Category Archives: Liberal Democrats

Fool me once. . .

Posted on by
5

Hmmmmm, the more I see of this government, the less I like it. Just as it was a damning statistic that Cameron’s campaign was unable to defeat one of the worst Prime Ministers this country had ever seen, it is equally as damning that Miliband’s Labour aren’t streets ahead of the Tories in the opinion polls at the moment.

The Liberal Democrats are so screwed that now most opinion polls now put them in fourth behind UKIP who are looking at present as if they’d take between 8-12% of the vote if the call came tomorrow.

Quite rightly the Liberal Democrats should be very concerned about this, but of course that concern is tempered slightly by the fact that not many Lib Dem supporters (as opposed to those who vote Lib Dem because they aren’t the Conservatives and Labour) are likely to find a natural home in UKIP.

This is not speaking ill of UKIP, far from it. UKIP’s smaller government, pro-sovereignty stance is clearly at odds with the centralist, big state, Euro federalist Lib Dems.

Indeed, going off on a tangent for a moment, this I believe is the port of major blame for the current malaise and disconnect between the political class and the electorate at the moment. Look at the opprobrium that Thatcher attracts even to this day, why is that? Because she stood for something. Whether you agreed with her or not, that was undeniable. When she was sat in the big chair, you had a clear choice, you had her way or you had the programmes sponsored by Foot and Kinnock. There was clear daylight between the two camps. Today we have two camps fighting for the same ground. They try to, well, I hesitate to say appeal, so I’ll go for not entirely piss off, everybody. Of course in the pursuit of that impossible aim they end up achieving the exact opposite.

Yes, Thatcher is pilloried in some sections, but ask yourself the question, if she was so unpopular, how did she manage to win so many elections? Simple, she pleased more people as thoroughly as the minority she pissed off thoroughly. What we have today is a massive car park, totally empty, with two posh college boys scrapping over the one parking space that is slap bang in the centre of the lot.

Have no doubt, the Tories are not at all happy to see UKIP get all this support. They may chuckle and shake their heads, give some throwaway comment about the loons, but as they feel it necessary to comment on UKIP, they obviously feel concerned.

We then come to the line about UKIP ‘splitting’ the Tory vote. This is bollocks, and is indicative of the arrogance of the big three parties; this feeling of entitlement that people’s votes belong to them. Uh-huh, sorry chum, those votes belong to the people that cast them. If people stop putting their vote behind you, that’s your fault, not the fault of the party that garners that support instead.

All those politics degrees washing around the party, and the Tories don’t seem to realise the way it works – you set out what you stand for, people look at it and decide to vote for it or not. If they don’t support it, then you picked the wrong policies, didn’t you?

Cameron continues in this impossible dance of being all things to all people, and ends up with all people thinking he is a twat. He’ll go too far for one lot and not far enough for the other, the result will be that everyone ups sticks and goes elsewhere.

Given his recent history, I hope you’ll forgive my cynicism when he says ‘What it is increasingly becoming the time for is a new settlement between Britain and Europe, and I think that new settlement will require fresh consent.‘

I don’t believe you, David. You’ve pulled this stunt before, haven’t you? The cast iron guarantee, the ‘veto’ that never was. Yeah, you really stuck it to the man by standing up and doing. . . bugger all.

You really expect me to believe this now? You really think I’m going to sit back and say ‘well done Dave, he’s going to do the decent thing’? No. Not this time mate. Even given your tin plated guarantee I didn’t vote for your mob last time, and it ain’t going to work now. Oh, sure I stood in the polling booth and hesitated for a moment, but I reckoned you didn’t mean it and put my little x next to UKIP. I was right.

For a moment I bought the veto thing and you went up in my estimation. That didn’t last long, let me tell you. So, you fooled me once, well shame on you. You’re not going to fool me a second time.

When I was a teenager we had a name for girls who acted like you; prick-tease. That’s just what you are, you’re flirting away, throwing all this shit out in the hope that we think you’re going to finally put out. Naaaaaaah, come on Dave. How many times do you think you can get me hard and then swan off before I stop coming over every time you flutter your eyelids? Come the end of the party you’ll be the one sat in the corner of the kitchen crying because nobody wants to be around you.

Even if a referendum of some sort does materialise, your personal feelings on the matter are clear, and I have zero confidence that you’ll produce. Rather than campaigning on your opinion, mainly because it is at odds with the majority opinion of your membership, you’ll try to nobble the course before the horses start running. You’ll never give us what we want, you might give us the choice between the status quo and more integration, but you’ll never give us the big one, and you’ll try to sell us your preferred option as some huge statesmanlike act. Like I said, prick-tease.

UKIP splitting your vote? Bollocks, you’re driving people into their arms. You see I have this feeling, I think the current UKIP bounce in the polls is down to many many people who voted Lib Dem stating an intent to not bother voting for anyone, coupled with a small number of disaffected Tory voters, but that number is growing, and it’s all down to you mate.

