Tory Outcast

How can Baroness Ashton represent the EU on Israel?

2010-03-18T12:16:00.000Z

Perhaps spurred by various accusations of incompetence, hesitation and inexperience the EU's high representative has jetted off to the Gaza Strip. Still one has to wonder, even if she was competent enough for the job, which as you may suspect I do not believe for one second, what will she be saying?

There are certain promises and EU initiatives in the area but is she permitted to negotiate or alter them? Can she make any binding agreements on behalf of the 500 million people who didn't elect her? How far in advance can she commit to anything?

There is no obvious, long term European consensus on Israel. There seems to be a current ceasefire as it were but not one that can't be broken. It is only 3 years since Chirac left office after presiding over what has been described as an occasionally very hostile administration with respect to Israel. Particular tensions arose over France's refusal to join America in Iraq. If a European nation were to elect a leader with similar views will they be free to ignore any commitment Baroness Ashton may chose to make? If another divisive event splits the EU will it not highlight the hypocrisy of lecturing Israel and Palestine?

Inevitably she will find herself stumbling desperately down the middle of the road. Committed to being non-committal. There is one issue she could perhaps speak on. As Efraim Halevy points out in his 2006 book "the only truly harmonized issues concern human rights. The Human Rights Act is a European act". So perhaps there she could make some progress but even then there are complications. If Cameron wins the next election and takes Britain out of the Human Rights act will we still be bound by her agreements?

This seems to be to be just another example of the impossibility of this half way EU. The only way it can have a coherent foreign policy is full political union. Alternatively it should draw back and allow elected national Foreign Ministers to do their own negotiations. Obviously I favour the latter but whichever way the European project moves it seems clear that it cannot stay where it is. With this in mind even the cautious Eurosceptic needs to consider whether there can be a partial political Union or whether the time has come to declare Better Off Out.

Let me tie it up with one more quote from Halevy's book:

"The Europeans ... developed a logic of creating a common denominator between the absurdities of their domestic policies and the pretensions of their foreign policy. That is how I saw it then and how I continue to see it now"

Quote of the day

2010-03-13T12:00:00.000Z

BA employees must realise Unite is sacrificing their livelihoods for a political agenda. Unite wants a return to the days when union bullies ran the country. It wants to rub that message in David Cameron's face should he become Prime Minister. BA chief Willie Walsh is standing up not just for BA but for everyone who doesn't want Britain back in the industrial dark ages.

The Sun Says

Ed McMillan-Scott proves what an unprincipled, careerist Europhile he really is

2010-03-13T11:53:00.000Z

Regular readers will know I am not a fan of Ed McMillan-Scott. In fact he is without doubt one of the major causes of my expulsion. So when news spread that he had defected to the Lib Dems I was torn between two reactions. One half of me wanted to simply say good riddance sit safe in the knowledge that the unprincipled careerist Europhile will find himself right at home there.

Still on the other hand I couldn't quite contain my anger. He was a former leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament. He was a former Vice-President of their group. Undoubtedly he was still at the top level of the European Tories. It seems impossible to me that he was unaware of who the Conservatives were negotiating with prior to his election in 2009.

Either he was so vacuous and unaware that he truly didn't notice who Hague and Timothy Kirkhope were chatting to and therefore is too incompetent to even be an MEP (a damning critique in itself) or he knew perfectly well and therefore stood anyway proving how lacking in principle and honour he really is.

There is no doubt in my mind that the latter is the case. He is a careerist on a par with Peter Mandelson but not as smart or smarmy. How else do you explain his dislike of the new partners only coming to light after he was passed over for the Vice-Presidential nomination? How else do you explain his refusal to step down once the whip had been removed and his expulsion finalised? How else do you explain that it is only now, when he finds himself out in the wilderness and unlikely to be re-elected in 4 years time, that he moves straight to the Lib Dems with such fanfare that they will almost certainly put him to the top of a list next time round?

As I said above he has picked himself the perfect party. Dedicated to the EU project, lacking in principle and commitment, dishonourable careerists and all with their own buffet car on the gravy train I'm sure he will find many new friends among the Lib Dem ranks. Until one of them stabs him in the back...

One final thought. I questioned Eric Pickles on McMillan-Scott on Thursday prior to this story breaking. I'm not sure if he knew about it then but I suspect he didn't. He said something along the lines of being saddened to have to expel a "chum" but parties need to have discipline. I wonder if he would still be so diplomatic...?

