Summer Break

The Wilted Rose is shutting down for its annual summer break, which since it started on 18th August 2007 this must be the first one.  Well, if MPs can take 8 weeks off so will I!

But before I go, check out this epsiode of Rab C. Nesbitt in which there is a by election in Glasgow’s Govan South parliamentary consituency and when it comes to the Declaration, it is an SNP gain!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYwuXAXH2f8&feature=related

I will be in Finland all of August, but there may be the occasional post, for example on the subject of the Glasgow East by-election, which may be on 24 July, or if I can find an internet café when I’m abroad.

Normal blogging will resume some time in September.

Alex Salmond will be smiling at Wendy’s ‘late anniversary present’ to Brown

As someone from an Ulster-Scots heritage, I naturally take a keen interest in political events in Scotland, my country of ancestry, (and I’ve always fancied taking up an academic post at a university in Glasgow) but, while I admire Alex Salmond and am delighted by the SNP’s meteoric rise at the expense of Labour, I’m a unionist.

One of my first posts in this blog last August was on Jack McConnell’s appointment as High Commissioner to Malawi and Wendy “Bring it On” Alexander’s ‘heir apparency’ and forthcoming coronation as Leader of Labour’s MSPs.  Now, as a journalist from the Daily Herald said on Sky News, Wendy has given Sub-Prime Minister Brown a ‘late anniversary present’. I read about her resignation on my mobile’s WAP so I couldn’t wait to get home to see what my favourite SNP bloggers had to say about this matter.

As Tartan Hero points out,

Wendy Alexander is expected to announce within the next hour that she is standing down as leader of the Scottish Labour group in the Scottish Parliament. The final straw appearing to be the one day ban being proposed by the Standards Committee for her failure to register donations to her non-leadership campaign last Summer.

And J. Arthur MacNumpty says:

she has “become the story” regarding the donations scandal.

She had become the story in December, but the whispers have got too much. The referendum row didn’t help, and her performance at FMQs made things worse. The one-day ban turned out to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Julie Hepburn, the next SNP MP for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, hasn’t yet posted on the subject – but her response will be, as always, good – but only 6 weeks ago she responded to Wendy’s call for the SNP to “Bring it On” (i.e. a referendum):

Who could have predicted such an astonishing U-turn from Wendy Alexander? This is the woman who has for years told us again and again that the people of Scotland did not deserve the right to choose their own future in a democratic referendum. For her, such an opportunity was a mere distraction from the ‘real’ issues. She subscribed to the patronising view that Labour – and the other unionist parties – were better placed than the people of Scotland to decide what was in our best interests.

Suddenly, in a cynical and desperate attempt to ‘outflank’ the SNP, she has given us exactly what we want. We want the people of Scotland to be given the chance to have their say on the future of this country, in a democratic referendum on independence. The people of this country have never had the opportunity to choose independence in such a vote, and it is long overdue.

Brown is against a referendum so it will be interesting to see how Wendy’s successor (if there is anyone left to take on the job) will handle this sensitive issue.  

The next SNP MP for Gordon (i.e. the constituency for which Mr Salmond is an MSP), Richard Thompson, reckons:

Labour is trying to blame the SNP for this – everyone, in fact, but themselves. This is cant, pure and simple. Wendy and her team were the architects of their own misfortune, and the briefing against her came from within her own party throughout. I’ve no doubt that she’s pretty bright, certainly by the standards of her colleagues, but ultimately, it’s her unfortunate personal style, lack of attention to detail and inability to take others with her that has been her political undoing.

No post so far from Glasgow Central’s next SNP MP, Osama Saeed, (incumbent Labour MP Mohammad Sarwar, who voted for 42 days, is retiring and has lined up his son to stand in this seat), but late last year Mr Saeed commented on Wendy’s donorgate scandal:

Wendy has not just disgraced her own office, but has potentially jeopardized the probity of politics for a long time by not resigning. It has been said that she and Charlie Gordon were going to resign, but were told by HQ in London not to because of the reverberations. If this wasn’t actually what happened, Charlie Gordon made his own very clever moves too. He deflected calls for a by-election by saying he’d make a statement on his future later in the week. End of the week came, and he had nothing to say. Media had lost interest by then. The world moved on.