I don’t want you stop, by the way, I want you to carry on. In fact, go further, tell the world that there will never be an EU referendum as long as you’re Prime Minister, that should do it.

‘But, ooooooh, Wolfers,’ I hear some of you say, ‘that would mean Labour would win.’ Yes? And? Look, there’s no bloody difference between the two, I oppose the Conservatives as much as I do Labour. It doesn’t matter to me which glorious collection of incompetent arsewipes is in power, because I don’t want them there. I’m not about to settle for the least worst option, I want what I want, if I can’t have it then we might as well have Timmy the amputee badger in Number 10. In fact, he’d probably be the least worst option.

I was wrong.

Posted on by
4


In my last post I was writing about how I’m not adverse to a u-turn. Well here comes one of my own, and it relates to the House of Lords.

To a degree I’ve changed my mind, I was quite taken with the concept of a HoL that was elected, on a County, Unitary or Metropolitan basis with the number of representatives for each territory being based on the population therein. So we’d see say six reps for London and two for Cornwall, etc. I was also supportive of a policy whereby these people would be elected without a party machinery (there would be no party memberships and no whipping) for a term that ran for five years starting more of less in the middle of the term for the HoC. Therefore under this model we’d be electing our Lords about now as it is somewhere around the middle of this government’s term.

The reason I supported this was not because I though the model was particularly good, but because I didn’t think it was as bad as the model we currently have. However Clegg’s plan very definitely sees people elected on party lines. Do we really need another layer of politicians elected with whips and party machinery behind him? Will it not just end up in naked competition between the two Houses?

Supporters of the old system (before Labour removed the hereditary peers) point out, quite reasonably, that the system has served us perfectly well for many hundreds of years, and looking over the history of Parliament it is hard to argue against that with any great success, but the hereditary peers reflect a system which is feudal and hardly in keeping with what a modern country should be. Many supporters of the old system would concede this point and counter with their own that will go along the line of a basically sound, if fragile system, which more or less did what we wanted it to, and to tamper with it could have unforeseen consequences, similar to removing a component from a delicate ecosystem.

By keeping career politicians diluted in the upper chamber the effects of party politics can be mollified somewhat, I get that, but I’m just not comfortable with some guy who is there because their antecedents happened to own a nice house and a horse in France when that bloke Norman came over. Now those hereditary peers were possibly perfectly nice people, perhaps perfectly competent, but in a democracy I just don’t think it is proper for these people to be making law without accountability.

The same goes for the Lords Spiritual. At a time of falling church attendance figures I don’t see what relevance these people have any more. Especially as they only represent one cult. I don’t think religion has a place in the decision process about law. Religion certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on morals or ethics, indeed all religions engage in activity and promote dogma that I find immoral and unethical, and as they hold a place in the establishment I find myself wondering how much of their input is focused on not what is right but what best protects their interests. That in effect makes them a fourth party, a fourth party that has influence despite never garnering a vote in their life.

The life peerages I have less problem with. I can see how that would work, people who are hugely respected, qualified and experienced in their fields overseeing the passage of laws drawn up by people who are not. An upper chamber with retired barristers and judges, diplomats, military types, teachers, doctors, architects, accountants, farmers and a whole host of other real jobs with real knowledge sounds great. The problem being is that alongside those we’ve also got people who loaned a few quid to this party or were a front bencher for that party and were so popular that they got slung out on their ear by the electorate only to find themselves given a nice red cloak and kept in a cushy job. Political appointments for life can only lead to cronyism and surely that is just as bad as an appointment because your father had it?

Our system ain’t perfect, but do we want to run the risk of upsetting it in an attempt to make it better? There are those that want us to go into Syria and get rid of the nutter there. That’s all very well, but what comes along in his place? Will they be speaking for the poor sods getting their arses shot off? Perhaps we’re better not getting involved, leaving it alone. The same could also be true of the Lords. The unfortunate thing being that as soon as the hereditary peers were shipped out, the genie was out of the bottle. We’re now being forced to tinker, the old system was outdated, the current system just isn’t working, so like Fr. Ted Crilly and his raffle prize car, we keep trying to knock the dents out.

What’s the alternative?

We could do away with the Lords and bring in the whole electorate in a pseudo-Swiss style with referenda. Very expensive will come the call. Yes, this is true, and people will soon get fed up with schlepping down to the polling station every time a Bill passes through the Commons. Perhaps it will lead to fewer laws being proposed, not a bad thing at all in my book. But it is a very blunt instrument, in the ideal world those experienced and knowledgeable Lords will refer a Bill back to the Commons with ‘we see what you’re trying to do there, but it won’t work because of A, B and C, so try this, that and the other’, you can’t do that with a referendum, it is either Hell Yeah or God No. This is one of the reasons Cameron’s talk of something other than a straight In/Out referendum is nonsense, you just can’t get that degree of subtlety in a referendum.