Quote of the day

2010-03-11T12:15:00.000Z

Governments just need to do what every family and business has been doing – identify the priorities, keep on with them, but cut out some of the inessentials

Dr Eamonn Butler on the ASI blog

Gordon hasn't greeted any other head of state. Why Zuma?

2010-03-02T23:34:00.003Z

Gordon has ducked out of PMQs this week because he is greeting Jacob Zuma, President of South Africa when he arrives for his state visit.

According to the BBC Gordon's spokesman said:

"[Brown]would have to join the Queen in greeting Mr Zuma"

That is simply not true. This is a state visit. Mr Zuma, the South African Head of State, is here on invitation of the Queen, our head of state. Gordon does not need to be there.

The spokesman then went on to say:

"State visits always have a key role for the prime minister in the ceremony"

Again, as far as I can determine, this is simply not true. In order to verify this I looked at reports of previous state visits since Gordon became PM, none of which have any mention of him being present at the welcoming ceremony.

27 - 29 October 2009 - The President of the Republic of India
"Patil received a red-carpet welcome from Queen Elizabeth II"

26 - 27 March 2008 The President of the French Republic
"greeted by the Queen and Prince Philip"

30 Oct - 1 Nov 2007 The King of Saudi Arabia
"greeted on arrival by the Prince of Wales"

Gordon clearly has other reasons for missing this weeks PMQs. A question he doesn't want to answer perhaps? Calls for an election he doesn't want to hear? Simply for the press attention? Or perhaps he has another reason for wanting a chance to chat with the Queen?

Quote Of The Day

2010-02-23T14:48:00.000Z

"The people of Glasgow North East were left without an MP for an astonishing 142 days because of the shocking arrogance of the Labour Party who put their electoral convenience ahead of the needs of the local community"

SNP MP Stewart Hosie

Matthew Richardson, Executive Director of YBF at CPAC

2010-02-21T23:13:00.002Z

15.57 in:

Socialism, big brother, criminal law, socialist fiscal policy, the NHS and Kerry McCarthy MP are all covered in a distinctively Dan Hannan-esque manner.

DC deconstructs Labour's only line of attack

2010-02-20T15:58:00.003Z

Glenn Beck says politicians can learn from Tiger Woods

2010-02-20T15:15:00.001Z

I'm pretty sure there is an important message in there somewhere although what it is completely escapes me. Any suggestions on the comments board.

Labour still pushing "Operation Fightback"

2010-02-20T13:58:00.001Z

Labour have been telling their candidates to do anything they can to ensure "the next election is not seen as a referendum on the government". Understandable considering their record over the last 13 years but something of a lost cause if you ask me. Still, I thought, perhaps this means they are moving forward? Perhaps they are ready to set out an agenda on how they are going to change.

As it turns out I was being far too naive. To expect any such positivity from a government so bankrupt (literally, morally and intellectually) was in fact embarrassingly naive. Instead they are switching focus to simply attack the Conservatives. It is a strategy we have seen from the Lib Dems for years: we have no credible ideas of our own so we will attack the opponents.

Still this is nothing new. Labour ran out of ideas a long time ago. All this is, is a final admittance of that. So it is with little surprise that they haven't even been able to come up with a new name for this programme. In the Summer it was widely pointed out (including on this blog) that their underdog campaign "Operation Fightback" was a slogan pinched from the BNP. You would have thought after that, one of the lackeys in Labour HQ would have taken just a moment to come up with a new name. Anything? It wouldn't even have to make much sense. It would just have be something at least remotely original or stolen from a party they haven't done so much to distance themselves from. But no they are still determined to use the same name:

The BNP were talking about copyrighting their slogans to prevent these kinds of theft. I thought it was a bit ridiculous at the time as I was expecting Labour to quietly drop it but now it seems like it might be a sensible idea.

Perhaps the other parties should do the same before we start hearing "are you ignoring what we're ignoring?", "the same old alternative" or perhaps even "it's the EU's oil"?

New Taxpayers Alliance video: DEFRA's wasted propaganda millions

2010-02-19T08:46:00.002Z

Damning stuff

Quote Of The Day

2010-02-15T12:18:00.000Z

The EU commission is talking about an "economic government of Europe", and be in no doubt what that means. It means diluting the ability of Greek politicians to set tax and spending priorities. It means the end of the myth that you can have monetary without political union; and at a time of growing electoral disillusion, it means a further erosion of democracy

Boris Johnson in the Telegraph

As he concludes..."Thank heavens we stayed out of the Euro".

