Bel is thinking

A previously unheard-of Government Minister resigned today. David Cairns (for that is his name) is unhappy with Gordon Brown’s leadership, and feels that he can no longer serve under him.

I have just been reading his resignation letter, and, goodness me, what a frightening document.

Here are some excerpts:

“Dear Gordon,

As someone who has never uttered a public word of criticism of our Labour Government, far less ever cast a vote against it in the years that I have been an MP, the concept of loyalty to my Party and our Leader is at the very heart of my political beliefs.”.

Interesting. People go into politics for all sorts of reasons. Their intentions are oftentimes honest, although the underlying philosophy might be misguided. Some wish to alleviate poverty, improve educational standards, advocate greater personal responsibility, reduce the tax burden, and so on.

But David Cairns? Just read the above excerpt: at the heart of what he (without irony) refers to as his political beliefs is the self-serving, unthinking “virtue” of loyalty to party and leader. (I note without further comment his telling capitalisation of the word “leader”.) Loyalty no matter what. To this politician, it matters not what the party or leader may decide, he has no independent principles, no settled beliefs of his own against which to weigh those decisions. If it comes from the party or from the leader, then it’s good enough for Mr Cairns.

He states, as a matter of pride, that he has never cast a vote against the Labour Party in all his years as an MP. What David Cairns is telling us is this: that when it came to Parliamentary votes on serious decisions, decisions on which rested weighty issues such as life and liberty, he voted, not for the good of his constituents, but for the good of the Labour Government.

So the interests of the Labour Party were of primary consideration to him during the Parliamentary votes on detention without charge of suspected terrorists, the EC Treaty, and the declaration of war on Iraq? At no point did his conscience ever kick in to lead him to depart from the Government position. (Perhaps I err in my assumption that he has a conscience independent of the Labour Party.) Of course, I am not so naive as to think that politicians of all parties do not act in so partisan a manner. What shocks me is that, with his chest-beating declaration, he obviously sees such behaviour as a virtue, vainly puffed up in his arrogant mind.

Some more from the letter:

“For me it is an article of faith that the worst day of a Labour Government is better than the best day of a Tory or SNP one.”.

Isn’t that lovely? In other words, whatever an opposition party does or says is, prima facie, bad. To him, the Labour Party alone has all the answers. Truly saddening. What crime did we commit as a nation to deserve such representatives?

At least he has now resigned. Thank heavens for this brief moment of lucidity, but don’t expect it to last. His delusion has truly taken hold, as this letter plainly shows.

Much talk in the press about Labour MPs and ministers plotting to unseat the hapless Gordon Brown. For some reason, they seem to think that he is the root of all their current woes. They do not realise, or choose not to realise, that the problem goes much, much deeper than that.

Simply put, this is it: the British public is sick of the Labour Government, and would like nothing more than to vote them out. Yes, there is a big problem with Brown - more to do with the fact that there is simply no connection between him and the public. To put it very kindly, he appears to most people as a statistics-spouting robot programmed only for one-way communication. Plus the fact that, having greedily and dishonestly grabbed all the credit for the good times in the economy, he cannot now distance himself from the current economic troubles. All his talk about “global turbulence” does not wash with the electorate.

But the bigger problem is Labour itself. People are quite rightly entitled to ask what exactly they have achieved from 11 years of a Labour Government. So far, the answer to that question should not fill any Labour MP with pride. The point of this article is not to enumerate Labour’s failings, numerous as they are (these are documented everywhere everyday - all one has to do is turn on the news); rather, my point is simply that if Labour MPs were truly honest with themselves, they would look to the bigger picture.

For any Labour MPs that might be reading, let me draw them an outline of the bigger picture: people are fed up to the back teeth of higher taxes, wasteful spending, rising crime, curtailment of individual freedom, nannying, excessive political correctness, erosion of British sovereignty, corruption among the political classes (though, to be fair, Labour is far from the only guilty party here), excessive regulation, and condescension from on high.

