I've been given a transcript of Rupert Murdoch's visit to Number 10:
Murdoch: "Dave. Nice house. Bit small. How's it hangin'?"
David: "O it's..."
Murdoch: "Yeah, thought so. Where's Nick?"
David: "O he's..."
Murdoch: "Is he. Well let's get down to business."
David: "OK...well.."
Murdoch: "Look my boy James almost f****d up. I told him to be f*****g careful but he was determined to give you all the help you needed. Even by my standards we went a bit f*****g OTT. But that's water under the bridge now boy. You're hear. In power. Even if it does need the Lib-Dems to bail you out."
David: "Well..."
Murdoch: "So...what I want to know now is what I'm getting in return mate. I mean I don't do anything for anyone without some kind of back scratching in return. Not even you mate."
David: "Well..."
Murdoch: "I'm not getting any f*****g younger so let's cut to the chase. I've got a list here somewhere. First: f*****g OfCom. Those bastards are trying to ruin me. Get them off my back. Second: the f*****g BBC. Commie poofs the lot of them. Let's break the bastards up. Flog off some of the f*****g thing to the private sector. Cut the licence fee so they can't really compete. O and get all that free content of the f*****g web. I don't understand it but its not making me enough f*****g money. What's the point in charging for the Times if the bloody BBC can put news and sport up for free. Thirdly: Let's get rid of these silly rules about balance in the news. If I wanted balance I'd buy the f*****g BBC. I want Sky News to be able to say what it likes about who it likes without being worried about fairness. It works for me in the States so why the f**k not here. Sound fair enough Dave?"
David: "Well I..."
Murdoch: "Good. Well thanks for the chat. I'll be keeping a close f*****g eye on things from now on and you wouldn't want me getting hostile now would you. I mean coalitions are notoriously difficult to keep together. There's a few bastards in your party that could stir up a bit of trouble if we wanted them to."
David: "Well there's..."
Murdooch: "Anyway mate. I've got to go. I've got to have a word with James and Rebekah. You know if you want a job doing properly..."
*Recording ends*
So there you have it. Exclusive.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Drawing Wrong Conclusions
I notice, in the battle to be next leader of the Labour Party, the arguement is being raised by a number of the potential leadership candidates that 'we lost the election because we failed to connect...' and that immigration is one of those issues that Labour failed to see as a genuine concern.
I think there is an element of truth in this, but only a element. There were other reasons why the Labour Party lost the election: the economy; parliamentary sleaze - which stuck to them more than it did to the Conservatives or the Lib-Dems; the perception that under Labour we were less free ; that the party was not listening and could not bring itself to change policies that were clearly wrong headed, e.g. ID Cards ; that the traditional Labour voters saw themselves as abandoned in a dash for the Daily Mail reading, middle-classes.
If you were a Trade Unionist why would you vote Labour except out of historical loyalty. The Labour Party behaved like it was embarrassed to be seen with you. No real attempt was made to protect the rights of workers. Whenever it came to a clash between the employer and employee the Labour Party would claim that it could not get involved. The Labour Party waved the sale of the Post Office about. The Education system and the NHS were increasingly opened up to 'the market' as if the market was the answer.
The Banking Crisis shows what happens to a market left to its own devices. In fact the Banking Crisis should be used to hammer every sector that says 'we want less regulation...let us regulate ourselves.' Self-regulation is often no regulation. Everything ticks along nicely until there is a crisis.
The Labour Party should be prepared to press for regulation where needed.
It should not however be the party that reduces our civil liberties. ID Cards, Biometric Passports, the DNA database, CCTV etc have all become memorials to a Labour Party that seemed bent on proving that the best way to protect our way of life from terror was to take away our rights.
In my view a genuine democracy is always at risk. That risk of attack is what we accept when we say we believe ourselves to be citizens of a free society. Yes, the Police have a job to do but that job should always be ring-fenced by the rule of law and that should always err on the side of freedom.