And finally some words of wisdom from ASwaS last month, which makes me think maybe Brown pushed Wendy because she contradicted him:

This isn’t going to end well. Gordon and Wendy have now contradicted each other too publicly for there not to be some kind of politically violent resolution. This is elevating the issue from a Scottish one to a UK-wide one that threatens the integrity – not to mention credibility – of an already vulnerable Prime Minister.

Alex Salmond will certainly be smiling at Wendy’s ‘late anniversary present’ to Brown, since the SNP should be in a position to win the Glasgow East by election, especially on a 40% turnout (typical of by-elections) – and if Elaine C. Smith – who played Rab C. Nesbitt’s wife – is the SNP candidate.

The Scottish Parliament seat of Glasgow Ballieston is the nearest equivalent and here are the 2007 results:

Margaret Curran (Lab) 9,141
Lachlan McNeill (SNP) 5,207 (+11.2)
Richard Sullivan (C) 1,276
David Jackson (LD) 1,060
George Hargreaves 588

A high SNP turnout, disaffected (ex) Labour voters voting SNP, Conservatives & Lib Dems voting tactically (5,000 voted C & LD in 2005 in Glasgow East) could turn this into an SNP Gain.

It could be the Scottish equivalent of Crewe & Nantwich – this should be a rock solid Labour seat, but is vulnerable to an SNP challenge in a by election.

Scotland is supposed to be Labour’s heartland, but it just shows what a mess Brown, Alexander, Darling, Browne and the rest have made.  And they’ve robbed low-income Scots workers by abolishing the 10p tax rate.  Not to mention rising prices. 

And don’t you think it’s ludicrous that in a net oil producer like Scotland (billions stolen by Whitehall) Scots people have to pay the absurdly high petrol prices at the moment?  Which wouldn’t be so absurdly high were it not for tax rates on petrol.

In these circumstances, wouldn’t it be crazy if Glasgow East returned anything else other than an SNP MP?

Oh dear, Labour come 5th in Henley – is 1066 prophetic?

Labour have come 5th in yesterday’s Henley by election and, it seems, lost their deposit (and Happy Birthday Gordon, as he is cheerily wished elsewhere):

John Howell (C) 19796 

Stephen Kearney (LD) 9680

Mark Stevenson (Greens) 1321

Timothy Rait (BNP) 1243

Richard McKenzie (Lab) 1066

And, as Guido points out, Labour

will be looking at the crumbling Gordon and wondering to themselves how the party might fare without the millstone of a voter repelling weirdo up front.

It is surely no coincidence that the number of votes polled by Labour is 1066, the date of the Battle of Hastings, at which, the ever reliable Wikipedia reports:

Harold was killed during the battle; traditionally, it is believed he was shot through the eye with an arrow. Although there was further English resistance for some time to come, this battle is seen as the point at which William gained control of England.

Is 1066 perhaps prophetic?  Is this the point at which Gordon Brown (á la Harold) has been mortally wounded politically and at which point David Cameron (á la William) can be said to be the heir apparent and ‘gained control of England’? 

 

Blair should resign – and should be replaced by Tarique Ghaffur

Today is Gordon Brown’s first anniversary as Prime Minister.  It is more than a year since Tony Blair stepped down as Prime Minister.  Brown has been a disaster – the succession of a man who simply wasn’t up to the job.

I am absolutely appalled by the way Tarique Ghaffur has been (allegedly) treated by the Metropolitan Police and by “Sir” Ian Blair (yes, he of Jean-Charles De Menezes; insensitive comments about Holly and Jessica; etc).  The public has about as much confidence in Blair as they had in his namesake, the former PM: i.e. very little.  Labour should be ashamed of the shambles the leadership of the Met has become.

