentum had drained away from behind you. In retrospect, it is pretty damning that you excited more coverage in that long, protracted and drawn out process than when you actually got going. 

Stick on trust and don't foam

Last Sunday I had the great honour of making the final of the Maidstone and the Weald selection just missing out to the refreshing Helen Grant.  There was an interesting dimension to the process in that we all faced an interview by Ian Hislop in-front of the membership.  It was a surprisingly enjoyable occasion and interesting to see he thought us of more talent than he expected (although his expectations may have been very low!).  There was an interesting moment when he turned to me and said, "Europe."  I looked back at him and said nothing.  He then said, "You are not answering the question."  I replied, "You have just said a word not asked a question." A little banter ensued before he asked, "Right the EU."  There was a clear expectation that at the mere mention of 'Europe' a Conservative candidate would spontaneously start to foam at the mouth.

Sometimes I think that we have not really understood that our Euroscepticism is now where the moderate mainstream of public opinion is and we no longer need to speak of it with the same passion as we did 10-15 years ago.  Thats why I believe that the ratification of the new treaty is such an opportunity and such a danger.  If we can keep the focus on the flagrant breaking of a manifesto promise and the pushing through of a treaty that we believe is bad for Britain then this debate will enhance our reputation with the public.  If we allow some of our more single issue friends on the airwaves then Ian Hislop's expectation of spontaneous foaming will be met and our reputation will be diminished.  Watching the excellent clip Tim put up earlier I'm sure William will get the balance spot on.

Re: Re: Bizarre new LibDem position on the EU Treaty

These are all good questions on my earlier post on the EU Treaty from James McConalogue. He is right to suggest this isn't actually a new policy from the LibDems, but what is new is the tortuous and contradictory explanation for their appalling volte face on having a referendum on the Constitution.

The real vote on having the Referendum is still to come. There will be an amendment tabled to the Bill to urge a Referendum in due course. It is difficult to be too optimistic about the ensuing vote - remember, this is not our fault, it is the fault of Labour and the LibDems failing to honour their pre-election pledge, which could not have been clearer in both cases. There will be more Labour rebels - and hopefully LibDem rebels too - who do the honourable thing and stick to their pledge. Last night's Second Reading vote wasn't strictly speaking about a Referendum, but about the Treaty itself. So MPs who are both pro-Treaty and pro-Referendum (like Frank Cook) voted with the Government. MPs like Gisela Stuart, who is passionately pro-Referendum, but more ambiguous on the Treaty itself, abstained last night.

To get an independent view on the prospects of a major Labour rebellion, see Philip Cowley's essential-reading website on Parliamentary rebellions.

William Hague in fine form

The Shadow Foreign Secretary entertains the Commons at the expense of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

More here.

Livingstone's law

Will last night’s Channel 4 documentary have helped to halt Livingstone’s Mayoral gravy-train? Corruption, incompetence and a manner towards his critics reminiscent of his most degraded political heroes, surely anyone thinking of voting for Livingstone must think again?

Sadly, history suggests that revealing the truth about the Mayor isn’t enough. Livingstone has abused his office and the citizens of London long enough for us to have learnt the following:

• That if Livingstone is held to account he is not being held to account like any other politician, but is instead the victim of a right-wing / Zionist witch-hunt.
• That if he is alleged to have mismanaged hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money by distributing it through professional incompetents like Lee Jasper, this is not mismanagement by the Mayor but certain racism on the part of his critics.
• That if he invites vicious reactionary clerics to London at tax-payers’ expense it is the critics of such an invitation rather than the bigot who has been invited who must be castigated and subjected to taxpayer-funded investigation.

Will EEstor change the world?

Energy security is a hot topic these days.

Even if you don't believe in climate change, you might believe that the oil is running out. And even if you don't believe the oil is running out then you probably believe that it is running out in nice, friendly countries who won't use their oil revenues to fund international terrorism.

Hence the interest in alternatives to oil. Biofuels have got all the attention so far, but what about electric cars? No need to turn over half our food production to making ethanol, instead you just plug the car into the mains (preferably supplied from low carbon sources).

Re: Bizarre new LibDem position on the EU Treaty

That is a very interesting report on last night’s debate but I almost saw this kind of offbeat Lib Dem amendment and its diversionary ‘membership referendum’ coming from months ago. I don’t say that as a matter of blowing my own trumpet, but I just don’t see how the Conservatives are going to have a significant parliamentary ‘British front’ to oppose the provisions within this Treaty.

You may be interested to know that Bill Cash said on the Today programme (reported by the BBC this morning) "It's obviously a matter of numbers and frankly it looks as though there aren't going to be quite enough rebels. … A lot is going to turn on the Liberal Democrats." If the Lib Dems are not backing the Conservatives, then isn’t the opposition over the Treaty going to be seen as a screen of hot air (albeit through no fault of their own)?

I also notice that the Labour backbencher opposition amounted to nothing – I wonder what happened to Ian Davidson’s 120 Labour MPs who were going to oppose this Treaty? Off sick? Perhaps they thought 19 was enough to give Miliband the jitters. Although I was never a europragmatist – dodgy eurosceptics who tended to think that by working with Labour rebels (with a different vision of Europe), we could win – it is a shame that more MPs did not come out to support the Labour rebels, to create some real pressure for a Labour split (a real split as opposed to a small fracture).

