Ken Clarke is Wrong and Must Go

Dave Gee – the UK’s leading authority on rape investigation – said he felt “despair” last week when he heard Kenneth Clarke appear to suggest some rape cases were more serious than others.  I know exactly how he feels.

Ken Clarke has long been a thorn in the side of those of us in the Tory Party who want the party to stand for conservative principles.  His rambling interview about rape, and the lax sentencing policy that he proposes proves that he should be nowhere near the Cabinet, and nowhere near the Conservative Party.

Tories have always been popular with the public when it comes to the question of crime.  The British public have never bought into trendy left-wing theories about criminals being victims themselves, and that it’s really society’s fault.  They are wise enough to know that most of the time “rehabilitation” is just a magic word said before releasing dangerous criminals early, and that only a tough attitude to criminality can keep society safer.  Indeed, the only way that Tony Blair was able to win the public over on the subject of crime in 1997 was by sounding exactly like a Tory.

So, when Ken Clarke announced that he is looking at lowering the already low sentences for rapists even further (by introducing an even higher sentence discount of 50% for those who plead guilty), then he was already on thin ice.  The average sentence a rapist serves is five years, and the Justice Secretary wishes to make that average even lower.  Yet to make matters worse, in defending the bizarre policy, his implication that date rape was a less serious form of rape than violent rape has rightly provoked a furore that should have taken his job from him by now.

Date rape takes many forms, and Clarke has noted that these situations can vary greatly, and can be complex.  This is true, but this often comes from woolly definitions about what constitutes rape; if this is the case, then a redefinition of rape is required, not a lax form of sentencing for the crime.  Indeed, sentencing for date rape should be being made stronger than it already is, as there is evidence to suggest that it is on the increase.

Only last year did the UN’s International Narcotics Control Board conclude that the use of date rape drugs was rising dramatically, and anyone who is a regular club goer will know that date rape drugs are a common hazard for women, and even for men who might get their drink spiked by accident.  Additionally, the tactic of plying a woman with alcohol until she is so drunk that she loses her ability to resist is one that, while frowned upon, is still not seen as rape in the eyes of many.

Clarke’s attempt to disagree that “rape is rape” by offering the case of an 18 year old having sex with their 15 year old girlfriend is a pathetic attempt at a get out by using a tough case that in reality is rarely prosecuted.  To quote Jane Martinson’s excellent column on the subject, “We’re still waiting for the statistics on the number of teenagers who subsequently go to the police to press rape charges if what they are doing is having happy, consensual – if under the age of consent – sex.”

Clarke’s subsequent half-apologies come across as meaningless when he is still trying to go ahead with finding ways to lower what are already pitifully low sentences for rape.  David Cameron made a bold effort at Prime Minister’s Questions to affirm just how serious any form of rape is; but his words are betrayed by his government’s proposal to limit the already miniscule sentences even further.

If our society wishes to make it clear that rape is a very serious crime in whatever form it takes, then sentencing must match this intention.  This is something that the Conservative Party has always understood, and yet Ken Clarke seems to want to do the opposite.  It is for this reason that he has no place on the Conservative front bench, and he should be fired immediately.

Britain is Avoiding Double Dip...For Now

It has been revealed that Britain's economy has grown 0.5% in the the first three months, with businesses and finance increasing by 1%.  It's good that it the economy is growing and not shrinking, and it shows that Ed Balls has so far been incorrect to predict a double-dip recession.  The Prime Minister has rightly been rubbing this in Labour's face at PMQs, especially as it is significantly better than anything Labour was producing in their last few years in office.  Also, it is genuine growth, not Labour's artificial growth from increased government spending of money we don't have.

However, it's important not to get too cocky.  0.5% growth is growth...just.  Balls has a point when he says that the economy has stagnated in the last 6 months - it has.  It would have been a hell of a lot worse has Labour been allowed to keep spending and to hike taxes even more, but let's be honest - this is not what Cameron and Osborne would have hoped for when they got into office a year ago.

2011 is critical for the Tories.  We have a decent last three months economically under the belt as we head into local elections.  The rest of the year is crucial.  If the Coalition can stave off double dip, and get the economy back on its feet with more growth, then Labour are utterly screwed, and it bodes well for future elections.  However, should the economy double-dip, then Labour will be given the opportunity to blame the Coalition for not doing the right thing on the economy (despite the fact that Labour would have made it worse) and will be able to declare that Keynesian economics would have worked - even though it wouldn't.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the Coalition is doing the right thing re: spending cuts.  Yet if it wants sustained growth in the long-term, it needs tax cuts for all. It is the ridiculous tax burden that is stagnating the economy, not the spending cuts.  Despite the protestations of the left that "tax cuts for the rich" are awful etc, and the political furore that will result from the economically ignorant, significant tax cuts for small and large business owners will make the economy boom; it will increase tax revenue and it will decrease unemployment.  They are so close to being successful on this, but if they don't get the guts to slash taxes, the economy won't get back on its feet, we may face a double-dip, and that will hand Labour a massive victory.

I'm calling it now, if there are no proper tax cuts within twelve months - the next national election will go to Labour.