It is time that Blair resigns as head of the Met.  He should be replaced, not by the usual public school & Oxbridge educated, white, middle-class copper but by someone who knows the patch and commands respect: as well as adding some diversity to the most senior leadership of this country’s police. 

My suggestion isn’t positive discrimination á la Harman’s legislation today.  There has already, it appears, been (alleged) racial discrimination against the man I suggest should replace Blair – so it would rebalance an already unfair and unjust situation. 

Who would be the ideal successor to ‘Sir’ Ian Blair?  None other than Tarique Ghaffur – he would make a fine, and well deserved, head of the Met.

Don’t ban sportspeople – don’t crush their dreams

Whatever you think of Zimbabwe or Robert Mugabe, we shouldn’t ban its sportspeople, as Gordon Brown despicably said in the Commons.  Why crush the dreams of a country’s people – or hardworking sportspeople, some of whom may be MDC and some may be Zanu PF – because of the actions of its politicians?  Sports sanctions are wrong.

Some years back an immoral and illegal war was waged on Serbia and thank goodness Ana Ivanovic was not blocked from building her superb and graceful tennis playing which has made her, at only 20, a tennis star.  What would have happened if she’d reached this age during the Kosovo War?  Would she too have been banned?

Ana is a lovely Serbian girl who has brought some grace and beauty to Wimbledon this year and deserves to win.  BBC Sport documents the fantastic game where she beat Dechy today and especially these dramatic moments:

Ivanovic managed to battle back and served out strongly to win the tie-break 7-3 and take the match into a decider.

The drama did not end there and 10 of the first 12 games of the set provided a break-point chance.

Dechy was broken twice to go 4-2 and then 5-3 behind but she fought back to level the match at 5-5.

And Ivanovic received another slice of luck at 5-5 when Dechy fired home a backhand volley winner to go 30-15 ahead on the Serb’s serve, only to be told to replay the point as her hat had fallen off just before the stroke.

Ivanovic won the replayed point, and the game, and then had two match points at 7-6 only for Dechy to save them both.

But Dechy’s brave effort ended when her opponent secured three match points at 9-8. And Ivanovic claimed victory on her second with a forehand volley down the line.

Politics should never interfere in sport.  That is why the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the 2012 London Olympics will be such triumphs.  We mightn’t agree with what China or the UK has done politically, but sports offers one of the few level playing fields where athletes can compete on a human level.

Ana Ivanovic will hopefully win at Wimbledon and bring much joy to her country.  I wish her well.

Nadine Dorries MP – “The War of the Mediums”

Nadine Dorries MP has an excellent post on blogging and journalists’ fears of blogging threatening their hegemony.  I would heartily concur with what she says.  For example,

Take care, your first blog may highlight to newspaper editors everywhere how badly journalists – who are paid huge sums of money with vast liquid expense accounts – actually write; and even more alarmingly, how long it takes them to write it.

For more of the same, please click on the link above.

Labour ‘plays the race card’ in desperate attempt to claw back the white working-class

In an excellent analysis, Newmania reports that:

In a plan which is bound to be applauded by the BNP’s Nick Griffin, Labour intends to drop a plan to make families pay a cash bond for relatives who visit from India and Pakistan, instead there will be heavy fines or the threat of jail if family members overstay.Liam Byrne has just told the BBC’s Asian Network radio station that “what we want to do is have a new system but punish people if things go wrong.” He was referring to people coming over for family weddings and then disappearing. Byrne said the government now wanted to “make sure that we can just hit people and hit people hard if their family member breaks the rules”.

Sunny Hundal was absolutely right that “it’s time for Brown people to switch to Tory” if Labour are going to treat South Asian people this way and “hit people hard”.  Liam Byrne is disgusting: Labour has already betrayed its core vote with the 10p tax and now they are going to go on the offensive against harmless (often elderly) South Asians going to weddings in the UK.  Whatever next?  I hope Byrne resigns for this.