By all means, get rid of Gordon Brown - there will be very few tears shed - but do not delude yourselves that that would be the end of the nightmare. Far from it. Brown is actually performing a useful service for the Labour party. He is serving as a convenient lightning-rod for the anger of the electorate. Without him to hide behind, Labour and its self-serving MPs will face the full, undeflected wrath of the British public. Perhaps something for them to consider.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Gordon Brown has appointed his eighth spin doctor of the year.

I wonder if Gordon Brown remembers the following words; he uttered them during PMQs on 11 July 2007, in reference to David Cameron:

“He can go for his PR—I will go for being PM, and we will get on with the job.”

Just to refresh his his memory, the Hansard transcript is here.

On the news that the Government faces a revolt on the 10p tax issue, a ‘Treasury source’ attempts to explain that compensation for those hardest hit may not be that straightforward.

Saith he:

“The Chancellor hasn’t any money,” … “There is no secret stash up his sleeve.”

Isn’t that part of the problem? The idea that the money belongs to the Chancellor in the first place, and if ‘his’ stash is running out, then ‘he’ can’t help.

Only when they grasp that the money belongs to the taxpayer will we begin to see any real change. For starters, if they recognised that basic fact (i.e that our money is our own), they wouldn’t take so much of it from the poor, and then force them to jump through hoops in order to get it back in the form of ‘credits’.

Ex-convict Jonathan Aitken has been asked by the Centre for Social Justice to serve on a policy review commission on prison reform.

Adam Boulton’s blog reports the following reaction from Government Whip, Tom Watson:

This is a return to the disgraced, scandal-ridden Tory past.

What can we expect next from the Tories?

David Cameron should go all the way, bring in Jeffrey Archer to run a truth and reconciliation committee, draft Neil Hamilton in to advise him on parliamentary modernisation and scrutiny, and bring in Shirley Porter to overhaul his housing policy.

Hmm. Interesting. And here I was thinking that the Labour Party was into rehabilitation of wrongdoers and all that.

This is my view: Jonathan Aitken committed a very serious offence. He was duly punished, and he served his sentence. He has also publicly repented of his crime. As such, he should be free to contribute to society in any way that he can. If he has something to contribute to prison reform policy, then by all means, let’s hear it.

This issue reminded me of something that happened on this blog some months ago. I was taken to task by some people for allowing John Hirst, otherwise known as the Jailhouse Lawyer, to comment on my blog. The argument was that he had committed a very serious crime, had shown no public remorse, and so should not be permitted space on any decent weblog. Some people threatened to boycott my blog until I barred him. I refused. Part of my reasoning was that he had been punished for his crime, and that if he had something useful to say, I was interested in hearing it. I must say that almost all the supportive comments and emails I received were from people on the Left of the political divide. Maybe they understand instinctively the whole rehabilitation thing, I don’t know. However, for many reasons, I was very much cheered by their support.

Back to Jonathan Aitken. I wonder if Tom Watson would be making these comments if a non-Tory ex-offender had been appointed instead. Take the the Jailhouse Lawyer: he was in prison for a very long time, challenged the prison system in court, and is very well-versed in many aspects of prisoners’ rights. He has a lot of interesting insights into prison reform, and would no doubt have so much to offer to the debate, if asked. If the Jailhouse Lawyer had been invited, and had accepted, to serve on the panel, I wonder if Tom Watson would have condemned the appointment.

Of course he wouldn’t have condemned the appointment. The only reason he has criticised Aitken’s appointment is because Aitken is a Tory. That is the simple truth. I wrote a few days ago about principled bloggers, those who praise or criticize policy based on principle, regardless of whether or not the policy in question was advocated by their political allies or opponents. I know that Tom Watson is a party political man who owes much of his career achievement to the Labour Party, but that is no reason to eschew principle. If you believe in the rehabilitation of ex-offenders, particularly those that have shown remorse, and indicated a desire to serve, why should that principle change just because the ex-offender in question is from a different political party to yourself? Or maybe Tom Watson does not believe in rehabilitation at all, in which case, his comments are completely consistent. Somehow I doubt that.

So the Government now recognises that there is a ‘moral case’ for promoting the traditional family through the tax system?

Never mind that the Conservative Party has been saying this for a long time, and being accused by Labour of being ‘nasty’ and judgmental.

