Britannia Radio

EU Referendum: the "renegotiation" meme   Saturday 6 October 2012 One thing that Mr Cameron will certainly say at the Conservative Party Conference, Charles Mooretells us, is that the plight of the eurozone is making Britain's recovery much more difficult. But Moore thinks Cameron has so far been "curiously timid "about the next step in the argument, which is that our relationship with the EU that has created this virtually permanent crisis must change because of it. "It needs to be renegotiated", says Moore, "and the result of that renegotiation should then be referred to the voters". And there resides the classic High Tory "line". No matter how many times they are told that, as long as we intend to remain in the EU, renegotiation is not an option, they continue to push their meme. Thus does Proverbs 26:11 drive the High Tory tribe which, totally oblivious to reason, maintains its "above the line" arrogance. At the other extreme, of course, the zealots are just as bad – the claque which insists that we abrogate the treaty unilaterally and walk away from the EU in the space of 24 hours. Between them and the High Tories, we have a real problem, with neither living in the real world.   Already complicated, the fight to get out of the EU is thus rendered all the more difficult. COMMENT: "EU REFERENDUM" THREAD Richard North 06/10/2012  Media: the 1940 shelter scandal   Saturday 6 October 2012 Last Wednesday, I picked up on the Daily Worker's reaction to the Fleet Street reporting of the early stages of the London Blitz, publishing as a "taster" a copy of a cartoon which commented on the the game being played by the press. This built on my complaint about Vernon Bogdanor who had characterised the Second World War as the "People's War" because of the supposed "humanity" of our war leaders. In the cartoon I published, there is an allusion to the untold story of how, as a matter of deliberate policy, the government in the run-up to war, refused to provide the people of the East End adequate protection from bombing. But the point of the cartoon was to draw attention to the fact that the media had actively colluded in suppressing the consequences of that policy, presenting a distorted and entirely untrue picture of events. The story of the failed shelter policy is told at length in The Many Not The Few, but the new dimension is how the press quite deliberately covered up the failures, to the extent that I felt the story really must be given wider circulation. It comes to light through the one exception to this cosy conspiracy - the Daily Worker newspaper. Consistently, for several years before the event, it warned about the inadequacies in the Air Raid Precautions (ARP) policies (see below, dated 20 April 1939 - click to enlarge).  As the official organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain, which had adopted in its manifesto improved ARP, it campaigned for better provision and, when this failed, charted the tragedy as it unfolded in September 1940 and onwards – attempting to bring relief to the people of the East End - until it was closed down by the government on 22 January 1941. One can accept and understand that the establishment and the media (very often the same thing), should be chary about the Communists – they were, after all, seeking to foment revolution, and were quite open in their detestation of "capitalist warmongers", "profiteers" and other "parasites". But despite that, over the years – and especially in the frenetic period of September 1940 - the Daily Worker's reporting was largely accurate, relevant and honest. It needed to be for, in taking its anti-government line, it laid itself wide open to censure under the Defence Regulations, and a Cabinet which was taking a personal and direct interest in its affairs, seeking an excuse to close it down. Time and again, its accuracy is shown by reference to authoritative sources, not least then top secret Cabinet papers. Had the newspaper published falsehoods, or had it made errors in its report, doiubtless it would have been closed down much sooner than it was. Notwithstanding its political bent, therefore, from this distance in time, it is possiible to asert that the paper took a courageous and responsble stance, showing up the other papers that chose deliberatly to ignore the growing tragedy and have to this day have perpetuated a distorted view of events, amounting to a cynical cover-up of quite staggering proportions. Charting the story here, in a political blog, is not the best format for dealing with the subject, but its implications are as relevant to us today as they were then – in pointing out how easy it is for the media to lie, and then perpetuate a cover-up. Thus, I will make a start today, and keep returning to the story, building up the picture, over the days and weeks, until it is complete. I will, in due course, integrate the material into the Days of Gloryblog, which is my running narrative of the Battle of Britain, on which my book was based. So, where to start? Well, we already did with the cartoon at the top of the page, which makes the point about the predictablity of the tragedy. But what is so telling about the cartoon is its date. Published on 15 February 1939, more than six months before the war started – and more than 18 months before the start of the London Blitz, it shows that the Daily Worker was not relying on hindsight. The weaknesses in government policy were known, many complaints had been made, and the consequences were entirely predictable, as the cuttings I have used then show.  