This article on the Blairite think-tank Progress' website seems to suggest they do.
"Laurie Penny, staff writer for One in Four magazine, argues that Gordon Brown should be judged on his record as prime minister, not the state of his mental health"
President Obama no longer enjoys stratospheric opinion poll ratings. He has come down to earth because he misread his mandate. He was elected as a moderate alternative to the Bush years but he is governing like a radical (particularly on public debt and healthcare reform).
Too many Americans do hate President Obama because of the colour of his skin but the main reason for the current opposition is more simple: Many, many Americans do not like the substance of his healthcare plans. They are expensive and may not deliver better care.
Yesterday former President Jimmy Carter stepped into the debate and said an "overwhelming portion" of the opposition had a racist dimension. Video report below:
This is dangerous politics. As Tony Harnden warned, "calling critics of Obama racist is this way can all too easily be a way of trying to make all criticism of Obama a kind of hate speech." Toby concluded: "That’s no way of conducting a free and open debate."
This tendency - particularly among the Left - poisons politics. The media have a duty to really test the person who accuses others of racism. People who issue smears (like Edward McMillan-Scott) should be subject to intense examination. Mark Mardsell, the BBC's new North America editor, disappoints with his response. He simply covers the allegation of racism but then refuses to examine whether it has an adequate basis. The headlines on Radio 4 this morning simply report President Carter's smear. That is not good journalism.
All this reminds me of one of my favourite political bumper stickers:
By Lucy Parsons, Senior Economics Researcher, Reform
Speaking at the Spectator conference today, George Osborne claimed victory in the debate on public spending cuts. The Shadow Chancellor said that the Conservative Party had taken the “hard path” by choosing to tell the truth that “spending will have to be cut whoever wins the election”.
On the latter point, George Osborne is absolutely right. Reform wrote back in April that the future health of the UK economy and public services depended on the country moving “back to black” and addressing the major cause of the fiscal crisis – namely, excessive public expenditure. All the main parties now see to have reached agreement on this, although there remains a distracting debate over semantics.
George Osborne was also right to say that what this means is that a “credible commitment to cut spending” and get to grips with the UK’s record budget deficit is critical. The latest Sunday Times poll showed that 60 per cent of the public support spending cuts to address the growing hole in the public finances. Yet a credible plan setting out where the cuts would fall and what they would mean for public services is still missing from the Conservatives’ rhetoric.
Today, Reform publishes a paper by Vince Cable which sets out the Liberal Democrats’ plans for public spending cuts. Tackling the fiscal crisis: A recovery plan for the UK goes further than other UK politicians have dared. The paper spells out what a credible commitment to spending cuts really looks out. It means setting priorities in government spending. It means real cuts in many areas. And, critically, it means no ring fencing of particular budgets. The “big ticket” items – health, welfare, education and defence – are where the real savings will be made.
Continue reading "A credible plan for tackling the UK’s fiscal crisis" »
Andrew Lilico is Policy Exchange's Chief Economist.
Cameron and
Osborne are coming under increasing pressure to spell out an explicit list of planned
spending cuts. Some of this pressure,
naturally, comes from their political opponents, but there have also been lists
of cuts propose by, among others Reform (£30bn) and last week the Taxpayers’
Alliance and the Institute of Directors (£50bn). Whilst it is useful for think tanks to produce
ideas for debate, I believe it is a mistake when they go further and demand of
political parties — especially of opposition parties — that they spell out
their own alternative lists. I shall
explain why.
First, we
should note that the lists of cuts set out so far are simply not enough. For headline public spending to fall by the
£65bn or more required, core spending needs to fall by upwards of £100bn,
because in the short-term there will be £35bn or more of additional spending required
as a fairly unavoidable consequence of the recession and the consequent
unemployment to come.