I am yet to be convinced that Labour actually recognise that marriage is actually the best state in which to bring up children. Of course not. This latest about-face is down to nothing more than political expediency.

And they have the cheek to accuse other people of ‘flip-flopping’.

And speaking of Labour’s U-turn, please remind me: who was it abolished the Married Couples’ Allowance for under 65s, in the first place?

Step forward, Mr G. Brown.

Over at Conservative Home, a thoughtful and well-written article by Donal Blaney, offering ten tips to the Conservative Party leadership on how to build on this weekend’s favourable news. Of the ten tips he gives, here are the six I like best:

• 1. Continue to campaign on traditional as well as non-traditional conservative themes.
• 2. Remain on the offensive against Gordon Brown.
• 3. Do not underestimate Gordon Brown again.
• 4. Stop gratuitously attacking the Tory Right.
• 5. Learn from the Quentin Davies fiasco.
• …
• 7. Ensure maximum commitment from the Shadow Cabinet.

Very good points. I hope the party leadership takes heed. You can read Donal Blaney’s article here.

David Cameron’s speech is being hyped in the media today as ‘the speech of his life’. It is no such thing. At the start of the week, when there was despair in the Party, it was crucial that he excelled today. However, following the unexpected success of the past few days, the pressure on him has reduced considerably.

Anyway, here are a few things I would like to hear in his speech today.

Some acknowledgement, however passing, that the grammar school madness of a few months ago, was misguided. (Some hope. I don’t expect him to apologise for calling supporters of grammar schools ‘delusional’, but some humility would be fine.)

Something about social justice, picking up on the theme of Iain Duncan Smith’s speech yesterday. He should emphasise the role of Government, but just as importantly, the role of the community and the voluntary sector.

A promise about further tax cuts. No need for much detail, as Labour would only nick them. Just something further to indicate that tax cuts are part of the longer term strategy. But please, no repeat of that ’share the proceeds of growth’ expression. I’ve heard it enough times.

Something on Gordon Brown. No need for personal attacks of the Hazel Blears variety. Just enough to stress the point that:

• Gordon Brown cannot pretend that he had nothing to do with Government policy for the past ten years. Law and order breakdown, high tax burden, dire public services despite record funding, pensions shortfalls - Brown is a key part of the Government that presided over all this.
• Gordon Brown’s so-called no-spin politics is just another example of typical New Labour spin, yesterday’s Iraq stunt being a good example.

I would like to return to the humility theme I mentioned earlier. David Cameron should address the British people with humility. He should make the point that the Conservative Party is here to serve, and not to get in people’s way unnecessarily. Politicians do not know better than the people, so they should be wary of lecturing people about how to live their lives. The point of a Conservative Government is to enable people to empower themselves. In this way, a proper Conservative Government is far more preferable to the current Government with its the smug, ‘we-know-best’ attitude, which was on full display at the Labour Conference last week.

Above all, David Cameron should make it plain that the Conservative Party will govern for all of Britain. I don’t think it will be hard to make that point after some of the speeches we have heard this week. I must say, there has been much commendable policy detail in all the main speeches. Following this conference, nobody can, with any seriousness, make the charge that it is difficult to know what the Party stands for. Whether or not an election is called, the Conservative message has started to come together, and that is something I very much welcome.

UPDATE. 3.30pm. Well! What a wonderful speech, addressed the issues of the day without resorting to personal attacks. He ascended above party politics, and came across as a statesman. The right dose of humility, enthusiasm aplenty, and a very clear idea of what a Conservative Government under David Cameron would do. Well done.

Three stories from the Daily Mail today:

• a Cabinet minister who turned up late for a hospital function was photoshopped (by the hospital, and allegedly with his knowledge) into a picture taken earlier, so as to give the impression that he had arrived and posed with the other MPs there;
• allegations that the X-factor contest has been fixed, and the finalists have already been chosen, even at this early stage in the contest; and
• Nigella Lawson is accused of faking a bus trip on her television programme.

So what’s going on here? Every day, someone is accused of faking something, and these days it tends to be people whom one would assume, should have known better. (I must reiterate here that the X-factor and Nigella stories are merely allegations, at this stage.)