Wendy Alexander guilty and the Ballses ‘under investigation’: more new Labour sleaze

Coffee House’s Peter Hoskin reports that Wendy Alexander has been

found guilty of breaking Scottish Parliamentary rules on donations.  And Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper are under investigation over their expenses. 

That’ll no doubt wipe the smile off Brown’s face … if today’s ICM/Guardian opinion poll (Con 45%, Lab 25%, LD 20%) doesn’t   (Before you ask ‘What smile?’, I’m referring to the smile that cropped up when he had that Press Conference last week — haven’t seen PMQs yet so unaware whether he was smiling then.)

Inflation: It’s the money supply, stupid

Simon Heffer hits the nail on the head in his usual astute way in the Telegraph today, in reply to Darling’s lies (or economic illiteracy) about pay rises stoking inflation:

Let us be clear about what is really happening. There is not inflation because of rising prices, or rising wages. There is inflation because the Government has for years allowed the supply of money to be increased by far in excess of the combined rates of inflation and growth. Growth is at present about 2 per cent, and predicted to fall to about 1.4 per cent over the next year.

Inflation, on the bogus measure of Consumer Price Index, is more than 3.3 per cent. Even if we believe these two figures, their sum is about 5 per cent. How fast is the supply of money increasing in the M4 measure? More than 12 per cent. So why do we have inflation? Because we have too much money chasing too few goods. And who put all that money into circulation, not least by excessive borrowing? The Government.

Now, this is something no minister would want to own up to, even if he were sufficiently cerebral to grasp the point. It is much better to do the usual trick of the Prime Minister’s, and disclaim all responsibility for anything that goes wrong.

I tackled this subject yesterday but Mr Heffer has done it much more justice than I did.  The Government, not external factors or wage increases or whatever, are responsible for the mess we’re in.  So much for the “tripartite system”, Bank of England independence and the ‘Golden Chancellor.”

Now it’s Jack McConnell who’s Browned off

Jack McConnell, Tartan Hero reports, apart from being a crony appointment for High Commissioner to Malawi, has now been instructed by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to resign his Scottish Parliament seat (Motherwell & Wishaw).

Quite right too, since he’s a Diplomat of sorts now, so he shouldn’t also be an elected politician.

As Tartan Hero points out, Labour won’t be too keen on the idea as they are perhaps:

running feart of a by-election, once Labour’s safest seat in the Scottish Parliament

As Wendy Alexander would no doubt say about the by- election, “Bring it On!”.  The sooner that the by election is called to give Labour a routing in Motherwell & Wishaw … followed by a General Election which would transfer swathes of Labour seats to the SNP and others … the better!!!

Gordon Brown : one year on

Gordon Brown became Labour leader on 24 June 2007.  His coronation was treated euphorically by the Labour Party and even some parts of the press.  Even Tory activists panicked at the Brown Bounce. The Wilted Rose was one of the few blogs that saw the deflation of the Brown Bounce coming.

A year on we’ve had much to criticise Brown for but here are the top 10 low points for Labour and Britain.

1. Reducing the Labour poll rating from 40% to the lowest ever, 25%.
2. The appalling response to the credit crisis and Northern Wreck.
3. The social breakdown crisis, knife and gun crime and the failure to react.
4. Labour’s assault on our civil liberties.
5. Losing Crewe & Nantwich in the May 22 by-election.
6. Boris Johnson defeating Ken Livingstone in the race for London Mayor.
7. The squalid vote to retain abortion at 24 weeks.
8. Not respecting the Republic of Ireland’s No vote to the Treaty of Lisbon.
9. Abolishing the 10p tax band and the generally excessive taxation in this country.
10. The fact Brown ever became Labour Leader at all. I never thought I’d say this, but bring back Blair.

£6.50 an hour is hardly ’social justice’

Low-paid council workers are right to strike for better wages in the current economic context.  And yet there are many economic fallacies – in fact, outright lies – being bandied about by the treacherous, traitorous Labour Government.  These are the very people who have suffered most as a result of 11 years of Brownian economic policy: and yet many of them will have rejoiced at Blair’s 1997 election victory and will have faithfully voted Labour in every subsequent election.