This point
of scale is crucial. If the cuts
required were only, say, £5bn, it might make sense to identify specifically
what they are intended to be. But to cut
£100bn means cutting across an enormous area of public spending. To make cuts on this scale, it is vital that,
before they are committed to in detail, bureaucrats in the relevant departments
have the opportunity to fine-tune the scheme.
Otherwise, what will happen in practice is that some cuts “committed to”
in opposition will prove undeliverable in government. Once that starts to happen, then other
departments or programmes scheduled for cuts will ask why they are being
targeted when others on the supposedly fixed cuts list were spared. The whole programme could quickly unravel.
Continue reading "Why the Conservative Party should not spell out a list of explicit cuts" »
Gordon Brown has cost the UK £3 trillion, run up a £700 billion budget deficit and forced a prospective Conservative government into making some tough decisions.
Yesterday marked the release of my new book, co-authored with David Craig, called Fleeced! How we’ve been betrayed by the politicians, bureaucrats and bankers…and how much they’ve cost us. It is the very first book to bring together the total cost of government spending, the bailouts, the banking crisis and Westminster expenses scandal in one comprehensive text and lays bare the terrible truth about Gordon Brown’s criminal miscalculations since he assumed control of the UK economy in 1997.
Yesterday also marked the start of the TUC conference. As Tim Montgomerie has noted elsewhere on this site, no one has taken much notice of this event for some time, but with public sector cuts now high on the political agenda and Labour floundering around for any support it can muster, the TUC has once again become worthy of media attention.
Unsurprisingly, despite the dire financial straits in which Britain currently resides, the unions are looking to protect public sector jobs, wages, expenses and gold-plated pensions from any planned cuts (which is ironic given that Unison has recently abolished their own employee final-salary pension).
Nevertheless, the TUC may not be alone in trying to block spending cuts by the next Government – there are other vested interests which the Conservatives (assuming they are the next Government) will come up against, and it could be politically expedient for the Party to take them on straight away.
First are the consultants, who George Osborne rightly highlighted in his conference speech last year as a source of spending cuts to off-set council tax rises. By our reckoning, consultants cost the British taxpayer £2.8 billion a year. The NHS, for instance, spends around £600 million a year on management consultants, a cool £15,000 per manager in an already bloated system.
Continue reading "The other vested interests lobbying for taxpayers’ money" »
"21st Century political discourse essentially has two modes. One is the staccato construction – full of short, verbless sentences – used by modern political leaders for addressing a mass or televised audience. The other is the obscure technocratic gobbledegook reserved for experts, at which the Prime Minister (among others) excels." - Peter Oborne, Sir Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture, March 2009
Earlier this year Peter Oborne made a passionate appeal for integrity in modern politics. He’s right, but I would also argue that we need a lot more artistry and creativity in politics.
Take speechwriting. Most speechwriting is done by apparatchiks. If someone on the Front Bench was looking for a speechwriter, they would probably look for someone who entirely agreed with the party line. This is neither necessary or desirable. Why not employ someone from a creative writing course or a budding poet?
The skill of speechwriting, like playwriting, is to reach out to everyone in a persuasive way. You have to respect the party line, but the way you deliver it, has to appeal to people who might not have ever considered voting for you. Lots of people complain that the Conservatives are not saying anything: a skilled writer can at least say nothing elegantly.
Continue reading "Brian Jenner: Out with the spin doctors, In with the speechwriters" »
Approximately half of the coastline of England and Wales is made of rocks that make the coastline vulnerable to coastal erosion (various types of sandstone and clays, chalk and limestone). This is roughly the area from South Devon eastwards, including most of the south coast and the entire east coast of England. Sea defence is a hugely important local issue in many of these areas. Nearly 2/3 of constituencies along it are Conservative controlled and many of the rest are seats we need to win. While even on the west coast of England and Wales, there are many low lying areas that are subject to coastal flooding. So this is a serious issue that a future Conservative government should have a clear well thought policy on.