So yes that means letting unpleasent people who 'hate us' say want the want to say. That means letting people stay in this country who appear to hate this country because if they were to be extradited they would be tortured and killed. That means protecting the rights of people who if positions were reversed would deny us those rights. Freedom is a risk.
That's why I think that the reason the Labour Party lost is more complicated than 'immigration'. Immigration is an issue but we need to re-frame the arguement so that it becomes about the use to which immigrants are put. How employers use them to drive down wages, to de-unionise and to try to get a workforce that is not told its rights.
Housing is also an issue. The time has come for the Labour Party to drive for another great Council House building programme so that the poorest can live in better conditions, in safety and in health. The more 'social housing' we make available the better for everyone.
Let's go back to the 1945 manifesto: Housing, Healthcare, Education, Transport.
If we are going to win it won't be as next Labour, new Labour or old Labour. It'll be as The Labour Party. Let's not be afraid to go out and sell our beliefs.
Hey and maybe, just maybe we can mention the word socialism again (but let's not get too excited)
I think there is an element of truth in this, but only a element. There were other reasons why the Labour Party lost the election: the economy; parliamentary sleaze - which stuck to them more than it did to the Conservatives or the Lib-Dems; the perception that under Labour we were less free ; that the party was not listening and could not bring itself to change policies that were clearly wrong headed, e.g. ID Cards ; that the traditional Labour voters saw themselves as abandoned in a dash for the Daily Mail reading, middle-classes.
If you were a Trade Unionist why would you vote Labour except out of historical loyalty. The Labour Party behaved like it was embarrassed to be seen with you. No real attempt was made to protect the rights of workers. Whenever it came to a clash between the employer and employee the Labour Party would claim that it could not get involved. The Labour Party waved the sale of the Post Office about. The Education system and the NHS were increasingly opened up to 'the market' as if the market was the answer.
The Banking Crisis shows what happens to a market left to its own devices. In fact the Banking Crisis should be used to hammer every sector that says 'we want less regulation...let us regulate ourselves.' Self-regulation is often no regulation. Everything ticks along nicely until there is a crisis.
The Labour Party should be prepared to press for regulation where needed.
It should not however be the party that reduces our civil liberties. ID Cards, Biometric Passports, the DNA database, CCTV etc have all become memorials to a Labour Party that seemed bent on proving that the best way to protect our way of life from terror was to take away our rights.
In my view a genuine democracy is always at risk. That risk of attack is what we accept when we say we believe ourselves to be citizens of a free society. Yes, the Police have a job to do but that job should always be ring-fenced by the rule of law and that should always err on the side of freedom.
So yes that means letting unpleasent people who 'hate us' say want the want to say. That means letting people stay in this country who appear to hate this country because if they were to be extradited they would be tortured and killed. That means protecting the rights of people who if positions were reversed would deny us those rights. Freedom is a risk.
That's why I think that the reason the Labour Party lost is more complicated than 'immigration'. Immigration is an issue but we need to re-frame the arguement so that it becomes about the use to which immigrants are put. How employers use them to drive down wages, to de-unionise and to try to get a workforce that is not told its rights.
Housing is also an issue. The time has come for the Labour Party to drive for another great Council House building programme so that the poorest can live in better conditions, in safety and in health. The more 'social housing' we make available the better for everyone.
Let's go back to the 1945 manifesto: Housing, Healthcare, Education, Transport.
If we are going to win it won't be as next Labour, new Labour or old Labour. It'll be as The Labour Party. Let's not be afraid to go out and sell our beliefs.
Hey and maybe, just maybe we can mention the word socialism again (but let's not get too excited)
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Trade Unions
I heard something particularly depressing today. In amongst the usual stuff: '...there are people desperate for a job in the current climate so why can't employees of Company X be grateful just for having a job...' ; 'I don't think people who can inconvenience other people - (read INCONVENIENCE ME for that) should be allowed to go on strike' I heard the following 'I can't go on strike...so why should they (and it doesn't matter at this point who 'THEY' are) be allowed to strike?