The first of this sequence (above), dated Saturday 7 September 1940, was published the very morning of the day which marked the start of the London Blitz. Uniquely amongst the national newspapers, attention is drawn to the parlous state of London's shelters.  There was no Sunday edition, so the next cutting is drawn from the Monday, 9 September (above), in which the casualty toll is highlighted, together with reference to the "notoriously cheerful" official communique.  The government strategy was to distract public attention by focusing on the daylight air battles, so while, the next day the Daily Worker (above) tells us: "Central London hit in 10-hour raid", the establishment Daily Express focused on 47 aircraft shot down during the day battle (below). Only then are we allowed to know that the night Blitz continued.  And, as always, the RAF's "cricket score" had been grossly exaggerated. Luftwaffe losses from all causes the previous day, had been 27, including at least five lost to accidents. Only twelve had been Me 109s, shot down during the day fighting.  Bomber losses had been minimal.  By contrast, Fighter Command had actually lost 21 aircraft. Bomber Command had added five, bringing total RAF losses on the day to 26.      The contrast in reporting, though, was far from accidental. The one paper was pursuing the Communist Party line of pointing out the inadequacies of government policy. The other, with its proprietor, Lord Beaverbrook, soon to join the War Cabinet, was trying to paper over the cracks with a barrage of propaganda. Behind the scenes, though, another battle was being played out, one in which the Daily Workerplayed a central part - the opening shot seen in the headline "People Act for Shelter", which the other newspapers ignored. Therein lay the real scandal, to which we will return tomorrow. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 06/10/2012  EU Referendum: continuing the "tease"   Saturday 6 October 2012 The Failygraph is offering a mischievous interpretation of comments by William Hague on the EU Referendum question. This is via Robert Winnett, the paper's political editor, who claims that the renewal of "consent" from the public on Britain's membership of the EU, referred to recently by Mr Cameron, "could be in the form of voters backing the Conservatives at the next general election". However, there are no direct quotes to that effect, and in a separate piece, recording an interview, we are told that Hague is indicating that, rather than holding an "in-out referendum", the "government is likely to present a plan on renegotiating the return of powers from Europe which will form the basis of the next election manifesto". Once this is deconstructed, it tells us nothing new. It merely confirms that the Conservatives have no intention of holding a referendum prior to the general election. Instead, and entirely predictably, they are thinking about trying for a "renegotiation promise", in the hope that this will settle the EU issue for the euro and general election campaigns. But in a typical "dance of the seven veils" game that Hague is notorious for playing, he hopes that this will prove enough. I won't, but there was no harm (for him) in trying. Doubtless, as we see more veils shed, a referendum promise will emerge, possibly linked in some manner to a renegotiation outcome. So far, this is a clumsy play. And too weak a commitment in the future risks keeping the issue live, giving UKIP the tactical advantage over the coming election periods. Nevertheless, with the euro-elections not until mid-2014, and the general in 2015, there is no great advantage for Hague in coming out too early. All he would do is provide a fixed target for UKIP to tilt at. Therefore, he will continue the "tease" for the moment, allowing him to judge political and media reaction over conference. As the play develops though, it is going to be harder to avoid making an offer, yet it will become easier to judge, as the "colleagues" start to firm up on their treaty intentions. With a defintive plan expected from Barroso in the Spring of 2014, just prior to the euros, we can expect Hague to hold the line until then, and then "bounce" UKIP with a trixy referendum promise. Even then, he is going to have to be cautious about committing to renegotiations, as the "colleagues" are not in any mood for concessions. Until then, the Tory front bench will be playing games aplenty. That is all we will get until there is shift in the tactical advantage. But, of one thing we can be absolutely certain, there will be no referendum before the general election. UKIP and others can huff and puff on the fringe, but the Tories are not going to be drawn. Those who are banking on this as a possibility, some in an attempt to "own" the no campaign, are wasting their time and effort. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 06/10/2012  Energy: a very grave mistake   Friday 5 October 2012 After as careful an analysis of energy policy that we could do in August 2008, we made an impassioned plea for a coherent Conservative energy policy in the following month. Unfortunately, it took until March 2010 for David Cameron to respond, in what we regarded at the time as a political suicide note. Ever since, that note has been on hold, but is now, according to Ofgem, due for redemption in 2015/16. Then, says the electricity industry regulator, electricity margins could fall from 14 percent today to four percent, when there will be a significant risk of an electricity shortfall. If the Conservatives are unlucky, they (and we) will start seeing blackouts in 2015, just in the run-up to the general election. And the interesting thing is that, back in 2008, we did warn Mr Cameron that he could face the prospect of standing at the despatch box explaining to the nation why the lights have gone out and why it is that there is nothing he or his government can do about it. Then, it was possible to do something about it and, you would have thought – as we then observed - "in electoral and practical terms, the choice is a no-brainer". But the ConservativeParty chose instead to go "green". And now, the consequences of that choice look to be very serious – although not yet fatal. A huge – if expensive - push to build gas-fired power stations is about the only thing which will save us now, otherwise we will be emulating India (pictured). And the Conservatives won't be able to say they weren't warned. They were. Ignoring the advice was a very grave mistake. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 05/10/2012  Domestic politics: a despised breed   Friday 5 October 2012 With the Labour Party conference now over, we can turn to the Daily Mail last Monday for the headline: "British politicians have rarely been so ridiculed and despised". But one only has to look at the photograph accompanying the piece to realise why. Never in a million years would it be possible to take young Miliband seriously as a leader of the Labour Party, much less as a prime minister. His only function in life, it would seem, is to make David Cameron look mature and statesmanlike. But the Mail headline goes on to tell us that the situation where politicians are so despised "should worry us all", which is true enough – although it is not as rare as one might imagine. Only the misty-eyed romantics could believe, for instance, that our war-time leaders were universally revered, and when it came to Harold Wilson and Ted Heath, contempt for them both was widespread. However, the Mail quotes actually come from a 39-page pamphlet written by David Blunkett, former Labour education secretary, and then work and pensions secretary. The pamphlet is entitled: "In defence of politics revisited". Blunkett dedicates it to the memory of his tutor and friend, the late Professor Sir Bernard Crick, "political theorist and democratic socialist", author of the best-selling "In Defence of Politics", to which homage is paid. Crick, in his time, asserted that politics, with its compromises and power struggles, remains the only tested alternative to government by coercion, making both freedom and order possible in heterogeneous societies. For Crick, politics was necessarily imperfect, messy and complex, and his book defended it against those who would identify it with (and reduce it to) ideology, nationalism, technology or "populist democracy". One does love this idea of "populist democracy", but then Crick is the man who, in his book, wrote that politics "needs to be defended even against democracy", the latter defined as "majority rule". This is a thesis so beloved of the EU technocrats, who regard "populism" with a horror which their predecessors reserved for Fascism, and with which comparisons are often made. Actually, Crick has half a point, in that he argues that "democracy" can not only stabilise free regimes, bit it can also make stronger unfree regimes and has made possible totalitarianism. The major flaw in his argument, though, is that nowhere on this planet in recent times can one point to an example of where a true democracy ever existed. The issue here, as I write in the pamphlet I am working on to explain the Harrogate Agenda, is that everything depends on how you define democracy. The essential premise, on which our new political movement is based, is that democracy is about people power. The word democracy is based on the Greek word, dēmokratía, formed from two parts: dêmos"people" and kratos "power". Without people, there is no democracy. But people without power is not democracy either. Democracy, therefore, is people power. To much emphasis, it seems, is placed on the dêmos and far too little on the kratos aspect of democracy, the latter requiring a fair balance of power to create a true democracy, while tempering its excesses. But if Crick – like so many – gets it wrong, one can say of Blunkett that he is a good student, following faithfully in the path of his master. In his 39 pages, the former secretary also demonstrates his lack of understanding of the fundamentals of democracy. Thus, instead of addressing the power deficit, which plagues modern politics (sometimes wrongly called the democratic deficit) Blunkett actually argues for greater and more government intervention in our daily lives.  He thus talks of government, "using the collective power it still possesses, and of course the resources of the taxpayer", putting that funding "at the disposal of people who, in their own lives, are fighting battles against vested interests or forces outside the normal realms of everyday life". In Blunkett's world, therefore, his idea of democracy is "helping people to help themselves", a paternalistic and statist view. It puts government at the centre of community life, with its first call on "the resources of the taxpayer", which the populists are not allowed to challenge. Interestingly, Blunkett does state that "the question has to be asked as to who calls the shots, and an assessment therefore made of where power lies". But it is a question he does not answer. And unless there is a satisfactory answer to that question, any debate about politics is sterile. That, actually, is the nub of the issue. When people have power to affect change, they take an interest in politics. When, as is increasingly the case, they are deprived of that power, the disengagement settles in and  contempt for the political processes grow. And, to their eternal shame, all people like Blunkett do is add fertiliser. COMMENT THREAD