There are also important principles of conservatism, such as localism and community – allowing people to act on behalf of their own community rather than restricting some activities to the government, that we should be seeking to apply in developing a much clearer and more coherent approach to sea defence policy than the present government is doing.
Six principles for future sea defence policy
1. There should be a presumption in favour of landowners being allowed to build their own sea defences – as they have done for at least a thousand years. Regulation is principally needed a) where defences interfere with longshore drift of sediment and so could adversely affect erosion rates in other areas; and b) where proposed sea defences have a significantly adverse affect on the visual appearance of the coast. However, where neither of these apply, landowners should not have to face a lengthy application process to build basic sea defence structures such as clay banks to protect their land.
2. County councils, rather than district councils, to be designated as the key local authority responsible for sea defence. This would enable allow local councils to employ specialist sea defence staff, rather than simply relying on employing costly engineering consultancy firms. Equally importantly, it would enable much of the DEFRA funding currently channelled through the Environment Agency to be devolved to elected local councils. A forthcoming Conservative green paper will advocate devolving powers from unelected quangos to elected local councils. The Environment Agency would be an excellent example to start with.
3. Joined up government: The impact of climate change means that sea levels are already rising, something that increases Britain’s vulnerability to both coastal flooding and to more extensive coastal erosion. Moreover, as it takes up to 100 years for atmospheric carbon to break down, it is almost inevitable that sea levels will rise still further even with significant reductions in carbon emissions. Yet, the present government currently only spends around 0.1% of public spending on sea defence. To put this into context, this is enough to build just 10 miles of sea wall. Whilst there is no question that public spending will have to be cut in the immediate future, there is an urgent need to give relatively greater weight to sea defence spending if we are not to find ourselves in a few years times facing significantly greater expenditure.
We should not forget that the 1953 North Sea storm surge affected not just coastal areas, but also flooded huge areas of the Norfolk, Suffolk, and Cambridgeshire up to 30 miles inland. 307 people drowned, 30,000 had to be evacuated, while 24,000 homes were destroyed with total damage estimated at between £30 and £50 million (in 1953 prices). The present urgency of giving greater priority to sea defence was well illustrated in November 2007when a similar North Sea storm surge was only a few centimeters short of over topping existing flood defences in East Anglia.
Over the last few years, much has been written about the obscene travel allowances Members of the European Parliament are able to claim in order to make their way to Brussels and Strasbourg.
Following a campaign by the Conservatives and other reform-minded Euro-deputies, the start of the 2009 session saw the abolition of the previous indefensible scheme which saw MEPs reimbursed for their maximum journey price even when flying to Brussels on budget airlines.
It now appears, however, that the European Parliament has implemented a similarly unacceptable system which, while not diverting cash surpluses to MEPs directly, does absolutely nothing to encourage members to reflect value for taxpayers’ money in their travel arrangements.
Figures that I have obtained on request from the European Parliament’s internal travel provider Carlson Wagonlit reveal the excessive travel fares MEPs are able to charge in order to arrange lavish executive-style travel to Brussels and Strasbourg.
At 2,174 € and 2,225 € respectively, the most expensive fare budgeted return fares to Brussels and Strasbourg is recorded as being from the Finnish capital of Helsinki. A quick glance at Skyscanner, an online flight price comparison website, reveals this same journey to be available for £479.10 travelling on Monday 14th and returning on Thursday 17th September – the dates of the Parliament’s next Strasbourg session. In short, even this last-minute price of £479.10 equates to roughly 550 € or a quarter of the maximum journey price for the Helsinki to Strasbourg route.
The London to Strasbourg route is little better, with MEPs being given a budget of 1,002 € in order to make their way to the Parliament’s plenary sessions - a journey some such as CentreRight’s own Dr Charles Tannock undertake by train each month at a mere fraction of the cost. Quite apart from the wasteful nature of the Strasbourg sessions, this budget is clearly dramatically overblown. Flights booked this lunchtime (less than 48 hours before travelling) in order to travel on Monday morning and return on Thursday afternoon are available for under 500 €.
