CentreRight

Livingstone's BNP

I was in the audience for the Intelligence Squared / Sky News Mayoral debate on Monday night and am delighted to see that Martin Parsons has mentioned here the crucial issue that the press seem to be missing.  On Monday Boris once again stated that he didn't want the second-votes of people voting for the BNP.  It is of course odious that a conservative could even be thought to appeal to such thugs and fascists so that such a refutation should be required.  But the Livingstone corollary has barely been looked at, or the respective follow-on questions asked of him.

When confronted with the fact that his campaign for re-election was being supported by Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood supporters, Livingstone's response was that you can't choose your supporters.  As the Boris Johnson - BNP issue has shown, of course you can.  Or at the very least, you can suggest who should not support you.

Perhaps before the voters go to the polls Mr Livingstone might consider announcing that he does not want the first or second preference votes of people who support terrorism.  At the same time, perhaps he might rescind his comments of endorsement for that degraded former comrade of his who has propagandised for Baathist dictator after Baathist dictator.

What made Obama finally disown his pastor?

Two days ago Rev Wright appeared at the National Press Club and put in a performance that Toby Harnden described as "angry", "defiant", "proud" and "unrepentant".  He was, blogged Toby, "determined to be vindicated".  His bodyguards were from Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.

Yesterday Barack Obama finally distanced himself from Rev'd Wright - his pastor for twenty years, the man who married him, baptised his daughters and prayed with him on the morning on which he announced his presidential bid:

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church.  But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the U.S. wartime efforts with terrorism — then there are no excuses. They offend me.  They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced, and that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.”

Watch the video here.

One of the reasons I love Kipling

In the course of an ongoing discussion over at the Corner, John Derbyshire has had cause to recall a passage from one of Evelyn Waugh's essays on Kipling:

He was a conservative in the sense that he believed civilization to be something laboriously achieved which was only precariously defended. He wanted to see the defences fully manned and he hated the liberals because he thought them gullible and feeble, believing in the easy perfectibility of man and ready to abandon the work of centuries for sentimental qualms.

Political positionings, 1997-2010

As I've written before, in my view British General Elections are won on what I call "positionings", not policies.  All that a few key policies do is to vivify the positioning and make it seem credible (or otherwise).  Here's what I think have been the main parties' positionings since 1997

1997

Labour: "Thatcherism with a human face"

Conservatives: "When we lose, it will be nice to take a break from arguing with each other over Europe, so we can spend more time doing what we really enjoy - like taking bribes and cheating on our wives."

2001

Labour: "The fruits of prudence for the reform of the public services"

Conservatives: "Run! Run! The Germans are coming!"

2005

Labour: "It's the economy, stupid (...but Don't Mention The War!)"

Conservatives: "Are you thinking what we're thinking?  (Probably not, but we thought we'd ask, just in case...)"

Gordon Brown and the extended GP hours fraud

Gordon Brown’s mendacity on the Today programme was breathtaking. I will leave others to comment on his deception about the tax burden. But then he said that he had increased GP's hours and made them “more available” to patients. I can comment on that. Weasel words. The new programme has not yet started. PCTs are only now sending out details of the government’s proposals; a set of complex rules and regulations issued in the normal top-down way which will force us to work in a protocol driven, inflexible and inefficient manner. It is a complex issue but basically GPs wil be compelled to offer out of hours appointments to those who need them least and at the same time be prevented from offering them to patients who need them most (full explanation here). This is for polyclinics, not for professionals.

If GPs meet the letter of the law (there is no spirit behind it) then we may be notionally more available but in reality we will see fewer patients. Whilst the patients and the taxpayer suffers, the government will continue to say that they have improved the service. It beggars belief.

What's the point of the Christian Peoples Alliance?

Peter Whittle rightly picked up on the pathetic, politically correct censorship of the CPA's advert yesterday. But the fact that it gave the CPA some of the only media coverage its mayoral campaign has had - although I acknowledge the frustrating media regulations small parties have had to deal with - leads me on to a question that has been niggling me for a while. This post will therefore be a little longer than normal!

