Timmyhawk

YOU'RE AWAY FOR 2 MONTHS
And all sorts of stuff changes.
David Cameron? Back in late September I argued with someone that theoretically the Tories would be making a comeback soon, but that beyond the theory Cameron was just not cutting it. Now he's kicking polling ass.
Mean while the mighty Gordon Brown has descended into a farce and we've gone from weekly crises to daily ones. At the current rate, will he last a year?
Defence and military equipment has become a serious issue in political debate. Mind, the content of said debate may be still a little lacking, but still.
I've also heard that the BBC is becoming right-wing.
Whatever next?! This blog to appear regularly? Don’t bet on it!

BLAIR IN A NUTSHELL, PART 2
Since the first in this series he's actually left Downing Street, seemingly into complete nothingness; no press conferences, no grand standing alternative careers (yet) and no more "Blair - the legacy bla bla bla" stories. So, here's my second look-back. One thing Blair loved was changing names, for various nefarious purposes no doubt and not just because he was superficial and ineffectual. My example is this: under Thatcher there was introduced an experiment in regional policy called Enterprise Zones. Ghastly Thatcherite free-marketeering zealotry I think you'll agree, and of course Blair always warned us he was the only thing that stood between Ye Olde Iron Lady returning (or somesuch). So, out with Enterprise Zones, and hello Enterprise Areas (what a difference!).

PRIORITIES, PLEASE
Have I missed it, or does the current edition of the Spectator not carry one single full article on last weekend’s EU action? I mean, this is The Story. Instead we get some more stuff on Gordon Brown (as if we hadn’t had enough), which all things considered, for now is just trivial flim-flam. Given the debate about what resulted from the EU meeting (possibly the legal creation of a confederation, or maybe not), surely this should have been top priority. Sorry Speccie, not good.

BLAIR IN A NUTSHELL, PART 1
If you want to read 60-page supplements in every newpaper and magazine up and down the land feel free to do so. I’ll be doing the Blair Years review in short chunks instead. Here’s a good little starter which is, all things considered, typical Blair.

NEOLOGISMS
Politics moves fast these days, and so do the terms used to discuss it. For the fastness see my last posting: they were released the next day, so how up-to-date was that? Anyways . . . . Here's two newies I draw your attention to:
Labrador Conservatism? Read the post it's got a few good points in it. I do wonder though whether it might be too optimistic about Cameron?
Transnationalism, is I think easier than transnational progressivism or indeed Richard North’s description, which is even more accurate: the dual international quasi-legislation/comitology mechanism. No, I don’t see that one catching on either, so transnationalism it is.

BNP DOESN’T WANT YOUR CRITICSIM
On youtube: A reader of mine has emailed me the link to this BNP video. He posted a critical message which vanished within hours. Taking it for a technical glitch he tried reposting it, only for it to be gone within minutes. Seems they weren’t too happy about some real criticism. Anyway I’ve tried it too and mine isn’t showing up anymore. If you have a YouTube account why not give it a shot. This is the text we tried, but obviously feel free to do your own:

WHAT WE REALLY NEED
ConHom has a story about another Eurosceptic pressure group, this one to be called Global Vision (yawn). Plenty of criticism has been made in that posting, asking whether we don’t already have enough such outfits, which we certainly do a plenty. Problem is they keep missing the bigger picture, namely what our EU membership is really about.
Why are we in the EU? It’s not to stabilise our democracy, it’s not to improve our governance, it’s not for economic gain. Essentially it’s the same reason we have the special relationship to the US for. Our establishment sees itself as world power leader. After 1945 it was apparent that we didn’t have the strength and money to do this entirely on our own feet, hence the special relationship which could lower military technology costs and give us extra diplomatic clout by having a privileged access to the White House. Suez proved though that we couldn’t rely on the US enough. Hence the drive to get into European integration. And that’s really what it’s about, our place in the world.
So what we really need is a serious think-tank that can push debate and advocacy on this point. I pointed out in the past that the Conservatives desperately need this to be more effective as a party too. But above all it matters greatly to the future of our nation. Saying the EU is often inefficient et al is all nice and well, but that simply doesn’t cut it. Perhaps those inefficiencies are a price worth paying for the global position that EU-membership gives us. Perhaps it isn’t. Either way, any alternative strategies need to be embedded in an all-round foreign policy agenda which the right simply doesn’t have. There was an attempt some time ago that failed, the New Frontiers Foundation. That it failed tells us sadly how disoriented the British right is on these matters. Only when we can seriously match liberalish outfits like the Foreign Policy Centre or the Centre for European Reform do we stand a chance of intellectual and electoral renewal.
We owe that to our country and its future.

