:: Conservative Revival ::

:: Thursday, March 28, 2002 ::

Railroading public finances

When Stephen Byers renationalised Railtrack I pointed out he was taking action that would have been unconstitutional in the US. Now he's shelling out. Boris Johnson provides a great summary of the fiasco in the Telegraph:

During the six months in which Railtrack has been back in the hands of the state - in the form of Ernst and Young, the accountants hired to do the job - the administration has cost £1 million per day. Hundreds of Railtrack employees, 90 per cent of whom had shares in the company, have left, so accelerating the decline in the quality of service. The attentions of the Railtrack bosses have been focused entirely on achieving compensation for the shareholders - which is largely why there has been a shocking deterioration in punctuality since the Byers coup. And to cap it all, Byers is now proposing to spend far more money to take Railtrack out of administration than Railtrack was initially demanding from the Government to help it keep afloat.

Everyone knows why Byers capitulated on Monday: he knew he was about to be sued by the shareholders, and he did not fancy taking the oath, in court, on the subject of his conversations with Railtrack about the company's solvency. Railtrack was not about to go bust; Byers tried to suck up to his Labour backbenchers by expropriating private property. They are not at all happy, now that the whole operation has been shown to be misconceived, disastrously expensive, and put into reverse.

This government's biggest muddles seem to occur when they try to keep the Lefties happy. More fractious Lefties means more problems for the country. The only upside is more opportunity for the Tories.
:: Swordsman 3/28/2002 01:42:00 PM [+] ::
...

Burke and Blair

Good summation of the current state of politics by Peter Oborne in The Spectator. This is particularly to be cheered:

Some of the policy implications of Duncan Smith’s speech — local taxation, locally accountable police forces — are very far-reaching indeed. But the central idea gives the Tories the ability to bring a fresh and cogent analysis of why Tony Blair has failed to reform British public services in the way he promised five years ago.

Precisely what this site has been arguing for. Odd how a real conservative going back to first conservative principles can come up with something that looks radical, isn't it?
:: Swordsman 3/28/2002 08:09:00 AM [+] ::
...

Privatise. It. NOW.

In this global era of, well, globalization, the globe isn't global enough for the BBC: BBC1 drops globe in multicultural rebranding exercise.

Presumably they will also now replace their motto, "nation shall speak peace unto nation", with something that doesn't underline outdated notions of sovereignty and that allows for non-judgemental admissions that it's okay for the disadvantaged to kill, rape and main their oppressors.

I wonder if the idents could include an average bloke changing the channel to Sky?
:: Swordsman 3/27/2002 12:41:00 PM [+] ::
...

Oh no!

Some good gossip over at Iain Dale's Political Diary, but I do warn you about the link to Harry Hendon's site. Apparently he's standing for national chairman of the YCs, whatever they're called now. It is, as Iain says, scary.
:: Swordsman 3/21/2002 06:35:00 AM [+] ::
...

It is the business of the wealthy man
To provide employment for the artisan

Patronising, condescending, ignorant crap from Andrew Marr. Can you tell I'm upset about this? He comments

If "nothing works" in Britain, perhaps it's because nobody works. We'd all rather our children did management studies or media studies anything "professional". Soon, efficient tradesmen will be paid more than nine tenths of the people currently being thrown at university. And quite right too.

Who is "all"? The ABs, that's who, or the middle and upper classes as they used to be called. Perhaps it extends to the C1s too. But, despite New Labour's efforts, the vast majority of children do not go to university. The working class find it difficult to learn trades or set up their own businesses because of the ridiculous regulations surrounding them; that's why "nobody works" any more. Call centres and service industries are all these people have to look forward to, or a life in crime. The possibility of advancing on your own terms and own merits has been stripped away from them. We need to do something about that.
:: Swordsman 3/20/2002 08:06:00 AM [+] ::
...

Shocker

I'm normally in favour of the campaigns Liberty mounts, although I do think they should spend more time on traditional liberties and less time on discrimination. I also would normally say that the New Statesman is a pile of steaming refuse. Today, however, the positions are reversed. This Nick Cohen essay defends Parliamentary privilege from the odd Liberty position that MPs should be subject to the libel law when speaking in Parliament:

Freedom of speech in the Commons is facing its severest challenge since the 17th century. A privilege is, by definition, unavailable to everyone. It therefore offends simplistic notions of equality before the law. But MPs are unlike everyone else. They are our elected representatives. They can, and occasionally are, the only people in public positions to whom abused citizens can turn when all other doors are shut in their faces. MPs' freedom allows them to publicise scandals that others can't or won't touch.

Quite right. Perhaps Liberty should take a longer look at the Bill of Rights and remember what it was really all about.
:: Swordsman 3/18/2002 11:30:00 AM [+] ::
...

Cowards

So Blunkett has refused to re-open the issue of family structure? That's cowardice. If you're going to be tough on the causes of crime, then you have to get tough on family structure. There's a splendid Telegraph article today, Children pay the price when their parents don't marry, that outlines the reasons why. For some time I felt that Government had no role in this area, but as religion has collapsed, it is up to the Government to explain the practical, societal reasons why family structure is so important. There's plenty of evidence from over here as well:

In America, the overwhelming weight of evidence on the link between broken homes, fatherlessness and crime has brought about a change in attitude, inspiring cross-party support for pro-marriage initiatives. Recent statistics there show that these initiatives are beginning to stem family decline.