I pointed out that surely the question should be 'Why am I NOT allowed to strike?' or 'Why am I NOT allowed to be in a Trade Union' but the response was Trade Union's are for lazy people who don't want to do a proper days work. To some of you this might be a wee bit of a shock. If it is...you need to move into the real world.
Trade Unionism in this country touches the employees of the public sector (or companies that used to be in the public sector). It barely touches people who work in small, privately owned companies. In fact a lot of those people might find it a little odd. After all I deal directly with my employer...why bother with a Trade Union?
I asked a colleague, 'Would we not be stronger if we could withdraw our labour together' and they said 'Why would I do that? I've always done alright talking to [The Boss] directly. And truth be told they probably have. Whether the rest of the company has is a moot point.
The point of this late night ramble is to point out that Trade Unions have a long way to go in this country before they can convince people of their benefits, which means reaching into the Private Sector not just the Public. It means pushing the current government - as well as the new, improved Labour Party leader, for legislation that makes it easier for employees to join a Trade Union, to have it recognised by the employer and to protect those who work for Trade Unions from victimisation and from losing their jobs through strike action.
There is, in British law, no 'Right To Strike'. Perhaps the time has come to establish one. Perhaps Trade Unions need to stop letting good Trade Unionists lose their jobs but 'win the Tribunal'. Perhaps Trade Unionism should stop apologising for the past and start hammering away at the future.
I pointed out that surely the question should be 'Why am I NOT allowed to strike?' or 'Why am I NOT allowed to be in a Trade Union' but the response was Trade Union's are for lazy people who don't want to do a proper days work. To some of you this might be a wee bit of a shock. If it is...you need to move into the real world.
Trade Unionism in this country touches the employees of the public sector (or companies that used to be in the public sector). It barely touches people who work in small, privately owned companies. In fact a lot of those people might find it a little odd. After all I deal directly with my employer...why bother with a Trade Union?
I asked a colleague, 'Would we not be stronger if we could withdraw our labour together' and they said 'Why would I do that? I've always done alright talking to [The Boss] directly. And truth be told they probably have. Whether the rest of the company has is a moot point.
The point of this late night ramble is to point out that Trade Unions have a long way to go in this country before they can convince people of their benefits, which means reaching into the Private Sector not just the Public. It means pushing the current government - as well as the new, improved Labour Party leader, for legislation that makes it easier for employees to join a Trade Union, to have it recognised by the employer and to protect those who work for Trade Unions from victimisation and from losing their jobs through strike action.
There is, in British law, no 'Right To Strike'. Perhaps the time has come to establish one. Perhaps Trade Unions need to stop letting good Trade Unionists lose their jobs but 'win the Tribunal'. Perhaps Trade Unionism should stop apologising for the past and start hammering away at the future.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Labour Party: What Next?
So farewell Gordon Brown who, having been on the receiving end of personal abuse only really equalled by Neil Kinnock, ceased to be leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minster.
His exit and the formation of a Tory-Liberal Coalition poses some interesting questions for the Labour Party. I see no point in rushing a leadership election but there does need to be some kind of 'fight' for the job. Another coronation is not going to help anyone, even though I'm beginning to sense a desire to parachute a Milliband straight into the job. Let's have a genuine chance to debate some of the issues facing the Labour Party moving forward.
My view is that the party needs to build itself a distinctive identity. The party needs to move away from its recent past. Abandon this unnecessary support for ID Cards and the like. It needs to get out amongst the people and reconnect. At every level. From prospective Council candidates to Shadow Cabinet Ministers. There needs to be a real attempt to re-build a party who focus is on social justice and on representing those people who will not feel that any other party can represent them.
Undo the ties of New Labour, which offers nothing substantially different to a Tory-Lib coalition. Indeed some of the policies which a Tory-Lib coalition will put forward appear more radical than anything the Labour Party itself would have done had they retained power.
Now is the time to look at every policy. To question everything. To abandon those policies that reflect an experiment that failed. How do you improve education and access to education? How do you improve the NHS? How do you manage an economy where the whims of the City are more important than the needs of the people? What kind of armed forces do we want or need? What can governments do to create and protect jobs? What kind of parliament and electoral system do we want?