I really don’t know what the answer is, and the more I think about it, the more I think the old system, as flawed as it was, was the best we were going to get.

One thing I do know is that Clegg’s plan is arsegravy of the highest order, and magically manages to collect the worst of all worlds into one indigestible package, and I think he’ll be lucky if his pressing the matter doesn’t end up in a general election that sees his party wiped out.

You’re doing what?

Posted on by
1

As I sit here, the Conservatives have lost a quarter of the councils they held before yesterday’s elections, haemorrhaging 300 councillors, the Lib Dems have been shipping councillors like they’re about to be made taxable. Labour have made a lot of capital, but this is in no way down to their excellence, it merely serves to underline the fact that they are not despised as much as the sitting government. Given their record in power and the general uselessness of Miliband, I can only question the sanity of people who turn out to vote for them if they honestly think there would be any improvement on offer from last term or the current government.

As their world falls down around their ears, you’d have thought that both top tables in the Tories and Lib Dems would be looking at what they’ve done to be so unpopular. I said at the time that the last general election was a good one to lose, and hasn’t that been proven true? A combination of utter stupidity, lack of thought and an inherited cluster fuck that even an extreme porn site would have second thoughts about putting online has done for them.

Instead of examining the reasons why they’re so unpopular and taking steps to redress that, they’ve decided that they’re going to meet with ISPs to discuss porn. Obviously for fear that the clusterfuck they’ve been involved in gets seen by a seven year old on a computer.

Yes, there is now a ‘consultation’, which means. . . well, we all know what it means, don’t we? Rather than sorting out rising inflation, huge fuel prices, high taxes, low employment, an increasing contribution to the EU and World Bank, a deficit of democracy both in Westminster and Brussels, an education system that doesn’t educate, power hungry civil servants in local authorities, inappropriate relations with media moguls, corruption, and a whole host of other things, they’ve actually decided to spend their time bullying ISPs because some sites show smut and some parents don’t supervise their children on computers and mobile comms devices, don’t password protect their machines or don’t use freely available screening software. This is like calling out the paper mill because someone left a copy of Razzle in a hedge.

If they think that is important, especially in light of the results coming in now, I can only assume that not only are they not fit to hold power (which is the case), but I must also assume that they don’t actually want it.

It seems to me that the politicians’ contempt for our opinions has now reached a point where they don’t care if we vote for them or not, they really are as mad as cheese. As we’re seeing today, that can have only one outcome.

I will point out that UKIP have polled around 15% where they’ve stood, and this constitutes around about a 6% swing in their favour. And to be honest, I’ve not been that impressed with their campaign here. What would they get if they tried? I guess we’ll see during the Europeans.

Time to step up to the plate.

Posted on by
4

I’m not going to pretend I’m not disappointed. I’m certainly not surprised, but nevertheless events of the last couple of days have proven to be a real slap in the face.

It all started so well in those early days after the love in at the Downing Street gardens, I was so cheered to see the removal of ID cards, but suspected, indeed in my heart of hearts I knew, that it was a sop. It was like giving a breadstick to a man who hadn’t eaten in a week when he was promised a feast.

Now we see a classic pincer manoeuvre against us, on one side we see the resurrection of plans to monitor all our phone calls, texts and web activities, on the other the continuing assault on the very foundations of a system of justice that has served us for eight hundred years. And the lame, transparent justifications roll.

Firstly, both the Lib Dems and Tories were in uproar when Labour floated the idea of government agencies having unfettered real-time access to people’s private communications. They were quite right to kick up a stink, but of course what we suspected at the time has been proven to be true, they didn’t kick up a stink because they were opposed to the idea, they kicked up a stink because they were in opposition to the people who had the idea. Now it raises its ugly head again, and this time it is vital.

Theresa May argued that the new powers were required to “help police stay one step ahead of the criminals” and vowed “ordinary people” would not be targeted.

Leaving aside the fact that if the police wanted to conduct any other search of a person’s private property, belongings or documents they’d have to get a warrant to do so, and that this plan is an horrific sweeping away of our liberties and fundamentally alters the relationship between State and individual, it simply won’t work. The bad guys will always be one step ahead, at least, these guys operate in small groups or as individuals, they are more dynamic and responsive to challenges, they are not forced to make decision by committee.

There’s another reason why it won’t work; the weight of data will simply be so large that useful information will get lost in the chatter. The Stasi collected every bit of information they could about every citizen in East Germany and got nothing from it. If you’re searching for a needle in a haystack, the last thing you need to do is heap on more hay.

“Data like this has already helped lock away murderer Ian Huntley. Such data has been used in every security service terrorism investigation and 95 per cent of serious organised crime investigations over the last 10 years.

I see, so what you’re saying, Theresa, is that the system you have at the moment works just fine.

Then some common sense comes to the fore, amazingly one of them is a Tory MP:

Concerns by Information Commissioner Christopher Graham over the proposals were revealed last night in previously restricted briefing papers.

