Bel is thinking

I don’t know if I will ever understand the blinkered reasonings of the lazy political journalists that inhabit the UK. Obviously, there are exceptions, but most of them appear just to swallow Government propaganda and regurgitate it without thinking.

I am thinking right now of Nick Robinson’s reaction to Alastair Darling’s 10p compensation statement:

“Labour MPs are happier than they have been for weeks and the Tories, for the first time in a long time, look wrong footed.”

First things first, why does everything have to come down to the political implications? I know Nick Robinson is a political journalist, but does that mean that he must see everything in terms of which party is up, and which is down? What about the actual details of the policy? What about the fact that this is a catastrophic mess? The Government have shown themselves up as completely incompetent; they abolished the 10p tax rate, and are now, partway through the tax year, introducing retrospective changes to undo that measure. What about certainty in tax matters? What about the fact that the compensation package will cost £2.7 bn, which will have to be funded through borrowing? Are these not issues upon which any reputable journalist worth his salt ought to be making sustained comment?

(For what it’s worth, I don’t think the Tories have been wrongfooted. Nobody is looking at them; rather, all eyes are on this blundering Government as it tries to find its way out of its labyrinth of incompetence.)

Anyway, back to Nick Robinson. Maybe he needs to get out of Westminster once in a while for an appreciation of how Government policy affects real people. I remember last year, after Gordon Brown decided not to hold a General Election, Nick Robinson made a comment to the effect that the decision did not have major consequences for the nation. Maybe not for him, but try telling that to people who have been affected by Labour’s damaging policies, and who would have wanted an opportunity to vote them out. Elections can be life-changing events for voters; however, for political journalists, things continue the same. Regardless of who wins or loses, or what policies they implement, these journalists get to hang out with the politicians, conspire in their schemes to withhold information from us, and accept without thinking whatever the politicians choose to tell them.

It’s one thing for a journalist from a commercial enterprise to behave in this way, but when it is a BBC journalist, we should sit up and take notice. We hear a lot of bleating about the value of public service broadcasting. At the very least, we should expect a political journalist from the BBC to have a broader perspective of the issues at play in the country. Hard as it may be for such people to realise, politics is not an end in itself. It affects real people living real lives, way beyond Westminster’s cosy restaurants.

While going through the UK news from last week, I happened upon an interesting story.

A not-so-merry band of thieving women were up before a judge to be sentenced for their role in a robbery. In handing out his sentence, the judge described them as behaving like “a bunch of over-the-hill slappers”.

Inappropriate, no doubt, given that their “slapperiness” (or otherwise) had nothing to do with the robbery. However, what caught my attention was the response to the judge’s comments. A friend of the women took exception to her buddies being described in such brutal terms. Springing to their defence, she claimed:

“Mel’s still in her 30s and none of them reckon they are over the hill. They might have let themselves go a bit but they still reckon they could pick up a fella given half a chance.”

Pick up a fella given half a chance? Now, if that’s not the definition of a “slapper”, I don’t know what is.

At least no one can blame Gordon Brown for this one.

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.

A muslim woman in a headscarf applies for a job as a hairdresser. She tells the potential employer that she has to wear her headscarf at all times. Predictably, she is turned down for the job. She is now suing the hairdresser for discrimination.

Why do I say ‘predictably’? It’s because no hairdresser with any business sense would employ a stylist whose hair the customer cannot see. If I, as a customer, cannot see what the stylist has done to her own hair, why should I trust her with mine?

The case continues. I only hope common sense prevails. By all means, wear a headscarf if your religion mandates you to do so (doubtful, but let that pass); but don’t expect to work in a field where we need to see your hair.

Just wondering: if her religion really demands that she go everywhere with her hair covered, and given that no-one would trust a stylist with concealed hair, perhaps the logical (even if absurd) conclusion to draw is that perhaps Allah never intended for his women to work as hairdressers in the first place? I wonder if she’ll think on that.

I like the Chicken Yoghurt blog. It is one of my favourite blogs. Its writer, Justin, is what I would call a principled blogger. He identifies his principles, and sticks to them. Some bloggers (naming no names) attack or defend particular acts or policies depending on whether or not the perpetrator of the act or policy is on the same side of the political divide as they are. Not Justin. Reading his blog, you get the impression that these are his views, and no-one else’s. You can’t say that about many blogs these days.

I’ve just been reading an impressive piece on the Chicken Yoghurt blog about Gordon Brown and so-called ‘British liberty’. The post actually went up yesterday, but I’ve been out of town, and am now catching up on all my reading. It’s worth reading in full, but here is an arresting extract:

As he begins this new chapter in ‘British’ liberty (as opposed that filthy foreign liberty) in the broad, non-specific strokes of a truly great leader, let us see what a newly liberated Britain holds in store for us. Fifty-six days detention without trial. ID cards. Four and a half million people on the DNA database. What could be more British than that?

It’s a very good piece, and it raises valid concerns about our hitherto taken-for-granted liberties, and the state of politics today.

Paul McCartney has been seen around town, hanging out with a wealthy married woman several years his junior. The three newspapers I have seen with this story have reported the facts solemnly, soberly, sympathetically (to Paul, that is), and almost (for a tabloid at least), responsibly. I couldn’t help wondering what the reaction of the same papers would be if, instead of Paul, it had been his estranged wife, Heather, who was seen out and about with a wealthy married man.

Just wondering.

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.

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?