When will politicians learn to leave music alone? Ian Lindley the latest to fall foul

2010-02-14T16:46:00.001Z

The North Durham Lib Dems have decided to adopt a campaign song. So many examples of music + politicians going catastrophically wrong spring to mind but apparently their candidate Ian Lindley is unperturbed (not to be confused with Iain Lindley, the excellent Tory candidate for Worsley and Eccles South).

Mr Lindley (the Lib Dem one) has previously been attacked for dubious campaigning and is, one would presume, eager to avoid such criticism in the future. You would have thought then he might have taken a second to think about the lyrics of the song.

Off the top of my head and within the first few lines I can come up with three cheap shots. If his Labour opponents took him seriously I'm sure they could do the same:

"I don’t believe in this anymore" - seems to go some way to explain the Lib Dems policy change in between every TV appearance.

"I kept hoping for the best, But all I found were fatal flaws" - certainly seems to sum up every ill thought out, pointlessly optimistic policy Nick Clegg announces

"We’re broken, And this mistrust goes unspoken" - equally gives an insight into standard Lib Dem campaigning techniques

The song improves slightly after that but music is still surely best left alone by any aspiring politician. It seems highly unlikely that this seat will go anything other than Labour at the next election and if Ian is looking for the opportunity of a more winnable seat in the future he should probably steer clear of this sort of thing.

Quote Of The Day

2010-02-14T15:54:00.000Z

On Brown's appearance tonight with Piers Morgan:

Gordon's problem is not that the public don't know him well enough; the problem is that they know him all too well... I suspect the public made its mind up about Brown long ago

Matthew d'Ancona in the Telegraph

Quote Of The Day

2010-02-13T14:51:00.000Z

It is understandable that many public service workers are worried about their jobs. But they make a mistake if they think the country is in the mood for strikes.

Sensible people - most of us - realise that cuts are inevitable whoever wins the election.

The alternative is that we end up like Greece: bankrupt and with people fighting in the streets.

Is that really what responsible union members want?

The Sun Says

A little sensationalist and simplistic as ever but the essential point is sound

Never voted Tory before?

2010-02-13T14:36:00.001Z

It may well make a difference to the people at which it is targeted but I suspect many existing Tory supporters will be less impressed.

Let the free market have a go Part 2: theatre

2010-02-13T12:13:00.002Z

In September 2008 Andy Burnham launched a government scheme with the aim of getting more young people attending the theatre. The scheme's estimated cost was £2.5million. Whether a government should spend money on such a scheme is one possible debate although not the one I want to offer here. Whether they need to is what I want to discuss today.

The scheme was meant to give away 1 million tickets over two years. This was later downgraded or altered to 618,000. Uptake figures seem hard to come by but apparently 50,000 tickets were given away in the first quarter of the scheme. Even if this rate continued it would still only come to 400,000 tickets, well short of either target.

I'm sure there are many explanations for this apparent shortcoming although if I had to guess I think it would have a great deal to do with the fact that the free or reduced seats offered are almost inevitably some of the worst in the house. If you are trying to introduce someone to the theatre then I would recommend that it should not be done from behind a pillar or so far back that oxygen tanks are provided. In addition anyone I've spoken to about using this scheme is already a regular theatre goer (myself included) and after a couple of bad experiences revert to paying a little extra for a seat where at least half the stage is visible without a telescope. Most theatres already offered reduced rates for young people and students anyway and if anything this scheme has simply reduced the prevalence of these discounts.

In contrast to this on the 30th of January I sat down in a cinema to watch a live broadcast of the National Theatre's production of Nation (based on the Terry Pratchett novel). At the same time thousands of other people at hundreds of other cinemas across the globe were doing exactly the same thing. In contrast to the Government scheme I felt like I had one of the best seats in the house. The multiple camera angles and close up shots gave a whole new dimension to the production and yet was perfectly understated to maintain the fantastic sensation that only live theatre can bring.

NT Live broadcast their first production to 50,000 people in a single month. 11,000 people in the UK alone watched Shakespeare's "All's Well That Ends Well" on a single day last October. These are success rates the Government scheme can't even begin to match. The figures haven't been released for Nation yet but the cinema I visited was full as I'm sure many of the other 310 across the globe were.