He said keeping so much internet data is a “step change in the relationship between the citizen and the state”.

Tory MP Dominic Raab said the warnings “painted a frightening picture of mass surveillance on an unprecedented scale”.

He added: “The expert advice is that there is no law enforcement case for monitoring every call made and every email sent by every innocent citizen.

“Far from making us safer, these plans for Big Brother surveillance would expose us to massive fraud.”

Nick Pickles, director of campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: “The Government has offered no justification for what is unprecedented intrusion into our lives.”

But Theresa won’t have that, time to blow the old dog whistle.

Mrs May added: “I’m not willing to risk more terrorist plots succeeding and more paedophiles going free.”

I. Don’t. Believe. You.

So, having used this Orwellian mechanism, they then seek to prosecute these people in a court where the public are not allowed to know what has been said, the accused is not allowed to hear the charges or see the evidence against him, nor is the defence allowed to discuss the case with the accused. This is justice, in the 21st Century in a supposed free country. Good God, what have we become in the name ‘national security’? What’s next, the rack and a gallows on Tyburn Hill? Amazingly, Nick Clegg is talking about blocking the plans, (I never thought I’d be giving him credit, but well done, Nick) and I’ve seen the increasingly deranged and dangerous Ken Clarke on TV this morning with foam flecking his jowls as he tries desperately to convince us that secret court hearings will keep us safe.

As always we’re told it won’t be used against ‘normal’ people. But as we’ve seen with smoking, drinking, eating food with fat and salt in, wearing a hood, taking a photo on the street and so forth, it is so easy to be denormalised, isn’t it? When you give someone a power they will use it, and they will seek to expand its use. National security? Speaking out against a government is a national security issue in Syria or Myanmar, hell the Lisbon Treaty makes it an offence to thumb your nose at the EU. How long? Hmmmm? How long?

I was going to write a letter to my MP expressing my outrage, but what’s the point? I could have written to my MEP, Daniel Hannan, but he’s no interest, I’m becoming more convinced that he talks a good fight, but he’s no intention of surrendering the security blanket of this repulsive Conservative party to stand up for what he believes in. No doubt he’d say he was trying to change the party from within, maybe he is, that’s why he’s kept on the other side of the channel.

There’s no point at all in appealing to the Labour party, because they’ve demonstrated that they like the idea. Miliband will huff and puff to convince us they’ve changed, but make no mistake, if there was an election tomorrow that returned Labour, they’d have this back at the top of the agenda within a year while telling us how vital it is.

I’m writing from the perspective of a UKIP member from the far Libertarian wing of the party, and I think this last week has demonstrated a valuable lesson that could be learned by the leadership of the party.

Sure, UKIP have progressed recently, but the momentum seems to be slowing a little, we, and all smaller parties, need a boost. We need to look at how to do that. Data put up by Guido this morning makes interesting reading, basically the electorate is fed up to the back  teeth with Nick, Ed and Dave. We know that people are angry, people are furious, but we’re not getting through to them (and by ‘we’ I mean all smaller parties), except for one man.

I can’t stand him, I think he’s a reprehensible arse, but that being said Geroge Galloway played a blinder in Bradford. People will point to his mobilisation of the Muslim vote, and that’s true to an extent, but it doesn’t make it any less impressive. His huge, unprecedented, swing was not down entirely to getting the Muslim vote out, the numbers show he got plenty of non-Muslims out as well, and he did it by being demonstrably different to what was on offer. George doesn’t fight these people on their own terms, he rips up the play nicely rule book and throws it out of the window. He taps into the anger, harking back to my previous post, what he does is makes a wrestling style promo, he actually engages with his audience, he grabs them by the emotional scrotum and takes them with him.

The media describes him as ‘flamboyant’, if he had the PR machinery of a big party behind him, they’d be tearing their hair out. He doesn’t wear a tie (this seems to be an unthinkable thing to do, unless you’re appearing on a Sunday politics show from your conservatory when a nice shirt and chunky knit jumper will do), he smokes a cigar, he shouts people down, he doesn’t play nicely. What do people see? Someone like them. When they look at the others they see a parade of people wearing identical suits, with identical hair, identical ties, speaking in the same identical controlled tones. George lets rip.

Nigel Farage is one of the best orators about, but I think he needs to take a risk. He has an engaging, self-deprecating and withering style. But he still plays nicely, he looks like the others, I’d love to see him slip out of that mould, I’d love to see him stop playing by their rules and make his own. He’d scare the life out of them. Sure it would be a risk, but what is there really to lose? Are UKIP going to turn the South East of England purple at the next general election by playing by the nice rules? No. It is time to step up to the plate and to be different, as different as it is possible to be rather than talk about being different.

Meanwhile at Davos.

Posted on by
2

Cameron has just got into his speech at Davos, where he’s made it quite clear, once again, that we will be wedded to the sinking ship that is the EU.

