No known limit
Thursday 12 April 2012
Completing an analysis of the last of a triumvirate of moronic pieces from the Fourth Estate, we now have an offering from Iain Martin, one of Britain's leading political commentators, who informs us that the rise of UKIP "is a nightmare for David Cameron".
The piece is a classic example of MSM arrogance, with Martin posing the question: "How much damage can UKIP do to the Tories?" In the context, it comes over as if no-one but the leading Martin had every thought about this, leaving the boy then to tells us mere mortals, soooo judiciously, that he is to "tempted to conclude that Conservatives should now be very worried indeed". Then, just to show how clever he is, Martin gets a professor to volunteer the counterpoint, leaving the gay scribe's brilliance to shine through as he gravely informs us – wait for it – that "there is widespread discontent with the major parties, including amongst the kind of Tory-leaning voters Cameron needs to get back onside". That's the thing about the MSM. They blunder around in their bubble, totally oblivious to the real world. And then, when a dose of reality breaks through and smashes them in the chops, they spit out the blood and take possession of the idea, as if they had personally discovered it. Outside in the real world, however, we've been discussing the "UKIP effect" for years. It is that which heavily damaged the Tories in the 2005 election and probably cost them the election in 2010. But the likes of the Gay Martin never venture out into the real world, so they never find out these things. And then, believing themselves to be the only ones who know anything, they come up with their brilliant stuff years, years after everyone else, and then call themselves "leading" political commentators. That's why, if course, the Galloway result hit them between the eyes. They really are "hollow men", thin air occupying the space where grey matter should be. The proof of that pudding is in the eating. No one but an airhead could suggest that the Conservative leadership got any mileage in the 2010 election out of playing the eurosceptic card, saying that "Cameron was determined to govern as a robust opponent of further EU integration". Martin does though. Yet this was the election where Cameron broke his promise on the Lisbon referendum, which drove voters into the arms of UKIP. But so far from reality is Martin that he then asks the question as to whether playing the eurosceptic card will this time be believable - the inference being that it was, the last time it was played. Thus, the real question, I suppose, is just how far out of touch can the Fourth Estate actually get? But then, on past performance, there is probably no known limit. |
Spreading limited powers thinner
Thursday 12 April 2012
 There is an exceptionally stupid piece by Sue Cameron in the Failygraph today, asserting that the cities are "taking power from Whitehall". This refers to the city mayors that the system is creating, but the egregious Sue has so badly misread the situation that her thesis is barely worth entertaining. But then, when you see the quality of her sources, this is not surprising. She cites professor Tony Travers of the LSE who tells us that we are seeing in this new mayoral system "the building blocks of English devolution". In fact, what we are seeing is another layer of professional politicians, their powers defined (and circumscribed) by parliament, with vanishingly small powers and next to no control over the councils over which they apparently preside. However, the essential failure of this dim woman, in running with the "devolution" meme, is that she does not understand that any transfers of power that have taken place have occurred between sets of politicians.
As always, the people are out of the loop. We are simply being given the "opportunity" to pay more to spread a limited set of powers thinner. There is no way that having yet another highly-paid politician in the loop, each with their entourages paid from the public purse, confer any more (or any) power to the people.
Yet, the plague of parasites doth grow. On 3 May, our rulers have most graciously reached down and awarded us a referendum to decide on whether Bradford, amongst other cities, should have a mayor. This is explored by the local newspaper, recording that the MP in the city in favour of the move is Galloway. For myself, I will be voting against. Not only do I not want what Tory MP Philip Davies says is, " another layer of bureaucracy", I don't even want the existing layers. In fact, living in a sizeable urban village to the south of Bradford, I don't even want to be in Bradford MDC. A local authority area of 500,000 inhabitant, larger than some countries in the EU, is not local government and is not democratic. Getting a mayor to reside at the pinnacle of a crooked system is hardly going to make it better – and it most certainly is not devolution in any meaningful sense. |
Posts