Together with the recent television phone-in scandals, there seems to be something interesting happening to our morals as a society. It would appear that it is  no longer important to get the facts right, so long as the bigger ’story’ or narrative, is in place. (I touched on this last week in my post about Miranda Grell.)

Earlier tonight, I watched the newspaper review on Sky News, featuring Iain Dale and Baroness Billingham, a Labour peer. Iain quite reasonably suggested that James Purnell, the Cabinet minister referred to above, should apologise for his part in the photoshop affair. The Sky News presenter (most likely playing devil’s advocate) wondered whether it was a big deal at all, because James Purnell did actually go to the hospital, even if a little later than the other MPs. The Baroness eagerly jumped on this, agreeing heartily. In her view, the photoshopped picture didn’t matter, because James Purnell derived no personal benefit (I dispute that: for a politician, publicity is a ‘personal benefit’; but let that pass), and that this was for a good cause, namely helping the hospital.

There is this whole idea that deliberate inaccuracies do not matter, as long as the objective, or the story, is valid, or for a good cause. I find that troubling. We saw that a few years ago in the case of the Mirror newspaper and the faked torture pictures. When the pictures were discovered to be fake, the defence used by the newspaper was along the lines of, ‘the pictures might have been fake, but the stories of abuse which they were highlighting, were true.’ That is a very dangerous line of reasoning, and one that has crept into social and political discourse. If even a hospital now sees nothing wrong in faking photographs, I wonder where we are headed as a country.

Is it also any wonder that exam standards are falling? A few months ago, Civitas published a report about how political correctness has corrupted the school curriculum. According to the report, teachers had ceased to teach the basics in some subjects, substituting fashionable theories for plain old facts. Such a state of affairs can only thrive in an environment where facts are not respected. For political correctness to reign in the classroom, there would first have to have been a downgrading of facts. Historical facts that are deemed ‘inconvenient’ would have to be disregarded, and then supplanted with fashionable doctrines. The same with any geographical or even biological facts that do not fit in with the new morality.

So it is that there is a disregard for facts, even in the classroom. A school, especially at elementary level, should be a place free of agenda, full of questioning, and with more than a passing regard for basic facts. That this is not the case is highlighted by news this week that a father has applied to court for an order to stop Al Gore’s climate change movie being shown in the classrooms. Gore’s movie is by no means the last word on climate change, its science has actually been challenged in places by serious scholars of the subject. For the Government to allow it to be shown in schools without giving room for a counter-view is just more evidence of the prevailing disregard for facts.

And let us not even get into the Iraq dossier. There is a view in some quarters that it mattered not that the evidence was blatantly falsified, so long as it fulfilled the noble aim of dislodging Saddam Hussein from power.

Back to James Purnell. The Conservative Party has called for his resignation. However, I don’t think he will resign. He will probably not even bother to apologise. In his mind, he probably feels that he has done no wrong. In typical New Labour fashion, he has already put all the blame on the hospital. In any case, he will probably spring for the ‘Baroness Billingham defence’: this was all in aid of a good cause, so what’s a little untruth here or there?

Just wondering why the sudden and eager adoption of conservative principles by Gordon Brown and New Labour is not being described in the media as a ‘lurch’ to the right. Or is that language only reserved for the Conservative Party?

Still, one good thing about this new-found conservatism among the Labour leadership, is that it makes it harder for Labour to accuse the Conservative Party of extremism. They can hardly accuse the Conservatives of ‘lurching’ to the right, when they themselves are speaking the language of conservatism.

The Conservative Party should therefore be bold, and use next week’s Conference to restate the core principles of conservatism. There is nothing to fear. The real conservative message is an attractive one; if it were not so, Labour would not be preaching it right now. And the Conservative Party can be confident of one thing: in the mouth of a Labour politician, the conservative message sounds inauthentic, opportunistic and hypocritical. Only a true conservative can convey his beliefs with sincerity and conviction. If there is such a person still left within the Conservative Party, may I suggest they hunt him down, and give him a platform to preach the word?