Oh, he talks tough about Tobin taxes, repatriation of powers and challenging the operation of European courts, but that’s all it is, talk.

He’s said this morning; ‘We want Europe to succeed, not just as an economic force, but as a political one.’ When did Europe stop being a continent and become a political entity? Are Ukraine and Russia not part of Europe? Yes, but not politically. Who is this ‘we’ he’s talking about? I certainly don’t want Europe to be a political force, it is corrupt, unaccountable and utterly rotten. The majority of the Tory party membership would agree with me.

At a time when the knives are being sharpened for Miliband Minority by his party membership (oh, and Labour party members, it won’t make any difference, your views are irrelevant, you’ll have the leader the unions want, and you will like it), when are the Tories going to grow a set and get rid of this cuckoo in their nest? His views are so far removed from the party membership that it almost beggars belief.

The Tories have no more credibility than Labour or the LibDems, all three are a total joke and stuck with leaders that are toxic, not just to the country, but to the parties themselves.

What a bloody shower.

Traitors all, and those who keep them there are just as treacherous, and cowards to boot.

Careful now.

Posted on by
1

On Friday morning there was unanimity, as far as Clegg was concerned Cameron had taken the only path available to him, it was regrettable but his hand was forced.

This morning, he’s blown his top as the Observer reports and as the man himself made perfectly clear on the BBC.

Meanwhile Douglas Alexander appears to have been wheeled out with the impossible job of pushing a Labour line that doesn’t, as far as I can make out, exist.

Whether Cameron has done the right thing or not remains to be seen, I think he has. However what is fairly certain is that he has done the popular thing.

Politicians get very sniffy about populist policy decisions, this is no surprise, because as far as they’re concerned, it is our job to accept their decisions, not their job to act on our wishes. But of course doing the popular thing makes you, well, popular.

The opinion polls make it clear that Cameron has significant backing for his actions, not only in his use of the veto, but also that most people want him to go further. Working on a +/- ratio of 2% in the accuracy of the figures it is clear that the British people have had enough of the EU.

Clegg seems to have chosen to have a scrap to appease his party’s members, while at the same time Cameron is lambasted by leading LibDems for doing exactly the same thing.

He needs to be very careful. Cameron has had a taste of the crowd cheering for him and he may get a taste for it, especially as he’s had nothing but brickbats since he took the job on.

Clegg’s actions since the election has led to an enormous drop off in support for him and his party, whereas Cameron has seen a significant bounce in the last few days. Cameron has also demonstrated that he will fight back when he’s backed into a corner.

The LibDems are on life support and the next election is likely to see the plug pulled, Labour are in disarray and whilst still on level terms with the Tories (having been in front before the latter half of the week) don’t have the stomach, squad or the stamina for an election fight right now.

If Clegg forces the issue, and Cameron mounts a strong Eurosceptic campaign, he could easily cash in on his new found bounce, that would probably bounce higher if he indulged in the sort of grandstanding we’ve seen from under threat Sarkozy over the last few weeks. A snap election with Cameron taking advantage of the current mood and the weakness of both the LibDems and Labour could see the Conservatives return a very slender majority, but one that could also be supplemented by the Eurosceptic Ulster Unionists.

What has led me to think this way this morning is seeing the smoke from the LibDem broadside clearing and a crowd of the LibDem great and good sticking the boot in before adding ‘but a general election now would be a disaster for the economy’.

Are you sure you want to call his bluff?

This smacks of desperation to me, just as Cameron has picked a fight and will need to see it through to the end, if Clegg and his pals want to pick a fight, they too need to deal with the consequences of that – it is a fight they simply cannot win. So just like Cameron they need to put up with what is on offer or walk away.

Clegg is playing with fire, and he’s doing it on the back of a subject where their opinions and policies are completely at odds with the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

No doubt, like all politicians who get booted out, the LibDems would act with incredulity that people had a different opinion to them, and despite having little support would still stand on the sidelines shouting that what they want is what people want.

It’s going to be an interesting few months. . .

Please don’t sack him.

Posted on by
2

There was his declaration of war against Murdoch. There is his continual nagging and bleating. There is the fact that he’s the business secretary when he has, as far as I can make out, no qualifications for the job.

Then we come to the VAT problem, which was described as being ‘an oversight’. Funny, isn’t it, how when an MP screws up his VAT, makes iffy expenses claims, or anything else that would have us dragged naked on a hurdle through town to the court regardless of if there was any intent on our part, it is always an oversight or an honest mistake?

Now, just to demonstrate that a LimpDim can be just as bottled pig shit thick as any Tory, Vinnie the Wire has been found dumping paperwork. Given the lack of continuing story, it would appear that Letwin’s faux pas did not include confidential documents. Well, we can’t have that, can we? Look kids! Here comes Batshitmental Man! He’s showing us all that he can make an arse of things in a far more effective fashion than a Tory ever could! See how it looks so effortless!