SPINELESS TORIES?
Some think the Tories are only doing all this green stuff to get good pr, others fear they're serious. Well, the truth is sort of both. As Conservatives put it privately the just-announced air travel taxes are politics, not policy, and aim at marking their opposition against the government, and with the hope it will increase tension between Brown and Milliband.
But it goes further than that. Whilst there is strong scepticism on the science of global warming, the view appears to be that the public has decided that the debate has been concluded decisively. So, the public wants action. So the politicians should act, despite their own scepticism and possibly better judgement.
Is this spineless? I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand politicians should do what voters want them to do. On the other hand I believe that politicians can and sometimes should provide leadership on important issues. This is one of the things that's been going wrong with the Consevatives under DC I think. On many other issues, Iraq and defence generally, on relations with the US, on public spending and many other issues we are just pandering to received wisdom, and abandoning the positions that are in fact right. If we don't stand for the right policies consistently, won't this make actually governing tremendously difficult as we face an uphill battle with public opinion instead of having built up public support consistently?
I for one, am at least quite doubtful.

"COMMUNITY" ALERT
I don't know about my readers, but in 99% of all cases I can't stand the use of the word "community" in the political context. There's something gooey and unspecific about it that ticks me off. In any case it's normally a PC-word to say group of people. For my most recent encounter check this out, from the DfES' December 2006 Consultation Report: Languages Review, p.13:

Words fail me. Adults form a "community"? Give me a break!

TORIES DEFENDING LIBERTY AND ORDER
I am very heartened by the news that the Conservatives are standing by our commitment to oppose id cards and longer detention without trial. The Government’s trying to sound off against this naturally:

Almost beyond satire coming from a member of this current Gov. This has been a government that creates ever more criminal offences and gives the police ever greater powers, but the net result is an increase in disorder (and crime). Perhaps it’ll dawn on them one day, that the two might be connected? Not likely with this bunch.
Let’s face it, we only have so many police, and the more tasks they have, the less well they are going to be able to do them. Not exactly rocket science. The police’s duties should be limited as much as possible to make them as effective as possible. Just imagine what the introduction, management and enforcement of this ID card scheme would waste in terms of resources and time of the police and Home Office. And with absolutely no benefit for us citizens to boot. Good on the Tories to stick the boot in. Let’s just hope they stay at it.

OUR UNION - REALLY IN DANGER?
I can’t quite rid myself of the feeling that I am the only one who feels 300 years of British unity is something good and worth being happy about. There’s been so much bad blood been flowing about the future of the nation these past weeks and monthy, with a level of ill will towards each other I wouldn’t have thought possible. So I am heartened to see that not everything is perhaps quite that dire: Peter Riddell and Nick Robinson both suggest that may be less appetite for ripping the Kingdom apart than superficial glances would suggest. Yay to that!

QUOTE OF THE DAY
Indira Ghandhi:

All too true, something worth bearing in mind in Britain today when we debate tax levels and public services.

DISPIRITING TIMES
I know I have these sorts of moans every once in a while. Recently I have been having one of those phases again, where everything just seems to be going wrong for no good reason and people who should know better don’t.

Look at the Lebanon war’s aftermath. The outcome of Tzahal’s very lacklustre performance has left the Hizb’allah in place, albeit weakened. But what is happening now is that Lebanese and international troops are going to moved into position in between the Hizb’allah’s fighters. As these forces are neither willing nor capable of disarming the militia, that means that inevitable there will be a second round of fighting at some point in the future. And when it comes to that Israel will find itself seriously hamstrung by the presence of these forces. Diplomatically this will make serious Israeli action nigh on impossible. The result will be that Hizb’allah will become ever more stronger and aquire ever better weapons from Iran with ever more destructive consequences. Tremendously stupid outcome. Peace will only come about when the Hizb’allah ceases to exist as an armed force. This should be clear to any decent analyst. Perhaps that is the reason why so far troop commitments have been so weakly.

But talking of which, if all these countries can stump up thousands of troops for a dangerously counterproductive mission in Lebanon, why not reroute them and deploy them to Afghanistan. Here there are some real difficulties, and here it matters as we cannot allow the Taliban to retake the country. With the highly unpopular prospect of German forces being deloyed beyond their breaking point, I wonder why the Italians and the French can send their forces further eastwards. On the other hand, I can’t avoid the sly suspicion that there are people, particularly in Paris, who wouldn’t mind failure in Afghanistan too much as it is currently a NATO-mission.

I remember Geoffrey van Orden warning that the possible failure by NATO would do massive and possibly irrevocable political damage to the alliance. Together with ever stronger anti-Americanism this could finally seal Britain’s fate by taking away our alternatives to being sucked into the EU ever further. Actually, I didn’t really expect much of a debate about this. Still despressing though.