Brown was never a good economic manager

As the stock market plunges, we can expect to see more articles supporting an emerging press narrative that since he became Prime Minister Brown, unlike Blair, simply doesn't have luck on his side.This excuse may seem implausible, but it is of course consistent with the overwhelming majority of press coverage for the last decade, suggesting that he was a great Chancellor.

Allister Heath's piece at the end of last year exploding this myth of Brown's good record as Chancellor - Britain has had the slowest economic growth of all the main English-speaking countries since 1997 - is essential reading.

They tried to make her go to rehab (and she said, "no, no, no")

The quality press brings us the news that Amy Winehouse is on crack.

As to the truth or otherwise of this important news story, I can say nothing.  My work has shown me, though, that there's no such thing as a casual crack hobby.  It's highly addictive stuff and it ruins lives. If it is indeed so, then she needs help and I fear that our culture's adulatory approach to celebrity misbehaviour creates perhaps the worst environment in which to obtain it.

The danger of headlines

On Sunday evening I wrote a post entitled 'I'm for Hillary'.  Ben Rogers immediately misinterpreted it but kindly apologised very quickly afterwards.

I have since learnt of three other people who think I want Hillary Clinton to be the next US President.

My article was actually arguing that she should win the Democratic nomination because she'd be a better President than the inexperienced Barack Obama and also because I think she'd be easier for the Republicans to beat.

I'll be less tabloidly with my choice of headlines in future.

Bizarre new LibDem position on the EU Treaty

It was, at times, a bizarre debate on the new EU Treaty (a.k.a. Constitution) last night in the Commons. Labour and the LibDems were desperate to talk about anything other than their own betrayals of their election pledges to hold a referendum on the issue.

I think we all know why Labour has reneged on its pledge - it would lose a vote of the British people. David Miliband said he was "surprised" and "shocked" when Blair pledged a referendum in 2004 - I think what he really wanted to say was that Blair was mad to make the pledge. Labour's position is dishonest, but at least there is some cynical Realpolitik sense in it.

The LibDems' position, however, makes no sense at all. Their new foreign affairs spokesman, Ed Davey, made a tortured speech explaining why they were breaking their 2005 manifesto pledge. He claimed that what his party wanted was a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, but their proposed amendment was actually ruled out of order by the Speaker, as being irrelevant to the Bill. Ed Davey said this last night:

"we argue for a different referendum—a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union. Let us face it: a referendum on any EU treaty would become a referendum on the UK’s continued membership. Let us not have that debate by proxy on a treaty referendum. Let us have a debate that people want by asking a straightforward, in or out question"

A new masthead for CentreRight

CentreRight.com is entering its second week.  We hope you're enjoying it.  Have you noticed the sidebar lists of upcoming events, recent reports and centre-right organisations?

We'll be making some changes to the layout next week and this will include a design that gives the site an identity that is distinct from ConservativeHome.

The above banner is one rough idea for a new masthead.  What do you think?  If you have better ideas please email me with suggestions.

ConservativeHome readers came up with the tree logo for the party.  Comments are enabled on this post, perhaps you can help us with design ideas...

Brown in India

Gordon Brown wants India to have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. But what has he said about the plight of India's Dalits and tribals - 250 million people regarded by the caste system as "untouchable"? The Dalits are excluded from India's economic miracle, and exploited mercilessly - given the very worst jobs in society, denied education, enslaved, trafficked, subjected to violence, rape and abuse, and regarded as lower than animals. Caste discrimination is a new form of apartheid.

And what has Gordon said about India's foreign policy? India has been one of the Burmese regime's biggest allies - silent in the face of tyranny, and actively providing arms, military training and economic investment directly to the Generals in Burma. If India is to be a permanent member of the UNSC, it should not simply be another China - an irresponsible sponsor of thuggish genocidal regimes which blocks any international effort to bring change to such situations. If Brown wants India on the UNSC, he needs to help India change its foreign policy, live up to the democratic values it is based on as the world's largest democracy, and tackle the scandal of caste.

Why Ken Livingstone is not fit for office

Apologies for not posting this link earlier but I thought I'd share Nick Cohen's piece in this Sunday's Observer in which he launches an outspoken attack on Ken Livingstone, his "tawdry political history" and his "dubious allies".

Describing Ken as "unfit to be the Labour candidate for mayor of London", Cohen offers an interesting insight into the Mayor's links with far-left groups funded by Saddam Hussein and Socialist Action's grip on City Hall.

With the Boris/Ken catfight likely to be decided by only a few percentage points, Ken can certainly do without attacks of this sort from his supposed allies at The Grauniad.

Re: It's law and order stupid!

Three cheers to the Sun - and to Rob Halfon for highlighing their campaign!  Britain's criminal justice system is monumentally useless.  Too often the forces of law and order no longer seem to chase the wrong-doers through the streets or the courts.  Add to that an insulting system of "offender management" and human rights culture, and it is no surprise that the law-abiding are starting to lose faith.

What have successive politicians done about it?  With few exceptions, they just talk.

We will only get the criminal justice system to work for us when it answers directly to us.  We need directly elected police chiefs and prosecutors and properly accountable judges.