While a Conservative UK Government is to be welcome, the proposed Tory-UUP tie-up is crazy

The Conservatives are being advised by David “Lundy” Trimble, who sold out the people of Ulster with the Belfast Agreement, and then failed to deliver, and watched while terrorist prisoners were released, arms were not decommissioned, and the police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, was dismantled. 

Common sense Ulster people ejected Trimble even from his prosperous Upper Bann constituency, in which I have had the pleasure of living for the past 6 months.  The UUP went down from having a majority of unionist seats to only one in 2005.  They had the first minister in the Assembly and then lost it.  They are a spent electoral force. 

Trimble is advising the Tories to amalgamate with the UUP and contest every seat in Northern Ireland.  As Jeffrey Donaldson, DUP MP for Lagan Valley, (once a rock solid UUP seat) rightly pointed out, what about the proposed Unionist pact to stop Sinn Fein winning Fermanagh & South Tyrone and the SDLP from winning South Belfast? 

And what’s more, Tory MEP Dan Hannan described Northern Ireland as an “over-subsidised quango state.”  What gives him the right to say this? 

Most of all, sensible Ulster people will simply not vote in sufficient numbers for the Conservatives, who were responsible for the iniqitous Anglo-Irish Agreement – not to mention wiping out much of Ulster’s industrial base during the Thatcherite period of the 1980s.

The UUP/Tory pact is a non-starter.  It is the advice of a failed politician (Trimble) to the next Prime Minister (Cameron) and is bad judgment all around that it is even being considered.  The UUP’s sole MP Sylvia Hermon is rightly against the idea, it is rumoured. 

It would be like toxic debt being injected into the markets – but in this case, a toxic political force (the UUP) being injected into the veins of the Conservative Party – and should be abandoned forthwith.  And, anyway, just as Scottish Unionists didn’t like being bossed about from London, Ulster people simply wouldn’t wish to be bossed about by the Conservative Party in London either…

As the stock market plunges, more Labour lies revealed

After Congress’ understandable blocking of the $700bn Paulson Plan – the biggest bailout ever, since the days of nationalised industry and subsidisation (though not something the normally free-market US has really known before) – the UK stock market appears to be in freefall.  Nancy Pelosi’s partisan speech killed the deal: not to mention that the anxiety of many voters has been communicated to their elected representatives.

Meanwhile, more Labour lies have been revealed (and it is a good thing the second Brown Bounce has proven to have faded away already – C 41, L 29, LD 18).  They have used children for political purposes – not their own children, as Brown mentioned in his speech, though there is nothing wrong with showing the country your family – but in terms of child poverty.

Labour has consistently lied about the 600,000 (or whatever the figure) children they have lifted out of poverty.  The report by the Campaign to End Child Poverty has revealed the true picture, as this map shows:

The credit crunch, and the rising food and petrol prices, are no doubt making things worse for these kids.  This is Labour’s major failing and one on which the electorate must judge it.  The Tories must also come up with policies to deal with these problems – not just welfarism and benefit dependency as Labour would use, but other sustainable means of helping these kids out of their misery.

Osborne shows that not all roads lead to higher taxes

Here are some words to warm the hearts of instinctive tax-cutters, as well as the millions of hard-working families in the UK who are suffering from the consequences of years of Brownian economic policy.  At the Conservative Conference in Birmingham, George Osborne spoke just now of his aspiration:

“to cut taxes too … leave office with taxes lower than we came in … but … not to play fast and loose with the national debt … when this Party reduces taxes … they will last … We have to stop taxes rising … FREEEZE COUNCIL TAX FOR AT LEAST 2 YEARS.”

Not all roads lead to higher taxes.  Clearly, the road that is followed by the Labour Party does.  But the Conservatives, under Cameron and Osborne, are instinctively for lower taxes. 

The Conservatives’ economic plan – and articulate defence of capitalism, free markets, economic freedom, entrepreneurship and even that four-letter-word RISK - is important to the future of this country.  While some voters may favour the statist and high tax (ultimately economically disastrous) road offered by Labour, only the Tories have the vision and principles to lead the UK out of its current economic morass.

Cutting taxes eventually is commendable – and these will no doubt, and quite rightly, be directed at struggling lower- and middle-income families – who from the next general election have the opportunity to vote for a freeze on council tax, an eventual cut, as well as at some point wider tax cuts. 