Perhaps I have already oversold this event but let me make one more point. These are not people who were going to go anyway as I suspect many of the free ticket users are. The National Theatre was packed to the rafters and so everyone, in every cinema, in every country was an additional viewer.

I try to get to the theatre as frequently as I can but it is often costly. To see a free ticket production even beginning to rival the National Theatre I would probably have to travel to the West Yorkshire Playhouse in Leeds. Even if I opted for a matinee and returned the same day the travel costs would easily exceed the £10 for an NT live ticket at a cinema within walking distance of my house and would probably result in a far less enjoyable or visible afternoon.

£2.5million isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of government debt but is it really necessary? The government should be looking for every penny it can save and this strikes me as a place they could look. The NT Live programme is still "funded in partnership" with Arts Council England so the Government can still posture about the results should they wish to do so but the efficiency of allowing a partly or mainly market based solution is surely far better than simply throwing taxpayer's money at the problem.

Tobin --> Robin Hood. Why the rebranding?

2010-02-10T19:13:00.000Z

The above video has been doing the rounds on the internet this afternoon. Unless I'm much mistaken there is very little difference between a "Robin Hood Tax" and Gordon Brown's suggested "Tobin tax". In fact as far as I can make out they are exactly the same thing. The whole idea has been laughed at in most arenas and torn down in several so I shall not bother to add my voice to that cacophony (a couple of links if you wish to hear it: 1, 2).

However I am interested by the re-branding. Obviously the first thought is that the groups backing it (mainly charities with little in the way of economic credentials) do not want to associate the plan with Gordon's due to the so called "Jonah curse". However this is only a short term fix as I'm sure, if this movement grows legs, Gordon will be running after it as fast as he can and shouting the new name from the rooftops.

Whatever the reason it seems a little odd (although in keeping with what one would expect from such levels of economic illiteracy) that they would rather associate a serious global economic shake up with a criminal from English folklore than a Nobel prize winning economist. As well as being a teacher at both Yale and Harvard James Tobin served on the Council of Economic Advisers and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. He is something of a hero in the neo-Keynesian movement and made massive contributions to the macroeconomic school.

Obviously, personally I would rather put my trust in a forest dwelling, violent, criminal gang member than a Keynesian but I'm guessing the supporters of this tax don't share the sentiment. The video ends with a website for voting on the issue. Perhaps if they wanted a more honest appraisal they should drop the spin and the celebrity endorsements and just lay out the facts. Something tells me they wont...

Quote of the Day

2010-02-09T19:01:00.004Z

On the EU bailing out Greece:

It need hardly be said that it would be wrong – economically and morally – for taxpayers in other countries to step in. It was a mistake to rescue the banks from the consequences of their own errors, and that logic applies in spades to whole countries. Still, the EU has every right to make its own mistakes. What it has no right to do is to expect the United Kingdom to pay a proportion of the bill. We kept the pound. It’s not our problem.

Dan Hannan in the Telegraph

David Cameron reacts to latest MPs' expenses stories

2010-02-07T12:07:00.002Z

Call for Gordon to retract his "flat-earthers" comments

2010-01-27T09:21:00.000Z

"With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do.”

Gordon Brown 03/12/09

''I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper scepticism...Science grows and improves in the light of criticism... There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed"

Prof John Beddington, Chief Scientific advisor to the UK Government 27/01/10

I am not a scientist and could not with any certainty make a case one way or the other (although I would concede that there seems to be more evidence in favour than against the theory).

However at a time when the public are ever more sceptical, the IPCC are admitting serious exaggeration and research bodies are shown to be "hiding the decline" it is ridiculous and irresponsible for our Prime Minister to be writing off everyone even remotely sceptical of the theory or the predicted effects of it. This situation is only worsened when his Government's Chief Scientific advisor is in stark disagreement with him.

Gordon should retract these comments and refrain from making them in the future. The theory may be proved one way or the other in the future but that is not the case so far and until it is no public office holder should be making such brash and potentially insulting claims.

Another lesson for Gordon from Barack Obama

2010-01-26T17:18:00.000Z

I am not a particular fan of Barack Obama. I probably would have picked him over McCain but that is about as much praise as I'm willing to grant him: he wasn't as bad as the other guy. It is therefore a great surprise that, for the second time in a single week, I think Gordon should learn a lesson from him.

That lesson can be seen in this video:

Two lines from that interview jump out at me as in stark contrast to our Gordon:

1) There is a tendency in Washington to think that our job description ... is to get re-elected. That's not our job description.

