There is nothing British about the BNP

Formed from foreign ideology, rejecting historic British values of the basic equality of all people, engagement with the world, and political change through evolution, not revolution, the BNP is about as anti-British as you can get.

If they were British then why do they keep banging on about the Holocaust? The reason is simple, if your ideology is based on far-right philosophers from the continent then you have to attack the greatest single argument against them. So the BNP feed the Holocaust denial industry, because intellectually they have to. If your beliefs lead to extermination camps then they must be wrong. So, try and pretend the extermination camps never happened and that the Allies were just as bad. Imagine that, a political party with 'British' in its title that believes in moral equivalence among the participants of World War 2.

But this is why the BNP are fundamentally anti-British:



More here.

Cameron shows leadership on expenses

David Cameron looks like a Prime Minister, while the Prime Minister dithers. That is the contrast in the two party leaders' responses to the expenses revelations in the press. From David Cameron: unjustifiable expense claims to be repaid, all expenses to be published immediately and a rapid review of past expenses. Agree or forget being a Tory MP. From Brown, wait for a committee to report in a couple of months, due process must be followed, blah, dither, blah. Cameron gets it in a way that Brown just doesn't. In the same way as he has misread the public mood on every other major issue facing the country, Brown seems to think that the old trick of punting the matter into the long grass will do the trick. Not this time. People are simply furious at such blatant robbery of the public purse from some of our elected representatives. Brown and Labour will become yet more unpopular, if such a thing is possible.

As for Hazel Blears, Andrew MacKay, Elliot Morley and their ilk, they are finished in British politics, and probably for anything else as well. Both politics and business are built on trust. No one is going to vote for or employ anyone they cannot even trust to fill out an expense form honestly.

Brown says sorry

With truly inexplicable timing, Gordon Brown has finally said sorry for the MPs expenses fiasco. He apologised on behalf of 'all MPs' and 'all Parties', dropping his remarks into a speech to the Royal College of Nursing. Apparently, this was not pre-planned, with the PM deciding on the insert on the way to the event. Now, an apology is long overdue from Gordon Brown. While this mess afflicts all parties, most MPs are Labour and we have had a Labour government for the last 12 years, so the culpability lies mainly with them. More importantly, some contrition earlier, much earlier, might have given Gordon Brown or Parliament or both some chance of getting in front of this issue. Instead we have had stalling, denial and a refusal to take accountability which has only finally ended with the leaking of expense claims to the press. Now we have had an apology on the day that the Tories were getting a going over, which makes little sense in hard political terms. It is also far too late to draw a line under the issue, which will bubble on until every last grisly detail is in the public domain.

So, where now? Well, I agree with Sir Christopher Kelly, whose Committee on Standards in Public Life is carrying out a review of MPs' allowances, that the new openness means that most of the abuses that we have seen will probably never happen again anyway. All that is now required is for a code to be formalised that allows MPs office expenses and a second home in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster if they need it. Hardly rocket science. Oh, and it would also be nice if HMRC went after those MPs who evaded capital gains tax as part of their taxpayer-funded property development activities. If I have to pay a hefty tax bill then so should they.

MPs Expenses

'I followed the rules', appears to be the stock excuse. It is very sad that this appears to have replaced 'I did the right thing' as the standard for our elected representatives. Of course not every MP has been taking the mickey out of the taxpayers by getting us to pay for their lifestyles and property deals, but enough have to tarnish the whole institution of parliament. At the moment it is the Labour party getting it in the neck via the press leaking of their historic expenses claims, but one suspects that the odd Conservative is going to pop up as having crossed the line of probity as well. Even so, such things tend to damage the governing party more. After all they are in charge, both of the county and in parliament where, by definition, they have a majority. Certainly the polls make grim reading for Labour on the back of this with a poll in the Mail on Sunday gving CON 45%(nc), LAB 23%(-3), LDEM 17%(nc). The UK Polling Report suggests that this equals Labour's lowest poll rating ever.

Nominated for Deputy Leader of Basildon District Council

I have been nominated as Deputy Leader of Basildon District Council by my colleagues in the ruling Conservative Group. Subject to the vote at the Council AGM on the 21st, that will be my new role in the service of the people of Basildon District. It is a huge and humbling honour to have such trust in me shown by my colleagues and friends and I am so grateful to them, and to the many others that have supported my in my political career for this opportunity. I can only say that I will do my best for all of the people of the District.

Nominated as new leader is Cllr. Tony Ball, the current deputy who will be following in a family tradition as his father was a the leader of the Council in times past. The outgoing leader is Cllr. Malcolm Buckley, an immensely capable and successful politician, who is stepping down as his own decision.

