Politics

Cameron / Miliband’s Bland And Inoffensive Path To Not-Quite-Victory

Samuel Hooper4 Comments

 

Today saw the launch of the Conservative Party’s latest election broadcast, emailed to their supporters and promoted on YouTube. And from a strictly artistic and technical perspective, it’s not bad.

The video was distributed along with this blurb:

Samuel,​ <– thanks, mail merge personalisation

Have you seen our new Election Broadcast?

It shows how our plan is securing the things we all want for our children and grandchildren: a good education, a decent job, great public services and the chance to make the most out of their lives.

It’s really important that everyone knows the choice at this election: a better, more secure future with the Conservatives or putting all the progress we’ve made at risk with Ed Miliband propped up by the SNP.

Cue lots of video footage of babies and small children, and voiceovers in which the parents express their hopes that little Johnny will emerge from the British educational system reasonably literate and numerate, never have to “worry about paying the bills each month” as an adult, and to come of age in “a Britain with opportunities” (duh). All of this is accompanied by the gentle strumming of guitars familiar to any fan of the TV show Gilmore Girls, and the same amiable whistling that TSB currently uses in advertisements to trick people into thinking that they are a friendly local bank.

But despite the focus on youth, in reality the Tories (and Labour too) are much more concerned with “securing the things we all want” not for our children and grandchildren, but for our parents and grandparents. The welfare state certainly needed reforming in 2010, and Iain Duncan Smith’s rollout of Universal Credit could yet go a long way toward eliminating the benefit trap, but it cannot escape anyone’s attention that the younger generations have borne the brunt of the necessary corrections to excessive government spending.

Meanwhile, Britain’s pensioners – who are much more likely to be homeowners and free of the cost of young raising families – have not been asked to contribute a penny, even as we were told that we are “all in it together”. Instead, the older generation are showered with non-means tested benefits such as free television licences and bus passes, while their pensions are protected with a “triple lock” which ensures that they will always get richer in real terms.

Continue reading →

Uninspiring Tories And Labour Will Bring Deadlock And Chaos To Britain

Samuel Hooper4 Comments

Hung Parliament Bad For Britain

 

As the official 2015 general election campaign gets underway, all of the polls and indicators point not just to a hung parliament, but to a precariously balanced and dangerously weak government ultimately stumbling from the wreckage.

From today’s Telegraph:

If there is no majority government, then the opposition parties could vote against the government in a no-confidence motion. However the new Fixed-Term Parliaments Act would then trigger a fresh general election if no government can be formed within two weeks. It’s hard to predict how the fresh result would be different. The Conservatives might benefit if people felt that Labour and the SNP had been obstructive, but it would be an uncertain and speculative venture for all parties.

The last option is for a minority government. A party grouping with fewer than 326 seats could win a no-confidence motion helped by some opposition abstentions. This avoids the compulsory new election. But the minority government would have to build a fresh coalition for every Commons vote. And without a “confidence and supply” agreement, there is no guarantee that even the budget would be passed. In short, life would be much more difficult for a minority government.

This meltdown scenario is unlikely, but it has a real chance of happening. Perhaps it would be the natural end for a campaign without a clear winner.

This could truly be the nightmare scenario for Britain: the election results may leave both Labour and the Tories feeling bruised, the LibDems nearly wiped out and not in a position to give either party a majority in coalition, UKIP and the Greens furious that their substantial national support failed to translate into many Westminster seats, and the SNP strutting around in triumph as Scotland effectively becomes a one-party nation.

Continue reading →

The Reaction To Labour’s Immigration Mug Is More Than A Storm In A Teacup

Samuel Hooper4 Comments

Labour 2015 General Election Mug Control Immigration - Immigration Policy

 

To mark the official start of the 2015 general election short campaign, the Labour Party celebrated by offering their supporters a commemorative coffee mug with Adolf Hitler’s face adorning one side, and quotes from Mein Kampf on the other. Or so one might be forgiven for thinking, judging by the pant-wettingly hysterical reaction of some left-wingers to Labour’s latest piece of campaign merchandise.

In reality, what happened was that the Labour Party released some campaign trinkets based on their “five pledges” outlining what they would do in government. The offensive mugs make reference to the fourth of these pledges:

CONTROLS ON IMMIGRATION: People who come here won’t be able to claim benefits for at least two years, and we will introduce fair rules making it illegal for employers to undercut wages by exploiting workers.

Cue hysteria and frantic disassociation from the “campaign essential” merchandise from the unthinking wing of the Labour Party, and its odd-couple ambassadors, Chuka Umunna and Dianne Abbott MP:

Diane Abbott, the MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and a former Labour leadership hopeful, tweeted a picture of the mug on Sunday afternoon with the words: “This shameful mug is an embarrassment. But the real problem is that immigration controls are one of our five pledges at all.”

Her tweet prompted a barrage of criticism against Labour on Twitter, with the Liberal Democrat MP Julian Huppert writing: “Wow. The stories are true. Labour have actually produced a campaign mug championing ‘Controls on immigration’.”