Vince Cable has apologised “unreservedly” after confidential documents were discovered in bins left outside his constituency office.

POW!

Unshredded paperwork containing letters from ministers was found dumped outside the business secretary’s Richmond and Twickenham office.

SOCK!

The transparent recycling bags also contained personal details of the Liberal Democrat’s constituents.

Holy breach of the Data Protection Act, Batshitmental Man!

Mr Cable said the blunder was an “unacceptable breach of privacy”.

Oh, does that mean he’s going to resign?

No, of course it doesn’t. It’s that whole Gordon Brown finding who is responsible thing, and sacking a minion, or an intern who is working for free anyway. Really all he has to do is look in a mirror. But he won’t. He’s an MP, you see, so is incapable of making a mistake, and when he does it’s an honest one, so it’s OK. For him. Not for you, so don’t get any ideas prole, it won’t wash.

I did give a little chuckle when I heard this news, I was convinced it was agents from Murdoch’s Eeeeevil army come to take out the man who dared to declare war on the old man, but it would appear not.

The paperwork was collected over a nine-month period by a local resident and was then handed to a local newspaper, the MP said.

Nine months! I’d love to know why this local resident was going through Vinnie’s bins, but that isn’t really the issue. So when Vince says:

A system is in place for shredding of confidential files and for safeguarding case work.

It means he’s a liar liar pants on fire, or he isn’t even competent enough to institute a regime for putting bits of paper into a shredder. Just to remind you, this man is the business secretary, the man who is tasked with getting businesses to turn our economy around, and he can’t even get a receptionist to shred some letters.

Give me strength.

Given his stunning lack of self-awareness, astonishing levels of hubris and complete absence of competence, you’d think I’d be calling for him to resign. But there’s no point, is there? Because the person who replaced him would be equally as incompetent and arrogant, because they’d be an MP, someone with no experience in the real world, no qualifications.

So, don’t bother sacking him, he can’t be any worse or any better than any replacement, and this is just so entertaining! What’s he going to do next? My money is on him tipping a toddler out of a pushchair and into the path of an oncoming bus.

Wolfer’s Note: I am obviously now back from Lisbon. It was very nice indeed, and can heartily recommend it to you all for a visit. Fags less than £4 a packet, that’s proper fags like what you can buy here, I didn’t even think to try the cheaper local brands.

Where do they go from here?

Posted on by
3

I was expecting the LibDems to get a shoeing, but I wasn’t expecting them to be taken out the back and kicked to within an inch of their lives. I find I’m asking myself the question where do the LibDems go from here? This is a disaster of such magnitude for the party that it is difficult to know where to begin.

Clegg is done, of that there can be no doubt, he had his five minutes in the sun during the TV debates, but it soon clouded over. Chris Huhne has run the most appalling campaign for the yes vote, more of which in a moment, Vince Cable shot his bolt with his quite remarkable declaration of war on Murdoch. Who on earth is capable of stepping up to replace Clegg when the inevitable happens?

The LibDems have conjured up a perfect storm and make no mistake, it is all their own fault, no-one has stabbed themselves in the back here, they’ve committed ritual suicide infront of an entire nation. They’ve pulled off a master stroke by being able to alienate their own core support and the support of the non-member voters – they have utterly destroyed their powerbase which was always at the grass roots level.

I think most people who voted LibDem did so because of what they were not, rather than what they were. The most important thing they were not was either of the other two. Then the coalition came and the terrible truth dawned on the public; the LibDems were as grasping, power hungry, unprincipled and opportunistic as Labour and the Conservatives ever were. I said it at the time, the moment they entered into that coalition they had loaded the gun and pressed it to their own temple.

Now they are stuck. They daren’t pull out as the Tories would most likely go to the polls, and their destruction would be complete. They have no cards to play, they are completely reliant on their Tory masters for their oxygen, from where I’m sitting it isn’t the LibDem MPs keeping a coalition government breathing, it is a Tory party with the power of life and death over their junior, subordinate partners keeping the party breathing. I wonder how long it will be before the Tories start kidding on that they’ll pull the plug?

Most of the non-members who voted LibDem did so because they couldn’t stomach the other two, and they’ve now found that they’ve got exactly what they didn’t want.

As for the members, the crushing defeat for the yes campaign is a slap in the face which must sting as much as the results in the locals, Scottish and Welsh polls. The LibDems have been banging on forever about PR, it is the thing their members seemed to desire most, once you factor in the understanding that they’d never get a majority under FPTP in a million years. That was the single biggest thing the LibDems had to bargain with, what their team settled for was the palest of facsimilies that very few people would have backed, it was a complete betrayal of their membership and showed that Clegg and pals would turn their back on their members in an instant for a go on the levers of power. That go on the levers, which cost the goodwill of the membership and the floating voters, has lasted not even a year from the announcement of coalition.

It is a collapse of stunning proportions.