With the general public – and many European Union member states - tightening their belts in these straitened economic times, European Parliamentarians must now reflect this in their travel entitlements.
This isn’t about left versus right, pro-EU or anti-EU; it’s about doing what’s right.
The full list of maximum permissible claims is as follows:
|
Capital City |
To Brussels |
To Strasbourg |
|
Amsterdam |
455 € |
965 € |
|
Athens |
1,738 € |
1,983 € |
|
Berlin |
1,139 € |
1,699 € |
|
Bratislava |
1,248 € |
1,507 € |
|
Brussels |
n/a |
540 € |
|
Bucharest |
1,661 € |
2,048 € |
|
Budapest |
1,223 € |
1,516 € |
|
Copenhagen |
1,265 € |
1,525 € |
|
Dublin |
1,369 € |
1,501 € |
|
Helsinki |
2,174 € |
2,225 € |
|
Lisbon |
2,087 € |
2,112 € |
|
Ljubljana |
1,261 € |
1,617 € |
|
London |
616 € |
1,002 € |
|
Luxembourg |
101.60 € (train) |
104.80 € (train) |
|
Madrid |
1,840 € |
1,857 € |
|
Nicosia |
1,140 € |
1,070 € |
|
Paris |
270 € |
248 € |
|
Prague |
1,535 € |
1,693 € |
|
Riga |
1,174 € |
1,750 € |
|
Rome |
1,829 € |
1,581 € |
|
Sofia |
1,992 € |
2,192 € |
|
Stockholm |
1,674 € |
1,593 € |
|
Tallinn |
1,151 € |
1,445 € |
|
Valletta |
1,255 € |
1,377 € |
|
Vienna |
1,716 € |
1,747 € |
|
Vilnius |
1,217 € |
1,642 € |
|
Warsaw |
1,170 € |
1,599 € |
The above fares exclude taxes. Flexible business fares are normally the fares taken into account by the European Parliament to set the maximum airfare that can be spent for a specific event or for regular trips to Brussels or Strasbourg. They are subject to change.
By Roger Helmer MEP
To bowdlerise a well-known phrase, Gordon Brown is an apologetic man with much to apologise about. And now he has decided to issue a "personal apology" for the treatment of mathematician Alan Turing in 1952.
Alan Turing was an amazing intellect. He did groundbreaking work on artificial intelligence. He created the conceptual framework for modern computing. His work at Bletchley Park during the Second World War made an extraordinary contribution to victory, by unravelling German codes.
He was also a homosexual, at a time when homosexuality was a criminal offence in Britain. In 1952, he was prosecuted for homosexuality, and convicted, and, apparently, "chemically castrated". In despair, he killed himself with cyanide (though there were suspicions of foul play).
To us in the 21st century, it is almost inconceivable that anyone, least of all a war hero, should be prosecuted, shamed and cruelly punished simply for being homosexual. It is something which all decent people will surely regret, and see as a grave injustice. We should be glad that we live in more tolerant and liberal times.
But I still have a problem with the need felt by politicians to apologise for deeds that were done while they were still in nappies, or before, and for which they clearly bear no personal responsibility. We regret the persecution of homosexuals. We regret eugenics. Going further back, we regret the slave trade. We regret the Roman practice of sacrificing early Christians to the lions in the arena. But for those who played no part in these abuses to affect to apologise for them is merely mawkish and self-indulgent. And for the distant descendants of ancient victims to claim compensation on behalf of their ancestors, as is now the case with the slave trade, is preposterous.
Gordon Brown has plenty of things to apologise for where he is genuinely responsible, where he carries a heavy burden of responsibility for the damage he has done to Britain and the British economy. Let him start to make reparations for those things, rather than offer spurious apologies for things he never did.
Recent Comments