When Michael Gerson was over here meeting various conservative thinkers a few weeks ago he also spoke at a lunch with a number of London-based Christian leaders. When asked about the role that Christians play in British politics they all expressed frustration at the tendency of some to retreat into Christian political groups instead of playing a positive role in mainstream politics. The main example being the Christian Peoples Alliance. What does it achieve?

Boris should challenge Ken Livingstone and other Labour/Lib-Dem candidates to reject the Islamist vote

Islamist groups and white racist parties fall into the same category - they both want to give preferential treatment to some people and discriminate against others. The Islamist group the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) is calling on its followers to vote for Ken Livingstone and other named Labour and Lib-Dem London assembly candidates, who they see as sympathetic to their cause.

The MAB are anti-Semitic, with key leaders having strong links to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which aims at the total annihilation of Israel. The current MAB president Muhammad Sawalha was previously a member of the military structure of Hamas, where he is reported to have organised and facilitated terrorist activities before coming to the UK in 1990.

The MAB was set up in 1997 by Kamal al-Helbawy, the London based spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood along with other Islamists including Azzam Tamimi. Tamimi who acts as an adviser to the Hamas leadership also happens to be the leader of the Muslims4Ken campaign, which Ken Livingstone has been working closely with for the last year...

Boris was absolutely right to say he didn't want the BNP vote - we would expect nothing less of him. HOWEVER, we have yet to hear Ken Livingstone or other Labour/Lib-Dem London assembly candidates say they don't want the Islamist votes...

Easterhouse, Alabama

Slate has an interesting piece on John McCain's tour of America's "forgotten places":

McCain is planning to speak in inner cities, heavily African-American sections of the South, and poor sections of Appalachia. Most of his stops will be in areas where voters have traditionally supported Democrats... That no Republican nominee has done a tour like this before should signal that it's high-risk."

Will the risk pay-off?

Only if McCain's effort is sustained. If this tour looks like a stunt, then all the grand claims the McCain team is making for it—that the tour is driven by McCain's sense of duty and openness—will boomerang. As a candidate who wants to represent all the people, his aides say, he can't keep himself from going before all different kinds of people, even if it's a risk. But all that deep-convictions talk could easily come to look like a sham. McCain doesn't want to go out to prove he's the real thing only to end up looking like another phony.

When Iain Duncan Smith made his first visit to Easterhouse in Glasgow, the cynics expected it to be his last. In fact it marked the beginning of a sustained Conservative engagement with Britain's hardpressed communities. I hope that John McCain might be about to start something similar.

Jeremiah Wright

The Revd Wright has given a remarkable demonstration of how not to explain one's press clanger - i.e. - by dropping a few more - and it is covered well by Alex Spillius (what a great name) over at the Telegraph.

"Has America lost its moral authority?" - The BBC's concept of a balanced debate

Listen here.

So, this "debate" was between Will Self, who thought that the wickedness and incompetence of the Bush regime has led America to lose its moral authority, and that this was not compensated for by the possibility of future democratic response, and Simon Schama, who agreed completely that Bush regime has been wicked and incompetent, but argued that this has not led America to lose its moral authority, because this wickedness and incompetence would in due course be addressed through a democratic response.

The possibility that the Bush regime is not wicked and incompetent and has not damaged US moral authority appeared not sufficiently live to be worth mentioning by anyone, even the interviewer...

From GOATS to OATS

First we had a ‘Government of all the Talents’ and now we have an ‘Opposition of all the Talents’ following Kate Hoey’s decision to agree to work with Boris Johnson, should he be elected.

Kate Hoey is in fact at least consistent.  Unlike members of the Government, who used to take the same view, Ms Hoey has always believed that Ken Livingstone is unfit to be Mayor of London.  So, if she does have the Whip taken away from her, it will be for merely holding views that many in the Labour party held, until it was politically inconvenient to do so.