This is a welcome speech from someone who, although he must yet convince many people of his abilities and competence, has all the marks of being a very successful Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The alternative is 4 or 5 more years of Darling (or whoever succeeds him in the reshuffle, presumably Ed Balls) and that is an excessive risk that the UK can simply not take.  Never mind toxic debt, the Labour Party – like the one-seat Ulster Unionist Party, which the Tories have been, misguidedly, flirting with – is a toxic party and a toxic Government that must be extirpated.

The Brown bounce will be followed by another bust

Boom and bust has been replaced by Brown and bust .. sorry, bounce and bust. 

Labour will no doubt be crowing that they are on 31%, the Tories on 41% and the Lib Dems on 16% in the latest YouGov poll. As Anthony Wells rightly points out, it’s probably just a conference boost.  Which means that Labour would have to call a conference then a general election to cling on to some of its once safest seats, such as Bishop Auckland and Wolverhampton North East.

No, Brown’s tried to use his wife Sarah as a sort of ‘Palin moment’ for Labour.  But, in the case of Labour, Sarah Broon’s no Sarah Palin. 

In time, the polls will settle back where they should be.  There’ll be another Brown bust.  And another.

Next week, in Birmingham, the Conservatives should be bold and radical – and outline their vision for how they will fix the credit-crunched economy and the broken society – and most of all, the taxation burder on lower- and middle-income families.

I read “Enemy of the People”, by Lord Saatchi, yesterday evening and it is an indictment of how Brown and his cronies have taxed the poor then tried to bribe them with their own money by making them claim back benefits.  The theory is they’d then be dependent on – and vote for – Labour, but that hasn’t worked now that Brown has shown how incompetent he is.

Come to think of it, I remember at a Party Conference in Blackpool some years back a young Peter Cuthbertson being entrusted with Lord Saatchi’s coat outside a Party that the advertising guru was attending.  Peter dutifully looked after the coat, and it was retrieved by Lord Saatchi as he left.  That’s the difference between a young Tory and a New Labour ‘yoof’ – the Labourite would have probably stolen the coat and made its owner buy it back. 

The difference between capitalism and socialism is that, at least in capitalism, you can buy the coat in the first place.

Brownbeating his rivals, but phoney

The title is not a typo.  Brown’s speech yesterday gave him an opportunity to Brownbeat his rivals – remember, he is a man who talks about loyalty and not changing the leadership of his party but who was notoriously disloyal to his illustrious predecessor.  Yes, Blair, illustrious compared to Brown.

Simon Heffer’s analysis of Brown’s speech is spot on, particuarly this passage:

Mr Brown is in denial. So are most of his Cabinet, who in proper Soviet style put on a magnificent display of being all in it together with him. Some looked uneasy and restless: it would be unkind to name them, but any notion that they will all now see the future as one of uninterrupted brightness must be dismissed as a fiction.

The excerpts I saw on c4 news, BBC News and Newsnight made me think, what a phoney speech.  This is not the real Brown.

His crass attempt to Americanise the speech by having his wife introduce him, to humanise him, was a joke.

He says no time for a novice.  But a novice could do better than experienced incompetence.

Brown offends all who are salespeople by his negative references to “salesman Cameron”.

Most of all, Brown comes across as a very evil man who attempts to use Mr Cameron’s kids – even the delightful, but profoundly disabled, Ivan –  against the leader of the opposition.  Why shouldn’t the next Conservative Prime Minister show the country who he is, including his children?  What’s wrong with that?  It just shows how normal Mr Cameron is and how abnormal is Mr Brown.

The public in Stafford and Bolton West, where two focus groups took place, simply don’t like him.  The Politics Home poll shows that from Delyn, to Sunderland Central, to my own favourite stomping grounds of Dudley North and Wolverhampton SW & NE, Brown is a liability to his party. 

His party is a liability to the country.

The people don’t buy Brown’s soviet style “all’s OK, it’s not our fault, we made mistakes, but we will fix it all”. 

Labour will deciminated within the next year or two.  About time too.

A Heseltine moment or a banana skin for Brown?