So who are the winners here? Obviously in Scotland it is the SNP, although if they hold a referendum on independence, which they might, at that referendum is defeated, which it will be, one can only ask what the SNP are for, other than not being Labour?

South of the border Labour have made gains, but to be fair they couldn’t have lost any more. The votes and seats they’ve picked up are the least Miliband could have wanted, and the collapse in Scotland shows in England that it is a parade of people from red to blue, blue to red, and so forth. People are voting against what they don’t want, rather than what they do, ironically PR could go some way to solving this, but the LibDems caved in. Cheers, Nick.

No, Labour are no winners here.

A couple of months ago I commented that the LibDems were done, and also pointed out that the BBC were at pains not to tell us who the winners were in that by-election. Over the last couple of days we’ve heard nothing from them at all. They certainly weren’t standing in my ward, I don’t think they put many candidates up at the local level, although they did have candidates on the regional lists in Jockland.

Who? UKIP, that’s who.

This a party that declares itself to be libertarian. Not libertarian enough to satisfy me, but a damn sight more libertarian than any of the other established parties. They are very attractive to frustrated EUro-sceptic Tories, desptie their proclaimed libertariansim, and I’m wondering if the libby tag might prove appealing to the liberal side of the LibDems, despite the obvious anti-EU bias contrasting with the slavish pro-EU stance of the LibDems. But that’s just the members.

The public, the floating voters, those who have been using the LibDems as an effective ‘none of the above’ or ‘screw the reds and the blues’ vote will now put the LibDems squarely on the same ground as the other two. So when election time comes around again, whether it is the Euros or an early general, who will the floaters be looking at thinking ‘I don’t want to vote for those three, but who have I heard of?’

I know as the days tick by since the Anna Raccoon – Andrew Withers affair, it’s now been almost a month without any word from the investigation, that I find myself looking at UKIP with increased warmth, better to be a libertarian component of a functioning party than an exclusively libertarian party which does not function.

UKIP, (and probably the Greens who I can see harvesting a good portion of the Social Democrat side of the LibDems) are probably sitting down feeling quite pleased this evening.

Stick a fork in them, they’re done.

Posted on by
6

An excellent example of the BBC reporting some of the news this morning. I’ll show you what I mean:

Labour have won the Barnsley Central by-election, while the Lib Dems slipped to sixth in the South Yorkshire seat.

Who finished second, then?

UKIP, the Conservatives, the BNP and an independent all finished ahead of the Lib Dems, who had finished second in the seat in 2010′s general election.

Blimey, but who finished second?

Lib Dem candidate Dominic Carman said his party had been given “a kicking”, while Labour’s victorious Dan Jarvis said it was a message to the coalition.

I think it will be the first of a number of protracted and very painful kickings that the LimpDims will get over the next few years, it will culminate in an almighty tonking at the next GE which will probably see them in ICU on life support. Errrrm, who came second?

The contest followed the former Labour MP’s resignation over his expenses.

Second place though? Who was it? 

At the general election Eric Illsley had held Barnsley Central with a majority of just over 11,000 and 47% of the vote, with the Liberal Democrats in second place.

OK, so who finished second this time?

But the MP resigned his seat after pleading guilty to falsely claiming £14,000 in parliamentary expenses. He was later jailed for a year.

Yes, yes, we know that, but let’s get back to last night, you know, the new bit of the news? Who ended up in that position between first and third place?

Labour got 14,724 votes in the by-election, extending their majority slightly to 11,771, but the turnout fell to 36.5%, compared with 56.4% at the last general election.

Yes, come on, come on!

Labour took 60.8% of the vote, UKIP’s Jane Collins 12.19%, the Conservatives’ James Hockney 8.25%, the BNP’s Enis Dalton 6.04%, Independent Tony Devoy 5.23% and the Liberal Democrats’ Dominic Carman 4.18%.

Boom! There it is, even if they don’t actually say UKIP came second, there it is, in plain sight, UKIP came second. Why did it take them eight paragraphs to actually give us the news?

More to the point, and at the risk of being accused of accusing the BBC of pro-Tory bias, why is there no mention of UKIP seeing off the Tories, their closest (in terms of policy) rivals?

Yes, Labour won and increased their majority, but this is Barnsley, hardly a shock that. The fact that UKIP beat the Tories, by taking getting on to half again what the Tories managed to poll is big, big news. The LibDems? Meh, their goose was cooked the moment they entered into a coalition, because there’s a big difference between the voters and the top table; the voters wanted LibDem policy, the top table wanted a go at pressing the buttons, and now Clegg and chums look like the little kids who press the buttons and waggle the joystick on an arcade machine even though no-one has put any money it. They’re playing at being in government, bless.