Why do I support a strike by UNISON members?  Because improving the pay of the low paid in the economic climate caused by Brownian-Darlingian economic mismanagement, the ‘credit crisis’ and rising prices is morally right and socially just. 

Let’s clarify two facts to begin with.  First, 250,000 low-paid public sector workers on £6.50 an hour (of whom 75% are women, according to UNISON) have rejected a derisory 2.45% pay offer.  So it’s not just about low-paid workers (on around £13k a year for a 40-hour week) who need improved pay in order to be able to pay the bills, school uniforms, mortgage or rent etc, but it’s about equal pay for women.  These workers provide essential services such as:

social workers, housing benefit workers, rent collectors refuse workers, school meals staff, teaching assistants, cooks, cleaners, architects and surveyors.

These workers have been hammered by the 10p tax rate debacle and by other factors such as rising petrol and food prices.  They’re now seeking a 6%, or 50p an hour, increase in their pay.  Darling’s attitude is that, ‘we have introduced the minimum wage so there.’  However, it was never supposed to be a maximum wage. 

Second, the economic fallacy that increasing the wages of low-paid public sector workers would be inflationary.  This is an outright lie.  This is a small part of the workforce which is in the public sector – therefore, their wage increases do not increase prices of private sector goods and services. 

Yes, the money would have to come from somewhere – council tax or from Central Government – but it is simply not right to say that this scenario is similar to the 1970s winter of discontent.  There is no hyperinflation like then and food price rises are largely due to external factors as well as the actions of City speculators and the biofuel industry, as last night’s Dispatches reported.

So there will be a strike and hopefully the Government and the councils’ employer association will see sense on this matter.  And save these low-paid workers from financial ruin.  But let’s not forget that the Government has got these workers into this mess with its policies. 

UNISON should have broken its links with the Labour Party in the interests of its members – do low-paid union members really wish to see their money go into the coffers of the Government that has ruined them?  And the union should not bankroll Labour at the next election – all they’ll get is slapped in the face.

Amazing as may sound to many trade unionists, the interests of UNISON members would be better served by a Government that implements radical low-tax policies for low-paid workers (as advocated by Conservative Home’s Tim Montgomerie).  If public sector workers on £6.50 an hour could keep more of their own money, then there wouldn’t be any need for this strike. 

Do opponents of civil liberties (such as ACPO’s Ken Jones) have the guts to debate David Davis?

Do opponents of civil liberties (such as ACPO’s Ken Jones) have the guts to debate David Davis?

Read my post on the subject here.

The Birmingham, Ladywood saga continues

A few weeks ago I commented on the Birmingham Ladywood Labour parliamentary candidate selection.  Cllr Yvonne Mosquito, a black Caribbean councillor, lost the selection to Shabana Mahmood, a Pakistani woman barrister. 

As someone who takes an interest in ethnic minority issues, I’m well aware of the ethnic rivalry within this part of Birmingham but the fact that it has now spilled over into the Labour Party in Ladywood is quite remarkable.  Now the saga continues with the Vice Chair of Nechells Ward Labour Party writing to the Prime Minister (click the link for the letter in full on The Stirrer website).  It is not clear whether there was fraud or if it was simply local Labour Party members (who were away in Pakistan at the time) excercising their democratic right.  Whatever the truth behind this saga, it is clear that the Labour Party has dug itself into a real hole over this selection and much conflict will continue.

No, Brown, it was Labour’s abolition of grammar schools that caused social immobility

An article in the Telegraph today reports Brown’s forthcoming speech to “education leaders” alleging that Maggie caused the UK’s chronic social immobility.  I would be one of the last people to defend the ‘means to the end’ of restructuring the economy in the 1980s, given that my father was made redundant from his manufacturing job in 1985 – never to work again – but I think Brown’s argument is ludicrous.

As Ordovicius rightly points out:

Is this the best Brown can come up with after one year at number 10 and ten years as Chancellor? Will David Cameron respond by blaming Callaghan for the UK’s woes? Me thinks not.