Moreover, how can she be punished for becoming an ‘Oat’, when Gordon Brown was quick to recruit ‘Goats’ into his Government, when it was thought there would be an election. What will be interesting to observe is the post Thursday scenario:  Will there be more Labour figures tempted to become Oats as well? Perhaps some of the existing ‘Goats’ like Digby Jones and Lord West, might realise the error of their ways and metamorphose into an Oat?

If it emerges that Gordon Brown and the Chancellor have been ‘economical with the truth’ with Frank Field over the 10p tax reversal compensation scheme, will he be tempted to join his long time friend and ally, the MP for Vauxhall?  Only time will tell.

The nationalisation of financial advice

The Conservatives are today claiming credit for the introduction of a National Money Guidance Service. Regardless of which party thought of it first, it's a bad idea to impose a  'Social Responsibility Levy' (ie a tax) to pay for 'independent' (ie Government-approved) advisors. Especially when it will be 'delivered' by the FSA.  A supervisory body which failed spot trouble brewing at Northern Rock is the last place I should look for a guarantee of financial wisdom.

The Mosque and the media

The Times reports today that the BBC is facing a High Court challenge after it insisted on changes to an election broadcast in which the Christian Choice party voiced opposition to the building of Europe’s biggest mosque next to the site of the 2012 Olympics.

The short film would have described Tablighi Jamaat, the Islamic group behind the mosque, as “a separatist Islamic group. Tablighi Jamaat, the Times reports, opposes inter-faith dialogue and preaches that non-Muslims are an evil and corrupting influence. One of its British advocates has said that it aims to rescue Muslims from the culture and civilisation of Jews and Christians by creating “such hatred for their ways as human beings have for urine and excreta”.

The BBC refused to accept “separatist” — the corporation asked for “controversial” instead — and barred the use of “moderate Muslims” because the phrase implied that Tablighi Jamaat was less than moderate.

Forty years of the Abortion Act

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children marked the anniversary with fifty events across the country.

Away from the metropolis...

Three days to go to the Mayoral election and you can't move in London without seeing the Evening Standard doing their bit with an anti-Ken headline.  Meanwhile, outside the capital, it is really pleasing to see that general election campaigns are going great guns in the kind of seats we need to see turned around to ensure a Cameron government.  This News of the World piece may not have grabbed the interest of the literati but I can tell you that it (and the big boost in the polls it describes) has buoyed up campaigns in seats like Luton North and South no end (is your electorate on their list of seats that may fall to the Tories?  If so, what did you think?). 

An outrageous proposition

James Forsyth perceives a possible glimmer of hope for Gordon Brown:

"The silver lining to the current spate of bad news stories for the Prime Minister is that expectations for Labour’s performance in the elections this week are now so low that if Labour just holds the London Mayoralty and the Tories fail to cross the 40 percent threshold, Brown will be boosted. Like Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries, mere survival will be enough to win Brown good headlines."

However, James floats the notion that this would be "the worst result for Brown" because a drubbing would make him "confront his problems". Others go further, speculating that a drubbing would force Brown out of Office altogether.

Wishful thinking, in both cases. Gordon Brown isn't going to change his personality and Labour isn't going to change its leader. The former is impossible and the latter unthinkable before a general election. Brown's colleagues must surely realise that the idea of presenting the country with a second unelected Prime Minister in the space of year is unconscionable.

YouGov’s Mayoral Polling

(For the record, as well as being a contributor to CentreRight, I am also co-founder of YouGov)

As you can see from Harry’s post, YouGov does have significantly different numbers from the other pollsters on the mayoral race. Obviously we think we’re right, as we were last time, but there is one considerable uncertainty: turnout. Usually the sample that pollsters talk to is reasonably similar to the active voting population, but in elections such as this one, with historically low levels of participation, deciding which (if any) ‘likely-voter’ filters to apply is tricky. With any polling methodology there tends to be strong over-claiming by respondents – not because they are necessarily fibbing about their certainty to vote, they may really believe it, but can’t be bothered on the day.