The questions are endless. What I believe to be a absolute truth is that the solutions to these questions will not be found with New Labour answers. We need new thinking connected to the basic premise that the job of the Labour Party is to help raise people up, rather than hold them down. To free people from poverty, hardship and ignorance.
There is time to fundamentally re-think what the Labour Party stands for and what its mission is moving forward. A vision for government and country.
On the other hand we can just appoint a Blair-Clegg-Cameron soundalike and drift along in opposition, sniping at the Tory-Libs until 2015 when the Tories win a proper majority.
Let's get out there and let's build a new, better Labour Party.
His exit and the formation of a Tory-Liberal Coalition poses some interesting questions for the Labour Party. I see no point in rushing a leadership election but there does need to be some kind of 'fight' for the job. Another coronation is not going to help anyone, even though I'm beginning to sense a desire to parachute a Milliband straight into the job. Let's have a genuine chance to debate some of the issues facing the Labour Party moving forward.
My view is that the party needs to build itself a distinctive identity. The party needs to move away from its recent past. Abandon this unnecessary support for ID Cards and the like. It needs to get out amongst the people and reconnect. At every level. From prospective Council candidates to Shadow Cabinet Ministers. There needs to be a real attempt to re-build a party who focus is on social justice and on representing those people who will not feel that any other party can represent them.
Undo the ties of New Labour, which offers nothing substantially different to a Tory-Lib coalition. Indeed some of the policies which a Tory-Lib coalition will put forward appear more radical than anything the Labour Party itself would have done had they retained power.
Now is the time to look at every policy. To question everything. To abandon those policies that reflect an experiment that failed. How do you improve education and access to education? How do you improve the NHS? How do you manage an economy where the whims of the City are more important than the needs of the people? What kind of armed forces do we want or need? What can governments do to create and protect jobs? What kind of parliament and electoral system do we want?
The questions are endless. What I believe to be a absolute truth is that the solutions to these questions will not be found with New Labour answers. We need new thinking connected to the basic premise that the job of the Labour Party is to help raise people up, rather than hold them down. To free people from poverty, hardship and ignorance.
There is time to fundamentally re-think what the Labour Party stands for and what its mission is moving forward. A vision for government and country.
On the other hand we can just appoint a Blair-Clegg-Cameron soundalike and drift along in opposition, sniping at the Tory-Libs until 2015 when the Tories win a proper majority.
Let's get out there and let's build a new, better Labour Party.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Lessons to Be Learned
So the election is over but the fallout continues. With no one being able to claim a genuine mandate - whatever spin Cameron tries to put on it - the games begin. It is looking like a Con-Lib coalition at the moment but if I were Clegg I'd make a referendum on PR the minimum requirement for any agreement. Let's face it the Tories will be looking to go for another election (and a proper majority for them) as fast as possible. So get that referendum Nick. It's your last best hope.
One thing I wanted to say - and it connects with my previous post about the UKIP gentleman - is that the one key lesson I would have learned is that nothing beats hard work on the ground, meeting and listening to your constituents. Margaret Hodge's success in Barking (and the total meltdown of the BNP in the Council elections in Barking and Dagenham) can to a great degree be put down to getting in amongst the electorate, connecting with them, listening to them and trying to articulate their problems rather than standing aloof peddling the party line.
All the talk post-Obama was how the internet could revolutionise elections and there is some truth in that but in the end internet forums, Facebook groups and Twitter campaigns can fool people into thinking that they are taking real action. Yes, these things have a publicity effect. Yes, they can be genuinely effective in raising money and for contacting those in authority but in electoral terms nothing is going to better being on the ground talking to and meeting your electorate.
Action in the real world, supported by the web is the way forward. So my advice to the Labour Party (for what it is worth) is make sure all your new MPs, all your new Councillors have the Twitter accounts, their Facebook pages and e-mails but above all get them to get out and meet people. Become School Governors, meet parents, meet teachers, go to your local pubs, go to meetings...yes it'll eat into your life but if you want to be re-elected and if you want to win elections that, more than anything, will do the job.