Do Tories Really Hate Books and Trees?

My latest column for "The Grapevine" is up, and focuses on the current debates in the UK about libraries and forests, and the relative defunding of each.  The article seeks to respond to the horror that the idea of privatisation has triggered in the minds of so many of the British public.  It argues that privatisation is not a terrible thing that destroys those goods and services that we love, but improves them and makes them better.

Of course, the fact that such an argument needs to be made, and is seen as rocking the boat, indicates just how far left British society has moved in the last ten years or so.

"One of the more worrying aspects of the political atmosphere in the so-called “austerity era” is that it is becoming clear just how much the public at large has bought into the left-wing concept that supporting something means throwing government money at it, and therefore taking money away from it means that someone must be against the project or scheme in question.

We have seen this in the last week with both libraries and forests. The prospect of cuts and sell-offs in both these areas has been met by howls of anguish by the political left and special interests who have concluded that this means that Tories hate libraries, books, trees and fluffy bunnies. From recent polls, it seems that the public has been swayed by this argument.

The logic is clear: if you like forests and libraries, then you must unquestioningly pump billions into nationalised libraries and subsidised forests, and if you so much as squeak in objection then you will be condemned as someone who hates greenery and poor people being able to access books.

Of course, this is complete nonsense when stated out loud, and yet it is an assumption that so many make. Yet there are many ways of supporting and preserving something through the private sector..."

The rest of the article can be found here.

Now Calling Muslims "Moderate" is Offensive!

The onslaught of censorship dressed up as civility and tolerance goes on - but this time from a so-called "conservative"!

That's right, Baroness Warsi has been off spouting nonsense once again!  Having called Britain a police state in the past, and only last week slating the right-wing of the Tory party for daring to question the electoral policy of throwing the election so the Lib Dems can win, Baroness Warsi has now come out and has basically said that it is bigoted to refer to "moderate and "extremist" Muslims!  Here are the various extracts from her speech to Leicester University,

"Indeed, it seems to me that Islamophobia has now crossed the threshold of middle class respectability.

For far too many people, Islamophobia is seen as a legitimate – even commendable – thing. You could even say that Islamophobia has now passed the dinner-table-test.

The drip feeding of fear fuels a rising tide of prejudice. So when people get on the tube and see a bearded Muslim, they think “terrorist” …when they hear “Halal” they think “that sounds like contaminated food”…and when they walk past a woman wearing a veil, they think automatically “that woman’s oppressed”. And what’s particularly worrying is that this can lead down the slippery slope to violence.

We need to think harder about the language we use. And we should be careful about language around religious “moderates”. This is something I’ve been thinking about a lot. It’s not a big leap of imagination to predict where the talk of “moderate” Muslims leads: In the factory, where they’ve just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: “not to worry, he’s only fairly Muslim”. In the school, the kids say “the family next door are Muslim but they’re not too bad”. And in the road, as a woman walks past wearing a Burkha, the passers-by think: “that woman’s either oppressed or making a political statement”."

Remind me again - Why is this woman a high ranking member of the Conservative Party?  This is not the speech of a sound minded right-winger, this is the sort of nonsense we would hear from the uber socialist diversity officers encouraging us to spend billions of pounds of taxpayers money on "diversity initiatives" and whatnot!

It is difficult to know what is most galling about Baroness Warsi's comments.  Is it the blatant putting down of her own country as bigoted, when it is in fact one of the most tolerant countries in the world?  Is it the condescending assumptions of what the masses "really think" about Islam (When they hear "Halal", they think "contaminated food")?  Or is it the cynical attempt to shut down free speech on the implied threat of "racism" and "Islamophobia"?  Yes, I think it is that last one!

Under this vague banner of "Islamophobia", people in America and especially Britain have been hushed into not discussing one of the most important issues of our time - the spread of Islam and its violent tendencies.  As a consequence of this tip-toeing around, we now often speak of "moderate" Muslims - those who are peaceful and do not advocate violence, and "extreme" Muslims who do.  This is a fair distinction as it forms the middle ground between tarring all Muslims as evil, and ignoring the problem altogether by burying one's head in the politically correct sand.

However, Baroness Waris would say that we are not even allowed to do this anymore - for even this too is offensive.  She is concerned that this sort of speaking has "passed the dinner-table-test."  Well, yes it has Baroness, it has passed the dinner-table-test because it is true.  There are indeed a majority of Muslims who are peaceful and on Britain's side, and then there are a significant minority of nutters who are violent and pose one of the biggest threats to British and American safety since the war!  So whether we make a distinction between "moderates" and "extremists" "soft" and "hard" Islam, or whatever we call it, there is a distinction to be made.

The problem is with people like Baroness Warsi is that that reality of a situation does not fit in with their blinkered view of the world, where all that matters is "diversity" and "tolerance" and not the fact that there may be some legitimate questions and concerns that need answering.  Ultimately it is this false "diversity" and "tolerance" that leads to the most ardent campaigns for censorship and blatant intolerance of those who disagree with the views of the politically correct classes.