Another point I have to raise is the possibilty that some of the Afghan troubles are due to Britain being the de-facto lead nation in the south. After the desastrous conduct of Britain in Iraq recently, the Taliban would be quite likely to conclude that this former lion was already half on the run. So why not prod and prick him a bit more and he might grant you a great victory by buckling under political pressure and doing a completely runner. And when you’ve got him on the run why not take a few more shots, he might even give himself up completely. There is no such thing as conciliation toward totalitarian and fanatical enemies. All such moves will be seen as weakness, which will simply invite more attacks. When will we learn?

And this is just the foreign arena. At home we have more immigration nonsense doing the rounds. I’m sorry but we if we let countries into the EU, we have to give them full membership. If we don’t they will simply go adrift and go slack on maintaining the already shaky membership conditions. The same will be the case for other potential new members. Once they start seeing that they will not be admitted properly they might stop trying. This will probably mean that they will also stop reforming their governance structures. The consequence will be less stability and security in the EU’s neighbourhood. This is exactly the thing the EU exists to prevent. That people don’t seem willing to see this simply point just annoys me.

If the consequence of more EU-migrants is wage pressure that is a problem that can and should be fixed at home. As for the real problem of poverty and unemployment in Britain, that is unrelated to immigration. This is down to economic overcentralisation withouth labour flexibility, to rotten educational and social circumstances of Britain’s poorest, who simply are either unwilling or unable to take up any kind of employment. This is the big problem underlying the current row. But nobody seems to be paying much attention to their plight.

Part of this is the media’s fault for pandering to headline grabbing tales of foreign welfare scroungers or alternatively of rampant racism in Britain. Because I’m in a bad mood I’m going to pick on the Daily Mail in particular. What we see here is a complete misunderstanding of some of Britain’s big challenges. We need to be engaged in the EU, and accepting migrant workers from new member states is a price we have to be wiling to pay, if indeed it is a cost, rather than an advantage. Ok, so I’m Eurosceptic too, but the Mail doesn’t seem to be serious about this. Sure it’s views on the EU are far more hostile than mine, by far. What matters however is the context in which this debate has Britain positioned. Because the one thing that really drives me bonkers about the Mail is its anti-Americanism, which certainly wouldn’t look out of place in the Indy or Groan. Now, fine you may say, the Daily Mail is for isolationism, which would certainly fit its generally closed-minded and parochial approach. Theoretically this is a legitimate view to take. However in practice this is simple nonsense. Spreading anti-Americanism is absolute poison for the Eurosceptic cause. The only political forces in Britain that can utilise anti-American sentiment are those of staunch Eurofederalism. Isolationism, for better or for worse, is a non-option in British politics. If you really want to keep us out of the EU, the attractiveness of the alternative avenues of influence, the special relationship and NATO needs to be fostered. In the current circumstances there is little emotional energy focused on the EU, but far too much on America. So if the Daily Mail wants to keep us out of the European superstate perhaps its commentary and reporting ought to reflect this. Blaming more and more of our ills from terrorism to trashy television on America will simply drive the British into the arms of Eurofederalism. Can the Mail’s chiefs really be so misguided as not to see this?

Just some things I needed to get off my chest. I’m feeling better already.

QUOTE OF THE DAY
Bumped into this randomly but it made me smile nonetheless:

John O'Sullivan

LOCAL ELECTIONS: SOME GOOD MAY FOLLOW . . .
I was glad to see that my team romped home with a win of about 250 seats, so dragging myself down to the church hall half an hour before closing time was worth after all.
To some extent these results have fuelled the Cabinet reshuffle that was being geared up before. I heaved a sigh of relief on hearing that Jack Straw was leaving Foreign; he was pretty weak and quite rubbish in that post. Then the shock of course that Margaret Beckett takes over. That Straw was never going to be taken serious on Iran is one thing, but Beckett?! I expect this will become so ridiculous that it should be possible for the Tories to cut a positive profile on world affairs; essential for any comeback. Another plus is the elevation of EU affairs to a proper Cabinet level post. The bad news is that the first Secretary of State for Europe will be none other than Geoff Hoon. 'nuff said.

BRITAIN GETS SERIOUS?
I do whine quite often about how the British public is so parochial that it doesn’t care about the serious business of foreign affairs, but here is some encouragement from recent polling:

Personally I would rate the economy and law & order higher schools’n’hospitals, but it is good to see some concern about our place in the world. Now if I can only get people agree with me . . . I wonder though whether David Cameron near complete silence on these issues explains part of his weakened popularity?