Miliband’s leadership pitch yesterday had to be toned down, he was apparently – allegedly – overheard saying in a lift, otherwise it could be “misconstrued” as a Heseltine moment.  Well, if not a Heseltinian, Milipede might have an opportunity to leave a banana skin or two for Mr Brown today?

Meanwhile, Labour is now talking about “regulating risk”, even though as Knight pointed out in the 1920s a key element of entrepreneurship – and, therefore, wealth creation – is being willing to take risks in return for rewards.  Yes, the banks have taken big risks (a risk being an uncertain outcome that is uninsurable) but then many other enterprises do too.  Would we have the technological progress we have today if people hadn’t taken risks? And don’t forget that Schumpeterian creative destruction is actually a benevolent process – the investment banks, in particular, and those who dabbled in the unethnical and immoral sub-prime loans (i.e. lending to people they knew couldn’t pay back) have been bitten by their own fangs.

And Brown claims he is the one to take the country forward.  Although Labour won the 2005 general election and later Brown was coronated as Labour Leader, one thing he doesn’t have is a mandate, nor does he have the support of the country. 

So, Milipede, when are you going to have your Heseltine moment or do we have to watch the Brown tragedy for much longer?

Milipede makes another leadership pitch

Forget it. Brown will go nuclear.

I note that on Sky News David Miliband is making another leadership pitch at the Labour Party Conference in Manchester.  His earlier one in the Grauniad or Observer have since been declared to be ‘not really a leadership pitch’.  The Brownites in the audience are looking on steely faced, e.g. see the emotionless Harriet Harman.

Whilst Milipede does look very Prime Ministerial, as opposed to Brown’s current Sub-Prime Ministerial mode, he should just forget it.  Milipede should leave his ambitions till sometime next year. 

You see, on the front of today’s Telegraph, we’re told that Brown has been given 9 months to deliver.  That takes us to about June next year which, with the economy alas still in the doldrums and the Labour party in even more of a shambles, means Brown will go nuclear and call a 2009 snap poll.

Then Milipede will have an opportunity to pitch his leadership bid as potential Leader of the Opposition.

Blair should go

Recent press coverage highlights the shambles of the Metropolitan Police and the despicable way in which the Met has been discredited, after all the work after the landmark findings of the MacPherson report that it was ‘institutionally racist’, by the despicable way in which ‘Sir’ Ian Blair and the Met have treated ethnic minority officers and in particular Tarique Ghaffur (who I have argued here is good enough to replace Blair) and Ali Dezaei.

Mark Field MP points out that:

But of course more shocking than Britain’s most politically-correct copper being accused of racism is the appalling handling of the de Menezes case. Within a week of the shooting in July 2005, I noted that the ‘heartening show of national unity at a time of crisis should not be used to silence dissent’. Indeed I found it ‘curious that the media was able to report almost immediately and without doubt that [Jean Charles de Menezes] was a terror suspect’.

At that time of heightened alert, when London had been so senselessly attacked only weeks before, I sensed that the general public did not truly care whether de Menezes had or had not been a terrorist. Had the Met put its hands up straight away and admitted that a terrible mistake had been made, I believe it would have been accepted. Instead, a mendacious and calculated attempt by senior figures in the Met to disguise events and influence public opinion followed. We were informed that de Menezes had worn bulky clothes, he was running; he vaulted the ticket barrier; a doctored photo demonstrated that he bore resemblance to a terror suspect; traces of cocaine had been found in his urine; he was an illegal immigrant (in fact he had a minor visa irregularity, hardly good reason for his summary execution).

It’s time for Blair to go.  The sooner the better.  He has been shielded by Labour, and especially by the hapless Redditch MP and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, for too long.  It is time for him to resign and allow someone with some credibility and who can command the public’s respect to take over for him.  Tarique Ghaffur could be just the man to do so.

Labour locks up kids

Tony Bliar promised to be, “Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime.”  Did he mean that children were the causes of crime?  And when Michael Howard said, “Prison works“, he didn’t mean locking up kids.

Between 1996 and 2006 (coinciding with most of Labour’s rule), Barnardo’s has found that:

There has been a five-fold surge in the use of custody for 10 to 14-year-olds from 1996-2006, said the charity.

This is despite no significant increase in serious crime. Barnardo’s is calling for sentencing policy to be overhauled.