And Glyn Davies notes that:

After 11 years of Labour Government in which Gordon Brown has controlled the public finances, British people born poor stay poor. Even in the area where his rhetoric is strongest, the Prime Minister’s performance is failure. And what is he proposing to reverse this. Some quite small scale pilot projects, the one being given prominence by the BBC being to give public money to families who join schemes which include health checks and nutritional advice to improve social development. I’m not going to disagree with this until I see what evidence the proposal is based on – but it does smack of Gordon Brown’s belief that just throwing public money at every problem is the answer. But by trying to throw all the blame on a woman, who was ten times the man he is, Gordon Brown has diminished himself in the eyes of the British people today.

Beautifully put, Glyn.

Apart from the fact that Brown seems to unwilling for his party or himself to take any responsibility for their 11 years in government, the article highlights a few other reasons why Tories will feel justified in branding him a hypocrite…

There were winners and losers from the Thatcherite economic policies, but those policies have continued unabated – under Labour, hundreds of thousands (if not millions?) of manufacturing jobs have been lost, as the economy continues to become ever more dependent upon services and outsources (and imports) from the developing world.  Developing countries, such as China and India, have benefited from their ability to manufacture cheaply, though they have replaced the manufacturing workforce of the UK.  However, you will be shocked if you watch tonight’s Panorama exposé on child labour in a Primark subcontractor in India.

Back to the point, does living in a workless household preclude social mobility?  It didn’t for me.  I went to university – tens of thousands of working-class kids (even when the parents’ jobs had gone) in Northern Ireland go to good schools, and then often on to university.

And what happens if you’re a bright working-class kid in most parts of England?  Tough luck is the official policy, unless you happen to live in Trafford (3 cheers to Graham Brady!), Kent, Buckinghamshire (3 cheers to Dominic Grieve!).  You can go to a grammar school, that’s what.  If you don’t live in such an area, tough luck, that’s what Ed Balls is basically saying.

Shirley Williams lost her Hertford & Stevenage seat in the 1979 general election not without good reason.  She was the Labour Secretary of State for Education Minister who pushed through the closure of many grammar schools.

I’m not a Thatcherite (Reason: Anglo-Irish Agreement) and I’m not going to defend Maggie under whose watch as Tory Secretary of State for Education many grammar schools were closed too.  But this was in the Heath administration, 1970-1974, which has to rate as one of the worst Conservative Governments – Heath took the UK into the then EEC, after all.

But Brown can’t blame Maggie for social immobility.  It was Labour’s abolition of grammar schools that has caused social immobility - that, for example, means that many bright black Caribbean kids in the tower-blocks in London can’t get a decent education and a chance in life.  And if they do work hard, like Damilola Taylor they get murdered when coming back from the library for being too ‘clever’, or like Stephen Lawrence simply for being black?

I’ve said before that the Tories have annoyed me lately, but better they than Labour, the grammar school abolishers: and Michael Gove has restored at least some confidence.  Melanie Phillips highlights that there may be ’some hope’ for bright working-class kids (including children from workless households),

On a visit last week to Trafford, which maintains both selective and comprehensive schools, the Tory schools spokesman Michael Gove declared robustly that grammar schools must be ‘absolutely defended’. …

… All Mr Gove needs to do is move his geographical pointer a bit farther along the map to the Netherlands to find a progressive country where selective schools are part of an education system driven, as it should be, by parental choice rather than state control.

Academic selection lies at the very heart of intellectual achievement, social justice and individual aspiration. They are impossible without it. That’s why it is a totemic issue by which any party aspiring to government must be judged.

I wouldn’t have got to university had it not been for Foyle & Londonderry College, my grammar school, but Brown ‘n’ Balls would have denied me this opportunity had they the chance.  It is Labour that is the true enemy of social mobility.

UPDATE TUESDAY, 12.06PM: There’s an excellent article in today’s Times by Stephen Pollard on the same theme as this post..