This is not "blaming single mothers" and we should resist that characterization. It is showing that the culture of early single parenthood is damaging to the women, the children and society. The only winners are the feckless, amoral young men who prey on these women by fathering children on them and then abandoning them, or subjecting them to violence free from the legal deterrents inherent in the commitment of marriage. Yes, there are poor, young single mothers who raise their children well. But they are the exception rather than the rule and it is the generality we are aiming our policies at.
:: Swordsman 3/13/2002 07:08:00 AM [+] ::
...

The Road to Damascus

I have argued here often that our NHS line-to-take should be that it is KILLING PEOPLE! I did that before two married friends each had a parent die prematurely owing to NHS incompetence. Now, it seems, the light has dawned even on Anthony Browne, health editor of The Observer, no less:

No organisation that causes the misery the NHS does can be defended on ethical grounds. Those who claim that to question the institution's failed principles is somehow unethical have blood on their hands. They are responsible for making serious reform politically impossible, denying the British a proper health system.

If this rampart has fallen, the battle can be won. We owe it to the British people to present an alternative. If Mr Browne can be persuaded to approve of it, who knows what citadels will fall next.
:: Swordsman 3/12/2002 08:46:00 AM [+] ::
...

A Patten of Failure

Anthony Howard, chief oppo since university for Michael Heseltine, the leading "conservative" Europeanist, delivers if not an ecomium, at least an apologia for Chris Patten in The Times. As Patten is Hezza's political heir, this is not surprising. But what this brings out is how effectively Patten has been squeezed out of British politics. As Howard points out, Patten was on the verge of becoming a very powerful figure when there was that "Tory gain" in his Bath constituency.

As always with this sort of article, it is what is left unsaid that is important. If Patten is to have any sort of political future, it is clear that it is not with the Tories, nor with Blair. Where, the, can he go? I think the answer is clear. He has positioned himself not to appeal to the British electorate, but to the Continental. If there are to be Europe-wide elections, which I am sure Patten favours, then who better to take up a senior position in a pan-European "conservative" party than a senior British conservative, passionately committed to Europe, who has stood up to the American hyperpuissance? Patten could easily be the first Briton to have the label Christian Democrat officially applied to him.
:: Swordsman 3/12/2002 08:13:00 AM [+] ::
...

Balfe-our

Here's what Tory MEP and Telegraph leader writer Dan Hannan has to say on the Balfe defection:

Here's a turn up for the books. After years of Tory defections to the Left, a Labour Euro-MP has crossed the floor the other way. This morning, Richard Balfe became the first non-Conservative politician to switch to us since Reg Prentice back in the 1970s.

His move is all the more remarkable because Richard is in no sense a Euro-sceptic. As an MEP for more than 20 years, he has always articulated the moderate integrationism of the traditional Labour Right. But, says Richard, he would rather be part of an anti-euro party that tolerates different opinions than of a pro-euro party that squashes dissent.

The timing of his move could hardly be more felicitous. Over the past month, a number of Labour supporters have been struggling to accept the idea that Tony Blair's government may be bent. I don't just mean that there have been cases of individual sleaze. That, I fear, is inevitable in politics: Tony Blair was bound to have his Vazes and Robinsons, just as we had our Archers and Hamiltons. But the Byers and Mittal affairs are something of a different order. They suggest a pattern of behaviour which, looking back, can also be seen in the Ecclestone and Hinduja scandals: a blasé abuse of office; a readiness to put party before country; a tendency to blame civil servants who are in no position to answer back; and, worst of all, a contempt for the truth. I never thought to see the day when a British minister would be cheered in the House of Commons even as he admitted to lying.

For Richard, it was the last straw. Already fed up with Labour's failure to deliver on public services, he took the brave decision to turn his back on a party he has served for more than 30 years.

Such defections matter. For a wavering Labour voter, already wondering whether to shift his allegiance, the sight of a prominent politician abandoning the party will make his own personal journey that much easier. Our party was damaged by defections in the 1990s, not so much because we were losing key people, but because each transfer made some of our supporters reconsider their loyalty. Now, after so many years, the process has been reversed. Whisper it softly: the Conservatives are back in business.

There's nothing wrong with optimism...
:: Swordsman 3/06/2002 08:32:00 AM [+] ::
...

Seeking Tories on Council Estates

Richard Balfe's apologia, Blair's arrogance and dishonesty leads me to the Conservatives contains much I agree with, especially the call to seek non-traditional conservatives:

In the past, too many people who shared Conservative values have not voted Conservative, let alone joined the party, because they felt that it was not for them. I was probably one of those people. As the son of an Irish immigrant doctor, who had been to a Sheffield secondary modern, joined the Civil Service and was determined to better myself, I felt that the Conservative Party was just not the club for me.

More recently, when canvassing in elections, I have frequently come across people who've voted Labour without for a second believing in its policies. The people that I am thinking about might include Asian small business owners, hard-working, aspiring immigrants or the public-sector middle managers. The Conservative Party's biggest challenge is to be seen as welcoming and relevant to people such as these.

This is completely in line with my Northern Strategy theory. I think it can be done. If we are to win, it must be done.
:: Swordsman 3/06/2002 08:22:00 AM [+] ::
...

Blair = Cromwell?

I'd never seen the terms of the Humble Petition and Advice of 1657 until reading this OU page. It states:

"Parliament would become a bicameral legislature (i.e. two chambers) and the second house would consist of individuals nominated by the Protector."

Isn't this what Blair has in mind?
:: Swordsman 3/05/2002 08:30:00 AM [+] ::
...

Aunty, get out of my house

The case for BBC privatization continues. Simon Jenkins puts the boot in this week in a great piece. There used to be a radio licence, didn't there? I'd be happy for that to be restored while the TV part of the Beeb goes to its rightful place in the market.
:: Swordsman 3/01/2002 07:47:00 AM [+] ::
...