Furthermore,

Barnardo’s said the 550% rise in the use of custody for children had created an “expensive and ineffective” criminal justice strategy, and had resulted in children “being written off” by the age of 12.

Its study into child custody, Locking up or giving up?, based on data from 1996-2006, found only 7% of the 572 custodial sentences given to 10 to 14-year-olds in 2006 were for “grave” or “violent” offences.

The charity says the number of children and young people imprisoned in England and Wales is the third highest in Europe, behind only the Russian Federation and the Ukraine.

According to the report, holding a child in custody for a year can cost as much as £185,780 – the same as six years’ schooling at Eton College.

Barnardo’s said 80% of children in custody had been excluded from school and locking them up was ineffective – 78% of 10 to 14-year-olds will re-offend within 12 months of being released.

Barnardo’s chief executive, Martin Narey, has pointed out that if under 15s were only give custodial sentences for “grave or violent crimes”, it would save £27.5m a year.

Not only this but it would give children the chance they are denied under Labour.

It’s time for some compassion in sentencing for kids, but alas there’s no chance of heartless Labour achieving this.  All they care about is clinging onto power, defending their lame duck Prime Minister and taking their big salaries.

Brown thinks the economic crisis is a joke

Just seen Gordon Brown on TV joking at the Labour Party Conference that, now that the Government owns Northern Rock, it and by implication Alistair Darling is the sponsor of Newcastle United.

One has to ask what people in the North East who have lost jobs at Northern Rock, or the shareholders who were ripped off by the Government’s nationalisation of the bank, or anyone else who is suffering because of Brownian economic policy – and its mishandling of the ‘credit crunch’ – thinks of Brown’s little joke?

If Brown thinks the economic crisis is a joke, he probably doesn’t realise that he and his party are a joke too. 

Call a snap poll and put yourselves out of misery, Labour.

Time for more grammar schools

I am going to apply some logic to the controversial issue of grammar schools.  First, we know that academic selection is beneficial to driving up educational standards – as Graham Brady MP bravely highlighted in his constituency, Altrincham and Sale, which has grammar schools.

The Conservatives, under pressure from Mr Dominic Grieve QC, a Buckinghamshire MP who has grammar schools in his constituency, acknowledged that where there was increasing demand, new grammar schools should be build.

We learn from today’s Telegraph that

The number of pupils entered for the 11-plus – the grammar school entrance test – has soared to a record high this year, figures show.

As the first children in England sat the exam this week, it was disclosed that entries in one county jumped by a fifth compared to 2007.

…

It follows the disclosure that independent school fees have increased by more than 40 per cent in the last six years alone, sparking claims that many families can no longer afford an independent education.

According to the Good Schools Guide, many of the most popular grammar schools – particularly those in outer London – have had 10 applications for every place.

…

Robert McCartney, chairman of the National Grammar Schools’ Association, said: “The on-going deterioration of the comprehensive system in England is forcing more and more parents to opt for alternative forms of education.”

The twin factors of rising independent school fees and the deterioration of comprehensive education – not to mention the impact of the credit crunch – means that we should open new grammar schools.

I hope that the former public schoolboys on the Conservative Frontbench realise that Labour (such as ex public schoolboy Ed Balls) is denying ordinary kids the educational opportunities they deserve.  It is, therefore, vital that the Tories pledge to create new grammar schools to meet this soaring demand and to offset the educational apartheid that is the legacy of 11 years of New Labour misrule.

And why should children that have been born since May 1997 be prevented from fulfilling their potential in life by outdated 60s educational ideology being followed by the ‘heirs of Crossland’?

TWR makes Total Politics Top 100 – Labour Blogs!

I have just noticed that The Wilted Rose has made the Total Politics Top 100, number 52 in fact, but my smile turned into a frown when I discovered that it is in the Top 100 Labour Blogs!

Ah well, those of you who read this blog know that there is probably no one more anti Labour than me, so I can sleep soundly at night. 

It just shows the low quality of Labour Blogs if a blog that is totally opposed to the Labour Party reaches number 52 in the Top 100 Labour Blogs…

Two polls: people Browned off?

A LabourHome survey for the Independent finds that amongst Labour’s grassroots:

54 per cent would prefer someone else to lead the party into the next general election. Mr Brown’s personal rating was lower than every other member of the Cabinet except the Chief Whip Geoff Hoon and the Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly.