With high differential levels of support at different likelihoods of voting, this can become highly consequential. The outer boroughs tend to be more pro-Boris than pro-Ken, but tend to feel less identified as Londoners and so have not in past mayoral elections voted in the number that might be expected. Boris may change that. Meanwhile people in inner-London, who tend to be more pro-Ken, may be fired-up by fear of a Tory winning London for the first time in a generation. Turnout will be the deciding factor in this race, but our poll today suggests that Ken has a mountain to climb in the three days that remain.

Please note: contrary to the implication in the graphic accompanying Harry's post, today's is NOT our final poll: one more to come!

Boris lead up to 11%

According to a YouGov poll for today's Evening Standard.

    * Boris 46% (Up 2)
    * Livingstone 35% (Down 2)
    * Brian Paddick
    * Sian Berry (Green Party)
    * Others 

Boris's lead on second preferences is 10%. Boris is on 55% to Livingstone's 45%. Quick! Off to the bookies. Can't see vote shares for Paddick or Berry, I'm afraid.

Also in the Evening Standard (just 50p from all good newsagents) is news that Brian Cooke, the Chairman of TravelWatch, London's independent travel watchdog, is backing Boris.  "It is time for a change," he says. "

Sometimes one wonders whether the truth and Mr Livingstone sit together at all. Ken has paid lip service to real consultation on a whole raft of issues and I don't believe Boris will have the arrogance of the 'Ken knows best' policy." Cooke backed Livingstone in the previous elections. Also a pretty desperate smear campaign among Muslim voters by Livingstone supporters that Boris would ban the Koran.

Please do not crucify Rose Gibb again

Sitting here watching the Panorama programme on C. Diff I am getting angrier and angrier. Please do not not crucify Rose Gibb again. She is not personally responsible for C. Difficile. What happened in Maidstone is not exceptional. But Maidstone is to be the scapegoat and Rose Gibb is to be held responsible.

Don't get me wrong. There is a problem. And all doctors know there is problem. And we know how to solve the problem. There are not enough nurses. The government targets have increased the throughput of patients to unmanageable proportions. Beds are too close. Sheets are not changed. The bed occupancy rate is unsustainable. The truth is that it is not Rose Gibb who needs to be dismissed. It is not her fault. The fault lies at the feet of Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Alan Johnson, and Patricia Hewitt. And do not be fooled by the deep cleaning initiative. It was a con. An expensive con.

Don't believe a word of it (full report here).

Moqtada al-Sadr's last stronghold falls to Iraqi troops

The picture from Basra is now becoming clearer.  The operations that began at the end of March have succeeded - to a considerable extent - in ending militia dominance of the city.

In the same way that Sunni-US co-operation blossomed after al-Qaeda had overplayed its hand by terrorising the communities it controlled, it may be that the Shia militias have sickened public opinion against them.  This from AFP:

"Iraqi forces have taken control of the last militia stronghold of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in the southern city of Basra, the US military said in a statement on Saturday. It said Iraqi troops began the last stage of Operation Saulat al-Farsan (Charge of the Knights) on Friday in Basra's northern neighbourhood of Al-Huteen, a bastion of Sadr's Mahdi Army militia. The operation included clearing and searching homes in the area, it said. "Al-Huteen, part of the Five Mile Market neighbourhood of Basra, had been considered a stronghold for criminal elements of the Jaysh al-Mahdi (Mahdi Army) militia," the statement said. "But, when the soldiers.... moved into the city, the local citizens actively welcomed and cooperated with them."

And this from Friday's Times:

"Young women are daring to wear jeans, soldiers listen to pop music on their mobile phones and bands are performing at wedding parties again.  All across Iraq’s second city life is improving, a month after Iraqi troops began a surprise crackdown on the black-clad gangs who were allowed to flourish under the British military. The gunmen’s reign had enforced a strict set of religious codes..."