It is not racist or bigoted to have concerns about Islam, nor is it bigoted or racist to distinguish between those who are violent and those who are not.  If Baroness Warsi does not like the conversations people are having, perhaps she should ask why they are having them, as opposed to just smearing everyone she doesn't like as a bigot.

The Conservative Party needs to sack this woman as soon as is physically possible - she is not a conservative, but a power hungry authoritarian leftist, and she will do great harm to the party if her inane ramblings are allowed to continue.

The Conservative Party's Current Strategy is a Disgrace

Cameron dropping the Manifesto in the skip - maybe.

If you are going to sacrifice your political principles and form an alliance that makes a lot of your own party turn against you and label you a traitor, then you had better make damn sure that the party you are forming an alliance with is worth it.  If it is worth it, then you can declare yourself to be a political genius, and your opponents to be backward numptys who do not know the meaning of the word 'compromise'.

However, if the party you form an alliance with turns out to be a waste of space, then all you have done is destroy both the opportunity of getting your agenda through Parliament, and your chances of getting re-elected in the future.  This is exactly what has happened with the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition that we currently have in power in Great Britain - and I use the term "power" very loosely, because surely there has never been a Prime Minister in recent history with less power than David Cameron?

Last night was the first by-election since the formation of the dreaded Coalition, and it was hoped by both Lib Dems and sell out Tories that the Lib Dems could pinch the election and gain another seat, of which they already have precious few.  This required the Conservative Party to refuse to fight, and essentially throw the election by putting out only a symbolic campaign for the Tory candidate, allowing the Lib Dem to pick up the Tory votes and beat the Labour candidate.

But it failed.  In fact, looking at that sentence doesn't do it justice so let me try again - IT FAILED!!!  That's better.  Labour won by an enormous margin, and the Tory strategy is in tatters.  For this strategy to work, the Conservative Party had to leave its dignity and its principles behind in order to throw this election to the Lib Dems, and yet the useless Lib Dems still lost.  As much as Tory cronies such as Baroness Warsi are laughably scolding us that they fought a great campaign and that the "Tory Right" should stop complaining, I am yet to meet one independent voice who actually believes her.

I wouldn't be a fan a Coalition with the Liberal Democrats even if the Dems had 20% support, because I believe that politics should be fought on principles and ideas, not slogans and opportunism.  But, the fact that the support of the Lib Dems is as low as 7% in some polls, and their leader Nick Clegg - once the Obama of Britain - is now hated by many of his own party, turns this whole Coalition into a complete and utter farce.

So, we have thrown our principles and dignity into the trash, and do the voters respect us for it?  Do they admire our sense of "compromise" and our ability to "work together for the common good"?  Of course not.  The polls put Labour - who less than a year ago were suffering from catastrophic levels of unpopularity - ahead by 8%, we lost the by-election last night, and there seems no sign of this turning around any time soon. The effects of this strategy in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election last night will have far reaching consequences with the electorate nationally as well.  The message was clear, "Don't vote for us", and this means that next time the Tories do want people do vote for them, many will just see a party that doesn't value their vote, and will choose to vote for someone else.

Unless we abandon the Coalition
 this man may be your next Prime Minister

The standard call from Tory HQ is that cuts are always unpopular, and this explains the dip in popularity.  This is nonsense.  Yes, cuts are unpopular, but you can prevent it being as bad if you come out and passionately argue for why we need them, and what the conservative vision is for the future - a vision that most people actually agree with when you flesh it out.  However, our big spending Lib Dem partners don't like any of this,  and don't believe in the conservative vision, which puts a muzzle on the Coalition.  Cuts are made without explanation, which allows Labour to come in and say anything they want, and create their own narrative about "evil, rich Tories vs poor, voiceless people" with no Conservative voice coming out and fighting for the cause in fear of offending our wishy washy Liberal Democrat friends.

This whole Coalition is a disaster, and the only way out is not a new strategy, but to abandon this pathetic Coalition at once, drop the dead weights that are the Liberal Democrats, and fight the next election on principle.  Yes, an election next May might be one we lose, but it might also be one we win off our own backs, and the longer we carry out this charade, the harder it will be to lose the image of a party that is happy to sacrifice its own beliefs for power.  If we don't shake that image soon, we might find ourselves under another 13 year Labour government, led by Prime Minister Ed Miliband - a Prime Minister who would make Blair look like Thatcher.

Katharine Birbalsingh Exposes the State of British Education

I want to give a heads up to Katharine Birbalsingh.  If you do not know who Katharine Birbalsingh is, she is a former deputy head in inner city London, who having seen the dreadful state of state school education, slowly became more and more convinced of the right's position on education, until eventually she gave a major speech at this year's Conservative Party Conference that sent shockwaves throughout the education community.

The speech is a devastating indictment of the way British state school system is planned by those well meaning politicians in Westminster, and has consequently provoked hatred and anger from the voices of the powerful, institutionalised left.  In addition to her speech, it is well worth taking a look at her blog for the Daily Telegraph which details the reactions she is getting from various people (teachers, parents and children) who are connected to the state education system.  Take a look!