Meanwhile, focus group guru Frank Luntz’s appearance on Newsnight causes Coffee House’s James Forsyth to suggest that the Lib Dems are benefiting from their tax cut policy:

If the Lib Dems can get their new tax cutting message across, they could eat into Tory support. The word on the street is that George Obsorne’s conference speech will contain two big policy announcements. It would be sensible for one of these to be tax relief for the middle classes. Going into the election with the only sizable Tory tax cut on offer being raising the threshold for inheritance tax to a million pounds would suggest that the Tories are dangerously out of touch with the zeitgeist.

The problem I had with the focus group was that the accents of the participants suggested it was taking place in a Labour area somewhere in Northern England – rather than a swing midlands or southern seat.

Another problem is that the age profile of the participants was not balanced.  Hardly anyone over 65 and few younger people (all of whom lean heavily Conservative) – many of the participants were disgruntled, 35-55 and generally unpleasant people. 

Many had voted Labour in the past.  They didn’t like Brown as a leader and because of the economy.  They didn’t like Cameron, basically because he was from the south and they thought he sounded too posh and like Tony Blair.

So only 3 would vote Tory and only 3 Labour – and the rest for the Lib Dems – because of the tax policy, which registered strongly with them.

All this suggests is that the Lib Dems will do very well at the expense of Labour amongst anti-Tory Labour voters, especially in Labour seats, picking up the likes of City of Durham.

Even if the Tories start advocating tax cuts, the Lib Dem message will still resonate with that part of the anti-Tory vote that is currently anti-Labour too. 

And, despite grassroots disquiet, Brown will stay: making him look even more of a lame duck.  Keep undermining him, grassroots and MPs – you’re just maximising the number of Conservative and Lib Dem gains at the next general election!

Labour’s employment shame

Focus on Birmingham

Recently, we have heard much of the possible Lloyds TSB/HBOS job losses of up to 40,000 as well as the shedding of 4,500 Lehman Brothers jobs in the City.  However, what about elsewhere?  What is going on to the local economies – where most of us live – in terms of unemployment and worklessness?

Nationally, we know from the Office of National Statistics that:

The unemployment rate was 5.5 per cent for the three months to July 2008, up 0.2 over both the previous quarter and over the year. The number of unemployed people increased by 81,000 over the quarter and by 72,000 over the year, to reach 1.72 million.

But Labour has presided over an increase of unemployment in the entrepreneurial city of Birmingham again (this is of personal interest to me as I worked there for over three years).  The birthplace of the industrial revolution is suffering from Brownian economic policy with an unemployment rate of 9.2%.

          Source: ONS (2008)

The ONS report also finds that economic inactivity in Birmingham is a staggering 30.7% much higher than the UK’s corresponding 21.6% rate.

Even more of an indictment for Labour – which is supposed to be the party of ethnic minorities – is that in Birmingham the employment rate for non-white adults is only 50.6% (63.1% for the whole population) and their economic inactivity rate is 41.9% (compared to 30.7% overall). 

So if you’re black or Pakistani and living in Birmingham – or anywhere else in the UK – you can blame Labour for your economic situation.

And no matter what colour, gender or age you are, if you live in Birmingham, you’re much more likely to be out of work than if you live in many other parts of the country. 

The next Government needs to sort this mess out and get people, whatever their ‘demographics’ or background, back into work.

Lib Dem tax cut policy = 4.5% swing from LD –> Con?

There was a lot of talk over the weekend about the Lib Dems about to unveil a policy on tax cuts, before Nick Clegg’s speech.  Earlier this blog advocated the moral case for tax cuts.

However, what is interesting from the latest opinion poll due soon from IPSOS/MORI is that the figures are

CON 52% (+4), LAB 24% (nc), LDEM 12% (-5).

This is notable in that it is a 4.5% swing (Update: my maths was wrong and Anthony Wells clarified that a swing is the difference between the two parties divided by two!) direct from the Lib Dems to the Conservatives.

In other words, the Lib Dems are advocating tax cuts and voters realise that only the Conservatives can deliver them.

Evidence if ever there were evidence that the Conservatives should emphasise their tax cutting credentials at their forthcoming Birmingham Conference …