The media, and the BBC particularly, are banging on about a disaster for Clegg, which it is, but it is oh so predictable. The real sit up and take notice headline is UKIP. They were never going to win this seat, not in a million years, but I would expect them to coming in behind the big three by some distance, perhaps even behind the BNP in a Labour seat as well, the question is, how many Tory voters abandoned the ship and plumped for a seat in the anti-EU lifeboat? Their share of the vote went up from 4.7% in May to to 12.1% yesterday, they’ve almost trebled their share of the take. The Tories have gone from 17.3% to 8.2%, so is it fair to assume that the 8% extra UKIP gained came from the 9% loss suffered by the Tories? I doubt many of them came from the 13% that deserted the LimpDims, who probably account for the biggest portion of voters who stayed at home in a turn out that was significantly less than was seen in May.

It is always difficult to tell in a by-election, but if we see the same in a general election, where the traditional Lib Dem voters decide that they don’t want anything to do with the party, (or probably more likely, Clegg, anyone notice how quiet Vince Cable has been recently?), but have no intention of turning out for the other big two, then the next general election, especially if AV is carried in May, could be very interesting indeed.

What I’d really like to see is a by-election in a ‘safe’ Tory seat, it would be interesting to see how UKIP perform there, and also to see how much the BNP would take from a no-hope Labour candidate.

The coverage, such as it was, of the campaign in Barnsley was dominated with people bemoaning the general crapness of the big three. Change is on the wind, it is only a little breeze at the moment, but it could turn into a gale, given the right conditions, and they are conditions the big three are unwittingly bringing about.

As for the BBC? Of course they’re not biased towards the Tories, that is a ridiculous notion. The only thing that trumps their hatred of the Tories is their love of the Euro-project, and so UKIP will get no recognition at all. Indeed even if the totals for Labour and UKIP in this by-election were transposed, the news would still be about the collapse of the LibDems. Yes, it was predictable, but that’s news, isn’t it? As far as they are concerned we want dog bites man, what happened was man bites dog, and the EU is a big, ugly, mangy dog.

No, we don’t need to know about that at all.

Confusion or delusion?

Posted on by
Reply

I’m a little confused about the election of the work experience boy to the big chair in the Labour party. I guess ageism trumps racism and sexism, eh, Diane?

Anyhow, if Ed is as ‘Red’ as we’re led to believe, and if he lurches to the left, as some have predicted, I can only stand and applaud the wisdom of the trade union members who decided to cast their votes for him. If he’s the heir apparent to Michael Foot then Labour really will be unelectable for years to come. Remember Labour have never unseated a leader, it just doesn’t happen.

Clegg seems to have divorced himself from the membership of his party, that lot who are neither liberal, nor democratic. I’ll hand it to the LimpDim membership though, they do have principles, one of the advantages of never having a decent shout at getting power. Unfortunately for Nick, he seems to have thrown one of the biggest principles (that being an abhorrance of the idea of getting into bed with the Tories) out of the window just so he can have a go at pressing a couple of the buttons that Cameron can’t be fagged to press himself.

All we need now is for Cameron to be secretly filmed by the News of the World putting kittens into microwaves and the job will be done.

The Lib Dems will haemorrhage support, they’re done before they even start. This coagulation government (as Leg Iron so beautifully puts it) will surely result in the death of the Lib Dems. This is probably not a bad thing, as the Liberals can go back to being liberal (assuming there are some properly liberal people amongst them) while the Social Democrats can go back to. . . well, where?

If Mr. Ed really does want to usher in a new era of swivel eyed socialism, those Social Democrats won’t be welcome there. SDP, anyone?

I’ve always felt quite sorry for Labour members. I thought the way the New Labour agenda was smuggled in without the members’ consent was a pretty shitty trick. The euphoria of government after so long out must now be dissipating, and the awful, awful truth dawning. But perhaps I was wrong? Surely if Miliband Minority was the best candidate to reflect what I always thought were the core opinions of the Labour party membership, then the membership would have turned out in their droves for him? They didn’t.

Indeed Andy Burnham was probably an even more traditional (?) old (?) new old (?) Labour leadership candidate and he hardly got out of the blocks.

So we now have this odd situation where the person who I thought was the closest to the traditional membership was shunned by the membership and elected by the unions. A fact that I’m sure Woodley, Simpson, Serwotka, Crow, et al will remind him of at every available opportunity. If I heard Boulton on Sky News correctly, turnout amongst the trade union portion of the vote was around 10%. So hardly a ringing endorsement of any of the candidates on offer then.

So it leaves with me four questions:

1. What do the Labour party members want?
2. What are the Labour party for?
3. How does a party abdicate responsibility for their leadership elections to a load of people that don’t even care enough about the Labour party to join?
4. Why would anyone vote Labour?

I’ve been saying for a couple of years that it wasn’t the election just gone that was the important one, it’ll be the next one. Let’s hope that the Lib Dems tear themselves apart, that the Tories disgrace themselves and the coalition falls apart and that Labour go back to their old ways, with the unions cracking the whip. If we can get a snap election in, ooooh, 12 to 18 months, all bets will be off, especially if any AV referendum carries a ‘yes’ vote.