One thing I wanted to say - and it connects with my previous post about the UKIP gentleman - is that the one key lesson I would have learned is that nothing beats hard work on the ground, meeting and listening to your constituents. Margaret Hodge's success in Barking (and the total meltdown of the BNP in the Council elections in Barking and Dagenham) can to a great degree be put down to getting in amongst the electorate, connecting with them, listening to them and trying to articulate their problems rather than standing aloof peddling the party line.
All the talk post-Obama was how the internet could revolutionise elections and there is some truth in that but in the end internet forums, Facebook groups and Twitter campaigns can fool people into thinking that they are taking real action. Yes, these things have a publicity effect. Yes, they can be genuinely effective in raising money and for contacting those in authority but in electoral terms nothing is going to better being on the ground talking to and meeting your electorate.
Action in the real world, supported by the web is the way forward. So my advice to the Labour Party (for what it is worth) is make sure all your new MPs, all your new Councillors have the Twitter accounts, their Facebook pages and e-mails but above all get them to get out and meet people. Become School Governors, meet parents, meet teachers, go to your local pubs, go to meetings...yes it'll eat into your life but if you want to be re-elected and if you want to win elections that, more than anything, will do the job.
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Phillipa Stroud Silence
Did you know that there's a Tory candidate that believes gay people can be cured by prayer? She's a good Christian apparently so that kind of thinking is perfectly acceptable. In fact so acceptable is Stroud that she's been working closely with Cameron on issues around the family. Of course it would be THE FAMILY (by which the Tories mean married hetrosexuals. Remember if you ain't got a certificate your not a FAMILY.)
This isn't the place for me to rant about why Christians seem to fixate so much on what the Old Testament says and ignore the New Testament. After all Jesus seems to have forgotten to mention the gay thing, even though it is really important. Nor is it a place to rant about how homophobia seems to be the acceptable prejudice in this country.
No, what I want to know is why almost all the press are silent on this topic. Do they think that nutty Christian prayer groups helping 'the mentally disturbed' are OK? Do they think that homophobia is OK? Perhaps they do. I wouldn't put anything past James Murdoch and his compadres.
Of course we all know why they don't want to cover it. Because it is an embarrassment to cuddly Dave Cameron and his 'new' Conservatives. No one wants to remind people that the Tories are the party of Clause 28. The party that represents the Britain of the 1950s, not the Britain of the 21st century.
So not a whisper on Phillipa Stroud from the Sun, The Mail, the Express, the Times, the Telegraph, Sky or the BBC*. Hands up who is surprised?
*And don't get me started on the pathetic rolling over of the BBC in this election pushing the Lib-Dem + Tory agenda's. Anyone who thinks the BBC has a left-wing agenda should now shut the fuck up.
This isn't the place for me to rant about why Christians seem to fixate so much on what the Old Testament says and ignore the New Testament. After all Jesus seems to have forgotten to mention the gay thing, even though it is really important. Nor is it a place to rant about how homophobia seems to be the acceptable prejudice in this country.
No, what I want to know is why almost all the press are silent on this topic. Do they think that nutty Christian prayer groups helping 'the mentally disturbed' are OK? Do they think that homophobia is OK? Perhaps they do. I wouldn't put anything past James Murdoch and his compadres.
Of course we all know why they don't want to cover it. Because it is an embarrassment to cuddly Dave Cameron and his 'new' Conservatives. No one wants to remind people that the Tories are the party of Clause 28. The party that represents the Britain of the 1950s, not the Britain of the 21st century.
So not a whisper on Phillipa Stroud from the Sun, The Mail, the Express, the Times, the Telegraph, Sky or the BBC*. Hands up who is surprised?
*And don't get me started on the pathetic rolling over of the BBC in this election pushing the Lib-Dem + Tory agenda's. Anyone who thinks the BBC has a left-wing agenda should now shut the fuck up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)