2) I'd rather be a really good one term President than a mediocre two term President.

I'm not sure I can even picture Gordon expressing similar sentiments let alone actually believing them. It seems clear to me and I think a significant majority of the public that Gordon cares about nothing else except winning the next election. Obviously almost every politician in history has succumbed to this to varying degrees but none that I can think of have such a chronic case as Brown.

The obvious implication that Obama is making is that an elected official, especially the highest elected official in the country, should care more about doing what is right for that country and it's people than any other concern (especially electoral advantage). I cannot see any way in which Gordon can claim to follow this principle. If he did he would not have:

1) put off making the cuts necessary to reduce the deficit risking Britain's international financial reputation, competitiveness and attractiveness to investmen

2) offered benefit rises and a bonus tax in what anyone can see was nothing but crass electioneering

3) waited until effectively the last possible moment to call an election

4) refused a promised referendum on the Lisbon treaty because it wouldn't have gone his way

5) engaged in a vicious, nasty and irrelevant class based election strategy

I could list many more but I'm fairly sure those five illustrate my point adequately.

Gordon Brown would prefer to be a mediocre two term PM than a really good one term PM but he doesn't even have that choice. Realistically now he can choose between being an abysmal one term PM or an abysmal one term PM who still escapes with some dignity remaining. Unless he calls the election immediately he will surely be remembered as one of the worst we have ever had.

Quote for the day

2010-01-26T10:54:00.000Z

In the past we were first in and last out of a recession

Gordon Brown 15th May 2008

Where as in the present we are..... oh wait....

Stop the legislation tidal wave. Let the free market have a go Part 1

2010-01-24T12:27:00.000Z

In the last few years the general response to any problem facing this country has been to reach for legislation. I would suggest however that this is unnecessary in almost every case. Not only this but when governments make a deliberate effort to "fix" a problem they more often than not fail or cause a string of unintended consequence often far worse than the original problem.

I thought therefore I would start a series of posts detailing how the free market, in response to pressure from the consuming public, can, has or will solve the issues and problems facing the nation. I shall start small with a problem that seems to come and go fairly frequently onto the political agenda: food waste.

It seems at least every few months the latest figures of how much food we waste hits the headlines followed by a stream of bandwagon jumpers trying to crack down on it. The most frequently attacked cause of this is the demon known as Buy One Get One Free or the rather unappealing sounding BOGOF. The last flurry of this came in Spring last year. First the EU issued a directive to ban them. Soon after (and rather predictably) the Lib Dems called for them to be banned. And finally the Government followed suit in their Defra Food 2030 plans.

It was of course all completely unnecessary. Unless you believe in a government knows best, paternalist state then the Government should only act on issues that are important enough to their electorate. Fortunately the electorate usually overlaps fairly heavily with the consuming public. This means that while the government should take notice of the public they will not be the only ones. Producers will also be paying keen attention in order to find new ways to attract consumers to their products rather than those of their competitors.

This is exactly what has happened with this example. Tesco has noticed that throwing away so much food is important enough to their current and potential customers and so they have come up with a solution. Rather than scrapping BOGOF which would have hit their customer's wallets in an already difficult time they have simply delayed the "one free". Under new plans if you buy one item then you can either take the second at the same time or pick it up the following week. The so called BOGOF later plan will no doubt drive more people through Tesco's doors as well as reducing food waste and undoubtedly forcing the other supermarkets to follow suit.

So there you have it. Rather than legislating to solve a problem it is far easier to let the market do it for you. The same result is achieved but you do it without making life harder for poorer families or wasting millions drafting and enforcing the legislation. Win-win.

If you have any suggestions for future instalments in this series send them to toryoutcast@gmail.com or twitter them to me here. Also if you're on Facebook then why not become a fan of Tory Outcast here.

Quote of the Day

2010-01-22T19:57:00.000Z

Churchill was right. We should wish European union well – so long as it does not seek to cross the Channel. Certainly I have no ill will towards our friends on the mainland, but I think it is time the British dog got out of the federalist manger. I could live happily on the mainland as a foreigner. I believe that we should have a treaty relationship with other European nations covering matters of mutual interest, but that our Parliament should remain fully sovereign.

Norman Tebbit's latest blogpost entitled Britain and the EU: time for a divorce

Also from the same piece:

I am not, and never have been a “Monday Club politican”, although I see nothing shameful in being one. After all, it is not like being a Fabian.

Classic