The ringleader of trouble in southern Iraq - Al-Sadr "is believed to be in Iran" (IHT).  Enough said.

There's still a long way to go in southern Iraq but the Maliki initiative - although flawed - appears to have given Basra a new chance of peace.

Anyone but Obama

I've always thought that you can tell the quality of an American politician by their attitude to trade.  In the States it is so easy, but so unimpressive, for a politician of any ideological stripe to make a populist appeal to protectionist instincts.  American protectionism can cause so much harm to both their own prosperity and the world economy but it offers easy wins for a politician willing to pander to the protectionists.

Lawson's excellent article in the Independent yesterday sets out just how dismal Obama has been on this issue:

"Obama is one of three Congressional sponsors of "The Patriot Employer Act", which seeks to give preferential tax status to American companies that choose not to invest overseas. His anti-globalisation rhetoric goes far beyond criticism of free-trade deals such as Nafta. Obama told voters in New Hampshire:"I would stop the import of all toys from China". China supplies 80 per cent of the toys sold in the US, so that's one heck of a pile of embargoed fluffy bunnies."

Ignore the critics and take Quilliam seriously

Writing in last Thursday's Guardian, Ziauddin Sardar claims that "to lionise former extremists feeds anti-Muslim prejudice". Former Islamists, he argues, "are part of the problem not part of the solution". His argument then descends into unwarrented abuse (albeit with more subtlety and sophistication than some other critics) towards the Quilliam Foundation, the new organisation launched last week by Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz (I wrote about it here) . He concludes with the punchy but wholly inappropriate analogy - "we cannot allow former lunatics to take over the asylum".

Sardar's argument is misleading. He has a point, that we should be engaging the millions of ordinary, moderate, peaceful British Muslims who have never dreamed of becoming involved in Islamism. But he goes too far in suggesting we do that instead of listening to groups like Quilliam and people like Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz. Surely, surely, we should do both?

If you needed another reason to vote for Boris...

...we learn that Ken Livingstone has backed George Galloway's bid to become a member of the Greater London Assembly.  "I would like to think we could work together and he'd form part of a broad coalition with the Greens and us against the Tories and Islamophobes," Red Ken told the East London Advertiser.

Hat-tip to Harry's Place.

Re: Calling a spade a spade

Sam asks whether terms like 'Islamic terrorist', 'Islamofascist' or 'Islamist' can be replaced by "culturally sensitive" alternatives.

I think they can, but first of all let me say why I think they should be:

The terms 'Islamist' and 'Islamism' are unhelpful and confusing to most people. It is by no means obvious why the suffix '-ic' should apply to the religion, while the suffix '-ist' should apply to a violent political movement that takes the religion as its inspiration. I'd guess that most people are unsure or unaware of the distinction between the two. As a result, condemnation of 'Islamists' and 'Islamism' could well sound like a condemnation of Islam itself.

As it happens, 'Islamism' was once in common use as a name for Islam, and to this day we still use the '-ism' suffix for many other religions including Buddhism and Hinduism. I wonder what we would call a terrorist who claimed Buddhism as an inspiration – a Buddhistist?

So, on all sorts of levels, this is a flawed terminology and it should be dropped.

On being Special

May I be indulged by the readers (and of course, the editor) of CentreRight in some shameless self-promotion?  My new book, LOOK AT ME: Celebrating the Self in Modern Britain, is about to be published by the Social Affairs Unit,and I'm sure would be of interest to many people here. And at just over 100 pages, it's a nice short read.

LOOK AT ME explores the demoralization and division which comes with the modern need to claim uniqueness, regardless of talent or deed. By shouting the loudest, by being the most visible, or simply by thumping people the hardest, the attention-seekers destroy the privacy of others and contribute to the fragmentation of public life.

Meanwhile real achievement and genuine talent are devalued. With no genuine claim to uniqueness, some wannabes ride their emotions. They self-dramatise. They show off. They demand our attention.