30 year anniversary of Mrs. Thatcher's 1979 victory

Thirty years ago today the mould of post-war politics was broken by a determined leader who was determined to squarely face the problems afflicting our country. She didn't weasel; she didn't pretend that some seemingly intractable problems had a compromise solution. Instead, she showed courage and leadership when her country needed it, and bequeathed to us a State better in every way from the one she took over. I remember when she stepped down; the BBC ran a whole series of packages trying to talk up her perceived demerits. It was mean-spirited then, and more importantly lacked any kind of perspective or historical rigour in analysing exactly what she did achieve. Now more time has passed, and more crucially New Labour has been shown to be a hollow shell based on economic incompetence, her work is getting the sort of critical review that it needs. It is ironic that with the nation in crisis, people are now willing to reach back to her accession and understand what it means to become Prime Minister when the previous administration has failed the country.

From the 1979 election time coverage, which ran on the BBC Parliament channel, one thing does stand out. Because Mrs. Thatcher only ended up with a majority of 44 a great many of the talking heads did not think that translated into a mandate for fundamental change. They also didn't think she could bring it about in practical terms with such a majority. Wind forward to 2010, we will need fundamental change. David Cameron will need a mandate and the majority to make it happen. How much does he need? Single digits probably won't be enough.

BBC Parliament running the 1979 election

It's on right now. If you are interested in politics then it is absolutely fascinating.

Prescott tells critics to leave the Labour party

This from John Prescott on-air to Charles Clarke after the latter's recent criticism of Gordon Brown:

Charles, if you are ashamed to stay in the party it's obvious what you should do, isn't it?

What an odious, contemptible thing to say to a senior member of your own party. Labour is not the North Korean communist party, it is supposedly a democratic party operating in the context of a democracy. The idea that it, or any party for that matter, should command the total unswerving loyalty of all of its members regardless of any actions of the leadership is alien to the British way of politics, and an insult to the many good men and women in the Labour movement. Prescott though is an example of a knee-jerk political tribalist. In his world anything Labour comes up with must by definition be better that anyone else, so anything other than unthinking support for Gordon Brown is tantamount to treason. He doesn't do political debate, or ideas, or strategy. He credo is evil Tories and vote for anything with a red rose attached, and that is pretty much it. Except that it wasn't: for reasons of internal party management Tony Blair gave this man real power with the bloated Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. That gave us the ruinously expensive regional structures, but that was just part of the damage this man did to our country. Now, the planning system is a bit of a dry subject, but it is really very, very important. Prescott managed to construct a system that during the longest sustained property boom since the war delivered 25% less housing than the previous Conservative government over the same period. He gave us insane complexity, know-nothing civil servants involved at every stage, huge costs to local communities and no delivery. We have sites in Basildon that should have provided homes and jobs that have gone nowhere because of that man's incompetence. He choked off supply, which forced up prices and contributed to the unsustainable property boom that has hurt our country badly. Property firms are going bankrupt, people are in negative equity, Councils are spending fortunes on crazy bureaucratic exercises that are completely disconnected from local people and we don't have the homes where we need them, that is Prescott's legacy.

But hey, let's stick a red rosette on a donkey and vote for it.

John Baron MP requests government action during Visteon debate

MP says Ford/Visteon agreement and PPF should be examined

Yesterday evening John Baron MP joined Angela Smith MP in her adjournment debate regarding the Visteon/Ford dispute. This was an opportunity to question the Minister about government help for the Visteon workforce.

John said:

Having visited the Picket Line, the key concern is that the agreement in 2000 between Ford and Visteon, promising Visteon workers ‘lifetime protection’ of pay and conditions, is not being honoured. The government needs to investigate.

The government should also ensure Visteon workers receive their full entitlement for assistance under the Pension Protection Fund.

At the very least, Ford owes its Visteon workers a moral duty to ensure fair treatment given their loyalty and hardwork over the years.

The Minister promised that he would go away and now further investigate the concerns raised during the debate.

Labour stalking horse?

There is a post on Labourhome discussing the possibility of a stalking horse putting up from the Labour back benches in order to oust Gordon Brown. I have no information on the veracity of this, but my understanding of the Labour's arcane rules is that it is almost impossible to remove a sitting Labour Prime Minister without very large numbers of MPs backing a challenge and then only after a lengthy process. That is not the whole story though, because a revolt on a much smaller scale could in practice finish Brown without the whole mechanical process having to be followed to the end. The trigger would be the elections on June 4th, where the party is running several points behind polls that preceded last year's catastrophic results.

Now the arguments for and against persisting with Gordon Brown have been rehearsed at great length in Labour circles. Calculations are made if Brown can recover in time for a general election and arguments made that a second unelected leader would trigger an immediate general election. Most of this is froth. The facts are that Brown has not shown himself to be an effective leader either of the Labour party or our country. While the former does not bother me that much it should concern any Labour supporter. More importantly, we need good national leadership, especially when we are in the worst recession since the 30s. There is absolutely no school of management or organisations that suggests maintaining an ineffective leader in a post is a strategy for success. In harsh political terms, going into a general election under Gordon Brown is likely to result in a very, very bad result for Labour. Under someone else they may lose, but with Brown the result may be so bad that is resonates for decades.

So, the crunch will come in June. Let us hope that the same Labour MPs who spinelessly let Brown take the helm despite knowing better than the rest of us what was really like will find some courage and do the right thing.