Owen Jones also felt the need to get in on the action, though one cannot disagree with his wider point that the Labour Party (and the others) would be better offering some hope, or a positive vision backed up by tangible policies:

Continue reading →

Why Did The BBC Silence John Darvall?

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

 

John Darvall BBC bias General Election 2015 WordPress Blog 2

 

The personal WordPress blog of John Darvall, the BBC Radio Bristol presenter removed from his regularly scheduled programme because of his relationship with a Conservative MP, offers further clues as to why the DJ was silenced ahead of the 2015 general election.

In an article dated 9 November 2014, Darvall struck a decidedly cynical tone in response to the posturing of all the main political parties:

There is an election coming. You may have noticed. All the parties are squaring up to each other while trying to convince you that they ‘have a plan’. They all want to ‘help’ you and yours have a better life, they all say other parties offer you nothing and scare you about why you should be afraid of them if they get in.

We are, of course, being ravaged by ‘crisis’ in all our public services, there is failure on every front and it is all everyone elses fault, but not yours. You are the victim. This was the same in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997 and so on. You didn’t ask to [borrow] the money, you didn’t use the services and you said yes when you should have said no. So now, as we hope for actual leaders to actually lead and real ideas to inspire us, it’s time to test and debate what they are offering. Exciting isn’t it? Well maybe it just might be in a world of four or even five party politics.

Does this sound like the ranting of an ethically compromised journalist eager to spin the news in favour of his fiancée’s political party?

On the contrary, it is the type of indiscriminate “plague on all your houses” lament that could be uttered by any but the most stridently partisan British voter. Rather than indicating a desire to talk up Conservative Party policies and accomplishments, this blog post suggests a weariness with all of the political parties, and impatience with the voters who keep falling for the same promises time after time.

Later in the piece, Darvall goes on to outline his semi-serious “manifesto” for Britain:

We all pay a flat income tax at 20% of our income, after that income exceeds £15,000 per annum. National Insurance is abolished, along with VAT. Once you earn over £100,000 you then pay 30% income tax and 40% over £200,000.*

You pay a further 2% of you income to you [sic] local council.*

Fuel Duty and Vehicle Tax is abolished and you pay 2p for every 1 mile you drive.

Both national and local councils must send you an annual receipt of what you paid and what they spent it on.

A visit to the Doctor will cost you £18.50, like a basic visit to the dentist, which is currently £18.50. The same exceptions will apply as in dental treatment and if you are undergoing treatment for a chronic illness you do not pay.

Flat taxes, a pay-per-use approach to Britain’s sacred public services and full transparency of how local and national government spend taxpayer money? Quelle horreur!

Not to mention Darvall’s heretical idea that the British people may themselves be partly to blame for the stale political consensus that currently entraps the main political parties.

It is starting to look as though the BBC torpedoed John Darvall’s career not because of any potential pro-Conservative bias he may have shown, but simply because he was no longer willing to pretend that this election (and the major parties competing in it) offers the British people anything like real democratic choice.

And shattering that particular illusion would be just terrible for ratings.

John Darvall And The BBC’s Warped Approach To Editorial Impartiality

Samuel Hooper1 Comment

John Darvall BBC bias General Election 2015

 

It can’t be easy for the BBC’s news division, required by law to produce strictly non-partisan coverage while being assailed by both left and right for failing to sing their respective praises loudly enough. And while much of this criticism may be deserved, the fact remains that most BBC journalists perform a difficult and valuable job to a good standard, much of the time.

But the BBC would make life much easier for itself by taking a more consistent approach to its handling of editorial, investigative and disciplinary matters. At present there is no consistency at all, leading to the strong (and correct) perception that there is one rule for some people (and political parties), and another rule for others less favoured.

Take the case of John Darvall, a local radio presenter for BBC Bristol who was removed from his regular presenting slot because he happens to be engaged to a Conservative MP:

John Darvall, of BBC Radio Bristol’s Mid-morning programme, is being moved before the general election but says that he has had no guarantee he will be able to return.

Darvall, 48, and Charlotte Leslie, the MP for Bristol North West, met four years ago on his programme. They began dating in October and the twice-married father of four proposed on Christmas Day.

He is being moved to an afternoon show with less emphasis on news due to “heightened sensitivities” and to avoid accusations of a conflict of interest. BBC bosses said that he will be back after May. During a phone-in on the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson, Darvall suggested that he might not be back even after the election. A caller suggested that he should apply for a job on Top Gear, to which the host replied: “Trust me, I have a lot of reasons myself to be angry with the BBC at the moment. I am coming off this programme tomorrow, so I might consider something of a career departure.”

Questioned by another caller, he added: “It’s to do with the election and protecting BBC impartiality. It’s not my decision. I’m honouring what the BBC have asked me to do and I sincerely hope to be back after the general election, and the BBC have sort of said that I might possibly be, barring any unforeseen circumstances.”

In short, John Darvall was removed from his position not for something he did, something he said or even something that he thought, but rather because of who his future spouse happens to be. This harsh and career-damaging reaction by the BBC –  as taking a journalist off the political beat at election time surely is – was meted out not even for thought-crime, but in Darvall’s case for existence-crime.

Continue reading →